WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Sauer called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski were present. Mr. Blair was absent as he was out of town on business. Others present were Mayor O’Brien, Bill Vance, Lynda Yartin, Chris Schornack, Commander Matt Delp, Ed Drobina, Susan Crotty, Janet Thiede, Frank Petruziello, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 18, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski abstaining, and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Sauer stated if there were no objections he would like to have the Impact Fee discussion at this time.

Ms Crotty stated she and the City Manager have been having discussion regarding concerns they have about impact fees. She stated she had asked Mr. Petruziello, who is with Skilken, to attend the meeting this evening, and as everyone is aware they are developing a medical complex. Ms Crotty stated she has come upon some issues with the impact fees we are charging for medical offices and she would like to address a couple of concerns with this Committee. Mr. Vance stated the issues he and Ms Crotty have been working on are not so much concerns as just additional efforts to be as customer friendly as we can and still be fiscally responsible. Mr. Vance stated we have had other professional office developments that are medical in nature pay less in impact fees than the projections for the Skilken development. Mr. Vance further stated the preliminary projections have Skilken paying approximately $35,000 in impact fees and Ms Crotty has done some research and found other situations involving professional office developments of a medical nature where they paid in the vicinity of $20,000. Mr. Vance stated staff would recommend that we treat the Skilken development equally with those other situations and that we consider getting proposals for another impact fee study. He stated our current study was done in 2004 and we have had things such as the wastewater treatment plant expansion take place in that timeframe. He stated he would recommend that we should do an impact fee study every five years or so. He stated the issue this evening would be the amount that Skilken would pay for impact fees. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the $20,000 amount is based on the rate we have charged a couple of other projects. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if we were trying to reclassify this from medical to office because the Code is very specific as to how things are defined, and there was a lot of discussion by Council regarding medical offices because they had the highest impact to the community for traffic and other things. Mr. Wisniewski stated there was legitimacy to the figures as to the true impact to the City. Ms Crotty stated there are a couple of other buildings that do have doctor’s offices, dentist offices, that were charged at the office rate and this is something that we do want to look at. She stated if we had attorneys in these same buildings, they would be charged at the professional office rate. Mr. Wisniewski stated he just wanted to make sure we were treating everyone equally. Ms Crotty stated this is one reason she would like to do another study and analyze the impact fee ordinance and make sure it is meeting our needs as far as the impact that new developments create. Mayor O’Brien stated he thought the numbers were very relevant for 2003/2004 and they did need to be revisited because we have changed a lot since then. Mayor O’Brien stated he was not sure if a full-blown study was necessary and perhaps some recommendations could come from our staff. Mr. Wisniewski stated our study was done by a professional firm that could back up their findings. Mr. Vance stated to his knowledge staff has successfully negotiated with Skilken and they are receptive to the $20,000 figure so they can help us take care of the impact associated with their development. Mr. Vance further stated our situation is that we have medical offices that we charged a rate that was perhaps not reflective of the direction we are potentially headed with Skilken and if we charge the Skilken development $35,000 then we would have to retroactively go back to those other developments and tell them we did not charge them enough and they owe us additional impact fees. Mr. Vance stated at this point in time it is much more realistic to just treat Skilken the way we treated the others. Mr. Wisniewski asked who we charged the lower rates, and Ms Crotty stated it was two office buildings on Clint Drive that have doctor’s offices. Mr. Fix inquired if anyone had been charged the medical rate and Ms Crotty stated the only one she could find was the orthopedic laser technology. Mr. Vance stated we will take a look at their situation and see if they are due any additional attention. Mr. Vance stated if we are going to have impact fees we need to go about it the right way and we need to have an impact fee rate that reflects the impacts that we are attempting to get reimbursed for. Mr. Wisniewski stated that is what we have in place right now, it took into account all the future development, etc., and was based on reality. Mr. Vance stated his question would be if we wanted impact fees to reflect an accurate provision of capacity on the City’s part or do we want to treat development in the future equally to how we did in 2003 and 2004 and shortly thereafter. Mr. Fix stated he felt we should start with this issue and then go back and look at what the appropriate way would be to look at this on a much bigger scale. Mr. Vance stated if the Chairman had no objection the impact fee study can be included as an agenda item for the March Finance Committee meeting. He stated tonight he was asking for the flexibility to go forward with a rate that would treat the Skilken development on a level playing field with other similar developments. Mr. Wisniewski stated that seemed like an administrative issue and not a Council issue, and questioned if there was a reason it was coming to Finance. Mr. Vance stated it was brought forward because in the past it was done incorrectly when the rate that was specified to be charged for a medical development was not charged. He stated since those developments were not charged in accordance with the rules, and staff repeated it, he did not feel that was a responsible thing for staff to do. He stated he felt it was the responsible thing was for staff to come before this Committee and say we want to treat the Skilken development in a fair manner. Mr. Wisniewski stated if staff is classifying this as an office building and not a medical development, then that is a staff level decision. Mrs. Hammond stated she has been in office buildings that have medical and other offices and she didn’t know what classification they would be put under and questioned if there were some criteria to determine the classification. Mr. Vance stated he felt there was the flexibility to go in this direction and since this Council is an advocate of a Committee system where committees meet on a monthly basis to talk about situations like this, he felt it was a good idea to let Council know the direction we were headed is to treat Skilken the same way that other like developments were treated in the past. He stated if there is no objection he will move forward. Mr. Sauer stated as he understood it we have two facilities in the city currently that are very similar uses and were charged at the rate Mr. Vance is proposing for this particular development. Mr. Vance stated that is correct. Mayor O’Brien clarified the two office buildings on Clint Drive were never brought before Council to change the classification. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt staff should be making the determination about what this office is without coming to Council. Mr. Fix stated he understood the issue is that the previous rates were done incorrectly. Mr. Vance stated the position that was taken at that time, staff had the flexibility to take that position, but as Mr. Fix clarified earlier we do have another medical office situation where potentially the rate they paid was not the same as what we are proposing this evening. Mr. Vance stated we would have to address that situation as well and that is why he had brought this forward this evening; just to point those things out and to let Council know the direction we were headed. He stated potentially someone paid at a higher rate that perhaps they should have and we need to go look at that and if accommodations needs to be made, he will communicate with them and come back and communicate with the Finance Committee. Mr. Vance stated he just wanted to be consistent. Mrs. Hammond stated she agreed we need to be consistent and she felt staff is perfectly capable of make the decision as to what category a building fell under. Mr. Sauer requested Mrs. Yartin add the discussion of an impact fee study to the next Finance agenda.

Mr. Vance stated he would also like to address the situation where impact fees must be paid prior to the approval of the building permits, which is necessary to initiate construction. Mr. Vance stated staff would like the flexibility to have developments pay all the building permit fees minus the impact fees in order to get their building permit fee approval and then extend the period of time until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the development to allow them to pay their impact fees. Mr. Vance stated it can be harder to find financing for projects and if we provide additional flexibility with the payment of the impact fees potentially there are a couple of revenue sources, a couple of revenue streams, representing the financing for any one particular project and Mr. Petruziello could potentially provide Council with some information regarding the benefit of such a proposal for his development. He stated obviously we want to work with anybody and everybody who wants to develop and invest in Pickerington and he would like to have the flexibility to work with them on the payment of impact fees before their Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if this would apply to residential as well, and Mr. Vance stated it would not. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt we would have to be the same for commercial and residential. Mr. Vance stated he felt at this point in time this additional flexibility would be a value to the City if we are looking to be development friendly. Ms Crotty stated staff is trying to make sure that everyone is aware early on in the process that we do have impact fees and what the rates are so that they can plan on it before they secure their loans. Mayor O’Brien stated he supported staff’s position on this because he understands the difficulty of getting financing and how frustrating that can be for developers. Mr. Wisniewski stated he thought this would require a legislation change and Mr. Vance stated he would coordinate with the law director’s office to get that changed but meanwhile we have two situations that are currently in front of us and if there are no objections he will go forward as communicated. He stated a record has been established this evening of what we are doing and the direction we are heading in. Mayor O’Brien stated then Mr. Vance will be getting a legal opinion to see if we need to change the ordinance to accommodate this, and this will also be included in the review of the impact fees and the ordinance. Mr. Vance stated we would do both of those. Mr. Wisniewski stated Mr. Vance cannot move forward without a motion of Council to suspend the rules for that. Mr. Wisniewski moved to suspend the rules to allow for the payment of impact fees for Skilken and Premier Day Care at the Certificate of Occupancy; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Barletta voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 6-0.

3. FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

A. Finance Director’s Report. Mr. Schornack stated he had provided a written report and he would like to note that we had a couple of additional residential permits come in at the end of January so we did receive five new residential impact fees. He stated he had also distributed the Income Tax Report and we were up 14.3 percent for the first month of the year.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2010 appropriation, Ordinance 2009-91. Mr. Schornack stated the Committee had received a draft appropriation ordinance and reviewed all of the appropriation requests. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 6-0.

C. Review and discussion regarding excess carryover funds. Mr. Schornack stated he had provided a memorandum to the Committee regarding the balances. Mr. Schornack stated with the potential loss of $180,000 in estate taxes and Local Government Funds, we could lose the $27,000 DARE funding, and we have $75,000 in salt and overtime. Mayor O’Brien stated one of the most dramatic things we are facing is a decrease in income tax collections with staff being laid off by the schools. Mrs. Sanders stated as far as paving goes, she has noticed some serious potholes and some money will have to go for taking care of that. Mr. Schornack stated we did have $200,000 in there for the S.R. 256 project and in his opinion that probably won’t happen this year. He stated if it doesn’t happen and we don’t use that funding this year, we could use that toward paving. Mr. Sauer stated he felt we should hear from Mr. Bachman with regards to that and get a timeframe in case we are awarded that grant and we need to come up with the funding. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that we will pay $720,000 a year on the Diley Road loan until 2014, and then we will need to take out another bond or something and extend it over 20 years or so. Mr. Schornack stated in 2014 we will have something a $4.5 million balance to carry over for 20 years, so we would have something like a $300,000 to $400,000 payment a year after 2014. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt council should wait to spend any extra funds because she would hate to commit to something and then something important came up that we wouldn’t have the funds for. Mr. Fix stated he felt they needed to have the Finance Director come up with a reasonable number of what amount is available to spend. Mr. Wisniewski stated he didn’t know how the Finance Director could do that because everything is in flux right now, and things like the state budget, the school budget, etc. are outside of the City’s control. Mr. Fix stated we are so conservative in how we budget that we have a 37 percent carryover, and Mr. Schornack stated as we have it budgeted now we are eating into that carryover by $700,000. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would not spend any of the carryover right now, but if we were to spend he would want to spend it on paying down our debt. Mr. Schornack stated as Mr. Fix had stated, we do have a 37 percent carryover balance and to keep at least a minimum of 15 percent we would need to have a balance of $1.2 million. He continued, with that, theoretically, we could spend down $800,000, whether or not that is wise. Mr. Fix stated he is not suggesting going down to 15 percent, but even if we went down to 30 percent that would be something that we could use for potholes or something. Mr. Schornack stated he would not have a problem if we did a couple of hundred thousand dollars in paving because we generally do not spend all of our appropriations and we end up with a higher balance, but we need to take into consideration that revenues might not come in as expected. Mrs. Sanders stated she would like to ensure that our DARE officer would be supported even if we do not receive the DARE grant funding. Mr. Barletta stated he would like to see the DARE officer supported because we can use that officer’s talents in partnership with our Recreation Department to have some drug awareness education classes for the public that would be a benefit to the community. Mr. Barletta stated as far as spending the balance of the money, if he saw his family’s finances going up he did not look for ways to spend it. He stated he felt we need to figure out what is important and a priority to spend money on, but we did not have to be in a hurry about it. Mr. Sauer stated he felt there was time to look at all issues and to try and make a decision with regards to an amount right now would not be wise. He stated he agreed with Mr. Barletta and he felt the DARE officer was a priority. He stated he has been supportive of roads in the past but given the economic climate we have right now who knows what June and July would bring. Mr. Sauer stated right now he would prefer to sit tight and see what we have in front of us and make a decision if it is an emergency in the future. Mayor O’Brien stated at least if we get through the first quarter, we could review this on a quarterly basis. He stated after spring arrives we would be finished buying salt and paying that overtime. Mr. Barletta stated also that if we cannot repair that collapsed sewer pipe with the expanding liner, then we will be in for a much bigger expense there as well. Mrs. Sanders asked Mr. Schornack if it would be possible to find out what the carryover is of some of our surrounding communities. Mr. Schornack stated that would be easy to find out and he could get that information. Mr. Fix stated he was just suggesting that at the end of last year’s budget we had a long list of things we wished we had been able to fund and we chose not to, but with a half-million dollar carryover if we are ultra conservative in projecting some of the bad things that may happen, there is still some of that available to spend on some of those things that we all put on our wish list, and that is a wise thing to do. He stated he was not suggesting that be done tonight, but at the end of the first quarter they should be prepared to move forward with something like that. Mr. Schornack stated next month he would be proposing the five-year plan and then we can see how the years take us out. Mr. Sauer stated he would like this item continued on the agenda for the next meeting.

4. CHAIRMAN:

A. 2012 Budget Issues/Concerns.

(1) Blue Ribbon Panel – Update. Mayor O’Brien stated Mr. Sauer had sent an e-mail to all of the committee chairpersons to talk about the new matrix and committees and goals and getting those on the agenda. He stated he felt the Strategic Plan Update can be removed from the Council agenda and focus now on the Blue Ribbon Panel update. Mayor O’Brien stated he is working with the Chamber of Commerce to get their input in getting some business leaders in the community help staff this panel because they are most directly affected by the live here/pay here scenario, and their opinions are very valuable to us. He stated he felt there would not be a problem in meeting the timeline shown in the Revenue Enhancement Timeline chart.

(2) Revenue Enhancement Timeline - Update. Mr. Sauer stated obviously the budget is done and the five-year financial plan should be ready for the next meeting. Mr. Sauer stated the financial audit has begun and the performance audit contract has been signed. Mr. Sauer stated in reviewing items from the strategic plan he had requested the fleet management be included in the financial plan. He stated that way we would know what vehicles we have and as we are making a five year plan if we want to add those particular items in the budget going forward that information would be there. Mr. Fix clarified that at this point we are on track to complete the items listed on the timeline. Mr. Schornack stated the financial audit is generally completed in June.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve an ordinance approving the General Fee Schedule for the City of Pickerington. Mrs. Yartin stated the Committee had received an updated fee schedule. She stated the major changes were in the Parks Department where the listing of fees has been expanded and includes the pool membership fee structure, the annual three percent increase in utility rates, and various increases building department fees. Mrs. Yartin stated further the returned check fee was being increased from $25.00 to $30.00. Mr. Wisniewski clarified most of the pool membership fees would go down. Mr. Schornack stated that was correct and we could decrease our revenues by about $15,000, however, he felt we would make that up because of the price decrease and we would sell more memberships. Mr. Schornack stated most of the capital projects have been completed on the pool and we made the final payment on the pool in December 2010. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve and forward to Council; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 6-0.

B. Review and discussion regarding commercial advertising on water tower. Mr. Barletta stated if we were to allow this, we would need to have an escrow equivalent to the cost of removing it and restoring the tank to its pristine condition. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would not support this because we already told the residents what the water tower would be painted. Mrs. Sanders stated she has received calls from neighbors who were concerned about what would be up there and how it would look in a year or two, and some who just felt it would be tacky. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt this was cost prohibitive because to repaint the water tower it would have to be empty, so we would have water costs as well. Mr. Fix stated the amount that was proposed was not realistic and the only way he would have considered this would be if it would pay for a police officer or something equivalent and the number proposed was not anywhere near what we would need. Mr. Vance stated he felt the value as far as the promotion of our community and the direction we are headed far exceeds what was proposed and he felt it would be in the City’s best interest to promote itself and promote the community in which we live. Mr. Sauer stated he would like this item removed from the agenda.

C. Discussion of Impact Fee Payment timeframe. Mr. Sauer stated this was dealt with earlier in the meeting.

Mr. Fix stated there has been discussion regarding moving the Finance Committee meeting to make it easier for Mr. Schornack to finish his month and the Committee is not getting reports at the last minute. Mr. Fix stated with the meeting being held at the first of the month Mr. Schornack does not have time to finish closing out the month before a report is due. Mr. Fix further stated the Service Committee meetings were scheduled for the third week of the month to coincide with Planning and Zoning, but he did not know if it made sense to continue to have Service at that time since so little has been going from Planning and Zoning to Service. He stated he would like to know if everyone would consider moving the Finance Committee meeting to the third week of the month to give Mr. Schornack more time to complete his reports. Mr. Schornack stated after reviewing this, if the Finance Committee meeting fell after the second Council meeting of the month, then appropriations would not be considered by Council until the first meeting of the next month. He stated, however, if Finance would meet on the Monday before the second Council meeting, he would still be able to get appropriations through the committee and onto the second Council meeting agenda. Mrs. Hammond stated she is not free on Mondays, and Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not have a problem with getting the reports the way they are now. Mrs. Hammond stated perhaps it could be scheduled for the second Wednesday of the month and Mr. Wisniewski stated he would not like to add in another week because he is trying his best to coordinate his work schedule with the meetings. Mr. Fix stated for the Council members who do travel having that week between meetings is very helpful. Mr. Sauer stated it appeared best to leave the meeting schedule the way it is.

6. 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. Mr. Sauer stated an Executive Session was not necessary this evening.

7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voted "Aye." Motion carried, 6-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 8:25 P.M., February 2, 2011.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, City Clerk