Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-1995 Public Service Committee MinutesPublic Services Committee DRAFT of Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting October 24, 1995 Attending: Chuck Kranstuber, Chairperson Cathy Boring A.C. Strip Terry Foegler Dana McDaniel Janet Jordan Fred Hahn Danny Johnson Howard Adams Larry Holbrook Bill Root Peter Zawaly Randy Asmo Mr. Kranstuber called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. He moved to approve the minutes of July 19 and August 16, 1995. Mr. Strip seconded the motion. Motion carried. Muirfield Maintenance Agreement Mr. Kranstuber asked Mr. Foegler to summarize the issues which are not yet resolved. Mr. Foegler stated that the Law Director has recognized the pedestrian tunnels as private improvements in a public right-of-way. The Muirfield Association representatives believe that the tunnels are public since nothing in the documents indicates that they are private. Mr. Holbrook stated that there are 14 tunnels and they were installed for reasons of public safety to allow pedestrians to cross a busy street. Mr. Foegler noted that the underpass on Glick Road services only the golf course. The Association members and Committee members agreed that this tunnel can be excluded from this conversation since it serves only the golf course members. Mr. Foegler then gave a history of the maintenance agreement matter which first arose in November of 1992. The agreement was an attempt by the City to formalize the informal agreements that existed over the years regarding maintenance of public and private areas of Muirfield. Since Muirfield mows the public median space, the City attorney had agreed that the City could maintain some of the private areas - a quid pro quo type of arrangement. The Association, however, did not accept this interpretation since there was basic disagreement about what was deemed as private and public. If the City attorney holds firm to his opinion, the City has to have rationale to invest in these private improvements. In response to Mr. Strip, Mr. Foegler stated that the annual structural maintenance for the tunnels would be minimal; the big expense is when a structure needs to be replaced. The cost would have to be estimated on a case-by-case basis. Bill Root, Muirfield Association representative, stated that Mr. Smith has defined the private improvements such as overpasses, tunnels, etc. as those which encroach upon or cross through public right-of-way and which may only be utilized exclusively or primarily from private property such as the private walk -way system in Muirfield. He has found no legal basis for this opinion in his examination of all documents. He has researched all of the plats and records and concludes that it is clearly delineated that public rights-of-way were constructed and dedicated to the City of Dublin. Any responsibility of the Association for maintenance of private areas would have been noted on the plat. The tunnels were installed for reasons of public safety, and the City has responsibility for the public safety of its residents. Mr. Foegler commented that the Law Director is doing additional research, but his rationale about the right-of-way debate is that many easements are not recorded on the plat - the power company, gas company, cable, etc. The public right-of-way makes it no less private improvements located on the public right-of-way. Mr. Strip asked who has been doing maintenance on these for the last 20 years. Mr. Foegler responded that there has not been a need for structural maintenance during this time. Mr. Johnson added that the City has repaired some of the stone facade over the years. Mr. Foegler emphasized that there has been an informal relationship over the past 20 years and an informal agreement regarding maintenance. Trying to formalize the agreement has created this problem. Mr. Holbrook noted that the Association was never told by the developer that they should create a reserve fund to maintain the underpasses or for ongoing maintenance of the berm structure on the roadways. He was with the development company many years ago as well. Mr. Root added that the Association does have encroachments in the public right-of-way for things such as signs and there is documentation to establish this. Mr. Strip stated that if a bridge collapses under a public street in Muirfield, who would repair the roadway. Mr. Foegler responded that the City attorney did not address this situation. He commented that while the City has no legal obligation to maintain, restore or upgrade the facilities, the City does have an ongoing obligation to inspect those facilities and either have them maintained or closed in the event a safety issue is identified. Debate continued about the private or public nature of the improvements. Mr. Kranstuber summarized that there are some strong equity arguments in favor of the Association. The City gains by the relationship it enjoys with Muirfield. He asked what remedies are available to Council if they disagree with the City attorney's position and what are the ramifications of this. Mr. Foegler suggested that some recognition could be given of the value of the maintenance that has been provided for the past 20 years, and therefore Council concludes such and such. Mr. Kranstuber noted that this would provide a public policy basis for the consideration. Mr. Root commented that he does not see how a municipality can create an expensive under - road system for the benefit of public safety and expect a private entity to have the funds to maintain it. Mr. Strip responded that the tunnels were built because they provided aesthetics to the community as did bike paths. The City likely would not have constructed the tunnels to begin with. He added that back in 1974, Dublin was an unsophisticated village with a small population and things were handled much more informally. Mr. Root disagreed, stating that subdivision platting was not new in 1974 and it was handled by professional attorneys. Private encroachments have been noted on subdivision plats routinely. Mr. Adams emphasized that the underpasses were modeled after an area in Maryland and Virginia and they were presented as a public improvement at the time. Mr. Strip asked how Council can proceed from this point on, and requested an opinion on whether he would have a conflict of interest because he is a Muirfield resident and may be a beneficiary of this vote. Mrs. Boring asked how the Association would react if the City decided not to restore the tunnel, but rather filled it in and made it a roadway. The Association representatives agreed that would be a political decision. Mr. Root offered that the Association may be willing to enter into an agreement to maintain the pathways in the public right-of-way, do the painting, clean the graffiti, etc. Mr. Zawaly, President of the Muirfield Association, stated that the tunnels were created and built by the City for public safety purposes at a time when Muirfield and its population represented 70 or better percent of the City. This is the rationale for the City to maintain the tunnels. As everyone knows, the Muirfield residents accommodate the Memorial Tournament. If the responsibility for maintenance of the tunnels connecting the private walkways and bikepaths lies with the Association as well as the contingency liability, the Association will have to consider charging for use of them during the Tournament or possibly close them down. FTDO, O, til ., ,.i Mr. Foegler pointed out that the bottom line issue is if, in fact, Council believes there is rationale and support for providing a way to publicly maintain these, there may be other ways to do so. He does believe that Council must make a policy decision within the context of the legal interpretations provided by the City attorney. Mr. Strip proposed a partnership arrangement which does not do violence to the City attorney's opinion. Mr. Root stated that he has not been authorized by the Association trustees to enter into this type of arrangement. He believes that the areas are public since there were no private encroachments reserved. Mr. Kranstuber emphasized the equity argument in that the City gains much with Muirfield; secondly, public policy is best served in these improvements being maintained by a larger group, in this case, by the City. Mr. Strip noted that he believes there is an appearance of a conflict of interest for him in this matter, and therefore he will not vote on any recommendation until further clarification from the City attorney. Mr. Kranstuber moved that the Committee recommend that the City attorney provide an alternative solution within the context of the opinion he has rendered. This solution would not necessarily address the public/private issue, but make the finding that the tunnels are the responsibility of the City. Mr. Strip suggested that Mr. Banchefsky work on this matter since Mr. Smith resides in Muirfield. Mrs. Boring stated that she would like to hear more of staff's concerns about this matter. She would like the City attorney's office to give Council a reasonable basis for this finding in view of the liability issues involved. Mr. Foegler asked for further clarification about Council's objectives - public maintenance responsibility, public ownership, etc. Mr. Kranstuber stated that his motion includes two options: that the City attorney does not agree that the areas are public, but via a deed or whatever transfers ownership to the City or finds a loophole in the finding that they are public right-of-way, as Cathy has suggested, in order to provide a basis for the proposed solution. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Foegler suggested that another approach would be to place a cash value on things provided by Muirfield over the past 20 years and compare that to what the long term obligations for these are, and arrive at some reasonable quid pro quos that don't bind you into the future. Discussion followed about a timeframe for a response from the City attorney. The consensus of the Committee was to meet again at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, October 31 to review the alternatives. Mr. Foegler noted that his understanding is that the City attorney has been asked to investigate whether there would be a conflict of interest for Muirfield residents who are Council members; is there a way to address the maintenance issue by formally conveying whatever rights and interests the Association has to the City for the City to accept; and if Council agrees with the Muirfield Association's position and not the City attorney's, what alternatives and are available to Council and what are the ramifications. Proposed Community Recreation Center Fees Mr. Kranstuber stated that this matter would be deferred until next week since Ms. Jordan is still working on the proposal. Dublin Party House Rezoning Parkland Issues Mr. Kranstuber reminded the Committee that the merits of the rezoning are not being considered tonight. They are looking at the concept of the donation of the Party House to the City and whether the City would have any interest in this transaction. Ms. Jordan distributed copies of the plan and noted that the value of the parkland included on the plan is incorrect - it should be $39,000, not $31,000 per acre. Mr. Asmo showed some aerial view pictures of the Party House. He noted that the proposal includes the Clubhouse as well as a shelterhouse. The clubhouse is approximately 6,000 square feet. The rezoning proposal is deficient by 2 acres in parkland dedication, so they are proposing that the Clubhouse be donated to the City and the shelterhouse which would more than adequately cover the parkland requirement. Ms. Jordan noted that the greenspace ordinance as currently written allows only the option of taking land or taking a fee which is used to acquire additional parkland. She added that staff believes that the Committee should be given an opportunity to review this proposal since it represents a significant asset for the City. Mr. Strip suggested that the owner pay the parkland dedication fees and the City in turn then buy the clubhouse and shelterhouse for the same amount. Mr. Asmo responded that this arrangement would be acceptable Ms. Jordan stated that the facility could be used for parties, for special events, for meetings, and for occasions when alcohol would be served since they have a license at the facility. In response to Ms. Jordan, Mr. Asmo stated that the only profitable area of the business is with the alcohol sales. The facility does have a large volume of users, however. Mr. Strip stated that the Committee can only take this issue so far because the next step is the zoning issue. If the rezoning is not approved, the parkland issue is academic. Q Mr. Foegler commented that staff is seeking the Committee's input on the concept and whether it is worthy of further exploration of the potential uses and revenues. Mr. Asmo stated that he is willing to share the financial statements with the Committee on a confidential basis. Mr. Strip emphasized that the financial implications would be different for a City in terms of the expenses a City cannot deduct and for requirements a City must meet, e.g., prevailing wages, etc. Mr. Asmo stated that he never anticipated that there would be a profit consideration for the City in this matter. There would have to be an arrangement for transferring the liquor license since it's not part of the real estate assumption. Mr. Strip concluded that he is intrigued by the possibilities for the City to expand its community events to such a facility; the meeting room space is also interesting. Mr. Kranstuber added that this proposal would give something unique to the southwest area of Dublin. Mr. Strip emphasized that he is speaking from the standpoint of the City owning a shelterhouse and a facility. He is not drawing any conclusions about the zoning aspect - that is for Planning and Zoning Commission to do. Mrs. Boring stated that outside of the zoning aspects, she could consider the option of a buy- back within the existing ordinance as suggested earlier. Mr. Kranstuber moved to approve the proposal in concept. Mr. Strip seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring moved to amend the motion to add that the concept be worked out within the existing ordinance, as a buy-back arrangement. Mr. Kranstuber accepted the amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Strip noted that it is important to clarify that the recommendation is based strictly on the merits of the facility and without any reference or review of the rezoning proposal. At this point, the meeting was adjourned for a short break. The meeting was reconvened at 7:25 p.m. Bikeways Map Update Mr. Foegler stated that staff recommended in the August capital budget presentation a $50,000 annual expenditure for bikepaths. Council had indicated that they would like additional monies allocated for this purpose. The drawings presented tonight show the existing bikepaths, what is committed to be built, and will help determine an appropriate amount. The map contains five categories of bikepaths - existing, those committed by developers, those committed by the public sector, those likely to be constructed by private development, and those likely a City responsibility. Staff is comfortable with recommending $100,000 annually for bikepath construction. x He also distributed a draft alignment study for the Dublin Road bikepath. The study assumes that it will be a federally funded bikepath. Staff has submitted the application for 80/20 funding (city pays for design and the government picks up 80/20 right of way acquisition and construction) and expects to hear results in a couple of months. The City's total contribution will be about $250,000. He emphasized that if it is built with federal funds, it is built to federal standards which are significantly higher than those of the City. If the application is not approved, the City will design it to a different standard. The consultant is looking at preliminary data to determine locations for a pedestrian underpass. The federal funding will impact the design decisions for the bikepath. He noted that the ballpark figures for construction of bikepaths is $15 per foot, not including right-of-way and drainage issues. The cost of underpasses ranges from about $75,000 to $100,000. Mrs. Boring and Mr. Strip commented that the City should consider using federal standards along the major roads. Mr. Foegler responded that this kind of feedback will be incorporated into the community plan bikepath element update. Following discussion, Mr. Kranstuber proposed that the Committee postpone any recommendations until the decision is made on the 745 federal funding application. Mr. Strip agreed. Mr. Foegler noted that there is a timing issue involved for federal funding of the 745 bikepath. If it is approved, it is included on the T.I.P. at MORPC. Best estimate is for construction in the year 2000. Mr. Kranstuber proposed that the Committee examine bikepath links where the monies spent would produce a large return. Ms. Jordan suggested that staff put together a list of crucial links in the interim prior to the response on the funding application. Mrs. Boring suggested that the City consider building bikepaths in areas where there are no sidewalks or other access for pedestrians or bikes. There is a public safety factor involved. There is a lot of development coming online with Wedgewood Hills and Campden Lakes. A north/south link up to Summitview from the high school would be desirable. Discussion followed about the desire for bikepath connections to the Sawmill Road area. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that Committee members provide staff with the two or three links which they consider a priority; staff can estimate costs for those links and return to the Committee within a couple of weeks. Mr. Kranstuber asked that staff forward copies of the bikepath materials to all Council members with a memo stating that the Committee has reviewed the information; that cost estimates are being prepared for the top priority links; and any ideas should be forwarded to the Committee. DRAFT Other suggestions from the Committee included: rec center links, Perimeter Drive links, balancing monies spent in different areas of City; school linkages; and Avery Park link from the pool. Ms. Jordan emphasized that the bikeway system is comprised of bikepaths and on -street routes. The map shows only the bikepaths, not the system. Staff is working on a community bikeway system map at this time. There is a total of 15.5 miles in bikepaths at this time. Hard Road will add another mile. Other Mrs. Boring asked about the status of the zoning motion for the David Road area. Mr. Foegler responded that he has discussed this matter with the Planning Director. The report from the Committee to Council did not include directing staff to explore the rezoning for the area, but the Planning Director is preparing a memo for the Committee to estimate what is needed to accomplish a rezoning based upon what was required on the north end. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the Committee will meet in about a month to discuss bikepaths, David Road and other items referred. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Assistar t qi rk of, council