HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10- 04 Study SessionDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
Monday, May 10, 2004
Mayor Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, May 10, Study Session of Dublin City
Council to order at 7:00 p. m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. The topic
for discussion was: water/sewer extensions.
Roll Call
Council members present were: Mayor Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher, Tim Lecklider, Tam
McCash, Mike Keenan, and Amy Salay. Mrs. Boring arrived late. Mr. Reiner was excused.
Staff Members:
Marsha Grigsby, Michelle Crandall, Michele Hoyle, Paul Hammersmith
Recap of Council Direction
Ms. Crandall stated that Council last discussed this issue at its December 2003 meeting, at
which time Council directed staff to survey all the residents in areas that are currently not served
by water and sewer. Before programming funding for the project, Council wanted an accurate
assessment of how many residents wanted to tap in to the water and sewer. The discussion
surrounded the topic of factoring health and safety elements. Ms. Crandall distributed a project
timeline. She noted that 120-130 residents attended the three workshops, which were held in
February 2004. After the workshops, surveys were mailed out. Of the 409 surveys mailed, 351
were returned, a return rate of 85.6%. She reviewed the survey results.
Financial Information
Ms. Grigsby stated that the financial statements for the Water and Sewer Funds have been
updated to reflect actual information for 2003 and the revised projects for future years. The
revised projections include the following:
{1} an increase in the number of tap-in permits (capacity charges) that are projected to be
issued in 2004 - 2006. The number is significant because it projects the amount of
revenue that will be received from tap-in fees and is the key number used in calculating
the user fees.
(2) the establishment of the Tartan West tax increment financing district. This provides the
mechanism to have reimbursement for several projects that were previously included in
the water and sewer funds. Previously, it was not assumed there would be any
reimbursement or only a small portion through the developer's contribution.
(3) Council recently authorized acost-sharing agreement with the City of Columbus on the
change orders related to the West Branch construction that took place several years
ago, which will result in a savings of approximately $950,000 to the City. That can be
placed in the sewer fund to be used for sewer operations. One of the City's goals with
the water and sewer funds is to maintain an adequate reserve in those funds to provide
for stability of those operations. A 25% fund balance of the estimated system value is
targeted -the value of all the assets in both the water and sewer systems. That 25%
provides: {1) the flexibility for the City to maintain ongoing operations, (2) the
infrastructure for growth, (3) the maintenance and replacement of existing assets.
The water fund has much more flexibility than the sewer fund. As a result, the City has
discussed the programming of projects for the next 5-7 year period. Estimates on the revenues
to be received in those two funds, minus the operating expenditures and debt service
requirements over the next few years has been calculated to Year 2014 -Water Fund, and
Year 2018 -Sewer Fund, the date the existing debt matures for those two systems. Based on
City Council Study Session page 2
May 10, 2004
targeting the 25% balance, the three highest-priority projects for the Water Fund have been
programmed in the next five years and the two additional projects in the following four years. In
the Sewer Fund, there is less flexibility due to the debt service obligations for the West Branch.
The City pays approximately $1.5 million/year to retire the debt on that project. One project was
programmed for the next five years, and the design of another for year 2009, or two sewer
projects in the next six years.
Staff also looked at fees and capacity charges. In the Water Fund, staff recommended an
increase of $100.00 in the cost of a 3/a' water tap to be effective January 1, 2005. In the Sewer
Fund, staff recommended a $200.00 increase in the cost of a sewer tap to be effective January
1, 2005 and an additional $200.00 increase effective January 1, 2007. This will provide the City
the opportunity to implement another project or preserve a reserve in the Sewer Fund.
Staff also looked at removing the value of the West Branch, because it is such a significant
portion of all the assets in the Sewer Fund. It is a new system, requires very little maintenance,
and has a life expectancy of 50-100 years. In its early years, it is reasonable to deduct that
estimate from the total. That provides better percentages, therefore, greater flexibility in the
early years.
There is approximately $2.6 million programmed in each fund, an investment of the City in
excess of $5 million over the next 6-9 years. This is a long-term goal with difficulties in
prioritizing the installation of the lines in the various areas. The City has made a good start in
that identification and prioritization.
Mrs. Boring inquired if the projects were previously programmed in the Water Fund.
Ms. Grigsby stated that last fall, the City knew of the rezoning approval of the Tartan West
development, and the 5-year CIP had already anticipated this. Therefore, the pertinent projects
were programmed -the water tower, booster station, oversizing of the main water lines. These
will not only serve Tartan West, but also the City's expansion area.
Mrs. Boring inquired if last year's financial numbers included the Tartan West development.
Ms. Grigsby responded that the project was programmed into last year's CIP budget.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if Ms. Grigsby is reminding Council of what is already planned, or is she
seeking approval for funding these projects.
Ms. Grigsby responded that based on Council's direction last fall to install water lines for
unserved areas at 100 percent, this is what staff would recommend for programming in this fund
for the next 5-8 year period.
Mr. Lecklider inquired about the recommended increases in sewer connection fees. Is a
negative reaction from the public expected?
Ms. Grigsby responded that whenever fees are increased, concerns are expressed. Presently,
the fee is $1,600. The new rate would be $1,800 to $2,000. A survey of surrounding
communities revealed that Dublin's tap fee is lower than some. Therefore, it is not an
unreasonable increase. It will provide the City the ability to recover some of the costs, which will
City Council Study Session page 3
May 10, 2004
go toward installation of future sewer lines. Each year, when the CIP is developed, projections
are formed, targeting the 25% ratio. Prior to the installation of these lines, the Water Fund has
appeared fine for years forward. However, it has been evident that sewer fees eventually would
need to be increased.
Mr. Lecklider inquired about the subtraction of the West Branch Interceptor value. Is it an
acceptable practice to do that?
Ms. Grigsby stated that it would be best not to do so. However, based upon the life expectancy
of the asset, the fact that the maintenance cost is such a large percentage and the maintenance
and repair would never equal the original cost, it is reasonable to remove the maintenance
amount.
Mr. Lecklider stated that although the maintenance of new lines would not likely be equal to the
original cost, should a compromise amount be budgeted?
Ms. Grigsby stated that could be looked at. Using the 25% reserve in the sewer fund would
seriously impact the City's ability to install additional lines, unless there is a subsidy from income
tax or a greater increase in fees. The West Branch is valued at approximately $22 million, and
the system assets are approximately $56-57 million. The City will not be investing $22 million
in that system in the next 50-75 years. The City has a significant period of time in which to
accumulate a sufficient reserve.
Mr. Lecklider inquired how the "catch up" would be accomplished
Ms. Grigsby responded that the City now has a comprehensive monitoring system. If a
maintenance need becomes apparent, the City would know early on. That is one of the reasons
an update and revision is done each year. And, in each of the last ten years, the City has been
in better financial condition than the year before. This year in the Water Fund, the City is
$400,000 better than was projected last summer; in the Sewer Fund, the City is approximately
$200,000 better. If such trends continue, the City has the flexibility to install additional lines, yet
be prepared for any maintenance needs.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for a detailed explanation of how the projects were
prioritized/scored by staff.
Ms. Crandall responded that staff looked at two Sewer Fund projects -Sawmill/Summitview and
Indian Run. Staff has discussed the possibility of reversing the two, as Indian Run is prioritized
as the #1 Water Fund project. It would be better to install sewer and water lines
simultaneously.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the estimated cost of the SawmilUSummitview project is
$1.$ million.
Ms. Grigsby stated that is the Engineering estimate, based on current data.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the individual householdlparcel cost estimate.
Ms. Crandall responded that is an estimate of the City's per parcel cost to run the main line.
City Council Study Session page 4
May 10, 2004
Mrs. Boring stated that she understands the logic of installing water and sewer lines
concurrently within an area. However, the SawmilllSummitview homeowners were assured
many years ago that commercial development would be bringing water and sewer lines to that
area, and they would be able to tap in. That has not occurred. That area is ranked #1 for sewer
need. How will the City respond to those residents, who will not be satisfied if they are "re-
prioritized" to #2?
Ms. Grigsby responded that the reason they received more points for the sewer project was due
to the number of residents in that area, not because of a greater public healthlsafety need.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he is confused by the percentages -they do not appear to match the
percentages discussed previously.
Ms. Crandall stated that Council never determined the level of percentage required. They
discussed a percentage of 85-90%, but since survey responses are not showing that percent,
staff opted to show ranking instead.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff had suggested a theoretical point system, but the survey
results are what they are.
Mr. Keenan stated that Council had only discussed having a target percentage. They had never
arrived at any specific target.
Mrs. Boring stated that even though the percentage is lower than expected, the Health
Department's evaluation shows two neighborhoods to have a health and safety risk factor.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the lines are installed, would all the residents in that area be required to
tap in?
Ms. Grigsby stated that it has been the City's practice to require the residents to tap in if the line
was within 100 feet of their property -many years ago for sewer lines and just recently for water
lines. However, recourse was also provided for hardship situations.
Mr. Lecklider stated that was the reason Council discussed a higher percentage - 100%
participation would be required. So if 40 percent have responded "no" on this survey, that
would not be a factor to influence the eventual participation.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the survey does show that there is not the level of desire
for the water and sewer lines that has been present in earlier situations, and that is an important
factor in programming these projects.
Mr. Hammersmith reviewed the responses of the other top three areas surveyed.
Ms. Crandall stated that financially the City would be able to run lines to the top three areas
surveyed by year 2009 and two more by 2013.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that those communities rank as follows: (1) Indian Run, (2) Grandee
Cliffs area, and (3} Locust Hill Lane, which is east of Dublin Road. He noted that because the
City Council Study Session page 5
May 10, 2004
level of desired participation was not as high as expected, some areas were subdivided into
areas for the project to be carried out. They were not subdivided at the expense of efficiency,
however.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she believed Grandee Cliffs was part of the area affected
by Emerald Parkway and other projects.
Public Comments
Marsha Phillips, 5380 Dublin Road, stated that she appreciated all the hard work of City staff.
However, when she and her husband recently visited the two properties
they own in that area (10-C), they realized they do not live in an area in which City water and/or
sewers is highly desired.
Joe Ryan, 8267 Riverside Drive, inquired how many Council members viewed the videotape he
forwarded after Thanksgiving 2003.
[No Council member indicated they had viewed it.]
Mr. Ryan stated that was as he expected. The video documented the amount of mud and silt in
his water supply -evidenced in his toilets and water softener. Did he send the tape for naught?
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that staff viewed the tape and a formal report was provided to
Council.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff's written summation of the video was that Mr. Ryan's
situation would be included in this consideration. He had believed that summation was also
forwarded to Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan stated that he believed Council members would have wanted to view the tape for
themselves.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff provided a report, based on the discussion at Mr. Ryan's
home and portrayed on the videotape.
Mr. Ryan indicated that he did not receive a Dopy of the report.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that staff would forward a copy to him.
Mr. Ryan inquired if Council could review the tape.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that Council Members Boring and Keenan visited his home
and reported to Council at the same time that Mr. Hammersmith provided his report. Staff and
Council work together to share information in order to be more efficient.
Mr. Ryan stated that if all Council members did not see the tape, they were not working
together.
City Council Study Session page 6
May 10, 2004
Mr. McCash stated that he has seen photographs provided by Mr. Ryan at previous Council
meetings. Personally, he does not need to see the videotape; he accepts the reports that were
given to Council.
Mr. Ryan stated that the earlier photographs were of surface water. The video is of water
supply to his home. He reiterated that he would appreciate Council's viewing of the tape.
Tom Murnane, 5150 Dublin Road, stated that his home is across the street from City water {in
section 10B on the survey form.) On that side of Dublin Road, everything runs toward the river,
and some type of contamination is occurring in the ground. Some time ago, he had a serious
problem with his well and investigated the possibility of independently bringing City water to his
home. He would like to compare the expense of the City extending the water line to what his
cost would have been. He has had to chlorinate his well twice this year, and it needs it again.
He does not want to wait until 2009, which is the City's timeline.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Ms. Grigsby could address the issue of individual cost for a
service connection.
Ms. Grigsby responded that she is not aware of the line's location. The issue could be that it
would have to be extended under the road.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that there is a water line along Dublin Road. It would only be a matter
of extending the waterline to the right-of-way or Mr. Murnane's property line. From that point,
Mr. Murnane would need a service line. Since his property fronts Dublin Road, he is not
dependent upon the City project to be run down Locust Hill Lane.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Section 10-B is proposed for construction in 2009
Ms. Grigsby affirmed that it is.
Mrs. Boring inquired which of these projects are recommended for 2005.
Ms. Grigsby responded that the water main extension for Indian Run Drive is scheduled for
design in 2004 and construction in 2005; for Grandee Cliffs, design is scheduled far 2005 and
construction in 2006; for Dublin RoadlLocust Hill Lane, design is scheduled for 2008 and
construction in 2009.
Mike Clemons, 7961 Riverside Drive, (Section 3-A), stated that his address was omitted from
the water survey because there is no water in the area. When is Section 3-A slated for design
and construction of water extension?
Ms. Grigsby responded that Section 3-A is a lower priority. For sewer extension, it is not
scheduled in the City's five year or ten year CIP budget; for water extension, it is scheduled for
design in 2014 and construction in 2015.
Mr. Hammersmith noted that there are some areas in Section 3-A where the water main already
exists along the east side of Riverside Drive. In those areas, it would only require a service line
extension to Mr. Clemons's property. This could possibly be accomplished when Riverside
Drive is being resurfaced, which is scheduled within the next two years.
City Council Study Session page 7
May 10, 2004
Mr. Lecklider asked if the water extension would require individual cuts under the road for each
home.
Mr. Hammersmith responded individual cuts could be made or one six-inch line could be cut at
one location, and a parallel system would be run along the opposite side of the road -
whichever is more cost effective. In that area, the 6-inch line would serve all the homes on that
side of the roadway.
Mr. Keenan inquired if, because the water main is already there, it would involve only the cost of
service lines.
Mr. Hammersmith affirmed that is so.
Robert Abbruzi, 5197 Red Oak Lane, Old Dublin Woods, inquired about the three classifications
used by the Franklin County Board of Health in assessments for sewer service: (1) known
human health risk - 10 points, (2) possible environmental concern - 5 points, and (3) minimal
environmental concern -1 point. Every year, the Franklin County Health Department arbitrarily
imposes an assessment of the water quality of the aeration systems in their neighborhood.
Since the water has never been determined unsafe, where does the environmental concern
come from?
Ms. Crandall responded that the Franklin County Board of Health looks at areas where there are
many aerators and assumes those areas should be identified as of moderate concern, because
they could affect water and stream quality. They assume that in any area in which there has
been a bad aerator, there is always a suspicion.
Mack Parkhill, 7879 Riverside Drive, Section 3-A, stated that the percentage of residents
requesting these services should be considered very seriously. When the City did the Hanna
Hills project, there were many homeowners who were unaware of what was transpiring. Many
of those homeowners were subsequently billed for tap ins, yet their systems were operating
satisfactorily and they were not interested in a connection to City services. The City should
maintain the requirement that a high percentage of the residents are interested in connection
before extending the lines. While there are some who have need of the water and service
connection, the surveys indicate that there are many more who are not interested. They do not
want monthly water and sewer bills, and they are not faced with some of the construction
problems as the homes on the west side of Riverside Drive. The initial survey omitted pertinent
information, such as the cost of trenching for homes located on solid limestone extending
downward hundreds of feet. That could be three to four times the cost used on the initial
survey. He stated that if the number of residents who do not want the extensions exceed the
number who do, they should not be required to connect and pay those fees.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in the past, the City's threshold has been 100°l0. If the line
is installed, 100% connection was required. 85-90% resident positive response was necessary
before the City would install the lines. In this situation, the numbers are not even close. In light
of that, is Mr. Parkhill suggesting that these projects should not move forward at this time?
Mr. Parkhill responded that the projects should not proceed unless there is a Strang interest of
the residents. That may be the case with the Indian Run homeowners. He added that he also
City Council Study Session
May 10, 2004
page 8
takes exception to the previous speaker's comments about the Franklin County Health
Department targeting certain areas as caution areas. Every home in the City that is not served
with City water is either a "3" or a "5,"and most of those homeowners have had their water
checked.
Adam Thomas, 4386 Bellaire Avenue, Area 11, thanked the City for providing water to their
neighborhood over a year ago. That area is a lower priority for sewer extension, however. He
asked about the scheduled date for the top two sewer projects. He noted that the survey results
are incorrect. According to the map on display, there are 37, not 41, properties concerned. Of
the 37, two are his neighbors, and they are already on sewer {provided by the Donegal Cliffs
line). It is likely that there are other tie-ins to that line, which runs down Bellaire Avenue. He
added that if sewer to his area is not scheduled until year 2020, he is willing to run service
through his neighbor's yard to tie in sooner. What is his next step?
Ms. Grigsby stated that the Summitview/Sawmill sewer project is scheduled for design in 2005
and construction in 2006. The Indian Run sewer project is scheduled for design in 2009 and
construction in 2010. The remaining areas have not been programmed. The sewer fund
cannot accommodate any additional projects at this time.
Mrs. Boring stated the City pays for the main line and the homeowner pays for the service line
from the main to the home. She inquired if the City would consider the offer of the homeowners
in a neighborhood not programmed to jointly pay for the extension of the main line to their
neighborhood.
Ms. Grigsby responded that has been done before. The residents can submit a petition to
Council to extend the main line with the oust assessed to the residents' property tax over a
period of 20 years.
Mrs. Boring stated that a higher priority is a supply of good quality drinking water. Because
there is sufficient money in the Water Fund, is there a possibility of proceeding with more than
one water project next year?
Ms. Grigsby responded that it would be possible to do two water extension projects within one
year; it would depend upon staff's workload. The object of these projections is to give Council
some indication of what could be done.
Ms. Salay asked if a neighborhood were to petition Council for the extension of the sewer line to
their neighborhood, what percentage of the residents would need to sign the petition.
Ms. Grigsby stated that if an assessment is done, 75% of the neighborhood signatures must be
obtained.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that there is the possibility that some of the homes on Bellaire are
tapped in to the Donegal Cliffs sewer trunk. Staff will check into that, and try to determine which
homes are tapped in. For homes not fronting Bellaire, such as Limerick Lane, a service line
would have to be extended across neighbors' properties. The City does not have the authority
to run lines across private properties to an adjacent property.
City Council Study Session page 9
May 10, 2004
Mr. Thomas responded that he secured the permission of his neighbor to have the service line
run, pending the City Engineer's approval.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that there are other issues involved, perhaps with the City of
Columbus. There can be a problem with this type of connection. It has been used as a means
of circumventing a tap in to the main sewer line. There can be subsequent problems. Far
instance, if the neighbor has a maintenance problem, the service line connected to his line also
has a maintenance problem.
Jae Lambert, 180 Indian Run Drive, inquired when the construction would begin and haw long it
would take to complete. He asked for clarification of the date -- 2005 or 2009?
Mr. Hammersmith responded that, typically, the City bids its construction projects early in a new
year and begins construction in April or May with the intent of completing the project in that
same construction season.
Ms. Grigsby noted that the design would be in 2004 and construction in 2005
Muriel Liddell, 3838 Summitview Road, stated that finances are given as the reason for the
delay of some projects. Could revenue be used from funds other than the Sewer and Water
funds? She noted that she and her husband have paid taxes far City pools, the City golf course,
and the Community Recreation Center and not benefited from their use. She added that the
water and sewer user fees are very reasonable in Dublin. Perhaps if those fees were increased
slightly, there would be sufficient funds in the Sewer Fund to undertake more projects.
Denny Meadors, 110 Indian Run Drive, stated that he participated in the initial petition to
Council a couple of years ago to provide water and sewer service to his neighborhood. The
basis was a health issue; it still is. On the north side of his street, most of the homes have leach
beds -- many of those are failing. A survey done by Eagon & Associates confirmed that a
problem exists in his neighborhood. On the survey, only two residents voted no, but that was
due to personal hardship situations.
Jan Pipic, 4355 Bright Road, Subarea 4-C, stated she is interested in receiving sewer service in
her area. Currently, there is standing water in her backyard from a saturated leach bed.
Although they are attempting to resolve the situation, it has been a problem far a year and half.
Sewer service for their neighborhood is projected beyond year 2018. What are her present
options? Standing sewage is a serious problem. To install an aerator, would she need a City
permit? Grandee Cliffs is slated for sewer before Bright Road. Will that sewer line go in near
her home? If so, could she tap in ahead of the schedule for Bright Road?
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City would look at trying to accommodate her situation if
at all possible, when the project proceeds. However, the design has not yet been completed,
and the route for the line to Grandee Cliffs is not settled. The Franklin County Health
Department oversees upgrades of sewer systems to aerators; they do the permitting of on-lot
systems.
Mr. McCash inquired if the standing sewage is from the Pipic system
Ms. Pipic responded that it is.
City Council Study Session
May 10, 2004
page 10
Mrs. Boring inquired why the Pipic home could not be included in the Grandee Cliffs project.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that extension of the current line across Emerald Parkway would
encounter a ravine at the bottom of Grandee Cliffs. That presents a real challenge.
Kevin Kuzmo, 5080 Dublin Road, Subarea 10-A, stated that his survey responses are not
included in the report. He recently passed his one year anniversary as a resident of this home.
He likes the home very much, and enjoys City water and a septic system. He does not want to
change the system at this point in time.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that his oamments would be noted, in lieu of the missing survey.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to review the survey
results and become better informed of the City's finances, as they relate to water and sewer
service extension. Tonight's meeting is a study session, and as such, no vote on the issue will
be taken. Citizen comments were taken tonight, however, to facilitate Council's review and their
ability to take action when it is scheduled.
Ms. Salay stated that she is curious about the sewer system fund and the reserve. A negative
reserve in the Sewer Fund is projected for year 2018. Is that with or without the two top projects
identified?
Ms. Grigsby stated that it is with those two projects being completed.
Ms. Salay inquired if staff could ever recommend doing that.
Ms. Grigsby stated that the cover memo states that in addition to the two fee increases
recommended, future increases are anticipated. The issue will continue to be evaluated on an
annual basis. When the rate study was first done in 1992, deficits were projected before today.
However, based on the annual updates, increases were deferred as long as there was a fund
balance. The ability to defer the increase was due to the commercial development in the mid to
late 90's and the amount of capacity charges that were collected.
Ms. Salay inquired if the rate increase Ms. Grigsby refers to would be reflected on individual
water/sewer bills.
Ms. Grigsby responded that while an increase in user fees is an option, she was referring to an
increase in capacity charges. The increase proposed tonight is for the tap in fee only.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she assumes long-term projections took into consideration
the more limited commercial development anticipated in the future and the Community Plan's
projected land use.
Ms. Grigsby affirmed that their projections acknowledge that information. At Council's last study
session, Planning staff provided information on the number of acres designated far residential
development and the potential number of residential lots. In addition, as part of the Community
Plan update and the economic development strategy, staff has also evaluated the amount of
commercial acreage available. There are approximately 1,400 acres of commercial land still
City Council Study Session
May 10, 2004
page 11
available. Staff also estimated the amount of money potentially generated if all 5,100 of the
residential dwelling units were to be developed.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the number of acreage estimated far residential versus
commercial development.
Ms. Grigsby responded that the estimate is residential - 2,900+ and commercial -1,450 acres.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the feasibility of increasing user fees, as Ms. Liddell
suggested.
Ms. Grigsby responded that part of Council's discussion on this issue last fall focused on trying
to maintain the current level of user fees. It was recognized that the extension of the lines
would benefit new users or new "tap ins." Therefore, an increase in the tap in fee would be
more appropriate than an increase in the user fees. While increasing user fees is possible, it is
amore difficult argument because every resident in Dublin will bear an increased cost.
Mr. Keenan stated that prior to last year's election, Council agreed to move forward on these
projects, subject to conditions. That is one of the reasons for tonight's discussion - to talk about
those conditions. Council is here to make policy decisions, not decisions about specific lots or
areas. It is his understanding that same of the areas have even been reconfigured.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council's decision to extend the water and sewer service to
all residents specified no timeframe, other than it would be accomplished in whatever time it
should require and would depend upon the state of City finances. She is unable to respond to
the question of reconfiguration by staff.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that reconfigurations occurred based on the survey results. Staff
considered the percentage of participation and determined how areas could be divided to focus
on serving those who were interested without sacrificing overall service to the area.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Council members desired additional information prior to this
topic being scheduled on Council's regular council agenda,
Mr. McCash requested that the surveys be updated. He Hated that a large number of surveys
were not returned for Limerick Lane. In addition, many responses were from residents who
indicated they were already connected to City utilities. Some of the areas could be broken into
smaller subareas. Some of the percentages are misleading. For instance, of the five houses
on Bellaire Court, only two expressed an interest in connection to City utilities. Two residents
already have City water and sewer.
Mr. Keenan stated that he has heard the same thing about Indian Run. There are two houses
to the back that do not even have access off Indian Run. Should they be included in the
tabulation? There are also two empty lots. He suggested that staff identify a representative for
each area to discuss some of these issues with staff. In two areas, in particular, homeowners
requested the opportunity to speak with staff.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher reminded the audience that staff held three public meetings for the
sole purpose of discussion of this issue. She noted that the percentages in the report are not
City Council Study Session page 12
May 10, 2004
accurate for several reasons. For instance, there are homes already connected to City utilities,
but the City's records do not indicate their connection. She suggested that the City conduct an
additional survey of residents who are already connected to City utilities.
Mrs. Boring stated that it is significant that the County Health Department has identified two
areas in Indian Run and one in Summitview/Sawmill as health risk areas.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that the Health Department merely provided a narrative description of
the areas; Engineering staff attached the numbers ranking them.
Mr. Lecklider stated that staff followed the direction that was given to them last fall. He noted
that all this discussion is premised on the fact that the City would bear 100°l0 of the cost. Some
comments tonight have related to timing. However, the citizens should remember that the City
is paying 100% of the cost for the resident. The City's finances and budget are what they are,
and there are many demands on the City's budget. There are critical issues other than water
and sewer. He is concerned as to where the line should be drawn. The survey indicates some
areas in which almost 50% of the residents either did not respond or responded that they did not
want these services. Council needs to look seriously at the policy of mandatory connection.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that is part of the information staff is seeking -what percentage of "buy
in" is required before the project can be launched.
Mr. Lecklider stated that in view of the enormous costs of the projects funded by the City,
Council would like to see 100% participation, excluding hardship cases.
Ms. Salay stated that the City does not have the ability to fund some of these projects for
several years, yet septic systems are failing in those areas. Would it be possible for the City to
participate in acost-sharing effort with the neighborhoods that indicated a greater desire for
participation to extend utilities to their area? Perhaps they would be interested in the 20-year
payback schedule described by Ms. Grigsby.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how the City could determine the interest of residents in cost
sharing.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City would need to re-survey, including specific
information regarding what that level of cost-sharing would be. That direction would be needed
from Council.
Ms. Salay stated that would be determined by the revenue projections for the fund. Does the
City have the ability to participate? Health and safety needs are the motivation for finding a way
to provide water and sewer more quickly. Perhaps by cost-sharing these projects, 3-4 areas
could be connected in the same time one or two would have been.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that before proceeding further, Council would need to
determine the necessary level of participation by the neighborhood before Council would
commit to the project.
Ms. Salay stated that whatever the level of interest indicated in the survey, 100% connection is
required.
City Council Study Session page 13
May 10, 2004
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it must be recognized that there would be a smaller
percentage which would then be told that although they did not indicate an interest, they must
connect to the service being provided, and pay for it. She suggested that the onus should be
put on the neighborhood itself to seek that type of cost-sharing effort with the City. If the
residents are interested, they must submit a petition requesting the oust sharing project.
Mrs. Boring asked about the high priority neighborhoods. The City has indicated it would
provide the utilities to those neighborhoods. Will they now be told that they must finance part of
it the mse Ives?
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it has not been suggested that the City would not do the
high priority neighborhoods.
Ms. Salay stated that she is not advocating not funding the two areas that are ranked high
priority. She was suggesting a way for the other areas to acquire the connection in their
neighborhoods earlier versus waiting until the City could afford to pay all the costs. She also
does not advocate raising the rates of all the residents to pay far the connection of the few
neighborhoods still needing connection.
Mr. Keenan stated that of the 14 areas surveyed for interest, only four had an interest of 50% or
more. If the residents do not want the connection WITH the City paying for it, there is no reason
to go back and ask if they would be interested in HELPING to pay for it.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that no survey would be done. The two areas of high priority
would proceed as proposed. The other neighborhoods would be notified of the option they have
to petition the City for acost-sharing opportunity.
Ms. Crandall stated that if a neighborhood should request acost-sharing effort, that project must
still be budgeted, although the cost would be assessed to the residents over the next 20 years.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this topic would be scheduled for the June 7 meeting
agenda.
Ms. Grigsby inquired if it is anticipated that this would be placed in the form of legislation.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would be placed on the June 7 agenda as an action item,
at which time Council would give direction that legislation be drafted according to the guidelines
given by Council. A public hearing is not part of that process, but it would be part of the
subsequent process for passage of legislation.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Clerk of Council