THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 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: Ed Drobina, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Nick LaTorre, Jack Reynolds, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 14, 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: There were no community comments.

4. DEVELOPMENT:

A. Development Director’s Report. Mr. Schultz stated the UDF building has been demolished and Walgreen’s will begin construction as soon as possible. He stated the Big Bear will be demolished in the next month and the new construction will start soon after that. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that the assisted living has begun construction and will take about a year to complete. Mr. Wisniewski further clarified that the bowling alley use has not changed, they have revised their plans a couple of times. Mr. Sauer stated one of the changes is where the volleyball courts were initially they were closer to the residents. He stated in the last change the building is in front of the volleyball courts and Planning and Zoning did not allow any lighting on the volleyball courts.

5. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT:

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

(1) Planning and Zoning Representative Report. Mr. Sauer stated the Commission approved two sign requests at their last meeting, and it was a relatively short meeting.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance approving a Final Development Plan for approximately 8.55 acres for Anchor 204 Business Park located on the north side of S.R. 204 between Freedom Way and Holiday Inn Express. Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission approved the final development plan in August with eight conditions. Mr. Schultz stated one condition was that the traffic impact study had to meet the City engineer’s requirements. He stated he had provided a memorandum showing the requirements the City has, and most specifically, ODOT’s recommendation for improvement with a Kwik Kurb being installed on the southbound ramp from I-70 extending from the ramp to approximately the right-in/right-out at Winderly Lane. He stated the developer will pay for that and ODOT will install it. He stated ODOT is also trying to promote utilizing the Taylor Road exit on I-70 for commercial uses east of S.R. 204 as well as residents. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Bosch of ODOT has stated they will add additional signage on I-70 as well as a media campaign on this. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that a Kwik Kurb is used when there is not enough room for an actual median and is an extruded curb poured on top of the pavement. Mr. Wisniewski stated the intent then is to prevent traffic from taking a westbound onto S.R. 204. Mr. Schultz stated then intent is to reduce the weave out there, people coming off the interstate and crossing three lanes to turn left onto S.R. 204 as that is a very dangerous movement at peak times. Mr. Schultz stated this requirement reduced several other offsite traffic improvements that we required and the benefit to ODOT is that the developer will purchase the material and ODOT will install it. Ms VanCleave stated the alternative would be for the developer to add an additional left turn lane onto S.R. 204 plus some additional turning lanes onto S.R. 256 from westbound S.R. 204. Mr. Schultz stated ODOT was apparently going to do this regardless of this development, and we cannot control what is in ODOT’s limited access. Mr. Schultz clarified that if ODOT were not going to do this, he was not sure the developer would be able to afford the required improvements as they would have to acquire additional right-of-way that would probably be cost prohibitive. He stated this solution is a win for ODOT and a win for the developer, and will hopefully solve some of our traffic problems. Mr. Reynolds stated several developers had gotten together and done a comprehensive traffic study and had come up with a traffic program that will work. He stated he did believe that ODOT’s remedy is kind of short-term, but their goal is to get a lot more of the traffic to go up to the Taylor Road exit and that would be a much better route for people to get to his site. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve the final development plan and forward to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. 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 schedule a public hearing before Council for open discussion regarding the Final Development Plan for Anchor 204 Business Park for Tuesday, October 21, 2008, at 7:20 P.M. Mr. Wisniewski moved to schedule the public hearing for Tuesday, October 21, 2008, at 7:20 P.M.; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Wisniewski 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. Sauer inquired if there was an update on the status of a backflow being installed for the resident who was at the last meeting and had problems with back-up in her basement. Mr. Drobina stated he had gone to the resident with a plumber and it appeared the way the plumbing is in the house there is no way to put a backflow valve in because the actual sewer line goes out above the floor rather than through the floor and under the footer. He stated he had spoken to her husband and was told it was basically all storm water from the sump pump that wasn’t working. Mr. Drobina stated there was no debris or indication that there had been sewage in the basement. Mr. Drobina stated the D-Line from Long Road to Windmiller was videoed and he saw nothing on the video. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the flooding in all the homes on Long Road was sewer and it was partially caused by manholes that were under water by the stream, and also by one manhole where the casting was broken. Mr. Drobina stated we have put dishes under the lids, and the one manhole has been repaired.

Mr. Wisniewski questioned with regard to the reverse osmosis that was discussed at the last meeting, did the City accept the limits given to us by the EPA or is this something we could fight if we needed to. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood the County was fighting the EPA on the limits for their TDS. Ms Frommer stated that was correct, and this limit is one of the most stringent limits on this issue in the State of Ohio, if not the most stringent. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not feel the EPA should tell us we were required to do a $2 million improvement. He stated URS did the report on this and the main URS person was the one who designed the County system. He stated Mr. Hogan used to work for the County and he is the person who wrote the URS report. Mr. Wisniewski questioned why we were the guinea pig on this new thing and were just expected to accept it. Mr. Drobina stated he believed it was because the biggest make-up of the stream is basically the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. Ms VanCleave stated it is based on the nutrient loading that the stream can take before it starts altering the biological life in the stream. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if once we did the upgrade to our system, would that change anything in the way the numbers are calculated; is it based on the outflow of it as a percentage of the total, what are the calculations based on? Mr. Drobina stated they are based on the flow of the stream, and Ms VanCleave stated the change would occur at the water plant, which will help benefit the stream because the water plant doesn’t really discharge.

Mr. Wisniewski stated it was his understanding that the estimates the Committee got last week was that the reverse osmosis was the recommended way to go, and the estimate on that is $2 million. He questioned if there were other procedures or anything that we could do either at the water plant or the sewer plant to make it different. Mr. Drobina stated there is nothing we can do at the water plant to reduce our TDS, because the only way you can do anything with the TDS is to remove the source, and the source of our TDS at the water plant is our softening units where we use salt and it is the by-product from our backwash. Ms Frommer stated the she has not read the URS report, but she would say she had attended some early meetings with the EPA and it was discussed why you were having problems with TDS and why your situation is pretty unique. She stated some of the things that make your problem unique are your receiving stream and the characteristics of it, and also what your water plant puts out to your waste stream isn’t further diluted because you send a lot of what is south of there to Canal, so you don’t have the benefit of bringing that into your waste stream to kind of dilute what is going on before it hits your wastewater treatment plant. She stated she shared Mr. Wisniewski’s thought about wanting to make sure this is being approached in a way that is cost effective yet gets rid of the problem. Mr. Wisniewski questioned what the possibilities were for us to tap into Canal Winchester’s sewer lines that are right there and send our sewer there. Mr. Drobina stated we did a calculation on that early in this process and at one time they were willing to take the sewer, and maybe they still would be, but after a few years with the cost of that you could have done something with the plant, and they were also concerned about their TDS limit. Mr. Drobina stated if we were on a large river, we probably wouldn’t have a TDS limit at all. Ms Frommer further stated with the recent permit you received, you have a one-year grace period where there is basically no limit on the TDS. Mr. Drobina stated that was correct, and next year the limit will go back until 1710 milligrams per liter until we get the new plant built, and then the limit drops to 1632 milligrams per liter. Ms Frommer clarified that we violated on the TDS three or four times last year, and that is mainly in the summer months when we are pumping more water. Mr. Drobina stated with regard to the RFQ talked about last month, he has not done anything with that as yet. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood that, he just wanted to make sure that when it came before the Committee that he had the questions answered and the options on the table regarding this. Mr. Drobina stated the other option discussed with a dilution well at the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Drobina stated we have done things at the water plant to operate it more efficiently. He further stated other options that would help were raising the hardness of the water or purchasing water from the County or someone through the summer months to supplement our use, which would reduce what we pump. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to see three or four options when you come back with a solution. He questioned if the sewer calculations that you did based on sending everything to Canal or just some partial amount. Mr. Drobina stated we first talked about sending it all to Canal and Ms VanCleave stated it is very difficult to put a valve in there and switch it when you need to. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt staff could figure this out.

(2) Staff Engineer’s Report. Ms VanCleave stated she had provided a written report and she would be happy to answer any questions. Ms VanCleave stated the Meadows culvert is complete and she thought the total amount for the project was $85,000 and the engineer’s estimate was $110,000, so staff did a very good job of controlling costs and keeping the project going. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to thank staff for doing a very good job.

B. ACTION ITEMS: NONE.

7. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS.

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion – Update. Ms Frommer stated a preconstruction conference is scheduled with the contractor on Wednesday, October 15^th, and she expected things would begin moving very shortly. Ms Frommer stated the loan documents were prepared and reviewed with the City Manager. She stated the total of the loan would be $12,103,781.65, and a couple of reasons why the loan is greater than $10,000,000 as listed in the CIP is because you are including the URS contract for construction, administration, and observation, and Finance Department also requested the reimbursement of the DLZ design fee as well. Mr. Wisniewski stated he thought DLZ was paid for out of the sewer fund and Ms Frommer stated she thought it was general obligation short-term. Mr. Drobina stated he did not know where it was paid from, but Ms Fersch did request we borrow the money to pay back wherever she took it from. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would ask that question in Finance and requested this be included on the agenda for the Finance Committee, to clarify where DLZ was paid from. Ms Frommer stated the application will be submitted tomorrow and the loan itself will be voted on the last Thursday of the month at the OWDA meeting, so you should know before October 1^st that you have your loan to build the project. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if the loan amount was originally approved by Council, because he was under the impression we were going for a $10,000,000 loan not a $12,000,000. Ms Frommer stated she had not known until recently that the design amount was going to be included, and including the URS contract was at the direction of Finance as well. Ms Frommer stated the legislation passed authorizing the City Manager to sign the application was devoid of a dollar amount. Mr. Drobina stated we only borrow what we actually use, and Ms Frommer stated you borrow the whole thing but you only pay back what you actually use. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would have preferred to have been told about this in Finance from the Finance Director versus in Service from the engineer that we are going another 20 percent higher on the loan than they thought. Mrs. Hammond stated if she recalled, the $10,000,000 that was agreed upon by the Utility Fee Review Commission, we had enough in the raises we put in for the water and sewer department to cover that, and she questioned where this extra $2,000,000 left us. Ms Frommer stated she did not know if this was necessarily a product of the fact that Finance directed the design reimbursement or the URS contract in there. She stated when you were talking about a $10,000,000 loan you were talking about an $8,000,000 treatment plant and now you have a cost of $9,987,000 for the treatment plant. Mr. Wisniewski stated it is not an issue as to whether we get approved for the loan, it is whether or not we draw it. He stated as long as we are not penalized for applying for more, that is fine, but it will be discussed in Finance Committee. Mr. Wisniewski requested a copy of the loan application be included in the Finance Committee packets. Mr. Sauer stated what concerned him was what this could potentially do to user fees.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Diley Road Improvements Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated they will be instituting a detour shortly. Mr. Drobina stated the project is coming along well and Ms VanCleave stated the end of October they will be switching traffic over to the side they are working on now. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if the bike path location was chosen because there were less homes on that side of the street, because the bike path south of Busey is on the other side of the street. Ms Frommer stated she would find out and forward that information to the committee. Ms Frommer stated a section of noise wall has been installed so everyone can see what it is going to look like.

Ms Frommer stated with regard to the RedFlex camera issue, she has a couple of e-mails that constitute, loosely, the study that has been done. She stated the issue was being forwarded to the engineer for review and thoughts on what has been studied to date. She stated the study that has been done about how many violators per intersection that could be caught do not address the capacity issues. She stated she has had a number of conversations with the traffic engineer and she had a few points she would like to make. She stated this is with very little in-depth review because there was not much to review. Ms Frommer stated two of the intersections being referenced are on ODOT controlled signals and they have noted unequivocally that they refuse to let red light cameras be placed on them. She stated those intersections were at S.R. 204 and S.R. 256 and one by the ramp. She stated removing these two intersections would cut the projected violations estimated by RedFlex by at least one-third. Ms Frommer stated putting these cameras in will have a negative effect on the operation of the intersections because if you follow state law you would be required to put in an additional one second of yellow time be put into each signal operation where you are going to be operating a red light camera. She stated in doing that you need to take the time from somewhere and it will be from your main line time or your side streets, which would also affect your main line time. She stated by taking time out of the green it will reduce the number of cars you can get through the intersection. Mr. Drobina clarified that you increase the time of the yellow, but the cycle time remains the same. Ms Frommer stated the traffic engineer has serious concerns about capacity reduction at your over capacity intersections for installing red light cameras. Mr. Wisniewski asked if Ms Frommer could do a comprehensive study in a reasonable cost that could show the city what projections may occur. He stated what he is looking for is something to talk to council as a whole about because this will generate more questions. Mr. Sauer clarified that House Bill 30 Ms Frommer referred to was passed, however, it was her understanding that RedFlex was recommending some legislation that Council would pass that would perhaps buffer you from that. Mr. Sauer stated then RedFlex was encouraging us not to do something that the State of Ohio had passed. Mr. Wisniewski stated we are Home Rule so RedFlex was encouraging us to not shorten the cycle, but to not increase it. Mr. Sauer stated then as he understood it we could keep our yellow at what it is today, increase the yellow to what the State of Ohio recommends, or do nothing. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was correct, and that one second increase was based on adding red light cameras. Ms Frommer stated in the absence of other legislation you are required to comply with House Bill 30. Ms Frommer stated she had just received a memorandum from Mr. Seaman, the traffic engineer, detailing these issues and she would have a copy distributed to all of Council. Ms Frommer stated they were passing judgment on a number of issues that there is no information for. She stated they can certainly find the answers but she felt the onus is definitely on RedFlex to provide some additional information and if Council wants her to study it further, she certainly can. She stated the other two items absent is the mention of the possibility of an increase in rear end collisions resulting from new traffic patterns caused by the red light cameras. She stated collision analysis, citywide, does show a consistent trend of rear end collisions along the 256 corridor and is indicative of an overcapacity roadway system with respect to intersection operations. She stated lastly, there are additional capacity reductions yet to be analyzed for all projected violators that are currently making it through a signal during a normal cycle. She stated under red light cameras this will not be the case and it is reasonable to expect that high percentage of violators will be added to the current queues behind the stop bars. She stated again, there is an absence of information for them to review. Mrs. Hammond stated the information received from RedFlex did not provide what time of day, or any details.

Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood ODOT would like to tie into the ACS for the lights they control. Ms Frommer stated that was correct and when the project was done in 2003 you did sign an agreement with ODOT to give them control of those signals. Mr. Wisniewski stated, however, we do have the ability to take them back, and Ms Frommer stated that was correct. She stated in her opinion ODOT at no time stopped communicating with us and some issues were not fully resolved, but they never stopped communicating. She did state, however, they did take controllers that were compatible with yours out of the signal cabinets and putting in their own controllers since they had to control the signals that were on the other side of the interchange as well. She stated a number of your traffic impact studies have been in front of them, we have tried to give them courtesy reviews, and the traffic engineer and your staff have a great relationship with Mr. Bosch at District 5. She stated a couple of months ago we met with ODOT and they indicated they were amenable to making the two systems talk in some way and they are now talking with the traffic engineer about getting controllers that are compatible with yours and hook into the ACS system. Ms Frommer continued that your system is your priority and the devil is in the details because you do not want to fall victim to something going on over at WalMart. She stated the ACS light system that you are putting in requires turning movement counts, and ODOT indicated they are doing turning movement counts on their side and they will be happy to pay for yours, which will easily save over $15,000. She stated ODOT is very open to keeping the entire corridor on one ACS coordinated system. Mr. Wisniewski stated there are to many questions without enough information, and we will wait for the details. Ms Frommer stated she agreed but the possibility exists for coordinated traffic movement from the end of your coordinated signals all the way up through WalMart.

C. WATER: No Report.

D. STORMWATER. No Report.

8. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had nothing to report this evening.

9. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement for Red Light cameras with RedFlex Traffic Systems, Inc. Mr. Wisniewski stated this has been discussed earlier, however, it was explained to him that obviously we are trying to cut down on violations, and the safety this is supposed to generate is T-bone accidents at intersections. Mr. Wisniewski asked Ms VanCleave if she could provide the committee some data on this. Mrs. Hammond stated from a safety issue it would be interesting to know how many of the accidents are caused by people running red lights because in the Chief’s monthly reports the number of accidents have gone down considerably from last year. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to get the information on all of the targeted intersections because if the majority of council wants the cameras they could also push that we take the lights back from ODOT so he felt the information on all the lights would be necessary. He stated information for the past two years would be sufficient. Ms VanCleave stated she has a lot of the information and it should not be difficult to pull this out. Mr. Sauer stated obviously you don’t want T-bone accidents, but if you are having only a small number of them this might be going overboard for safety, especially if the rear end collisions increase. Mr. Wisniewski stated one of the purposes of the cameras is to relieve calling officers to the intersections, but if you are calling them to deal with rear end accidents they will be there anyway. Ms VanCleave clarified the committee wanted information for the past two years summarizing monthly the number and type of accidents, location, and if they were T-bone or rear end collisions.

Ms Frommer stated she was also distributing a budgetary memo regarding the ACS Light System Phase 2.

10. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sauer moved to adjourn; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 8:45 P.M., September 11, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk