Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/2006 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes f Meetin DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, June 5, 2006 regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Reiner led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Mr. McCash arrived at 7:20 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. ,i Harding, Chief Epperson, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, Mr. Earman, Mr. Burns, Ms. Cox, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Willis, Ms. Wawszkiewicz, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Hoyle, Sgt. Barnes, Lt. Von Eckartsberg and Mr. Richardson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ Vice Mayor Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of the May 15, 2006 Council ,i meeting. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. ' Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. ' i CORRESPONDENCE The clerk reported that a Notice to Legislative Authority was sent regarding a new D51 liquor permit for Tartan Development Company, Corazon LLC, 7155 Corazon Drive. There was no objection to the issuance of this permit. SPECIAL PRESENTATION • Street Safe Program Chief Epperson introduced the new Dublin Police and Courts initiative, designed to ~ provide a voluntary juvenile traffic diversion program for first time juvenile traffic offenders. If successful, it is hoped that the vast majority of juvenile traffic offenses will be diverted into this program. The program was devised by staff with input from the Law ' Department. He introduced Sgt. Rodney Barnes, Community Education Unit Supervisor and Lisa Wilson, Interim Court Administrator to present information on the new initiative. Sgt. Barnes provided a brief overview of the structure and to istics of the ro ram, which II 9 p g . . is ready for immediate implementation. Statistics for 2005 indicated 275 youth offenders within the City for the year, with an average of 25 to 30 per month. Those numbers indicate that the monthly sessions of this program will be filled. The goal is to provide an alternative to paying afine -focused education that will impact attitudes and behavior. Anticipated outcomes are: increased awareness of the danger and consequences of ' unsafe driving; improved knowledge of applicable traffic laws; creation of a youth population unlikely to commit the same offenses; and increased safety on the City ~ roadways verified by measurable impacts. Community awareness strategies include a pamphlet for distribution at community events and information provided via the City j! website, Dublin TV and school information sessions. Ms. Wilson provided information on how the program will be administered, including I eli ibilit ,enrollment, ro ram forms and record kee in .The r r 9 Y o am is desi ned to P 9 P 9 P 9 9 automatically enroll a young offender, although the officer has discretion. The program ~I' must be completed in 90 days or the citation would be forwarded to the appropriate ~I, juvenile court. Ma or Chinnici-Zuercher indicated she has reviewed the curri Y culum and believes it provides the Cit a method b which to teach oun drivers the conse uences Y Y Y 9 q of behavior that could have ermanent im act on their liv p p es and the lives of others. She looks forwards to learning the results of the program when that information is available. ~ Vice Mayor inquired if this program is included in the existing budget. Chief Epperson responded that it will be accommodated within the existing budget. Financial impact is minimal as Police officers provide the education. Some Court funds may be available that can appropriately be used for the educational component. I I~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minut of Meetin DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 2 Held Zp Mr. Keenan inquired if "points" would be reflected on the records of the youth completing the program or be deferred. Mr. Barnes responded that successful completion of the program avoids adjudication of the citation through the normal process. Therefore, no points would be incurred. • Recognition of Jeffrey Chonko, Street Safe Program Logo Design Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented a plaque to Dublin Coffman student Jeffrey Chonko who designed the logo for the program. Dublin DARE officers provided a gift of appreciation, which was also presented to him. Mr. Chonko thanked the City for the opportunity to design the logo. CITIZEN COMMENTS I Scott Dring. Executive Director of Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau reported that travel to Dublin and Central Ohio has increased by five percent and occupancy rates in Dublin are 66 percent versus 55 percent statewide. Average daily rates in Dublin are $89 versus $70 statewide. These numbers indicate that the Dublin market is ready for an ~ additional hotel with conference space. At the current pace, adding another hotel in the ~ area is inevitable. Developers have begun to inquire about the opportunity. There are presently four hotels in the Columbus portion of the Tuttle Crossing area which draw business and tax dollars from Dublin's hotels. The Bureau would like to work with the City to ensure that additional hotel/motel development occurs within Dublin so that the City may capture the potential hotel/motel tax revenue. The DCVB recently engaged in a new branding effort, the first time in its history that it has done so. This will provide an interesting framework to effectively market Dublin in the future. The process will provide a new logo, slogan and research data that will help the Bureau to communicate more effectively and attract more business to the community. Recent business in Dublin has increased. The Memorial Tournament was well attended, and room occupancy was close to 90 percent. He reviewed economic impact statistics concerning other recent events and the Bureau's anticipated summer marketing strategy. The new Visitors Center opened St. Patrick's Day weekend, and it has been a great success. He acknowledged the work of DCVB Board President Craig Baldridge, who also serves as City Council liaison to the Board. Mr. Baldridge's term does not expire until next year; however, elections for the new DCVB Board and officers will occur at the next Board meeting. Ma or Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Dr' in for an out t n Y s a din 'ob. The results are 9 9J reflected in the statistics. Some of the Board members have commented to her i regarding the improvement and their anticipation of new events in the community. 'i Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that someone recently commented that he ~ has been addressing the Kindra firing issue for four years. This individual's tone of voice ~ suggested it was time Mr. Maurer "moved on" to another topic. His response to that insinuation would be, "move on to what?" During the last four years, he has observed and commented on the mind-set of Council Members that makes it absolutely impossible for Council to offer reinstatement to Mr. Kindra. He reco nizes that he also has amin - I g d set that makes it equally impossible for him to abandon the issue. One of the factors that motivate him is the comment that Mr. Kindra "paid him off." His response to this it accusation is that he never knew Mr. Kindra. The firing occurred June 3, 2002. Subse uent to his takin on this issue he has informe Mr d .Kindra of what h q e has done. 9 He never tells Mr. Kindra ahead of time what he will do. On one occasion, Mr. Kindra did indicate that he is a Sikh in the Indian community. One of the cardinal commands is that they must do something for someone who has a need without any expectation of i recognition and compensation. Mr. Kindra's son remarked that Mr. Maurer was like a Sikh. That moved him to tears, and has been the only "payoff' for his efforts. That does still motivate him. That is the only mind-set that he has time to explain tonight. For purposes of the record, he will distribute copies of the comments he has shared. Dr. Glenn Williams. 8401 Trails End Drive stated he is in favor of the extension of ' sewers to his area, where he moved a year ago. They looked forward to living in Dublin ~ because of its great public services, great schools and great Council. They were surprised earlier this year to learn that the Franklin County Board of Health had declared their area a health risk area due to the problems with the septic systems the age of the systems, the problem with runoff and the condition of the soil. As a physician, he is fully aware of the problems that relate to exposure to sewage runoff -Hepatitis A, E coli, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ Oo~~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 3 Held 20 parasites, viruses, and high nitrates in the soil. He has two young children he does not want exposed to those conditions. He was surprised the City of Dublin had not addressed this known health risk. He would, therefore, ask that the City would consider this risk seriously and take steps to eliminate it. It is important to view this as a health issue for the residents, not one of convenience. He is not opposed to septic systems in general, but certainly the documented health risk changes the perspective. Susan Tamulonis. 8223 Trails End Drive stated that, as a resident and a taxpayer, she would like to express her concern about the lack of sewers in the Summitview area. She moved to the area six months ago. She has learned that there are no plans to address this problem within the City's Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), even though there is a known health risk. When the City approved sewer lines to be extended to the Indian Run area in 2004, the City also identified the Summitview area as a high priority to be scheduled for sewer extension as soon as feasible. In the past few years, there has been considerable development around the Summitview area. Wedgewood Glen is anew subdivision immediately west of Trails End. All the runoff from the Summitview area that previously went into farmland is now entering the new subdivision. Many of her neighbors voiced their concerns at the May 1 Council meeting, and they were told the reason the sewers had not been extended to the area was lack of sufficient resident support. Consequently, they have recently surveyed all the residents in their area. Of the 18 homes on her street, 15 have expressed strong support, one is undecided and two could not be contacted for input. That demonstrates strong community support for the extension of sewers to their area. The main line terminates just south of Summitview on Sawmill at the new condominium development. They reviewed the City's Five-Year CIP budget online and noted that only $790,000 is allocated to extension of the sewer I lines to unserved areas. That is a minute portion of the City's budget of $115 million. It was estimated that it could cost $1 million to extend sewer service to the Summitview area. Council records state that although this area is designated as a high priority, the extension would not occur until it is considered economically feasible. She would like to ask what Council considers "feasible." The residents consider this a serious issue that needs to be addressed and realize that they would be required to pay for their connection to the sewer system. As residents and taxpayers, they have observed that the City is willing to spend taxpayer monies over the next five years on amenities, i including roundabouts, landscaping, bikepaths, tunnels, parks, skateparks, GPS ;'I systems on City snowplows, and $22 million for parks. Those items add to the quality of life, but they should not be funded before basic City services related to public health issues. The City needs to collectively reevaluate its priorities, and the appropriate issues need to be addressed. She supports the City's goal of being a leading edge community !I with a uniquely high quality of life for its residents. The City's mission statement cannot be met while ignoring its residents' basic health needs. She requests that the City give this serious consideration for its 2007 budget. ,I Ginny Berke, 8191 Glencree Place expressed her support for the extension of City sewers to their area. The resid n " e is are not re uestin a freebie 'ust the abilit to to q 9 J Y P into the main line. At the meeting on May 1, the Mayor requested that the area be re- surveyed, and the residents are making progress on that. She has talked to the residents on Glencree Place and has found that the residents who voted "no" two years ago are now expressing support for the extension. These are basic city services. This I ~ area also does not have stormwater sewers, and there is a high volume of runoff of sewage and carcinogens from the street. This presents a health issue. Some of the residents' septic systems are failing. They do not want to invest in new systems at this point and in five years be required to connect to the sewer line; the expense is I I ~ significant. The residents have been in "limbo" for 10-20 years. The City is moving ~ ~ forward in many areas, but they feel their need for basic city services is being overlooked. They request the Council's support to provide them with the ability to connect to the City's sewer system. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that she had not requested that the residents update the survey, but requested that City staff do so. Robert Crabb. 8175 Sawmill Road, stated that he also supports extension of the City sewer system to their area. This area was annexed to the Village of Dublin ion January 7, 1974. At the time, it was realized the growth of Dublin would be a gradual process. That growth has occurred, and now that the sewer system is within extension range, the residents believe it is time to receive what is due to them. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meetin DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 4 Held Zp Bob Briggs, 8485 Sawmill Road, stated that he has resided at this address for 37 years and is quite aware of the problems that many of his neighbors are experiencing. He supports them in their efforts to seek a remedy and is hopeful that the City will address their needs. Muerl Liddell, 3838 Summitview Road, stated that she would like to clarify a couple of items. There was a statement made on television that when the City conducted its survey, more than 50 percent of the residents indicated they did not want sewer service. Evidently, they taped the speaker unaware, as that statement is a mistake. The City's survey does not indicate that. ~i Mrs. Boring clarified that what she stated in the interview was that 50 percent of the residents indicated that they were unwilling to commit to the expense of connection. Ms. Liddell stated that the City's previous survey indicated that 14 of the 65 residents ~ surveyed indicated they were unwilling. There were 18 residents who either indicated they were undecided or who did not respond to the survey. It was not appropriate to then make assumptions that those 18 residents were unwilling to connect. Some of those who did not respond were out of town when the survey was conducted. When they were surveyed recently, they indicated strong support for extension of the sewer line. The other clarification she would like to make is that this is a health and safety issue, not a development related issue. The City can decide what development it desires, but that should be kept out of this discussion. The issue is related to the homes that exist in an area that has been a part of Dublin for many years, yet do not yet have the basic City services. Her septic system is failing, and she does not want to incur the high cost of a new system when the City sewer line is within the vicinity to extend. There are residents who now have health issues and would like to sell their homes. However, if they try to sell their homes while the area is designated a public health risk, they will lose what they j have invested in their homes. To save the taxpayers the cost of a new survey, the residents have surveyed the same homes included in the City's previous survey. They have taken care to be extremely accurate, including any negative resident comments. j She briefly reviewed the survey results, indicating the total negative/positive responses I i per street. After compiling it in a neater format, she will provide their survey to City 'i Council. ~ Sherman Liddell. 3838 Summitview Road, indicated from the audience that he is unable to testify at this time. II III, Mrs. Borin referred to the comment re ardin the lack f t o s ormwater sew r esinthi 9 s 9 9 area. As everyone is aware, she previously resided on Glencree Place. Her home was , I located next to a stormwater detention pond, which, according to her understanding, is a stormwater management feature. ~ Mr. Hammersmith res onded that is true. There is a stormwater detention basin loc t N a ed ~ ~ on that street. Mrs. Boring noted that there are also curbs and graded gutters in that area that carry ' li stormwater. ; ; Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct. I Mrs. Borin stated the Cit s ent an extensive amount f 'I o time on th 9 e revious resi Y P dent I P survey, discussing the issue at length with all of the affected homeowners, and provided li information regarding the cost the residents would incur to connect. The reason for this is that Council was not willing to invest in extending the main sewer line only to find it was an issue for residents to be required to connect to that line. She inquired if it is accurate to state that the residents did not indicate at that time full support for extension of the sewer service. i Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct. Public involvement meetings were held and a direct mail survey was conducted. Because some residents chose to indicate their preferences at the public involvement meetings, they did not complete the mail survey which followed. Mrs. Boring referred to the statement regarding Franklin County Board of Health's designation of the area as a public health risk. Council requested that the Community Services Advisory Commission study this issue, specifically how to achieve Board of I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Mi es of Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 5 Held 20 Health enforcement of their regulations that individual homeowners maintain their septic systems up to Code to avoid these problems. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff had discussions with the Board of Health at the time about an active inspection and enforcement program, which could be performed solely by the Health Department or in conjunction with the City. The Board of Health was aware of the conditions of some of the properties and was hesitant to do so because of the potential impacts to those individual property owners. Mrs. Boring stated that the City could still pursue that option to ensure that individual property owners are not creating a public health issue as a result of their septic system failures. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the inspection/enforcement program is still an option for Council to implement based on health reasons. ~ Mrs. Boring further commented that Ms. Liddell indicated she would like Council to consider the health issues separately from the development potential. It has been reported, in fact, that the residents have signed an option on their property with a developer. In response to unintelligible questions from the audience, Mrs. Boring indicated that when she moved to Glencree Place, she was told that the City would, in time, extend sewer services. However, in no way, did she imagine she would not be assessed for such services. Mrs. Boring continued with comments, indicating that this Council has "bent over I backwards" for the residents in the City and she is sorry that this situation has come about. She pointed out that the extension of services to Indian Run was authorized because the subdivision had unsafe drinking water which could not be remedied by ~ fixing the wells However, the Summitview area already has safe drinking water provided by the City. The City can enact regulations requiring residents to maintain their own septic systems. She received calls and emails from residents yesterday and today stating that the residents doing the survey had indicated that the City would waive the tap-in requirement. However, the City's policy is that if the City does assume the full cost of extending the main sewer line to an area, every property owner within that area ; II would be required to tap in within a certain time limit at the property owner's expense. it After the permitted time period for connection expired, those property owners who had not connected would incur penalty fees. I In regard to tax issues, only property owners who work in Dublin pay income taxes to the Cit of Dublin. The ro ert tax r y p p evenues su ort man other functions and the Cit Y PP Y Y receives only a small millage of property tax. Several years ago, City Council decided to dedicate that portion to parkland acquisition. She asked Ms. Grigsby to explain the guidelines for the use of tax revenues. Ms. Grigsby responded that there are state and federal regulations governing where I' funds must be credited and what expenditures can be made with those funds. Mrs. Boring stated that when Council decided to use those monies for parkland ac uisition one f o the first benefactors of the ro ram w as east Dublin. In f q act 2.4 P 9 million was spent on purchase of the Bait Store ro ert valuable hardwood forested P P Y property. In addition, nearly all municipalities require the property owners to pay for "i infrastructure improvements that benefit their properties. Against the very strong opposition from Dublin's Finance Director and the City Manage, this Council evaluated I, the economic condition of the Cit at that time and decided to assum e a si nificant cost Y g ~ of the construction of the infrastructure to service the Indian Run area. She met with the East Dublin Civic Association at that time and conveyed the message that this decision was contingent upon the funds available at that time and the priorities, and that there ii was no guarantee for the future. She understands that new data may indicate other II unserved areas may have more critical issues related to wells and unsafe drinking water. Council made it clear with establishment of the policy that future projects would be evaluated on a case by case basis considering the conditions current at that time. The policy was also clear that if the City did construct the main line, the individual ro ert P P Y owners would be required to tap in so that they would contribute to the maintenance of it the system. The issue with the Summitview area request is that Council is aware of the I desire of a developer to request rezoning for that area. In fact, the developer had ~i scheduled a meeting with the East Dublin Civic Association, but that has now been changed. The Planning Department has informed Council of potential development activity. When a development in an area is being considered, the City does not pay for the infrastructure. She is certain the City taxpayers would agree with that policy. The i other issue is that Council has never been formally requested by the property owners to ' i~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 6 Held Zp install sewers and place an assessment on the affected property owners. If a health hazard truly exists, she is willing tonight to direct staff to move forward on this project immediately by placing assessments on the property owners. She doubts that any Council Member would deny a request which is based upon a health risk. In summary, she noted that progress has been achieved by working together in the quadrant north of I-270. Some long-term visions have been achieved. It has become neighborhood-oriented with some beautiful neighborhoods; a new high school; development of a 35-acre park; and purchase of the valuable Bait Store property. One fact to remember is that every homeowner in a new residential development pays for their sewer, as the developer's cost for extending the sewer line and the tap-in fees is rolled into the purchase cost of the homes. She, personally, was required by the City to pay for the extension of the sidewalk past her home on Glencree. It is critical that Council at this point not ignore the fact that commercial development is very interested in this land and that Council not "jump the gun" and take action, when in two or three weeks, the City could have a request for rezoning. She also clarified that the Trails End resident indicated the current sewer line ends at Sawmill; in fact, there is a closer connection for Trails End and Glencree. However, as long as residents of Trails End and Glencree continue to engage in their present tactics, they are essentially endorsing commercial development at the corner of Summitview and Sawmill. Until these tactics are discontinued, she will not be bullied, ashamed or ! ridiculed about not granting this request to expend taxpayer dollars. She is extremely proud of how this Council has worked on behalf of the residents of Dublin. She is sorry about what has occurred over the weekend. ~ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Hammersmith to share information previously forwarded to Council regarding the timeframe for completing a new survey of this area, I and the process for Board of Health notifications to the City concerning these septic system inspections. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff had proposed hiring an outside organization to ~ conduct the survey at a reasonable cost of $3,000. He does not believe a timeframe for return of the data back to Council was established within the previous memo. ~ Regarding the county health risk notifications -those are issued, and the municipality notified, on a case by case basis. The Board of Health does not actively inspect onsite systems with the exception of aeration systems. Typically, their contact with the City is only to inquire the location of the nearest sewer line and its availability to the affected property. 'i Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the City has been notified of any Board of Health concern r s e ardin that area. I I~ 9 9 Mr. Hammersmith responded that he is not aware of any recent notifications. ~I 'I i~ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested Council's authorization for staff to proceed with the updated survey, per the memo in the Council packet. While she appreciates the ~j residents' initiative in surveying, she did receive a copy of one email from a resident in this area reporting that homeowners are being enticed by the petitioners to express support for the extension by promising that the homeowner would be able to acquire a ~ waiver deferring the need to tap in until their system actually fails. To ensure there is a consistent approach in the survey process, she would be more comfortable with having i an outside firm conduct the survey as recommended by staff. ~ Ms. Salay moved to authorize staff to hire an outside firm to conduct an updated survey as outlined in the memo in the packet. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. i j Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. ~i Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this is the first step in the process of examination of what the City's position will be or what action will be taken in the future. Once the report is returned to Council, Council can proceed with consideration of the next step. She thanked the residents for their input. She noted that the anticipation is that the information would be received within 60 to 90 days. LEGISLATION POSTPONED ITEM • Final Plat -Villas at Glenealy ii RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of r,..~~:.. ~ Meeting tiC~' _ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 7 Held 20 Mr. Gunderman stated that the final plat, along with the final development plan, was reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 5, 2006 with 11 conditions. This is basically aright-of-way and open space dedication document. At the last Council meeting a question was asked concerning a restriction called for at the rezoning limiting the number of units that could be owned by the same individual. Staff has reviewed that issue and found that the information provided to staff was not exactly what staff felt it should be. They discussed this with the applicant, and he revised the document to state that no more than one unit shall be owned by any individual, excluding the developer of the project and other holders of first mortgages on the units. Council also inquired about the fencing around the cemetery. Information on that issue was also provided in Council packets, There were no additional questions. Mr. Keenan moved approval of the final plat. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Mr. Reiner explained that he voted "no" on this plat due to the fact that the applicant was unable to meet the density requirements and there was no attempt to meet the conservation design principles. He does not want to set a precedent for approving projects that do not meet some of the City's requirements that are important to the ! aesthetics of this community. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road inquired what drives the prohibition of owning more than one unit and the prohibition from leasing part of a unit. Mr. Smith responded that Council does not want the development to become a rental project. Therefore, no individual may buy 5-6 units for the purpose of renting them. j j However, an owner of one unit may rent out that one unit. Mr. Maurer inquired if there is a prohibition against renting one room of a unit, for #r a example, to a college student. Mr. Gunderman responded that the same paragraph also contains language prohibiting the individual units from being divided in any manner for rental purposes. PUBLIC HEARING/SECOND READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 31-06 Accepting the Annexation of 4.9 More or Less Acres from Washington Township to the City of Dublin. (Petitioner: Dublin Baptist Church) Ms. Brautigam stated that this relates to the annexation of property owned by Dublin Baptist Church, located across the street from the church. There were no questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. i Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. ~ Ordinance 32-06 (Amended) I, ~I Repealing Sections 150.055, 150.056, and 150.057, Amending Sections 96.01, 96.16, 96.99, and 150.999, and Adding Section 150.055 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Encroachments on City-Owned Property and Easements. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this amended version reflects Mr. McCash's request at the May 15 Council meeting that language regarding play structures be included in the ','i ordinance. There were no questions. i Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, a yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 33-06 Accepting the Annexation of 95 More or Less Acres from Washington Township to the City of Dublin. (Petitioner: JJK Cosgray LLC) ~ Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this property is located at Dublin's southwest boundary at Rings and Houchard Roads. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated there will be a second reading/public hearing at the June ~ 19 Council meeting. j li RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ 6tfR~ ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 8 Held Zp Ordinance 34-06 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.270 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a 0.047 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, From David Bloom, Located South of River Forest Road and West of Dublin-Bellepoint Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith noted that Ordinances 34-06, 35-06 and 36-06 relate to the bikepath tunnel at River Forest Road. The Law Department has negotiated a purchase agreement with Mr. Bloom. Agreements have not yet been reached with Mr. Caserta and Ms. Turner. Mr. Reiner moved to treat the ordinance as emergency legislation and to dispense with the public hearing. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; ~ Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 35-06 Appropriating 0.061 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, From William M. Caserta, Located North of River Forest Road and West of Dublin- Bellepoint Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring ' an Emergency. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Salay moved to treat the ordinance as emergency legislation and to dispense with the public hearing. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; ~ Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. ~ I Ordinance 36-06 Appropriating a 0.007 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a 0.055 Acre, , ~,I More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, From Sheila M. Turner, Located ~ North of River Forest Road and West of Dublin-Bellepoint Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. i' Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Salay moved to treat the ordinance as emergency legislation and to dispense with the public hearing. Vice Ma or Lecklider seconded the motion. Y Vote n o them ti 0 on. Mr. Keenan, es; Vice Ma or Lecklider es' Mr. McCash es' Mr. Y Y ~Y ~ Y , it Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. ~ ~ Ordinance 37-06 Adopting the Proposed Tax Budget for Fiscal Year 2007. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. i I Ms. Grigsby stated that this is an annual requirement per Ohio Revised Code and I relates to the 2007 budget. In the past, the City has allocated 100 percent of the inside millage to the Parkland Acquisition Fund. Beginning in 2007, a portion will be allocated to the Capital Improvement Tax Fund for some of the infrastructure improvements I, • needed for the Central Ohio Innovation Center. The remaining portion will be allocated i to the Parkland Acquisition Fund. Mr. Keenan inquired about the deadline for submission of this document. Ms. Grigsby responded that the resolution must be adopted by July 15 and filed with the county auditor by July 20. j Mr. Keenan noted that the numbers are conservative, with a minimal growth number of 3 ~ I I percent and expenditure projections of 7.5 percent. ~ Ms. Grigsby stated this document is required to be submitted in order to receive local government funds. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the June 19 Council meeting. I I I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ _ Ciigzaurr Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 9 Held 20 Ordinance 38-06 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging Influent, Inc. to Retain and Expand its Operations within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. F. Ms. Gilger stated that Influent, Inc. approached the City concerning the retention of its headquarters in Dublin. They were investigating possible relocation sites within Central Ohio in addition to opening a new, quality assurance center that could be located in Dublin, in Central Ohio or in India. Therefore, a competitive process was initiated to retain this company. Influent, Inc. is a customer service and marketing outsourcing company, which works with financial and insurance institutions. This economic development agreement will retain the 90 jobs and grow that to 150 jobs in Dublin by 2010. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the June 19 Council meeting. Ordinance 39-06 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging the Establishment by Ray 8~ Barney Group of its Operations and Workforce within the City and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Gilger stated that the Ray & Bamey Group is located in Central Ohio. They have outgrown their space and are looking in the region for new office space. This agreement would bring 28 jobs to Dublin with a commitment to grow to 78 jobs by 2011. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the Dividend Drive address is their current location. Ms. Gilger confirmed that is correct. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the June 19 Council meeting. . INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 54-06 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Service Center Fuel Station Repairs and Upgrade. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Burns stated this project consists of the repair and upgrade of the existing 20-year old fuel system located at the City's Service Complex. Authorization to contract with the low bidder, Build Mor, Inc. is requested by staff. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the report states the bid does not include the testing, removal and disposal of the groundwater on the site which may cost up to $60,000. Is that estimate fairly accurate? Mr. Bums responded that the estimate is likely on the high side, and he is hopeful it will be less. If the water is found to be contaminated, it must be disposed of properly. Mr. Keenan inquired about the size and type of the existing tanks. Mr. Bums responded that there are four fiberglass tanks -two 8,000 gallon tanks and two 10,000 gallon tanks. Mr. Keenan inquired if the test reveals contaminated water or soil on the site, does the City's agreement with the School District allow the City to share the cost of remediation of the problem with the School District? Mr. Smith responded that the agreement does provide for such cost sharing. Mr. Keenan inquired if the City requires that the contractor hold professional liability insurance coverage. Mr. Smith responded that the City does require that coverage. 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. Resolution 55-06 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Dublin Road/River Forest Road Bikepath Tunnel Project. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that the bids received exceeded the 2005 budgeted amount due to the fact that an addition had been made to the project. Mr. Richardson stated that the four bids received were close, competitive bids. This bikepath tunnel will be similar to the one constructed at Brand Road and Bristol Parkway and will also contain a similar, wooden guardrail. Unfortunately, this project will require another closure of Dublin Road, which will occur on July 5, with reopening on September 29 or earlier. This project will involve relocation of underground utilities and lowering of a major fiber optic line, which AT&T cannot do unless the road is closed. The detour will RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of , Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 10 Held 20 direct traffic to use either Muirfield or Riverside Drives. The landscaping component, estimated at $13,000 is included in the bid amount of $711,000. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that during the previous closure in conjunction with the roundabout, the residents became impatient with the length of time the road was closed. Many resorted to driving through the barriers. She recalls that the extended closure was due to the difficulty in coordinating the work needed by AEP. Has staff been successful in working out those details with this project? Mr. Richardson responded that they have. In addition, there are no plans to bury the existing aerial lines. That is what caused the delay on the previous roundabout project. Staff has worked to coordinate efforts with AT&T and Columbia Gas. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the City previously conducted a study to identify possible sites where bikepath tunnels might be needed. One of the concerns was the significant cost of bikepath tunnel constructions. She is not certain what has driven the cost of tunnels up, but that study should be reviewed to determine the next site prioritized and to reevaluate the conditions to determine if it is still considered necessary. For safety reasons, she is not opposed to bikepath tunnels in general, but these projects are priced much higher than earlier projected. Mr. Hammersmith responded that at this point, no other bikepath tunnel has been programmed in the 5-year CIP. The actual tunnel costs were not too different from the budgeted amount of $450,000. The Brand Road tunnel constructed last year cost $436,000. The additional $260,000 for this project is to adjust the vertical profile of Dublin Road to improve the sight distance. In fact, 900 feet of Dublin Road will be improved with this project. Mr. Keenan inquired about the source of the additional $260,000 needed. Ms. Grigsby responded that capital improvement projects are budgeted within the Capital Improvements Tax Fund, which is funded by 25 percent of the income tax revenue. To incorporate the additional aspect of this project, design of some other projects was deferred. This was due to staff's workload and the priority of some other projects. Additionally, there are some projects in which the bids have come in at a lower cost than anticipated. Mr. Keenan inquired what neighborhoods could be impacted by the proposed detours. Mr. Hammersmith responded that Amberleigh North, Amberleigh and Donegal Cliffs could potentially be impacted. However, if cut-through traffic does occur in any neighborhoods, the City will enact enforcement measures. Mr. Keenan inquired if the City has plans to notify the residents in those neighborhoods of the construction and related issues. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City will do so. Mrs. Boring inquired if the Engineering Division has plans for any other road closures during that same period of time. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff will not schedule other road closures during this period. However, next year, the City in conjunction with ODOT will repave Dublin Road from Historic Dublin north to US 42. He wants Council to be aware of this future project. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. OTHER • Erickson Retirement Communities -Fiscal Impact Report Background Information Mr. Phillabaum stated that at the December 12, 2005 City Council meeting, Erickson Retirement Communities presented a concept plan depicting a 1,500 unit congregate care retirement campus on a 103-acre site within the Central Ohio Innovation Center. At that time, Council expressed concern about the economic impacts of this use compared to other land uses that could be expected to locate on this site within the COIC. Council requested that an economic impact study be produced to analyze the quantitative differences between the proposed retirement community and office uses. Planning, Economic Development and Finance staff outlined the scope of the requested study and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Mi utes of ~ Meetin DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 11 Held Zp provided general direction to the applicant during the process. Staff directed the applicant to include a variety of comparative data analyzing the Erickson proposal against a range of three different office uses. As a baseline for comparison, staff identified three existing representative office projects ranging from single-story office condos to a multi-story office building.. In addition to the economic impact analysis requested by Council, staff directed the applicant to include a comparative analysis of the infrastructure impacts of the Erickson proposal to these office alternatives. Erickson engaged the services of The Danter Company to produce the economic analysis, and EMH&T for the infrastructure analysis. Findings Mr. Phillabaum indicated that staff has completed a general review of the infrastructure impact analysis and has several concerns with the methodology and some of the overriding assumptions used to produce the analysis and comparative costs. Going forward, staff will be working with the applicant to modify these items, which will be reviewed as part of the traffic impact study for the project. With respect to the fiscal impact report, staff has determined that the economic analysis provided is based upon the defined scope and the conclusions are based upon the best judgments of The Danter Company and their best efforts in data aggregation. Staff believes the fiscal data analysis and comparative information are based upon reasonable, valid assumptions and provide the information requested. The staff memo includes two charts reflecting the information included in the Executive Summary of the Danter report. The first chart compares the potential annual revenue of Erickson versus alternative office uses based on buildout. The second chart provides an overview of the potential annual revenue at five year increments, based on market absorption rates for the various uses. Recommendation Recognizing that the fiscal projections are based on assumptions and subject to change, staff believes that the financial information presented would support moving forward with the project review. Therefore, staff recommends that Council accept the financial impact comparative analysis for the proposed Erickson Retirement Community and that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Phillabaum noted that staff is aware that correspondence was received by City Council members from the Service Employees International Union and from the Dublin Coalition on Senior Housing citing errors within the report. Staff has met with Erickson and their consultants, and those errors have been corrected in the report that was provided in Council's meeting packet. Copies of a letter received from Erickson Communities today in response to that correspondence has been provided tonight on the dais for Council review. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the May 18`h letter from SEIU District 99 is the one Mr. Phillabaum refers to. Mr. Phillabaum confirmed that is correct. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that Mr. Hale address the impact of the corrected numbers on the reports. Ben Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street responded that The Danter Company had applied income tax to non-earned income, which is not taxable under the City's income tax code. With that correction, there was a reduction in projected income tax numbers. The correct numbers are reflected in Council's meeting information. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if the Danter report provided the typical level of service chart in regard to traffic. It appears the traffic information provided simply addresses the cost to improve certain intersections. Mr. Phillabaum responded this is a summary of a more comprehensive report that was forwarded to the Engineering Division for their review. That report did include such information. However, staff had concerns with some of the methodologies, so staff cautions against placing too much focus on the infrastructure numbers in the report in terms of level of service and cost. Mr. Hale noted that the rezoning application requires such a traffic study; however, they have not yet done that study, pending Council's referral of the concept plan. After RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minute of ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 12 Held 20 referral to the Planning & Zoning Commission, the traffic issue will be explored at great length with staff. Todd Cunningham, EMH&T stated that he is the project engineer. EMH&T has prepared an initial draft of the full traffic impact study for the Erickson proposal. A second study of the traffic impact under three alternate scenarios was also prepared, using a single access point. That information, including cost estimates, was only recently developed and will be shared with staff tomorrow. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that for him the key issue with this project will always be whether this is the appropriate location in Dublin for this development. The issue is not whether this development is welcome somewhere within the community and somewhere within the vicinity of this site. If this development were to be moved westward to preserve this high profile site for a different type of development, with traffic flowing through the same intersections, would the traffic impact be the same? Ms. Willis responded that if this use were moved to the west, perhaps to the Shier Rings or Rings Road area, the traffic impact would differ as the access to the interstate would change. If the residents in the development choose the Cosgray Road route to SR 161 and access the interchange from there, the impact on Avery-Muirfield would be slightly different. Mr. Hale stated that: • Page II-3 of the Danter report is probably the best projection of what is likely to happen in any of the scenarios over a period of time. The Erickson Communities are a national company and they have developed many projects. They have completed an extensive market survey and have a very good sense of their absorption. They are ready to begin the project immediately. The other scenarios relate to market absorption and for those uses, there are many other competitive sites. There are currently office sites that are unoccupied. So, the evaluation should consider the period of time the site would be occupied. The numbers on this page indicate that over an extended period of time, the Erickson campus would generate $68 million, while the nearest competitor -the multi-story office model -would generate $48 million over that period of time. • Another financial benefit to the City associated with this senior housing product is the inheritance tax revenues. Using the average mortality table and the net worth of the average unit owner, it is possible to extrapolate what the inheritance tax would be -approximately $2 million/year. With Erickson, once an individual moves in, they are never evicted. If something unfortunate occurs, that individual is allowed to stay. Erickson requires a deposit of $200,000 - $300,000 plus a net worth statement for the individual indicating a net worth of at least 1-1/2 times that deposit, which an individual is required to maintain. Experience has shown that when the individual dies, most of their net worth is intact. They believe that the Danter calculations are therefore conservative. • In terms of this development versus multi-story office, when a business considers locating in Dublin, they generally seek incentives from the City. The City will often grant such incentives to attract or retain the business. Therefore, the comparison numbers in the report are probably the worst case scenario for Erickson. In reality, they are probably better. • Erickson is aware of the need for a product that will meet Dublin's standards, and a plan which will be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Endorsements have been included. A support letter from Ohio Health indicates this project would produce $8-11 million/year for them. There is also a letter from OSU. Because Erickson Communities has a very collaborative relationship with universities in the communities in which they are located, OSU views this development as an asset. Last year, the owner of the Erickson Communities Company was named, "Outstanding Philanthropist of the Year" by the State of Maryland where he resides. The company is very involved in communities. They anticipate setting up scholarship funds for local graduating high school seniors and contributing funds for other philanthropic community causes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the residents of this facility are required to designate Erickson as the beneficiary of their assets. Mr. Hale responded that is not required. They are required to make a deposit and then to pay a monthly fee. Erickson can draw from the deposit, if necessary. They are also required to provide and maintain a net worth statement indicating a net worth of at least RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minute of ~ Meeting DAVTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 13 Held 20 1-1/2 times that deposit. The individual's estate goes to the heirs and the heirs must pay the appropriate inheritance tax. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the programs and profile of those whom Erickson serves. It is similar to other Central Ohio care facilities? Joe Hartsel, Director of Community Affairs, Erickson Retirement Communities responded that they are very similar to the other Dublin retirement care communities. It is based on the concept of a continuing care retirement community. Approximately 85 percent of the residents are in independent living apartments. If their health needs change, assisted living and skilled nursing are available within the campus. Home health could also serve them in their residences to help them remain independent as long as possible. They are programmatically very similar, but a few business model structures are different. Their entrance deposit is refundable 100 percent back to the estate. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired the average age of the resident. Mr. Hartsel responded that the community is limited to seniors age 62 and older, but the average age at move-in is 78. Mr. Keenan inquired if these models are life estates. How are the property titles held - are they deeded or leased? Mr. Hartsel responded that the properties are leased under a life care contract. The applicants sign a residence and care agreement, which includes a disclosure of their assets. The entrance deposit stays with Erickson. Mr. Keenan inquired who has the tax liability for property taxes. Mr. Hartsel responded Erickson pays the property tax, not the individuals. Mr. Keenan noted there has been some discussion regarding the formation of a 501 c3. Mr. Hartsel responded that Erickson is a developer and the manager of continuing care retirement communities. Should Erickson be permitted to develop in Dublin, they would establish a 501 c3, non-profit community, and that is the party with whom the residents would contract. Erickson as afor-profit developer would carry the development risk and pay the property taxes. This allows a benevolent care fund to be established through the non-profit, which provides the life care, should a resident's funds be depleted. Being anon-profit organization allows Erickson to raise money for that purpose. Mr. Keenan inquired how the corporate tax issue is addressed. In the transition from one model to a Commercial Activity Tax (CAT), where does this business fall? Ms. Grigsby responded that, currently, it is uncertain what implication the CAT tax would have on businesses. The company would be required to file, and, most likely, the tax that will be eliminated is the personal property tax. Although some property tax would normally have been paid, the vast majority of their taxes relate to the actual real estate and the construction of the facilities. Mr. Keenan commented in regard to the business portion that is transitioning from personal property equipment to run the business to the CAT tax. Ina 501 c3, there would be no revenue on the corporate side. Ms. Grigsby responded that in Erickson's case, the for-profit company would be the owner of the property. The individual residents would contract with the non-profit organization. Mr. Keenan inquired if Erickson would continue to own the property for the build-out period of 20-30 years? Mr. Hartsel responded that each situation can be different, but typically, they lease it out to the non-profit organization. They have an option to buy at a certain point in the development, generally when they feel comfortable that the project is going forward and is sustainable. Most of their projects have chosen to exercise the option to buy out Erickson at that point and enter into a management arrangement from that point forward. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the non-profit has different regulations concerning payments. In regard to real estate taxes, Ms. Grigsby noted that determination is made entirely by the county auditor's office. If anon-profit business is doing for-profit business, it will still be taxable for purposes of real estate taxes. They discussed the issue with Franklin RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minute of ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 14 Held 20 County of whether the business could be exempt or have a partial exemption. It was the county's opinion that would be a very difficult status to achieve. It is based upon the rates that are charged. In the County's review, they consider whether some of the low income guidelines are being met. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that on page III-1 of the Danter report, #3 -City of Dublin Income Tax Revenue, the projection seems to be heavily dependent upon estate tax. In recent years, there has been significant discussion regarding repeal of the estate tax. If that were to occur, it would dramatically reduce the projected tax revenue for the City. Mr. Hale responded that this is the state estate tax, not federal. Sixty-five percent of this income comes to the City. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the state legislature has also discussed repeal of the estate tax. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that when considering the longevity of income tax versus estate tax, he would rely upon income tax being sustained over the long term, versus the estate tax -even if it is the State of Ohio estate tax. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that if the estate tax were to be eliminated, instead of $3.2 million, the City would have $693,000. Peter DiSalvo, The Danter Comgany responded that argument can be made regarding estate taxes. The elimination of the estate tax has been discussed for some time, and the outcome is uncertain. However, there are similar uncertainties with other types of development. There could be a swing in the economy. Many vacancies in the office market would occur and the income tax revenues would not continue. Mr. McCash responded that the hope or expectation would be the economy would eventually rebound. Should the estate tax be eliminated, however, it simply goes away. Ms. Grigsby noted it is a fair statement that this is subject to State control, and if the State were to change the estate tax, the City would be impacted. However, no legislation is currently under consideration. Mr. McCash noted that the City has some existing assisted living facilities within its boundaries. How much estate tax is Dublin currently receiving? Ms. Grigsby responded that last year, Dublin collected about $725,000 in estate tax. In 2005, the City collected over $1.1 million, the highest to date. So, taking a conservative approach, the City currently collects from $500,000-$700,000 per year. Mr. McCash inquired how many senior citizens live in Dublin. Ms. Grigsby responded that she believes the information was included in the BDO materials at the end of the report. Considerable discussion occurred regarding this issue, and staff challenged the numbers used by Erickson. The majority of their residents are in independent living situations. Based upon their past history at other facilities, staff concluded that the numbers provided were valid assumptions. Mr. Keenan asked for clarification about any homestead exemption. Because this is a contract and not an ownership issue, would there be any issues of homestead exemption the City would need to address? Ms. Grigsby responded that with regard to property taxes, there would not be. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that as Vice Mayor Lecklider pointed out, the issue is really one of location, not whether such a facility would be a beneficial addition to the community over the long term. However, the information provided to Council is based upon the current laws of Ohio, not on speculation. On that basis, the economic analysis provided indicates that the Erickson development would compare competitively with any other type of development on that site. Looking forward, has an Erickson community ever closed or been converted into a different type of development? The proposed building is very large. What would occur if it were abandoned property? Mr. Hartsel responded that in their 20 years of operation, they have never had a community close. Over time, all the communities have grown to be quite successful with long waiting lists equal to the number of residents living in the retirement communities. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if they have all remained Erickson non-profit facilities. Mr. Hartsel responded that all of the communities that have reached the development stage where the non-profit entity has the opportunity to do this have exercised that RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 15 Held 20 option. Therefore, they now enjoy the opportunity to retain the money locally, rather than forwarding it to afor-profit developer. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that at that point, they actually would become a different entity, no longer affiliated with Erickson. Mr. Hartsel confirmed that is correct. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if that is the ultimate goal of the company. Mr. Hartsel responded affirmatively. It allows the Erickson developer to move on to develop another community. There are many other areas in need of type of this type of lifestyle community. In regard to the Central Ohio Innovation Center, they have begun to have conversations with the Planning Commission. They look forward to further discussion of their belief that this would be a good relationship in that park in view of their own initiatives regarding research and technology. Mr. Hale noted that when Jay Smith was before Council previously and addressed the issue, he expressed the opinion that the Erickson development would be appropriate within the COIC. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that information provided indicates the average assets of an Erickson community resident are approximately $500,000. For the economic viability of Erickson, the elimination of the inheritance tax is a considerable element, perhaps to some extent, a moral issue. However, he assumes that the residents join the community with their "eyes open" and willingly commit their assets to this project, instead of something else. In the cover letter, second paragraph, second from last line, it states, "Given the realities of an overbuilt market [in Dublin], and stalled enterprises, the Erickson Community is immediately and forever more beneficial to the City of Dublin than the other enterprises which were zoned." Another sentence states, "The projected absorption rates assume no substantial changes in the prevailing economic conditions." Not even the top economists can make projections regarding the future economy. However, the project looks remarkable. The interconnection between the medical advances at Erickson with advances at OSU and medical enterprises around the world is indisputable. Gloria Fauss, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) stated she is the local director of SEIU. They sent a letter in opposition to this development. They represent about 13,000 long-term caregivers in Ohio and 600,000 caregivers throughout the USA. One of their goals is quality, long-term care in these facilities for seniors. They firmly believe that to accomplish that they need to provide good jobs and good working conditions for the caregivers themselves. Erickson does not do that. The average salary for an Erickson worker is $22,000 -the lower 10 percent of the Dublin income bracket. What she came to address tonight, however, is the fiscal impact statement. She has not seen the revised document, but she still would like to address the very bad assumption that was made in the first version. She did not really grasp how that was addressed in the quick explanation at the beginning of this presentation. The first document assumed that all the residents of this facility would pay the 2 percent Dublin income tax, and that is a false assumption. In fact, retirees' Social Security, pensions, 401 K plans and dividend income are not taxed and would bring no revenue to Dublin. That assumption represented $1.5 million in their revenue projections. Under that scenario, the other developments brought in more revenue to Dublin. Somewhere, they have managed to find another $1.5 million to replace that figure in the revised report. Their organization has been following the Erickson Communities for a year. City Council asked some excellent questions tonight, but she did not hear those questions answered _ satisfactorily. They avoided explaining the structure of the organization and how they use the non-profit structure. Often the officers of the non-profit and the officers of the for-profit structures are exactly the same, and the non-profit pays huge management fees to the for-profit side. This calls for more investigation into their practices. One of the benefits of their arrangement, of course, is that non-profits can issue tax-exempt bonds. This is probably one of the reasons for that arrangement. Erickson has also been cited for patient care violations in many states. Another city in Ohio, West Orange, recently turned down an Erickson Community proposal for their city after pursuing due diligence in investigation of the company. SEIU has conducted much research on this company because they have caregivers who work in their facilities. They care very much about these workers and their ability to provide quality care to long-term residents. They would like to share that research with City Council. She hopes Council continues to ask many questions before bringing this group to the Dublin community. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M' f Meetin DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 16 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if a representative of the Erickson Community would like to respond to the issues Ms. Fauss has raised. Mr. Hale responded that Erickson has full and part-time employees. The full-time employees are paid in the mid to high $30,000 range. The $22,000 figure may be the average if the part-time salaries are included in the calculation. He has had a lot of experience with caregivers over the past 25 years, and the jobs are stressful with high turnover. Due to that fact, he asked certain questions, particularly about their insurance. Erickson's health insurance is well in excess of what their industry standard is. Their employee retention rate is very high, and the employees would not stay if it were a bad place to work. He understands that SEIU wants to organize this employee group. However, the reality is that Erickson employees are paid fairly in terms of that industry, they have good benefits and there is a high retention rate. They will be happy to share those figures with the City. Mr. McCash stated he understands that the report has been modified based upon corrected information. Is there a copy of that original report included? Ms. Grigsby responded the copy provided to Council in the packet is the updated report. Staff has retained copies of the original report. Subsequent to Council's request for the financial impact study, staff has met with Erickson and with Danter to ensure they understood what information was needed. When staff reviewed the original report, dated May 5, there was an error. The updated report shows the estimated amount of income tax dollars generated from the residents at a little over $100,000 -changed from the $1.5 million in the original report. There was also an error in the original report that benefited the property tax projections for the multi-story. That has also been corrected. Council has a copy of the most current report available. Mr. McCash stated that he is interested in the comment made by Ms. Fauss concerning how Erickson made up the $1.5 million projection included in the original report. How was the estate tax projection recalculated? Ms. Grigsby responded that the estate tax was modified up slightly -from $2,235,000 to $2,522,000. That number was reviewed by City staff, and based upon the information from other Erickson Communities, that number was adjusted upward. There was an approximately $300,000 increase in that area and a $1.4 million decrease in the income tax revenue. Mr. McCash stated that in the cover letter dated May 22, 2006, there is a statement that says: "Regarding OSU, Erickson has reached out to pilot an agreement that would forge the two institutions in a long-term binding relationship that would include shared staff positions, research funding partnerships,..." etc. Is there anticipation that some individuals would be employees of both OSU and Erickson -that additional jobs would actually not be created? Mr. Hartsel responded that issue is currently in negotiation with OSU. That specific position would be the person who would be the program director of this partnership i relationship between Erickson and OSU. Therefore, it is an additional position; it is not a position in existence in any other Erickson community. This position would oversee the ~ planning and development of this project with all the synergies and programming possibilities. Mr. McCash inquired if it would be possible for as many as one third of the Erickson employees to be employees of The Ohio State University. Mr. Hale noted that in the back of the report, there is information regarding who the ' employees are and what jobs they would perform. Mr. McCash stated that he reviewed the list, and he is interested in knowing if this project is expected to bring 1,300 additional jobs to the community or a net of 800 jobs. The way this is structured, it appears there would be a sharing. Mr. Hartsel responded the projection is for 800 full-time employees, but that is consistent with all the Erickson Communities. It is proposed there would be additional part-time employees who may be students or interns. Mr. McCash stated that he remains concerned about the estate tax issue. People in general take whatever measures possible to avoid taxing. Some potential residents might set up their assets in a trust. Mr. Hartsel responded that their interests align with the City's. They have been vigilant in trying to prevent people from shifting their assets by requiring they sign an agreement. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~QQi~ Meeting DAVTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 17 Held 20 The business model for this project depends upon residents not shifting assets. Mr. McCash inquired how Erickson can prevent someone from establishing a trust that is for their benefit that provides for their care, including paying Erickson Community. Why would someone take $200,000 and not have an estate set up for the other $300,000? Erickson is basing all of this on a $500,000 model generating $23,000 in estate taxes. In reality, if the only item not in the estate was the $200,000 deposit, that is the basis on which estate taxes are paid. Mr. Hartsel responded that the expectation is that most of the residents would disclose all of their assets. In reality, there is nothing that would prevent anyone in the Dublin community from doing the same. If Council would like further information, however, he can have their attorneys forward a response. Mr. McCash acknowledged that this is correct. But the financial projections for the Erickson project rely heavily on estate taxes to make this compare as a profitable venture against other possible developments. Mr. Hale responded that the most recent census statistics indicate that Dublin has many residents between the ages of 35 and 65 -heads of household collecting $500,000 to $1 million a year. Not everyone shields their estates from taxes. In this case, the residents are required to sign an agreement to provide proof of assets at a level of 1.5 times their deposit. Mr. McCash inquired if a lifetime care contract could be held by a trust. Mr. Hartsel responded that they would obtain that information. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the decision before Council is whether, based on the fiscal impact report, Council is willing to forward this to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the review to proceed in the customary manner. Mrs. Boring inquired what that action would convey to the Planning Commission. Can the Commission take the analysis as the basis for considering the rezoning? Exactly what message would Council be conveying with moving this along to P&Z? Mr. Smith responded that is a policy decision Council can make. P&Z has been waiting for direction from Council. Should Council decide to accept the report and refer the i project to Planning and Zoning Commission for their standard review, the understanding ~ would likely be that Council has made the decision that they are satisfied with the financial aspects of the proposal. The Planning Commission would need only to complete their usual review. Ms. Salay stated that the statement has been made that the real issue is with the location of the project. Obviously, this is a project that the Council is interested in for the community, but is this the right location? She has not heard a resounding response to this question. With this information, Is it staff's recommendation that the project go forward at the proposed location? Is the Finance Director comfortable that is the best decision? Has staff reviewed other locations in the community where this project might be more appropriately located? Ms. Brautigam responded that staff has not conducted an analysis of possible locations. This recommendation addresses whether or not Erickson can provide the same, worse, or better economics at this particular location for the community. Staff is not recommending whether this is the right or wrong location for Erickson. This fiscal impact study demonstrates only that Erickson would be of viable economic benefit to the community. In the Planning and Zoning process, the location question would be addressed. Her view is that the Planning Commission, working with staff and Erickson, would be the body who makes that recommendation to City Council. Mr. Keenan inquired if Erickson is firm on this location. Mr. Hale responded that Erickson has this site in contract, so it is where they want to locate. They have taken into consideration the location of the OSU facilities and Dublin Methodist Hospital and determined this would be an excellent location. If their application is rejected, they will look elsewhere. Whether it is in Dublin is not guaranteed. They will look for the best opportunity that fits their needs. Mr. Keenan stated that he likes the concept and the business model, and with the demographics of Dublin, there will be a need for the development. For him, the question is whether this is the appropriate site. He recalls that the subject site is somewhat RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 18 Held 20 irregular and might not lend itself to another type of development. Mr. Phillabaum responded that the site is bisected by a significant creek. There is frontage on Shier Rings Road, US 33 and Eiterman Road, and there are some setback issues. He agreed there are some challenges with this site that would have to be addressed with any proposed use. Mr. Keenan inquired if the site would be more problematic for an office use or some other type of research and development than it would be for the retirement community concept. Mr. Phillabaum responded that he would not expect so. There is access to Eiterman Road and lot frontage on Shier Rings Road. Any office use would do well in this location. Mr. Keenan commented he would support forwarding this proposal to the Planning Commission for their recommendation regarding the land use at this location. Mr. Reiner stated that if Council forwards this matter to the Planning Commission, the Commission will review it as a site specific project. They will not review the location as a variable. He asked what specific multi-story office model - 2, 3 or 4 stories - was used in the financial comparisons. Ms. Grigsby stated that there was much staff debate on what assumptions to use for the comparisons. The question was what level of density would be permitted on this site. Therefore, athree-story multi-story already in existence was used as the model. They also compared a medical building and an office condo development. She pointed out that the information is only as valid as the assumptions, and the assumptions are all subject to change -including the type of office assumptions. Whether P&Z and Council would approve 9,500 square feet of office per acre was debatable. Mrs. Boring noted that 9,500 square feet of office would require a certain amount of parking. The existing stream and the setback requirements are factors that impose limitations on the amount of density that could be permitted on the site. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff evaluated the immediate surrounding area to determine if the 8,500 or 9,500 square feet of office use would fit on that particular site. As Mr. Phillabaum indicated, it is feasible. However, whether Council would approve it would be questionable in view of the existing uses in the area -namely, the Ballantrae subdivision, the Service Complex, the school bus depot and other uses. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher referred to Mr. Refiner's point that P&Z would review this proposal as a site specific application. She would prefer to clarify to P&Z that Council is not conveying a message that they are to automatically approve the rezoning. Ms. Brautigam responded that Council's direction in transmitting this to the Commission would be only that this proposal on this site makes economic sense, i.e., that it is not so economically inappropriate that the City cannot consider it. This merely opens the door for Planning and Zoning's consideration. Erickson must then demonstrate to the City that this site is an appropriate location, that this site should be zoned as they request and that they can meet the City's standards. They must provide Planning and Zoning Commission with the all of the information that a Planning and Zoning review normally requires. Mr. Reiner responded that Planning Commission review considers an application specifically for a proposed site. Mr. Hale stated that Erickson analyzed and scored 16 different sites. This site scored highest. If Dublin rejects their application, they will conduct that process again. Mr. Reiner stated that he understands Erickson's perspective. However, Council members are struggling with the realization that this site has many potential uses. It has great access and great visibility and could accommodate Class A office development. In addition, the Erickson Community concept could be utilized in another area. Mr. Hale responded that the Cardinal Health site was zoned in 1981. The zoning existed for 20 years without a single call of inquiry. He represented John McKitrick, property owner during the entire time. The Dublin Methodist hospital property was also zoned in the 80's and sat vacant for 20 years. It is rare to secure a big user for a property and they generally have many options for sites. Ruscilli has property with US RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Mi f Meetin DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC_ FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 19 Held 20 33 access that is still vacant. So, another way to evaluate this is that if the property remains undeveloped for 25 years, the City loses money. This use would begin to bring money in for the City immediately. The 25-year scenario shows that this use would generate $65 million for the community. Dublin has been very fortunate; nevertheless, Dublin is now in a competitive environment. Sewer and water will soon be extended into Jerome Township, opening up a significant amount of US 33 frontage in Jerome Township. Upper Albany and Westerville are also viable locations for this company as well as other companies. Erickson is offering a strong economic package for Dublin, and they would like the opportunity to convince the Planning Commission that this is a desirable and appropriate location for their use. Mr. McCash stated that because Erickson's economic projections are based on the estate tax, he continues to have questions about the report. Page III-4 of the report refers to a chart containing morbidity rates from other Erickson Communities, which is located in the addendum. Where is that document? Mr. Phillabaum responded that it is the bar graph located just before page 32 of the BDO competitive analysis. Mr. Hartsel responded they do not base their economic projections on morbidity reports but on census reports. They track the population of the communities and make projections on the number of units needed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Mr. McCash is indicating he is not prepared to vote tonight on this matter, and that he has a list of questions he would like to have answered before voting. Mr. McCash responded affirmatively. Typically, evaluation of a potential business development involves income tax projections something that will exist or not exist, depending upon the number of jobs created. The Erickson proposal, absent the estate tax, generates less than $1 million. If Council is viewing this in the context of an economic development proposal, he would like to know more about the estate tax - namely, if it is possible to avoid it by means of trusts or other methods, to determine if this factor should be discounted back. The business may be needed in the community, but from Council's standpoint, is this something the City desires at this particular location? Is there another area in the COIC campus designated as a third or fourth tier office or medical site that would make more sense for this use? Mrs. Boring inquired if the subject site is considered Class A office, in view of the uses ~ across the street and the infrastructure. Mr. Phillabaum responded that staff did not evaluate it on the basis that Class A office would locate on the site, but from the standpoint of the adjacent uses and the fact there are existing industrial uses at the interchange -the Service Complex, school bus depot, etc. Mr. Keenan inquired about the possibility of a hotel locating on this site. The DCVB representative indicated earlier tonight that the community has a need for another hotel. Based on tonight's discussion, he does not believe that Council is comfortable with the location proposed for the Erickson development. There may or may not be other alternative uses better suited for the site. ~ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that Mr. McCash raises a legitimate issue. Because the economic projections are entirely dependent upon the estate tax, the numbers need more back-up to justify them. If the estate tax is eliminated, or a large proportion thereof removed from the equation, the projected income would be only $690,000. That is substantially less revenue than could be generated by another use. Although a number of state governments have discussed eliminating the estate tax in the past, there is more likelihood that could happen in the next 24 to 48 months. The largest population group in the nation is moving into the retirement years, and this group has a significant interest in not having an estate tax. Because they are the largest population group, they will have the political clout needed to have the estate laws changed at both the state and federal level. She would need to have specific detail in regard to these projections. Mr. McCash stated that if Council forwards this proposal to the Planning Commission, he is not sure how to avoid conveying a message that Council has no objections to this development on this site. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 20 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the motion would clarify that Council believes the financial impact analysis substantiates the argument that this type of development on this site would be economically appropriate long term for this site. Mr. McCash inquired if the Danter Company could aggregate any data on this supposition. The report is based upon the standard office absorption rates that the City is currently experiencing. However, the hospital will soon be opening in that area, as well as the Central Ohio Innovation Center. Both can be expected to create a greater demand for offices to be located nearby. If an increase in demand for office space in this area is anticipated, it would be preferable for the City not to have removed this important freeway frontage site. Mr. Hale responded that OSU's expectation is that those offices will locate on their property. That is one of the reasons OSU wanted more land than needed. However, the improvements to the infrastructure that Dublin will be implementing will create a more competitive marketplace in that area than currently exists - similar to the improvements that Westerville made to the Polaris intersection which attracted more businesses. Mr. McCash stated that if an increase in office absorption rates in this area will occur, there would be a need for more office sites. Mr. Hale responded that there are many other alternative sites. In this case, there is already a business interested in this site, which would begin producing revenues. Erickson would be happy to provide morbidity data relative to their other facilities as an indication of current trends. He is not aware of any proposed legislation to eliminate the estate tax, although they can research this as well. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council needs to decide whether more information is needed to make a decision or if they will make a decision at this time that would provide direction for the Erickson Communities and for City staff. If Council is not satisfied with the data in the fiscal impact analysis that has been received, then Council needs to ask for additional information. If Council can accept that report as submitted, then a vote needs to occur. Mrs. Boring stated that although Mr. Hale has made a good point in regard to the loss of income on sites vacant over the long term, she is disappointed in the total annual income projections of the Erickson proposal for this site. It is a matter of a "bird in hand" versus speculation about the future potential. Mr. McCash stated that he is having difficulty crafting the language for the motion in keeping with tonight's discussion. What exactly would Council be accepting with such a motion -that the Erickson business model brings in $3.2 million wherever it is located? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the study referred to this location only. Mrs. Boring stated that one of the concerns of the Planning Commission was that if the land use is changed, would the City lose economic viability. If Council approves the report, they will be essentially communicating to staff not to focus on that element -that they need only to determine if the land use is appropriate for this site. There would be no need to address the economic issue in their recommendation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the location is important for the other uses, not so much for this project. Erickson will have the same fiscal impact wherever it is located. However, comparison of that revenue to the income from other potential uses on this site is the key issue. Mrs. Boring moved to adopt the report and send the Erickson proposal on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Mr. Keenan stated that he is concerned about an affirmative vote due to the impact of the surrounding uses on this site, but he is interested in reviewing the input from the Planning Commission regarding this proposal. Mr. Reiner noted that he also has concerns related to the economic viability of this development on this site. The economic implications are not the purview of the Planning Commission, but he, too, is interested in the Planning Commission's reaction to this RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ ~~~a~ ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 21 Held 20 proposal. Ms. Salay concurred, noting that although this site is not a perfect office site, the existence of the hospital and COIC will impact the site. She would like to have additional information on the potential spin-off businesses from this development and whether there is any additional development that would result from the presence of Erickson on this site. Mr. McCash requested additional information regarding the estate tax issue. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, no. • Historic Dublin Revitalization -Bridge and High Streets Redevelopment Proposals Ms. Ott presented the two proposals received for the Bridge and High Street redevelopment project. Council has received staffs recommendation of the preferred developer for the redevelopment project of the City-owned land at the northwest corner of Bridge and High Streets. The City owns three of the four parcels on that corner, totaling approximately 3/4 acre. The parcel in the northwest corner is privately owned with a tenant in the one-story structure. The City will close later this month on the purchase of the property at 35 Darby Street. It is anticipated that site would be used to provide parking for the redeveloped area, and the development teams were asked to include parking plans for that location. The redevelopment project is based upon Council's goals, the 1997 Community Plan, and the draft Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan. Redevelopment of this site is envisioned to increase visitors to Historic Dublin. A public-private partnership would create amixed-use space containing a building to be utilized for economic development opportunities and an outdoor public space. The redevelopment, which must blend with the surrounding historic area environment, would create a community destination point. Two RFP's were received -one from Pizzuti in partnership with Pat Grabill & Company, and one from Bird-Houk in partnership with The Stonehenge Company. Ms. Ott reviewed the features of both concept plans. She noted that Stonehenge Company also included an additional parking plan for 37 Darby Street that would provide parking for the Historic District. That parcel is privately owned at the present time. To date, there have been three opportunities for public review of the two proposals. Ms. Grigsby reviewed the financials of the proposals. She noted there are many issues yet to be addressed, which will be negotiated as part of the development agreement for this site. A straight tax increment financing (TIF) district would be established on the site, similar to some other recent projects in the Historic District. The service payments generated from the development would be utilized to reimburse the City for the public infrastructure improvements to be constructed on the site as well as well as additional parking in the area. A projected market value of $100 per square foot to be assigned by the Franklin County Auditor for the private improvements would generate annual service payments in the amount of $63,239 from the proposed Pizzuti development and the amount of $75,253 for the proposed Stonehenge development. The estimated annual payments are based on a proposed buildout of 23,550 square feet for Pizzuti and 28,000 square feet for Stonehenge. Using the estimated costs in the Stonehenge proposal for comparison purposes, the City's reimbursement period for the two proposals would be 8.1 years for the Pizzuti project and 5.7 years for the Stonehenge project. Ms. Ott stated that after extensive review of the plans, staff's recommendation is the proposal from the Stonehenge Company. This recommendation is based upon the fact that the conceptual plan provides a good balance between the public and private use and best meets the vision and objectives set forth at the beginning of this process; it includes a strong financial plan; and the assembly of additional land is beneficial to this project and to the Historic District. Staff requests Council's approval of staffs recommendation and direction to move forward on negotiating real estate purchases and a development agreement that would be brought back to Council for approval. During the development process, the City will seek input from the neighboring land owners and businesses regarding issues they might have with any major activity on the site. Stonehenge Company will be advised to pursue the necessary approvals with the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 22 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the tenants of the building adjacent to this site are the owners of the building. Ms. Ott responded that they are not. Staff has spoken with the owner of the adjacent property about her views of the anticipated surrounding development. She is interested in being involved in any effort that would improve the value of that parcel. Whether she will retain ownership and participate in the project has yet to be determined. Mo Dioun, Stonehenge Company stated that the two key elements that make this project feasible are the 24 and 37 Darby Street parcels. Much needed parking will be provided at 37 Darby Street, and 24 Darby Street provides along-term tenant. Jack Eggspuehler is the current owner of 37 Darby Street, and he has agreed to negotiate a purchase agreement so that parcel can be included in this project. Mr. Eggspuehler also has in place a 30-year lease, 25 years of which are remaining, of 24 Darby Street with Ms. Thelma Hill. Ms. Hill has traveled from Florida to attend this hearing. That space is currently leased to a viable business called "Modern Male," run by the Kozacs. Ms. Hill has committed to work towards a plan that will also serve to increase the value of her property. Stonehenge has also made a commitment to Ms Hill, which he wishes to have on the record. At this point, Stonehenge has submitted a conceptual design. However, as the process moves toward final design, they will be sensitive to the financial issues related to Ms. Hill's property and the Modern Male business. Stonehenge has made a commitment to keep them informed and they will be included in the process. Ms. Hill is present tonight and can attest to that commitment. Mr. Dioun noted that he has not met with Ms. Hill personally. Mr. Eggspuehler has handled the communications with Ms. Hill regarding this matter as he owns 37 Darby Street and has the controlling interest. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that it does appear that both parcels are critical to maximize the development of this site and to address the long-term goals of City Council for the Historic District, including economic vitality and parking needs. Mr. Dioun confirmed that should Council provide authorization tonight to proceed with this project, 37 Darby Street will be under development immediately, along with 35 Darby Street. However, they do not know exactly when 35 Darby will be available for initiation of the project. As far as 24 Darby Street, there is a commitment between Ms. Hill and Mr. Dioun to come to a mutually agreeable decision. The timing of any development of 24 Darby Street will be determined by Ms. Hill and the owners of the Modern Male business. Some suggestions for that site have been included with the Stonehenge Company proposal. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she has also had a brief discussion with the owner of Grandma's Fruitcakes concerning the fact that their busiest time of the year begins in 60 days. It does not appear there should be a timing issue with the schedule for this project. Thelma Hill stated that she currently resides in Florida. She was not aware of this development project until last week. She noted that she was quite distressed when she read the comments in the newspapers. She immediately contacted Mr. Eggspuehler for information. However, after meeting with Mr. Eggspuehler and Mr. Dioun tonight she is very much encouraged. She believes that Mr. Dioun will keep her interests at heart. Jack Eggspuehler, 7051 Coffman Road stated that he has known Ms. Hill for many years. A few years ago, there was a need to invest in the property to make much- needed improvements. As he did not wish to make the improvements for ashort-term lease, Ms. Hill agreed to a 30-year lease. He had not yet informed Ms. Hill of the proposed development for the adjoining site, as it had not evolved to the point where it would impact her. He was also involved with some personal matters at the time. For the record, he wishes to clarify that he would protect Ms. Hill's interests in every way. David Garcia, 109 S. Riverview Street stated that he attended the meeting regarding this development last month. In general, he is very supportive of the revitalization proposed for the Historic District. He does have one question: does staff have a comparison of the amount of open space available for public use for the two proposals? Ms. Ott responded that the site is approximately .75 acres. The Pizzuti proposal estimates .4 acres would remain for public space. Because the building footprint is smaller, the Stonehenge proposal would have more area remaining for open space. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of n..~inrCltyzvziir,,:~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 23 Held 20 Mr. Garcia stated that both proposals seem to meet some of the goals and would contribute to the revitalization of the area. However, the stated goal for the entire project is to create an anchor and something that is uniquely Dublin. So, the question should be asked: How is the project identifiable as Dublin? One feature in particular does not appear like Dublin, Ohio the clock tower. It is attractive and a great architectural feature that is reminiscent of northern Italy. Is it possible to consider a different type of clock tower that might have been used in the mid- 1800's in this portion of the country? Is there any way in which to incorporate the history of the entire district through some feature, such as a timeline around a fountain or oversized pavers on a sidewalk? The elementary students often tour the Historic District to learn about Dublin's history. Many adults aren't aware of its history, either, and they should know the significance of the Sells, Coffman or Pinney families. This would be a great place to begin a walking tour. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Garcia for the excellent suggestions and asked Mr. Dioun to take them into consideration. Clay Bryan, 84 S. Riverview stated his request may be too late. There was only one public hearing on this development project. Most of the District residents anticipated there would be another meeting. While it is admirable that the meeting notice was posted on the web, that is not the way most of these people obtain information. Nor do they attend Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. There have been significant changes in the proposals subsequent to the initial presentation. He has the impression that community input is not driving the decision as much as the numbers and the scoring. One of the major items of contention on the earlier plan submitted by Grabill was that it would block the intersection visually. The Stonehenge plan appears to bring things in closer to the intersection. Although one plan has less square footage in the building footprint, it does not result in more usable open space because more square footage is taken by turn-in parking or dropping off zones. He does not want to offer an opinion on either plan, but he would like to suggest that the vote be delayed until the next Council meeting. This would provide the opportunity for a second public meeting where the community could view the revised proposals. So far, the community has had the opportunity to view only the original submissions. There has been no public input regarding the architecture, the site or other aspects. The community has waited a long time for something to happen on this site. It appears that something will now happen and it is exciting. However, it is moving faster than most expected. Unfortunately, in the process, many people have felt left out. He has spoken with many recently who were unaware a proposal was close to being finalized. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a good number of individuals attended the May 24th meeting at which the final proposals were presented, which included public input from the first public meeting. In addition, the City has received email comments from citizens who have viewed the proposals online. Tonight, Council does want to make a decision to move the process forward, not to finalize the plans. If staff's recommendation for the preferred proposal is accepted tonight, there will still be the opportunity for another public meeting to view the proposal and for the public to forward suggestions/comments to the City. All of that would occur before the plan would be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that he did not have the opportunity to attend any public meetings on this issue, but he did very thoroughly read tonight's materials. He asked how the Stonehenge Company came by its name. Mr. Dioun responded to previous comments. Regarding the clock towers, his company will work with staff and the Architectural Review Board on that issue. Concerning the open areas, the footprint of the buildings is approximately 10,000 square feet; and there is 31,000 square feet of open space 2/3 of the site. The name of his company was suggested to him by a friend in 1987, when he was building his first house to sell. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited Council comments. Mr. Reiner stated that the staff report is very comprehensive and he is satisfied with the analysis. Mr. McCash stated that the RFP process has added value to the project. He is pleased RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minute of ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 24 Held Zp with what Council has been presented so far. Mrs. Boring stated that she has received inquiries from residents regarding the amount of "tweaking" to the proposal that will be permitted. The proposed development does block the view shed into the area. Ms. Ott responded that the bell tower will be a point of discussion. The Planning Commission review will resolve some issues. Staff does believe there is value in maintaining a view shed from the corner into the public space. Mr. Keenan commented favorably on the flexibility of the plan in the manner in which it addresses the Modern Male; the fact that the public plaza is not immediately adjacent to the street; and the connectivity of Wings Hill to a potentially developable site down on the river. Washington Township Trustee Gene Bostic mentioned that Washington Township might be interested in a much smaller firefighters' memorial on the site. There is an existing 9 -11 memorial at Station 93, which is a piece of steel that came from the New York Trade Center. One interesting fact is that Washington Township has several plaques from the old firehouse across the street from the '30's or `40's that contain many historically significant names to Dublin -Coffman, Sells, Eger and Termeer. Those items would lend themselves to this area as a historical focal point. The memorial does not need to be large, and Washington Township has indicated they would be willing to financially contribute to that project. He thanked Ms. Ott and staff for their work to date on the project. Ms. Salay also complimented Ms. Ott for her work on this project. She, too has heard comments similar to those shared earlier about the citizens who have felt a disconnect between what was presented at the public meeting and what is being presented tonight. There was a joint Council and Planning Commission meeting on May 24`h, which was a public meeting. It was scheduled to allow Council and Planning Commission to receive presentations by both of the developers who presented to the public at the DCRC earlier in May. Public comment was not taken at the May 24`h session. The first presentation revealed that the community is interested in the open space being open. Mr. Keenan noted that he likes the way the public space is protected from the traffic. By the same token, she would very much like to see the buildings set back further from the road. She strongly supports seeing the Modern Male building improved, which is suggested in this plan. She also has concerns about the clock or bell tower not being appropriate for the Dublin Historical District. Is it essential to this plan? The Pizzuti proposal handled the sloping site by terracing. How will the Stonehenge Company address it? She invited the public to attend the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board meetings. In these meetings, the final layout and architecture will be reviewed and public input will be appreciated. Mr. Lecklider stated that he appreciates everyone's hard work - Ms. Ott, City staff and Mr. Dioun. He likes the site layout with the courtyard effect. He has mixed feelings regarding the bell tower. Regarding Ms. Salay's suggestion to increase the building setbacks, he personally prefers preserving the public courtyard internally to the site. This is dissimilar to the present Town Center, where outdoor seating has been placed adjacent to S.R. 161. Conceptually, the Stonehenge plan appears to provide the opportunity for the seating to be placed within the courtyard. The site layout maximizes the opportunity for this particular corner as a gathering place. It has the potential to serve as an anchor for additional development on this side of the street and to the northwest. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agrees with Mr. Lecklider's comments concerning placement of the outdoor seating internally within the site. It is not necessary to duplicate the feature of one site on another site. Each of the four corners at Bridge and High streets should have something unique. Someone also commented to her about the bell tower, indicating that Dublin Community Church had just invested a significant amount of money refurbishing their bell in this same vicinity. She noted that the schematics always make a project appear larger than what is actually constructed. Council needs to be mindful of this in discussion of the placement of the buildings and the level of activity that could possibly occur during a community event. Some of the events that have been held on the site recently were severely limited by the site, i.e., the holiday tree lighting and the Arts Festival. In view of the space limitations, she would prefer to see something similar to the Easton development public plaza, such as a water play area for children, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting DAVTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 25 Held Zp remaining mindful of the pedestrian traffic, versus attempts to stage community events in this location. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification prior to framing a motion. The motion she proposes reflects voting approval of the plan reviewed tonight. Although there will be some tweaking, as has been noted, she does not anticipate anything substantially different than what has been presented to Council tonight. Ms. Ott agreed. Physical access points will require some tweaking, but she does not anticipate any rearrangement of the site design. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to accept the recommendation of staff for the Historic Dublin revitalization project and to authorize staff to move forward with negotiations with the Stonehenge group. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes, • MORPC Presentation - I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway Study Mr. Hammersmith stated this is the final presentation by the study group to conclude the three-year study of the I-270 and US 33 corridor. The focus tonight is a summary of the freeway and interchange findings and discussion of the strategic plan. The strategic plan outlines project priorities; identifies initial, intermediate and long-term projects; project sponsors; funding partnerships; and the next steps for projects and how they will advance through ODOT's system. He introduced Mandy Kisling, ODOT District 6 and Andy Wolpert, a member of the consultant study team. Mr. Wolpert presented the Strategic Plan for the Dublin portion of the study area. The concepts developed for the interchanges in the area were included in Council's packet. The preferred alternative has not been selected from these concepts. That will occur later as the project moves through the ODOT project development process. • The estimated costs of the concepts for the I-270/US 33 interchange improvements range from $90 to $125 million. This includes right-of-way acquisition, detailed design, engineering and construction costs. ODOT would pay 100 percent of the costs for this project. • The concepts for the Avery-Muirfield Drive interchange improvements range from $25 to $31 million, including right-of-way acquisition, detailed design, engineering and construction costs. This project is 50 percent paid by ODOT and 50 percent by Dublin, reflecting the current standards for service interchanges per ODOT policy. • The concepts for the US 33/Mitchell-DeWitt interchange range from $17 to $20 million, including right-of-way acquisition, detailed design, engineering and constructions costs. This project is to be funded 50 percent by ODOT and 50 percent by Union County. In the packet, there are three maps with initial, intermediate and long-term projects. Initial projects for 2006-2013 are the ones of the greatest priority at this time. Issues addressed are safety, congestion, development pace and funding constraints. Projects generally represent the local roadway improvements in this initial timeframe. For the intermediate projects, ODOT is more involved in these for 2014 to 2022. Long-term projects, from 2023 to 2030 represent the last freeway lane addition to I-270. The ODOT sponsored projects of interest to the City of Dublin are the initial projects of the widening of US 33 to the outside between Avery-Muirfield Drive and I-270. This provides an auxiliary lane between the two interchanges to allow for more free movement. Intermediate projects -the I-270/US 33 interchange is in this category. It has been developed in three distinct phases for funding availability. The first two phases are identified as intermediate projects. The Mitchell/DeWitt Road interchange has been identified also as an intermediate project. Other intermediate projects are US33/Avery- Muirfield Drive interchange; the widening of the US 33 corridor to the inside and outside on US 33; and the widening of the I-270 corridor to the outside. Long-term projects include the last phase of the I-270/33 interchange and the last portion of widening to 1- 270. The Dublin sponsored projects are included in the maps provided tonight. The Strategic Plan includes all of the projects involved in the Dublin CIP. The initial projects are included as well. The intermediate and long-term projects are also identified in Dublin's Thoroughfare Plan as are the secondary road system projects identified as necessary to help the freeway operations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 26 Held 20 Ms. Kisling commented that TRAC funds are generally committed through 2013. There is $3.4 billion statewide and $613 million for Central Ohio projects. Currently, inflationary increases of construction costs has caused some shifting of projects that already have committed funding. This will affect the TRAC funding dates, but a final release list has not been issued by ODOT. ODOT is supportive of the Strategic Plan and is moving r forward to prioritize projects and seek out funding sources. ODOT District 6 is currently identifying funding sources to move forward with project development basically preliminary engineering and environmental work. Mr. Wolpert displayed a graph showing the costs for each of the funding partners in the initial timeframe. All of these costs are in 2006 dollars as are the other interchange concept costs. In the initial timeframe, the local agencies have some costs associated with local freeway improvements. ODOT does not have as many costs in this timeframe. He added that the Post Road interchange improvements are also included in the local freeway improvement cost charts. Mr. Hammersmith clarified that the initial projects include those projects already identified in Dublin's five year capital plan, so many of these are local projects already programmed. Mr. Wolpert noted that for intermediate projects, the costs for ODOT significantly increase. The cost for local agencies remains in the $50 to $75 million range for the 2014 to 2022 timeframe. For long-term projects, ODOT has responsibility for the majority of costs associated with freeway widening; the City of Columbus has some costs associated with the Tuttle interchange; and there are some local road improvements which are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. He summarized that overall, for the entire study area, the study team has identified 84 projects of independent utility; the cost is approximately $1 billion in 2006 dollars. Of that $1 billion, ODOT has responsibility for approximately 50 percent of the costs and the responsibility for the remainder is shared among the local agencies. The majority of costs will occur in the intermediate timeframe. Most of the entities' five year plans have already been incorporated, and many of the intermediate costs are associated with interchange improvements. For the final steps of the study, they have submitted the conceptual alternatives report and comments have been received from staff. They will be finalizing this by the end of the month. They submitted a draft strategic plan for staffs review and will receive comments from them shortly. City staff and ODOT staff have been working together on this. In July, MORPC will present to their policy committee and adopt a strategic plan at that time. After the strategic plan is adopted, it is up to the local jurisdictions or ODOT -whoever is the sponsor of the project - to move the project forward in the development process. Ms. Brautigam suggested that Council review the documents describing the projects, many of which are very familiar to Council and are already identified in the five year CIP. Mr. Hammersmith added that Dublin has not yet developed its plans locally for ten years out. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked the study team for their presentation. • Request to Serve Alcohol in Historic Dublin for Children's Hospital Fundraiser on August 26, 2006 - Wendy's Championship for Children and Wendy's International ~ Ms. Puskarcik stated that Council has a request from Wendy's to serve alcohol in the Historic District for their LPGA fundraising event on Saturday, August 26. They traditionally hold a fundraiser on Saturday evening, and for the last several years they have held it at the Golf Club of Dublin. Because Dublin is a sponsor, they are committed to holding some of the events in Dublin. This year they are seeking a different site to add some variety to the event. They will partner with Craig Barnum to provide the food and the restaurant venues. There will also be an auction and street side music. Road closure would be necessary, as it would be considered part of the event venue. They request permission to serve beer and wine in the area of North High Street between Darby/North Street to just south of Wing Hill. The street would be closed in the vicinity of Tucci's and Oscar's to accommodate the event. Mrs. Boring stated she has two concerns. First, public space would be closed for an exclusive use. The price level of the tickets makes the event very exclusive as opposed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 27 Held 20 to a festival or street fair. Second, although the event is held for a worthy cause, and Dublin is fortunate to have such venues, there are many other beautiful sites where it potentially could be held. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the boundaries. Will any part of this event occur on City property, other than the right-of-way and streets? Ms. Puskarcik responded that it will not extend to the City owned greenspace at the northwest corner. The event sponsors anticipate only 400-500 people, so they do not need a large event venue. The site also includes the restaurants. Mr. Lecklider requested clarification of the designated site. Ms. Puskarcik responded that it would be the area north of Tucci's up to Darby Street. There will be a hard closure required at Bridge and High Street, so that traffic will not enter the area. Ms. Salay inquired if there were alternative rain plans. Ms. Puskarcik responded that is one of the reasons the restaurants are involved. There will also be tents in the area. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if the temporary fence would encircle the property on the northwest corner. Ms. Puskarcik responded that it would not. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if the street portions and the private property would be enclosed by a temporary fence. Ms. Puskarcik confirmed that is correct. She noted another liquor permit will be obtained to serve alcohol on the street area, and there will be different servers for that venue. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is concerned that Council is now being asked to approve an event to take place in 90 days, after much discussion has already occurred. Ms. Puskarcik responded that is not the case. Although it was necessary for them to work out the concept, the group's planning meeting will not occur until Wednesday of this week. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Council were to disapprove the road closing, would Wendy's still be able to hold the event? Ms. Puskarcik responded that would be an issue for them to discuss. Moving between the establishments would not be as easy if the road remains open. What is envisioned is a type of street party. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if traffic traveling west on SR 161 would be able to make a left turn at the alley next to the veterinarian practice, or would it also be closed because of no egress. Ms. Puskarcik responded that the alley would be open to the library. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked what hours the street would be closed. Ms. Puskarcik responded that the logistics have not been determined, but late afternoon is proposed. Appropriate notifications would be given. No businesses other than the restaurants would be impacted by the event. Mr. Reiner stated that this is a worthy cause, and he sees no conflict. He moved to approve the request. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, no; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, no. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner suggested that Council forego the roundtable discussion tonight, as there are several items scheduled for executive session discussion. Mr. McCash agreed. Mrs. Boring stated that she would like a staff follow-up regarding the tree waiver request for Lifetime Fitness. Vice Mayor Lecklider thanked City staff for their great effort last week during the Memorial Tournament. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 June 5, 2006 Page 28 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she, Mr. Keenan and Ms. Brautigam met to discuss the Dublin Arts Council funding issue. There has been much discussion regarding this over the past year, particularly regarding the Art in Public Places program. She requests that Council provide authorization for a meeting of the DAC Board President, DAC Executive Director, Mr. Keenan as the Council DAC representative, Ms. Brautigam and herself to meet and review the existing contract expectations, elements that need to be renegotiated and Council's future expectations. The contract expectation was that the 25 percent hotel/motel tax funding for DAC would contain the funding for the Art and Public Places program. She has reviewed this issue with Ms. Grigsby and learned that previously, DAC acknowledged this agreement and budgeted accordingly. For various reasons, however, this is not what has occurred recently, and the matter needs to be revisited. The City desires that the public art program continue. There may be a need to renegotiate the contract with the DAC. If the City's intent is that a portion of that 25 percent allocation be used for the public arts program, and perhaps a portion of funding for another public development, that amount needs to be set aside. It may be that the City will not distribute that portion, retaining it until the public art piece is scheduled for completion. There is also a need to discuss overlaps in arts programming by the City and the DAC and how they can complement one another. Mrs. Boring inquired if Ms. Grisgby would be included in the discussion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher confirmed that she would be invited as well. Mr. Keenan suggested that with Council's permission, he would bring up this issue at the DAC Board meeting tomorrow evening so that the Board can determine the appropriate DAC representatives to participate in this discussion. The consensus of Council was that Mr. Keenan bring this up to the DAC Board. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there was also a memo from Ms. Puskarcik in the packet regarding the expiration of the pilot cable program and future funding. Does this require a decision tonight? Ms. Puskarcik stated that the program is scheduled to end June 24. Before that date, Council would need to provide direction if they want to have continuous programming. The Council consensus was to have further discussion on June 19. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition, legal and personnel matters and noted that the meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 11:21 p.m. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 12:30 p.m. ayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council