PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE
MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13,
2006
The meeting was called to
order by Mr. Reams.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Reams, Dan Fogt, Ed Pleasant
OTHERS PRESENT: Kathy House, Phil Roush, Dick Noland,
Bill Kelley, Ryan Horns
AGENDA:
1)
Organization (elect
Chairman)
Mr. Fogt was nominated and elected
Chairman.
2)
Traffic
Study
Mr. Reams stated Edwards
& Kelcey updated a traffic study, which had been
done in the past. They updated the
fees for the last five years. They
used an inflationary rate by looking at the last five-years contract award costs
and came up with an inflation figure of 6.3% compounded annually. So that
impacts the cost of constructing a roadway. That’s how they arrived at the new
number. The rest of the study they
went through and applied that to the previous study in terms of what was
recommended in terms of a fee per unit on new construction. This all is to reflect the cost impact
of this new construction on the city’s traffic infrastructure needs. In other words, if you build 1000 homes,
you will have that much worth of road work that needs to be done throughout the
city in that general area of development in order to accommodate that kind of
traffic.
Page 2 shows a
breakdown. Mr. Pleasant asked about
quadrants. He said Beaver Creek was
broken down into quadrants mainly because most of their development was in one
particular area. Need to talk
to a legal expert to see if Marysville could be broken down into quadrants.
Ms. House commented that
the Mayor has a concern about having one impact fee that covers a variety of
services rather than a specific fee for a specific purpose. Mr. Roush noted the one impact fee that
exists in Marysville is
A
fire station was mentioned as a use for the funds. Funds could be used to build a new fire
station or build a second fire station.
Impact fees can only be used for capital expenses, not operational
expenses.
It
was agreed that everyone was in favor of a single zone rather than
multiple. Need to have the law
director address legality of a quadrant.
Further studies would be
needed in order to do something similar to the roadway impact fee. Need to determine what level of service
we need to be providing then determine that cost per resident. Need to find out the calculation
i.e. one fire station per X sq. mi. or X number of business or residents, to see
at what point a new fire station is needed.
Mr. Fogt asked if we should proceed with an impact fee for just
traffic. Mr. Roush read a section
of the Roadway Impact Fee System Methodology Report, Page 5. “Correction of
Existing Deficiencies. An
important issue that must be dealt with when considering an implementation of an
impact fee system is that of pre-existing deficiencies in the system. Impact fees must not be used to correct
pre-existing deficiencies in the roadway system. The Marysville Transportation
Infrastructure Study identified locations on the fee-eligible system or the
recommended level of service standard is currently not met. Prior to enacting an impact fee
ordinance, the City must establish a method for correcting those level of service deficiencies. It is therefore recommended that the
City establish a capital improvement program that stipulates how and when these
improvements will be made prior to enacting an ordinance.”
Mr. Pleasant stated Council
made a commitment several months ago that they were going to have growth take
care of growth. Would like see a comprehensive program. Look at all the options discussed. He believes studies will be needed to
justify and verify it. Would like
to move towards this and would like to look at a comprehensive program, fire
station and all the other things that both
Using Home Depot as an
example, 120,000 sq. ft., $2,061 per unit, one unit is 1,000 sq. ft,; $2,000 x
100 = $200,000 just for roadway.
Need to look at examples in all categories.
Committee philosophically
agrees.
Fee
breakdown. Need to look at the detail how we
account for TIF’s and the improvements a developer may
make in the area to be sure it’s nailed down.
3)
Trunk Interceptor
Program/Water Reclamation Facility Progress
The Trunk Interceptor
Program/Water Reclamation Facility is in limbo until the Millcreek Township
Trustees act on a resolution regarding
4)
Water Master Plan
Implementation
The Water Master Plan was
presented to Council in December.
The City is implementing improvements at the current plant, as suggested
in the Master Plan. This will
prolong the life of the current plant and make it more efficient. In 2007, design will probably begin on a
new water plant.
5)
Third Frontier Grant
Program and possible project.
Ms. House handed out
initial guidelines for this program from the Ohio Department of
Development. Issue 1 passed last
year and incorporated the Ohio Public Works Commission Funding with the Third
Frontier initiative. This is the
resulting program. There will be a
limited number of grants available to all counties in
6)
Recycling
Program
Mr. Reams recalled a
gentleman from the Solid Waste Authority coming to discuss recycling. Decided to contact them and ask a
representative to come to a Public Service meeting. Committee is interested in promoting
voluntary recycling, especially at apartments and businesses. Mandatory recycling would add much time
and cost and the enforcement would be very difficult.
7)
2006
Goals
Continue working on the
traffic study – refer to earlier discussion.
Continue to work on the
Town Run in conjunction with URT and Stormwater.
Sidewalk maintenance …
voluntary, consider setting up an account of matching funds. Mr. Burke may have an interest in this
topic and have suggestions.
Stormwater – No flooding reported
lately. The improvements made in
storm drains, etc. have seemed to help the flooding and have reduced the amount
of storm water going to the sewage plant.
Street paving – The
concrete portion of
Water and sewer projects –
refer to earlier discussion
Explore a comprehensive
impact fee – refer to earlier discussion
Meeting
adjourned.