CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Riggs present. No members were absent. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Jeff Fix, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Ed Drobina, Joe Hamilton, Jennifer Frommer, Jerry Dailey, Scott Seaman, Terry Walburn, Bruce Englehart, Mayor Miller (Canal Winchester), Joe Taylor, Matt Peeples, Ray Michalski, Bill Yaple, Dave Partridge, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 12, 2006, Work Session regarding Traffic Signal Study. Mrs. Riggs moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 12, 2006, Regular Meeting. Mrs. Riggs moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: Mr. Hackworth stated he understood several individuals were present to address an issue on Wright Road that is listed later on the agenda. He stated if anyone would like to address the Committee at this time they could do so, or if they wished they could wait until the item comes up on the agenda. There were no comments at this time.

4. PLANNING AND ZONING

A. REPORTS:

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there were no agenda items in January and there will be two items in February, a setback variance for The Embroidery Barn and a side-yard setback variance for a house on Homestead Drive.

(2) Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mrs. Hammond) Mrs. Hammond stated Planning and Zoning will meet next week.

B. ACTION ITEMS: There were no action items.

C. ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN: Mr. Hackworth stated a work session was held earlier on this issue, and he would like time to digest the information provided at that time. Mr. Hackworth stated if the Committee would like, another work session on this issue can be scheduled for next month. He stated if it would be convenient for the other Committee members another work session could be scheduled for 7:00 P.M., March 9, 2006, to discuss the Access Management Plan. Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Hammond stated that would be fine with them.

5. SERVICE DEPARTMENT

A. REPORTS:

(1) Utility Fees Review Committee Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth). Mr. Hackworth stated the Utility Fees Review Committee met in January and at their next meeting they would begin discussing user fees.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and discussion regarding funding request for renovation of water tower in the old downtown. Mr. Hackworth stated Mr. Good is not present this evening so he would like to have this continued on the agenda for the March meeting.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing agreement with W.E. Stilson Consulting Group, LLC, for Well No. 7. Mr. Hackworth stated the Committee had received a draft ordinance for this item. Mr. Drobina stated this agreement is for the design and the bidding process of the additional well at the Diley Road wellfield, and the total amount is for $48,100. Mr. Hackworth clarified this agreement does not include inspections. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward to Council; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

C. WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. Mr. Drobina stated we had a water main break on East Columbus Street last week and that has been repaired.

D. WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. Ms Frommer stated your Public Works Integrating Committee District 17 has awarded you a grant for the Mingo water line project in conjunction with a sanitary sewer and road improvement project. She stated that application was done jointly with the County and the Township. Mr. Hackworth clarified the grant was somewhere in the amount of $400,000 and the City’s portion is approximately $80,000.

E. STREET MAINTENANCE. No Report.

F. STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. Mr. Drobina stated we did not receive the grant for the storm water, sidewalk, and curb work on Long Road from Columbus Street to Diley Road. He stated he and Ms Frommer were going to start work on another grant application for this project to be submitted in the fall.

G. TREE COMMISSION. Update. Mr. Drobina stated Margie Milnor no longer lives in the City; however, the Tree Commission would like to request a proclamation making her an honorary member. He stated she is one of the founding members of the Tree Commission. Ms Gilleland stated she would request the Mayor’s office prepare a proclamation on this issue.

6. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update. Ms Frommer stated she had no update this evening.

(2) D-Line Interceptor Sewer Phase IIIB – Update. Ms Frommer stated they would be initiating the railroad bore, which is the final phase of the project, in the next week or so. She stated we are awaiting the railroad’s final approval of the licensing agreement to get that scheduled. Ms Frommer stated the gravity line that is being put in would essentially take the Lakes Edge lift station off line at some point. She further stated you have a force main improvement project planned in the CIP this year that is very necessary and until you get that force main built, we will maintain the mechanical operation of the Lakes Edge lift station to ease the burden of the current force main.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Courtright Drive.

a. Courtright Drive Extension Project, Phase III – Update. Ms Gilleland stated she would like to discuss this issue in an Executive Session.

(2) Diley Road Improvements Project:

a. MORPC/ODOT Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated a summary of what is included in the project, what the project will cause the corridor to look like, and what is not included in the project had been provided to Council and she hoped it would answer a lot of everyone’s questions.

(3) Cover/Ebright Connector

a. Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update. Ms Frommer stated she and Mr. Schultz met with the nursing home last week and they definitely want to see a safer access. Mr. Schultz stated Pickerington Health Care had also indicated their corporate headquarters may have to sign off on this as well.

(4) Traffic Signal Update.

a. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance adopting the Signal Planning Report for the City of Pickerington, Ohio, prepared by W. E. Stilson Consulting Group. Mr. Hackworth stated a work session was held on this report last month. He stated he felt this is a good planning document that we will be using for a few years. Ms Frommer stated she had provided the Committee with a count inventory of traffic counts that have been taken since 2004 for their information. Mrs. Hammond moved to forward the legislation adopting the Signal Planning Report to Council; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

C. WATER:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Floyd Browne Group for professional engineering services regarding the water treatment clearwell and softener addition project. Mr. Drobina stated four companies were prequalified and the recommendation was to execute a contract with Floyd Browne Group. Mr. Drobina stated in their proposal they had included construction inspection fees for $25,000, and he was requesting that be removed from the contract. Mr. Hackworth clarified we could have another engineering firm do the inspections or one of the City’s inspectors is qualified to do the inspections. Ms Gilleland stated the contract is written with the option of the City doing the inspections if our inspector is qualified. Ms Gilleland stated she would recommend the legislation reflect an amount of not to exceed $88,500, and if we can do the inspections then the entire amount would not be spent. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward the legislation to Council reflecting the amount is not to exceed $88,500; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

D. STORMWATER. No Report.

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

8. OTHER BUSINESS.

A. Review and discussion of Supplemental Water Agreement with Canal Winchester. Ms Gilleland stated Mayor Miller of Canal Winchester was present this evening to address the Committee on this issue. Mayor Miller the intent for the supplemental emergency connection with Pickerington was to go for 18 months from the date the valve was turned on, and that got changed somehow. He stated they are at least 18 months from constructing their new water plant, and they were at dangerous levels in their water towers last year. Mr. Hackworth clarified that our legislation was for one year and it became effective in November of last year. Ms Gilleland stated Mayor Miller was requesting the agreement not begin until the valve is turned on, and she just wanted the Committee to be clear on what is being requested. Mr. Fix clarified that Canal would anticipate turning the valve on approximately the beginning of May so they would like the agreement to run until approximately November of 2007. Mr. Hackworth inquired if there were any issues with that and Mr. Drobina stated not at this time. Mayor Miller stated their major concerns were fire issues and the driest period in the summer, and the agreement limits the amount of water to 300,000 gallons per day. Mr. Hackworth stated if possible he would like to have a draft ordinance on this issue on the March agenda for discussion. Ms Gilleland stated she felt that would be a good idea.

B. Review and discussion regarding Diley Road. Mayor Miller stated the City’s project and Canal’s project will link S.R. 256 to U.S. 33, and is a great opportunity for commerce and for revenue generation, and this project will bring a tremendous amount of positive growth to the area. Mayor Miller stated some of the issues that are associated with the job are about the alignment of the project, and there has been some confusion. He stated at the City’s connection point of the project to Busey Road, brings a set of problems with issues relating to storm water. He stated this is a flat territory and where storm water goes is pretty critical. He stated they need some help in understanding the role each community has in making this connection. Mayor Miller asked Mr. Matt Peeples to address the Committee on this issue. Mr. Peeples stated he met last month with Ms Frommer and Mr. Drobina on some of the issues that deal with the linking of the Diley Road project. He stated the City of Pickerington had an alignment to the west and Canal Winchester had an alignment to the east. He stated, other than the storm water, what the engineering team spoke about was the relocation of the water meter pit that provides Pickerington water to the Canal Pointe Industrial Park as well as the supplemental connections. He stated the issue with the realignment is when they move their section of the road over to the west; it infringes on the water meter pit and requires relocation due to the elevation. Mr. Peeples further stated in their design they are proposing to move it a couple of hundred feet to the south and that proposes no issues with service as far as they can see. Ms Gilleland stated the question is who is going to pay to move the water meter pit. Mr. Peeples stated it is their position that the City has the responsibility to move it. Mr. Peeples stated there was also a relocation of the water line that was discussed recently. Ms Gilleland stated as she understood it, the estimate for moving the water meter pit is approximately $70,000-$73,000. Mr. Peeples stated there had been some discussion with Ms Frommer and Mr. Drobina about salvaging the water meter pit, but their engineer’s recommendation was that a new water meter pit be installed. Mr. Drobina stated he had also discussed this with our engineer and they also recommended a new pit be installed. Ms Frommer stated the question that has been raised on some of these small issues, who pays? Is there a sharing, is it all one entity’s responsibility, etc. Ms Gilleland stated it is our water servicing the Canal area. Mr. Hackworth clarified the existing meter pit is on the north side of Busey, west of Diley. Mr. Drobina stated we would be moving it south about 200 feet, and the plan is that we can have access through a parking lot rather than off of a five-lane Diley Road. Mr. Hackworth stated our connection was roughly 100 yards north of Busey, and Mr. Peeples stated their shift will be south of Busey Road to line up with your project, and as soon as you get through the intersection it will move back over to the east. Ms Gilleland clarified the cost of the water line relocation is approximately $68,000 and that does include engineering.

Ms Gilleland stated she would also like to address the alignment or realignment of Diley Road at Busey and the costs there. Mr. Steve Farft stated there is some expense on the City’s part because of the cost of the structure and there is expense to Canal because they are securing the easements. He stated as a result of the realignment there is an additional right-of-way purchase that is necessary on the corner of Busey Road and Diley Road, and with the additional land acquisition, utility movements, and storm sewer there is a considerable cost. Mr. Farft stated in cost, he thought this was approximately $200,000, but he did not bring those figures with him this evening. Ms Gilleland stated that was fine, she just wanted the Committee to be aware of what was being discussed and know that there is some disagreement on a staff level as to who pays for what. She stated the purpose this evening was just to make the Committee aware of these various issues.

C. Review and discussion regarding Refugee Road and S.R. 256 Intersection Safety Project Grant Application Effort. Ms Frommer stated in the Traffic Signal Study it was their recommendation that the City pursue safety funds from ODOT. She stated of projects that go to ODOT for safety funds, 90 percent is generally the amount they see coming back to the community in the form of a grant, and 10 percent would be supported by the local community. Ms Frommer stated the largest safety issue facing the City, with regard to intersections and signals, is the situation at Refugee Road and it appears to be a prime candidate for safety funds. She continued there were questions raised about the scope of what we could apply for, such as the Stone Creek Drive extension from S.R. 256 and Stone Creek on over to the Windmiller light and/or Fuller’s Way. She stated she had approached ODOT with that and they gave a positive response, but said it would have to meet a cost benefit threshold in comparison to all the other projects submitted. Ms Frommer stated short of preparing two applications, she felt there may be a much more direct benefit for the cost to pursue specifically the intersection improvement at Refugee and 256 and any amount of widening we can get per the Thoroughfare Plan. She stated she felt that had a much better chance because of the directly related, measurable accidents, etc. Ms Frommer stated she just wanted the Committee’s corroboration on what they would like to submit for and then she could prepare the scope. Ms Gilleland stated the proposal from Stilson to prepare the grant application is approximately $10,000 to $12,000 and those funds would come out of our Category B budget, and that would mean less time on access management, etc. Mr. Fix clarified the Refugee Road improvements project in the CIP is on the order of $3.5 to $4 million, and our goal would be to get 90 percent of that amount through the grant. Ms Frommer stated ODOT might, however, determine some of what is submitted in the application is not safety related. Mrs. Riggs clarified that Ms Frommer felt, compared to other communities; Pickerington had an excellent chance of obtaining a grant. Ms Frommer stated it is about documenting on how you can reduce accidents and increase safety. Mrs. Riggs further clarified that it could be six to seven months before the City would find out if they received a grant. Mrs. Hammond further clarified that when the application is submitted you must make representation that you have the 10 percent. Ms Frommer stated she would get more specifics on how long you had after receiving the grant before construction must begin, etc. Mr. Hackworth stated he felt we should look at this because 90 percent grants are a good deal, and Mrs. Riggs stated she concurred as Refugee Road and S.R. 256 intersection is a major problem. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have a draft ordinance for the next meeting and also requested a financial summary on where the money would come from for the application submittal, how we would finance our portion of it, etc. Ms Gilleland stated those were good questions, and if we have the opportunity to get this amount of money we will make it work. Mr. Hackworth clarified the application must be submitted by April 30, 2006, so if we have all the information Service can make a decision next month.

D. Review and discussion regarding propose JEDD on Wright Road (Slingluff property). Ms Gilleland stated Council had received a request from Dozer Development, and Mr. Ray Michalski is representing Mr. Dozer and is present this evening to address the Service Committee. She stated the request is for consideration by the City of Pickerington for utility service for their development on the property on Wright Road, near the corner of Diley Road. She stated Mr. Michalski would like to speak to the Committee and a number of residents in the area would like to speak as well. Mr. Michalski stated this property is a little over three acres and is completely surrounded by a subdivision that is in Pickerington. He stated Mr. Slingluff had been approached to annex to the City and he chose to remain in the Township, and the property is zoned for residential purposes. Mr. Michalski stated the home on the property is a historic home and it will remain on the property. He continued the proposal is to convert that house into an office building and to construct four office buildings. Mr. Michalski stated when Mr. Dozer was first considering purchasing the property the City was approached regarding annexing the property into the City and rezoning it for office purposes. He stated before approaching the City they held a meeting with the residents of the subdivision, who raised several concerns they had about the project. He stated these concerns included the types of businesses that would go into these buildings, whether it would be retail, adult entertainment, etc., and in order to address those concerns they indicated they would put on a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions that are attached to the information he provided the Committee this evening. He further stated another concern was property valuation, and they had a professional surveyor do an analysis of the impact of the buildings on the surrounding properties and it was his professional opinion that it would not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. Further there was concern about criminal activity and they had contacted the Pickerington Police Department and Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department and obtained the types of criminal activities that are associated with professional buildings, and it is not a magnet for criminal activities. Mr. Michalski stated this type of development would not add any students to the schools, and would provide additional funds to the schools. Mr. Michalski stated they were pursuing bringing the property into the City by way of annexation, and Mr. Yaple approached them and stated if they stayed in the Township, it could be rezoned in the Township, and the Township would work with the City to form a Joint Economic Development District to allow the utilities to be extended to this property. He stated they have already been to the Violet Township Planning Commission; they had a public hearing for which surrounding residents were noticed. He stated the Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission and the Violet Township Planning Commission have recommended to the Violet Township Trustees that this property be zoned S-1 for office space, provided the covenants are placed on the property. He stated the Trustees would be considering this rezoning at their meeting next week. Mr. Michalski stated they also had a second meeting with the residents of Sheffield and they had an opportunity to look at the covenants etc., and the people who attended the second meeting seemed to be very satisfied.

Ms Gilleland stated ideal planning would dictate that you do not abut office development to single family residential, but we do have areas where that is the case. She stated this is going through the Township, and she is sure the Township is talking about it, but what we want to take into consideration is that they are requesting utility service from the City. She stated this development cannot take place without City utilities. She stated further this Committee should determine if this would be something that would be fine a few years from now as the Diley Road corridor is going to change very much in the next several years. She questioned if this was the first piece of the puzzle, and is this development appropriate.

Mr. Bruce Englehart stated he resides at 176 Knightsbridge Drive, in the Sheffield subdivision. He stated most residents were opposed to this development at the meeting they attended and they remain opposed. He stated with regard to the Township meetings, they did not receive notification of that meeting, and with regards to the second meeting with the residents, most were not invited, only a handful received letters. Mr. Englehart read a statement into the record that is Attachment 1 to these minutes.

Mr. Terry Walburn clarified that the Township contacted the developer, and Mr. Dozer was thinking about annexing to the City. He stated we have impact fees and the Township does not, and they are soliciting commercial development. Mr. Walburn stated with regard to the money for the schools, he did not buy the argument as it would not provide that much money to the schools. Mr. Walburn stated with regard to utilities, right now the City is reviewing utility fees for their residents and trying to get in line with other communities. Mr. Walburn stated he is definitely opposed to this development.

Mr. Bill Yaple, who stated he is not the Mr. Yaple from the Township, stated he lives in Sheffield and he feels the residents of Sheffield are really getting beat up. He stated his backyard will get progressively smaller with the Diley Road project, and now the front side of their homes will be assaulted by this possible monstrosity as opposed to a nice home. Mr. Yaple stated he was appalled at the lies they were told at the first meeting, and when he went to verify the information provided about property values, crime, etc., he found OSU graduate studies completely contradicting everything Mr. Michalski said. Mr. Yaple stated a parking lot with 90 parking spaces within a few feet of your home could not create additional light and noise, and this is a very unusual and improper use of residential property. Mr. Yaple stated any type of office would create more traffic, more people, possibly trucks moving in and out for a retail business, and who knew what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Yaple stated he did not believe there was anyone who lived within several hundred yards of this area that is for this development in any way, shape, or form.

Mr. Dave Partridge stated he lives next to this proposed development and the side of his house would back right up to these buildings. He stated he attended the first meeting and when he questioned the lights in the parking lot making his home very bright, and Mr. Dozer stated he would put in a big fence. Mr. Partridge stated he felt there would be crime back there and his concern was that we were looking towards expanding down that whole housing area with more of these buildings. He stated if one of these office buildings goes in, what would stop another one. Mr. Partridge stated there is a lot of land open for development down S.R. 256, so why aren’t they looking at putting this development in that area.

Ms Terry Perry stated she lives in Sheffield as well, and she understood that Council had a different outlook on development. She stated some council members had campaigned saying they were family oriented, and she knew that, honestly, they would not want that type of business in their back yard or front yard.

Mr. Hackworth clarified that the developer had approached the City with regard to annexing, however, Ms Gilleland had informed them they needed to talk to the Township first because the City has an agreement with them regarding any zoning. Mr. Michalski stated the Township did not solicit them for the development. Mr. Michalski stated the Diley Road area is going to change, and this property and other properties are going to develop for commercial purposes.

Mr. Hackworth stated he has not seen an agreement with the Township for a JEDD, and he did not know what the terms in such an agreement would be. Mr. Hackworth stated we are nearing capacity in our sewer plant, we have some similar office buildings coming in on S.R. 256, and he felt we needed to consider our citizens. Mr. Hackworth stated what he felt was disturbing here is that this property would be rezoned in the Township and the City would have no control over the lights, and the citizens would not have control over the Township over how the project is put together. Mr. Hackworth stated there seems to be disagreement between what the residents are saying and what Mr. Michalski is stating. Mr. Hackworth stated he is a council member and he was not aware this property was being rezoned until he received a call from a reporter so he did not feel this was very well publicized. Mr. Hackworth further questioned what the total payroll from these offices would be, and Mr. Michalski stated he could not provide that because he did not know if they would be professional offices, retail, or whatever.

Ms Gilleland stated there are a number of issues this opens up with regard to discussion on a JEDD, if not this property there are others, and the Committee was provided a memo from Mr. Arcari with general questions we need answered for a JEDD. Ms Gilleland stated if this development does go forward there are a number of ways to deal with it. Ms Gilleland further stated this is a quality development and she would love to see it in many areas of the City. Mr. Hackworth stated he would hesitate on this project as it is completely surrounded by residences. Mrs. Riggs stated she is still waiting for the perfect project that makes everyone happy. She stated she ran for Council because she had watched the City grow in the wrong places, so she is on Council to try and not make the wrong decisions. She stated this is a great project, but does it belong in that location. Mrs. Riggs stated maybe there will be commercial development on Diley, but, again, is this where it belongs. She stated we have to start making the right decisions, and she did not feel she had enough information on this issue to make any decision. Mr. Hackworth requested this remain on the agenda for the next meeting and perhaps the Committee could get more information on the issues.

Mr. Hackworth moved for an Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)(2), purchase or sale of public property; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

Service Committee went into Executive Session at 9:33 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 9:54 P.M.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. Riggs moved to adjourn; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mrs. Hammond voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 9:55 P.M., February 9, 2006.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk