CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien present. No members were absent. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Frank Wiseman, Jennifer Frommer, Linda Fersch, Aaron Dean, Dan Taranto, Amy Taranto, Colleen Keitch, Jack Sower, Walt Lawrence, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 10, 2005, Work Session. Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 10, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: None.

4. PLANNING AND ZONING

A. REPORTS:

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated the Board had three cases in March. He stated Giant Eagle received their variances for the site, a deck variance in Shawnee Crossing was approved, and a minimum dwelling unit size for a house on N. Center Street was approved. He stated currently there is one case on their agenda for a fence in the front yard in the Sheffield Subdivision.

(2) Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. O’Brien) Mr. O’Brien stated Planning and Zoning met on Tuesday and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the old freezer building at 90 W. Church Street, a Conditional Use Permit for a church at the Shoppes at Turnberry, a Conditional Use Permit for a shelter house at the Pickerington Christian Church, a Conditional Use Permit for an addition to a storage building in the Willard Root Addition, Commercial Design Guidelines and the site plan and building materials for a dentist’s office at Creek Bend, and the Commercial Design Guidelines and Certificate of Appropriateness for an expansion at Krogers, including four out lots at the south end, and also the final plat for Wellington Park, Section 1.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review of Utility Agreements. Mr. Hackworth clarified this will cover the entire Virginia Homes development. Ms Gilleland stated this was a parcel that was tied into the 362 acre annexation that recently came into the City. She stated we feel it is appropriate that the County serve this area with water and wastewater. Ms Gilleland stated the County has agreed to honor the fees that were agreed to in the pre-annexation agreement, and Virginia Homes would be a party to this agreement as well. Ms Gilleland stated she would recommend this be approved and passed on to Council. Mr. Wiseman stated this area is best served by the County as they have sanitary sewer lines there and water lines surrounding it. He stated since they are agreeing to honor the City’s pre-annexation agreement there is no cost to the City for them to take this on. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Parker stated he would vote for this, but he believed if we allow the County to service outside the boundaries of the City of Pickerington, he felt we ran the risk of blocking ourselves in without having services to be able to extend and annex. He stated he knew the County needed the revenue from this, but he felt we needed to be cautious for the future that we do not allow ourselves to not have somewhere where we can annex water and sewer lines. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

5. SERVICE DEPARTMENT

A. ACTION ITEMS: None.

B. WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.

(1) Pickerington Hills Water Main Loop Project – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated this project is actually about a month ahead of schedule at this point.

(2) Review and discussion of utility billing. Mr. Wiseman stated he will have a recommendation at the next meeting to change our utility billing. He stated the cost analysis shows it is slightly higher than what we are now doing, however, it gives us a lot more options and will allow us to take e-pay and Visa cards when we have that set up with the bank. Mr. Hackworth clarified this is a state contract bid and we will not have to go out for bids for it. Mr. Parker further clarified the cost of postage will be slightly higher than what we pay for the post card bill, however, we will have a better product and we can also put up to eight additional sheets in the envelope. Mr. Wiseman stated that was correct, we can put flyers, Parks Department items, monthly newsletters, etc., can be included in the envelope.

C. WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.

(1) Sewer back-up issues - Update. Mr. Wiseman stated Council has approved a payment of up to $2,500 to help residents who had sewer back-up in their basements. Mr. Parker stated as he understood it, if someone had a loss of $1,000 they would be reimbursed the $1,000, and the maximum pay out would be $2,500. Mr. Wiseman stated he wants to make sure staff does what Council wants them to do, so he does have some questions that need answered. Mr. Hackworth stated he thought Council had intended to pay up to $2,500 per claim and they felt $2,500 would be the cost to sanitize the basement. Ms Gilleland stated originally the thought was to issue the $2,500 and anything over that amount would be considered on a case-by-case basis. She further stated the County Sanitary Engineer has reconfirmed the County, who had some of the same issues that we had, is providing their residents with $1,000 of relief and they are not providing any further consideration than that. Mr. Hackworth ascertained at this point we have claims varying from $500 up to about $15,000. Mr. Wiseman stated some of the residents have filed insurance claims, some have not, and some have applied for FEMA assistance. He stated FEMA will not consider anything unless you have exhausted your insurance claims. Ms Gilleland stated we have not seen a lot of assistance from FEMA, and they have stated they are to help victims who experienced a tremendous amount of damage to their homes during the emergency. Mr. Hackworth stated he felt we need to make sure we pay for the loss up to $2,500, but we don’t want to see someone making money off of it. Ms Gilleland stated at this point we have received nine claims from the 20 residents that we know were affected. She stated she would advise we not make any decisions on additional monies until we know what all of the claims are. She stated what we need to know is if Council wants to require the residents to file with their insurance or not. Mr. Parker inquired if we have given the residents a deadline to file their claim so the entire process is not held up. Mr. Wiseman stated we have not done that as yet. Ms Gilleland stated we understand that some residents have damages that are much more than $2,500, but Council must determine how they want to balance it all out. She stated we are not liable and we were not negligent, we are just trying to help our residents. Mr. O’Brien stated he would like to have all of this information put together in a fact sheet. He stated Council voted on the issue, and he felt all of Council needs the opportunity to make an informed decision together. Mr. Wiseman stated he would like Council’s assistance on how they would like to see these claims processed. Mr. Hackworth agreed with Mr. O’Brien that he would like to see more information. Mr. Wiseman stated he would put all of the information together with his recommendation and provide it for Council.

Mr. Sabatino stated he would like information on how the City is going to deal with this financially and how they are going to deal with this to see that it does not happen again. He stated further the problem some residents have is the fact that they now have a homeowner’s insurance record that has been stained with this claim and that they have to disclose this if they sell their property. He stated he would like to know what the City could give these residents in defense of having to disclose this information when they go to sell their property. Mr. Hackworth stated the City is putting in a gravity line and that should correct most of the issues we have had. Mr. Walt Lawrence stated he did not know where the City came up with the figure of $2,500 to sanitize a basement, and he did not feel the Service Committee members should leave with the impression the residents will accept the $2,500 figure. He stated he did not know how many residents would sign off on that amount. Mr. Lawrence stated he had invited all of Council to come to his home to see the damage that was done, and no-one showed up. He stated the City is claiming no responsibility for this incident and to say $2,500 would help. He stated the $2,500 is not enough. Mr. Parker stated he did not recall ever being invited to Mr. Lawrence’s home, and he thought the $2,500 was to get people started to pay their deductibles, etc. Mr. Parker stated his job is not to get directly involved with each and every individual, but staff would gather the information and present it to Council so decisions can be made. He stated all of the information has not reached him as yet, and he felt we should clean up the small claims and take the other ones on a case-by-case basis. Ms Gilleland stated with regard to Mr. Sabatino’s question about what we are doing to prevent this in the future, we did act very quickly and we have an emergency generator on site that is ready to go. She stated that should prevent the bulk of any issue like this ever occurring again should we experience a prolonged power outage. She stated further, we have moved the gravity line project up from 2006 to 2005 and we are working on that. She stated it is very difficult when we are trying to balance the residents that were affected versus the good of the rest of the sewer customers who pay into the sewer fund. She stated the easiest thing to do would be to take care of everyone, however, we are struggling with if that is the right thing to do. She further stated our attorneys and our insurance company have told us we are not liable, this was an Act of God, and with that we need to look at the bigger picture since we have to be responsible and spend the sewer money accordingly. Mr. Sabatino stated that legal advice was given to the City by the same legal firm that gave advice that the 1997 decision about the moratorium on Diley Road was the proper thing to do as well. Mr. Sabatino stated there are residents who are not happy with the $2,500 and if that is the path the City wants to take, they are willing to challenge you legally. Mr. Sabatino stated he is not saying the City didn’t try, but there are other things the City could have done. Mr. Sabatino stated he wanted to make it clear that he was speaking as a private citizen and a resident of Cherry Hill. Ms Gilleland stated with regard to Mr. Sabatino’s request to provide the residents with something showing this will not happen again, the City could certainly put in writing the steps we have taken and will be taking with the gravity line, but there are forces of nature always at play and we cannot guarantee anything. Mr. Sabatino stated there is more than one lift station on our system, so why didn’t they fail? What made the Cherry Hill lift station unique? Mr. Wiseman stated they did fail, but they do not have full build out into the lift station. Mr. O’Brien clarified that our insurance company classified this incident as an Act of God, and our attorneys have concurred it was a natural disaster. Mr. Sabatino stated the point he was trying to make, was that the City might want to consider the fact of the uniqueness of why it happened to just Cherry Hill and not some of the other lift station properties. Mr. O’Brien stated Council has not acted yet, they have asked that all of the information come back in a fact sheet so it can be debated by Council, and it can be determined if further actions are required. Ms Gilleland stated if Council chooses to make exceptions, it can be done by legislation. Ms Frommer stated we are currently in the process of taking a look at the gravity sewer. She stated it is partially designed and they are looking at the effect the diversion of flows from this area over into another part of the sanitary sewer would have on that line. She stated we must be very careful in the decisions made so as not to domino effect other parts of the system. Ms Frommer further stated with regard to the situation that happened at this lift station, as near as we can tell at this point, based on the elevation of certain basements coupled with the fact that that particular lift station is not one that is very deep and you do have an area that is fully built out in the way of houses, there is a lot of sewage going into a station that does not have a lot of extra storage capacity. Ms Frommer stated the City did conduct an investigation a few years ago and has that information on file that talks about if a power outage could cause something like this to occur with regard to the lift station that wouldn’t occur in another station because it does have a greater amount of storage capacity. Mr. Sabatino ascertained when a lift station is designed it should be designed for the capacity needed when it was totally built out. He stated with regard to the lift station that serves Cherry Hill are the numbers the same for capacity per tap as other lift stations. Ms Frommer stated she could not be specific on this lift station, but it should have been designed per EPA guidelines when it was done and permitted through the EPA. Mr. Sabatino further clarified this was not the newest built lift station in the City. Ms Frommer stated the amount of storage in the lift station is really only a factor, when the power goes out there is only so much space before it starts looking for a place to go. She stated when it is a gravity line, it will not be power dependent and the sewer itself would be built to handle it and would have no obstruction such as the force main that it takes to pump out of the station that is holding it down the line. Mr. Sabatino stated he would feel a lot more comfortable about the gravity line being the answer if we can identify the fact that we had a problem where the storage capacity per tap in Cherry Hill was deficit compared to the others. He stated that would give a logical reason why it happened there and not in other places and when the City does put in a gravity line that should deal with the issue. Ms Frommer stated that is definitely the process we go through and she expected to be able to go through the design facets with City staff within the month and hoped to bid it toward the end of this month or next month. Mr. Sabatino further stated he would like to know from the standpoint of looking at the issue of storage capacity per tap, Cherry Hill versus the other lift stations, is that something that the City Manager would need to approve to happen? Ms Frommer stated she was confining her efforts right now to taking a look at this particular project area and making sure it is properly designed or altered in the future to be able to handle things. She stated if he wanted that comparison to other areas, other lift stations, that can be done as a part of the project, but it would be separate from what they are doing right now. Mr. Parker stated he felt the City would do everything they possibly can to keep this from happening again. He stated he has faith in our engineer and Mr. Wiseman that they will get this taken care of. Mr. Hackworth stated the next step will be for all of the information to be put together and presented to Council.

(2) Review and discussion regarding Taranto’s Pizza. Ms Frommer stated she had distributed a memo dated April 5^th with regard to the Taranto’s Pizza sanitary sewer issues. Ms Frommer stated the only exception to the facts presented on page one of the memo is that the event actually did occur in the spring of 2002 and not the fall of 2001. She stated she has met with Taranto’s a number of times and Mr. and Mrs. Taranto are present this evening to address the Committee as well. Ms Frommer stated her recommendation was provided in the memo. Mr. Taranto stated what has happened here is that he was told that by giving up his driveway frontage, the City promised to do certain things and assured him that he would not incur any costs. Mr. Taranto stated Ms Frommer’s memo indicated the city agreed to pave an asphalt parking area in the rear of the building at a location to be determined by Taranto’s. He stated he did not determine or dictate any area to be paved, it was not his decision on that. Mr. Taranto stated it is very unfortunate that the City offered to do that and showed him where they would do it. Mr. Taranto stated he had told the City that he could not afford any cost to do this, but he would go with the plans that were given to him to look at. He stated further, neither he nor the City was aware they paved on top of a leach bed, which causes a malfunction, so he has sewage coming up. Mr. Taranto stated he felt it was the City’s responsibility to fix this because they promised if he gave up his driveway frontage it would not cost him anything. He stated it now appears it is going to cost him something, and he was assured it would not. Mr. Taranto stated he has documentation showing right after this happened that the damage was done, there was a problem, and the Health Department and EPA were aware of it. Ms Frommer stated she was not aware of any plans that had been shown to the Tarantos. Mrs. Taranto stated she had plans given to them by Mr. Dailey, the city’s engineer, where they were given two options. Mrs. Taranto stated the City paved the parking area, it was just done one day. Mrs. Taranto stated they are a small business, and this is going to cost money they do not have. She stated further, there were several issues that went along with this plan, the biggest one being the leach bed. She stated they feel terrible because it looks nice, but there has been damage done. Mrs. Taranto stated there is talk about the sewer system being available, and not once has that been mentioned to them. She stated they have always been told when the sewer comes down S.R. 256 they will have to hook up, but it was never mentioned that they could hook into the sewer system behind them. Mr. Taranto stated in 20 years they have never had a problem with their leach bed, and then two months after the paving was done the problem arose. He stated he just wanted to ask the City to stand by their word that he will not incur any costs in getting this taken care of. Ms Frommer stated with regard to the no cost out of pocket, no-one knew the leach bed was under the parking lot. She stated the no cost to them was represented in the paving of the parking lot and the taking away the access. She stated if anyone had known the leach bed was under the parking lot, no-one would have advocated allowing the parking lot to be put there. Ms Frommer stated further with regard to the cause, that is the root of the issue. She stated the fact that this happened at about or shortly after the City was there being one thing. One thing she could not divorce in her investigation was the notion that with the garbage dumpsters back there, it is not entirely inconceivable that for a period of years the trucks could not have worsened the situation and timing being what it is, the City may have just been the straw that broke the camel’s back. Mrs. Taranto stated with that said, the dumpsters were not where they are now until they asked them to be moved in 2002. Ms Frommer stated her point was, garbage trucks are not lightweight and they make a wide berth when they turn. Mr. Wiseman stated you can never tell unless you go in and tear it all up where the break is in the leach bed, if there is a break, or if it was just filled up. Mr. Hackworth clarified no-one knows exactly what the dimensions of the leach bed are. Mr. O’Brien asked if it would be plausible to tear up the parking lot and see what the problem was. Ms Frommer stated you could find out something, yes, but as far as assessing responsibility she did not know if that would be done. Mr. O’Brien stated his point was to find out if there could be a repair. Mr. Wiseman stated because we know there is a sanitary sewer within 200 feet of their establishment, they are required to take their sewer into that sanitary sewer. He stated per Fairfield County Health Department, the leach bed is not allowed to be repaired. Ms Frommer stated because the Health Department and EPA are aware of this situation, no matter who pays for it, you would be hard pressed to just cause a fix to this. Mr. O’Brien stated as he understood it then, the Taranto’s have to tap into city sewer so the question is the cost of the tap and the cost of the septic tank being cleaned out and filled in with sand. Mr. Taranto stated there are two tanks. Ms Frommer stated there is sewage on the ground right now so there would be a little clean up as well. Mr. O’Brien stated the cost of this is now to pump out the tanks, fill them with sand, and connect to the sewer. Ms Frommer stated there would be a capacity charge on top of that. Ms Gilleland stated if we went back and assisted in fixing the leach bed system and making it right, and the cost was within $1,000 of connecting to the sewer system. She stated either way the cost was $9,000 to $11,000 versus $9,000-$12,000. She stated further if we choose to participate and assist the Taranto’s we are looking at roughly the same figure. Mr. O’Brien stated if we are going to assess a charge for a sewer tap he felt it should be at the 2001 rate because that is when this started. Mr. Hackworth clarified the $9,000-$12,000 figure was the estimate to hook into the sewer system and did not include the tap fee. Ms Frommer stated this figure also included the cost of a fix to the pot hole in the area and remuneration for trees that were promised as a part of the deal. Mrs. Taranto stated her concern right now, being as the Health Department is aware of this issue, they can come in and shut them down at any time. Ms Gilleland stated Ms Frommer has put a lot of time in this, and the recommendation is that in light of the actions over the past several years, the City contributed 25-40 percent of the cost which amounts roughly to $2,200-$5,000. She stated in addition we can look at reducing the capacity fee back to the 2001 rate if Council desires. Ms Gilleland stated she would recommend the City stay within that range, probably closer to the lower end of that range. Ms Gilleland stated we want to help people, but we have to look at the big picture. Mr. Taranto stated this was not an Act of God, this was an act of the City. Mr. Parker stated we paid CVS $25,000 to close one of their accesses up at 256 and Refugee, and the Embroidery Barn has a loop driveway that gives two access points within 50 feet of each other. He stated there are some access management issues up there and when the Church went in up there we decided to combine the two accesses, and that is what started this mess. Mr. Parker stated he could not say whether paving the parking area caused this problem, but we do have a problem. He continued if the Taranto’s had come in and requested to hook into City services, we could tell them what the cost would be. Now, however, they are being forced to do that at this point in time, possibly because of some of the actions the city has taken over there. Mr. Parker stated he felt the city should participate in getting the Taranto’s hooked up, he felt there was probably some cause on the city’s behalf, however he did not know if he necessarily agreed with the 25-40 percent. Mr. Parker continued knowing what we have paid to other people to close accesses, he felt we should find some way where this could be added to their sewer bill and financed over time. Mr. Wiseman stated you could handle this as either an assessment or an interest free loan over however long you determine and it is billed on their utility bill. Ms Gilleland stated she would like to check that with the legal department before stating we could do that. Ms Gilleland stated further she felt it was a good decision to work with the Taranto’s to close the access, and the city did put a lot of money in at that time by paving their parking lot and doing some of the other work. Mr. O’Brien inquired if a decision must be made tonight because he would like to have more information before making a recommendation. Mr. Hackworth asked Ms Gilleland to check and see if this could be done with the assessment or payments on the utility bill. Mrs. Taranto stated she would like to make it clear that this is not something they came to the City and requested, the City approached them and they agreed to better the city. Ms Gilleland stated the issue is mostly the lack of information on both sides, the city did not have the adequate information with the installation of the parking lot nor did the owner offer the information on where the leach bed was. She stated with that the staff recommendation is the city contribute between 25-40 percent, and she again would recommend that Council look at the lower end of that. She stated she would look into the possibility of assessment and also look at the capacity fees being at the 2001 rate. Mr. Wiseman stated the assessment was for fees owed the city, it did not include the individual homeowner’s construction cost for their line. Mr. O’Brien clarified the Taranto’s were given the impression the city would pay for everything. Mr. O’Brien stated he would like a few days to look at the options that were brought up tonight. Mr. Hackworth concurred and requested staff get the information requested and provide it to the Service Committee members.

Mr. O’Brien stated Mr. Dean was present to address the Thoroughfare Plan and perhaps the Committee could address that issue at this time. Mr. Dean stated he was present this evening to address the Mink Road interchange, as he now understood ODOT did not want to put the interchange there. Mr. Dean stated his parents live on S.R. 204 and he is very familiar with the traffic pattern there. He stated the section between Refugee Road and S.R. 204 is all cornfields or woods, and he wondered if that had been a consideration when the City was doing the thoroughfare plan. Ms Frommer stated they did look at that and tried to bring an alignment together that impacted the fewest number of properties, and they attempted to identify a corridor. She stated she stressed this was identified as a corridor to be looked at and the alignment could certainly shift within that. Ms Frommer stated a lot of those decisions would be made at the time the project was considered. She stated further, this is outside the City’s jurisdiction. Mr. Schultz stated when this Thoroughfare Plan was conceived by the Township, the area Mr. Dean referred to was a planned subdivision that was in the Township and County zoning process, and since then that may have been withdrawn. Mr. Dean stated he understood this was just a plan, but it seems like if we start having our roads go into residential areas we are going to have a lot more traffic. He stated it seemed like it would be a much better decision to have the road be a straight shot, at least up to 204, even if you did not know if the interchange would be at Mink Road, Wagram Road, or whatever. He stated he would just like to have this considered. Mr. Hackworth stated once the decision on the interchange is made, then everyone will know more what they can plan. Mr. Hackworth stated with regard to the Thoroughfare Plan, it was referred back to Committee by Council. He questioned if we should recommend changing Mink Road or if it should be left there. Ms Frommer stated Ms Gilleland had suggested with regard to Mink and Taylor, and it has also been brought up with regard to Pickerington and Allen Roads, doing as you have done in the past express a preferred and an alternate for interchanges. Mr. Hackworth stated he would just as soon leave Mink Road as it is, and we do not control the road getting there anyway. Mr. Wiseman stated he sees a lot of logic in trying to combine Ault Road and Pickerington Road and having one access point up there, but that would have to happen when we know where the interchange will be. Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Yeaple of the Township requested we take another look and establish Allen Road as the preferred and Pickerington Road as the secondary because they are still attempting to lobby ODOT on the Allen Road. She stated that is our first choice and we are fine with that. Mr. Hackworth stated he would not have any problem with that, and Mr. O’Brien stated we would just attach symbols for preferred and alternate. Ms Frommer stated another issue was Cherry Hill and Courtright Drives between Diley Road and Hill Road, you were looking at reclassifying that to a local road from a minor collector. Mr. Hackworth stated he thought we should just drop the classification for the time being, just like the other subdivisions. He stated he thought we needed to think of some different east/west connectors. The Committee members concurred with Mr. Hackworth. Ms Frommer stated the next issue was extending the classification of Hill Road as a major collector further north to a little south of Opportunity Way. Mr. Wiseman stated a little south was the base of the hill, we want the traffic to slow down going up to Opportunity Way where there is poor sight distance. Ms Frommer stated she would make that change. Ms Frommer stated the final issue was the Hill Road Connector. Mr. Hackworth stated if we decide to do away with that, would Courtright handle the traffic. Ms Frommer stated the reason this has been an on-going issue is because of the two fatalities at the railroad. She stated if the Committee wants them to look at a different alignment, they can certainly do that, and if they wish it to go away it will go away. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have it remain. Ms Frommer stated she would like the Committee to recognize that if we keep it on the plan, it is a corridor, or we can change it but that will open another can of worms. She stated she needed a little more direction. Ms Gilleland stated she would go with a corridor and Mr. Wiseman stated until we have more information he did not feel we could do anything else. Ms Gilleland stated it is a corridor right now from Center Street east. Ms Frommer clarified the Hill Road Connector would be left on the plan as it is. Ms Frommer stated she would have the modified Thoroughfare Plan for Council packets. Ms Frommer stated the Committee also had the draft Transportation Improvement Plan that is ready to be shipped on to Council if the Committee desires. Mr. Hackworth moved to send the modified Thoroughfare Plan back to Council; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

D. STREET MAINTENANCE.

(1) Review and discussion of Annual Street Repaving Program. Mr. Wiseman stated he has a plan almost ready, but he is looking at the possibility of doing some micro sealing on some streets and he is getting more information and cost involved with that. He stated he should have something by the next meeting.

E. STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.

(1) Long Road/Bowen Road Stormwater – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated Mr. Hartman has provided a proposal to do a study, and it is within the City Manager’s contract authority. He stated this would be the next step in making sure we keep on with the process required by the Army Corps of Engineers and their potential funding. Mr. Wiseman stated we did some rough work and we will have Keller Farms come in and do finish work. Mr. O’Brien stated there is a definite movement to the water now.

F. TREE COMMISSION. Update. Mr. Wiseman stated the Commission met last night and he has nothing to report this evening.

6. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion (CIP# 02-03-005) – Update.

a. Wastewater Treatment Plant Stress Test Update. Mr. Wiseman stated he has not heard back from the EPA as yet.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Courtright Drive.

a. Courtright Drive Extension Project, Phase III – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated we are still negotiating with the developer.

(2) Diley Road Realignment:

a. Diley Road/256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase II – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated the contractor is back on site and we are negotiating with them on how to do pavement repairs.

b. Diley Road/S.R. 256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase III – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated the contractor will be on site next week. Ms Frommer stated three of the eminent domain ordinances will be filed tomorrow.

(3) Diley Road Improvements Project:

a. MORPC/ODOT Project – Update

b. Noise Barriers – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated at least 90 percent of the residents wanted the noise wall. Ms Frommer stated Manchester and Sheffield subdivisions picked the same wall that Council picked, and there was no response from Georges Creek. She stated Cherry Hill is a toss up, with half of the homes who abut the wall wanting brick and the other half wanting the dry stack rock. Ms Frommer stated with regard to Georges Creek, the survey sent out stated if there was no response it would be assumed they did not want the wall. She stated further there were only two surveys sent out, one to Maronda as they own the lots, and one to the one house that has been sold. Ms Gilleland stated today was the deadline for returning the surveys, and she would like to make a phone call to Maronda before we do anything. Ms Gilleland stated ODOT does not need a formal action, they just need to know what we want on each side. Mr. O’Brien stated then he understood each subdivision has agreed they want the dry stacked rock and Council has chosen that same finish for the street side of the wall. Ms Gilleland stated Council had, by motion, chosen the dry stacked rock, however, in talking with people from ODOT they stated they felt the brick was the best looking and given the fact that the concrete sidewalk would abut the noise wall, it would could look very cold with the concrete noise wall and the brick might warm things up.

(4) Cover/Ebright Connector (CIP#02-03-010)

a. Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated our attorney is working with the attorney representing the owners of the property. He stated he hoped some type of resolution could be reached on this issue.

(5) I-70/S.R. 256 Joint Improvements Project with Reynoldsburg and ODOT – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated the arm is up and we anticipate signage and stripping to occur the week of April 25^th.

(6) Traffic Signal Update. Mr. Wiseman stated he had no update at this time.

(7) Traffic Improvement Plan (TIP) – Update. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to continue this issue until the next meeting.

Ms Gilleland stated with regard to Diley Road, Phase III, she would like to address the road that Kroger wants to put in. Mr. Schultz stated he had a concept plan that would likely help alleviate traffic in the Diley Road/Kroger area. Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission approved a preliminary plan to extend a road south to Diley Road, and it would be a three lane public street that would connect to existing Diley Road. Mr. Schultz stated existing Diley Road was proposed to be cul de sac’d at Windmiller Drive, and with this plan it would continue to just past the South Central property. He stated this would also help provide better access to the Schaffner property. Mr. Schultz stated since the Planning and Zoning meeting Tuesday night, he received an e-mail from Kroger that they have some financial concerns on this roadway. Ms Frommer stated we look at all aspects of development when it comes in, and we have been negotiating in good faith with the Kroger people about what kind of effect the expansion of their property and the development of those out lots will have on the area. She stated further we thought that by making this a three lane as opposed to two lanes as they originally proposed, curb and gutter section and doing some of the geometrics changes we recommended such as closing accesses and consolidating the out lot accesses, it would improve the safety of the intersection. She stated if Kroger’s financial concern becomes something they are not will to get past, she is not willing to get past the two versus three lane issue and would recommend you consider requesting a traffic impact study in this area. Mr. O’Brien questioned then the road that was approved at Planning and Zoning, if they say they are not going to pay for the road, did that mean that approval became null and void. Mr. Schultz stated Kroger would then have to come back to Planning and Zoning with another plan showing it as two lane and a cul de sac. Ms Gilleland stated Kroger is asking for $250,000 at the entrance to be dedicated to the City and for the extra lane of pavement another $190,000. Ms Gilleland stated our engineer does not agree with those figures, but we would look at sharing in the cost of putting in the additional lane. Ms Gilleland stated she would keep the Committee informed on this issue.

Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have the Access Management Plan as an agenda item next month.

(8) Proposed Meadows Blvd. Closure. Mr. Wiseman stated he would like to look at other options at Meadows Blvd. rather than just doing a cul de sac. He stated we can look at different design options for that intersection with anything from stop signs all the way up to a round about. Mr. Wiseman stated we may be creating more problems by making Meadows Blvd. a cul de sac, and he just wanted to make sure we look at all the options.

C. WATER:

(1) Wellfield Investigation – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated he is expecting a report on our impact, or lack of impact, on Pickerington Ponds within the next month.

D. STORMWATER. No Report.

7. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hackworth stated he had nothing to bring forward.

8. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. O’Brien stated he felt it might be time to revisit the whole issue with Kroger. He stated one of the big questions that has not been answered, nor been addressed, is the South Central Power substation there. Mr. Wiseman stated we only need a tiny piece of the gravel at South Central to make that concept plan work.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Parker moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 10:28 P.M., April 14, 2005.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk