WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2009

REGULAR MEETING

7:50 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Wisniewski called the meeting to order at 8:25 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond and Mr. Wisniewski present. Mr. Sauer was absent as he was on vacation. Others present were: Lynda Yartin, Ed Drobina, Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Lance Schultz, Kerry Hogan, Brian Benedict, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 20, 2009, Regular Meeting. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: There were no community comments.

4. DEVELOPMENT:

A. Development Director’s Report. Mr. Schultz stated Chief Taylor, Acting City Manager, signed off on a Farmer’s Market that will begin on July 2^nd and continue until October 24^th, and will be open on Thursdays and Saturdays. He stated they will be located at the Creamery Building. Mr. Schultz further stated the Walgreen’s Pharmacy will open once the traffic improvements on Refugee Road and Hill Road are completed.

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft Resolution acknowledging the annexation of 4.088 acres, more or less, in Violet Township, Fairfield County, to the City of Pickerington (Swimming Pool). Mr. Wisniewski clarified the County Commissioners have approved the annexation and this legislation is just acknowledging that annexation. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve and forward to Council; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

5. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT:

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

(1) Planning and Zoning Representative Report. Mr. Sauer was not present and there was no report.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance approving the release of an easement for Lot 109 of the Windmiller Ponds Subdivision. Mr. Schultz stated the lot in question is owned by Rockford Homes and to construct a home with any type of rear porch or deck it would be in the easement, and they are requesting the easement be released. Mr. Schultz further stated this easement was apparently created before the D-Line was extended north and after construction it was determined they did not need the easement and relocated the sanitary line. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the lot is currently empty. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

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 inquired about the problems with the ACS system and Mr. Drobina stated we have had some loop problems, and Mr. Seaman has been working on those along with Jess Howard Electric. He stated he has not had any complaints for several days, so he thinks it is getting better. Mr. Drobina stated we will have minor problems as the system goes on, but Mr. Seaman has been doing a great job of staying up with that.

(2) Staff Engineer’s Report. Ms VanCleave stated she had provided a written report and she would answer any questions.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and discussion regarding TDS options and costs. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood the EPA has sent us a letter and Ms VanCleave stated that was correct and we have been given until the 29^th to respond with a Plan of Action. She stated she and Mr. Drobina had a detailed phone conversation with the ecological expert and our attorney today, and, basically, they need more information to proceed. She stated they need to lay out a scope, have EPA approve it, and then file assay type studies on the stream to confirm whether or not our TDS is truly killing what is in the stream. She stated she had inquired as to the cost of this, and the eco study person work will cost $15,000 depending on how EPA approves the scope, plus our attorney stated about 20 hours of his time. Ms VanCleave stated they feel the study EPA did does not truly justify what is going on and if they did the true study it would show that basically we are not harming the stream. Mr. Wisniewski stated obviously the hope is that we are not doing anything, but questioned what the outcome of this would be. He stated if our current levels of TDS output don’t kill it, what is the level and what is the EPA going to say is acceptable, and how long will it take us to get to that level. He stated he was not one to put money out there to push a project off for a year if that is all it would buy us. Ms VanCleave stated basically what we would be doing is requesting a permit modification, which will change our limit, but with development coming in our water going to areas where we don’t provide sanitary, it still may eventually get to the level where we will be violating again and we will have to adjust this again. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if we had a number as to what we are shooting for with the EPA, and Ms VanCleave stated that is part of the study. She stated they would look at that number and try to come up with a more concrete concentration that does harm the stream. Mrs. Hammond stated then if we would spend roughly $20,000 for the study and the attorney, they are assuming this would buy us some amount of time before we would have to start considering modifying or changing what we have. Mr. Drobina stated that is basically their guess, but right now we do not know what our upper limits should be; we know what the EPA says it should be, and that will be 1632. Mr. Wisniewski stated we had violated that number several times, and Mr. Drobina stated that was correct. Mr. Drobina stated further in the meeting they are assuming that the EPA just kind of pulled that number from somewhere, they did not do enough studies to say that was the number it should be. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if that would be the same number they are using anywhere else in the State of Ohio, and Ms VanCleave stated every stream is different, every stream has different characteristics, and what they are testing for is a site specific criteria. She stated the number will vary stream to stream, plant to plant, every plant has different waste stream and every stream has a different flow. She stated ours, unfortunately, has a very low flow. Ms VanCleave stated it is a tough call, but she felt it would possibly buy us three to five years and in that time a lot can happen. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood that, and we don’t have a lot of construction going on and he did not see a lot coming on. He stated our biggest consumer of water coming on line in the near future is the hospital on Diley Road so he didn’t necessarily see that we would have a lot more residential being picked up any time soon and while commercial may come on line, but there would not be a lot. He stated he did not see where we would be having a lot more need for treatment of water to increase our TDS over a time period. He stated if it bought us three to five years it would put us in a different situation. Mr. Drobina stated we won’t know what it would buy us until we do the study to see what our number is going to be. He stated that was the key to the whole equation. Mr. Wisniewski stated what we know is that what is in the stream right now is not killing the darter fish or whatever and Ms VanCleave stated at least not in the winter months when they ran the previous test. She further stated that the study the EPA did showed the levels of TDS both upstream and downstream from our plant did not violate any criteria, so since it is not violating downstream it must be something must be going on with the dilution. Mr. Wisniewski stated $20,000 included the study and the attorney fees. Ms VanCleave stated in July we have to do testing anyway so we were going to grab all these samples and do this as we did our normal July testing so it would just be additional lab analyses that would have to be done and then someone to look at the data that comes back. Mr. Wisniewski stated then this would buy us some time to further build up our funds to pay for this down the road. Ms VanCleave stated in three to five years there could be new technology out there or there could be a new study that totally changes the regulations. Mr. Drobina stated, as he understood it, the Committee wanted to proceed with the study so he could get a contract with a firm number and bring that to the next meeting. He stated he would go ahead with the testing for July because he had to do it anyway for the EPA. Ms VanCleave stated the contract would be under the City Manager’s spending authority, so the only thing that would go to Council would be an appropriation. Mr. Drobina stated he did not feel an appropriation would be necessary.

7. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS.

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion – Update. Ms Frommer stated construction at the plant is proceeding and things are going pretty well. She stated Mr. Hogan and Mr. Benedict from URS are present to address the change order proposal for the grit building. Mr. Hogan stated several months ago they had sent a request for proposal to the contractor requesting pricing on changing the grit and screening facilities at the plant and the initial estimate on that was approximately a $400,000 credit to the City. He continued Reynolds’, the contractor, pricing initially received was approximately an $85,000 credit to the City. He stated as soon as they received that they knew it was unacceptable and they had numerous meetings and discussions on it with the contractor. He stated URS had revised their cost as they did not include the temporary bypass and screening, so their pricing was adjusted to $330,000 as a revised deduct. He stated the pricing received now from Reynolds has their pricing at a $185,000 deduct. He stated he believes in working with the contractor they can secure another $34,000 credit, deduct, making it somewhere around a $219,000 to $220,000 credit to the City. Mr. Hogan stated the contractor is not budging much on some of the construction items. Mr. Hogan stated it is the Committee’s decision on if they want to proceed with this or he would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Wisniewski stated right now the credit is at $185,000 and Mr. Hogan thinks he can get another $33,000 to $35,000. Mr. Benedict stated he had a conversation with the contractor this afternoon and he felt there were ways we could get that additional credit. Mr. Wisniewski stated his question was how confident URS was that we would save at least $185,000 and anything else would be on URS’ shoulders to come up to that amount if something happens to have been missed along the way. Mr. Hogan stated when we do the change order the number will be nailed down, and he hoped it would be above $200,000. Mr. Hogan stated in all the meetings with the contractor they have gone through the plans and the specifications of this change page by page, and he and the contractor are very familiar with what all the changes are and he is very confident they have everything included in that change order. He stated he would propose if the City were to accept the credit that he be given the opportunity to go back to the contractor and let them know the City expects a credit of $220,000, and when they agree to do the change order it be put in that the contractor is not coming back for extra because they forgot something or they lost money on it. Mr. Wisniewski stated that is what he would demand in the change order. He stated it sounded like it would be well worth it to save the money if we will be in the $220,000 range, but if it came back as something significantly less he felt that going forward with things as they are would probably be the more prudent approach. Ms Frommer stated she wanted to make sure everyone was clear that this was a deduct change order on the existing construction contract; it is not a separate body of work. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that Ms Frommer felt this change order was something the City should do. Mr. Benedict stated they will continue to look for other savings as well.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Diley Road Improvements Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated the work is proceeding and the contractor is working toward his completion date yet this construction season.

C. WATER: No Report.

D. STORMWATER. No report.

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

9. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms Frommer stated this was her last meeting as the City Engineer and it had been a privilege working with everyone and she thanked everyone for that opportunity. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to thank Stilson for the work they have done for the City for the past several years.

10. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. Hammond moved to adjourn; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond and Mr. Wisniewski voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 2-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 9:15 P.M., June 17, 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk