CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 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, Ami Taranto, Todd Boone, Mike Sabatino, and others.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 14, 2005, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. O’Brien 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: 

 

A.        Mr. Todd Boone, 644 Montmorency Drive stated he was present to address the flooding that occurred on December 23rd.  He stated at a previous meeting he attended it was stated that the City wanted to get all of the residents information on what they lost, deductibles, etc.  He stated it was said then the City would look at everyone on a case-by-case basis because the $2,500 figure wasn’t going over well with anyone.  He stated he received a letter two days ago stating that after the appraiser had been there, after he had gone through all the work of itemizing all the contents, and his insurance covered only the structure not the contents of the basement, then he had approximately $7,200 of loss after the depreciation.  Mr. Boone stated he had then received the letter from Mr. Wiseman stating he was approved for $2,500.  Mr. Boone stated he would like to know how much deliberating went on from the $7,200 to come to the same number that was offered months ago.  Mr. Boone stated no-one has been offered more than the $2,500 so he wondered what kind of case-by-case review was done.  Mr. Hackworth stated Council had originally authorized the City Manager to pay for deductibles on insurance and those items the insurance wouldn’t pay, up to $2,500.  He stated beyond that they agreed to look at the claims on a case-by-case basis.  Mr. Hackworth stated part of the letter sent out deals with the stragglers that have not got back to the City, they have until May 20th.  Mr. Hackworth stated once May 20th comes around, the City will review the claims case-by-case.  He stated the City needs to see what the whole picture is to see if there are any other issues that need to be addressed.  Mr. Boone stated he felt it was a little underhanded on the City’s part to send him a letter trying to get him in to say he would take the $2,500 since he wouldn’t get anything else as it was not mentioned in the letter he received that if you wait until the deadline of May 20th, the City will look at the claims on a case-by-case basis and there may be more funds.  Mr. Boone stated that is what he is getting from the conversation tonight.  Ms Gilleland stated there were many claims under $2,500 and they have been taken care of.  Mr. Boone stated that was his point, the letter should have stated that after the stragglers get in, the claims will be looked at on a case-by-case basis to see where the City is at.  He stated if he had not been present this evening to hear that, and he had just accepted the $2,500, he would not have known that.  Mr. Hackworth stated what is being paid out right now is what the criteria was for the original appropriation, and that was insurance deductible and what the insurance wouldn’t cover up to $2,500.  He stated beyond that we have been trying to get everyone to get their claims in, and he thought the letter gave the May 20th deadline.  Mr. Wiseman stated the letter Mr. Boone received did not give the May 20th deadline as we already had his information, however, in his conversation with Mr. Boone in the last few days he was told the $2,500 is what was authorized by ordinance and if he wished to submit an additional claim he should submit that in writing to Service Committee for their consideration.  Mr. Boone questioned what more he had to do.  He stated he has given the City all the information, and why did he have to file another claim and ask for more money when he has already done it.  Mr. Wiseman stated he did not have to file an additional claim, he just needed to write a letter to Service Committee stating he would like reconsideration above the $2,500.  Mr. Boone stated he would like someone to write it down now that that was his request.  He stated he thought it was clear, and why would he even respond to the $2,500 if his claim was $7,200.  Mr. Boone stated he felt this was not his fault, it was the City’s, and that he should be fully compensated.  Mr. Hackworth stated Mr. Boone should submit a letter stating that.  Mr. Boone stated he felt that he was spinning his wheels and wasting his time because the City would just put another letter in the mail saying he could get $2,500, take it or leave it.  Ms Gilleland stated Service Committee has not reviewed the claims, the City has paid out those that have been authorized up to $2,500 by the appraiser.  She stated, again, when we get all the claims in that is the time we want them to consider those claims, on a case-by-case basis, that are over and above the $2,500 and the property owners are requesting additional assistance for.  She stated we will be looking for extenuating circumstances on the claims, as once again, our insurance company and our attorney have stated and restated that the City is not liable.  She stated we are doing this as an act of good will, Council authorized the $2,500 and we will be looking at each claim on a case-by-case basis to determine the merits of that case.  She stated what she would like is a simple letter pointing out why they want additional consideration, such as being rejected by their insurance company, going to FEMA, and things of that nature.  Mr. Boone stated Ms Gilleland had stated the City would look into sending a company out to have the homes evaluated for mold and things of that nature.  He stated someone from Ms Gilleland’s office should have been assigned to contact the homeowners and he has had no contact from anyone in regards to that issue.  Mr. Boone stated if he does not go out and do it himself, it does not get done.  Ms Gilleland stated she recalled we stated we would establish a list of companies that would be available for that.  Mr. Boone stated then, he was responsible for calling in and getting that list, and asked if Ms Gilleland had that list right now.  Ms Gilleland stated we have one company that has been recommended by the Health Department that does do that.  Mr. Boone stated he was sure that was put in the letter regarding the $2,500 and sent out to all the families.  Ms Gilleland stated it was not included in the letter.  Mr. Boone stated the City does not follow through.  Mr. Parker stated he is a part-time council person and his job is not to run the city on a day-to-day basis and micromanage it.  He stated that is why we have Mr. Wiseman and a City Manager.  Mr. Parker stated he was not aware this letter was sent out until today, however, an ordinance was passed because Council was trying to do something in good faith to get $2,500 out to the people.  He stated he was trying to come up to speed on the whole thing because as part-time people you try to let the staff do what they’re doing, and if the staff is not doing something that is, in the eyes of Service Committee, the way it should be handled they will discuss it and do something different.  Mr. Wiseman clarified seven residents have taken a check, four have had purchase orders cut, and there are two who have indicated they will probably not file a claim.  Mr. Wiseman stated Mr. Parker had that information tonight.  Mr. Parker stated this information was given to him tonight and he has not had a chance to review it.  Mr. Parker stated he thought we would get to the position where they would have to deal with the claims on a case-by-case basis because you cannot do a blanket sweep with everyone.  He stated he thought there was an attempt on a blanket sweep with this letter to say there was $2,500 available, those who are taking advantage of it came in and took it, and we are now down to the 13 that need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  He stated he did felt the request being asked at this time may even benefit the resident by putting it down in writing, in case they want to take any other action.  Mr. Parker stated once we get that letter back, he assumed the staff would bring the residents in, sit them down, say here is what the claim is, what can we do?  He further stated he assumed at that point in time staff would make a recommendation to Service Committee and they would make a decision on what should or should not be paid.  Mr. Boone stated the sit down is where he thought he was at, he did not think he was going to have to write another letter and have to go through another step.  Mr. Boone stated Mr. Parker is on the Committee that reviews the claims, and he is a little distressed that he is just now learning about this, why isn’t he kept in the loop.  Mr. Parker stated he is being kept in the loop and that is why the information was provided to him tonight.  Mr. Parker stated at the last meeting the Committee discussed the process of putting all the information together, getting it to Service Committee, and getting it in an organized form.  He stated the City was not trying to wear anyone out and try to make them take money they don’t want to have. Mr. Parker asked at what point in time we will bring Mr. Boone in and sit down with him and discuss the difference between the $2,500 and the $7,200 he is claiming.  Mr. Wiseman stated he felt Council should consider an executive session on things above and beyond what the ordinance authorizes.  Mr. Sabatino inquired what justification there would be for discussing that in an executive session.  Ms Gilleland stated she would ask the residents wait until May 20th to ensure the Committee has all of the information and knows what the complete picture is, and then they can determine the next course of action.  Mr. Parker clarified May 20th is the deadline for all claims to be filed.  Ms Gilleland stated that was correct and at some point in time she may or may not need to sit down with the residents requesting additional assistance.  She stated she has been in contact with most of them and she may be able to just take the information to Council or the Service Committee.  Mr. Parker stated he would request Mr. Boone take the step being requested and send a letter stating he declined the $2,500 and would like his claim be looked at on a case-by-case basis.  Mr. Parker stated he felt after the deadline passed he felt the City can sit down with everyone and start going through on a case-by-case basis.  He stated he thought Mr. Wiseman had recommended an executive session because of the fact that there may be legal issues that could come up where we could be sued and you discuss those types of things behind closed doors.  He stated you certainly don’t want to discuss a legal case in a public manner.  Mr. Parker stated the $2,500, in his opinion, was not the end all of the situation and he hoped Council could sit down and negotiate and find some money to help the people out that have been affected.  Mr. Boone requested someone send him the name of the company to have the mold issue checked.  Mr. Wiseman stated Mr. Boone would get the name of the company recommended by the Health Department tomorrow.  Ms Gilleland stated she hesitated in promising any payment to anyone, she felt it was important to look at each case on a case-by-case basis, but we also need to look at the big picture.  She stated we may have $100,000 in claims out there, we just don’t know, we haven’t heard from about five people and we just don’t know.  She stated that all needs to be taken into consideration so she does not want to make promises we will not be able to deliver on.  Mr. Parker stated he did not feel he made any promise, he is one voting member of seven members of Council and he would do what he can to help them.  He stated this would probably come to a vote of Council. Mr. Hackworth clarified six individuals have not yet responded and it appeared two of those six would not be filing a claim.  Mr. Wiseman stated there are three claims that are above the $2,500 and letters have been sent to those individuals.  Mr. Boone stated he read that letter as an ultimatum to either take the money or not, that was what the City was offering, and stating they were required to sign a waiver.  Mr. Hackworth requested those three individuals be sent another letter ensuring they are aware that May 20th is the cut off date for them to submit a request for further consideration. 

 

Mr. Sabatino stated he was speaking as a private citizen who had some damage with this sewer issue. Mr. Sabatino stated he is surprised he is hearing about this additional letter requirement for the first time tonight.  He stated if Mr. Boone had not come to the meeting tonight he would not have known about that requirement, so how would these individuals know that.  Mr. Sabatino stated he felt it was the City’s duty to inform the residents of what is available to them, not what is most advantageous to the City.  He stated he would like to thank the City for their generous offer of $20.42, but he did not think he would be taking that.  He stated he intentionally has not wasted his time to put together a list of times because it is his contention that things would be handled on a case-by-case basis, and then it was $2,500 take it or leave it, so since he knows he is not going to take it, why waste his time to put that information together.  Mr. Sabatino stated his question was if he did not fill out the City’s form, would that preclude him from being able to sue the City.  Mr. Hartmann stated filling out the form is not a prerequisite for him to pursue an action against the City, but he recommended Mr. Sabatino consult his personal attorney if he had questions relating to that.  Mr. O’Brien inquired if there should be a point in time when Mr. Sabatino had to excuse himself from any discussions regarding this situation on Council or Committee, not as a private citizen, but as a councilman.  Mr. Hartmann stated it is an interesting issue because you have the first amendment right of a citizen who has been grieved coupled with him being a councilmember who cannot contribute to his own good by deliberating with council.  Mr. Hartmann further stated in his capacity tonight he could put something before Service Committee as there is no ordinance that is currently pending, but he would suggest that, if he were in Mr. Sabatino’s position, he would have someone else doing the talking for him.  He stated further if these decisions have to go to Council for approval he would not be able to deliberate or vote at all.  Mr. Sabatino stated what his intentions were, at the point in time when he retains counsel to represent him on this issue, then any negotiations or discussions at that point would be attorney to attorney.  He continued, however, he believed it was his right as a private citizen, and he has obtained legal advice on just where and how to express his opinions.  He stated he has never once made any suggestion on how council should do things, he is merely expressing how it has influenced himself and how it has impacted him, his feelings about that, and what other people have expressed to him.  Mr. O’Brien stated he was not trying to deny his right to say anything, he was just trying to make sure there was a level playing field and that everyone understood the rules.  He stated Mr. Sabatino is a citizen and can speak all he wants, he was not trying to deny that or interfere with that.  Mr. Wiseman stated the City did not offer Mr. Sabatino $20.42, the City has no other basis for determining what Mr. Sabatino is requesting because we have no further information. Mr. Hackworth stated Mr. Sabatino has a responsibility to provide staff with a list of what he wants to be reimbursed for.  Mr. Sabatino stated the reason he has not provided information is because he has not seen any action and five months has passed, and when it looks like it might be worthwhile to put the information together he will do so.  Mr. Sabatino stated he has never been told about the requirement to provide a request to Service Committee for consideration above and beyond the offer of $2,500 for the totality of these claims.  He stated he is fully aware of what has been done thus far. Mr. Wiseman clarified that Mr. Sabatino was aware that to proceed the City needs the information from him to proceed.  Mr. Wiseman stated if Mr. Sabatino would like the City to proceed on what he wants, we need the information, and that is a letter from him saying what he needs.  Mr. Sabatino stated if he had not been at this meeting, how would he or any other resident have known about that requirement.  Mr. Hackworth stated the Manager will be sending out another letter, and he would move to the next item on the agenda. 

 

4.         PLANNING AND ZONING

 

A.        REPORTS:

 

                       (1)         BZA Report.  Mr. Schultz stated in April there was one variance request for a fence in Sheffield and in May there is one agenda item for a variance on minimum house size on Reynolds Avenue. 

 

            (2)        Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. O’Brien) Mr. O’Brien stated Planning and Zoning met on Tuesday and they approved a Comprehensive Sign Plan for the BP Service Station, approved a Conditional Use Permit to construct new bleachers and press box at Pickerington Central High School, and approved a Comprehensive Sign Plan for the old creamery on Church Street.  

 

B.                 ACTION ITEMS: 

 

            (1)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance accepting the final plat for the Wellington Park Subdivision – Section 1 (Virginia Homes).  Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission approved this at their April meeting.  He stated Violet Township Trustees approved this development in 2001, and the land was annexed in the 362 acre annexation in March 2005.  Mr. Schultz stated the Plan that was approved in the Township permitted 423 total units, 243 single family and 175 condominiums on 145 acres.  He stated the Section 1 final plat would consist of 41 lots on 23 acres, and there would be two curb cuts on Milnor Road.   Mr. Schultz stated for final plat approval we review construction drawings and those are in the process of being reviewed.  He stated we are also in the process of working on an agreement with the Township on the sanitary sewer issues.  He continued the City is reviewing with the applicant the underground and above ground utility inspection issues and the other various issues that occur when we are in the transition from Township requirements to City requirements.  Mr. Schultz stated the City recently approved a Thoroughfare Plan with an alignment in the southern portion of the property and that would occur in Sections 2 and 3 of the final plats.  Mr. Schultz stated the City met with the applicant last week and they would provide costs to us for that alignment and we will review those costs and provide them to the Service Committee when it is received.  Mr. Schultz stated staff did recommend one access road to Milnor in this development be cul de sac’d, with the idea there will be a second access with the new connection to Milnor Road.  He stated there are four conditions for approval:  (1)  Construction drawings shall be approved by the City prior to the Service Committee in May.  He stated at this time construction drawings have not been approved, and we are in negotiation with the developer on a few issues.  He stated therefore we could table this or move that requirement to prior to the third reading at Council.  (2) Bretforton Street, N.W. be redesigned to a cul de sac; (3) Perimeter mounding, fencing, and landscaping requirements on Milnor Road be reviewed and approved by the City; and, (4) a Homeowner’s Association shall be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to the third reading by Council.  Mr. O’Brien inquired if the lack of approval on the construction drawings was due to a backlog or to working out issues.  Mr. Schultz stated there are several issues that have occurred with this annexation.  Mr. Wiseman stated the advantage to keeping this moving until the third reading is that it keeps the developer on schedule, and if everything is worked out by the third reading he does not lose any time for starting his construction.  Mr. O’Brien stated by not moving it forward would also make him more aggressively pursue an agreement.  Mr. Schultz stated the construction drawings were approved in the County and because of the annexation and some issues that have occurred, some of the drawings were not submitted to the City, and he did not think the developer was aware they needed to be submitted to the City.  Mr. Schultz stated we are also looking at stormwater and street issues.  Ms Frommer stated with regard to the construction drawing issues, we had no objection to the water or sewer plans as to whether they are County or City standards, they are the same EPA standards.  She stated the issue right now is the developer wanted to avoid any potential problems for having a development inspected in the City, by a City inspector, on County standards.  Ms Frommer stated after contacting the County Engineer she has not received a reply regarding the difference between the City street and storm standards and County street and storm standards.  She stated she did not expect the street standards to be an issue, but the stormwater may be an issue.  Mr. Hackworth requested the conditions for approval be included with the ordinance.  Mr. O’Brien stated there has been concern on Council about issues coming forth in an incomplete manner, and he felt this fell along those same lines.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to ensure the conditions are incorporated into the ordinance.  Mr. O’Brien stated that would not change the fact that this has not been approved by the Building Department.  Mr. Parker stated he would agree to move it forward, and if the developer does not meet the conditions by the third reading, then it will be tabled by Council.  Ms Gilleland ascertained staff was confident the conditions would be resolved prior to the third reading.  Mr. Hartmann stated the conditions would be attached and incorporated as an exhibit to the ordinance.  Mr. Hackworth stated that would be fine, he just wanted to make sure all of Council was aware of what the conditions were.  Mr. Parker stated if it came out of this Committee unanimously and it is made clear to Council that all of the Committee members concurred that if the conditions were not met then it would be tabled before the third reading.  Mr. Hackworth moved to forward to Council with the conditions attached to the ordinance; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

5.         SERVICE DEPARTMENT

 

Mr. Hackworth stated he would move to the Taranto’s Pizza issue at this time.  Mr. Parker stated he had met with Mr. Wiseman and Ms Taranto and he has gone out and looked at this situation.  Mr. Parker stated at the last meeting it was discussed there were several issues that needed to be taken care of.  He stated in trying to work with the City, the Taranto’s allowed us to close an access on S.R. 256, and so we paved their parking lot.  He stated since that time there has been some problems with their leach bed.  He stated if those problems are the City’s fault we should get in there and clean it up, however, he is not sure it is completely the City’s fault.  Mr. Parker continued that he felt if the City took fifty percent of the responsibility it would be fair.  Mr. Parker stated it would be approximately between $9,000 and $12,000 to run a sewer line in there, a tap fee of $3,900, some trees, and a pothole that needs to be fixed.  He stated he understood the total was approximately $16,000 and he saw no reason why the City could not give them about $8,000 and that would be fair to them.  Mr. Parker stated the City would not give them a tap fee, we cannot do that by law, however, the Taranto’s would be able to finance the tap fee over a ten year period.  He stated if the City paid the Taranto’s he would request they sign a waiver that from this point forward they were on their own to get it done.  Mr. Hackworth stated he was willing to support the $8,000 payment and allow a special assessment on the tap fee so it could be paid over the ten years.  Mrs. Taranto stated she could agree to that proposal, knowing that she could finance the tap fee.  Ms Frommer stated the waiver has been drafted by the attorney.  Ms Gilleland stated she would like a point of clarification on the figure.  She stated we had talked about the City being wholly responsible for the trees.  She stated she wanted to make sure we would pay all of that cost as we had agreed to, and the repair of the parking lot is $500.  Ms Gilleland stated the capacity fee is $3,800 and we would allow them to assess that over ten years, which leaves the cost of the sewer lateral connection between $9,000 and $12,000.  Mr. Wiseman stated it was his understanding the $8,000 covered all of those items, the sanitary sewer line, the trees, and the pothole.  Mr. Hackworth clarified the cost of the trees were $1,300 and the Taranto’s could use that as cash if they did not want the trees.  Mr. Wiseman stated he would like to clarify if the Committee was considering a total of $8,000 or $9,300.  Mr. Parker stated he would recommend approving the $8,000 and one-half of the $1,300, for a total of $8,650.  Mr. Parker stated he would just like to ensure we have a signed waiver so if there are additional costs that come up, the City will not be responsible.  Mr. Parker moved to approve the payment of $8,650 to Taranto’s Pizza for settlement of the sewer issue and with the requirement that a waiver be signed by the Taranto’s; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

Mr. Hackworth stated Mayor Miller of Canal Winchester was present to address the Committee this evening.  Mayor Miller stated he was present this evening to speak to the Committee regarding a water issue.  He stated they currently have three wells that they use to process water and they are nearing 60 years old.  Mayor Miller stated they recently had a collapse of one of the screens and they are now down to two wells.  He stated two of the wells they drilled in the Canal Pointe area are in Pickerington’s service area, and the Village of Canal Winchester has no intention of infringing on the current service agreement.  He stated, however, they do have a need for water.  Mayor Miller stated they are in the process of getting approval to build a new water treatment plant and the plans were to use the existing three wells and another couple of wells on High and Bowen.  Mayor Miller stated their plans were to take High Street over the top of U.S. 33 and connect again to Bowen, however, ODOT has refused to let them put that overpass in because of the potential environmental impact it would have on the wells.  Mayor Miller stated Canal Winchester has signed an agreement that was filed in Court, that stated Canal Winchester agreed they would not develop and/or install water wells or water lines within the area covered by the water agreement without the City of Pickerington’s express written permission as set forth in that agreement.  Mayor Miller stated he was looking for the express written permission from Pickerington to allow him to get to those wells so he can serve his town in a critical situation.  Mr. Hackworth stated he did not have a problem with the concept, however, he felt we needed to ensure we protect our wells and our water.  Mayor Miller stated he was present this evening to merely open up dialogue.  Ms Gilleland clarified the engineering is done for the water plant and they need to get raw water to it.  Mr. O’Brien stated he appreciated Mayor Miller coming this evening.  Ms Gilleland stated she would like to work on this on a staff level and then bring it back to Committee when she has more information. 

 

A.        ACTION ITEMS:  None.

 

B.         WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Pickerington Hills Water Main Loop Project – Update.  Mr. Wiseman stated this project is complete.  Mr. Hackworth stated this could be removed from the agenda.   

 

            (2)        Review and discussion of utility billing.  Mr. Wiseman stated he had provided a recommendation to the Committee.  He stated if we go to the system that uses letter size it will give us the ability to add inserts monthly, and down the road to accept payment by phone, credit card, etc. He stated it is a little more expensive but gives us more options, and the more customers we have the less costly it will be.  Mr. Wiseman stated he felt is was not a matter of cost as much as providing a better product to our customers.  Mr. Wiseman stated currently our cost is $1,800 to $1,900 per month and if we go to letter size with envelopes it will go to about $2,400 a month and it will provide a better service.  Ms Gilleland stated further we can add up to eight pages in the envelope so we can add parks information, notices, a newsletter, etc., and the only additional cost would be the paper.  Mr. Wiseman stated he would need a motion from this Committee to authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement for the equipment.  Mr. O’Brien moved to forward legislation to Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement for the equipment; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

            (3)        Water Softening Salt – Update.  Mr. Wiseman stated we will be bidding the water softening salt contract for the water plant.  He stated the previous ordinance allowed us to extend the contract for two years for both street and water softening salt if the price did not increase. He stated Cargill has agreed to extend the contract for two years for the road salt, however, Morton Salt could not extend at the same price for the water softening salt.  He stated once we receive the bids he will bring it to the Committee for approval. 

 

C.        WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Sewer back-up issues - Update.  Mr. Hackworth stated this had been covered earlier and a letter would be coming out to explain the deadline and if they were rejecting the City’s offer they should write a letter explaining why and providing detailed information.  Ms Gilleland stated the letter would also include the name of the company for the mold abatement.  Mr. Boone stated all the residents may want that information, and Ms Gilleland stated it would be included in the letter.  Mr. Sabatino inquired what type of information the Committee would require that was above and beyond what had already been provided.  Mr. Hackworth stated the original appropriation was dealing with insurance deductibles, clean-up, items that were not covered under the insurance policy up to $2,500.  He continued if there were other issues the resident felt was the City’s responsibility then that should be in the letter.  Mr. Sabatino inquired if the ordinance was intended only for clean up and not for replacement of property.  Ms Gilleland stated she did not recall exactly what the ordinance said.  Mr. Sabatino stated if he recalled at the last Service Committee meeting the $2,500 figure came from Service Master so you would think it was only for clean-up.   Mr. Sabatino stated some people may have to take out drywall, doors, trim, insulation that was contaminated with sewer water, and then have it all replaced.  He stated that has a cost and then you also have whatever personal property was damaged by contamination with sewer water in addition to the clean up.  He inquired if one of the requirements for the letter is a statement that this would be why they felt their needs were above the $2,500.  Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to know what type of reasons the City was looking for and could they create some type of form they could respond to.  Mr. Hackworth stated he felt it was the basic question as to why they felt the City should pay for the replacement versus the homeowner’s insurance.  Ms Gilleland stated she would request a letter from the residents who are requesting additional consideration, and simply state why.  She stated some people have been denied insurance coverage, some have been told if they filed a claim they will be canceled, some have been to FEMA and received some money, and some have finished basements.  She stated there are a lot of different considerations we may want to take into account, and these are all things we would want to hear about.  She stated we need the big picture and how much is out there in claims before we can make any decisions.  She stated the more information provided the better.  Mr. Sabatino inquired again if a form could be created for these people to fill out to be considered above the initial offer of $2,500.  Mr. Hackworth stated everyone’s situation is different and we need to know their situations.  Mr. Boone inquired if the City would meet with everyone, because his concern was his letter would not be sympathetic enough.  He stated he would like to be able to come in and meet and tell the City why he felt he should be paid the amount of the appraiser’s assessment. Ms Gilleland stated that made sense, however, they have not determined the process beyond asking people to send a letter.  She stated she would like to speak with our attorney and see what he advises as far as the process.  Mr. Parker stated they are trying to do what is best, and if there was an oversight he apologized for everyone involved.  He stated we would make sure everyone is contacted so no-one is left out of the loop.  He further stated if people choose to totally ignore us then that is their prerogative.  Mr. Parker stated he felt one of the reasons we want to sit down with people is because someone may feel their property is more valuable than it is.  Ms Gilleland stated we do have the appraiser’s information, but the question is how much responsibility does the City want to accept for something that we have been advised we are not liable for.  She stated offering the $2,500 was a very nice gesture but we need to think long and hard about any amount over that.  

 

            (2)        Review and discussion regarding Taranto’s Pizza.  Mr. Hackworth stated this was dealt with earlier in the meeting. 

 

            (3)        Review and discussion regarding EPA 208 Plan.  Ms Frommer stated the document the Committee received this evening is what is referred to as the 208 Plan.  She stated the Clean Water Act that everyone is familiar with was passed quite some time ago, and Section 208 of that plan calls for the preparedness of a water quality management plan for entities in the State of Ohio that have jurisdiction over sanitary sewers.  She stated she was just bringing this forward this evening to notify the Committee that the EPA is looking to get together a clean up of this particular document so that any point in the future should any entity apply for a Permit to Install, that they must be the entity allowed to serve that area.  She stated because this issue is one that will go on until the plan is updated, the Committee authorize staff to work with Fairfield County to pen an agreement in concept that they would provide utility service in their lacking area and not deny it.  Mr. Wiseman stated we just want to be able to set up an agreement with the County so if there is an overlap area we can work it out without having to worry about the 208 Plan.  Mr. O’Brien clarified the County is amenable to an agreement.  Ms Frommer stated she was just keeping the Committee aware of this requirement. 

 

D.        STREET MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Review and discussion of Annual Street Repaving Program.  Mr. Wiseman stated he has submitted his proposal for the 2005 paving project and with the Committee’s approval he will put it out for bid.  He stated he will bring it back to Committee once we have the bid opening. Mr. O’Brien inquired if it was possible to get a warranty or a guarantee on the pavement they receive.  Mr. Wiseman stated we have a year, which is standard, but we may want to consider extending that to three to five years.  Mr. O’Brien inquired what the increase in cost would be to obtain that extra warranty and Ms Frommer stated she felt it would be minimal.  Mr. O’Brien stated he felt the City should take measures to try and get a longer warranty.  Ms Gilleland stated the annual street repaving program was a part of the contingency budget.  She stated we anticipated spending $150,000, and at this point it appears we will have $125,000 available.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would recommend we proceed with bidding out the entire project and if there is less money available, he can subtract some streets.  Mr. Hackwork moved to authorize the bidding of the street repaving program as presented by Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

E.         STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Long Road/Bowen Road Stormwater – Update.  Mr. Wiseman stated he had no update this evening.  Mr. O’Brien stated hydra mulch was sprayed along the ditch, and inquired if we were going to make this look better.  Mr. Wiseman stated he would look at this. 

 

F.         TREE COMMISSION.  Update.  Mr. Wiseman stated he had 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 we received the official letter authorizing us to go to 1.6 MGD per day and he will be working with our consultant to reapply for our NPDES permit to reflect that.       

 

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 City has reached an agreement with the contractor on a dollar figure that we will provide to get that ground down and repaved. 

 

                        b.         Diley Road/S.R. 256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase III – Update.   Mr. Wiseman stated we are proceeding well. 

 

Mr. Hackworth stated he understood we had five ordinances dealing with this project this evening.  Mr. Hartmann stated the first dealt with Pickerington Company, LLC, and was to accept the donation of 0.709 acres, more or less, fee simple interest, and a 0.180 acres more or less, easement donated by One Pickerington Company, LLC.  He stated the ordinance regarding Roberta Schaffner was to begin the appropriation case against them.  He stated we have a right-of-entry currently, and we were in hopes that Kroger would put in a public road as part of their project but they have refused to do that. He stated Schaffner wanted that road in there and we are making it contingent upon this so we need to move forward with the appropriation case at this point.  Mr. Hartmann stated the ordinance dealing with the Shankland’s is the settlement we reached for the appraised value and he would request for Shankland and Harr that we do three readings so we can pay them since we are on their property.  Mr. Hartmann stated the ordinance dealing with Giltz was to accept a 0.341 acres, more or less, fee simple interest.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve these ordinances and forward them to Council; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

Mr. O’Brien inquired why we would pay the contractor to do additional work on the Diley Road Phase II project.  He stated we did not cause their delays and he did not feel there was any reason the City should have to pay anything for that bad of a paving job.  Mr. Wiseman stated he agreed, however, weighing the cost of taking it to court to prove our point and the cost that we will pay to get them finished and gone, it was deemed better to proceed in this manner.  Ms Gilleland stated this has been discussed extensively and she agreed this was the best way to proceed. 

 

(3)        Diley Road Improvements Project:

 

                        a.         MORPC/ODOT Project – Update.  Ms Frommer stated as soon as we have the environmental clearance on the project, the Committee can authorize the right-of-way consultant to proceed.  

 

                        b.         Noise Barriers – Update.  Ms Frommer stated Manchester and Sheffield have responded they would like the dry stacked rock on the side facing the homes, and Cherry Hill has selected the brick.  She continued Georges Creek, which is Maronda Homes, has not responded to date.  She stated further she would like to clarify if Council had interest in altering their previous opinion about dry stacked rock on the roadway side versus brick.  She stated this was based on the fact that the dry stacked rock would be abutting a sidewalk directly and may have a more sterile look.  Ms Gilleland stated she would like to discuss this issue next month after she has had a chance to visit a site with the brick.  Ms Gilleland stated with regard to the Georges Creek issue, it would be nice not to spend the money on the noise wall, however, a few years down the road when the homes are built, the residents may want the wall.  She stated she felt it would be better to build the wall now rather than revisit it in a few years.  Ms Frommer stated if the Committee members would like to think about this until the next meeting that would be fine.   

 

            (4)        Review of Access Management Plan.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to continue this item on the agenda for next month. 

 

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

 

                        a.         Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update.  Mr. Hartmann stated the doctor has no interest in even meeting with the City on this issue.  He stated we need to make a decision if we want to leave it the way it is or do a legal description and acquire the property and make it a public road by eminent domain.  Ms Gilleland clarified the access is onto Dr. Buoni’s private drive from the road that we built.  Mr. Hackworth clarified we have an access from the nursing home that goes directly onto S.R. 256 that we want to close.  He stated further we have a public road that comes out of the side parking lot that goes onto a private road.  Mr. Hartmann stated the only options we have are to ignore the problem or acquire the property and make it a public road. Mr. Wiseman stated it would not be a problem to take that signal out if it did not serve Kohl’s, etc., as well.  Mr. O’Brien stated we need to pursue this in some way.  Mr. Hackworth suggested we get a summary appraisal to determine what the cost of the property might be.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would see what he can get done.       

 

            (6)        I-70/S.R. 256 Joint Improvements Project with Reynoldsburg and ODOT – Update.  Ms Frommer stated at the last Safety Committee meeting the installation of a no left turn sign at the Holiday Inn was brought up, as well as, overhead signage regarding the lane that turns into a left turn only at Marcus Theater.  Ms Gilleland stated she is still reviewing this issue.  Ms Frommer stated she does not believe ODOT has completed their obligation and she has not received any word of when they will do so. 

 

            (7)        Traffic Signal Update.  Mr. Wiseman stated the Committee had discussed getting some traffic counts done before school was out, and he has a breakdown of those costs, by themselves, at $12,585.  He stated Stilson can have someone out very shortly and we can get the study done before school is out. 

 

                        a.         Discussion regarding Refugee Road/Windmiller Drive Traffic Signal.  Ms Gilleland stated this signal is funded this year, and is not included in the study.  She stated we will be proceeding with this project. 

 

                        (8)        Traffic Improvement Plan (TIP) – Update.  Ms Frommer stated the Committee had received the list of projects in 0-5 years, 5-10 years, and beyond 10 years.  She stated all of the issues have been resolved.  Mr. Wiseman stated the Committee had determined they did not want to send this forward until the Thoroughfare Plan was approved by Council.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0.  

 

            (9)        Proposed Meadows Blvd. Closure.  Mr. Wiseman stated in talking with our engineer we may actually cause more problems than we solve should we close this road.  He stated as a temporary measure, as we decide what is going to happen in the whole area, is to put a stop sign on Pickerington Road southbound, with dangerous intersection signs, etc., so it will at least make it a more safe intersection with Pickerington, Milnor, Meadows, and Center all converging in one spot.  Ms Frommer stated we could then revisit it and see how that is working at a later time.   

 

C.        WATER: 

 

            (1)        Wellfield Investigation – Update.  Mr. Hackworth inquired what effect this would have on Mayor Miller’s request.  Mr. Wiseman stated it was his understanding that the two aquifers were far enough distant that the pumping from either one will not affect the other.  He stated he should have the analysis completed on our wellfield and any potential impact on Pickerington Ponds by the end of this month.  Mr. O’Brien inquired if the other wells we talked about with Canal have anything to do with Pickerington Ponds, and Mr. Wiseman stated if he recalled correctly they did not.   

 

D.        STORMWATER.  No Report. 

 

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

 

8.         OTHER BUSINESS.  Ms Gilleland stated she would just like to make the Committee aware the LEADS program would be going through the normal process for a sign, but she wanted to make sure everyone was okay with a community sign being erected on City property.  She stated it would be a very nice addition to the gazebo park and would clean up all the individual signs that are put there. 

 

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 10:30 P.M., May 12, 2005.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk