SERVICE COMMITTEE
OF COUNCIL
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mrs. Hammond called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Fix present. No members were absent. Others present were: Mike Sabatino, Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Ed Drobina, Joe Henderson, Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Dave Jackson, Kent Sanderson, Alex Grebelsky, David Day, Harold Chapman, and others. Mrs. Hammond asked for a moment of silence in memory of the victims, their families, and friends as a result of the tragedy at Virginia Tech today.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 19, 2007, Regular Meeting. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: There were no community comments.
4. PLANNING AND ZONING
A. Planning and Zoning Director’s Report. Mr. Henderson stated Mr. Schultz’ report had been distributed and he would answer any questions.
(1) Board of Zoning Appeals (Mr. Schultz). Mr. Henderson stated the Board of Zoning Appeals did not meet in March and they do have a fence variance for a single family house and a parking space area for the Shops at Hill Road on their agenda for April 26th.
(2) Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth) Mr. Hackworth stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had a approved a rezoning from R-6 to C-3 and that is on tonight’s agenda. He stated they also approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a patio next to the Drug Mart.
B. ACTION ITEMS:
(1) Review and request for motion to approve rezoning of approximately 0.709 acres, more or less, from R-6 (Residential) to C-3 (Community Commercial) at 490 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson stated the Committee had received a packet of information on this property and the owner is requesting to rezone his current residence for future development. He stated in addition, the owner is requesting to maintain residence until the property is sold for a commercial use. Mr. Henderson stated this site and three other residential properties just south of the subject site are in a precarious location because the four parcels in total comprise 3.299 acres (0.68 to 1.0 acre in size). He further stated each site independently could be problematic for development because of the development requires, and staff would suggest rezoning the entire 3.229 acres (four parcels) that would yield a more reasonable and marketable development parcel. He continued, however, that staff understands and appreciates individual property rights and time constraints. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the rezoning request with the condition that the current owner shall utilize the property as a residential use until it is converted to a commercial use. Mr. Fix clarified the applicant is requesting he be allowed to continue to live there after the rezoning as our code does not allow residential in a commercial zoning. Mr. Fix moved to approve the requested rezoning with staff conditions; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
(2) Review and request for motion to set Public Hearing for proposed rezoning of 0.709 acres, more or less, from R-6 (Residential) to C-3 (Community Commercial) at 490 Hill Road North, before City Council for June 5, 2007, at 7:15 P.M. Mrs. Hammond moved to schedule the public hearing before Council for June 5, 2007, at 7:15 P.M.; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
5. Discussion regarding wastewater treatment plant engineering. Ms Gilleland stated we have had a couple of staff meetings with DLZ and Brown and Caldwell and we have tentative fees that we have worked through with them, however, we are not to the point of working through an official contract. She stated she was requesting a discussion tonight to ensure we are taking care of all of the issues that we need to before we finalize the contract or go forward. She stated Mr. Alex Grebelsky of Brown and Caldwell, and Mr. David Day of DLZ are present this evening to address the Committee. Mr. Day stated they were asked to review some of the previous documents that were prepared and give some consideration to reusing some of the headworks designs. He stated they concentrated on those particular processes and Mr. Grebelsky would explain why they felt a new design was necessary. Mr. Grebelsky stated it would be extremely hard to take the current design and move it to the other side of the creek and reuse it. He further stated the screen that was used had two parts, and by using that equipment the plant would be extremely vulnerable to failure because if any piece failed it would take the entire unit out of service. Mr. Drobina stated we asked the engineers to look at the possibility of using the design that R.D. Zande did for the headworks of the plant in order to save cost in design, and that is why they looked at that, but it did not appear that design could be used. Mr. Hackworth stated over the past few years we have put a great deal of money into maintenance of the sand filters and questioned if there was a certain type of tertiary filter that would be recommended. Mr. Grebelsky stated that issue has been addressed. Mr. Fix stated he appreciated the information provided, and he felt the level of detail would be better addressed by staff. Ms Gilleland stated Ms VanCleave had provided a memo to the Committee detailing the design fees, and the total cost is $774,686. Ms Gilleland stated if the Committee desired a brief recess to review the fees that might be appropriate.
(Service Committee recessed at 8:35 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 8:45 P.M.)
Mrs. Hammond stated everyone has had a chance to review the memorandum provided. Ms Gilleland stated our consultant had provided a ballpark figure of $500,00 to $600,00 for engineering design fees for the wastewater plant expansion. She stated DLZ and Brown Caldwell then came in with an initial proposal of $873,000 and included the headworks design in it. She stated staff then had a series of meetings with DLZ and through those meetings they further refined the estimate. Ms Gilleland stated a concern was we did not want to just see the price lowered and not include all of the items in the design that we needed, that we weren’t compromising the quality by lowering the price, and the new proposed design fee is $774,686. Ms Gilleland continued stating the reuse of the Zande headworks design was determined to not be feasible, and the headworks design alone added another $136,000 to the fees. Mr. Sabatino stated this is discounting the fact that in the Zande package they had allocated construction costs of $706,000, so if the design is ten percent of that, that would be $70,000. Ms VanCleave stated the Zande bid price was set on 2003 dollars. Mr. Sabatino inquired with redoing the headworks, how much would that add to the cost of the project. Ms VanCleave stated that would be included in the $1.8 million. Ms VanCleave stated she would like to clarify that when Malcolm Pirnie put together the costs their assumption was there would be no engineering for the headworks because they were just going to reuse Zande’s plans. However, even if they do engineering we will still have to build the new headworks. Mr. Sabatino stated it seems the cost is about $300,000 away from the estimate provided by Malcolm Pirnie. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt part of the issue is that we have made modifications to what they would like to add or because of updated equipment, etc. She stated that cost is also being considered in this price. Mr. Sabatino stated that should still be a fraction of the total project cost. Mr. Hackworth stated we are not discussing the project cost, this is the design cost. Mr. Sabatino stated he understood that, and his question was how the cost went up $300,000 and for what reason. Mrs. Hammond stated the figure provided by Malcolm Pirnie was just off the top and not an actual estimate. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt we should absolutely know the total cost at this point, and Mr. Hackworth stated he did not know how we would know a total cost until it was designed. Mr. Fix stated his question was, with all the changes that have been made, has a cost estimate been created of what the total cost of construction would be. Mr. Day stated an independent construction cost estimate has not been done as yet. Mr. Fix stated his question would be how we would know if we were getting a fair deal; this could be an outstanding number, but how would Council know. Mr. Day stated with engineering, the firms compete on a daily basis and a lot of communities do request price along with qualifications. He further stated the price does not reflect if you are going to get the best job. Mr. Fix inquired if there was anything we can do to give Council a sense of comfort that this is in a reasonable range. Ms Gilleland stated an independent review is a good way to know. Ms Frommer stated engaging the services of an independent professional for an assessment of the fee could take a few days. Mr. Fix stated he thought that was reasonable and questioned how we could do that without setting the process back an entire month. Ms Gilleland stated she could contact a couple of firms that were not involved in presenting qualifications to us and perhaps we can get something in the next couple of weeks. She stated if Service Committee members were inclined to have a special meeting to discuss the findings, the project could be kept on track. She stated we do want to keep the project on track, but we also want to make sure we provide the information that Council is comfortable with so they can make this very important decision. Mr. Fix stated he felt it was important for these gentlemen present tonight as well so there is no doubt in Council’s mind that we are getting a good deal. He stated he would be inclined to have a special meeting after that information is received and he felt it would be very helpful. Mr. Sabatino stated he would agree that would be more advantageous than where we are right now. Mr. Hackworth asked if we knew what this independent review would cost and Ms Gilleland stated she had no idea at this time, however, if it appeared to be to overwhelming she would notify Council. Mr. Hackworth stated he felt Malcolm Pirnie did a good job of outlining where we wanted to go, and he did not feel their report was meant to be used as a document on exactly how much the project would cost. He stated if an outside review would make some Council members more comfortable he did not have a problem with that. Mrs. Hammond stated to ensure that everyone is comfortable with this, she would ask Ms Gilleland to see what she can do and when she has more information, if necessary, a Service Committee meeting will be scheduled to address this. Mrs. Hammond thanked Mr. Grebelsky and Mr. Day for attending this evening.
6. SERVICE DEPARTMENT
A. REPORTS:
(1) Utility Fees Review Committee Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth). Mr. Hackworth stated he had no report.
(2) Service Manager’s Report. Mr. Drobina stated he had provided a written report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Hammond stated with regard to the item in Mr. Drobina’s report about the Fairfield Condo Association requesting individual meters. She questioned if each condo would have to pay for a meter and Mr. Drobina stated they would. Mr. Drobina stated currently we send out one bill, and with individual meters we would be billing each unit. Mr. Drobina stated his recommendation would be to leave it as it is, and that is the way we do all of the condos in the City.
Ms Gilleland stated the Committee had also been provided with a copy of the Notice of Violation from the EPA regarding a failure to sample drinking water as required. She stated we are working with the EPA to ascertain what type of notification, if any, we need to send out to the residents. She stated this was the result of an administrative error, our water quality if fine. Mr. Drobina clarified that we are required to send 15 samples each month, and our Chief Water Operator believed that the special sample submitted in February would count toward our total samples, however, the EPA did not accept that sample as one of the required 15 samples. Mrs. Hammond stated we are not having a quality issue; this was just an oversight. Mr. Drobina stated he would keep the Committee informed on what we are going to do.
Mr. Fix inquired what Mr. Drobina’s recommendation would be with regard to our contract for biosolids. Mr. Drobina stated he has spoken to Synagro and they are willing to extend our contract. Mr. Drobina stated he will have more information by the next meeting on the status of this issue.
B. ACTION ITEMS:
(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance approving the Violet Township Maintenance Building use of Fairfield County water. Mr. Drobina stated he has nothing to report this evening, however, he is in the process of setting up a meeting with the City Manager and the County’s new Director of Utilities to discuss this.
C. WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE: Mr. Drobina stated he had no report this evening.
D. WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE:
(1) Review and discussion regarding contract for biosolids. Mr. Drobina stated this was addressed earlier.
E. STREET MAINTENANCE.
(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing contract with The Shelly Company for the 2007 Annual Street Improvement Project. Mr. Drobina stated we received four bids for the project and The Shelly Company was the low bid at $293,849.60. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward the contract to Council; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
F. STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. Mr. Drobina stated he had no report this evening.
7. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS
A. WASTEWATER
(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update. Mrs. Hammond stated this was discussed at length earlier in the meeting.
B. TRANSPORTATION:
(1) Diley Road Improvements Project:
a. MORPC/ODOT Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated the right-of-way for the Diley Road improvements project is clear and we have possession or rights to all of the parcels in the corridor to push this forward and ask ODOT to consider the bid process. She stated we will request ODOT’s consideration for bid as early as possible. Ms Frommer stated the bid process is that after it arrives at the District they will then be required to make their own assessment of cost and make recommendations to Central Office, file it with the Central Office for bid, and that process, once it has been received and accepted takes about 18 weeks. She stated we are hoping to better that and at present ODOT Central Office has this programmed to be received by them the last week of July and opened in December. She stated we are hoping to push those dates up.
D. STORMWATER. Ms VanCleave stated she had no report this evening.
8. CHAIRMAN.
A. Review and discussion of Master Economic Development Agreement proposed by Violet Township. Mrs. Hammond stated she not aware of the Township taking any action on this agreement. Ms Gilleland stated this is the agreement the Township provided in response to the one adopted by Council. Mr. Fix stated he felt with the Memorandum of Understanding Council just considered, it did not make any sense to take any action on this item at this time. He stated he felt it was clear that Violet Township would not agree to the ordinance that was passed by Council and we should rescind that ordinance. Mr. Hackworth clarified Mr. Fix was referring to the ordinance to authorize Ms Gilleland to sign a Master Economic Agreement. Mrs. Hammond stated that was Ordinance 2006-163. Mr. Fix moved to request Council rescind Ordinance 2006-163; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth abstaining, and Mr. Fix and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.
Mr. Hackworth stated rescinding the original ordinance would make this proposal by Violet Township a moot point. Mr. Fix stated before we do anything else he felt we should wait until we are absolutely certain the Memorandum of Understanding is signed by all parties. Mr. Fix stated once we have the assurance that all parties are going to participate in the Memorandum of Understanding, we can remove this item from the agenda, but it was his opinion we should leave it on the agenda until that time. Mrs. Hammond requested this remain on the agenda for the next meeting.
9. OTHER BUSINESS. No other business was brought forward.
10. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Hackworth voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 9:45 P.M., April 16, 2007.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk