CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SAFETY COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2008

7:30 P.M.

REGULAR MEETING

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Smith present. There were no members absent. Others present were: Tim Hansley, Chief Taylor, Ed Drobina, Paul Lane, Don Phillips, Steve Carr, Stacey Bashore, Susan Lentz, Larry Jones and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 5, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Sanders voting "Yea." Motion passed, 3-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS. There were none.

4. COMMUNITY SAFETY CONCERNS: There were none.

5. DEPARTMENT REPORTS

A. Parks and Recreation- Mr. Carr stated he had provided a written report and would be happy to answer any questions. He further stated that last year 697 pool passes were sold and to date we have sold 579 passes and are still selling them. Mr. Carr stated that last year the City residents comprised 27% of the total membership and to date resident membership is 43%. Mr. Smith asked if there was a publication that goes out to the Township to let everyone know the pool is open and available for passes and marketing. Mr. Carr reported that we have taken in over $170,000 in revenue for the pool and our budget for the expense side is $185,000. He stated that we are on target to meet the expenses. Mr. Carr stated that he would be happy to give anyone a tour of the Disc Golf Course and we have a local contractor who plays the game of disc golf who has taken on the project on a hourly basis with a not to exceed limit. Mr. Carr reported that we recently had a discussion with the GTN cable station who may come on as a media sponsor for the Giant Eagle Concert series.

B. Code Enforcement: Mr. Smith stated that he appreciated the very thorough report. Mr. Smith asked about the Nuisance Abatement Committee for the Exxon Station and Mr. Hansley stated that we are working on scheduling that meeting as the next step.

C. Building Regulations Department:

(1) Building Department Report (Mr. Lane) Mr. Lane stated that he had provided a written report and would be happy to answer any questions. He further stated that there are several large commercial projects that should be getting under way soon.

(2) Chief Building Official's Report (Mr. Phillips) Mr. Phillips stated he had provided a written report and was open to any questions.

D. Service Department:

(1) Refuse collection contract bidding - Update Susan Lentz with Waste Management stated she saw that the City Manager recommended to enter into contract with Rumpke. She stated that there were a lot of different options that the City asked for in the bid process from each bidder and in review of the bids the only bid that all three contractors bid on was for weekly curbside recycling program. Ms Lentz reviewed Waste Management's recycling programs with the Committee. She stated that Waste Management's fourth option bid was based on the surveys from the pilot recycling program. Mr. Sabatino clarified that the bigger container with the lid took up as much floor space as the open recycling bin. Mrs. Sanders stated she has noticed that when there is a storm the trash from the open recycling bins goes everywhere. Ms Lentz stated there was a community in the Lima area that recently switched from weekly bin recycling to every other week curb recycling and they are very happy with it. She stated that it is also for safety reasons and safety is a huge concern for Waste Management. Ms Lentz stated that Waste Management has a proven record with the City and they are committed to Pickerington. She stated they are requesting the Committee to take another look at the bids and determine what is in the best interest of the City. Mr. Sabatino stated he has observed concerns several times that were handled immediately and he didn't know what the difference in price was for the other bids. He would like to have the information before he can vote on it. Ms Lentz stated that some of the options cost more when there is more manpower on the street and our commitment to the way our trucks look. She stated that they carry $25 million worth of liability insurance on their trucks which also shows the value that they bring to the streets. Mrs. Sanders stated that she appreciated Ms Lentz attending to reiterate some of the things they offer. Mr. Smith stated that when the discussion starts he would ask that any rebuttal wait until the next business day out of respect for the other bidders who are not represented to keep the process fair. Mr. Sabatino stated that their attendance clearly illustrates an interest in keeping our business for Waste Management to be here and the other bidders had the opportunity to be here as well. Ms. Lentz stated she would respect those wishes and stated she would be available for any questions. Mr. Hansley stated we had a complex bid package with many variables and options. Mr. Drobina stated it was a difficult process and we made a lot of the decisions based on assumptions because we did not have clear direction from Council. He further stated there was a total of four bids with one being disregarded. Mr. Hansley clarified that the one bidder that was disregarded was out of Texas and we believe their bid was high because they were not that interested. He further stated that we concentrated on the three remaining firms because that one was so far out of range. Mr. Smith stated that the only concept Council had was the pilot project and we asked that the bid package be set up for other recommendations to be evaluated. Mr. Drobina stated that based on cost only Rumpke was the lowest bidder. Mr. Jones stated that depending on the scenario and fuel charges the rates varied. Mr. Sabatino asked if the lowest bid was trash collection only or if it included some element of recycling and Mr. Drobina stated the bid was for once a week recycling with a small bin. Mr. Jones stated that Waste Management was the only company to present a bid with the large covered bin. Mr. Hansley stated that the survey also said that people would recycle if didn't cost them anything or not very much and the problem with the large bin it is substantially more than the cheaper program. Mr. Drobina reviewed the summary of the bids with the Committee. Mr. Sabatino asked about Rumpke price being an average and Mr. Drobina stated that when Rumpke bid they didn't hold their price constant for three years because they have an escalated fee each year so we took an average for the three years. Mr. Sabatino asked if that was allowed in the bid specifications and Mr. Drobina stated that it didn't say it had to be a fixed cost. He further stated it was bid for a time period of 2009 through 2011. Mr. Sabatino stated that when there is a different format than the other bidders that gives him some skepticism. Mr. Sabatino clarified that the residents are currently paying $11.86 a month now with no curbside recycling. He further stated that Rumpke is coming in cheaper than what the other two and it looks like a low ball bid and he wondered what kind of service the City would get with them. Mr. Drobina stated that we do not have to more this recommendation forward but we wanted something that everyone could discuss. Mr. Sabatino asked was there an option to bid for waste collection only and Mr. Drobina stated that Rumpke was the only one who bid optional open bin recycling or waste collection only. Mr. Sabatino stated that if we are going to do the recycling we would want it to be the safest and most secure way and that would be with something that has a lid on it. Mr. Sabatino asked if there was a bid for trash collection only and was it an option because now they are getting some recycling mechanisms through the current collection. Mr. Sabatino clarified that no one else bid on the current mechanism and asked how that compared. Mr. Drobina stated that if we leave everything as is with Waste Management and without recycling the total cost would be $13.51 a month which is less than $2.00 more than what it is now. Mr. Smith clarified that the inclusion of recycling would add around $3.00 a month. Mr. Sabatino asked if a decision had been made whether we were going to recycle and stated that we need to decide what we are going do. Mr. Jones stated that we focused on the least amount of cost for the most amount of recycling. Mr. Sabatino asked if the Dirty MIRF option was available and would the recycling be available on an opt in basis and Mr. Drobina stated that Waste Management did not submit a bid that way. Mr. Sabatino stated that people will look at what they are currently paying and what they are getting so if they would be getting something more than they would probably expect to pay something more. He further stated that if Waste Management was the only one who bid things as they are now then in his opinion they should be the only one we look at. Mr. Hansley stated that based on the surveys and the way the Committee was leaning staff felt that Council did not want to keep it exactly the same and that you wanted to have a more universal recycling option. He stated that any of the bidders could propose an innovative way to show what they could do for the City. Mr. Hansley stated he agreed that Rumpke tends to be a low ball bidder because they run a different type of operation. Mr. Sabatino stated he read each and every survey that came back and people wanted the recycling option if it was reasonable, but it didn't say that everyone wanted it and he doesn't see that it gave us a license to make everyone take it. He further stated that what we have now is working fine in terms of removing the trash and Waste Manage does a good job and they already remove some of the recycling materials. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt that the bid should have had a recycling opt in option. Mr. Smith asked if it would be appropriate to go back to the bidders with four specific narrowly defined criteria and have them come back with prices. Mrs. Sanders asked if Rumpke doesn't even have the covered bins is that something we want to even pursue. Mr. Sabatino stated that if we can cut down trips of trucks on our streets we should do that. Mrs. Sanders stated that she disagreed with the opt in because we can't make someone recycle but we can make them pay for it because they live in the community as well. Mr. Jones stated that the way that the opt-in program works makes it cost more for the people who opt in and the people who opt out get the best of both worlds without shouldering the cost. Mr. Sabatino stated that what we have to draw upon is the surveys and in his opinion the surveys strictly stated that people wanted to have the option of recycling contingent upon price. He stated that we have something that is a known product and a known cost. Mr. Smith stated that he is not trying to advocate one company over another and if we do an opt-in based on current bids we only have one company who bid that. Mr. Drobina stated that the problem with opt in would be having a whole neighborhood with only one person opting in so it doesn't really save on the roads. Mr. Sabatino stated that if he was going to do recycling he would have the more preferable closed lid tote. He stated he was not advocating one company over another but he was trying to illustrate that with Waste Management we know what we are getting. Mr. Smith stated that we could be making assumptions not based on fact before us and we know what we have with Waste Management but he wasn't sure we could say that we are not going to have that with another vendor. Mr. Sabatino stated that he didn't say that we wouldn't but he was saying to be that much of a cost difference there has to be something that they are not giving us. Mr. Smith asked if it was appropriate to go back out and ask for further information from the other bidders. Mr. Hansley stated you would have to have a sealed addendum to the bids and it would be very difficult to do. Mr. Smith stated that we don't have three of the same answers from all of the bidders. Mr. Sabatino stated that we need three bids on trash only and then opt in with a secured lid recycling bin. Mrs. Sanders asked if Waste Management was the only one who offered the covered recycling tote and Ms Lentz stated any company can provide them. Mr. Hansley stated that he didn't think people would do it based on the economics of it. Mr. Sabatino stated if people have the option to decide and if we get a good competitive bid on the trash collection people will make up their mind whether or not they will recycle. Mr. Sabatino stated that if we throw out all of the bids we received then we need to invite the bidders back with bid specifications that has trash collection only and an opt in for recycling. Mrs. Sanders asked how hard it would be to change a contract if we recycle for a year and Mr. Hansley stated that he believed we can always re-negotiate with the apparent low bidder and go lower because you always have the right to have them clarify their bid and give a better price. He stated it would be cleaner to have it in the contract to say the City reserves the right to update the contract. Mrs. Sanders stated that we need to give our residents the option. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed with giving some sort of an option and if we do that we need to do the opt-in as smart as we can with using the more secure tote every other week. Mr. Hansley stated that with an opt-in the bidders will have to come up with a formula to figure out what to charge the people who recycle and it will raise the price again. Mr. Hansley stated he would like to ask Ms Lentz if it was fair to the vendors to refigure amounts and Ms Lentz stated she has been doing government bidding for nine years and as far as she knows once sealed bids are opened you cannot go back and ask for prices. She further stated she didn't know if that was legal but it would be an option to throw out all of the bids and start over. Ms Lentz stated that every bidder had the opportunity to tell the City what they could best provide and what was the best fit for the City and the surveys made it clear that if it was an option that cost too much they would not choose recycling. She further stated that if you put out the options that Waste Management gave it puts them at a clear disadvantage because everyone will know what they bid for that service. Mr. Sabatino stated that as an observation fuel is going to be a factor and if there is a company that doesn't even factor that into their bid makes him nervous. Mr. Smith stated that no one bid on an every other week with a subscription service. Mr. Hansley stated that the bid will go higher with an opt-in subscription service and Waste Management will only be bidding against themselves based on the bids. Mrs. Sanders stated that a few years down the road recycling will not be an option and it will be mandatory so this would be a good start. Ms Lentz stated that their large recycling bins are the latest technology and are much safer in the communities. Mr. Smith asked if these were the only four bid choices that we had which one should we choose and Mr. Sabatino stated that these are not our only four because we are not dealing with hypothetical. Mr. Sabatino stated that the bids were based on what staff thought the community wanted and he didn't think the bids represented that. Mrs. Sanders stated that after participating in the pilot program and talking to people in her neighborhood she would vote for the every week recycling option. Mr. Smith moved to forward to Council a recommendation for a three year trash pick up contract with Waste Management with every other week recycling; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino and Mrs. Sanders voting "Yea." Motion passed, 3-0.

(2) Review and discussion regarding on-street parking during a snow emergency. Mr. Smith requested that this item be left on the agenda.

(3) Review and request for motion to approve draft resolution accepting the amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan. Mr. Drobina stated that the rates will not be raised so we are amending the previous legislation. Mr. Smith moved to forward to Council; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith and Mrs. Sanders voting "Yea." Motion passed, 3-0.

6. POLICE:

A. Chief's Report- Chief Taylor stated he had provided a written report and would be happy to answer any questions. He stated that Fairfield County is creating a position for an investigator to look into elderly abuse. Chief Taylor stated that they are requesting funds from Lancaster and Pickerington and the Sheriff's Office for the position and we strongly support it and would like to get this program off the ground. Mr. Smith clarified that there would be one investigator for the County and his only concern was that it doesn't stay localized in Lancaster and that the City receives the full benefit of the position as well. Chief Taylor stated that the work load is yet to be established and they will have the authority to go into nursing homes that generates any reports. He stated they can also investigate any home abuse. Mr. Sabatino stated with his dealing with Meals on Wheels and stated that Job and Family Services has been very vocal about this need. He stated he felt this was a very cost effective way to help our seniors. Mr. Hansley stated he would like to see a motion recommending this to Finance Committee. Mr. Smith stated he would like to see the money come out of the general fund and not the police budget. Mr. Smith moved to forward this to Finance Committee; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mrs. Sanders and Mr. Sabatino voting "Yea." Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Sabatino asked about the DARE grant and Chief Taylor stated it was an oversight on the State's part and because it was such a low amount this year we inquired about it. He stated that we were told it may be an oversight and they are going to review the paperwork again and there may be a chance we will get more back.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve a draft ordinance authorizing the disposition of a vehicle in the possession of the City of Pickerington police department pursuant to Court Order Mr. Smith moved to forward this to Council; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Mr. Smith stated he believed it represented exactly what the Committee asked to be done. Mr. Sabatino asked if we only have to deal with the incumbents if we sell it and Chief Taylor stated that if we keep it we pay for it. Mr. Hansley further clarified that we can take away the equity in the vehicle but we still need to pay the lien holder. Mr. Sabatino stated that the judge's order did not mention anything about equity. Mr. Hansley stated we will only have the equity and we will still have to pay the remaining balance. He stated that it would be best to sell it by sealed bid auction at a set price to get the money to pay off the vehicle. Mr. Sabatino clarified that there was a legal determination that if we keep the vehicle we have to assume the lien. Mr. Sabatino stated he had a problem when he read the entry from the judge and asked under whose authority did the City's legal counsel get involved. He stated that Schottenstein got involved and he wants to know for what reason. Chief Taylor stated he could not answer why they were participating. Mr. Smith stated our legal counsel will be at Council and we can ask them there. Chief Taylor stated that at a staff meeting he inquired about who would be responsible for the lien and our law firm was to review it and get back to us and from there it turned into this. Mr. Sabatino asked if it was necessary to have a stipulation that the previous owner cannot be a buyer and Chief Taylor stated that he would have a right to bid on it. Mr. Hansley stated we could ask our law director and if we legally can we will. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders and Mr. Smith voting "Yea." Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Smith stated that he received the memo regarding the red light cameras on the potential red light violations and he was excited about the potential safety improvement. Mr. Sabatino stated he has talked to a lot of people on the issue and the vast majority are supportive because they feel there are a number of people who do not respect our traffic signals. He stated he had talked to other people who felt like it was big brother watching them. Mr. Smith stated that it doesn't bother people to have their images taken every time they walk into a store and the only thing this will do is take a picture of the back of the car. Mr. Smith asked what was needed for this item and Mr. Hansley requested a motion to prepare the legislation and direct it to Council. Mr. Smith moved to prepare draft legislation for Council; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders and Mr. Smith voting "Yea." Motion passed, 3-0.

7. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smith stated he thought there was previous discussion regarding starting the Safety Committee at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. Mr. Smith moved to propose that Safety Committee meeting begin at 7:00 p.m.; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino and Mrs. Sanders voting "Yea." Motion passed, 3-0.

8. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was discussed.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sabatino moved to adjourn; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino voted "Aye." Motion carried 3-0. The Safety Committee adjourned at 9:28 P.M on June 2, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore, Deputy Municipal Clerk