Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2008RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 22, 2008 1 1 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Tuesday, January 22, 2008 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:10 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider Mr. Keenan and Mr. Gerber. Mr. Reiner was absent (excused). Vice Mayor Boring moved to adjourn to executive session for personnel matters (to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official.) Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. The meeting was reconvened at 7:05 p.m. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, and Ms. Salay. Mr. Reiner was absent (excused). Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Burns, Mr. Whittington, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Earmann, Ms. Ott, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik, and Ms. Husak. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Gerber led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of December 10, 2007 Mr. Keenan moved approval of the meeting minutes of December 10, 2007. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, abstain; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. • Regular Meeting of January 2, 2008 Mr. Gerber moved approval of the meeting minutes of January 2, 2008. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence requiring Council action. CITIZEN COMMENTS Carl Karrer. 6746 Heatherstone Looo noted that he is a board member of the Dublin Historical Society. He presented slides depicting the Dublin Village Pump, shared its history and how it became a landmark and a gathering place for the village and for those who traveled to and through Dublin. As part of the overall Bridge and High redevelopment project, the DHS encourages Council to recognize the significance of the town pump that once stood in the middle of this intersection. It was the first drilled well in Dublin, was 78 feet deep, and for many years, served those without their own water as well as clients of the inns, taverns and shops in Dublin. When automobiles came into existence, the pump was blocked with barricades. In 1925, the Ohio Department of Highways ruled the pump must be removed. After the removal of the pump, Bridge and High remained as a gathering spot. The DHS appreciates the City's efforts to preserve the historic nature of the original village, which was rural with a population of approximately 400 residents. A photo of the town pump taken from the east around 1920 shows a man standing by as a teenaged boy helps a young girl fill a pail at the pump. They believe this is a uniquely appropriate image for capturing into a lifelike bronze statue, which could be positioned at the southeast entryway to the new Bridge and High development. This would be only a few feet from its original location. If centered in the entryway, it would be easily viewable and touchable, and provide an invitation to the area as did the pump of long ago. They fully understand that public art is not part of the redevelopment project and would normally be considered after completion of the project. However, they bring this proposal forward at this time because other street scene aesthetics are being proposed as part of the project. The DHS believes there is benefit to the City and to the developer in knowing of their interest at this time. He thanked Council for their consideration, and shared the image they would like to see commemorated at that corner. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 2 Held Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Karrer, noting that Council did hear of the interest in a water pump at last week's meeting. They would definitely want this to be considered as the project moves forward. Currently, the art portion is not under consideration, but she acknowledged that this water pump has much historical significance for the City. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road commented that he has two items to address tonight: 1. At the last meeting, he asked for the guidelines used by the courts in determining whether or not a person is indigent. What he received was a copy of an affidavit that an indigent person must have their attorney fill out. He would prefer to have an updated list of the figures he received 2-3 years ago. Mr. Smith responded that those criteria are no longer used in municipal court. What he sent was the document now used in the court to determine indigency. The judge makes the decision of whether the individual is indigent at that time. Mr. Maurer explained that he has interest in the term of "indigent" being used versus the term "poor." In the late 19th century, a British writer wrote books on the philosophy of politics, economy, arts that are all intertwined. At one point in a discussion regarding architecture, the author said, "Show me the buildings which your society treasures, and I'll tell you what sort of society you are." He is interested in what a community regards as a poor person, because he can see much about the scale of values in a community from that. 2. The City Manager provides a column in the local newspaper on a regular basis, which he reads carefully. A recent article described the questionnaire the City will send to corporate CEO's. He was interested in the sentence in the column which states, "Proprietary information will be kept confidential unless authorized for release." On the City's website, he found a comment on the general invitation to CEO's to fill out the questionnaire. The item regarding confidentiality states: "Information specific to your business will be held in strict confidence." This is a broad statement, as everything could be considered specific to a business. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. McDaniel to provide a copy of the survey to Mr. Maurer so he can review the entire survey. There are some specific questions that are referred to in terms of this confidentiality aspect. LEGISLATION POSTPONED -ORDINANCES Ordinance 96-07(Amended) Modifying Portions of the Zoning Code Addressing Swimming Pool Fences, Fitness Uses, Pet Care Services, and Park and Rides. (Case No. 07-110ADM) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council January 22, 2008 Page 3 Ms. Brautigam stated that in follow up to the Council discussion, Mr. Langworthy has drafted several amendments to the ordinance. In addition, on the dais tonight is a description of the park and ride at Dale Drive and its history of approval. Mr. Langworthy apologized for not including the Dale Drive memo in the packet. In regard to the Dale Drive facility, when the facility was approved, there was an interpretation made in the ordinance that when a use was not specifically listed in the ordinance, it was generally then considered just to be a conditional use and processed as a conditional use versus as a use specific to the ordinance. The difference between now and then is that staff is treating this as the need to have use specific lists in the ordinance for a particular district versus choosing a particular district and a use and deciding at the time where it should be placed. Mrs. Boring noted that the question originated with why this would have to be defined as a separate conditional use -why it was not considered an auto oriented commercial facility or outdoor facility. The response she received was it was not permissible. In her reading, she believes the reason it is coming in as a conditional use is that automobile parking as an independent use is considered a conditional use. That is the question - if it is in a Community Commercial (CC) zone, why would it automatically not be included as it was in the Dale Drive example as a conditional use because it is an automobile parking independent use? In reading the Code regarding a conditional use, an auto oriented commercial facility, it says "auto oriented service facilities or outdoor service facilities developed independently or in association with a permitted use." That was her original question -why is it not automatically included in that category? Mr. Langworthy responded that staff wanted to do that to ensure it was differentiated between a commercial office operation that wanted a separate, independent parking lot sitting on a property that is not contiguous to theirs as opposed to a use specific that belongs to the person where it was the primary use versus being accessory parking for a use located elsewhere. They would not want someone to be able to come in later and make that interpretation to call themselves an auto oriented use in any location. Mrs. Boring noted that even if they indicated they were auto oriented, it would immediately be categorized as a condition use, correct? Mr. Langworthy stated that is correct. Mrs. Boring stated that she is not following this thinking. One of her concerns relates to the fact that when things are pulled out specifically, it does not allow for this to cover future situations that cannot be foreseen at this time. She had hoped this would be generalized and would automatically be categorized in the commercial auto oriented facility, which has always been a conditional use. Mr. Langworthy responded that is a fair comment to the extent in terms of how an ordinance is interpreted. The direction staff has been moving in the ordinances, based on the many questions regarding interpretation and because over time interpretations change, is to move away from the need for particular and individual interpretations. They are addressing a number of other such circumstances at the present time. It is an attempt to make sure everyone is clear and understands what the use is, where it is allowed, and under what process it is allowed. Mrs. Boring summarized that in every case now, it will then be put in an area under a conditional use where it is permitted. Mr. Langworthy agreed. Mrs. Boring stated that she also has concerns with the wording. Mr. Langworthy responded that he understands she wants to take the accessory shelter size and make it one of the standards. Mrs. Boring added that she would like the park and ride language to have the shelter not included, as it may be possible not to have a shelter included under some circumstances. It should instead be included under the development standards, "B" -any bus shelter shall not exceed 50 square feet." Mr. Langworthy verified that she still wants the limit on the one -correct? Mrs. Boring stated that is correct. Mr. Lecklider asked how the 50 square feet figure was determined. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 4 1 1 Held 20 Mr. Langworthy responded that staff contacted COTA and asked for some average sizes of various facilities. The type discussed at the last meeting was not a large indoor shelter, but an outdoor waiting shelter. This size was given as an average, based on the anticipated use they believe the facility would have. Mr. Lecklider asked if the revision suggested would not preclude the construction of the shelter, but would neither make it automatic, correct? Mr. Langworthy responded that is correct. A park and ride would not necessarily have to include a shelter, but if one is proposed, this is the size limitation. Mr. Lecklider stated that, practically speaking, given the climate in Dublin, a shelter may be needed more often than not. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that on page 10, (7) "Park and Rides" the sentence would end with the word "community." On page 11, (b) would be added, that a maximum of one bus shelter would be allowed, not to exceed 50 square feet in size. Mrs. Boring also noted that it should be integrated into the introductory sentence, that if a shelter is requested, these requirements will apply: limiting it to only one at a maximum 50 square feet and that the design would be harmonious. This change must be made all the way through in every district where it is allowed. Mr. Langworthy stated that staff understands this direction to amend the language throughout. Mrs. Boring noted that there was much discussion about "self contained" in regard to pet services. She does not see any reference to that in the amended ordinance. Mr. Langworthy responded that pet services was separated as an indoor facility, and if a pet service had any outdoor facility, it was separated into another category. Those are permitted only in the various industrial districts. Vote on the Ordinance as amended: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. Ordinance 02-08 (Amended) 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council January 22, 2008 Page 5 1 1 1 Held 20 Authorizing the Purchase of a Permanent Sewer Easement in a 0.087 Acre Tract, More or Less, and a Temporary Construction Easement in a 0.260 Acre Tract, More or Less, Located West of Dublin Road, From A.E. Wallace Maurer, in the City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Brautigam stated that Mr. Hammersmith has worked with Mr. Maurer subsequent to the last reading. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the amended ordinance better describes the purpose of the easements, which is to facilitate a sanitary sewer line to the property owned by Ruth Thomas along Brand Road. In order to do that, the property owned by Mr. Maurer must be traversed. In particular, the line must be extended along his southern and western property lines as depicted in the attached exhibit. He offered to respond to questions. Ms. Salay asked if the City has a policy that property owners adjacent to a sewer line are required to tap in. Mr. Hammersmith responded that, typically, if the line is within a certain distance of the property line - 100 feet in Dublin -they are required to tap in. Ms. Salay asked if this line extension will affect any property owners. Mr. Hammersmith responded it will not, as this is an individual service line that will come from a grinder pump and then outlet into a public gravity sewer that is located in the Wellington subdivision. Thereafter, following the installation and warranty period, the property owner will be responsible for maintenance, including the grinder pump. It will be their private system. Ms. Salay asked if they understand that and are in agreement. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay asked how the City is ensuring that will continue, should the Thomas family sell the property. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it would be an easement provided for their use for this sewer line. It will run with the property. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the City has some type of memorandum of understanding for this. Mr. Smith responded it will be recorded at the courthouse in the chain of title for the property. Ms. Salay asked what the consequences could be if an owner in the future does not understand this when they purchase the property and if they don't maintain the system properly. Will only their property be affected? Mr. Hammersmith stated there would be detrimental consequences inside the home. It is in their interest to maintain the system. Ms. Salay confirmed that this is a private line to serve only this property. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that the amended ordinance does list the sequence of events which led to the need for these easements. It does not explain why this line goes through his property. He has signed a document agreeing to this. He explained that he must hold himself to the same standard that he held the Council to at the time that Mr. Kindra was fired. The only way out of that one was to admit that an error was made. He has made two mistakes in this current arrangement, which relate to two character weaknesses on his part. When Mr. Thomas asked for the easement, he considered the incentives, and thought it was possible he could obtain a connection to the sewer system in exchange for granting this easement. Therefore, there was an element of greed or avarice involved. The second factor or "deadly sin" influencing his decision was pride. In a meeting between himself, staff and contractors, someone had commented positively about his behavior in his Council appearances. He was so flattered that he was distracted from the matter at hand. He never came around to it again until the last Council meeting. Council may or may not know that the line will not be routed as shown on the map. There will be 200 feet cut out on the south side and 70 feet cut out on the west side of a screen or rural fence which has grown around his property over many years. Mr. Gerber moved for emergency passage. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council January 22, 2008 Page 6 Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ms. Salay stated for the record that the City was aware of the potential problem with the septic system on the Thomas property. An extensive discussion took place prior to initiation of the project. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff had concerns with the location of the leach fields. POSTPONED -OTHER • Preliminary and Final Plat -Duke Parkwood (5900 Parkwood Place -Case No. 07- 113PP/FP) • Final Plat -Paul Blazer Parkway - (5151 Paul G. Blazer Memorial Parkway- Case No. 07-117FP) Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the applicant for both of these is requesting postponement until February 4. Mr. Keenan moved to postpone the Duke Parkwood and Blazer Parkway plats until the meeting of February 4. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 03-08 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Retaining CBIZ, Inc. and Its Operations and Workforce within the City of Dublin and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Brautigam stated that no changes have been made subsequent to the first reading. Mr. McDaniel can respond to any questions. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that the memo indicates that "CBIZ is the nation's number one benefits specialist and one of the largest accounting service providers, professional support consultant groups, business insurance firms, valuation and medical practices management companies for small, mid-sized and corporation businesses in the U.S." In discussions with this company, were there ever any clients mentioned who were served by this company? He is interested particularly in the area referred to as medical practice management. Mr. McDaniel responded that the medical practice management services division is in Central Ohio, but is not currently located in Dublin. This division is primarily their auditing and tax division. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, abstain; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. McDaniel to extend Council's appreciation to CBIZ, Inc. for their decision to remain in Dublin. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 04-08 Authorizing the Purchase of a Fee Simple Interest in a 0.557 Acre Tract, More or Less, Located on Avery Road, from Dee Ann Goebel, in the City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith explained this is an acquisition by agreement of a parcel the City will need in the future for the road widening. Mrs. Goebel contacted the City and staff explained to her that the property was not needed right away. She responded she was not ready to move at this time. The City had the property appraised and it came back at $165,000, and Mrs. Goebel accepted the appraisal. The City will pay her cash and Mrs. Goebel can remain in the property while she is relocating within the next 12 months. Ms. Salay noted that the information indicates that Mrs. Goebel can remain in the property until December 1, 2008, and thereafter the City shall be entitled to rent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 7 1 1 1 Held 20 Mr. Smith responded that she expects to be out by that date, but if her move is delayed by a month, she will pay the City $500. The contract does not provide for her to remain indefinitely. This was an assurance of another month to facilitate her move from the property, in case the time is needed. Ms. Salay simply wants to clarify this so that there is not an indefinite situation in the future. Mr. Gerber moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as an emergency. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 05-08 Appropriating a 3.654 Acre, More or Less (with 0.112 Acres Present Road Occupied) Fee Simple Interest from BP Exploration 8i Oil, Inc., Located on the Southeast Corner of Post Road (SR 161) and Liggett Road, County of Union, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith explained that this property is owned by BP at the US 33/161/Post Road interchange. Negotiations have been unsuccessful to date. The resolution of intent to appropriate was served upon the property owner, and Legal staff will prepare a complaint to file in Common Pleas Court in Union County. The statutory agent for BP will be served; they will likely retain local counsel. BP has had the City's appraisal for over a year, and BP will likely hire another expert appraiser to do their own appraisal. tt could be in the court system for 8-10 months and a jury will decide the case if the matter cannot be settled between the parties. Any settlement offers will be discussed with Council in advance of pre-trial. Mr. Keenan asked if this involves the entire parcel. Mr. Smith responded that is correct - it is a total take. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked if the owner of the property, BP, is British Petroleum. Mr. Smith responded affirmatively. Mr. Maurer asked if the case is lost, who will pay the legal expenses incurred. Mr. Smith explained that in an appropriation case, there is a trial which involves three witnesses. BP must defend their appraisal numbers versus the City's appraisal numbers. Mr. Gerber moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 06-08 Amending the Annual Appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2008. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this ordinance is an annual process done for various capital projects and for tree replacement fees. In this case, the majority of them are TIF related. Most of it relates to the debt obligation that is due. Staff has noted that there will be additional supplemental requests as projects move forward when contracts are awarded. For real estate taxes, there was a factor related to timing and how the land came back to the City at the end of the year. The City received a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 8 1 1 1 Held check from UMC Partners for their pro-rated share, and then the City will be required to pay 100 percent of the taxes during 2008. Mr. Lecklider moved to dispense with the public hearing. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 04-08 Appointing a Member to the Unexpired Term of Richard Gerber on the Planning 8< Zoning Commission. Vice Mayor Boring introduced the resolution. She thanked all of those who applied for this position, noting there was once again a remarkable pool of applicants who expressed a passion for Dublin. Vice Mayor Boring moved approval of the appointment of Flite Freimann to the unexpired term of Richard Gerber on P&Z. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 05-08 Declaring Certain City-Owned Property as Surplus and Authorizing the City Manager to Dispose of Said Property in Accordance with Section 37.08 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated this is a typical distribution method for surplus property. The City has had good experience in recent GovDeals transactions. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. OTHER • COTA -Request for Fee Waiver Ms. Brautigam stated that Mr. Lhota, Executive Director of COTA sent a letter requesting a refund of fees paid for application fees for two Park and Ride locations. One of the applications has been withdrawn completely and that refund is in process. The other was reviewed by P&Z, and based on feedback, COTA plans to withdraw that application as well. Staff is supporting this refund request. A number of Dublin's larger corporations have expressed interest in affording their employees with access to COTA's transportation services. COTA has indicated in their recent levy effort that they desire to improve their services to Dublin. Staff is therefore recommending that the City refund the fees paid for the second application. COTA has also requested that all fees be waived in the future, but staff is not recommending a set policy at this time. Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the staff recommendation. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. • Veterans Project Update Proiect Status Report Mr. Hahn stated that at the last Veterans Committee project meeting, after hearing the fundraising report from Ms. Morckel, the Committee made a recommendation to return to PLANT and ask PLANT to propose a concept design that is still reflective of the original Grounds of Remembrance, but with a design that will have a project total of approximately $500,000. This is to be achieved either by changing out some of the more expensive materials or by revisiting the base design and revising it. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that on page 3 of the Committee meeting minutes, it states that PLANT was never asked to design changes to the project to achieve cost savings. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 9 1 1 Held 20 She was surprised to read this, as she recalls Council discussion that one of the options was to go back to PLANT and request changes to bring the project within the original parameters. Mr. Hahn responded that the content of that discussion was the difference between revisiting the design with ideas of how to preserve the design that was actually voted upon, such as the profile of the path itself, or asking PLANT to consider revising the appearance of the Grounds of Remembrance. PLANT was never given that direction to come up with a redesign that would be visually different than the original design. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the recommendation before Council at this time is to ask PLANT to re-evaluate the existing design for potential material changes which would reduce costs or, if that is not possible, that PLANT would redesign it. Mr. Hahn responded that is accurate. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she had discussion today with Mr. Doty in regard to the statement he made at the Committee meeting. For the record for those who have watched Council meeting discussions on the cable channel, the current Council and the 2007 Council have always been very supportive of this project. Council's concern was with the cost of the project -never with having a Veterans project or the design or location that were selected. Everyone was given the same information -that the project was to be a $500,000 project. It was Council's understanding when PLANT was selected and the design selected that it would be a $500,000 project. While a slight increase in cost could have been understood, a $300,000 increase is not within the scope of the direction given to the submitters. The funding issue has always been the concern of Council. Council has always been formally committed to having a Veterans recognition, whether it be this or another one and that is still the intent. Council hopes that within a reasonable time, something can be presented to the community. Apparently, this was not made clear in previous Council discussions. Ms. Salay stated that in reviewing the fundraising potential report, it has been determined there is sufficient capacity to raise $115,000. In addition, the report states that to raise this money would cost approximately $90,000. This does not make sense for taxpayers. She feels obligated to bring this up. Mr. Hahn responded that Ms. Morckel will present her report to Council of the Phase 1 results -the feasibility of raising more than the original amount anticipated for the project. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that Ms. Morckel present her report at this time, prior to Council's vote on the Committee's recommendation. Donor Readiness Assessment Sandy Morckel, Premiere Consultina thanked Council for the opportunity to engage in the donor assessment process in the City of Dublin on behalf of the Dublin Veterans project. She met with key veterans and with long-time residents in the community in order to gather information and make a recommendation back to the Committee and to Council. She noted the following: 1. People do want to see this project happen and they share the vision of Council in having a Veterans project. 2. The things she looked for in regard to raising the additional dollars needed given the larger cost of the project were: a. Is the project compelling enough to garner support for it in terms of additional dollars to be raised in the community? b. Is there volunteer leadership support for this? Are there peers in the community that are willing to gather their connections together to make that request and gather that support? c. Is there sufficient potential donor support in the dollar amounts needed to raise this additional money? The findings indicate there is a compelling case for support. There is volunteer leadership support for this. Many have indicated an interest and want to be involved in it to see it through to reality. However, the sufficient potential donor support is where the City is lacking in the major donor dollar amounts needed to justify another $400,000 to be raised in public support for the project. Therefore, what she is recommending and has recommended to the Committee is: 1. Based upon her findings, and based upon Council's approval of the recommendation Mr. Hahn has brought to Council tonight, she would RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 10 1 recommend implementing acommunity-wide fundraising effort. It would include fundraising preparation, gathering a larger community fundraising committee made up of those who want to support the project and others, developing personalized project materials and promotional materials to share the story with people and setting up internal campaigns. The costs estimated in the memo are projected costs, and not all of it may be needed. There may be AV costs which could be reduced or some internal City resources which can be used. Regardless of the dollar amount of a campaign, there are some fixed costs associated with it. It was a $900,000 project and is now being recommended as a $500,000 project with $115,000 left to be raised. She believes it is an attainable goal at $500,000, but likely not to the $800,000 to $900,000 level. 2. When the campaign is rolled out, there will be time spent peer to peer, one on one in small group settings with some major potential donors. Major in this campaign now would be $10-25-$50,000. 3. Then a larger public campaign would be launched with perhaps a signature event in which people could participate. The paver program could be launched, encouraging support from the general community who wants to support the project. 4. There will also be a fundraising wrap-up period, as some of these gifts will be pledges and not gifts. 5. Appreciation efforts for the volunteers and donors are then needed to make this project a reality for the City. Mr. Keenan noted that the report mentions that 75 to 85 percent of the amount of monies raised comes from individuals and not major donors. Ms. Morckel responded that is a statistic from "Giving USA." In looking at giving across the nation, the vast majority comes from individuals, not from businesses. Mr. Keenan stated that there was a desire from the outset to include each and everyone in the community, and to give them an opportunity to participate at some level. The City could have funded the project in its entirety, as some other communities have done. Union County raised $500,000 in a short time for their tribute, so he believes the Dublin community must have the capacity to do so. He was disappointed to read in the report that people continue to revisit the location of the project, despite the fact that all of this has been discussed many times. Ms. Morckel stated that it was not part of the original charge of her report, but the comments came across very loud and clear voluntarily from the participants. Mr. Keenan noted that some of the participants were not pleased with the original results of the site and the project. There is a list of interviewees attached. Ms. Morckel stated that the list was not meant to include every level of the community, but those with the capacity for larger donations to the project. Mr. Keenan pointed out that the goal is to honor the Veterans and Council is committed to keeping this project on track and moving forward. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that there are two questions before Council tonight: 1) the Committee's recommendation to ask PLANT to submit a $500,000 project to the City; and 2) whether to proceed with the second part of the fundraising contract with Ms. Morckel or consider other alternatives to raise the additional $115,000. Mr. Lecklider noted this is the first he has seen of this contract, and he did not realize Council had authorized the scope of the contract. He has a number of concerns with the contract. He does agree with Mr. Keenan that he is hopeful Council is not revisiting the decision about the site selected for the project. Including the $12,150 already paid for the donor readiness assessment, it appears that, conservatively, this contract could cost $75,000 to raise $115,000. He is not certain he is comfortable with that. Ms. Salay stated that she is not comfortable with the contract. To clarify, this project was never to be a $900,000 project. It was to be a $500,000 project. A couple of Council Members mentioned after the Committee had been working that the fundraising should have been done first. She had never heard that raised previously. This Council cannot be characterized as not being supportive of the Veterans Committee or not being supportive of the concept. There is a desire to honor the community's veterans. But it is important to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council January 22, 2008 Page 11 1 I,l J 1 include every citizen and give them an opportunity to. contribute. The mention of the lowest level of contribution at $300 is not appropriate, as it is out of reach for many who would like to contribute. While large corporate donations should be pursued, the smaller contributions could easily add up to $115,000. The reports speaks of recognition needed for donations, but to her, people donate because it is the right thing to do -not because they want recognition. She has concern with spending this money to raise $115,000, as she believes it is attainable in a community of Dublin's size and values. Mr. Lecklider suggested that Council call upon the talents and enthusiasm of the Committee members and others who could be enlisted -perhaps some of the interviewees -- in an effort to raise these funds, together with the support from the Community Relations staff. This wou0ld be with the understanding that it would not be overly burdensome to the Community Relations staff. He asked the Law Director whether the contract included in the packet has been executed. Ms. Puskarcik responded that only Phase One of the contract was executed, The original memo was presented to Council in September, and at that time, staff presented two phases - an assessment phase, followed by implementation of the findings of the assessment phase. Nothing has transpired with Phase Two. Mr. Lecklider noted that in Section One (A)(2) there is a donor readiness assessment which has been performed. There are terms in this contract under "Payment" which allows for the payment of $12,150 for that service. Ms. Puskarcik responded that is Phase One and it has now been completed. Mr. Lecklider asked if the services have been performed according to a contract. Ms. Puskarcik responded affirmatively. Mr. Lecklider asked the Law Director to explain the last page of the document and the certification under ORC Section 3517.13. Mr. Smith responded that the City has not entered into a contract with Premiere Consulting to pay for the entire program, but only Phase One. Council approved Phase One at the amount of $12,150. This is a proposal should Council decide to use Premiere Consulting for these services. Council can decide to proceed with this contract or to raise the funds in another manner, using internal staff. There is no certification from the Finance Director that any expenditure of funds has been authorized for Phase Two. Ms. Grigsby noted that Mr. Lecklider's question relates to the certification regarding ORC Section 3517.13, not the fiscal certification. Mr. Smith clarified that anyone who enters into a contract with the City must certify that they have not exceeded the campaign contribution limits set forth in the ORC or in Dublin's local campaign contribution limits. Mr. Lecklider asked if Mr. Smith sees this as presenting a conflict. Mr. Smith responded that he is not aware of the specific donations related to this contractor, but the City requires all contractors to execute a form stating that they have not exceeded the limits set forth by the state. Dublin has a $100 local limit for contributions, but he has not reviewed any local contribution reports as to who donated monies to Council candidates. Mr. Keenan asked Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher if, in her experience with fundraising and grant applications, the amount of the cost versus the amount of money to be raised is typical. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that it is not uncommon. This is a total program from one company. Often, non-profits will defray some of the costs by using internal staff or volunteers to bring the costs of fundraising within the scope of what they can afford or what they feel is reasonable in view of the amount to be raised. She believes that $115,000 does not sound like a huge amount to raise, however the City has not been successful in raising the $250,000 needed. Part of that relates to the fact that the Veterans Committee was not set up to do fundraising, but rather for decision-making regarding a Veterans project. Some members of the Committee would be interested and could be trained for the next phase of fundraising, and perhaps new people may come forward to help. She recommends engaging a new group to assist with this effort. She did not hear that the proposal was to limit donations to $300 and up. Typically, all donations are accepted, but may not be recognized in the same manner. That is an expectation of those donating, especially those giving a large sum of personal funds. It should not be viewed as a negative situation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS D D 1 January 22, 2008 Page 12 Held 20 Mr. Keenan responded that he believes the $300 figure came from discussions about a donation needed for a paver. That did not preclude anyone from donating a lesser amount. Ms. Puskarcik added that thus far, there have been $135,000 in donations and/or pledges. The motivation varies among people, with some donating a small amount and some wanting to fund a paver. Mr. Keenan added that there has been a grassroots effort with various ideas proposed for levels of giving. As the other issues came up with the project, the fundraising segment languished somewhat. Ms. Puskarcik added that some of the Committee members are interested in doing fundraising, and others are not comfortable with that part of the Committee work. They have heard from some in the community who are interested in helping with this fundraising effort. Mr. Gerber asked for clarification. He is a veteran and certainly supports this project. In terms of the fiscal portion, is the project capped at $500,000? Mr. Keenan responded that is the recommendation at this time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher added that at the time the project was approved, the City was to donate $250,000 and $250,000 was to be raised. Of that $250,000, $135,00 has been raised in donations or pledges. Mr. Gerber asked what funds are being used to pay for PLANT's services to date and for the fundraising consultant's services to date. Are these monies in addition to the $500,000? Mr. Keenan responded that he believes some of the costs are investments in the project to date. Some of those costs may not be recoverable if another design is selected. Mr. Gerber asked for clarification - is the $500,000 for the project going forward or does it include some monies already spent? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that, initially, the expectation was that what the City has paid to date to PLANT would have been part of the $500,000 costs which included design. If PLANT is asked to reduce the costs of the project to $500,000 and they respond that there is no way to do so, the question will have to be dealt with through the Legal department of whether there is a way to recover those monies or if that is within the scope of the contract with PLANT. Mr. Smith responded that Legal staff worked on the original contract with PLANT. When the pricing came back at $800-900,000, the question became whether they should have known that, based upon their experience. If Council's direction tonight is to have PLANT redesign the project within the $500,000 budget, legal staff will send them a letter outlining this direction. He does not know what the reply will be from PLANT. In addition, a deposit was made to hold some product for the project, but staff believes that money is refundable if the project does not go forward for any reason. That supplier has been notified of this possibility. Mr. Gerber stated that it makes sense to place some parameters around this. Perhaps more monies need to be raised than the $115,000 anticipated at this time. It sounds like the cap for the project may need to be somewhat higher than the $500,000, based on what he has heard tonight. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the last estimate she recalls is $800,000 for the project. Mr. Hahn agreed. Mr. Keenan added that $75-80,000 of that overrun can be attributed to elements requested by the Committee such as additional electrical, lighting, entryway work, etc. Mr. Hahn agreed. Mr. Keenan recalled that the overrun was $220,000 and was also attributed to some higher copper and bronze costs. The problem was that the project was approved at the concept stage. If construction drawings had been done, perhaps the outcome would have been different. This is quite different from a road or bridge project where specifications are done and bids are submitted. Mr. Lecklider stated he supports the Committee's recommendation that the project be capped at $500,000. Based upon information presented to Council, he believes that the City can raise the money otherwise. He estimates conservatively the costs of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 13 20 fundraising consultant as $75,000 to $102,000 to raise $115,000. The charges include a $12,150 donor readiness cost and 12 months at $4,050 totaling $48,600; Ms. Morckel clarified that the monthly costs are actually $3,800 per month plus an additional $250 per month in expense monies, which may or may not be needed Mr. Lecklider noted that the contract also denotes additional campaign costs estimated to be comparable to the consulting fee. Ms. Morckel explained that includes costs of creating materials, printing, etc. that could conceivably be done through the City. There is in-kind support that could be generated. This was merely done to estimate costs in total. There are various options for handling this part of the fundraising efforts. Mr. Lecklider noted that his comments are based on the maximum numbers provided to him in the information in the contract, that is $4,050 times 12 or $48,600, plus additional campaign costs estimated to be comparable to the consulting fee which brings the costs to $96,000, plus the $12,150 fees for the donor readiness assessment. Subtracting the $250/month fee results in a reduction of $3,000. Ms. Morckel stated that the other campaign costs are what is anticipated by the Community Relations department as $40-45,000, but it relates to printing costs. There are some in-kind corporate contributions which could offset this or the City could handle some of this in-house. She believes there is more support for the project than $115,000, but she does not believe there is support to the level of $400,000. Mrs. Boring noted that her concern is that the project was anticipated to cost $500,000, but as the project is delayed, the costs could increase. She would like to support the recommendation from the Committee, but she would also like to hear from the Committee about their capacity to continue on their own with the fundraising effort. She would suggest that Council reaffirm the present site as the location of the project. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Keenan to bring a motion to the floor regarding the site. Mr. Keenan noted that the majority of the Committee has supported the site selected. He moved to reaffirm the site of the Grounds of Remembrance project at the site north of the library, in the scenic easement along the Indian Run, adjacent to the cemetery. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the Veterans Committee has recommended that Council request PLANT to submit a $500,000 project by re-evaluating their existing design with changes in material and/or redesigning the Grounds of Remembrance, while preserving the integrity of the original concept. Mr. Hahn clarified that it was the intent of the Committee that the $500,000 was reflective of the construction costs for the project. This would be more than the original $500,000 project costs, which include design fees of $113,000 to date. It is conceivable that if it is interpreted that there is a request for design beyond the original scope of the contract, there could be additional design costs. Mr. Smith stated that Legal staff will indicate to PLANT that the charge to them was to design a project with a scope of services for a project cost of $500,000 and that was not what resulted. Staff will report back regarding PLANT's response in a couple of weeks. Mr. Gerber noted that the Committee minutes reflect a request for PLANT to respond by February 5. Within this two week time period, staff should be able to learn what PLANT's intentions are -whether this work would be included in the $113,000 already contracted for, and perhaps some concession on monies paid so far. It would be fair to hear their response before proceeding. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Smith what items his letter will address. Mr. Smith responded it will include questions regarding additional design charges, additional work, and the scope of what was added by the Committee. Staff will report back regarding all of these items. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin January 22, 2008 Page 14 Held 20 1 _i Mr. Keenan noted that in regard to the Phase Two portion of the fundraising contract, he would prefer that the Committee discuss this and that Council not make a decision tonight about this aspect. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she understood it was not the intention for Council to make any decision about fundraising tonight. She does want a motion to make it clear to staff and the Committee what PLANT is being requested to do. Mr. Hahn confirmed that staff is asking for a motion from Council regarding the Committee's recommendation. He added that the Committee recognizes that part of the cost increases resulted from the Committee's add-ons to the project. The Committee is willing to reconsider some of their project add-ons, and recognizes those would be in excess of the $500,000 construction costs for PLANT. The Committee will re-evaluate the add-ons previously agreed upon. Mr. Keenan noted that there was discussion that some of the additional items could be done later, but are not necessary at this time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved that Council request PLANT to submit a $500,000 in construction costs project by re-evaluating their existing design with changes in material and/or redesigning the Grounds of Remembrance, while preserving the integrity of the original concept. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring asked if there is an anticipation of additional design costs. Mr. Smith responded this is not known at this time. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a further discussion at the Committee is needed in regard to strategies for fundraising, regardless of the amount needed. The question is not whether to hire someone or not, but understanding what it will take to raise the monies. Ms. Puskarcik responded that staff will take this information back to the Committee at their next meeting on February 8 and have the fundraising discussion, addressing points brought up tonight. Ms. Salay asked who will ultimately pay the costs of the fundraising -will it be the donors? Ms. Puskarcik responded that this expense is not part of the $500,000 construction costs for the project, as Mr. Hahn has explained. It would be an additional cost. Ms. Salay stated she has real misgivings about the fundraising expenses. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that her understanding is that Mr. Keenan has suggested that this matter be discussed by the Committee. Mr. Keenan agreed that he would like input from the Committee. • Bridge & High Redevelopment Project Ms. Brautigam stated that the Council packet included a brief report regarding the project. The report contains the same information provided for the January 14 study session. At the study session, there was discussion regarding the southeast plaza. Council requested staff return with information from Legal staff with regard to a motion to have the Council be the final authority on the southeast plaza. That information from Legal staff was also included in the packet. Staff can respond to any questions. Mr. Holton, Chair of the Architectural Review Board submitted a letter to Council today which has been distributed on the dais. He is in attendance tonight. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited Mr. Holton to make comments at this time. Tom Holton, 5957 Roundstone Place Chair, Architectural Review Board stated that the ARB has enjoyed a good working relationship with staff, but he has a responsibility to represent ARB in speaking to Council tonight. The ARB wants to clarify some points made in the staff presentation at the Council study session. 1. The staff picked up the idea of the design charrette, suggested by an ARB Member at their January meeting, which could incorporate historic elements into the southeast plaza or the corner. Staff representatives indicated it was "at RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 15 1 1 1 the pleasure of the Board as to how to handle this," as reflected in the ARB minutes from the January meeting. As Chair, he clarified that public input was going to be allowed for such a meeting, and this was not corrected or challenged by staff. From that point forward, ARB proceeded with the meeting, believing that public input was going to be allowed to any further discussion around this southeast plaza. It concerns him greatly to hear the way this is described in the study session. 2. Regarding the water wall, which is part of the plaza, the ARB agreed that a water feature is a favorable attraction. ARB approved installation of the foundations and infrastructure in the locations designated for the water walls. During the meetings, there was disagreement about the need for and the design of the water feature, both from the public and from some Board members. ARB decided that water wall design was not their strength, particularly after hours of review and modification of building details. For this reason, it made sense to obtain public input - an approach not challenged by the staff at that point. 3. In terms of time and urgency, the ARB understood staff's intent to have the application approved at the end of the special January 9 meeting. The sense of urgency was clear. The ARB's primary focus had been review and approval of building design features in the December meeting. The water feature was very contemporary, and the Board asked for a different treatment, providing general direction for the special meeting in January. 4. At the January meeting, the design appeared little improved. As Chair, he did not want the Board to be designing a water fountain, as it is not their role. However, he was determined to find a way to keep the project on time, while separating the further design of the corner as guided by staff. He believed the intention was to go ahead with the design charrette. 5. In regard to public art, staff made it clear to the ARB that the Board does not have a role in deciding, influencing, or promoting public art. ARB understood that very clearly. ARB did not discuss, agree, or recommend that the 1,600 square foot southeast plaza be considered or labeled as a "public art area," as was reported at the study session. This statement created an unfortunate impression. He regrets that the work session discussion was allowed to proceed unchallenged, using that term. Unfortunately, an impression may have been left with Council that ARB was trying to go beyond its responsibilities in this area. He believes ARB was merely asking questions about public art. For example: a. In the December 19 meeting minutes of ARB, it reflects ARB's questions to staff that Mr. Karrer would know how to advance his proposal in an appropriate way for consideration. Mr. Karrer brought forward his presentation in a slightly different format to the ARB, and staff was asked how he could advance his proposal. They heard that and moved on. b. For the January meeting, discussion of the pump was used as an example by members, not as a preference by the Board. He is certain that Council's discussions could at times be interpreted in a similar fashion. 6. Regarding approval, ARB proceeded with their recommendation for public input to the historic design of the southeast corner through the charrette or design studio. Recommendations would come back to the ARB for approval, as the Board clarified with staff. They believe that was the appropriate process and it was clarified throughout. This would occur as quickly as possible, because ARB clarified with staff that they wanted things to move forward as quickly as possible. This led to the condition reflected in the minutes and the approval regarding the southeast plaza. He noted that ARB regrets any misunderstanding and looks forward to continuing to work with the professional staff in an even more positive way for the benefit of and the continuous improvement for the City and the Historic District. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Ms. Ott what is being requested from Council tonight. Ms. Ott responded that she has a formal presentation, which is the same presentation Council heard at the study session. Specifically, staff wants direction from Council regarding any specific input desired for design of the southeast plaza space. If so, staff would like to know how Council would like to have this facilitated. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 16 Ms. Brautigam clarified that the space extends from behind the water walls to Bridge Street and to High Street. Ms. Ott noted that the specific area is outlined in red on the slide. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how allowing public participation will affect the rest of the building being built in terms of time. What is the City looking to hear from the public that the City would actually use in the design? Ms. Ott responded that in regard to the timeline, staff as the applicant has worked with ARB in developing a condition that the foundations for these spaces will be installed with the initial foundations for the buildings. Given the congestion of the area and the existing infrastructure, having to do that work at a later date will be more expensive and will have more impact on the area. Staff would therefore like to have the work done at the same time. In regard to use and design, the challenging part has been that staff has heard that the two proposed water concepts are too contemporary. What has been challenging is that staff has not heard articulation of what would be more traditional or historically accurate, other than some stacked, dried limestone. When staff returned to the Board in January, the Board was not satisfied with the way this issue had been addressed. Staff is happy to gather community input, but it would be important for staff to understand the parameters. In the report, staff asked about public art, because it has been difficult for some in the community to separate the public art concept from the design of this space today -how to create a backdrop or setting for a future public art component. Staff is seeking assurance from Council that they would like the project to proceed in this manner of separating the public art piece. Mr. Gerber asked when Council will review the rezoning. Ms. Ott responded that the rezoning is scheduled for first reading at the February 4 Council meeting and second reading/public hearing on February 19. The initial plan for the project was to have a combined application for the preliminary and final development plans so that the final design decisions would be brought to City Council. As the process has unfolded, this has been adjusted. Staff has taken the project to ARB with design details twice, and to P&Z for preliminary development plan and final development plan. Mr. Keenan stated there are two parts to this. In regard to the water feature, it may shield some traffic noise for outdoor dining areas. Perhaps the water features should be located on the other corners adjacent to the roadway to help muffle the sound. He supports the water features, and the sound barrier that they provide is important. Secondly, he really supports the water pump shown in the presentation earlier tonight or a piece to commemorate the river crossing of the Scioto which stood just south of the current bridge. Perhaps an historical marker at the square could show the roadways in the area as of 1900 or in whatever dates desired. Any of these ideas could be incorporated into the plaza and would fulfill the desire to give people a sense of what the community was like in the past. This would celebrate Dublin's history. Vice Mayor Boring noted that these ideas have merit. At the Rec Center, there is an art piece which shows a timeline of Dublin and the size of the community. The ideas for public art are great suggestions, but she would prefer that the ideas be explored by the Dublin Arts Council. She likes the ideas about water features, but at the same time does not want to look like Creekside in Gahanna. What works well somewhere else does not necessarily fit in Dublin. She relies upon ARB's opinions and thoughts. She understands that they endorse water features, but don't want them to have a contemporary look. Secondly, she needs to have a better understanding of the timelines committed to/required by the contract. If the City is seeking the approvals in order to have the project ready for March construction, does the developer have the financing in place to proceed? She needs more background to understand any leeway in the approval timeline. Ms. Ott responded that the contingency period in the development agreement is based upon land use approvals, specifically the rezoning of the site. However, staff negotiated the contract on the basis of a combined application. Therefore, it is critical to consider the final development plan with the rezoning for approval. Staff negotiated with Stonehenge for an extension of that period that initially expired on December 31, 2007. Stonehenge agreed to an extension until April 3, 2008. That requires the rezoning be brought to Council for consideration in February, understanding that there could be some leeway with the approval date being extended to March 3, as the rezoning is effective 30 days after RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 17 passage. Should Council choose not to approve the rezoning, the City has some financial obligations to Stonehenge that relate to the assistance in acquiring the property at 37 Darby Street and design costs Stonehenge has incurred for the private components of the development. Vice Mayor Boring asked if Stonehenge has an obligation to demonstrate that they have financing secured, and by what date? Ms. Ott responded that Stonehenge had a period within which they could withdraw from the project without penalty, if they were not able to obtain financing. That period expired on August 31, 2007. What that means is that regardless of Stonehenge's financing, they must carry out the project. But until they know that they have final zoning approval, they cannot make commitments to tenants and therefore it is difficult for the bank to commit to financing. The other complicating factor is that in Historic Dublin there is much more scrutiny of the details for the space than what a tenant would expect in another area. Tenants are also interested in obtaining information prior to making a commitment to a lease. Some tenants have provided a letter of intent for space, but Stonehenge is not prepared to respond until the zoning is finalized. Mr. Keenan asked if the project will be bonded when it is finalized. Ms. Ott responded that a bond will be posted for the public components. Mr. Keenan stated that once a bond is posted, the surety must make certain the project is completed according to the bid documents. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that at this time, the question on the table is if the City will hold a charrette or other method for public participation to design the water feature at the corner. Her question remains, does the City know what it wants the public to actually have input into? To her, there is no reason to have a meeting with the public for input if the City does not intend to do any of these things. Last week, staff indicated to Council that ARB was not able to articulate to staff what the water feature was that they were interested in -they could only indicate to staff what they did not like about the proposals made. Ms. Ott responded that is correct. The one area they articulated was for dried stone, stacked. That was the extent of the feedback received on the second design proposal for the water feature. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that ARB has acknowledged they are not architects who can design water features. Why would this not be a requirement of the project architect to come back with options that include the components articulated by the ARB or by citizens who have already participated? Ms. Ott responded that is why staff has brought this forward tonight - to understand Council's expectations of how this should be handled. Staff has outlined a process in the memo provided tonight. The designer of the project, Bird+Houk needs guidance regarding additional services. Staff wants direction from Council regarding their expectations of the level of involvement from the community and to what extent those proposals should be redesigned, knowing this would result in additional expense if the March deadline is not met. Ms. Salay commented that all that is really needed by March is the footprint and the ability to place a water feature in those locations. The actual design can be done after that time, correct? Ms. Ott responded that if that is the direction of Council, it can be done. Ms. Salay asked if the discussion relates only to the water features at this time, and not the public art component. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated her understanding is that the discussion at this time relates to the water features only and that Council had indicated last week that the art component would be handled separately. Ms. Brautigam responded that is correct. At the study session, Ms. Ott shared a slide of a redesigned water feature that was brought back to ARB. There was concern about splashing, and ARB and Council were not satisfied with it. This is the challenge of redesigning it. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the design is the role of Bird+Houk, and they understand what is trying to be achieved with the feature. Mr. Keenan stated that he would like to see some iterations of both of those components brought forward and to have visuals presented to which Council can react. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 18 1 1 Ms. Salay responded that this moves into the public art component, which should be handled separately. For the water features, she agrees that some sketches are needed for review. For the public art portion, the Arts Council would be the appropriate body to lead that process. Mr. Keenan stated that there are costs associated with the infrastructure to accommodate these items, and it would be more cost efficient to have that done at this time versus at a later date. Mr. Gerber added that applicants often have returned to P&Z with revised designs, based on feedback received. Ms. Salay asked Ms. Ott if there is concern about not having the art portion of the project done at this time. Ms. Ott responded that the concern with the art component is that if a public input session is held, staff needs to know what the parameters are for the individuals providing input. If the message is that suggestions regarding public art are welcome, but the art portion of the project will not be considered at this time, that is fine. She wants to know what message to provide to participants. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that earlier tonight, Ms. Ott stated that staff needed all of this information in order to do the infrastructure construction at one time. She did not understand that to include the art component, as there was no indication of that at the study session. In fact, staff asked that the art component be separated in order to do that portion at a later time. It was never implied that the art decision would have to be made before construction could begin. Ms. Ott responded that is correct. She is not stating otherwise tonight. What she is indicating is that if a public input meeting is held to seek feedback only in regard to the water features and not to provide comments regarding any other components of that public space, it will be challenging to do so. Ms. Salay suggested bringing some ideas for the water feature to Council and inviting the public to attend and view it at that time. It could also be placed on the website and those who want to come to Council and comment could do so. Later, at the time the art component is considered, Council can indicate that this corner should honor the history and heritage of Dublin -whether that is with a pump or a map with the ford as suggested -and let the public know that this is the location at which Dublin's history will be honored with a public art piece, working with the Dublin Arts Council at a future date. Mr. Keenan added that it is important to note that there are two types of art projects. It is important to communicate the parameters. If it is truly aCity-driven project and to be located in the square with certain features, that needs to be clarified and communicated to everyone. Mr. Lecklider asked what the anticipation is for funding of this art project. Mr. Keenan responded that the City could ask the DAC to make this part of their public art commitment, which is budgeted by the DAC each two years. His expectation is that this project would be outside of that, similar to what was done with the Jack Nicklaus sculpture. Mr. Lecklider asked about the water feature, and who will make the ultimate decision with respect to the design of this feature. Will it be Council? Ms. Brautigam responded that the decision will be made by Council. Between now and the second reading of the rezoning for the Bridge and High project on February 19, staff will work with Bird+Houk to come up with several ideas for the water feature. These will be posted on the website for several days prior to February 19. At the hearing on February 19, the rezoning will be considered and Council will decide what they want to do in terms of the water features. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited Clay Bryan to testify at this time. Clav Bryan. 84 S. Riverview Street ARB Member noted that: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ~, 1 January 22, 2008 Page 19 1. In terms of the timeline for the corner, when the discussion took place at the ARB meeting, City staff and Mr. Dioun were okay with the water feature being completed sometime after his starting date. ARB approved him proceeding with construction, placing the footers in for a water wall and having the electrical available so that the rest of the project would not be delayed. 2. In regard to not articulating what they wanted, he takes exception to that. He proposed that the water feature design be handed off to a consortium of the Dublin Historical Society, the Dublin Arts Council, the Historic Dublin Association, the Historic Dublin Business Association, and any other interested parties. That was acceptable, and a condition was added to that effect. Not until the end of the meeting when the ARB asked for the conditions to be read back did they find that condition was changed. At that point, ARB was told by Legal staff that they did not have the authorization to delegate it. That is fine, but to insinuate that ARB give no direction about who could do this task is not accurate. He had asked about the possibility of waiting and giving more weight to the Dublin Historical Society's interpretation of what needed to be there. He was told by Legal staff that that also could not be done by ARB. 3. ARB did attempt to draw in from other sources and felt that the Historical Society could handle this task. 4. He believes the ARB has done a very good job. He understands the City's frustration with the project, as it is a very unusual project and not the standard project reviewed by ARB. 5. ARB has not tried to delay this review and approval, and it is very unfortunate that the ARB would end up being circumvented from the approval process. This Council has relied upon the ARB, and due to apprehension on the part of some, the ARB is going to be circumvented. He would appreciate it if Council does not do so. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the question posed to Council is that by February 19, Council would have at least two designs to choose from. She proposes that Council give direction to staff that the architects from Bird+Houk talk to these groups and obtain their input about their visions for the area. Those able to attend such a meeting will do so, and will provide their input. Bird+Houk will then have the best of those thoughts as they redesign something to bring to Council for review. Ms. Brautigam stated that can be done. Ms. Ott added that staff is agreeable to this course of action. The organizations referred to have already spoken on the record and staff has their comments. They will check with them to ensure staff is interpreting them correctly. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that she believes these individuals would like to be physically present for this input. Is Council in agreement with this expected process? Mr. Keenan agreed this is fine, and that these individuals should have a place at the table in meeting with Bird+Houk for the discussion. Ms. Salay commented that she supports this process. She did not mean to circumvent the ARB, if that was the perception. She was trying to be responsive to the timelines for the project. Is the proposed process satisfactory to the ARB members present tonight? Mr. Holton, ARB Chair, responded that the ARB would not be a part of that process, as City staff has taken ARB out of the process. Members of ARB who are part of those organizations mentioned may choose to participate, but the ARB has apparently been sidestepped in the decision-making process. ARB was told that they would be part of the final review by Ms. Ott, and that has now changed, which changes the nature of the process. Unless Council directs otherwise, they will choose as a Board not to be a part of this process. Mr. Gerber commented that ARB and P&Z do a fantastic job. He recognizes the contract in this case, and in retrospect, perhaps it should have been extended for a longer period of time. However, he is hopeful that a precedent is not being set in this case where portions which are sent to boards and commissions for review are then brought to Council for extended discussion. Apparently, an exception has been made to Council's long-standing procedures for review. Mr. Lecklider noted that in the memo dated January 17, 2008, on the second page, last paragraph, it states in response to the ARB condition that Planning staff could conduct a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 20 20 1 1 design workshop for the public to provide hands-on participation in the brainstorming elements for the space. In his understanding, staff is suggesting the same course of action as Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that what has been proposed by Council is for Bird+Houk to conduct this workshop, not the Planning staff. Ms. Brautigam stated that the staff report for the January 14 study session and for tonight's meeting indicated that, based upon the last ARB meeting, staff could have a brainstorming session with the public and then could ask Bird+Houk to synthesize the input into a modified design that would return to the ARB for consideration. That has always been in the report to the City Council. What happened is that in the course of discussions on January 14, it was expressed that there have been many discussions and opportunities for the public to state their views about the corner, and it was the consensus of Council that it was not necessary to have another public input discussion. As a result of that, staff is bringing this forward tonight for a formal motion directing staff to proceed in that fashion. What she thought had been decided on January 14 was not to have a public charrette about this, given the previous input opportunities. What she is hearing tonight is that Council is directing staff to ask Bird+Houk to come up with some ideas, and that in the course of developing their ideas, they will consult with various interested parties in the community and will bring those ideas back to the Council on February 19. Mr. Lecklider stated that the remaining question is whether to go one step further and take the new design for approval to ARB no later than March, in order to meet the project timeline. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the messages are conflicting about the timeline. Why could Bird+Houk not have their meeting with the various groups, and ARB call a Special Meeting for review of the proposed designs, prior to the February 19 public hearing at City Council? Ms. Brautigam responded that in order for ARB to have a special meeting prior to February 19, the designers of the walls would have to work very quickly. She is not certain this can be accomplished within the timeframe. This leads back to what was stated in the initial report to Council, that the plan is to have water walls, that further design work will be done on them, and at the time of the rezoning approval, the final design of the water walls will not be determined. Nevertheless, the project will move forward and the water wall designs will return to ARB in early March so that by the time of construction in April, the zoning will be effective and ARB will have approved the new water walls. That was another option on the table. Mr. Lecklider responded that it seems this is what is being proposed tonight: to approve the rezoning in February, and have the water walls design issue go back to Bird+Houk and be submitted to ARB for review. Ms. Brautigam clarified that Council would then not review the water walls. ARB would approve whatever they felt was appropriate, and the project would proceed without having Council formally approve the water feature design. Vice Mayor Boring commented that she believes Bird+Houk can certainly be asked to do the work within this time period. Ms. Brautigam responded that the problem is not with the architect doing the work. The issue is with the ARB hearing and meeting notices, etc. Mr. Lecklider states that Council seems to be arriving at a different conclusion than at the January 14 study session about who would make the ultimate decision about the water feature design. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, personally, she would like to have Council involved in the final decision regarding the water feature, whether it requires a joint ARB/Council session. This will be a very different water feature than others that exist in Dublin, and it would not be appropriate for Council not to have viewed and approved it. This is a prominent location in Dublin. Mr. Keenan suggested a joint meeting with ARB for this discussion, followed by an ARB meeting to make a formal recommendation to Council. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 1 1 January 22, 2008 Page 21 Held 20 Mr. Smith stated that this is a City project and Dublin as a home rule city can handle this as they believe appropriate. It is Council's discretion about how to handle this. Staff will handle the notices for the meetings, once Council gives direction. Discussion followed about the potential dates for a joint meeting and an ARB Special Meeting regarding the water feature. Ms. Salay asked Mr. Holton if the ARB would reconsider and work with Council on review of the water feature in a joint session. The members of ARB present indicated their concurrence. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff will have Bird+Houk work with the community groups to seek input and design at least two options for water features for presentation to a joint meeting of ARB and Council on Tuesday, February 19. Mr. Keenan moved to schedule a joint meeting of the City Council and the Architectural Review Board on Tuesday, February 19 at a time to be determined in regard to the water feature for the Bridge and High Redevelopment Project. He noted that at the joint meeting, the ARB will make a recommendation to City Council and Council will then vote on the recommendation regarding the water feature element of the project. Vice Mayor Boring added that prior to February 19, staff will direct Bird+Houk to engage the groups identified by ARB for input and specific ideas for the water feature that can be incorporated into the project design. The groups include the Dublin Historical Society, the Dublin Arts Council, the Historic Dublin Association, the Historic Dublin Business Association, and any other interested party. Ms. Brautigam clarified that when Bird+Houk schedules this meeting, the interested people should will attend. There is not an expectation that Bird+Houk will schedule additional meetings and continue seeking more input beyond that meeting. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, noting that it is the responsibility of all of the members of the various groups to get the word out that public input is needed -specific ideas for water features that will fit into the project design. Ms. Salay clarified that the public art process will take place in the future and will be completely separate from the water features. Council agreed. Mr. Lecklider asked if the ultimate decision be a joint vote of the two bodies, or will it be a vote of Council? It was the consensus of Council that ARB will make a recommendation to City Council at the February 19 joint meeting, and Council will then vote on the ARB recommendation at Council's regular meeting of February 19. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Tom Currie. 5927 Rings Road ARB Member asked for clarification that the ARB is to make a recommendation regarding the water features only. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that Bird+Houk will come up with the designs, based upon their input from the groups, and those design options will be presented to ARB and Council at the joint meeting of February 19. Mr. Currie stated that anything else for the southeast plaza corner is off the table at this point. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that only the water feature design is to be considered at this time. Mr. Keenan clarified that the centerpiece of the southeast plaza will accommodate a public art piece, and that process will involve the Dublin Arts Council and other interested entities at a later date. STAFF COMMENTS • COIC Regulations Ms. Brautigam stated that a report was provided to Council in the packet sent out on Thursday evening. The P&Z Commission on Thursday evening unanimously approved the COIC Regulations and are sending them on to Council with a report for Council to consider at a later date. There is no need to schedule a joint meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 22 COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE/COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher reported that a letter was included in the packet from Jed Morrison, Superintendent of the Franklin County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities requesting an endorsement from various communities of Issue 29 - a levy on the March 4 ballot. She asked if Council Members have an interest in endorsing this levy. Ms. Salay stated that it has been past practice not to take positions on issues to be decided upon by the voters. Personally, she believes this is a worthy cause and will vote for it on March 4. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that has been the policy historically, but each matter is brought to Council for them to consider. Other Council Members indicate they share Ms. Salay's view on this. It was the consensus of Council not to endorse the levy. Council indicated they are supportive of the services to the client group that Franklin County MRDD services. Mr. Lecklider asked for the status regarding St. Patrick's Day, in follow up to the memo provided after the study session. Ms. Puskarcik responded that the direction she understands from Council is that Council will participate in the parade as they have in the past. Mr. Lecklider asked if there was clarity regarding Council's support of proposed enhancements to the parade. Vice Mayor Boring noted that the memo does seem to indicate that there are increased costs associated with the parade enhancements. Mr. Lecklider stated that his understanding is that any enhancements would be funded by sponsorships. Ms. Puskarcik clarified that staff is not seeking additional funding for the parade. The enhancements will come about over amulti-year timeframe. Mr. Lecklider asked if it is anticipated that bleachers and other components will be added. Ms. Puskarcik responded that staff is considering implementing a VIP viewing area for potential future sponsors or parade partners. A video of the parade enhancements would be used as a marketing tool for future years. They are not asking for additional funding for the 2008 parade. Vice Mayor Boring noted that she was one of the supporters of reducing the St. Patrick's Day weekend activities, and it now seems that a tradeoff is anticipated with the Blarney Bash elimination. She would not have supported that tradeoff. Ms. Puskarcik responded that staff is not proposing changing the route or the size of the parade. They are encouraging units with more entertainment value. There are currently not criteria regarding participation in the parade, and the parade is very long. Spectators lose interest in a very long parade unless the entertainment value is improved. Vice Mavor Boring, Administrative Chair reported: 1. The Clerk will be asked to advertise for the available openings on board and commissions, together with the interview dates of the evenings of March 5 and 6. 2. In regard to the staff member evaluation, she moved to refer this matter to the Administrative Committee to discuss the process and to bring a recommendation back to Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vice Mayor Boring will have the Clerk check with Committee Members regarding available dates and times for this meeting. 3. In reviewing the pending items for the Committee, there is an item to review the reporting requirements for Political Action Committees. She asked if Council would like to have this matter reviewed or removed from the list, as it has been on the Committee's list for a long period of time. Mr. Keenan suggested removing the PAC item from the Committee pending items list, as it has been on the list for at least three or more years without any action. Further, he suggested that the campaign contribution limits be reviewed by the Legal staff due to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2008 Page 23 Held 20 Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign contributions. Technically, Dublin is not in compliance with that law. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Legal staff has already provided such an opinion to Council. Mr. Keenan moved to take the PAC item off of the Administrative Committee pending items list. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes the PAC item is an appropriate item for the Committee to review. Mr. Keenan revised his motion to refer the PAC item to the Administrative Committee, together with the campaign contribution limits discussion. Ms. Salay stated that she is interested in advice from Legal staff regarding PACs and how the City can better identify who is contributing to Council candidates. That information is of interest to the public. More disclosure is better than less. The reason this item has not been acted upon is that no one wants to take this up in an election year. Mr. Keenan responded that this item has been on the list over several years, some of which were not election years. The fact is that there is full disclosure of campaign contributions, not only at the City level, but very detailed requirements at the county level. There are five sets of filings required for a candidate. Ms. Salay stated that she is very aware of this, having been through two election cycles. Ms. Salay seconded the revised motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vice Mayor Boring asked the Clerk to identify some dates and times for this meeting of the Administrative Committee. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the Grand Leprechaun for 2008 is Lois Dixon. She is very excited about her selection and would like the limousine offered to her to ride in for the St. Patrick's Day parade. The Chamber has agreed to open up their offices for both the 2008 Business Person of the Year and to honor Lois Dixon while the parade continues on. The Grand Leprechaun luncheon will take place at Jason's in Historic Dublin. ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:00 p.m. for legal matters (to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action) and for land acquisition matters (to consider the purchase of property for public purposes). Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting will be reconvened only for the purpose of formally adjourning. There will be no further action taken by Council. The meeting was reconvened at 11 p.m. and formally adjourned. 1A ~ Mayor -Presiding Officer ~~ ~~~ Clerk of Council