THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Wisniewski called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer present. No members were absent. Others present were: Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Ed Drobina, Jennifer Frommer, Brenda VanCleave, Nick LaTorre, Scott Blackwell, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 13, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sauer moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: No Community Comments.

4. DEVELOPMENT:

A. Development Director’s Report. Mr. Hansley stated he had submitted a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Hammond questioned if the road between Kohl’s and Max and Erma’s was going to open up. Mr. Hansley stated he felt it would open eventually. He stated Sonic, as part of their closing document with Equity, had to commit to escrowing the amount of money necessary to make the physical connection and they are negotiating with Kohl’s corporate attorneys. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if there was an update on the Exxon station. Mr. Schultz stated he had received an update from the owner of the property and he is still working with the bank to acquire funding to remediate the site. He stated we are probably going to consider that a nuisance and try to fill in the hole and we are working with the property owner to try and get the buildings razed. Mr. Wisniewski stated it was almost a year ago that it was reported that it would be remediated through the insurance and questioned if that were no longer true. Mr. Schultz stated they found out the remediation was further than expected and he did not have the funding at that time, but he is trying to get funding to do the additional work. Mr. Hansley stated we have proposed some assistance; the neighboring property owner has offered some assistance either financial or otherwise since this detracts from their property, and we have said if they can agree to a deal then we would step in and offer some assistance such as a front end loader, a truck, or whatever, so at least the site gets cleared. He stated this site clearly is detracting from our other economic development efforts in the area.

5. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT:

A. Planning and Zoning Director’s Report. Mr. Schultz stated he had provided a written report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions.

(1) Planning and Zoning Representative Report. Mr. Sauer stated Planning and Zoning Commission held a Diley Road Corridor work session on April 3^rd, and the discussion was very good. He stated what is being proposed for the Diley Road corridor is definitely in-line with what he thought this community has been looking for in terms of office development and possible retail development. He stated the Planning and Zoning Commission met for their regular meeting on April 8^th, and discussion was conducted regarding a car wash on Refugee Road. He stated currently we do not have an ordinance or anything that requires an emergency exit lane for a drive-thru. He stated he had informed P&Z that he would bring this up to this committee and see if there is any interest in seeing if that is something we may want to consider in the future. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if other cities have this in their Code and Mr. Schultz stated he would do some research to find out if other cities have this. Mr. Sauer stated he did not feel this was something that should necessarily be mandatory, but he did feel it would be something to have as an option based on the particular business and what their requirements may be. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that with regard to the Diley Road Corridor guidelines, the consultant will put a draft report together based on the discussion from the work session and they hope to have that to us by the end of this month or the first part of May. Mr. Schultz stated further once that is reviewed, a public hearing would be scheduled before Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for public input. He stated after the hearings are complete, the study will be sent through the Planning and Zoning Commission, Service Committee, and Council for adoption.

(2) Review and discussion of development process. Mr. Schultz stated he is still trying to contact other cities to see what would be appropriate for our city based on our existing regulations. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had provided an article to Mr. Hansley from the Columbus Dispatch regarding the City of Dublin and that they have the exact same problem; that their development process is slow and cumbersome and does not meet the needs of people coming into the City. He stated these are all of the same complaints that we have in Pickerington.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve right-in curb cut on S.R. 256 for Ashton Crossing Plat. Mr. Schultz stated this site is north of the Holiday Inn Express on S.R. 256. He stated in July 2006, the City approved a final plat for Ashton Crossing without a curb cut on S.R. 256 because at that time ODOT indicated they would purchase the curb cut from the developer. He stated in September 2006, Council adopted an Access Management Plan with that curb cut eliminated. Mr. Schultz continued in May 2007, ODOT indicated they would not purchase the curb cut from the developer and in March of this year ODOT indicated they would not support a right-in/right-out curb cut at this location because the right-out would be located within ODOT’s access right-of-way. He stated the right-in curb cut would be outside of ODOT’s jurisdiction and because our Access Management Plan eliminates the curb cut, it is before this Committee for review. Mr. Schultz stated the developer is requesting the right-in curb cut and the City Engineer is reviewing the request. Mr. Schultz stated from a development perspective staff believes a safe curb cut would facilitate development in the area and increase the revenues for the Cycle Way TIF. He stated if we do not permit the access at this location, it could be considered a taking with legal consequences. Mrs. Hammond clarified this was not an additional curb cut but one that is already located north of the Holiday Inn. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Blackwell, the developer of Ashton Crossing, two representatives of Holiday Inn Express, Ms Frommer, Ms VanCleave, and he had met today to discuss the idea of sharing a right-in/right-out curb cut at that location. Mr. Schultz stated he felt it was a very productive meeting and that option will be considered. He stated the first step in this process would be the City investigating the crossing of the stream because we have a stream easement agreement and we will be contacting the EPA to see if that is feasible. He stated if it is feasible, Mr. Blackwell and the Holiday Inn would then do a study to determine the cost and then the City would take it to the EPA for the appropriate submittals. Mr. Schultz stated this would allow the Holiday Inn to access their site off of Freedom Way. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we could get them to work together to improve the one curb cut that would be the best solution. Mr. Schultz stated the developer, Mr. Blackwell, is present this evening to discuss the issue as well. Ms Frommer stated we also have concern, despite the fact that the access exists, with the development utilizing that access in such close proximity to the Holiday Inn right-in/right-out, as these two accesses are very close together and she felt it would be an unsafe situation. Ms Frommer stated if there is an access that meets the developer’s needs and meets City standards for this development, a single-lane no right-in access already, she didn’t know if there was an action that needs to be taken. Ms Frommer stated she had just received some information from Mr. Blackwell this evening and she had not had time to review it as yet. Ms Frommer stated as Mr. Schultz had stated, staff would support an access that is safe. She stated while he has the access point, it is not safe for them to utilize it in such close proximity to the Holiday Inn right-in/right-out. Mr. Wisniewski inquired what was being requested of the Committee this evening, and Ms Frommer stated she assumed it was for approval of the right-in access point. She stated, however, it was her opinion that it was not a safe access point in proximity to the Holiday Inn and that the accesses should be combined so the property users can access their respective businesses safely. Mr. Wisniewski inquired why the Committee would act on this tonight if we were still in discussion with the developer and the Holiday Inn in trying to get this resolved. Mr. Schultz stated there is no guarantee it will be resolved, and the developer wants to move forward. Mr. Schultz further stated the developer believes the documentation provided allows for a right-in that meets our width requirements and he therefore has a right to that curb cut. Mr. Schultz stated Ms Frommer needs to review these documents to determine if that is accurate or not, and if it is accurate it would probably be an administrative approval. Mr. Hansley stated the reason it is before this Committee is because it is a minor modification to the Access Management Plan and that requires a motion by this Committee. Mr. Hansley stated he felt the motion would be to authorize staff to continue to negotiate the best possible solution to this situation and that may involve some minor modifications to the Access Management Plan. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if this area would be developed once the access point was settled or would it make it more marketable. Mr. Blackwell stated he would be the first to agree with everyone that a combined right-in/right-out with the Holiday Inn is the best solution. He stated however he has lost three potential deals since January because he does not have access on S.R. 256. He stated he cannot afford to wait, and he continues to work through the process, however he needs this approval so he can continue to market the property. He stated since ODOT was not able to purchase the curb cut as they had indicated, he needs to move forward. He stated he agreed this is not the best situation, and he would love to see the curb cuts combined, but he needs access. Ms Frommer stated the City has a standard for access width. She stated if it is met then there is nothing this Committee would need to act on; if the access exists, it meets the Code, then the developer has a right to it. She stated if, however, she cannot substantiate that it meets the City’s standards or it is something that would need widened to facilitate the development, then that is not something she could support and she would look to modify it in the way that has been discussed, combining the access. Mr. Hansley stated it might be that we would grant him the use of what he has, but that the parties continue to negotiate a better solution, but in the meantime he can continue to market his site subject to further negotiation and design solutions. He stated he felt it would be a motion of this Committee to authorize staff to continue working toward that, subject to bringing it back to Committee after it is worked out. He stated this would give him the temporary use of what he has, but within a certain timeframe, we continually try to solve the problem with Holiday Inn. Mr. Wisniewski stated his concern was that it was known a year ago that ODOT would not purchase the curb cut and this was the first this Committee had heard of it. Mr. Blackwell stated he started the process at that time. Mr. Hansley stated staff started working with Holiday Inn at that time to see if we could work it out to get an agreement that we could bring to the Committee and that has not been tied down yet. Mr. Hansley stated staff is frustrated trying to solve this, but they need some direction from this Committee to allow them to continue to look for ways to jointly solve this. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt from Holiday Inn’s viewpoint to have access from another direction would be a good thing. Mr. Schultz stated that is why he felt the meeting was productive, because if we can get through the EPA they will be willing to discuss that sharing of the access and the financing of that. Mr. Blackwell stated he cannot wait for three years for the EPA to make a decision. Mr. Schultz stated he is trying to determine if this agreement meets our minimum requirements, it is pretty much an administrative approval that they can move forward. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that Mr. Schultz would like this Committee to approve an amendment to the Access Management Plan if the curb cut meets our requirements, and in the interim staff will continue to try to work with sharing the curb cut with the Holiday Inn. Mr. Hansley stated he would like to have this Committee direct staff to use any and all means to solve this problem, to work with Holiday Inn, Mr. Blackwell and his group, to come up with the best solution, and staff would bring the results back to the Committee. Mr. Wisniewski stated then Mr. Hansley was asking for authorization to try to negotiate this, and Mr. Hansley stated that was correct. He stated staff was trying to get Mr. Blackwell’s land in production and satisfy Holiday Inn’s needs, EPA’s requirements, our engineers requirements to meet our standards, and work out some compromise that meets the City’s goals and addresses all of the issues that are on the table. Mr. Hansley stated it would be a compromise. Mrs. Hammond clarified the EPA would become involved in the shared curb cut because it involved crossing the stream. Mr. Wisniewski moved to authorize staff to continue to work with both property owners to come up with the best joint solution, and perhaps an interim use of the curb cut while the deal is pending and to amend the Access Management Plan if the curb cut meets the City’s requirements; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Mr. Hansley stated with this motion staff can continue to work on all of the variations and options. Ms Frommer stated she understood this to mean that the Committee liked the idea of staff moving forward to check this out, but even if he has an access point that he can utilize, that in and of itself would be temporary provided that a permanent fix is reached by a shared agreement. Ms Frommer stated further she was not sure Mr. Blackwell did not feel that if he had the right-in access he would not have to do anything else. Mr. Sauer stated that was correct, he wanted to make sure that did not occur. Mr. Blackwell stated he could not agree to spending $250,000 to share a curb cut with Holiday Inn that benefits them as much as it does him. He stated he could agree to work with Pickerington, but there were financial considerations. Mrs. Hammond clarified Mr. Blackwell’s property does have access to Freedom Way, and Mr. Blackwell stated that was correct and he had agreed to let Holiday Inn have access through his private road, back out to the light by Freedom Way. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending Section 1254.10 (Platting Procedures); Section 1256.05 (Design Standards); and, Section 1258.30 (Construction Standards), and to set Public Hearing for May 20, 2008, at 7:20 P.M. Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission approved this draft ordinance at their last meeting. He stated the Court of Appeals decision in the Viola Park, LTD. Vs The City of Pickerington, indicated our one-year design requirements for each phase of the subdivision was not legal. He stated our attorney has prepared this amendment to give them two years to build each phase and requires that we notify them 30 days before that time expires. Mr. Schultz stated the draft ordinance reflects these amendments. Mr. Hansley clarified the Court decided there is a state law that overrides this, and therefore by Charter we cannot do something that the state preempts. Mr. Schultz stated our attorney believes this ordinance is appropriate. Mr. Hansley stated there are other parts of the lawsuit that are still pending and we are still in litigation on that, but we lost this part of it. Mr. Sauer moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Wisniewski moved to set a public hearing before Council regarding the amendments to Section 1254.10, 1256.05, and 1258.30 of our Code for May 20, 2008, at 7:20 P.M.; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

6. SERVICE DEPARTMENT

A. REPORTS:

(1) Service Manager’s Report. Mr. Drobina stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had some questions regarding the sewer backup. Mr. Drobina stated during the heavy rainfall on March 19^th, there was some sewage backup in four homes on Rambling Brook. He stated he has heard from three residents with cost estimates on the damages. Mr. Wisniewski questioned what the City did with the backup that occurred in Cherry Hill and Mr. Drobina stated he was not sure what exactly was done, but he understood we had an independent appraiser who calculated depreciation on what was lost. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if this latest incident was caused by a failure of our equipment, and Mr. Drobina stated it occurred due to the high flow coming into the wastewater plant and we could not get it out. Mr. Wisniewski stated then it was not an issue related to a power or equipment failure. Mrs. Hammond questioned if other cities reimburse residents when things like this happen. Mr. Hansley stated the standard in Ohio is that if you take prompt action as soon as you are notified, and you act appropriately once you are notified, then you do not have liability, you have sovereign immunity. He stated if the City’s past policy was to compensate people, you did that as a moral obligation and not as a legal obligation. Mr. Wisniewski stated the last time it was a moral obligation due to equipment failure. Mrs. Hammond stated while she felt sympathy for the residents, sewers back up all the time. She stated we could conceivably have sewers back up in every neighborhood and questioned if the City would reimburse everyone. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt the precedent had been set in Cherry Hill in relation to sewer backup and equipment failure. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we are not going to follow that precedent, decisions need to be made and policies need to be set, that this entire Council will probably not agree on. He stated at the next Service Committee he would like information on what the policy was that was followed in the Cherry Hill incident; what did we do, what was the remediation that we performed, what costs were associated with it and how did we arrive at those costs. He stated further he would like to have an idea what the costs, using that same formula, would be for these homes. Mr. Drobina stated the costs he had received to date were for replacing drywall, repainting, replacing carpet, etc. Mrs. Hammond stated if we are going to consider this, she felt we should set some kind of a policy with a limit as to what each homeowner would receive as they must have homeowner’s insurance that would cover some of this. Mr. Drobina stated if the City were to pay what had been submitted by the three homeowner’s it would total approximately $21,000. Mr. Sauer when this type of rainfall comes down, are backups unique to us or does it happen in other communities as well and Ms VanCleave stated we are not unique, this is very common and occurs throughout the United States. She stated she has numerous articles on this issue and Mr. Sauer asked if she would forward him a brief overview of this issue. Mr. Hansley stated it is very common and the key is how big a problem are you having and how concerned is the EPA. He stated if we were to spend $21,000 now because of rain, it could rain tomorrow, next week, or ten more times this year, so you need to be careful of what policy you set. Mr. Hansley stated he understood Mr. Wisniewski’s point that we have done this in the past as a moral obligation for one neighborhood, and Mr. Wisniewski stated that was due to the failure on the City’s part not having a back up generator. Mr. Hansley stated then the City did not take care of a problem when we knew we had one and Mr. Wisniewski stated that was correct. Mr. Hansley stated staff then needed to bring back more information on what was done in the past and what is the magnitude of this particular problem. Mr. Drobina stated he would notify the residents that we are researching and working on this issue.

Mr. Drobina stated in his report he had indicated that one pump in the D-Line lift station was not operating. He stated since that time the second D-Line pump went out. Mr. Drobina stated he had the backup diesel pump operating there and it was running constantly directly behind one house and it was making a lot of noise, so he has rented an electrical pump to put in there temporarily. Mr. Drobina stated one new pump has been ordered and one has been repaired and should be back next week. Mr. Drobina stated it does take approximately six weeks to get the pump once it is ordered because they build them after you order them. Mr. Drobina stated further in doing the annual load test on the generator at the wastewater treatment plant, there were some problems with the engine. He stated he has rented a generator to have just in case because we cannot afford to not have power at the plant. He stated this backup generator costs $4,900 per month and the cost to repair ours is $7,300. He stated he will have that repair done as soon as possible. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like Mr. Drobina to notify Council when items of any considerable size that are not included in his budget come up. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt everyone needed to understand that when these issues come up, things that break that aren’t budgeted for, and how that eats into in the budget.

(2) Staff Engineer’s Report. Ms VanCleave stated she had provided a written report to the Committee and she would answer any questions. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that the developer in Fox Glen subdivision was in the process of completing punch list items. Ms VanCleave stated she has been receiving calls from several homeowners who were unaware that this work needed to be done and were questioning what work was going on. She stated she has requested the developer send a notice to the homeowners letting them know what work was being done and how long to expect it to continue. She stated she felt the developer has done that, as she has not had many calls lately.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and discussion regarding repair of Meadows Blvd. Culvert. Mr. Drobina stated he has spoken to the Finance Director and although we did not budget repair of this culvert this year, it appears we have funds we can reappropriate and complete this work this year. Mr. Wisniewski clarified this was money in our budget, not that we would borrow for this project. Mrs. Hammond stated this was discussed briefly at the Finance Committee and she felt we were at the point where this repair was absolutely necessary at this time. Mr. Drobina stated this appears to be deteriorating and we did put some cold patch on it, but it seems to be going down more. He stated if it keeps on sinking he felt we would temporarily close the road there until we do a repair. Ms VanCleave stated she has received calls from residents and they do not support closing the road permanently. Mr. Hansley stated closing the road was the cheapest option, and Mrs. Hammond stated she understood why they did not want it closed. She stated sometimes it is difficult to get onto Hill Road from there and this road provides them another option. Mr. Wisniewski clarified we have a proposal from Stilson for $12,975 for the design and the engineer’s estimate for the project is just over $100,000. Mr. Hansley stated we would not know the actual cost of the project until the bids were opened and it could be anywhere between $150,000 and $200,000. He further clarified the Finance Director had used the higher numbers when checking to see if the funds were available. Mr. Wisniewski stated everyone knew this project needed to be done. Mr. Wisniewski moved to proceed with the replacement of the Meadows Blvd. culvert and having Stilson perform the design work; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract for Road Salt. Mr. Drobina stated although it seems early, our contract with Cargill for road salt expires this year. Mr. Drobina stated we did receive three bids and he would recommend Cargill as they had the lowest bid. He stated this past year we paid $46.67 per ton for the piler, and the bid price is $55.73. Mr. Drobina stated we use approximately 200 tons of road salt per year, depending on the weather. Mr. Hansley stated he had received notification that there is a chance we might recover some of the costs of the recent blizzard through FEMA. Mr. Sauer moved to approve award of the road salt contract to Cargill and forward to Council; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

7. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS.

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update. Ms Frommer stated a lot of activity is going on. She stated URS and staff have completed their review of the plans that DLZ submitted as 95 percent complete. She stated the comment letter was quite lengthy and had some very substantial comments made in it. She stated that was provided to the design team and they did take a couple of weeks to digest it, and a meeting was held last Thursday to go through the more substantial things. Ms Frommer stated she did not feel she would be doing her job unless she told the Committee that she has some concerns for the process. She stated 28 pages of comments on a design set that should be nearly ready for bid is a lot, but she is working with the design consultants on that. She stated she had also expressed some serious concerns about the filter topic, as the filters in the project are, by far, one of the most costly unit processes and she felt that extensive discussion had taken place but she was not satisfied that there were enough options, other than a couple of vendors specified, no additional construction options on type of filter. Ms Frommer stated she expressed this to the design consultants and because they are a team there was more discussion because the lead designer had a somewhat different opinion than sub-consultants. She further stated that at the meeting Thursday she directed them to move forward with preparing the project to receive construction bids, including an alternate bid for reconstruction of the sand filters, which is the current unit process, the type of filtration you have now, not necessarily widely popular with your operations staff but given an eye to the budget she was very concerned with making sure you had some options before you that would include more competition in the bid and give you some alternate route to take in light of the fact that the EPA has relaxed your limitations that the filters themselves address. She continued they are proceeding to include that and a meeting was held with EPA today to go through EPA plan comments and some next steps. She stated she could not tell the Committee at this time when we will have an approvable set of drawings in hand and that is part of her concern. She stated there is a lot of work to do yet in getting this plan set moving forward in a way that she can feel comfortable putting out on the street. Ms Frommer stated beyond that the other part of her concern is just truly factual, and is that of time. She stated the plant operators are doing everything they can to keep the plant running and not backing up, but they do not control the weather, so time is really of the essence. She stated completion of the design team services per their contract was originally to have occurred March 1^st, so at this point in going through the schedule last week, the changes that are before them and the schedule that lies ahead with a bidding timeframe, a pre-bid and then your council action to award that bid, she is looking at mid-September as the earliest that the construction contract could be signed. She stated it is her understanding that the EPA was concerned with being able to get through the information and through their process in enough time and wanted roughly a month added to that schedule. She stated the reality is that if everything happens real fast, you are still looking at late October or early November construction and that is at least six if not eight months beyond when you hoped to have it started. Mr. Wisniewski inquired why things were not being resolved with DLZ, what was going on that we were not getting things taken care of. He stated they have had the 28-pages of comments for quite some time and they are holding us up a lot on this project. Ms Frommer stated she cannot speak for the designer, but from her own experience, 28-pages of comments of the nature that the comments were would take a lot of time. She stated the regrettable part is that we have that many comments at this stage of the game. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was his point exactly, we had paid for the design and to have 28 pages of comments regarding this makes him question what kind of a design we have on hand to date. Ms Frommer stated she would like to be able to tell the Committee these could be dealt with fast, but because the designer will not be involved during construction she would prefer to err on the side of caution and make sure that the people who are involved during construction are confident there is enough information on the plans that they can get it built per the specifications. She stated again she would not feel that she was doing her job if she did not let the Committee know that she does have concern about this. She stated it is being worked on, but as far as speed at this point, she is trying to do what makes sense for the end product. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if Ms Frommer was being held up by too many people being involved, from not having the resources necessary to perform the action, from not getting responses from URS or DLZ, or what. Ms Frommer stated URS has not been a time limiter at all, they have been very responsive. She stated she has expressed concern with staff internally and it is something that is continually worked on to make sure there is efficient communication between themselves and the design team. She stated she could not say they were doing a good job of that, but the lion’s share of the fact that we are as far behind schedule as far as we are, would be with the design team first. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if there was anything Service Committee could do to help this project move forward, anything they could do to give her the responsibility to get this project to completion in the most timely manner. Ms Frommer stated she did not know what that would be, Stilson has a contract to manage the project and she continually works on making sure they efficiently communicate both internally and externally. She stated the best thing she could ask for is an understanding of the gravity of what they are dealing with and how it will affect things. She stated this is a difficult situation we are trying to get out of as far as wastewater treatment plant capacity and getting that fixed. She further stated based on the meeting last Thursday, it is probably time for a “this is what we want to do, get it done by this time, and you are going to fix it now.” She stated it is not that the message has been any different than that, but particularly after EPAs concern was expressed that it may not be enough time and knowing what staff has gone through in just the past two weeks with pumps and generators breaking down, urgency and understanding the gravity of the situation is important. Mr. Wisniewski stated Ms Frommer is the project manager and questioned what staff’s involvement should be. Ms Frommer stated she felt it was akin to when an entity considers themselves to have a threat posed on it, you enter the mind set that there is some kind of a police state, and she felt mentally we were headed there on the wastewater treatment plant project if we were going to effect a positive change fast and get this thing built in any semblance of its original schedule. She stated she tries very hard every day to do her job managing this project to an end and she is working on that. Mr. Sauer questioned if the schedule was built into the contract, and Ms Frommer stated she did not negotiate the contract and she could not say if there were penalties for schedule. Mr. Drobina stated he did not believe there were any penalties for schedule. Mr. Sauer stated then there is nothing that is built in for any type of recourse if they are not meeting their obligations. Mr. Drobina stated he would take responsibility for some of the delay because of the filters; he made them spend a lot of time on the filters. Mr. Wisniewski stated that would not be 28 pages of issues that need resolved. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that all of the services including bidding were to be completed by March 1^st, and there are still 28 pages of comments to be dealt with. Mr. Sauer questioned how much time Ms Frommer would anticipate those comments would take to be resolved, and Ms Frommer stated she had asked that question at the meeting Thursday and she was told they could produce sets to the City in approximately two weeks. Mr. Hansley inquired if any amount of those comments have been resolved, and Ms Frommer stated she is not receiving information on how many have been resolved, but she felt approximately 25 percent of the comments were random small things, such as typos, however, there was a lot of discussion about larger things. Ms Frommer stated she was not bringing this up for the Committee to take action, but other than understanding her concern she felt the need to tell the Committee she had concerns. She stated as the project manager she is trying to effect change positively and fast without compromising it be a good installation. Mrs. Hammond questioned if the design team were the construction team, would there still be 28 pages of comments or would it have been a smaller amount. She questioned if the problem was that we had two different firms looking at it from two different points of view. Mr. Wisniewski summarized that we have DLZ, Brown-Caldwell, URS, Stilson, and staff involved and questioned where the 28 pages of comments came from. Mr. Drobina stated everyone had some input into the 28 pages. Ms Frommer stated on items that could be considered stylistic in the way you prepare a set of plans, that may be the case, however, the thing that really brought up red flags for her was when there was discussion about a particular item, a lot of the background that the design team gave for why they were suggesting this amount of detail as opposed to that type of detail was their experience; the experience they cited was for municipalities larger than Pickerington, and the comments that had come from the construction team, in her opinion, sometimes tend to err on more detail because of the quality of the contractor that you can sometimes attract for projects of a smaller scale. She stated there was no doubt that all of the large, well-qualified contractors in wastewater treatment do flock to large jobs if they are qualified for municipalities of the size of Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc., the crux of some of the comments were that a certain detail may be more appropriate, or you may feel it is overkill but we think it is necessary, because we may not draw all of the super large wastewater treatment qualified contractors. She stated she did not think, knowing that contractual relationships do exist in other municipalities between the design team folks and the construction team folks, that it was an attempt to malign the designer and poke holes in the work. She stated she felt all of the comments had merit and the design team disagreed with some of that. She stated she was just apprising the Committee that the project has found itself outside of schedule and we have issues that we are working diligently on at present. Mr. Wisniewski inquired since there are so many people involved, are there any miscommunications or are we conflicting with each other internally or are we having any communication issues with DLZ. Ms Frommer stated we have had those issues before and she continues to be an advocate that she is a strong proponent of a single point of contact, one person in charge. She stated because the project is in the current state that it is in, and because her firm’s name is on the contract as the project manager, she knew it would be easy to include her as part of the problem should there be an issue on bid opening day, so she has expressed concern to Mr. Hansley and to staff within the past two weeks about cleaning that up. She stated she has also expressed this to the consultants. She further stated there is communication that has occurred on the project that has not been directed to her as the project manager and it is hard to be the person in charge sometimes when not everyone works that way. She stated internally she feels it is time to have a meeting and decide on our exit strategy from the project and that should occur in the next day or so. Mr. Wisniewski clarified by “exit strategy” she meant streamlining communications and working with the consultant team to give them direction on exactly what we want and when we need it done. Mr. Wisniewski stated if Ms Frommer or staff needs anything from this Committee regarding a single point of contact he felt that was the best approach. Mr. Sauer clarified that the design team had stated today there should be a biddable set of plans next week.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Diley Road Improvements Project:

a. MORPC/ODOT Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated the Diley Road project is proceeding and the utility installation is well underway, and the peat bog is going well. She stated there will be another progress meeting this coming week. Ms Frommer stated we and ODOT found out after the last progress meeting that the railroad would be coming to the site and starting their work in the near term. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the railroad will be putting in new cross bucks, and they are also constructing a new at-grade crossing to accommodate the widened Diley Road. Mrs. Hammond clarified that originally this was to be done last fall. Ms Frommer stated five detours were detailed in the contract, but because the roadway contract does not govern the railroad work which is a contract performed by Norfolk Southern, the notion of when the work would occur was up to the railroad, and the detour proposed by Norfolk Southern just became known. She stated she felt ODOT is doing a good job of working with the contractor and the railroad to try and put it all together into a timeframe that will not overly burden everyone. She stated there will be an overlap of detour areas, and for two weeks it will be a little strange. She stated staff has been doing a good job of getting the word out about the detours as quickly as possible.

C. WATER: No Report.

D. STORMWATER. No Report.

8. CHAIRMAN.

A. Discussion regarding Contract Exclusion List. Mr. Hansley stated he had turned this over to Mr. Hartmann to begin the legislation. Mr. Hansley stated he felt it would be a difficult piece of legislation because it was his understanding the Committee wanted to pre-exclude contractors based on other suburbs experience. Mr. Wisniewski stated our past experience would also be considered. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if other communities that had these exclusion lists just go off of their own bad experiences. Mr. Hansley stated that was his understanding. He stated Mr. Hartmann will look into this and then advise the Committee on what he would recommend.

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

10. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wisniewski moved to adjourn; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 9:45 P.M., April 10, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk