WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009

REGULAR MEETING

8:05 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Wisniewski called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer present. No members were absent. Others present were: Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Ed Drobina, Jeff Fix, Jennifer Frommer, Brenda VanCleave, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 11, 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. Hansley stated he had nothing to report this evening, however, based on discussions he has had with MORPC we have done better in the last 12 months than our surrounding suburban neighbors.

5. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT:

A. Planning and Zoning Director’s Report. Mr. Hansley stated Mr. Schultz was not present this evening, however, he had submitted a written report to the Committee.

(1) Planning and Zoning Representative Report. Mr. Sauer stated Planning and Zoning Commission met on January 13^th, and they had a very light agenda.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance adopting the Diley Road Corridor Study and Plan. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has not had time to thoroughly digest this study as yet and he would like to continue it on the agenda until the next meeting. Mr. Hansley stated we do have a retail area proposed butting up against an existing residential area and Mr. Schultz has been in contact with the consultant and we do want to make a modification to the Study. Mr. Hansley stated he hoped to have the revision to provide at the next meeting.

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. Drobina stated this committee had briefly talked about storm water fees in December so he had done some research on what other communities charge. He stated per our ordinance the City Manager shall prepare a report and submit it to Council by October of each odd-numbered year with his recommendations on storm water charges. Mr. Drobina stated he was not sure if the Utility Fees Review Committee would handle this or if it would be done by Service Committee. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt this was something that could be done in Service Committee. Mr. Hansley stated he would bring a recommended new rate prior to October because our rate is relatively low compared to the actual cost of providing the function and to our surround neighbors. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that our user fees average $17,000 per month and the ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) is the number used to figure the fee for a commercial property. Mr. Drobina stated if you have a commercial property with 10,000 square feet of impervious surface you divide it by 2,530 square feet to find what the charge would be. Mr. Wisniewski stated each resident is charged $1.50 per month. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that Mr. Drobina is working with Mrs. Fersch, Mr. Schornack, and ODOT to try and get the dollar amount on what the storm water, water, and sewer costs were on the Diley Road project, and they have not received the information as yet.

(2) Staff Engineer’s Report. Ms VanCleave stated she had provided a written report to the Committee and she would be happy to answer any questions. Ms VanCleave stated with regard to the Willow Run culvert she has run the model and it does show that increasing the size of the culvert will not create a significant impact to points downstream for storms up to the 100 year event. She stated it does show when we increase it the flooding on the upstream side of the culvert does get relieved. Ms VanCleave stated she had requested Ms Frommer to cost and provide the construct ability of three options. Ms Frommer stated there is no question you need to do something with this culvert as it is anyone’s guess when you will have a failure. She stated the wildcard question is how much you should do to address the flooding situation that has existed versus what you put in the ground ahead of the Hill Road widening project which should occur at some point. She stated you do not want to put a lot of money in the ground that will be thrown away. Ms Frommer stated the three things she was asked to look at was the cost for a 72-inch corrugated metal pipe, a similarly sized concrete pipe, and a box culvert. She stated the limitations on a box culvert came down what conditions you have out there and how much more space above the existing culvert you have before you get into the load surface, so you are limited there. Ms Frommer stated they are still working through how big the box culvert would be, but there is roughly $15,000 difference between the 72-inch corrugated metal replacement and the concrete pipe. She stated then it would be over $50,000 to get up to the smallest size box that was being considered. Ms Frommer stated at this point she would submit that a $15,000 difference would better the material and have something that is potentially reusable if you do accelerate that road project. Stated if that culvert would have to be yanked out you would have something you could reuse in the 72-inch concrete culvert, if, however, you put in the box culvert it is unlikely you would be able to reuse it because your roadway would be wider. Ms Frommer stated for your money, for the fact that it could be reused unlike the corrugated metal, she was recommending you go with the 72-inch concrete pipe if an additional sizing of the box culvert doesn’t work. Mr. Wisniewski clarified even with the 72-inch round cement pipe it will not solve the flooding problems we currently experience on the east side of Hill Road. He stated if we put in the box culvert it would help solve the current flooding problems that occur somewhat regularly more. Ms VanCleave stated the fire department states this happens quite frequently and Mr. Drobina stated we do put high water signs up, but he has never seen the water go all the way over the road and we have never had to close the road. Mr. Wisniewski stated then for the cost is seems the cement pipe is the most logical. Mr. Sauer stated he liked the three options and we don’t know when that road will be widened. He stated he would hate to put something in there that couldn’t be reused or would be wasted. Mr. Wisniewski stated he was looking at option 1 as being the metal corrugated pipe, option 2 and the 72-inch cement culvert, and option 2 as the box culvert. Ms Frommer stated the cheapest option now is the 72-inch metal pipe, then add approximately $15,000 and you get the same size concrete pipe that would be reusable. She stated by reusable she meant in some other place. Mr. Drobina stated his question would be how long the metal would last and Ms VanCleave stated it varies. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt what they would like to see would be the figures around either the corrugated or the cement. Mr. Hansley stated the dollar amount included in the budget would probably cover the corrugated or the cement pipe. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt the next step would be to bid the project with both of these options and see what costs come back. Mr. Wisniewski moved to authorize the bidding of the culvert replacement at Willow Run for the cement culvert option with an alternative bid of the corrugated metal pipe; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and discussion regarding TDS options and costs. Ms VanCleave stated she, Mr. Drobina, and Mr. Hansley have a meeting scheduled with our attorney and an ecological expert to talk about our options. She stated hopefully by the next Service Committee they would have a recommendation. Mr. Wisniewski stated when staff has this meeting, he would like to know if this is something they think this is something they can win, what it is going to cost, and what guarantees we are going to get, and Ms VanCleave stated she has been asking those questions.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Neptune Equipment Company. Mr. Wisniewski stated this is our annual agreement with Neptune. Mr. Sauer moved to approve and forward to Council; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. 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 things are proceeding as planned and she has received some information from URS regarding the redesign of the grit system so that is moving forward.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Diley Road Improvements Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated little is going on with the project now, and she is working with ODOT trying to get their approval for some traffic related items that were added to the project very early on and it appears you may be successful in getting more funding than anticipated for that.

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 resolution authorizing the petition for annexation of 3.89 acres, more or less, located in Violet Township, Fairfield County, to the City of Pickerington (Swimming pool). Mr. Hansley stated this is a 709.16 annexation which requires no public hearing, it is owned by the City, it is contiguous to the current boundary, we file with the County Commissioners and they are to journalize the entry by statute. He stated there is no standing for anyone to object and there is no process for them to object. Mr. Hansley stated as we did with the water plant, we would then have Council pass a resolution acknowledging the annexation so we have a record that it happened. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve and forward to Council; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

10. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. Hammond moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mr. Sauer, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Hammond voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 8:35 P.M., January 21, 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk