Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/06/2007RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meet'n Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, August 6, 2007 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Mrs. Boring arrived at 7:10 p.m.. Mr. McCash arrived at 8:50 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Tyler, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Burns, Ms. Ruwette, Ms. Crandall, and Ms. Rauch. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Firefighters from the Washington Township Fire Department led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of July 2, 2007 Council Meeting Mr. Reiner moved approval of the minutes. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Mr. Keenan noted that the comments 9n page 10 regarding who will oversee the Veterans Project should be attributed to Mr. McCash. Vote on the minutes as corrected: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. PROCLAMATIONS/SPECIAL RECOGNITION • Recognition of Lifesaving Efforts on June 27, 2007 at Dublin Community Pool South Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited Matt Earman to describe the lifesaving which took place on June 27 at the South Pool. She invited Erin Daehler, one of the young girls who was rescued, to assist with presentation of proclamations to the following Dublin staff: Stas Novikov, Garth Kawczak, Ally Shoemaker, Courtenay Chaffin, and Joe Fabick. Washington Township Firefighters present to accept the recognition included Battalion Chief Alec O'Connell, Jay Cropper and Adam Smith. Ms. Salay, who was present at the pool at the time of the incident, commented on the heroic actions of the staff. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commended all who played a role in the rescue of the two young girls. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher also congratulated the aquatics team, as one of Dublin's three lifeguard teams achieved first place yesterday in the American Red Cross State Lifeguard Competition which was held at the South Pool. Proclamation from The Ohio House of Representatives for the Dublin Irish Festival 20th Anniversary Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher read the proclamation received from Rep. Jim Hughes, House District 22, congratulating the City on the occasion of the 20th annual Dublin Irish Festival. CORRESPONDENCE • Notice to Legislative Authority -New D5A liquor permit - Aimbridge Concessions, Inc., dba Embassy Suites Dublin, 5100 Upper Metro Place There was no objection to the issuance of this permit. CITIZEN COMMENTS Dale Bruggeman 6105 Tuswell Drive addressed Council regarding the Avery Road widening and the impact on the southern residents of the Kendall Ridge subdivision. Their primary concern is with the right in, right out restricted access at Kendall Ridge Boulevard and Avery Road, as the residents in the southern portion of the subdivision will have no other alternative for northbound Avery Road travel other than Tuswell Drive. Their goal is to provide an alternative so that traffic will not greatly increase on Tuswell in general, and around the "blind corner" on the curve on Tuswell. They are asking Council to direct the Engineer's office to adjust the widening and roundabout plans to allow for a left out access from Kendall Ridge Boulevard on a temporary basis, until such time as the overall project plan of a roundabout at Woerner-Temple and Avery Road is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e Held completed. The original widening plan for this area was ideally stated to be done over a two to three-year timeframe. Three scenarios were presented to the public nearly two years ago. They were concerned, but were willing to tolerate this for two to three years for the greater good of the community, until the last roundabout was installed. The January 2006 City Council presentation was the last information presented publicly about this project as far as he is aware of, until the July 2, 2007 bid acceptance. In January of 2006, three scenarios were presented, with Engineering recommending the current plan, including a longer timeline, probably because of the expected intersection failure timeframes. He was not able to locate Council's final decision about that recommendation prior to the July 2, 2007 meeting, although he assumes it does exist. This issue was not pursued by the neighborhood until now, as they were not aware of Council's final decision. The 2006 CIP plan for 2007-2011 allocated only $3 million in construction for 2007 for phase 1 and phase 2 of the Avery Road widening. It only mentions the Tuswell roundabout. No other money was allocated in later years, which should have been a clue to the neighborhood to ask more questions. He pointed out that accessing the CIP plan at the City's website is more difficult than necessary. They understand that priorities change, but the Woerner-Temple/Avery Road intersection with the light is currently not failing, although some believe it is at peak hours. Limiting access to right in, right out on a major arterial is a primary safety concern. According to the Engineer's study, it eliminates 74 percent of accidents at a T-road intersection. Roundabouts are supposed to enable traffic in those areas to move smoother and provide that U-turn alternative. Avery Road north to Kendall Ridge can be accomplished by using the new Tuswell roundabout plan and eliminating 47 percent of T-road accidents. He asked that an alternative be provided until the southern roundabout at Woerner-Temple is completed. The left out only from Kendall Ridge will only give two more points of potential conflict which according to the engineer is 27 percent of accidents on that T-road intersection. The risk that people will still take Tuswell Road out, but they will be somewhat more cautious in view of the numerous preschool and elementary school children on that street. Also, there are many families where English is their second language and warning calls may not always be understood. This major road construction effort will affect a lot of people, especially residents and businesses in the area and someone should have notified these people of the Council agenda item scheduled for the July 2 meeting. City Council and Commissions should ensure that residents and businesses impacted by any City service decision should be notified of those agenda items, and no voting should be allowed if notification did not take place, especially when there is only one reading. He urged Council to add a temporary left out from Kendall Ridge to Avery to the widening project and institute a notification policy. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Hammersmith to respond for clarification purposes regarding the notification issue and the preference for the right in, right out access and justification. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff does not typically notify residents regarding a bid acceptance. At that point, it has been a programmed project ready for implementation. It is discussed in the CIP budget hearings and operating budget hearings. At the point of design and bidding, residents are not typically notified. He apologizes if they were not aware, but previous discussion took place with the residents regarding staff's recommendation for the alternatives as presented to Council in January of 2006. As far as the Woerner-Temple intersection, the widening project was divided in four parts. The first is the Avery/Tuswell roundabout; the second is the relocation of Old Avery Road; the third is the improvement of the Avery/Shier-Rings intersection; and the fourth is the improvement of the Woerner-Temple intersection. Staff indicated that part 4 is far into the future, as the intersection was improved with signalization. In the future, that would provide the residents an alternative to make the left out of their neighborhood, essentially turning right out of Kendall Ridge and go through the roundabout, making a U-turn, heading north. Engineering would not recommend providing a left out of Kendall Ridge after the improvement. The right in, right out was done as access management to that neighborhood, with the understanding that the City would improve the intersection at Tuswell Drive. Originally the area was expected to grow further to the west with residential neighborhood subdivisions toward what is now Ballantrae. Kendall Ridge Boulevard and Tuswell Drive were expected to go further to the west, and there was also RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e Held access to be provided to Woerner-Temple Road. However, that area is greatly reduced today in terms of a subdivision, and Ballantrae has its own access. In terms of a left out, staff has great concerns with this as the volumes increase on Avery Road, with people crossing four lanes of traffic. Safe access at a control point of Tuswell and Avery is the goal. Construction is currently underway for that roundabout. Ms. Salay added that she spoke with Mr. Hammersmith recently. In view of the residents' concerns with speeds on Tuswell Drive, Mr. Hammersmith suggested that Stealthstats could be implemented once the improvement is completed to ensure that speeding problems don't exist. The target completion date for the project is the fall. If staff would be willing to do this, it will help the residents feel better about the potential increased volumes and speed on Tuswell. Mr. Hammersmith added that as one travels west from the roundabout on Tuswell, a new curve has been introduced to control speeds. Vice Mayor Lecklider recalled that there will be a median in this area. Was a median break planned for Kendall Ridge? Mr. Hammersmith responded there will not be a median break. That is why there will be a right in, right out after the project is completed. There would also be concern about a left turn in to the subdivision if such a median break were included. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked when this median will be installed. Mr. Hammersmith responded it will be installed by fall of this year. Mrs. Boring asked when the Woerner-Temple roundabout will be installed. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is not programmed in the five-year CIP. It was shown as an alternative in January of 2006, but also shown was an alternative for the signal to remain in place. It was suggested that a roundabout could be installed in the future when level of service warrants it. Brief discussion continued about the Tuswell Drive traffic impacts. Mrs. Boring asked if staff had considered Mr. Bruggeman's request of delaying the median installation until the Woerner-Temple roundabout is completed. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this was never considered as an alternative, as staff wants to control access today to provide safe access for the Kendall Ridge neighborhood at Avery and Tuswell, and not introduce any left movements at Kendall Ridge Boulevard from Avery. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that over the past few years he has been collecting items for citizen comment and now has 323 items. The first one is something that has baffled him since the time the Golf Club of Dublin was built. At that time, Pete Edwards brought to the City the "Dancing Hares" sculpture. There are two dramatic points for viewing the sculpture - from a distance where it is silhouetted against the sky. At a distance the sculpture appears full of child-like fantasy, innocence and enjoyment. Upon a closer view, there is a scariness and almost a cruelty about the dancing hares, with brass child's hands, and bicycle or motorcycle chains and tools embedded in the slag. Someone should contact the sculptress and ask if she would offer some account of what she was thinking. Another suggestion is that someone from the Dublin Arts Council could contact Mr. Edwards and have a conference with the sculptress. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Guion of the Dublin Arts Council to follow up on this. Ms. Salay offered that she read an account of the sculpture which indicated these were found objects that would survive in an outdoor sculpture. The sculptress does many of her sculptures in this manner, adding items to make them more interesting. She does not believe there was any sinister intent with their inclusion. They merely added interest to the textures in the sculpture. Jody Davids, Veterans Committee stated that she represents the fundraising committee. She introduced Committee member Gene Bostic who has an announcement to make. Gene Bostic reported that the Committee has been working diligently on fundraising. This past week, the Committee was pleased to receive a $15,000 donation from local resident, Mrs. Charlotte Immke. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council ge Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mrs. Immke to stand and be recognized for her generous contribution. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, on behalf of the City, thanked Mrs. Immke for her contribution. She added that she has been very generous in the community and has supported the Miracle League baseball field, the Arthritis Foundation Classic Auto Show, and now is supporting the Grounds of Remembrance. She extended Council's appreciation for sharing her talents and treasures with the community and for being present this evening. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 50-07 Amending Section 153.021(A) "Permitted Use" of the Dublin Codified Ordinances. (R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District -Code Update -Case No. 07-039ADM) Ms. Brautigam noted that there is no additional information to report regarding this legislation. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 51-07 Establishing Dublin Zoning for Approximately 2.5 Acres Located South of Waterford Drive, West of Dublin Road, North of Longview Drive, and East of Monsarat Drive as R-2, Limited Suburban Residential Zoning under the Provisions of Section 153.004(D). (Inner I-270 R-2 Residential Area Rezoning -Case No. 07- 0402) Ms. Brautigam noted that Mr. Langworthy is present to respond to questions, and the presentation from the first reading is available if desired. There were no questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 52-07 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging the Expansion by Cardinal Health, Inc. of Its Operations and Workforce within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Mr. McDaniel stated that this agreement is designed to encourage Cardinal's expansion of its offices and workforce in Dublin. An updated staff report has been provided to Council, together with a redlined version of the modified economic development agreement. There have been primarily definitional changes, and no increases or decreases to the incentives are proposed. The memo recaps the incentives proposed, as described at the last hearing. The report also includes a graphic depicting the Frantz Road extension and the Emerald Parkway extension and is consistent with the draft Thoroughfare Plan. The actual right- of-way is not shown, as this is at conceptual stage. He noted that: 1. The City's review services team continues to meet with the Cardinal staff architects and engineers regarding the west campus facility. At this time, the facility still appears to be in compliance with what was previously approved in the rezoning. Cardinal's team will be meeting with Dublin staff at length tomorrow to begin the initial review of the final plan submission. 2. He had hoped to have a rendering of the new facility to be built, but that is not available yet from Cardinal. 3. The State of Ohio, the Columbus-Franklin County Finance Authority and Cardinal Health continue to work through the land acquisition incentive that is referenced in the agreement. Staff anticipates that this arrangement will occur. 4. Cardinal Health's continued expansion of its corporate campus brings great value to the City in terms of new job growth and new office development. Additionally, the State of Ohio is offering aggressive incentives to Cardinal to attract jobs from outside of the state of Ohio. The state's partnership is greatly appreciated. He offered to respond to questions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 ~_ J LJ' gu e Mr. Reiner asked if Cardinal has provided a final completion and occupancy date for the project. Mr. McDaniel responded not at this time. According to the agreement, that will occur by December 31, 2009. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked by what date the 675 positions will be added. Mr. McDaniel responded that they do not have a specific date yet. There is some commitment regarding this with the Job Creation Tax Credit with the State of Ohio. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked when a decision will be made by the Columbus-Franklin County Finance Authority. Mr. McDaniel responded that there are several steps in their process. Their goal is to be before the Controlling Board at the State of Ohio by September 27. Mr. Keenan asked about the signals on Emerald Parkway between Coffman and Dublin Road. He asked for the approximate location of the signals. Mr. McDaniel responded that it was not delineated on the map. Staff has included this in the upcoming CIP budget review. There are two signals referenced which are proposed: one at the existing entrance to the current Cardinal Health building and one between the existing Verizon building and the new Cardinal building, just to the east of the Verizon building. Mr. Keenan noted that some of the road improvements are tied to this agreement. In regard to the extension of Frantz Road at 161, is there a vision on how that ties out? Mr. McDaniel responded that there is not such a vision at this time. There has been much discussion, and it is included in the draft Thoroughfare Plan. Staff looked at this as an opportunity to further create a job ready site and tie that from Dublin Road back into the Cardinal site. If the City pursues the Thoroughfare Plan and decides to connect that on to Frantz Road at a future date, there would be an ability to tie that in. The timing could be driven by potential development, perhaps even by OCLC. Ms. Salay asked about the OCLC campus. She assumes staff is working with them to ensure that the right-of-way or path this new roadway takes is compatible with their future plans. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff is working with them as well. He added that the piece proposed as part of this agreement is only the portion on the Cardinal property, between Dublin Road and the creek on the south or west side of their property. Mrs. Boring stated that in reviewing the minutes from the July meeting, Mr. McDaniel had noted that he was hopeful of having information at this meeting regarding the land purchase. Mr. McDaniel responded that it is not final at this time. What is addressed in the agreement is the fact that the state needs a third party to serve as a pass through for that funding, so they are looking to the Columbus-Franklin County Finance Authority to be that entity. What is addressed in the agreement is if they cannot be that entity, the City could choose to step in and do this. Mrs. Boring asked why this has not been completed at this time. Mr. McDaniel responded that he believes this has been an issue of working with vacation schedules. There are no other issues that he is aware of. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification about the Authority, as mention was made of the State Controlling Board. Mr. McDaniel responded that the State of Ohio is providing the $4 million land acquisition incentive. That is basically a low interest loan program. A third party is needed to hold title to the land when the state, in effect, purchases it. They will purchase the land and hand the title off. They initially approached the City about doing this, but the City felt there would be an opportunity to use the new Finance Authority for assistance in the process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the Authority continues ownership, or passes the ownership onto Cardinal. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council August 6, 2007 Page Mr. McDaniel responded that the Authority will hold ownership until such time as Cardinal buys it back. At the outside, that would be ten years, but it could happen at anytime after execution. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that his comments are not designed to cause any destruction in the arrangement between the City and Cardinal Health. He is looking for a purgation which would be helpful to everyone. He refills prescriptions every 90 days, and has good insurance coverage for this. He and another colleague from a university have had thousands of dollars in medical procedures in conjunction with cancer treatment. However, there are 43 million without health care coverage. He is outraged by the shift which Cardinal made at some point. It was outrageous to have medicine warehoused in anticipation of the price increasing. If he had access to the Cardinal CEO, he would state that they are naive about public relations and that they should, among other things, make a persuasive apology to the world and guarantee that something similar does not occur again. If it should happen again, those who would be guilty of such act should be asked to deal with a helpless person through community service, handling all of their needs, for 30 days or more. Firing a person will do nothing. He would appreciate it if this message could be taken to the CEO. From the beginning, he was impressed by Cardinal's stature and power. He asked for an appointment to meet with Cardinal about corporate citizenship. His appointment was canceled, and he presumes it was on the basis that he was not an important person. His message should be made clear to Cardinal. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the City is very pleased that Cardinal is ready to build their next building and plans to expand their work force in Dublin. Cardinal is the largest corporation in Ohio, and the City is pleased that Cardinal has their headquarters in Dublin. While she appreciates Mr. Maurer's comments, Council is aware that Cardinal and the individuals in the company are very philanthropic and give to the Central Ohio community and around the world. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Mr. McDaniel introduced Marino Colatruglio, Vice President of Corporate Real Estate and Workplace Services, Cardinal Health. He acknowledged Mr. Colatruglio and staff for their assistance. Mr. Colatruglio thanked the City, on behalf of Cardinal Health. They are looking forward to construction of the next building and having the opportunity to grow and bring their workforce together. They appreciate the continued partnership with the City. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 53-07 Accepting the Annexation of 1.479 Acres, More or Less, from Jerome Township, Union County to the City of Dublin. (Petitioners: Robert W. and Elaine T. Horr; Agent: Michael L. Close, Esq.) Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that the property owners are seeking annexation in order to obtain utilities. Mr. Langworthy provided an aerial view of the site on Hyland-Croy, north of Mitchell Dewitt. It consists of 1.479 acres and is a continuation of the annexation process initiated by the property owner in April. The annexation has been approved by the County Commissioners and sent back to the City for further action. Mrs. Boring asked about the availability of utilities to this property. Ms. Brautigam responded that both water and sewer lines are in the vicinity, as they were extended in the area to serve Glacier Ridge elementary. They are seeking access to the utilities via annexation to the City. Mrs. Boring asked who will pay for their service connection. Ms. Brautigam responded that the property owners will pay the costs of tap-in to the utilities. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held Mr. Keenan asked about the amount of reparations owed to the township as a result of this annexation from Jerome Township and subsequent boundary adjustment into Washington Township. Ms. Grigsby responded that the reparations are relatively minimal. In the first three years, it is in the range of $400, and it decreases each year until year 12. She recalls a calculation by which the property owner would pay approximately $3,000 over 12 years. Mr. Keenan asked if the reparations are acreage-based. Ms. Grigsby responded that it is based upon the assessed valuation, and the calculations were done based upon current assessment information, based upon land and improvements. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 20 Council meeting. Ordinance 54-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Washington Township to Provide Communication Services for the Washington Township Fire Department. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Chief Epperson stated that this ordinance allows for the renewal of the agreement with Washington Township in which dispatching services are provided to the township. The changes are minor, and include Section 1, Item 6, which relates to the provision of programming services for radios. These are built into the costs of the contract. In Section 8, there is language relating to the potential improvements which may be made to the radio system. If within the term of this agreement the City is able to make improvements, any possible cost sharing will be renegotiated with the township. Mr. Keenan asked about the costs included in the existing contract which has expired. Chief Epperson responded that the costs were $196,000. Mr. Keenan asked about Section 10. At the end of this three year period, with proper notice, there would bean extension for another three-year period at apre-determined increase of 5 percent? Chief Epperson responded that is correct. In the past, the contract has generally been renegotiated due to the need for minor changes, such as cost sharing for specific equipment. Under Section 10, however, there could be an automatic extension for three years with a five percent increase. Mr. Keenan noted that the City and township have always shared in the 9-1-1 equipment purchases. That major investment was made several years ago. This agreement contemplates the ability to share in the cost of future technological changes. Chief Epperson agreed. This is addressed in Section 8. If the radio system is improved in any way, there will be discussion about possible cost sharing. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 20 Council meeting. Ordinance 55-07 Adopting the 2008-2012 Five-Year Capital Improvements Program. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that two workshops have been scheduled on August 8 and August 15, with the second reading/public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 4. The agenda has been provided in the packets. Any changes made during the workshop process will be incorporated for the second reading. Ms. Salay asked at what point it would be appropriate for citizens to comment on this ordinance, if they desire any substantive changes. She recalls Council has taken some public comment during the workshops, but does not recall anyone opting to do so. Ms. Brautigam responded that in other communities, there is time set aside for public to comment, if they so desire. Council could opt to invite citizens to speak if they do attend the workshops. Another option is to invite citizens to write to their Council Members regarding any issues. It was the consensus of Council to accept public testimony during the workshops, if desired by the citizens. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council ust 6, 2007 Held The workshops will be held on August 8 and 15, with the second reading/public hearing on Tuesday, September 4. Ordinance 56-07 Amending Chapter 99, "Wireless Telecommunication Regulations" of the Dublin Codified Ordinances. Mr. Reiner introduced the ordinance. Mr. Langworthy noted that this ordinance and the following one relate to Chapter 99, wireless telecommunications regulations. The wireless communication chapter was first adopted in 1997 and has not been updated since that time. Staff reviewed this ordinance in response to a request for a cell tower location. In examining the ordinance, staff determined there was a need to update it . Some of the major changes are: 1. Maximum height for a single user for a new tower at 80 feet. 2. For one to two users, currently at 130 feet, and the proposal is for 100 feet. 3. For 3 users on a single tower, currently at 150 feet and the proposal is for 120 feet. 4. For four users, the maximum height is currently at 200 feet and staff proposes 140 feet. They have reviewed the changes with the City's wireless consultant, and she is in agreement with the numbers. Dublin is reasonably flat in topography, with few hills. Therefore, staff believes that lower height cell towers will be adequate. 5. There is a requirement included that towers be built ready for co-location. Mrs. Boring asked for the difference between two users and co-location. Mr. Langworthy clarified that there could be two antennas on the same tower at the same time. The principal behind co-location is that as antennas are added, height must be added to maintain a minimal distance between each antenna. As users are added, the tower is permitted to be taller. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there are any cell towers in the City currently at 200 feet. Mr. Langworthy responded he does not know. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the City is then not aware if anyone would be grandfathered in under these reductions. Mr. Langworthy stated that non-conforming towers are accounted for in the ordinance. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if someone comes in with a change to users, the applicant would be required to meet current code. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that is correct. Mrs. Boring asked about existing structures which house cell towers, such as a church steeple or football stadium lights. How do the height restrictions apply to those existing structures? Mr. Langworthy responded that these restrictions apply only to the monopole. 6. Another major change from the current ordinance is that new towers have been permitted in every district -either by a conditional use, permitted use or special permit. Staff is proposing that the towers not be permitted in many of the districts, in particular all the residential districts and some of the more quiet commercial districts, planned districts, high tech industrial districts and the Architectural Review districts. Anew tower would be a conditional use in commercial districts, planned industrial parks and the two general industrial districts in the Code. This ordinance will severely limit the number of locations where such towers are permitted, and the means by which they can be put in. Mrs. Boring noted that applicants seeking such permits will cite the need for coverage and that the location is necessary for coverage purposes. What will occur when they cite the public utilities law as a basis to obtain permission? Mr. Langworthy responded that if an applicant cannot locate in these districts or is not approved administratively, an applicant can apply for a conditional use through the Planning Commission. But for Dublin, not permitted means it is not permitted. The applicant would have to make the case that the ordinance should be amended. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council August 6, Mr. Reiner asked if Dublin still has the authority to require the cell towers to be disguised, as was done at Scioto Park. Is there an FCC restriction against this requirement? Mr. Langworthy responded that there was never an authority, but rather an incentive to make the process easier, housing it in an alternative structure or "stealth" structure. The applicant can go through an administrative process versus a conditional use process, thereby incentivizing them to do this by making the approval easier. Stealth towers would be permitted in all districts through an administrative approval process. 7. Mr. Langworthy noted that the alternative structure is proposed for administrative review, except in Architectural Review districts where they will not be permitted whatsoever. 8. Currently, the ordinance states that towers are approved administratively, but does not define how or by whom. A review team is established by ordinance to ensure that all of the ordinance requirements are met prior to the administrative approval. If someone were to disagree with the administrative review process, they would have the right of appeal to the Board of Zoning appeals as an administrative appeal. This process is built into the ordinance. Ms. Salay noted that aesthetic issues are certainly subjective. If someone requested administrative approval for a tower and obtained this approval, but either corporate residents or homeowners disagreed with it, is there a means to appeal this? Mr. Langworthy responded that any aggrieved party can file an administrative appeal. The final decision would be with the Board of Zoning Appeals. He added that the first task of BZA would be to determine if the administrative review team properly read the ordinance and properly applied the ordinance. If they make a finding that it was not properly applied, the BZA becomes the approving authority. 9. In regard to Ordinance 57-07, he stated that this zoning code amendment removes all the individual district references to the towers. It adds a single reference in the zoning code to Chapter 99. All of the procedures will now be in one place in Chapter 99. Ms. Salay asked if the City can require a certain distance from residential districts for these towers. Mr. Langworthy responded that there is an automatic 100-foot setback from property lines. Ms. Salay asked about satellite dishes which are sometimes large and placed in front yards for reception purposes. Citizens have asked if these are required to be screened or placed in back or side yards. Mr. Langworthy responded that the FCC has exempted in residential districts towers of one meter in diameter from local regulations. In commercial and industrial districts, the exemption is for those up to two meters. The City cannot regulate these. Mr. Keenan noted that for commercial districts, many have screened the satellite dishes. Ms. Salay applauded staff for addressing the cell tower issues, which should ensure that such towers are not located in residential districts. Mrs. Boring noted that Dublin was actually one of the first cities to tackle this issue, in follow-up to a NLC seminar. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if staff has had communication about these ordinances with the companies who install such towers. Mr. Langworthy responded he has not, but he believes that the City's consultant has done so. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 20 Council meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council August 6, 2007 rage 1 1 ~I Ordinance 57-07 Amending Portions of the Dublin Zoning Code related to Wireless Telecommunication Regulations. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 20 Council meeting. Ordinance 58-07 Adopting the 2007 Dublin Community Plan. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff has included a proposal for the upcoming public process for review. P&Z already has some public input sessions scheduled, and the anticipation is that this ordinance will be brought back to Council for second reading/public hearing on October 15. Council will then have all of the benefit of the testimony provided to P&Z, P&Z's recommendations, and a document showing any suggested changes based on the public input process. Council can then direct staff to make appropriate changes for the final document. Staff will return with the bound document before the end of 2007. She asked for feedback on this proposal. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she would like to ensure the October 15 agenda is light, so that the Community Plan can be given adequate time for input that evening. She would be more comfortable with establishing a date by which the final bound copy will be brought to Council. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff will determine that in consultation with the printer and advise Council and Planning & Zoning Commission of the date. Ordinance 59-07 Repealing Ordinance 14-07(Amended), Reinstating the Street Name of Scherers Place, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the staff report recommends reinstatement of the name of Scherers Place for the reasons outlined in the report. LSP Technologies has resolved their service deliveries with the post office and believes a name change for the street is not necessary. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 60-07 Rezoning Approximately 2 Acres Located on the South Side of Post Road, Approximately 2,000 Feet West of the Intersection with Avery-Muirfield Drive, from PCD, Planned Commerce District, to PCD Planned Commerce District. (Perimeter West PCD, Subarea 3 - Post/Perimeter Office Building - 6655 Post Road -Case No. 07- 049Z/FDP) Ms. Rauch stated this rezoning is for an office building within Subarea 3 of the Perimeter West planned district. The proposal includes two amendments to the previously approved development text for Subarea 3, that include Post Road access for the site and a decreased loading space. Planning Commission approved a dual application on July 12, 2007 that included a rezoning and final development plan. She shared a context map of the site and surrounding area zonings. The original preliminary development plan and text was approved in 1999 and included regulations regarding access, parking and loading areas. These proposed modifications to the text require rezoning approval. 1. The proposed site plan indicates cone-story office building oriented toward Post Road with parking to the north and east of the building. 2. Two access points to the site are provided. These include a full access curb cut onto Post Road which aligns with the Gorden Farms entrance to the north, and an internal drive to the development to the east, which connects to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held ~~ the internal roadway system of the overall planned district and provides access to Perimeter Drive. 3. The site currently has full access onto Post Road. However, the approved preliminary development plan states that once Subarea 3 is developed, Post Road access is prohibited. As part of the final development plan of the parcel to the east, the reconsideration of Post Road access was discussed and supported by Planning, Engineering and the Planning Commission as a benefit to the development and the provision of increased vehicular circulation. The amended text indicates the retention of Post Road access with the development of this site. 4. The second amendment to the text is a reduction in the required size of the loading area near the southeastern entrance of the building from 50 feet to 40 feet. 5. All other aspects of the plan comply with Code and the development text. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the setback of the parking lot. Ms. Rauch responded that it is 75 feet, as required in the text. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if that is consistent with the developed parcel just to the west, which has a very nice water feature. Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively. She noted that the same developer is doing both and they are familiar with the high quality water feature in place for the development to the west. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the lighting. The entire area allows for lighting height of 28 feet. Is that absolutely necessary? Ms. Rauch responded that it is the maximum allowed by the development text. Other developments in this planned district have the same lighting height. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked what they plan to do. Will it be gooseneck lighting? Ms. Rauch responded that the fixture will be gooseneck, but it is 28 feet in height. Vice Mayor Lecklider commented that there has been discussion about light pollution, and he assumes that staff is taking this into consideration. Ms. Rauch noted that it meets Dublin's lighting guidelines. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted concern, given its proximity to residential areas and the Red Trabue preserve. He suggested that this be kept in mind for the future. With respect to the trees, it is noted in the staff report that there may be some unavailability of 3-1/2 inch caliper trees. He recalls that staff has indicated that this may be too large of a tree to install. Is staff recommending something else? Ms. Rauch responded that the Code requires a minimum of 2-1/2 inch caliper trees. The developer is proposing 3-1/2, and staff has concerns about the availability of this size. If they cannot locate that size of tree, staff would recommend they use smaller trees or pay the fee involved. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that it seems that staff could have directed them to use the 2-1/2 inch caliper trees. He understood that a 2-1/2 inch caliper tree may grow faster than the larger size. Mr. Reiner responded that there are some new introductions that have crossed red and silver maples and are available in 3-1/2 inch caliper. He added that he is pleased with this rezoning, which will enhance the tax base for Dublin. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 20 Council meeting. Mr. Smith suggested that Ordinances 61-07, 62-07, 63-07 and 64-07 be read together. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to introduce the ordinances and to waive the Council Rules of Order, requesting that the Clerk read the names of the property owners into the record. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 61-07 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.227 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest (with 0.103 Acre, More or Less, Present Road Occupied) and 0.069 Acre, More or Less, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council e Utility Easement, from David H. and Delores Gease, Located on the North Side of Tuttle Crossing, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ordinance 62-07 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.227 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest (with 0.103 Acre, More or Less, Present Road Occupied) and 0.069 Acre, More or Less, Utility Easement, from the Anita Joye Realty Company, Ltd., Located on the North Side of Tuttle Crossing, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ordinance 63-07 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.227 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest (with a 0.103 Acre, More or Less, Present Road Occupied) and 0.069 Acre, More or Less, Utility Easement, from Samuel L. and Susan C. Stille, Located on the North Side of Tuttle Crossing, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ordinance 64-07 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.112 Acre, More or Less, Utility Easement, from United Dairy Farmers, Inc., Located on the North Side of Tuttle Crossing, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Smith stated that these land purchases are related to the Tuttle Crossing widening project. The property owners have accepted the City's appraisals. Staff recommends approval by emergency in order to close on the property needed for the project. Mr. Keenan moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat as emergency legislation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 65-07 Appropriating a 0.157 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, from R. Steven Marcus and Dorothy J. Marcus, Located on the West Side of Avery Road, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that the property owner is not in agreement with the amount of the City's appraisal and the need to take only a portion of the property. The City believes there is not a need to appropriate the entire property. The owners had previously given the City a right of entry on the property to allow the utility companies to do their work. Mr. Keenan asked if the issue is with damage to the residual. Mr. Smith responded that is correct. Ms. Salay asked about the distance between the structure and the actual curb. Mr. Smith responded that he can provide a memo with this information. They have been meeting with the parties for over a year. Mr. Keenan asked for a map to be provided for this. Mr. Smith responded that staff will do so, and will also provide some comparisons with other projects. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat as emergency legislation. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 52-07 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the S.R. 161 and High School Drive Intersection Improvements. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Dublin City Council age Ms. Brautigam stated that a very favorable bid was received for this project. Mr. Hammersmith is available to respond to questions. Mr. Reiner noticed a truck in the City with a nameplate of "US Utility." Is this a new company in the area? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City has done business previously with US Utility. They have been around for 7-8 years. They worked on Rings Road, Blazer Parkway, and Emerald Parkway 5A. They have confidence in this contractor. Mr. Keenan asked where the company is located. Mr. Hammersmith responded that their offices are located in the Columbus area. Mrs. Boring noted that staff indicated in the memo that the project was not previously programmed for this year. Why was this particular project accelerated? Mr. Hammersmith responded that as part of last year's street maintenance program, Bridge Street was improved with resurfacing and the addition of some new curbs and sidewalk along the cemetery. As a result of that work, one of the timber poles adjacent to the cemetery had to be moved. Given the rock and location, there was not a good way to support the pole in the new location, and the curvature in the new guide wire is a concern. The solution of installing a metal pole with a foundation as a permanent fixture, with a mast arm is believed to be the best one, and adds to the character of Historic Dublin as well. It was a staff level decision to bring this project forward. Given the small cost at $111,000 compared to the entire CIP, staff felt it was a good project. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Resolution 53-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Easement with American Electric Power (AEP) for Extension of Electrical Lines to a Portion of the City-Owned Property Located at 5800 Post Road. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Crandall stated that this will allow extension of electrical service to the stables located at the northern end of the Nyrop property. The intent is to use this building for recreation programming. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Resolution 54-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into aPre-Annexation Agreement Describing the Intentions of the Parties to Annex Certain Real Property Located in Jerome Township, Owned by Robert and Elaine Horr. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this pre-annexation agreement was discussed with the ordinance accepting the annexation, introduced earlier tonight. Mrs. Boring asked for clarification. In terms of reparations for years 1 through 12, is that based upon the current valuation of the property? If the property owners made improvements, would they be required to pay additional reparations? Ms. Grigsby responded affirmatively. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. OTHER • DCVB Proposal re Can-Am Police and Fire Games Joel Campbell, President, DCVB Board of Trustees noted that they are present tonight to bring an opportunity to Council for an exciting event. They are asking Council's RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council gust approval in moving forward with the application to host the Can-Am Police and Fire Games in 2010 -the same year that Dublin celebrates its bicentennial. He asked Mr. Dring to share details. Scott Dring, Executive Director, DCVB reported the following: 1. This is amini-Olympics, and has existed since 1977. There are 1,000 participants from Canada and the U.S., and nearly 2,500 attendees. 2. It is a 7-day event. Past host cities include Milwaukee, Spokane, Seattle, and London, Ontario. The 2008 event will be held in Saskatchewan. 3. The Olympics includes about 50-70 events, some of which are unique to firefighters and police officers. 4. Many of the events will be held in Dublin, but they will use venues across Central Ohio. 5. The goal is to have the headquarters of the event in Dublin. 6. The host city requirements to secure the event are to have support from local police and fire and support from civic groups and government. They have spoken to both Chief Woo and Chief Epperson who support this endeavor. 7. In terms of a director to oversee the games, they have a commitment from Frank Roberts, President of the Ohio Police and Fire Games Federation, and a commitment letter is included in the packet. 8. In terms of experience, the DCVB secured the 2009 Ohio Police and Fire games and this will provide the opportunity to demonstrate Dublin's ability to host such an event. 9. There is a $25,000 bid fee for the 2010 event, should a city be designated as the host city for the event. 10. The bid packet must be submitted in September of 2007, and the bid will be awarded in November. The bid fee would be due in January of 2008. 11. The best dates for Dublin in 2010 were determined to be August 15-22, based upon activity and availability of rooms. 12. The benefits for the City of Dublin in terms of economic impact are estimated at $3.5 million. There would be 4,400 room nights generated with this event. This would be the second largest event in the City of Dublin, as the Memorial Tournament generates 5,200 room nights. 13. The hotel/motel tax revenue generated would exceed $25,000, so that the $25,000 investment would be recouped. 14. The DCVB would handle the bid packet, the bid presentation, and would serve as event contact and liaison. The travel involved in the bid process and promotion process would be paid by the DCVB. If a seasonal worker is required, the DCVB will support this as well. 15. From the City of Dublin, the DCVB is requesting the $25,000 bid fee from hotel/motel tax revenues. 16. The city staffing requirements will be minimal, but have not been determined at this time. 17. There will be much competition from the other 7 cities bidding for the event, including Grand Rapids, Omaha, Detroit, Buffalo, Burlingham, VT, Hamilton, Ontario and Berwick, Nova Scotia. Mr. Keenan noted that the timeframe for response is fairly short -September 15, 2007. Mr. Dring responded that the DCVB has been working on this proposal, in the hope that Dublin would support it. Mr. Reiner congratulated the DCVB on this aggressive pursuit of the event. He hopes that more such events come forward for Dublin. Mrs. Boring noted that staff has identified a means to program the necessary funding in the budget, should the City be awarded the bid. Mr. Campbell added that success does breed success. Dublin would not have such an opportunity at this point, had the City not done all of the things in the past to host successful events, providing a track record in support of Dublin's ability and commitment to these events. There is no guarantee that Dublin will secure this event, but the DCVB can bid for it, confident that Dublin has much to offer in terms of hosting an event. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council (At this point, Mr. McCash arrived.) Ms. Salay asked if the DCVB has talked with Dublin Schools regarding venues and use of their stadiums for these events. Mr. Dring responded that an opening ceremony event is typically part of the Olympics, and they have worked with the Schools on availability of the fields. The Schools are confident they can accommodate some of the events, based on the timeframes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that this is another great example of opportunities to increase hotel/motel tax revenues through events held in the City. Vote on the Request: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. • Veterans Project Update Mr. Hahn indicated that a report was provided in the packet regarding the current status of the project. Included in that report is staff's recommendation on how to proceed. He offered to respond to questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted she does not yet understand the process with art projects. If an RFP is sent out with the parameters of the monies available of $500,000, why does this now come in at a substantially different amount? Some of this must relate to design. She asked for clarification. Mr. Hahn responded that he does not have answers to this. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that presentations were made by artists, and the Committee ultimately selected an artist. Isn't cost one of the top criteria for selection? Mr. Hahn responded that all three finalists indicated that the $500,000 budget was what they had designed to. During that competition, however, there is no "proof' required that this is accurate. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there was not a review by staff or by someone to verify this. Mr. Hahn responded that the plan details would not provide that. The conceptual design was reviewed, including colored renderings. There were not specific details available with which to quantify it. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how the artist can know that the design will cost $500,000 to build. Mr. Hahn responded that in this case, the artist had talked conceptually with the bronze company about the cost for the hand railing based on the number of lineal feet. The artist believe that component would be roughly $70,000, but it proved to cost over $150,000. There are many designs that could produce a crushed aggregate path. The type of details included in the path can make the costs vary widely. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked who added the details. Mr. Hahn responded that the design firm of PLANT Architect did. Part of the question relates to the process. With a normal public project, the project goes through a design phase based on various standards. For most of the standards, there is some history which indicates the cost. With this one-of-a-kind design, until the actual final design is done and people can contractually price the components, the costs are not known. Staff believed that the final design costs would be different than what has now been determined. Based on that assumption, staff did not competitively bid the project but instead asked for proposals. When the proposal came back, staff then became aware the costs had greatly exceeded the earlier estimate. Up until that time, staff did not know the cost of the project, as the final design was not produced. Mr. Keenan stated that one of staff's recommendations is to value engineer the project and modify the design accordingly, while preserving the concept's integrity. That has not been done to date, correct? Mr. Hahn responded that is correct. There was one final design and one pricing for it, which staff learned of in July. At that point, staff became aware that the costs had greatly exceeded what was previously directed by Council in terms of the budget. Mr. Keenan stated that Council is not in a position to make any decisions tonight until that information from the value engineering is obtained. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e 20 Mrs. Boring stated that she feels there has been somewhat of a "bait and switch" in this case. Mr. Keenan responded that all of this has been discussed previously. The issue at this point is what to do going forward. Mrs. Boring continued, stating that the POD design group had provided information about what could be done for the budget established, and additions that could be made that would exceed the budget. At this point, to be fair to everyone who submitted, she would prefer to start the process over. It is not fair to others who participated in the competition. Mr. Keenan asked for clarification - is she suggesting that concepts again be solicited and a competitive process take place again? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Mrs. Boring's comments are interesting. If every artist had had an opportunity to design within $800,000, what would they have presented? It is somewhat of an ethical issue. This is nearly double the amount anticipated. It would seem that other artists could have designed something differently if they understood that the City was willing to spend that much money. She is still trying to understand the system set up which brought it to this point. The process seemed to be 80 percent complete before a final design was brought forward. Mr. Hahn responded that with some previous art projects which were closer to a design/build process, it was the artist's responsibility to produce the piece, given the budget. With some art in public places projects, monies were set aside for the project. The artist was paid whatever the budget for the project established, and any overages were not paid. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked why the process was done differently for this project. Mr. Hahn responded that he does not have an answer to that. Mr. Keenan stated that this is significantly different than a public art project. He does not believe this can be compared to "Field of Corn," "Out of Bounds" or "Leatherlips." This one is much more complicated and involved an entirely different process. Ms. Salay added that to be fair to the process that was engaged in by the City, perhaps the same situation could have occurred with the submittals by the other two artists. It sounds as if the situation was unavoidable, given the path chosen. She does not want to second guess the process, and advocates deciding what to do going forward. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that it is not an issue of placing blame. She is trying to understand why this significant difference has occurred. It is Council's responsibility to understand how this happened so that the decision moving forward incorporates this knowledge into the next decision to be made. Mr. McCash stated that he understood that during the design process, this artist indicated to the City several times that the design was within the budget parameters set forth. Now it greatly exceeds the budget, and he is losing faith in the firm's ability to estimate the costs. Perhaps the City should go back to the artist now and find out why they assured the City of this on several occasions. Mr. Reiner agreed, as he asked the artist point blank if the project would be brought in for $500,000 and she responded it would be. The competing firm indicated their design would be over budget and there was much discussion of that fact. Theirs was an honest appraisal, which indicated that expanding the budget could allow for their design. The third applicant also indicated they could do the project for $500,000. It would be fair for the City to go back to the artist selected and ask what can be produced within the budget set. In terms of the suggestion to delete the memory wall, he would consider that possibility. In view of the fact that two of the proposals are in the $750,000-800,000 budget, the City should go back and ask the artist what can be produced for the budget. He feels betrayed and feels that the dedicated volunteer group has been misled. In hindsight, he would give PLANT Architect an opportunity to fix this problem, and see what it would cost to produce an effective piece of art for the budget. If she cannot, then one of the other artists' submissions should be considered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age Held Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he does not totally disagree, but he would only support this if what the artist substitutes is in substantial compliance with the original concept. Otherwise, it dilutes the competition which took place previously. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, noting that Council selected this project based on what it would look like and what it would consist of, in addition to being brought in within budget. Ms. Salay asked why the artist indicated that the project could be produced within the budget established. She does not believe the artist would have purposefully underestimated the costs. Mr. Hahn responded that their firm had an informal quote from the contractor in the spring of $440,000 for construction. It was all inclusive and included the entire design. It was done without benefit of the final design. PLANT assumed some of the costs, based on the quotes they obtained. It is not possible to know the costs until the final design is done. If Council elects to instead pursue competitive bids, it will be interesting to see what costs result. Mr. McCash asked if the bid in May at $440,000 was by PLANT or by Nadalin. Mr. Hahn responded it was not a bid, but a price estimate. Mr. McCash asked what the estimate was based upon. Mr. Hahn responded it was based upon the drawings at that stage of design. Mr. McCash stated that contingencies should have been included. In looking at an estimate of $440,000 and a current price of $800,000 plus, there were no assumptions made. The design has not changed. The cost estimating is the problem, whether it was by Nadalin or by PLANT. The cost of a project does not double from one estimate to another. They must not have taken into account the various elements. Mr. Hahn stated that he agrees. Obviously, mistakes have occurred in this process. Ms. Salay asked if the Committee has any recommendations about the next step. At the last Council discussion, the Mayor indicated that the monies should have been raised first and then the design done. If the current design is embraced by the community, perhaps the fundraising efforts can continue. She is interested in the Committee's thoughts about this. Mr. Keenan responded that there has not been discussion at the Committee level about this question. In hindsight, the money could have been raised first and then a selection process held for the design, with detailed drawings and cost estimates submitted for selection. However, the question at this point is what to do going forward. Ms. Salay asked if it has been communicated to the artist that there is a big problem. Mr. Hahn responded affirmatively. Everyone involved in the project is aware of the current status of the project. The project is on hold, waiting for further Council direction. Regarding the Committee, they did not realize this approaching problem, as the information about the costs was received by staff only recently. Ms. Salay asked if the artist had any suggestions about what can be done. Mr. Hahn responded that they have been told that the project is on hold, and that something must be changed if the project is to go forward. Staff's assumption is that the project cannot continue with the cost overruns not resolved. Staff will look at ways, without detracting from the project, to better understand where the estimates were in error, and determine if those specific design pieces can be altered, scaled back, and still have "Grounds of Remembrance" as a project. The value engineering is underway at this time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. McCash for his recommendation, based on his experience in the field. Mr. McCash noted that he had asked that a set of drawings be placed in the Council conference room, but he has not had time to review them due to his travel schedule. His RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e frustration is that the entire design process has been completed, designs have been shown, confirmation that the design would be built within the $500,000 budget was made, the City has told the other artists that they were not selected, the groundbreaking has taken place, fundraising has begun with this design, and now the decision is to either start over or determine a way to salvage this by either value engineering or dividing it into different components. It is disappointing that the designer indicated it is within budget, only to find out that it is not. Everyone has been shown the design and supports it, only to be in this position now in terms of the costs. Ms. Salay stated that the artist will not receive more money from this project, whatever the construction costs. Mrs. Boring stated that if this standard were applied to other projects in the City and the costs changed to this degree, Council would be outraged. She understands what has occurred, but it does not justify it for her. It is not an issue of more money for the artist but one of more City money needed for the project. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher proposed some recommendations for discussion purposes. She recommended: 1. That the earliest that dedication would take place would be Memorial Day of 2008. 2. That the project be phased, if that is feasible in the design. In phasing the project, it would allow fundraising to be done in a very directive way. It could be done for specific phases of the project. Perhaps the total project could be completed by Veterans Day 2009 or even by the City's bicentennial in 2010. This allows for the ability to celebrate at different points, as phases are completed. 3. That the memorial wall should be part of the project, as it is something that people engage with on a personal level. It can also be added onto as there are future veterans to be remembered. 4. That in view of the potential cost for the project, a professional fundraiser be retained to assist in carrying out the fundraising, and that a formal fundraising plan be drafted for execution by those who can make the contacts in the Dublin community. Mrs. Boring suggested that any deadline date be eliminated. Once the project is built, the dedication can be scheduled. The timeline seemed to be a problem with this process from the outset. Mr. Keenan agreed, noting that the timeline for the project was very aggressive. He does agree that the fundraising should be revisited, as there was not adequate time allowed for it in the process. A determination needs to be made about what will be offered to the community at large within the Grounds of Remembrance in terms of involvement, and perhaps the corporate piece can be revisited as well. Ms. Salay agreed with the Mayor's suggestions, including the celebrations at the different points. She would suggest that smaller donations be sought from families throughout Dublin versus the larger donations requested previously. She supports the concept of having a professional fundraiser involved. Mrs. Boring stated that she could support the fundraising concept, but remains very concerned with the fact that other artists' concepts could be considered within the increased budget. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if what is being considered also includes the idea of value engineering the project, as recommended by staff. Council concurred that this should be done. Mr. Hahn added that the assumption is also that whatever the new final design becomes as a result of value engineering, the project will be bid through a competitive process. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e Held Mr. Reiner stated that although that may be the best solution, he wants to see the redesigned project and what the artist projects it will cost. At that time, a decision can be made of whether to work with Nadalin or put it out for bid with a goal of reducing the price. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff will bring additional information to Council before that final decision would be made. She has heard consensus that the target date for completion should be eliminated. However, in doing so, she suggests setting an outside timeframe of dedication by the City's bicentennial in 2010. Council agreed with this, noting that if possible, an earlier dedication is fine as well. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher added that the artist does need to come back with something that falls within the budget. To her, that does not translate to a redesign. She asked for clarification of the value engineering process. Mr. Hahn responded that design details will be reviewed in order to accomplish the same goal at a lower cost. For example, the path design was more than what was adequate for the project. Some of the copper work on the loggia was somewhat complex. Perhaps some modifications can be made that will reduce the costs. This would not be a redesign or elimination of components from the final design. Perhaps it may be necessary to have phasing to obtain the final product desired. The design presented to the public and to Council is the one that staff will try to leave intact. Mr. Reiner noted he believes the value engineering effort will be effective, based on some of the elements he has reviewed. As an example, there were cut limestone pavers included that are very expensive. Mrs. Boring asked if the Building and Engineering departments have reviewed the various components. Mr. Hahn responded that they have already reviewed the plans, but the final design was only recently given to the City. There has been no opportunity to value engineer the plans. When the price became known, the process was stopped in order to obtain further direction from Council. He believes the value engineering effort will be worthwhile. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the conclusion-she is drawing is that the intent is to reduce the cost of the project from $800,000 by the process of value engineering. Mr. Hahn agreed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Council needs to vote on this, or if staff has adequate direction given the discussion. Mr. Hahn indicated he has received adequate direction. Ms. Brautigam agreed. STAFF COMMENTS • Report re Rushwood Drive Sidewalk Replacement/Tree Removal Issue Ms. Brautigam stated that Council Member Boring has set up a meeting tomorrow among the Homeowners Association representatives and staff. An a-mail was sent by the President of the HOA, and he emphasized their hope that staff would come to the meeting with an open mind about solutions. She assured Council that staff will do so. Staff will report back to Council about the outcome of this meeting. Ms. Salay asked about sidewalk replacement and the fact that the first step taken is to saw the tree roots. It seems that doing this, in most cases, results in the tree not surviving. Is there a way to do sidewalk replacement in another manner in order not to destroy the trees? In view of the loss of ash trees contemplated in the coming years, the landscape of the City will be diminished. Mr. Hammersmith responded that with some species of trees, the sidewalk and the tree are in conflict. The program was initiated with removing slabs of sidewalk and then trying to cut roots. What resulted was much more damage to the root system. It was then a conscious decision to run the root saw along the edge of the existing sidewalk, as there was a load on top of the roots and there was a clean cut of any roots in that zone where the sidewalk would need to be replaced. In cases where a sidewalk is heaved 2- RECORD OF. PROCEED[NGS Dublin City Council 3 inches, the saw is set accordingly. Any roots in the zone are cut, but the ones below that zone are not cut. The slabs are removed, the roots are cleanly cut, and then the roots are removed. The size of those roots is measured and compared to the size of the trunk of the tree, and a determination is made about the tree itself. What staff has run into is where root pruning was done a couple of years ago and sidewalks have been reinstalled, the sidewalks have already moved. Ms. Salay asked if the rubberized sidewalk may solve this issue. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he is not confident that the root stops growing as a result of the rubber sidewalk. While it is a flexible piece and more forgiving, the roots continue to grow for certain tree species. Over several years, he believes that the rubberized sidewalk will no longer be the solution and the roots will have to be dealt with again. Mr. McCash added that this problem was created from the land planning. There are very small devil strips of 5-6 feet and in that space, street trees are installed. With the size of street trees planted, there are problems ten years later. Either the trees must be removed and replaced with smaller trees, or the City should consider having a wider devil strip. The overall subdivision design must be adjusted to accommodate the street trees. In older neighborhoods, the setbacks are much larger and the trees have more space to grow. Ms. Salay added that there are tree species where the tree roots grow down and not out. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that some of the tree lawns in certain neighborhoods have less width than some newer subdivisions. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the current standard is 7 foot width of tree lawn, while it was 4-5 feet prior to 2000. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the tree lawn width on Rushwood. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is likely 4-5 feet. Mr. McCash stated that he believes the tree lawn should be 10-12 feet. Ms. Salay stated she is interested in staff bringing some recommendations for the future. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that staff will meet with the homeowners tomorrow and will then return at a later date with some recommendations to address the issue for the future. The solution for the immediate issue with Rushwood should move the City toward a future policy to address this problem. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff has made a commitment next year that the sidewalk replacement will not be done in locations that impact trees. They want to give the pilot program of rubberized sidewalks a chance to perform. He distributed a map with the ten locations of the pilot program of rubberized sidewalks. • Request from Homeowners Association to Deed Reserve C of Balgriffin, Section 1 to City of Dublin Mr. Hahn stated that the Homeowners Association has made this request. The exhibit shows the rationale for the City's acceptance of this piece, which lies between two pieces of City parkland. There may be a desire in the future to have a recreational path from Rings Road north through Reserve C through Balgriffin Park to Woerner-Temple. There is minimal operating impact, and the parcel is less than one acre. Vote on the Request: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. • Impact Fees for Parks and Recreation Ms. Brautigam stated that several years ago, Council had discussion at a retreat about learning more about impact fees for the City of Dublin. Consultant Tom Pippin later presented information to Council. Council indicated an interest in this concept, while wanting to know how it would impact the City's current land dedication requirements and other exactions in the development process. Recently, staff has been working with Mr. Pippin on another matter and had him bring a proposal for impact fees. In discussion at the staff level, staff recalled that among Council's concerns was maintaining the current exactions and not impacting commercial development in a negative way. Mr. Pippin RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council August 6, 2007 Page G explained that, in general, parks and recreation impact fees are ones that across the nation are imposed only on residential property, as residential property has the most impact on recreation and parks portion of the capital improvements program. Staff asked Mr. Pippin to come up with a proposal to research park and recreation impact fees for the City. Staff felt this was very worthy to consider at this time, as there is not a lot of residential development occurring. Mr. Langworthy can respond to any questions. Staff is seeking Council's direction to go forward with Mr. Pippin and to bring that information back to Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her first question is the cost of the contract. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff does not have this yet, as they were awaiting direction from Council about the concept. Ms. Brautigam added that the contract is contemplated to be approximately $10,000. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that a consideration would be the impact, if any, this would have on parkland dedication the City currently receives. Ms. Brautigam responded that it would have no impact, which is why the staff supports this proposal. The City would continue to receive parkland dedication as residential subdivisions come in. This program would calculate the City's capital costs in improving the parks, installing playgrounds, tennis courts, etc. The goal would be to capture those costs in the future from new residents. Mr. Keenan stated that from a developer's perspective, they are already donating parkland in the process. This seems to be an additional burden for them. Ms. Brautigam stated that across the nation, donating parkland is very common. In addition, new residents should pay the cost of growth by contributing to the capital improvements that the City has already put in place. When Mr. Pippin presented to Council previously, he explained that. Council at that time asked if this raises the cost of housing. The studies that Mr. Pippin has done demonstrate that it will raise the cost of housing by a small percentage of the actual impact fee, but in fact, the developer themselves assume some of that impact fee and the landowner assumes some of the fee in reduced costs to the developer. What she recalls is that 10-20 percent of the fee is passed along to the homeowner. If the fee were $1,000, the homeowner's cost would increase by $100, the cost of the land would decrease by $500, and the developer would assume the rest. Mr. McCash questioned this assumption for developers who are in business to make a profit. Ms. Brautigam responded that Mr. Pippin has done studies in other cities where impact fees have been imposed, and these are his findings. Mr. McCash asked how this would work. If a developer donates parkland and the City builds a tennis court on that land, the residents in that development have an impact fee based on the cost to build that tennis court. Yet everyone in the City of Dublin is entitled to use that tennis court as public parkland. Ms. Brautigam responded that is correct. Both new and old residents of the City enjoy all of the amenities already paid for by the City. Perhaps the Council would decide that the fully loaded fee for a new tennis court would not be levied upon those new residents, but only a portion of it. That would be a Council policy decision of whether to levy the entire fee or a portion of it. Ms. Salay stated that the concept is that growth brings the need for more facilities and this would support the costs. Mr. Reiner stated that he finds the concept interesting. The City has a good park system and an already subsidized pool and recreation system. The greenspace of the city requires extensive maintenance. He assumes that in the future that the City will need additional revenues to maintain the quality of life the residents currently enjoy. It is fair to consider this proposal and ascertain its viability and costs. Even if it is a $10,000 fee, the cost of an employee mowing grass or resurfacing a tennis court is substantial. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Ms. Brautigam clarified that maintenance costs cannot be recaptured through this means. Mr. Reiner stated that he understands that. But there are fixed capital costs as well as maintenance costs to be covered. Progressive cities are implementing such programs and Dublin should consider it. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that tonight's question is whether Council wants to explore impact fees by contracting with BBC Research. Mrs. Boring asked if this has been funded in the current operating budget and if so, in which area. Ms. Grigsby responded that funds were budgeted in the 2007 operating budget in the City Manager's office in case Council chose to move forward with this. Ms. Salay stated that she is interested in moving forward with a review of this concept. Ms. Brautigam clarified that if the cost of the contract will exceed $10,000, she will bring this back to Council before moving forward. Vice Mayor Lecklider moved to authorize the City Manager to move forward with the study of impact fees per the memo provided by staff. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, no; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. • Proposed COTA Amended Agreement Ms. Brautigam stated that the agreement is not ready at this time. However, staff is working with COTA on amending their existing agreement, potentially including Dublin as a member of the Board. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there is a cost related to the communities who are members. Ms. Brautigam stated there is not, other than the COTA sales tax imposed on the communities. Dublin residents who shop in Franklin County already pay those costs in the sales tax levy. Those who shop in Delaware County do not, as Delaware County does not pay a COTA tax. The one change being reviewed by the attorneys with the agreement is the impact this agreement would have on those Dublin residents who live in Delaware or Union counties. Mr. McCash stated that apparently the City of Columbus has already addressed this matter with the portion of Columbus that lies in Delaware County in terms of taxation. Ms. Brautigam responded that because Columbus was one of the original signatories on the agreement, their approval went with them as they annexed into another county. Although Dublin was not a signatory to the original agreement, Franklin County was. Therefore, Dublin was included because it was in Franklin County. However, as Dublin annexed into Union and Delaware counties, that approval did not extend beyond the Franklin County portion of Dublin. This issue needs to be resolved. Mr. McCash noted that the proposal seems to indicate that Dublin would be a member City, but would have a seat on the board only on a rotating basis. Ms. Brautigam responded that is correct. The current number of seats on the Board would not change. Under the current board configuration, the communities are divided into groups, and there is a rotation within the group for a seat. COTA is now recommending that the groupings be eliminated, and that all the cities share in the seats and rotate them in a particular fashion. Mr. McCash responded that if the City of Dublin is being taxed for the COTA services, it would make sense to always have representation on this Board. The same holds for all of the other member communities. Ms. Brautigam responded that when the Board was initially established, the City of Columbus always had a certain number of representatives on the Board as it was the largest city. In order for everyone to now have a seat on the Board, the number of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 20 representatives of Columbus would have to increase proportionately. Therefore, the Board membership would be dramatically increased. A goal of this process is to keep the Board at a smaller number, as having a larger number makes things somewhat unwieldy. Mr. McCash proposed that the legislation be amended to change this. The transportation and utilities for the region are controlled by Columbus, yet Dublin has no representation on the boards. Ms. Brautigam stated that she and the Mayor will meet with Mr. Lhota of COTA at the end of August and can discuss some of these issues in regard to the COTA board. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner commented regarding the fantastic Irish Festival event. He was "bowled over" by the volunteerism of the citizens and their positive attitude. The festival could not be staged without these amazing citizen volunteers. He hosted a guest who was active in the Oktoberfest for years and he was very impressed with this event in Dublin, Ohio. Congratulations to the staff for an unbelievably complex undertaking, and to the citizens for making it happen! Mr. McCash concurred with Mr. Refiner's comments. The Irish Festival was a great event and a great time! Mrs. Boring echoed the positive comments. Mr. Keenan: 1. Agreed that the Dublin Irish Festival was a fabulous event. 2. Noted a report in the newspaper regarding the recent US 33 Corridor meeting, as included in the packet. Ms. Salay: 1. Echoed the comments regarding the Irish Festival. 2. Commented that the July Fourth events were great, and she heard from many people that Dublin's fireworks are as good or better as "Red, White and Boom!" Vice Ma vor Lecklider: 1. Complimented everyone on staff for their combined efforts which resulted in an outstanding Irish Festival. 2. Concurred with Mr. Refiner's compliments to the community volunteers. In addition, Ms. Nardecchia should be commended for organizing all of the volunteers. 3. Acknowledged those who live in close proximity to the Festival and who endure the three-day event, although they, too, seem very supportive of the event, with yard signs and by volunteering. Mavor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Congratulated Ms. Puskarcik and the entire City staff for the outstanding Festival. She has an intern visiting her from Russia who volunteered at the Festival. She was thrilled to attend, and very impressed with the positive experience. 2. Noted she received an a-mail today from Jeff Brashares of Pacer Global Logistics. He had not attended the Festival previously, but was invited by the Emerald Club co-chairs, Jim and Leslie Finn. He commented that the Festival was terrific and that everyone should be commended. 3. Noted thanks to all of the staff and the volunteers. Many staff indicated they felt a fun spirit throughout the Festival and that it was very enjoyable. Ms. Salay added congratulations to Ms. Brautigam on her five-year anniversary as City Manager. Mrs. Boring wished Mr. Reiner a belated Happy Birthday (July 31) on behalf of Council. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council gust EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:05 p.m. for land acquisition and legal matters. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting will be reconvened following the executive session only for the purpose of formally adjourning. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Mayor -Presiding Officer 1 t_i Clerk of Council 1