Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/2002 RECORD OF' PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting w„~~,,,,~.,.,,~~~~.~~~,~w~rw~..,~.,mH~~,~~~w~.~,.,~w,~,~,~m..,~~,~,~,urvw, ~,,~,.v~.pm.~,~..u„~,r~~.W~,~„a,~~,mD~r~,.~~~ymC~~~~~,~~~~_,~~v,,.,~..r~,~~~.vH~w,..v„~W,~,~~.m~~,~.,,~.,~m.~~~,~,vµ~,m~,~~~w,,,~d~,~w~~m,~mw. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK R Held_ January 22, 2002 lg Mayor McCash called the Dublin City Councif meeting of January 22, 2002 to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Reiner led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call Council members present were: Mayor McCash, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr. Reiner, Mr. Lecklider, and Ms. Salay. Mr. Kranstuber arrived late. Staff members present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Kindra, Mr. Harding, Ms. Telfer, Chief Geis, Ms. Gilger, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Hahn, Lt. Epperson and Ms. Hoyle. Approval of Minutes Mr. Reiner moved approval of the January 7, 2002 Council meeting minutes as submitted. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion:. Vote on the motion -Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Correspondence The Clerk reported that a Notice to Legislative Authority was sent regarding a corporate transfer of a liquor permit for Lone Star Steakhouse, located at 6379 Sawmill Road to Samnang Inc., dba Lone Star Steakhouse, same address. There was no objection to the transfer of this permit. Citizen Comments Wallace Maurer 7451 Dublin Road stated that at a neighborhood meeting one year ago, Council announced the intent to provide City water lines to the area of town in which he resides. Discussion at another Council meeting later in the year focused on expectations for the project, including the information that the cost to the homeowner would be $1,500 for Dublin tap fees, $1,500 for Columbus tap fees, and the contractor's fee for installation of the tap line from the main water line to the house. On November. 5th, he received notification from the City that the water line was complete and available for resident connection, and there was a reiteration of the cost. Then, on December 14th, he was surprised to learn that the City fee had been reduced significantly from $1,500 to $176.00/sewer and $100.00/water. He contacted the City Manager and was provided an explanation and history on the City's provision of water, including Resolution 33-92, which was the basis for the fee reduction.. He inquired if there have been any other sectors of the City which have been provided with City water service subsequent to1992, and if so, did Resolution 33-92 apply to them? Why, after more than one reminder to the residents about the Dublin and Columbus fees, did this Resolution appear after November 5th? He stated that he is concerned about the application of this Resolution to citizens between 1992 and the present. Mr. Kindra responded that since 1992, the only City funded proj ect was the one that was just completed. However, there have been many subdivision developments, for which the developers provided the water lines. Mr. Maurer noted that the reduced fee is available to the end of the year for the neighborhoods that just received City water lines. Will this same temporary reduction in fees be provided to other neighborhoods in the future? There is an issue of fairness involved. Mr. Reiner stated that this was the basis. for his. negative vote on the issue -concern that the City would be setting a precedent. Ms. Grigsby stated that Council's Public Services Committee met on December 3rd to discuss the issue. The recommendation to temporarily reduce the fee was provided to Council on December 10th, and the legislation approved by City Council at that meeting clarified the areas eligible for this reduction. i , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Llfi~-~~y~uiL.~ ~.age.2„w,,~~, Meetingaw,,~~~~~,~.~u~.~..... DAYTON LEGAL BLANK Held January 22, 2002 19 Mr. Maurer inquired if the water was provided to these. areas due to an immediate health issue. If so, was the Resolution brought forward to facilitate the mandatory tap-in for those areas, and would it also apply to future public health situations? Mayor McCash stated that extensive discussion on this subject occurred at the December meetings. In summary, the City was concerned about the quality of water in these older neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods were part of Dublin before 1992, at which time the City implemented the present water and sewer rates. Because those neighborhoods would have tied into the City water and sewer system if it had been. available to them, City Council, in fairness, committed to allow that same rate. for those neighborhoods, whenever the water and sewer lines were extended to them. in the future. Mr. Maurer inquired if this resolution applied only to those particular neighborhoods, and not to other neighborhoods that might experience a public health issue with water and/or sewer in the future? Mr. McCash responded that, at this time, the resolution passed by this Council does not apply to any other areas. However, future Councils may extend similar considerations, depending on the issues brought forward at that time. Staff Comments Ms. Grigsby: 1. Referred to notification provided to Council regarding the announcement by Chief Geis of his retirement in March 2002. Chief Geis has extensive history with the City of 25-26 years, and in view of his knowledge, experience and involvement, he will be greatly missed. The City wishes him well in his retirement. Chief Geis stated that he has been employed by the City all his adult years. His career with the City has afforded him many opportunities, and he will pursue those in the private sector. He plans to remain in the area. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is difficult for a City to lose such a professional. She noted that one outstanding achievement of his career is the accreditation of the Police. Division. Not many Police Divisions across the country receive this accreditation. She congratulated him on a job well done. 2. Referred to a memo in Council packets regarding a sponsorship opportunity for the LPGA Tournament, which will be held in Tartan Fields in August 2002. If Council has any questions, please contact Ms. Puskarcik or Ms. Gilger. This matter will be scheduled on the February 4th Council agenda for consideration. Mr. Ciarochi noted that, pursuant to Council's direction, the City Engineer has provided to Council tonight a proposal for the scope, timeframe and cost for a traffic study related to the third high school development. Mayor McCash suggested that discussion of the traffic study be scheduled for the February 4th meeting agenda. Mr. Smith stated that Council requested that he meet with legal counsel and/or the landowner of the Kroger Center, regarding the closing of the service drive behind Blockbuster and Burger King. He has reviewed the plat, discussed the issue with their counsel, and has a meetin~ with the landowner scheduled next Monday. He will report to Council at the February 4t meeting. Ms. Clarke reminded Council that a joint meeting is scheduled with the Planning Commission on Thursday, January 31St at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the Unified Development Code. ~ i ~ ~ ~ 9 i I ~ a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dub~i~ ~it~~~:~tt~~ Pag~,~ ~ Meeting.~q„w~y „ yw~ DAYTON LEGAL 6LANK Held January 22, 2002 19 Mr. Harding noted that a progress report has been provided to Council by Bob Slavin regarding the City Manager search. Council has scheduled a meeting with Mr. Slavin on Tuesday, January 29tH Ms. Gilger requested that Council members complete the bio forms that were provided and return them to the Council Clerk or Community Relations as quickly as possible. Special Recognition: Mr. McCash stated that many people have held the position of Mayor, and each person has left their own mark. He noted that holding a public office requires personal sacrifices, as much family time is donated to conducting City business. On behalf of City Council, he read a proclamation recognizing former Mayor Kranstuber's commitment to the City, serving three terms as Mayor. He noted that he provided leadership to Council though a period of tremendous growth and development in the City and in consideration of Mr. Kranstuber's service to the City, he designated Friday, January 25th, 2002 as the "Kranstuber Family Day" in the City of Dublin. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 01-02 - An Ordinance Amending Certain Sections of Ordinance 98- 96 ("Compensation Plan") Regarding Wages/Salaries for Non-Union Personnel. There were no questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 04-02 - An Ordinance Amending Sections 91.29 and 91.99 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Dangerous and Vicious Dogs. Mr. Smith stated that the ordinance includes .the revision regarding fence height, which Council had requested. There were no questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs.- Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. INTRODUCTION & FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance OS-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Exclusive Easement with Ameritech for a Proposed Controlled Environment Vault (CEV) Manhole Necessary to Support the Entire Ballantrae Development and Golf Course. Mayor McCash introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that the legislation provides an easement to Ameritech allowing them the necessary infrastructure to serve the Ballantrae development. Mr. McCash inquired if this eliminates other cable or telephone services in this area. Mr. Ciarochi responded that this is only for an Ameritech vault on the property the City acquired; it is not part of the right-of--way. Mr. Reiner inquired about the aesthetics of the project. Mr. Ciarochi responded that there is a provision that Ameritech provide landscape screening. Mr. Reiner requested that a Development or Planning staff member review this. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the February 4th Council meeting. Ordinance 06-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Columbus, Ohio City Attorney for Prosecution of Criminal Cases in Franklin County Municipal Court, Criminal Division, and Representation of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles for Certain Cases in the Civil Division of the Franklin County Municipal Court, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Kranstuber introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this legislation provides for continuation of the existing contract retroactive to January 1, 2002. Due to the. timeframe, staff requests adoption by emergency. Mr. Kranstuber moved to treat this as emergency legislation and dispense with the public hearing. i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~~~~~,~,,~„aw~~~,,~u,.~„~W,~~,~Minutesv,~°f ~~H~,~~,m~,~,~,n~~~~rA~~,W~~~~ a,~Aa~~ ~~ib.~.~~yro~.©~~~~~~ A ~ image 4 1Vleeting~Aw~..~HV~.~.w,,,~~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. Held January 22, 2002 19 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 07-02 - An Ordinance Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2002. Mayor McCash introduced the ordinance.. Ms. Grigsby stated that this provides a $4,500 appropriation for the Government Cable Channel, as previously authorized by City Council. It also appropriates some of the tree replacement fees which have been collected.. The remaining section relates to capital projects and appropriates their unencumbered fund balance as of year-end to continue the projects. Staff requests that Council dispense with the public hearing and approve the ordinance tonight. Mr. Kranstuber moved to dispense with the public hearing. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs.. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 08-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City's Participation in a Regional Study Regarding Traffic and Growth Management in Northern Franklin and Southern Delaware Counties, and Appropriating Funds Therefor. Mr. McCash introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this legislation was prepared pursuant to Council's direction at the January 7th Council meeting. She noted that Mr. Habig of MORPC will attend the public hearing on February 4th. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the February 4th Council meeting. Ordinance 09-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Various Easement Agreements with AEP for the Development of the Ballantrae Golf Course in the City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. McCash introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this legislation is similar to Ordinance OS-02, except that it relates to right-of--way as well as areas in the golf course and public areas that the City owns. Because AEP will not install the power until the easements are granted and the delay would hinder the project, staff requests adoption by emergency. Mr. Kranstuber moved to treat this as emergency legislation and dispense with the public hearing. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes, Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. INTRODUCTION & PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 01-02 - A Resolution Appointing Members to Various Boards and Commissions of the City of Dublin. Mr. Kranstuber introduced the resolution. Mayor McCash stated that two versions were provided to Council. Version B adds a section to fill the unexpired term of Todd Zimmerman on the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mayor McCash moved to amend the sections as follows: Section 1, to appoint Todd Zimmerman to fill the unexpired term of Amy Salay on Planning and Zoning Commission, term expiring March 31, 2004; to appoint John Messineo to the Planning and Zoning Commission term expiring March 31, 2003; to appoint Randy Roth to the unexpired term of Barry Burton on the. Community Services Advisory Commission, term expiring March 31, 2003; to appoint Christopher Hogan to the unexpired term of Michael Doshier on the Community Services Advisory Commission, term expiring March 31, 2002; and to further amend Section 4 that Mr. Doshier be reappointed to a three-year term expiring March 31, 2005; to appoint Bangalore Shankar to the unexpired term of Mike Hutchins on the. Building Construction Appeals Board, term _ r"".F"'" i ~ _ ~ ii'~ i~~ ~ . ~___~______n, ~ RECORD OF PROGEED[NGS Minutes of ~~~~n~,~ , w~a ~~ge 5 .Meeting ~A~~..~~A~.W~u~~_~~~u,~,~„~„~~w,H~,,~~~~NW~~.-,~,a~,~mA,~N~.a~~~~~ _e ~wnwv~~~ ~M. ,~.~.,.vo. w .~~w~,.~„~~..~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK January 22, 2002 19 Hel,. expiring March 31, 2002; and to appoint Jeffrey Ferezan to the unexpired term of Todd Zimmerman on the Board of Zoning Appeals, term expiring March 31St, 2003. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 02-02 - A Resolution Authorizing The City Manager to Enter Into a Refuse, Recycling, Yard Waste and Snow Removal Services Agreement ("Agreement") with Edwards Golf Communities, LLC and Execute Any Other Documents Necessary To Comply with the Agreement for the Development of the Ballantrae Golf Course in the City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Mr. McCash introduced the resolution. Ms. Grigsby stated that this authorizes an agreement under which the Edwards Company would install a temporary road, and the City will continue to provide trash collection and snow removal for that road on a temporary basis until the final road is completed. Ms. Salay inquired about the location. Mr. Ciarochi responded that a road previously originating from Woerner-Temple has been removed following construction of Fairway 9 on the new golf course. The temporary road will also originate at Woerner-Temple, but will circle to the south and end at the Headlee property. It will run parallel to the east of the site of the new and final road which will cul de sac at the Headlee property. Mr. Lecklider inquired if Rumpke has been made aware of this agreement. Mr. Ciarochi affirmed that they have been contacted. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Resolution 03-02 - A Resolution to Approve the Post Road/U.S. 33 Interchange Justification Study. Mayor McCash introduced the resolution. Ms. Grigsby stated that information for this resolution was provided in the packet for the January 7th Council meeting. This will allow the City to coordinate the transportation efforts in regard to improvement of that interchange. Mrs. Boring inquired if there would be cost-sharing on the project. Ms. Grigsby stated that at this point, the funding for the project has not been determined. Several options were proposed in the packet information. That will be decided as the project is incorporated into the five-year CIP. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the current consideration is acceptance of the study only, not for any financial commitment. Ms. Grigsby stated that this resolution would accept the plan and the option proposed; it does not address the funding. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for more details about which option would be approved with Council's passage of the resolution. Mr. Ciarochi responded that a map was provided in the last packet, which described the geometric configuration of the new interchange. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher expressed concern that there has been no public discussion of this proposal. To approve an option, in essence, also indicates financial support for that option. She would prefer a more thorough discussion to provide a better understanding of the actual interchange recommendation and the degree of funding to which the City would be committing, should no other entity choose to participate. Mr. Ciarochi suggested that a consultant attend. the next Council meeting to provide that explanation. The total project cost is estimated at $11.5 to $12 million. He agreed that it would be advisable to clarify the issues at the outset. Mr. Lecklider inquired if Council engaged in any discussion on the intersection design configuration, or if it were imposed by ODOT. Mr. Ciarochi responded that there are many state and federal standards are applied to the geometrical configurations, but there were several options considered. This particular recommended configuration has been reviewed and agreed to by ODOT. However, staff can demonstrate the alternatives considered and have more public discussion, if desired. He noted that staff does not anticipate this project being scheduled on the five-year program nor that the City would fund the entire cost. Half l I~ II 9 r r ~ RECORD OF PROCEED[t~lGS Minutes of ~ Meeting „p~a~.~.~„~~.~~~~m~.,m~,~u,~-~~~ w~A~Aaw,.~,~,v_~AO,~~M ~~„a ,~~~~~l~ra~~~~aa~~~,~,.~,~~,~~_,~.,,~,~,a~n,~~,.~,~a. P C~ ~a~,ww„~~~~~~..,ruw~, DAYTON LEGAL BLA K Held January 22, 2002 19 of this interchange currently lies outside. the City's corporation limits. However, staff does request concurrence with the geometric configuration proposed so that concurrence can also be requested from the Union County Engineer. Ms Chinnici-Zuercher moved to table the Resolution to the February 4th Council meeting for presentation and discussion. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Mr. Reiner asked about the project timeframe based on seeking federal or state monies. Mr. Ciarochi responded that with ODOT or Federal highway administration funding, it could take ten to fifteen years in total for implementation, and the local match would be fifty percent. Mayor McCash stated that the only way it could be accomplished in three to four years would be with City funding. He inquired if there would be any possibility of TIF options or impact fees for the retail.. development recently approved in Jerome Township, and whether there is the possibility of a contribution from the township and/or Union County? Ms. Grigsby stated that those options would be considered. A TIF. would be contingent upon future development occurring in that area. She is uncertain what ability the township has in regard to setting up a TIF district. -She will study that option. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Union County is not making any commitment, but she would like to know what their capacity would be to assist with funding. Vote on the motion to table:. Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Resolution 04-02 - A Resolution in Support of the Columbus Metropolitan Wastewater Facilities Plan Update and Urging the Ohio EPA to Incorporate the Elements Contained in the Columbus Plan into all Central Ohio Clean Water Act -Urban Waste Treatment (Section 208) Management Plans. Mayor McCash introduced the resolution. Ms. Grigsby stated that a memo from Ms. Crandall and an executive summary from the City of Columbus have been provided. Both Ms. Crandall and Jay Herskowitz have been attending the meetings. The staff supports following the Columbus Metropolitan Wastewater Facilities Plan. There were no questions. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Resolution OS-02 - A Resolution Authorizing an $8,500 Contribution to the "No On State Control of Property Rights" Committee. Mayor McCash introduced the resolution. Ms. Grigsby stated that this legislation was prepared in response to Council's authorization at the last Council meeting to contribute an additional $8,500 for the referendum effort. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, no; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. OTHER Discussion re Glick/Muirfield Intersection Improvement Mayor McCash stated that there are three components of this project that will be addressed tonight: the safety issue, about which Council has no dispute; the replacement issue; and the enhancement issue. He asked that. comments focus on those three issues. He requested that Mr. Ciarochi provide an update. Mr. Ciarochi stated that during the discussions of the five-year CIP, Council requested that staff present concept designs to Council for preview before proceeding with the bid phase. Accordingly, staff has prepared a concept plan for the Glick-Muirfield intersection improvements based on Council's direction. In Council packets, the minutes of the September 17, 2001 were provided. At that meeting, Council approved the five-year CIP and gave specific direction to staff in regard to this project, including: • The total budget for the project was approved at $1.385 million. • The roadway improvements, including the signalization were allocated at $950,000, which includes a 15 percent contingency amount. If roadway . R ,n ; ,m m . , . RECORD CAF' ..PROCEEDINGS .~wA~,~a,.a~.,,~,, ~,xuaM~,.~~~a Minutes e,°~ ~,~~,~,,~,-,vv~,~,,mw,~,,~w,.A m Duh~~~ ~~~y~~n~i~ ~Q~,~,~~,aA,,,~~~q„~ro~~„~~„~~~~~?aageW~.A,,.~,~A.AMeetin~~,~..mA.~~.~„~„~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK Held January 22, 2002 19 improvements were to exceed that amount, authorization from City Council must be obtained. • Landscaping and other improvements were allocated at $435,000, which includes a 15 percent contingency. • The water and waterfall features of .the original concept design were to be modified to reflect a recirculating water fountain feature.. The design concept in this packet provides for replacement of the waterfall feature with a fountain design. The fountain features mirror the type of water feature located in the Big Bear shopping center on Perimeter Loop Drive. • The fogging feature is removed in the revised concept. • The light poles and traffic signals have been revised to match the poles used at other Dublin intersections. There are no logos or artwork involved in any of those features at this time. • The revised concept design includes a plan to save mature trees and the semi- circular stone wall on the southeast corner of the intersection. • The water fountain feature has an estimated cost of $170,572. The remainder of the landscaping improvements would then be limited to the balance of the $435,000 allocated for landscape enhancement. At the last meeting, Muirfield resident George Burris raised concerns about a letter he had forwarded to Council members in October 2001.. Mr. Ciarochi noted that he met with Mr. Burris on Friday. That letter was discussed, and Mr. Burris was provided with copies of the materials that were included in Council's packet. Also provided to Council are copies of the materials which were previously requested by Mr. Burris regarding two previous engineering studies of the intersection. In view of the fact that there was some controversy associated in developing the direction of this project, staff has attempted to remain sensitive to Council's direction on this issue. He noted that staff did receive some requests for information from Council members on Friday. In response, Council has been provided tonight with graphics for the project. Photographs are also included of the existing material which was removed from the median on both the north and south sides of Glick Road. That material was removed to allow the installation of the temporary signal. Mr. Reiner inquired if the Muirfield Association had an opportunity to view this concept plan. Mr. Ciarochi stated that this design has not been shared with the Muirfield Association. Staff wanted to verify that this would meet with Council's expectations before presenting it to the Muirfield Association. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the estimate for the water feature component. Mr. Ciarochi stated that it is estimated at $170,572. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the inclusion of a public bikepath and sidewalk in the plan. Mr. Ciarochi responded that the sidewalk and bikepath illustrations represent improvements that are proposed to be included in the intersection improvements, even though they do not connect to existing sidewalks or bikepaths. Mr. Lecklider asked why they would then be funded at this point, if they do not connect. Mr. Kranstuber asked if Glick Road is on the list of missing links in the bikepath plan. Ms. Grigsby responded that it is on the list. Although she is not aware of the schedule for its completion, the practice is to include the sidewalk whenever a section of road is done, to meet the goal of a network of pedestrian walkways/bikepaths throughout the city. Mr. Reiner asked about the timeframe for the bikepath connection in this area. If it is not in the current five-year plan, it may be unnecessary to construct this section at this time. l i `iT m--. I d i ~ f d.. _ . i RECORD OF PROCEEDIl~1GS Minutes of Meeting ~,.~m. ,~o„~~.,~~„~,~,4~,uuM,~,~ ~,m„~m~~~~r~~,~~~,~A,~~.~ ~ ,AW ,~~.~„ayA~,,~ m ~ b,~~.Pag~ ~~,.,~~,,,~_M.,~,~u„ H .~_nA, 1 ~ DAYTON LE AL BLA K Held January 22, 2002 19 Mr. Kinds stated that this is consistent with the City's policy, and the cost for the installation is not significant. Mr. Kranstuber stated that part of the criteria for development of the list of "missing links" in the bikepath system was to identify links that are necessary to connect neighborhoods to major parks; in this case, it would be a connection to Avery Park. Ms. Salay inquired if that is also the case with the sidewalk on the southeast corner - will it also connect to the public sidewalk system? Mrs. Boring inquired if there are long-term plans for a component of the public sidewalk and bikepath system along Mui~eld Drive. Mr. Kindra stated that it was not in the scope to review extension of the sidewalk through Muirfield. There are currently no plans to do so, therefore this small section of sidewalk will not extend past the end of the curb in the intersection. Ms. Salay stated that it could then actually detract from the appearance of the intersection. Mr. Reiner stated that it would not link up to any existing sidewalk system because it doesn't exist in that section of Muirfield. He suggested that this proposed section of north-south sidewalk be removed from the concept design. Mrs. Boring inquired about the total cost. of the plan as presented. Mr. Ciarochi responded that it remains within the $435,000 limit for landscaping and features. Mrs. Boring stated that, based on the drawings, more than replacement is being proposed. Mr. McCash asked for clarification that the items removed to allow installation of the temporary light consisted of two stone signs and 8 to 10 Austrian Pines. Mr. Reiner stated that it would be necessary to check with Mr. Holbrook to verify that information, as the Muirfield Association coordinated the removal. Mr. McCash noted that the plans appears to indicate only items within the median were removed; nothing outside the right-of--way was removed. Mr. Ciarochi confirmed that, to date, only items within the median have been removed, although the plan provides for additional removal of items. Mr. Reiner stated that if the site plan were adjusted to the north, the circular wall on the southwest corner, which contains the electrical boxes, would also need to be removed. Mr. Kindra stated that the electric box would not be removed. Although an oak tree and some shrubs are planned for removal, the plan is not finalized. As they complete the design for the bikepath, an attempt will be made to save as many trees as possible. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that. Council's recommendation for the concept plan before them is to remove the proposed sidewalk, as designated in yellow. Mr. Kinds inquired if Council desires to remove the entire sidewalk, or to retain the portion that is part of the other concrete work proposed. Mr. Reiner responded that if it is integral to the landscape design, retain it as part of the center line of the circle, unless the architect prefers to use a different pattern. Mr. McCash stated that it should not, however, be extended past the center of the circle, unless, in the future, a public sidewalk is planned for the area. Mr. McCash asked for clarification regarding the fountain and mechanical waterfall. Is there also a fogging feature? " I ~ _ ~ ~ I ~ ~l i . ~ ,r _ r ~T._ ._,.,,,a,.,,~..,....._._-- RECORD OF PROCEEDII\IGS mfa~~,~~~HP~~~~mv~nw~~,.~WMinutes of ~~~A„~v A ~~b~~ u~,.~ ~~~,a,,,~,w~,~P,~~~~..~.~~~.~.,~.~ ~a 9~ ;~ru,~ Meeting~..,ro~~,~~r4,~~, DAYTON LEGAL BLANK N Held January 22, 2002 19 Mr. Kindra responded that a fogging feature never was part of this design, and there will be no waterfall. Mr. Ciarochi noted that a concern had been expressed about the mist from the fountain drifting onto the right-of--way or street surfaces. This is a shallow reflection pond, which will not be functional in the winter months; it will be drained. Mrs. Boring inquired about long-term maintenance costs.. With mechanicals, there is the likelihood of additional maintenance expense. Mr. Kindra stated that he does not have an estimate for. maintenance at this time. Mr. Kranstuber stated that tonight's focus was to determine if staff's concept design is consistent with the direction Council gave previously which was: to work within the approved budget of $1.385 million; to eliminate the waterfall and include the water feature similar to Big Bear's; and to change the light poles. These other issues could have been discussed previously but were not. Mrs. Boring stated that the responsibility for the maintenance has not been clarified. Mr. Kranstuber inquired if Council is now revisiting the issue of the amount of the previously approved budget and the various items included. Or has that already been decided, and Council is now determining whether this concept plan is consistent with what Council has already approved? Mayor McCash stated that Council's intent is to determine if it is consistent with what Council has already approved. However, some latitude was allowed to enable the two new Council members to provide input. Mr. Kranstuber responded that at some point, it is necessary to allow the decision to rest. Council needs to be fair to the lengthy public process which occurred several months ago and adhere to the decisions that were made involving citizens present at those hearings. Mayor McCash stated that Mrs. Boring's comments relate to the extent that Council has "raised the bar" from a policy standpoint for enhancement of gateway features. If $80,000 of the $435,000 is designated .for replacement of features removed, is the remaining amount designated for enhancement and does that then set the standard for future gateway features? Council will set a precedent with this decision for future gateway features. Mr. Kranstuber stated that because of the controversy, Council previously discussed a need for further policy discussion at goal setting or in a similar forum. In fairness, legal action on this particular issue has already been taken on the basis of the testimony which occurred, and Council reached a compromise. Mr. Reiner agreed that the issue had been extensively discussed, and Council gave direction to staff and committed to a budget. Opening the discussion again is not prudent nor is it productive. It is important to be consistent and fair to the process and to the voters. Citizens cannot have confidence in a Council that re-opens every issue. Mrs. Boring responded that this is the third or fourth plan given to Council on this project. As with all plans, Council has the right to ask questions to gain understanding. She stated that she desired additional information on the fountain feature. She was not suggesting that it be eliminated. In addition, there are some citizens who are not satisfied with Council's decision on the intersection. She added that Council also needs to consider the long-term maintenance costs of the project. Discussion continued. - ~ - - _r.~-._._ RECORD OF' PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ,Da~b~~~~~,~~~1,~~~~.wu~w~~.r~~,d~,aw,a,~x,~,r~,~r.~~~.age.,~„Q..n,~~Meeting~,~v,~.~~„~,.gP~~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK Held January 22, 2002 19 Mayor McCash stated that Mrs. Boring's question is whether this is now Council's policy for intersection improvements, and will a similar budget be established for enhancements to other City intersections. Mr. Reiner pointed out that Council has stated that it has not set a policy for. giving free water and sewer taps by providing some neighborhoods a greatly reduced rate, nor does the budget Council approved for this particular intersection establish a citywide policy. Discussion continued. Mayor McCash invited public comment. George R. Burns Jr., 6016 Kentigern Court stated that he disagreed with Mr. Kranstuber on the need to move forward once the legislation has been passed. He stated that he would like to answer a question raised by a member of the Muirfield Association Board of Trustees. He stated that he resides in Muirfield Village south of the Muirfield Country Club. He grew up in a municipal government environment, observing his father function as a City Manager in 1942 - 1977. He is a registered professional engineer with a background in engineering management associated with major projects for large utilities. In October 2001, he forwarded a letter to all Council members outlining his concerns with the Muirfield-Glick-Concord intersection modifications. He has not received an acknowledgement, nor has he received a response. The incentives for his investigation and letter were: (1) the attack by the Muirfield Board of Trustees on .Council. Members McCash and Boring; and (2) Council's disregard of his comments at the September 17th Council meeting. At that meeting, Council made a decision on this project, and staff was directed to report back on the scope of work that could be accomplished for the approved budget. The proposed expenditure isn't justified, and if Council allows the project to proceed as defined, the projected expenditures are excessive. He then shared the results of his review of City's documents. (1) His review indicates that the City completed a professional signalization prioritization study in 1996, and the. Muirfield-Glick-Concord intersection was not included on the list of twelve priority intersections. (2) Prior to that internal study, the City employed Traffic Engineering Services, Inc. (TESI) to evaluate the Muirfield-Glick site distances. TESI concluded that the existing site distances met all requirements and. recommended no changes. (3) Of the twelve intersections prioritized, six have been signalized, one is planned, and the remaining five are yet to be addressed. (4) In 1997, TESI was requested to conduct a second evaluation of this intersection and update their previous report. Their recommendation was to maintain the two- way stop. (5) In March of 2002, the Parsons Transportation Group provided City staff with their analysis of the same intersection.. The detailed .report included an accident evaluation, traffic signalization warrant analysis, traffic analysis of existing conditions, and geometric design aTong'with a capacity analysis through the year 2020. Mayor McCash noted that Council is aware that the. point of Mr. Burris' letter and public comments is that the engineering studies. indicate .that the traffic signalization may not be warranted until some future date. However, Council has made the decision to accelerate the signalization. That action is consistent with past Council decisions to identify and program safety improvements before construction would be made more difficult due to an anticipated increase in traffic or other factors. At this point, there is no concern on the part of staff or Council on whether the signalization will be done. As noted at the beginning of this discussion, the safety component has already been decided. The issue before Council tonight is whether the replacement enhancement component as designed is consistent with. Council's. direction to staff. He stated that if Mr. Burns has comments on that issue, he could proceed. Mr. Burris inquired about the basis for Council's decision on the safety component. In addition to the traffic studies, he also reviewed the Police Division's accident reports _ .~..e.~~ RECOR® OF PROCEEDiI~[GS Minutes of ~t~~lin City ~~au~~..,AO~~,~,v,.~,,,,~v~~~.~s~,.,~.,aua~ ~ . 1~L Meeting„ti.~~v~,.~,~~~,~. vwa~~n~aew~~~~,4~~r~~~~,~nw~~,~,~ daa~m.~_ .-,~d~m~ ~ ~.,,M DAYTON LEGAL BLA Held January 22, 2002 19 ~I over the past three years, which also do not indicate a need to prioritize the signalization. Council has ignored the results of both. In .fact, since the temporary signalization has been installed, it may have created an unsatisfactory condition that he believes could be more hazardous than atwo-way stop. He does not believe the. need to signalize the intersection has really been addressed. He further believes that the past Council moved irresponsibly to approve a $1 million intersection change at that site. He stated that staff has provided to Council exactly what was requested; however, Council did not evaluate the need to signalize. He suggested that Council: (1) Admit that they should not have initiated the signalization; (2) Remove the temporary signal and install four-way stops, as the Engineering Department has indicated; (3) Fix the disruption that has already occurred at the intersection. Mr. Burris responded that there is another option. The budget approved for this intersection is excessive and. exceeds .,the concept of returning the intersection's environment equal to or slightly better than the original state. He suggested that while there are modifications in the plan to all three roadways -Muirfield Drive, Glick Road and Concord -there is no need to significantly modify either Glick or Muirfield Drive. The intersection can be squared to the line of sight by doing only the modifications proposed for Concord. Eliminating the other road .modifications would reduce the $572,000 significantly. Additionally this intersection has never had a water component, and eliminating that would reduce the project cost by another $135,000. Removal of that element would also eliminate a significant annual operation and maintenance cost. Even with those cost reductions, there would still be a substantial allocation for the landscaping. Council has a misconception that this intersection is dangerous. The major cause of accidents at that. location was attributed to poor driving, not to the intersection conditions. When one considers that Council chose not to accept the recommendations of Engineering, bypassed five other prioritized signalizations, and appropriated excessive funds to address anon-substantiated concern, a pause is warranted, and hopefully a more rational. direction to staff will be provided. Mayor McCash noted that any suggestions on saving money on the roadway construction could be referred to Engineering. If the suggestions are viable and can save money, Engineering will give due consideration. Council does not to spend unnecessary money on a project. Mr. Reiner noted that the expense of this intersection relates to the hillocks and visual problems in the approach. Also, the frequency of automobile accidents at that intersection has recently increased due to the fact that Tartan Fields has developed, and the four-way stop is no longer adequate. Vern Pace, 8547 Pitloch.r~ Ct•, stated that his views on the subject are well known. As a member of the Muirfield Civic Association and editor of that association's newsletter the last few years, he has a better understanding of the view of the community. It is not the same as that of Mr. Burris. Most of the people in Muirfield were satisfied with Council's compromise on the issue. It would not be wise to open old wounds with new comments. He suggested that in Council's final review of the plan, that they not forget what they have already approved. He stated that in the Dublin News, there is an article entitled, "Council Chooses McCash as Mayor." He quoted from the article, "For his first year as Dublin's new mayor, McCash said his top three goals are the selection of a new City Manager, improving Council relations with City staff and bringing cohesion to the community and Council." He expressed hope that this continues to be his goal. Larry Holbrook, Muirfield Association, agreed with Mr. Kranstuber that all the Muirfield residents believed the project and funds were approved. It would constitute micro management by this body if they intend to oversee how the water fountain is placed and how much electricity it should use. The Association maintains a substantial area in Muirfield and Dublin rights-of--way. They will continue to work with City staff on that effort. Warren Fishman, 8577 Turnberry Court, agreed with Mr. Kranstuber's statement regarding fairness to Dublin's citizens. In his 25 years of involvement with the City, he _ r~.-~.~...~~_~.--- o ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of fJ~b,~~..~ C~a~a.~~~~~.,-vv.,~,~~,..,~~a,~,aa~a~~,~,~.o~rw„~ Pageo L.2~o~.,~Meeting~d~.,..,~,.~.w„_,~~.n, -,~„~~,w~.mAO~,HUmw~,~,~,~o~.~,~oa~~,.~,~.W.~w_~,~~,~~„~~~~.,.~u, ~w DAYTON LEGAL BLANK O., F R i Held January 22, 2002 19 has always been concerned about setting precedent. He noted that Mr. Holbrook received a phone call from the City informing him that the intersection had been determined to be unsafe. The homeowners association brought bulldozers in the next day, tore down the walls, cut down trees, and regraded the intersection. Those walls, originally put in by the developer, have a replacement cost of $40,000. The intersection in the City's right-of--way has been maintained by the Association for the last 20 years. Now Council is arguing about an intersection that. the City requested Muirheld Association tear down with the expectation that the City would carry through on the planned improvements. Including a water feature does not set any new precedent for an intersection. If so, Council is also setting a precedent with the Ballantrae Golf Course amenities. Mayor McCash stated the intent tonight is to determine if the plan presented is consistent with Council's direction. Mr. Lecklider stated that he concurs with the need to respect the process, including the compromise that was reached as a result of the testimony. Council took official action in adopting a budget for this project. That is an example of democracy. As a result, he feels restraint as to the extent that it is appropriate to revisit the issue. His understanding was that the purpose of tonight's review was to determine if this plan is consistent with that previous direction. Council did that in the earlier discussion, and as a result, a section of sidewalk was eliminated. It is his understanding that there is the potential that the roadway and signalization, budgeted for $950,000, could actually come in less than that; likewise, the landscaping component, budgeted for $435,000, could come in at a lower cost. Although that budget has been approved, the City is not compelled to spend that amount. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she considers what has been presented tonight to be consistent with Council's previous direction. She disagreed with Mr. Burris, stating that it is always staff's responsibility to obtain the lowest and best bid on any project and not to simply recommend the most expensive way of solving a particular problem. The City Engineer's office is aware of that. In this case in particular, it is highly unlikely that staff would request additional funding. Mayor McCash agreed that it is important to adhere to the budget. The bid documents should be set up for the addition of alternates in order to remain within the budget. Ms. Salay stated that she concurs with Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher's and Mr. Lecklider's statements. She thanked staff for the thorough compilation of information provided. She also expressed appreciation for the previous Council's work on this issue and stated that she shares the opinion that the discussion should now be closed. Mr. Reiner moved to approve the concept plan per the previously approved budget with the elimination of the portion of sidewalk as directed by Council. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Council Standing Committee Appointments; Appointment of Council representative to Planning & Zoning Commission; Appointment of City representatives to MORPC Mayor McCash moved to appoint the following: Administrative Committee - Mr. Kranstuber as Chair, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, and Ms. Salay; Finance Committee - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher as Chair, Mr. Lecklider, and Mr. Kranstuber; Community Development Committee - Mr. Reiner, Chair, Mrs. Boring and Ms. Salay; Public Services Committee - Mr. Lecklider as Chair, Mr. Reiner, and Mrs. Boring; Council representatives to the Dublin Schools Committee - Mr. Kranstuber and Ms. Salay; Planning & Zoning Commission representative -Mrs. Boring; MORPC representative - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher; and the COTA Transit Legacy Council representative - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~a,,,.,..~~,,~~~ r w tiv~~M~~,Minutes Ar°f~,~v4,~~,a.~~M,~,. ~u Dublin Ci~~~a~ zd.,~~wAW, ~.~~,~~,~A~ ~,~'-age ~3_,0~~ Meeting ~~<,~.ww. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK R N Held January 22, 2002 19 Stormwater Analysis for Historic Dublin Mr. Kindra introduced representatives from Camp, Dresser & McKee to make the presentation. Mr. Kindra stated that in last year's budget, funding was approved for the Stormwater study in Old Dublin. That study has been completed, and a public information meeting held. Several options will be presented to Council for addressing the stormwater issue in Old Dublin. That information was provided in Council's packets. He added that no funding has presently been budgeted for project construction. Ms. Grigsby stated that in last year's CIP process, there was discussion regarding funding. Based upon five-year projections, there were some funds available. It was understood that the stormwater water study would result in recommendations involving significant dollars. That money has not been programmed, but there are funds that should be available as part of the five-year program. Rust~Neff, Camp, Dresser & McKee presented a summary and slide report on the evaluations conducted on the Historic Dublin area. The. study area consisted of 160 acres, with a commercial and residential land use. The residential is along the river and on Franklin street. Because of the. commercialization that has. occurred, there is a very high amount of impervious area. The topography from High Street has a very steep incline, with everything sloping to the river. There is an existing drainage system; the most extensive one is along Bridge Street and it has been. installed over time by the City. There is minimal curbing along the road -High Street is the only road with curbing. The existing system does not meet the City's current design standards. Mr. Neff noted that CDM recommends installation of a new Stormwater system at an overall projected cost of $5.6 million. Since that is a substantial amount, several phasing alternatives have been suggested, should the City decide to proceed with the project. Mr. Kranstuber inquired if the study had addressed the issue related to Clover Court in Waterford Village. Mr. Neff responded that their study was limited to Historic Dublin. Mrs. Boring inquired how much disruption each alternative would cause to the. area. Mr. Neff responded that they anticipate that the road would first need to be lowered to the curbs. Depending upon how it is implemented, the contractor would install temporary pavement at the same time, allowing easements for vehicle access to and from properties on High Street. It is anticipated that the parking on both sides of the road would be eliminated. The storm drain would be located on one side of the street. This would still allow two-way traffic to occur on High Street. All of these changes should be possible with only minimal disruption to the business establishments and homes. Mrs. Boring stated that the desire is to retain the historic flavor in that area. She inquired if there is any other alternative to resolve the problem. Mr. Neff responded that in order to control the Stormwater, to intercept it and connect it to the Stormwater structures, some type of curbing mechanism is needed. The only other option is to install drains everywhere to allow for the sheet flow. The. topography of the land causes the sheet flow to go all the way to the Scioto River. The curbs would intercept it and take it to a drainage structure. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the length of time needed for the two phases of construction. Mr. Neff responded that it would include four years of construction and another year up front for engineering for a total of five years for the project. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about how realistic the construction timeframe of four years would be. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~~,~mw,~~w~~n~H~,.~..,.~~vn,~ Minutes. of ~ ,mw,,,~.,~ Dublin Ci~y4~ou~.ciL ,,e~~ 4,~~,.aPag~ .L,~~~~w~aMeetin~.,,w~„~.u,,~.~~.,A. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK F N 1 January 22, 2002 19 Held Mr. Neff responded that it is very realistic. Mr. Kranstuber inquired if there would be any economy of scale in doing it all at once. Mr. Neff responded that there would be some, as the City would not be paying for any future escalation in cost. The numbers presented in the report are today's dollars. Mr. Kranstuber inquired if the project were to be phased, would the entire project be bid at one time, or would each phase be separately bid? Mr. Neff stated that there would be an open bid process for each phase. There would be no guarantee of securing the same contractor. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the more phases involved, then the more uncertainty there would be in the total cost of the project. Mr. Neff agreed. Mr. Ciarochi inquired if it would be possible for the City to purchase all the pipe and apparatus up front. Mr. Neff responded that could be done, but the contractors could refuse to be responsible for the quality of the pipe, if it is to be stockpiled before use. Mr. McCash stated that it is typical with owner-supplied, contractor-installed materials that the contractor covers only the labor. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that a contractor maybe more interested in one project to be completed over two years versus one that is phased. Mr. Neff agreed. From an engineering standpoint, it would be preferable to design the project all at once. Mr. McCash stated that it would be important to balance the project to minimize the impact on the residents and businesses in that area. He inquired how much the roadways would have to be lowered? Mr. Neff stated that it would be a matter of inches.. Typically, a mountable curb is three to four inches. The roads would need to be lowered by that much. Ms. Salay stated that at the earlier public meeting, there was discussion on the importance of phasing the project properly to reduce the impact on the residents and businesses of Historic Dublin. _Her understanding was that undertaking the entire project at once would cause a near shut-down of the. downtown. area and would not be practical. Mr. Neff stated that the contractor would .begin at the downstream end and work upward. As he progresses, he would backfill at the same time. The greatest impact would be on High Street. However, two-lane traffic could be maintained. Although completing the construction all at once would cause more disruption, it is still possible. Ms. Salay inquired if the residents and customers for. the businesses would retain access. Mr. Neff affirmed that they would. Ms. Salay inquired if the businesses have indicated their ..preference on the timeframe? Mr. Kindra stated that Mr. Frimerman strongly recommends doing it in two years. Staff has studied the issue, and their recommendation is to do one quadrant per year. Doing it all in one phase would be difficult for the staff to manage. It is not a one-season construction project, and typically the contractor does not want to have a street totally closed. Although prices could increase later, four quadrants accomplished over four years is much more manageable for staff and less disruptive to Historic Dublin. Mr. McCash addressed the budget impact. He stated that the estimate uses 2002 dollars. Does the estimate allow for the. conditions of the areas? There is a lot of rock in that area, so problems and expenses involved with rock excavation arise. Mr. Neff responded that this factor was considered.. The rock .there is very shallow and geotechnical borings were taken to characterize the rock. It can be machined ~ I ~ h~~~ RECORD O,F" PI~OCI=EDLNGa Minutes of ~,~w„~v„~,~~~,~.vP~~.. _~w~, Hl~ublin Ci~~u~ci,~~~,,,~~H,o~,~~,,~~,.~~,~,,.~,A,r~~age~LSw,,~,~,~:.Meeting „~.,.~..,,~m9W,-,dn„~~,~v,~A~~.~~~,~, .~„~,Wa~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM N 1 4 Held January 22, 2002 19 out versus blasting. Additional cost has been considered for the more difficult excavation. Ms. Grigsby stated that from a .financial standpoint, the preferred option is phasing the project over afour-year period. In .reviewing cash available in year 2003, there would be insufficient funds for 100 percent of the project in one year. Phasing provides the City with greater flexibility. Based on current projections, the City would not be able to do this project all in one year. Mrs. Boring inquired if Ms. Grigsby's recommendation would then be Option 3 over four years. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff's recommendation would be for the option 3 - which includes four years of construction plus one year for design. Mrs. Boring stated that Council has received many letters from citizens. It appears that because there is insufficient water retention elsewhere that Clover Court is impacted. Is this the case in Historic Dublin? Because there is insufficient water retention in developed areas, is Historic Dublin receiving more runoff than usual? Mr. Neff stated that this is not accurate. The area has always been commercial, developed in a piecemeal fashion, with a high amount of impervious area. Drainage has also evolved over years. Ms. Salay stated that it would be wise to address the Clover Court situation at this time. That area is upstream from the area being discussed, so their stormwater issues maybe somewhat different than. those in Historic Dublin. Mr. McCash clarified that Clover Court is adjacent to the Dublin Cemetery. He invited public comment. Steve Thomas, 238 Clover Court stated that his home was built in 1977. A slow rain creates no problem, but during a deluge, there is a serious stormwater drainage problem in his backyard. His efforts to work with the City on this matter have been fruitless. His phone calls are not returned. Attempts made to fix the problem have been marginal, at best. Mr. Kranstuber inquired if Mr. Thomas had come before Council previously on this issue. Mr. Thomas responded that he has not; he has dealt solely with the Engineering Division. However, his neighbors have brought this issue before Council previously. [Another resident in the audience indicated they brought the issue to Council six years ago.] Mr. Kranstuber responded that, procedurally, the Clover Court problem must be considered and addressed separately from the stormwater project approval for Historic Dublin. Although it is the same stormwater runoff, typically staff would address this area specifically.. A few years ago, an open storm sewer problem was addressed in the Longbranch and Monterey Drive area. Staff had the water piped away. Mr. Thomas stated that Clover Court. is on Monterey Creek, the same body of water. Mr. Kranstuber moved to have staff review. the drainage issues related to Clover Court and report back to Council at the February 4th Council meeting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Mr. Thomas's. letter is .dated following the meeting on November 13th. She inquired if Mr. Kindra has already been able to conduct an informal review of the Clover Court area. Mr. Kindra responded that staff has not. The focus has been to finish the Historic Dublin report for Council's consideration. It has just now been completed. Although staff resources have heretofore been limited, an assessment will now be completed and provided for the February 4th Council meeting. Mrs. Boring inquired if Clover Court is the only street in this area affected with stormwater issues. REGORD ®F' hROGEEDING~ Minutes of Meetin .~~~~~a~~,~v,~~..m.~,~,u~ra,~.~~,~~ v,~~~,,~~~H~,~,~,~..v~,~,~w~,,~,~~~~w w,,,,,v D~~h~~~~x~ ~au~~~~~,.A,,,rwo.~.~~,~~~~„~.~.,,~,~~~.mv,~,u ~,,,.1~F~~~,~~~.a.~~~~,~v,~ m~~~,~mva~w~, DAYTON LEGAL BLANK FO M Held January 22, 2002 19 Ms. Salay responded that Old Spring is adjacent, but the affected area is primarily the north side of Clover Court and the cemetery. Ms. Salay inquired if the problem has worsened over the years. Mr. Thomas responded that it has, following the paving of Metro Place to the west. Ms. Salay stated that Planning and Zoning Commission has observed this type of problem before. They are assured that a new development meets the stormwater guidelines, but later, problems downstream. become evident. She encouraged Mr. Thomas to work with staff to resolve the problem. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Tim Picciano, Dublin Village Tavern, 27 South Hi Street, stated that he is the Chairman of the Historic Dublin Association Promotions, Committee.. They understand the need and fully support the stormwater management system. Two things they request Council to incorporate into the contractor's agreement: (1) That the project be done as quickly as possible. Their previous understanding is that it would be done in two phases. (2) That the traffic along High Street be maintained unencumbered as much as possible throughout the process, so the businesses will not be severely impacted. He understands that the .last time High Street was closed during the construction of the bridge, a number of businesses moved out. He added that an additional rationale for doing the project in two phases rather than longer is that the businesses in the district are excited about attracting new business development to the District. Thee longer this project takes to complete, the longer that development would be deferred. (3) Regarding budget consideration, as the consultant informed Council, the stormwater management system in this District does not meet City standards. From a priority standpoint, it would seem more reasonable to fund basic City services versus water fountains and other enhancements for intersections. Larry Frimerman, 63 South Riverview Street, President of the Historic Dublin Association stated that he is pleased to see Council planning for basic services for their area.. He made three points: (1) A need for speed. He urged that the -City move the project forward with the greatest speed possible. As indicated in the letter forwarded. to Council, the Association suggests that it be phased over atwo-year period. They believe the shorter timeframe will minimize the disruption of businesses, allow for cost economization, -and meet Council's goal regarding implementation of the Historic Dublin revitalization plan. The crux of that plan was to increase parking and improve the structural function and appearance of the District. This will allow for business development and retention and make .the District the town center, as it has been historically. (2) Appreciation to Council and staff for proceeding with the proposal. (3) Appreciates the opportunity to work with staff and the CDM consultant. This permits the Association to have specific insight and enables the businesses to lend support wherever possible. Kathr~~p, 63 South Riverview Street, thanked Council for moving ahead with the plan. She referred to a letter she previously forwarded to Council and reiterated several points: (1) The City's plan includes a drain immediately behind her property. That can be eliminated as they have constructed their own drain which is working very well. (2) The consultant's slides did not show areas that are landscaped along historic walls. They request that when the work is completed, the pavement does not go directly up to the wall. (3) Turning from High Street onto Spring Hill to reach South Riverview, the cars bottom out on the ruts. They are in place to prevent water from sheeting from , F,I I; I ~ ~ I RECOR® ~F I'R~~EEI~II'`IG~ ~~~~„~~~~~~~.A~~go~a~„~~aH,An~,a Minutest', °f ~~~.v~.,~.~aua~W~AV,nH~,~wv ~ ,~,w,~ ~M-4D~b~~~~a~y i~n~~.mw.4~~4~,~,~,~~~,~~.~„~v~P,e~Pag~~~.~A,_~ Meeting ,,,P~~...~mm..a~,a DAYTON LEGAL BLANK F RM N Held January 22, 2002 19 High Street down to South Riverview. .Hopefully, the drainage system will eliminate the need for those and they can be removed. (4) There are quite a number of old tiles within the District. They would request that the engineers work with the long-time residents within the District to map the location of those tiles. Tom Bassett Dublin resident, asked what type of effort will be made to enhance the District, after the stormwater project is completed. The streets and curbs would be replaced, but will power lines be buried; or other aesthetic measures included? Mr. Kindra responded that this is solely a stormwater construction project. Although the streets will be restored in a better condition than presently, other enhancement features are not included. Mr. Bassett stated that he resides in Muirfield, but owns several properties in Historic Dublin. He spends every day with those properties, and attempts to ensure that they enhance that District. However, he lives in two different worlds. In Muirfield, he hears the discussion about the intersection enhancements.... On the way to Old Dublin, he passes over a pedestrian underpass under Dublin Road, which he has never seen anyone use. He enters downtown Dublin and sees pedestrians struggling to cross streets and deal with traffic. He hopes that at some point Old Dublin would be brought up to the standards that are set for the rest of the community. He considers it an embarrassment. Mr. Kranstuber stated that although the project tonight addresses only construction of the stormwater management system, Council is addressing the aesthetic needs of Old Dublin with other actions. Following the work of the Historic Dublin Revitalization Task Force, some short-term fixes have been done; however, it was determined that many of the items could not be done until after the basic infrastructure was completed. He asked Mr. Ciarochi about the list of revitalization improvements scheduled for the District. Mr. Ciarochi responded that the list includes. a crosswalk on High Street at the library. The crosswalk will be pedestrian-activated, with a pole and mast arm with a light. This will alert oncoming vehicular traffic of pedestrian traffic. This is programmed for Spring 2002. The City has partnered with the School. District to add parking at the Indian Run Elementary School lot to the west of the Library parking lot. The City is also partnering with Pat Grabill, an Historic District developer, for City parking to be installed at Town Center 2. This is programmed for year 2002. Last year, sidewalk and curb/gutter replacement was done in the District. Mayor Kranstuber noted that the stormwater improvements must be completed first, and the enhancements added subsequently. Ms. Grigsby stated that the $5.6 million is for stormwater improvements only. All of this becomes an issue of available funding. Mayor McCash agreed that adding the additional cost for enhancements would significantly impact the budget, so a balancing of the total cost over a period of time is necessary. Mr. Ciarochi stated that now that the stormwater study has been completed, it is possible to consider the concept plan for a streetscape for Old Dublin, which has been estimated in excess of $8 million.. The stormwater infrastructure has to be in place first to protect the investment on the surface. RECORD ®F hROCEEDINGa .~,,~,~,~,,~.~A.x,~~,,~m~W,a~,~, Minutes of a~o,~,,.~„~~9va - ~~ib1C.~~y~.n~i~ ,.~Aa~~,~,v,,.~.~~,,,~,~~,~., P~age.~18.0~~,~Meetinga,~.wa~~~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK O.. RM N 1 Held January 22, 2002 19 Mayor McCash inquired which component would have the greater impact on businesses and traffic flow -construction of the stormwater system or construction of the enhancement features? Mr. Ciarochi responded that it would depend upon the enhancements decided upon. Different street surfaces, or the significant difference in grade from the sidewalk to the grade on the west side of South High Street addressing those could be disruptive. However, the Historic Dublin Association stressed these priorities: stormwater system, additional parking, and the crosswalk. Mr. Reiner stated that last fall, Council approved approximately $570,000 - primarily for this study and for the crosswalk. It was the advice of the engineers to complete the infrastructure before the enhancement features are. installed. Mr. Bassett stated that he does not advocate spending $8 million on streetscape. Something simple, yet elegant is what is needed. Mr. Reiner stated that sleeving High Street for underground utilities or irrigation is something he would like Council to consider. He asked the consultant if there are other components the City should consider in conjunction with this underground project on High Street. Mr. Neff stated that it would be possible to run underground power conduits while the ground is open, but he could not estimate the cost at this time. However, one consideration is that, currently, all the. transformers .are overhead on poles. If the r^ power is run underground, easements would be needed .for the transformers. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that a cost estimate be obtained from AEP. Mr. Ciarochi responded that such a project would be quite expensive, due to the transformer component. He would not suggest running the power conduit on top of the storm sewer, because every time the City would need to do maintenance, they would run into the line. It would be better to make the trench doublewide and establish some separation between the two. That wouldn't be the major expense; the cost would be in having AEP string the wire through the conduit. Mayor McCash stated that the issue under consideration tonight, however, is a decision on timing for the stormwater system construction. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Ms. Grigsby's recommendation is for Option 3, based on cash flow. Ms. Grigsby stated that that would be her recommendation, both on the basis of cash flow and management of the project. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how many years the project would take. Ms. Grigsby responded that design would begin this year, followed by a four-year construction period. Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be possible to combine a couple of the phases that appear smaller. Ms. Grigsby stated that the intent is to do the project in quadrants. However, consolidation could occur, making it a two-year project, rather than four. Mayor McCash inquired if it would make sense to re-orient the phases in Option 3 to complete the project on North and South High Street first to minimize the impact on the businesses? RECOR® ~JF' PRO~I~E®~I\iG~ Minutes of D~~~~C~~y C~a~n~~~~w„~,~w„~~N~,aHw~a,~_.~,~~.,,,,,,,~„~?age.,~~ ~~r,~,~,HWMeeting .,~..,..N,~~,~. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK O.. F RM N Held January 22, 2002. 19 Mr. Kindra responded that it could be done that way. Ms. Salay stated that she has heard. from the residents and .businesses in Historic Dublin that they prefer atwo-year timeframe to minimize the disruptions. For them, Option 2 would be preferable to_ Option 3. Option 3 will actually take five years. Although the two-year option is not the preferred option for staff, she would propose that staff consider a way to do that. If, after that assessment is made, staff believes that from a budgetary and manpower standpoint it would not work, then she would be amenable to considering Option 3. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she has .voiced concern. about the length of time that it has taken Council from the time. it originally established the Historic Dublin Task Force to develop the recommendations to actually accomplishing anything. She would prefer the quicker timeframe for this project. As noted, nothing else can be done until this is accomplished. However, does Council support this prioritization, recognizing the necessity of deferring other projects on the CIP list? Mayor McCash expressed support for a shorter timeframe. Mr. Ciarochi clarified that the two-phase project actually will take three years. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that staff's evaluation of how to achieve this under Option 2 could include an estimated cost for an interim employee to manage this project. Ms. Salay moved to have staff explore Option 2, and to evaluate the impacts this would have on the budget and staffing as well as what projects would have to be deferred to accommodate this timeframe. Mr. Kranstuber agreed with the motion, except to change the direction to staff from "explore" to "take whatever action is necessary to implement" Option 2. Three years of disruption would be long enough to ask of Historic Dublin. Ms. Grigsby pointed out that the reason an annual update is done to the five-year CII' is to allow an opportunity to re-evaluate and assess projects planned in the future. Staff can take that direction with the understanding that when the next five- year update is done, this project would be incorporated, and the decision can also be made at the time about what needs to be deferred. Mrs. Boring stated that she agrees with the shorter timeframe, but it would be wise to have staff's projection of the implications. Mayor McCash stated that the motion has been amended to implement the two-year plan with additional follow-up from staff as the City moves forward with the plan. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher recommended that Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Kindra, and other appropriate staff should "think out of the box" on how to manage the scope of such a project, perhaps in anon-governmental way, in order to have it accomplished in a timely manner without affecting other projects that will come forward. Ms. Grigsby agreed to look at those issues. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Council Roundtable i e RECORD C)F' [~ROCEE®[NG~ Minutes of ~a~bJ-~~ ~C~t~~~~ ~,w ~age..2~r Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK C Held January 22, 2002 19 Mr. Reiner stated that, per Council's direction, staff has received quotes for the lighting of the bikepath tunnels on Muirfield Drive. Does staff need Council input? Ms. Grigsby stated that unless Council directs otherwise, staff will proceed with the lighting. Council consensus was to proceed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Referred to the memo regarding a request from the Delaware County Engineer requesting permission. from the City of Dublin for a weight limit reduction on Concord Road. What would be the advantage to Dublin in allowing this reduction? Mr. Kindra responded that the County Engineer's concern is with preservation of the road. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the memo indicates that there is the potential of increasing truck traffic on Dublin. Road. Therefore, granting the County's request could result in an increased expense to Dublin to preserve Dublin roads. Mr. Ciarochi stated that this is a common practice for Delaware County, as the township and county roads do not have an adequate base to accommodate the truck traffic. They typically post weight restrictions in the spring. What is different in this situation is that they are requesting that Dublin post the notification within City limits. He added that there is no advantage to Dublin, other than from the aspect of intergovernmental cooperation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to instruct staff to deny the Delaware County Engineer approval to post the weight restrictions on this road. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. 2. Suggested that proposed future projects include an estimate of the future costs of maintenance. Mr. Kranstuber: 1. Received a citizen e-mail regarding possible sharing of the outdoor rink between hockey players and other skaters. There is a similar issue with bikers on the skateboard track. He .inquired if it would be practical to establish a time, perhaps on Saturday from 1-4 p.m., or a particular evening for other groups to use the facility. Mayor McCash stated that he would speak from his perspective on the rink issue. If a particular evening is designated for Hockey Night, then similar requests will be received for an evening reserved for other interests. The outdoor rink is community in nature. The Chiller and other facilities can meet the specific needs of ice sports. Mr. Kranstuber inquired if this perspective would also apply to the skatepark. Mr. Hahn responded that the skatepark is not designed for bikes. There are special features on performance bikes, such as extended axles, which can score the concrete and rub the rails. In fairness, some of the bikes also have features to prevent that from occurring; however, since the City cannot regulate the bikes used, it would not be advisable to allow bikes. Ms. Grigsby stated that Mr. McDaniel is addressing the hockey issue with Mr. Hahn and Mr. Whittington. There are safety and liability issues involved. Staff will prepare a response to the citizen request and forward a copy to Council. 2. Referred to the memo received regarding the Golf Centre. What is the next step? ~ z ~ ~ ~ I' j 1 1_ i c r , RECORD OF' PROCEEI~INCS Minutes of Da~1.i~~~ty,,C-~a~~~„Aa~a,.,~,~,~~„~-,~an,~~ ~.age°,2~1~~.w Meeting a,.,W,~~w~~ aM~,uv,~v~~~~a~w~~,~„~„~~,~„~.4Wm4...,aa~,,,~., ~~A _ ~,~,~,,~,~~W~v~,,~,~, .~~m~. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK O.. R N 1 Held January 22, 2002 19 Mr. Smith responded that the owner has been advised that if he plans to develop the land, he will need to address the drainage issues and pay the associated costs. He added that this is a lingering issue in discussion with the .opposing counsel. Mr. Smith's position is that it is not the City's legal responsibility. That does not r.~-, necessarily mean that the City would be totally opposed to sharing the cost, but his expectation is that the City will receive a request to pay all of these costs. 3. Referred to the Fourth of July table sales. The fees have more than doubled since 1994. Has Council discussed a fee increase? He stated that he does not believe the best way to address demand is to raise the fees. He requests that this be discussed during budget hearings. Ms. Grigsby responded that there has never. been any specific discussion regarding fees for the Fourth of July tables. It is similar to the admission fee at the Irish Festival. At a staff level, the issues of crowd control and cost recovery are considered. Mr. Kranstuber stated that it has been made clear in previous discussions that cost recovery is not the sole issue. For instance, with the Irish Festival, even with recovery of 100% of the cost, there remains an issue of size limitation. He believes there is an amount of money that is appropriate to ask the citizens to pay for a public event. Mayor McCash suggested discussion of this matter at the pre-budget meeting. Mr. Lecklider and Ms. Salay stated that they would like to have this discussed in a pre-budget or budget meeting. Mrs. Boring: 1. Inquired if Council desired any discussion on the. revised costs for the Amberleigh River Access capital project. Staff will proceed if no other direction is given. Council consensus was that staff should proceed. 2. Noted that there was a memo in the packet regarding proposed changes at Muirfield Road and Brand Road. Mr. Ciarochi responded that was part of the School District's traffic study done for the third High School. Staff will re-evaluate that intersection, as well as the intersection at Hyland Croy and Mitchell-DeWitt. 3. Stated that facilitators have been selected for the goal setting retreat, and a profile has been provided with tonight's meeting materials. On Thursday, she and Administrative Committee Chair, Mr. Kranstuber will meet with the facilitators to discuss an agenda. The proposed agenda is then faxed to Council members for input. Mrs. Boring suggested that team building could be included on the Friday night agenda. However, one Council member has already indicated that they are not interested in that type of session. She requested Council input. Mr. Kranstuber expressed a preference for traditional goal setting only. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she has a list of several items to consider for goal setting. However, she is concerned about .the process of selection of facilitators, as she was not satisfied with their performance two years ago. Therefore, she believes direction should be given to them that they would need to have a new frame of reference and new approach. Some of the topics for consideration are: (1) issues associated with a new Council; (2) trust and respect issues; (3) although the City Manager position is temporarily vacant, how to establish a productive relationship with the fixture City Manager; (4) how to discourage staff resignations; (5) building Council-to-Council relationships and Council-staff relationships. She would like the facilitators to demonstrate how they plan to address these topics. Also, there are two or three policy issues which arose _ .~,m RECORD Off" PROCEEDII~IG~ • ~g Meetin Minutes of Dube..~yw~au.i~.,~~,4rio,,ro,..w~nwu~~,.u„~~,~,v~~4~~~ P eo22~„~~~vm~~~~.H_,~~.~ g H„row4pu DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM 1 Held January 22, 2002 19 tonight, and goal setting would be the.. ideal environment for discussion of those issues. Mr. Kranstuber stated that team building tends to be somewhat trivial in structure. In his opinion, team building is accomplished best with trust and success, and that is established by a track record accomplished "under fire." .That is where trust is earned. The only "teambuilding" effort that could be valuable would be a discussion of the substantive issues in a sincere dialogue. He is doubtful that the facilitators have the capability to facilitate that. Mayor McCash agreed that team-building exercises may have not worked well in the past, but some of the issues identified should be discussed at goal setting. If the facilitator initiates such a discussion, it would be the responsibility of the seven Council members to make it effective and productive. Mrs. Boring agreed to share Council's concerns and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher's topics with the facilitators. 4. Stated that she would like to see the results.. of the .survey letter that Mr. McDaniel's staff is circulating to homeowners. Ms. Salay: 1. Stated that the Curie home on .Rings Road i.s scheduled for review on the ARB agenda for January 23rd. The homeowner had no prior knowledge of this. Notification came when a sign was placed in his yard. This apparently r°°-~ resulted from the fact that the City is rezoning portions of the southwest, and this home now lies in the jurisdiction of the ARB. Will he be required to go through the P&Z process when the rest of the southwest goes through the process, or will the ARB oversee this property? The homeowner has several questions about how the property is being rezoned. She noted that the packet he has since received may have answered his questions. However, at a minimum, a letter or phone call to the individual involved would be preferable to a sign placed in the yard. Mr. Smith indicated that staff would. follow up on this. Mr. Lecklider thanked Mr. Ciarochi for responding to his call regarding the Jerome Township group which. was meeting to discuss the Industrial Parkway corridor, and asked that he also convey his thanks to Ms. Clarke for attending that meeting. Mayor McCash: 1. Thanked fellow Council members for engaging in a very rational discussion on the Muirfield-Glick intersection issue tonight. 2. Noted that there was a Dublin Area Art League invitation sent to Council for February 1St for an event to be held. at Windsor Place. 3. Received a letter from Chris Mohr, Dublin Schools, indicating that Tom Fries is the new School Board liaison to City Council. Mr. Kranstuber requested that Council members forward evaluations of the Clerk of Council to him as soon as possible. Mayor McC you d the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council _ _ _ _ _,_-------,,.-T~..~_~__,~__ i ~ i I € ~