CITY OF PICKERINGTON

                                             SAFETY COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

                                             CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

                                                      MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2006

                                                                      7:30 P.M.

 

                                                 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino present. Mr. Wisniewski was absent.  Others present were:  Judy Gilleland, Jeff Fix, Cristie Hammond, Lynda Yartin, Chief Mike Taylor, Steve Carr, Ed Drobina, Paul Lane, George Parsley, John McGory, Jim Hiltz, Carol Carter, Tom Brubaker, and others. 

 

2.         A.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2006, WORK SESSION regarding Home Occupations.  Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 2-0. 

 

             B.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2006, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 2-0. 

 

            Mr. Smith stated Mr. Jim Hiltz from the BIA is present this evening to address the Committee on a maintenance bond issue.  He stated if Mr. Sabatino had no objections, he would move that item forward on the agenda.  Mr. Sabatino stated that would be fine with him. 

 

            Mr. Hiltz stated he is the Executive Director of the Building Industry Association of Central Ohio, and he felt everyone was aware of what a maintenance bond is and the purpose of it, and that is to take care of any corrections or things that need to be fixed with the improvements to a subdivision by the developer.  Mr. Hiltz stated he had provided a handout to the committee members this evening showing maintenance bond requirements for other central Ohio communities.  Mr. Hiltz stated prior to 2001 the requirement was that there was a one year maintenance bond from the date of acceptance by the City where the developer was responsible for the maintenance and improvement.  He stated in 2001 you amended that to require the maintenance bond extend for one year or until the certificate of occupancy for the final lot of the subdivision was obtained, whichever occurred last.  Mr. Hiltz stated that provision is where their concern lies.  Mr. Hiltz stated it can take years to build out a subdivision, and requiring that developer to keep that bond for that time is onerous, and the developer will be required for years to take care of and maintain that development.  He stated should a homeowner want to purchase an additional lot because they want a bigger yard, because of the way the maintenance bond ordinance is worded the developer would need to keep the bond.  He stated there are 20 year old subdivisions that do not have all the lots sold.  He stated further with regard to the 100 percent requirement, it is not necessary if the inspection process during the installation of the improvements is working.  He stated from their perspective it works very well here.  Mr. Hiltz stated by requiring a 100 percent maintenance bond you are basically assuming that all of the improvements were installed incorrectly and need to be replaced or started over.  Mr. Hiltz stated after the subdivision is accepted and the bond is placed with the City, there is a punch list that is given to the developer toward the end of the maintenance bond, and everything on that punch list must be fixed in order for the bond to expire.  He stated from his research it seems a lot of the problems the developers face are cracked curbs, manhole repair, dirt in the sewer that needs to be cleaned out, and those must be fixed before the maintenance bond expires.  Mr. Hiltz stated he had distributed a list of maintenance bond requirements from other central Ohio communities, and most of their requirements are for one or two years and ten percent.  Mr. Hiltz stated he was not here when the maintenance bond change was made by the City and he did not know what the rationale was behind the change, but from the builders do have a concern about the expense and length of time the bond has to be in place.  Mr. Hiltz stated there was an error on the sheet he handed out, Columbus’ bond percentage requirement is not 10 percent.  He stated they actually do not require a maintenance bond, per se, it is part of a development agreement they have with the City that there is a one year period where they will fix any problems that come up.  He stated further, in Delaware County they are required to file two bonds, one with the engineer for the roads and one with the sanitary sewer engineer for the sewer.  He stated they have also been working with Delaware County on reducing the length of the sewer bond from five years to a reasonable number. 

 

            Mr. Sabatino clarified that once the City of Columbus accepts a subdivision, there is no maintenance bond requirement.  Mr. Smith inquired if we have had any problems with the builders living up to the warranties in their developments, and Ms Gilleland stated our requirements have not been enforced in terms of maintenance bonds up until last year when we started accepting some of the subdivisions that have been around for years.  She stated that is when this issue surfaced with the developers being held responsible for infrastructure that was damaged.  Mr. Lane stated we have only had a couple of subdivisions that have actually sold out and in those cases the builders did repair any issues that came up.  Mr. Sabatino asked what the BIA was looking for, and Mr. Hiltz stated they would like to see something more reasonable.  Mr. Hiltz stated they hoped the City would consider adopting something similar to what other communities around Central Ohio have done.  Mr. Sabatino clarified that as Mr. Hiltz understood it, Pickerington was the only City in central Ohio that tied the maintenance bond to the final occupancy permit.  Mr. Fix stated in Manchester there was an issue with the street that causes standing water, and he did not know if any repairs were ever made.  He stated to tear up the street, regrade it, and put the street back in would be very expensive.  He stated under the current Code the developer would be responsible for that, and with the change the BIA is requesting, who would be responsible for the cost of having to fix that street?  Mr. Hiltz stated if it was determined that the street was improperly graded, within that one year time period, the developer would be responsible.  Mr. Fix stated this was probably four or five years into building homes in that neighborhood.  Mr. Lane stated if it was a question of the integrity of the road, without that maintenance bond in place, there very well could have been an argument as to who is responsible.  Mr. Fix stated if we wanted to fix that issue, and it was after the one year period, the City would have to pay for it.  Mr. Lane stated that was correct if the developer said it was not their fault.  Mr. Fix stated then, it would be the developer’s choice to either fix it or not at that point, and Ms Gilleland stated that was correct.  She stated if it were a one year maintenance bond, the City would expect to pay for any improvements after that.  Mr. Smith stated when speaking about a one year bond, you are really talking about a one year warranty period.  Mr. Fix inquired if the one year period was from the time the road was put in, and Ms Gilleland stated it was one year from the time the subdivision is accepted.  Mr. Lane stated after the developer puts the utilities in, they receive a punch list, and after they complete that punch list then there is a letter of acceptance and that is when the warranty period begins.  Mr. Sabatino clarified the City does an inspection in conjunction with this, and would something with the grading like Mr. Fix referred to, would that be found then.  Mr. Lane stated if there would be a problem with grade it would be something that would be accepted because it would not be an issue.  He stated he understood the issue where Mr. Fix referred to was a problem with the surface course.  Mr. Fix stated there was a three to four home area where the grade did not work and water just stands, and Mr. Lane stated there is a curb issue in that area.   Mr. Smith stated he would be interested to see what the other community’s experience has been with the one year bond.  Mr. Lane stated one reason we are where we are is because we had the situation where a builder put the infrastructure in place, went through the punch list process, received a letter of acceptance and had the warranty bond in place, but they did not build a single home in over a year.  He stated we had the warranty bond renewed and they have yet to build a home.  Mr. Sabatino stated if we did look at changing anything we should certainly put something in so that if this situation would happen the clock would start over again.  Mr. Sabatino stated he thought the intent was that once they get started we should make them responsible for one or two years, but he thought it was unreasonable for some of the big subdivisions that take five or six years to build out to expect them to warranty the streets for that period of time.  Ms Gilleland stated we realize we are outside the norm on this issue and that is why the BIA was here to speak to the Committee this evening.  She stated if the Committee is amenable to looking at options, staff will do a little more work on this.  Mr. Smith stated he would be more than happy to have staff provide the Committee with a recommendation based on our experience with our builders and the experience of other communities with their builders.  Mr. Sabatino stated he would concur with that.  Ms Gilleland stated she would have staff work on this and bring something back to the Committee. 

 

3.         DEPARTMENT REPORTS:

 

A.        Parks and Recreation.

 

(1)        Director’s Report.  Mr. Carr stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. 

 

                                    a.         Parks Master Plan.  Mr. Carr stated on February 11th we held two public input sessions and we had 22 residents attend those sessions.  He stated Mr. Edsall would provide an update at Council.   

 

                                                1.         Joint Parks District – Update.  No Report. 

 

                                    b.         NatureWorks Grant Project.  No Report.

 

                                    c.         Sycamore Park Tennis Court Repair Project – Update.  Mr. Carr stated the bid opening for this project was held on March 3rd.     

 

                                                1.         Review and request for motion to approve award of contract for Sycamore Park Tennis Court Resurfacing.  Mr. Carr stated we received three bids for this project and the low bid is from Heiberger Paving, Inc. in Canal Winchester.  He stated their bid was for $66,975, and that is a budgeted item in the Capital Budget. Mr. Smith ascertained that we have had Heiberger do some crack repair on our tennis courts in the past.  Mr. Carr stated Heiberger is partnering with Tennis Technology for this project, and according to the manufacturer they have successfully installed several Premier Court surfaces.  Mr. Carr stated the bid was within the national average range, and based on our experience with Heiberger, the fact that Tennis Technology is in excellent standing with the manufacturer, he would recommend the contract be awarded to Heiberger Paving, Inc.  Mr. Smith moved to recommend award of the contract for the Sycamore Park Tennis Court resurfacing to Heiberger Paving, Inc. in the amount of $66,975; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion.   Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 2-0.  

 

 

            B.         Building Operations:  Ms Gilleland stated there was no report this evening. 

 

            C.        Service Department: 

 

                        (1)        Traffic Engineer

 

                                    a.         Review of recommended speed limit on Hill Road South.  Mr. Drobina stated ODOT is planning on reviewing this issue yet this week.  He stated our speed limit signs have been covered so when the engineer does the speed study we will find the natural speed.  Mr. Drobina stated he hoped we would have a recommendation by next month.   

 

            Mr. Sabatino stated there appears to be an issue in the evening on southbound S.R. 256 at Tussing Road.  He stated people in the evening rush are filling up the inventory space by making right turns on red onto Tussing.  He stated then when the light cycles to a left turn there is nowhere for the people to go.  He stated if we prohibit right turns on red there would be an open lane for traffic to turn into and it would be a safer cycle of that light.  Mr. Sabatino stated he would recommend we do the same thing we have done on the other side of the intersection where we prohibit right turns during specific hours in the morning.  He stated perhaps we could prohibit right turns on red between the hours of 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.  Mr. Smith inquired if we would need to contact ODOT on this since they control the signals, and Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel we needed to because we still control the signage.  Mr. Smith stated he would like to have the traffic engineer look at that because he felt it was an excellent idea.  Mr. Sabatino stated when the signage was put up before, it was authorized by a motion from Safety Committee.  Ms Gilleland stated if there are no problems it can be taken care of and if there is a problem she would bring it back to Committee.  Mr. Smith moved to amend the Traffic Control Map for  “No Right Turn on Red between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M” signs on southbound S.R. 256 at Tussing Road, based upon the concurrence of the traffic engineer, the Service Manager, and the City Manager; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 2-0. 

 

            Mr. Sabatino stated where Courtright Road dead ends behind the Post Office, he has had some questions as to why we will not let the residents park on that street.  He stated he could understand not allowing parking when it became a thoroughfare, but he didn’t know why they wouldn’t be allowed to park on the street now.  Ms Gilleland stated she would have Chief Taylor and Mr. Drobina look into this and get back to the Committee. 

 

            D.        Code Enforcement: 

 

                        (1)        Review and discussion regarding abandoned house on Steiger Court.  Ms Gilleland stated the Committee had received a memorandum detailing the history of the house located at 121 Steiger Court.  She stated our code enforcement officer was recommending the City install windows, siding, and doors as there are broken windows on the home and the back door is not secure.  She stated she does not like to board up homes in the community, however, we are at the point where we have to do something.  Mr. Sabatino stated if did put the windows, etc., in it indicates the cost would be between $4,000 and $7,000, and there is no indication this wouldn’t happen again.  Mr. Smith ascertained if we did that, it would be subject to a tax lien.  Mr. Sabatino stated it was his understanding that we still do not know who owns the property, and Ms Gilleland stated that is correct and if we invested money in it, we may not ever recover it.  Ms Gilleland stated that is why she is recommending boarding up the house, and painting the boards so it looks as nice as possible, but still addresses the safety issues.  She stated it is with great hesitation she recommends this.  Mr. Sabatino stated he felt whatever we do is just going to buy some more time, and he thought there was a mechanism where we can demo the building, take possession of the property, sell it to a builder and let them build something new on it and sell it.  Mr. Sabatino stated we have been trying for five years to find out who the owner is, and he thought we should consider a Nuisance Abatement procedure on the property.  Mr. Smith stated he thought we would need a legal opinion on this issue.  Ms Gilleland stated we can definitely condemn and raise the building, however, she did not know if we could ultimately take possession of the property.  Ms Gilleland stated we have tried every avenue to find the owner, and Chief Taylor has spoken directly with Sheriff Phalen as well.  Mr. Smith stated it was his opinion that with it being in foreclosure there is incentive to the financial institution that they not be held responsible for it until it is sold.  Ms Gilleland stated the bottom line is she is looking for some guidance on what the Committee would like to happen.  She stated we have the options of tearing it down, boarding it up, or replacing the windows and doors.  Ms Gilleland stated further there is an issue with mold in the house as well.  Mr. Fix stated he did not feel that Council would be in support of spending $10,000 to $15,000 on demo right now without a supporting legal opinion that we could take the property.  Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed, and he felt we should get the legal opinion on what we can do.  Mr. Fix stated if we get to the point where we have a supporting legal opinion, then he would support on Council the demolition, but in the mean time he would think we should board it up.  Mr. Smith stated he agreed, the first step is to board it up because it is unsafe and to prevent vandalism.  He stated then we should proceed through legal channels for condemnation.  Mr. Smith stated it appeared he and Mr. Sabatino concurred that in the short term we should get the house boarded up for safety reasons and proceed through the proper channels for condemnation and ultimately raising the building.  Mr. Sabatino stated he did concur with that. 

 

                        (2)        Review and discussion regarding sign enforcement.  Ms Gilleland stated we have a number of community signs that are popping up on Tussing Road, Refugee Road, and S.R. 256. She stated these are signs for soccer, Church rummage sales, the Senior Citizens breakfast, school plays, etc.  Mr. Smith stated he understood the corner of Refugee and S.R. 256 was designated for these signs.  Ms Gilleland stated it was informally designated.  Ms Gilleland stated it is nice to allow the community signs, but now it seems the corners are being cluttered with signs.  Ms Gilleland stated she just would like some discussion to see if the Committee is okay with all the signs, did they want to limit it to one sign per corner per week, or whatever.  Mr. Sabatino stated he felt whatever we decided it should be uniform for every organization and no one should get a special pass.  Mr. Smith stated when there are that many signs in an intersection, people do not even look at them.  Mr. Smith stated he agreed with Mr. Sabatino that enforcement should be uniform.  Mr. Smith further clarified that currently the signs are permitted in the right-of-way if the City signs off on it, and they are limited to 30 days.  Mr. Fix ascertained we have not received any complaints from residents regarding the signs.  Mr. Smith stated since they are required to have a certificate that we sign off on, if there are several requests we should not sign off on additional certificates. 

 

            Ms Gilleland stated along these lines, the Committee had been provided with a request from the Prince of Peace Presbyterian Church requesting a temporary sign on the corner of Diley Road and Windmiller.  Ms Gilleland stated she had approved a couple of signs on a temporary basis, but now they are requesting it for a longer period of time.  Mr. Smith stated it is difficult when you start making exceptions, because you then have a hard time drawing the line and denying other requests.  Mr. Sabatino stated he agrees with Mr. Smith that we need to enforce the Code uniformly.  Ms Gilleland stated we have not been allowing signs like this, and she did allow it for a week.  Mr. Smith stated again, he did not see how we could do an exception for one unless we are going to do it for everyone.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino both stated unless we were willing to make this exception for everyone, we would have to deny this request. 

 

            E.         Building Regulations Department – Update.  Mr. Mike Stacy stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions.  Mr. Stacy stated there may be a conflict between the recently passed residential design standards and the new Residential Code.  He stated this is something he will be submitting to the Board of Building Standards for their interpretation.  He stated the residential design standards may be referencing some materials that are more building code related than zoning related.  He stated if we do not submit it to the Board of Building Standards for their review and response, anyone else can, therefore, he felt it was better for the City to be proactive on this matter.  Ms Gilleland stated if we need to revise our design standards, per the State requirement, we can do so.  She stated this information was just being presented to the Committee to make them aware of the potential issue.  Mr. Stacy stated the new Residential Code of Ohio does require a Residential Board of Building Appeals.  He stated some building departments are using the Board of Zoning Appeals for any building appeals that may come up.  Mr. Smith stated as he understood it, this is something that is required and staff will provide a recommendation to this Committee and let them know if we can use a Board or Commission that we already have.  Ms Gilleland stated staff will look into this issue.  Mr. Stacy further stated the new Ohio Fire Code took effect on September 1st, and he was not sure if Violet Township had formally adopted this Code.

 

            Mr. Paul Lane stated that year-to-date the impact fees are $136,567.  He stated at this point in time in 2005 we had 17 residential permits and as of today for 2006 we have 46.   Mr. Fix inquired why there was an increase in permits and Ms Gilleland stated it could be caused by a combination of factors.  She stated she hoped there would not be a run on permits due to our design standards.  She stated we enacted the four month relief period in good faith to allow the builders to get used to the standards.  Mr. Fix inquired if the permits were being pulled by one specific builder or across the board.  Ms Gilleland stated there could be a number of factors at play and we do not know if there is a trend right now, but we are watching it. 

 

                        (1)        Presentation by BIA regarding Maintenance Bonds.  Mr. Smith stated this was dealt with earlier in the meeting and would be continued on the agenda.   

 

4.         POLICE:   

 

            A.        Chief’s Report.  Chief Taylor stated his report had been distributed and he would answer any questions.  

 

5.         CHAIRMAN.    

 

            A.        Review and request for motion to set public hearing before City Council regarding amending Section 1276.17 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances relating to home occupations for 7:15 P.M., April 4, 2006.  Mr. Smith moved to set the public hearing as stated for 7:15 P.M., April 4, 2006; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 2-0.   

 

6.         OTHER BUSINESS.  No other business was brought forward. 

 

7.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion.  Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Smith voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 2-0.  The Safety Committee meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M., March 6, 2006. 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk