CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 2004

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mr. Hackworth and Mr. O’Brien present. Mr. Parker was absent. Others present were: Mike Sabatino, Brian Wisniewski, Judy Gilleland, Frank Wiseman, Lynda Yartin, Bob Mapes, Jerry Dailey, Lonnie Rush, John Gallagher, Dale Kocarek Doyle Hartman, Vickie Bradley, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 8, 2004, Regular Meeting. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 20, 2004, Special Meeting. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS:

A. Lonnie Rush, 314 Florence Drive. Mr. Rush stated he was present to address the issue of the water tap fee for the residents on Florence Drive. Mr. Rush stated he was asking that the water tap fee be waived 100 percent. He stated he was asking this based on history in the community, and especially the circumstances that have occurred in the Carpenter Addition, as it is known in the City in of Pickerington. Mr. Rush stated when he began constructing his home in 1970 it was located in the County, and when he moved in he learned the neighborhood had been annexed to the Village of Pickerington and they would soon get a sewer system. Mr. Rush stated during the sewer installation process the streets were destroyed by the contractor and never brought back to acceptable standards. He stated when they complained about it to the Village they were told the neighborhood had not been platted properly and, therefore, it was the resident’s problem. He stated he and some of the other residents attended Council and spoke of the problems with having no pavement on Florence Drive and Losey Lane, and some drainage issues. He stated the Post Master was going to stop delivering mail and the schools were going to stop having school busses pick up children because of the conditions of the road. He stated the residents asked for water at that time because they felt the lines could be put in before the streets were paved, and that did not happen. He stated the streets were paved at the cost of $800 for each property, and that included taking care of some drainage problems. Mr. Sabatino clarified this was somewhere in 1971 or 1972. Mr. Rush stated former councils have granted many free water taps to many developers, and the residents of the Carpenter Addition have paid taxes for well over 30 years and they did not feel they should pay the water tap fee. He stated they should have been provided water many years ago when the cost would have been much less. Mr. Rush stated in 1992 they had a petition to have water provided to each home, however, it did not happen again. He stated he recently met with Ms Gilleland, Mr. Wiseman, and Mr. Mapes. Mr. Rush stated Ms Gilleland and Mr. Wiseman had stated for the residents to receive free water taps, they would have to go to Service Committee. Mr. Rush stated he understood that the voters had passed a ballot issue that prevented Council from giving away water taps, but he felt these issues occurred prior to that and for some of the issues he has stated he felt that should be done. Mr. Rush stated Mr. Wiseman had told him there were 43 properties concerned and he had a meeting for those 43 property owners. He stated he had other residents come that were not a part of the 43 properties, and he found out there were other problems in the area. He stated the people from Pearl Lane down to the school have had access to the water system for as long as that school has been there. He continued once Cherry Hill was done, it was his understanding that the developer paid for the extension of the water line up Diley Road so they could have water for that development. He further stated it was his understanding that people that live on Long Road and the people on Diley Road have never been notified by the City that they have access to the water system, what it would cost them, fees, or anything. He stated he also understands many years ago the water line was extended in Pearl Lane for a distance because the second house on the east side of Pearl Lane from Long Road was not able to get a well and they had to have water. He stated further the residents on the corner have been told that even though the water line is there by their home and the tap that was provided for them by the City is on the Pearl Lane side, that they would have to pay a significantly larger amount than the other 43 residents in the neighborhood. Mr. Wiseman stated that was not exactly accurate, the capacity fee would be for whatever year they decided to hook onto the City lines, and they would not have the ability to spread that cost out over ten years as the other residents have because it is a pre-existing water line that they have had access to. Mr. Rush stated those residents want the deal the rest of the residents have been offered, but don’t think is good enough. Mr. Rush further stated there are 10 properties on Long Road and Diley Road that are not hooked on to City water. Mr. Rush stated the idea is for the City to get these residents on the water system, and they feel they have paid taxes for all of these years. He stated most everyone in the neighborhood pays between $14 and $22 per month for sewer, and when that neighborhood hooks on to water and the City is able to meter all that, the fee for the sewage, which is significantly lower per thousand gallons than water, they will pay approximately a minimum of $55-$65 a month for water and sewer. He stated once these people hook on to water, the City will be getting increased revenue. Mr. Rush stated if the City of Pickerington would give them free water taps or a reduction in the water tap fee, there were 33 of the 43 homes that stated they want to hook on to water. Mr. Rush stated if the fees are not reduced or waived, there is another issue. He stated the residents received a letter from the City offering to put the water capacity fee on the water bill over a ten year period, but in order to do that a lien will be put on each property and the property owner must pay for the filing of that lien. Mr. Rush stated the residents are very upset about that and questioned if there was another way to do it without putting a lien on their homes. Mr. Rush stated he was present tonight pleading the case for these residents to get some relief on the tap fee. Mr. Wiseman stated there are some people on Long Road, Diley Road, and Columbus Street that are not on sanitary sewer but not on water. Mr. Sabatino inquired what prompted the City to put the line in on Pearl and Florence to begin with, and Mr. Hackworth stated some of the residents of the neighborhood requested the circulate a petition to see how many wanted on City water. Mr. Wiseman stated that was correct and the first time that petition was circulated approximately two or three years, the response was a majority saying they did not want water. Mr. Wiseman stated the second time they circulated a petition to have the lines put in at no cost a majority did want it, however, the initiative was passed that prohibited the waiving of the tap fee. He stated at that time Service Committee and Council put together the current option and over fifty percent of the neighbors still said they wanted the water line. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the initiative dealt specifically with new development rather than existing property. Mr. Wiseman stated it did not specify one or the other. Mr. Sabatino clarified the City has never made a promise to do this at no charge to the residents. Mr. Sabatino inquired if there was any way for the City to waive these fees. Mr. Wiseman stated it was his understanding a new ordinance could supercede the initiative, however, this was based on an initiative petition by the citizens of Pickerington and he thought Council would want to think very strongly before they overturned that ordinance. Mr. Sabatino stated that was made in conjunction with dealing with growth issues, not dealing with residents who have been here for a long time. Mr. Rush stated according to one of the individuals who helped with that initiative, the intent was that it should have been worded to deal with new development. Mr. Wiseman stated if a developer was given free or reduced tap fees, the cost of the putting in the water line was still the developer’s responsibility. The City did not pay to put in those lines. He continued, this is the reverse of that, the City put in the lines at no cost to the citizens, and they will pay the capacity fee. Mr. Wiseman stated the City looked to see which was more beneficial to the citizens, to pay the capacity fee or to pay an assessed amount for the water line. Mr. Wiseman stated further, if an assessment were done every home that would be affected by that water line would have to pay, and with this offer, they have the option of hooking into the line or not. Ms Gilleland stated the reason the staff would recommend against offering free or reduced tap fees is because it would be precedent setting. Mr. Sabatino stated he understood that, however, he felt these residents were in a unique situation. Mr. Sabatino clarified that Mr. Wiseman would estimate, other than these 43 homes, there are about 30 homes are in the City that have sewer and have access to water, but have not tapped in. Mr. O’Brien stated Council has received a legal opinion regarding the waiving of fees and Council has since moved forward with waiving building fees for the school based on that legal opinion. Mr. O’Brien inquired if we could get a legal opinion on the mitigating circumstances here because he would like to be consistent in this. Mr. Hackworth stated there is a process for special assessments, and inquired if Ms Gilleland could also get a legal opinion on doing an assessment rather than putting a lien against the property. Mr. Sabatino clarified an assessment is billed with the property taxes twice a year. Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to see if it is possible to offer every resident in the City that is not on the water system, a one time opportunity to hook onto the water system. Ms Gilleland stated she would get a legal opinion from the law director regarding the waiving of tap fees for current residents rather than new development, and also the possibility of a special assessment rather than a lien on the property, and the issue of offering a one time opportunity to all residents. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like this on the agenda for the next meeting.

B. Mr. Dale Kocarek presented the Ohio Water Environment Association Recruiter of the Year (2002-2003) award to Frank Wiseman.

Mr. Hackworth stated if there were no objections, he would move to Item 5.D.(1) on the agenda, the Long Road/Bowen Road Stormwater Study. Mr. Doyle Hartman stated he had distributed to the Committee members copies of the Long Road near Georges Creek Stormwater Study they had requested he prepare. Mr. Hartman stated if you would look at the map, it shows that almost 20 acres are tributary to the point where it passes through Mrs. Bradley’s property at 8325 Long Road. He stated the drive at 8301 Long Road has a culvert dry pipe that is partially clogged and is blocking some of the flow. Mr. Hartman stated all of this area eventually comes down to two catch basins in front of 8173 Long Road and 8200 Long Road, and from there a ten inch pipe goes out to Georges Creek. Mr. Hartman stated that is a total of almost 60 acres going into that ten inch pipe, which is very undersized to handle the flows coming to it. Mr. Hartman stated in his report he had provided some options on what can be done to help with the flooding problem in this area. Mr. O’Brien stated it appeared a lot of this work could be done by the City’s personnel as a temporary measure. Mr. Wiseman stated he would be glad to do that, however, the possible downside on that is a culvert pipe on a driveway is typically the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain, replace, and repair. He stated if we did that, we would be setting a precedent for anyone that would have a similar situation. Mr. O’Brien questioned if sent our people out and had them remove the pipe, cut the ends off, and reinstall it, would that be the same thing and considered a maintenance issue. Mr. Wiseman stated it depended on how much the City would get involved in the maintenance of culvert pipes underneath driveways. Mr. Wiseman stated if we go in that direction, we just need to be prepared to do it for other people. Mr. O’Brien questioned if the resident could be cited under a zoning violation because they are causing flooding in other properties. Mr. Wiseman stated that might be a better way to handle this. He stated further there are definitely some things we might be able to do, but he felt all the alternates should be considered. Mr. Wiseman stated he just wanted to make sure we didn’t do anything that would just move the problem. Mr. O’Brien stated he was just looking for a way we can take a positive step forward. Mr. Wiseman stated there is also the possibility that when MetroParks put in some of their wetlands, they may have cut some of the tile that drained the water in that area and that may be contributing to the problem. Mr. Hartman stated some residents have stated there has been an increase in ponding at the rear of the properties. Mr. O’Brien stated his concern was that we have been talking about this for quite some time and these residents have been very patient. He stated this issue always gets put aside when another issue comes up, and he would like to see if we can do something. Mr. O’Brien inquired if the City had submitted an application to the Corps of Engineers on this issue, and Mr. Wiseman stated this study will be an integral part of the application to the Corps of Engineers, and that is still a very viable option. He stated the fact that the MetroPark ground to the north also has an influence on this area is also integral. Mr. Wiseman stated, however, that would not be the short term solution. Mr. O’Brien clarified that Mr. Wiseman’s opinion was that we should do this project the right way rather than try to do any temporary measures because we would just be relocating the problem. Mr. Wiseman stated that was correct, and it would be an expensive project to do it right. He stated if we can get funding from the Corps of Engineers that will make the project a lot more palatable. Mr. Hartman clarified the benefits from the temporary measures on Table 3 in his report should relieve a lot of the ponding issues and the spillover coming across Long Road. Mr. Dailey stated the temporary benefits shown in Table 3 and not very costly, and perhaps we could go one step further and ask Mr. Hartman to see if there is any other temporary measure he would recommend. Mr. O’Brien further clarified the time frame for getting funding from the Corps of Engineers would be at least a year away. Mr. Wiseman stated we do have the ability to work in the area because it is in our right-of-way. Mr. Hackworth clarified that by lowering two drives it will keep the water moving to the west to a catch basin. He stated once the pipe at 8301 is opened up a lot of the water will keep on moving. Mr. Hackworth stated the issue was who would be responsible for keeping the culverts, at least under the driveways, open. Mr. Wisniewski stated as he understood it, it is the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain the culvert under their driveways, however, it appeared it is the City’s responsibility to maintain the ditches and he questioned when the last time the City did any maintenance on the ditches. Mr. Wiseman stated it is the City’s responsibility to maintain the ditches and since we have only been doing this the past few years we are still trying to determine exactly what our full responsibility is. Mr. Wiseman stated if the ditches fill because homeowner’s are putting grass clippings or whatever in them, that is the homeowner’s responsibility; if it is mother nature or something the City did to cause it, then the City should be taking care of it. Mr. Dailey stated this is a very sensitive issue because County engineers only have certain rights under the law. He stated there are what are called “petition ditches,” and the City should be careful as to what they take on as their responsibility. Mr. Dailey stated Violet Township has a lot of experience in this area right now. Mr. O’Brien inquired if this Committee could get a proposal back taking the short term recommendations, and perhaps splitting it between in-house work and contract work, and have some kind of plan. He stated if we could get something moving on this before the fall rainy season these residents could have some relief. Ms Gilleland stated she would get something put together for the next meeting with a legal opinion as to whether we can cite homeowners for not maintaining culvert pipes; and see if some of the short term proposal work can be done in-house versus contracted out by fall, and inspect to ensure connections with the field tiles. Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt the Long Road near Georges Creek Stormwater Study; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

4. PLANNING AND ZONING

A. REPORTS:

(1) BZA Report. Ms Gilleland stated there were no cases this month.

(2) Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. O’Brien) Mr. O’Brien stated Planning and Zoning Commission had approved an awning for Beef O’Brady’s, but disapproved the signage on that awning. He stated they had also discussed some issues with signage at Cup O’Joe as they did not meet the signage requirements. Further a Swan’s Cleaner will be going in at Creek Bend Business Park and they did meet all the requirements. He stated there was an issue with the stacking of cars for the drive thru, and they will be providing statistics from some of their other stores regarding the number of cars typically using the drive thru at one time. He continued they approved the design guidelines and conditional use permit for Fairfield National Bank on Courtright Drive. He stated there was an issue with the realignment of Courtright Drive and there was a proposal to swap some land that Council had discussed, and the approval to Fairfield National Bank was contingent upon Council acting on this land swap. Mr. O’Brien stated the Committee had been provided with a draft ordinance to authorize the transfer of lands on Courtright Drive to correct a road right-of-way error this evening. Mr. Hackworth moved to forward this ordinance to Council; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth and Mr. O’Brien voting ‘Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

Mr. O’Brien stated the Planning and Zoning Commission was also going to start working on the enforcement issue of the signage in the old downtown. He stated the Commission had worked quite some time on the new sign requirements and very few people are complying.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve temporary access to allow development at the Luse/Zane property. Ms Gilleland stated the City had received some new information and she would like to have more time to review this. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have this remain on the agenda.

(2) Review and discussion regarding the McDonald’s S.R. 256 access agreement. Ms Gilleland stated the representative from McDonald’s was unable to attend this evening and she requested this be continued until next month. Mr. Hackworth stated this item would remain on the agenda. Mr. O’Brien stated the Committee had received a copy of the access agreement that stated if traffic backs up past their entrance in the turn lane, the access can be closed. He stated he would recommend it be closed temporarily until at least the end of the construction in that area on S.R. 256.

5. SERVICE DEPARTMENT

A. WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.

(1) Water services to Pearl Lane and Florence Drive (CIP# 98-01-002) – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated two homes have had lines installed to hook onto the water, and a third is scheduled for next week. Ms Gilleland stated she met with Mr. Rex Myers and he had concerns about the backfilling that was done when the line was installed. Mr. Wiseman stated toward the end of fall we would get any barren spots reseeded, and we will do that in the spring as well. Mr. Wiseman stated it is best to let the ground settle over the winter, and then go back and see if there are any depressions that need to be taken care of. Mr. Hackworth stated with regard to the capacity fee issue, he would like to know what the process would be to assess the property owners rather than put a lien on their property. Ms Gilleland stated she would get with the law director for a legal opinion regarding the ability of Council to waive water capacity fees and the process of using an assessment in lieu of putting a lien on the properties. She stated she would try to have this by the next Service Committee meeting.

B. WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.

(1) Review and discussion regarding tertiary sand filter replacement. Mr. Wiseman stated he did get an estimate of $150,000 to repair and replace the sand filter. He stated the city’s personnel tore down the east side and removed all the sand at a cost of about $3,500. He stated he felt with some minor repair and some additional repair to the backwash pump itself, we can get that back in service at a cost closer to $30,000. He continued once the east side is complete they will tear down the west side and see if they can do similar work for that. Mr. Wiseman stated the cost savings was directly attributable to the wastewater treatment plant employees doing the work themselves.

C. STREET MAINTENANCE.

(1) Annual Street Repaving Project – Update. (Ordinance 2004-40 effective 8/19/04). Mr. Wiseman stated the contract can be signed on August 19^th, and he will be meeting with Shelly Company for a pre-construction conference prior to them starting work. He stated further they will put notices out to everyone affected. Mr. Wiseman stated the problem on East Columbus Street appears to be worse than they had initially thought. Mr. Wiseman stated it was his understanding the difference in texture of the patch done east of the railroad tracks that Mr. O’Brien had mentioned was due to the heat weld they used to put the patch in. He stated it should not have a negative impact on the street itself. Mr. O’Brien stated the only place in the downtown that is smooth is the stretch they just completed. He stated the problem with putting bricks in is that they have different coefficient of expansion, and the alignment is off. Mr. O’Brien stated he is just concerned with the quality of the paving job on the entire downtown project.

D. STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.

(1) Long Road/Bowen Road Stormwater Study – Update. Mr. Hackworth stated this was dealt with earlier in the meeting.

E. TREE COMMISSION. Update. Mr. Wiseman stated the Tree Commission did not meet this month due to the lack of a quorum.

F. SCIP (Formerly Issue II Program) – Application Date: October 1, 2004. Mr. Hackworth clarified the application will be submitted before the end of September.

G. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance to authorize the City Manager to write off uncollectible water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater charges. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to continue this item on the agenda.

H. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance to amend the Pickerington Codified Ordinances by adding a new Section 1050.011 and Section 1060.011 requiring landlords to co-sign their respective tenant’s water and sewer applications. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like for this item to be continued as well.

6. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion (CIP# 02-03-005) – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated he had distributed the information Mr. Hackworth requested on the wastewater treatment plant capacity just prior to tonight’s meeting. He stated we are still waiting for the EPAs approval of our plan to stress test the wastewater treatment plant.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Cycle Way/Freedom Way (CIP# 02-03-013) – Update. Mr. Dailey stated he had nothing new to report this evening.

(2) Courtright Road.

(A) Courtright Road Extension Project, Phase III (CIP#s 03-03-011 and 03-03-012) – Update. Mr. Dailey stated he had no update at this time.

(3) Diley Road Realignment:

(A) Diley Road/256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase II – Update. Mr. Dailey stated the project is under construction.

(B) Diley Road/S.R. 256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase III – Update. (Ordinance 2004-42 effective 9/19/04). Mr. Dailey stated he has started working on the right-of-way issues and he has provided a listing of what the work to be done on this issue and who is responsible for it.

(4) Diley Road Improvements Project:

(A) MORPC/ODOT Project (CIP#98-03-005 and 03-03-005) Mr. Dailey stated the matrix with Alternate 7 has been submitted and he is expecting comments any day. He stated the next action will be whatever the City decides to do. Mr. Wiseman stated he has requested MORPC confirm we are on our timeline for funding. Ms Gilleland stated the exhibit will be at Council on Tuesday night. Mr. Sabatino inquired if we will have a determination if that is approved by the next Council meeting. Mr. Dailey stated he did not know, however, they have requested the comments as soon as possible. Mr. Dailey stated he had also provided additional traffic counts to the Committee.

(B) Review and request for motion to approve Transportation Enhancement Plan (TEP) Funding. Mr. Dailey stated the applications have been submitted and if you are awarded the funds legislation is necessary to allow the City Manager to sign the required documentation. Mr. Dailey stated you will be asked to have this done by September if you are awarded the funds. Ms Gilleland stated this is additional funding MORPC made us aware of that will be used for the bike paths. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward legislation to Council to authorize the City Manager to accept funds for the Diley Road Widening Project from the Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP); Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

(5) Downtown Revitalization Project Phase III, IV, and V and West Columbus Street Public Parking Lot (CIP#s 02-06-001, 03-06-001, & 03-06-003) – Update. Mr. Dailey stated he had nothing to report this evening.

(6) Cover/Ebright Connector (CIP#02-03-010)

(A) Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update. Mr. Dailey stated he had no update on this issue.

(7) I-70/S.R. 256 Joint Improvements Project with Reynoldsburg and ODOT – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated he attended a pre-construction meeting this week and the contractor is Shelly and Sands. He stated they intend to start the project next week and it is a project that is required to have substantial completion by December 15^th, although they hope to be done by Thanksgiving. He stated the hardware that is currently within our signals were supposed to be compatible with the new data they are installing, it is not, and it may end up with us getting some new hardware.

(8) Traffic Signal Update. Mr. Dailey stated Mr. Gallagher was present this evening to discuss this issue and he had prepared a summary of signal maintenance and planning for Pickerington. Mr. O’Brien stated he had received that summary but had not had a chance to distribute it to the Committee members. Mr. Dailey stated this was the same issue as presented last month, they had just simplified the engineering costs. Mr. Dailey stated all of the hardware problems have been dealt with except for the signal at the current Diley Road and S.R. 256 intersection. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have time to review this information. Mr. Gallagher stated in order to coordinate the signals they will put together a model of all of the signals on S.R. 256 from Diley on out to the last signal we will have, which is south of Marcus Theater. He stated the development of that model will take some time and money, plus the counts, however, there is a secondary pay back from that as once we have that model we will be able to use it for a lot of things in the future.

(9) Traffic Improvement Plan (TIP) – Update. No Report.

(10) Review of Ordinance 2004-41, “An ordinance amending the Traffic control Map to raise speed limits on portions of Long Road and East Columbus Street,” and discussion regarding the residgnation of Long Road from “major collector” to “minor arterial.” Mr. O’Brien stated when he first started this legislation all of the input he had was asking to raise the speed limit. He stated since that time, every response he has received has been negative toward this issue. Mr. O’Brien stated it would be his recommendation that this legislation not be recommended for action by Council. Mr. Sabatino stated he concurred with Mr. O’Brien’s recommendation. Mr. Hackworth stated he concurred as well and requested it be removed from the agenda with no action by Service Committee.

C. WATER:

(1) Wellfield Investigation – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated he had provided the Committee with information this evening so they would have background on where we are with the Diley Road wellfield. He stated there is only a Service Committee agreement with MetroParks, there is no written agreement, agreeing that we will pump no more than 2.2 to 2.4 million gallons per day out of this wellfield. He stated as we start increasing the draw there, we keep reading the pizometers, and it shows we are not affecting Pickerington Ponds, this can go to the wayside. He stated it is a matter of historical data providing that we make sure we are not affecting Pickerington Ponds. Mr. Wiseman stated at the end of the summer, after the normal dry season, we will compare last year’s figures using the pumping rates and rainfall, with Burgess and Niple figures and make sure we are not affecting the Ponds. Mr. Wiseman stated in case something happened that we could only get 2 million gallons per day out of this wellfield, it would be in the best interests of the City to start looking for another well site now. He stated if we found a site, we could get the land and have it preserved and protected for future use.

D. STORMWATER. No Report.

7. CHAIRMAN.

A. Review and discussion regarding Community First requested traffic study. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have this remain on the agenda for one more month.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft Resolution supporting COTA’s North Corridor Light Rail and expanded Bus Service as the locally preferred alternative. Mr. Hackworth stated he had received a letter on this, however, his concern was that it was a $513 million project with COTA funding half of it. Mr. O’Brien stated he understood half of the project was eligible for up to fifty percent federal funding and the other fifty percent will need to come from a variety of non-federal sources. He stated it appeared there was no representative from COTA to address this issue this evening, and his concern was we would be doing a resolution to raise other people’s taxes. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt we could potentially be setting ourselves up for putting ourselves in COTA’s taxing district. Mr. Hackworth stated he did not know how this would apply to Pickerington. Mr. O’Brien stated he is a fan of public transportation and this is a good concept, and according to the map it will eventually be in Reynoldsburg and down toward Lancaster so we would have access to it, but that is in the distant future. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have this issue removed from the agenda with no action.

8. OTHER BUSINESS.

A. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance to authorize the City Manager to contract for a Traffic Study to determine the impact of the proposed widening of Diley Road on traffic on S.R. 256. Mr. Dailey stated the Committee had been provided information requested by Mr. Sabatino in regards to Diley Road widening traffic projections. Mr. Wisniewski stated if he read this correctly, and knowing it is hard to say a vehicle starts on 256 and goes all the way down to 33 or vice versa, it appears the majority of the traffic going to 256 is local traffic generated somewhere between Busey and north to 256. He stated further it appears traffic that starts on 256 is reduced by 75 percent before it makes it down to 33, so the majority of that traffic is diverted somewhere heading southbound, into subdivisions, off to Long, Wright, or Busey. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt it was safe to say it is mostly local traffic on Diley Road. Mr. Sabatino stated he had requested the draft legislation on tonight’s agenda was to ask for a traffic study to determine the impact of the proposed widening of Diley Road traffic as it affects S.R. 256. He stated if we are going to do a traffic study, and we are concerned about some office buildings and what impact that will have, over time this has to have far more impact than what that would. He stated one has not been done, and he was saying it should be done. Mr. O’Brien inquired if any studies were done on the Diley Road project that would answer the questions of what impact it would have on S.R. 256, and Mr. Gallagher stated in a technical sense, no. Mr. Gallagher stated some additional analysis had been done to double check what had already been done, and it was extended up to analyze new Diley and 256. Mr. O’Brien the impact study precipitated by the Luse request and an impact study regarding the five-lane widening of Diley were not the same thing. He stated the Luse request dealt with adding additional access to an already nearly failing three lane road, versus running a five-lane into a five-lane road. Mr. Sabatino stated to clarify a point, the reason he was requesting this study was because Mr. Gallagher had stated the signals were already well over capacity. He stated we know we have issues there, and we know it takes more capacity to deal with those issues. Mr. Sabatino stated he was merely suggesting we study the impact of adding an improved five-lane, fully flowing road, at 24,000 vehicles out. Mr. O’Brien stated those vehicles would be there regardless if it was two lanes or five lanes. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not agree with that, and if we did nothing we would not have the same flow we would have with five lanes. Mr. O’Brien stated he agreed we would have the same flow, but we would have the same quantity of traffic. Ms Gilleland ascertained a five-lane road becomes necessary when the traffic flow becomes 19,000, and even if Diley stays two lanes we will eventually have 19,000 vehicles coming onto S.R. 256. Mr. Sabatino stated if Diley Road stayed a two lane road, people would not be as inclined to want to use it as a commuter road. Mr. O’Brien stated if that was the case, then we should look to never improve another road because we don’t want to make it easy for people to use. Mr. Hackworth stated when U.S. 33 is a limited access highway into Columbus, for people on Diley Road it would be quicker to go that way and, therefore, traffic may be pulled away from S.R. 256. Mr. Sabatino stated Mr. Gallagher had spoken about the need to do traffic counts in the impact study, as well as, doing some modeling on S.R. 256. He stated he did not know why these things could not be done all together. Mr. O’Brien stated in speaking to the residents on Diley Road, their desire is to reach the point in the project where the appraisers come in and they know how much they will get, and we cannot get them what they want unless we start moving forward. He continued if we throw any more studies or whatever in, we are not moving forward. Mr. Sabatino stated this Committee killed an office project for six months to have a study, and Mr. O’Brien stated that project was not killed, it was going to be studied for up to six months, and that was in reference to the impact of an access onto an already congested three lane road. Mr. Hackworth stated Service Committee was not willing to move this draft ordinance forward to Council and requested it be removed from the agenda. Mr. Sabatino stated then he understood this died because the Committee chose not to act on it. Mr. Hackworth stated that was correct.

Ms Gilleland stated Mrs. Hensley had come in and met with her and Mr. Wiseman and she was requesting access to the ten year plan as has been offered to the residents on Pearl Lane and Florence. Ms Gilleland stated the options were to offer this to Mrs. Hensley as a hardship case, we can do nothing, or we can open it up to the City and give everyone a one shot chance. Ms Gilleland stated she was thinking of offering a one shot at the ten-year plan to the City. Mr. Hackworth stated he would still like to know the opinion on using the assessment process before making a decision on this. Ms Gilleland stated the issue is that Mrs. Hensley is outside the Pearl and Florence project boundary, and if you provide this option for her do we want to provide it to other residents who are interested in getting on City water right now and would like that ten year option. Ms Gilleland clarified the Committee would like to have this on the next agenda when all of the information is available.

Ms Gilleland stated she was planning on a minor reorganization involving code enforcement. She stated she would be moving property maintenance under the Planning and Zoning Department and dedicate a part-time employee to that function. She stated she planned on having increased follow-up on code enforcement. Ms Gilleland stated she has also spoken to the Mayor about having a citizen task force to examine issues that we currently can’t deal with in our code.

Mr. Wiseman stated the contract with Stilson Consulting Group, LLC, for Diley Road, Phases I and II, was entered into in 2001. He stated it was originally designed to be one project and has since then been split into three projects, Phases I, II, and III, and in doing so we have incurred increased costs due to bidding three separate projects, redesign of the work, redesign of stormwater, lane issues, etc. Mr. Wiseman stated he was requesting a change order to that contract to allow completion of Diley Road Phase II, approximately $18,000 for administrative services, and then to allow for administrative and inspection services for Phase III, which is about $50,000. Mr. Wiseman stated this totaled about $68,000 for an extension of the contract. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

Mr. Wiseman stated Canal Winchester is probably going to request we have a connection for emergency water at the direction of the EPA. Mr. Wiseman stated we are the most logical point for them to connect to, and we will discuss how much they plan to draw, when they draw, and what parameters we can put for them to draw water from us. Mr. Wiseman stated we have an emergency connection with Fairfield County to the north, and we will probably seek to get one to the south, and this is very similar. He clarified this is just to have interconnected water in case something happens. Ms Gilleland stated Canal did official make this request today. Mr. Sabatino clarified this would not have an impact on our ability to serve our residents first. Mr. Wiseman stated this would involve extra capacity we may have or in an emergency. Ms Gilleland stated she did not require a motion from this Committee, she was just making them aware of the situation.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. O’Brien moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth and Mr. O’Brien voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 2-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 10:55 P.M., August 12, 2004.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk