PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005

                                         CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

 

                                           REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

                                                                7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND INVOCATION. Council for the City of Pickerington met for a regular session Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at City Hall.  Mayor Shaver called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.  Roll call was taken as follows:  Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Riggs, and Mayor Shaver were present. No members were absent.  Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chief Mike Taylor, Phil Hartmann, Frank Wiseman, Mike Maurer, Jennifer Frommer, Patti Wigington, Tony Dill, Kirk Richards, Doug Blake, Dennis Schwallie, George Hallenbrook, Jeff Fix, Jennifer Readler, Christine Brown, Cindy Darby, Tory Kramer, Bruce Englehardt, and others.  Mr. Wisniewski delivered the invocation. 

 

2.         A.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2005, WORK SESSION.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Parker, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

B.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2005, REGULAR MEETING.  Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  

 

3.         APPROVAL OF AGENDA.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

4.         COMMUNITY COMMENTS:  

 

A.        Cindy Darby, 310 Diley Road.  Mrs. Darby read a statement into the record regarding her objections to the Diley Road project.  (Attachment 1)

 

B.         Mr. Bruce Engelhardt, 176 Knights Bridge Drive.  Mr. Engelhardt stated he moved to Pickerington in 2004 due to its location and schools.  He stated he can look out his kitchen window, across Diley Road, to a quaint farm setting.  Mr. Engelhardt stated he found out shortly after he moved in that there were plans to make this two lane road a five lane highway.  He continued he signed the petition to put this issue on the ballot as he felt it should be decided by the voters.  Mr. Engelhardt stated local government officials dictate what the residents want rather than let them decide what they think they need and don’t need when it comes to where they live and how it will affect the value of their homes.  Mr. Engelhardt stated the people have asked this be put on the ballot, and the elected officials are trying to find any way possible to see this does not happen.  Mr. Engelhardt stated he felt a five lane highway was excessive, but he would support a three lane road.  He continued even though the law firm who reviewed the petition said it was invalid, they also said that the elected officials could authorize it be placed on the ballot and voted on as the people have asked.  Mr. Engelhardt stated a few council members have shown support and listened to the people of the community, and the remaining members should listen to what the voters have requested and allow the Diley Road issue be put to a vote. 

 

Mr. Parker stated in the August 19, 2003, minutes it reflects that Mayor Shaver stated that over 500 residents signed a petition requesting an ordinance to act on a growth management plan be placed on the ballot and he felt it was important they had the right to do so.  He continued the minutes reflected Mayor Shaver stated he felt it was incumbent upon Council, if at all possible, to allow that vote, as the issue was one of democracy.  Mr. Parker stated further in Mayor Shaver’s campaign literature it stated he believed in the rights of citizens to petition the government and he would not fight citizen efforts to place important issues before the voters.  Mayor Shaver stated he would like to note he has no vote on this Council. 

 

5.         APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:  Mayor Shaver stated there no consent agenda items this evening. 

 

6.         COMMITTEE REPORTS: 

 

            A.        FINANCE COMMITTEE.  Mrs. Riggs stated Finance Committee met on January 20th, and also at a Special Meeting earlier this evening.  Mrs. Riggs stated from those meetings the three note ordinances were on Council agenda tonight and Mrs. Fersch will detail those during the Finance Director’s report. 

 

7.         REPORTS:

 

A.        MAYOR.  Mayor Shaver administered the oath of office to Doug Blake as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Mayor Shaver stated further the Monthly Mayor’s Court Report had been distributed. 

 

Mayor Shaver stated at this point in time he would entertain a motion for an Executive Session. 

 

Mrs. Riggs moved for an Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)(3), Conference with the law director regarding pending or imminent court action; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  

 

Council went into Executive Session at 7:47 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 8:18 P.M.

 

B.         LAW DIRECTOR.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would request the two Ordinances relating to the contracts for prosecuting in Mayor’s Court and also in Fairfield County continue to be tabled as his office works through issues on them.  He stated further at the last meeting he had requested Ordinance 2005-09, relating to a right-of-way issue on Courtright Road be tabled.  He stated he has provided Council with an amended ordinance and he would ask that the new Ordinance 2005-09 be considered this evening. 

 

C.        FINANCE DIRECTOR.  Mrs. Fersch stated she would defer to Mr. Dennis Schwallie, our Bond Counsel, who would give a brief introduction on the three note issues on the agenda this evening.  Mr. Schwallie stated two ordinances were to authorize the renewal of street improvement and water notes.  He stated the other legislation was to authorize combining these notes together.  Mr. Schwallie stated for marketing purposes you get better results on a larger issue.  He stated Council had been provided a history of both of the notes, and since the first of the two notes comes due March 10th and to have the ordinance effective in time to obtain bids, he was requesting the legislation be passed as an emergency by February 15th.   Mrs. Riggs stated as we would not have a full council on February 15th, she would request three readings this evening. 

   

D.        MANAGER.  Ms Gilleland stated her report had been distributed and she would be happy to answer any questions.  Ms Gilleland stated within the next several weeks she anticipates the final results of the growth management study, impact fee recommendations, and the cost of community services study.  She stated further the sewer plant capacity study has been submitted to the Ohio EPA for their review and comments.  Ms Gilleland stated she would like Jennifer Frommer, our engineer, to report on the status of the S.R. 256/I-70 intersection.   

 

Ms Frommer stated the issues with the traffic signals have been worked on during the past few weeks and they are continually taking traffic counts that will help get a better idea of traffic volume.  She stated further there have been some problems caused by power outages and they are also working on that.  Ms Frommer continued additional signage will be installed and as soon as the weather allows new pavement markings will be addressed. 

 

E.         SERVICE DIRECTOR.  Mr. Wiseman stated Change Order 4 for the Columbus & Center Street Streetscape project is on tonight’s agenda, and this if the final change order and is the result of much negotiation.  He stated further we currently have a temporary generator on-site for the Lakes Edge Lift Station and he hoped to have a permanent generator by Thursday.  Mr. Wiseman stated we will be applying to the railroad for right-of-way easements later this week so we can proceed with the project to put in a gravity line and eliminate the Lakes Edge Lift Station.  Mr. Wiseman further stated this will be the final week the City will pick up tree limbs and debris from the ice storm.  Mr. Wiseman continued with regard to the recent sewer back-up, we have acquired the services of an appraiser and we will be working with the residents to ascertain the value of the property they are claiming for a loss.  

 

F.         MUNICIPAL CLERK.  Mrs. Yartin stated Ordinance 2005-12 was presented to Council this evening to accept the annexation of 362 acres.  She stated she received the approved annexation from the Fairfield County Commissioners on November 29th and the required period for any objections to be filed has elapsed with none being filed.  Mrs. Yartin stated, therefore, she was presenting the final legislation to Council this evening to accept the annexation. 

 

8.         PROCEDURAL READINGS:

 

A.        ORDINANCE 2003-102, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH STILSON CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COURTRIGHT ROAD, PHASE III,” First Reading, Parker.  (TABLED)

 

B.         ORDINANCE 2005-10, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NO. 004 TO THE COLUMUBS & CENTER STREET STREETSCAPE PROJECT,” First Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated as Mr. Wiseman had indicated, this is a change order of approximately $42,000 that has been negotiated with the contractor.  Mr. Sabatino clarified the contractor on this project was McDaniel’s.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

C.        ORDINANCE 2005-11, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DEED TO BGM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE SALE OF THE CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOT NO. 1, WINDMILLER SQUARE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, AND TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2004-45,” First Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated in August Council accepted a bid of $75,000 for this property, however, the individual was unable to obtain financing.  He stated the second bid was for $70,000, and that bid is still firm.  Mr. Hackworth stated this legislation would authorize the sale to the second bidder and repeal the authorization to accept the first bid.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright abstaining, and Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  

 

D.        ORDINANCE 2005-12, “AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AN ANNEXATION OF 362 ACRES IN VIOLET TOWNSHIP, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, TO THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON,” First Reading, Mayor Shaver.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Mayor Shaver stated this is the annexation Mrs. Yartin had briefed on earlier and was the subject of the agreement with Violet Township.  Mr. Hackworth stated he had originally opposed this annexation, however, most of the zoning on this annexation has already been completed by the Township.  He stated the only zoning issue is on the Sycamore Creek Community Church property.  Mr. Hackworth stated he felt it was a positive move for the City to accept this annexation.  Roll call was taken with  Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

E.         ORDINANCE 2005-13, “AN ORDINANCE CONSOLIDATING TWO BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE ISSUES OF THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, INTO A CONSOLIDATED NOTE ISSUE, AND ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF SUCH CONSOLIDATED NOTE ISSUE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND IMMEDIATE NECESSITY SO THAT NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO SUCH NOTES MAY BE RENEWED IN A TIMELY MANNER, THE ORDERLY FINANCING OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE PROVIDED FOR, AND SUCH RENEWAL NOTES MAY BE SOLD ON TERMS THAT ARE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY,” First Reading, Riggs.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Mrs. Riggs stated this is the legislation that authorizes consolidation of the two note renewals.  She stated she would request three readings this evening in order to meet the renewal date.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Mrs. Riggs moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Wright seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Suspension of Rules passed, 7-0.  Second Reading.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wright seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Third Reading, with emergency.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wright seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, with emergency, 7-0. 

 

F.         ORDINANCE 2005-14, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $2,180,000 OF NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING THREE SERIES OF NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING IMPROVEMENTS TO DILEY ROAD IN THE CITY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS THE COURTRIGHT ROAD REALIGNMENT, INLCUDING CONSTRUCTING STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF THE CITY, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND IMMEDIATE NECESSITY SO THAT NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO FINANCE SUCH IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE RENEWED IN A TIMELY MANNER, AND THE ORDERLY FINANCING OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE PROVIDED FOR,” First Reading, Riggs.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Mrs. Riggs stated this is the first of the two renewal notes.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Mrs. Riggs moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Suspension of Rules passed, 7-0.  Second Reading.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Third Reading, with emergency.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, with emergency, 7-0. 

 

G.        ORDINANCE 2005-15, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $980,000 OF NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COSTS OF ACQUIRING AND CONSTRUCTING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS SYSTEM OF THE CITY, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND IMMEDIATE NECESSITY SO THAT NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO FINANCE SUCH IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE RENEWED IN A TIMELY MANNER, AND THE ORDERLY FINANCING OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE PROVIDED FOR,” First Reading, Riggs.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Mrs. Riggs stated these are the final renewal notes for the consolidation.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Mrs. Riggs moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Suspension of Rules passed, 7-0.  Second Reading.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wright seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Third Reading, with emergency.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wright seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. O’Brien, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, with emergency, 7-0. 

 

H.        ORDINANCE 2005-09, “AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE 2004-57 TO CLARIFY THE VACATING OF A PORTION OF THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO COURTRIGHT DRIVE,” First Reading, O’Brien.  (TABLED)  Mr. O’Brien moved to remove from the table; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  First Reading.  Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mr. O’Brien stated this legislation is for clarification purposes on vacating a portion of the road right-of-way.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

I.          ORDINANCE 2005-01 (AS AMENDED), “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT SETTLING CLAIMS ARISING FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. 03CVH11-12173,” Second Reading, Mayor Shaver.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this settlement has been a work in progress for the past six months, and each Council member must decide for themselves if the agreement is in the best interest of Pickerington and the taxpayers.  He stated in his opinion the two lots per acre initiative and the one year housing moratorium were not mistakes.  He stated if the current settlement is passed and approved by the Judge, the City will retain its right to impose growth controls in the future, and the two lots per acre will remain in effect for all future development within the City.  Mr. Hackworth stated growth is very costly for the taxpayers in any community where growth is occurring.  He stated he has seen no studies that ever find the cost of the community services are less than the community collects in taxes.  Mr. Hackworth stated even if the settlement is approved, the problems will still remain and it will not end the long struggle.  Mr. Wright stated he did not feel the City was any further ahead than it would have been if we had done the Community Authority.  He stated he felt it would be best for the City to settle this lawsuit and we need to move forward.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker and Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

J.          ORDINANCE 2005-02 (AS AMENDED), “AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 1442.04 OF THE PICKERINGTON CODIFIED ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO BUILDING PERMIT TRANSFERS,” Second Reading, Mayor Shaver. Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Mr. O’Brien stated he had planned to ask the citizens to request a copy of the settlement, study it, and come in and ask questions.  He continued he had been advised by legal counsel and asked not to do that.  Mr. O’Brien stated he felt we still need time for the citizens to digest the information and ask questions.  Mayor Shaver stated if any Council Member would like to schedule a work session, please contact the City Manager and that can be arranged.  Mayor Shaver further stated Items I through N would be referred back to Service Committee and that would afford the public one additional opportunity to make comments.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

K.        ORDINANCE 2005-03 (AS AMENDED), “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TOLL DATES APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN APPROVED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS,” Second Reading, Mayor Shaver.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Parker abstaining, and Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

L.         ORDINANCE 2005-04 (AS AMENDED), “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF BUILDING PERMITS,” Second Reading, Mayor Shaver.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mayor Shaver stated the proposed litigation does not impose any restrictions that were not otherwise imposed by law on the ability of the citizens and the community to restrict growth.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.

 

M.        ORDINANCE 2005-05, “AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE FINAL PLAT FOR PHASE 2 OF THE MARONDA GEORGES CREEK SUBDIVISION,” Second Reading, Mayor Shaver.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker and Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

N.        ORDINANCE 2005-06 (AS AMENDED), “AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING SHAWNEE CROSSING SUBDIVISION PHASE I PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 1258.31, Second Reading, Mayor Shaver.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

Mayor Shaver stated again, Agenda Items 8.I through N. would be referred to Service Committee for further discussion prior to the third reading. 

 

O.        ORDINANCE 2005-07, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH STILSON CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, FOR THE POSITION OF PICKERINGTON CITY ENGINEER,” Second Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

P.         ORDINANCE 2005-08, “AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT A DEED OF LAND FROM CENTEX HOMES,” Second Reading, Riggs.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Wright seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski abstaining, and Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

Q.        ORDINANCE 2004-94, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF LANCASTER FOR THE PROVISION OF PROSECUTION SERVICES FOR PICKERINGTON MISDEMEANOR CASES IN LANCASTER MUNICIPAL COURT,” Second Reading, Wisniewski.  (TABLED)

 

R.         ORDINANCE 2004-95, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF LANCASTER FOR THE PROVISION OF PROSECUTION SERVICES FOR PICKERINGTON’S MAYOR’S COURT,” Second Reading, Wisniewski.  (TABLED)

 

9.         LEGISLATIVE READINGS:

 

A.        ORDINANCE 2004-80 (AS AMENDED), “AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF 77.86+/- ACRES, LOCATED AT 8110 REFUGEE ROAD, FROM AG (RURAL DISTRICT) TO C2 (CENTRAL BUSINESS/MIXED USE DISTRICT) AND PR10 (PLANNED CONDOMINIUM/APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) FOR SYCAMORE CREEK COMMUNITY CHURCH,” Third Reading, Parker.  (TABLED)

 

 

10.       MOTIONS:  

 

A.        MOTION FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER SECTION 121.22(G)(3), CONFERENCE WITH LAW DIRECTOR REGARDING PENDING OR IMMINENT COURT ACTION.  Mayor Shaver stated prior to this motion, he understood Councilman Sabatino would like to make a motion under other business. 

 

11.       OTHER BUSINESS:   Mr. Sabatino moved to place before the voters of the City of Pickerington at the earliest possible election the following question:  “Shall the City of Pickerington acknowledge the concerns of over 500 registered voters which were certified by the Fairfield County Board of Elections who signed a Referendum petition referencing a portion of the Diley Road widening project and consider additional options for widening Diley Road from the northern terminus that is just south of the intersection with Windmiller Drive to the southern end of the project at Busey Road;” Mr. Wright seconded the motion.  Mayor Shaver stated all this motion did was to place before the voters a proposed ordinance that we should acknowledge their concerns, it had no effect on Diley Road whatsoever.  Mayor Shaver stated as worded this did nothing.  Mr. Sabatino stated it did state “consider additional options for widening Diley Road” and Mayor Shaver stated he did not know what that meant.  Mayor Shaver stated he was only pointing out language defects, not speaking to the substance.  Mr. Wright stated what Mayor Shaver was indicating was that there had to be some action that you are placing, a, for the lack of a better word, a moratorium on the Diley Road improvements until such time that the electorate can present their concerns and have a say in the direction and development of Diley Road.  Mayor Shaver stated council has legal counsel at their disposal, and he would suggest before Mr.Sabatino placed an ordinance on the agenda, he consult the law director and have them draft an ordinance.  Mayor Shaver continued as this is worded it does nothing but state we should acknowledge concerns.  Mr. Sabatino stated his concern is that he would like to get this done so it can go on the May Primary ballot.  Mr. Wright ascertained the law director, Mr. Hartmann, had an understanding of what Mr. Sabatino was trying to accomplish.  Mr. Hartmann stated he thought he did, however, there are certain requirements he would have to look at to make sure it complies.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to know why Mr. Sabatino was opposed to this part of the project, and Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the reason the City gave for not allowing the people to vote was that this was one in a succession of ordinances.  Mr. Sabatino stated the first ordinance was in 1997, and that dealt with placing Diley Road on a Transportation Improvement Plan, stating it may be five lanes at some point in time.  Mr. Sabatino stated the first public hearing on this project was not until April of 2004.  Mr. Sabatino stated he did not recall if he had supported the referendum petition for the wastewater treatment plant.  Mr. Wisniewski further clarified that Mr. Sabatino did not oppose the S.R. 256 widening, which cut through 19 properties, and was the first phase of this project.  Mr. Sabatino stated he has concerns with the way that turned out.  Mr. Sabatino responded to Mr. Wisniewski that at the time he voted for the realignment phase he did not know how many people would be impacted.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not know how it was okay to vote on that and on the 256 widening, but it was not okay to vote on this.  Mr. Sabatino stated the people did not do a referendum until just now and he did not feel Council should ignore their concerns.  Mr. Sabatino further stated how he voted on other issues must not have been a concern to the people.  Mr. Wisniewski stated there is a list of ordinances from 2003 and on that have been passed in relation to Diley Road.  He continued Council has passed numerous ordinances and spent $2,000,000 of the taxpayer’s money just on the S.R. 256 widening.  He stated he would not go forward and try and terminate a project that puts certain people above other people in the City, and he would never have voted for this project were not all phases going to go forward.  He stated it would be a waste of money to do 256 if we were not going to do the rest of it.  Mr. Wisniewski further questioned if Mr. Sabatino had any conflicts of interest on this project since his step-daughter backs up to Diley Road and his mother lives on Diley Road.  Mr. Sabatino stated that was correct, however, he did not see that as a conflict of interest.  Mr. O’Brien stated they were very clear in the ethics training that that would be a conflict of interest.  Mr. Sabatino stated he has never been advised by the previous legal counsel, the current City Manger, the Acting City Manager, or the Mayor that there might be a conflict, and he did not feel the fact that his mother lives there and would have her driveway reduced would create a conflict of interest for him.  Mr. O’Brien stated it was the elected official’s responsibility to identify potential conflicts of interest.  Mr. Sabatino stated again he did not see it as a conflict of interest.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not see how Mr. Sabatino could vote for doing a five lane road in front of 19 people’s homes and then come up and try and scuttle the rest of the project which is doing the same thing to other people.  Mr. Wisniewski stated this was all part of the same project.  Mr. Sabatino stated S.R. 256 is a state route, not a rural country road like Diley Road, and when you live on a state route you would have some expectations that it might get expanded at some point in time.  Mr. Sabatino further stated he was not aware that the people who live on 256 would be impacted as severely as they were.  Mr. Parker stated he felt Mr. Sabatino should take the Mayor’s advice, get together with legal counsel, draft an ordinance that would be a clear cut, yes, no, three lanes, five lanes, and there is time to hold special meetings to vote on it.  Mr. Parker continued that hopefully it can be voted on it one meeting, or it may be killed in one meeting, but he would like to see something in an ordinance form so it can be voted on.  Mr. Parker stated this is an opportunity for the motion and second to be withdrawn so Council doesn’t have to vote on it as it is this evening.  Mr. O’Brien stated Mr. Sabatino had stated he didn’t like the fact that the decision was made that the petition was not valid because it was not against the first ordinance of the project.  Mr. O’Brien stated Council had the same decision on a petition for the sewer plant, and Mr. Sabatino did not have the same opinion then, he did not defend the petitioner’s rights to put it on the ballot.  Mr. Sabatino stated those were two completely separate issues.  Mr. O’Brien stated Mr. Sabatino was right, they were not the same, because the sewer plant involved debt and this doesn’t.  Mr. O’Brien stated he would like to call the question.  Mayor Shaver stated should this ordinance fail, that did not prevent Mr. Sabatino from submitting other ordinances.  Roll call was taken on the motion as presented by Mr. Sabatino with Mr. Parker abstaining, and Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Nay,” and Mr. Wright and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion failed, 4-2. 

 

Mr. Hackworth moved for an executive session under Section 121.22(G)(3), Conference with the Law Director regarding pending or imminent court action; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

Council went into Executive Session at 9:40 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 11:04 P.M. 

 

12.       ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. O’Brien moved to adjourn; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wisniewski voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 6-0.  The meeting adjourned at 11:05 P.M., February 1, 2005.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

 

 

__________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________

David Shaver, Mayor