Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 07-01-2010 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10148 _ July 1, 2010 Held 20 Mayor Lecklider called the Thursday, July 1, 2010 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Gerber moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of personnel, land acquisition and legal matters. Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Boy Scouts Alex Brown of Worthington and Brett Rose of Dublin led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present were Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Reiner, Mr. Gerber and Mr. Keenan. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher was absent (excused). Staff members present were Mr. Foegler, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Ms. Ott, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Earman, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Leroy, Mr. Burns, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Ray, Ms. Husak, Ms. Martin, Ms. Colley and Ms. Nardecchia. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of the June 14, 2010 Council meeting. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring requested that her comments on page 9 of the minutes be corrected where it states, "clarify to the member" to "clarify to the Commission." Vote on the minutes as corrected: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, abstain. PROCLAMATIONS/SPECIAL RECOGNITION • Dublin Chamber of Commerce 35th Anniversary Mayor Lecklider presented a proclamation to Bob Morris, President of the Board of the Dublin Chamber and Margery Amorose, Executive Director in honor of its 35th anniversary. Mr. Morris thanked Council for the recognition and for the partnership they enjoy with the City. He credited Ms. Amorose for the Dublin Chamber's growth over the years to the largest suburban Chamber of Commerce within the state. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence requiring Council action CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road, Dublin: 1. Stated that, as mentioned at the June 14 Council meeting, he was surprised to read a document indicating that he and his family had once been in violation of a City ordinance prohibiting outside clotheslines. The rationale given in the document was that clothes hanging on the line could imply to a passerby that the City houses people who take in wash for a living. He hangs his clothes out for health and personal enjoyment purposes. 2. Noted that he has begun to see a change in the concept of the nature and role of this city since its recognition as one of the Top Seven most intelligent cities in the world. The City has become very skillful in the application of the latest technology. However, it is still important for a city to evaluate its appropriate role in relation to the evolution of the race. This city has the capacity to teach the world how to eliminate poverty, but there are currently pockets of poverty within Dublin -- a city that is extremely endowed with academic intelligence. Recent statistics indicate that 89% of the residents have undergraduate or graduate degrees and the City's wealth is greater than most cities of the world. The question then is what should the City do with that, and how could it teach the cities of the world? He will continue his comments at the next Council meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC.,FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 2 Held 20 AGENDA MODIFICATION Mayor Lecklider stated that Council Member Reiner has requested that the "Bicycle Advisory Task Force Recommendations" be heard at this time, due to the number of task force members present for that discussion. Council members had no objection to this agenda modification. OTHER • Bicycle Advisory Task Force Recommendations Tom Merritt, Chair, Bicycle Advisory Task Force recognized the members of the task force who were present. He noted that the memorandum provided in Council's packet is only the beginning of what the task force hopes to provide to Council in a few months—a comprehensive plan for a bike system within the City. The plan will be based on the five E's—engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation. Tonight's recommendations to Council do not address all of the issues within the community. This is a large community with an extensive bike network, but many things still need to be addressed. At this point, the task force's objective is to have its recommendations considered in the City's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). To do so, they are bringing forward some early action items that the task force believes are important for the City to fund. The task force hopes to obtain some feedback from Council on its recommendations, and to build support for its initiatives as a result of some early, successful projects. He noted that the Bicycle Advisory Task Force has been meeting since last fall. They have discussed the pros and cons of different applications to encourage cycling on the road, on multiuse paths or off road —options in use throughout the nation. They have taken into consideration best practices, engineering, legality and safety. They identified the best ways to accomplish their goal, and then identified corridors for north-south and east-west bicycle movement throughout the community and specific destination points. Based on that framework, the task force discussed potential funding with City staff and then developed some preliminary recommendations. On page 8 of their memo, they have provided an overview of the existing funding in the CIP and their requests for additional CIP funding. The task force has proposed the following initiatives: Proposed Initiatives for Additional 2010 CIP Funding: • Signed bicycle route (Hyland-Croy Road to Coffman Road) Provides a signed bike route from the western point of the Honda wetlands Metro Park to Dublin Coffman High School. • Emerald Parkway- sharrows evaluation Apply a sharrows application on a portion of Emerald Parkway, which would be evaluated for future extension and use. • Brand Road — bike lanes (Hyland-Croy Road to Dublin Road) Utilize the current 2010 CIP funding for a multi-use path on Brand Road (Muirfield Drive to Dublin Road)for design and right-of-way/easement acquisition needed for both bike lanes and a path system on the entire length of Brand Road. Proposed Initiatives for 2011-2015 CIP Funding: • Emerald Parkway- residual sharrows If the pilot program is successful, further extend the 2010 proposed sharrows along Emerald Parkway. • Brand Road bike lanes (Hyland Croy Road to Dublin Road) and variable width multi-use path (Earlington Parkway to Dublin Road) Construct bike lanes for the entire length of Brand Road, followed by the construction of a variable width multi-use path from Earlington Parkway to Dublin Road. • Glick Road - bike lanes and multi-use path (Avery Road to Dublin Road) The current CIP programs a multi-use path for Glick Road from Avery Road to Dublin Road. The Task Force proposes bike lanes for the entire length of Glick Road in addition to the multi-use path, with the initial funding prioritized for bike lanes. The Task Force recommends that the currently programmed CIP funding for 2012 and 2013 be combined and programmed in 2012 for design and right-of- way/easement acquisition needed for both bike lanes and a path system on the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin_Ctty Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10148 _. July 1, 2010 Page 3 Held 20 entire length of Glick Road. It is also recommended that the $290,000 programmed for 2014 be increased to$700,000 and be moved to 2013 for construction of bike lanes on Glick Road from Avery Road to Dublin Road. A multi-use path for Glick Road from Avery Road to Dublin Road would be proposed for 2015 or beyond. • Muirfield Drive bike lanes (Brand Road to Glick) and multi-use path The Task Force proposes east-west bike lanes for Muirfield Drive from Brand Road to Glick Road and also recommends the construction of a multi-use path from Brand Road to Glick Road for funding in 2016 or beyond. The Task Force recommends programming in 2012 and 2013 for design and right-of-way/easement acquisition for both bike lanes and a path system on the entire length of Muirfield Drive. • City-wide bike rack installation The Task Force is recommending an annual allocation of$25,000 for installation of a mix of standard, customized and functional sculpture bicycle racks throughout the City. • Dublin Road South multi-use path (Tuttle Road to Historic Dublin/Karrer Place) The current CIP identifies an annual multi-use path connections/additions program along Dublin Road from the southern boundary of the City to the Historic District for the 2010-2014 CIP. Preliminary alignment has been developed for a multi-use path from Tuttle Road to Historic Dublin/Karrer Place. The Task Force has identified a preference for an on-road and off-road facility for this section of Dublin Road and supports the City's plan to install a multi-use path from Tuttle Road to Historic Dublin/Karrer Place. Mayor Lecklider thanked the Task Force members for the time they have dedicated to this effort to date, and for the comprehensive and professional recommendations provided to Council. Mr. Reiner, who also serves on the BATF stated that over the past 30 years, Council has worked to create a progressive city and this effort contemplates the City's needs for the next 30 years. The younger generation includes many who are interested in a bicycle mode of transportation. This fact, as well as an awareness of environmental health concerns has prompted Council to encourage bike use within the City. The task force was conservative in its funding recommendations; however, this effort will be ongoing over the next several years. If the economy recovers, perhaps the program can be accelerated. Mrs. Boring stated that she has advocated for bike lanes for years, and is very pleased with having a bicycle task force. She asked Ms. Martin who is responsible for programming missing bikepath links --the staff or the task force. Ms. Martin responded that the missing links in the multi-use path system are part of the City's ongoing CIP Non-Major Transportation Program, and are already included in the CIP. Mrs. Boring asked if identification of any missing links was a critical part of the task force's responsibilities. Ms. Martin responded that the task force was not charged at this time with reviewing the non-major transportation portion of the CIP. Mr. Merritt noted that the BATF has discussed this matter, however. Although on-road bike lanes are beneficial for a certain segment of the community, the off-road paths and multi-use paths are important for families. They hope to address this in the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Boring noted that multi-use paths are mentioned in the BATF recommendations. Since the recent tragic bicycle accident on Sawmill Road, she has been approached concerning a sidewalk connection between the Milco property all the way to Hard Road. She has referred those inquiries to the BATF. In regard to the recommended east-west connections, the proposed connections are all within a mile of each other, although a large segment of the community in the southwest and northeast would have no east-west connection. She suggested that the new connections be spread over a greater area of the City. Mr. Merritt responded that these recommendations are only a small portion of the more comprehensive plan. Bicycle transportation facilities are needed throughout the City. The proposed east-west connections were readily identifiable and the consensus of the task RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City_Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 4 Held 20 force was to prioritize them in the initial recommendations; however, the connections can be re-prioritized later in the more comprehensive report. Mrs. Boring reiterated that her biggest disappointment is that Darree Fields and Ballantrae Park were not mentioned as destinations. The east-west connectors as proposed are all very close together. She is disappointed that they were not more equally distributed over a greater area. Mr. Reiner stated that the task force worked in small groups and identified key elements that would make the City function more as a bicycle-friendly city, particularly in moving people from subdivisions to work areas. Then the task force voted and selected the areas to address first in facilitating the ability to commute to work. The other areas will be included as soon as the funding is available. Mrs. Boring responded that she fully respects that process, but questions the need to have the three east-west connectors so close together. They would be moving the same people to the same places. Mr. Reiner responded that parts of the City are newer and already have good bicycle infrastructure. The BATF recognized that the major thoroughfares were also the area of the City most deficient in ability to move people. Mr. Keenan asked about the summary of total project costs. Did BATF build on what is already programmed in the existing CIP funding? Is the request for an additional $740,000 to be added to the $440,000 already programmed in 2011? Ms. Grigsby responded that there was some adjustment in the current CIP in regard to Brand Road. Currently, in 2010 and 2011 there is funding to construct a multi-use path. The BATF recommendation is to construct the bike lane first, and then the multi-use path. Funds are still included for the Dublin Road South bikepath, and funding for the Glick Road multi-use path. The majority of the recommendations, however, are for new, additional projects. Mr. Keenan stated that he would like to consider the proposal in the same format that Council is accustomed to seeing for the CIP, so he can understand what is preserved. During the CIP update each year, there is considerable input from staff, Council and occasionally from residents. He understands the BATF focus is narrow, but he would like to see the request in the context of the whole. The challenge seems to be coming up with another$5.6 million within the next five years. This proposed budget is nearly $15 million over seven years, or over$2 million/year for bikepath construction or renovation. The City's total annual budget for roads is $3 million, which includes resurfacing and repair. Ms. Grigsby noted that in the upcoming CIP process, there would be some options proposed for consideration. Mr. Gerber stated that he is very impressed with the Task Force work. The CIP update process begins next month. The proposed amount of funding is considerable, but these recommendations can be reviewed during the CIP process. Mr. Merritt responded that the BATF is an advisory body only. Vice Mayor Salay requested that staff describe a sharrow. Mr. Merritt responded that a sharrow is a marking in the roadway. Generally, it depicts a bicycle with chevrons or arrows. Motorists see the markings and realize it is to be a shared road. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it would not then be an actual bike lane, but serve as a reminder that the road is shared with bicycles. Mr. Keenan stated that it is essentially a decal of a bike on the road. The City of Columbus is using this method of marking. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it would create a de facto bike lane. She appreciates the distinction the task force has made between bike lanes and multi-use paths. Not everyone is interested in a bike lane versus a multi-use path, and there is a good balance here. However, the project list does appear to be northwest centric. Instead of having both immediately, would it be possible to work on a bike lane in one area and then work on a multi-use path in another area? Instead of Glick Road having a bike lane and a multi-use path simultaneously, it might be a better allocation of resources to install something in another part of the community. Additionally, Dublin's employment centers are primarily in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 5 Held 20 the southern portion. Recently, some OCLC staff indicated to her that they have many employees coming to Dublin from international destinations. These employees live in the community for a period of time, and it is difficult for them to access OCLC by bicycle. There are no bike facilities in the southern, commercial center of the community—along Emerald Parkway and Frantz Road. In regard to bike racks, what is the typical cost for one bike rack? Ms. Martin responded that the cost depends upon the style, ranging between the customized art piece and the functional rack. Ms. Ott stated that the standard bike racks cost is between several hundred to $1,000. The cost of the rack also depends upon its capacity, estimating $80-$100 per bike space with a standard bike rack. The cost is higher with a more creative style. Vice Mayor Salay stated that, as an art lover, she is excited about the prospect of incorporating public art into bike racks. Mr. Reiner stated that there is an OCLC executive who serves on the task force who bikes to work. OCLC is a progressive organization with indoor bike storage and shower facilities for bike commuters. He asked Mike Teets to comment on his experience. Mike Teets, VP of Innovation, OCLC, stated that part of their innovation focus is on getting their people to work. Over the last few years, they have worked on improving OCLC's access for bike commuters. During the past four years, usage has increased from one bike commuter/day to 20 bike commuters/day during nice weather and at least six bike commuters/day during poor weather. In addition, they have purchased bicycles for European staff to use when they are working in Dublin. Their primary focus was on where their commuters come from in order to improve their access to/from the City. Many OCLC commuters live outside of Dublin and travel the corridors identified in these recommendations. Many are commuting from Delaware, Ostrander and Hilliard. Mayor Lecklider referred to the Muirfield Drive bike lanes being constructed simultaneously with a multi-use path. The staff report indicates an increase in costs of $700,000 if construction is not done simultaneously. There is obviously a financial incentive to construct both in the same years. Mr. Martin responded that the cost difference reflects an economy of scale. The work is mobilized once and the restoration of disturbed areas occurs once. The work and costs are consolidated under one contract rather than being spread over a couple of years. Doing the work all at once results in a cost savings. Mayor Lecklider noted that although it seems fair to divide the work among areas of the City, Council should consider the cost aspect, as well. The Task Force has wisely presented these recommendations prior to the upcoming CIP discussions. In regard to the bike lanes proposed for Brand Road and Glick Road, is it possible to add those without widening the road? Mr. Merritt responded that some land acquisition would be necessary to widen the road. Mayor Lecklider asked if Engineering staff has been involved. Ms. Martin responded that Engineering staff has been present at every Task Force meeting and provided input. Mayor Lecklider stated that in discussions over the years regarding a multi-use path along Brand Road, some stretches of that road appear to be more challenging due to the topography. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this was a topic of discussion with the Task Force. The suggestion to add a bike lane and a multi-use path does give the impression of having two facilities for the entire length of that area. The expectation is for a bike lane from Dublin Road to Hyland-Croy Road, but not for a multi-use path. Those projects occur as the opportunities present. For instance, from Wellington subdivision to Coffman Road would be a good opportunity to install a multi-use path that would connect with other multi-use paths. However, from Brandonway to Muirfield Drive, where the north fork of Indian Run runs along the north side of Brand Road, there is no opportunity for a multi-use path. The concept is that there are alternative corridors along Dublinshire and Earlington to travel west on a multi-use path. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 6 Held 20 Mayor Lecklider asked why the Task Force recommended both a bike lane and a multi- use path for Brand Road and Glick Road. Mr. Merritt responded that it was to meet the needs of both experienced road commuters and of families and less experienced bikers and to see how well they work. It is necessary to learn if these are the correct applications, and the Task Force believes these would be the best roadways on which to experiment. Mayor Lecklider stated that within the community, there are varying levels of active bike riders. In nice weather, he personally likes to ride his bike in the evening, looking for varying opportunities within the community. This past Saturday, he was able to travel on bikepaths to the Frog Jump in Coffman Park. Mike Stovskv, BATF Vice Chair stated that it is important to point out that the roadways the Task Force selected for bike lanes, primarily Glick and Brand Roads, but also Muirfield Drive were based on safety considerations. Those are probably the most dangerous roads for a biker to be on within the City, other than SR 161 where it crosses the river. One member of the community who has attended every BATF meeting commented at a recent meeting that he lives in Dublin and commutes to the City of Delaware daily. For the Glick Road section, he noted that he refuses to travel in that area due to safety issues on the road —hills and blind spots. Bike lanes provide the safest way for bike commuters and experienced bicyclists to get from Point A to Point B. Multi-use paths are safest for less experienced cyclists. In evaluating the options for the corridors, the BATF looked for opportunities to tie multi-use paths into existing networks, where they could be augmented, where this could be done inexpensively, and where the Task Force can obtain experience with different modalities. At this time, the City only has multi-use paths. As additional 2010 projects, they wanted to try three things in which the City has no previous experience. First, a signed bike route --for this, they picked a couple of areas to which bikers want to travel. They selected a route along Tullymore from Glacier Ridge to the high school. Tullymore was selected because it is a very wide road with relatively low traffic, has points of interest along the way, and is an inexpensive project. The proposed sharrow experiment along Emerald Parkway would also be inexpensive. Shared lanes are not as desirable as bike lanes, but the alternative would involve moving medians and removing trees. They tried to be sensitive to what makes sense with that type of infrastructure. They identified all of Emerald Parkway as the preferred corridor, so there is both a north-south and east-west component. If the sharrows prove to be successful, the Task Force will probably recommend extending them the entire length. That will provide connectivity on both sides of the river for experienced cyclists. There is currently no way to travel on bicycle from Dublin Road across Brand Road safely; it is very narrow and has no shoulder. The Task Force looked for new modalities to attract a different type of cyclist, while not forgetting multi-use paths. Fortunately, the BATF membership reflects a vast range of experience, enthusiasm, frequency of riding and preferred destinations. Everyone has had input regarding those things they view as important. The membership voted on their recommendations, and the vote was unanimous for the items proposed to Council. The recommendations reflect their initial vision, as they do not yet have a comprehensive plan. Mrs. Boring asked if any experienced cyclists on the Task Force attempted to travel Bright or Summitview Roads. Mr. Stovsky responded that he is not aware that they have done so. One of the things they did review, but did not share is a "safe routes to school" program. Dublin clearly has some challenges because some of its schools are not located within City limits. One of the BATF members is a school principal and has been very focused on how to get students to school safely. The east side of the river has a number of associated challenges, and the Task Force has identified certain areas for future attention. However, they were not included in the top five priorities at this time. Mrs. Boring stated that if the members typically travel in certain directions and have not tried other parts of the City, those areas are left at a disadvantage. Mr. Stovsky acknowledged that there is a significant challenge in crossing the river at any point in the City for a cyclist. Mrs. Boring added that, unless there is a financially prudent reason for doing both projects in one area at the same time the projects should be distributed in different areas of the City. She has concerns with approving some of the recommendations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 7 Held 20 Mr. Keenan stated that the recommendations would be reviewed in the CIP update in August. Mr. Keenan moved to forward the proposed initiatives on for consideration in the CIP budget process. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Mr. Gerber added that it would be preferable to have a master plan in place. Council is considering funding projects before a master plan is in place. He believes the process should occur in reverse. Mrs. Boring concurred. Mr. Keenan stated that the CIP hearings would take place in August. It is worthwhile to have the BATF recommendations for consideration ahead of time. Mr. Stovsky responded that the BATF modified its agenda when they were advised that there was a potential opportunity to have something considered in the CIP quickly. Since February, they have deferred working on the education and enforcement areas and focused almost exclusively on engineering. Mr. Reiner stated that there might be some misunderstanding that there will be a grand master plan. Mr. Gerber responded that statement was made earlier tonight. Mr. Reiner responded that the Task Force has looked at the entire City and identified the major corridors for moving people and the ones with safety issues. He does not want the perception to be that the Task Force did not look at solving these problems citywide. As Mr. Stovsky mentioned, the Task Force set aside their review of other components in order to have the primary recommendations considered for funding in the CIP. Mr. Gerber stated that perhaps during the CIP review, staff could provide additional information Council will want to consider, such as which areas of the City do not yet have a bikepath. Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that, as he has mentioned many times before, he has biked frequently from his home to the university and back. In the 1980s, due to some research he was conducting, he visited UCLA three times and took his bicycle with him. The city had sharrows on both residential and busy streets. LA is a pedestrian- friendly city; the pedestrian has the right-of-way in any intersection. Did the BATF member who spoke earlier indicate that there would be sharrows on Emerald Parkway? Mayor Lecklider responded affirmatively. Mr. Maurer stated that Emerald Parkway has two lanes on each side of a divide. Will implementation of sharrows require pushing in the apron, or require drawing a line along one of the two lanes? Mr. Reiner responded that the reason that roadway was selected is that it traverses and unifies the entire city. It also has the correct width to allow a sharrow, or two lanes of traffic plus a cyclist in motion. There would not be a striped-off bicycle lane. There would be a symbol that would inform motorists of the dual use of the roadway. At this point, the desire was to conduct one project as an experiment. If successful, it could be budgeted the following year to add sharrows to the entire roadway. Mr. Maurer inquired if the City has any statistics on bicycle injuries. Jeff Stephens, BATF member and Executive Director, Consider Biking stated that MORPC and ODOT maintain statistics on bicycle accidents with or without another vehicle. Eighteen percent of bicycle crashes involve a motor vehicle; 82 percent do not involve a motor vehicle. From 2006 —2009, there were approximately 200 bicycle crashes per year in the greater Columbus metropolitan area. There is an average of two or three fatalities/year. While the number of crashes has remained steady or declined, the number of bike riders has increased. Therefore, the per capita safety has improved. He thanked Council for their support of the BATF. Dublin is poised to lead the region and state in this endeavor. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dsablin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 8 Held 20 Mrs. Boring asked that the motion be restated. Mr. Keenan summarized that the motion was to move the BATF recommendations forward for review in the CIP workshops. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 23-10 Amending Section 2 (Wage & Salary Structure/Administration), Paragraph A of Ordinance No. 73-06 ("Compensation Plan for Non-Union Personnel") for the Purpose of Reassigning Certain Job Classifications to Different Pay Grades in Conjunction with the Reclassification of Three Positions. Mayor Lecklider moved to table Ordinance 23-10 for later discussion. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 24-10 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Land Exchange Agreement with Wasatch Partners, LLC. Mr. Smith stated that there have been no changes subsequent to the first reading. This ordinance approves an acre for acre land exchange in order to reconfigure the parkland in the area. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING —ORDINANCES Ordinance 25-10 Amending Sections 153.002, 153.074, and 153.139 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Accessory Uses and Structures (Case No. 10- 021 ADM). Ms. Ray stated that over the years, issues with this Zoning Code section were identified by Council and the boards and commissions. At the April 26th meeting, Council requested that staff prepare modifications to these Zoning Code sections to provide additional flexibility to allow residential accessory structures proportionate to the size of the property, versus simply a percentage of the size of the principal structure. On June 10th, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to Council of the proposed legislation. The proposed Code amendment focuses on detached accessory structures in residential districts, although other modifications are also included. Detached accessory structures include unattached garages, sheds and other storage structures. Attached accessory structures would be regulated as part of the principal structure. Additional accessory structures, such as sports courts, swimming pools and landscape features would be limited by lot coverage and setbacks. The Zoning Code currently regulates accessory structure size based on the gross square footage of the structure; the amended legislation would regulate accessory structure size based on the floor area of the structures. Height limitations are also included to regulate the overall size in massing of structures. Staff had originally proposed that only detached accessory structures be limited based on the table that was included in the text. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that because some accessory structures, such as gazebos or larger trellises, have the potential to be larger and more obtrusive, structures over 250 square feet also be included in the calculation. For this amendment, staff categorized residential lots into three groups based on lot sizes: (1) a lot size less than one acre; (2) lots from one to five acres (primarily located along Dublin Road, Riverside Drive and the northeast section of the City); and (3) properties greater than five acres and zoned R (Rural) or R-I (Restricted Suburban Residential). Many of the lots are located in planned districts, and would have special development texts. A limitation regarding the number of detached accessory structures is also provided. The existing Code allows greater flexibility in size for attached accessory structures, but clarification of the criteria for determining attached versus detached structures is included. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of D_u Jin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 9 Held 20 The size and appearance of attached garages from the right-of-way is also addressed, and provisions for accessory structures in multi-family residential districts are included. Mrs. Boring stated that the amendment provides for the maximum size and number to be based upon a cumulative basis according to the size of the lot/property. Mr. Gerber stated that the proposal is that not more than two detached accessory structure would be permitted for lots less than one acre. What issues did Planning Commission desire to address? Ms. Ray responded that staff's recommendation was to limit the number to two detached structures, but Planning Commission recommended allowing larger lots to have more. Mr. Gerber asked if one of those structures could be a hot tub or swimming pool. Ms. Ray clarified that the hot tub and pool would not be counted in this number; they are regulated by the Code under lot coverage and setbacks. Mrs. Boring asked how sports courts are addressed. Ms. Ray responded that they are also addressed under lot coverage and setbacks, not by square footage. Mr. Reiner asked how the City addresses those situations when an accessory structure is prohibited by a warranty deed. Ms. Ray responded that as part of the City's review of accessory applications, the homeowner is advised to check with their homeowner associations for any restrictions. The City does not enforce deed restrictions. Mr. Reiner stated that he is concerned about the potential conflict that could occur between the two. Mr. Gerber responded that has occurred frequently with fences. The homeowner obtains a fence permit from the City, but the homeowner association prohibits the fence. Mr. Reiner stated that, unfortunately, the homeowner might have expended some monies with a contractor before being aware that it is prohibited. Is there some way the City could assist in alleviating this problem? Mr. Ray responded that staff attempts to identify those conflicts as early in the process as possible. The Building Department meets with the contractor group each spring to make sure that they do their due diligence before proceeding with such projects. Mr. Reiner asked if the application process could require the applicant to obtain verification of homeowner association approval before applying for a permit. Mr. Foegler responded that this option was considered several years ago. Legally, it presents a problem as it puts the City in the position of, in effect, using its public police powers to enforce a private deed restriction. The Building Division places notices in several locations encouraging applicants to check for any deed restrictions with their homeowner associations . He believes it is also addressed at the City's semi-annual civic association meetings. At this time, the City relies upon an educational approach. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that a couple of years ago, he was confronted with an accessory structure issue by a constituent. He believes the Building Division stamps applications with a standard message about checking for deed restrictions. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the Building Division does stamp applications for building permits, advising the applicant that they should check for deed restrictions before proceeding. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the City could require the homeowner to provide verification that they have no homeowner association restrictions. Mr. Foegler responded that to do so would be suggesting that the City might delay issuance of a permit if this verification is not provided. Many years ago, the City did have such a practice. The approach now taken is to use every educational vehicle possible early in the process. Some homeowner associations have restrictions, but they are not enforced; others enforce their restrictions. Staff will provide to Council at their August meeting information regarding the tools currently utilized by the Building Division. Council can review this and determine if there are any additional tools that could be utilized. Mr. Gerber stated that he would appreciate that information. Most homeowners believe they are following the correct procedure in applying to the City for a permit. However, if RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City G unci) Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.,FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 10 Held 20 there is a deed restriction in place which is not followed, it causes problems within the neighborhood. He believes the City should come up with a better process to caution the citizens to read their deed restrictions and avert the type of issues that have arisen. Mr. Foegler concurred, but noted it is important that the City not assume responsibility in any way for verifying compliance with the restrictions or by issuing permits somehow implying that certification has been made. Mrs. Boring stated that some homeowner associations (HOAS) are not as organized as others are. In those cases, there is no HOA person knowledgeable and available to certify the document. She appreciates staff looking into this further; however, it may not be practical to do anything different. Mr. Gerber agreed. However, having this discussion aired at the meeting on the cable channel may at least heighten the awareness in the community. Mayor Lecklider asked whether an accessory structure could be constructed not to exceed 3,000 square feet on residential lots of five acres or greater. Ms. Ray confirmed that is correct. Mayor Lecklider noted that it is theoretically possible that the accessory structure could be larger in size than the primary residential structure. He is envisioning a 2,500 —3,000 square foot home with an accessory structure equal in size or larger, such as a five or six- bay detached garage. Ms. Ray responded that for lots greater than five acres and zoned Rural or Restricted Suburban Residential, increased setbacks would be necessary for an accessory structure of that size. Appearance standards for garages are included to address aesthetic concerns, as well as provisions for architectural consistency with the primary structure. Staff looked at some issues concerning the outlying properties that the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals have reviewed. Along some of these more rural corridors, there are barns and other large structures that contribute to the character, which they desired to accommodate in the Code update. Mayor Lecklider stated that even though the structure lies 200 feet or further off the road, he was concerned about the appearance issue. However, it would likely be an isolated instance. Vice Mayor Salay agreed that it could be an issue. Another concern is that on a five-acre parcel, five detached accessory structures would be possible. That seems excessive. Mayor Lecklider asked if five accessory structures could be up to 3,000 square feet each, or would it be cumulative. Ms. Ray responded that the total of the structures could not exceed 3,000 square feet. If Council believes an alternative size would be more appropriate, staff could look into that further. Mr. Reiner stated that the county permits one or two horses on a five-acre parcel. Having horses on the parcel would obviously require a number of accessory structures. Ms. Ray responded that there is farming legislation in place that they did not want to supersede with this update. Mayor Lecklider stated that he would not have concern with structures that look like a stable or barn, provided they are a certain distance away from the primary residence. He is envisioning a garage where someone has a motor home, boat, four cars, etc. They would have the land to accommodate all of this. Ms. Ray responded that the Code would still limit the accessory structure to the rear or the side of the principal structure, which would also limit it to some distance from the right-of- way. If there are some screening considerations Council would like staff to investigate to mitigate the concerns with appearance, they could do so. Vice Mayor Salay responded that she would appreciate that. Additionally, she asked that staff sketch a couple of potential site plans to provide visual examples of a five-acre property with five accessory structures. Ms. Ray showed two examples of existing sites of that size on Summitview and on Hyland-Croy with one or two accessory structures. Examples of sites with five detached structures can be prepared for the next meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 11 Held 20 Mrs. Boring noted that there are other existing Code sections that address the appearance of garages. Ms. Ray responded that is included in the Appearance Code. The update also proposes additional standards that will apply to all garages, new and existing. Mrs. Boring stated that a five acre lot is large, essentially a mini farm; therefore, she does not have a concern with the square footage. Mayor Lecklider stated that he does not necessarily object. There are riverfront lots on both sides of the river that are likely five acres. Some of those older homes are less than 2,000 square feet, and Council should consider how those lots would appear with 3,000 foot accessory structures on them. Mrs. Boring responded that the lots are not really visible. In addition, the proposed Code addresses the appearance from the road. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 9, 2010 Council meeting. Ordinance 26-10 Amending Sections 153.002, 153.053, 153.073, 153.098, and 153.161 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Model Homes in Residential Districts (Case No. 10-022ADM). Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Ray stated that at the April 26th meeting, Council requested that staff prepare a Zoning Code amendment that would permit staff to approve administratively model homes in residential districts versus requiring a special permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Council had received a request from the Central Ohio Building Industry earlier this year, citing concerns with the cost involved with obtaining a special permit in view of the economic issues with the housing industry. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Code amendment and at their June 10th meeting voted to recommend approval to City Council. The purpose of this amendment is to establish an administrative review process for model homes in residential districts. Much of the existing review criteria was relocated to the "Comprehensive Residential and Neighborhood Improvement" section of the Code. The proposed amendment would eliminate model homes from the Special Permit section of the Zoning Code and relocate them to a different section. One of the primary considerations with the amendment is duration of the approvals of the model homes. Staff tried to be consistent with what BZA has previously approved for model homes. For neighborhoods less than 75 percent occupied, approvals would be granted for two years. Beyond 75 percent and up to 95 percent, additional one-year approvals would be permitted. Noticing requirements are also included. Planning Commission recommended that notices be sent out before the model homes are approved to allow adjacent property owners' concerns to be addressed. The Commission also discussed parking for model homes and recommended a provision for free-standing, off site parking lots to be included. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 9, 2010 Council meeting. Ordinance 27-10 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance Documentation to Acquire a 0.004 Acre, More or Less, Sidewalk Easement from Tracey J. Guthrie. Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hahn stated that obtaining this easement would facilitate an at-grade pedestrian crossing at both Wing Hill and Darby Street to tie into the existing ADA ramps off the Darby Street parking lot and the ADA ramp at the northwest corner of Wing Hill and Darby Street. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 9, 2010 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTIONS Resolution 30-10 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Avery Road Water Tower Recoating Project. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 12 Held 20 Mr. Hammersmith stated that on June 10th, staff provided information on the recoating of the Avery Road water tower and the Blazer Parkway water tower. The contractors indicated that the timeframe allowed was too short to complete recoating of both water towers within the remainder of this season. In addition, performing the work on the Blazer tower would cause some logistic issues for the Fire Department. Consequently, the Blazer tank recoating was removed from the 2010 project scope and will be rescheduled in 2011. The anticipated project completion date is November 19, 2010. Five bids were received. The Engineer's project estimate was $515,000. The lowest/best bid was submitted by MK Painting for$474,000. Staff recommends acceptance of the bid and authorization for the City Manager to enter into a contract with M.K. Painting, Inc. for this project. Notification of the project will be provided to the adjacent property owners. Mayor Lecklider requested additional information regarding the blasting material. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the exterior would be sandblasted to remove the existing coating. Mayor Lecklider asked about the noise level associated with the process. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the process is accomplished through use of compressed air, so there will be a high-pitched spraying sound. However, the containment process will alleviate the noise. He does not anticipate complaints, as the work will be done during the day. Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked why the highest bid was twice the amount of the lowest/best bid. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the two highest bidders apparently were not aware of an addendum to the bid package, which removed the containment throughout the second half of the project. Mr. Maurer asked if M&K Painting is aware of the inspection and whether this is routine. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. A third party inspection will be conducted by Dixon Engineering. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Resolution 31-10 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Renovation of DCRC Family Changing Rooms and Main Restrooms and Replacement of Lockers. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Ms. Crandall stated that this bid award is for the continuation of the renovations at the Dublin Community Recreation Center (DCRC). Included in this project are four areas of renovation, including the following: (1) in the family dressing room, new floor and wall tile and new sinks and counters; (2) new lockers in both men's and women's locker rooms; (3) tile replaced with a carpet designed for wet areas in the main hallway between the locker rooms and pool; and (4) in the main restrooms across from Tallas, new tile, counters, faucets and fixtures. Three bids were received for the project. The lowest bidder was deemed to be non-responsive for two portions of the bid. Therefore, the next lowest bid is recommended, which is from Alfred, Inc. with a bid of$241,458. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the water would be extracted from the carpet in the main hallway to the pool on a regular basis. Ms. Crandall responded that the potential issue would be evaluated. An anti- microbacterial carpet is being installed. The reason for the installation is that significant debris is being tracked into the surface around the pool area. This is causing some slipping and falling for patrons, which needs to be minimized. Water is currently being removed from the hallway, and perhaps on occasion, it will also need to be extracted from the carpet. Mr. Keenan noted that loss control consultants are now recommending carpet in public areas of restaurants, shopping centers, etc. due to slip, trip and fall hazards. Carpet significantly reduces the risk. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dufzlin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 13 Held 20 Mayor Lecklider asked if the existing lockers are the original lockers. Ms. Crandall responded affirmatively, noting that there have been ongoing issues with the locking mechanisms. They will be replaced with locks with fewer movable parts. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes. OTHER: • Draft Legislation Regarding Rainwater Harvesting Containers Ms. Adkins stated that she has met with Engineering, Building and Planning staff to discuss the best approach to rainwater harvesting within the City, keeping in mind Council's preference that cisterns remain underground and that above-ground rain barrels be coordinated to match the architecture of the home. The proposed approach will both encourage rainwater harvesting within the City to improve stormwater control and will also give the City the appropriate degree of control and oversight. A draft Code amendment and a stormwater management manual update were included in Council's packet. Staff recommends Council refer the draft legislation to the Planning Commission for review. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she has read that some communities have received grants for residents for the installation of rain barrels. Has staff investigated this? Ms. Adkins responded affirmatively. Due to stormwater overflow issues, the City of Columbus was successful in obtaining a grant from a private company to purchase rain barrels for 250 homes in Clintonville. Staff has looked at other communities, as well, and the practice seems to be evenly split between communities advancing/fronting funds to decrease the cost of the rain barrels and partnering with private and non private groups. Staff will evaluate the options for Dublin and bring a proposal to Council in the future. Vice Mayor Salay stated that if the City were contemplating partnering for this purpose, it would be worthwhile to have information regarding the benefits to the City's stormwater system. She added that Dublin does not currently have the I&I issues that exist in the older sections of Columbus. Does the proposed legislation require that the rain barrel be placed in the rear or side yard? Ms. Adkins responded that it would be necessary to place the rain barrel behind the building line of the house, on either the side or the rear of the property. Mayor Lecklider stated that he is confident the Planning Commission will give serious consideration to the permitted colors for rain barrels. He would also ask that staff and the Commission give consideration to language requiring that the rain barrels be kept in good condition. He understands that this could be difficult in terms of definition and enforceability, but would like it to be given some consideration. Vice Mayor Salay moved to refer the draft legislation regarding rainwater harvesting containers to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation to Council. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Foegler: 1. Thanked Council members who attended the Bridge Street Corridor presentation last Wednesday, and thanked Wendy's for hosting the event at their facilities. The presentation was streamed live and the video has been posted online. 2. Reported that the City has received the documentation from ISO, the insurance services entity that classifies the City's relative insurance risks associated with both the Building Division operations and the Washington Township Fire Department water operation system. There is a portion of the information that was disconcerting. Its initial findings propose significantly reducing the City's current classifications for both residential and commercial construction. ISO is concerned with the older version of residential commercial codes that the State of Ohio is using. Apparently, there has been quite a bit of discussion occurring at the State RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.,FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 14 Held 20 level regarding the additional costs of complying with those codes versus the potential savings in insurance rates. There will be some minor details related to operational issues, which will be addressed. The good news is that if the City indicates it is pursuing a plan, the current ratings will be held while the corrections are being made. Staff will conduct a more thorough review of the issue, including what other jurisdictions are doing and how this is being dealt with at the State level, and a more complete report will be provided to Council. 3. Noted that in follow up to Council's feedback at the last Council meeting regarding the City's legal services contract, he has met with the Law Director and incorporated much of Council's input into the proposed contract. A legal services contract will be available for Council's consideration at an August meeting. 4. Wished Council a safe and enjoyable July 4th weekend. He anticipates seeing them at the parade and concert on Saturday. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner reported that there has been a resignation from the Bicycle Advisory Task Force. He requested that Council appoint a replacement for that open position and, due to the workload, an additional task force member. Vice Mayor Salay suggested that Council discuss those appointments in an executive session for personnel matters. Mrs. Boring: 1. Reported that Council was invited to meet with the evaluators for the accreditation process for the Dublin Recreation Center. She has heard that the City has met 100 percent of the standards in the final review. She congratulated staff for their excellent work, especially Barb Burkholder for taking the lead on this project. She is looking forward to the department achieving this accreditation this year. 2. Stated that Council received a letter from the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau requesting that Council review its policy concerning alcohol being served on City property. The Bureau would like to meet with the Council, perhaps in committee, to discuss this issue. She suggested that Council refer this item to the Administrative Committee for review. Mayor Lecklider indicated that this might be more appropriate for review by the Community Development Committee. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Keenan added that the information provided by the DCVB should be helpful in this review. It was the consensus of Council to refer this matter to the Community Development Committee. 3. Thanked staff for the Dublin Road speed review report. 4. Wished everyone a Happy July 4th! Mayor Lecklider reported that recently, Council received an email regarding the LED lights on Coffman Road. If they have not yet done so, he would recommend Council Members look at the installation. He believes it could create a potential conflict between the energy side versus the City's "night sky initiative." Is it possible to measure the light emitted from the traditional fixtures versus these LED fixtures? Perhaps it is an illusion, but the LEDs appear to be much brighter. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is an illusion, because the LED lights are actually the same wattage and candle power at the pavement. Lighting calculations are performed on all lighting projects. Engineering is in the process of approving a change order to convert to the LEDs for the street lighting project on Metro North. LEDs provide a much whiter light, which is measured in terms of calvins. An LED white light is 6,000 calvins. The City's high pressure sodium lights measure 3,500 calvin. Consequently, Engineering is considering using a more amber color, which would be approximately 4,500 calvin — resulting in a much softer light. The amber will be much closer to the high pressure sodium lights, but not as orange or red as are the existing street lights. Ms. Salay asked if there would be a sample amber light installed. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the plan is to do this on Coffman Road. Staff reviewed the amber lights and concluded they result in a much softer light. He added that the comments received to date at the website regarding the LED lights have been favorable. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC..FORM NO.10148 July 1, 2010 Page 15 Held 20 Vice Mayor Salay: 1. Noted that a study session in follow-up to the goal setting retreat is needed to finalize the goals and to have a dialogue with staff. Ms. Novak has been engaged to continue with the facilitation. A proposed date circulated among Council is Monday, August 2. If the study session cannot be held on this date, it will have to be moved to September due to the facilitator's schedule in August. She understands that six of seven Council Members are available on Monday, August 2. She asked for input on moving forward with six members or delaying the meeting until September. Brief discussion followed, and it was the consensus of Council to move forward with the study session on Monday, August 2 in order to complete the goal setting discussion. Vice Mayor Salay suggested that when the materials are provided, Mrs. Boring could provide input via e-mail or telephone, since she cannot attend on August 2. Mrs. Boring noted that the goal setting has been tied into the budgeting process in previous years. Mr. Foegler commented that Council had expressed interest in finalizing the goals as well as identifying implementation strategies for the goals. Staff will then begin to frame those implementation strategies in the budget. He offered to have staff meet with Mrs. Boring to share what has been put together and to take notes regarding her input for the session. Mrs. Boring indicated that she is comfortable with this approach, as it is important to move forward with the follow-up work. Mr. Foegler stated that another item for the August 2 agenda is for Council to decide the timeframe for goal setting in the coming years. 2. Noted in regard to the Dublin Road speed study, that the 35 mph limit extends too far north when traveling north on Dublin Road into Historic Dublin. There are homes close to the street and a residential feel to the area. She asked that staff review this small section of roadway to determine whether it should be reduced to 25 mph. Mr. Gerber agreed, noting that the 25 mph limit begins past Karrer Place heading northbound, making it difficult to pull out. Perhaps an additional 150 yards of 25 mph zone would be helpful. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Lecklider moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:25 p.m. for discussion of land acquisition, personnel and legal matters. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 10:25 p.m. Present were Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, and Mr. Reiner. Staff present were Mr. Foegler, Ms. Grigsby, Chief Epperson, Mr. Harding, Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Smith. Mayor Lecklider noted a clarification to the record of tonight's meeting. Earlier in the meeting, he moved to table Ordinance 23-10, but actually intended to move to hold it over for later consideration in the meeting. Mr. Gerber had seconded the motion. Mr. Gerber accepted this clarification. Mr. Keenan moved approval of Ordinance 23-10. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Mayor— Pr- i e,ing Officer Clerk of Council