WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 2010

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mrs. Sanders called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Blair, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski were present. Mr. Sauer arrived at 7:05 P.M. Others present were Chief Taylor, Lynda Yartin, Chris Schornack, Linda Fersch, Ed Drobina, Susan Crotty, Greg Bachman, Steve Grassbaugh, Jim Ebright, Doug Matty, Ben Hale, John Gallagher, Alexa Liebert, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 5, 2010, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski abstaining, and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blair, Mr. Barletta, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

3. Review and Discussion regarding proposed Ebright/Homestead development. Mrs. Sanders stated the City’s TIF attorney, Mr. Grassbaugh, is present to update the Committee on this project.

Mr. Grassbaugh stated the City and the developer are essentially at an impasse because some of the conditions the developer has proposed, he felt were beyond what he and members of staff felt comfortable in recommending to Council. He stated there seemed to be some policy decisions that need to be addressed by Council and at the same time the developer has asked for Council to address these policy issues. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he would review what has happened to put us where we are at this time. He stated this regards private improvements consisting of retail, commercial facilities, office buildings, recreation facility, and a private road from the Windmiller extension to the recreation facility. He stated the public improvements on site include the extension of Windmiller Drive to the Homestead property and water and sewer utilities. He stated public improvements off site necessary for the development include sanitary sewer lines to adjacent property and the extension of Windmiller Drive through property owned by Hill Road Plaza LLC. Mr. Grassbaugh further stated public improvements off site resulting from the development include three phases of improvements to S.R. 256 that are not necessarily caused by the development but the development will accelerate the timing of the improvements. He stated Phase I is before Phase II of the development is open, and by Phase II he is referring to either the commercial retail or the office space; anything beyond the recreation facility. Mr. Grassbaugh stated the engineer has suggested that before Phase II of the development is open a southbound right turn lane on S.R. 256 to Refugee Road would need to be constructed at an approximate cost of $300,000. He stated after Phase II of the development is completed a second southbound right lane and widening of Refugee Road east of S.R. 256 by two lanes is estimated at $1 million; and Phase III is upon completion of the development of the recreation facility, the office development, and the retail/commercial development a second eastbound lane on Refugee Road at S.R. 256, currently estimated at $1 million. He stated further public improvements off site that were impacted by the development and could be financed by TIF revenues included an eastbound turn lane on Refugee Road at Fullers Way estimated at $250,000 or a roundabout estimated at $500,000; a northbound turn lane on S.R. 256 at Refugee Road estimated at $500,000; and, an additional through lane eastbound on Refugee Road estimated at $2 million. Mr. Grassbaugh stated these improvements did not have to be done as a part of the development but are things that if there were monies left from the TIF revenues, those TIF revenues could be used to pay for this. Mr. Grassbaugh distributed a report on the Homestead Tax Increment Financing that is Attachment 1 to these minutes. Mr. Grassbaugh stated based on all the assumptions in that report the City would never receive enough money from the development to pay for those $2.3 million in improvements; in the year 2041 you would still be shy $12,665. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he would point out these were based on assumptions and they are projections and he was sharing them with Council so they could review them. He stated further there was a request that part of the impact fees from the development would be used to repay the developer for his cost of the public infrastructure he is responsible for. He stated if the City agrees to that, it would be money taken out of their pocket but there would be more TIF revenues. He stated if the City did that instead of having the impact fees in the first three or four years we would have more TIF payments in the back years. He stated the developer has now offered to make a flat sum payment to the City under certain circumstances to help pay for the roadway and that money would come back into the City and it would affect these assumptions. Mr. Grassbaugh stated if those things occur the City would probably get their money back in its entirety, but not much for 2032 or 2033; you would be out that long with debt to pay for this before you got even on it. He also stated the assumptions assume that all these private developments occur according to that schedule and if they do not occur according to that schedule then the TIF revenues are delayed and if the TIF revenues are delayed then it is further back before you get payments to make yourself whole again. Mr. Grassbaugh stated also that in some of the current negotiations there is a proposal that perhaps the public infrastructure the developer is willing to do of what was originally contemplating as a guaranteed maximum price contract would be done in phases. He stated with the Equity TIF we put the TIF in place and then we contracted with Equity to build certain public roadways all at once under a guaranteed maximum price contract, and pursuant to that contract we would pay them on that contract from the TIF revenues when we receive them so there is never any money out of the City’s pocket to pay for that roadway; it is being paid out of the TIF revenues when they come in. He stated in that contract there were also some provisions that if certain office space was not built according to a schedule, the TIF payments were suspended until such point as that office space was built and then they resumed. Mr. Fix inquired if we had not since waived that and Mr. Grassbaugh stated we have postponed it. Mr. Grassbaugh stated we gave them an additional year to meet their first milestone so we have not suspended their payments yet, but we have not waived the requirement.

Mr. Grassbaugh stated when he attended this meeting a couple of months ago he took his direction as this was to be somewhat like the Equity TIF because everyone liked the recreation facility and would like to have that, but the primary goal would be to have some office space developed in the City because that would provide income tax revenue to the City.

Mr. Grassbaugh stated we have proposed something very similar to the Equity TIF where we would have a guaranteed maximum contract for the developer to build all the public improvements immediately according to a fixed contract and those would be paid over a period of time out of the TIF revenues. He stated last week there was another meeting with the developer and there was a new proposal that he felt would require Council’s decision. Mr. Grassbaugh stated on the construction of Windmiller Drive and the sanitary sewer to the property, we had proposed it be done all at one time under a single maximum guaranteed maximum price contract. The developer has proposed that it be built in phases, the first phase being the extension of Windmiller Drive to service the recreation facility, the second phase would be the sanitary sewer line that would run across the Nicodemus property if and when retail or office development occurred on the property, and the third phase would be the remainder of Windmiller Drive from what is needed to service the recreation facility over to the borderline of the Nicodemus property at some point where there is 60,000 square feet of office or retail constructed. He stated one of the problems is he did not quite know how to accomplish this in a way to protect the City. He stated if we do not know when those things are going to be built he felt it would be very hard to negotiate a fixed price for them to be built and he is also concerned about how to contractually obligate the developer so that when it came time for that to be built we would be sure they would actually do it. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he would propose that if we could come to an agreement on price maybe we could have some type of surety from the developer in terms of a letter of credit that they would put on deposit with the City so if it came time to build the road and they did not build it, we could then turn around and build it and draw on their letter of credit for the payment of it. He stated this is something that would give us a little more enforcement ability. He stated the issue is whether we are going to try to hold to having all the public improvements done at one time or do we phase it and if we phase it how do we make sure they are actually done. He stated on the TIF revenues under the developers original proposal that the City would not see any of the TIF revenues until the developer is completely reimbursed for all their costs, and what he proposed was a split of the TIF revenues; that the developer would get 50 percent for reimbursement of their costs and 50 percent would go into the City’s coffers to be used for payment of the costs of Refugee Road and S.R. 256 improvements. Mr. Grassbaugh stated the developer had provided a counter proposal of using the TIF revenues in the same manner as the original proposal and when they are completely reimbursed the revenues would go to the City. He stated they would offer a $160,000 contribution upon receipt of a building permit or permits for 15,000 square feet of office and/or retail. He stated then they would be obligated once they pulled those permits to pay the City $160,000. Mr. Grassbaugh stated the third thing that is hard to negotiate is the sanitary sewer service to the recreation facility. He stated it has been staff’s view that the recreation facility is in the City’s sanitary sewer use area and that service should be provided by the City and the City should maintain the revenues from providing that service. He stated everyone is in agreement that the City will provide water to the entire site and sanitary sewer to the office and recreation, but the developer would like to use the County system for the recreation facility because there is a County line near the recreation facility and it would be a matter of tapping into that line and bringing it across to the facility. He stated, however, the County would have to approve this. Mr. Grassbaugh stated staff wants the City to provide the service, but even if we agreed to let the County provide the service we are not sure the County would want to provide the sanitary sewer service to the facility. He stated most jurisdictions want to provide water if they are providing sanitary sewer because the sanitary sewer bill is based upon water usage, so if you have water coming from the City and being billed by the City and the County is doing the sanitary then there must be another step of agreements between the City and the County for us to turn over the records of how much water is flowing into that so they can calculate their bill. Mr. Grassbaugh stated the fourth major item is the impact fees for the recreation facility and the use of those impact fees. He stated initially the City had assigned a designation of warehouse to the recreation facility which results in a fairly high impact fee and the developer does not think that is the appropriate characterization for this facility. He stated the City, after discussions with the law director, has said we would characterize it as an office/institutional use and the impact fee for road improvement would be used as a source for payment of the guaranteed maximum price contract. The developer’s counter proposal was that an impact fee equal to one percent of the construction cost of the recreation facility for all of the impact fees. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he did not feel that was permitted under the Codified Ordinances and you would have to amend your codified ordinances on impact fees to come to that solution. Mr. Grassbaugh stated with regard to the office construction we have asked for some type of schedule from them to have some type of guarantee that the office buildings would occur as now in the zoning plan and if they did not occur the penalty would be a suspension of payment of the TIF revenues until it did occur. He stated the developer has stated categorically that they cannot agree to any schedule for the office buildings in this economy. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he felt there was an impasse between the negotiating team on these five items and they are looking for guidance from Council. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Wisniewski clarified the estimates provided for the improvements include the construction and obtaining right-of-way, but that is at today’s dollars. Mr. Fix stated he understood the need for these improvements would not be caused by this development, but would be accelerated by this development and based on the traffic study that has been done he questioned if Council would know how much time this meant. Mr. Bachman stated we will need these improvements at some point in the future regardless of whether this development goes in or not and he would have to look at this. Mr. John Gallagher stated he performed the traffic study and the study shows a set of improvements that Pickerington will need to make need to be made at the same time no matter what happens. He stated the study was based on growth rates provided by MORPC, so the term accelerated was not correct. Mr. Fix stated then the development would add traffic, but not enough to accelerate the necessary changes in our infrastructure. Mr. Bachman stated if this development came in obviously it would add traffic to the intersection so some of these developments would be needed sooner with the development than without it. Mr. Fix questioned how much sooner they would be needed. Mrs. Sanders stated if this development did not come in would we have to do this in five years anyway or would it be in ten years? Mr. Bachman stated he could not answer that without going back and looking at the study.

Mr. Ben Hale stated he represents the developer and to put this in perspective, this is a 15 acre piece of property and there are a lot of other larger pieces of property that are not developed. He stated they were looking at what contributions they can truly afford to make; they found a piece of property with the thoroughfare plan that has a very expensive improvement on it. He stated they have had numbers for the sewer and the roadway that are in excess of $800,000 and they have agreed to pay the $160,000 which would be $10,000 per acre. He stated also for the impact fee they made a suggestion on what that impact fee should be based on what other types of users pay; they typically pay about one percent of their construction costs and they propose they should pay one percent. Mr. Hale stated if you looked at the traffic that comes out of this facility it is more like a warehouse in terms of its real impact on the community. He stated the impact fees should be fair and equitable and there is a process where you can make adjustments to your impact fees and they would be happy if they got a classification that corresponds to what their real impact would be and they believed it would be more like a warehouse. Mr. Hale stated they are willing to build the road, which is a huge number, and they understand they have to pay for the sewer and they have to buy the easements. He stated what they agree to has to have some economic reality and they felt that reality would be they would make a contribution to the intersection and their engineer has consistently said they are a very small player in the traffic feeding into that intersection. He stated they would build the road and they have proposed that it only come to the first intersection, they would dedicate the right-of-way over to the property line, and when they get to a point in the development when they need to extend the road, they will extend the road. Mr. Sauer clarified that if the County does not want to take the recreation facility on that would be a big problem for the developer. Mr. Fix inquired how much this TIF was projected to contribute in total and Mr. Grassbaugh stated he had not totaled the TIFs but it would eventually get to about $164,000. Mr. Fix stated if he understood it correctly, the improvements talked about in this proposal would all come about with or without this property being developed so either the City of Pickerington pays for them unilaterally or with the assistance of this and perhaps other developers. Mr. Fix then questioned if it were safe to assume that, based on where this property is located, it is going to be developed at some point in the relatively near future. Mr. Wisniewski stated he didn’t feel that was a question that could be answered. Ms Crotty stated it would be hard to say because it would depend on the type of development and the willingness of the property owner. Mr. Fix questioned if Ms Crotty would rank this at the higher or lower end of the scale as far as potential commercial development and Ms Crotty stated for retail it would be toward the higher end and the front part is obviously more desirable. Mr. Fix stated then if you assume that the site will be developed at some point, and that the front part is more desirable than the back part, and either we will bear these costs or we will bear them with partners, that it would make more sense to bear them with partners, and that if the back side of this property is less valuable and they want to put a soccer facility there, it shouldn’t make any difference to us. Mr. Grassbaugh stated the assumptions assumed that the initial cost of their improvement was being done all at one time and assuming the build out scale it shows that the improvements don’t generate any money for any other part of the public infrastructure until the year 2026, so it would not help the City outside of their property until 2026. Mr. Fix stated if the back side of that property isn’t that strong, is there anything else we could do with that property that would generate more income for the City more quickly. Mr. Grassbaugh stated it would come down to what would generate income for the City is the office development and the issue would be when would the office development occur. Mr. Wisniewski stated the reason we would TIF this would be for the office because we don’t TIF retail and we don’t TIF recreational, so why not let them build phase I under their costs and then come back to us for a TIF when they do the office development. Mr. Fix stated the problem he had with that is that we could end up with nothing but a soccer complex for several years. Mr. Wisniewski stated that is the reality we could end up with anyway.

Mr. Grassbaugh stated we suggested at one point that if we could restrain them to they could not do the office or retail until the second phase of the road and the sanitary was in, that might be a compromise, but they have proposed and have stuck to they only have to build it when there is 60,000 square feet of retail or office which in this economy he felt most of the retail would be done up front and you will not get that road until the office comes several years later. He stated it was just how could we ensure that the City gets everything they want. Mrs. Sanders stated she understood it was bad economic times and no-one is wanting to build anything and we have someone here that has been working for a long time trying to work with the City and it seemed we should be able to come to some kind of agreement. She stated if we have the back parcel that is not attractive to most people and we have someone who wants to do something with that she had a hard time seeing the other side of it. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he just wanted Council to focus on what the issues are and give him some guidance as to if they should go down this way or not. Mr. Hale stated he knew from experience that if you had property that was already zoned and the infrastructure was there you have a good chance of getting someone to develop on that site. He stated you have to have economic reality however because no bank will give them $500,000 to $700,000 without knowing how they will get paid back and without a TIF they cannot write a $500,000 check. He stated they would build the road back through there and do the big expensive road on a temporary basis and when they start getting offices they will build the rest. Mr. Grassbaugh stated with phasing it in what price would the City pay for the second and third phases, would it be an agreed upon price no matter when it occurs? Mr. Hale stated he did not think you could agree to a price. Mr. Grassbaugh stated that was his point, how would we know what it would cost five years from now to build the second phase?

Mrs. Sanders stated with regard to the items where we are at an impasse, beginning with the extension of Windmiller Drive, were there any suggestions from Council. Mr. Fix stated it was his understanding that the part of Windmiller Drive we have asked them to build extends to the property line of the Nicodemus property and that until the Nicodemus property is under development that would be 500 feet of a road to nowhere. Mr. Grassbaugh stated it would also help in the development of the office in the backend of this site. Mr. Fix stated to force them to build a road today that may not be used for three years did not make sense. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he had no problem with that, his question was how we come to the agreement of them building that road, under what conditions and at what price. Mr. Wisniewski inquired where the recommendation that the road had to be built on this part came from and Ms Crotty stated that is on our Thoroughfare Plan and it is a requirement for any developer that the portion of it that is on their property be built by them. Mr. Hale stated they have indicated they would build that road when they get to a certain number of square footage on the site. Mr. Fix clarified Mr. Hale was saying that what would kick off the building of the second part of that road would be when the Nicodemus property is under development or when the offices were under development. Mr. Grassbaugh clarified it was either when 60,000 square feet of office and retail occurs on their site or the Nicodemus property develops. Mr. Grassbaugh stated 60,000 square feet would permit almost all of the commercial retail development to occur on the roadway up front and nothing to occur on the back so you could end up with the back end and the front end developed and the road no completed because that depended on office coming in at some point. Mr. Grassbaugh stated the question was where you wanted to start, was it when you had 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 or the first one. Mr. Hale stated they were flexible about that; they wanted a deal coming in the door when they had to build the road. He stated then they would have someplace to get more money out of. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he is representing the City and he was just trying to find a way that would ensure this happens without the City having to incur further legal expense to enforce a contract and if you did have to incur legal expenses to enforce a contract there is a pot of money there to pay for your development. Mr. Hale stated they would agree if they did the commercial they will extend the road or if they did 20,000 square feet of office they would do it. He stated they were not trying to be difficult they were just trying to get into position so they could do this. He stated if they did the commercial they would build it or if they hit 20,000 square feet of office they would extend it. He stated when they did the plat the road they would plat the whole road so you would own the right-of-way. Mr. Wisniewski stated it appeared that phase II is dependent upon the developer getting the sanitary sewer from the County. Mr. Grassbaugh stated as he understood it Council was in favor of the first phase of the road being built to service the rec facility and the rest of it would occur when either they did 20,000 square feet of office or they pulled retail. Mr. Hale stated that was correct. Mr. Wisniewski asked how that could be TIFd and Mr. Grassbaugh stated you would be TIFing an area that produces very little TIF revenue. Mr. Grassbaugh stated if nothing else ever occurs there, the TIF revenues will not reimburse the developer far beyond the projections we have in our projections because those projections assumed commercial and office space coming on. Mr. Hale stated if they don’t develop this piece of property, if they spend $500,000 to $600,000 on all these improvements, if they never built anything else they would never get their money back. Mr. Hale stated they wanted to get this built and they were trying to invest in your community. Mr. Sauer stated he thought a key part of this was that the developer would have $500,000 to $700,000 invested in a road while they are building a soccer facility in the back that would in no way reimburse them for that improvement. Mr. Grassbaugh stated however by building it in phases their initial cost would not be $500,000 to $700,000 and the entire project including sewer would be $800,000 and his assumption would be that part of the roadway would be something less than half of that. Mr. Sauer stated the Windmiller extension that goes to the private road, and what was being talked about is a very short portion considering the length of that from Refugee Road all the way to that private road, has to be a large part of that money. He stated that is a large amount they would be putting into this that they will want to be reimbursed for someway. Mr. Hale stated he did not see them putting money into building this until they have easements from Nicodemus. Mr. Sauer stated he felt that was key on the City’s part, to know there was a commitment on the part of the developer to fully develop this property in the way the City wants to see it developed as well as how they want to see it developed, and that is office space. Mr. Sauer stated he felt the biggest key was to make sure the developers building it are putting themselves in a position where they almost have to build it. He stated by putting that road in and having to get that easement seemed pretty significant. Mr. Grassbaugh stated then to summarize, they will build the second half which will include the sanitary sewer and the second part of the roadway when they pull permits for commercial or when they have 20,000 square feet of office. He further stated since you will want to have that easements for the sewer before you do anything, we would want to make sure that they have been dedicated to the City.

Mrs. Sanders stated the next issue dealt with the TIF revenues. Mr. Fix clarified Mr. Grassbaugh was recommending the money be split 50/50 so we can fund the off site improvements and Mr. Grassbaugh stated that would provide a source of revenue for the improvements. Mr. Grassbaugh stated they have countered with an offer of $160,000 at the time the pulled permits for 15,000 square feet of office and retail. Mr. Grassbaugh stated if we are conditioning the second half of the roadway on commercial space being developed or 20,000 square feet of office being developed, that might now be the same trigger for the contribution if that is what we are going to take.

Mr. Grassbaugh stated with regard to the sanitary sewer he would suggest the City meet with the County and the developer to ascertain whether the County is willing to do the sanitary sewer. Mr. Fix clarified the developer wanted to use the County sewer because it was more cost effective and Mr. Hale stated that was correct because otherwise it would cost a lot more money to spend up front when the only thing they were building was the soccer facility. Mr. Grassbaugh stated it would cost them $180,000 more to run sanitary sewer to the recreation facility alone by using the City’s sewer line. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt we also needed to look into an agreement made between the City and the County several years ago about our own districts. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had a problem with the County providing that service because we just spent millions of dollars on our sanitary sewer and then to start shipping it off to the County when it is in our sewer district he had a big problem with. Mrs. Hammond stated she agreed with Mr. Wisniewski and we discussed the fact that we provide water and then the sewer from someplace else and that causes all sorts of problems. Mr. Grassbaugh stated this started with the proposition that the City would always want it to be sewered by the City and if there is any other way of doing it, it has to be a County agreement, but it is still a policy issue for this Council whether you even want to go down the route of allowing the County to do it. Mr. Fix stated then the County sewer line is nearby and our line would require us to get the right-of-way on the Nicodemus property and build a sewer line through the Nicodemus property. Mr. Grassbaugh stated if Council is so inclined, eventually the developer will be bringing the sewer line up to the office space, and a compromise might be that we talk to the County about providing temporary sanitary sewer to the recreation facility until such time as the rest of the site develops and we bring the line in for the office and commercial. Mr. Hale stated he was fine with that. Mr. Grassbaugh stated again they would have to talk to the County.

Mr. Grassbaugh stated with regard to the impact fees for the recreation facility, he does have the statute Council adopted and he did not believe you could do what Mr. Hale was requesting. Mr. Wisniewski clarified under commercial the fees were $225,400 and we countered with $136,850. Ms Crotty stated she did not have the impact fees broken out, but the street fee is $52,900. Mr. Fix clarified Mr. Hale was suggesting one percent which would be between $20,000 and $30,000. Mr. Wisniewski stated he could see the police being called to this facility quite often and where there is a lot of police activity there is a lot of impact. Mr. Blair ascertained the police are called out to the PYAA complex several times a week. Mr. Grassbaugh stated as he understood it then Council wanted this to have the office/institutional impact fee, we would return the amount of the road portion of that impact fee at the time both phases of the roadway are completed as a source of revenue payment.

Mr. Grassbaugh stated the final issue was the office construction and that is an economic reality and he did not know what Council would want to do with that one. Mr. Fix stated he was the only one who voted against giving Equity a pass because he felt if they were going to put a schedule out there they should be held to it. He stated this developer was not giving a schedule guaranteeing anything and he felt it would be hypocritical of Council to demand that of them when they just gave Equity a pass. Mr. Wisniewski stated they were given a one year pass. Mr. Sauer stated another issue is the zoning and in order for them to develop that property in any other way they would have to go back before Planning and Zoning to get it rezoned and that would also have to be approved by Council so this will be office unless Council decides to change it.

Mr. Fix stated Chief Taylor was just notified we are under a severe tornado warning and requested a brief recess until we get more information.

Finance Committee recessed at 8:25 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 8:33 P.M.

Mr. Fix stated he thought Mr. Grassbaugh’s suggestion of setting a drop dead date that if nothing happened by that time, then the payments stopped. He stated that could be five years, ten years, or whatever a reasonable period of time was so the development did not go on forever with no office development, but there was not a restrictive schedule. Mr. Fix stated he thought that would be a reasonable compromise because the City would know that someday there will be office there, and they would not get things caught up midstream because they missed a schedule. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would agree with that as long it was reasonable and he did not think ten years was reasonable. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he thought that answered the questions on all five issues.

Mr. Sauer asked Mr. Grassbaugh to go back over what was agreed on the TIF revenues. Mr. Grassbaugh stated we would agree to continue to have 100 percent of the TIF revenues go to the developer until he is paid back. The $160,000 contribution would be triggered at the same time as the second half of the roadway and sewer improvement is triggered, which is when they pull any commercial/retail permits or they pull 20,000 square feet of office permits. That was the triggering device for the $160,000. Mr. Sauer stated his problem was that if years go by that dollar amount basically becomes less and less as inflation grows. He stated whenever this occurs he would like to see a percentage instead of a flat dollar amount. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he felt they could work out some kind of formula that would inflate that to dollars at the time the road is built so you would have the value of $160,000. Mr. Grassbaugh stated another possibility is perhaps tie the contribution to whatever the costs are of the Refugee Road improvements and say, if the current estimate is $2.3 million they contribute one-sixth. Mr. Hale stated they could agree to that. Mr. Grassbaugh stated they would have to work out the mechanism and Mr. Hale stated as long as there was logic to it. Mr. Sauer stated he was looking for where that $160,000 figure came from, and how we came to that being the appropriate share for the developer. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he understood there were two possible solutions he could go back and work on, one being a different split of the TIF revenues or looking at somehow making it a percentage of the actual costs of the roadway. Mr. Grassbaugh stated he thought now the most critical thing to be done was to meet with the County because he assumed that would drive everything and the second most critical item would be to find out if they can get the easement on the Nicodemus property. Mrs. Sanders stated if at some point they would like to be back on the agenda to discuss this just let us know.

4. FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

A. Finance Director’s Report. Mr. Schornack stated we are coming to the completion of our audit and it is going well so far. Mr. Schornack stated URS is requesting an amendment to their agreement for the wastewater treatment plant of $19,000 because of the delay. Mr. Drobina stated the time delays the contractor has had at the wastewater treatment plant has caused URS to spend more time and they are asking for a $19,000 increase to their contract. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if their contract was based on the project or on hours, and Mr. Drobina stated it was based on 4,000 hours. Mr. Drobina stated he had contacted them to try and get the information on the number of hours already spent and he could not get that information today. Mr. Fix clarified the delay was caused by the cold weather in February and in the delivery of some equipment. Mr. Drobina stated that in February when it was to cold to pour cement the contractor did other things so they still needed an inspector there and Mr. Wisniewski stated those were still the hours that were built into the project as a whole. Mr. Wisniewski stated when they send us the total hours spent he would be happy to discuss this with them further. Mr. Drobina stated he just wanted to make the Committee aware that this request would be coming.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2010 appropriation, Ordinance 2009-91. Mr. Schornack reviewed the draft appropriation ordinance and stated several of the changes were the result of the change in vacation carry over in the Employee Manual. He stated further he needed some additional funds to cover the interest payments on our TIF notes. Mr. Schornack stated he was also requesting an additional $27,000 in the Police Fund Contractual Services due to auditor and treasurer fees that were no budgeting. Mr. Fix inquired how this happened and Mr. Schornack stated he was under the impression that the Chief’s staff person had included that in the budget and she was under the assumption that he had put it in the budget. He stated, therefore, this was left out of the budget and needed to be included. Mr. Schornack stated he would answer any questions on the appropriations. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council, Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Blair, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve draft resolution creating a Cemetery Trust Fund. Mr. Schornack stated we received some monies from the Township regarding two plots that were trusted to them. He stated these two plots were in the Township, however, they are now in the City limits and the Township got the court order to give us that money and we now need to set up a Cemetery Trust Fund in order to expend those. He stated one plot was in Dovel Cemetery and one was in Pisgah Cemetery. Mrs. Sanders moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blair, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

5. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT.

A. Personnel Director’s Report. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report to the Committee and she would answer any questions. She stated we should receive the results from the Fact Finding on the FOP contract. She stated it will depend on if the findings are accepted or rejected as to what the next step will be.

6. CHAIRMAN:

A. Strategic Plan Goals – Update. Mrs. Sanders stated she had no update this evening.

B. Technology Assessment Subcommittee – Update. Mr. Wisniewski stated there was no update this evening.

7. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Review and discussion regarding purchase of tornado siren. Chief Taylor stated two sirens are available and the Township is purchasing one and we have been offered the second one for the Sycamore Creek area at a cost of approximately $12,500. Mrs. Sanders clarified these are refurbished sirens. Chief Taylor stated he would highly recommend we purchase this siren. Mr. Wisniewski stated he thought the Fire Department was responsible for the tornado sirens and Chief Taylor stated they are not, it is actually the County. Mrs. Sanders clarified there is nothing in Sycamore Creek right now and Mr. Barletta stated he felt since we have an elementary school up there we should find the money. Mr. Schornack stated he did not feel this would greatly impact our fund balance at the end of the year. Mr. Wisniewski moved to amend the draft appropriation ordinance just approved to add an appropriation of $12,500 for the purchase of a tornado siren; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Barletta, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Blair voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

Mr. Schornack stated he was unable to get the legislation together for the TIF notes that are coming due in September. He stated he would request a Special Finance Committee meeting for June 15^th just prior to Council in order to move that legislation forward to Council. Mr. Fix moved to schedule a Special Finance Committee meeting for June 15, 2010, at 7:20 P.M., with the note issue renewals as the agenda items; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blair, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

Chief Taylor stated staff has received calls regarding the rental of the Gazebo and it is not included on our Fee Schedule. He stated in accordance with the requirements of the Fee Schedule he was notifying Council that he was adding this to the Parks Department fees at a cost of $25.00 per time slot, with the time slots being the same as those for shelter rentals. There were no objections from the Committee members.

8. MOTIONS:

A. Motion for Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)(1)b, Matters involving an employee’s or public official’s employment, Section 121.22(G)(2), Purchase or sale of public property, Section 121.22(G)(3), Conference with law director regarding pending or imminent court action, and Section 121.22(G)(4), Matters involving bargaining sessions with public employees. Mrs. Sanders stated an Executive Session was not necessary this evening.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. Sanders moved to adjourn; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Blair, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Barletta voted "Aye." Motion carried, 7-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:05 P.M., June 2, 2010.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk