HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/2008RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
September 15, 2008
Held 20
Vice Mayor Boring called the Monday, September 15, 2008 Regular Meeting of Dublin City
Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building.
Present were Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and
Ms. Salay. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher was absent (excused).
Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Readier, Mr. McDaniel,
Chief Epperson, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Earman, Mr. Hahn, Mr.
Thurman, Ms. Hoyle, Ms. Gilger, Mr. Ball, and Ms. Noble-Fading.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Lecklider led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Regular Meeting of September 2, 2008
Mr. Reiner moved approval of the minutes of September 2, 2008.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Mr. Lecklider noted a correction on page 16, third paragraph, where it should state
"assigning this to PRAC."
Vote on the motion to approve the minutes as corrected: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber,
yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
CORRESPONDENCE
• Notice to Legislative Authority -new D51 liquor permit for Wine Loft Columbus LLC
dba The Wine Loft, 4415 W. Dublin-Granville Road. This allows consumption of beer
and liquor consumption on premises until 2:30 a.m. This business is to be located in
the Shoppes at River Ridge
There was no objection to issuance of this permit.
PROCLAMATION
o Constitution Week September 17-23, 2008
Vice Mayor Boring presented a proclamation to Robin Lee Rose, representing the
Columbus Chapter of the Ohio Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution
(DAR) in recognition of the national celebration of Constitution Week. This tradition began
many years ago by the DAR.
Ms. Rose thanked City Council for this recognition on behalf of the Columbus Chapter.
She asked that everyone share this information in an effort to educate all citizens about
the Constitution.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted:
1. Where is there a more dramatic, comprehensive and eloquent exponent
of the Constitution of the United States than at this meeting, unless the
First Amendment has been expunged from it?
2. At the meeting before last, the Mayor asked Council whether they
wanted to reaffirm their motion passed in October 2006 banning a
speaker from discussing a particular issue, or whether Council wanted
to remain silent. Council remained silent in response. He assumes
Council wants to distance themselves from the motion, or by their
silence, wants to "play it be ear."
3. At this point, he had planned to turn to Mr. Smith, but he is not present
tonight. He will address this matter with Mr. Smith at the next meeting,
unless there is some change in the picture priori to that time.
4. He has 331 more topics about which he wants to address Council. He
has an artist friend who carves totem poles. Mr. Maurer has
contemplated posting totem poles at the inner end of the stonework
leading into his driveway. His question is whether that would conflict
with the sign code.
Ms. Brautigam responded that she doubts it would conflict, but staff will
investigate this. Staff would need more information about the colors and any
statements to be included on the posts.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of uuaun Lit c;ouncu n
DAVT N LE AL BLANK INC. FORM NO. 10748
September 15, 2008. Page 2
Held 20
Mr. Maurer noted that they would be colorful, consistent with typical totem
poles, and any statements would be similar to what is typically included on
totem poles.
Ms. Brautigam responded that with additional information provided by Mr.
Maurer, staff can evaluate this.
Agenda Modification
~ Vice Mayor Boring asked Council to consider modifying the agenda to move
the two requests for maintenance from HOAs ahead of the concept plan
review. There are citizens present to testify on the HOA matters.
There was no objection from Council to this agenda modification.
LEGISLATION
SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES
Ordinance 69-08
Amending Section 10 (Personal Leave), Section 11 (Sick Leave), Section 12
(Vacation Leave), Section 13 (Paid Time Off for Employees in Part-Time Permanent
Positions), and Section 15 (Insurance Benefits) of Ordinance No. 73-06
("Compensation Plan") for Non-Union Employees).
Mr. Harding noted there was significant discussion at first reading regarding a provision
requiring a minimum amount of vacation usage. At that time, staff indicated they would
draft some alternate language, which could be substituted into the ordinance tonight. The
two options were provided in a memo to Council last week. Option 1 is somewhat a
condition of employment, requiring that every individual accruing more than 40 hours of
vacation leave must use the 40 hours. For an individual in the first year of employment
who only accrues 40 hours, they would be required to use 20 of that accrual. Option 2
provides that if an individual accrues more than 40 hours of vacation leave per year, they
must take 40 hours of vacation leave. If they fail to do so, the difference between the
amount actually used and 40 hours is deducted from the amount they would otherwise be
able to carry over to the following payroll calendar year. Staff also did some research
about vacation usage during 2007 and found only six employees who did not use the full
amount of 32 hours of personal leave plus 40 hours of vacation leave. Therefore, 97
percent of employees are using their .personal leave and at least 40 hours of vacation
leave. If Council decides to include an option, it should be added in Section 6, Paragraph
A, the vacation accrual section. It would be added under the vacation accrual schedule.
Two other changes are highlighted in the memo:
1. In Section 5, the language should be added, "serving in full-time positions" in
paragraphs F and H as this is applicable only to full-time staff members.
2. With the withdrawal of the Ohio Healthy Families Act from the November general
election ballot, staff proposes that Section 11 be amended to reflect that all of the
amendments would be effective the first pay period in the 2009 payroll calendar
year.
3. In Section 9, in the definitions of family for purposes of taking bereavement leave,
"son-in-law" should be added to the list. It was inadvertently omitted.
Ms. Salay asked about the required vacation leave provision. Would Council consider a
provision for those who may need vacation for future sick leave purposes? Perhaps a
provision could be added for such a dire situation, i.e. cancer treatments extending into
the following year, where an employee could appeal this requirement to the Director of
Human Resources. The Director could then authorize them to save some vacation leave
for that purpose in that circumstance.
Mr. Keenan agreed that it would be desirable to provide this flexibility. Would this appeal
be to the Director of HR or to the City Manager?
Mr. Harding responded that such a hardship provision could be handled by either the City
Manager or the HR Director.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that this provision can be included, but Council would still need
to decide on Option 1 or Option 2, as Mr. Harding has outlined.
Mr. Keenan and Mr. Gerber indicated their support for Option 2.
Mr. Lecklider asked if either of these options is contained in the collective bargaining
agreements with the FOP or the Steelworkers.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin Cit Council Me '
DA YT N LEGAL BLANK INC. FORM NO. 10148
September 15, 2008 Page 3
Held 20
Mr. Harding responded that they are not. This is "new ground" for the City.
Mr. Lecklider commented that he is not certain why the City would impose harsher
requirements on the non-bargaining units than on those for which the City has collective
'
s analysis and findings about
bargaining agreements. Especially in light of Mr. Harding
vacation and personal leave usage at 97 percent citywide, he questions the options about
required vacation leave. He was unaware that employees are required to use the
personal days or lose them. He asked if that is a customary practice in the public sector.
Mr. Harding responded that he has not studied this particular issue thoroughly. To the
point regarding bargaining versus non-bargaining unit, if there is concern about the
fiduciary responsibilities of an individual and taking appropriate vacation time, generally
speaking, the union positions would not have a fiduciary role in the organization. If
Council is seeking a distinction between these groups, this would suffice.
Vice Mayor Boring asked for a motion regarding the vacation usage.
Mr. Keenan moved to adopt Option 2.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan,
yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, no.
Vice Mayor Boring asked for a motion regarding the suggested hardship provision for
accumulating vacation. Would Ms. Salay suggest staff draft appropriate language to effect
this?
Ms. Salay responded that if Council supports the amendment, she is comfortable with staff
drafting appropriate language to effect this.
Mr. Harding noted that staff can draft this provision, based on the intent expressed by
Council tonight.
Ms. Salay moved to amend the ordinance to include a provision to allow employees who
will need extended leave at a future date to appeal with a hardship request to the
appropriate staff -City Manager or Director of Human Resources - in order to have the
minimum mandatory vacation leave usage requirement waived for the period of the
hardship.
',~ Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes;
Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
Vice Mayor Boring asked for a motion regarding the three amendments recommended by
staff.
Mr. Keenan moved to amend the ordinance to include corrections/clarifications
recommended by staff: 1) in Section 5, Paragraphs F and H, to add the language,
"serving in full-time permanent position" following the word "employee" in the first line of
each paragraph; 2) amend Section 11 to make all changes effective the first pay period of
the 2009 payroll calendar year; 3) add "son-in-law" under Section 9(D) -bereavement
leave.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the Ordinance as amended: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider,
yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Mr. Harding noted that in view of these changes, an additional motion is needed to remove
language in Section 6, paragraph H(3) -striking language regarding vacation usage.
Vice Mayor so moved.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan,
yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, no.
Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that on Page 2, Paragraph E, in the block of
"timeframe appointed," in the time segment, June 30 through November 30, shouldn't this
be July 1 through November 30 to be consistent with the other timeframes?
I Mr. Harding agreed that this change should be made. Staff will make this correction.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council M et'n
D AYTON LEGAL NK INC. FORM NO. 10748
September 15, 2008 Page 4
Held 20
Ordinance 70-08
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Lease Agreement with the Dublin
Chamber of Commerce for the City-owned Property at 129 S. High Street.
Ms. Brautigam stated that this was presented to the Chamber Board at their recent
meeting and there were no additional comments. They are pleased this item is moving
forward.
Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road asked about the meaning of the abbreviation, HVAC.
Mr. Keenan responded that it refers to heating, ventilation and air conditioning.
Mr. Keenan noted that on page 5 of the agreement, Item 10, the typical limits for Bodily
Injury and Property Damage are somewhat different than what is contained in this lease.
He would suggest modifying Item 10, Tenant's Insurance, to provide for a policy with
combined $1 million single limit bodily injury and property damage. Secondly, he
suggests modifying Item 10 to require that the companies providing coverage maintain an
A- rating or better.
Ms. Readier stated that she believes these changes would be acceptable to the Chamber.
Mr. Keenan moved to amend the lease agreement as he has outlined.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor
Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
Ms. Salay noted that the lease calls for 20 percent usage of the building by the City and
10 percent for school and community event usage. Does the City formally use the
Chamber building at this point in time?
Ms. Brautigam responded that the ARB has met in this location in the past. She is not
aware of any current meetings scheduled in the Chamber building.
Mr. Keenan noted that at the Committee discussion, it was noted that the facility could be
`~ made available to such groups if requested. Considerable discussion occurred regarding
this lease a year ago.
Ms. Salay stated that she wanted to verify that the building is not currently used on a
regular basis by the City. There was some discussion in the past in regard to Historic
Dublin and the concept of having a City staff member housed in the District who would
serve as liaison between the City and the downtown businesses. Is there space in this
building to accommodate this person if desired?
Ms. Brautigam responded that there is likely not space available, as the Chamber staff
currently fills the building. Such a use would require eliminating a conference room.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan,
yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES
Ordinance 73-08
Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Retaining and
Expanding Careworks of Ohio LLC and Its Operations and Workforce within the City
of Dublin, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement.
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Gilger stated that staff has been working with Careworks for several months
"~ regarding their retention and expansion. They are currently located at 5555 and 5500
Glendon Court. Central Ohio competition was quite substantial for this business. The
majority of buildings Dublin was competing against in other communities were significantly
abated from property taxes. Before Council tonight is the incentive proposal, which
includes: a retention grant for $50,000 recognizing the significant additional space they
will be using in both buildings; a payroll incentive, which is performance based, for five
years; if they attain all their targets, there are capped payments. The City would look to
net $2.3 million over the five-year term. There are also some commitments on behalf of
the City to widen Emerald Parkway and to make improvements at the intersection of
Emerald and Glendon to assist with employees' access to the facility during rush hour.
Representatives of Careworks will be present at the next reading. She offered to respond
to questions.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
September 15, 2008 Page 5
Held 20
Mr. Lecklider asked if the City believes the improvements can be made by December 31
of 2009.
Ms. Gilger responded that these improvements are under design currently, and are
programmed in the 2008 CIP. There is funding in the 2009 CIP for some of the
construction. Therefore, staff believes these can be done by the end of 2009.
Mr. Keenan asked about the retention grant of $50,000 and the timing of the payment.
Ms. Gilger responded that it is tied to execution of the five-year lease extension, including
the additional leased space over what they currently lease in the buildings.
Mr. Keenan asked if there is a claw back provision if they exit following the payment of the
one-time lump sum. There has been recent discussion across the state about how these
agreements are monitored.
Ms. Gilger responded there is not. Typically, signing afive-year lease extension is a
strong commitment on their part. The remainder of the incentive is performance based.
Typically, when a claw back provision is included for a lump sum payment, that is the only
offer on the table.
Mr. Lecklider asked if the City of Columbus competed for this business as well.
Ms. Gilger responded affirmatively -both at Polaris and Easton locations.
Mr. Keenan asked about the reimbursement to CareWorks for traffic management
services. How is that charged from a budgeting perspective?
Ms. Grigsby responded that CareWorks uses special duty officers for these services.
They will pay the invoices and then submit the information to the City for reimbursement,
based upon their actual payments, up to the amount listed in the document.
Mr. Keenan responded that from an accounting perspective, it runs from economic
development expense to reimburse the Police - it does not involve an overtime budget for
Police services.
Ms. Grigsby stated that it will be an economic development expense, shown in their
economic development line item in their budget. It will go to reimburse CareWorks.
CareWorks is paying special duty officers for the services -not the City of Dublin.
Mr. Keenan stated that he wanted to clarify that these costs are not included in the City of
Dublin Police budget.
Ms. Grigsby stated that is correct.
Ms. Salay asked how many employees they currently have in Dublin, and how many do
they plan to add.
Ms. Gilger responded that currently, they have about 600. They are in acquisition mode,
as they have grown from three CareWorks entities to seven over the last several years.
They are looking at further acquisitions. They are committing in their targets to a minimum
of 3 percent growth annually.
Mr. Keenan stated that they are doing rehabilitation work in Ohio for various MCOs. Do
they do work for the private carriers around the Midwest?
Ms. Gilger responded that they do; in fact, they are the largest in that field in the state of
Ohio.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that the representatives can be prepared to speak about these
items at the next hearing.
Ms. Salay asked at what point a decision will be made about this intersection design -
whether it will be a roundabout or signalized.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff will be analyzing that, and is currently working on
consultant selection.
Ms. Salay asked if it would be possible to address the post office access with this
intersection, as the entire area is congested at rush hour.
Ms. Gilger responded that CareWorks would likely be satisfied with either type of
improvement to the traffic situation.
Mr. Hammersmith added that staff is working with the City of Columbus regarding a
scope of services for the RFP, which is now in final form. Part of the scope includes
analyzing this intersection to make that determination, both for this intersection and the
one at Lakehurst to the south. The post ofFce entrance also needs to be accommodated
in any scenario. But it is not a foregone conclusion that a roundabout would be a solution,
as a signal may work equally well, going to flash sequence during off-peak hours.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
September 15, 2008 Page 6
Held 20
Ms. Salay asked for an update on this at the time additional information is available.
There will be a second reading/public hearing at the October 6 Council meeting, and
representatives of CareWorks will be in attendance.
INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 66-08
Accepting the Amounts and Rates as Determined by the Budget Commission,
Authorizing the Necessary Tax Levies and Certifying Them to the County Auditor.
Ms. Salay introduced the resolution.
Ms. Brautigam stated that is a routine matter. A revised version was distributed tonight, as
the Auditor updated it with the corrected version, which identifies parkland acquisition as a
line item.
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he will pass on this item this year. He will
make an appointment with Ms. Grigsby to discuss it.
Vice Mayor Boring asked Ms. Grigsby to provide a summary of the legislation.
Ms. Grigsby stated that this document identifies the inside millage. The City has the ability
to direct those dollars, and as part of the operating budget and tax budget process, can
allocate those dollars between the parkland acquisition fund and the capital improvements
tax fund. There was a levy approved by the voters in 1976 for police operations that
continues indefinitely. There has not been any change in the past several years with
regard to the levies that the City assesses on property taxes of the residents.
Mr. Keenan asked for confirmation that these are the actual rates, and that the effective
rates are significantly less.
Ms. Grigsby responded that for the police levy, the rate is 1.2 mills; for residential it is .19
mills; and for commercial it is .3 mills.
Mr. Keenan noted that as the tax valuation grows, the effective rates decrease.
Ms. Grigsby stated that is correct.
Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor
Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
Resolution 67-08
Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Procurement of Rock Salt and
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Said Commodity.
Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution.
Ms. Brautigam stated that this is the first time the City has used the online reverse auction.
Compared with other communities, the City has received very favorable salt bids.
However, as noted in the report, the bid amounts are higher than last year and therefore
this item exceeds what was budgeted. Staff recommends approval of the bid from Cargill
at $64.75/ton.
Mr. Keenan added this bid is 10 percent below what some other communities have
received recently. The reverse auction has been very effective in this case.
Mr. Gerber noted that he assumes this contemplates an equivalent snow removal service
as that of prior years. The City has no plans to reduce service levels, correct?
Ms. Brautigam responded that is correct. The comment in the staff memo he references
related to the question of whether the City wants to place this amount of salt on the
streets, or does the City want to spend money on other more environmentally sustainable,
yet more expensive treatments. Staff will be discussing this and will provide more
information to Council prior to the budget process.
Ms. Salay stated that she is interested in receiving more information on brining and how
effective it has been for the City. She is also interested in hearing more about "green"
options.
Vice Mayor Boring pointed out that the Mayor has expressed interest in staff's input
regarding general snow removal policies prior to the budget review.
Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms.
Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes.
Resolution 68-08
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
September 15, 2008 Page 7
Held 20
Accepting the Lowest and .Best Bid for the Indian Run Meadows/Post Road
Footbridge and Trail Project.
Ms. Salay introduced the resolution.
Ms. Brautigam stated that a good bid was received for this project, and Mr. Hahn can
respond to questions.
Ms. Salay asked about the general location of the project.
Mr. Hahn responded it involves the Halloran tract. It extends from Indian Run Meadows
Park, crosses the stream, over to Discovery Boulevard.
Vice Mayor Boring asked if the City has done work with this contractor previously.
Mr. Hahn responded that the City has not, but the contractor has worked for Metro Parks
and OSU in similar projects and good references resulted.
Vice Mayor Boring asked if staff had checked the actual work they have done in the area.
Mr. Hahn responded that he did not, but has spoken with his peers at Metro Parks and
OSU.
Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor
Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
Resolution 69-08
Appointing a City Manager for an Interim Period and Authorizing a Temporary Pay
Supplement.
Ms. Salay introduced the resolution.
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that the second "Whereas" refers to the
consultant's estimate of the timeframe for the search as four months. He noticed that
packet materials made reference to Cardinal Health offering services for the search. He
read in the local papers that The Mercer Group has been selected as the search
consultant. Therefore, he assumes that Cardinal Health will have no hand in this search.
Vice Mayor Boring clarified that an HR professional from Cardinal Health had offered
assistance to the City to aid in the review and selection of a professional consultant. A
Cardinal staff member did offer input in the search consultant selection process done by
Council.
Mr. Maurer stated that he believes there is roguery at the center of that cooperation.
Vice Mayor Boring responded that the Cardinal staff member provided very objective input
into the process and recommended that any of the three consultants interviewed were
adequate and qualified to do the work. Council made the decision on the selection.
Mr. Keenan added that the Cardinal staff member had expertise in human resources and
deals with many search firms throughout the world. He appreciates Cardinal's willingness
to lend this assistance to Council.
Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr.
Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
Council Members expressed their appreciation to Ms. Grigsby for her willingness to serve
as interim City Manager.
OTHER
• Amberleigh North Homeowners Association Maintenance Request
Mr. Hahn stated that the Association has requested relief from maintenance responsibility
for Reserve A, as shown on the attachment to the staff report. The basis of their request
is centered on two factors: there are currently three separate entities maintaining a strip of
land that appears as one piece -the City, the Amberleigh HOA, and the Amberleigh North
HOA. Secondly, the land has changed since platting, as it is the location in which the City
constructed a bikepath tunnel, eliminating naturalized trees and adding 141 landscape
trees. The maintenance needs of naturalized trees are significantly less than purchased
and planted trees. Staff recommends approval of their request, based upon the desire to
have a uniform appearance to the land by having a similar mowing schedule, and the fact
that the City did change the maintenance requirements of the Reserve with the bikepath
tunnel changes.
Mr. Keenan indicated he has spoken to some residents about this relatively small area of
maintenance. He is supportive of this request.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
September 15, 2008 Page 8
Held 20
Craig Douglas 8356 Somerset Wav Amberleigh North HOA representative stated that Mr.
Hahn has covered the details, and offered to respond to questions.
Ms. Salay noted that Council had previously made a decision to refer these requests to
CSAC for review and recommendation. In this case, is the land mass small? Will this
merely involve extending the work already done in the area and have little cost impact?
Mr. Hahn responded that in terms of referring it to CSAC, it is not recommended because
CSAC has been assigned the task of reviewing certain aspects. This case is a true
anomaly and stands on its own. Staff does not believe it is a complicated matter and a
decision can be made, based on the factors he has described.
Mr. Reiner commented that because the City contributed to this maintenance burden, he
believes Council should support this request. In terms of consistency in the area, did the
Homeowners Association consider bidding the areas together?
Mr. Douglas responded that there is not much communication with Amberleigh HOA. The
City contract covers many areas, including another portion of their parkland. The area in
question is quite removed from the parkland portion of the Amberleigh North subdivision.
Vice Mayor Boring commented that she supports this request because of the drastic
changes to the area near the bikepath tunnel, and due to the fact that the City already
maintains areas in the vicinity.
Mr. Gerber indicated he supports this request, adding that Mr. Reiner has raised an
interesting idea of combining forces in terms of economy of scale for bids.
Mr. Reiner responded that he is surprised that the groups did not consider a cooperative
effort on this.
Ms. Salay called Council and Planning division's attention to the map. In reviewing what
Amberleigh North, Amberleigh and the City are each responsible for in terms of
maintenance, it does not make sense. In the future, staff should find a more cohesive
approach to this type of maintenance -whether the City or homeowner association
actually does the mowing. It is a planning review item to be considered in future
development.
Mr. Reiner asked if the two homeowners associations have different levels of regulation,
participation and costs.
Mr. Douglas responded that for Amberleigh North, they have a pool, a clubhouse and
common areas to maintain. He assumes each association has different regulations,
amenities and fees assessed for them.
Ms. Salay moved to approve the recommendation of staff -that turf maintenance and
mulching of landscape trees in Reserve A of Amberleigh North be performed by the City.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes;
Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
• Cramer's Crossing Village Condominium Association Maintenance Request
Mr. Hahn stated that the Association has requested relief from some maintenance
responsibilities for the reserve area. This request was based upon a financial hardship
situation. The Association provided details on the cost breakdowns for maintenance of the
reserve. It reflected an issue with the simplified City standard established several years
ago, which uses a benchmark of $100 per household as the threshold. Their cost
breakdown reflects the many potential variables in maintenance, and what could be
considered a legitimate maintenance item for this calculation of costs to maintain a
reserve area. Staff is recommending that any decision on this request be delayed until
CSAC can complete a more comprehensive review of the issues facing associations and
the maintenance items. This would require Council expanding the scope of the task
currently assigned to CSAC, to include this item.
Vice Mayor Boring invited public testimony from the Association members.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
September 15, 2008 Page 9
Held 20.
Ken Thomas, 6285 Hampton Green Place stated that he is accompanied by other
condominium Board Members. The President of the Board was unable to attend tonight.
Their preference is for approval of the request, as the costs have become a burden for the
residents. Some of the maintenance costs are shared with the Cramer's Crossing
homeowners association, and negotiations are underway at this time between the entities.
Approval of this request tonight would assist in the deliberations currently underway with
the two groups. The condo association has been trying to maintain the Reserve H area as
described in the legal documents provided, including the irrigation and other items. They
viewed these items as required elements of the responsibilities for them, which they have
carried out. He offered to respond to questions.
Shirley Vanatta, 6289 Hampton Green Place added that between the homeowners
association and the condo association, there are conflicts which they would like to resolve
in striving for uniformity.
Ms. Salay noted that at the time Council discussed the Cramer's Crossing homeowners
association request, and in particular the ponds, staff indicated that they felt the City
should maintain it as part of the stormwater utility, and not simply as an aesthetic feature.
Mr. Hahn responded that this is a factor to be taken into consideration. Most of the ponds
throughout the City exist for stormwater control. The City should be cautious about
relinquishing responsibility for the stormwater function of these ponds to an association.
Ms. Salay had understood that in follow-up to the Cramer's Crossing homeowners
association discussion, staff would be talking to the condominium association about pond
maintenance.
Mr. Hahn responded that this relates to the comprehensive review by CSAC of what costs
could or should be assigned to the associations. Perhaps CSAC may recommend that
costs associated with stormwater ponds be looked at more as a City cost versus an
Association cost.
Ms. Salay stated that in reviewing the $12,400 of annual maintenance costs for this acre
of land, it seems high. She asked for Mr. Hahn's input.
Mr. Hahn responded that part of the cost breakdown includes repairs. Perhaps this is a
worst case scenario. Utility bills associated with pond aerators are also very expensive.
To obtain the full function of an aerator, they must be operated 24 hours per day; they are
expensive to operate and to maintain. The cost per acre in this case is very high, but the
reserve itself has a large amount of landscape bed. Turf is cheaper to maintain than
landscape bed. It does not appear the Association expanded the beds after receipt from
the developer. Another item to be considered during the development review is what
could well serve the developer during the sales period may not well serve the residents of
the subdivision in the future, as they will have responsibility for maintenance costs. CSAC
has been tasked with the concept of funding for entryway improvements for subdivisions,
and this is yet another factor for consideration.
Ms. Salay noted she is supportive of staff's suggestion to have CSAC review this in view
of the issues involved. The rationale for other areas was that the City should be
maintaining the ponds, so perhaps this could be separated from their request.
Mr. Reiner commented he would prefer that a policy be established, following review and
investigation. Perhaps the developer sets the homeowners fees low for marketing
purposes. The City should take a more aggressive stance in this so that there is no
misrepresentation of what a buyer is purchasing. Perhaps instead of the City taking over
pond maintenance, the City should require a regular inspection of ponds. The ponds are
an aesthetic item which helps in the sale of homes. Secondly, the ponds have a function
in terms of drainage, allowing the builders to have more lots while meeting the City's
stormwater requirements. An item for consideration is the cost of inspections. Many
homeowners association fees are attached to the appraisal for taxes, so they do increase
to cover the electric bills. In this case, the residents are paying an additional $51 per year.
The City needs to review this comprehensively, so that the homeowners understand what
they are purchasing. He is not certain that the City has an obligation to continually take
over these responsibilities from homeowners associations. He recommends a more
comprehensive policy study by CSAC.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
September 15, 2008 Page 10
Held 20.
Vice Mayor Boring noted that in evaluating previous homeowners association requests,
one factor was if the ratio of households per acre was less than 30 to 1. In this case, there
are 64 units and the reserve is only one acre -thus 64/1.
Mr. Hahn responded that this criterion would be well met, as the policy calls for at least 30
units to one acre in terms of a ratio. This group has 64 units. If that were the only criteria
used for giving relief, they would not meet it and thus it would be denied.
Mr. Reiner asked if the association fees are set in perpetuity, or are they raised from time
to time.
Mr. Hahn responded that the fees are raised periodically, based on maintenance costs. In
talking of "standards," the benchmarks were established years ago based on the situation
of the Meadows at Wyndham Village. In that case, the maintenance was for turf and
trees, and there were very few houses sharing the responsibility. In the survey done by
the City, it was determined that if there were at least 30 households supporting the
maintenance costs for one acre, and if the subdivisions surveyed were paying $90-100 at
the time for fees associated with maintenance of the public area, it was not considered a
significant burden. That was a simple case involving turf and trees, and was used as a
basis in evaluating subsequent requests. Since that time, there have many requests
involving multiple variables in the maintenance responsibilities, driving the need for a more
comprehensive look at the entire issue. This would include any necessary changes being
made prior to platting to avoid having this issue occur in the future.
Mr. Reiner agreed, noting that the information learned should be shared with the Planning
department to be considered during the development review process. Further, association
fees should have automatic increases due to the electric utility cost increases alone as
well as maintenance of common areas.
Vice Mayor Boring summarized that the issues raised are:
1. The need for maintenance standards and identifying what items are included in
such maintenance.
2. Potential for cooperation between associations to bid for maintenance services,
thereby having an economy of scale. Perhaps the City could help facilitate this
cooperation.
Mr. Hahn stated that in this case, the developer by design set up two separate
associations, and he believes the two groups decided to share utility costs.
Ms. Salay emphasized that in reviewing the association's expenses, they seem high in
comparison to others. The City does have a municipal interest in the pond maintenance,
as it is part of the City's stormwater utility. In the past, she has been very supportive of
homeowners associations who make improvements and who are seeking relief. However,
situations do arise after the planning and development stage which the neighborhoods can
bring to Council's attention. The turf maintenance season for this year is at the end of the
cycle, which will give CSAC an opportunity to reflect on these issues. Hopefully,
something can be in place by spring, so that the residents will know what to expect going
forward
Ms. Salay moved to refer the request for City maintenance of Reserve H to the
Community Services Advisory Commission for review; that the scope of assignment to
CSAC will include review of appropriate maintenance costs for consideration in
Association requests for relief from City; and that the Cramer's Crossing Condominium
Village association be notified of the hearings.
Mr. Keenan seconded the motion.
Mr. Lecklider asked about the ponds, and whether they are generally maintained by the
City.
Mr. Hahn responded that in most cases, the pond maintenance is done by the City. But
there are other ponds in the City that are maintained by other private entities.
Mr. Lecklider stated that as a matter of policy, then, he does not believe the ponds should
be maintained privately for many reasons. They are designed for the purpose of required
stormwater management, and the costs for an aerator to run 24 hours per day to
effectively maintain the pond should be the responsibility of the City. As he has indicated
in the past, he is hopeful that both the Planning division and the Planning & Zoning
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin
September 15, 2008 Page 11
Commission will pay close attention to these issues during the zoning process, and the
entry features and utilization of product in those features as well. Product not requiring
much maintenance for the future should be used in such features.
Mr. Reiner added that in the planning process, if the City is not charged with taking care of
the ponds, they should be inspected regularly by the City. Secondly, in the planning of
these subdivisions, because of the huge maintenance associated with ponds, the City
should consider earth berming as a barrier between the streets and houses. The use of
ponds should be minimized, due to the complaints about algae problems and the expense
to mitigate them. Regarding the stormwater aspect, either retention or detention basins
can be used. One is an active water basin, and one is not. If they are too costly to
maintain, or will not be maintained, the City should look closely at the preferred way to do
this to mitigate future problems.
Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr.
Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
Vice Mayor Boring asked that Mr. Hahn provide all of the details of this discussion to
CSAC and to the Planning division.
Ms. Salay added for the condo association representatives that the City will be looking at
this in the future and they will be notified of the meeting dates.
Ms. Salay asked if a fall civic association Presidents' meeting is scheduled, as this would
be an appropriate topic.
Ms. Brautigam responded that it is typically held in October; she is not certain that the date
has been set. She will follow up with Community Relations.
• Concept Plan -Stratford at Riverside Drive
Ms. Flading noted that this is a concept plan for a planned unit development. It includes a
mixture of uses, including medical offices, skilled nursing facilities, and a 200-unit
independent living retirement facility. The applicant is seeking feedback from Council on
the proposal.
She noted the following:
o The site is a 45-acre tract of land located on the east side of Riverside Drive, just
south of Tuller Road. It is zoned Community Commercial, which allows for a
mixture of commercial uses. The site currently houses the restaurant Digger &
Finch and the Golf Center of Dublin. The remaining portion of the site is vacant.
o The site is surrounded by office uses to the north; by the Sycamore Ridge
apartment complex to the east; Dublin Village Center to the south; and the
southwestern portion consists of the Historic District.
o The site has considerable topography, with a 40-foot increase in topography on the
site headed easterly.
o The project is to be phased and will be a unified campus, both in terms of land use
and aesthetic components for the site. Staff has described the proposal in three
subareas: Subarea A is proposed for four medical office buildings, two stories in
size, equating to 76,000 square feet located north of a relocated Tuller Road; the
office buildings are to be architecturally sensitive to the Historic District, which lies
in close proximity. The general layout of the site allows parking in the center
portion of the site, with the buildings on the periphery of the parking areas.
o Subarea B is proposed for atwo-story, skilled nursing facility that will equate to
75,000 square feet.
o Subarea C is proposed for an independent living retirement facility containing three
to four story elements, including a parking garage at the lower level. This area will
also include parkland connections to existing parkland located to the east.
o The three phases are intended to create a unified campus, both functionally and
aesthetically. The site plan promotes an interdependent relationship among the
uses.
o This project will provide medical and residential services to the surrounding
community.
o This project will include the realignment of Tuller Road. Currently, there is high
traffic congestion with Tuller Road and Riverside, due to its proximity to Emerald
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
September 15, 2008 Page 12
Held 20
Parkway. This proposal will realign Tuller Road further to the south and allow for a
spatial separation of those two intersections.
o This proposal was presented to P&Z on two separate occasions. The primary
issues discussed were the land use recommendations for the site as well as the
aesthetic components and architectural features.
o The revised architecture for this proposal, as described by the applicants, is an
urban character of 19th and 20th century row houses, with each wing reminiscent of
a Victorian mansion. The exterior materials are caste stone, synthetic stone and
brick, with varying levels of degrees based on the architectural renderings of each
elevation.
o The three end units will have unique features. The interior portions will be the
residential components with a mixture of colors and decorative facade.
o Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal and was generally
supportive of the land use. The Commission did stress the importance of legacy
buildings and encouraged the preservation of natural features to the site. They felt
the architectural was not responsive to the original comments made to the
applicant, and did ask that the architecture be modified to be more conducive to
Dublin's architectural style.
o The Community Plan recommends mixed use, medium density residential for this
area. The primary purpose of this land characteristic is to create walkable and
pedestrian orientation at a village scale, with a maximum density of five units to the
acre. This proposal does use that residential density, however it is closer to the
southern portion of the property. The proposal does continue to have commercial
development north of Tuller Road. In this proposal, with the realignment of Tuller
Road there will be then be commercial development to the north portion of it.
o Most of the discussion related to the Community Plan future land use
recommendations and were centered on the third portion of the site, identified as
Subarea A. Although the future land use recommendations don't include these
office uses in this land use map, staff believes it promotes policies and
recommendations of the Plan, based on the fact that they are recommending
mixed use development proposals for this portion of the City.
o This site is also included in the Sawmill/161 area plan. The primary purpose of this
plan is to develop a mix of office, retail and residential uses that establish a
stronger sense of place and central focus.
o Staff believes this proposal meets the objectives of the area plans by creating a
mix of land uses that complement each other and meet a range of needs in the
immediate community. There has been consideration made to pedestrian traffic,
vehicular movement, and roadway improvements for this part of the application.
o Along with the area plan, staff included some objectives that are specific and
relevant to this project: the green corridor along the river, incorporating greenways
that have residential access to the areas; residential in close proximity to the
Historic District; and pedestrian connectivity.
o As part of this proposal, there are infrastructure improvements -not only specific
to this project, but in the surrounding areas. The first is the extension of Emerald
Parkway further east to connect just north of Bright Road. As part of this project,
there is discussion of relocating Tuller Road just to the south. Another related item
is the study for the intersection of 161 and Riverside Drive. Some potential
alternatives identified in this study, which is currently underway is realigning that
intersection further to the east. Continuing that in a northerly direction opens a
corridor along the river.
o This proposal has been reviewed by the Commission on several occasions. The
primary response to the project has been supportive.
She offered to respond to questions regarding the presentations made to the Commission.
The applicants are present to provide additional information to Council.
Vice Mayor Boring invited the applicants to present.
Ms. Salay commented that this application has been reviewed by the Commission as an
"informal" a couple of times. It is now before Council as an "informal." Does that mean
that Council does not receive a Planning staff report? It seems there is very little provided
by staff, and she does not believe she can evaluate the proposal without the benefit of the
professional analysis from staff. This is a complex project; there are limited renderings
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
September 15, 2008 Page 13
Held 2D
and the site plan is not very detailed. She is not certain that a project of this scale and
magnitude that will change the face of the community to this degree is the appropriate
place for the informal review process. Personally, she would appreciate the professional
planner's expertise in evaluating it. There are complicated issues involving roadway
alignment and the Community Plan recommendations. This land use is one that will be .
exclusive, and there will not be a lot of interaction between this land use and the rest of
the community. She is not certain that is what the City desires for this land. She does not
feel capable of providing meaningful feedback, based on the information provided. Her
input at this point would not be something which could be relied upon for an applicant who
will proceed with investing more in development of this plan.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that she agrees. She asked for input from Council.
Mr. Gerber thanked Ms. Salay for raising this excellent point. As former Chair of P&Z, he
recalls a concept plan that came before the Commission, and it was being reviewed by
Council at the same time. It required a lot of resource from both Council and P&Z to
reconcile the input from the two bodies. This plan is already being reviewed by P&Z. It
should stay with P&Z, and should come to Council once P&Z has thoroughly reviewed it
and worked through the issues with the applicant. What is taking place seems to be
"forum shopping."
Mr. Reiner stated that he agrees with Ms. Salay and Mr. Gerber. He welcomes this kind of
development to the community, but there are many unanswered questions. Much of it
relates to the roadway costs, what the developer's contribution will be, and how much the
taxpayers will be burdened with so that this development can come about. He agrees that
the issues should be handled at P&Z, and it should then be brought forward to Council.
The concept is interesting, and the planned greenspace and parkland is exciting.
However, it is premature to bring to Council and should be handled at the Planning
Department and P&Z before coming to Council.
Mr. Keenan deferred to the other members of Council, as he has not served on the P&Z
Commission. He asked if it is the applicant's discretion to bring the plan to Council as an
informal review at this time.
Mr. Gerber responded that this is permitted. But because P&Z has reviewed the concept
twice and is expecting the applicant to return to them, it makes no sense for Council to
give direction and provide opinions in the midst of the ongoing P&Z review.
Mr. Keenan summarized that it would be preferable to have an unbiased recommendation
from the P&Z prior to the Plan coming to Council. He recalls that the process was
changed in the last couple of years, and currently allows this review.
Ms. Salay agreed that the process has been changed to allow this. However, the
magnitude of this project is overwhelming and she personally feels ill equipped to provide
feedback without having a staff report. She does not believe this plan is ready for Council
to review at this time.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he generally agrees with the concept of what has been proposed,
and he thought this had been communicated previously to the applicant. In view of the
scale of this project, he is curious about what the applicant anticipates in terms of a
response from Council tonight. In advance of this meeting, he would typically expect
much greater detail with respect to elevations, etc. because his expectation is that the
applicant is seeking a positive response regarding the project. He would reserve the right,
however, to change his mind about any input provided tonight regarding information not
provided in advance, based on the opportunity to have further reflection. He feels some
discomfort in reviewing this in light of the information presented. This application should
be thoroughly reviewed by P&Z. He feels the applicant is looking to gain some leverage
by virtue of the comments Council may make tonight. That is not to say that he
necessarily agrees with the comments made in the review by P&Z to date.
Vice Mayor Boring asked Ms. Readler to recommend a course of action.
Ms. Readler stated that she was present at the last informal review by P&Z, and Mr. Hale
did tell them he was bringing the plan to Council, adding that he would bring the plan back
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
September 15, 2008 Page 14
Held 20
to P&Z. If it is Council's preference that the next informal review at P&Z proceed, and that
a staff report be prepared to reflect that before bringing back the concept, she would
recommend a motion to table the item.
Mr. Gerber stated he would support a motion to table this matter. He noted that another
topic for discussion is the informal review of applications now being done by the P&Z
Commission. He believes there is a need for a joint meeting with P&Z to discuss this
process and hear their input.
Mr. Gerber moved to table this application until the P&Z review is completed.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor
Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
Vice Mayor Boring invited Mr. Hale to comment.
Ben Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street, representing the applicant stated that they are not
"forum shopping" in any manner. They have had a good response from P&Z, and they
made good suggestions regarding the initial architecture. Substantial changes have been
made, and P&Z has made more suggestions. When a project of this magnitude is
involved, there are some major policy decisions to be made. One reason they are
bringing the Plan to Council at this point was not to have Council act as a "super planning
commission," but because the applicant will make a substantial investment before getting
to final development plan stage. In discussing this with Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hale
determined it was a good idea to ask this body for input about the concept. In his 39 years
of zoning work, he has worked on several proposals, such as the Muirfield project, which
had along-term impact on Dublin.
Vice Mayor Boring noted that this item has been tabled, and therefore it is not appropriate
to take more testimony. She asked Mr. Hale to quickly sum up his comments.
Mr. Hale noted that this project would change the face of Dublin. In terms of the
downtown, this will bring people to the town. In moving the river road, it will create a
wonderful river park. They wanted to bring the concept to Council to ensure they are on
the right track. This property is currently zoned Community Commercial and has been
zoned that way for 40 years. The layout was done in conjunction with staff, and there are
some major policy issues involved. One of the things he wants to know before spending
$300,000 plus is whether the general big concept is something the Council believes is
viable and is generally a good idea.
Vice Mayor Boring summarized that Council has indicated tonight that they would like the
plan worked on by the P&Z, that Council wants a staff report, and that Council does not
want to "overstep" the boundaries of P&Z. There have not been any comments that the
plan is not a feasible project. She also heard tonight that Council is interested in hearing
about the costs involved for some portions of the project.
There was no further comment.
• Update re ICMA Performance Management Project
Ms. Brautigam noted that this project has been discussed at staff level for a number of
years. She asked Deputy City Manager/Chief of Police Epperson to take this project on
this year, and tonight he will present a report introducing the concept of performance
measurement.
Chief Epperson noted that the packet included a memo, together with a brochure from
ICMA regarding performance management. He shared an overview of the project -its
purpose, why staff is doing this, some examples of information to be collected, and the
implementation timeline.
He noted the following:
o Staff opted to use the program offered by ICMA, as they have an effective
program, which was established in 1994. Currently, there are over 100 cities
participating throughout the country, with populations ranging from 10,000 to over
one million. This project focuses on typical city services delivered in most
communities. The services to be focused on are code enforcement, facilities, fleet
management, highway and road maintenance, refuse and recycling, human
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
September 15, 2008 Page 15
Held 20
resources, parks and recreation, police services, purchasing, risk management
and information technology.
o The overall purpose of the project is to help the City improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the services offered through collection, analysis and application of
performance information.
o ICMA will help collect data in a systematic and objective manner to determine the
efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery and program objectives. They will
provide the measurement of the data.
o Performance management is the job of the leaders of the City - to take that
information and apply it in an integrated way that informs resource allocation,
decision making, to move the organization toward achievement of objectives.
o Benchmarking is the process of comparing our city's performance against that of
other organizations. The plan is to identify within the 100 cities those that are most
similar to Dublin or that Dublin wants to aspire to be like -premier cities throughout
the country.
o The goal is to identify best practices -those techniques, methods or activities
which are more effective than any other at delivering the service.
o In terms of benefits, it will help to accurately and objectively assess performance.
o It will help to identify where there are gaps in services, or where service can be
improved. The best practices shared will help the city to improve in those gap
areas.
o Performance will be tied to the budget process, both in terms of identifying areas
where additional funding should be requested, as well as areas where the city is
not as efficient as it could be.
o It provides a mechanism to track progress continually, evaluating performance
both internally and externally over time.
o It will help increase accountability throughout the organization.
o He shared some samplings of service areas and the data collected for other cities,
pointing out the various areas for which data has been collected.
o He shared the timeline for the project, noting that ICMA will come to Dublin in
November of 2008 to provide training at two different levels: a management
overview and some detailed training to those individuals working with the data.
From December to February, the information to be submitted will be compiled. In
most cases, the information is already available. In March of 2009, the information
will be submitted to the Center for Performance Management. This timeline of
December to March will be the same each year.
He offered to respond to questions.
Ms. Salay congratulated him on the work to date. Everyone is interesting in striving for
higher performance. He noted there are multiple performance measurements for each
department. Would these be pursued at the same time, or would staff focus on a few top
items?
Chief Epperson responded that the goal is to pursue as many performance management
areas as possible. If some areas will require special software applications, or if staff
believes the information will not be really useful, it will not be submitted. For the. majority
of areas, information will be submitted.
Ms. Salay asked about the cost and employee time involved. Will the time of year be
acceptable, in terms of year-end work and performance evaluation schedules, and what
budget impacts will this have?
Chief Epperson responded that the amount of time in the first year could be significant to
allow time for becoming familiar with the process. But most who are pulling the data do
not have a lot of employees and therefore will not have employee evaluations to complete
during this timeframe. In terms of budget, there is a $5,400 fee each year to participate in
the Center. This year, there will an additional $4,000 in travel and training costs for ICMA
staff to come to Dublin to do the training.
Ms. Salay asked about the employees' reaction to this program -are they eager to
participate?
Chief Epperson responded that most are interested in finding out where they stand in
comparison to other cities. None have been resistant to this concept. The plan is to have
a guiding committee to ensure the City is using the information, and not just accumulating
data. He will devise an annual report to highlight how useful the information has been for
the City.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of p~ ihlin C`jty-COUncII Meeting
September 15, 2008 Page 16
Held 20
Ms. Salay asked if this is similar to the accreditation process.
Chief Epperson responded that accreditation has more of a compliance focus, confirming
that the organization is meeting the policies and procedures in place. This is geared to
assess performance -comparing the city with other communities. It is not comprehensive
to everything the City does, but provides many opportunities to evaluate processes.
Mr. Lecklider asked what staff would be responsible for collection of the information.
Chief Epperson responded that for the most part, an administrative support person would
do this - perhaps a clerical specialist. In some departments, there are supervisors who
are interested in assisting.
Mr. Lecklider asked if he and staff are comfortable that there is time within the work week
to accomplish this task.
Chief Epperson responded affirmatively. For the first round, each group will focus on
some key areas and prioritize preparing the data to ensure the key areas are addressed.
Mr. Lecklider added that he does believe that the City as an organization has an obligation
to assess performance, and this is a good initiative to undertake.
• Adoption of Council Meeting Schedule for 2009
Vice Mayor Boring led the review of the proposed schedule, month by month.
Mr. Reiner requested consideration of adjusting the February 2 meeting, as he will be out
of the city on that date. Following discussion, it was determined that the expectation of the
citizens and staff is to have meetings on the first and third Monday as much as possible.
Vice Mayor Boring suggested consideration of adjusting the June meetings to the 2"d and
4th weeks, due to the Tournament dates and the five Mondays in June. Following
discussion, it was decided to leave the dates as June 1 and June 15.
Vice Mayor Boring asked if anyone would consider moving the 15'h meeting to another
date, due to the conflict with the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Vice Mayor Lecklider and Ms. Salay indicated they did not see the need to make this
adjustment.
After review of options, the Council consensus was to meet once in July, on Wednesday,
July 1. Ms. Brautigam noted that more than likely, packets would be done on Friday, June
26 and not on Thursday, June 25.
Vice Mayor Boring suggested that the first CIP workshop be scheduled on Wednesday,
August 12, with the intent of completing the review that evening. This would leave an
option of having a second workshop, if necessary on Wednesday, August 19.
Ms. Salay indicated her support, noting she preferred one long evening versus two
meetings.
It was the consensus of Council to schedule the CIP as proposed - in one meeting,
beginning at 6 p.m. Hopefully, the entire CIP can be reviewed in one evening.
Ms. Salay suggested the September meetings as Tuesday, September 8, Monday,
September 14 and Monday, September 21.
Mr. Gerber and Mr. Reiner agreed.
It was the consensus of Council to meet on September 8, 14 and 21.
Ms. Salay noted that the budget hearing often falls on Dublin Schools Family night.
The Clerk noted that the Schools do not yet have a date established for this for the fall of
2009.
Vice Mayor Boring suggested having the budget workshop on Monday, November 9. The
second workshop could be held on Wednesday, November 18.
It was the consensus of Council to schedule the budget workshops on Monday, November
9 and Wednesday, November 18.
It was the consensus of Council to have one meeting in December - on Monday,
December 7. There will be no second meeting.
Mr. Gerber moved for adoption of the meeting schedule as revised.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin Cit,-~'ouncil Meeting
September 15, 2008 Page 17
Vote on the motion: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes;
Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes.
COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE/COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Vice Mayor Boring, Administrative Committee Chair reported that the Administrative
Committee of the Whole met on September 10 to review the employee health plan for
2009. Staff is preparing a report to bring back to Council for formal adoption.
Mr. Keenan reported:
1. The US 33 Corridor committee met on September 3 in Marysville.
2. He and Vice Mayor Boring attended a Dublin Arts Council social gathering on
Friday, September 5.
3. He has an item for Council's review, in follow up to the Veterans Committee
meeting.
Mr. Keenan noted that he sent an a-mail regarding this matter, and a copy of the memo
from Mr. Parkhill was distributed to Council tonight. The Committee suggested in April
that the art students from the Dublin high schools propose a design that would provide
appropriate recognition for the POW, MIA and KIA veterans. He asked Mr. Hahn to
provide an overview.
Mr. Hahn stated that the concept discussed at the Committee was that the three Dublin
high schools be involved in this process, with the end product of multiple designs
submitted for a POW, MIA, KIA portion of the project. Judging would occur of the
submittals and three finalists would be selected. The three finalists would then be judged
by the Veterans Committee as a whole. Parameters would be needed for the process,
including being cognizant of funding, timing - in view of the scheduled Memorial Day
weekend dedication of the project, and ensuring that it complements the overall existing
design of the project. Mr. Parkhill has taken the lead on this, and the majority of the
Veterans Committee has endorsed the concept as presented thus far.
Mr. Keenan noted that he reviewed these parameters with Mr. Parkhill as well. He has
spoken with the Director of Curriculum at Dublin Schools and with Ms. Buda, art teacher.
She is very excited about the project. As he talked with Mr. Parkhill, he noted that it is
important to articulate the goals clearly and that the timing is critical in order not to delay.
the project. Mr. Parkhill indicated that these parameters are not problematic, and he
understands the process needs to be completed by the end of November. In terms of
cost, the original plan included a seal with this recognition around the flagpole. They want
to expand this a bit by having the students propose some other ideas. The proviso he
gave them was that the cost is an important consideration. He has been assured that this
will not be an issue.
Mr. Keenan summarized that he is seeking Council's approval to have this move forward
as outlined.
Mr. Lecklider asked why this is being revisited at this point in time.
Mr. Keenan responded that Mr. Parkhill has relayed that the architect of the Grounds of
Remembrance had come back with three different concepts on this -none of which were
acceptable to the Committee. The Committee believes this is a way to engage the youth
of the community and to secure some better concepts.
Mr. Lecklider noted he is puzzled about why this would not have been resolved by this
point in the project timeline.
Mr. Hahn responded that, in part, this related to the debates among the Committee
members. The primary purpose of the project is to recognize veterans. This includes the
various subgroups. The concept of special recognition for individual groups continued
throughout the process, but the focus was always on the base project. There was debate
among the Committee of whether there should be any recognition of subgroups
whatsoever. However, the main focus of the Committee was with the overall project. In
terms of this not being finalized until now, it was simply not the main focus of the group.
Mr. Keenan added that this portion was a clear passion of some members of the
Committee from the outset.
Mr. Lecklider commented that as Mr. Keenan has indicated, it is important to have well
defined parameters going forward.
Mr. Keenan responded that at this point, he does not want this to be a Council function. At
this point, it is a subcommittee of the group that is assuming responsibility for this portion,
and they have committed to delivering this by the end of November. The contacts with the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of nublin ditTCauncil Meeting
September 15, 2008 Page 18
Held 20
Schools have already been made.
Mr. Lecklider noted that his last question relates to Mr. Parkhill's comment in the memo,
that any additional cost would be added to the budget. There has been a great deal of
discussion regarding the overall project budget.
Mr. Keenan responded that there was much discussion of this at the Committee level, and
he was adamant that the City could not absorb significant amounts of funding beyond
what has already been budgeted. As part of the detailed design drawings, there was
funding for this provided.
Mr. Hahn responded that is correct. One of the designs for this purpose did have a
preliminary cost associated with it - he recalls it was approximately $2,000 and consisted
of a bronze wreath at the base of the flagpole area. This item was described in one of the
memos to Council
Discussion continued.
Mr. Keenan asked for confirmation from Mr. Bostic, Committee Member that this can be
completed by the end of November, under the parameters articulated.
Mr. Reiner noted that he supports this concept. However, the City has engaged an artist
to create this memorial for veterans. He would suggest a couple of caveats. This project
is laid out in a horizontal plane design, and therefore the student's design must be
integrated into the total design. Further, if none of the designs are of exceptional nature
that would fit into the master design, they should be disregarded.
Ms. Salay stated that the comment regarding the artistic reference should be shared with
Ms. Buda, the art teacher who can share this with the students.
Vice Mayor Boring agreed, adding that it must be clear that it is not an absolute that a
selection will be made from these renderings, in case none of them are acceptable. In
view of the major issues regarding the project budget, this also should be kept in mind.
Gene Bostic, 7143 Coffman Road. Veterans Committee Member stated that he feels so
strongly about this portion of the project, that if it is over budget, he will go out and solicit
the funds personally. Council has been very supportive over the years for the project, the
Committee has worked very hard, and this is something that needs to be done. He will
take responsibility for securing additional funds for this portion of the project if needed.
Mr. Keenan moved to direct the Committee and subcommittee to move forward as Mr.
Parkhill has suggested, with the provisos that the guidelines be made clear, that Mr.
Refiner's comments regarding the sensitivity to the horizontal planes be taken into account,
that cost considerations be taken into account and shared with the students, and that this
be completed in a timely fashion in order not to delay the overall project.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Boring suggested an amendment, that if no design is acceptable, the designs
can be rejected.
Mr. Keenan and Mr. Gerber accepted the amendment.
Vote on the motion as amended: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes.
Mr. Bostic added that a number of Dublin high school students are taking classes at
CCAD at the current time, and are very qualified to do this design work.
Ms. Salav:
1. Thanked Mr. Hahn and Ms. Chope who participated in an onsite meeting with
homeowners at the Villas at Glenealy, together with AEP representatives. AEP
reviewed the tree removal plan necessary for power line work. The discussion
was very helpful in working on a solution with AEP to this matter. She also
thanked Tammy Brown of Economic Development and Mr. McDaniel for their time
involved in this.
2. Noted that this is Ms. Brautigam's last Council meeting in Dublin. Council will
publicly celebrate her tenure with Dublin on Wednesday evening at a reception at
the DCRC.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin Cit~Goun~il Meeting
September 15, 2008 Page 19
Held 20
Mr. Lecklider thanked all of staff for their efforts over the last 24 hours in response to the
weather event, which is likely to be ongoing through the week.
Vice Mayor Boring asked if staff could provide an update on the situation.
Chief Epperson provided a detailed report regarding calls for fire and police services. He
noted that there no injuries directly related to the wind storm. There was extensive
damage to several City parks -trees and structures. He added that AEP is using Avery
Square shopping center as a staging area for their crews and out of state crews, as well
as equipment being used for repairs.
Vice Mayor Boring asked why the emergency alarms were not used for these hurricane
force winds.
Chief Epperson responded that it was considered, but staff felt it would cause more
confusion about the message being sent via emergency siren activation.
Ms. Brautigam added that she received a request today from the City of Columbus asking
residents to conserve water due to water booster station issues. The primary affected
areas in Dublin are bordered by Riverside Drive, Sawmill, I-270 and SR 161.
Mr. Gerber asked if there is an update on power restoration.
Chief Epperson responded that there is not an update from AEP at this point. The various
areas are coming back online slowly due to the extensive damage.
Mr. Reiner asked if the Schools will be closed again tomorrow.
Chief Epperson responded he does not know, although Columbus and Olentangy Schools
are closed tomorrow.
Mr. Reiner:
1. Commented regarding the natural gas aggregation pricing, complimenting Mr.
McDaniel for saving the taxpayers substantial monies with this effort. While
government is generally somewhat reluctant in terms of risk taking, Mr. McDaniel
has done an excellent job with this program and should be commended. The logic
for next year's pricing was excellent.
2. Noted that Nando's Dog Park is officially opening this weekend. He was
personally interested in seeing this concept through, from its "bark park" origin to
the present.
3. Wished Ms. Brautigam well in her new job with Boulder, adding that she will do
good things for the government there. He thanked her for all she has done for
Dublin.
Mr. Gerber thanked Ms. Brautigam as well, wishing her the best of luck, and adding that
she will be missed in Dublin.
Vice Mayor Boring:
1. Noted her disappointment that the Council Members who have been very active in
development of the dog park concept have not been invited to participate in any
ribbon cutting.
Ms. Brautigam responded that staff discussed this briefly and determined that there was
no funding budgeted for this opening. Rather than spending funds on a park that some
could perceive was for dogs and not people, staff felt the better approach was a low key
opening.
Vice Mayor Boring disagreed, noting that having a ribbon cutting would not require a large
budget, and would have allowed recognition to Council Members for their efforts in
establishing this dog park. In the future, she is hopeful that such recognition does not
require a large budget.
Ms. Salay noted she appreciates the comments, but this park has been open for some
time. She had not considered that aspect, but knows that something could be scheduled
in the spring, involving various dog groups -rescue, adoption, etc.
2. Commented that Mr. Gerber has brought up the need for a joint meeting of Council
and the Planning & Zoning Commission. Does he desire discussion at this point?
Mr. Gerber responded that this can be brought up at a later date, but the joint meeting is
needed at some point.
Ms. Brautigam reminded Council that at the retreat, Council discussed the need for more
regular meetings with P&Z. Mr. Langworthy and she have discussed the desire for this,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Met'
September 15, 2008 Page 20
and the fact that he needs to keep this in mind. She believes this is yet to be scheduled in
2008, and she will check with him on a potential date.
Mr. Gerber added that Planning & Zoning Commission has scheduled several training
sessions yet this year, so their schedules need to be considered as well in this planning.
Vice Mayor Boring continued:
3. She is concerned with the quality in terms of typographical errors and content in
some of the publications being sent out by the City, in particular the Rec Center
brochure. Last May, Council was informed that TehKu Tea would no longer be
operating the DCRC cafe. However, the fall brochure contains a large ad for
TehKu. This demonstrates a lack of attention to proofreading and detail. She is
also concerned with the scheduled "Fall Harvest Jamboree," which she had not
heard of until the brochure came out. She understands that a large number of
vendors will participate. In view of the recent Council meetings regarding the need
for screening of participants in City events such as Spooktacular, she was
surprised to learn of a Fall Festival being scheduled. She does not believe the
Council committee was aware that another event was scheduled prior to
Spooktacular.
Ms. Brautigam clarified that this is not actually an event, as it is not being run by
Community Relations, and is not one of the events Council has directed a large
celebration to observe. To the contrary, it is a family program the DCRC devised as a way
to bring families together and increase interest in membership to the Center. Staff has
viewed this as another program, and not another large Dublin event requiring a large
investment.
Vice Mayor Boring responded that she would suggest a study session to discuss this
topic. Whether termed an event or a program, citizens will ask what type of background
checks are being done. In addition, there are no fees charged for this program/event, and
so there is no recovery of costs. The community has many other fall events for families,
and she does not believe the City needs to encourage more families to join the Rec
Center, in view of its current attendance. A further discussion is needed about this topic.
It relates to the total philosophy about how many City-sponsored activities are offered to
the community. The more important aspect is that Council is working to establish policies
for screening participants for City events. In addition, it is a matter of courtesy to notify
Council ahead of time of these plans. In fact, the Community Relations department
indicated they were not involved whatsoever with the Fall Harvest Jamboree.
Ms. Brautigam responded that is correct - it is a Rec Center program designed to provide
a pleasant fall experience for the families of Dublin. Staff can provide afollow-up report
regarding the event to share information about the outcome.
Vice Mayor Boring added that she would be interesting in learning of the budget for this
program and how it was developed.
4. Reminded everyone to attend the reception for Ms. Brautigam on Wednesday
evening at the DCRC. She noted that Council appreciates her service, and the
hard work she has done for the City over the years.
ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Vice Mayor Boring moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:10 p.m. for the discussion
of legal matters (to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes
involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action), land
acquisition matters (to consider the purchase of property for public purposes), and
personnel matters ((to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline,
promotion, demotion, or compensation of public employee or official)
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr.
Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes.
Vice Mayor Boring noted that the meeting will be reconvened only for the purpose of
formally adjourning. No further action will be taken.
The meeting was reconvened at 10:25 p.m. and formally adjourned.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council •n
September 15, 2008 Page 21
Held 20
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Clerk of Coun