The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/01/1991 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Dublin City Council was called to order by Mayor Jan Rozanski at 7:30 on Monday, July 1, 1991. The Pledge of Allegiance was repeated by all. Members present were Mr. Campbell, Mrs. King, Ms. Maurer, Mayor Rozanski, Mr. Sutphen, Mr. Strip. Mayor Rozanski: We will have to waive the reading of the June 3 and June 17 Council minutes; it is my understanding you will be getting a packet, probably tomorrow with those minutes in it; and I ask you to look those over and if you see there are any corrections or additions needed to those minutes, please get with Myra so that can be done, so that we can approve these at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Mayor Rozanski read and presented a Proclamation to Dr. Philip G. Price. Mayor Rozanski: Next we will have Comments From Visitors on any item not on tonight's agenda. Being none, the Public Hearing on the COTA request for a Park and Ride was discussed. Tobias Elsass, attorney for Mrs. Abey, asked that the Public Hearing be tabled until the 15th of July meeting. Request was granted. Mayor Rozanski: Next, we have a presentation from our consultants on the West Branch Alternative. Tom Mosure from M.S. Consultants was there to present the report. That report was distributed to Council in their packets last Thursday, and they're willing to give an overview and respond to any questions Council or the public may have. "" Mr. Tom Mosure, Senior Vice President of M.S. Consultants and Mr. Kenny Rickert, Project Manager for this project, made the presentation. We are tasked with evaluating the feasibility and the comparison of equal alternatives of the deep tunnel, West Scioto project versus the upgrading of pump station with an installation of twin 30" diameter force mains, conveying similar routes along Old Dublin Road to basically the south terminus point to the corporate boundaries of the City of Dublin and with the City of Columbus. With that, we are providing opinions of the technical feasibility and the functional equivalency of these alternatives. The latest project cost, we did an in-depth analysis of both the alternatives, that Kenny will take you through in a moment in an overview; we examined, a central point to this issue is the life cycle cost on a present worth basis, both in terms of 20 years and 50 years; and then we'll have a brief discussion on the subjective aspects of both alternatives, which there are quite a few aspects to be considered. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kenny and let him run you through the report; and then we'll come back and open it up to questions, I'm sure there will be quite a few. Kenny Rickert: Thank you, Tom, Council. Basically, I'd like to go through a brief description of each of the alternatives for those of you who aren't too familiar with it. The City of Columbus is in the progress of designing a deep shaft tunnel, starting approximately at the dam for Griggs Reservoir and extending up about 1100 feet south of Tuttle Road. That's where their project would basically stop and the City would have to connect to that. Under their proposed tunnel option, they would extend a 72-inch diameter tunnel about 6800 feet up to near the access road where the existing pump station is. There would be 4 drop shafts, where access could be gained for construction activities and routine maintenance in the future. And that's basically, it's about 68 feet deep or more at Tuttle Road, and comes out to about 30 feet deep at the pump station site. In February 1991, there was a feasibility study that encompassed the existing pump station that was recently improved under EPA mandates, that proposed to extend twin 30-inch diameter force mains within the right-of-way 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 1C14B ReIn July 1, 1991 19 .. along Dublin Road. A 42-inch gravity sewer would convey flows from Tuttle Road to the intersecting point with the Columbus project. That would be broken into two phases to where the existing pump station could be used for a short period of time until the flow capacity would be exceeded, and then a second phase could be instituted later upon that to bring it up to a level of 35 MGD which was functionally equivalent to the Columbus option. In our primary study, we were to compare the two alternatives for whether (1) they were technically feasible, and (2) whether they were functionally equal. In response to the first question, both tunneling and force main options are well-proven technologies. If open cut excavations are not feasible because of getting over, say 30 feet deep, tunneling is just a change in the construction method. It allows you to dig the gravity sewer at a deeper, at a much greater depth. The force main option is generally used when conveying flows by gravity is not feasible. Those are both well-proven technologies. In terms of the design flows, City of Columbus used 100 gallon per capita day flow rate and assumed that there was 8 capita per acre throughout the service area for the City of Dublin. And they also had an infiltration in-flow value added on to that, totalling about 46 MGD for the total design flow for a peak hourly basis. Flow projections for the force main option used the 1988 Dublin Community Plan, assuming a full capacity at the year 2010, and design and average daily flows were pro-rated based upon existing information. That flow value was subsequently increased so that would be comparatively equal to the Columbus option; there was some difference in flows, but modifications to the conceptual design of force main could make those equivalent in terms of a peak hourly flow rate, without any significant increase in cost. In terms of the connection points, at any place where there would be a drop shaft under the tunnel option, flows could be conveyed to those locations and tied in by gravity, because of the extreme depths that we're dealing with under the tunnel option. The proposed force main option would dictate that all flows be taken to the existing pump station, or they could be tied into the gravity segment from Tuttle Road and anywhere south of that. Under either alternative, homes that are situated to the east of Dublin Road, between Dublin Road and the reservoir, would have to have some sort of localized collection system that would feed back to either the tunnel option or the force main option; and there are several connection points available under either of those options. The primary issue that we identify as part of our report, and it comes into playa little bit as I get into the cost elements, is when connecting a higher elevation system to a deep tunnel, it may require the flows get over about 18 MGD on a peak value, it may require a complex and involved drop structure that basically would swirl own, swirl the sewage from the higher elevation down to the lower one, and that was the figure that was shown in the report, Figure 3.1. I'll get into that, the reasons why that's so significant here in a little bit. Another aspect that we were supposed to evaluate, was to determine whether the latest estimates that were developed to reach the alternatives were complete, and whether those costs were reasonable. In Chapter 4, we went through the tunnel option and developed a comparative estimate that basically came up with very similar prices; we had a somewhat lower estimate on the Type A tunnel, which is the tunnel and competent rock cost which was slightly lower than the City of Columbus estimates, and therefore resulted in a slight decrease in our cost estimate over theirs. For the Phase 1 and Phase 2 pump station improvements, Table 4-2 was an item by item comparison of the cost estimate developed in the February feasibility study. Those costs were fairly equal in terms of comparison, with the exception of two areas, one being cost associated with the excavation of rock, the depth of bedrock is fairly shallow in that area, and the potential for incurring increased costs due to difficult rock excavation, may be possible so we increased our estimates somewhat. The major cost difference is shown to be the tangential inlet structure. That is the complex connection device that I referred to earlier. There was about a $650,000 difference in cost estimates there, the reason being, even though the City of Columbus is dropping a shaft at that location where the Columbus project starts and yours would stop, you would need to construct a structure similar to what was shown in that figure, which involves a lot of excavation work, a lot of concrete work, and therefore it has a fairly significant cost associated with that. In addition to those cost estimates, we thought there were a few items 2 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 tJII""'Yf. on there that were not costed in the previous study, because they would either be on the scope of the study or not presented at that time; several of those have to do with right-of- way issues and utility relocation costs. The reasons that we have there, by looking at the pictures here, the distances from the edge of pavement to the current Dublin Road right-of- way are generally about 30 feet or less on either side; standard excavations may entail that, during the performance of backfilling activities that you would need to obtain some easements for construction purposes, and in some areas where there is significant utility conflicts, you may need to obtain permanent easements for those utilities. In addition, for those of you familiar with that area, there are several areas that have landscaping figures, features such as wood fences, and more importantly, stone walls that would have to be relocated as part of the sewer construction, and then restored to its original condition, so we included costs for that. Another item of consideration that we noted was that the prior study assumed that the Cramer Ditch Pump Station, which is located just south of Rings Road, would remain in operation and therefore pump flows back to the main pump station. That area has a large diameter sewer there at present that, in the future, would bring a much greater flow to that area than that pump station can handle, so improvements would be needed at some later date, or should be incorporated into the force main option, and we put together an alternate alignment for that as shown in Figure 4.2 of the report. The cost associated with utilities and site restoration as well as the Cramer Ditch connection, we cost it out there in Table 4.3 which added some cost elements to the project. In terms of operation and maintenance costs which were needed to develop a present worth, life-cycle cost analysis, based on experiences with other projects, we developed the cost estimates as shown in Table 4.4. As you'll see, the main difference in those cost estimates deals with the power consumption associated with running the pumps on an annual basis, as well as additional labor costs that are associated with maintaining those items. After the cost estimates were developed, we placed those estimates into a present worth analysis. We used a discount rate that was established by EPA for the fiscal year 1991, assumed an inflation rate of 6 % per year; and a few other assumptions that we made in the cost analysis was that although the construction of the Phase 2 improvements could be deferred until a later date when flows reached in excess of 18 MGD, we placed those costs as being incurred in the first year. Another assumption that we made was that construction of a connector for Cramer Ditch Pump Station similar to that that we identified in the report, would also incur as part of the Phase 1 improvements. Table 5.1 that was in your report, shows that both on a 20-year and a 50-year basis, that the total life cycle cost, based on present worth, is lower for the force main option, from a 20-year to a 50-year period; however, that range decreases somewhat due to the replacement costs associated with repairing pumps electrical equipment, etc. It should be noted that the assumptions that we made in the cost estimate and the present worth analysis, reflected a conservative approach, it kind of brought the two options closer together in terms of overall cost, so that represents a, sort of a worst-case situation. That's basically the summary of the objective issues of the report, and I think I'll let Tom expand more on some of the subjective issues that we addressed, and also close this. .-'._" Tom Mosure: Thank you, Ken. Let me go back and just hit a couple points that I thought were key that Kenny mentioned. One on the force main alternative, just to bring them to your attention, one is the construction, there's a Figure 4.1 basically shows, and this is just a typical section of a trenching operation in a right-of-way, as Kenny mentioned. Unfortunately, we'll have to incorporate these photos into the final report, because you can see that, from centerline of Old Dublin, and this varies, but you've got 30 feet to 40 feet typically out to the right-of-way. That area also, and we have drawings here if you'd like to take a look, is loaded with utilities in most locations. So in the present alignment, we've taken it as it is and basically costed it. There are some things that can be done, we feel, that can reduce that cost, although it's going to be hard decisions in terms of right-of-way impacts and where easements, both temporary and permanent can be purchased. And I think that's a key point we've reflected. I want to go back and point those costs out to you. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting LEGAL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 9'J!c It is a little confusing in our report, if you take a look at, if you will, Figure 4.3 in relationship to 4.2. 4.2, like Kenny mentioned, is the 3-9 versus the 5-3, and that's an equivalency without the add-ons, except for the tangential inlet. If you then go to 4.3, you still have to do 184,000 worth of utility, and a big one that we've identified here would be stone wall relocations. Many places up through that corridor, you have stone walls, and that would be an issue in right-of-way purchasing. The Cramer Ditch connection, to reiterate this, would be, Cramer Ditch has a potential of service, a good quarter portion of town in terms of its flows. If you do not build a gravity portion, what we're saying is "Stop the project in terms of force main at Cramer Ditch, rather than right now the proposal is to build force mains to Tuttle, and basically gravity the rest of the way to Shaft 11". What we're saying in here is "Stop at Cramer Ditch and build a gravity", this area is open field and easement should be easily secured in this area, probably one of the few portions in the corridor that you can do this. And then down the road, it saves you considerable money in terms of this station eventually would only pump, I think 360,000 gallons per day. There's a 21-inch connection in here that services a good portion of town west. You can kill two birds with one stone in that alternative by stopping the force main and running gravity. I didn't know if that point was made strong enough or not; but essentially you would actually save about $197,000 in terms of material cost to do it now. That's not even considering the long-term cost of pumping, you're going to pump the sewage twice if you take it the other direction is what I'm saying. So moving along from those, I just wanted to come back and hit those two points and we'll talk a little more about those. We had an error, I want to point, go to the 50-year period and we'll have to update this, from quality control, we caught this. If you go to the present worth replacement at 20 years, on the 50- year alternative, instead of $257,203, that should be $554,598. ~ d - ~ Okay, would you go over that one again? .. This is the present worth replacement at 20 years of the pumps. What I'm saying is, it's the pumps that will pump into the forced main. What I'm saying is, pumps, let me give you an example of what I'm saying there. The pumps you install now have a life, through routine maintenance that we have projected in 20 years, those pumps will wear out and you will need to replace them. What this present worth analysis does is, it says if I invest $554,000 now, I'll have enough money to replace those pumps in 20 years, is what that's saying. So what I'm doing, is all the cost that you can reasonably anticipate for 50 years have been projected back to present worth dollars so we can compare the tunnel versus pump station, because the pump station has very much energy cost associated with it, and maintenance; where, a tunnel, you install a tunnel, you have operation and maintenance cost that you exceed, but as you'll notice, I think that we're saying $15,000 a year for the tunnel and on the force main, we're talking about $175,000 a year, in terms of what you can reasonably expect in operation and maintenance. It's on Table 4.4, the tunnel option, let me go through this again. The tunnel option, page 20. These are the operation and maintenance costs that we're doing the present worth analysis on, so we developed these through past histories both with a tunnel and pump station and force mains. Essentially what we're saying on the tunnel option, a tunnel, what's a design life, this is an argument even between engineers, to be honest with you, what's the designlife of a gravity sewer, is it 50, is it 100 years, how long does it last? We've assumed for this comparison analysis, we're saying 50, although we note that the life of tunnel is going to be longer than a forced main and pump station, without repair. But we're saying the routine maintenance of a new installation is going to be roughly $15,000 a year for tunnel. The force main option, however, you'll have labor cost for maintenance, and the biggy is power, we're talking about considerably sized horse power motors, both in terms of Phase I and Phase II. With the average projection to start in year 1 will be is $175,000. That will escalate, as Kenny mentioned in his assumptions, we're using an inflation rate for power and labor and materials at 6%, so our analysis takes into account those increases over the 20 and 50-year in our analysis that we were then referring to. ..Ji.i:" 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting AYT N LEGAL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 Referring to Table 5.1: This is the present worth replacement in 20 years. We're saying that the pumps and the electrical components of the station, you'll have to prepare for a major rehab in 20 years. And that number is not 257, the computer burped on us, it's $554,598. 1f;ii That's the same figure as the 20-year. They should have been the same, and that keyed us in that there was an error. Let me go down, the 143,000 is an error, also. That figure should be 332,285. The total at the bottom is $13,365,555. So in the 50-year period, the present worth of all cost for the tunnel is $15,153,623; the present worth of the pump station and force main is $13,365,555, basically a savings of $1,788,068 in that 50-year. The 50-year was $15,000,000 for the tunnel and $13,000,000 for the force main. The 20- year is $13,444,000 and the force main is $9,279,000. ""', Regardless of which alternative is selected, we're obviously going to have short term impacts that will occur in the area of construction. These inconveniences to residents and motorists will include dust and noise level at the structure, removal and relocation of lawns, trees, landscape features, traffic disruptions due to construction activity, increased construction vehicles, lane and road closures, increased potential for erosion and silt in the areas of excavation, disruption of services during utility relocation. Obviously the tunnel will definitely have less impacts in regards to those type of construction related disturbances except in the areas of where the shafts will be located. Otherwise, obviously the open cut construction will definitely have more of an adverse impact in those areas. Traffic maintenance, we didn't even, if you do an open cut construction on Old Dublin, we did not at this time, project cost estimates for traffic maintenance, because it's all tied up into the issue as it relates to purchasing easements for construction. The key issue that will be in one of the areas, will be real tough in the force main location will be basically coming out of the access where the existing pump station is located up to about Grandview A venue, very tight in there, so the alternatives would be build it in the road, one lane construction, you'll have traffic maintenance, that would be the most critical area, the others we believe you can snake around and get it in, but this would be very difficult in an open cut construction. Long term, operation reliability, effective operation force main option is dependent upon proper design, routine preventive maintenance, and I can't overemphasize this, you're going to have mechanical devices down there, going to need to be standby generators that are going to have to be agitated every month, you're going to have to have oil and grease maintenance on the pumps; it's just like your car, the better you maintain it, the longer it's going to last you; and that's the same application to think of a pump and a motor. There's a possibility the force main alternative will have a greater degree of potential odor at it's discharge point that you will have with the tunnel; what I mean is, I do not believe than you will have considerable amount of odors, although I do want to make a point here, in your scenario right at the present time, you have a flow equalization base. The 18 Phase I is sized for 18 million gallons per day, that's typically designed on a lO-year storm event. You're all familiar with the storm events and that type of issue --- If you receive a 50-year storm event, what's going to happen? The flow's going to go above 18, your pumps can only pump 18, what are you going to do with it? There are three alternatives what you do with it in my assessment. You use your equalization basins there to off-peak store it. You can back it up into the sewer lines, depending on the capacity of those lines to store it; you can discharge it to the river, because, I've mentioned this to Terry before, how diluted is the water diluted at a 25-year storm event. If it meets the water quality standards, then it's in question. And third, maybe you up size one of the pumps to take into account that extra load that you may need. I'm sure you got into the storm sewers, 100-year design, 50-year design, but it's a consideration. You have the physical capability to handle it at the present time, especially at the flow equalization basin. .... . 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting Ii DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 p The odor problem that I was referring to are not those odors, although we don't anticipate, and there are ways of handling that; when you are conveying sewage through a force main of this length, you retain basically sewage for maybe anytime over ten minutes, and it's subject not to oxygen, when it releases at the release point, there may be some odors at that point, there may be some odors. There are ways you can add, we can add chemical addition right into the manhole to diffuse that odor problem. Public relations and implementations, obtaining right-of-way and easements is time consuming, costly in terms of land purchases and the legal fees; we have programmed, we estimated basically for this purpose, about 50 to 60,000 per acre, and you can purchase temporary easements at about 20% of value because you're not taking real property; I think the total amount we have included in here is about $160,000 for that purpose; plus, we did not know the policy of the City of Dublin on stone walls, even though if they're located inside your right-of-way, legally you don't have to replace them if they're inside the right-of-way, but we put in costs for stone wall restorations in this project cost. Construction within the right-of-way minimizes the need for land acquisition, but we can put it in the road, but then you're down to one-lane construction, so all those issues you wanted to pursue for the force main, I feel that you need to get rectified; obviously there is considerable capital cost savings there. In brief, summary of findings, both alternatives presented a functionally equivalent. Waste water flows are slightly more conservative on the tunnel approach with 46 million gallons per day versus the 35, as Kenny went through. The force main option currently leaves the Cramer Ditch lift station in place. We would recommend that you abandon that for the extra savings; actually, it would be an extra savings to carry that forth. Additional costs for utility conflicts, right-of-way procurement, restoration of driveways, stonewalls and landscaping, would be needed. Tangential inlet approach and drop shaft would be needed for the force main and pump station alternative. Economic analysis using present worth for 20 and 50 years shows that the pump station and gravity alternatives are desirable on present worth. Several non-monetary factors we just went through, and I'm not going to reiterate those in summary; and I guess, Mayor, just open it up to questions. '" ...c'"" "'" Mayor Rozanski: Thank you, Tom. Open it up first to Council. If Council has any questions or comments they'd like to make at this time. Ace-- A. C. Strip: I have the one question, kind of a curiosity, on page 21, I flagged an assumption you made that while part of the Phase 2 improvement could be delayed for 20 years, you're analysis assumes that we're going to do construction concurrent with Phase 1; and my curiosity was, why would we want to do something now that we can put off for 20 years, when you consider the present value of money, etc., and why did you make that assumption? Tom Mosure: We made an assumption for basically two reasons: if you can tell me how fast the community will grow, this is all in relationship to that. If you look at various reports that have been prepared on the subject, you get anywhere that this thing will be, the flow would increase from 1990 to 2010. One more issue that made that, why we did bring it back, the issue of inflow. I'm still a little concerned about inflow and your ability to handle that without being in trouble with EP A. So what you can do, you can build Phase I and then you have a monitoring device for yourself if you did the pump station; when you start using the equalization basin you know you're ready for Phase 2. We had to make some type assumption that we felt that it was better to bring back to today than to move forward --- A. C. Strip: If you took Phase 2 out for right now, how much of our cost, depending upon whichever you want to use, could we take out? In other words, how much of a saving would there be if, in fact, we could put off Phase 2 for some roughly 20 years? Tom Mosure: Phase 2 construction cost for -- 814,000 in construction -- 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DArTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 A. C. Strip: So we're talking about less than a million dollars in, not saving, but delayed actually. You don't save the money, you're just delaying when you're going to use it. ,.'1i' ''1' Tom Mosure: Your deferring, if the community is growing, you will need to do the improvements. Denise King: You recommended that we consider terminating the force main at Cramer Ditch and instituting an open cut gravity sewer down to the terminus of Dublin's portion, somewhere shortly south of Tuttle Road. If we implemented that recommendation, how would it impact the cost, the comparative cost? Tom Mosure: We assume that Cramer Ditch, that you would think that was logical, and we included that in our present worth analysis, so the costs are included. Denise King: That recommendation is already factored into the cost? Tom Mosure: Yes. Denise King: A second question and that is, relative to Mr. Strip's question, wouldn't it be a significant cost savings to go ahead and put in both force mains at the time that the cut was made, and the road was open, and the easements were granted, and the traffic was maintained, and all those other associated costs were incurred, rather than putting in only one of them and going back, even 20 years from now and adding the second one? .' .. Tom Mosure: There must be some understanding, no, we're saying build, actually there won't be 30, when you get, when somebody gets into detailed design, one will be, like a 24 and one will be a little bigger. Because of velocities, I don't want to get into the real technical details, but you want to maintain a certain velocity in a force main. But you will build two of them, all the way down, you're right, once it's open, we're going to go all the way down. What I'm saying is, we're going to terminate all force mains at Cramer Ditch pump station rather than carry them down to Tuttle. Here's what you would end up doing longterm if you build the force mains: you would come down to Tuttle, just terminate, you'd have a manhole here, force mains go into a manhole, and then a gravity line down to Shaft 11. If you did that, then when Cramer Ditch service area began to grow, you would have to increase the pumping capability of the Cramer Ditch pump station. This force main is only a 6" force main, it will not handle very much more flow; you're at capacity at Cramer Ditch now; you'd be double pumping sewage basically. Denise King: I think you need to let me ask my question again. Terry Foegler: I think the question is relating to Phase 2 improvements. The Phase 2 improvements are just the addition of more pumps at the lift station, they don't deal with the provision of any more force mains or -- Denise King: Then the recommendation that you have made in this report anticipates that all of the piping will be put in with the initial construction. ~ Basically, the point we're trying to draw with this is, you're showing the corridor, and we're trying to show you the relationships of how tight the right-of-way was in given areas. These photos identify looking each direction of where we would have to install an open cut situation; we're not really, at this point in time, getting into detail, alignments east or west on Dublin Road at the tunnel or of the sewer alignment. So what we're basically showing here is a rough alignment and basically what the right-of-way looks like in those given areas. Both of these are the force main ------ this is match line, this is a continuing down the corridor, this is the beginning of the project here at the existing pump station. 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYT N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 Instead of the force main, at Cramer, we would abandon the pump station and build a 42" diameter gravity line down to the tangential inlet that Kenny referred to that was missing, and that would be constructed here at Shaft 11. I1!r .....", There was always in the alternative, the force main stopped at Tuttle, the last portion was gravity. We've just extended it back up to pick up the Cramer Ditch; so in essence what I'm saying, if you build, for example if you look at Chart 4.3, page 18. In pipe material alone, neglecting future improvements to the Cramer Ditch pump station, and it's appurtenances, the 42" reinforced concrete pipe is essentially 269,000; this is just pipe material. The twin 30" ductile iron pipes are approximately 466,000; so just in pipe material alone, you've saved $197,000. My point I was trying to reach, is if you do this alternative, sooner or later down the line of long-term planning, this station will need to be upgraded. If you did do the force mains down to here, say 10 years down the line, Mr. Strip was referring to, if this area grew, your alternatives would be to build the gravity line at that portion, and you would have to pay for it then, or upgrade the station, upgrade the 6" line, this is a 6" force main that goes to, I believe, a 10" sanitary sewer, it takes it down to the pump station. But then you're double pumping it. What I mean by double pumping, you're forcing energy into it twice. .",.,,. Basically, the difference in that projection was, based on ultimate flow requirements, I think they were anticipating that you could put in a standard drop manhole, has an outside shaft on it. But we're talking about a deep tunnel at 80' deep, and you're going to drop upwards in the long term, 30 million gallons of sewage that has considerable momentum and energy. If you drop that sewage 80' for very long, you'd have a hole down there as big as you wouldn't believe. It would just erode the bottom right away, so this is an energy dissipation device, it also releases air and those type of activities. It basically swirls, what we're doing is dissipating all the energy in sewage that's coming in, is what this device does. iIO."",.._.,,, Terry Foegler: The representative from Wolpert is here. I did ask that question today. I believe what their assumption was, in checking with them, was that since Columbus was building the last shaft, that we were utilizing and paying that cost anyway, that they would be willing to modify that shaft to make it the tangential shaft. I believe in the checking that M.S. did, that Columbus indicated they want to retain that shaft for access to the tunnel; and if that is, in fact, the case, it can't serve both purposes, and therefore, a separate shaft would have to be developed. Barbara Maurer: One other question about cost, several years ago when I was talking to John Circle about this, he said that it was desirable to realign, what's the word when you make the curve the right direction so that you don't go sliding off the road, that Dublin Road has some problems, and probably those of you who have driven down there know that is doesn't do the banking on the curve that normally you should get, and he said that it would be good to go down Dublin Road because then they could rebank and realign that road. Now does your cost estimate take into account the County replacing the road, rather than our paying for it? Tom Mosure: No, it does not. In fact, at all costs, we have stayed out of the road at this point in time, because it's much more expensive to repair the roadway; and that will be an issue of, Old Dublin is not a state route, and I'm aware that John Circle is designing up to Hayden Road, Dublin Road. To get off that issue, we have not put it in; two things bother me, if that is a possibility, fine, but I think there will be complications; the second thing, I would not want a force main under a pavement, because if you did experience breaks or anything like that, serviceability is awful difficult; you have to close the road, there will be air release valves in manholes on a force main, basically, at high points to prevent water hammer, where air accumulates in these force mains and comes to the high point; so there will be air release valves located at high points along the force main that basically blow off 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ~ ReIn July 1, 1991 19 air, and there would be approximately 5 of those. pi< Barbara Maurer: When you talked about right-of-way, I assumed it could be anywhere, and that it could be in the road, if there was right-of way. If there was some financial advantage to us having the County pick up the cost of replacing that, more power to us. .,- Kenny Rickert: The Wolpert study suggested an alignment which basically started on the west side down to Grandview Avenue and then crossed over to the east and continued down for much of the rest of the route; the reason for that was, there are water lines on the opposite sides that they were trying to stay away from for the most part; there's also some gas lines there, so they were trying to avoid as many of the utilities as possible. So all in all, there would be three areas where the roadway would be open cut, and that would be right at the access road at Grandview Avenue, and then right at the access shaft at 30 under Wolpert's original alignment. But there may be possibilities for revising that alignment at a later date. Denise King: Are there any other costs, or savings for that matter, to either of these options which are beyond the scope of the services at this report. I don't mean that you have to tell us what the value of that cost is, but are there any issues that we missed that we should have included in the scope of services, which would contribute to the cost of either option? .-'_ c., Tom Mosure: I would get a legal opinion in terms of utility relocation costs, because they are going to be substantial here; and those are not shown because they were assumed to be in the City jurisdiction; that it's your right-of-way and you can demand them to move. But I have been involved with projects that, there is a 1 % probability that that is not true, so I would define that utility situation con firmly , if it was me. ili:.t;."'._ Dan Sutphen: I guess, just on our past record of trying to get easements, land, etc., that $170,000 figure is, as the Mayor and I were just speaking, I think that's probably for the legal fees, not for what the land would probably cost, I'm just guessing. ---- That certainly has, to answer your question, I think that is a grey area. Tom Mosure: I agree, it's one we struggled with in trying to put this together. There are a lot of contingencies that you can take those from, also, that we put in here. --- The only other area that is not in here, a lot of people said it would be part of contingencies but I usually show it as separate item contingencies, is interest during construction. Basically, no matter how you finance this project, you're going to incur interest during construction, basically on the undisturbed balance. Depends on who you finance with, that can run from 4 to 8 %, so like on the tunnel proj ect, that can be to the tune of 963,000. It's been said in our checks that that would be part of contingency, but it's a big contingency item. That would also be true of the pump station, force mains, unless, you have cash to pay those. This has not been figured in. if/W' ... Joel Campbell: I have a couple questions, can I ask you for a comparison at the end? Number 1, in the non-financial category of factors, was there any consideration given to, what it appears to a layman, to be a relatively significantly greater safety risk, of having something 60' under the ground where people have to go as opposed to a ditch next to the road? 8k,..;t Tom Mosure: I guess only in terms that we look at it in terms of operation and maintenance costs. As part of the operation and maintenance cost, Columbus will have to upgrade their staff to be able to handle deep-tunnel maintenance. They're pretty up-to-speed in terms of sewer construction and they will have to buy certain equipment that would be specialized for tunnels; and they have told us that they will do so. Obviously, it's going to 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON L BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 II I ReIn July 1, 1991 19 be a little greater concern, but they have some sewers and maintenance that are fairly deep, 30', and so we don't see that as being overriding. ,#w Joel Campbell: Also, in some of the earlier portions of the report, it talks about the areas between Dublin Road and the river needing localized collection systems. Is that like a mini forced main to get them up hill to either gravity or, if you use the gravity line? ~ .. Tom Mosure: That's correct. Basically, this map doesn't show it very well, but they all, as you know, fall off to the river. There's no one, in an 80' tunnel, going to bore through to put a house on it. They would probably put a grinder pump station in once they get around to doing it, pumping it out to an access. In the tunnel alternative, they would have to go to an access shaft. Joel Campbell: Would that mean, that there be, if we went with the gravity sewer, that there would be some kind of a small pumping station in the area that we're talking about, to get it up to the gravity? Tom Mosure: Yes, in either case, both alternatives, the grouping of people in need will probably combine to do a little collection system to a small pump station to lift it up to Dublin Road. The only alternative would be to build a gravity sewer down by the river; actually we did take a look and you can build a gravity sewer conventionally, if you want to go right by the river; talk about easements, I don't want to touch that one. ,. Joel Campbell: Lastly, it seems to me, kind of the bottom line here, I read through your summary of your findings. You say, on the one hand, basically, that the big factor in favor of the force main, if I'm boiling it down to the bottom line, the big factor in favor of the force main seems to be the present, what you call present worth, which basically is the present cost, if you want to call it that, present value of the cost, it's on one hand at the 20- year period, it's $4.1 million, $4,164,765 less for the force main than the tunnel. On the 50-year, it's $1,788,068; so it gets, obviously, a lot smaller the farther out you go. And maybe if it's 100 years out, it could be the other way. .. Tom Mosure: Actually, at 60 or 70, they'll be able to cross each other. And what happens in that, it's the capital cost that is cheaper on the pump station and force main. The operation and maintenance cost starts catching up, is what's happening. Joel Campbell: So that, against that, there's a big upfront savings, a long-term savings, as you say, the lines cross on the graph; against that, you, in your summary of findings, seem to say that although they're both technically feasible systems, I think earlier on you mentioned that the gravity is done typically unless it's not feasible, that's what you're earlier saying. You do say they're both technically feasible, but you have some inherent problems with having electrical pumps and all that, right? Tom Mosure: You're really into the subjective now. Joel Campbell: -- and you're very carefully, and I understand it's your position not to try and make the choice, that's what we have to do. But I'm reading all your subjective points here, you say although they're technically feasible, early on you mention that you do force mains if gravity doesn't seem to be feasible and then later on, you said the tunnel option of cost estimates appear to be complete and reasonable, whereas the force main option has a lot of potentially unknown costs out there like easement acquisition, and restoration of walls, etc. . The other subjective issues you mentioned is the construction-related impacts along the road, which that's true with the force main, not true with the gravity -- Tom Mosure: Less true of the gravity. 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 Ifit'....~ Joel Campbell: You have a few shafts, and that's the only places where it comes above the ground, so that the construction-related impact appears to be much greater under your subjective findings for the forced main than it is on the gravity. Next point is, that the conventional gravity sewer in the tunnel is advantageous from an operation and maintenance standpoint. That goes along with the numbers, I guess, that you talked about earlier. You also say the force main has the greater potential for generating odors than a gravity sewer; and you also talk about the legal issues involved with the utility relocation. I guess my feeling is, from reading this, on the one hand, the present worth saves money, at least initially for a period of time. But all the rest of the factors you pointed out seem to indicate that you lean towards the gravity sewer. Am I reading that right, or not? From a subjective standpoint, you lean towards toward gravity; from the money, at least for a period of time, the present worth, under your calculations, the force main. ...", .rii "'~. Tom Mosure: Let me answer that in two parts. First part is, that's why you're elected and I'm not. Most places in the country, and I've been allover the country with sewage treatment, is that if they can gravity do it, they do it; but they all do this, they all come down to a present worth analysis in terms of what are the long-term impacts of capital and operation and maintenance. And it's not an easy decision; we've tried to be very objective because we're your engineers, we can give you the facts, we can't make the decisions for you. And that's just the way it is. This is a tough decision. If I was in your shoes, this is a tough decision. The facts are all there; I would probably maybe take it to one more step, if you really wanted to in terms of getting a legal opinion, getting the utilities, that can make you or break you. You have a better feeling of what public opposition is going to be on Dublin Road than I do. Now we are designing Dublin Road for John Circle on the highway project, so I can tell you what kind of opposition we're running into down there. Just to give you what you have to come up with out of capital, so you have those numbers straight, Columbus is saying 16 million, and we're saying for force main alternative, what we know today, would be about 6.6, so you're saving 10 million, right now, today's capital. .' Kenny Rickert was asked to explain tunneling. Kenny: I tried to touch on it briefly in the description in Chapter 2; but basically, they have an auger machine that can shave the rock as it goes. The cutting heads are seUiR based upon a different type of rock that you're going to be encompassing. TechnoIOgywje, the harder the rock, the more competent the rock in terms of uniformity, the 'easier it is to tunnel. Several reasons for that. As you progress with the tunnel and it advances, you have to put supporting ribs made out of steel and what-not so that you make sure there is no collapse. If you have what they call a mixed-face condition to where there is competent rock on the lower half and less suitable rock on the top half, the potential for collapse is greater, you need more structural support, etc. That's basically, the more competent the rock formation, the better. The value engineering study that Tom referred to was recently completed, I don't know the exact date off the top of my head, but the evaluation indicated that if they would drop the tunnel depth an additional 25', they could get out of a potential mixed-face condition in the buried valley areas along the river. That's what made basically, the construction method of tunneling is what encompasses the great cost upfront, in terms of capital expense. Looking at the cost estimate, you're talking conventional gravity sewer can run $40 to $70 a foot, with its open cut and standard soil conditions, but we're talking $800 to $1200 a foot for a tunnel, dependent upon the diameter size, etc.; it's taken into the depth, the safety considerations that you were concerned about, they have to dependent upon the depth of, the mobilization includes forcing air down there so that the workers have a good work environment. They have to haul all the excavations out on rail cars and lift them out of the shafts, so you actually, the better the rock formation, the easier it is to tunnel, though it's still a good cost involved. Basically what they would do, they'd tunnel a hole that is larger than the finished diameter 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 ~;-;'--'" of the pipe that you use; you would install whatever liner system you would need in terms of reinforcing steel lagging, etc., for ground water protection and also for some support; they would grout that with a grout material. For the finished liner, they would I think the city, in this case is recommending they bring in precast segments, partial quarter segments of the pipe, radius pipe, and installing them in that way, so the finished product would be all concrete with joints. Barbara Maurer: Is the dropping of that, 25' further down to 85', is that going to incur more cost per foot? Kenny Rickert: The cost estimates contained in our report are based upon the depths that were suggested in the VE study. I have them shown in there, the deeper sections, so those should be representative of what the final design could be. Columbus is still in a design process, there may be revisions that will affect the cost one way or the other slightly, but we don't anticipate any significant changes at this point. Barbara Maurer: I have an image of what's under there from all of the sink-holes that are in our neighborhood that water goes down, there are big holes, and water goes down to the river pretty deeply underneath from west of Dublin Road. And my image of this is sort of thinking about the same --, or a better example is, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which was being built when I was growing up. And I think 50 men died building that, because the technology going through the mountains wasn't, I hope, wasn't as well developed as it is now; but the boring of those tunnels was pretty risky work, they just didn't know what they were going to get into. .~ ~ Kenny: The excavation, any mining excavation, is potentially hazardous; but the City of Columbus, I think, has undertaken a fairly aggressive soil boring program, trying to establish ground water levels. The Occupational Safety and Realth Administration has recently issued regulations dealing with confined space construction, which tunneling would fall under that. And I'm sure that any final design is going to incorporate all those aspects appropriately. Denise King: It is indicated that the main City of Dublin pump station could be eliminated by an open cut gravity interceptor installed immediately adjacent to the bank of the Scioto; however, significant concerns with both respects the short and long term environmental impacts associated with this alignment dictated the need to identify an alternate alignment. I'm aware of the controversy around placing the sewer along the banks of the Scioto south of Dublin, but what are the short and long-term environmental impacts associated with placing it along the banks of the Scioto River within Dublin? I can think of political impacts, but I can't think of any environmental -- Tom Mosure: Well, the reservoir would be one in terms of how close we would have to get to it, to make construction work. I know a couple projects that are stopped that you have to actually get into the reservoir once we would migrate down real close to the banks and how close we'd have to go. I think you're correct, though, the reason that it was killed, was political, nobody wanted it down there. And that's true in Dublin, we did some checking, I think I talked to Mike Long about it; there was a group actually from Dublin that was opposed to it when they were having public hearings, and I have it in the file, I don't know if we can find the name of the group. But there were public oppositions because we had talked to --- Denise King: There is public opposition to every alternative; the question is which one is technically and financially the best? We'll take on the political issues as you have so correctly identified and the public concern issues. I realize that the alternative along the river was not a part of your scoped services, but are you aware of what the short and long- 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DATI N LEGAL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 term environmental impacts are to that alternative? /?(Yo Tom Mosure: There have been two past reports done already on that, the corridor by Bird & Bull, and the social-economic by Parsons-Brinkerhoff, I think was the other one. ~ Kenny Rickert: Basically, we took the conclusions drawn from several reports. The alignment that was studied along the banks of the reservoir basically dealt with, from a technical standpoint it had the need to either have the sewer line partially exposed at the river bank, or mounded; there was the potential for a lot of ground water problems, being that close to the reservoir in terms of inability to dewater the trench, you'd basically have to put a wall of concrete in for the entire length, or much of it, before you could construct the sewer, put the bedding, etc., so these are the key ones that we identified through review of that previous document. In addition to that, you could add that there was some significant legal and political involvement, as well. Denise King: Technically, would it be possible to connect the sewer along the Scioto River with Columbus' planned deep tunnel sewer south of Tuttle Road, or does it simply not work? Tom Mosure: I think when the alternatives were done, right now, what would be impossible by it, is their alignment stops on Old Dublin Road and you're talking about changing the Columbus alignment, also. Because we would not be able to convey all the way down, would have to come back in and join their terminus point, and that would be hydraulically not acceptable, not without realignment by them. w ' Denise King: Even though their alternative is so much deeper? Tom Mosure: Yes, even that, because we actually, when we first got into that, checked if we could go gravity here, but there's a mounding here that we cannot overcome, even though they're 80', the profile, we cannot make this by gravity down Old Dublin Road. Kenny Rickert: Based upon the two invert elevations that are controlling the Riverview trunk line that comes down from the north side of town and the invert elevation of shaft #11, before they dropped the shaft, based upon the VE recommendations, the slope was approximately 5% per 100', it would drop .05' for every 100' of length, so it was an extremely shallow sloped sewer, coming from this point down to where it connected. We did not look at the design in terms of extreme detail, whether we could come back across, and get alternate alignments, I think it would probably be extremely late in terms of the progress that Columbus has made to whether they would have any flexibility in revising their alignment at this point. Denise King: No, I didn't anticipate that they would want to do that, or be willing to do it. Are you saying, is it technically feasible or not? Tom Mosure: Oh, I think it's going to be technically feasible to build a gravity, that they would relocate their terminus point, I would like to go back and, actually, we did not study that alternative much, so we would have to go back and take a look at that. But I think, if you followed that alignment, I only know from the past reports that were done, there was an alignment that went down, now the question gets to be, to me, is, how do we get back to it, and is that feasible technically? Kenny Rickert: The one that really controls the whole flow by gravity under any scenario, is the Riverview trunk line, that comes right along the riverbank and ties into the pump station. These other two lines, it may be possible that we didn't go back far enough into the system to see whether there was any good tie-in point, but we would still have to pump 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 the Riverview line. Mayor Rozanski: I guess what I'm looking at is, if we can gravity feed half of what goes into the pump station, that would cut down on the amount. ~ Kenny Rickert: Well, you start to get in a problem after that point because the alternative that we showed with the Cramer Ditch connector basically, the control point elevation for that, when you pick that up and run that down to Tuttle Road, you're getting almost a 20' + in terms of depth, the amount of rock excavation needed, and watering and costs like that, are going to drive your construction cost up to a certain point. If you get over 25 - 30' deep in that rock, it's going to be nearly impossible to maintain a competent terminus. ... ' Now if you're going to do a force main and a gravity sewer on Dublin Road; and force mains are only basically 7' of cover, or 8'-9' deep. If you go to a gravity sewer that's going in to where Kenny's talking about 20', you've got trenches out and we're not talking about minimizing right-of-way impacts, we're talking about creating right-of-way impacts, not withstanding, that probably, if we go back far enough, and we looked, tried to pick them all up and bring it across, could probably split them off, and I'm not sure the economics would be there. We have not studied that, but I'm not sure they would be there. That brings up another point to mention, Mrs. King, about other costs that may be undefinable, like we were talking of rock in a deep tunnel, we're going to be in rock when we excavate this force main if you do decide to do the force main. And the rock profile goes up and down, we do not know is it rippable rock, is it blastable rock, or what. We put some heavy cost estimates in terms of what that would be, but there's an uncertainty, are you going to be able to rip it, or do you have to blast it first and then rip it out. We can't make that ascertation at the present time from the data available. Iii>.. ". Barbara Maurer: Does that mean that you've given pretty high estimates of that cost, you assumed that it's going to have to be done the hard way all the way down the road? Tom Mosure: We tried to take the worst case scenario on most items here. Barbara Maurer: So our worst case scenario is 6 million, plus whatever the utilities -- Tom Mosure: 6 million, plus the right-of-way, is discussed, and some of the utilities, some of the soft costs, I think 6 million you'll get it done with, if right-of-way is not a major issue, and the utilities, you do not have to pay for those. And we find nothing unforeseen that we can't see now; we haven't done borings, and detail where we're going. But I think, pretty unequivocally you can get it done for that. A. C. Strip: First a brief comment, then a short question. My comment is that I think, I hope I speak for most of us, when I say that this has been of really great help, and while very often we're reluctant to go to the outside for additional studies, I think without some of the information that you gave us on this one, your company, we would have never been able to have the information before us that will contribute to making our decision, so want to tell you I think we were justified, and more important, you folks have been of great help and I appreciate it. Simple question I have, if you turn to Table 5.1, is that on the 20-year analysis and also the 50, but let's skip the 50, you essentially give us credit dollarwise, or give yourself credit for $1,600,000 in salvage costs. Is that not a fiction, we're not talking about salvaging in either 20 years or 50 years, so did you not perhaps, reduce the cost by $1,600,000, which is really a fictional reduction, that we're not going to enjoy? In real dollars, shouldn't we kick that right back in, and come in at around $15,000,000, instead of $ 13,4oo,000? Tom Mosure: That's a good question in terms of, it's a debate amongst even ourselves, 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYf N LEGAL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 "'" salvage value. What is the value of the facility after 20 years? EP A, in their cost analysis, if you took this document, you basically can take this document and get EP A financing that meets their criteria, that's why you used interest rates at 8-3/4, that's a federal discount, and those type of activities, but they ask for a salvage value. You're not going to salvage, but there is truthfully, I don't want to get into theoretical debate on the subject, but there is a value of a facility after a period of time, especially concrete or a tunnel. Actually the value, after 20 years, of a tunnel, somebody could argue if you're going to be a lot higher, if you know what I'm saying. We've taken this basically from history; even with the force main; if you build, for example, an equalization of tank structure; with repair the concrete's going to spald, and it's going to need repair, but at the end of 20, 30 years, it has some tangible value. I'll make a point, you have to be careful, a lot of people can inflate salvage values, and that's one item you want to take a look at, control analysis. We've tried to be again optimistic, and hope that answers your question. A. C. Strip: Let me press you again just a little bit more, and say to you, we agree, we're not going to salvage, and so now we've got a value, but in real dollars, the City has really spent, not $13,400,000 but in dollars going out, we have spent $15,000,000 under that scenario, haven't we? Tom Mosure: That's correct. ~i A. C. Strip: And if you take the force main, it jumps from $9,200,000 to $9,600,000, because there's no $430,000 salvage value there. So in real dollars going out, you have to take that $1,600,000 and take it right back in, because we've spent it and we're not getting it back. We're not selling it to anybody; from the Treasurer's standpoint, from the Finance Director's standpoint, she has spent $15,000,000, never mind what it might be worth 20 years from now. .. Tom Mosure: My opinion, you've slanted that slightly, because you have not yet, you've come out, if you look at that table, $14,800,000 out of pocket now, because you have not incurred $218,000 in operation and maintenance costs yet, in the way you're thinking about it, you will incur $6,600,000 in capital costs, you have not incurred $2,550,000; in 20 years at $175,000 inflated at 6% for operation and labor increases, you will pay $2,550,000 in today's dollars, annually. Little different, you were trying to make the point of salvage your idea, and that was correct, but you can't mix those operation and maintenance costs. The other thing that you should do, and I would recommend that you do this, you see the $554,000 for the 20-year replacement. It was mentioned before that you can defer that cost; but I always thought a prudent municipality, and this is more personal opinion, has a replacement fund; so I would set aside certain amount of money that you're going to have the dollars in 20 years to make the replacement. A. C. Strip: I agree with you, I would. I don't agree with Barbara's idea about, you don't have to spend it now, so let's not plan on it, because I think that violates the idea of present value. So I fully agree with you. Tom Mosure: Like Sinking Fund, I'm sure you have them. Mayor Rozanski: This is not, technically, a Public Hearing on this. No Public Hearing is mandated by Rules and Orders of this issue, but I will open the floor up to questions, not so much statements or arguments, but questions any of the citizens have on any of the issues presented tonight. My name is Nina Strnad, I live at 6112 Karrer Place, and I have four short-answer questions. I was wondering, first of all, how long it would take to, if everything goes well, how long it would take to construct each option. I was wondering what your best guess was 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 1fI''' .,. for the costs for odor reduction, in the case of the force main. I was wondering if the Cramer Ditch gravity tunnel that you're suggesting to be an amendment to the force main, whether that's a deep tunnel or an open trench tunnel construction. And then lastly, hoping that maybe this is a lO-year 24-hour storm, we don't need to build the detention basin, what your estimate would be to add in the cost of building a flow equalization basin in the force main plan. ~""'''' Tom Mosure: Kenny's been dealing a lot with the City of Columbus on the schedule, so I'm going to let him address the alternative if the tunnel is selected -- Kenny Rickert: In terms of construction time, the schedules that we received from the City representatives indicated as the time approximately two years for the construction of the tunnel, the work initiated in the fall of next year, be about a two-year construction period. From the schedules that we received, they assumed a construction period of contracts occurring concurrently of about two years. Tunnel production rate, you could excavate approximately 100' in a day, under the tunnel option, if conditions were alright, so a two- year construction period would be, 18 months, two years, something like that. Tom, did you have any ball park on, any ideas, did you guys develop a schedule for construction of force main option. Tom Mosure: The question on the force main alternative, I think, is going to be related to rock, is it rippable, blastable. If it's blastable, it's going to go slower, there'll be pre-blast surveys of houses, to make sure there's no damage, videotaping, those type of activities. There's some logistic questions in that whole schedule bit, in terms of funding, both of EP A financing for Dublin's portion and how long that will take, will be a decision. But actual, physical construction, I think, I would say a year, to be honest with you, cleaning up and getting everything done on this force main alternative. Odor reduction, in terms of everywhere, in terms of the release point, or more in terms of--. Sodium bisulfate could be added, there's a number of chemicals that work, basically what we're preventing is hydrogen sulfite gas release. And there's a number of chemicals that work; prechlorination, we may prechlorinate, for example at the pump station that would act and negate the odors at the release point down at Shaft #11; it would be in terms of chemical additions, would be the odor reduction measures to be done. There's a couple technical things I would do at the pump station that might add a little cost, but would be benefit in terms of enclosing wet wells and those type of things that we can get into at a later time. Your other question was, the Cramer Ditch, that is not a deep tunnel, and the alternative we were talking, that would be an open-cut conventional gravity sewer, from Cramer Ditch south to Shaft #11. And your last question is, the flow equalization is being built now at the pump station; so under these improvements, that would not be changed, it would physically be there by the time of the alternatives we're talking about. We also assumed that the flow equalization was a spent cost already, that it's being designed, and I think it's going to bid. Nina Strnad: I was just wondering how you would have to amend the $6.6 million bottom line on force main to add these chemicals over the years that you would have to add, to reduce the odors; and also, if the detention basin, which is not complete yet, if that cost had to be added in, if it were not built at all, how much would you have to increase the $6.6 million to accommodate the equalization basin needs for your Phase 1. Terry Foegler: I think the issue that she's asking is, we're trying to get the detention basin deferred. If that effort was successful, and we had to build no detention basin, part of the detention basin housing is the housing for the Phase 2 wet wells, that we are constructing. I believe the original Wolpert estimate said that if we came in later, it would be a $300,000 -$400,000 expense. I believe as a freestanding concrete structure, however, $75,000 to $100,000 additional, correct me if I'm wrong. 16 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting nAYTON I Fr,AI AI ANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 Tom Mosure: The cost for chemicals, we don't think it's going to be a major issue, to be honest with you; and we have not projected, we made it as a subjective, we have not projected any costs for that. If it was needed, that would add cost, yes. 11'$- Mayor Rozanski: Anybody else have any questions for our consultants at this time? '11<;.' ,,# My name is Mary Collins, I live at 6118 Karrer Place. I just have a couple of question. One, what was your inflation rate criteria when you figured the maintenance projecting it for the 20-year period and for the 50-year period; and, it seems necessary to include costs for odor control in the maintenance; we're having a lot of problems with that right now, at the pump station, and I anticipate that these problems will become greater with a greater flow of sewage with the growth. I just would like answers on those two questions. Tom Mosure: Let me take the second question first, Mary, if I may. I'll just comment, I'm not the designer of that station, but I think the differences if I may, will be right now, that you'll be utilizing, you're pumping over to the east branch interceptor now that is controlled volume, so I think you can only pump 9 million gallons a day. So you have to equalize flows and you have to store sewage in the open air. In these alternatives, you should not have to store sewage in the open air except any storms, as I mentioned earlier, above lO-year return event. If you understand what I'm saying, right now they're stored because you can't get them out of there quick enough. With the weather we're having, it makes it tougher. There would be some things we could take a look at doing now. We were not asked to study that situation, Mary, and I cannot comment any further. We can add the cost for odor control systems in here, if so desired. ~,' Mayor Rozanski: Your task would be the odor control system in the force main part of it. Our existing pump station would have to be addressed separately, as a separate issue, which we are looking into it at this time. And the first part of the question was -- -., Tom Mosure: She asked about how we came up with inflationary rates. Basically what we've done there, there are publications, Engineering News Record that publishes operation and maintenance costs in terms of power and energy consumption, and what those have been escalating over the, I think we just took trends over the last 10-20 years. We didn't try to infinitesimalize, is cost of living increasing 4 % or 5 %, because in the functional analysis of the alternatives, it would be equal when we are comparing. If we used 4 % for that figure, the tunnel alternative would compare equally with the force main. So use it 4 or 6, we didn't mean that to be, we made a good estimate of what was reported from Engineering News Record but we have not done the diagnostics of that figure. It would be functionally equivalent in the alternative analysis. Mayor Rozanski: Any other questions? Claudia Notz, 37 South Riverview. I'm curious about the replacement of the historic walls. Your costs are $147,000, and I'm wondering if that is a pure replacement cost based on building or if you've factored in antique value since these walls are in the National Register; if you have a certain value of antique factored in or if this is simply a reproduction cost. I would say those are just a reproduction cost at this point. Mayor Rozanski: Any other questions? My name is John Morrow, 4949 Thornhill Lane. My question and big concern is, if you start this tunnel, going down whatever side of Dublin Road you choose, my concern is for the wells in the area where we are located. We have wells, I have a good one, I don't know about anybody else. What happens if, in digging this tunnel, we have a problem with 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 our well and we don't have any water? Do we get a lot of cups, or a lot of plastic jugs and go to our experts here and ask them, what do we do with them? Mayor Rozanski: John, first of all, Columbus will be digging the tunnel to a location north of you. They'll be going up to the Ballymead pump station, which is right around Thornhill, right at Thornhill basically. So that will be out of Dublin's control all together up to that point. John Morrow: Are you telling me that that's on the Ballymead side, is going to be Columbus? Mayor Rozanski: Yes, Sir. Up to the Ballymead pump station, you know where, you familiar with where that is? John Morrow: No I'm not, I'm unprepared as far as this thing's concerned, I'm just -- Mayor Rozanski: On Dublin Road, there's a garage and a driveway, right about Thornhill, just a little north of Thornhill, that's the Ballymead pump station. Up to that point, Columbus will be installing the tunnel. That will be their northern end of the tunnel. We will be taking -- John Morrow: Okay, if Columbus does it, are these tunnels going to provide any protection as far as these wells are concerned? Mayor Rozanski: I certainly hope so. That's a thing that Columbus has been looking into all up and down Dublin Road. But that is, up to that point, is their responsibility. And then from that point up to our pump station, would be Dublin's responsibility. Denise King: But regardless of which option is chosen, regardless of whether it's Columbus building the tunnel down closer to you or us building a tunnel or force main, or partially a force main and gravity sewer farther to the north, we all have to be concerned about what the impact is on the folks who have wells, because we heard Tom Mosure speaking earlier, that the cost of the force main was heavily dependent on the type of rock they ran into, and whether or not it was rippable or they have to blast it first; and as soon as he said blast, I thought of your wells. That has been a problem that we've had with a lot of building projects in Dublin, just because of the way the geography is, the geology is here. So I think, irregardless of which option is chosen and what jurisdiction it's in, the governments involved are going to have to take the steps necessary to preserve your wells. Provide you with an alternative if ---- John Morrow: That's what I'm concerned about, what is the alternative for the people, even in Dublin, or Columbus, affecting me. What precautions, what studies have been made to show us that nothing will happen as far as these wells are concerned? Mayor Rozanski: The point I was getting to is, that is pretty much out of our hands at this point. Columbus has done the studies on the tunnel, they've done the engineering, they're doing all that type of work. We've got to get with them and see what precautions, what their policy is going to be, what their standards are going to be, how they're going to address these situations. John Morrow: Well, not only are we talking about, in my area, we're also talking area where it is Dublin, and Dublin is going to have to be concerned, also. Mayor Rozanski: Absolutely, but the same procedure, the same standards, everything. The contractor, if we do the deep tunnel, the contractor will just continue on up. I mean it's not 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N LEGAL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 III' . like we're going to get another contractor, another set of specs, or anything other than that. It'll be the same contractor, the same specs, they will continue on up through Dublin, ifthat is what we decide to do. We may use slightly different policies on water than they do, but basically the standards will all be, the same standards will be adopted for the whole project. And the engineers are working with Columbus on that. Ilk, <I/> John Morrow: But those standards have not been released yet? Mayor Rozanski: I'm not sure whether they have yet or not. I doubt it at this time. Terry Foegler: I don't know if the consultants have any more information. But essentially, as the deep tunnel is conceived, Columbus totally manages the construction, just as they do all the way through; and basically Dublin reimburses. But if there is a policy that you are all aware of that's been devised on water impacts, I don't know what it is. John Morrow: That's what I'm concerned about. I don't know whether Columbus is going to do it or Dublin is going to do it. But, if there is a problem with the well, has this been taken into consideration by these consultants? Did they do anything about the wells, or did you take anything into consideration as far as that part is concerned? Tom Mosure: We did not, but I am sure, we were just tasked to look at the alternatives. And it's a legitimate concern that you do have, when you're into rock excavation, and blasting, the potential for well dry-up is there, and it's a good point. I would just suggest you contact the City of Columbus, I'm sure with all the borings they are very concerned about it; and we did not address that technical issue with them, but I am sure they are on top of it. Dr. Collins: About 4 or 5 years ago, when they decided not to put the collector channel along the river bank, the Army Engineers, or Interior Department, came in front of Jim Willis' driveway, who's a neighbor of ours, a builder here in town. They decided then not to put the hole in his driveway, but they drilled some type of a water table well on that stone island at Karrer Place. Any of you people have ever gone down Karrer Place probably, Mr. Rozanski, you've seen the pipe coming out of the ground. That was put in to see what the water table, level of water table. So it's already been addressed by some governmental agency, and you might call the City of Columbus and see what agency that was, but they spent about 2 or 3 days digging a well right in front of my house. Mayor Rozanski: Yes, they have dug wells up and down Dublin Road over the last two years checking water tables, rock conditions, and everything, it's a continuous process from what I've seen for the last two years. Any more questions? Mary Collins: I have one last question, I wonder how this would affect the present detention basin. Mayor Rozanski: Terry, you want to address that? Terry Foegler: My guess would be that the main ways that the detention basin affects this, I guess they're twofold. One is, that within the design as it has been engineered so far, there is a housing for that future pump station to go; so to the degree that you have to duplicate that cost at some unknown figure, and I would guess $100,000 or $200,000, that would be an extra cost. The second aspect of it would be, under the phased program that was defined, and I still think if the force main were pursued, it would be the way it would be done, the detention basin offered a bit of a safeguard between when Phase 1 and Phase 2 would have to take place; when that detention basin would start to get used, that would be an indicator that the Phase 1 capacity under certain peak conditions was being exceeded, 19 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DA N LEGAL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 that it was time to install Phase 2. Without the detention basin, you have to make that decision to install Phase 2 much sooner, because you couldn't afford that risk. That's the main two ways it would impact it. P" '.'; Mayor Rozanski: We want to thank you for your efforts and your time and your understanding and patience with us. I mentioned to Tim earlier that I was pleasantly surprised with the report, it was concise, it was easy to read and understand. Many times, since all of us are layman of the engineering field, many times we get a document that we have to really struggle through to make any sense out of. This was easily understood and, I thought well written for the layman, especially for us, we have some troubles from time to time, understanding these things. But we do appreciate everything you've done for us. We'll move on to the Third Reading of Ordinance No. 37-91 by title only, please. Ordinance No. 37-91 - Ordinance to Adopt Proposed Tax Budget for Fiscal 1992 and declare it an emergency. Mayor Rozanski: Any new or additional information? Treating this as an emergency was only waiving the 30 days, since this is the Third Reading. Can I entertain a motion to treat this as an emergency? Barbara Maurer made the motion and A. C. Strip seconded it. Mayor Rozanski: Any discussions on the emergency nature? Hearing none, ""'"' Ms. Maurer, yes Mayor Rozanski, yes Mr. Strip, yes Mr. Sutphen, yes Mr. Campbell, yes Mrs. King, yes ... Mayor Rozanski: And on the ordinance, any further discussion or comments? Hearing none, Mayor Rozanski, yes Mr. Strip, yes Mr. Sutphen, yes Mr. Campbell, yes Mrs. King, yes Ms. Maurer, yes Mayor Rozanski: Next we have Ordinance No. 38-91 by title only. Ordinance No. 38-91- Ordinance Establishing Fees for Lots and Interments at Dublin Municipal Cemetery. Mayor Rozanski: Any further information or comments on this? Hearing none, Mr. Campbell, yes Mrs. King, yes Ms. Maurer, yes Mayor Rozanski, yes Mr. Strip, yes Mr. Sutphen, yes 20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 Mayor Rozanski: I advise each and every one of you to go out and buy your cemetery plot now before the 30 days are up, so you get a bargain on it. Resolution No. 06-91 by title only. It' Resolution No. 06-91 - Resolution for Adoption of Bright Road Study. 1/.,< 'I- Mayor Rozanski: Any additional information or comments on this issue? Hearing none. Mr. Sutphen, yes Mr. Campbell, yes Mrs. King, yes Ms. Maurer, yes Mayor Rozanski, yes Mr. Strip, yes Mayor Rozanski: Resolution No. 08-91 by title only. Resolution No. 08-91 - Resolution Regarding Statement of Services for Requested Annexation. Mayor Rozanski: Any further comments or discussions? Hearing none. ., Mr. Sutphen, yes Mr. Campbell, yes Mrs. King, yes Ms. Maurer, yes Mayor Rozanski, yes Mr. Strip, yes iIiIiiJ;".. .<.>4 Mayor Rozanski: Next we have Second Reading of Ordinance No. 43-91 by title only. Ordinance No. 43-91- Ordinance Adjusting the Existing Ward Boundaries as Required by Article 3.03 of the Charter of the City of Dublin, and declaring it an emergency. Mayor Rozanski: Do we have a revision of that? Pat Bowman: Yes, the revision is there as we agreed upon at the last meeting, with that small change, including the section just east of Muirfield Drive, into Ward 3. We changed the ordinance slightly adding some language about getting a certified copy to the Board of Elections as soon as possible, and authorizing those County Board of Elections to make the changes. We added emergency legislation, really all that needs to be done is to be voted on. And we've also, then, actually made written descriptions for each of the wards. They should be written so that it also includes growth areas, so that when each of the areas grow, that we can ascertain which ward the new annexed territory would actually fit in. So we feel the ordinance is now complete and may be voted upon. A few more clarifications were discussed. Mayor Rozanski: Anybody else have comments or discussions? None, then I would entertain a motion to amend the ordinance reflecting those changes that we have today. A. C. Strip: I will so move and further move to waive the three time reading rule and to treat as emergency legislation. Dan Sutphen: Second 21 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting ReIn July 1, 1991 19 Mayor Rozanski: Any discussions or comments on the motion, to amend and to treat it as an emergency? Mr. Campbell, yes Mrs. King: I just want to make sure, we're voting to pass this as an emergency, correct, there really isn't an amendment? Mayor Rozanski: Yes, there is. This is amended. The ordinance we had, we introduced last week. Mrs. King: Your talking about the amendment that I already offered last week which was already accepted? Pat Bowman: Everything I underlined here on the ordinance, really was a change. Mrs. King: I understand, yes Ms. Maurer, yes Mayor Rozanski, yes Mr. Strip, yes Mr. Sutphen, yes Mayor Rozanski: And on the ordinance itself, any further discussions or comments? Hearing none. Mr. Strip, yes Mr. Sutphen, yes Mr. Campbell, yes Mrs. King, yes Ms. Maurer, yes Mayor Rozanski, yes Mayor Rozanski: Next we have First Reading of Ordinance No. 45-91 by title only. Ordinance No. 45-91 - Ordinance Providing for a Change of Zoning on a 24.8 Acre Tract Located on the West Side of Hirth Road approximately 1700 feet South of Tuttle Road. To be rezoned from R-IB Restricted Suburban Residential District (current Washington Township zoning) to R-l Restricted Suburban Residential District. Mayor Rozanski: Can I have an introduction? Dan Sutphen: I'll introduce it. Mayor Rozanski: Motion to refer it to Planning and Zoning? I Pat Bowman: Your Honor, if I might make just one quick comment. We've actually been to the Planning Commission with this. This is, the next three ordinances are rezoning applications sponsored by staff, that have essentially been recommended by the Planning Commission to establish comparable zoning in the newly annexed territories of Washington Township. The packet we sent you includes the staff report as well as the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting; we would recommend that Council simply establish a Public Hearing of July 15th to deal with the matter. Mayor Rozanski: Any comments or discussions at this time by Council? Hearing none, then we'll hold this over for a Second Reading at our next regularly scheduled Council 22 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. lG148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 meeting and that will be a Public Hearing. Mayor Rozanski: Next, we have Ordinance No. 46-91 by title only. .. "*"'"",", Ordinance No. 46-91 - Ordinance Providing for a Change of Zoning on a 14.3 Acre Tract Located on the West Side of A very Road and Both Sides of Dan-Sherri A venue approximately 1100' North of Woerner-Temple Road - R-IB Restricted Suburban Residential District, R-2 Limited Suburban Residential District. Mayor Rozanski: Could I have an introduction. Dan Sutphen: I'll introduce it. Mayor Rozanski: Had Pat's comments, this has already been through P & Z, and he would like a Public Hearing, so if there's no further discussion or comments, we'll hold this over for a Second Reading at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting, and that will be a Public Hearing on this. Next, we have Ordinance No. 47-91 by title only, please. Ordinance No. 47-91 - Ordinance Providing for a Change of Zoning on a 33.2 Acre Tract Located on the East and West Sides of A very Road between the Eastern and Western Extensions of Rings Road. To be rezoned from R -IB Restricted Suburban Residential District, current Washington Township zoning, R-2 Limited Suburban Residential District. Mayor Rozanski: Could I have an introduction? Dan Sutphen: I'll introduce it. ... ., Mayor Rozanski: As the other two, this has been through P & Z, so we'll hold this over for a Second Reading at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting and treat it as a Public Hearing at that time. Next, we have Ordinance No. 48-91 by title only, please. Ordinance No. 48-91 - Ordinance for the Resurfacing on US-33 in conjunction with ODOT. Mayor Rozanski: Could I have an introduction, please. A. C. Strip: I'll introduce it. Paul Willis: Sometime we've been anticipating the overlay and improvement of Route 33 from the western corporation into Franklin Street. Thought first of all, that was going to happen last year, we thought it was going to happen this year, we're finding now that it's not going to happen this year. So this project which is a bit of patching and rollumac treatment, which is a type of sealcoat is being done by ODOT at our request, over and being a phased improvement for, conjunction of what's coming up. So what they're asking for is the financial cost of that improvement, with a tentative start date, and ask that Dublin pass this as an emergency. ~ Mayor Rozanski: And do we have a percentage of cost sharing in this? Paul Willis: Yes, I believe it's a dollar figure of $6,000. Dan Sutphen: My only comment on this issue is, I don't, obviously it's going to have to wait, they're saying it is; but that road's collapsing, it's breaking apart. 23 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYT N LE AL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 Paul Willis: That's exactly why I asked them to do something as soon as I found that the redoing of the road would be a couple of years. Dan Sutphen: What is this big plan that they have planned for, what are we holding it off for, are they widening the road or the berm? Paul Willis: I can't speak for ODOT. Terry Foegler: Council did ask at the last meeting when Paul was aware that this was going to be forthcoming, if it would in any way, if by agreeing to this, would we in any way, defer the likelihood that the major repair would be made next year. And Paul did have that discussion and we have no reason to believe that would be the case, it is our understanding they intend to proceed full speed ahead. Dan Sutphen: What's our liability, if we say it's okay to do this, and somebody can prove that the road caused a problem and had a wreck. We're agreeing with them? Paul Willis: You're asking the question, if this is not done? Dan Sutphen: No, I'm saying, I can't see, you put an overlay on, I realize this material, I've seen it, we've used it, something similar to it here, and it doesn't fill the holes. Paul Willis: This is patched before the rollumac seal is applied, applying it to a relatively sound surface at that point. And the purpose of the sealcoat is, prevent it from graveling and continuing to oxidize as it is doing right now. Mayor Rozanski: Whatever we do is not going to speed up the overlaying of the road. This is just a patch job. More discussion. Mayor Rozanski: Do they need this treated as an emergency? Paul Willis: Yes, they do, and the tentative date is in about two weeks. Mayor Rozanski: Then I would entertain a motion to treat this as an emergency and waive the three time reading rule. A. C. Strip: So moved. Seconded. Mayor Rozanski: Any discussion on the emergency nature? Hearing none-- Mr. Strip, yes Mr. Sutphen, yes Mayor Rozanski, yes Mr. Campbell, yes Mrs. King, yes Ms. Maurer, yes Mayor Rozanski: And on the ordinance, any further discussions or comments? Hearing none, Mr. Strip, yes 24 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin .City. Council Meeting Meeting DAD N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 Mr. Sutphen, yes Mayor Rozanski, yes Mr. Campbell, yes Ms. Maurer - yes -. Mayor Rozanski: Next we have Reports From Council Committees. Any other Council committees have anything to report on? A. C. Strip: Finance Committee, Bed Tax application. Discussion. A. C. Strip: We have one before us and that's from Team Columbus, which was presented last time; we had several questions so we held it. The main question we had on Team Columbus, which is a bicycle race, was whether or not this was a race that was just happening to come through Dublin, or whether this was a race that originated and stayed and finished in Dublin; second, how many participants, was it 3 or was it l00? Next question was, what benefit to Dublin. Answers are as follows: The race is limited to Dublin; it begins, stays solely within, and ends in Dublin, mostly in the downtown area. Secondly, the riders will be about 225 or so in number, from a large geographical area, with the expectation, not mine, but the applicant's expectation that half or more will stay in Dublin overnight and thereby contribute to hotels, etc. The only thing they're asking for is a reimbursement for the money that they will pay for police protection, too much of course, and to be reimbursed for that extra police service. So essentially, they're not putting in their pocket whatever the police should bill them, they would like us, as a bed tax, to contribute to that fund, kind of a round robin; helps the Chiefs budget, I propose; helps the city from the residents' overnight standpoint, and makes what may become an annual event, we don't know. I would therefore, Mr. Mayor, propose that we accept, excuse me, the Finance Committee, of which there are only two members here today because Mr. Amorose is on vacation, concur, and therefore, as our recommendation, I would propose that we allocate and approve the Bed Tax application from Team Columbus, limited for the cost of police protection, extra services, but not to exceed $1,000; therefore, our maximum exposure is $1,000, and if the police work should be $560, that's the limit of their reimbursement. Mayor Rozanski: Did we get any kind of cost estimate from the Police Department? A. C. Strip: Well our liability will not exceed $1,000, no matter what their bill is; and they clearly, in their application, said that they're limiting their request to $1,000. Mayor Rozanski: And, of course, the Police Department, if they bill us on this, they pay it through Bed Tax, we would get a bargain rate, I'm sure. -- Okay, so the motion by you, as head of the Finance Committee, is ---- A. C. Strip: To accept a Bed Tax application for police costs, extra services, not to exceed $1,000. Mayor Rozanski: Is there a second to that? Dan Sutphen seconded. Ms. Maurer, yes Mayor Rozanski, yes Mr. Sutphen, yes Mr. Campbell, yes 25 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin. City Council Meeting Meeting DAYT N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 Mr. Strip, yes Mrs.King, yes Mayor Rozanski: Any other reports from Council committees? -. A. C. Strip: Only Mr. Mayor, that I took the liberty of having the original ordinance plus the amendment sent to everybody, only because sometimes we lose sight of what the Bed Tax application is. Dan Sutphen: Denise and I met on the Public Service Committee, had about a two-and-a- half hour meeting. The minutes are not out yet, and when they come back, I think you'll see, there are a lot more questions involved, people are concerned, etc. I think the consensus, at least Denise and I, was that we probably need to have another meeting after we get some more data back from the consultant, right, Terry? Terry Foegler: The consultant did indicate after that discussion that he felt there was another alternative that would basically protect the alignment of a future road but be a much less substantial up-front cost. The down side would be, the ability of a storm that it could handle, would be significantly less, something less that 25, but probably more than 10; so he's going to give us rough estimate of what that cost would be, which may be a middle-of- the-ground alternative. Mayor Rozanski: Comments From Staff. ~" . Tim Hansley: Quickly, I'd like to draw your attention to the memo that was in your packet from Sandy to me reference the electrical needs of Coffman Park, regarding special events. I think, especially in light of the issues at King's Island and the electrical problems they had there, based on what has been identified by the Inspection Department, within Dublin, then unless Council has an objection, we'd like to spend that 5,000 between now and the next special event within Coffman, and charge it to our reserve contingencies, I think it's an appropriate expenditure at this time. I think, to have the exposure or not, recognize it, would be the wrong thing to do. Just let you know, that's what we're working on. :,;;", Mayor Rozanski: Any comments or discussions from Council regarding not spending the 5,000 to upgrade the electrical service in the Park? Okay, you have Council's okay on it. Tim Hansley: I'm also asking for a very short executive session on a pending legal matter, if you'll bear with us a little bit after the meeting. Terry Foegler: A couple things very quickly. In terms of the status of the retention basin, as Council's aware, we have had some discussions with EPA that has made us optimistic in terms of the likelihood of obtaining that deferral. We are discussing that right now, trying to work out mutually acceptable terms and conditions under which a one-year deferral could take place. We will keep Council fully informed of the status of that request. As a follow-up to tonight's meeting on the sewer options, since the decision that was driving the need to make this decision sooner rather than later, was a five-year capital program. What we would be happy to do so that again these two alternatives could be looked at in the context of your capacity to pay, would be to bring back the two five-year programs with updated costs in them so you can see what the latest impact of those would be, as a basis for you to make further consideration and review. We'd be happy to prepare those for Council for distribution whenever you'd like. Mayor Rozanski: Get it prepared for us and get it to us as soon as possible. I think we need to look at it. 26 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLAI'JK CO FORM NO 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 ,.,- Terry Foegler: I think it's going to take some significant review beyond what probably could be just done at that meeting. There'll be some additional updated costs on projects, including Billingsley and some other items in there, so you can look at those, as well as one other that we want to discuss in Executive Session, because it involves some real estate acquisition. One final item, I want to make you aware that Peter Lenz has been involved with, and that's the issue of House Bill 186; I don't know what degree there is of familiarity with that; but as you are aware at this point, state law regulates the uniform code, basically everything that isn't 1, 2, and 3-family; there now is a bill being actively pushed that would now set a mandatory state code for 1,2, and 3-family as well, being pushed largely by, apparently, a large-scale residential builder out of Strongsville and the Associated General Contractors. Politically, it seems to have gained widespread support; with the information that Peter's looked into, he is not convinced necessarily that it has been fairly looked at in terms of implications for smaller communities, particularly like ours, that may have unique circumstances and conditions. The problem with it is, we ran into the issue, remember, on the commercial code, where we wanted to establish a higher standard for a certain element of electrical construction, basically under the scenario that conflicts with state law. Any higher standard is in conflict, and the court cases seem to be substantiating that. That would be the same case on 1, 2, and 3-family code; if you look at a statewide 1, 2, and 3- family code, it's probably going to be a least common denominator type of code. On the one hand, there is certainly good interest in having common regulation so that it isn't so political in terms of the special interest unions and others developing certain kind of code regulations. On the other hand, we feel there are unique local circumstances that lend themselves to special kinds of conditions. We met with representatives of, the state building officials, last week to try to get some more information on this bill; Peter's going to continue to keep looking into it, and it may suggest something where the City or some organization of cities, may want to get more involved to consider what the implications are. Our concern is that this Council couldn't choose to establish a higher standard for building 1, 2, and 3-family building regulations than the State would establish. The one other aspect to it, this does not require that there be local building regs; 80 % of the area of the State of Ohio does not have local building codes. And this would not change that; if you would, you'd have to comply with the State. And the main rationale seems to be, to make it easier for the building community in terms of dealing with all the different jurisdictions, not necessarily establishing a higher level of building standards. A. C. Strip: Terry, by no means do I want to start debate, and I'm really rusty in this area, but somewhere in the back of my mind, I thought it was the other way around, that if the State passed certain regs, etc., those are minimum, and the community could, in fact, have tighter regs, and you could have a higher standard than the State; but if the State had certain regs, you couldn't come below those regs. Mitch Banchefsky: They're applying the pre-emption doctrine to the State, the State has pre-empted and that municipal corporation is losing the right to regulate over and above that; and my first impression when it was presented to me, was the exact same thing; as long as we met their minimums, we could make it more stringent, particularly we had a safety reason on the electrical issue, and we got the "no" on that, and these two cases were determined after that and they both came back "no". Joel Campbell: How do they reconcile that with Home Rule? Tim Hansley: The answer they have is that Home Rule, normally the rule of thumb with Home Rule is, if we say something by charter, or by ordinance under the authority of the charter, then that takes precedence over the State on the same topic, except in the case of a statewide safety issue; then we don't have the right, and again they're saying that building codes are statewide safety regulation, and therefore we cannot do something different than the State. 27 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 A. C. Strip: My recommendation would be that we chat with some of our neighboring suburban communities and see if they're as troubled as we are; and then secondly, that we rally or get the Ohio Municipal League, perhaps, which is composed of a heck of a lot more small cities than large cities, to rally around our position; because I think this is an extremely damaging situation if it goes through, because the next thing you're talking about is, things like mounding and retaining walls and trees and everything else, this is the beginning of what could be a long series of inroads into our quality of life. I would really urge that somebody contact Municipal League. Terry Foegler: We raised that same issue, we said "Why is there an overwhelming concern for uniformity in building, when you're still going to have all the diversity in landscaping and zoning and street standards and everything else". I think it's this particular lobbying effort. The example we gave was the one that the City just established; and it was largely established by the building community for damp-proofing a basement versus water-proofing; and with the building community, this City has established a standard basically, when you put in a basement, it must be water-proofed, because so many residents who buy the big homes with the big basements, came in wanting to finish them off and weren't able to because they had only been damp-proofed. So now if this community chooses to establish that standard, because of the type of housing, the demand of the residents, this community determines what makes sense, that would not be allowed under it, because it would conflict with the State regulation, which would probably say damp-proofing is all you need, just as an example. And we share your concerns. This issue was discussed further. Mayor Rozanski: Marsha- Marsha Grigsby: I have just a couple things. The first one, I just wanted to update you on the fact that 1990 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, has been completed, and it was placed in front of you tonight. And that has been sent to GFOA for their review again. And also, the related audit that goes along with this report has been completed, but the final results of that, we haven't heard back yet. I talked to the auditors today and they said it would be approximately two weeks. But at this time, we don't anticipate any major findings or any major problems; so once we get the report back from them, then I'll let you know as far as the status of their findings. The second thing relates to the federal requirement that's effective today that states that if you're not participating in a retirement program, like PERS, or a state-sponsored program, that you have to, we have to deduct Social Security from your wages. Public officials have the option, in Ohio they're anticipating that a bill will be passed that it would be mandatory that everybody participate in PERS, and that's how we've been instructed to look at it right now, except for officials. Officials have the option of PERS or Social Security. So I have forms to pass out to you tonight, that if you want to participate in PERS, fill those out and return to us by next Monday; and if you don't complete the form, then we just go ahead and deduct Social Security instead of PERS. Janet Jordan: We're very pleased that it rained tonight, because we were questioning whether we were going to be able to have fireworks or not, and we would hope that we have a little bit more rain so that the winter wheat field, over which we shoot the fireworks, won't go up in smoke. And I trust that all the Council people here have their arrangements, have conferred with Patty about placement, driver of your car and everything for the parade? But if you haven't, please callus tomorrow, or we'll call you. Thank you. The Irish Festival was given permission to sell beer in Coffman Park. Discussion followed on the City obtaining a license for an informational radio station and it was decided to spend $8,000 for the license and equipment. 28 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting E AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Barbara Maurer: We have a memorandum from Dana, regarding organizational media training, and I'm glad to see this because it is something we have talked about in our Goal Setting meeting a year ago. My question is, is there any way of Council being included in the training? In that case, I would definitely vote for an evening meeting. Dan Sutphen: Just an update. Terry, I drove, with Mr. Savko's permission, on the unstaked portion of the road yesterday, and I did see that half of the, looks like about half of that project, has been staked for curbs, and you guys know more about it than I do, are they about half way done with that? I saw surveyors that Saturday, that's what made me inquire, and then I had to go look, Muirfield Drive. Paul Willis stated they were a couple of weeks away. Dan Sutphen: Denise and I have talked about this in and out of our meeting that we had the other day, but I wanted to bring up, I think you've been contacted by the group from, off of Camoustie Court and Ayrshire Court, about making those roads private; and I just wanted it to go down in record, that she and I, the Service Committee, both jointly agree that those roads are, seem to look, and I walked around one, the one off of Camoustie, and I drove around the one on Ayrshire, and they seem to be in much better condition that anything that we've ever looked at, and looks like a Dublin street. W".."" Dan Sutphen: Paul, one last question, and it's my pet peeve. I wanted to ask this last week but I think it needs to be brought up publicly anyway. I think in our budget this year when we approved the highway portion of it, was not the reflectors for 745 included in that, and where do we stand getting those put out to bid? Paul Willis stated they will be installed this year. Denise King: Two things, first of all, yesterday I had an opportunity to tour Shawnee Hills. Some of the elderly residents of the village were very concerned about whether or not they'd be able to pay the taxes. And I understand that they have been in contact with the City and there are ways of fashioning an agreement where some of those kinds of concerns could be taken into account, if that was the public will. Members of Council who haven't had a chance to drive around up there ought to do so. John Bill would be very glad and honored to take anybody around, I'm sure that goes for all members of Council. ~k Tim Hansley: I might add a quick comment, primarily for the press, and that's that a bigger issue, or a related issue is that this Council with Shawnee Hills and Powell met in joint social setting couple nights ago at the Bogey Inn, as a continuation of a goal to get to know the neighbors, and I think, of the 3 or 4 that we've done like that, it was the one that was probably the most surprising to me as a staff member, as to how much in common we have with Shawnee Rills and Powell, where otherwise you would, I think the stereotype is that we would think we would not have that much in common. But a very relaxed setting, again no action taken because it was just a social thing, but a lot of just good discussion about common problems, and "gee, you do the same things in Shawnee Hills and Powell that we do in Dublin", the size of the agenda may be different but the issues were about the same. I think it was good for both sides, I think they got to figure out that we were just normal people on Council and that they were, I think, more normal than we would have given them credit for, it was my observation. For the presses standpoint, it went extremely well for everybody that was there, and allowed Denise to get invited to come in, just drive around and take a look and see some of the stereotypes maybe be disproved a little bit. I'm glad that that invitation was made and that you took her up on it. On the other issue, what we have said to them, Jan and I said it at the very first meeting a few weeks ago and that's 29 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 ..-~' that from our point of view, trying to be, looking at it from their point of view as fairness to their citizens, a merger opportunity offers the most fair way to do it, as opposed to a boundary adjustment, or de-annexation, annexation, going bankrupt, or whatever; those things just happen with no votes. There are 3 or 4 ways they can accomplish dissolution without a vote. The merger allows all the people in both towns to say "yea" or "nay", not only once but twice; and the issue, what about taxes and what about assessments, and what about water and sewer; as we learned with the township proposal, that through the merger conditions by statute, every issue that is of concern to either group, gets addressed in writing, mailed to everybody, and that's what they vote on. If it's too rich for their blood, or doesn't address their needs, it fails at the ballot box. So that's why Jan and I said of all the options, probably personally, we think the merger is the fairest for everybody. So that's right on target with what we were trying to tell them. ~'...;,iiI Denise King: There's just one other point, and that was, I was also struck by the tremendous amount of enthusiasm expressed by many of the people for joining Dublin; they've taken a long, hard look at us, and they like what they see. ___...<Of- Joel Campbell: The first thing, I guess, really falls more under the category of committee reports. The Land Use and Planning Committee, which is Barbara and I, had a session last week, originally scheduled with the staff for purposes of determining, beginning to discuss a policy for land acquisition. The timing of when the acquisition should be made, for example, is that when we first vote on a plan, like we did tonight with the Bright Road Study, or is it at a time when the project goes on the 5-year plan, or is it when we actually vote the money at the beginning of a given year. Terry and the staff made a presentation as to what other communities do. But before we actually got to the staff position, we also heard from residents, and the ones we heard from directly were the ones that probably would, I would suppose it would be safe to say, in the initially impacted area, which would be the same area we voted on earlier tonight. We haven't made any kind of recommendation yet, we probably won't because I think staffs going to provide some more additional information, and Barbara and I will probably try to formulate some kind of a recommended policy and bring it back to you. If you all have any kind of thoughts about what you'd like to see us think about, or questions you'd like us to ask, let us know, because it's going to be something we're going to have to deal with, probably on an increasing basis in the future, not only east of the river, but I think the southwest area, to some extent, as well. Secondly, I'd like to, this is the first time I think I've seen one of these, that came in our packet, the report from the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau, and I think it's a good idea. I hope we continue to get these things to periodically tell us what they're doing because I know sometimes people wonder, we have all these different branches out there in the community doing different things, and it's impossible for all of them to come in and tell us personally, but I think it's a good idea, particularly where some of the money goes, from this group, that they ought to have a periodic report of what's happening. Another point would be, I had a couple questions. Someone called me today, in fact, about, somebody thought there was something on the agenda about 7340 Dublin Road, some kind of an obstruction of a sight line or something. Does anybody else know anything about that? 1If!Ii"--~ f'/'- ~ This was discussed at length and Steve Mack was asked to report back to Council on same. '" Joel Campbell: Last thing, we spent a lot of money on 161 there along, west of Bridge Street, particularly west of Frantz to try and make it look good, and sometimes, I think we're all guilty of this, when we look at the same thing day in and day out, we don't really see if it's not looking real sharp, and the other day, I drove along there and, maybe trying to be overly critical, but that really isn't measuring up, I was kind of disappointed; it's not measuring up to what I envisioned that was going to be. It needs to be better maintained. 30 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting A AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn July 1, 1991 19 r"~ If we're going to spend, what was it $40,000 or $50,000 to do that, we ought to be able to spend $500 for some time from the summer staff to devote to going up there and trimming all those, grass that's this deep, I know they went along and sprayed some grass killer on it, but it's still this long, and all along where the daylilies are, it looked great when the flowers were blooming in the spring, and all of a sudden the maintenance went down the tube and it doesn't look as sharp as it should. For the money we spent there, that ought to be looking better, be better maintained. I guess for lack of better word, a nice gateway to the City, we ought to make it look pretty sharp. --- So maybe try to take a look at that and see if we can do any better. Thanks. .... Mayor Rozanski: I have a couple things. One is to all Council, they poured the curbs on Blazer Parkway today, so it's moving right along; looks pretty good, Paul. They should be in there paving soon, I hope, then? Talking about sight lines, Chief, the other morning I was coming out of the Wedgewood community, on Riverside Drive, north of our corporation limit, and one of our patrol officers had a car pulled over right in front of Leatherlips Monument, just south of that road. And it is impossible to see south down Riverside Drive when that happens. I sat there and sat there and sat there, I could not see any cars coming. I could not see beyond the patrol car itself. Finally, had to decide to go north and then squeal my tires to get out in traffic because when our patrol cars stop there, they totally block all sight south on Riverside Drive. I know that's our City limits right there, but perhaps you might want to put the word out to the officers that they create a real hazard to traffic exiting on to Riverside Drive. With that, I would entertain a motion to go into Executive Session as asked by our City Manager. Mayor Rozanski: This meeting is adjourned to Executive Session. "'" ," 1iItok,...,,,. ~~~ C--L w~ 31