WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2009

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Sabatino called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sabatino were present. No members were absent. Others present were Jeff Fix, Brian Wisniewski, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Chief Mike Taylor, Phil Hartmann, Ed Drobina, Steve Carr, Brenda VanCleave, Lance Schultz, Don Phillips, Kelly Roth, Jerry Dailey, Andrea Kelly, Tim Kelly, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 21, 2009, Regular Meeting. Mrs. Sanders moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: There were no community comments.

4. COMMUNITY SAFETY CONCERNS: Mr. Sabatino ascertained there were no community safety concerns this evening.

5. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:

A. Parks and Recreation:

(1) Director’s Report. Mr. Carr stated he had provided a written report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Carr stated he understood the committee had received the Manager’s e-mail regarding our recommendation to support Violet Township’s grant application for the dog park. He stated staff is preparing a letter of support in that regard and would ask if the Committee is interested in forwarding a Resolution of Support for that project to Council. Mr. Sabatino inquired if Mr. Carr was requesting that this evening or would be providing the letter of support for the next meeting. Mr. Carr stated the Committee could forward a resolution for consideration by motion at this meeting tonight. Mr. Wisniewski stated the dog park would be located in the City and questioned if we had zoning for that. Mr. Schultz stated he had met with Violet Township and informed them they are required to go through the zoning process for the site that is just south of their maintenance building. Mr. Wisniewski stated then the Township has not done that, but they are going forward with their grant application. Mr. Sabatino clarified that site is currently zoned planned industrial district so that use would be permitted in that district. Mrs. Sanders moved to forward a Resolution of Support for the Violet Township dog park grant application to Council; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Sauer inquired if any of the residents living next door to the site had been notified of this project and what their feelings were about it. Mr. Schultz stated they would be notified when the zoning application was submitted. Mr. Sauer stated he understood there was one home that would immediately back up to the dog park, and Mr. Schultz stated he thought that was correct. Mr. Schultz further stated the township building is adjacent to another residence and the dog park would likely be adjacent to it as well. Mr. Sauer stated his question was if anyone had contacted these residents to see what their feelings were and Mr. Schultz stated the city had not. Mr. Wisniewski stated he knew the one family and he would talk to them. Mr. Sauer stated he did not want to support something if he did not know how the residents that would immediately be impacted by it felt. Mr. Sauer stated he is not saying he would not support this in the end, but he would not support it until he knew what the residents felt first. Mr. Hansley stated as he recalled when the rezoning occurred for the maintenance building itself there was no big outcry and he felt the maintenance building was more of an intrusion on a residential property. Mr. Wisniewski clarified when a dog park was proposed behind Stonebridge the residents made it very clear they had no desire to have a dog park in their backyard. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt Mr. Sauer had a valid point that the residents in the area should be notified before this gets dropped in their lap and decisions have been made. Mr. Sabatino inquired if there was any urgency in this matter and Mr. Carr stated the grant application is due by March 1^st, and they will consider Resolutions of Support that are passed through April 1^st. Mr. Hansley stated the resolution was only supporting the application for a grant and it would still need to go through the Planning and Zoning process and at that point you could not support the rezoning, their site plan, or whatever even if they got the grant. Mr. Sabatino stated he understood that, but as Mr. Carr had indicated there is still time to find out the feelings of the residents and still help the township out if that is the direction Council would like to go. Mr. Sabatino clarified the Committee could move a Resolution of Support out of Committee this evening, but not have it on the council agenda until the second meeting in March. Mr. Sauer stated before it is voted on at Council he would like to have some feedback on how the residents feel about this issue. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing City Manager to accept bids for contract mowing services in 2009. Mr. Sabatino stated the Committee had received the bids received and the draft ordinance recommending accepting the bids from Keller Farms and Myers Lawncare. He stated the prices this year are very favorable for the City and are better than the bids received last year. Mr. Sauer moved to approve the draft ordinance and forward it to Council; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

B. Code Enforcement:

(1) Code Enforcement Officer’s Report. Mr. Sabatino stated the Committee had received a written report from the Code Enforcement Officer and ascertained there were no questions regarding this report. Mr. Schultz stated staff is in the process of preparing a list of vacant homes due to foreclosure. Mr. Hansley stated he understood the list was at about 68 homes already and that number will probably grow before it gets smaller. He stated this is becoming an increasing issue in the City and as soon as we get warm weather with high grass and other maintenance issues it will be apparent that we have a lot of vacant properties.

C. Building Regulations Department:

(1) Building Department Report (Mr. Lane) Mr. Phillips stated he was representing Mr. Lane this evening and he would answer any questions on Mr. Lane’s report. Mr. Sabatino stated he had some questions about beginning to have inspections for hot water tanks, siding, etc. He questioned if we were actually doing that now or would be starting it in the future. Mr. Phillips stated the City’s web site shows that this was effective February 9^th, however, he does not know if any applications have been received since February 9^th. He stated the requirement is effective now. Mr. Hansley stated we have not had any applications, but if we had we would have suspended the fee until the Committee had discussion about it. Mr. Fix inquired what if the property owner chooses not to do this and Mr. Phillips stated if any property owner refuses to make application and comply with the building code, it is no different than any other building code violation; whether you refuse to get a permit to build a single family home, refuse to get a permit to build a three-story office building, or refuse to get a permit for a water heater replacement, it is still a violation of the building code. He continued this meant we would notify them they were in violation and failure to correct that violation would result in a complaint being filed in Mayor’s Court. Mrs. Sanders inquired how the residents would know they needed a permit and Mr. Fix inquired how the City would know if someone got a new water heater. Mr. Phillips stated if someone died in the home because the carbon monoxide level was elevated because the flue was not properly connected and someone asked if the water heater had been inspected the answer would be no because our records indicated no permit was issued. Mr. Sabatino stated when this was discussed last year Mr. Lane had checked with Violet Township Fire Department to see if there were any such cases and there were none. Mr. Phillips stated that could be, but there haven’t been any houses collapse either. He stated the purpose of the building code is not because everyone is out there substandardly building homes and substandardly altering homes, it is to make sure we have a level of standard that the whole community is expected to build their homes and maintain their homes to. He stated we are trying to catch that one percent of the contractors that maybe do not know what they are doing and are not properly installing these systems. Mr. Sabatino inquired how you dealt with the situation where someone’s hot water tank goes out at night or when the department is closed. Mr. Phillips stated the Building Code allows for what is called an emergency repair, you are allowed to make the repair and then the next business day make the application. He stated they want to inspect it when the work is complete, they do not necessarily have to have the paperwork before someone touches that appliance. Mr. Sabatino clarified that would not be considered an after-the-fact inspection where they are charged double. Mr. Phillips stated when the permit is issued instructions are provided on how to call and schedule their inspection. Mr. Phillips stated almost every jurisdiction in the State of Ohio has this requirement, and when someone purchases a hot water heater, for example, the store should know to have the homeowner call their building department to find out. Mr. Sauer stated this is mandated by State law so we don’t have a choice on this, we have to issue these permits or we are in violation of the law. Mr. Phillips stated that is correct. Mr. Sauer continued these fees are pass-through, this is specifically tied to what it costs us to spend an inspector out there and do this. Mr. Phillips stated it was pretty close, it covers the administrative costs of someone receiving the application, processing the application, a very minor cursory plan examination fee, and the physical inspection. He stated the $85 should easily cover the administrative assistant doing the processing, the building inspector doing the plan examination, and the cost of the physical inspection of the work. Mr. Sauer stated then we were not losing money and we were not profiting from this, or if we were it would be a nominal profit. Mr. Phillips stated he believed the fee for a plumbing inspector to go out for that inspection was $48, and the balance of the fee would cover the application processing and plans examination cost. Mr. Hansley stated once this received committee review, which we are doing right now, we intend to do a press release and do some other informational campaign, and we will notify all the local vendors, Sears, Lowes, Home Depot. He continued it is not only the water heater, it is air conditioning, roofing materials, and other aspects. He stated we will try to get that word out as much as we can. Mr. Sabatino stated he understood this was also windows, and Mr. Hansley stated windows, siding replacement, and so forth. Mr. Hansley stated this is new to us, but it is not new to Central Ohio. Mr. Sabatino stated he found it hard to understand how it would cost the same to inspect one water heater as it would to inspect a whole houseful of windows. He questioned if this was a one-size fits all price for the inspections. Mr. Phillips stated the amount of time it takes to inspect a water heater is about the same as it takes to inspect windows. He stated what we would be verifying is to make sure that the windows have been replaced with the same size that was there and if we see there has been an alteration made and a window size has changed, then we would do further investigation. He stated assuming the windows have just been replaced, for that inspector to walk around the house one time to inspect those windows is about the same as ringing the doorbell, waiting for someone to answer, be escorted down to the basement to look at the water heater, look at the fuel gas piping, look at the vent piping, the hot and cold water connection and then leave. Mr. Sabatino clarified in inspecting siding we would be looking at the workmanship, whether or not there is flashing at the top of the windows to make sure water goes around the window and not through the window, and fasteners. He stated if a piece of siding was loose the inspection would be turned down and it would be required to properly fasten that siding. Mr. Phillips stated it was not just siding we would look at, it is stone, masonry, stucco, and a lot of different sidings. Mr. Sabatino further clarified if an inspection does not pass the Building Code places the responsibility on the homeowner. Mr. Phillips stated the homeowner is ultimately responsible for whether or not the permit is issued and whether or not the work is executed. Mr. Phillips stated typically the inspectors work with the contractor first to get the correction, and the homeowner usually has a little bit of financial hammer over the contractor to get him to come back and finish the work property, but ultimately it is the homeowner that is responsible for compliance. Mr. Sabatino further clarified the contractors doing this work would be required to register with the City, and Mr. Phillips stated if these are reputable contractors already working in the City, they may be already registered, so there may not be an influx of contractor registrations. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the cost is per permit, so if a home has more than one water heater it would be under one permit. Mr. Phillips stated another thing they wanted to look at would be if someone were switching out from a gas fired tank water heater to an electric tankless water heater, there is an electrical feed over to the electrical panel, and we want to make sure that the electrical circuit is property sized for that new unit. Mr. Phillips stated there are a lot of different way a building can be altered and we just want to make sure that whatever is done meets the building code so the house remains safe for the occupants.

Mr. Sabatino stated he understood that Mr. Hansley has the authority to change the fees with notification to Council, and questioned if that applied when new fees were added. Mr. Hansley stated this fee is already in the fee ordinance that Council adopted, there is an $85 fee for residential alteration and rehabilitation. He stated if we had a new fee or revised a fee he could do that administratively and report back to committee, and if there is no objection in 30 days it would go into effect, however, this is not that type of fee at this point. Mr. Sabatino inquired if we have adjusted our fees and Mr. Hansley stated he was holding it in abeyance until after tonight’s meeting because he wanted one more chance for discussion, so he had suspended the fee. Mr. Sabatino stated once Mr. Hansley did that then the other notification would kick in. Mr. Hansley stated as long as the Committee bought into the program tonight without any serious objection, he would do a press release and begin to charge the $85 fee for these inspections. Mr. Jerry Dailey stated he had sat on the Governor’s User Task Force in 1989 because all jurisdictions in Ohio had different building codes, and the result of the task force was a uniform building code. Mr. Dailey stated the way it was implemented was that you did not have to have a building code, but if you adopted a building code it had to be that one. Mr. Phillips stated that was correct. Mr. Dailey stated then you could do away with the building code and it is things like this that caused that first Governor’s Task Force to be in place, because all of these silly little things came up.

Mr. Sauer stated he was having a hard time with these fees and it seemed like $85 was high. He stated when looking at replacing a furnace or an air conditioner it didn’t look that high, and it just seemed like if the inspector’s fee was in the $45 range, and we were already paying for the paper, we were already paying for the staff that is doing this, it seems like the extra $40 was not necessary. Mr. Phillips stated Mr. Lane and Mr. Hansley could speak to the budget for the department. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to see a breakdown of this. Mr. Hansley stated he would like to add it is not just for the current occupant, but when the home is resold these inspections protect all the future owners until it is changed out again. Mr. Hansley stated that is why you have a certified building department and why you want to do it right. He further stated this is a policy decision of Council because all our fees have been based on not subsidizing private developers, private builders, or private homeowners. He stated the policy was that it not be a gauge rate, but that it be high middle compared to our other suburban neighbors and all of these fees are based on that model. Mr. Hansley stated with that $85 we are barely breaking even if you count all of the overhead in that particular inspection. He stated the direct cost is $50 so everything has to be funded out of the $35, so we are not making a profit and if anything we are breaking even. Mr. Hansley stated he understood it sounded like a lot compared to the cost of a hot water tank, but that is the cost of the safety we are providing to the citizens. Mr. Sabatino stated it appeared to him that the $85 fee became a handy fee that was already in place for that general category. Mr. Sauer stated then what was a reasonable fee, and Mr. Hansley stated if you want to lose money you could make it $30 or $20. Mrs. Sanders stated if we are breaking even she did not see how we could make it any lower although it does sound like a lot of money. Mr. Sabatino stated he is having a hard time believing that every single one is going to have that close to the same cost to actually do the inspection. Mr. Sabatino stated he was not on council when this was discussed in the past, but when it comes to dollars and cents and impacting the residents he wanted to see a better breakdown, he wanted to see what this is going toward he did not want to just see a number. Mr. Hansley stated you are paying $48 for the guy that does the inspection and Mr. Sauer stated that is not what it says in this report. Mr. Sauer continued we were also talking about paperwork, staff, and how is that determined. He stated what he does not know is what is the amount that it comes down to and that is what he wants to know. Mr. Sabatino stated people’s taxes are paying for the staff member to be here anyway, so he didn’t see where there was an additional incremental cost for employees that taxpayers support to do their jobs, they shouldn’t have to pay twice. Mr. Sabatino stated if we want to go there, that’s fine, but he felt we needed to be a little more reasonable. Mr. Hansley stated then the general taxpayer would be paying the cost for the five percent that buy a hot water heater or reworks their house. Mr. Hansley stated the idea of any fee is based on the user of that specific service who is going to pay more than the general taxpayer. Mr. Sabatino stated his point was we have direct costs, incremental costs with providing the service and some costs that are what people on staff do as part of their 40-hour workweek. He stated the residents are supporting them with their tax dollars to do that so why should you make them pay again. He stated if we have an additional cost to bring an outside inspector in, then fine we need to cover that additional cost, but he did not think we needed to add cost on top of cost. He stated this fee would be adding insult to injury anyway and if we are going to charge a fee then we need to make the cost as efficient as possible. Mr. Sauer questioned if we would be hiring any additional staff to do this and Mr. Sabatino inquired if this was being instituted to give work to the building department people that aren’t as active as they used to be. Mr. Hansley stated this is to comply with State law, if you have a certified building department you must do it. Mrs. Sanders inquired if Mr. Sabatino would like to see a new fee schedule breaking out the inspection of air conditioners, windows, water heaters, etc. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt if we were going to do this then we need to make it a little more relative to our actual costs rather than just picking a number out of the sky. Mr. Sauer stated it costs $48 to do the inspection and the administrative cost of someone doing this during their 40 hour work week are already being paid, and he would like to know where was the additional cost, would we be paying the overtime to do extra work, are we hiring another staff person, are we building another building to handle this? Mr. Hansley stated the person that puts in a new hot water heater and is going to have it inspected by the City should pay an extra fee for the safety of his house and so he can show it was properly installed and properly inspected, and there is a fee for that. Mr. Hansley questioned why the general taxpayer should subsidize that, and if you change the fee to $40 or $50 they will be. Mr. Fix stated all of our fees are set to break even and if you did this on every fee that is out there then the taxpayers would be paying for those people to sit at their desks instead of the users. Mr. Fix stated all this is is a user fee and we are passing on the actual cost of the guy going out there and the administrative cost of the people here putting it through the process. Mr. Sauer stated he felt that replacing a water heater and replacing a roof is a little bit different than putting in a deck. He stated a deck is not necessary to the structure of your house, but over time a roof is going to decay and you will need to replace it, over time a water heater is going to fall apart and you will need to replace it. He stated these are things you cannot avoid if you are in a house long enough, so the point is these are unavoidable cost. Mr. Sauer further stated for those particular permits that are unavoidable, he looked at from a different point of view. Mr. Hansley stated an improper hot water heater installation can kill you, that’s the main difference, and that is the reason for the Code in the first place. Mr. Sauer stated he still saw these items as unavoidable. Mr. Hansley stated this ordinance has already been adopted, the $85 fee was not created tonight it was included in the fee ordinance adopted and that fee for miscellaneous residential alterations is on the books. Mr. Sabatino stated the point was you could put anything in miscellaneous and charge $85 for it. Mr. Wisniewski stated if this has already been passed and the fee schedule is already in place, what is the discussion about tonight. Mr. Sabatino stated the discussion was if we actually needed these things and are we charging a fair price. Mr. Wisniewski stated the fee schedule is already in place and if you are not happy with the fees, then you need to ask the City Manager to come up with a new fee schedule. He continued this stuff is already in there, they just weren’t charging it because people weren’t aware of it, but everyone, including Council is aware of it now, so he was not sure where the discussion was going. He stated if this Committee wants a change they should make a motion. Mr. Sauer stated what he would like to see what the impact on the budget was if the fees were brought down to somewhere in the neighborhood of $55 or $60. Mr. Sauer moved to have some kind of analysis done to see what the impact on the budget would be if the fees were dropped to the neighborhood of $55; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino asked Mr. Sauer if he would amend his motion to not include a dollar amount but to have staff find out what the actual direct cost is and not duplicate the other costs being discussed. Mr. Hansley inquired if this were with respect to hot water heaters or any of the new inspections, and Mr. Sauer stated for any of the new inspections he would like to see a cost breakdown as to what it is actually costing the city to process them. Mr. Sauer stated he would amend his motion and request a cost analysis to show what it actually costs the City to process the permit and conduct these new inspections instead of an analysis to see what the impact on the budget would be if the fees were dropped to the neighborhood of $55; Mr. Sabatino seconded the amended motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

(2) Chief Building Official’s Report (Mr. Phillips) Mr. Phillips stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Sabatino ascertained there were no further questions for Mr. Phillips.

D. Service Department:

(1) Review and discussion regarding restricting right turns on red at S.R. 256 and S.R. 204. Ms VanCleave stated ODOT has indicated the study is complete and shows there is a 6.5 to 7.5 percent increase in traffic volumes up S.R. 256 since the last study was done in 2003 or 2004. She stated ODOT is currently running the model with the new volumes and he hopes to have something in a month.

6. POLICE:

A. Chief’s Report. Chief Taylor stated he had provided his report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions. Chief Taylor stated he had distributed the Police Department’s annual report.

7. CHAIRMAN:

A. Review and discussion regarding proposed amendments to Disturbing the Peace ordinance. Mr. Hartmann stated the Committee had before them a revised disturbing the peace ordinance which combines the current Section 648 “Disorderly Conduct” section and 648.10 “Disturbing the Peace.” Mr. Hartmann stated the biggest change to this is relating to the noise ordinance. He stated at the last meeting questions were asked about other community’s noise ordinance and the main codes that were reviewed were from the City of Lancaster and the City of Dublin who have similar noise ordinances. He stated a listing was provided to the Committee of all the other municipalities that have ordinances similar to this and also case law that supports the legal authority to enforce this ordinance. Mr. Hartmann stated he felt the question tonight is not if it is legally enforceable or not, but if this Committee wants to pass it on to Council. He stated from a legal perspective he is comfortable with the proposed ordinance, and his office had spoken to the Mayor’s Court prosecutor and with the Chief of Police and received good input from both of them. Mr. Hartmann stated he would be happy to answer any specific questions the committee may have with how this would be enforced, etc. Mrs. Sanders clarified that Chief Taylor felt that in this form his department could work with this. Mr. Wisniewski further clarified that Chief Taylor had been concerned about some enforcement issues but with the two sections being combined the Chief was okay with this. Ms Kelly Roth, the prosecutor for Mayor’s Court stated she had spoken with the law director’s office and she had reviewed the draft ordinance and the case law. Ms Roth stated if the City of Lancaster and the City of Dublin can prosecute these cases she could as well. Ms Roth stated the current ordinance is a little too vague and this clarifies everything for her and she would have no problems prosecuting these cases. Mrs. Sanders stated she noticed we were not going with the sound measuring equipment and Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct. Mr. Hartmann stated when you go out for the first time usually a warning is issued and after that if it becomes a continuing problem the person would be cited. Mr. Sauer moved to forward the disturbing the peace ordinance to Council; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

8. OTHER BUSINESS. No other business was brought forward.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sauer moved to adjourn; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Sanders voted "Aye." Motion carried, 3-0. The Safety Committee adjourned at 8:03 P.M., February 18, 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk