Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/1991 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 1 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK co" I-ORM NO 1014H November 4, 1991 19 Held The regularly scheduled meeting of the Dublin City Council was called to order by Mayor Jan Rozanski at 7:32 P.M. on Monday, November 4, 1991. The Pledge of Allegiance was repeated by all with all members being present. Mayor Rozanski: Any correspondence? Myra: No correspondence. Comments from Visitors on Any Item Not on Tonight's Agenda. Steve Smith: I'm not a visitor, but in the paper it was reported that under Section 163 there had been some amendments proposed to unclassify some employees, and it was reported that this had some effect upon the members of Council. We'll do a clarification statement for the paper, but obviously, the members of Council are elected and anything we do with the personnel code has nothing to do with them. Thank you. Mayor Rozanski: Next, we'll move on to Second Reading of Ordinance No. 79-91 by title only. Ordinance No. 79-91 - Ordinance Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for Single Axle Dump Trucks. Mayor Rozanski: Is there anything new on this tonight? Okay, we can hold this over for a Third and Final Reading, Tim, without having any trouble with the contract? Any questions or comments from Council on this topic? David Amorose: Tim, could you possibly put together the total cost of these units after they're equipped with whatever other equipment is to be placed on them to put them into service, salt spreaders, snow plows, that type of thing? Tim Hansley: Yes, we can do that. David Amorose: Thank you. Mayor Rozanski: Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, we'll hold it over for a Third and Final Reading at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Next, we have Ordinance No. 81-91 by title only, please. Ordinance No. 81-91- Ordinance to Approve Renaming Alleys in the Historic District. Mayor Rozanski: Anything new to add to this? Any questions or comments from Council? I have one, and that is, at the present time the Sign Department has a series of signs made up that have not been installed yet under the old names for those alleys. Terry Foegler: Danny Johnson informed us of that a couple weeks ago. We checked with him last week and he said, in fact, they were not made up for those streets. Mayor Rozanski: I was misinformed the other day, then. Tim Hansley: As further discussion, at the last meeting, I wrote a memo the next morning that made that observation that, on the assumption that they had not already been made up, not to make any up until the decision is brought to Council as to whether or not they should be white on brown or black on white. So, as far as I know, they have not been made up, I have not seen them down there myself. Mayor Rozanski: I was under the impression that they were purchased some time ago with the last batch of signs that we had purchased and not been installed. Not that our Sign Department had made them, but that we had purchased them in the last batch that we did prior to going into the sign business. Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 2 Meeting DAYTON LI::-GAL BLANK CO.. I-UHM NO lU14H November 4, 1991 19 Held Tim Hansley: I can check and advise. As far as I know, that's not the case. Mayor Rozanski: Anything else on the renaming of the alleys? Hearing none, we'll hold it over for a Third and Final Reading at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Next, we have the First Reading of Ordinance No. 82-91 by title only. Ordinance No. 82-91 - Ordinance for a Rezoning of Land in Perimeter Center. Mayor Rozanski: Could I have an introduction? David Amorose: I'll introduce the ordinance, and move to refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendations. Dan Sutphen: Second. Mayor Rozanski: Any discussion or comments? Refer it to Planning and Zoning. Next, we have Ordinance No. 83-91 by title only. Ordinance No. 83-91- Ordinance Regarding Settlement of Ramey Property Acquisition (E). Mayor Rozanski: Could I have an introduction? Steve Smith: This is the ordinance that merely authorizes the payment of the funds as authorized by you in Executive Session with respect to the appropriation of the Ramey property, and it's $10,000 less that I was authorized to spend. It settles this case and I need it as an emergency because the judge is waiting on the entry. Thank you. A. C. Strip: I move the waiver of the three time reading rule and treat it as emergency legislation. David Amorose: I'll second the motion. Mayor Rozanski: Any discussion or comments on the emergency nature? Hearing none. Ms. Maurer: yes Mr. Amorose: yes Mr. Strip: yes Mrs. King: yes Mayor Rozanski: yes Mr. Campbell: yes Mr. Sutphen: yes Mayor Rozanski: And on the ordinance, any further discussion or comments? .. Mr. Amorose: yes Mr. Strip: yes Mrs. King: yes Mayor Rozanski: yes Mr. Campbell: yes Mr. Sutphen: yes Ms. Maurer: yes Mayor Rozanski: Next we have Ordinance No. 84-91 by title only. Ordinance No. 84-91 - Ordinance to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with the Franklin County Board of Health. Mayor Rozanski: Can I have an introduction? Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 3 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CU., FORM NU. lU14H November 4, 1991 Held 19 Mrs. King: I'll introduce it. Tim Hansley: Just by way of brief explanation, by state statute once we became a city, we must either provide a Board of Health or contract with another existing Board of Health. Since 1987, we have contracted with the Franklin County Board of Health for these required services. That contract does run out the end of this year, and we're recommending this renewal, I believe it's for a three year period, I don't have it in front of me. So staff is recommending that we continue that existing contract. David Amorose: Tim, we do not have the total contract in front of us. However, I'm concerned because, us that have what they're calling offsite sewer systems, we are charged an additional $25 fee per year. And that $25 fee, it says in their letter to me, that it allows for the inspection program to provide a monitoring system for the disposal of sewage which discharges off lots. In your negotiations, I would hope that you would share with them my concern that when a citizen calls in and voices a complaint, that they're not responding. I know that I personally have called them three times on some real problems that we have in some of the streams due to the fact that I do not believe the aerators are working properly. The streams appear, at least visually, to be very septic looking, and here again, I didn't take a scope and check out all the pathogens that might be in that water, but I do see young children playing in the water, and of course as we get into freezing weather, they're going to be marching up the stream breaking ice and that type of thing. So I wish that you would certainly relate that on to them that there have been a number of complaints, and I believe the streams are getting to be terribly polluted at this point. Thank you. Tim Hansley: I just might point out for Council's benefit that you only have, I think, a total of three choices, really four, contracting with the Franklin County Board of Health, City of Columbus Board of Health, Delaware County Board of Health, and I think the City of Upper Arlington has their own Board of Health, they're starting their own, so I guess it's a total of five options. But this is, at this time, the most cost-effective solution in providing the greater range of services at this time. But it's something that we really have not done an administrative study on. And I think Dave is right, they kind of run hot and cold as far as response to our specific complaints. Sometimes they're pretty good, and sometimes it depends on the service. The sanitarians, for example, if we have a restaurant complaint or blowing garbage debris type of complaint, they're very responsive to those. I think they must be a little bit under-staffed in their environmental responses. But I will make note of that complaint or that comment to the Franklin County Board of Health. Mayor Rozanski: Any other comments or discussions? Do we need to pass this as emergency? Tim Hansley: I don't recommend that at this time. Mayor Rozanski: We'll hold this over for a Second Reading at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Next, we have Ordinance No. 85-91 by title only please. Ordinance No. 85-91 - Ordinance to Accept Annexation of 1.162 +/- Acres in Washington Township. Mayor Rozanski: Could I have an introduction? Tim Hansley: Again, this is one that has been approved by Franklin County. It's before you tonight because it's the last step in the process, it's a one-owner parcel on Bellaire, contiguous to the City. They are basically requesting annexation, they're interested in it for the availability of water and sewer services. Staff is recommending this at this time in an effort to reduce the size of a couple islands that exist within the City. This is totally surrounded by the City otherwise. Mayor Rozanski: Did we do a statement of services on this? Tim Hansley: Yes, we did. This has been released by the County Commissioners and is Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 4 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 10148 November 4, 1991 Held 19 ready for Council action. Mayor Rozanski: Any comments or discussions? Then we'll hold this over for a Second Reading at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting. That takes care of the formal Agenda; next, we'll move on to "Others", which is a text correction in the Tuttle Crossing site. Others Pat Bowman: Members of Council, we have a small, minor change to the Tuttle Crossing text. This is the office portion of the interchange property. As you remember, the text itself broke out that 109 acres or so into a number of sub-areas. The sub-area close to the freeway had large freeway-type office buildings. As we move toward Frantz Road, the offices were scaled down and similar in size to the ones that presently exist along Frantz Road. When we had our first applications for one of the smaller office buildings, we discovered that all the side and rear yard standards for all the sub-areas were the same, whether it was a large building or a small building. We felt that was an oversight and certainly worthy of correction. Rather than the 25-yard setback, rear yard, side yard requirement, we have downsized that to 12-112 feet; so 12-112 feet on each side should yield at least 25- foot green strip between uses and that would be more than sufficient between those types of smaller office building. The other code requirement had to deal specifically with parking. We specified the Dublin code, realizing that the code doesn't pertain in every instance. We'd like to have the Planning Commission have divested discretion in determining appropriate standards in some cases for some of the buildings, buildings that might have large foyer areas or other special circumstances in which they could specifically tailor a parking requirement for each of those buildings. We would like that minor change made as well. Both those code changes were viewed by the Planning Commission; Planning Commission made the specific motion that the standards be amended to provide for direction in side and rear yards for parking to 12.5 feet in Area C only; and that parking shall comply with the code unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. We request that Council adopt the same provisions and then we will administer that with the application that came in as well as other applications for that Area C. Are there any questions? David Amorose: Pat, in the Sub-area C, is there, what, a total of 26.3 acres then as per the site plan that we have? Pat Bowman: Yes, essentially Area C is the extension of Bradenton. And the idea was to have office buildings similar in size to the ones presently on Bradenton, little smaller buildings. David Amorose: Well, that's one of my concerns, the fact that those appear to be the smaller parcels. What's the thought, why allow only a 12-112 foot side yard requirement there? If you're parking into that and -- Pat Bowman: The buildings will remain at 25 feet, the parking requirement will then be, rather than 25, 12.5 feet. That's as much as we have in any other area, we felt that 12.5 was large enough to get a tree lawn in and sufficient planting and mounding between buildings. Anything excess of that, we've been told, and generally believe by some of the other development, that economically that simply 25 feet, 50 feet, for a total site is just too much for a site like that to accommodate. Mayor Rozanski: You say small buildings, Pat, but there's substantially one large building on there now, and another fairly good-sized one being built right on the corner. I wouldn't call those, how many square feet is the -- Pat Bowman: Well, smaller compared to the, obviously the 80,000 square footers that we're going to see, the Metro Center type buildings. Mayor Rozanski: How many square feet is the other one, 35, 40? Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 5 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., f-ORM NO 10148 November 4, 1991 Held 19 Pat Bowman: The Frank Gates building, yes, is larger. What we're talking about is the parking standard, so we're allowing the parking lot essentially to go within 12-112 feet of the property line, which like I said, has been very consistent allover town. ".F' A. C. Strip: Well, but it may affect more than parking. Once a setback is set, they could build right up to the setback and, it has nothing to do with parking, it doesn't just limit it to parking. Pat Bowman: Right now the code requires 25 foot side yard for building and parking. A. C. Strip: Right, which means 50 feet essentially between structures, right? Pat Bowman: 50 feet essentially between structures, or parking areas. This code provision would allow parking then to extend 12.5 feet closer to the side line. A. C. Strip: But my point is, that change would also permit the building to be closer to, would it not? Only parking? Okay. . Mayor Rozanski: Any other comments or discussions? Pat Bowman: The code generally tops even in our industrial zoning district, the space required between an industrial user and a residential property is 15 feet; and clearly this is an area where there are no residences and we're not even concerned about the buffering standard, other than to provide some aesthetics. So economically, we believe the 12.5 feet not only meets the aesthetic standard but certainly is of great economy on this. David Amorose: Pat, I just feel that that's a little bit close, simply because in many other areas we are benefitting from some common ground. Metro Center, for example, sure, they're parking within 12-112 feet of the property line; however, that's normally adjoining green space, open space, common ground. Here, there is no real green space or open space, no common ground, but we could have a row of buildings that would look very dense with parking within 25 feet of each other. Pat Bowman: Yes, I really can't argue with it, we're here simply on behalf of the developer, who, based upon site plans that we have seen, has said that that represents very uneconomic circumstances. We looked at the code, we felt that 12.5 was reasonable but obviously based upon, if you want larger green space, then 25 feet will provide that rather than 12.5. David Amorose: That, and the fact that we forewent the curb along Tuttle Crossing, pretty soon, you start cutting into these things, these amenities, I think that are very important for the looks of the whole property. ill;" A. C. Strip: How much of a problem are we causing the particular developer? What I have in mind is, if it's an unusual problem, we can always give a councilmanic variance, if it's a particular unique problem to this piece of land; what I'm afraid of, and I'm not prepared, any more than what you've supplied to us, to project what we may be doing to future development up and down the street. How many different lots are affected here, Pat, how many different structures would be affected. What is programmed down there? Pat Bowman: We don't know, it's an area that they are, obviously, selling as is. In some of the areas are defined, they're going to, obviously, either have to front on Park Center Drive or on Bradenton, so I think the idea was to have a building 10,000-11,000 square feet; generally, that's probably the minimum they would go, and in that case, maybe sell a little under an acre and a half. For larger buildings, for instance, the midsection of this Area C, between the two roads, yes, could have much larger buildings, could have 40,000 square foot buildings. The standard, I would probably recommend we stick with the standard rather than just leaving it open, the standard will get less and less; in a sense, deal with it almost like a variance case, that they would have to show some kind of hardship. But for us, administering the code, it's easier for us to have a standard and we say "Meet Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 6 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 10148 November 4, 1991 Held 19 it", and now tell us why you can't meet it other than try to negotiate it every time. A. C. Strip: How much of a problem do we have on whatever you're proposing on this particular piece? Pat Bowman: In this case, we'll have to go back, Planning Commission did approve, in this case there was a day care center that was approved within Subarea C, and that's where it came to light. Planning Commission approved that. We'll have to go back and examine that, if the standard doesn't pass Council. They will have to go back and meet the 25 foot side yard requirement. Charles Driscoll, Edwards Company: The particular case that came up was a day care center, where they said, "We can build in Hilliard, build in Columbus, build anywhere with a 10 foot side yard", and we noted then, for the first time, that we had put that restriction on, that we had used the same yards that we had on the freeway buildings back in this one small part of our project we had set aside for small buildings. And this is an 8,500 foot building on an acre. And take 50 feet times 100,5,000 square feet, I don't remember exact numbers, but anyway it was enough to kill the deal for us, so they're ready to start now or else go build in Hilliard or somewhere else, so it's fairly important to us. And as I said, we did this to ourselves, this was not a Dublin standard that we just inherited and are complaining about, we put this on ourselves. We would like to adjust, the fact that we did the Llewellyn Farms Office Park on the other side of Frantz Road, the Peco Building's fairly large, it's 40,000 feet; but most of the buildings in there are 10 to 20,000 feet. We pictured the same kind of building in this area of Tuttle. Mayor Rozanski: Being a day care center, you have an 8,500 square foot building, then you've got an outside play area, I assume, would be also. So there would be more green space other than just this 12-112 foot side yard. Charles Driscoll: So an acre, 43,000, I think 1.1 acres in the site, 46,000 feet, and they've got 8,500 feet or 8,600 feet for the building, they have about a 20% site for this building. I think they have 31 parking spaces, I don't remember. Mayor Rozanski: Seems like there's still quite a fair amount of green space left on the site. Charles Driscoll: I don't think it's just this case, I think we found that there are a number of parcels which are selling, 1 acre, 2 acre parcels, and we're competing with other places, and we found that our sites are uneconomical with these side yards. And so, if you would, I think it would be much simpler, and in the long run, stop us from coming in for variances on every single one, if we could use a more standard setback. My understanding was that 12-112 is comparable setback with other places in Dublin. Mayor Rozanski: Any other discussion or comments? . Barbara Maurer: From what you're saying here, it sounds as if we're not violating some already existing Dublin standard by exceeding to this, accepting this. And it sounds as if it's a reasonable request. I think we're hearing from ourselves and from the building construction community and developing community that we're not in a position to make heavily demanding exactions as we have in the past, and this is a reasonable thing, and we have plenty of green space there, I think that we ought not to set standards drives business out. David Amorose: Well, I don't feel that we have that much green space there; I feel that if we're going to allow 12-112 foot side yard on parking, then we have to take a look at each parcel and how the buildings and parking lots are going to be placed on that parcel; in other words, stagger them so that you're not putting two parking lots 25 feet apart. To follow what I mean, take a look at the entire development and make sure that the placement of the parking lots and buildings, perhaps in some cases have the 12-112 foot setback, but let's try to stagger that setback so when one drives down the roadway, one just doesn't see cars parked head into each other 25 feet apart, because you really don't see or don't enjoy Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 7 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO lQ14B November 4, 1991 Held 19 much green space with that type of spacing. And I think you see some of that on the east side of Frantz Road, when you go in there and you see some building and parking lots just absolutely dominating the entire landscape. To make it work right, I believe that we need to take a look at each site, the placement of the building on that site. Barbara Maurer: Are you arguing against the standard setback, or what are you arguing for? David Amorose: I'm saying in this particular, since we have studied this and we have accepted the text, and now we're going back and revisiting this site and saying well, we're going to downgrade or forgive some of the standards that we set when we first zoned it, then I'm saying for those considerations, I would like Planning and Zoning or the staff to take a look at each site, each one of these parcels, and be able to have some control over the placement of the buildings and the parking lots on the sites. Is that an unreasonable request? Dan Sutphen: I agree with you, Dave. I don't want to open the floodgates up. If it's already a done-deal, I don't mind giving the variance on one instance, maybe that's a pain for you, but I think that the Planning and Zoning people, or Council, should have control over not having one big, continuous run of cars. Barbara Maurer: Where is that, where on this site would we have one continuous run of cars? -- ~ A. C. Strip: What puzzles me, though, is what I think I'm hearing, if I'm not hearing this right, tell me, and that is when they first came in and p'latted this, if that's the right word, zoned it, if they had come in and zoned it and suggested the 12-112 foot setback, we would have approved it probably right then and there because it was consistent with otherwise existing Dublin policies. They came in and said 25, we adopted it, now they're saying "Whoops, we made a mistake". So I'm just wondering, I have no particular feeling on it either way, and if it ought to go to P&Z, it ought to go to P&Z, but it's not our policy that they're asking us to change, it's their own policy, is that what I'm understanding? And Pat, do I understand had it come in at 12-112 feet, we would probably have adopted it hands down? Pat Bowman: Yes. Denise King: I think there's an opportunity for a compromise here, the area across the street has the 12-112 foot setback, and it's a very attractive part of Dublin, it functions well, it certainly attracted businesses, which helps support those services required by the businesses, and a lot of other things that count, too, and I guess my feeling is that it would be perfectly acceptable to go with the 12-112 side yard in Subarea C, and perhaps the compromise there is that we say "yes" to that if you agree to bring in a building plan and allow the City to have approval over the placement of the building on the parcel. Pat Bowman: We do review every building as it comes in. Denise King: All we see is the front elevation. So that every time a parcel comes in for development within Subarea C, that placement of building in relation to other buildings that have already been developed, is evaluated as to whether or not it is visually appropriate. Mayor Rozanski: Well, to proceed with this, we would need a motion to accept the recommendation of P&Z, to amend the text. Motion given and seconded. David Amorose: And I only ask staff to take this into consideration when buildings do come in for a final, see what we can work out so that it's visually aesthetic, pleasing to the eye. Pat Bowman: It all has to do with the landscaping. The other thing we'd like is do as Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 8 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK co., FORM NO. 10148 November 4, 1991 Held 19 much as possible for the developer to work at one site, knowing there is going to be 25 feet between parking lots. Ideally if that could be worked together, rather than have two little on each side, if we could work within the 25 feet to get a common landscaping -- and I think that makes so much difference when you drive down and you see one unified zone. Mayor Rozanski: Any further discussion or comments? Mr. Amorose: yes Mr. Sutphen: yes Ms. Maurer: yes Mrs. King: yes Mr. Strip: yes Mr. Campbell: yes Mayor Rozanski: yes Mayor Rozanski: Next, we'll move on to Reports from Council Committees. Reports from Council Committees. it, " Denise King: Early last Monday morning, the Public Safety Committee met and Dana McDaniel presented us a very thorough report on the status of fire protection services throughout the City of Dublin. Dana, have all members of Council received a copy of this last book? If any of you have the time to read it, I strongly recommend that you do so. It contains a tax profile of each taxing district within Dublin as relates to all kinds of services, particularly fire services. Also a summary of the services provided, the number of employees, the number of runs inside and outside the district, and a portion in the back that has recommendations. We had a presentation and then there was a brief period for the township trustees, Kurt Proegler and Dick Byrd were there along with the Fire Chief, to ask a few questions, and then we asked them to give us their response at a meeting scheduled for the off-Monday in December, the second Monday,.in the evening at 7:30 P.M. here. But in the meantime, I pointed out that we're having a Council Goal Setting session on Friday, and that if there was any information they wanted us to have prior to that, that we'd be happy to receive it, and I talked to Kurt Proegler today, and that information will be put in the mail to all Council members tomorrow. And if you don't see it by Thursday, call Kurt. Basically, the reason that we requested this data was in order to give Council good information in order to make good decisions about the future of fire protection and emergency medical services in Dublin. And then we asked the township trustees to react to it in order to have a balance. We did schedule a day, the second Monday in December, and actually that's a very good point, I think I overlooked that. I guess we did talk about that. We feel it would be worthwhile for all of Council to attend, we could have a committee-of-the-whole, or however you want to do it. A. C. Strip: It's not something you want to do very often, but this thing has such wide ramifications, and frankly, without a, I'm not a great lover of visual presentations and overhead projectors and all that, I try to avoid that, but on this one I don't think you can absorb what has to be absorbed and understand it; you could stare at these pages, I think, at great length and without Dana up there with a pointer and going through some of this stuff, it will be virtually, I think, Denise, I think if we hadn't had Dana go through it with you and me, I'm not sure it's absorbable, if that's the right word. And this thing is going to drive a lot of the future of the City dollars and equipment and fire and it's not just a question of moving the township boundary and be done with it. There are a lot of ramifications and some serious legal questions that come up, too. We are, though, in the habit of having Council to hold too often, I don't know of any way you can avoid this, we could do it at Goal Setting night, but I think, Denise, we'd burn up 2/3 of our Goal Setting night on this thing. Denise King: Well, the point of having the information available before Goal Setting was just to give people kind of an open window into where we were potentially headed with this information. To give you some idea of the scope and the magnitude of the information that Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 9 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 10148 November 4, 1991 Held 19 Dana has put together and the township trustees' reaction to it, I strongly recommend we have a committee-of-the-whole meeting in December to go over this. And another important part of Dana's work here, is the historical reiteration of the actions that we have taken of date; and I think it's very helpful to go back and look over what some of our recommendations have been and make sure that we keep on track with actions that we have already taken. Barbara Maurer: I just want to mention that while I was campaigning last week, I came to the home of Michael Keenan, one of the township trustees, and after a prolonged discussion with him, I would recommend that we be very cautiously and slowly on this. Two of the main points that he made was that the information that was presented by our staff was based on information that had been given a year and a half ago by the township trustees in the presentation we went to over at the fire house on Rings, and that it was outdated, that they had since revised their Capital Improvements, and their other projections quite substantially; and that the other concern he had was that nobody had been in touch with them for a long time and that it appears that a good many plans and projections and so on, may have been made by our staff without discussing or cooperating ----. Denise King: Barbara, I would really guard you against discussing a report you haven't had an opportunity to sit down and read, and Mr. Keenan hasn't had a chance to sit down and read it either, although it is certainly actually available to him and he may have already seen it. But this report --- Barbara Maurer: He has copies of it. .. Denise King: --- was put together with the knowledge and participation of the Fire Chiefs involved. And you have to be able to depend upon them to give you good information. And as I said, in addition to that, they now have had the report for awhile and an opportunity to react, and so if that input was lacking before, it is now available. Barbara Maurer: Well, I just want to be sure that we understand that there is a great concern on the part of, at least this township trustee, and he apparently talked to the others, that the plans and projections and the basis of information was questionable. Now I don't know whether it is or not, I'm just reporting. .. Tim Hansley: I would just like to make one quick observation on Barb's comment, and that's that we clearly as staff at that meeting, identified the report and stamped it as a draft, we identified to the audience who included the trustees of both affected townships and the Chiefs of both affected townships, that it was a draft and if they had any additional or new information, prior to this December meeting to get that into Dana's hands and he would be very willing to update his report at that time. Oddly enough, what's happened in the meantime, I think we put a letter in your packet to this effect, Kurt Proegler, the chairman of the trustees in Washington Township, mentioned that there were two additional updates, the study that Dana based his report on, Dana said "Fine, just give me, basically, the only one you've given me a copy of, if there are two additional studies, provide this to me and I will update". In the meantime, the last week, he's contacted the department to get the additional updates that were mentioned, and no such updates exist, that there is no official adopted update at this time. So, again, staff would agree with Barbara, let's proceed cautiously, let's make sure we have it based on the right information, but all we can base it on is what has been given to us; and we've written many letters; and most of the Chiefs have been cooperative, we've received a lot of inform3;tion. Probably, I think Ace hit on this, that the report or at the committee meeting very well, is at some point, you have to stop, take the snapshot, and say "Here's the relative balance, let's decide then what that means to Dublin City Council and to our citizens". But the numbers will constantly be changing, there will be constant updates in equipment acquired, equipment taken our of service, and so forth. Whenever you decide is your benchmark, that's when you should then decide relative to those benchmarks, what choice should this Council make. The goal right now is by December meeting, the second Monday in December, we'll give you the most current information as of that time; and beyond that, the changes that are to be made, that will be up to Council to decide how to deal with it. Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 10 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK co., FORM NO lU14!::J November 4, 1991 Held 19 Mayor Rozanski: Dana, if you could give all of Council copies so we can ----. Any other Council Committees have reports? Dan Sutphen: I hope by Friday, our Goal Setting, to have stuff back in from our walk that Denise and I took. We walked through Old Dublin and looked at some of the problems, some of the major improvements that have happened, and they're basically talking to us, the committee, of possible items which Bed Tax Funds could be used in the future, next year, upcoming years, and I hope to, one of the items that sticks out in my mind was moving the electric lines behind the homes instead of having them on High Street. And that particular item was, I'll just pull a figure out of there, I think it was around 90 to 125,000. And there were some other things that were identified for possible Bed Tax Funds, and we just basically said "This is great, enjoy doing this, but we need it in writing, so we can talk about it at Goal Setting meeting ", because of basic Bed Tax needs and does this meet criteria. Other than that, we had some small items and that was it. Denise King: Business under the Public Safety Committee Report, we did accept the petitions that were, also, delivered to Council with the 300 signatures from folks around Scottish Corners School, indicating their concern for the need for some traffic devices there across Muirfield Drive in front of the school; and Paul Willis was there at the meeting and indicated to us that the results of the traffic study on Muirfield Drive would be available at the end of last week, and that a copy of that would be sent out to the residents who had attended the meeting. I just wanted to ask staff if that study is available? Myra: It's in their mailboxes in the Council office. Tim Hansley: And that has been provided to the citizens who we were in contact with as well. That was just available today late and that's when. we put it out to Council and it will be mailed to the citizens tomorrow. Denise King: We will be discussing that, also, at our next Public Safety Committee meeting; and I recall asking at a Council meeting some time ago if we could have the actual cost estimate for signals that have been discussed among the public at Muirfield and Brand, and I will add at Muirfield and Sells Mills, and to remind you of that request and tell you I'm still interested in receiving it. Mayor Rozanski: Any comment in your meeting about putting an overhead, flashing school sign like we have on Bridge Street in front of the Middle School. Denise King: The Chief addressed that issue and, also, Paul Willis, but not an overhead, flashing yellow, but the type of sign where you can put flashers on either side. That was not what the residents were requesting, they were waiting for the results of this study before we made any recommendations. Mayor Rozanski: Regardless of whether the residents were requesting it or not, we have it in front of the Middle School, and Indian Run. I don't know if that's the answer, I'mjust wondering if the overhead ones were discussed. I feel. at each school on a major arterial road or collector road, such as in front of Scottish Corners, and in front of the High School on Coffman Road, that those type of signals should be in place, because there is no flashing, no lighting signal at the High School on Coffman Road. And you come down around the bend, coming down Coffman, you come to it surprisingly quick; the same on Muirfield Drive; and if we do it on Bridge Street, maybe we should think about doing it on those streets that are arterial and collector streets that have schools. Denise King: I'll make sure we consider that. Dan Sutphen: While we're on this subject, I was going to talk about this under Roundtable, but I'll ask now, and I believe, I would just like to know what the study cost, I did read, what did that cost, from Wilcox and Associates? About the flashing light that's in the traffic study at, just for the record, I guess it's what we all thought we needed from the beginning as basically the study says, that we need to look at a traffic light, we need to put Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 11 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 November 4, 1991 Held 19 flashing lights up, and I guess I'm afraid if we paid $1,500 or more, I hope not, for that study, or less I hope we paid for the study, I hope in the future, I don't know other than if it's a legal standpoint for the City's liability that we have to have a separate study made to find out when we need blinking lights in front of a school on a four-lane highway. That's basically what that report says, where they hang, or what sign they're on, it gets into detail which I'm not going to bore you with, but it's just that if it cost more than $500 for a study or $1,500 for that study, I believe our people in-house that we pay good money for, should say "Yes, let's just put this blinking light up and then next year when we get the budget process done, we'll look into putting lights up". It doesn't take me a whole lot, I come to work purposely that way all the time, and that is at the height of kids going to school, and then in the evening, which I'm not present usually when they're coming home. It's pretty hairy for a school crossing guard, an adult, let alone a child to be out there. I would make, I think everybody on this Council probably feels the same way I do; maybe if we could try to get the money and put a sign up there, we just don't have it in the budget right now. My point is, we had a study done because people wanted a light put there and maybe this is justification for not putting a light up right now. But we could have said, "We'll put flashing lights up on signs, or overheads, or whatever", but what we've got is a study that tells us to do what everybody's pretty much common sense said we really need to do anyway. Tim Hansley: Responding to your question, I think it's a good point, and that's that when does staff contract out and what direction do we really get from City Council; and frankly, Denise's last comment was one that when we got to Roundtable, we probably would have raised the same issue. When you say, give us the cost of a traffic signal on Muirfield and Brand, we can do that in-house and estimate it, it might be 50 to 100,000, we might be off by 10, 15, or 20%. But if what you really want is pretty close to the true cost, ready to go to bid, we really are going to have to hire a traffic engineering firm to do that, and then to look at the 14 different variations as to which lane gets controlled in which way, and so forth, and so on. And that may cost, who knows, $2,500, maybe $5,000, maybe more, and do the detail of that study. So, in a sense, once we sense that it's going to cost major dollars, especially if they're not budgeted, staff is going to say, "At least give us a motion so we know we have the sense of Council that that's what you want to do". Denise King: That's not what I ever asked for, I asked for a ballpark estimate on what the basic cost would be because you had a whole lot of people saying, "Run out there and get a signal", and I thought they have absolutely no concept for how much it costs. Tim Hansley: I think that's what would be helpful to staff if you clarify what you want as just an administrative ballpark look at the hardware -- Dan Sutphen: We have that already, really, in a way, if you take a light duty intersection of 161 and Dublin Village Center, whatever that road is that goes into Dublin Village Center, Federated, if you take that intersection, Dublin Village Center, and Federated, okay, there's an extensive intersection with all kinds of four-lanes and turns that we've already gone to bid on, is being put up, or is put up, and one that's already, one's 75,000 and the other one was 55,000, or whatever; that's a good ballpark. Mayor Rozanski: I think we've installed enough in the. recent past that we could get some good "guestimate" on what the ballpark figure is, Tim. Tim Hansley: Okay, and that's exactly what we would give you as long as we understand what you want. The other point that Danny was making, though, is when would you want them to go outside and get a consultant's recommendation, like what are you going to do about a signal, whether or not you need one at Sells Mills and Muirfield Drive. I think sometimes we would recommend that you go outside to get that independent look, it's the primary reason the City hires a consultant, is to have somebody who is independent of staff, just to avoid staff having any conflict that we're not telling you what you really need to know because we're afraid to be less than honest with you. I think it becomes a matter of trust. If Council consistently trusts the staff reports, I think that's how you save money, you rely on your professional staff. Sometimes because of the reliability and the appearance Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 12 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO lU14l::S November 4, 1991 Held 19 of no-conflict back to the community, you may say we're going to take an independent look at it, going to hire an outside traffic engineer to say, "Does it meet the state warrant?" So that's sort of what Council, it's up to you when you make the motion for the study, if you want staff to look at it, that's one thing. Mayor Rozanski: I think what Denise has requested is a "guestimate" on, if it's warranted, what would it cost? Not, whether it's warranted or not, but if it's warranted, what would be a rough estimate of the cost. Tim Hansley: Okay, you're saying, even on the study that we got, because that is different than-- Mayor Rozanski: Am I correct, Denise, --- Denise King: Hey, we're beating this to death, let's move on. Tim Hansley: I know we're talking about two different issues. Joel Campbell: I think the bottom line is, we have to study this intersection pretty carefully, because I think several people have said, we've done a tremendous amount of stuff at Brand Road; that's great, I think probably the more dangerous of the intersections when you're dealing with little kids, is down by the school. We have to look at it pretty close, for whatever reason, not necessarily spending tons of money to do it. .. Tim Hansley: Well, now that you have, at least, this study that says it does not meet the official warrant, if you still want to know if you want to put one up there anyway, how much is it going to cost, we can give you that figure, and it's going to be real close to what Jan and Danny are talking about, the 50 to 75,000 figure is a good, rough figure. But we'll have Steve Mack or Paul Willis take a second look at that and do it up fancy for you. Barbara Maurer: I have some questions. First, what study are we talking about, have we been given it? Mayor Rozanski: It was in your mailbox today, you had to pick it up. Barbara Maurer: Okay. Second, I guess that I'd like to question the assumption, because I'm not sure it's accurate, that putting up a flashing light is going to help the school kids. If you're going 35 miles an hour, and you have the right to go 35 miles an hour unless you're in California and there's a pedestrian right-of-way, I don't know whether it helps. Mayor Rozanski: Well, that's why we've got a study and let's read it before we go on. Any other committee reports? Hearing none, we'll move on to Comments from Staff. Comments from Staff. Mayor Rozanski: None. Then, we'll move on to Council Roundtable Discussion. ~ Council Roundtable Discussion. A. C. Strip: Only because I'm first, I know I reflect what every member of Council with us said, and that is that the Dublin football team deserves a big congratulations for going undefeated, and I know this Council will recognize that feat in the near future, but I know I speak for everybody, only because I'm first, in congratulating the team, the coaches, the school, and made us look good. That's all. David Amorose: Recommend everyone get out and vote tomorrow. And I certainly wish you the best of luck, Barbara and Denise, tomorrow. You're very deserving of being re- elected. I said, Ace, Barbara, and Denise, I hope I did, I meant to say that. Couple things, I noticed in our packet we have from Parks and Recreation, considerable cost overrun at the Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 13 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK co., FORM NO 10148 November 4, 1991 Held 19 Avery Park concession stand, of more than 25%, and it concerns me very much because I think that is a project that should have been somewhat straight forward and not too complex, and I wonder if we could, Tim, I did read your letter, but I was wondering if you might be able to go into a little bit more detail on what happened on that. Tim Hansley: One thing I might point out is that, Fred Hahn is here, hopefully he can help a little bit, too, but that was not a City of Dublin project, it was one that we worked in cooperation with the Dublin Soccer League, and frankly, I think they assured us and Council that they would be able to save money and do it cheaper because they were going to do it with some volunteer labor and some in-house .expertise, and so forth and so on. When they identified for staff that there was an overrun, then we asked for a detailed letter, which I believe there is a copy in your packet, to justify why they went over. I think they give you good arguments, at least they make the case, they provide the information; but we, at staff, had the same concern. I think sometimes we, staff, normally gets accused of, whenever the City does a project, it always overruns, that the private sector can do it cheaper, especially when they use volunteers. I think in this case they were in some of the same pitfalls that the City itself typically falls into. I think with that said, I will defer to Fred, if he has any more specific comments on that, in fact, he mayor may not have, as Janet worked directly with the Soccer League trying to keep those costs down as low as she could. Fred, do you have anything else to add? Fred Hahn: Any specifics on that, Dave? David Amorose: Yes, Fred, I was wondering, in every category of the six categories, there was a significant cost overrun except in the plumbing, and that was actually a downgrade in plumbing, from stainless steel fixtures to porcelain fixtures. Fred Hahn: The City has specific areas of that contract. Waste system, providing electricity and water to that. Potentially that was our basic control over that, the rest of it was Dublin Soccer League. David Amorose: So Parks and Recreation had no control over the construction whatsoever? Fred Hahn: I don't think it's actually to say we had no control, there were cost overruns that went beyond. David Amorose: Well, I just wanted to bring it to the attention of Council. If you missed it in your packet, that we're told one thing and then all of a sudden we get surprised at the end. Marsha Grigsby: I just wanted to add that we had in there, just to make you aware of the fact that they exceeded their original amount, however, it's still within the amount that we appropriated for that project. David Amorose: So it just didn't turn out to be that good a deal? Marsha Grigsby: Right. Mayor Rozanski: One thing I'd like to know, and I'd like the information researched and presented to Council, was the square foot cost versus that facility versus the other one that was built by the baseball diamond. We all fall into pitfalls, but I sure would like to see what the private sector could build it for versus what the City paid for the one up at the ball diamond. Tim Hansley: I would hope that the main difference would be we did have to pay prevailing wage at the ball diamond. Oddly enough, there still was not, if you add all the numbers up, comparing what we have provided in the way of utilities and the land and so forth, there was not as much of a gap as we would have hoped when the project first Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 14 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 1()14tj November 4, 1991 Held 19 started. Mayor Rozanski: Well, I know we supplied, part of our supplying facilities on this site was also redoing wiring for the ball diamond, upgrading the transformer, and some other electrical things that had nothing to do with this concession stand. Tim Hansley: So it may be difficult to give you an apples to apples, but we'll try to do that for you, I think it's a good question. A. C. Strip: Putting on my finance hat, does this overrun, assuming it's approved, get charged against what, Parks and Recreation, or Capital Expenditures, or Soccer League, or whom? Mayor Rozanski: That was a good question, because do we have a contract saying we have to reimburse them for this? A. C. Strip: I'm wondering who's picking up the tab? Marsha Grigsby: The first question was that the money was appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund. A. C. Strip: Not for the overrun though. Marsha Grigsby: For the whole project. Which the overrun is still within the amount that we pledged. Mayor Rozanski: They were paying bills, or were we ,paying bills? Marsha Grigsby: They are paying the bills and then we would reimburse them. Mayor Rozanski: And did we have a not-to-exceed-limit in that contract with them to pay the bills? Marsha Grigsby: That I'd have to check on. A. C. Strip: What's bothersome, we're kind of stuck now. What do we do if we don't like the overrun? That's what's a little troublesome. Dan Sutphen: I think, regardless of the numbers, it sticks out in my mind that we paid over $200,000 for the deal out at the -- Tim Hansley: The baseball facility? Dan Sutphen: Yes. Tim Hansley: No. I think that bill was 110,000, as I r~member. Fred, do you remember that? ih Dan Sutphen: So, it's still $50,000 say, that's a lot of money. Tim Hansley: No, you're not looking at, you're looking at their cost, to that you have to add what the City did on the same project, which is closer to 75,000 compared to 110,000 in round numbers. Mayor Rozanski: And they're pretty comparable facilities. Fred Hahn: Also, we are also planning for the future on the soccer concession. There's more to it than what is out there right now. Tim Hansley: There's an oversizing, basically, is what he's saying. It's in the ground, Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 15 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK co., FORM NO 10148 November 4, 1991 Held 19 they'll get the benefit five or ten years down the stream. We'll give you those actual numbers as soon as we can. Mayor Rozanski: While we're on the subject of that concession stand, the restroom facilities there, who makes sure those are open? Fred Hahn: Primarily the responsibility is with the Parks Department. If not, there's more people than the Parks though that have a key to the building. Sometime last week, it was brought to our attention that the restrooms were locked -- Mayor Rozanski: On certain days of the week, they're locked. Fred Hahn: Essentially they should never be locked unless there is problems with the actual mechanics of the restroom facility, which we did have that, we had to have service done to the facilities. Mayor Rozanski: But on a regular basis, on Tuesday nights, they've been locked. Fred Hahn: Then that is outside the Parks Staff, there's someone else doing that. Those restrooms are essentially open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, during the regular season, which is April 1 'til approximately this time of year. Mayor Rozanski: All I'm doing, I'm bringing it to your attention, and maybe you can get that problem resolved, because some of the soccer teams that play on a certain day made mention that the facilities have been locked all through their entire season on that day. Other days when they're there with their kids, they're open. Dave Amorose: A sketch of a gate and signage over the gateway to the cemetery, and reading his letter, it seems to me that they're going to be requesting $10,000 in Hotel/Motel Tax to fund this project, if Council so wishes to put the gate and this type of signage up. Do you care to discuss that this evening? A. C. Strip: I do. Not the money. Personally, I think we need signage, and I've had a hang-up on this for sometime, you know. But I also immediately looked at it, and I said, "I don't think that does the job". What I wanted up there is something, I've changed it myself, that's my own sketch, to say "City of Dublin Cemetery". The whole idea is, if we're going to identify it, is identify it as a municipal facility, Dublin Cemetery could be Presbyterian Church or a Catholic Church, but I want something that is more descriptive, and I would suggest "City of Dublin Cemetery" and even maybe doing something like spelling cemetery correctly, although this does get more attention this way. Tim Hansley: I made the same comment on my notes, too, because I think we've had that same problem with gateways, even if it just says "Dublin Gateway", I think it's desire of Council to say "City of', and I think the Cemetery Commission is just trying to be a little bit, they don't want to brag it up as much as Council really, I think, deserves to brag something up when you're spending that much effort to maintain something. So, we'll suggest that change to the Commission. Council will have final say-so <?n it anyway, so you'll get the final concept drawing at the time when you get ready to fund it out of Bed Tax or whatever other source of revenue you want to use. A. C. Strip: I'm absolutely convinced that the majority of people in this City, much less those who go by, believe that it is connected with the Community Church on the corner. I have no problem with the Community Church, by the way, but I think residents of this community ought to know that there is that facility available. Joel Campbell: I agree with you. When I looked at it, Ace, I thought about the same thing. I'm not sure whether we need quite that grandiose of a sign, but I think whatever we say, ought to say "Dublin Municipal Cemetery" or "City Cemetery", or whatever. I think you're right, there probably is the misconception that somehow that's connected, and it isn't; you're absolutely right. The other thing I was thinking about was, remember a Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 16 Meeting DAYTON LeGAL I:3LANK co.. F-QRM NO. lU14!j November 4, 1991 Held 19 couple weeks ago, I forget who I gave the name to, but there was a woman from, I think it was the Dublin Women's Club, that had contacted, we had talked about the cemetery earlier, and there was a mention that they had some funds that they had budgeted to contribute to some upgrading in the front of the cemetery, and if this is being considered, I would certainly hope that the Cemetery Commission might contact them. Tim Hansley: She's been contacted. I think her funds, or the Women's Club funds are going to go to, I think, a planting in the front, landscaping, yes, they've already worked on that one. Denise King: Comment about the drawing, and that is that if there is a historic reason for the arch, then it's acceptable to me; but I, also, think we could do just as nicely with a plaque on each one that says "City of Dublin Cemetery" and over here "Established 1816". There are two reasons for that, one it's a little grandiose; and two, then you always have to be concerned about the height of vehicles that are going through there. And just the vehicle issue may be enough to make you wish you hadn't done it that way later on, whether it's a van that's going in there, or some kind of a work vehicle. Mayor Rozanski: Let's get back to the consensus on the sign. Dan Sutphen: I think if you went to Union Cemetery on 315 or Greenlawn, in either case, they have pillars with large polished brass, not the dull brass, but polished brass entrance plates and it stands out very, very uniquely, it just makes a nice statement. liii~', Mayor Rozanski: Then I'll ask the immediate consensus of Council which proposal, would we accept something somewhat similar to what they're proposing here tonight, or do we want to ask them to look into the pillar with the plaque on it? David Amorose: I think they ought to research it somewhat and make it architecturally correct for the period. A. C. Strip: My only requirement criteria is that it can be seen from the street, that's my only interest. Mayor Rozanski: Well, I prefer the pillar and plaque, I would somewhat though go along with Dave that they do some researching on it to make sure that what they do is somewhat period-wise correct, and fits into the theme of Dublin. So, could we take that back, will that go back to the Cemetery Commission then, as a recommendation? Tim Hansley: Is there any strong preference that we call it City of, as opposed to Dublin Municipal Cemetery? All council members agreeing to City of Dublin. Dan Sutphen: I brought this to the attention last meeting, at Muirfield and Brand, the new lights, some of them had been put up crooked, they still are, and I sure hope that they're going to straighten those out. Tim Hansley: Yes, they're painfully aware of that. Dan Sutphen: Painfully, that's good, that's what I thought, it was a mistake. That's all I have, thank you. Joel Campbell: It's been an interesting couple of weeks for me, or actually month, having been on this job two years, and not actually being involved in election, but pretty much watching the comments that are being made, and I'll say what I'm going to say tonight, but it's too late for anybody to change what they're going to say about votes, and yet it's before Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 17 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., I-URM NO 1014B November 4, 1991 Helil 19 \b the election, so goodness knows what'll happen tomorrow, although I certainly wish all of you good luck that are going at it tomorrow. When I started two years ago, I specifically remember several points I said the first night. I said we need to be decisive, we need to be efficient, we need to appear like we know what we're doing, and we need to be fair. And it's funny, I've been watching in the papers and listening to what people say, apparently we're not doing that, even though I thought we were; but obviously sitting here, you get a different perspective than sitting out there, which is what I did for a number of years before I sat here, obviously just like some of you. I think, though, in reality looking back, I tried to decide, are we really not doing the job as much as what people might say when you read the papers, or are we doing the job and maybe there's a perception we're not, or whatever. But I've thought about it, from a decisive standpoint, I think, if anything, we've been very decisive. Sometimes the decisions haven't been real popular. We made some calls the last couple years that had been kicking around for years before that, things like the northeast quad rezoning, which was a very difficult and, in some cases, unpopular call. Things like the sewer issue, where we had to bite the bullet and decide to spend money, and that was after a substantial amount of talk and discussion, to put the deep tunnel in. Things like couple annexations, the boundary change issue, several things that we made very difficult, and in fact, longstanding decisions came to an end; I don't think it's a matter of not being decisive, I think it's a matter of making a hard call that some people didn't agree with. And that's the nature of hard calls, because the natural tendency is to say "Well, let's keep putting this off, put it off, put it off, it'll go away"; it doesn't go away. So during the last couple years, actually, we made very difficult calls, somebody didn't like them. Now I don't know that that's not being decisive, and yet I still see some things indicating somehow people felt there was a perception of not being decisive. Efficient? Admittedly, sometimes we tend to drag on in the meetings a little bit, that's still a problem; and all we can do is try to do better, I guess, although it looks like we may have a record setter tonight. Appearance, I think the Council chambers, due to the fact that staff's done a nice job over the last couple years of keeping it in good shape, and the remodeling was completed, and certainly when you come in here, you have to have a better feel that you're here to do business. When we first started a couple years ago with this discussion, a lot of it was in the middle of remodeling. So some of that had to be taken care of, and it seems to be doing well. And from a fairness standpoint, I think we've tried to do very good on that as well, with things like we reversed the time for the citizens to come in and make their statements. We've taken a lot of heat in that first half-hour to an hour in some meetings, but the people got their chance to say what they wanted to say. We didn't always get compliments, but it saved them having to sit here until 1:00 in the morning to come in and tell us bad things. I'm not sure how a citizen could be upset with that; if they got their chance to come in and say what they wanted to say, that was one of the reasons why we decided to move it from the back to the front. We try to be very careful about how we do emergency ordinances, which should eliminate problems from bidders and people in town that might have concerns about whether they're getting their chance to say what they want to say. Executive Sessions, we've been very careful to stay on the topic and not overuse that as a method of discussing things. My point is, I guess I've been sitting here listening for the past three or four weeks, and I'm sure those of you who've been at Candidates' Nights have been taking the heat pretty regular. But I've been trying to think, are we really doing that bad of a job to deserve the amount of criticism that we get in some cases. And I'll be honest with you, I don't think so. I think, quite frankly, we're doing a pretty darn good job overall. Sometimes there are hard calls, sometimes people don't like the calls, but we're making the calls, the best we can do it. And I just hope that the people out there, the general public out there, realizes that overall, the City, if the bottom line is, are you happy living in this town, is the town generally moving forward, and I think if you really thought about it, if you're a citizen in this town, you'd have to say "yes" to both those questions. I think the bottom line is, the quality of life here is pretty darn good, and we ought to be thankful we live here. That's all I have to say. Mayor Rozanski: All I have to say is, I wish the three of you good luck tomorrow. I'm glad I wasn't campaigning this year. Joel, I think we'll get the answer to your question tomorrow when the voters finish up voting, to see how everything turns out. Good luck. I'd entertain a motion to go into Executive Session on a personnel matter. Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Page 18 DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. I014!::J Meeting November 4, 1991 Held Mayor Rozanski: yes Ms. Maurer: yes Mrs. King: yes Mr. Campbell: yes Mr. Amorose: yes Mr. Sutphen: yes Mr. Strip: yes Mayor Rozanski: We will not be reconvening and there will be no action taken. Meeting adjourned 8:50 P.M. / i':, ;) ;1 ~ . cfef;~o~n~~ ...~U t1~ 19_