CITY PLANNING, PROJECTS, & SERVICES COMMITTEE

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2011

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Fix called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with Mr. Fix, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Barletta present. No members were absent. Others present were: Bill Vance, Lynda Yartin, Ed Drobina, Joe Henderson, Brenda VanCleave, Cristie Hammond, Kathy Smith, Mike Chambers, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 20, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mr. Blair moved to approve; Mr. Barletta seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Barletta, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Fix voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 3-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 3, 2011, Special Meeting. Mr. Blair moved to approve; Mr. Barletta seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blair, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Barletta voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Fix stated as residents were here to talk about the Postage Drive issue he would ask Mr. Vance to give the Committee an update on the status of that. Mr. Vance stated the Engineering Department put together the documents for the easement associated with the Kohl’s property and coordinating the cross-connectivity. He stated those documents were sent to Kohl’s attorney and he would be coordinating with them. Ms Kathy Smith stated the residents just want to make sure they are on top of whatever they should be doing to accomplish this and do whatever they need to do. Mr. Vance stated the goal of the effort is to transfer the ownership of Postage Drive from private ownership to the City. He stated as of last fall when we started working on this the City has assumed the maintenance responsibilities associated with the street, and the main thing the residents can do is let us know if there are potholes or other issues that we can be of assistance with and we will continue to monitor the condition of the road thereafter. Mr. Fix clarified there is nothing the residents can do to help us bring this to a conclusion. Mr. Vance stated we are making significant progress and it is a matter of the attorneys doing what they need to do. Ms Smith inquired if there was a timeline to get this accomplished, and Mr. Vance stated the City has done what we can and we just have to wait until we hear back from the attorney.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS:

Mr. Mike Chambers stated he works with Utility Service Partners, Inc., and they administer the National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program. Mr. Chambers stated that program works with cities and municipalities to provide service line warranties to the residents, and this covers the portion of the lateral line that the resident is responsible for. He stated this is usually from their homes to the utility connection. Mr. Chambers stated they provide this program at no cost to the city and they actually share the revenue with the city; at the end of the year ten percent of the revenue from the program is given back to the city. He stated a couple of benefits they find is that when a resident has a break, they call it in to the city and when the city sends someone out they find it is on the resident’s side of the line and there is nothing the city can do to help them. He stated a lot of times the residents become frustrated because they don’t even realize this is something they are responsible for. Mr. Chambers stated this program usually costs the resident about $4 per month and if anything happens all they need to do is make one call to the service center and they will dispatch a local, licensed contractor to make that repair. Mr. Chambers stated his company does not do telemarketing or door to door sales, but twice a year they mail letters to the residents making them aware they can enroll in the program. He stated when someone does have a claim, all they do is call into the service center and after the repair they are asked to fill out a customer satisfaction rating survey. Mr. Chamber stated they usually get about 45 percent of those surveys back and they have a 97 percent customer satisfaction rating. Mr. Fix clarified that the average cost of repair for a line from the home is between $2,000 and $3,000 for sewer lines, and $1,200 for water lines. Mr. Fix inquired if there was a certain age at which a home became more susceptible to this type of thing, and Mr. Chambers stated age does play a part but also what kind of pipes that were used. Mr. Barletta inquired what Mr. Chambers was looking for from the Committee and Mr. Chambers stated they were not asking the City to do anything, but when the mailing went out it would go out that the City of Pickerington and Utility Service Partners, Inc., wanted to make this program available to the residents. Mr. Vance stated then if this Committee has no objections to this program, then the mailing can be prepared and brought back to this Committee for final approval. Mr. Chambers stated a mailing would not be sent until it had been approved by the City. Mr. Fix stated he looked forward to seeing Mr. Chambers next month.

4. DEVELOPMENT:

A. Development Director’s Report. Mr. Vance stated we are currently going through the applications received for the Development Services Director and we also received a proposal from the Township in regard to the Economic Development position and potentially sharing an individual with the City as we go forward. He stated the HR Director and City Manager are working on those possibilities and his desire is to coordinate what we are going to do by July. He stated if it were to involve the Township he would obviously come back and make sure Council is involved as well. Mr. Fix stated the Manager has conducted some interviews and questioned if there was anyone he was interested in. Mr. Vance stated there are pros to both options. He stated the Development Services Director, the position we have, is 50 percent economic development and 50 percent planning, and after the survey results our city wants to see successful economic development efforts. He stated the applicants received for the position do not have a lot of development experience associated with recruitment. He stated they were individuals that attained their development experience for the most part in growth management and planning offices. He stated he is attempting to put together all of the pros and cons and determine how to go forward. He stated he would keep Council closely informed of his progress. Mrs. Hammond stated it is not that she thinks it is a bad idea, she just did not know how you would split up an individual. Mr. Blair stated there would be a lot of things also such as when a business located in the Township the question would be why the Township not the City. Mr. Fix stated there were a thousand questions that would need answered before that would happen, but the critical issue is bringing businesses to this community. Mr. Fix stated he would encourage this conversation with the Township. Mr. Barletta stated he had heard a lot of talk about working together and he would like to see that really happen. Mr. Blair clarified that Mr. Vance felt he had two potentially qualified Development Services Director candidates, but they do not have the recruiting experience.

(1) Annexation – Update. Mr. Vance stated we have one recent annexation application and he is working closely with the County in that regard. Mr. Fix clarified the Township is aware of the annexation request.

(2) Development Process

a. Review and discussion regarding a joint resolution between the City of Pickerington and Violet Township, Ohio, approving a joint planning agreement and area. Mr. Vance stated in the spirit of regionalism the Township Administrator and City Manager have worked out a proposal about a joint planning agreement and area between the Township and the City. He stated this would basically specify that any development related applications for either the Township or the City would be made available to the other entity so everyone knows what is proposed around them. He further stated it also provides for a Township/City Planning Agency which would contain two representatives appointed by the City and two representatives appointed by the Township that could be convened upon the request of either Council or the Township Trustees. Mr. Blair inquired if the process would stop if the Township asked for this Board to be convened for something; the planning process would continue and this would just take place in conjunction with that. Mr. Vance stated that was correct, this would be a formally recognized avenue to communicate and does not slow the process down nor does it prohibit moving forward with something that is in the realm of your capability as far as approvals. Mr. Blair moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Barletta seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blair, Mr. Barletta, and Mr. Fix voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 3-0.

(3) Economic Development Marketing Plan – Update. No report.

(4) Business Retention Project – Update. No report.

(5) Long Range Economic Development Plan – Update. No report.

(6) Implementation of the Diley Road Corridor Plan – Update. No report.

5. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT:

A. Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. Blair) Mr. Blair stated he was out of town and unable to attend the last meeting.

B. Planning and Zoning Department Report (Mr. Henderson) Mr. Henderson stated at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting all items were approved by the Commission with the exception of the soccer complex. Mr. Fix requested an update on the soccer complex, and Mr. Henderson stated Council members, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and he had met with the developer yesterday to discuss some issues and what the next steps would be. He stated it appears they are going to submit something for the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He stated whether that would be a new submittal or a Motion to Reconsider which would need a majority vote of those present to bring it back in front of Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Vance stated the application just needs to be tightened up and he felt the meeting went well. Mr. Blair stated he had attended that meeting as the Council Representative to Planning and Zoning and he felt the issues that were needed were hammered out. Mr. Blair stated he felt the Planning and Zoning Chairman did an excellent job of managing the issues, talking about the issues, and hopefully negating anything that might be before Planning and Zoning next month. Mr. Vance stated the feedback from the applicant was also that they thought it went well.

C. Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission – Update. Mr. Henderson stated a replat in the Township was approved. Mr. Fix clarified that the Commission approves any of the rezonings or lot splits that happen in the County and we attend to make sure that we are aware of what is happening around our borders. Mr. Henderson stated nothing from within the City goes in front of the Commission, but we do use them for different projects and we have that open communication.

D. Review and discussion regarding suggested Charter revisions to expedite development process. Mr. Henderson stated in talking about rezonings and we were looking at how we can speed that process up. He stated if you look at what other communities have done, it is pretty tight. One of the proposals is taking it down from three readings to two readings and that would speed it up by two to three weeks at Council level, but the rest of the process is pretty tight as it is. He stated when you are submitting one month prior to the P&Z meeting, which is standard for all of our cases, and in the past as long as we have enough time to get a public hearing notice out we have accepted applications. He stated the time between P&Z and Service Committee is one week. Mr. Fix stated then our process is not dissimilar from other communities and Mr. Henderson stated that was correct. Mr. Vance stated if we went to two readings at Council level we could communicate within our economic development recruitment process that within 60 days we can get a final approval. Mr. Fix stated when this was put on the agenda the objective was to find ways to expedite the process and make it easier to want to do business here. He stated what he was hearing was that other than taking one reading off Council there was nothing else we could do. Mr. Vance stated we have already done a lot of things to make it easier to do business; we have adopted a customer friendly philosophy as far as coming in and meeting with staff and sitting down and communicating that our goal is to achieve their goal in accordance with the land use regulations or whatever codes we are dealing with. Mr. Blair also stated it had been suggested that if you know a project is going to have issues, then schedule a planning workshop meeting to get those taken care of before it goes to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Vance stated there was no significant change recommended, but there is the opportunity to be able to communicate that the consideration process could take 60 days or less and he felt that was a positive message if you want to go in that direction. Mr. Fix stated he was not interested in trying to submit a Charter change just to reduce the time by one reading as Council can always do multiple readings. Mr. Barletta stated he agreed with Mr. Fix and it would be nice to think about enhancing our competitive advantage if we can make it happen. Mr. Barletta inquired if Mr. Henderson kept metrics of when a project starts, and what does it really take and Mr. Henderson stated we do track that. Mr. Fix stated this item can be removed from the agenda.

E. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Refugee Road Study – Update. Mr. Henderson stated a draft had been given to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and a public hearing is scheduled for June 14^th at 7:00 P.M. for presentation of the report and to provide the opportunity to answer any questions. He stated the final report would then go before Planning and Zoning Commission in July. Mr. Fix stated he recalled this Committee requested they also receive a copy of the report as soon as possible as well.

6. BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

A. Building Department/Chief Building Official’s Report. Mr. Vance stated the Committee had received a written report from Mr. Hopper. Mr. Vance also stated the Board of Zoning Appeals will consider some issues regarding the Pickerington Pointe development at their meeting on May 26^th.

B. Discussion regarding potential Code revisions. No report.

7. SERVICE DEPARTMENT

A. Service Manager’s Report. Mr. Drobina stated he had provided a written report and he would answer any questions. Mr. Barletta stated he would like to thank Mr. Drobina and his staff at the waste water treatment plant for the open house. He stated he was very impressed by the staff, their knowledge, and their ability to answer questions.

(1) Alley Paving Program – Update. Mr. Vance stated we have $20,000 and he was going to discuss the possibility of concentrating those resources on our alleys since it was such a minimal amount. He stated our engineer however had indicated he would like to use that minimal amount on crack sealing, and next year when we have more funds budgeted for paving incorporate the alleys at that point in time. Mr. Fix stated this item could be removed from the agenda.

(2) Curb Maintenance Program – Update. Mr. Drobina stated Mr. Sauer had asked about this at the last meeting and he had included that information in his report. Mr. Drobina stated it is our older subdivisions that have curb problems and we have $35,000 budgeted for repair and replacement of curbs. Mr. Fix stated this could be removed from the agenda.

(3) Discussion regarding use of Hydrant Meters. Mr. Drobina stated this has been discussed in the past, and he was recommending we have a minimum charge for the use of these meters. He stated currently we do not have a minimum charge; they pay for the water only. Mr. Drobina stated some people use a hydrant meter to fill a 3,000 gallon pool and that bill is a little over $9.00. He stated the City provides the meter and the hose, and then we go out and inspect the hydrant after they are done to make sure it is shut off and there is no damage. Mr. Blair clarified that the hydrant meters are used regularly at this time of year and we also have contractors who use the hydrants for watering sod, etc. Mr. Drobina stated a minimum charge should cover the cost of billing for the water and inspecting the hydrant. The Committee determined that a minimum charge of $25.00 would cover those costs. Mr. Fix clarified notification of this new fee would be forwarded to Finance Committee and if there were no objections a minimum charge of $25.00 for use of a hydrant meter would be added to the General Fee Schedule.

B. WASTEWATER

(1) TDS – Update. Mr. Drobina stated we have not violated our permit yet this year.

a. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to contract with URS Corporation for “if authorized” items for professional engineering services for the water treatment plant reverse-osmosis project. Ms VanCleave stated this would authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with URS to handle the construction management and inspection of the RO unit going into the building, similar to what we did with the wastewater treatment plan construction, and “if authorized” items to make sure they are installed properly. Ms VanCleave stated the idea is that the inspectors will oversee the construction and the actual installation of the equipment because they have the experience that the engineering inspection staff does not necessarily have because it is a specialized process that we need assistance in. Mr. Fix questioned if it were not incumbent upon the people who are installing the equipment to install it correctly. He stated he was struggling with why we were spending $65,000 to have someone babysit. Ms VanCleave stated we do this with all of our projects, and Mr. Fix stated he did not agree with this for any project. Mr. Vance stated since there are some liability issues you actually compensate someone for project administration and coordinating the inspections associated with the work that is conducted and then if you have any issues down the road you can either take exception with either the project administrator or the contractor. Ms VanCleave stated construction administration also includes going through pay invoices and making sure they are charging us for what they actually did. Mr. Fix questioned if, in the future, this could be built into the engineering contract. Mr. Fix stated URS engineered this project, so it would seem to make sense to be able to hold them accountable to their entire process from engineering to the installation. He stated if we were to use URS for the engineering and then use another firm for the inspection, they could be pointing fingers at each other if something went wrong, and he felt this should be built into the engineering contract. Mr. Vance stated this was almost like an insurance policy to make sure we get what we pay for. Mr. Fix stated he understood this, but he felt it would be easier to deal with if it were included in the first engineering contract. Mr. Fix stated he would like to know the hourly rate we were paying them and how many hours were they projecting to do this. Mr. Vance stated usually the cost of such technical services are based upon a percentage of the cost of the project. Mr. Blair stated if he figured it correctly, it was $140 per hour. Mr. Barletta moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Barletta, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Fix voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Fix requested Ms VanCleave to pass on to Mr. Bachman that this Committee would prefer if we were doing big engineering projects that we build the inspection portion into the initial contract on engineering.

C. WATER.

(1) Review and discussion regarding water storage tank maintenance contract. Mr. Vance stated we are continuing discussions with potential tank maintenance companies and the goal is to have the City and the County go out to bid for tank maintenance activities. He stated if this Committee has no objections he would like to keep this on the agenda so staff can communicate their progress monthly. Mr. Fix requested this remain on the agenda.

8. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

A. Engineer’s Report. Ms VanCleave stated Mr. Bachman was at a conference in Indiana, but he had provided a written report and she would be happy to answer any questions.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Water Master Plan and Sewer Master Plan - Update. No report.

(2) S.R. 256 Safety Improvement Project - Update. No report.

(3) Partially collapsed storm sewer on S.R. 256 - Update. No report.

(4) Review and discussion regarding submission of the S.R. 256 storm sewer for OPWC funds. Ms VanCleave stated we were supposed to get this storm sewer televised, however, to her knowledge it has not been done as yet because there is too much water in the pipe. She stated she would like the Committee to know that it is our intention this year to apply for OPWC funds to do any sort of repair or provide any maintenance on this storm sewer.

C. TRANSPORTATION

(1) Review and discussion regarding City’s acceptance of Postage Drive. Mr. Fix stated this had been dealt with earlier in the meeting.

9. CHAIRMAN.

A. Strategic Plans Goals – Update. Mr. Fix stated there was no update this evening.

10. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Proposed solar panel project at the water treatment plant - Update. Mr. Vance stated he is still working with the power company and he hoped to have more information for the next Committee meeting.

Mr. Blair clarified Mr. Vance would be speaking to Keller Farms regarding the building and Mr. Vance stated he would pay them a visit and talk about the building, parking, etc.

11. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Blair moved to adjourn; Mr. Barletta seconded the motion. Mr. Fix, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Barletta voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The City Planning, Projects, and Services Committee adjourned at 8:10 P.M., May 18, 2011.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, City Clerk