Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2007RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of __ Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 70148 February 5, 2007 Held 20 ~~ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, February 5, 2007 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCash, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Earman, Mr. Harding, Ms. Gilger and Mr. Burns. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of January 22, 2007 Vice Mayor Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of January 22, 2007. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, abstain; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, abstain. CORRESPONDENCE • New D51 Liquor Permit - La Marquise, Inc., dba La Chatelaine A notice regarding a new D51 liquor ermit was sent to Council for La Mar uise, Inc., p q dba La Chatelaine, 65 W. Bridge Street. There was no objection to the issuance of the permit. PROCLAMATION • National Engineers Week -February 18-24, 2007 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher read and presented a proclamation in honor of National Engineers Week to Paul Hammersmith, City Engineer. She noted that Dublin is fortunate to have such a talented and hard working Engineering Department. Mr. Hammersmith thanked Council for the opportunity for the engineering staff of the City of Dublin to take Council's vision and turn it into a reality for the community. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road, stated that it appears that he, Council, the City Manager and maybe 5-6 other members of City management have arrived at an impasse. He has attended Council meetings since 1978, prior to the time Mr. Smith became the Law Director. At that time, Council meetings were held in the present Chamber of Commerce building. Former Mayor Dixon would be amused that a podium is provided today for citizen comments. Mayor Dixon and his colleagues essentially "ran" the City. Due to that situation, many residents were frustrated and, led by an OSU professor, formed the Dublin Independent Residents Association to speak for the residents. In comparison to that government, the present government would appear as the "flower of democracy." Yet, he and Council have collided on an issue. To soften the impasse, he has asuggestion -that he and Council meet for an hour of "give and take" discussion with no rules of order and no binding conclusions. If not, he will try to carry on with a softened perspective. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Councilman Reiner met previously with Mr. Maurer and discussed the issue to which he makes reference. Mr. Maurer responded that he met with Mr. Reiner, Mr. Smith and Ms. Brautigam for an hour each. Council can do as it wishes with his suggestion. There was no further discussion. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 03-07 Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2007. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NQ. 10148_ ___ _ _ - _ _ February 5, 2007 Page 2 Ms. Brautigam noted that there have been no changes subsequent to the first reading. II Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring; yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 04-07 Declaring Improvements to Certain Real Property to be Developed by Shamrock Crossing to be a Public Purpose, Describing the Public Infrastructure Improvements to be Made to Benefit those Parcels, Requiring the Owner Thereof to Make Service Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Providing for the Franklin County Treasurer to Distribute Service Payments to the Dublin City School District in the Amount it Would Otherwise Receive Absent the Exemption, Creating a Municipal Public Improvement Tax Increment Equivalent Fund for the Deposit of the Balance of Such Service Payments, and Authorizing the Execution of a Tax Increment Financing Agreement. i Ms. Brautigam stated that there have been no changes regarding this legislation subsequent to its introduction. It establishes a tax increment financing district for the new Shamrock Crossing development. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 07-07 Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Hull & Associates to Induce the Expansion of its Workforce within the City of Dublin and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. ' Ms. Gilger stated that Hull & Associates is a professional engineering firm which has been in Dublin since its ince tion 16 ears a o. Hull current) has 58 em to ees. p Y 9 Y p Y They are considering expansion options both within and outside of Dublin. This retention agreement proposes a $24,000 work force expansion grant tied to the company executing afive-year lease extension and meeting predetermined annual payroll withholdings that are tied to approximately 22 new jobs. The grant is an upfront payment, and there is a repayment schedule established, should the company not meet its predetermined withholdings target. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that there is a $4,800 annual payment. Is there flexibility in the repayment? Could they pay more in one year or less another year? Ms. Gilger responded that it is a fixed figure, unless the company wants to re- negotiate the agreement. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. ~ INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 08-07 Adopting and Enacting a Supplement (S-20) to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Dublin. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. i Ms Brautigam stated that this adopts the latest supplement to the Dublin Code. Staff requests that Council dispense with the public hearing. W_a_Ilace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road inquired if S-20 was to be attached to the ordinance? Mr. McCash responded that the supplement has been distributed. It is a compilation of legislation passed during the latter half of 2006. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the pubic hearing. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS __ __ Minutes of _ _ _ Dublin City Council _ Meetin~_ __ _____ ry 20 u 1 1 Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 09-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Grant a General Right-of-Way Permit to Time Warner Telecom. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. McDaniel stated this ordinance would provide a general right-of-way permit and authorization to Time Warner Telecom to operate within the City's rights-of-way and promote telecommunication services. The Company integrates data, dedicated Internet access and local and long distance voice services. Granting Time Warner Telecom the right-of-way permit would be consistent with Dublin's policy of promoting competitive telecommunications services for the benefit of the community. Staff recommends passage as it would introduce another competitive player to the community in addition to the four that presently exist. Staff requests that the ordinance be passed by emergency at the second reading/public hearing on February 20, thereby making the legislation effective immediately upon passage. Mr. Reiner stated that he supports the additional competitor in the community. Would this create additional visual clutter in the community with overhead wires, or would the wires be underground? Mr. McDaniel responded that Time Warner Telecom services up until this time have been wrapped with the Time Warner Cable system. This action essentially "unbundles" their service, and future services should be provided through underground conduit within DubLink. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the City could require that it be run underground. Mr. McDaniel responded that is possible, and this ordinance does require that within the DubLink area. Mr. Reiner inquired if there is any profit generated for the City with Time Warner using DubLink. Mr. McDaniel responded there is not. Mr. Keenan inquired how Time Warner Telecom can be required to be underground when AT&T will be installing boxes for their service within Dublin. Mr. McDaniel responded that he anticipates the vast majority of what Time Warner Telecom will provide initially will be to the commercial district, which is an area primarily within DubLink. Mr. Keenan noted that AT&T will be providing a residential service and will be installing refrigerator-sized boxes throughout the community. Could Dublin restrict those? Mr. McDaniel responded that those boxes are called nodes, and the City cannot restrict them. Mr. Keenan inquired if Time Warner Telecom services would be attached to existing fibers within DubLink. Mr. McDaniel responded that they would not; they will pull their own fiber optics through the existing available conduit. Mr. Keenan requested verification that the City would not be giving up any of its fiber capacity. Mr. McDaniel confirmed that the City would not. Mrs. Boring inquired if some of this service is to continue to be above ground, would it necessitate any tree removal? Mr. McDaniel stated that, based upon where Time Warner Telecom is currently extending and where he anticipates further extension, he does not believe any tree removal should be necessary. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of. __ __ Dublin City Council __ _ Meet~n~ February 5, lwi rage 4 Held 20 _i - _ - Ms. Salay inquired about the distinction between the service Time Warner currently provides, which includes cable, phone and internet, and this new service. Mr. McDaniel responded that Time Warner Telecom is a separate entity. They will be providing internet access and phone services, which Time Warner does not. Mr. McCash stated that Time Warner does provide voice over internet. Mr. McDaniel stated that he has been out of the country for several months, so he stands corrected. As mentioned previously, however, Time Warner Telecom was previously bound with Time Warner Cable. This reflects a formal split between the two, and this legislation would provide Time Warner Telecom a separate right-of-way permit. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the February 20 Council meeting. ~, Ordinance 10-07 Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Conquest One LLC, dba Pontis Group, to Induce the Expansion of its Workforce Within the City of Dublin and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. li Ms. Gilger stated that the Pontis Group is a marketing and communications company that has been located in Dublin for 15 years. They have nine employees and have outgrown their present accommodations on Frantz Road. Dublin has been competing with other communities within Central Ohio and out of state to retain this company. They specialize in aviation finance and manufacturing, and they have several Central Ohio clients. In January, they secured a Job Creation Tax Credit from the State of Ohio. The economic development agreement offered by Dublin would serve as the required 25 percent local match component to the State's incentive. The Pontis Group has identified a site at the Metro Center for its new office. They will retain the current workforce and create ten new jobs by 2010. This agreement would provide Pontis Group a three-year, $6,240 workforce expansion incentive, payable in three increments, should the company meet the job growth targets. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the February 20 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 04-07 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Landscape Maintenance North Project. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hahn stated that Resolutions 04-07 and 05-07 reflect contracts for maintenance of the landscaped areas within the medians and rights-of-way throughout the City. Peabody Landscape has satisfactorily performed previous work for the City, and therefore staff recommends acceptance of the two bids. ~ Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if there was any conflict with Peabody performing this work and Stottlemyer doing the work outlined in Resolution 06-07. Mr. Hahn responded there would not be a conflict. Peabody's service would be limited to the defined landscape beds; Stottlemyer would be limited to work in the turf areas. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if there is any distinction between the spraying of pre- emergent and broadleaf weed control. Mr. Hahn responded that broadleaf is sprayed in late spring; pre-emergent is i sprayed in March or April. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Resolution 05-07 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Landscape Maintenance South Project. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting OAVTON LEGAL BLANK INC. FORM NO. 10148 _ ~~ ebruary 5, 2007 Page 5 1 1 1 Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. There were no questions. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Resolution 06-07 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Turf Maintenance Project. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hahn stated that the work performed for this project occurs in the same area - the City rights-of-way and medians, but it is limited to turf maintenance. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that the highest bid received for this project was from Environmental Management for $740,000. The accepted bid was $385,000. How serious is the issue of environment in this decision, and to what extent does the adjective "environmental" in the name relate to its practices? Mr. Hahn responded there is no difference in the chemicals used by the two companies. Essentially, they are identical companies using identical products. The difference is in name only. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 07-07 Declaring Certain City-Owned Property as Surplus and Authorizing the City Manager to Dispose of Said Property in Accordance with the Ohio Revised Code Section 721.15. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is requesting authorization to dispose of surplus property that has exceeded its useful life with the City through an Internet auction company -- GovDeals.com. The City has had good experience with this type of auction in the past. Ms. Salay noted that the list includes 2006 John Deere mowers. The equipment is quite new. Is there additional information available? Ms. Grigsby stated that based upon the City's past practice, it was determined from a maintenance standpoint that it is much more efficient for Dublin to acquire new mowers each year before the warranties expire. Dublin is able to acquire its mowers and vehicles through State purchasing at a much lower price and the City is then able to sell them at a profit to buyers not able to purchase through the State bid pricing. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 08-07 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the 2007 Sidewalk Replacement Program. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the Engineer's estimate for the 2007 sidewalk replacement program was $96,000. The budgeted amount was $125,000; the additional amount is designated for replacement trees. It is anticipated that trees will be replaced in approximately two-thirds of the locations. Eight bids for the project were received, and the low bidder was Maple City Concrete, Norwalk, Ohio, for $74,272.40. This company has not previously performed work for the City, therefore, Mr. Richardson spoke with the president of the company. The president indicated that they conducted extensive research in preparing their bid -- visiting the sites within Dublin where the work would be performed. They are confident with their bid amount. Staff also contacted the City of Sandusky, for whom Maple City Concrete has performed numerous projects. Sandusky officials indicated they have been pleased with the Maple City work and would not hesitate to contract with them for future projects. The 2007 program will focus on Earlington Village, Hemingway, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council DAVTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO. 10148 ~~ February 5, 2007 - Page 6 20 Indian Run Meadows, Brandon, Coventry Woods, Heather Glen and Trinity Park subdivisions. There is a need to cluster locations to economize the work. The work will be performed in areas with vertical separations of '/2 inch or greater, beginning with the areas of greatest need. The neighborhood residents will be notified of the work schedule via door hangers. If there is a need for tree removal, the residents who would be impacted will be contacted personally. Mr. Reiner inquired if Engineering is working with the Forestry Division to ensure that the replacements will be of a species that will not have a similar root impact on the sidewalks. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he understands it is the intent of Forestry to install species that would eliminate or reduce the root impact on sidewalks. Mr. Keenan asked about the City's policy in cases where a bid is more than ten percent above or below the Engineer's estimate. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he is not aware of a specific policy. However, the general practice has been that if there is a wide variance in the bid from the estimate, staff speaks with the contractor directly to ensure that they understand the scope of the project. If all the bids received exceed the estimate by more than ten percent, the project is often re-bid. That does not occur if the bid is greater than ten percent under estimate. Per past practice, the project will commence May 1, with the intention of completing the project by the end of July. ~ Mr. McCash inquired at what point it is determined the entire sidewalk should be replaced versus multiple "patching." On the map of Schoolcraft Drive, it appears that sidewalk on every parcel is being patched. Mr. Hammersmith responded that depends upon the success of the removal. On the map provided, it appears closer than it appears in the field. One section is approximately five feet in length. The intent is not to leave one or two existing sections between replacements; those sections would also be removed and a i, continuous piece would be poured. 1 Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that a similar situation seems to be occurring on Sells Mill, but perhaps not as severe. He has previously expressed concern about relatively new sidewalks that need to be replaced. The City bears the cost for sidewalk replacements. Have standards been established for inspection of sidewalks at the time of construction? Mr. Hammersmith stated that a visual, Code compliance inspection does occur, although it is difficult to determine the compaction of the materials. An attempt is made to note the subgrade. The replacements scheduled in Westbury are likely attributable to the earlier bridge work and infill that occurred. Vice Mayor Lecklider responded that may be the case in Westbury, but there are other relatively new neighborhoods where sidewalk replacement is occurring without an attributable cause. In regard to the tree replacements, who makes the final decision about whether or not to replace the trees? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the Forestry Division makes those decisions, working closely with the Division of Engineering. The decision is made based upon the root removal that occurs. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if staff should be involved earlier in the process. What is Maple City Concrete's experience in removal of tree roots? It appears their expertise is in sidewalk removal/replacement. Mr. Hammersmith responded that was part of the discussion that took place with Maple City Concrete. Tree root removal is a very significant part of the project, and the bid documents are very definitive about the type of equipment that may be used to remove roots. In addition, afull-time City inspector is on site at all times. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if the contractor has been made aware of the emphasis this community places on tree preservation. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. However, it is not within the scope of the work for the contractor to make judgments. Although they will prune and remove RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of __ _ Dublin City Council __ _ __ _ _Meeting_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC. FORM N0. 10148 _ __ ___ _ February 5, 2007 Page 7 j t ictu ~-.~ tree roots, the determination of the extent thereof is made by City staff Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired how far in advance the residents receive notification of the impending sidewalk work. Mr. Hammersmith responded that notification occurs a week in advance of the anticipated work. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road inquired if Maple City Concrete offered references. Mr. Hammersmith responded that they did, one of which was the City of Sandusky. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Resolution 09-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Easement with AT&T Telephone Company for the Relocation of Telecommunications Equipment. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated this legislation grants an easement to AT&T for work that was performed last year immediately south of the Tara Hill area. At that time, the City had instituted new fees for reviewing utility company easement requests. Due ' to the fact that service interruption would occur if the work could not proceed, AT&T was granted a right of entry in lieu of the formal approval. Mrs. Boring inquired if any trees were impacted. Mr. Hammersmith responded that no trees were impacted. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if the work involved trenching only. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the work involved trenching and directional boring ~ so that underground cable could be run. The residents were notified per City policy Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. OTHER • Waiver of Showmobile Fees Ms. Brautigam stated that this request from the Franklin County Fair Board is submitted annually. The City Manager has the administrative authority to waive the cost for one day's rental, and Franklin County is submitting a request for waiver of the second day rental fee to Council. ' Mrs. Boring inquired if the past practice of waiving the rental fees included the cost of labor for set-up/removal. Mrs. Brautigam stated that she is authorized to waive only the rental fee. Mrs. Boring inquired if Franklin County paid the labor cost last year. Ms. Brautigam confirmed that they had done so. Mrs. Boring inquired if the request this year is to waive the labor costs as well. Ms. Brautigam responded that the recommendation to Council is to waive the second day rental fee only; it does not include a waiver of the labor fees. Mrs. Boring noted that she interpreted the recommendation differently. Mr. McCash noted that the recommendation reads, "Council approval is required for the additional day and for the $900 labor fee." Ms. Brautigam stated that the recommendation reads "...that Council waive the second day rental fee of $750." Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the Franklin County Fair Board understands that what is being waived is strictly the rental fees, not the set-up and removal labor fees. Ms. Brautigam responded that they understand that is the recommendation; nevertheless, they wish to have both fees waived. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ - __ __._ _ Dublin City Council ___ _ __ Meeting_ 5, Held age 1 1 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested clarification of the City's traditional response. Ms. Brautigam responded that a waiver of the rental fee only has been granted in the past. Mrs. Boring moved to waive the second day Showmobile rental fee of $750 for the Franklin County Fair Board. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mr. Keenan asked for clarification about the labor fees. Ms. Puskarcik responded that the $900 fee is the cost of set-up and tear down, regardless of whether the event is one or two days. The rental fees are $750 per day. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. STAFF COMMENTS • Joint Work Session Schedule Revision Ms. Brautigam noted that this proposed revision would delete the joint work sessions that were previously scheduled for February 26 and March 21. It would provide for a public open house on March 7. This revision has been requested because the Community Plan update is at a point where "behind the scenes" work is necessary to be done by staff. Preparing materials for bi-weekly joint meetings detracts from staff's ability to focus on those efforts. Review of the final drafts of the chapters would be consolidated and will occur on April 11. On April 30, the preliminary fiscal results, revised Thoroughfare Plan and CIP Program will be presented. Target area reviews would occur May 25 and June 11; public work sessions on June 5 and June 19; final draft review on June 25; and public open houses on June 27 and 28. The public adoption process would occur following Council's July recess. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired where the public open houses would be held. Ms. Brautigam responded that they would likely take place at the Community Recreation Center. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the June 6 meeting would be eliminated. Ms. Brautigam responded that it would be eliminated. The consensus of Council was to approve the revised Community Plan Update Joint Work Session schedule. Ms. Brautigam noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission would be notified of the revised schedule, and it will be posted at the City's web site. Mr. McCash noted that he would be out of town and unable to attend the March 7 public session. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner: 1. Reported that the Veterans Committee has completed the artist reviews. Three finalists have been selected. The next step is to have community review of the artists' proposals. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired when the presentation to Council would occur. Ms. Puskarcik responded that two dates in March have been proposed. The Council and VIP presentation is proposed for Tuesday, March 20 from 7 to 8:30 p.m. at the Abbey Theater. Three public input sessions are also suggested. The entries of the three finalists will be on display at the Rec Center for ten days. 2. Thanked staff for their efforts in having the electric power restored in the Muirfield area so quickly. Mr. Keenan stated that after a brief interlude, a U.S. Corridor meeting was held on January 22 and was well attended. The Marysville water and sewer issues were RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS __ Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meeting e discussed. He will share that information with Council at a later date. Ms. Salay stated that at last week's Joint Work Session on the Community Plan update, staff indicated that their recommendation is to proceed with the redirection of Post Road, based upon recent traffic modeling. However, Council members at that meeting deferred giving staff direction until all Council members had an opportunity to participate in the decision. The tentative plan was that further discussion could take place at Council's goal setting session; however, upon reflection, Council Members believe another forum would be more appropriate for citizen attendance. The redirection of Post Road was one of the recommendations of the Coffman Park Task Force, and it is a matter of interest to the community, particularly the neighborhood immediately surrounding the Coffman Park area. The consultants would prefer to have Council's direction on this matter by February 26; therefore, it is proposed that this item be scheduled on the February 20 Council agenda. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that one of the topics that she has suggested for the Council goal setting agenda was the future location of the new City Hall. She is not certain if a decision can be made at this time, as the City Hall design and construction is not presently scheduled on the CIP. However, that decision would certainly impact the Post Road alignment discussion. Has staff been given direction to make a presentation on this subject at the February 20 meeting? Ms. Brautigam responded that at last week's joint work session, she recommended that Council discuss this item at the Council goal setting retreat. After the work session, Council Members noted that the topic is one of significant community interest, and, as such, has previously been discussed at regular Council meetings. It is Council's discretion at this time whether to schedule the discussion at goal setting or at the February 20 City Council meeting. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes it should be discussed at Council's retreat. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is not opposed to scheduling it for the February 20th Council meeting. Is there any new information to share? Ms. Brautigam responded that there is no new information. Council presently has all of the available information on the topic. The reason the discussion did not occur at the joint work session was that all Council members were not present. It would have been unfair to have a discussion on this topic without all members present. Ms. Salay noted there was apparently some confusion regarding the recommendation from Mr. Combs. In the communication among Council Members, Mr. Keenan expressed his confusion about staff's specific recommendation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that it appears there is some confusion, because her understanding of staff's recommendation was that if Perimeter Drive were widened, it would not be necessary to realign Post Road. Mr. Keenan noted that was his interpretation of the memo as well. Ms. Brautigam responded that the discussion at the Joint Work Session was that the transportation modeling indicated that if Perimeter Drive were widened, Post Road could be redirected, but that it was not necessary to do so. It would be a policy decision for Council. Mr. Keenan noted that Council's decision regarding the location of City Hall would impact the decision about the redirection of Post Road. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he does not see a timing problem with the discussion. If the redirection of Post Road is discussed at the February 20th Council meeting and the future location of City Hall is discussed at the Council goal setting session, would that be problematic? Mr. Keenan responded that it would not be problematic for him. In his view, however, there is a larger issue for Council related to the Memorial Bridge suggestions raised at the Joint Work Session. Although there were few citizens at RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _. Minutes of Dublin City Council __ Meetin~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. tOtAB ~ February 5, 2007 Page 10 j Held meeting, he has received numerous inquiries about the City's plans. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she concurs with Ms. Salay's response made to a citizen a-mail today. When a discussion is scheduled in the public venue on topics that would impact citizens, they should be informed of the pending discussion. In this case, no one from the Riviera Golf Club was informed that this option for Memorial Drive would be discussed at the joint work session. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff is in a difficult position when this kind of ~', modeling occurs. Modeling is done to identify options that are feasible. If staff were to notify property owners of every possibility being contemplated before modeling and City Council approval is obtained, that would often prompt citizen concerns. An effort is made to first resent ever thin to Council for their in ut. If Council is p Y g p interested, the public input would then occur. Staff did not want to create public concern about something that may not occur. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that in reality, however, the media in attendance at meetings often reports such discussions, resulting in citizen concerns. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff cannot control what the press reports. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that although she agrees with the theory, it does not play out in reality - it is made public in that type of meeting. Mr. Keenan inquired the extent of notification. Many of the calls he received were from Belvedere residents. Should the Belvedere neighborhood have been notified of the discussion topic? Ms. Salay acknowledged the awkward position staff is placed in. Perhaps it would be advisable to preface information shared with a property owner that planning is focusing on 20 to 30 years into the future. They should be advised that at this time, the discussion is only a consideration, and any potential impact would not occur for many years. Mr. Keenan agreed. If approved, there would be many steps involved, including funding in a proposed CIP. 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the public is not aware of the internal dynamics involved. Once a plan has been approved and has become part of a document, it is a reality that will impact future sellers or purchasers and is information they should be able to find by doing their "homework." The future construction of Memorial Bridge to the east has been identified for many years, although it is not yet scheduled in the CIP. It is a valid issue of concern, even if the impact may not be to the current property owner. Mr. Keenan agreed, and in the subject case, the affected property owner made some very valid points in his a-mail. Mr. McCash stated that the proposed Memorial Drive connection in the draft plan would affect only one property owner, and according to his a-mail, that property owner has no intention of selling his property. Therefore, it makes no sense to include that as any part of the draft plan. In the future, if the property owner should change his mind and sell his property, triggering a zoning review, Engineering could then identify the property as needed for connectivity purposes. Mr. Keenan stated that it wouldn't be economically feasible to construct a roadway through this property. The damage to the residual property would be significant. Mr. McCash agreed. That could only occur if the golf course were to be eliminated. Mrs. Boring stated she was disappointed that the model was run before Council was asked if it were something that should be considered. Ms. Brautigam responded that there were a couple of items that were added to the model run because they seemed to make sense. Staff used their best professional Minutes of DAYTON LEGAL BANK, INC.. FORM NO. 1q1 h8 ~ February 5;-2007 Page 11 judgment in identifying options. Mrs. Boring responded that it would have been prudent for staff to ask Council for policy direction before spending an additional $8,000 to run a model. There are certain options that some Council members would be opposed to, regardless of the traffic model results -such as that extension. While widening a road to four lanes could make sense, Council's vision for an area may mean limiting the road to two lanes. For her, this connection could never be a consideration, as she wants that area to remain recreational greenspace. As Mr. McCash noted, for the property to ~ be rezoned in the future, it would require City rezoning approval and all of the related reviews that it would trigger. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the Council members who were contacted by the public made it clear that Council: (1) is interested in the golf course remaining in place; (2) is not interested in residential development of that site; and (3) was not responsible for this rumor, which seems to occur periodically. In regard to the Post Road redirection, Ms. Salay stated that it would be advisable for Council to decide when this discussion will occur in the future in order that members of the public can have the opportunity to provide input. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that it was her understanding that staff has recommended it be included on the February 20 Council agenda. Vice Mayor Lecklider, Administrative Committee Chair stated that Council's annual goal setting retreat is scheduled for February 23 and 24. To allow staff and the consultant time to prepare the necessary information for that session, he requested Council members to identify any proposed agenda topics. Some topics which have been suggested are: • Economic Development Staff involved - Mr. McDaniel; Mr. Powell, Scottenstein, Zox and Dunn Issues -the future of next-generation technology parks, with the desired outcome of understanding economic development opportunities inherent with a tech park and strategies to achieve success. • Water and Sewer Issues (A) Staff involved - Ms. Brautigam; Mr. Hammersmith and Mr. McDaniel Issues -joint economic development agreements; Marysville water situation, the Wirchanski property; Jerome Township development; and sewer capacity issues. • Location of City Hall Staff involved - Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Grigsby and Mr. Hammersmith Issues -decide preferred location and include in the Community Plan. • Dublin future population Discussion of the topic began two years ago but no final determination was agreed upon. • Water and Sewer Issues (B) To review the decision not to extend water and sewer to unserved areas. • Additional Parkland Discuss current inventory, ideas for future parkland, additional bikepaths and funding thereof. • Transportation Review of five-year CIP projects and beyond. This might dovetail with the economic development discussion. • Public art Discussion about bringing this program "back on track." He requested feedback from Council members. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Ms. Salay asked what the first water and sewer issue would address specifically. Based on the Community Plan work, the work at Council's last goal setting and the ongoing discussions and staff updates, she believes she is well versed in matters RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council _ __ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC. FOPM NO. 10148 - February 5, 2007 Page 12 Held 20 ___ -~ ~ related to water and sewer issues. Regarding the Council decisions related to the i, unserved areas, Council discussed the topic three years ago and again last fall. Why has this topic been proposed? I~, Mrs. Boring concurred with Ms. Salay's comments on the water and sewer topics. ~~'~ Mr. Keenan stated that he proposed the topic for discussion. He is interested in understanding the dynamics between the three water/sewer areas -Marysville, Columbus, and the Dublin exclusive expansion area. It really impacts what Dublin I, will do in the future to the west. '~, Ms. Brautigam stated that Dublin does not control all of the parameters. From staff's point of view, Dublin wants to play a major role in any development that occurs in the negotiated area under the current contract with Columbus. Under Marysville's agreement with Union County, Marysville can serve some of these areas. Dublin has been working with Marysville to ensure that Dublin controls the destiny of that area. That effort is ongoing. That is where the idea of JEDDS -- intergovernmental agreements with other jurisdictions -comes to play. She is not aware of any new information to be shared at the retreat, but she would be happy to update Council if they desire. The most recent matter of interest is the Marysville water situation, which staff has not discussed with Council. Mrs. Boring suggested that an update could be provided via a memo in a Council packet. Ms. Brautigam agreed to do so. Mr. Keenan stated that he would prefer a brief overview of how these work together with an educational piece on JEDDS in general. It is not only the water/sewer service arrangements. It is also the development standards in the area and who will provide services. The entity that provides service to that area will impact significantly what will occur in terms of development. The JEDDs, the water/sewer service ~~, agreements, and Dublin's plans for the future of that area all tie together. He cannot 'i think of anything more important to focus on in a retreat. Mrs. Boring stated that she agrees with Ms. Salay on this topic, and as Ms. Brautigam stated, it is a work in progress. Staff has received clear direction on Council's desires, and staff can provide any new information to Council in sufficient time to review. Ms. Salay noted that last year, Council had an in-depth presentation on the various types of economic development agreements possible between entities. Unless staff has something significant to bring to Council, she does not see a need to spend time on the topic at goal setting. However, if Mr. Keenan feels very strongly about the issue, she would not object to an hour overview. If there are other topics Council wants to cover, however; Council might be better served to focus on those. Mr. Keenan responded that he would defer to the group. Numerous developments are underway, however, and Council needs to be prepared to move quickly. He, personally, does not feel Council has a good grasp on the subject of JEDDS. In terms of the transportation topic, Council has heard many iterations on that topic on several occasions. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if there were any other topics Council would like to discuss. Ms. Salay responded that Council has also previously discussed desired population at build-out and made land-use decisions and given direction to staff. For the Community Plan update, Council chose Land Use Scenario 2, which should provide a good indication of the future population, as it reflects the land use decisions. She would be interested in a figure, but more importantly, what that would mean in terms of economic development and revenue necessary to maintain services. If there is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTO~ N LEGAL BLANK INC. FORM NO 10148 _ ~IIT February 5, 2007 Page 13 new information or decisions to make in regard to that topic, she would be interested in the topic. She asked for input from Council. Mr. Reiner agreed that the topic has essentially been addressed with the Community Plan update. Staff was given various scenarios of population numbers and asked to determine the revenue needed to sustain that population and the needed infrastructure. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she perceives the topic differently. Her focus is what does the future population number mean in regard to the future needs for parkland and future recreation facilities? That has not been discussed in the Community Plan update. Ms. Salay concurred that would be a valid topic. Ms. Brautigam stated that each chapter of the Community Plan provides the fiscal, utility and park impacts. Staff is currently in the process of working on a Parks and Recreation master plan, which will be provided to Council later this year. It will focus on the plan for the community in regard to parks and recreation facilities. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she is asking these questions because Council is not involved in the master planning currently underway for the City's parks and recreation services. What the City has today won't necessarily match the expectations or needs of a yet to be determined future population. They may want different kinds of recreation experiences. Vice Mayor Lecklider suggested that perhaps Council could discuss the possible indicators for a second, smaller recreation center; potential locations; what the community's expectations may be; and what the City should attempt to provide for the community in terms of parkland and recreation services. Mrs. Boring noted that she understands a review of past goals will take place, assessing the progress made to date. She would prefer that Council focus more on a goal setting session versus a work session. She believes Council may be missing some of the more "esoteric" topics, such as team building, that have been done in the past. Is there any interest in such a topic?. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he would be interested in hearing a presentation on the topic of team building. Some of the other suggested topics could be discussed later in another forum. He would definitely be interested in discussing over-arching philosophical issues related to the City's future. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that policy direction is different from goal setting, and she believes that in the years ahead, Council needs to provide more direction to staff and define the expectations in the area of economic development. It will be necessary to have income tax revenues adequate to meet the expectations of the citizens. In regard to the location of the future City Hall, it has been discussed but ~ not decided. Regarding public art, Council has discussed the general topic, yet not defined specific goals. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the topic Mr. Keenan suggested of water/sewer agreements might dovetail with the economic development presentation. Mrs. Boring inquired other Council members' preference on that discussion. Mr. McCash responded he believes Council has already had adequate discussion of the topics of water and sewer service and joint economic development districts. He is not sure about the benefit of an additional discussion. Mr. Keenan inquired if Council has defined its position in terms of what the City RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council ___ Meetin_~ _ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 18148 February 5, 2007 Page 14 h might do within the framework of a JEDD or apre-annexation agreement. Ms. Salay responded that Council had previously agreed that JEDDs would all be site specific or situation specific. It would be necessary to have a company interested in a particular site before an agreement could be proposed to another community. Mr. McCash noted that is true in regard to pre-annexation agreements; they would be handled on a case-by-case basis. A JEDD would be tied into an economic development agreement, and the one Dublin was working on with Jerome Township "died" in process. Ms. Brautigam summarized what she believes Council is interested in as topics for goal setting: (1) review of past goals; (2) economic development presentation re COIC area; (3) location of future City Hall; (4) public art policy; (5) futuristic discussion regarding population expectations/needs for services. She views the latter discussion as focusing on the anticipated population demographics in 20 years and their anticipated need of services. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that a timeframe of 10 years out may be more appropriate for the discussion. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if anyone supports including the topic of transportation. Ms. Salay responded that a staff memo regarding future projects should suffice. ~~ i Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher reminded Council of the Miracle Field Fundraiser opportunities with Whole Foods on February 21 and UNO Chicago Grill during the entire month of February. The certificates are available at various locations throughout the community and at the City's website. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 8:40 p.m. for discussion of legal and land acquisition matters. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting will be reconvened following the executive session only for the purpose of formally adjourning. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 9:45 p.m Mayor -Presiding Officer Acti Jerk of Council