Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-20 Council MinutesRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Form 6101 Held August 24, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Amorose Groomes called the Monday, August 24, 2020 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the State's emergency declaration, the meeting is being conducted via an online platform and live - streamed at the City's website. This is now allowed as a result of the passage of Am. Sub. H.B. 197, which includes temporary changes to the Ohio Open Meetings Law. She reiterated her previous statement regarding the submission of any comments by the public prior to the meeting by e-mail to the Clerk or during the meeting via the form on the website. She emphasized that Council desires to accommodate public participation and comment to the greatest extent possible throughout this Pandemic. ROLL CALL Present were Mayor Amorose Groomes, Vice Mayor De Rosa, Ms. Alutto, Ms. Fox, Mr. Keeler, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Reiner. Staff members present were Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Rogers, Ms. Readler, Ms. O'Callaghan, Mr. Stiffler, Chief Paez, Mr. McCullough, Mr. Earman, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Burness, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Gilger, Mr. O'Brien, Ms. LeRoy and Mr. Plouck. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Rogers led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPECIAL PRESENTATION/ PROCLAMATION • Chamber of Commerce Week Mayor Amorose Groomes read a proclamation recognizing Chamber of Commerce Week - August 31 to September 4 - and presented it to Bill Andrews, Chair of the Board of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. She noted that the Dublin Chamber is celebrating its 45th anniversary in 2020, having started as an all -volunteer organization with 37 members in 1975 and growing to its current 1,200 members, making it the largest suburban Chamber of Commerce in the state of Ohio. She highlighted the many contributions made to the community by the Chamber and noted that special events are taking place this week including business visits by elected officials. Mr. Andrews thanked the City for their partnership with the Chamber and for this special recognition. • 100th Anniversary of the Ratification of the 19th Amendment — Women's Right to Vote Mayor Amorose Groomes read a proclamation into the record in observance of the 100th Anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution — providing women the right to vote. She shared information on the exhibit from the National Archives being displayed at the DCRC as part of this observance. She acknowledged the opportunities afforded to women today who serve in public office that would not have been possible without the passage of the 19th Amendment. Mr. McDaniel added that Dublin will light the Dublin Link pedestrian bridge in commemoration of this important event, joining others across the nation. Vice Mayor, De Rosa added her thanks to the Union County colleagues for hosting the ceremony on Friday to commemorate this event. They included descendants of those who were part of the group that was enabled to vote as part of this amendment. The efforts on the display at the DCRC and the bridge lighting are much appreciated. CITIZEN COMMENTS The Clerk reported that no comments have been received. Ms. Burness reported that one citizen sent a comment via the website last week for this meeting. Debbie Sebastian, 4943 Donegal Cliffs Drive, Dublin, OH commented: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin g BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held August 24, 2020 Page 2 of 20 This City Council has allowed so many apartment buildings in Dublin. This is going to be an ongoing problem in Dublin. You have allowed ugly apartment buildings downtown and crime is going to rise. what happened? Our police department now has to monitor all these buildings, I enjoy the progress, but the city council is probably looking at the money and not what our citizens want in a city. Please start thinking and stop. Thank you for letting me express my view. Mayor Amorose Groomes thanked Ms. Sebastian for sharing her thoughts. A response is being drafted to be sent to her. CONSENT AGENDA • Minutes of the July 27, 2020 Regular Council Meeting • Minutes of the August 10, 2020 Regular Council Meeting Hearing no request to remove an item from the consent agenda, Mayor Amorose Groomes moved approval of the two items. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes. INTRODUCTION/ FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 21-20 Adopting the 2021-2025 Five -Year Capital Improvements Program, Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Mr. Stiffler stated that tonight, the Five -Year CIP is presented to Council. The schedule of review of the CIP has not changed. Following this first reading, another CIP workshop will be held on September 8. The questions from the first workshop will be addressed at that time. Depending upon the level of changes at the September 8 workshop, a second reading/vote will be scheduled on either September 14 or September 28. He shared a pie chart that reflects the distribution of the resources available in the next CIP. Revenues totaling $240.1 million are available, with the largest source of revenue as income tax. The second largest category in this five-year CIP is grants and developer contributions. This reflects the City's ability to leverage economic development deals into capital projects and secure additional grant funding for the larger, more impactful capital projects. The types of projects in the CIP generally break down into two categories: maintenance and new infrastructure. The primary focus is on transportation and, more specifically, maintaining streets and parking lots. The proposed CIP did not reduce any funding requests for maintenance projects submitted by staff. He shared a pie chart that reflects the distribution of the enhancements in new infrastructure and assets. The level of spending represents the full amount requested from departments and divisions. In order to fund all the requested projects, some projects were reshuffled in terms of timing and priority, based on financial limitations. He added that each project can only be placed in one category, although some projects may have various components that are cross - functional. The total project funding in this proposed CIP is $233.2 million. He is looking forward to further discussion on September 8 and can respond to questions. Ms. Fox asked staff to have available at the next workshop the updated Coffman Park Master Plan. She would like this for reference. It would be helpful if staff could send this out digitally. The Clerk reported that no comments had been received prior to the meeting. Ms. Burness reported no comments had been received via livestreaming. There will be a workshop on September 8 at 6 p.m. and a second reading/public hearing of the Ordinance on either September 14 or September 28. Ordinance 22-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Documents to Convey a Perpetual Gas Line Easement to Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. Along Riverside Drive for the Installation of Underground Gas Facilities. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held August 24, 2020 Page 3 of 20 Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Mr. Earman stated that the purpose of this is to convey a perpetual gas line easement to Columbia Gas for installation of underground facilities to serve the new Riverside Crossing Park on the east side of the river. This easement is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Bridge Park Avenue and will solely benefit the City to provide service to the park pavilion. Therefore, it will be granted at no cost to Columbia Gas. Staff is recommending approval at the second reading. The Clerk and Ms. Burness both reported no comments had been received. Ms. Fox noted that, for her, it was difficult to discern the exact location of this easement from the materials provided. Does the placement affect the promenade in any way? Mr. Earman responded it is on the south side of the plaza entryway and will be about 60 feet in length for purposes of routing around the existing utilities currently under the sidewalk. He can provide a better aerial for the second reading. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 14 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING /VOTE — RESOLUTIONS Resolution 44-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with and Execute a Guarantee Maximum Price Amendment with Marker Construction Co., Inc., Construction Manager at Risk, for Phase 2 of the Dublin 5660 Dublinshire Drive Community Pool North Construction Project, Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Mr. Earman stated this authorizes execution of the GMP amendment with Marker Construction for the second phase of the DCPN project in the amount of $4,275,406. This is under the most recent estimated cost by $36,661. This second GMP encompasses the final phase of the project -- construction of the building package, which includes the restroom, concession building, the administration, mechanical room, main entry canopy connection, trellis shade structures and the fagade rework of the existing buildings remaining on the site. The first phase of this project was approved in June. He described the various components. MSA Architects completed the design and Marker Construction completed the competitive bid process late in July. He described the various bid packages and numbers of bids. Staff has thoroughly reviewed this GMP amendment and recommends approval of Resolution 44-20. The Clerk and Ms. Burness reported there were no public comments received regarding this matter. Vice Mayor De Rosa asked if a calendar is included in the GMP contract in terms of dates and milestones to be met. Mr. Earman stated there is a project schedule that exists for each of the milestones. Once this GMP is approved, the schedule will be developed and he can then distribute it. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated her focus is that the pool open as anticipated for the swim season in 2021. Mr. Earman responded that, barring unforeseen weather problems, all is on schedule for opening on Memorial Day 2021. Vice Mayor De Rosa asked if there were any changes to the diagrams last discussed with the community. Mr. Earman responded that nothing of substance has been modified. Staff does try to identify any areas where savings can be achieved, but the scope remains intact as shared previously with the community. Ms. Fox stated that as construction moves forward, perhaps CPI could place on the website regular updates on the project, similar to what was done with the ped bridge. Mr. Earman agreed to do so. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked about attendance levels at the South Pool throughout the season. Mr. Earman responded it began at near capacity, and there are popular times to go. He is not aware of people being turned away, but the weather impacts the attendance. He can provide that information if desired. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 4 of 20 Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Resolution 45-20 Adopting a Statement of Services for the Proposed Annexation of 4.998+/ - Acres from Jerome Township to the City of Dublin. (Laura MacGregor Comek, Esq., agent for Petitioner, Peter L. Coratola, Jr., 7411 Brock Road) • Annexation Fee Waiver Request Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the application was filed with the Union County Commissioners on July 27, 2020 for property located at 7411 Brock Road. This property is east of the Tartan Ridge subdivision and west of Jerome Road along the south side of Brock Road. The petition is for 4.998 acres, more or less, and was filed pursuant to ORC Section 709.02 as a Regular Majority Owner Annexation Petition. In terms of services, upon annexation all of the customary services as provided by Dublin for properties located within the Dublin corporate limits will be provided to this property, including water distribution and sanitary sewer collection services in accordance with the City's agreement with Columbus. This property is in Dublin's exclusive annexation area as outlined in that contract. There was also a fee waiver request submitted with the petition. The City has an annexation application fee of $4,210 and the applicant has requested a waiver, per the documentation submitted in the packet. Staff also provided in the packet some past information regarding fee waivers for annexation petitions. In that information, the only fee waivers for annexation petitions granted since 2013 have been for public entities. The most recent single-family annexation applicant did not request a fee waiver and paid the fee. The practice in the past several years has therefore been not to waive the annexation application fee unless there was a demonstrated hardship. The property is within the proposed annexation area of the Community Plan and is within the exclusive Dublin water and sewer service area. Approval of Resolution 45-20 is recommended by staff. Upon Council's approval, this Resolution will be forwarded to the Union County Commissioners for their required hearing on the petition. Staff recommends that Council deny the applicant's request for waiver of the annexation application fee. He offered to respond to questions. Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that Peter Coratola, Jr., applicant and Laura Comek, agent are present to comment. Ms. Comek deferred to Mr. Coratola regarding the fee waiver request. The annexation petition is compliant with Ohio law otherwise. Mr. Coratola, 7411 Brock Road noted he has requested a fee waiver per the letter sent to Council. The basis of his request is that fee waivers have been approved in the past for annexation petitions, based on documentation in the staff report. Secondly, he has demonstrated a commitment to the City of Dublin as he founded his company, Ease Logistics in Dublin. They have experienced tremendous growth over 7 years and now have over 65 employees. During that time, he had the opportunity to purchase real estate outside of the City of Dublin, but he opted to remain in Dublin due to the commitment he has made and the relationship. His family lives on a neighboring piece of land just outside of Dublin and they want to take the next step and annex their property to Dublin. He asked that Council consider his request for a fee waiver. The Clerk reported that no comments have been received regarding this agenda item. Ms. Burness reported that a comment was received through the web tonight and is from Robert Smith, 6310 Riverside Drive, Dublin, OH: The fact that Pete Coratola donated to Chris Amorose Groomes' campaign is like cashing in a poker chip. The waiver rewards those who play the game. The donation is a small portion of the waiver cost. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council I Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 5 of 20 Council questions and discussion Ms. Fox stated it is interesting to her that it is not clear when fee waivers are approved. Does Council have a policy regarding fee waivers for annexations? Mr. Hammersmith responded he does not believe there is an existing established policy regarding waivers of these fees. The fees are based on recovering the costs of the review and processing of the application. There is no policy to give guidance on these waivers. Ms. Fox stated that perhaps Council members who served during the time when fee waivers were granted and when they were not approved could offer background. For her, many cities look at annexations as an economic development tool. Because of that, there is a consideration of the amount of the fees and when they are levied. Residential development typically costs the City money to service, while commercial development does not. For this reason, she is interested in a policy. If one does not exist, perhaps the pros and cons of annexation and the benefits to the City of annexations should be explored. There are many reasons why annexations are beneficial to a city. An annexation policy is needed, including the fees. Vice Mayor De Rosa noted that the memo indicates there have been requests made for fee waivers and requests denied. It states that the most recent single-family annexation did not receive a fee waiver. She agrees with Ms. Fox that a policy should be developed to make the process clear for everyone. It seems there has been a practice established. She asked Mr. Hammersmith to share additional information about waivers requested. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the background information provided dated back to 2005. Annexations have varied in the number per year. There is not a consistent pattern for fee waivers other than for public entities for which they were typically waived — Washington Township annexation applications. Mr. McDaniel stated there was a time when the City encouraged residential annexation, particularly for islands of township within the City. These islands caused issues in service delivery efficiency and it was desirable to have those properties annexed. Some waivers might have been associated with the island areas. Mr. Reiner agreed. The policy is fairly well established and the fee waivers are generally provided to public entities. It is correct that in past years, fee waivers were granted to residential annexation applications, especially for the island areas of township. He does not support changing the established policy, which he believes is the right approach. Mr. Peterson stated that it is important to have a policy as well as standards by which a deviation can be made from that policy in exceptional circumstances. In looking at single-family annexations, the question is who benefits from the annexation. In a case like this, the benefit flows to that single-family residence. For public entities like Washington Township, taxpayers fund that entity as well. The fee is directly related to the expense the City incurs to process the annexation application. If it is waived for a single-family annexation, in essence, the rest of the taxpayers are subsidizing the costs for the annexation that is benefitting a single-family residence. For him, this is the distinguishing factor with the decision to waive or deny the fee waiver. Ms. Alutto stated she shares Mr. Peterson's opinion. The City Council heard a request for a fee waiver recently from a business that helps many in the area and the fee waiver was denied. She finds it difficult to approve this one, given that recent action. She appreciates all that Mr. Coratola has done for the City and his business is amazing. She has visited it several times. The fee waiver decision is in no way reflective upon his contributions to the City and his relationship witih the City. Mayor Amorose Groomes responded to the question raised by a citizen about her relationship with this individual. She asked Ms. Readler to comment about campaign contributions in Dublin and the ethics laws. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council n Meetig BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 6 of 20 Ms. Readler commented that simply providing a contribution to a campaign does not create a conflict of interest. Dublin is particularly unique as it has contribution limitations to keep them at a low level and to avoid an argument about undue influence on an elected official based on contributions. Council members receive many campaign contributions in low dollar amounts and these do not create a conflict of interest. Ms. Fox reiterated that a policy is needed for annexations. She views these as an economic tool that could benefit the City, while in cases like individual properties, there is a greater benefit to the individual who receives City services. The fees are $4,210 for a five -acre property annexation. She would like some research to be done. Dublin charges for the costs of its services, while some municipalities charge a flat fee for annexations, based on acreage and with every additional acre, another incremental fee is charged. She believes the intent is to incentivize property owners to annex. She believes a defined policy will help Council to understand if Dublin's fees are fair for both large and small annexations. There are pros and cons to annexation, but extending Dublin's borders is a positive thing. She personally would like more research done and appreciates the fact that Mr. Coratola reviewed that residential annexation fee waivers have been granted in the past. This topic needs to be discussed further. Ms. Alutto suggested the fee waiver request be postponed or tabled. Ms. Fox agreed. She wants to understand if Dublin's fees are reasonable; she wants to discuss the policy about fee waivers and providing them to commercial, non -profits, government entities; and if we are encouraging more residential landowners to annex to the City. Mr. Coratola asked what facts need to be proved if this request is tabled. He understands the comment that with a fee waiver granted, the rest of the taxpayers could then bear the weight of this $4,210 fee. That is not the case and not what he is trying to do. In the long term, it is the fee of $4,210 he is requesting be waived; there is no tax abatement being requested. Currently, he is in Jerome Township, Union County and annexation would mean he both lives in the City of Dublin and works in the City of Dublin. At a minimum, he would like Council to discuss the criteria for approval or denial of annexation fee waivers. As a single-family, they contribute more to the City long term and are not simply trying to get a "free ride" on the annexation fee. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that this topic is worthy of a conversation, perhaps at a Committee level. However, it is important to address the issue at hand, as tabling this would result in a time delay for the applicant. It is important to give this applicant clear direction, as well. Ms. Readler stated that, procedurally, Council must act on the Statement of Services resolution tonight in order to have this provided for the hearing at the Union County Commissioners. Council could table the request for fee waiver and send that to a Committee for further discussion. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the options for the fee waiver request are to table the request, to approve the request or to deny the request. Ms. Fox moved to table the request and send it to a Committee for discussion, noting that perhaps Community Development or Public Services would be the appropriate committee. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion to table the request and send it to Committee. She noted that the Community Development Committee seems to make sense for the venue in which to discuss further. (* Motion clarified later in discussion in terms of intent.) Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council n Meetig BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 7 of 20 Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, no; Ms. Alutto, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, no. (Motion carried 4-3) Mayor Amorose Groomes asked Ms. Readier if the annexation process can move forward, given this fee waiver request has been tabled and referred to committee. Ms. Readier stated the fee imposed is Dublin's fee, and it can be put in abeyance while a policy is discussed and adopted. That is totally within Council's discretion. Mr. Peterson asked for clarification. Is the referral to Committee this particular fee waiver request or a policy of fee waivers with respect to annexations across the City? If the referral is just this request, he may need to change his vote. If the referral is for a policy for fee waivers in general, that is more appropriate. Ms. Fox stated that her intention was to create a policy for annexations for an economic development project or as an incentive to increase our land mass — and when fee waivers are granted and when they are denied. This would not be simply for this particular case, but for the policy going forward. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that while that may be the intent, the motion was to table the request and send it to committee. Ms. Fox asked Legal staff for guidance in making sure the motion reflects the intent. *Ms. Readier stated that what is being referred to Committee is the issue of when to waive and when not to waive fees for annexations, taking that policy and applying it to this subject annexation. This annexation and fee waiver request will come back to Council in the future. The consensus of Council is that the intent of the motion is as described by Ms. Readier. Ms. Readier added that this application and fee waiver request will be the impetus for a prompt examination and discussion of the pros and cons, and that discussion will inform Council's decision on this particular request. Mr. McDaniel thanked Mr. Coratola for bringing this policy question forward. He apologized that the request has triggered all of this discussion. His only concern is timing, and he appreciates the applicant's patience in the process. This policy review can take some period of time. Staff will work expeditiously to review this with a committee. Mr. Coratola thanked Council and staff for this consideration. Mayor Amorose Groomes thanked him for his patience and assured him that this matter will be back on a Council agenda at the earliest date feasible given the committee review that needs to occur. She is not certain of which committee will be assigned this policy issue. OTHER • Crawford Hoying - Bridge Park Finance Update Mr. McDaniel stated that Crawford Hoying Development Partners is seeking Council's approval to fund a projected debt service shortfall on currently outstanding bonds that have been issued by the Columbus Franklin County Finance Authority in 2017. These were issued to fund public improvements necessary for the development of A Block, which includes the AC Marriott, The Exchange and the office building. The shortfall is projected during calendar years 2020, 2021 and 2022 in the total amount of approximately $340,000. Due to COVID-19, bed taxes and event revenue have decreased significantly and construction and sales of H Block townhomes have also slowed. The combined impact of these decreases creates the projected debt service shortfall. A Block bond agreements require that the Bridge Park New Community Authority impose an additional millage charge on all property owners — both commercial and residential — within the Bridge Park development in order to fund the shortfall. The millage charge is projected to be approximately 3 mills in 2021 and 1.7 mills in 2022. The Development Agreement, as amended, between the City and Crawford Hoying authorizes additional debt for new public improvements that enable the future buildout of Bridge Park. However, the Agreement does not authorize Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 8 of 20 additional debt to fund revenue shortfalls for A Block bonds. Therefore, to avoid the additional millage charges described and provide relief to property owners, Crawford Hoying requests that City Council approve the use of $340,000 from the upcoming F Block financing to fund the A Block shortfall. Because this is a deviation from the original agreement, this request is being made to Council by Crawford Hoying to see if Council would consider this. Staff is seeking Council guidance on this matter, but a decision is not required tonight. A decision would be needed no later than the September 14 Council meeting. Allison Srail of Crawford Hoying is present in the virtual meeting, as well as Greg Daniels of Squire Patton Boggs, Special Legal Counsel for the City of Dublin. Mr. Stiffler is also available to respond to questions. He introduced Ms. Srail to make comments. Allison Srail, Crawford Hoying thanked Council for their consideration of this request. Over the past several months, everyone has worked together to deal with the issues brought by COVID-19. This is the final issue needed to work through. They appreciate the City's work on the patio expansions and acknowledged the lenders and investors who have allowed Crawford Hoying to be flexible with their tenants as they work to deal with the COVID issues. She noted that there is a gap in what the current Development Agreement allows to be funded. They have tried to bring an option to the table that allows both the City and Crawford Hoying to offer a solution so that the taxpayers and tenants don't have to carry the weight of a shortfall due to COVID for the hotels and event center. The memo provided to Council in the packet outlined the specifics of the issues and the request. She is present tonight to respond to questions. They can follow up at the next meeting if that is desired. Mr. Reiner asked if they anticipate a future request as this, or do they view this as a one-time request. Ms. Srail responded they believe this is a one-time issue. The problem they are trying to solve is the backstop put into place to protect the bond buyer in the event they did not deliver on the original agreement for the development. The burden is borne by the entire block. COVID has impacted several revenue streams, including the percentage sales they receive from the events center. Two different tax streams are based on revenues generated. Prior to COVID, the hotel and the events center were performing beyond expectations and the debt service was more than covered. They believe this is a short-term need and as the hotel ramps up, by 2023 nothing like this would be needed. The Clerk reported there were no public comments received and Ms. Burness reported there were no comments received via the website. Vice Mayor De Rosa noted that she sent questions earlier today to Mr. Stiffler. (Listed below) Is staff prepared to speak to those? The scope is on what is the overall climate — one time versus ongoing. This request covers more than just A Block and some background on that and a few other items are needed. Mr. Stiffler stated he would have that response by the next meeting. Vice Mayor De Rosa noted that her questions were: 1) The memo outlines several financial components that are collectively leading to the projected debt service shortfall for A Block - including City bed tax grants to the Bridge Park NCA, charges levied by the Bridge Park NCA that are similar to bed taxes, percentage of sales from events held at The Exchange, and charges and TIF revenue from the development of townhouses on H Block. The memo provides the overall projected shortfall numbers by year: 2020 - $25,000; 2021 - $200,000; and 2022 - $140,000. Could a schedule be provided that gives more information on how the various components are contributing to the shortfall? Also, I am assuming this is the "most likely" scenario and guessing there are also likely best case and worst-case scenarios. How will funding for Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 9 of 20 the debt service be provided if the actual shortfall amount exceeds the estimates? What if the impact persists beyond 2022? 2) The memo outlines that the shortfall would be funded by new bonds issued this fall in connection with the ongoing development of D block, F block and G block. What ongoing developments will the new bonds fund, or is this essentially a refinancing of the current bonds? 3) The memo shares that the Pandemic is currently having an impact on the revenue performance of other blocks - D, F and G - as well as Block A (slower condo sales were mentioned as one impact). Given that COVID has/will impact so many aspects of the economy, it seems important/relevant to have an overall performance picture/outlook of these blocks, as well as Block A. 4) What other options, in addition to the two options presented (from proceeds of other Blocks, increase mills), are there to fund the projected debt service shortfall? Vice Mayor De Rosa asked what is the full scope of how this service financing shortfall could be paid — aside from millage or City funding. Mr. Daniels responded there are two choices: one is to have a cash funding into the A Block trust agreement for the bonds. The proposed cash funding mechanism is from the F Block financing. Basically, there has to be a cash insertion into the bond trust agreement: in order to cash flow the bonds. If that cash insertion does not happen, then by agreement, the Bridge Park NCA has to levy this additional millage to get that cash in order to cash flow the bonds. Those are the two options: one is outside cash and the second is levying the millage charge referenced earlier. Mr. Reiner asked how that would impact the F Block. Ms. Srail responded that the decreased interest rates in the current environment allowed them to issue bonds in excess of what were originally anticipated to be needed to retire the temporary bonds put in place. Council may recall that when the F Block bonds were put in place they were only building the Springhill Suites at the time — not the entire block. The plan was always to refinance those bonds as construction was completed. In doing the analysis, they identified the shortfall on the A Block bonds and are attempting to use the additional proceeds that are created due to reduced interest rates to help plug that gap. Ms. Fox stated that her understanding is that these additional proceeds are above and beyond what was normally needed and these proceeds would simply be transferred over to A Block, correct? Will there be any negative impact on F Block? Ms. Srail responded there will not. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Daniels about the long-term effects of this with respect to our position in the waterfall. What if things don't bounce back as quickly as some might hope? Mr. Daniels responded that in the waterfall long term, this does add some additional debt to F Block for this purpose. It is unclear if that would not have happened anyway because of future G Block improvements. That remains to be seen. It could be a "wash" long term for what is happening with F Block. But there would be a little bit more debt service on F Block over the 30 or so year life of the bonds. That would reduce the revenue going through the F Block waterfall somewhat, but that revenue could have ended up being used on G Block anyway. That is not known yet, as G Block is not completed, but that is a possibility for where that revenue would have gone, absent this use. Mr. Keeler asked Ms. Srail if Crawford Hoying has a "rainy day" fund, i.e. cash reserves to be tapped in hard times. Ms. Srail responded that each of their properties has specific reserves to account for certain shortfalls. Mr. Keeler asked if it would be possible for Crawford Hoying to make a low interest loan to bail out the situation and then pay themselves back. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS • DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 August 24, 2020 Page 10 of 20 Held Ms. Srail responded that the Agreement would not allow payback to themselves. That is the issue. Mr. Keeler asked Mr. Daniels to comment. Mr. Daniels stated that he understands the question to be whether Crawford Hoying could make the loan and then be paid back from F Block revenue. It is the very same issue, as it: would be a different party buying that debt. He asked Ms. Srail what the F Block rate is — he believes it is low and is one of the reasons they are moving ahead with financing at this point. Ms. Srail responded that is correct. They are currently on a blended basis of about 4 percent compared to 6.5 and 7 percent on the A Block original issue amounts. Mr. Daniels stated that the question is if Crawford Hoying would have the ability to lend under 4 percent, and he does not know the answer to that. The same question would arise — if Council is comfortable then repaying Crawford Hoying for buying the bonds from the NCA. Mr. Keeler noted that he has read that construction and sales of H Block townhouses have also slowed. Given the hot real estate market that exists currently, it seems interesting that the townhome sales are slow. He asked Ms. Srail to comment. Ms. Srail responded that Crawford Hoying is constantly adapting to feedback received from the market. The Flats product has been more popular at Bridge Park than the specific townhomes constructed on H Block. They are re-evaluating development plans to meet the demands of the for sale market in Bridge Park. They are seeing similar demands for the D Block condos that are now being completed. Mr. Keeler asked for the price point on H Block townhomes that are move -in ready. Ms. Srail responded that most have sold, and three remain on the market at this point. They are reacting to a slower scale of sales of the townhomes than originally anticipated. That is why they are re-evaluating the future phases. Mr. Peterson asked if any of the federal government relief funding is available to Crawford Hoying for this project. Ms. Srail responded that the ownership group for the Bridge Park hotel did secure Payroll Protection funds and those funds are specifically allocated for payroll, taxes and debt service. A portion of the funds received from the PPP were used to make their minimum debt service payment, which is another revenue stream for these bonds. That is far in excess of the tax shortfall that needs to be covered. Those funds did go toward the support of this issue in particular, and the balance was used to support the operations of the hotel to ensure it was ready to come online as quickly as possible. Mr. Peterson noted these financing structures are extremely complicated. He asked Mr. Daniels to respond to someone watching who believes that the taxpayers of Dublin are going to bail out the development that suffered due to COVID or other factors. What would the response be to that? Mr. Daniels stated this is really being funded from NCA revenue and TIF revenue. There are not City tax dollars going into this. This is just an additional permitted use of TIF and NCA charges that is already committed to the project — no extra tax dollars. Mr. Peterson stated that this therefore does not constitute the taxpayers bailing out a struggle corporate entity. Mr. Daniels stated that is correct. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Daniels what would prevent others in the many TIF districts across the City from coming forward and asking that their TIF revenue be used to cover a shortfall. Mr. Daniels responded that to his knowledge, Bridge Park is the only development set up under such a Development Agreement. Fundamentally, TIF monies can only be used to pay for public infrastructure improvements or debt that was issued to pay for public infrastructure improvements. In this case, the A Block bonds were issued to fund the public infrastructure improvements in A Block. We still have to use the monies for a legally, statutorily permitted purpose. The request is if Council is comfortable with using this for a purpose that is not explicitly authorized in the agreement for Bridge Park. In the first instance, this is legally permissible. But there is an agreement that RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held August 24, 2020 Page 11 of 20 does not authorize it for this, so if Council is comfortable with this, the agreement will be modified accordingly. Vice Mayor De Rosa asked for the NCA input about this request. Have they reviewed or discussed this? Mr. Daniels responded the NCA has not met recently to discuss this. Ms. Srail added that the annual meeting of the NCA where this charge is set was postponed until after Council has had a chance to review this. It was originally to be set by September 12, but they have received approval to delay that request until Council could weigh in. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that there is a hotel in the block being refinanced — Springhill Suites. It will be impacted as are the other hotels. Why are we okay with that, but riot in A Block? Ms. Srail responded that this block is just getting ready to roll online. In any bond issuance, there are specific reserves to allow the hotel time to ramp up. The bond buyer is assuming that the reserves required will carry it through a period of stabilization. They are comfortable that the hotel will be fully back up to speed and all the revenues will be available to service the debt. There will not be a similar issue of having the NCA charge as a backstop with this issuance. That was a requirement specific to A block. Therefore, they would not be coming back to Council should the hotel not perform in F Block. Mr. Daniels can address the different step coverage charge in place for the block itself versus the NCA as a whole. Mr. Daniels stated that at the outset, everyone viewed A Block as the most difficult block to finance. It was early in the development process and had a lot of community facilities — roadways, parking garages and events center. As the City staff reviewed this, everyone was aware that A Block would have the heaviest lift for financing. Therefore, a back-up charge of up to 12 mills across all of the Bridge Park development to be levied and collected by the NCA was a possibility, if other cash was not available to fund this shortfall. The difference now, going forward to F Block is twofold: 1) the overall development of Bridge Park is much farther along and there is more investor confidence in the market; and 2) the F Block financing, even with the extra $340,000 is significantly less than the A Block financing. There is much less lien to value of F Block to the F Block bonds than existed in A Block. When an investor views that, they are much more confident that if a back-up charge is needed, the owner of the F Block hotel — which is the back-up charge for the F Block financing — would be willing to pay it. In A Block, there was not that same level of confidence because the value of the bonds and the community facilities was much higher in relation to the A Block assets. That is why they looked to a back-up charge to be spread across all of Bridge Park. Ms. Alutto stated that she struggled with this. From the City perspective, with the different risks we face now, it does not feel like a good thing to "shuffle around." She believes it sets a dangerous precedent and doesn't want this to prompt similar requests from developers in other TIF districts. She understands it is not expressly prohibited in the Development Agreement for Bridge Park, but nor is it permissible by the agreement. She believes there must be a different option to bridge that gap than what is proposed. Perhaps additional discussion will yield a different perspective. While there have been impacts across the board from the COVID pandemic, the City has helped businesses as best they can. The support from the State through the CARES Act is not nearly what some other cities receive due to the funding formula. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that Crawford Hoying has had a lot of benefits from this public/private partnership that no one else in the City has had. Even in terms of the bed tax revenue shortfall they cite, they are the only hotel in the City that retains any of their bed tax revenue. She suspects that Council will hear from other hotels who are struggling about keeping a portion of their bed tax revenues. The last report from Mr. Dring cited 38-42 percent occupancy rates. She, like Ms. Alutto is struggling with this request. She understands this deal is unique, but at the end of the day, it is help. The agreement was amended only a year ago, and now Council is being asked to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 12 of 20 change the terms. The Pandemic could last six months more, or longer. Business travel is off through the first quarter of 2021 from all indications. Perhaps the event center may come back, but the hotel/motel tax revenues are generated with business travel for the most part. There are many questions to be answered from the public about this policy issue. Ms. Srail responded that, while she respects the Mayor's position on the issues, the issue being contemplated at this point is slightly different from the one raised a year ago. At the time of the A Block bond issuance, the risk profile was much different. Now they are trying to address the current statute that would pass along the burden to all of the taxpayers who currently own property at Bridge Park. That includes residents who have purchased condominiums as well as the commercial owners, who would pass that charge along to their tenants. They are trying to offer a solution so that the residents of Dublin are not bearing the burden of this COVID-created issue, which they believe will be short-term. Ms. Fox stated that she understands COVID is a unique situation for the economy. But there are other Blocks that may also have significant issues. She is concerned with the domino effect of COVID on the rest of the development — Springhill Suites, the North Market, etc. This is one shortfall, but without understanding the holistic financial health of the entire project it makes her worried about the future of the development. Ms. Srail indicated they provided rent assistance for other businesses. Was this free rent or deferred rent? Ms. Srail responded that in terms of the health of Bridge Park financially as a whole, they are bringing D Block online in the midst of COVID. They are approximately 40 percent leased at that block without much impact from a residential standpoint to the rest of Bridge Park. They areleased with this from a lease u perspective. On the p pp p commercial side, they have been able to announce a couple of their tenants. Many of the agreements were signed pre-COVID, but they have had strong negotiation with tenants even during COVID. There is a continued appetite for what is being offered at Bridge Park from a commercial perspective. The tenants who are open and in operation needed help when the state issued a shut -down order. They continue to need some support as their capacity is limited and Crawford Hoying continues to work with them. They have heard positive stories from each of those tenants as their revenues are coming back. They believe there is a long-term success story at Bridge Park and that, as a whole, the tenants will be able to survive this. As COVID happened, they immediately reached out to all the stakeholders at Bridge Park and asked the lenders and investors to be flexible so that abatements could be offered to tenants. They have been able to work through solutions to ensure the tenants have survived. There is good confidence with the stakeholders. Ms. Fox asked if rents were deferred or forgiven. Ms. Srail responded that the initial offer to all tenants at Bridge Park was to defer two months of their rent to the back end of their lease. In most cases, it is 8-10 years out. Ms. Fox asked about the Columbus -Franklin County Finance Authority where the bonds were purchased through. Franklin County collects much of the City's bed tax — approximately $1.2 million last year. Does the Columbus -Franklin County Finance Authority have any ability to help the businesses in Bridge Park? Have they been approached regarding that assistance? Mr. Daniels responded that in terms of the entities, these are two different entities — Franklin Countyand the Franklin County ty Convention Facilities Authority do collect bed taxes. Those are separate and distinct legal entities from the issuer of the bonds p 9 , which is the Columbus -Franklin County Finance Authority. The Finance Authority does not collect any bed tax. Ms. Fox stated that the Franklin County Commissioners have not had a separate entity that takes the bed taxes and spends it in the Franklin County area, primarily in Central Ohio. Mr. Daniels mentioned that this gap could be cash funded. One way to do so is transferring from the F Block. Is it possible under the Agreement to cash fund it in another way? Mr. Daniels responded that can be done. Ms. Fox summarized that the cash could therefore come from any source. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council I Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 13 of 20 Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the gap is over the term — so it is $23,000 for this year. Ms. Srail confirmed the gap is $25,000 this year. They are not seeking to recover this. That was the estimated shortfall. These charges can only be issued for the following year, and -the projected shortfall in debt service will be borne by the bond buyer in 2020. In 2021, they project a shortfall of $200,000 and in 2022, $140,000 in shortfall. Ms. Fox stated that Mr. Daniels mentioned that the other blocks have a debt protection that is different than this. In those blocks, the debt falls back on the owner of the building. How does that work? Mr. Daniels responded it becomes block specific. For F Block, if there is a shortfall in the revenues from the F Block hotel, there is not a Bridge Park wide extra assessment. There is just an additional assessment on the F Block hotel and that owner is solely responsible for making up any debt service shortage. Ms. Fox commented that her concern is the domino effect. If that owner cannot afford to take on that additional debt, then that bond debt might go into default. Is that correct? Mr. Daniels responded that if the owner could not pay the debt service, there would then be a problem on that F Block. Depending upon how long it lasts, that could be a possibility. What Crawford Hoying and Ms. Srail are indicating is that there is extra time on the block. Since that financing is just occurring now, it is similar to the A Block status three to four years ago that had upfront -capitalized interest reserves that provide more time. Ms. Fox stated that a few of the blocks have been online for quite a while. What is the financial health of the other blocks and the other bonds at this time due to COVID? Mr. Daniels noted that B and C blocks do not have the revenue challenges that A block does, as they have property taxes that do not vary to the same degree. It is the same for Z Block:. D Block does have some exposure to variations in sales because the sales charge collected from Bridge Park is pledged to the D Block bonds. However, we are still in the interest reserve period for D Block. He believes that continues for this and next year. There is typically three years of interest reserves. There could be problems down the line, but the hope is that within the next year and a half, things will correct and the same issue will not occur for D Block. Ms. Srail added that B and C block bonds were much simpler and are funded with real estate tax revenues. There is no issue in making those payments. For D Block, there is the influence of the NCA charges and they are similarly taking advantage of interest rate savings on D Block to help. On the west side, similar to B and C blocks, there is no need to do anything different with those bonds. Ms. Fox stated that the financing is complex and Council needs to understand the overall health of the project to know the status and to make a decision on this request. She agrees with the others that this is an amount of money that should be in reserves and would not require going back to the NCA or asking the City to amend the agreement. It would be helpful to have more financial information on the health of Bridge Park and what other options for cash are available. Ms. Srail responded that the health of Bridge Park financially is extremely strong. They do not foresee other issues. They are dealing with statutory issues in the way that A block specifically was financed and trying to prevent that gap. If they were not using this $340,000 for this specific purpose, it would likely be used to support the issuance of the G Block project. Again, this is taking advantage of rate savings to invest in other parts of Bridge Park public improvements. Ms. Fox stated she appreciates this additional information. Vice Mayor De Rosa echoed what Ms. Fox has stated about wanting to see this. There has been discussion about each of these blocks and what each of them do. For her, and as she, requested earlier today, she would prefer to see this information in writing versus a verbal discussion. It is an issue of clarity and these are so interrelated. In order to support this, she would need to see all of this and specifically to understand the North Market portion. If the North Market doesn't perform — given it is a not-for- Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 14 of 20 profit — who would pay? If the $340,000 gap becomes $640,000, based on what we don't know at this point, what would be the worst-case scenario? Overall, she struggles with the concept of taking out debt to pay debt financing, which is what this constitutes. This makes her uncomfortable. To overcome this, she needs more clarity and in writing. Without that, she could not look upon this favorably. As others have indicated, this is not a large amount of money and she is not certain why Crawford Hoying or others are not funding that. When Council changed the policy the last time, the City agreed to a waterfall change. It sounds like in this case, Council is being asked to do something without some sort of change to the positive in the waterfall. For all of this, there would be a potential cost to the taxpayers and without the data, she would struggle with supporting this. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the discussion indicates that more data is needed and responses to the questions Vice Mayor De Rosa submitted earlier today. More information is needed from Crawford Hoying — projections, revenues, etc. This matter will be continued to the next Council meeting, allowing Mr. Stiffler to provide responses to the questions earlier today and tonight, working with Mr. Daniels and Ms. Srail to assemble that information. On September 14, there can be another public discussion with this information and hopefully Council can make a decision on this matter. Mr. McDaniel thanked Council for allowing this to come forward tonight for consideration. The discussion was good and the questions are good. Staff will take all of this back and provide information for the next meeting. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated to Ms. Srail that it was not Council's intent to delay anything, but much of the information was provided late last week and this matter requires more time for preparation before a decision can be made. She asked her to share the comments with the others at Crawford Hoying. It was the consensus of Council to schedule this matter for further discussion on September 14. STAFF COMMENTS • Audit Report Mr. McDaniel stated that Council has received the State Auditor's audit report for the City and the Auditor offered an opportunity for an exit interview with them. He has not heard from anyone on Council that they desire to have an exit interview. A memo was attached in the packet that was prepared in July in response to issues raised by the Auditor. If there is no desire for an interview, he would ask that the Mayor and Vice Mayor sign the document waiving the exit interview. It was the consensus of Council not to request an interview with the State Auditor. • 202.0 Beautify your Neighborhood Grant applications - status Mr. McDaniel recalled that earlier in 2020, due to COVID, the BYN grant applications were placed on hold. Six applications were received at that time and the total of the requests is $29,172. The Administration supports moving forward with the grant review at this time and requests that the Community Development Committee schedule review at an upcoming meeting. He requested a motion from Council to proceed with the CDC review. Mr. Reiner stated that the Committee is willing to review these applications, together with other business scheduled on Wednesday, September 16 at 5 p.m. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if the grant requests are in line with the annual allocation for these grants. Mr. Stiffler responded that he does not believe the grants exceed the amount budgeted, but he can confirm that. Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to forward the BYN grants to Committee for review. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Dublin City Council August 24, 2020 Page 15 of 20 Held COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Veterans Committee — Proposed Relocation of WWII Monument Mr. Reiner stated that Mr. Earman will share some visuals of this monument and the proposed relocation. It will fit well into the Veterans Memorial Park. Mr. Earman stated that over the past two years, discussion and consideration has been given to the relocation of this monument. This was dedicated to the men and women who attended at the time Washington Township High School and who had served in the armed forces during World War II. It is currently located at the southeast corner of the parking lot of the 1919 Building and is positioned behind a brick wall and therefore not very visible to the public. The Committee appropriately selected the western edge of the Veterans Park for relocation of this monument because it is adjacent to the school grounds. Discussion then focused on the need for the monument to have a raised base to protect the names on the lower portion from deterioration. The existing stone memorial is actually a replacement of the original wood memorial. This stone memorial has also deteriorated beyond repair and will need to be replaced with a new stone replica. He shared slides of the original plus the proposed rendering as well as a close up view. Mr. Krawetzski, Landscape Architect prepared these renderings for the Committee. The Veterans Committee selected this concept at their August 13 meeting and expressed their desire to replicate the existing stone as much as possible to retain its character. Staff estimates the cost of the newly designed memorial, including materials, foundation, installation and landscaping to be approximately $37,000. If approved, staff is hopeful to have the new memorial in place prior to Veterans Day on November 11. The Veterans Committee recommends moving forward with the approved design and seeking formal quotes from local contractors to install the memorial as approved. Ms. Alutto commented that the memorial as proposed is beautiful. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that this monument represents Dublin's native sons and daughters who attended the Washington Township -Dublin Schools. It is appropriate to honor our recent past with this memorial. She appreciates the work of the Committee and staff on this. Mr. Reiner added that this is the third iteration of this memorial for the greatest generation. These people sacrificed much for our country and the Committee is seeking Council's support in memorializing these individuals. Vice Mayor De Rosa asked if there are documented stories, etc. that are related to this memorial of the individuals who are part of this, or would that be another project to consider. Mr. Earman responded that would be another research project. There is some information available and it may lend itself to add interpretive signage that shows the original photograph, helping people to understand the origination of this monument and history behind it. This can be added to the list of projects to be done in the future. Vice Mayor De Rosa commented that there are wonderful stories associated with this and some are lost going forward. If there is a way to capture those stories along the way, that would be wonderful. Mr. Reiner stated this captures those who served. At Dublin Cemetery, those who were killed in action are memorialized. There is much family history related to this particular memorial being relocated. He agrees it would be great to have a plaque with the old photograph of this monument as part of the new one. Ms. Fox added that perhaps it is possible to engrave the back of these stones with a laser of images that would bring the stories to life. The technology department was reviewing a QR code that would bring pictures forward onto a cellular phone. Mr. McDaniel stated that the minutes of the August 13 Veterans Committee are not finalized at this time, but the Committee discussed the possibility of showing that original picture somewhere relative to this memorial to provide context. The Committee also formed a subcommittee to look at that technology approach — leveraging technology around the Grounds of Remembrance to make this possible. There was a large group of volunteers last fall who documented the veteran gravesites within Dublin Cemetery, and Dublin has documentation of those in the outlying Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS • DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held August 24, 2020 Page 16 of 20 cemeteries. Those can all provide base information for a technology study. Part of this included translating that from the second floor of the Library that overlooks the Veterans Park and bringing some of that information to the Library. Mr. Reiner agreed. He moved to recommend that Council endorse this design and fund the construction of this memorial. The Clerk and Ms. Burness reported no information has been received from the public regarding this agenda item. Mayor Amorose Groomes seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Fox, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Community Development Committee: A meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, September 16 at 5 p.m. regarding the short-term rental regulations and the BYN grant applications, which were added this evening to the agenda. Central Ohio Transit Authority: Vice Mayor De Rosa reported that the Board meets tomorrow. Mid -Ohio Regional Planning Commission: Mayor Amorose Groomes reported that they have been involved with the PCs for People program that has supplied more than 10,000 in Central Ohio with internet access. Dublin Schools is participating in this program as well. The initiative provides internet access to students for remote learning. She is very proud of the work being done on this. US 33 Corridor Group: Ms. Fox reported that Casey Clark, project manager for ODOT and the study underway for the 33 Corridor spoke at their recent meeting. The study is to get an overview of a 20 -year plan for easy access to 33 and then analyzing land use, travel demands and transportation needs of that corridor in the next 20 years. They have developed goals and objectives and their next step is to evaluate all of the future opportunities along that corridor. The study is scheduled to be completed in early 2021. They have reported that most of the new development is between Post Road to US 42 and US 42 to Marysville. The plan will offer a range of alternative future transportation and flexible solutions for the use of 33. Union County is also doing a mobility study and they mentioned they are planning a shared -use path along Industrial Parkway. Mr. Phillips reported that 61 roadside units are installed and will be broadcasting along the 33 corridor by the end of September. There are 10 signalized units that will be operational in Dublin and 27 in Marysville. Between 800 and 1,000 on board units on cars or trucks will be operational by early 2021. It is amazing how fast this is all coming together along 33. Vice Mayor De Rosa added that much discussion focused on autonomous and automated vehicles. Last night's 60 Minutes broadcast featured unmanned, autonomous 18 -wheel carriers that are already operating. The sensors are in place and we are ready for that. It might be useful to have an update for all of Council sometime within the next few months. In the roundtable at the recent meeting, it was reported that even with the COVID situation, there is a lot of development activity and interest up and down the corridor with Dublin's partners. There are more opportunities than have been experienced in a while, which is good and positive news. Dublin Arts Council: Mr. Reiner reported that the plant kindness rock garden program is growing. The community is invited to pick up rocks at the Dublin Arts Center on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Curbside concerts continue that honor the community heroes — first responders, medical workers, grocery store employees, school team members, community servants and more. A special patio concert route supports our local businesses as well. These are free. To nominate and receive a concert, details are found on the Dublin Arts Council website. There are six-foot galleries installed throughout the downtown and they will be on view through Labor Day. This public art and public health initiative is a partnership of Dublin Arts Council and the Dublin RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held August 24, 2020 Page 17 of 20 Convention and Visitors Bureau. More information is at the DAC website. He provided details on the concerts that have been offered. Dublin Board of Education: Mr. Peterson stated he wants to update Council regarding the staff report in the packet regarding an issue that has been raised and that is gaining momentum. It is in the CIP budget and it is the issue of Emerald Parkway and access (in and out) of Dublin Schools Emerald campus. The staff report did an excellent job of summarizing the situation. He reported the following based on an August 19 phone call involving Mr. McDaniel, Dublin staff, Mr. Peterson, Dr. Hoadley and a traffic consultant who presented a study. The issue is identified on the first page of the staff report. • When the Verizon buildings were developed and the Cardinal Health expansion occurred, the exit was fully signalized as it is today. Moving toward Coffman Road, there is an exit out of the Emerald campus where students are trying to make a left hand turn. This is not signalized and there are no traffic control measures in place, aside from a special duty Police officer recently trying to assist with those turning left onto Emerald Parkway. • The next area is a right in/right out only as shown on the illustration. The exit out of Emerald campus is the issue as vehicles try to turn left at peak times onto Emerald Parkway. Coffman High School dismisses at the same time and there are groups of students walking from Coffman, down and across Emerald Parkway to access Emerald campus. Therefore, it is a dangerous combination of a large volume of students making this cross on Emerald Parkway, while some vehicles are trying to turn left in front of them onto Emerald Parkway to move to Coffman Road. • It has evolved into more of an issue than originally anticipated, as outlined in the staff report. What had been anticipated was more bus traffic in and out of Emerald campus than exists and not as much foot traffic from Coffman High School. Combined, this has created this dangerous situation. • The short-term issue is the safety concerns, and the long-term solution is what can be done to address this situation. On the last page of the memo, some alternatives are proposed and all focus on different ways to get traffic to turn right out of the Emerald campus and then make a U-turn to go back to Coffman. The only alternative that is an exception is the "pedestrian hybrid beacon." • One of the alternatives was recommended by the traffic engineers who performed the traffic study — that is Alternative 5, to construct a roundabout at that location where the current left turns are attempted. • Also of note is that to the north of that proposed roundabout is a fourth leg that would connect to Coffman High School, an access point that does not currently exist. Neither of the two parking lots shown on the rendering to the left: and right of a proposed roundabout currently exists. The parking lot shown to the left is at the corner of Emerald and Coffman where the marching band currently practices. There is a proposal to turn that area into parking, and also provide more parking over to the right of the proposed leg. To the right of that proposed parking lot is one of the softball fields. This roundabout solution would include accessing those two parking lots via this roundabout as well as a road that wraps around the back of Coffman and heads to the football field parking lot. This is the preferred solution recommended by the traffic consultants. • There is a second solution, which may be a short-term solution — Alternative 1 — a pedestrian hybrid beacon. It is a signalization prompted by a pedestrian. If a pedestrian approaches to cross, the lights activate to stop traffic, allowing the pedestrians to cross the road. If the lights are triggered by pedestrians, traffic is stopped and there will be a gap in the Emerald Parkway flow, allowing the cars in a queue out of Emerald campus to turn left onto Emerald. This is a cheaper alternative, and the roundabout is the most expensive. • The CIP includes as a placemaker a project to improve access to Emerald campus at an estimated cost of up to $2.5 million. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 18 of 20 • Emerald campus has developed slightly different than originally anticipated in terms of individual car traffic and pedestrian traffic from Coffman. This is a dangerous condition and a solution is needed. The idea of the parking lots has evolved as well, and there are issues for the Schools to work out on this. The question became whether those lots will be installed in any case, regardless of what occurs in terms of access. There are more decisions needed to be made by the Schools, and he believes it is on their agenda tonight. • In terms of how this traffic problem was created, he understands that when the two Verizon buildings were constructed, there was an agreement about the signalization of the shared exit, and Cardinal Health used it as well. It all worked well. However, there is no such agreement in place between the current owner of the building to the east and the Dublin Schools. An easy solution would be to continue to take traffic across the building to the east and funnel traffic out to the existing light. However, with the separation of ownership of the buildings, there is not much hope of resolving the issue in this way. It would be interesting to review the past agreements between Cardinal and the Verizon buildings to provide for this access and determine if there is any possibility that the access ran with the land and come to a different solution. For this reason, a project is included in the CIP for 2024 at $2.5 million as a placeholder for a roundabout, subject to all of the other discussion underway at the Schools. • He added that a roadway improvement clearly falls under Dublin's responsibility. Mr. McDaniel stated his report is accurate. He and Mr. Stiffler included this project as a placeholder, recognizing it may be desired sooner than 2024. Council would have to decide the timing of such a project. There are some expectations to be managed relative to design and construction as there are utility issues that may impact the timeframe for construction. This is preliminary as more discussion is needed by the Schools on their plans and preferences. He has spoken to the owner of the building to the east regarding any possibility of a cross easement to access the light. The light was designed to service both campuses — the Cardinal expansion and what was the Verizon campus and was intended to work together. All of this traffic together met the warrant for a signal installation. The Emerald campus signalization would not meet the warrant, given the counts. For that reason, other options have been offered for consideration. The owner of the building to the east has been adamant in conversation with the Schools about not being amenable to young drivers or buses traversing the area. There was discussion about what a roundabout would do in terms of the character of Emerald Parkway as it exists today. While it could have a good effect in slowing traffic, it impacts the traffic movement for Cardinal Health and for the building next door. More discussion will take place during the CIP workshops. Ms. Fox stated asked if the former Verizon building — now the Emerald campus — were removed from the traffic counts, she wonders if it would still meet the warrant for that signalization. It is disappointing that the access to the existing signal can't be shared as it will cost the taxpayers $2.5 million to remedy this problem. If a roundabout is constructed, would the traffic signal be eliminated to the east of Emerald campus? Ms. O'Callaghan stated that was not part of the recommendation from the traffic consultants. Ms. Fox commented that it is very aggravating that it cannot be resolved without a $2.5 million roadway improvement. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that further discussion of this item will be held at the CIP workshop on August 19. To do this project will likely require shuffling other projects in terms of timing. Washington Township: Ms. Fox thanked all of the firefighters and staff who helped with the windstorm clean-up earlier in August. She encouraged everyone to thank the firefighters! Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS • DAYTON, OHIO Held August 24, 2020 Page 19 of 20 Friendship Committee: Ms. Alutto stated this initiative is currently on hold. Complete Count Committee: Ms. Alutto reported that the Dublin census count is now up to 81.9 percent response rate, which is fantastic. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner reminded everyone to talk to business owners in downtown Dublin about their current status, similar to what he has done with Irish Festival vendors over the years. He understands that the patron numbers at businesses are improving in downtown Dublin. He encouraged everyone to visit the downtown businesses Monday through Thursday. The weekends are busy, but they still need extra support during the weekdays. Vice Mayor De Rosa reminded interested citizens of tomorrow evening's discussion with ODOT, Union County and City staff regarding the 33/161 interchange project. This is the public input session to learn about the status of the project and to provide feedback. She asked Ms. Burness to identify where people can find the link to this meeting. Ms. Burness responded it is on the front page of the website and the meeting will be livestreamed as well through the City site. There is also a public comment form on the website posting for this meeting. Ms. Fox noted the following: 1. PZC has had some interesting concept and development plans recently. On SR161, there is much activity including the Chase Bank on the corner of Banker Drive and Sawmill. PZC challenged the applicant to think of this corner as a gateway, and because of that, they returned with a new design that included public seating and a piece of artwork, working in collaboration with DAC. 2. Last Thursday, PZC met and discussed property maintenance, temporary sign codes that relate to commercial tenant leases, and residential development patterns. Regarding property maintenance, this was a great discussion and recommendations will come forward to Council. Regarding temporary sign codes, discussion took place about reducing the number of signs, the size of the signs, improving the quality of the signs and addressing the number of continuous days a commercial lease sign can be posted and the total amount of days within one year, why and for what purpose. For residential development patterns, there was concern about trends observed with developers wanting to build fairly large empty nester homes on very small lots, very close together, with small setbacks and high density. The Commission will be looking at the trends in empty nester homes and will be researching best practices around the country. They plan to meet with the residents who live in these communities to learn what is good about the density and what suggestions they would make to improve the living environment. They will also tour developments to observe best practices and determine if Dublin is receiving the best development proposals possible for this type of development. E-mails were also sent by developers about the topic, but PZC will seek independent information on this topic. She commended PZC members for their work in looking at best practices to benefit Dublin. Mayor Amorose Groomes thanked staff for pulling together all of the information for tonight's virtual meeting. She recognizes their hard work to keep the continuity of governance moving forward. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes oJ7 Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Form 6101 �t 241 2020 Page 20 of 20