HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-09 CDC MinutesCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 28, 2009
Minutes of Meeting
Ms. Salay, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Committee members present were Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider and Mr. Reiner.
Staff members present were: Ms. Colley, Ms. Ott and Ms. Ray.
Ms. Salay stated that the purpose of this meeting is the discussion of the proposed Homeowner
Association (HOA) Grant Program.
Ms. Colley stated that there are specific items related to the proposed HOA grant program for
which the Committee's input is requested: (1) appropriate funding levels, (2) timing of
implementation of the grant, (3) grant requirements, and (4) selection criteria. The purpose of
the grant is to provide funding assistance and professional support to HOAs for high quality,
sustainable beautification projects. These projects will benefit and enhance their neighborhood
and the greater community.
Funding Levels
Ms. Colley stated that the proposed funding level is $10,000 - $15,000, which would come from
the General Fund. Individual grant awards would be in the amount of $500 to $5,000. Grant
awards would be limited to one grant every three years. This limitation would:
(1) permit more HOAs to participate in the grant program; and
(2) ensure that the projects are maintained /sustained properly, as staff will be able to
observe the performance of one project over time before another grant is sought.
The program is a matching grant structure. The HOA must match the amount of the City's
award. There is also a volunteer component of the grant. Volunteer hours can make up 25
percent of the total match. The hourly volunteer rate the City proposes to use is $12.60, which is
based on the seasonal horticultural pay rate. The City will reimburse the HOA once the project
is complete and has conformed with all the grant requirements. City staff will review the project
onsite before reimbursement is made. The applicant will be required to submit the project
budget and verification of funds to provide matching funds and meet the ongoing maintenance
costs of the project.
Permit Fees
Permit fees may be waived after the permitting process has been completed. Tap fees will not be
waived. Grant funds cannot be used for pond aerators, sprinklers or irrigation systems. Those
items are not easily maintained and sustainable.
Ms. Salay noted that further explains why tap fees would not be waived, as they would be
obtained for items not covered by the grant. If the neighborhood is fully built, it would already
have City services.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the issue that arose previously is when the HOA desired to provide
irrigation to an entry feature. Although the homes within the community have City water, a
separate tap -in was required to provide irrigation to the entry feature.
Ms. Colley responded that type of project is not encouraged. They are expensive and not easily
maintained.
Community Development Committee Minutes
September 28, 2009
Page 2 of 7
Mr. Lecklider agreed. There are other issues, as well; for instance they can be problematic if the
lines are accidentally cut. In addition, it is not consistent with Council's goal of environmental
sustainability. For what purposes would an applicant be required to apply for a permit?
Ms. Colley responded that fence permits are required for fence rehabilitation projects.
Mr. Lecklider inquired the permit cost for rehabilitation of an entry feature.
Ms. Ray responded that the project would most likely be an amended final development plan
(FDP) application, if it were in a planned district. The amended FDP application fee is $1,010;
however, City Council recently adopted the policy to waive the fees for amended final
development plans for HOAs.
Ms. Colley stated that if the amended FDP project is visible from the public right -of -way, the
application fee is waived.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if that Council action was related to particular applications, or was it
formally adopted as a policy.
Ms. Ray responded that was her understanding that a formal policy was adopted within the past
year and is now in effect.
Mr. Lecklider stated that if the criterion is that the project be visible from the public right -of -way
and the project meets the criteria, would the project then qualify for the fee waiver?
Ms. Ray responded that it would. The projects are typically related to entry features or
landscaping.
Mr. Lecklider stated that it wouldn't make sense that the City, as part of this process, would be
paying the City. That should be avoided.
Ms. Colley stated that the grant idea was first proposed in 2008 because a homeowner
association had requested a fee waiver from Council for an amended final development plan for
an entry feature improvement. That initiated a discussion, following which the fee structure was
amended and a waiver was created for amended FDPs, if the project was in the public realm or
visible from the public right -of -way. If desired, that history can be provided to Council.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if it was at the Cramer's Crossing discussion that the policy was formally
adopted?
Ms. Colley responded that it was.
Mr. Lecklider responded that he would not need the history.
Mr. Reiner stated that he understands the restriction re. irrigation systems. They are worthwhile
only for watering grass. Some of these projects will be beautification projects and will entail the
planting of live plant materials. In those cases, it will be very important to clarify whose
responsibility it will be to maintain the live materials. If the HOA will be using taxpayer money
to pay for their project, the goal is that they will be successful projects. He would like a
watering/maintenance guidelines sheet to be provided with the project approval, along with
clarification of whose responsibility that will be. Part of the criteria needed to receive a grant
should be to provide evidence of the maintenance program. In his profession, he has seen
numerous occasions when the project is installed, and then the adjacent homeowners refuse to
provide /pay for maintenance of a neighborhood project.
Community Development Committee Minutes
September 28, 2009
Page 3 of 7
Ms. Salay requested that staff add the requirement to verify the maintenance /sustainability plans
for the live plantings.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if that is already covered under "project planning," which refers to
"sustaining and maintaining" the project.
Ms. Colley responded that the grant language specifies that the HOA must have the funds
available for maintenance and the HOA will maintain the project site; it states that, "The HOA
currently maintains it and will maintain it in the future." She likes Mr. Reiner's suggestion to
expand, clarify and emphasize that component of the project. Otherwise, that may prove to be an
issue.
Ms. Salay concurred. Surprisingly, many people do not realize the need to "babysit" new
plantings for the first year or two.
Mr. Reiner stated that he would like to see this item added to the required criteria.
Ms. Colley inquired if he preferred to see the maintenance / sustainability listed as separate
criteria, similar to the project budget.
Mr. Reiner agreed.
Ms. Salay suggested that it be listed between "project planning" and "environmental and
financial sustainability." As part of their grant application, the applicant would need to stipulate
how the plantings would be maintained in their early growing period.
Funding Guidelines /Funding Levels
Ms. Salay inquired if Committee members had objections to the $500 to $5,000 City match, and
the $12.60/hour rate for seasonal staff to be used for calculating volunteer hours.
Mr. Reiner stated that, philosophically, he does not like to see City taxpayer used for purposes
other than that of running City government. He will always object to this, philosophically;
however, he recognizes that staff did an outstanding job with this proposal.
General Project Guidelines
Mr. Lecklider referred to page 3 — ongoing or routine repair projects. It states that grant awards
are not to be used for turf maintenance, weed control, mulch, lighting and sign repairs. With
some previous projects, rotting wood signs have been removed and replaced with stone. An
example was the City project in the Indian Run subdivision at Valley Stream Drive. How would
that type of project be viewed?
Ms. Colley responded that it would be considered a rehab of an existing entry feature or sign.
The intent of the language on page 3 is to prohibit projects that are essentially maintenance of
existing features.
Ms. Salay inquired about the addition of lighting. There is an HOA that installed an entry
feature that is currently unlit. They are saving money to provide lighting for it. Would that be
considered an appropriate project for a grant, or would it be considered routine and ongoing
maintenance?
Ms. Colley responded that the language should be clarified. Repair of existing lighting would
not qualify, but installation of new lighting probably would qualify.
Community Development Committee Minutes
September 28, 2009
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Lecklider stated that there are numerous lighting issues in the various neighborhoods. If the
City would potentially pay up to 50 percent to install lighting, aren't the issues essentially the
same with long -term maintenance?
Mr. Reiner stated that sustainability of a project should be thoroughly considered. Lighting is
beautiful, but it is a high maintenance item.
Mr. Lecklider noted that he would be less inclined to approve a lighting project. The City will
install a pole light at a subdivision entrance at City expense. In addition, the City pays the utility
expense of that light.
Ms. Colley stated that if the applicant chooses to include new lighting in their project, it will be
necessary for them to explain how the maintenance will be handled and paid for on an ongoing
basis.
Mr. Reiner stated that a single accent light focused on a flag, for instance, isn't a serious concern,
but other types of lighting are, such as an entry light or lighting for an entire line of trees.
Timing of Introduction of Program
Ms. Colley stated that staff is requesting that the grant be funded in 2011. The reason for this is
the division budget cutbacks in 2010. Additional time is also needed to finalize the grant
applications and to educate the homeowner associations. It is necessary to advertise the grant, so
that the HOAs are aware of the opportunity and have time to prepare quality applications for a
January 15 application deadline.
Ms. Salay inquired if the grant has been discussed at the HOA leadership meetings.
Ms. Colley responded that it has not yet been discussed at the meetings. There was a need to
have this discussion with Council for additional input. Staff will then send the information out
and obtain HOA leadership responses.
Ms. Salay stated that if Council decides to go forward with this grant, she will be interested in
seeing the HOA responses and the type of feedback that may be obtained. Which division's
budget will this grant come from?
Ms. Colley responded that it would come from the budget of the Office of the City Manager.
Grant Requirements
Ms. Colley reviewed the highlights of the requirements. First time applicants will be given
consideration ahead of HOAs who have received previous grants under this program.
Ms. Salay inquired who would be on the review team.
Ms. Colley responded that the core group would be: Ms. Kennedy (Finance), Ms. Karagory
(Parks), Ms. Martin (Planning), Mr. Martin (Planning). Other staff members would participate
when the need arises.
Mr. Reiner inquired if the review group would assign points before the applications are
forwarded to Council.
Ms. Colley responded that if Council desired the review team to do so, that could also be
provided.
Community Development Committee Minutes
September 28, 2009
Page 5 of 7
Mr. Reiner stated that to remove the potential politics from the review, he believes it would be
more appropriate for staff to evaluate the applications, score them and provide recommendations
for the grant awards to Council.
Ms. Salay stated that she concurs with the preference to have staff score and provide grant
recommendations to Council.
Mr. Lecklider noted concurrence.
Ms. Colley noted that step would be added to the review team's responsibilities.
Mr. Lecklider suggested that the language be amended to state "first time recipients" as opposed
to "first time applicants." If an HOA has applied for grants numerous times before and never
received an award, why would they not be eligible for the bonus points, as other HOAs in year
three?
Mr. Reiner inquired the intent of this requirement.
Ms. Colley responded that the intent was to make it fair, to spread the opportunity around. She
will revise the language to provide better clarification.
Ms. Salay stated that the issue should not be whether they had applied previously, but rather if
they been awarded a grant previously. She suggested the question be added: "Has your
neighborhood previously received a grant under this program ?"
Ms. Colley responded that the language would be reviewed and revised language returned for
approval.
Mr. Reiner stated that he is concerned about the ability of a bad design to win over a good
application by accumulating more points.
Ms. Colley responded the point system could be eliminated.
Non Forced /Funded HOAs
Mr. Lecklider stated that his concern is the non forced and funded HOAs. He does not believe
there is a voluntary association, small enough to be eligible, that would have the ability to qualify
for this program.
Mr. Reiner stated that if the association is active and submits a good project design, they should
not be excluded.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the problem is their size. He lives in a non - funded subdivision of 400+
homes — they could never do this.
Ms. Salay stated that she does not understand why a neighborhood of 400 homes would not have
the ability to submit an application. She lives in a similarly -sized neighborhood, not forced and
funded, and she believes the community could put together a grant application. What are the
barriers he perceives, so they can be addressed with the HOA leaders? She is anxious to see how
the HOA leaders respond to this opportunity.
Mr. Lecklider stated that apathy is an issue in the community he lives in. Another barrier is that
there is no leverage. It is impossible to organize and motivate 400+ households. Perhaps one
way to assist them would be with the HOA initiative. Once or twice a year, it would be good to
share with the voluntary associations ideas on how to organize and motivate households within
their subdivision.
Community Development Committee Minutes
September 28, 2009
Page 6 of 7
Ms. Colley responded that staff could pull together some ideas and tactics to share with the
HOAS at the twice - yearly meetings.
Ms. Salay stated that a previous HOA president has expressed interest in HOA presidents
meetings to discuss best practices for HOA boards. He would even be willing to lead the group.
Mr. Lecklider suggested that if this project goes forward, perhaps a concentrated effort could be
made to include the voluntary HOAs. It would be in the City's interest to have these
communities engaged.
Ms. Colley inquired if Council would want to see how the points are assigned for all the criteria.
Ms. Salay stated that it would be good to have the criteria listed for each point. That would
make it simpler for the HOAs to know what to aim for. She found the budget criteria to be
helpful.
Ms. Colley responded that the criteria and points would be prepared for each category.
Ms. Salay expressed concern about the HOA volunteers, who would not be covered by City
volunteer policies, procedures or insurance. "Appropriate volunteer safety measures lie solely
with the individual HOAs." What issues might arise when there is no insurance to fall back on?
Ms. Colley stated that this issue was discussed with the City's Volunteer Administrator and the
Risk Management Specialist. This item was included in the grant application to avoid having a
situation like that -- where an HOA volunteer is assumed to be a volunteer of the City of Dublin
with the City responsible for any injuries during their service. The intent is to safeguard the City
from such claims. Legal has reviewed this section and expressed satisfaction with the language.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he would assume that the Muirfield Association has some sort of
liability insurance.
Mr. Reiner responded that the Muirfield Assoc. is indemnified from legal suits.
Mr. Lecklider stated that Legal counsel could be obtained, but it may be advisable, perhaps at the
semi - annual HOA meetings, to recommend that the HOAs carry liability insurance.
Ms. Salay noted that Ms. Readler sometimes attends the HOA meeting, and could provide that
recommendation to the association.
PLANT LIST
Mr. Reiner stated that he assumes the list contains some suggestions but is not comprehensive. It
is missing some species, such as Colorado Blue or Green Spruce, and includes species that
should be eliminated, such as White Pine and Hackberry.
Ms. Salay stated that this is Mr. Reiner's line of work. Would he be willing to take a look at the
list and recommend certain additions or deletions to staff?
Mr. Reiner indicated he would be glad to do so.
Ms. Colley stated that Ms. Martin and Ms. Karagory devised the list, and it is not
comprehensive.
Mr. Reiner stated that the list likely contains some varieties that ODNR typically promotes
because they are indigenous to Ohio, such as the White Pine, even though it does not have a long
life.
Community Development Committee Minutes
September 28, 2009
Page 7 of 7
Ms. Colley responded that language can be added to the list that this is not a comprehensive list,
and encouraging the HOAs to review their planting plan with staff before they submit their
application. She asked that Mr. Reiner forward his recommendations.
Mr. Reiner responded that he could provide a lengthy list.
The revised plan will be provided to Council for approval by the end of the year, with anticipated
implementation in 2011.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
Clerk of Council
