THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 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: Time Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Ed Drobina, Brenda VanCleave, Lance Schultz, Jennifer Frommer, Scott Seaman, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 9, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sauer moved to approve; Mr. Wisniewski 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. Hansley stated he had nothing to report other than what had been reported in his Council report. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood the Big Bear shopping center would remain, and Mr. Hansley stated subject to financing the demolition was not going to take place. Mr. Hansley stated the demolition of the Exxon Station may take place Monday of next week because they need a lot split that we control and that was a condition of the lot split. Mr. Schultz stated Walgreen’s plans to open in February and the Primrose School will open in January.

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. Mr. Schultz stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the rezoning that is on tonight’s agenda.

(1) Planning and Zoning Representative Report. Mr. Sauer stated he had nothing to add to Mr. Schultz’s report.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance approving the rezoning of an approximate 5.82 acre parcel from C-2 (Limited Commercial) Violet Township to C-3 (Community Commercial) for the Gillilan property located on the northeast corner of the Refugee Road and Milnor Road intersection. Mr. Schultz stated this property was part of the 362-acre annexation the City accepted in 2005. He stated at that time our attorney indicated that each rezoning, per the annexation agreement, should go through the process and that is where we are today. He stated Mr. Gillilan is now requesting the rezoning. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that in the pre-annexation agreement we did agree to a C-3 zoning. Mr. Sauer moved to approve the rezoning; Mrs. Hammond 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 proposed rezoning of the Gillilan property located on the northeast corner of the Refugee Road and Milnor Road intersection for Tuesday, December 16, 2008, at 7:20 P.M. Mrs. Yartin stated that since this agenda was published, Council has scheduled the joint public hearing with Canal Winchester on the JEDD for December 16, 2008, at 6:30 P.M. She stated the next available date to schedule this public hearing was January 6, 2009. Mr. Wisniewski moved to schedule the public hearing for Tuesday, January 6, 2009, for open discussion on the proposed rezoning 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. Wisniewski requested clarification on the problem with the water tower. Mr. Drobina stated we seem to be getting a lot of road dirt sticking to the side of the water tower. Mr. Wisniewski inquired why that would occur as he has never heard of it happening before. Ms VanCleave stated she and Mr. Drobina met with the paint manufacturer and the painter at the water tower about two weeks ago. She stated they had used some environmental friendly soap and a mop on a small area and it cleaned right off. Mr. Wisniewski inquired how we would know we would not get back into this in another six months to a year. Ms VanCleave stated we are waiting for a proposal from the painter on the cost to give it a good cleaning and the paint manufacturer has offered to go in with us on the cost of the cleaning. She stated we were waiting to know what that cost was before we negotiated anything further. Mr. Wisniewski stated his question would be if this were just a poor job or was there something about the paint being used versus what we had on there before. Ms VanCleave stated they had stated that not even a week after they finished the painting they came in and paved the parking lot. She stated they said the paint hadn’t fully cured and with the dust that was kicked up caused an oily build-up from the hydrocarbons. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if there was some statement from the painter that we were not supposed to do that, that there was a curing period or anything else. Mr. Drobina stated he did not recall any statement from the painter and we did delay the parking lot project while he was painting, but he did not recall anyone saying we should wait a few weeks before we did anything. Ms VanCleave stated she did not believe we had anything in writing from the painter that stated that. Ms VanCleave stated she did not know what the cost would be and the thought was that we could go in with them and do it, but then if it came back we would know it was a paint issue and we could tell them to give us our money back and fix the problem. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like this taken through our attorney before we get into any agreement about spending any money on this. Mr. Drobina stated he would also like to point out that the Lakes Edge lift station has been taken care of and we do not have a lift station at Lakes Edge any longer. Mr. Drobina stated the equipment is up in Victory Park and Mr. Hansley stated unless we get some crazy weather this project should be done within a week. Mr. Hansley stated he thought this was a good example of a joint project between several divisions. Mr. Hansley stated the individual who will do the turf installation is on a job in New York, but as soon as he done there he will come and install that, and again, that should be complete within the next week or so.

(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 she would just point out that Grace Fellowship Church helped us with one of our requirements for stormwater and she wasn’t sure if any special recognition had been sent to them. Mr. Hansley stated it hadn’t been done as yet, but he would get with the Mayor about a proclamation or a resolution. Ms VanCleave stated there are preliminary rankings out for the OPWC grant and it sounds like the stormwater project was very highly listed and the sanitary project was put on the last page. She stated we are waiting for the committee to meet for the final decision, but that is how the projects were ranked.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and discussion regarding TDS options and costs. Mr. Wisniewski clarified staff has spoken to the EPA on this issue. Ms VanCleave stated she and Mr. Drobina had met with the EPA today and they indicated they felt we could request a time modification. Ms VanCleave stated this would mean the more stringent level would go into effect in 2010 and the kicker will go into effect in 2011. She stated there is a 1710 requirement by 2010 and 1638 by 2011. She stated if we had the 1710 limit right now we would have two violations on the year, but if we had the more stringent limit we would have had three. She stated we had violations this year in August, September, and October. She stated it is a matter of dry weather. Mr. Wisniewski inquired how long the reverse osmosis process would take, outside of the amount of time to get it through Committee and Council. Ms VanCleave stated URS has indicated it would take about six weeks to design and Mr. Drobina stated it would take about a year to put it in. Mr. Drobina stated the EPA stated they would consider a permit modification depending on what type of justification we provided them and how the year would actually help us. Mr. Hansley stated if were actively in design or under construction, the EPA would not fine us or shut us down at that point. Ms VanCleave stated the EPA understands that we have not done nothing, we have had the study done to give us our options and we have reviewed the options and looked into the financing. She stated they are appreciative of the fact that we have been up front in talking with them and they encouraged us to keep the conversation going. Mr. Sauer stated if we put the water tower in and put the TDS in, would that do anything to our rates. Mr. Hansley stated the rate structure should be okay, he did not feel we would have to raise the rates because rate base anticipated several additional capital improvements. Mr. Wisniewski stated the estimate for the TDS is now at $2.7 million, and Ms VanCleave stated that is an estimate, but it could come in less than that. Mrs. Hammond clarified there are really no viable alternatives other than shutting down softening.

Ms VanCleave stated at Mr. Drobina’s budget hearing the TDS was taken out of the budget, and Mr. Hansley stated it is a problem when some things fall between two or three committees. Ms VanCleave stated she and Mr. Drobina are constantly talking to make sure his budget matches the CIP. Mr. Hansley stated more often than not on an issue where he needs clear direction, he will ask for a motion from Council. Mrs. Hammond stated we have the water tower in the CIP for 2009 and the TDS for 2010. She questioned if staff saw any reason to switch them or did we need the water tower urgently as well. Mr. Drobina stated he would switch the two projects. Mr. Hansley stated ultimately we have to do both projects because the EPA is requiring we do both. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if it would be possible to do both projects in 2009, and Mr. Hansley stated and in once sense you could save the interest payment on the one they will give you the extra year on, but the price will probably go up, so that is likely a trade off. Mr. Hansley stated if we could afford it, and could get the financing put together, we could do both in 2009. Mr. Sauer stated he felt we need to find out if the water fund can handle doing both projects in 2009, and if so, then we should do it. Mr. Wisniewski clarified Mr. Drobina would switch the two projects mainly because of the violations, and Mr. Hansley stated we are close to violating the requirement for above ground storage of water as well, and we will have to do both projects eventually. Mr. Sauer inquired if we can get the information regarding the financing of both projects by the next meeting so we can at least start moving in some direction. Mr. Wisniewski moved to have the staff engineer check into the financing possibilities for the TDS and/or the water tower and come back with recommendations for Council along with recommendations from staff regarding which they would like to see; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Mr. Hansley stated when we thought the water tower was going to be delayed a year we slowed down on the land swap so we would need to reactivate those discussions because we don’t have a clear site just yet. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

7. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS.

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion – Update. Ms Frommer stated she had very little to report as the project has just begun.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Diley Road Improvements Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated the project is moving on schedule. Mr. Wisniewski stated the stop sign at Long Road heading east is about two and one-half feet higher than the other side so he hopes drivers are very careful there. Mr. Drobina stated the traffic will be switching over to the new pavement in the next day or so, as soon as the stripping has been completed. Mr. Drobina stated the contractor is preparing to shut down for the winter. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the completion date is between August and October of 2009.

C. WATER: No Report.

D. STORMWATER. No Report.

8. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had nothing to bring forward.

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. Ms Frommer stated she had distributed a memo to the Committee as they had been requested to analyze the effect of red light cameras on traffic flow. She stated she would not make a recommendation because ultimately it is about what priorities Council is going to set and what is your tolerance for the evidence of problems. She stated they would provide information to help Council make that decision. She stated one reason for putting in red light cameras was for increased safety in reducing the right-angle crashes. Mr. Scott Seaman stated he had done his analysis assuming red light cameras would be at S.R. 256 and S.R. 204, S.R. 256 and Refugee Road, and S.R. 256 and Diley Road. He stated based on what RedFlex has looked at, they included a couple of ramps at the interchange and ODOT will not permit red light cameras on their signals. He stated due to this he felt the projected violations would be reduced by one-third. He stated Federal Highway Administration data shows that red light cameras will decrease right-angle crashes and increase in rear-end crashes including an increase in rear-end crashes with injuries. Mr. Wisniewski stated this was different than what RedFlex had indicated. Mr. Sauer questioned what the results were in Columbus and Mr. Seaman stated he has not checked with Columbus although he knew they had 20 cameras and they have started moving them around from the original locations. Mr. Sauer stated he would be curious to see if rear-end collisions had increased in Columbus since that is geographically close to us. Mr. Hansley stated he would contact Columbus’ Engineering Department and get that information. Mr. Wisniewski stated the Committee did receive some crash information from Ms VanCleave on angle-crashes. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has read the reports from Texas, but he would like to see data from around Ohio because he was not sure if Texas has implemented the same laws as Ohio has with the additional one second. Mr. Seaman stated the City is investing a lot of money into significant signal equipment/software upgrades being implemented ACS Lite. He stated we have pre-emption tied into the system and he questioned how many things you want to tack onto the system and when something goes wrong, who would you call. Mr. Seaman stated it is his understanding the red light cameras have to tie into the cabinet and tie into the loops that are in the cabinet or add additional loops to make sure the detection is on board and he wanted to make sure that did not interfere with the ACS light. He stated ACS light is very heavily dependent upon vehicle detection and all the approaches at an intersection are going to be either movement or video detected and he did not wasn’t to have any conflict with that.

Mr. Seaman stated basically their traffic model starts at Stonecreek and goes south. He stated the intersections to the north are included, but when they did this they were in ODOT control and in about another week ODOT will be providing current traffic count information and re-updating the model under ACS light and including everything up to I-70 he will have a comprehensive model. He stated in the model he had included eight signals from Stonecreek to Diley and 256/204 based on the Hunter’s Run traffic impact study, which had current traffic information and projections. He stated he ran two models, one with existing conditions, and the second adding the one extra second of yellow time as required by House Bill 30. Mr. Seaman stated the data shows a ten percent overall increase in vehicle delay at the signalized intersections for the corridor. Ms Frommer stated a lot of data was presented, and the question would be if the priority was saving a life in an angle-crash situation versus traffic flow. She stated the information was provided so Council could see that putting the cameras there increases capacity, the ability to make traffic flow in this corridor, which you have stated is your goal. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if anyone had the information regarding what direction, etc., the red light cameras would be, and were these calculations based on going just north/south or were they based on both directions. Mr. Seaman stated his data was based on the entire intersection with one additional second of yellow in each direction. Mr. Seaman stated he understood HB 30 required the extra second on the entire intersection, not just the direction the camera would be in.

. Drobina inquired if we went with red light cameras it would impact our ACS lite, because the idea of the ACS Lite was to move the traffic through the corridor quicker. Mr. Seaman stated the ACS Lite looks at the volume in real time data and changes the length of the green at the intersection and along the whole corridor as traffic moves through. He stated you don’t want people to drive erratically or cautiously because of the red light cameras. He stated he does not know what driver reaction would be, but it did seem to be contrary to what we are doing with the ACS Lite. Mr. Seaman further stated from a warranty or service standpoint, if RedFlex came in and tied into the system since ACS is highly dependent on vehicle detection, if there is a detection error who would be at fault? Would it be ACS Lite, the City, the camera stuff? Mr. Seaman stated the corridor has been timed for the rush hour in the morning and in the evening and you have offsets for all of the signals during the peaks. Mr. Wisniewski would still like to find out how wide our intersections are, from where it would be considered running a red light. Mr. Seaman stated in Ohio it is from the stop bar, and if your bumper enters over the stop bar while the light is still yellow you are good, if it enters when it is red, you are ticketed. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if our timing now allows someone to get through the intersection on a yellow light, and Mr. Seaman stated that is why we will be updating the entire corridor with the new yellow light requirements. Mr. Wisniewski stated he also wanted to make sure that RedFlex would be using certified equipment in their red light cameras for their speed cameras. He stated they were involved in a lawsuit right now for using uncertified equipment in their speed vehicles. Ms Frommer stated she wanted to make it very clear once more that W.E. Stilson was not recommending that you should do this or that you shouldn’t. She stated if Council told them the goal was to move traffic, she could react to that and say red light cameras were not a good idea, however, if Council said they valued the safety component above all else, they could react to that as well. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that our engineer was stating that the red light cameras would decrease the ability to move traffic through the corridor, and Ms Frommer stated that was correct.

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 8:50 P.M., November 13, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk