Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/23/2007RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Dublin City Council 1 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, April 23, 2007 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:10 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Mr. McCash was absent (excused). Staff members present were: Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Readler, Chief Epperson, Mr. Harding, Ms. Ott, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Earman, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis, Mr. Richardson, Ms. Migliori, Mr. Burns and Ms. Wawszkiewicz. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Salay led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1 i APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of April 9, 2007 Ms. Salay moved approval of the minutes of April 9. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mr. Keenan noted that Mr. McCash had sent an a-mail today regarding some comments he needed to have changed. Apparently, there was an interpretation related to a zoning matter which was discussed on April 9. If necessary, he can propose revisions to the minutes at a later time. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if it would be appropriate for him to vote on the minutes, as he had arrived mid-meeting and participated in the meeting beginning at the point where Resolution 20-07 was heard. Is it appropriate for him to vote on the minutes? Ms. Readler stated that this is appropriate, given his statement on the record. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE • Notice to Legislative Authority -Stock Transfer - D5 and D6 Liquor Permits - Muirfield Wine Co LLC, 7178 Muirfield Drive There was no objection to the transfer of these permits. • Notice to Legislative Authority -New C2 Liquor Permit -Universal Enterprise of Ohio, Inc. dba Dublin Sunoco, 201 W. Bridge Street Mrs. Boring noted that at a recent meeting, Council directed staff to file an objection to the transfer of the C1 permit at this same location. Ms. Readler stated that if the basis of Council's objection to the permits is the proximity of the business to the school, it would be appropriate to object to this permit as well. It was the consensus of Council to file an objection to the new C2 permit for Universal Enterprise of Ohio, Inc., dba Dublin Sunoco, 201 W. Bridge Street. SPECIAL PRESENTATION • Defense Finance and Accounting Service Expansion at the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC) -Columbus Chamber of Commerce representative Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a consolidation by the Pentagon known as the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) yielded new jobs for the Columbus region. The Defense Finance and Accounting Services is a tenant at DSCC in Whitehall. Through this new expansion, there is a need to hire over 900 additional employees in the accounting and finance areas. The region is cooperating in the effort to recruit candidates to fill these new jobs. She introduced the Columbus Chamber representative who is sharing information with area City Councils about strategies for assisting with this effort. Ruth Yorston, Economic Development Coordinator Dublin Chamber of Commerce updated Council regarding this initiative: 1. In 2005, the BRAG decided to consolidate 26 defense finance and accounting service operations to five in an effort to save costs. In that process, the Columbus region fared well as one of five remaining locations. Over the next several years, there will be a gain of 900 jobs in the Central Ohio region - generally in finance and accounting. 2. The Columbus Chamber continues to work with a Task Force that was initiated at the time of the BRAG process. The Task Force has assisted RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 23, 2007 Page 20 1 1 1 DFAS with recruitment of individuals from closing bases. 3. At this time, the needs cannot be filled by transferring employees and jobs must be filled from within the region. 4. DFAS is one of the world's largest finance and accounting services, and employs both recent graduates and experienced employees. They consider themselves as an employer of choice, providing competitive wages and an excellent package of federal benefits. They have onsite daycare and a 40,000 square foot fitness center. They offer many amenities not available in smaller locations. 5. The Columbus Chamber is asking that local communities continue to partner in this recruitment effort. During the BRAC process, the Dublin City Council passed a resolution in support of the DSCC installation. They are asking the City to continue supporting this by adding a link to DFAS at the City's web page. 6. She thanked Council for inviting her tonight to share this information. It was the consensus of Council to direct staff to provide a link on the City's website to DFAS, per this request. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the region is working together to support the efforts of the Columbus Chamber for regional employment opportunities. She thanked Ms. Yorston for this update. PROCLAMATION/SPECIAL RECOGNITION • Gold Medal Presidential Service Award Pin -Morton O'Kelly, representing the Board of the Dublin Irish Festival Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher provided brief background on the creation of this service award by President Bush in 2000. All citizens were requested to give 4,000 hours of lifetime service to their community. This year, City Council is recognizing the Dublin Irish Festival Board who in 2006 donated over 1,000 hours of volunteer time in developing and executing the festival -achieving the Gold Medal Presidential Service Award. Morton O'Kelly accepted the award on behalf of the Board and the hundreds of volunteers for the Dublin Irish Festival. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher read the letter sent from President Bush to the Dublin Irish Festival Board in recognition of their volunteer service award. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the past week was recognized as Volunteer Week in the City of Dublin, and she presented a proclamation to Michelle Crandall, Administrative Services Director. She noted that Ms. Nardecchia, Volunteer Administrator is currently recovering from surgery. On behalf of Dublin City Council, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked all City volunteers for their outstanding service contributions to the City. • Earth Week Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented a proclamation for Earth Week -April 21-28. Ms. Migliori, Nature Education Coordinator accepted the proclamation on behalf of City staff. Ms. Migliori described the various activities occurring over the week-long celebration in the City. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road indicated that he is not 100 percent prepared with his comments tonight, and therefore will not address Council at this time. MODIFICATION OF AGENDA Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that in view of the large number of citizens present for the proposed Memorial Drive bridge topic, it has been suggested this item be moved up on the agenda. There was no objection from Council to modifying the agenda. • Community Plan/Thoroughfare Plan Update/Potential Memorial Drive Bridge Mr. McDaniel, Acting Manager stated that per Council's request, staff prepared a report for the packet regarding the proposed Memorial Drive bridge. Ms. Willis and Mr. Hammersmith will present the information. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e Ms. Willis, Engineering Manager noted that tonight's presentation focuses on the Memorial Drive bridge potential crossing and its impacts with the Community Plan Update. Tonight, staff will present a summary of resident concerns brought forward at the Community Plan open house on March 7; traffic control issues at subject intersections within the study area; and travel demand forecasts which project the traffic volumes on area roadways. Some resident concerns expressed on March 7 related to: (1) the expense of this bridge compared to other projects needed within the Dublin area; (2) impact to the neighborhood character; (3) traffic and safety issues; (5) other potential bridge locations; (6) public awareness of the potential bridge crossing; and (7) property value impacts. Ms. Willis gave a presentation to Council. • She noted that the 1997 Community Plan shows a potential Memorial Drive bridge crossing in this location connecting with Stratford Avenue, with a 100 foot right of way. The Plan also assumed afour-lane bridge for Memorial Drive. • Another comment heard is the potential for other bridge locations in Dublin. In particular, the question was raised about why the City has not extended Brand Road over to Riverside Drive which would connect to Hard Road. However, there is a 1,000 foot lateral offset between the two roadways, leaving .2 mile gap between lining up. That is in part the reason why Brand Road was not suggested for the extension, as well as many existing homes already built in the area. • In terms of bridge spacing, the Memorial Drive bridge provides nice spacing along the Scioto River corridor. From Hayden Run to S.R. 161, there is a two- mile gap; from 161 and Emerald Parkway, there is .7 mile gap; Emerald Parkway to Glick Road is a 3 mile gap, with a potential Memorial Drive bridge at a 2.2 mile increment. • Because this bridge was contained in the 1997 Community Plan, at the time the Amberleigh North subdivision was developed, the City acquired 23 acres of property on the west side of the Scioto River. This is approximately the location where the bridge would come through. There are no driveways that actually front Memorial Drive in this area. This is also planned to be a park for the Amberleigh North subdivision, and the Parks Master Plan has taken into account the potential bridge location. • This bridge is forecasted as needed in 2023. It is not a bridge needed today, as there is capacity in the existing bridges. Staff forecasts the need for additional bridge crossings into the future. Staff estimates this bridge crossing will cost approximately $8 million in 2007 dollars. This cost is consistent with bridges built recently. • She demonstrated the study area which was considered to gauge the impact of a potential bridge crossing at Memorial Drive. The study area included Dublin Road and Glick Road; Glick Road and Muirfield Drive intersection; intersection of Memorial and Muirfield; Muirfield and Dublin Road; Memorial and Riverside; Riverside and Summitview. • A two-lane Glick Road bridge was used in the analysis to present the worst case scenario of what the impacts could be to the Memorial Drive bridge. The assumption was that the Memorial Drive bridge would be two lanes. • Current traffic control includes signals at Riverside and Summitview; Riverside and Stratford; Glick and Dublin Road; Glick and Muirfield Drive. In the future, additional traffic control would be required, with or without the bridge, at Memorial and Muirfield Drive and Memorial Drive and Dublin Road. • She shared the projections of what happens on the surrounding roadways with or without the bridge. In the year 2030, in the a.m. peak hour, with the bridge and with Glick Road as a two-lane facility, the bridge crossing is at a level of service F. In the a.m., without the bridge, in the southbound direction, the level of service on Dublin Road is F, while level of service in the northbound direction varies from A through D. • Comparing this link during a.m. peak hour with the bridge, there is a significant improvement from a level of service F to a level of service A through D. It preserves the link of Dublin Road between Glick and Memorial Drive. • Regarding impacts to Memorial Drive with or without the bridge -without the bridge, there are levels of service A in each direction versus levels of service C and B - C in the westbound direction and B in the eastbound direction on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council e n 1 1 Memorial Drive. While there are traffic increases on Memorial Drive, there is adequate capacity on Memorial Drive to handle the additional traffic. • Looking at the intersections at either end of Memorial Drive with Dublin Road and Muirfield Drive, with or without the bridge alternative - at Muirfield Drive, the level of service drops slightly from B to C at both intersections. However, these are acceptable levels of service. • Likewise at Summitview Road, the service level goes from a B to an A, to a C and an A. In the westbound direction, the level of service drops one level and the A levels remain consistent. • The Glick Road/Dublin Road intersection improves under the without bridge alternative from a D to a C level of service. • For the p.m. peak hour, there still is a level of service of F on the Glick Road bridge as a two-lane facility; the level of service at the Glick Road/Dublin Road intersection improves from a level of service E to a D; the level of service on the link on Dublin Road between Glick and Memorial Drive improves from an F in both directions to an A through D; for Memorial Drive itself, it goes from an A and B to a B and C. While there is increased traffic, there is adequate capacity on the roadway. • Summitview Road remains constant in its levels of service, with A, A, C and C. The intersection of Summitview and Riverside improves from a level of service of C to a level of service B due to some shifting of traffic volumes on Riverside Drive. The intersections of Memorial with Muirfield and Dublin Road remain as B in both the without and with bridge alternative at Muirfield Drive and at Dublin Road, the LOS drops from a B to a C. Again, these are acceptable levels. • She shared information about the existing versus the future projected traffic for Memorial Drive. Existing traffic volumes in the a.m. peak hour for Memorial Drive are 130 westbound and 180 eastbound. This increases in year 2030 in the westbound direction without a bridge, and increases in the westbound direction with a bridge on Memorial Drive to 440 vehicles and 280 vehicles eastbound. These volumes are comparable with the volumes which exist today on Brand and on Glick Road. • Another slide demonstrates the increase of traffic on Memorial Drive in the p.m. peak hour in year 2030. In response to the audience, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Ms. Willis to define the various levels of service. Ms. Willis responded that the level of service is what traffic engineers use to describe traffic operations at an intersection. Level A indicates free-flowing without any obstructions, and F means that the system tends to gridlock. A, B, C, D and E describe the range in between these two conditions on the roadway network. Vice Mayor Lecklider pointed out that the levels of service described are during peak hours -not all through the day. Ms. Willis continued: • In regard to trip origination and destination of the traffic, a quick analysis was done. In the morning eastbound on the bridge, 60 percent of the traffic is headed to south Delaware county and Powell, while 58 percent and another 30 percent are coming from Dublin and Muirfield and going to southern Delaware county and Powell. • In the p.m., the reverse occurs, where the traffic comes from Powell and Delaware county and distributes back to Muirfield and Dublin south. Therefore, 88 percent of the traffic origin or destinations are within Dublin. • Conversely, in the westbound direction in the a.m., traffic originates in Powell and Delaware and distributes to Muirfield and Dublin south, heading back home in the evening. Mr. Keenan asked where the extra build out between now and 2030 is included in these projections. Ms. Willis responded that the traffic is coming from Powell and heading to the new Dublin jobs - to Cardinal, the COIC and the business corridors. That is all considered part of the Dublin south area. Ms. Salay summarized that the traffic consists of either Dublin residents or Dublin corporate residents. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council April 23, 2007 Page 5 Held 2D Ms. Willis continued: • If the City were to improve Glick Road to a four-lane bridge, the traffic volume increases on Glick Road; however, the traffic decreases on the Memorial Drive bridge are not substantial, demonstrating that the Memorial Drive bridge would be necessary, even with afour-lane Glick Road bridge. Mrs. Boring stated that if traffic was increased with afour-lane bridge at Glick and it does not impact the Memorial Drive bridge, where does this traffic go? Ms. Willis responded that it suggests that the traffic is distributed to other bridges in the area that would carry the load. Mr. Reiner noted that by the year 2030, if a four-lane bridge exists at Glick Road, the new intersection would be in place at Glick and Dublin Road, with turn lanes and other improvements. Was this taken into consideration? Ms. Willis responded affirmatively. Ms. Willis noted that: • The conclusion is that more river crossings are needed in the Dublin area. • The Memorial Drive bridge is a planned location that provides good spacing with other bridges in the area. • Traffic is reduced on Dublin Road between Glick Road and Memorial Drive with the Memorial Drive bridge, which is a benefit to the community. • Traffic impacts at the intersections of Memorial Drive and Dublin Road and Memorial Drive and Muirfield Drive can be mitigated with localized intersection improvements. • Traffic increases at Riverside Drive and Stratford Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection can be mitigated with localized intersection improvements. • The emergency services benefit with the additional bridge crossing and spacing, as it will reduce response times. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for confirmation of planned improvements for the Riverside Drive/Summitview area. Ms. Willis responded there is inclusion of some turn lanes at that intersection. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Sam Sberna, 7827 Nassau Loop noted his lot abuts Muirfield Drive. He moved to Dublin in 1999 from South Carolina. What is not addressed in the text of the memo is the traffic on Muirfield Drive, which has increased in an astounding percentage in seven years. No one knows how much more traffic will be generated on Muirfield Drive as a result of this bridge. He noted that the Brand/Muirfield roundabout has a bearing on this. He strongly suspects that the roundabout has increased the speed of cars headed north and south on Muirfield Drive. When stop signs were in place, cars had to stop. Now, those exiting the roundabout are close to exceeding the speed limit and one block north of that, they exceed the speed limit. He has called the Police and they have set up monitors. He remains concerned about the speed on Muirfield Drive. Those coming west on Memorial will turn south on Muirfield Drive; those coming west on Glick will turn south on Muirfield Drive. They are traveling to Dublin and to Marysville. With the added traffic, there will be more cars speeding on Muirfield Drive. It is not possible for Police to patrol this adequately. But nothing in the memo addresses this problem. How much will the traffic volume be increased on Muirfield Drive with this bridge? Bob Fathman, 5805 Tartan Circle North stated he is a resident of 16 years, but also serves as Chair of the Civic Action Committee of Muirfield Village Civic Association. He is present tonight to address Dublin's "bridge to nowhere." In regard to the assumptions made in regard to projections, the 1997 Community Plan showed a need for afour-lane bridge at Memorial Drive. Now the projections show need for atwo-lane bridge. Therefore, the computer generated projections were flawed at that time, and the same may be true tonight. He suggested that Council look beyond these computer projections and use common sense as this alternative is evaluated. The location of the Memorial Drive bridge does not make sense. Bridges traversing the Scioto River connect to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e straight arterials, not to winding residential streets, such as Stratford Avenue and Memorial Drive. There are 49 homes in Muirfield that front on Memorial Drive. There are no sidewalks, 8,000 residents and many children in the Muirfield subdivision. He asked that Council consider the impact on the world-renowned attraction of the Muirfield Village Golf Club, with the golf course entry on this roadway. In the peak a.m. hours, in this stretch of road near the golf course, there would be an additional 200 cars westbound and 150 cars additional eastbound. He is pleased that Council has eliminated the proposal for extending Memorial Drive to the west, impacting the Riviera Golf Course. However, the Memorial Drive bridge impacts the Muirfield Country Club, the Muirfield Village Golf Club and the Wedgewood Golf Club, all amenities which attract residents and employers to Dublin. He asked that those in the audience who do not support the proposed bridge stand, adding that they are wearing tags which indicate, "Ban the Bridge." They want to communicate their strong opposition to this bridge in the Plan. He participated in the Community Plan process and he heard no citizen calling for more access on each side of the river. In fact, he heard the reverse. At the open house for the Transportation section of the Plan update, there were 85 comments from the large group that turned out; 71 comments related to the bridge, and nearly all were in opposition to the Memorial Drive bridge. This is an $8.2 million waste of tax dollars and is not wanted by the residents of the community. He asked Council to vote tonight to remove this bridge from the Plan. Dana Freudeman, 8132 Campden Lakes Boulevard. Dublin noted that he is present as a Dublin resident but also representing Community Oversight Foundation, as Executive Director, based in Liberty Township. The organization was formed in opposition to the proposed WalMart at Sawmill Parkway and North Hampton. They are still in litigation with WalMart, which plans to build a 220,000 square foot regional center at that intersection, open 24/7. Westbound traffic from Sawmill Parkway will run through Wedgewood directly on Stratford and through Campden Lakes to access Summitview. Now there is an opportunity to increase traffic even more on the west side of Wedgewood at Stratford and Riverside Drive by opening a bridge to the west side of Dublin, potentially bringing more traffic to the intersection at Stratford and Riverside. Upon learning a new WalMart has been built to the north, they may use Wedgewood as a shortcut to access it. Traffic crossing the bridge from west Dublin isn't necessarily going to travel north and south on Riverside Drive. Hard Road is an arterial roadway and is being improved from Route 315 through Linworth and from Smoky Row to Sawmill, changing this into a major east/west arterial. Hard Road currently terminates at the fire station at Riverside Drive. Has the City considered any alternative to relocating Hard Road, realigning it so it could close the gap with Brand Road, creating a regional east/west arterial to the west side of Dublin? Ms. Salay responded it would have to be routed through a hardwood forest that the City recently acquired for millions of dollars. In addition, there is a new neighborhood on the south side of Hard Road which would be impacted. This possibility was considered by Dublin years ago. Mr. Freudeman added that with the improvements soon to be completed for the Glick Road alignment, circumventing the zoo near Powell Road and at the southern end of Riverside Drive with the soon to be completed Emerald Parkway extension from Riverside up to Sawmill, why not wait to see the true impact of the opening of these two arterials on the Riverside Drive traffic? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the projections are for 2030 traffic; this is not a bridge the City is proposing to build in the near future. In ten years, additional analysis would be done, based upon new developments and roadways. Mr. Freudeman pointed out that one other impact which could affect Riverside Drive and Summitview is the proposed extension of Sawmill Parkway north to Route 42. It would bring even more traffic southbound to Sawmill Road and the I-270 area. With Summitview to remain as a two-lane scenic road, he wonders about the impact a potential WalMart opening and the opening of Sawmill Parkway to the north would have. To summarize, the Community Oversight Foundation is opposed to this bridge at this time. Christine Kuret, 8428 Arbory Hill Court noted her primary concern is the safety of children who wait in the dark along Memorial Drive for the bus and must cross the street to access the bus. There are many children walking on the paths and riding bicycles RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age along the streets. This is a curvy, two-lane road and it was not built to accommodate the additional traffic. She noted that the 1997 Community Plan recommends that the City, "slow travel speeds on roads and provide safer pedestrian and bicycle travel." She does not understand how this is possible with the increased traffic from a bridge. In the City's mission statement, it indicates that "Dublin must wisely manage growth to enhance the quality of life and community character and fiscal well being." If this "bridge to nowhere" is built, the property value of homes along Memorial will fall, affecting Dublin's tax base and the residents' fiscal well being. "Dublin's tax base is an underpinning of the community's ability to provide services. The City must continue its efforts to safeguard Dublin's tax base without compromising the quality of life." Her main concern is with the immediacy of this project and why it needs to be pushed through at this time. If it is something that will not occur until 2025, why is it so important to have it in the Plan now? Michele Fortson. 8381 Gilmerton Court noted that as looking through maps in the 1997 Community Plan, she noticed that the other bridge crossings were on streets already designated as major or minor arterials. Memorial Drive is designated as a collector street in the Plan. By building a bridge and bringing traffic on this collector street, it is inconsistent with what is currently in place in the Plan. On page 34 of the 1997 Plan, under "Strategies to Protect Rare and Endangered Species," it states: "Place a high priority on protecting rare, threatened and endangered species habitat from development and negative outside impacts, such as noise and fumes. " Bringing additional traffic up Riverside takes more traffic past special plants and animals as referenced on Map 4 of the 1997 Plan. Additional fumes will also be inhaled by children who wait for school buses on Memorial Drive. She urged Council to keep Dublin green by keeping additional traffic off of Memorial Drive. In addition, the bridge would be in close proximity to the Leatherlips memorial on the east side of Riverside. This "bridge to nowhere" is being placed in one of the lowest density areas in Dublin where a bridge would not be needed. According to page 6 of the document Engineering staff has provided to Council, it is inferred that others outside of the City limits would benefit from this bridge. Therefore, this bridge is being built for others, not living in the City, at the expense of Dublin taxpayers. She does not support making it easier for others to cut through the neighborhoods at the expense of the safety of the neighbors. The Engineering document also refers to safety as does previous Plans. It cannot be safe to have an additional 800 cars per day driving on this roadway with bikers, joggers, strollers and children waiting for buses. She appealed to Council to remove this bridge from the Plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that the City has been in the process in recent years of updating the 1997 Community Plan. In this process, Council can reaffirm or can change an existing Thoroughfare Plan and that is why this is being considered. This process considers the development which has occurred both in Dublin and surrounding Dublin that impacts Dublin's traffic systems. The projections are focused on 2030, and any bridge would not be built in the next few years. Traffic studies take into account information from surrounding communities about the zonings established and traffic patterns that result. Mike Custer, 8745 St. Alban's Place noted that the January 19, 2007 staff memo states that the Memorial Drive bridge serves the Dublin area by diverting traffic from the Glick Road bridge and the other bridge crossings. The report states that the Memorial Drive bridge would significantly divert traffic from the bridges at Glick Road, Emerald Parkway and S.R. 161/Bridge Street. A reduction of 540 vehicles westbound and 460 vehicles eastbound occurs just on the Glick Road bridge. The April 20 memo states that east and westbound vehicle volume combined increases by 40 vehicles on Memorial Drive west of Dublin Road. His question is: Where did the 960 other cars go? There are a number of other ambiguities in the plan. Additionally, on page 15 of the April 20 report there is a statement that Memorial Drive west of Dublin Road will experience additional traffic with and without the bridge. Since the residential area both east and west of Memorial Drive is built out and Memorial Drive is a residential collector changing to an arterial, what is generating the volume increase? Traffic would be encouraged to drive through a residential area when arterials already exist which could be widened, diverting the traffic around the purely residential area. Muirfield and Wedgewood were not designed to have a major road through the middle and a crossing bridge. Memorial Drive cannot be turned into an arterial simply by changing the labeling. He encouraged Council to strongly consider what this will do to the community. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 1 123, 2007 e Ms. Willis clarified that an earlier memo referenced by Mr. Custer assumed afour-lane bridge on Glick Road. The current memo assumes atwo-lane Glick Road bridge. When the assumptions change, the traffic volumes change. Peggy Pace, 8547 Pitlochery Court noted that her street empties onto Memorial Drive near the intersection with Muirfield Drive. They have lived in their home for 14 years and have observed a tremendous increase in traffic volume during that time. Memorial is a residential road and it would break their hearts to see this road turned into a bridge which would bring much more traffic. The traffic accidents at that corner were so frequent over the summer that she was a constant caller to the 9-1-1 system. There are mothers who drive their children in cars to their bus on Memorial Drive for safety reasons; increasing the traffic with this bridge would only add to their concerns. Kevin Walter, 6289 Ross Bend noted that he represents the Homeowners Association of Belvedere. On April 13, their Board met and voted to survey the residents regarding this issue. Only 4 supported this current proposal, with the balance in opposition. Most of the comments indicated they were opposed to traffic patterns moving toward existing developments when traffic is being generated from new developments planned for either the northwest or the southwest of the City; while Council took action to designate the Riviera Country Club as open space, other comments expressed concern about the future of this connector, should the bridge be built; the Association also had specific concerns regarding the nature and character of that part of Dublin and the continued development pressure on the Glacier Ridge area. The Association respectfully requests that Council remove the bridge from consideration in the long-term Plan. He asked Ms. Willis if Glick Road has been modeled as a four-lane with no Memorial bridge. He asked that Council consider the opinions of the neighbors in the Belvedere subdivision. Ms. Willis responded that staff did examine afour-lane Glick Road bridge without a Memorial Drive bridge. She asked the consultant to comment. Brian Martin, consultant, Burgess & Niple noted he is the project manager for the traffic analysis work. The problem with the Glick Road bridge if widened to four lanes is with the intersection at Dublin and Glick Roads. More turning lanes in all approaches would be needed. Even if that were done, there would be a bottleneck in the system with this intersection. The issue to the south with Emerald is similar. Based on this analysis and the proximity of Memorial to Glick, it was a logical connection and had the most benefit on the overall system. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if it would be possible to widen Glick Road west of Dublin Road. A four-lane bridge would be routed into atwo-lane road under the present scenario. Ms. Willis noted that staffs understanding to this point has been not to consider a widened Glick Road west of Dublin Road. Mrs. Boring noted that at 2030, there will be traffic to address. If there is not a bridge at Memorial and no desire to widen Glick Road, how will the additional traffic be handled? If Glick Road bridge is widened, the pressure will increase to move the traffic through the intersection at Dublin Road. In the same way, taking Hard Road to Brand Road would result in pressure at the intersection to move that traffic. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that he simply wanted to clarify this point in relation to discussion about that particular intersection. Stephen Lee, 8407 Gleneagles Court noted that his street is off of Memorial Drive. His concern with the Plan is that they have lost two animals on Memorial Drive in the past two years as a result of speeding motorists. They asked Police to monitor the speeds and the result was that the average speed exceeded the speed limit for the area. The maximum speed clocked was 75 mph. The usage is not acceptable at this time, with no sidewalks, with pedestrians on the road surface, with blind corners and speeding cars who don't stop for animals. Increasing the traffic burden and converting Memorial Drive into an arterial is irresponsible. He does not believe Memorial Drive is safe as it currently exists. Mr. Reiner asked if anyone is present who represents the Golf Club and who would like to comment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 7 Kevin Kennebeck, General Manager, Muirfield Village Golf Club stated that anything that brings additional traffic on a daily basis through the Muirfield Village residential area and past the Golf Club would be detrimental to the community. He has also noticed speeding vehicles through the area. As he drives through the area, he is continuously concerned with speeding traffic on the curving roadway. Council Discussion Mr. Reiner noted that as a planner, at the time this bridge concept was first proposed, he never thought it made any sense. Abridge connects major arterials, but this bridge would connect a neighborhood with curvilinear streets. Memorial Drive is a road without sidewalks. He has always opposed this concept. In terms of design, it makes no sense. A bridge of this magnitude and expense is a major connector of two points. He complimented Mr. Bevilaqua of the Riviera Country Club who came to Council and also saw the threat of this continuation damaging a vital green area in the community. This bridge would impact the integrity of one of Dublin's finest communities. It will create safety problems for the citizens. The City has gone to great lengths to protect the south side of Dublin, providing dead end streets to protect the community and add value to the homes. He cannot understand why the City would want a bridge at this location. He always felt as a planner that the bridge should come across at Hard Road and Brand Road as a major east/west connector. This was one of the reasons he returned to government. This bridge is difficult to take seriously, and he is pleased to see so many residents present to take an interest and to express their positions on this issue. Mrs. Boring noted that the community park planned in this location is not to serve only the Amberleigh North subdivision. It was well thought out at 23 acres, including parking. For her, this is an important consideration. The Community Plan also promotes access to the river, and this parkland creates that. She asked Ms. Willis to elaborate regarding the issue of the four lane to a two-lane bridge for this Memorial Drive connection. Ms. Willis noted that the details of the assumptions used to generate the four-lane bridge in the 1997 plan are unclear. She is not certain why it was designated as a four-lane bridge. What she can address is the current modeling and the assumptions in today's Dublin travel demand model. That model indicates, based on the best information regarding Dublin land uses and surrounding land uses and roadway connections, that Dublin needs atwo-lane Memorial Drive bridge with turn lanes at its eastern end. Mrs. Boring noted she has heard reference to turning a collector street into an arterial. Is that accurate, and would it be reclassified? Ms. Willis responded that it is not staff's intention to reclassify that road as an arterial. It would remain as a collector. Mr. Keenan noted that the amount of traffic and use of the road would determine its classification. Ms. Willis responded that is correct. Mrs. Boring asked if there is a fixed estimate of the amount of traffic that will come into the community in 2030, based upon development. If the anticipation is for 40,000 more cars coming into the community, it will have to be addressed in some manner. Ms. Willis responded that she cannot state there will be a finite number of additional vehicles coming into Dublin. But overall, traffic is increasing in Dublin. On many arterials, it has increased by 40 to 80 percent. The City will experience increased traffic demands on its roadways, regardless of what is done. Mrs. Boring stated that if the City does nothing and experiences service levels of F in 2030, what will be done? She noted that she is disappointed with the reaction from the audience in regard to the statement about the City's preservation of a hardwood forest. The testimony tonight indicated concern for the natural habitat, yet there was not respect for the City's efforts in preserving a hardwood forest. This was disappointing. Mr. Keenan stated that he brings a common sense perspective, not that of a traffic engineer. As he views this, it profoundly impacts the neighborhood. In addition, it is a very expensive project at $8.2 million in 2007 dollars. By 2030, this will be a $25-30 million project. In consideration of the southwest neighborhood work on Wilcox Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e 1 1 and the Tara Hill traffic calming project, it seems inconceivable to plan a bridge at Memorial Drive without significant traffic calming measures, which is yet another expense. The setbacks on Memorial Drive when originally constructed did not contemplate any arterial roadway. Routing the volumes of traffic on this roadway that are anticipated with the bridge would change it to an arterial -whatever it is labeled. He has had many a-mails regarding this proposal, as a significant portion of Dublin's population lives in this area. Part of Council's role is to listen to their constituency, and therefore he cannot support the proposed bridge at Memorial Drive. Ms. Salay asked staff if there is Stealthstat data available for Memorial Drive. Isn't it common for the average speed to slightly exceed the speed limit? Ms. Willis responded that she believes there is such data available. Typically, the average speed is fairly close to the posted speed. The speed at which 85 percent of the traffic travels at or lower is typically over the speed limit by 5-7 mph. That is common. Ms. Salay noted in response to categorizing as an arterial or a collector, that staff has indicated that Memorial Drive would continue to serve as a collector. Ms. Willis confirmed that is correct. Ms. Salay asked if that is based on volume, function or both. Mr. Martin responded that primarily, it relates to function. A component of the Community Plan is the Thoroughfare Plan, which includes the types of roads such as freeway, arterial and collector roadways. The classification is based on what the roadway connects to and its function. There are some collectors that have higher volumes than arterials. It relates more to function than to volume. Ms. Salay noted that what is contemplated is a two-lane bridge, which suggests more of a neighborhood serving bridge for Dublin residents and corporate residents and not an Emerald Parkway, 161 or Hayden Run type bridge. Ms. Willis responded that is correct. Ms. Salay clarified that in the case of the southwest and Tara Hill traffic calming efforts, those were 25 mph residential streets on which the City typically installs traffic calming devices -not 35 mph collector roads. Ms. Willis confirmed this is correct. Ms. Salay noted that she recently has driven Memorial Drive from Amberleigh North to Avery-Muirfield Drive. She asked if there are curb cuts for driveways between Dublin Road and Muirfield Drive. Ms. Willis responded that there are driveway curb cuts on Memorial Drive in the portion west of Muirfield Drive to Avery, but not on the portion between Dublin Road and Muirfield. The character substantially changes on the western portion of Memorial Drive. Ms. Salay noted that the increase in traffic on Memorial Drive would be between Dublin Road and Muirfield -not west of Muirfield. Ms. Willis stated that is correct. Ms. Salay noted that she recalls a document in the Community Plan discussion that in essence indicated the northern third of the Dublin community would be the users of this bridge. Ms. Willis responded that is essentially correct - it would include the Muirfield Dublin and those traveling to the Dublin south business corridor. Ms. Salay clarified that staff has indicated that 88 percent of the traffic that would use this bridge is not "cut-through" traffic per se, but traffic that has a destination in Dublin or that originates in Dublin -corporate residents and homeowners in Dublin. Ms. Willis confirmed that is correct. Ms. Salay summarized that this is a difficult issue for her, as she is a neighborhood advocate. She has often heard that traffic which does not move is a major issue, and absent this bridge in the Plan, there is a potential for service level F --gridlock. This results in problems for residents and corporate citizens. Much focus is given to the peak hour travel demands, but these demands are projections over time. In this case, Council needs to think long term and big picture. She has worked with the Engineering Department over the past five years in regard to traffic issues and the ability to forecast future traffic needs has greatly improved over time. There have been other situations with Glick Road through Muirfield 43 where it was determined an alternate plan would work, and with the Eiterman Road extension, where it was determined necessary for the road network -all based on the Engineering staff recommendations. In this case, in a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age 1 1 1 Held 20 thorough review of the Community Plan update, it has been determined that the more routes available to traffic the better for all areas of the City. There are many compelling reasons to have this bridge in the Plan, and the data supports keeping the bridge in the Plan. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked what has been heard from the Amberleigh residents about the Memorial Drive bridge. Ms. Willis responded that many of them attended the March 7 open house and submitted comments. Most were in opposition to the bridge. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Council has received several a-mails regarding their opposition as well. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked in regard to peak and overall volumes, can comparisons be drawn to other streets in the community -such as between Memorial Drive and Tara hill or Tullymore? Ms. Willis responded that the p.m. peak volumes expected on Memorial Drive would be comparable to today's volumes on Brand Road or Glick Road. Those would be the most valid comparisons for Memorial Drive in 2023-2025 when this bridge would be built. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted he participated in both the 1997 Community Plan and the Plan update discussions underway at this time. He has heard many legitimate concerns expressed tonight, but he has not heard many solutions. He appreciates concerns about pollution, accidents, protecting the integrity of Glacier Ridge Metro Park -all of which are concerns shared by Council. He is not happy with the prospect that a Memorial Drive bridge may be needed in the future at a major expense, nor is he happy about the need to fund the new interchange at Post Road/161 at $20 million plus. However, there is a need to be realistic in regard to the inevitable increase in traffic and how to manage it. The Glick Road solution, if it actually represents a solution, is to a great extent controlled by other jurisdictions that have many other demands on their resources. There are many obstacles to that bridge becoming afour-lane bridge in the future, including the dam and what exists on both ends of the bridge. Keeping this in perspective as a Community Plan, there is the potential that things could change between now and 2023. However, Council has the responsibility to plan with these potential traffic scenarios in mind. There is no one on Council who wants to spend $8 million in 2007 dollars on a bridge that would be proven unnecessary in the future. The decision must be made, however, in the best interests of the entire community that includes both residents as well as corporate residents. He appreciates the comments and concerns expressed tonight. He believes Council must make the best decision for all of the community. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the numbers increase substantially on Memorial Drive if the bridge is installed. It would seem that not all of the increased traffic traveling east on Memorial Drive would travel south on Muirfield Drive. It seems that the growth from the northwest would bring traffic down Hyland-Croy and over Memorial Drive west of Muirfield Drive. Why was that not part of the study, gauging the traffic increase from Avery to Muirfield Drive portion? Mr. Martin responded that in the previous analysis in January, the entire study area was reviewed. They relied on the January memo to convey that information. In this study, the focus was on the traffic closer to the proposed bridge. She is correct that in terms of Muirfield, many would travel west on Memorial Drive and then use Muirfield to access the south or the west. Therefore, Muirfield Drive will experience a substantial increase as well. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her point is that this traffic is coming from the north and heading from west to east on Memorial Drive and turning south on Muirfield. Mr. Hammersmith noted that the question relates to the volume increase between Avery Road and Muirfield Drive. It was addressed in January, and he believes it was not significant on that link. Mr. Martin noted that Muirfield is four lanes versus atwo-lane Avery, so the impact was greater on Muirfield Drive than Avery Road. Mr. Keenan noted that in view of the US 33 corridor growth and the hospital opening at Avery-Muirfield, traffic will seek routes to access the employment opportunities. Avery Road will be utilized, and if there is a bridge on Memorial, traffic will travel from the west RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council April 23, 2007 Page 20 1 ~i U to the east which will have significant impact on that portion of Memorial which has curb cuts and driveways. He asked about the speed limit in this portion. Ms. Willis responded that the speed limit for this portion of Memorial is 25 mph. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that historically, Dublin has built roadways to direct traffic. The traffic follows in the roadways built to accommodate it. The City constructed Emerald Parkway to serve as a growth area for corporate development, and it will be completed soon. Why would the City not direct traffic coming from Powell to work in Dublin onto Emerald Parkway and to the employment areas? Ms. Willis responded that what will occur is that Emerald Parkway will fill up first, as it is a 40 mph, four lane section roadway. But additional river crossings are needed for the future to carry the forecasted traffic. As the bridges with more capacity reach capacity, additional river crossings are needed. Thus, there is a need for the Memorial Drive bridge. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the projections of traffic volumes on Memorial Drive are alarming in view of the design of the road system. While there are not curb cuts from driveways in this portion, children are on the roadway to wait for buses. The City has had to build tunnels in the past to accommodate the systems the school district has chosen to use for assignment of children to schools. The size of the roadways in Muirfield impacts the school system's bus transportation planning. To increase the volume of traffic in the a.m. peak hours when school children are on the roadways is her main concern. She acknowledged that this bridge has been in the Plan, and the City purchased land along the river to accommodate a future bridge if necessary. It was clear to the Amberleigh residents from the outset that the bridge was a future possibility. Nonetheless, she is seeking another alternative to resolve the issues. Rather than routing a bridge through a residential area, is there a better alternative? In view of the Sawmill Parkway widening and future extension, there should be an alternative identified to move that traffic into Dublin for employment purposes. Ms. Willis responded that the Sawmill Parkway extension has been taken into consideration in Dublin's Community Plan update. The future land uses surrounding Dublin and roadway networks in other areas are all considered in the Plan, and traffic is forecast upon these considerations. Even with the network improvements planned in the area, staff is still forecasting a need for additional bridge crossings of the Scioto River. Dublin Road is a two-lane road, while Riverside Drive is a four-lane facility with a higher speed and more capacity. The bridge crossings are therefore needed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that in slide 12, it demonstrates the level of service. The only service level that is improved by installing the Memorial Drive bridge is the portion of Dublin Road between Glick and Memorial Drive. Ms. Willis noted that is correct. Dublin Road between Glick Road and Memorial Drive is substantially improved with the bridge addition. In addition, the intersection of Summitview and Riverside is improved from C to B, and the intersection of Memorial at Muirfield with or without the bridge remains constant. There are also significant improvements of Glick Road at Dublin Road. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the Glick and Dublin Road service level is improved due to reduction in volumes, correct? Ms. Willis stated that is correct -some traffic is diverted to Memorial bridge. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked why the Summitview service level would be improved. Ms. Willis stated that the volumes on Riverside Drive would be different, thereby improving Summitview. The vehicles can cross the river at a different point. Mr. Martin explained that it is essentially a function of shifting of the traffic within the study area within the model. Discussion continued about the traffic shifting. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the primary piece of improvement with the Memorial Drive bridge is south of Glick Road to Memorial Drive. Ms. Willis confirmed this. Ms. Salay asked staff to discuss capacity issues for other river crossings. Mr. Martin noted that in the January joint workshop, extensive information was included about all of the river crossings, from Hayden Run to Home Road. Options were considered such as the Tuller bridge concept, which is not on the Thoroughfare Plan currently, and Tuttle and Memorial. Given the proximity of a Memorial Drive bridge to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e 1 1 the neighborhoods, the benefits of the connectivity east and west, and the fact that Riverside Drive serves as a reliever -- that is why the volume on the bridge remains so constant -- with or without a Glick Road widening. It is because of that proximity to Dublin and its possible benefits that the volume has remained constant. In terms of Emerald, it will experience future capacity issues as will Bridge Street. Ms. Salay summarized that if the Memorial Drive bridge were not included, other roadways will suffer and Emerald Parkway and Bridge Street will be constrained even more. Mr. Martin noted that the biggest benefit of the Memorial Drive bridge was to Glick Road, and secondly to the Emerald Parkway bridge. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted agreement with Vice Mayor Lecklider's comment about the multi-jurisdictional issues related to Glick Road and the factor of the existing dam in that location. She wonders if municipalities could begin working today to identify alternatives, as there are many communities impacted by traffic due to substantial development in this region. Everyone has a vested interest in determining patterns of traffic that will help everyone. The first step she would advocate is working with the otherjurisdictions involved in the Sawmill Parkway extension, the 315 corridor, and jurisdictions to the east and west. She is very concerned with the volume of traffic which a bridge would bring to the winding, pedestrian roadway which serves residential use. This is not the appropriate road through which to move such traffic. As has been stated, the City has taken measures to correct problems in other areas of the City, to ensure that speeds and traffic volumes are reduced. She is concerned that the focus is on this bridge as the primary alternative. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked staff to clarify what is needed from Council tonight in terms of direction. Ms. Willis stated that the direction staff is seeking is whether or not to include a Memorial Drive bridge in the Thoroughfare Plan Update. Mrs. Boring asked how that would be effected, as the bridge is in the current Community Plan. Ms. Willis responded it would be similar to what was done in regard to a future Tuller Road bridge, and whether staff should continue to include such a bridge in the Plan update. It is staff's recommendation that the Memorial Drive bridge remain in the Community Plan and the updated Thoroughfare Plan. Mrs. Boring noted that the land acquisition expense related to other bridge options has already been addressed for the Memorial Drive bridge. Even if the bridge option at Memorial Drive were preserved by Council tonight, could Council give direction to have staff consider other options? Mr. Hammersmith responded that if Council's direction regarding the Thoroughfare Plan update in the Community Plan is to work with other jurisdictions and agencies to pursue alternatives before carrying this bridge further toward implementation, or at the time it is re-evaluated when the Community Plan is updated once again. Prior to the time this bridge would be built in 2023, there would be another one or possibly two Community Plan updates. That would allow the opportunity over time to consider other alternatives, but this bridge would remain a valid consideration from a network transportation perspective to keep in the Plan. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes the wrong alternative has been pursued. In the 1997 Plan, perhaps adequate time was not given to this discussion. If a bridge crossing is needed, he never believed this was the right location. For all of the reasons already noted, running this bridge through a residential community is wrong. It should have been located at Brand or at Hard Road. Perhaps more time should be spent on re- evaluation of that option, if there is a definite need for another bridge crossing. This is a "bridge to nowhere" and he is concerned with cut-through traffic from Avery to Muirfield Drive on a residential street with curb cuts. In the southwest of Dublin, the City has blocked streets, dead ended streets and protected neighbors. Why would the City now want to ruin a functioning, well thought out neighborhood that was designed 35 years ago with meandering streets? It was not designed to carry this traffic, and the proposal makes no sense. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS April 23, 2007 Page 14 Held 20 Mr. Keenan asked if anyone has ever looked north of Glick Road for another bridge location. That is where the growth is occurring. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it would be part of a discussion to be held with the Delaware County Engineer. Dublin is using as a guide Delaware County's adopted thoroughfare plan, which does not include another bridge crossing at that point. If Council would like staff to evaluate other alternatives during the Plan update, staff can do that and provide results to Council. Staff was asked to re-evaluate the Memorial Drive bridge crossing included in the 1997 Plan and report back for further guidance. Ms. Salay commented that if Brand and Hard were to be connected with a bridge, assuming it could be done, what would happen to the character of Brand Road? If the Glick Road bridge were widened, what happens to the character of Glick Road? Council has given policy direction that Glick and Brand Roads are to be constrained to their current configuration of two lanes. If Council now wants to consider changing Brand Road to four lanes, it would impact the new roundabout at Dublin Road, and the residential property and neighborhoods in place. The change will occur in 2020 when that Council makes the decision. Her concern is with opening other options for discussion in view of the commitment made to preserve the scenic character of Brand Road. Many in the community want to see Glick Road continue as a two-lane road, and supporting the widening of the Glick Road bridge would result in the need to widen Glick Road. She is concerned with the process and with the modeling efforts already invested in. Abridge in another location would likely draw objections from another resident group. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that if the Memorial Drive bridge would cost $8 million in 2007, aHard-Brand Road connector could likely be $25 million. Mr. Hammersmith agreed that the Hard-Brand connector would cost more than $8 million, although he could not quantify it. Mr. Reiner pointed out that such a connection would actually connect major thoroughfares. Mrs. Boring noted that it is important to preserve options for the future for land acquisition purposes. Working with otherjurisdictions on alternatives makes sense. But to direct staff where to locate a future bridge at this particular moment is not appropriate for Council, and it will generate objections from another neighborhood. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher explained that she was not advocating a location for a bridge. She was suggesting that Dublin is being negatively impacted by the growth around the City. So far, the other jurisdictions have not chosen to invest money in traffic control. Dublin then must invest money because the traffic impacts Dublin residents. For this reason, she is suggesting the City work with the other jurisdictions on a regional means of managing the movement of traffic. She does not know what the outcome of that will be. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this can be incorporated into the transportation chapter of the Plan update. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for a motion regarding the bridge. Mr. Reiner moved to remove the Memorial Drive bridge from the future Community Plan and that the City look at regional endeavors to mitigate the worst aspects of traffic. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification. Is Mr. Reiner specifically stating that the Community Plan should include the language of working with other jurisdictions on these matters? Mr. Reiner confirmed this. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Ms. Salay, no; Mr. Reiner, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Ms. Readier to provide a legal opinion on the impact of a tie vote. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council April 23, 2007 Page ii 1 G Ms. Readler noted that the motion to remove the Memorial Drive bridge has failed. Discussion followed. Ms. Salay noted that given the vote tonight, the bridge will remain in the Community Plan. She suggested that Council direct staff in the future to work with the other jurisdictions on regional solutions. This language should be included in the Community Plan update. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Ms. Readler for clarification. The motion was to remove the bridge from consideration in the Plan and to include language regarding an interjurisdictional approach to the issue. She has indicated that the motion was defeated due to the tie vote, and that it remains in the 1997 Plan. Ms. Readler responded that the motion that failed based on a tie vote was one to remove it from the future Community Plan. The issue remains what Council wants staff to do with the updated Community Plan. The staff recommendation was to include the bridge in the updated Plan, yet the motion was framed in a different manner. She believes an affirmative vote of the majority of the Council Members may be needed for the bridge to be included in the updated Plan. Obviously, the confusion would be the with the status quo. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he believes that the status quo is that a Memorial Drive bridge is included in the 1997 Community Plan. Mrs. Boring added that an update to that Plan does not mean it would be removed from the adopted 1997 Plan. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated Council does not need to take action on each and every item within the existing Community Plan as part of the update process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, ultimately, action will be taken in the form of the final vote on the updated Plan. The Council is updating some elements of the existing Plan. Ultimately, the entire Plan will be brought to Council for a vote and it can be approved or defeated at that time, or amendments can be made. Ms. Readler stated that in the amendment process, all portions of the Plan are being reviewed. This item was presented by staff as an item where Council direction was needed about whether it would be included in the updated Plan. She suggests that the motion be reviewed and Robert's Rules be consulted on this matter. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Legal staff to provide a written opinion on the impact of this vote in relation to the inclusion of the 1997 language in the updated Plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked the citizens in attendance for sharing their views. These are complicated matters, and Council's job is to review matters in the context of the good of the entire community -not just one neighborhood. In this case, the entire community is impacted in terms of the traffic system. The vote was 3-3 and the legal staff indicates the bridge will remain in the Plan. Staff may bring additional information back prior to the vote on the Community Plan update. The Plan could be amended anytime prior to the final vote. Mrs. Boring moved to direct staff to include in the Community Plan update the jurisdictional cooperation efforts on working vigorously to identify other alternatives. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. (Afive-minute break followed) LEGISLATION POSTPONED ITEMS Resolution 15-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with TechColumbus. Mr. McDaniel noted that staff is requesting Council postpone this item, based on the information included in the staff memo. Staff has requested that Council schedule a study session regarding economic development on Wednesday, May 16. This will provide an opportunity to work with Council and make Council aware of the economic RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held development initiatives underway. Ms. Salay noted she is appreciative of the clarification. Mr. Keenan noted that Monday, May 14 at 6 p.m. has been scheduled as the joint session for the Community Plan update and the study session has been rescheduled for Wednesday, May 16 at 7 p.m. Mr. Reiner moved to postpone Resolution 15-07 to the May 21 Council meeting. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 14-07 (Amended) Requesting Approval to Change the Name of Scherers Place to Dulaney Court in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff has worked with LSP on several options and has come to agreement on the name of "Dulaney Court." Staff recommends approval. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked if anyone can explain the origin of the name, "Scherers Place." Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that it is named after Ron Scherer. Mr. Maurer noted he raises the issue because there might be memories associated with this name which would be a consideration. Ms. Salay noted that the reason the name is being changed is because of confusion on the part of delivery drivers due to other streets with the same or a similar name. Discussion followed about the publication business owned by Mr. Scherer and his involvement in Dublin development. Mr. Maurer asked for the origin of the new name. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this name was suggested by LSP Technologies in lieu of Kilt Court. Ms. Salay commented she is supportive of the name "Dulaney Court" versus "Kilt Court." Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for confirmation that the name is not associated with someone in the company. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is someone with this name in the company, but it is not the basis for the naming. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 20-07 Authorizing a Realignment in the Organizational Structure of the City of Dublin. Mr. McDaniel stated this is the City Manager's proposal. It is prompted by the retirement of Deputy City Manager Frank Ciarochi and is a means to reduce the number of direct reports to the City Manager. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Harding is present to respond to any questions. Mrs. Boring asked about the number of employees housed under each of the Deputy City Managers and their identified area of oversight. Mr. Harding responded that the official titles of the Deputy City Managers include this title, plus the existing title of each -Chief of Police, Director of Finance, and Director of Economic Development. Mrs. Boring asked how many employees are housed under the Deputy City Manager/Chief of Police. Mr. Harding responded that he does not have that information at hand, but it is likely the majority of employees in the City. Perhaps 150 would be under this Deputy City Manager. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 Held Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road wondered if the City Manager should be present for this discussion, or is everyone in unanimous agreement and understanding of her thinking in this matter and could respond on behalf of her. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that this is the second reading and Council has had many discussions with the City Manager on this item prior to tonight. Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Harding, Ms. Grigsby and Chief Epperson are all present and have been involved with discussions regarding developing the right organizational structure for the City. Ms. Salay added that the memo in the packet is from Ms. Brautigam and was provided to Council prior to the first reading. [i 1 Mr. Maurer noted that there are two circumstances that seem to be driving this: (1) the City Manager has too much on her hands and therefore is separating out some of the reporting directors; and (2) it appears that it is also driven by the current pool of talents, after the departure of Mr. Ciarochi. He has no issue with Chief Epperson being in charge of the various groups, as he is a person of rare sensitivity and has expertise in many areas. Potentially, there could be philosophical conflicts between the various areas of City operations, based on the personalities of the managers. He asked about succession planning and what the City would look for in future Deputy City Managers, and whether they would necessarily fill the same positions as in this organizational structure. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the City Manager had identified desirable characteristics in filling the Deputy City Manager positions to best serve the Dublin community. Mr. Maurer summarized that if the City were to replace the Deputy City Managers, the candidates would have to have skills in the areas housed under them. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 21-07 Amending Section 2 ("Wage & Salary Structure/Administration") of Ordinance No. 73-06 ("Compensation Plan"). Mr. McDaniel states that the organizational realignment results in a major increase in the scope and level of responsibilities of the Deputy City Manager role, as well as a greater level of accountability in the success of the organization. The City Manager cited several reasons for this amendment and recommends adoption. Mr. Harding can respond to questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, no. Ordinance 23-07 Dedicating Certain Land to LTF Real Estate Company, Inc. Pursuant to an Economic Development and Tax Increment Financing Agreement. Mr. McDaniel recommends passage of this ordinance. The staff report was provided previously. The ordinance provides for dedication of Reserve 6 to Life Time Fitness. Mr. Hammersmith or Ms. Grigsby can respond to questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 22-07 Vacating aTen-Foot Drainage Easement from Lot 323 of Ballantrae, Section 3. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith stated this vacates a stormwater drainage easement that is no longer needed. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the May 7 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 24-07 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Shamrock Boulevard Extension and Village Parkway Realignment Project and Appropriating Funds Therefor. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this accepts the bid for the Shamrock Boulevard extension RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council of 2,300 feet of roadway, extending Shamrock north of 161 adjacent to Wendy's over to Village Parkway behind Lowe's, and constructing a roundabout with bikepath, water main and sidewalks. The low bidder was Igel with a bid of $1,665,995.25, which was below the Engineer's estimate of $2.2 million. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if the original estimate included landscaping. Mr. Hammersmith responded it did not. The landscaping is estimated at another $50- 100,000. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked what roads will be closed beginning May 14. Mr. Hammersmith responded that Village Parkway will close between Dublin Center Drive and Tuller. Mr. Richardson clarified that the access to Charles Penzone will remain open. The access to Lowe's on Village Parkway will remain open. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked for the specific access to Lowe's. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it will be necessary to take a detour and loop around. Mr. Richardson clarified that for the first two months, the entrance off of Village Parkway will be open to Lowe's and to some of the Dublin Village Center shops. There is a two to three-week period in the plans where that entrance will be closed to Lowe's. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the back entrance to the theater. Mr. Richardson responded that it will not be affected, because Village Parkway will be closed east of Penzone's. Mr. Keenan suggested that signage be posted indicating "Local traffic only" in the area to avoid the need for turnarounds. Mr. Richardson confirmed this will be done. Following more questions, Mr. Hammersmith suggested that a map be provided in the next packet to show the closings which will occur with this project. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Resolution 25-07 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Eiterman Road Extension Project. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated this accepts the bid for the Eiterman Road extension from Ballantrae Place south to Rings Road, adjacent to the new Hilliard Washington Elementary School. It is approximately 1,900 feet of roadway and will include water main and bikepath. The Engineer's estimate was $900,000 and the low bid was from the Shelly Company for $794,500. In the staff report, it notes the contribution to be made by the Hilliard City School District. It was estimated previously per the agreement with them at just under $500,000. Lastly, the project is scheduled for completion by mid July in anticipation of the school opening. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for confirmation that the total cost of the project is $794,500 and that the Hilliard Schools share will reduce the net amount for the City. Mr. Keenan asked if the Hilliard Schools' share will be adjusted pro rata based on the overall cost reduction of the project. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this cost is for construction of the roadway only. There are some additional costs that the City and the Schools will share in. Ms. Grigsby stated that the $498,000 for the Hilliard Schools share was based upon the City's original estimate of $685,000, so their actual share will increase based upon the actual cost of the project. Mrs. Boring asked why the project cost increased from the estimate. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the original estimate was for programming purposes only. There was more fill required for construction of the roadway than originally anticipated. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that it is a substantial increase, particularly in light of the fact that it is a partnership with another jurisdiction. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the estimates are based on previous bids, and there has been an increase in fuel and asphalt costs this year. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age i 1 1 Resolution 26-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Agreements with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for Maintenance of Improvements to the US 33/SR 161/Post Road Interchange and SR 161 (ODOT PID Number 80748). Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Cox stated that last year, the agreements with ODOT for funding and construction work responsibilities for the interchange were brought to Council. These agreements relate to maintenance for lighting and landscaping. The lighting agreement is for street light maintenance. The standard streetlights similar to those on Emerald Parkway will be installed. The state will pay the energy bills and the maintenance costs. The costs will be based on a per lamp fee. A last minute revision was made by ODOT in regard to the costs for the lights in or outside the Dublin jurisdiction. All of the lamps will be outside of the Dublin jurisdiction, so one cost will be established and inserted in the agreement. In regard to landscaping, the agreement is for both the maintenance of the plant material and the hardscape that will be installed, such as truck aprons or roundabouts. Ms. Salay noted that for other interchanges along I-270, ODOT has installed very high poles. What type will be installed for this interchange? Ms. Cox stated that those are considered high mast lighting. Dublin had Burgess & Niple check to see if this interchange warranted that type of lighting and it does not. This will be similar to the street lighting along the 161 corridor and will be the Dublin standard. For this reason, Dublin will maintain the lighting, as Dublin has the equipment to do so. Ms. Salay asked if it would be possible to use solar power for streetlamps, in order to be more environmentally sensitive. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff is investigating some LED products for street lighting. Staff plans to demo some of these in Historic Dublin, as they use less energy and have longer battery life which is recharged by solar light. The technology is not available at this point to make it a viable solution for this application at the interchange. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. OTHER • Tree Replacement Fee Waiver -Upper Scioto West subtrunk, Hayden Run Area Mr. Langworthy reported that the map forwarded in the packet was not clear regarding the location of this project. He then distributed an updated map to Council for review. He noted that this request comes about as a result of a sewer line subtrunk being placed which was a joint project with the City of Columbus. It was actually constructed by Dominion Homes but went through a portion of the City of Dublin. This makes it somewhat unusual from past waiver requests. There are two options available by ordinance which requires a tree replacement value of $101,600 or the waiver which would reduce that to $30,700. The waiver requires that the applicant meets two criteria. In regard to the site meeting development standards, the site being served by the trunk line sewer does meet those standards. In addition, a previously approved plan for this site also meets development standards. Secondly, the criteria must be met that measures have been taken to reduce the impact of construction on existing trees. There was adequate coordination with the City of Dublin and the Engineering Department to try to reduce the number of trees removed as part of this project. Staff recommends approval of this waiver, with the condition that the fee of $30,700 be paid within 90 days or the waiver would be rescinded. Ms. Salay asked if the trees have already been removed. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay noted that if Council were to consider granting a waiver, it should have been requested in advance of the trees being removed. These are significant trees and she would not want to grant such a waiver. It seems odd that this was not brought to Council prior to construction of the subtrunk. She asked for further clarification. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff does not know what happened in total. As far as he is aware, this may have been overlooked. Mr. Hale is present and represents Dominion Homes, and he may have some history to share. This is more of a clean-up procedure, as the project is being closed out by Dominion and the City of Columbus and this was an open item with the City of Dublin. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 23, age Ms. Salay noted that this applicant should be well aware of the City's tree preservation ordinance. Mrs. Boring asked how it can be stated that the project meets development standards. Mr. Langworthy provided more details on the project as shown on the map. They did significantly reduce the width of the area where the sewer line was routed. Mr. Hammersmith explained that when Avondale was planned and the Hayden Run corridor was developed by Dominion and M/I, they worked with the City of Columbus on the sewer extension and did not involve the City of Dublin. The only involvement for Dublin was coordinating alignment with what was then the alignment for Avondale to make sure a sewer line would not be routed through future home lots. Unfortunately, the line ended up going through the treed area. He does not know why the waiver was not brought to Council previously. Mrs. Boring asked if the staff was aware of where the line would be run. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff reviewed the plans, but did not know how the tree waiver was being handled. Mrs. Boring asked if the applicant received approval from Dublin to install the line in that location. Mr. Hammersmith responded that they did receive approval, although it was Homewood's property at that time and not the City's. At the time they were working on their layout with Planning, it was determined that the sewer line layout would work. Staff did not necessarily review the tree issue in terms of Engineering's review. Ms. Cox responded that when the plans were brought in for review, because it was a City of Columbus trunk sewer project, she worked with the City's landscape inspectors. They reviewed the plans and noted which trees would be impacted. The inspectors were on site when the work was done to ensure the impact would be minimal, and the alignment was set based upon where staff believed a reasonable location of lots and streets would be for the Avondale project. The details about the timing for the waiver were not worked out at that time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification -did the City's landscaping inspectors approve removal of 37 landmark trees? Ms. Salay clarified that it involved 92 inches of landmark trees, which are being replaced with 37 2-1 /2 inch trees. Ben Hale, 37 W. Broad Street, representing the applicant stated that there are eight landmark trees involved. When this occurred, it was coordinated with the City of Dublin. The easement area granted was twice as wide as what was cleared. They worked with the landscaping staff in Dublin. In terms of the Columbus process, the developer pays for the trunk sewer, the developer prepares the plan and submits it for approval, and the developer builds it and is then reimbursed by Columbus. This is a project that will be reimbursed by the City of Columbus, so ultimately, these costs will be paid by Columbus. He received a call from EMH&T who worked with Dublin to ensure the sewer was in the right place on the site. But in the process, EMH&T failed to file the request for a waiver and have now asked him to file it. Because they met the criteria, he has filed the request on their behalf. Vice Mayor Lecklider moved approval of the request for waiver with the condition that the applicant pay the $30,700 fee within 90 days or the waiver will expire. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mrs. Boring: 1. Reported that she was privileged to attend the American Planning Association meeting. She congratulated Council on their approach to sidewalk repairs. In an APA session, it was recommended that residents not be asked to take care of potholes on public streets in front of their houses, and that cities take care of sidewalk repairs. She found it interesting and noted that Dublin is a leader in this. 2. Requested that staff not continue to provide the Google alerts as most are RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 23, 2007 Page Held 20 irrelevant and are duplicated in local publications. It was the consensus of Council to discontinue the provision of Google alerts in Council packets. Mr. Keenan: 1. Reported that the Washington Township Fire Department celebrated its 70tH anniversary last Friday with well attended events at several of the fire houses. 2. Noted that the Finance Committee will meet on Wednesday, May 2 at 8:30 a.m. regarding the Dublin Chamber of Commerce lease. 3. Requested that the Veterans Committee meeting scheduled for May 11 be changed to either May 4 or May 18. He will be out of town on May 11. Staff will follow up on this. Mr. Reiner asked if it would be possible to change the Veterans Committee meetings to the afternoons. Mr. Keenan responded that at the outset of the process, a majority of the Committee indicated that the morning meeting times worked best for them. The members can be polled at the next meeting. Ms. Salay: 1. Noted that in review of the information in the Recreation brochure about pool passes, she was reminded that pool passes can be purchased by residents, non-Dublin residents and school district residents. She reiterated her belief that pool passes should be sold to City of Dublin residents and that a short window of time should be provided for school district residents to purchase passes. She does not think that in view of the capacity issues at the pool that the City should allow people from other communities to purchase pool passes, essentially becoming members of the community pools. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Mr. Earman could provide a breakdown in the next packet of the various categories for purchase of pool passes. It is not possible to change the policies for this season, as the advertisements have already been made. Mr. Keenan stated that the City must be aware of the capacity of the pools. If there is additional capacity available, the City likely wants the revenue from those sales. Mrs. Boring agreed. Mr. Earman stated that last year, 7,000 passes were sold. Of those, about 400 were to non-residents. Mr. Keenan asked if there is a way to track the attendance. Not everyone who purchases a pass uses the pool. Mr. Earman responded that the new RecTrac program being installed this year with its scanning features may enable this data collection. Mr. Keenan stated that would help in setting rates and establishing policies for next year. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the 400 includes corporate residents who purchase pool passes. Mr. Earman responded that it does include the corporate residents. Ms. Salay noted there is not a special corporate resident program for the outdoor pools. Mr. Earman stated that the pool passes are not broken down with a corporate rate. They are resident, school district resident and non-resident categories. Mr. Keenan stated that it would be important to identify how many corporate residents are included in the 400 figure. Mr. Earman stated that it could be done going forward, but the data is not available at this point. Mrs. Boring noted that she understood the policy to be that the capacity is determined and that non-resident passes were not offered until a certain point in time had expired for resident only sales. Mr. Earman responded that residents only can purchase passes up to a certain date and then sales are opened up to non-residents. When the North Pool was the only outdoor pool, it was capped at 3,000 memberships and the City stopped selling non-resident passes. With the opening of the South Pool, last year was the first year that 6,000 pool membership passes in total were sold. Mrs. Boring asked if there is a cap in memberships sold for the new pool. Mr. Earman responded that the cap is at 6,000 combined, as the capacity doubled with the opening of Dublin Pool South. Last year, the memberships approached 7,000, and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held 20 non-resident sales were stopped at that point. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the limitation would be 6,000 memberships for the 2007 season. Mr. Earman stated that after 6,000 memberships are sold, the City no longer sells season passes to non-residents. Ms. Salay pointed out that there is no advantage to a resident to purchase a pass early, because a resident can always purchase a season pass. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted concern with changing the policy, depending upon a particular year's revenues. There may be some years when the non-resident passes would not be sold if there is a demand from the residents of the City. Mr. Keenan responded that the issue relates to capacity. If the membership is not over capacity, the City would accept the revenue. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that anon-resident who purchases a pass in one year may then have an expectation that they can purchase a pass the following year. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher pointed out that staff may determine after this year's statistics are available that the demand is high enough that the City no longer may offer memberships to non-residents in 2008. Mr. Keenan stated that the goal would be to first serve the Dublin residents. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked what percentage of the Dublin resident users of the pools own a season pass versus purchasing daily passes. Mr. Earman responded that determining this is difficult, because a person in the company of a resident can purchase a daily pass, even if they are anon-resident. Tracking that is not possible, as the daily pass rate is the same for residents or non-residents. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if the vast majority of pool users own season passes. Mr. Earman responded that is correct. However, the patterns are inconsistent at the North and South pools, based primarily on the boundaries of the area they serve. There are a higher number of daily pass users at the South Pool versus the North Pool. He will provide a report on this to Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented she is aware of a number of Hilliard residents who use the South Pool and purchase daily passes. They live closer to the Dublin pool than the Hilliard pool. Ms. Salay stated that is her concern. She has been approached by some neighbors about this. The perception is that the South Pool is very overcrowded, however some indicate that the admission price for the Dublin Pool is less expensive than the Powell pool. Therefore, non-residents may choose to go to the Dublin Pool. That suggests that the price may not be appropriate for the non-resident classification. Taking the additional revenue in from non residents is at the expense of the residents who will not have a good experience due to overcrowding. She believes that the Dublin Pools should be first and foremost for Dublin residents. As the City grows, there is a need to be sensitive to overcrowding situations, which in some cases result from a low pass price in comparison to other communities. She asked if staff could also provide information about the gate policy in regard to non- residents, and under what circumstances they can purchase passes. 2. The Community Development Committee Members and Mr. Keenan and Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher met this evening from 6-7 p.m. in regard to the Dublin Arts Council. Another meeting is needed to complete the agenda items, and that will be scheduled in the near future. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Reported she had the pleasure of serving as emcee for the Community Champion Awards on Saturday. This is a partnership between the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and Dublin City Schools. Over 170 students and staff were recognized, and savings bonds and scholarships were awarded. Anew Foundation has been developed for this Community Champion Awards and individuals and corporations can donate to this effort. Senator Stivers was the keynote speaker at the event. 2. Reported that she participated in the Dublin Schools superintendent search process last Monday. The candidate list has been narrowed to two -one from Wooster and one from Chagrin Falls. Community visits are underway to learn RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin CitTCouncil Meeting April 23, 2007 Page 23 Held about the candidates. Within the next 10 days, the Schools expect to announce their new Superintendent. 3. Noted that last Friday was the deadline for submission of applications for the Treasurer position at the Dublin Schools. She understands that they have received many applications for the position. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:36 p.m. for land acquisition matters. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting will be reconvened following the executive session only for the purpose of formally adjourning. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 11:15 pm. Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council 1