MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2007

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: Judy Gilleland, Mike Sabatino, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann Ed Drobina, Jennifer Frommer, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 20, 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 DEPARTMENT:

A. Planning and Zoning Director’s Report. Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Schultz was not present this evening, however, he had provided a written report and she would answer any questions. Mr. Fix clarified that we hoped to have another meeting on the design guidelines in the next month or so and have the guidelines completed yet this year.

(1) Board of Zoning Appeals (Mr. Schultz). Ms Gilleland stated the Board of Zoning Appeals had no agenda items for September.

(2) Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth) Mr. Hackworth stated Planning and Zoning met on September 11^th and approved two sign applications. He stated no items were forwarded to this Committee for action.

B. ACTION ITEMS: None.

5. SERVICE DEPARTMENT

A. REPORTS:

(1) Utility Fees Review Commission 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 and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Hammond clarified Mr. Drobina would be meeting with a representative from Pengwen Brine Systems, along with a representative from the Township, to discuss the benefits of pre-treating roads with a brine solution during the winter. Mr. Drobina stated ODOT and several other entities have been using this product for a few years. Mr. Hackworth clarified the report on the cleaning and televising of sanitary sewer lines should be complete by the end of the month and then we will know what, if any, repairs need to be made. Mr. Fix further stated the Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan prepared by the Tree Commission was very well put together, and clarified the City is not going to start removing trees; we will wait to see if we have a problem first.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Beheler Excavation, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder for the installation of the D-Line IIC 14-inch Force Main. Mr. Drobina stated this will run the 14-inch main from the lift station up to Diley Road, with the pumps being installed in another project either next year or the year after that. Mr. Drobina stated the line from Long Road to Wright Road will be upsized with the Diley Road project. Mr. Sabatino clarified this goes along with deactivating the Cherry Hill Lift Station. Ms Frommer clarified this line will start within Longview Acres, go all the way up the public right-of-way to Long Road, and then proceed east on Long Road over to just beyond the drive of the church on the corner. Mr. Drobina stated the public right-of-way is in front of the homes along Longview and the line will be going under the existing sidewalk. Mr. Fix clarified this is included in the CIP for this year. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix 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 approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement settling claims arising from Fairfield County Common Pleas Case No. 2005 CV 00356 (Giorgi property). Mr. Hartmann stated this is the last part of the Diley Road northern terminus. He stated it is a settlement agreement in lieu of providing compensation for the property taken. Mr. Hartmann stated there are a couple of pieces of property that were remnants from Partlow and Schafner and we would swap those for the property taken. He further stated as part of this there is an argument that the current use of the property behind Drug Mart is an illegal, nonconforming use and they claim it is legal. He stated in an effort to settle that problem we are providing them with two years with certain restrictions, but in two years it must come into current compliance with the Code. He stated they would

probably come in for a rezoning. Mr. Hackworth clarified this is an out of court settlement and there will be a deed transfer. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

C. WATER UTILITY: No Report.

D. WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE: No Report.

E. STREET MAINTENANCE. No Report.

F. STORMWATER: Bi-Annual Update. Ms Gilleland stated by Ordinance 2000-140, she is required to submit this report on or before October 1^st of each odd numbered year with a recommendation on the Stormwater Utility Charges. Ms Gilleland stated it is her recommendation that the charges not be increased at this time. Mr. Fix moved to accept the City Manager’s recommendation; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth clarified the charge is currently $1.50 per month for each single-family property. Ms Gilleland stated our projects in the stormwater area are minimal at this time, and in light of the water and wastewater increases this year, she felt it was appropriate this charge not be increased at this time. Mr. Drobina clarified this will be re-evaluated after the two-year period. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

6. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS.

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update. Ms Frommer stated Ms VanCleave had provided a written report and she would be happy to answer any questions. Ms Frommer stated we have received a 30 percent design submittal from the design consultant and several aspects of it are being reviewed with them. Ms Gilleland stated the thirty percent estimate was comprised by a wish list on the part of staff and the engineers and so the figures that were estimated by the engineers were between $9 and $12 million. She stated we quickly took a look at those figures and knew that our budget was far less than that so staff met to determine areas that we could provide to the design engineer to make some cuts. She stated we are having that discussion with them and anticipate meeting with the design engineer in the near future. Ms Gilleland stated the intention is to have the project bid somewhere in the range of $8 to $9 million. She stated we are just beginning the process and there may be some unknowns out there, but we will do our best to avoid any surprises.

Ms Gilleland stated further as the Committee is aware, staff and Service Committee members interviewed firms for construction management and inspection of the wastewater treatment plant.

She stated because the interviews were not published, she is recommending we start the RFQ process over from the beginning. She stated staff can do this fairly quickly and work through the process one more time. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to get some idea of where the design engineer ends, the construction manager begins, and where Stilson picks up.

(2) Review and discussion regarding draft agreement with W.E. Stilson Consulting Group, LLC, for project management on behalf of the City of Pickerington wastewater treatment plant expansion project. Ms Frommer stated the Committee had received a contract in their packet, and reflects general coordination of consultants, being the City’s liaison for those consultants, answering technical questions, interpreting the City’s desires in the process, and basically being the point person for the consultants through design and into and through construction. She stated the construction manager discussed earlier would entail specifically being in full charge of the construction budget, the construction schedule, coordinating directly and daily the inspections, coordinating daily with the contractor on site, inspecting the work, processing all the pay estimates, change orders, etc., anything that is specific to the contractor and the execution of the construction work itself.

Mr. Hackworth stated he is a little concerned that we will have one company double checking a second company, and it seemed this muddied the waters. He stated he would like to see where there was a demarcation point so that there is no overlapping of responsibilities. Ms Frommer stated with regard to plan review, a number of months ago staff received a quote from the firm that was second in the selection process for design to do simply a technical plan review. She stated as we proceeded forward to develop the scopes of the various consultants, some of the discussion was that the construction manager would be coming on to do the inspection, so it made a lot of sense for them to be involved in the design review capacity and to limit the number of cooks in the kitchen so to speak. She stated she felt staff’s recommendation was that the construction manager do the technical plan review and avoid the need for the separate stand alone plan review only contract. Ms Frommer stated the project manager contract with Stilson is intended to be an umbrella, the glue if you will, that kind of binds everything together. She stated the construction manager would fall under that as would the design engineer. She stated the construction manager would, because they have inspection and charge of the project, in getting it completed we are hoping to bridge the gap and have the design engineer and construction manager, work together through the design process and commenting to the City’s benefit. Ms Gilleland stated because this is such a complex project, you could have the design firm do the construction management and inspection, meaning that DLZ would do everything. She stated, however, we felt it was wise to separate out the functions and there are pros and cons to that since you are bringing another firm on board to check the work after the design is complete or partially complete. She stated there would be a learning curve for that second firm, but on the other hand it is also a good double check procedure and in a project this large she felt this was the wisest way to go. Ms Gilleland stated this is the model that ODOT uses, they do not use the same firm for construction manager as they do for design. Ms Gilleland stated then, Stilson would act as the City’s point person and because Stilson is our city engineer she felt it made perfect sense for them to be performing this function. She stated that is why she is recommending three different firms in this case.

Mr. Hackworth stated his concern was if something were to go wrong, and there was a dispute between the construction manager and the design firm, who made the final decision. Further, if there were a court battle who would be responsible. He further questioned if we were bound by the ODOT model and Ms Gilleland stated we are not bound by that. Mr. Hackworth stated he did not have as much of a problem with the construction manager as he did with the plan review. He stated he has some real concerns there. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to think that no matter which firm was chosen to do what, that they were professional enough to do this without any altercations. Ms Frommer stated she would like to make clear that the design engineer is the engineer of record for the project, the construction manager’s role is simply to carry out the project in conjunction with the construction contract.

Mr. Sabatino stated he had a group of e-mails between Ms Frommer, Ms VanCleave, Ms Gilleland, and Mr. Drobina, on the subject of the wastewater treatment plant cost review. He stated one of the primary notations in the e-mail was a recommendation to do a temporary stop to the design work to get some questions straightened out, and he wondered if he could get an update on the status of that. Ms Gilleland stated that was what she reported on when she stated we received the thirty percent cost estimate from the design engineer. Mr. Sabatino stated, his question was if the work was stopped and if there were details that need to be defined before going forward. Ms Frommer stated she is coordinating a meeting with the design consultant right now to get some issues ironed out, specifically the headworks for the plant, the filter system, and a number of other design considerations and she hoped to have that within the next week. Mrs. Hammond summarized that she understood this to mean that we initially wanted every bell and whistle, but in the real world we cannot have that, so we have to get it down to what will actually work for us. Ms Gilleland stated that was correct, and when we saw it was far out of our budget expectation, staff met to discuss the variances and we will be having a meeting with the design engineer. Mr. Sabatino stated then would it be correct to say that there was no need for concern or having any further need to take a look at anything and things should proceed as it is now. Ms Frommer stated that was not correct, she had expressed concern to staff that the thirty percent design review turns a very distinct corner, and the costs were not reflective of the budget the City had expressed, so she would expect there would be some significant changes between now and the sixty percent review to accommodate the difference. Mr. Sabatino stated how he read it was that there were some concerns at this point, there was a recommendation that we put the brakes on, figure what we are doing, and what his question was is everyone on the same page so that is not a concern and we are ready to move on from the thirty percent completion to the next or do we need to further define what thirty percent actually means. Ms Gilleland stated staff met immediately to talk about the designer’s budget range, and Ms Frommer then called the design engineer to set up a meeting. She stated further we are waiting on that meeting but Ms Frommer has notified them of the concerns and has relayed the information via voice mail so they are working on setting up a meeting. Mr. Sabatino stated his question was what was being done based on moving on from the thirty percent point at this point in time, or has that work stopped to figure out just where you want to go. Ms Frommer stated the work has not stopped; nothing has changed as yet. She stated we are trying to accommodate a meeting to make changes; in the meantime design is proceeding because staff felt it was a bit too aggressive to completely stop. She stated staff has talked more specifically about stopping design with regard to the areas that we would like to change and she felt that message was conveyed to the design consultant, but she could not tell him that we have made changes from that thirty percent that can bring that cost down yet. She stated we hoped to do that in the next week or so. Ms Frommer stated she felt we have some good suggestions, but there is a lot of work to do. Mr. Hackworth clarified the DEFA loan is estimated at $10 million, and Ms Frommer stated if the City is placed in a priority position we will have the opportunity to actually apply for the loan shortly and at that point we will nail down exactly what dollar amount we want to apply for, but it is estimated at $10 million. Mrs. Hammond stated then it is conceivable we could apply for more than that, and Ms Frommer stated that was correct.

Mr. Hackworth stated for the project manager contract it was two to ten percent, and that seemed like a wide range. Ms Frommer stated if you elect to have a construction manager you need to put something in the project cost for that, but without a decision or a selection on that as yet, negotiations have not begun with anyone on that. Ms Gilleland stated we have contacted a number of communities to see what they are paying their construction manager and came up with the two to ten percent. She stated that is a wide range, but it is as good as we can do until we determine what the actual function and scope will be. Mr. Sabatino stated he has analyzed some e-mails on this as well and the two percent was with a design built contract, not a contract like we are working with, and he felt we were looking at more toward the higher end than the lower end. Mrs. Hammond stated it would be dependant upon what we were asking the people to do, this is not a project that will be done in six months. Mr. Sabatino stated his point was that the two percent was not even close to reality. Ms Frommer stated she felt Ms VanCleave was estimating about five percent in the CIP. Mr. Sabatino clarified, as Ms VanCleave is not present this evening, but it was assumed she had made that estimate of five percent after surveying other communities.

Ms Gilleland stated this project management contract with Stilson kind of parallels the arrangement we have with them on the Diley Road project. She stated this is not a part of their retainer fee so we need to talk about extra compensation in a different contract. Ms Gilleland stated she felt it made sense to have Ms Frommer be the project manager of the wastewater treatment plant, helping us out with things that Ms VanCleave has been doing such as writing RFQs, negotiating contracts with the consultant, approving pay requests from the consultants, helping with getting the proper legislation through Council, making sure the project is funded through the EPA, etc. Mr. Hackworth inquired how much time Ms Frommer would expect would be needed meeting with the construction manager, and would the design engineer be represented in those meetings. Ms Frommer stated staff has discussed this and she felt the design engineer would remain on a retainer yet to be negotiated during the construction process for the review of shop drawings and should a situation arise where there is a problem with the design, then they would be there to assist the construction manager in resolving it. She stated that is not a part of their contract now, and is something yet to be negotiated. Ms Frommer stated as far as how much she would be meeting with the construction manager, how many meetings would be necessary during a two year construction project depends on the quality of the contractor, what they find when they start digging, etc. Ms Frommer stated some things are anticipated in the contract as necessary, but if they are not required, the contract would be adjusted accordingly. Mr. Hackworth stated he just did not want to see us get into a situation where we have a constant battle going on between the design engineer, the construction manager, and the project manager, and the City is left to make decisions that we shouldn’t be doing. Mrs. Hammond stated the felt that was the reason we should have a project manager, so we don’t get into those situations. Ms Gilleland stated with a project this large, there are no guarantees that we wouldn’t have issues, but we are trying to protect the City with the information that we have and make sure there is a check and balance in place and have the City engineer overseeing the entire project and the contractors. Mr. Hackworth inquired if the Committee could get a cost estimate from either our City Engineer or DLZ on what they would do the construction management for so they could have a benchmark to work from. Ms Frommer stated she had no problem providing an estimate for the Committee. Mr. Fix stated he understood Mr. Hackworth’s concern, however, he felt comfortable that it is worth some amount to pay another group to come in and verify the design and ensure the plant is built to spec. He stated on a project of this scale he was not comfortable having one firm verifying their own design is correct, and by the time we are done with this, with the cost of construction, the cost of engineering it, and the cost of managing the construction, it is worth it to him to make sure that it is done right. Ms Gilleland stated this is one reason we need the project manager, why we need the City engineer as the person doing the negotiating; they have a good benchmark, they understand what the norms are for pricing, and they will ensure when doing the negotiations that the price is appropriate for the work performed. She stated that is one of the functions of the project manager. Mr. Hackworth stated when interviewing the firms there was no idea as far as the dollar amount and that bothered him. Ms Gilleland stated that was the frustrating part of the whole QBS system. You don’t technically hire someone until you pass the ordinance, but you are going down the line with a firm before you know the cost. She stated that is an uncomfortable feeling, especially in the public sector when you like to have the costs up front. She stated legislation is before Council where there are certain times when we will want to know the costs up front, not that cost is everything, but it is one factor that we may want to know. Mr. Sabatino stated, based upon that, he failed to see why there was such an urgency at this point to be in a hurry to get into the contract with Stilson or the construction manager contract because we have two more readings on that legislation and if we wait until that is done then we could have the cost as part of what we were looking at. He stated he felt it was safe to say we are several months away from beginning construction and he didn’t see where it would hurt to wait until we have the other component in place and then have the full toolbox to work with. Mrs. Hammond stated that Ms Frommer is currently doing a lot of this work and we are paying her on an hourly basis, and this contract would put it in a contract. Mr. Sabatino stated what he was saying was that if what is going through Council now, if that is in place, the stuff that was discussed at the meeting last Monday could have had that element in with it. Mrs. Hammond stated that is not what is being discussed right now, and Mr. Sabatino stated it was part and parcel of it. Ms Gilleland stated it would not affect the Stilson contract, but Mr. Sabatino was correct, it would give the City one more tool for the construction manager contract. She stated we already know the price for the Stilson contract. Mr. Sabatino stated the Stilson contract was piggybacking off the other contract. Mrs. Hammond stated this contract is the result of hiring a designer, and from that point on we need to have someone to manage what is going on. Ms Gilleland stated Ms Frommer has been working on this project in meetings held over the past two years, and we need to get her position as project manager formalized. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve the draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement with Stilson for the project management services on the wastewater treatment plant expansion and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Diley Road Improvements Project:

a. MORPC/ODOT Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated we have received notice from ODOT that he project will have a bid opening on December 12^th, and a pre-construction meeting has been scheduled and we will soon see some activity in media circulation. Ms Frommer stated at Ms Gilleland’s request, letters have been sent to the residents in the corridor. Ms Frommer stated it has been very difficult to get a database that is accurate as there is a lot of activity in the area and she has received a packet of letters that have been returned. Ms Frommer stated they are trying to get the word out and it has been put on the City’s web site that will be continually updated as the project moves along.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to apply for the Ohio Public Works Commission Grant Funds for SR 256/Refugee Road intersection improvements project. Ms Frommer stated a draft ordinance had been provided to the Committee. Mrs. Hammond ascertained this project was submitted last year but was not funded. Ms Gilleland in the original submission for this project the budget was $4 million and the grant was supposed to be awarded at a 90/10, which meant that our local share would be $400,000. She stated ODOT placed some restrictions on the award and ended up only awarding us $2 million which meant we would need to come up with $2 million, and that would take up two years worth of capital improvements or two years of borrowing for capital improvements. Ms Gilleland stated she is going to ask Council to allow us to apply for this grant, but it would not come without a price in some other areas as far as capital improvements. Ms Frommer stated the Safety grant is due September 30^th, and is being resubmitted at the suggestion of your ODOT District. She stated this could better your situation on the $2.2 million so there is the potential that the award could increase. Ms Gilleland stated that is correct and this grant would contribute toward our $2 million portion. Ms Frommer summarized that for the approximately $4 million project you do have $2.2 million committed from ODOT and we are looking to better that this year, and you are also applying for the $500,000, and on top of that, courtesy of some recent developments in the corridor, some right-of-way has been donated. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve the draft ordinance and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

C. WATER: No Report.

D. STORMWATER. No Report.

7. CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Hammond stated she had nothing to bring forward this evening.

8. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.

9. 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 8:40 P.M., September 17, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk