Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-2003 Study SessionDublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 -Council Chambers Present Mayor McCash Mr. Smith Vice Mayor Boring Mr. Ciarochi Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher Mr. McDaniel Mr. Kranstuber Mr. Hammersmith Mr. Lecklider Ms. Clarke Mr. Reiner Ms. Crandall Ms. Salay Mr. Gunderman Ms. Brautigam Ms. Hoyle Vice Mayor Boring called the study session to order at 7:15 p.m. She noted that this is a study session designed for in-depth discussion among Council Members and staff. No official action will be taken in the study sessions; the purpose is for discussion only. Any proposals will be scheduled at a later date for public comment. The Clerk called the roll. Present were Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Kranstuber, Mr. Lecklider and Ms. Salay. {Mayor McCash and Mr. Reiner were scheduled to arrive later.) Report and Discussion of Community Services Advisory Commission Recommendation Regarding Water and Sewer Extension Policy Ms. Crandall stated that a substantial amount of material was forwarded in the packet regarding this topic, and it includes the recommendation of the Commission. The funding component of the issue may be the longest discussion item, and there are several other recommendations which may require less discussion. She asked where Council would like to begin. Mrs. Boring stated that staff has recommended adoption of CSAC's recommendations as outlined in their memo of February 6. Ms. Crandall stated that CSAC recommends that Council establish along-term goal to connect all properties to public water and sewer lines within a specified time frame. Using the study prepared by Egan & Associates, and with staff assessing feasibility and costs associated with extending these lines, a prioritization can be established for future review by Council. If Council has a specific timeframe in mind, that would be considered as well. There may be situations where the feasibility and/or the costs are extreme. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification: is staff recommending that a plan of prioritization be developed? Ms. Crandall stated that this is correct - setting a timeframe for extension of lines and prioritization of areas, according to susceptibility and feasibility. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the implication is that the City will pay for these extensions. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Crandall stated that this is not implied -the next section addresses funding. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a timeframe cannot be established unless the lines are in place, and it would be necessary to know of the timing of any future development that would result in extending the lines, per the City's existing policy. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the three criteria for line extensions include the findings of the study regarding susceptibility of wells to contamination, the feasibility of extending lines and the costs associated with these extensions. Perhaps a fourth should be the likelihood or imminence of private developer extensions. This would be a factor to be considered in whether or not the City should fund a project. Mr. Lecklider suggested that prioritization be discussed. Wha exactly will determine the priority -will staff do so, based on the study results? Ms. Crandall stated that the prioritization would be based upon the study results, which pointed out contamination areas along the river -although the casts of extending lines in that area are also higher. There would be a need to weigh the factors of contamination risk versus cost. Mr. Lecklider inquired if it is Council's desire to have this matter reviewed at the Public Services Committee. Ms. Crandall stated that staff will make a recommendation to Council, and it can be considered by the Public Services Committee or in the context of the CIP workshops Mrs. Boring stated that she questions the benefit of prioritizing when a funding decision has not been made - if the extensions are to be paid 100 percent by the homeowner, they may not want the improvements, even if it is a priority in the study findings. Ms. Crandall stated that prioritization is helpful in terms of weighing requests from different areas for extension of lines. Mr. Hammersmith added that in looking at the Egan & Associates letter, the factors of well contamination and susceptibility were key. They focused on areas along the river from an environmental impact standpoint of failure of onsite septic systems. Mrs. Boring stated that she is still confused - if those determined to be a high priority don't come forward with a request, but other groups not a high priority do -how does the prioritization help? Mr. Hammersmith responded that in looking at the evaluation flow chart, the first step would be to review the request within that context. There are only 10 areas in the community without water and sewer services as shown in the exhibits. Mrs. Boring stated that at the last Public Services Committee meeting, two requests were reviewed -for those, the prioritization could be established. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Hammersmith stated that in terms of what is known to date, Indian Run would be one of the higher priorities. Mr. Ryan on Riverside Drive has also requested water service, expressing concern about turbidity in his well. These are obvious priorities. Mr. Kranstuber asked why a plan for prioritization is not then before Council tonight? He had understood that health concerns, costs, and the possibility of private development would all be factors in establishing the priorities. Ms. Crandall stated that staff was waiting for some direction from Council. Mr. Kranstuber stated that in looking at the four areas studied in the report, he assumes there is not any possibility of private development for Indian Run, for the Scioto River corridor, and the Bright Road area. Is there a potential for development bringing water/sewer lines to the Cara CourflAvery Road/Olde Dublin Woods Drive area? Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is some potential for future private development to serve Cara/Avery/Olde Dublin Woods. For the other three, there is not. There is a similar situation for Post Road and for Brand Road. Mr. Kranstuber stated that staff, however, is indicating that the areas of Indian Run, the Scioto River corridor and Bright Road are fairly high priority in terms of susceptibility to contamination. Mr. Hammersmith agreed, adding that the well water quality along Riverside Drive and Dublin Road is of concern. Mrs. Boring stated that the Riverside Drive/Scioto River area is very large -was all of that assessed as a group? Mr. Hammersmith responded that it was actually grouped into logical areas to serve and based on the infrastructure placement. In terms of sanitary sewer, some of the areas along Riverside Drive in terms of sanitary sewer obviously could not be served without having the lower infrastructure in place. It would therefore make some sense to start in the south and work toward the north. Mrs. Boring asked if it would be possible in some of these areas to consider water and sewer separately? Mr. Hammersmith stated that from a design and engineering standpoint, they could be separated. It is more of a policy question for Council. Mr. Lecklider asked if there is oast efficiency in doing them together Mr. Hammersmith stated that other than mobilization and restoration, these are two separate installations which require 10 feet of horizontal separation. The benefit of doing them together would not be a big factor in this decision. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the casts for the recent water and sewer extensions were paid for aut of the water and sewer funds or out of the general revenue funds. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 4 Ms. Crandall stated that she believes these were done out of the general fund. Mrs. Baring noted that she believes they were paid out of the water and sewer fund Mr. Kranstuber stated that there are tap-in charges to fund improvements to the water/sewer systems, and there are capacity charges used for maintenance. One possibility would be to increase the water and sewer rates, if there are not adequate funds within the general fund. Is that a passibility being considered? Ms. Crandall respanded that this is one of the recommendations -that if Council decides the City should pay for a portion, ar all, or any of the extensions, a water and sewer rate study should be done. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the recent utility extensions paid for by the City were done without changing the user fees. He assumes that the reserves in the water/sewer fund were not depleted for these projects, but that they instead were funded out of the general funds. Ms. Crandall agreed. Mrs. Boring said the funding questions should be checked. The one item that struck her in the report is that it is ironic that the City increased the water and sewer user and capacity charges in 1992, based an a study, in anticipation of the growth of the City. Therefore, everyone paid far the growth coming on line. Why isn't the City helping aut or subsidizing the extensions for the unserved residents? She noted that she supports the educational plan recommended by CSAC. The inspections of existing wells or septic systems are warranted, and Council should consider adopting this requirement as well as the educational component. The remaining controversy is the process by which Council addresses the unnerved areas of the City. Ms. Crandall stated that staff has checked and found that the sewer fund was used for the Hanna Hills, MacBeth Drive, MacDuff Place and MacDuff Way extensions. (At this paint, Mr. Reiner arrived.) Mr. Lecklider asked in regard to the suggestion of increasing rates, would this be a rate increase city-wide or just within the areas where services are extended? Ms. Crandall responded that this would be a citywide rate increase. Ms. Crandall stated that in terms of education and inspection, staff learned in the process that homeowners are often nat sure how to maintain their systems and often one system in the area fails, affecting others. Mrs. Boring asked if the inspection service would require additional staffing Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Crandall responded that the education portion could be handled without additional staff, but staff is not certain of the impacts of the inspection program -whether it could be contracted through Franklin County or done in house. Mr. Hammersmith added that the staff resources are not presently available to perform the inspections effectively. Mr. Kranstuber stated that in terms of the water and sewer rates, the concept was that the future infrastructure needs for the system, i.e., water tanks as well as maintenance costs, should be funded by the tap fees and capacity charges. He would need much mare information about the anticipated infrastructure needs, the fund balances, and available funds. Ms. Crandall stated that there is a memo from Ms. Grigsby regarding the status of the water and sewer funds. The water fund is $10.5 million and the sewer is $11.4 million. A good portion of these funds is set aside for ongoing maintenance, water towers, retiring debt, etc. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in the March 5 memo, the reference to evaluating the currently utility rate structure is somewhat of a misnomer -the user fees or capacity fees which are levied at tap-in would also be evaluated. Mr. Lecklider asked if someone could summarize the rationale for the City funding these extensions. Mrs. Boring noted that at the time discussion took place about raising water and sewer fees, several residents indicated a desire to tap-in, but could not do so because of the lack of water and/or sewer lines serving them. Currently, Franklin Caunty and other areas are recognizing the important health reasons to have City water and sewer service and they are helping out residents with connections for health, safety and welfare reasons. When reviewing the proposed costs to bring these services to unserved areas, it is foolish to believe the homeowners could bear the burden of these expenses. There is a home along Brand Road where the costs for sanitary sewer service are $120,000. Ms. Crandall stated that the average costs to the homeowner for water service is $14,156; for sewer service, it is $22,903. Staff prepared some other costs estimates that were requested by the Commission. Mrs. Boring asked if staff in fact obtained a legal opinion suggesting that the City could not assess the costs on this average basis. Ms. Crandall stated that this information is only meant to convey what the average costs will be for use in determining a reasonable cost sharing. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the intent was to provide a benchmark on a per lot cost. The Commission also asked for that in terms of what would be expected in private development, what the City has paid to date on a per lot basis and what it would cost for the 10 areas. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Lecklider stated that on the other hand, later subdivisions have had the costs of these services built into the price of the homes. The other property owners within the community have borne these expenses, so what is the rationale for what distinguishes these particular areas? Mrs. Boring responded that while newer subdivisions have borne the expense for the water and sanitary sewer systems, these other homes have borne the expense for different systems of wells, leech beds, aerators, and for maintenance. These folks have already paid for infrastructure to meet their needs, and will need help to switch to different systems. Mr. Lecklider stated that he appreciates the point, but if his current system fails or needs maintenance/repair, he must pay for it. If there is a problem with the water or sewer line, he will also have to pay for that repair. Mrs. Boring stated that those on wells and septic also pay for repairs on an ongoing basis. In many cases, they may have paid more than those on City water and sewer systems. Mr. Kranstuber noted that in the past, the City has provided the main lines to Bellaire, etc. Are the costs noted in the memos for the main lines only, not for connection to the individual properties? Mr. Hammersmith stated that is correct Mr. Lecklider asked if the Public Services Committee was previously given some kind of assessment of the value of a property with water and sewer services added. Ms. Crandall stated that this was only mentioned in the March 5 memo on the second page. Ms. Salay asked if this could be quantified in some manner. Ms. Crandall stated that staff could contact realtors to obtain information on average increases in values. Mrs. Boring pointed out that in terms of property value increase, this must be studied carefully. She would prefer having a percentage increase identified. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would contend that his home purchased 10 years ago would have cost less with a septic and well system -this is just the reality. This is not to be construed that the neighborhoods are less quality. It is simply a matter of the price of a home with water and sewer services versus those with well and septic systems. Mr. Kranstuber agreed - it is more desirable to have water and sewer, and the developer pays those costs and passes them along in the price of their homes. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 7 Mrs. Boring asked what is the cost for the average property owner to connect from the main line to his home? Mr. Hammersmith stated that the per foot cost is $15 for water and $25 for sanitary. For a 100-foot water service line, that translates to $1,500 for water, plus the Dublin tap fee, Columbus meter charge and Columbus capacity charge - for a total of @$4,500. The information is included on page 4. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not believe that water and sewer services translate to a different percentage of increasing value of a home -homes with septic and wells enjoy an increasing value as well. She would like to instead look at what areas like Franklin County are doing in providing such services for unserved residents. Ms. Crandall stated that Franklin County is dealing with some extreme situations - pockets of pollution -and they are extending lines based on severe health and safety issues where water is being contaminated. They have identified areas where septic systems have failed and there is no alternative but to extend the lines. Mrs. Boring asked if there is any grant money available for Franklin County residents. Ms. Crandall stated that they have set aside funds for Franklin County residents who meet certain criteria of income and age. It does not appear that the City of Dublin could access any of this funding. A memo is included from Ms. Grigsby about this. Mr. Kranstuber asked what other municipalities do in this regard. It is not a unique problem for cities as many have unserved areas. Ms. Crandall responded that, typically, a developer or the resident will pay for the cost of extending the lines. If the resident pays for the line extension, an assessment to the property owner is done over a period of time of 20-30 years. Mr. Hammersmith added that another mechanism for assessment is a front footage fee, based upon the property frontage. {At this point, Mayor McCash arrived.) Ms. Salay stated that if a line then serves 34 homes, the casts could be divided equally, regardless of the lot width, or it could be divided up based on the lot width. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there are a variety of ways to allocate the costs among the benefiting properties. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked why Mrs. Boring is apposed to these other methods of frontage costs or assessment. Mrs. Boring stated that because of the total cost, she believes there should be some method to subsidize the costs of extending the main lines -some way to compute the average cost and provide them credit for that kind of cost. Of course, each property owner would be responsible for running the lines from the main to their homes. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Reiner stated that, under this scenario, everyone would be required to connect to the lines when they are provided. Mrs. Boring stated that if the City extends the lines for health, safety and welfare, subsidizing the cost, it would make sense to require connection. Mr. Reiner stated that a resident with a clean well and working septic system may not want to join in this program, as it would be expensive. Ms. Crandall stated that the Code requires that once the line is available, the property owner must tap-in. Mr. Reiner noted that there have been problems with requiring tap-in by the residents. Mrs. Boring stated that in actuality, a high percentage tapped in when the lines were available. There were some waivers given due to hardship situations. If the City continues the policy of responding to requests for these services from a neighborhood and if it is phased out, that would be a consideration. A neighborhood not experiencing problems with their wells and septic systems would likely not request the services. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the inspection of existing well systems -she assumes the City currently does not require this. Why would this be a government function? Ms. Crandall responded that lack of inspection could affect the quality of water, and could be a reason for system failure. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she believes this is a property owner's responsibility Ms. Crandall agreed that this is a property owner's responsibility. What is being suggested is that the resident provide some proof of inspection. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that earlier there was a comment about not having qualified staff to perform these inspections. She is confused about whose responsibility these inspections would be. Ms. Crandall stated that it could be a private responsibility, and the property owner would have to provide proof of inspection. Mr. Hammersmith added that there are a number of ways the inspections could be handled. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if well drilling companies, etc. would have an interested in hosting meetings to educate the public about care of wells as opposed to the government taking responsibility for this. These companies would have knowledge of the systems. Ms. Crandall stated that this could be considered, but she hesitates to have an issue of favoritism arise by using one company over another for this educational effort. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 9 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the Franklin County Extension Office -they provide these services at no cost. Ms. Crandall responded that a workshop could be done by Franklin County. Staff has learned that most people who have wells are not aware of the need to inspect and maintain their wells. Mayor McCash added that if chlorination and maintenance is done for wells, replacement may not be needed as quickly. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented that she is in agreement with both recommendations of CSAC; her issue is with doing this at government expense. Randy Roth, CSAC stated that the Commission had assumed that the inspection fee would be paid for by the residents. Currently, Franklin County inspects only aerator systems that flow directly into a waterway. Those who have failing systems are typically the ones who do not have inspections. Franklin County, even upon direct request, has not inspected other than aerator systems flowing directly into a waterway. Franklin County has indicated a willingness to do these inspections, but first, they are requesting the support of Council and the community. There is an issue of the cost of inspecting septic systems -perhaps it will be cost prohibitive to require it each year. More research would be needed. What if a system fails and it is 10-15 years prior to any development bringing lines to that area? What are the consequences? Can the resident be required to install an aerator system at a cost of approximately $10,000? Mr. Reiner stated that all of these are personal property issues -drilling deeper wells may be the easier solution. Mr. Roth stated that Franklin County estimates that a high percentage of 20-year and older leeching systems are polluting neighbor's wells. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if a system ultimately fails, why would this not be the responsibility of the homeowner? Mr. Roth responded that it is their responsibility. The issue is that if a line is not available to the homeowner, and if his current systems fails and cannot pass inspection, the cost to the homeowner to replace the system ranges from $8-14,000, depending upon the type of system installed. That is the only point -that inspection may lead to discovering that many systems have failed. Mrs. Boring stated that a neighbor may have a system which pollutes another neighbor's well because the City doesn't have an inspection system in place. Mr. Kranstuber stated that there are several considerations: 1. Consensus if that the cost of the connection from the main line to the home is the homeowner's responsibility. 2. The funding mechanism for the main lines, whether it is a 100 percent City subsidy and what funds are used -water/sewer or general fund? Or is there Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 10 a 50 percent subsidy or no subsidy, with 100 percent of the main line costs assessed to the benefiting property owners? Did CSAC review the funding issues? Mr. Roth responded that CSAC did not bring back a recommendation on the funding issues. They were waiting for guidance from Council. The question is whether Council wants CSAC to review the funding issues. They tried to identify cheaper solutions, i.e., just water lines with aeration systems. They then found that aeration systems are just as polluting as the leeching systems. So both water and sewer lines would be needed. He noted that one-third of the current water system was paid for with general revenue funds and one-tenth of the sewer system has been paid with general funds. From a public health standpoint aver the long run, there is a need for both water and sewer lines translating to a very high cost. The question of CSAC is one of precedent -does Council want them to take an independent look at this, or should it be looked at with certain assumptions of cost sharing? Currently, most would agree that if there is no public participation on the main lines, it will be financially impossible for many neighborhoods to ever connect in any economically feasible way. So if the goal is to connect everyone to have a fully served City, the costs will be so high for older homes that it may not be feasible. He added that Franklin County is paying for the full cost of the main lines far the sewer; what are being subsidized are connections to the individual properties for hardship reasons. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the funding and phasing are interrelated -there are budget constraints to be dealt with. So if the goal is to connect the entire City, to totally pay for the costs and to do it in an immediate way, that is obviously not feasible. If the funding level by the City is at a high level, then the timing will obviously be over a long period. Mr. Roth indicated that the Commission had worked on the assumption that this would be a 25-30 year endeavor. However, some of the residents indicated they want water or sewer sooner. While some systems are in good shape at this time, in the long run, with urbanization, systems will fail. There is a balancing act in terms of building consensus in the neighborhoods about their desires for the systems, balancing the resources of neighbors and considering the pollution factors in the area. The Commission did not specify a date within which to achieve the goal -doing so may be counterproductive. There is a need for same discretion in this matter. Ms. Crandall stated that staff has not determined any areas where there is presently contamination, but some areas along the river are susceptible, according to the co nsu Ito nts. Tom Merritt, CSAC stated that the Commission believes it is important to understand the scope of the problem and to educate property owners about the importance of maintaining systems. Connecting everyone to the system is a very long-term and costly solution. If there are problem areas, perhaps these can be considered in the prioritization. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked what additional progress can be made this evening, as the intent is not to make a policy decision at this time? She understands the recommendations provided. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 11 Mrs. Boring stated that the intent is to give direction to staff Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Mr. Kranstuber has indicated that Council needs additional information regarding various scenarios. Mr. Hammersmith stated that his understanding of the request is for staff to look at the existing rate structure and the capacity within the current rate structure to accommodate future extensions. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he is seeking more general information -how much of the water/sewer funds are encumbered or programmed for infrastructure needs. He is interested in knowing if there is funding available for these extensions. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would like for the report to describe who would do the inspections and education, and if there are City costs related to that. She would then request a sample ordinance for the requirement of an inspection. Mrs. Boring suggested that these two issues be assigned to CSAC to research and develop a draft program for Council's review and approval at the next Council meeting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated she is still confused about the intent of tonight's meeting. Ms. Brautigam stated that votes cannot be taken at the study session. But what can be done in study sessions is to give direction to staff. Based on tonight's discussion, staff will work with CSAC and provide this information back to Council at a later session. Mr. Lecklider commented that a comment was made in the report regarding precedent. He believes it is clear that the term "precedent" is not used in a legal sense. Personally, he did not participate in Council's previous action regarding funding for water and sewer extensions and he does not feel necessarily bound by that. The composition of Councils changes over the years, and any decisions made by this Council are subject to future reversal by another Council. For future discussions, he will want information on the rationale behind assessing the entire community in the form of increased water and sewer charges to fund these extensions. In the alternative, if that is not done, he would like to know how these extensions will be accomplished - in the general fund or in the CIP? Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher thanked the Commission and staff for their work on this very complicated issue, and the citizens who actively participated in this dialogue. Mr. Hammersmith stated that last year's requests for services from Indian Run and from Cara Court are what prompted this review. They are awaiting a policy determination in terms of having their requests considered. How would Council like staff to proceed? Mr. Kranstuber stated that in the report, it indicates that Indian Run and the Scioto River corridor are in the top priorities in terms of contamination risk. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there are some concerns about contaminated wells in Indian Run. The Cara Court area had diminished ground water supply due to the golf course and therefore requested City water. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 12 Mr. Kranstuber asked about the cost of serving Indian Run. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is approximately $1.1 million for water and sewer. Mr. Kranstuber stated that would be an average of $50,000 per lot. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this should be sent back to the Public Services Committee for their continued review. Mrs. Boring questioned what the Committee could do at this point. Why would the Committee override what CSAC is doing? Mr. Kranstuber stated that he is not certain how CSAC would formulate a solution without knowing how it relates to the capital budget or operating budget. Perhaps it could be done similar to parkland acquisition, with a dedicated amount each year and with phasing. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that what Mrs. Boring is recommending is that Indian Run and Cara Court continue to be told that until a formal policy is finalized, a decision will not be made in response to their specific petitions. Mrs. Boring noted that Cara Court is ranked very low on prioritization in terms of susceptibility. Indian Run ranked as a higher priority. Ms. Salay stated that Cara Court's issue was one of water supply, not pollution. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the water supply issue for Cara Court was resolved. Mr. Lecklider stated that he has concern about addressing the Indian Run and Cara Court petitions independent of what comes back from CSAC. It seems they are then being addressed in a piecemeal fashion. If there was controversy regarding the previous decision about the extensions to the Hanna Hills, etc. utility extensions, this would repeat that. Mr. Kranstuber asked what further information would be needed from CSAC to move forward . Mr. Lecklider responded that, ultimately, a decision is needed from Council about funding, and whether it will be shared. Mr. Kranstuber stated that this question cannot be answered without knowing the specific projects and the budget available. Mr. Lecklider stated that his assumption is that Council would ultimately adopt the policy that the City provides no subsidy, or provides a 25, 50 or 100 percent subsidy across the board in every case. He would not want to discriminate among the various requests. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in terms of the petitions before Council presently, the immediate water supply problem for Cara Court was resolved last fall and it is impossible to predict what will happen in the future. The information provided to date does not suggest that they are a high priority -unless something would change. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 13 Mr. Lecklider stated that his understanding is that the rough cost estimate far all ten projects is $16 million. Mr. Hammersmith states that Council seems comFortable with the other aspects of the recommendations- inspections and education. The major issue is how the ten projects would be funded. Assuming the worst cost scenario, based on the $16 million estimate for all ten areas, staff could try to program them over a certain period of time and see what the capacity would be to accommodate it - at a 100 percent subsidy. Other options of subsidies - 0, 25, 50, and 75 percent -could also be looked at and timeframes considered to serve all 10 areas. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher that another consideration should be the options of increasing the water and sewer rates and how the various funding options would affect them. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that the recommendation be very neutral - no one is indicating support for raising rates. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council is not necessarily asking for this kind of option, but there are realities to be faced in terms of the impact of such decisions. Mr. Kranstuber stated, as a footnote to Avery/Cara Court -that if a 50 percent subsidy were recommended, he would argue it should not apply to that group if their wells fail next summer. It is the development approved by the City and the golf course which impacted their wells and resulted in their well failure. The City has an extremely high obligation to take care of that. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff's expectation is that if a similar situation occurs this summer, the City would participate in the same remediation efforts as were done last summer. Ms. Salay stated that she does not agree. If theser wells fail again, a water line needs to be considered, as Mr. Kranstuber has suggested. In terms of the Indian Run residents, they believe their well issues were caused by the City's development of Emerald Parkway. The question is whether or not the City development did in fact impact those wells. Mr. Hammersmith responded that Egan & Associates have evaluated that area and determined that the wells are contaminated due to on lot systems. Their assessment is that It is not attributable to the Emerald Parkway extension. Mrs. Boring asked if there are any possibilities of partnership, i.e., with Washington Township, as the water relates to fire service. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff can ask, but the township's view in terms of fire service is that they already provide services to areas without central water and they believe they do that adequately. Ms. Crandall asked for clarification -should the question of funding be sent back to CSAC or remain with Council? It was the consensus of Council to review the funding issues and not to refer it to CSAC. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 14 Mrs. Boring stated that in hearing that different options for City funding will be provided, it is important to know whether a majority of Council will support this concept at all. If not, it is a waste of staff time. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is important to understand the big picture before making any decision. She believes that Council is keeping an open mind about all of this. Ms. Salay stated that there are many residents who are very interested in this issue and she is not comfortable in taking any kind of action at this time. She would want to hear public testimony as well. Mr. Hammersmith offered that staff can return with this information to a future work session or to a Council meeting. Mrs. Boring stated that the problem with the work session is that the structure does not allow for public participation. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that it should be combined - a work session format which also includes public testimony. Perhaps the best solution is a special Council meeting to focus on this topic. Mayor McCash agreed with the concept of a Special Council Meeting. It is a tough issue and it is important to be fair to everyone. In terms of City subsidies, the issue becomes how to calculate a uniform subsidy across the board - if, in fact, any subsidy is approved. Mr. Lecklider thanked the members of CSAC for the time spent in review and investigation. Report and Discussion Regarding Conservation Zoning - Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation (Present for the discussion were P&Z Commissioners Gerber, Saneholtz, Zimmerman, Ritchie and Messineo) Mr. Gunderman stated that P&Z recommended that Council consider endorsing conservation zoning. Background material has been provided in the packet. Some of this is from Randall Arendt's books, and miscellaneous articles on conservation and clustering. Also included are some sample ordinances for consideration. He noted that Mr. Arendt's material focuses on rural areas in an environment where there is a lot of straight zoning requiring large lots. His efforts focus on preserving features of the property and provide a mechanism to accomplish that. Mr. Gerber stated that the recommendation is in keeping with the discussions at the joint CouncillP&Z meetings and their review of the Community Plan -looking far opportunities where conservation techniques could apply. They would not necessarily advocate of all of Mr. Arendt's concepts, but there are properties where these techniques could be a goad alternative to "cookie-cutter" homes. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 15 Mayor McCash stated that much of Mr. Arendt's work relates to rural areas, where developers are forced into large lots due to the minimum sizes for septic and well systems. If these techniques are applied in areas with water and sewer extensions and which don't require minimum lot sizes, there is potential for the abuse of conservation subdivision design to the point where the product will not be acceptable. Some of the benefits in this would be considering basic land planning principles when looking at the site -the topography, the amenities -and plan around those. Perhaps the open space provisions could be adjusted based upon those type of components. It would make sense in areas where a site has a lot of natural amenities to be protected. For a completely flat, open field with no amenities, conservation subdivision techniques will not be beneficial. He acknowledged that there are some portions which could be used in different applications that would benefit the way subdivisions are laid out in Dublin. It would not be necessary to adopt the entire conservation subdivision design approach. Mrs. Boring stated that from what she has heard, there is not a desire to apply this to every area. What is being considered is another alternative. There are some key areas where these principles could be useful. Discussion points are whether there is a minimum amount of land where this would work; and if an applicant saves trees and certain features, they may request higher densities than in the Community Plan. She is concerned because of the many applications in the pipeline, and the need to have a technique available soon which has not been "watered down." This is not far an across the board application, but merely provides another tool. There are some specific areas where these concepts could work - it will not fit everywhere. Mr. Kranstuber asked what additional tool is needed? Currently, a planned district can accomplish many of the same goals. Mr. Gerber stated that in fairness to developers and applicants, the Commission wanted to provide notice of the City's policy regarding this type of land planning. Ms. Clarke stated that the frustration she has heard from the Commission is that the Community Plan values ruralism, yet they don't see rural characteristics in what is being developed. P&Z would like to know what to tell developers in order to achieve the rural characteristics so valued in the Community Plan. Mr. Kranstuber stated that this would not then be a new law. P&Z is seeking Council's support in requesting this type of subdivision design. Ms. Clarke stated that in her view, there is nothing which would currently prohibit a developerfrom doing a complete conservation design in a PUD. The question is whether the City actually encourages this - is it the policy to move in that direction? Mr. Lecklider stated that if Council supports this type of land planning, a question which comes to mind is how this subdivision design can be incentivized? Mr. Messineo stated as an example that the development on the bait store site was a higher density than the City desired. But perhaps some larger, wooded areas could be preserved if it were developed in something other than a conventional way. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 16 Mrs. Boring stated that she spoke with the staff planner who worked on that case and who indicated that a standard is needed. The incentive to the developer is the lower costs of infrastructure because the entire acreage would not need to be developed. Mr. Kranstuber stated that all of these things can be done in a planned district. Mayor McCash agreed. Currently, an applicant can present a conservation subdivision design plan to the Commission for review. Mr. Reiner stated that there is no incentive or direction from the community to do this. The Community Plan has not been implemented with "teeth." Mayor McCash stated that the Community Plan indicates the City values rural characteristics, so an applicant can present a plan that preserves rural character for P&Z's consideration. They have every opportunity to do that now. Ms. Clarke stated that the Community Plan was adopted in 1997. Sine that time, how many rural plans have been proposed? If it's not the rrrarket that drives this type of land planning, someone must really encourage it. Mr. Reiner stated that the development community will continue to do what they have always done -profit is their motive, not imagination. Dublin has a higher standard and always has. The Community Plan indicates a desire for a rural lack -better zoning, better protection. The Dublin government has not proceeded to implement these things with legislation. P&Z is now asking Council to prepare legislation to enact the Community Plan. Without taking action, applicants will continue to submit what they have always submitted -cookie-cutter designs lacking creativity. If they are forced to think outside of the box, they will have to hire architects to create interesting housing plans. Government must move to implement these creative designs which preserve open space, riparian corridors and other natural amenities. The land supply is limited, and it is time to do something creative. Legally, this is likely only option available under the state and federal constitutions which would not constitute a "taking." Ms. Salay stated that when these concepts were considered a few years ago, they were not adopted. Since that time, Ballantrae came in and that was unique. Other than that, subdivision developments have come in with 200-foot setbacks, as Council requested, but with 80-foot lots by the same developer. This is what prompted P&Z to come to Council. She noted that in the examples provided in the packet, all of the lots face onto the open space and that is where the value comes. If conservation subdivision techniques are desired, stronger encouragement will be needed. Council and the community will also need to embrace the concept of smaller lots. In recent years, the standard has been 100-foot lots in width. Larger homes on larger lots have the same feel. Before spending more time on these concepts, there is a need to assure comfort with the lot widths. In order to secure huge open spaces, the densities will be necessarily higher in the other areas. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 17 Mr. Reiner stated that in Muirfield, there are areas with higher densities, such as Weatherstone, to accommodate the different types of housing. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he doesn't believe it is necessary to "sell" anyone on these concepts. At the same time, he is hearing that it is not appropriate for all areas. There must bean incentive far the developer to encourage this. Or perhaps overlay areas should be established where these concepts could be used. Mayor McCash stated that if there are 100 acres, 200 homes would be placed on a certain percentage of the site, and a larger open space would be preserved. It would necessitate smaller lot sizes, but would have the amenities of a larger open space. Previously, Council determined that they could not consider a lot size less than 80 feet. That is why the concept was never adopted. Mr. Reiner stated that for the bait store site, which is heavily forested, a developer would generally remove the trees and place houses on 80-foot lots. If these concepts were adopted, however, an overlay would be created requiring clustering of houses and resulting in higher densities. No one wants to maintain large lots in this day and age. Mr. Kranstuber stated that there appears to be buy-in on the concept -the question is how to move forward? He would envision that a consultant or planning staff could do this, establishing particular areas where these techniques would be used - or possibly incentivizing this for certain areas. The question becomes requiring versus incentivizing this design. Mayor McCash stated that rather than doing overlays, the City could indicate their interest in this type of approach and encourage developers to do this. P&Z already has the direction from Council to encourage this in order to preserve rural characteristics. Mr. Lecklider commented that his experience is that production homebuilders have a certain number of standard floor plans. For Dublin, they probably don't have a plan for a 60-foot lot at these quality levels. Mrs. Boring stated that the Tartan West developers sent their plan to Randall Arendt far review. Local developers do not know how to do these concepts. Legally, the conservation design concepts must be formally adopted or nothing will happen. Mr. Ritchie suggested that staff assess the available undeveloped land in the City with a thought toward what sites could be considered for this type of development. Within three weeks of time, this could be brought to P&Z for approval and then to Council far approval . Once it is official, developers will understand what the expectations are when they visit the Planning office. Ms. Salay stated that there have been recent articles in the newspaper about areas where these design concepts have been used -Hampstead Village in New Albany, out west on the Darby Creek. It seems that the concept is working in other areas. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the timeframe staff would need to do this research Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 18 Ms. Clarke responded that she is not certain this could be done in three weeks. Mrs. Boring asked what can be done with developments already in the "pipeline" -there seems to be an urgency in all of this. Mr. Gerber added that P&Z believes the Community Plan already supports this design concept. They are asking for Council's support in directing staff to proceed with this work. Mr. Saneholtz stated that if a builder takes the time to research these concepts, they will understand the economic benefits which could be obtained with implementation of this strategy. There are many areas in the community, such as the Tartan West area which are designated as Rural. In the case of Tartan West, P&Z asked for something different and they apparently brought that to Council. He had hoped that revised concept plan would be brought back to P&Z at some point. Mr. Reiner thanked P&Z for their efforts in bringing this fon~vard. Staff will proceed with the direction they have been given tonight. Mr. Zimmerman stated that not only the wooded acreage in Dublin should be considered -there are large areas in southwest Dublin off of Avery Road where these principles could be used. Ms. Salay agreed Mr. Lecklider noted that he agrees with Mr. Gerber that based on the Community Plan, they can move forward with work on these concepts. Mrs. Boring suggested that the key points are that the lots are oriented toward the open space. Mr. Messineo asked who would own the open spaces. Mrs. Boring stated that there would be a forced homeowners association in these areas Ms. Salay stated that, depending on what kind of maintenance is required, a situation could occur where a small number of homeowners must maintain a large area. Mayor McCash stated that if the open space is being preserved for the benefit of the citizens of Dublin, all residents should have the opportunity to use this space. Otherwise, individual cities and parks will be created throughout the town. Mr. Lecklider stated that in terms of smaller lot sizes, he urged everyone to keep an open mind. The Kentlands in suburban D.C. has homes extremely close together, but the appreciation in value has been substantial. Council shouldn't rule out the possibility of this type of development. Mr. Gerber noted that these concepts will not fit all areas -the language "as appropriate" is important. Mrs. Boring asked far an estimated timeframe Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 19 Ms. Clarke will report back after discussion with staff. Report regarding Appearance Code Committee (Committee Chair George Peplow was present for this discussion.) Mr. Kranstuber reported that he wants to advise Council of the status of their work. They have completed approximately 80 percent of the scope of work of the Committee, and would now like Council's input. The group has worked together well - it includes George Peplow, John Messineo, Charlie Driscoll of the BIA, David Meleca and himself. Staff member Brandol Harvey has worked with the group, and the various items are now drafted in ordinance form. The Committee reviewed hundreds of slides to determine what is desired in Dublin. They identified the various items: For site development: 1) Treescape. The draft ordinance decreases the spacing between street trees and increases the caliper to 2.5 inches. 2) For private landscaping, the ordinance requires three trees in the front yard, selected from the City's list of appropriate trees. 3) Curvilinear streets will be encouraged. For design standards: 1) In lieu of requiring a percentage of vinyl siding, the group looked at the type of siding, a minimum of .44 mill vinyl, and included a list of accessories to be acquired. 2) Garage doors. To reduce the impact of street facing garage doors and encourage side loading, several standards are recommended. 3) Faur sided architecture. The concern was with blank facades, and what is recommended is that a certain number of design elements are required, especially for street facing and corner facing sides. The last item to be addressed is diversity. What the Committee may propose is that by implementing the foregoing quality changes, there may not be a need for the diversity portion. The intent of the effort was to avoid "cookie-cutter" type subdivisions. Further, the BIA representative has indicated he will not support the diversity portion. While staff has prepared information regarding diversity, the Committee's sense is that adding this portion will not accomplish much more. If Council, however, wants the Committee to consider diversity, they will need another two meetings far this review. If not, the remainder can be formally presented to Council in a few weeks. Mayor McCash stated that in his view, the diversity aspect should be reviewed due to the concern about subdivisions built all by the same builder. The similar models result in the loss of a diverse appearance in the subdivision. Perhaps with a certain number of builders involved in a development, there would not be the need for these standards. The concern was obviously with an entire development built by one builder. Ms. Salay stated that Mr. Driscoll is currently working within the requirements to build diversity into every neighborhood. Why would he then vote against this portion - diversity seems to be the easier part? Mr. Kranstuber stated that Mr. Driscoll has concerns with government requiring diversity, due to the difficulties/delays which may result from further reviews by boards, etc. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 20 Mrs. Boring stated that this was discussed previously. In terms of home sales, the builders were to provide a matrix of homes in a subdivision. Ms. Clarke stated that this works well in an M/l subdivision where there are one or two builders. Mrs. Boring stated that diversity requirements were not necessary for custom builders who build different products for each buyer. She also thought there was a provision which would allow a themed development, exempting them from diversity standards. Ms. Salay stated that these were addressed on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that these three items be addressed by the Committee. Mr. Kranstuber responded that the Committee actually proposed having one line in the Code requiring that a diversity matrix be provided. Mr. Harvey stated that there is no way to do this in a simple fashion. Ms. Salay stated that there would be no need for this matrix with multiple builders, or for a themed community which is generally part of a larger PUD. In terms of having different models next to each other, builders are already complying with this desire of the City. Mr. Peplow stated that the Committee reviewed some of the matrixes being used. It is very difficult to establish a simple diversity matrix which will address many situations. The Committee felt that applying a diversity standard will detract from anything already achieved, and the question became whether it is really necessary. Mr. Kranstuber stated that as an example, in Kendall Ridge, the issue is not lack of diversity from the matrix used. Rather, the issues are the lack of curvilinear streets and streetsca pe/landscape . Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in areas like Upper Arlington, the attractiveness may not be so much in the houses as in the large trees on the streets and in the yards. Mr. Gunderman stated that the diversity discussion is more difficult because a code is being drafted to address everything unless it is exempted by a planned process. There are some subdivisions still under development that do not comply with their own matrix. If Council is satisfied with continuing to use matrixes in planned districts, that is simple - a policy will suffice. But it becomes more complex when applied to developments already underway. Mrs. Boring noted that she is very appreciative of the Committee's work. She would advocate moving forward with what has been done to date. It can always be amended, if necessary. Mr. Kranstuber stated that his fear is that the diversity component may result in defeat of the entire package. It is much more complex than the other portion. He, too, would suggest moving forward with the portion already completed. Mr. Reiner stated that landscaping is important, but foundations are very obtrusive and this, too, should be addressed. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 21 Mr. Kranstuber assured him that this is addressed within the draft. It was the consensus of Council to proceed with scheduling a Council review of the work to date. Mr. Kranstuber stated that it will require a meeting devoted to this discussion. Staff will schedule this for an upcoming study session. Council thanked the Committee members for their hard work. Report and Discussion Regarding Sidewalk Policy Ms. Brautigam stated that Mr. Smith will explain the legal issues related to this policy. Mr. Smith stated that Dublin for some time has had a practice of repairing damaged sidewalks for property owners and funding this as part of the annual street maintenance program. it is a strong recommendation of the Legal Department that if Council decides to adopt a policy of phasing in sidewalk repair and funding it, that the Code not be amended. However, If the Code is amended to provide that the City assumes liability for these sidewalk repairs, which can be done under home rule, the Legal staff will defend those cases. The law in Ohio provides immunity from liability related to sidewalk repair and the current Dublin code provides immunity for the City. This is a separate matter from the payment for sidewalk repairs. If the City wants to provide this service due to its financial resources, it does not affect the liability, unless Council amends the current Code. Again, Legal staff's recommendation is that Council adopts a policy regarding the current practice, and not amend the Code. Mrs. Boring stated that not changing the Code would maintain the option of not funding sidewalk repair in the future, if the financial conditions of the City should change. Ms. Crandall stated that because Council requested that the City undertake the repair of sidewalks, staff reviewed the survey results from 2001. After talking with staff member Fred Tennyson, it was learned that the survey was done from his vehicle, not on site. So staff realizes that they need to do a better job with the survey and that the cost of the repairs estimated at $166,000 will be higher. The steps staff is recommending are to establish deficiency criteria; to conduct a complete survey an foot to assess the extent of the deficiencies; to prepare a schedule for sidewalk repairs in 2003 based on the areas most in need of repair; and to prepare program guidelines and information for distribution to residents. In order to move forward with repairs in 2003, $100,000 is needed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if this has been budgeted. Ms. Crandall stated that it was not. The approach to sidewalk repair in the past has been that as the street maintenance is performed, sidewalk deficiencies are reviewed. In the past, $7,000 to $12,000 has been spent for sidewalk repair. Mr. Hammersmith added that most of the $25,000 in the street maintenance program relating to sidewalks was spent for curb ramp replacement as part of the ADA requirements. Mr. Reiner does not support the policy as he has previously indicated. However, he will vote for the funding needed to da the repairs. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 22 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the survey of sidewalk conditions could be a project for the Leadership Dublin participants. Ms. Crandall stated that staff had discussed using interns or volunteers, but it was not felt that the volunteers would be interested in such a project. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher disagreed, noting that groups of elder volunteers, college students and others could be recruited. The project could be broken down in manageable portions. Mrs. Boring asked if the sidewalk maintenance program will be done in a similar manner to the street maintenance program, with a ranking of most critical. Ms. Crandall responded that this is correct. After the survey is completed, a certain amount of funds will be programmed into the CIP each year. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if these repairs are to be 100 percent paid by the City. Ms. Crandall responded that this was Council's direction at the last meeting. Mr. Lecklider noted that this has been the informal policy up to this point. Ms. Salay pointed out that to date, however, the amount spent has been $12,000 per year. Continuing the program as it is presently configured will not work due to the aging of sidewalks throughout the City. Mr. Lecklider stated that in the materials, it states that program guidelines will be distributed to residents. He suggests emphasizing that this is a current practice and that the City does not have an obligation to pay for the repairs. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in terms of the immediate plan for 2003 absent the survey results, staff will revisit the list presented to Council previously to determine which are the most critical. Those will be part of the initial program. Mayor McCash stated that the $100,000 cost is based upon a contractor doing this work. Is there a possibility of having this done by the City staff? The work is not that difficult. Ms. Crandall stated that the crews are maxed out now, so it would require additional staff. Mr. Hammersmith added that it would require a dedicated group of 3-4 staff and equipment. He has done this work in previous jurisdictions both in-house and by contract. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that staff will bring a request to Council for funding of $100,000 for this program. Ms. Crandall clarified that additional appropriations will be needed to award the bid. Mr. Hammersmith added that a program will be devised, similar to the storm sewer maintenance program. Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 23 Mr. Lecklider stated that the memo indicated that the funding was available due to grant funding. Ms. Crandall stated that an appropriations ordinance will still be necessary. Review of Proposal from Dublin Chamber of Commerce for Delegation to Visit Dublin, Ireland in July of 2003 Mrs. Boring asked if staff had found any background information regarding the trip to Ireland by City officials in 1988. Ms. Brautigam reported that staff was not able to locate any information regarding this item. Mayor McCash asked if that trip was funded through hotellmotel tax. Ms. Brautigam stated that this was apparently the case. Mrs. Boring stated that she recalls that Mayor Close was part of that group. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would like to participate, but it would depend upon the dates. She has another commitment in July. Mayor McCash stated that he, too, would be interested in participating. Mrs. Boring suggested Council determine if they want to send someone. It would not necessarily have to be a Council Member - it could be a staff member from Economic Development, for example. What will be gained from the City's participation in this venture? Mr. Lecklider noted that he, too, would want to know the tangible results for the community. Ms. Brautigam stated that one of the issues in 1988 was that a report from the participants regarding the trip was requested by a Council Member. From reviewing the minutes, it was apparently never presented. Mr. Kranstuber asked about the potential benefits to taxpayers for the City's participation in this delegation. Ms. Brautigam responded that the true economic development opportunities are limited, but there are benefits in terms of relationship building. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the cost of such a trip is fairly reasonable. He could envision the Mayor representing the City as part of this delegation. Ms. Brautigam stated that it would be appropriate to send an elected official versus a staff member. The Council/Manager form of government is not familiar to them. It would therefore be important for a Council Member to attend, if the City chooses to send anyone. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she would be willing to pay her own expenses if her schedule would allow participation. She had canceled a scheduled visit to Dublin, Ireland a couple of years ago due to her father's death. In terms of protocol, it would be appropriate for an elected official to make the visit. She added that Dublin does already Study Session Monday, March 10, 2003 Page 24 invite musicians and cultural arts groups from Ireland in conjunction with the Irish Festival. From a Council standpoint, it would serve as a cultural exchange opportunity. The Chamber's purpose would be different. Mrs. Boring noted that in view of the difficult economic times, she does not believe this is the year to schedule this. She appreciates the generous offer of Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher to pay her own expenses. She would not have any objection to those who want to participate on those terms. Mr. Lecklider asked if the Chamber is sponsoring some of the expenses for these people. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the business people typically pay their own expenses. Mayor McCash stated that the Chamber is likely paying for their representatives. He is surprised that the Schools would pay for the expenses of their representative -perhaps this is being subsidized by the Chamber. The consensus of Council is that if someone wants to participate and pay his or her own way, that is acceptable. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Clerk of Council