Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/1986 " ... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Alinutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held ... __Aprill4:,.Jn9.t\t> 19_ ",..... The special meeting of the Dublin Village Council was called to order by Mayor Michael L. Close at 8:00 P.M. on Monday, April 14, 1986. ,--,. Mr. Thornton led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of Council present were: Mr. Amorose, Mayor Close, Mr. Jankowski, Ms. Maurer, Mr. Rozanski, Mr. Sutphen, and Mr. Thornton. Mr. Smith, Law Director, was absent. Mr. Sheldon, Village Manager, was present as were Mr. Bowman, Ms. Prushing, and Mr. Warner of the Village Staff. Ordinance No. 24-86 - Renewal of Avery Park Land Purchase Note Prior to reading the title of the Ordinance the Clerk noted that the Finance Director had certified that the estimated life of the project is at least five years; the maximum maturity of bonds is 30 years; and the maximum maturity of the notes is 2001. Mr. Amorose introduced the Ordinance. ,..... Mr. Greg Stype, bond counsel, said that there needs to be amendments in Sections 3 and 6. Section 3. The Huntington National Bank has agreed to purchase the notes at the interest rate of 4.77% before and after maturity. In Section 3 in the first blank space the words "four and seventy seven one hundredths needs to be filled in; in the next blank 4.77%; and then spelling out in writing four and seventy seven one hundredths in the following two blanks. ~ Mr. Stype said that the Huntington National Bank bid not only an interest rate but that they bid a premium of $25.00 for the note which is $25.00 extran dollars for the Village. In Section 6.- in addition to filling in the blank by indicating that it would be the Huntington National Bank, Columbus, Ohio as the purchaser. It would also need to reflect the premium by striking out the following phrase after the word Ohio ...at not less than par value... and inserting in lieu of that phrase...with a premium of $25.00...and then retaining the balance of the sentence as written. Mr. Sutphen moved to insert the 4.77% and also indicate the Huntington National Bank of Columbus at a premium of $25.00. Mr. Amorose seconded the motion. The vote on the amendments was unanimous in favor. "".... f w .... Mayor Close asked for a motion to do away with the three time reading rule and treat as an emergency. Mr. Amorose so moved. Mr. Thornton seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Prushing explained that the Ordinance was for a renewal note issue for Avery park land acquisition of 53 acres that the Village bought in 198 from Muirfield for $371,500.00. The Village, she said, has retired $50,000.00 in the last several years. Mr. Rozanski commented that no where in the ordinance does it say specifically what the note issue is for - nowhere are the words Avery park land mentioned. Ms. Prushing said that park land acquisition does indicate a general purpose and one does not have to get very specific. It was noted that the Ordinance does not even state park land purchase. Mayor Close said that. one must go back to the original ordinance _ each of the ordinances are required to state with particularity what they are replacing - legally the explanation is that if one goes back to the beginning you get an explanation in the original ordinance and from that point on it is repeated. -- 1., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting 1\J eeting ~ National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held April 14, 1986 .19_ Page Two r- ~ Ms. Prushing said that the information was specified on the agenda as Avery Park land purchase. Ms. Maurer said that she wondered about accountability in the future. Ms. Maurer asked Ms. Prushing if there was any reason to re-consider continuing issuing notes - whether the bond market is such that the Village should consider issuing bonds. Ms. Prushing said that she would recommend paying this particular note off next year since it is more than five years old. When the market is good, it is more logical to conver to bonds, she said. She also said that the expense on the Village's side of an issue is not worth converting to bonds on this particular size. She said that the Village would have too high legal expenses; must advertise in the newspaper for two or three weeks, etc. The vote on approval of the ordinance was unanimous in favor. ,,- Presentation by Mr. Greg Stype - Bond Counsel - Regarding Tax Reform Act. Mr. Stype presented to members of Council a booklet that is to be used as a reference in the future, as the Dublin Village Council considers the capital improvements program. Mr. Stype was prepared to present to Council information regarding some of the principle changes proposed with regard to tax reform. He noted that some of those changes are that January 1, 1986 is the effective date of the legislation pending before Congress, and contrary to Ohio law and the Ohio Constitution (where our state legislature could not pass a law next November and have an effective date of January 1, 1986) the Congress, at least in the field of tax law, is permitted to enact retroactive legislation. He said that to the extent that these provisions are before Congress without modification, all issuers of bonds and notes are presently operating as if these provisions were law. Mr. Stype described three areas that are covered in the initial memorandum to give the Dublin Village Council a sense of tax reform. Those areas being as follows: ~ 1. There is a basic distinction in the new Federal legislation that has not existed previously in Federal law to this point - that is the distinction between what is called a non-essential function bond and what is called an essential function bond. ..... The basic distinction, he said, is that a non-essential function bond is something that Congress does not favor because it is defined as a debt obligation where 5% of the proceeds will be loaned to, or 10% of the proceeds will be used on a project that benefits a private firm or non-profit organization rather than the qualified govern- mental unit that is issuing the bonds. He noted that the classic example of that kind of benefit is the issuance of lndustrail Development Revenue Bonds - and said that if Council approves the issuance of an industrial development revenue bond, 100% of the proceeds are loaned to a private firm. He indicate that that is clearly a non-essential function bond, but that this is a much tighter, narrower definition. For an industrial development revenue bond to exist, 25% of the proceeds must be used to benefit a private individual. Under this law if merely 5% of the proceeds are used to benefit or loaned to a private individual, then one is in the non-essential function bond category and Council would have to comply with all of the requirements that they normally go through with for industrial development revenue bonds to preserve the tax exemption on their ...... . I I .. ' Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ AJeeting National Graphics Corp.. Cols.. O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held April 14, 1986 19_ [ r- , ~ ~ r .... Page Three own debt. He mentioned a classic example - the park land notes just voted upon. If the Village were to issue notes to put in a park pavilion, knowing at the time that the Village intended to have the park pavilion run by a concession under which the Village would bring in a private firm to run a refresment stand - then, if the concession stand represented 5% or more of the proceeds of the bond issue there would be a possibility that that bond issue would be deemed a non-essential function bond issue. 2. Expenditures' Rules. Mr. Stype said that there are two rules in the bill which people in Congress have indicated are designed to prevent the Village from issuing more bonds that the Village needs to issue, sooner that the Village needs to issue them. For example, he said, if the Village were to issue a new park land note today, the Village would have to, within thiry days, spend 5% of the proceeds of the note and within three years spend 100% of the proceeds of the note. Current law rules say that at the time a note is issued one must expect to, within six months, enter into a contract under which one would be bound to spend 2~% of the proceeds of the note and one must expect at the end of three years to have spent 85% of the proceeds of the note. Mr. Stype said that he would emphasize the word "expect" because it is a critical difference. Current law is based upon the reasonable expectations of Council and the Director of Finance at the time notes are issued. The proposed bill before Congress does not care what the reasonable expectations are. The bills says that if you (Village) does not abide by these rules that the interest on the loans becomes taxable under Federal Tax Law. The fact there there is this uncertainty and that we no longer can rely upon a certification as to reasonable expectations as obviously caused the market since January 1, 1986 to become "nervous" and people are looking very closely at note and bond issues that are going into the marketplace and seeking further assurances that people people have carefully studied their expenditure patterns and that they truly can live up to these standards because, contrary to the past, if you do not live up to the standards, the interest on the notes or the bonds that they are purchasing could become taxable. The 5% requirement has been a problem in Ohio. It has been an even greater problem in some other states, but in the case of Ohio, the Director of Finance must certify at the time a contract is entered into that the funds are on hand or in the process of collection to support the contract. The Village Finance Director cannot sign that certification until notes have been sold. If the Finance Director signs the certifica- tion when notes have been sold, it is unlikely that under most construction contracts or even land acquisition situations that one can, in the normal routine of things, payout 5% of the note or bond proceeds within 30 days. This has been a problem that people have tried to deal with in Ohio. Congress has granted some temporary relief on the subject. In Ohio there is, at least, the possibility at some point of dealing with it by changing Ohio law, but other states have a provision in thier State Consitution. A number of cities and states had to withdraw bond sales after January 1 because someone took a look at the pending Federal tax law and discovered that there was no way that they could comply. They were selling bonds that they were offering as tax exempt, which probably would end up being taxable under the pending rules if the bill were to be passed in its current form. Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp.. Cols.. O. Form No. 1097..... Held April 14, 1986 .19. A rebate requirement which says that if at the end of six months the Village has not spent all of the proceeds of the notes or bonds issued, and if the Director of Finance has been doing her job and aggressively investing same, so that the notes and bonds have been earning money at a higher interest rate than the interest rate being paid on the notes or bonds, the Finance Director must calculate the difference and pay that amount to the Federal Government. The rebate requirement currently exists for Industrial Development Revenue Bonds but this bill proposes to impose that rebate requirement on fewer public purpose bonds for the first time. Though some of the requirements have been weakened a bit in Senate consideration, there is some evidence that some of these may "go away". One of the reasons people seem comfortable in giving away some of these requirements in the Senate is because the rebate requirement remains, and they feel that if they do not prevent you from issuing bonds too early, or if they do not "catch you in some of these other rules"; if you make money by aggressively investing proceeds in safe investments, and thereby serving your public, as a matter of State law the Congress nevertheless has said that they are going to take some of that money back. What would be given back is the difference between the interest rate - the difference between the interest rate on the bonds or notes and the amount and the interest rate on the investment. For example - if the bonds bear an interest rate of 6%, the investment bears an interest rate of 8%; the Village gives back 2%. He noted that the Village gets nothing positive out of an investment program with respect to bonds or notes if all of the proceeds are not spent within six months. There was no rebate requirement with respect to public purpose or essential function bonds or notes. The rebate requirement only applied to Industrial Development Revenue Bonds where it was not the Village's money that was being rebated. It was instead the money of the firm that benefitted from the Industrial Development Revenue Bond issue. The other thing is that Industrial Development Revenue Bond borrowers have an ability to cope with this require- ment because what they ordinarily do if they want to avoid the counting complexities of rebates is that they go out and get the project induced, get a bank loan to build the project, once they know the final cost, and then come to the Village and ask them to approve a bond issue in that amount. All of their proceeds are spent within six months because they know the final cost of the project. If the Village has to borrow money to finance public projects, they do not have an ability to go to a local bank and do same by any means except with the bonds or notes that are being discussed that are subject to the rebate requirement. Page Four r ~ 3. ,.... g .i \...- r t ..... There are some change$ with respect to arbitrage, which is the Director of Finance performing her function and aggressively investing the Village's idle funds and making as much off of them as possible. There are two requirements _ A. -- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097..... HelduApril 14.,. 1986u 19u Page Five ",... I '-" Another thing in the area of arbitrage that the proposed legislation does that complicates things a little bit is that it imposes what are called temporary periods. These are the periods of time during which one can aggressively invest and earn an unrestricted return on the investment of bond and note procceds, and no one will come back and put a limitation on that investment. Under current law, one has three years in which to aggressively invest bond and note proceeds. The bill dramatically changes that - if you are acquiring property, be it personal property or realy property, but if it is an acquisition, one has 30 days in which to invest funds at an unrestricted yield designated for that purpose. If the 30 days go by, then what one is supposed to do is to put those funds into what is called a yield restricted investment, which is a complicated process ordinarily done by purchasing a special category of the United States Treasury obligations from the United States Government. That has been the experience with respect to refunding issues where this concept has come up in the past. If, on the other hand, one is not spending money for acquisition, one is spending it for construction - again the current law is three years of unrestricted investment. Under the bill, they impose a choice of four possible time periods, whichever one happens to be the shortest, is the period under which one can have unrestricted investment, and that is when the project is substantially complete, or three years from the date of issue or three years from the commencement of the project which may not be the date of issue. The point being - a complication of the process of investing - if one has a bond issue to acquire land for and build city hall, furnish city hall, one of the steps that one has to go through is that one has to carefully designate how much of that three million dollars is for buying land, how much is for building the building, and how much is for acquiring furnishings and equipment for the building. There being some question about what is acquisition and what is construction. The Senate seems to be taking the view that some of these particularly complex rules are not necessary, but again the one thing that has remained constant in the Senate package as well as the bill passed by the House of Representatives in December, is that this rebate requirement is always lurking in the backgroun. To be emphasized - all of these rules are compliance rules _ they tend not to be based on reasonable expectations' tests which are the tests of current law and it has raised a deal of uncertainty into the marketplace which requires people who buy the bonds or notes that they are going to be required them to offer their customers a higher interest rate. Interest rates are probably at a nine year low right now. If one cannot get into the market right now, it is probably because of the pending Federal tax legislation. Mr. SType noted that small Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (such as those passed by the Village of Dublin) under the House passed bill are "here to stay". However, he noted, under the current law small IDBs as used for office buildings and other buildings are repealed at the end of this year with respect to non-manufacturing facilities and as of the end of 1988 with respect to manufacturing facilities. He noted that that is one area in which the house- passed bill is more lenient than current law in that it extends the authorization - the problem is that it proposes even more stringent volume caps. ".... \.... ....... Ii .... -- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097..... Held April 14, 1986 19 Page Six ,.... ...... With respect to the Village's Capital Improvements, Mr. Stype said that he though that the principle question, given a buidelin, said that he would look down that list and ask if there are any projects on the list which involve cooperative arrangements between the Village and private firms or individuals or that can be said to benefit a discreet private ~irm or individual. Discussion of Poroposed Capital Improvement Program for 1986. ,..... Mayor Close noted that the 1986 proposals for capital improvements fell into five categories - signalization, water, streets, maintenance, parks and recreation. A. Signalization. Under signalization there were four recommendations, all of which the Village Manager in his memorandum of April 9, 1986 recommended approval. Ms. Maurer said that she wondered what the traffic studies recommende3 _ whether they recommended lights at both those places or whether they recommended simply a continuous right hand turn lane. Mr. Warner said that he was not aware of any traffic studies being done on Frantz Road. He said that the spaceing should be adequate; that there is an adequate distance between Bridge Street and Metro Place North. \.... Mayor Close commented that if Council approves the capital improvements program, and then this request comes back ultimately for appropriation and bid, then it would be pretty close to the time that the bridge is finished before the lights are even operational. Responding to a question from Mr. Amorose, Mr. Warner said that and the signalization work would include striping for the signal. Mr. Thornton said that with regard to the Corbin's Mill signalization that he requested that the engineering firm that did the study also include the feasibility of a connector between Monterey Drive and Corbin's Mill. He indicated that that was not recommended by the engineering firm. ..... Mr. Sheldon reported that when the Frantz Road study was done that there was some verbiage in the study that shortly after it was in place that the Village had to consider some traffic signalization. Ms. Maurer reported that in discussions with the Land Use Planning Committee and the Public Service Committee that there was some question as to whether or not it was going to be feasible to obtain the right-of-way on West Dublin-Granville Road fo~ the length that it would be needed because of the type of homes and businesses that were there. Mayor Close said that with reference to the memorandum from Mr. Sheldon that all Council is agreeing to is that the Village will pursue those rights-of-way, and if the Village can obtain those rights-of-way, do what they intend to do for an expenditure of no more than $20,000.00. The Village will then proceed to do so. He noted that at this point the Village is saying that it is committing, in principle, that in the event the feasibility is determined, that it will commit that amount of money for the acquisition. r -- ~ Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held April 14, 1986 19. r :, ......., ...... 1 ~ \..... r- ... Page Seven Mr. Sutphen said that he had been approached by a number of citizens regarding the possibility of street lighting along Frantz Road. Mr. Rozanski noted that if one is traveling south on Frantz Road it is virtually impossible to read any street signs due to the fact that one has to look across the boulevard. Mayor Close suggested that the Village might do as Columbus has done and go to the large reflectorized signs that have more night- time visibility. B. Water. Under water the only item listed was the Post/Coffman Road loop which has already been approve (April 7, 1986) at a bid price of $59,512.00. C. Streets. Mayor Close noted that there were six original proposals from staff of which three have been recommended by the Village Manager - the Muirfield Drive extension - the planning for Tuller Road widening at a cost of $50,000.00 - Frantz Road Boulevard landscaping at a cost of $13,000.00. Ms. Maurer said that she though that discussion regarding the Frantz Road median focused on having a study done, not just on the median, but to see how to expedite the traffic that goes in and out of the shopping center and how to use Corbin's Mill. She mentioned the discussions regarding the difficulty of turning left from Frantz Road into the shopping center. Mr. Warner said that the reason he included the Frantz Road median on the list, noting that initially Frantz Road was envisioned with a no left turn into the shopping center. He said that he re-striped that area when he cam to Dublin because traffic was already backed up southbound far enough that they could not make a left hand turn into the shopping center. When re-striping, he had to take away some of the left turn lanes away. Mr. Warner said that he would be proposing a concrete median on Frantz Road in that area (about 8" above the pavement) at a cost of approximately $20,000.00. Mr. Rozanski said that he had a concern about the concrete median _ deterioiration with regard to sale, freezing, thawing, etc. Mayor Close suggested that as an alternative that perhaps for a 30 day period, or so, the Village could put in traffic cones, post a no left turn, and see what happens with regard to the traffic flow. Mr. Warner said that that cannot be done until the bridge is opened. Mayor Close said that he felt that at virtually no cost to the Village that it can be tried for a period of time and subsequently evaluated - perhaps being better than a $20,000.00 guess. Mr. Bowman said that he thought that it might be wise to look at the whole intersection, and that it may be that the Village would be examining the possibility of additional lanes on Frantz Road (probably on the west side). Mr. Rozanski asked Mr. Warner if perhaps it would help if, when one made that turn south onto Frantz Road that curbing might be set up. Mr. Bowman said that problems are developing with the turn arrows. There is a continuous right turn eastbound to southbound but then there is also a signal phase that allows left turns from westbound to southbound and that seems to be a problem. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1"1 inutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp.. Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held .nApri114.,-L986__ 19. Page Eight r- I I-.. Mr. Amorose commented that he felt that there probably would be a number of protests from the merchants if this were attempted. Mr. Bowman said that with the light at Corbin's Mill and the light at Metro Center that traffic patterns can shift. Mayor Close asked about the possibility of putting a U-turn light at one of those places. Mayor Close also asked whether the median project was something that the Village would want to do this year or would it be something in the context of the additional signalization, with a recommenda- tion to be done in a subsequent year. Ms. Maurer said that she felt that it would be worthwhile to spend the money this year to do a traffic study to come up with alternatives, proposing to do a study of the area. Mr. Sheldon said that he felt that $500.00 would be the maximum for the cost of such a study. Mayor Close said that he felt that such a study should be done. Regarding the Muirfield Drive Extension. Mr. Jankowski had a question regarding same - asking how much money there was to complete same before getting to the northern boundary of Indian Run Meadow. Mayor Close commented that if the Village puts in half of what remains, the Village would be doing about what was agreed to in total cost for the project. It was noted that this project was important for the schools also. Frantz Road Boulevard Landscaping. Mr. Rozanski noted that the area was very visible to the public and said that he felt that $13,000.00 was not an adequate amount of money to spend on the project. Mr. Amorose noted that the $13,000.00 would buy 60 to 70 shade trees of 2~" to 3" in diameter and recommended a planting spacing of approximately 30 feet. It was noted that it is approximately 5,000 feet from S.R. 161 to Rings Road along Frantz Road. Mayor Close commented that he felt that Mr. Warner had gotten a consensus that the Village was willing to spend more than $13,000.00 for the boulevard landscaping along Frantz Road. It was noted that Buck & Sons had prepared a landscaping plan for Frantz Road. ...... '-- Mr. Rozanski recommended that the signalization be completed before the landscaping be put in. ,..... ( D. Maintenance .... The Manager's recommendation was that the Village does nothing in 1986 regarding a new maintenance facility until more information has been obtained and studied regarding same. Mr. Sutphen suggested that something be done before land values increase to such an extend that the land becomes too expensive to purchase. Mr. Sheldon commented that he knew from talking to some of the committee people that they are considering some land that is presentl outside of the Dublin corporate limits. He said that said land will probably be annexed into the Village. $60,000.00 was the amount suggested in Mr. Sheldon's memorandum for the purchase of said land. -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp.. Cols., O. Form No, 1097 ~ Held -.April---14yl9-86-- 19 Page Nine ",.... ! ~ Mr. Amorose said that he though that the Maintenance Department would probably need 8 to 10 acres to operate a facility. Mr. Rozanski reported that Mr. Johnson, Maintenance Superintendent, s requesting a site of approximately 10 acres for the facility. He also said that the present facility is being used to capacity. He also noted that the water tower is being used to store equipment. Mr. Amorose agreed that a 10 acre site would be the minimum required. Mayor Close said that he agreed with Mr. Sheldon that without any major utilities to a site, there would not be a significant increase to the land value. Mr. Rozanski said that he felt that getting an option on a site would be advantageous. fII"""'l E. Parks and Recreation Mayor Close reported that there was an amended request by the Parks and Recreation Department that the request for $78,000.00 has deleted a request for a number of items, those particular related to the development of Avery Park. Mr. Bill Andrews, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Committee, was present to discuss why there were some deletions regarding requests for Avery Park. Mr. Andrews said that the reason that they deleted some items as related to Avery Park was that they felt that in was not possible that some of the projects could be implemented during 1986. He indicated that there had been a delay in construction last fall due to heavy rains. He said that the fields still need to be planted and that it will take the 1986 growing season to get them "going". He also said that the Committee felt that it would be more appropriate to pave the parking lots next spring. Mayor Close said that he had had some complaints about the grading that is going on in the new portion of Avery Park - adversely affecting the runoff onto the old fields. Mr. Warner said that that situation is being studied at the present time. '-"" Mr. Sheldon reported that Ms. Jordan does have a concer - suggesting that Council take action as soon as possible regarding the Maranantha land purchase. Mayor Close presented the following points of information: 1. In the ~ear 1985 the Village began the GAne~al Fund with a balance of .e million dollars. At the end of 1985 the Village had just under 1.2 million dollars in the General Fund, and that included approximately $713,000.00 worth of capital improvements - almost equally divided between street improvements, the Scioto Bridge construction, and park improvements. With the tax collections being done by the Village, the Village is anticipating a General Fund revenue this year of $2,763,000.00; projected revenues of 2.8 million. He also indicated that projected revenues from the General Fund already are approximately 2.6 million dollars. He indicated that that figure does include the street improvements which have already been approve in the amount of about a quarter of a million dollars. r- ... 2. ~.'... '. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 ~ Held April 14, 1986 19 Page Ten ".... ...... 3. In essence, he said, being discussed were street improvements of a quarter of a million dollars, plus individual items that come to roughly $640,000.00. The four recommendations under signalization being $252,000.00; the three items under streets, $313,000.00 (plus whatever increase there is as a result in the increased cost for landscaping of Frantz Road Boulevard); parks and recreation being $78,000.00 for a total of General Fund monies being transferrec for capital improvements of $643,000.00. Muirfield Drive extension; a quarter of a million dollars. Tuller Road widening; $50,000.00. Frantz Road Boulevard landscaping; $13,000.00. With regard to the Frantz Road extension item under streets, Mr. Rozanski mentioned that he thought that there had been some discussion regarding the possibility of doing some planning for that particular project. It was noted that there would be a sub total of $353,000.00 for streets, giving a final total of $683,000.00 for recommended improvements. ,.... Mayor Close noted that the Village has an excess of balance of approximately 1.2 million dollars carried over from last year. He said that if the revenue exceeds the expenditures by approximately $200,000.00, the Village would be taking the carryover General Fund balance from 2.2 million (plus the $200,000.00 overage for this year), equaling 2.4 million down to roughly an $800,000.00 carryover projected for the year end 1986. Mayor Close said that he had indicated previously to Mr. Bowman that he prepare an estimate as far as cost of doing a Master Plan for the Village. He further stated that he felt that some of the things that need to be done do not fall within the realm of the corridor studies (bridges, etc.). Mr. Bowman, he said, had prepared a memorandum stating that he estimated that the entire package could be done by a consulting firm for approxi- mately $100,000.00. Mayor Close said that the possibility of this project being done should be considered by members of Council. Mr. Bowman said that a great deal of time would be necessary in the planning of such a master plan and that implementation would probably take at least a year. Ms. Maurer said that she would like to see, before the next Council meeting, a dollar figure to give members some idea of what the Village can do with the landscaping plan on Frantz Road Boulevard. Mayor Close said that it was his intention that, as a result of this meeting, that Council would have: 1. A proposed capital improvements plan to adopt in principle. 2. That Mr. Warner have the bulk of the information on the landscaping so that Council can decide whether they want to consider approving additional monies for the project. 3. That the Maranantha land purchase be on the agenda for the next meeting. Ms. Prushing said that she would have prepared a resolution on the Tax Reform Act for the next Council meeting. '-'" r '-- -~ . . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Village Council Meeting ~ Meeting National Graphics Corp.. Cols., O. Form No, 1097 ~ Held April 14, 1986 19__ Page Eleven ",.... ,.... Mr. Thornton presented an item for discussion - that being related to a piece of property on the west side of Riverside Drive north of the 1-270 overpass. A copy of Mr. Thornton's statement is attached to these minutes. Mr. Sheldon commented as follows: Recently when the situation regarding the "dumping" came up, he had Mr. Warner and Mr. Darragh review the situation. Mr. Sheldon also said that approximately two years ago a landfill plan was developed by the Assistant Law Director, Mr. Gunner, Mr. Thomas, his attorney, Mr. Warner and Mr. Amorose. A landfill plan was devised and accepted and a permit was issued. Mr. Shledon said that he found that the permit had expired on January 17, 1986. Mr. Darragh, on that date, wrote a certified letter to Mr. Thomas informing him that his permit had expired, and that he was to cease operation. Mr. Sheldon said that until a determination can be made whether that landfill plan exceeded those specifications drawn up two years ago, he (Mr. Thomas) was to cease operation. He also noted that the agreement entered into states that the permit can be renewed as long as Mr. Thomas has not exceeded the landfill plan specifications. When that determination is made Mr. Amorose will also be present. Additional discussion followed but no determination was made until such time as Mr. Warner and Mr. Amorose determine if the landfill plan specifications have been exceeded. Mr. Thornton asked Mr. Warner, when investigating the site, to also determine encroachment on the flood plain and in addition examine the waterway to the south property line. I .~ '-- The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Close at 10:02 P.M. r L ~ Mayor - Presiding Officer /J L~~"~ Clerk of Counc' ....,....'