Public
Services Committee Minutes
May
9, 2006
The meeting was called to
order by Chairman Fogt at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Fogt, Mark Reams Excused: Ed Pleasant
OTHERS PRESENT: Barb Miller, Ron Miller, John Gore, Bob
Widder, Tiffany Sobas, Kathy House, Michelle O’Connor, Mayor
Kruse
AGENDA:
Since the majority of the
people in the audience were there for the Railroad Crossing at
TRAFFIC STUDY – 5 POINTS TO RT. 33
Mr. Roush emailed a copy of
the traffic study proposal from DLZ to City Council. The cost of this study is $24,900. They have come up with a Problem
Statement, Scope of Work and Schedule as follows:
PROBLEM
STATEMENT
1.
Should
2.
Should
3.
What are the impacts on
traffic of either option?
4.
If re-opened, what work is
needed on
5.
If re-opened, what work is
needed for the railroad crossing?
6.
If re-opened, what is the
impact on the 5 Points intersection?
7.
What are the impacts on the
businesses on
8.
Are more lanes or other
improvements needed on
SCOPE OF
WORK
In
order to evaluate the above questions, a traffic study is needed. The study area boundaries are:
1.
Perform traffic
counts
a.
b.
Coleman’s
2.
Review previous traffic
studies
3.
Use traffic counts from
previous studies as applicable
a.
b.
Coleman’s
c.
Coleman’s
d.
4.
Project year 2026 traffic
from counts taken in 1. above based on growth factor
provided by or agreed with City.
5.
Perform Synchro analysis on
current and design year traffic
6.
Perform crash analysis at 5
Points intersection (from 3 years of crash data provided by
city)
7.
Determine answers to
questions in problem statement for both current and design
year
8.
Prepare preliminary
report
9.
Meet with City
staff
10. Prepare final
report
11. Make presentation to City
Council
SCHEDULE
The following schedule is
based on an assumed Notice to Proceed (NTP) of May 1, 2006. If the NTP is received at a later date,
the schedule will be adjusted accordingly.
Receive Notice to Proceed
5/1/06
Perform Traffic Counts
5/12/06
Project 2026 Traffic
5/19/06
Perform Synchro analysis
5/26/06
Analyze traffic impacts/Develop recommendations 6/8/06
Submit preliminary report
6/9/06
Meet with City staff
6/16/06
Submit final report
6/12/06
Make presentation to City Council
7/6/06
Mr. Roush feels the fee was
under $25,000 because if the fee was over $25,000, per the Ohio Revised Code,
City would have to request proposals and interview firms, which would take a
couple months for that process before the study could begin. He needs to talk to the consultant about
how to do the traffic count on
Mr. Fogt asked if those
other studies would be a true count.
Mr. Roush stated those other studies did have meters set up on
Mr. Fogt stated a traffic
study was done by Coleman’s Crossing before it went in. City Gate did a traffic study, but it
didn’t include
Mr. Fogt is in favor of
doing the traffic study, but asked if City Gate would be improving
Mr. Fogt asked if there was
any chance that City Gate or anyone else would help pay for this study? Mr. Roush stated City Gate is pretty
well through their platting process.
He commented that City Gate and Coleman’s Crossing development are both
within an existing TIF area and at the point when the TIF monies from those two
developments become adequate to a certain point, there would be some excess TIF
funds that could be used for projects such as widening Delaware Avenue, adding
of ramps, signalization, etc. That
is probably a few years out though.
Mr. Fogt commented that it would be nice to have the funds now as the
development builds.
Mr. Reams noted the City
has been faced with not being able to pave the streets we have. He noted traffic
problems at Delaware Ave, 5 Points, Milford Ave. and Maple and Maple and Elwood
that we’ll have to find a way to fund and hopefully will be addressed by impact
fees. He would like to move forward
on this study as quickly as possible.
It
was agreed to draft the legislation for the appropriation for this traffic
study. It will be sponsored by Mr.
Fogt and Mr. Reams. They would like
to put it on the consent calendar at Thursday’s Council meeting.
RAILROAD
Mr. Fogt read a letter he
received from the PUCO on Saturday, May 6, 2006.
Findings:
“On the date of my inspection, I found
the grade crossing had loose ties with cracks in the asphalt and holes adjacent
to the rails. The railroad track
supervisor was contacted and advised of the condition of the crossing. A Track & Structure Inspection
Report will be emailed or faxed to the carrier referencing my findings with a
request for corrective action.
A
repair date of no more than 30 days from the date of this report is requested
due to the condition of the roadway.
The railroad representative has been advised that the carrier is obliged
to act in accordance with Ohio Revised code 4955.20.
Summary:
The CSX representative,
J.D. Mallett was reminded that according to the Ohio Revised Code, railroads in
this state shall build and keep in
repair, good and sufficient crossings over, or approaches to such railroad, its
tracks, sidetracks, and switches, at all points where any public highway, is
intersected by such railroad.
Mr. Mallett understood that
the surface needed repairs but stated that he was reluctant to commit resources
to the site because of a previous meeting he had with a city representative who
indicated that the Mayor of Marysville was closing the crossing due to the
increased traffic and not the condition of the road. I was directed to a recent newspaper
article featuring their desire to close the crossing.
Conclusions and
Recommendations:
Until a more desirable
surface is achieved at this location, I recommend an application using a hot
asphalt patch and the securing of the timbers will be sufficient at this
time. Continued maintenance at the
grade crossing by the carrier is recommended and required.
Although the crossing is in
need of repairs, it is still a suitable and functional crossing for passage and
was not in a condition that required closure. If repairs to the crossing are not
addressed within the time allowed, it is suggested that this matter be referred
to the local highway authority or the Union County Prosecutors office, whichever
has authority as reference in the Ohio Revised Code. It is recommended that this matter be held in abeyance for 30
days.
Will
Johnson
PUCO/FRA Safety
Inspector
April 28,
2006”
Mr. Roush stated it appears
the inspector looked at the crossing between the rails, not the approaches.
Mr. Fogt said what the
inspector is asking for is a very minor fix. He mentioned nothing about the
vegetation or the widening of the approach. Mr. Fogt wrote back to Leah
Thomas-Dalton, Chief of Rail Division, suggesting they need to look at the
vegetation as well as other things.
Mr. Fogt does not quite agree with Mr. Johnson’s statement about the
crossing needing minor repairs then we could use the crossing. Since we have closed it and if we
re-open with just minor repairs, feels we may be
setting ourselves up for a lawsuit.
He agrees we could re-open with major repairs, including vegetation
control and widening the approach.
Would like to get flashing lights and crossing
gates.
Mr. Fogt asked who the city
representative was who met with Mr. Mallett. Ms. House said she had not. Mr. Roush said he and Joe Tracey have
had conversations with him. He
could have interpreted something they said similar to that. Ms. House did have a phone conversation
with him to ask him what his intention was for that crossing and whether or not
they could do anything about the bad conditions and if they couldn’t, and/or if
the city decided to close it because of other reasons, safety issues mainly,
what would the process be. Mr. Roush stated he’d had two or three conversations
with Mr. Mallett in the last two years about that specific crossing. Every time he has indicated that with
the budget he has to work with and the CSX position, they just have no money to
do anything with that crossing, whether we keep it open or not.
Mr. Fogt mentioned a letter
from the Ohio Rail Development Commission.
Bottom line is that if the City of
Mr. Fogt is not in favor of
closing the crossing permanently.
Mr. Reams agrees because that would limit the City’s options. Ms. House said we need the results from
the traffic study before any decision is made. Mr. Reams would hate to close it
permanently then find out from the traffic study that opening it up and making
some improvements is a good solution to our traffic problems in that area.
Mr. Gore asked about Mr.
Mallett’s statement that he doesn’t have money in his budget, but yet PUCO says
the repairs have to be made. Would
it require court action to determine that PUCO has the authority to tell CSX to
make the repairs? Mr. Roush said it
might. As a private citizen, Mr.
Gore has a real concern with expanding and allowing City Gate to develop and
allowing Coleman’s Crossing to continue to develop with no plans to expand from
Burger King to Coleman’s Crossing on out, and just have one way both ways, even
though there will be turn lanes.
That becomes a lot worse than it is now. He asked Council Members to look into
that with planning.
Mr. Fogt heard there was a
terrible traffic jam at 11:30 Saturday morning. There was no train involved. He heard it was all due to the traffic
light at McDonalds. It stays green
too long. Last week Mr. Roush met
with individuals who will be working on that, and he was told by the electrician
that the reason that light has been malfunctioning is because the pedestrian
walk button is stuck. Maintenance of traffic signals is an issue the City has
tried to work on. Total traffic
budget for the year is $30,000 for the entire city. One employee in the Street Division is
getting more involved in this maintenance.
When it comes to timing and coordination of signals, someone else must do
it. The problem with this light
should be fixed within the next month.
Mayor Kruse stated there
was never any indication that this was a permanent closing. The City needed to make an assessment of
what the real solution should be as far as traffic on that side of town. In the interim, we just wanted to keep
the people safe. It is not an
unreasonable approach to things.
That was his opinion then, and still is. He has no intention at this point to
recommend closing it permanently, but again reiterated he would be against
spending funds that are scarce to upgrade that without knowing that it was part
of the solution to the traffic problem on that part of
town.
Bob Widder asked if the
legislation for the traffic study was going to be on Council agenda Thursday or
not. He said if City Gate is not
yet final, why would the City not go back to them and get money from them to fix
the problem that was created by all those businesses moving into that new
intersection. Also, the study does
no good if it does not have Wal-mart and Home Depot counts in it. An updated study is needed. He stated three days out of five, his drive-thru has five cars waiting to pull onto
Mr. Reams stated that City
Gate deals with Planning Commission,
Mr. Reams noted that City
Gate is not so much impacted by what we’re looking at for the study for
Mr. Gore asked if the strip
mall where Applebee’s is located did a traffic study. Response was they did a traffic
analysis. They will be doing the
synchronization work in the area.
Ms. O’Conner’s stated she’s
pleased to hear of the letters received about the recommendation of minor
repairs to reopen it, but disappointed to hear CSX’s response with speaking to
(inaudible) a city member (inaudible) and that impression from the City of
Ms. Sobas of Lil Tykes talked with the inspector about her concerns. Feels the traffic study is a big
step. The inspector said that it’s
not the worst crossing in Marysville and was surprised we were spending that
much time on this crossing. He said
we need to focus on other crossings in Marysville. Feels we need to open that road to do a
fair traffic study. The inspector
did not see an issue with the foliage obstructing the view. The fence around Lil Tykes does not obstruct the view. The inspector’s comment to her was,
“Unless someone dies at this railroad crossing, they are not going to do
anything about it.”
Mr. Fogt is in favor of
getting the crossing improved as much as possible and as soon as possible. He feels the traffic study is not going
to tell us to close
Mr. Fogt said that if the
City gets no money from Wal-mart or City Gate or
anybody else, we’re depending on TIF money to widen
Mayor Kruse stated his view
as far as what happens after the traffic study. Assuming that it says
that
IMPACT
FEES
Mr. Reams recapped that the
Committee discussed the previous traffic study and the traffic infrastructure
analysis. Mr. Reams talked to Mr.
Wardell Wilcox who worked on the original traffic study. He will review the study to see what it
will take for the City to move forward with creating a traffic impact fee. He will send a proposal with what his
firm can do for the City.
Mayor Kruse asked if this
study was done in previous administrations, why was nothing ever done? Mr. Reams responded that there was the
pending Beaver Creek court case, and also the previous study recommended
breaking the City into four or five zones and any money collected from
development in that zone could only be spent in that zone. He believes that could have been the
reason why nothing was done. Mayor
Kruse said if it is done that way, development on one side could very easily
affect what’s happening in terms of traffic patterns on the other side of
town. When you restrict correcting
that problem to funds generated where the problem is, you are not getting at the
source of revenue that’s causing the problem. Mr. Reams stated the consultant came in
a few months ago and explained why zones were recommended. It was worded that way because of the
Beaver Creek case, and they wanted to make sure it’s on solid ground and would
be modeled to what’s been tested in the court.
Beaver Creek ended up in
two or three different zones. Mr.
Reams feels Beaver Creek is different from Marysville in terms of where their
development was occurring, was more in one zone than in others. After that discussion, it was decided to
pursue going to one zone due to recent developments and the City’s
structure. If zones were found to
be needed later on, they would be minimized and boundaries drawn along roads
that have anticipated improvements and growth so costs could be shared. Mayor Kruse does not want to see any
fees discourage commercial and industrial development. You can heavy load the fees on
residential development because they are causing as much problem as anything in
the City. Mr. Reams said the
building industry was somewhat involved the last time and they would prefer not
to see impact fees. Mayor Kruse
asked Council’s position on this issue.
Mr. Reams has supported
this study from day one. He wished
the City could have worked through these differences a while back. He wants to move forward with this. The issues faced with tonight are the
results of not being able to address the growth issues in the past. If we had addressed them five years ago,
we could possibly have been able to make some of these needed improvements. For instance with City Gate, you cannot
expect someone to pay for problems they are not creating; they are inheriting
the problems. The bad thing about
the TIF solution is that the problem occurs first and the funding comes
later. Had impact fees been imposed
sooner to address traffic problems, we could have been working on
Mr. Wilcox will get back to
Mr. Reams with a written proposal.
DISCUSSION OF STOCKSDALE/MAPLE/MILFORD INTERSECTION
The traffic pattern in this
area has been discussed in the past.
These studies deal with the point where the building for Country Skillet
was most recently occupied. That
property is now vacant. The owner
called to see if the City would be interested in purchasing the property. She asked the Committee how they felt
about it. Price has not yet
been discussed. Previous records
show the current owners purchased it for $86,500 and in verbal discussion with
the partners, they don’t want to make a whole lot of money, but would like to
have a return on their investment.
Mr. Fogt is in favor of
purchasing it. Mr. Reams is in
favor of solving the problem in this area.
It’s not very often that you get a willing seller at the same area where
we know we’re going to have to do something. This is one of three or four locations
that need major improvements.
Consensus of Committee is for Administration to proceed with
negotiations.
POTENTIAL HIRING OF PLANNER
Mayor Kruse wants a planner
or possibly a senior planner, not a planning director. This person will work for Mr.
Roush. Would like
this position to be appointed by the Mayor. Would prefer at that level, it would not
need Council confirmation. Would like to have that person on board by the second half of this
year. City has maxed out the
entire staff. City needs someone
that can get involved that can put some order in all these projects. Mr. Fogt asked what the salary would be
for this position. Ms. House said
current range is $52,000-$68,000.
It would probably be less than that. We need someone to coordinate planning
efforts. The Committee
supports hiring this position.
Committee agreed to co-sponsor legislation with the
Mayor.
ODOT PRELIMINARY LEGISLATION FOR SLIPPAGE REPAIR
City received a request
from ODOT to do some preliminary legislation for the slide project along Rt.
33. This issue was brought to
committee last fall. ODOT has
decided it is their project. It
requires no financial contribution unless the City requests special
features. Mr. Roush stated he is
not aware of any features that the City would request. This legislation would allow ODOT to do
the work. Two areas need work,
along Rt. 33 from
INSPECTION FEES FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER, REVISED TO INCLUDE
UNINCORPORATED AREA
Mr. Roush stated since we
have the new County Agreement, the City was concerned about their ability to
collect inspection fees for the projects that are accomplished outside the
corporation limits, as well as their inability to collect adequate inspection
fees for some of the larger
projects inside the city limits, like Wal-Mart or Home Depot. City gets one $50.00 sewer inspection
fee for the whole project and that is just not enough. Language added: For any project site of one (1) acre or
more in area will collect a percentage fee based on the value of the work
they’re going to do and then that will give us enough to do the inspection and
___________
fees to go along with it for both water and sewer. Any site smaller than
one acre will do our $100 inspection, which will generally be a small office
building or a house.
Also proposing
language: System development
charges shall be assessed for sanitary service based on the water meter sizes,
so whether you have one sewer tap or not, you are still going to have more
wastewater going through that based on the water meters, so we’ll be able to
collect a sewer fee for each water meter.
Proposed change to Chapter
1100, General Fee Structure.
Language clears up where these fees apply. “These fees shall apply to all site
developments larger than one (1) acre in area whether public or private. Such fees shall also apply to areas
outside the corporate limits that are connected to Marysville utilities.“
Would like to get this
implemented as soon as possible. The Committee agreed to support this
legislation.
2006 GOALS
·
Town
Run
Mr. Roush stated someone
stopped by his office today that’s got the building on
Mr. Fogt asked if anyone
found out yet who owned the Town Run.
Ms. House stated the Law Director is still
investigating.
·
Explore a comprehensive
impact fee
Mr. Fogt asked if an RFQ
had been put together for a company to do a comprehensive impact fee study. Ms. House thought we were just going to
go with the traffic study. Mr. Fogt
said for now, but will want the comprehensive study. Mr. Reams says he would like to finish
the traffic study first since it’s 90% done. He does not want 20 projects 90% done,
when he can have 5 projects 100% done.
This goal will be kept on the list.
Mayor Kruse said he’s
disappointed with what we’ve accomplished so far this year, but we’ve been
bogged down on so many major tough issues.
We need to move forward.
The meeting
adjourned.