PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2005

 

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Reams at 7:10 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Mark Reams, Dan Fogt, Ed Pleasant

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Kathy House, John Morehart, Tracie Davies, Phil Roush, David Burke, Ryan Horns, Don Bergwall, Lloyd Baker, Dave & Doris McCarty, Wardell Wilcox

 

AGENDA:

         

1)     Sewer Tap Voluntary Moratorium Update

 

Ms. House reported the moratorium was self-imposed in 2003 as part of the plan of action to the EPA for dealing with sewer issues.  A lot of I & I work has been done and have shared with the EPA the outcome of all that work, as well as all other work that has been done to remedy inefficiencies in the system.  She shared a copy of the documentation and letter that was sent to the EPA informing them that the City will be lifting the moratorium on September 15, 2005.  Ms. Davies stated she had been in touch with Mike Sapp of EPA, and he is in agreement with documentation that was sent to him and does not have an issue with lifting the moratorium.  He’ll be sending a letter to the city within the next few weeks.  Mr. Pleasant asked if there had been any reports of flooding with the recent rains?  Response was no.  There have been no overflows since January of this year when we had significant rains.  Ms. Davies added that there was an overflow at the plant, but it is not considered a sanitary sewer overflow.  That will be corrected with the work being done by the rider plant with the improvements at the existing plant. 

 

Mr. Fogt stated he is opposed to lifting the moratorium.  Ms. Davies commented about what Mr. Brossart stated in the Finance Committee meeting about the TIF’s  and the residential incentive districts and how important they are to our funding and keeping that funding level and not at the 30% increases for three years.  The developments need to be started in order for these TIF’s not to be nullified.  Mr. Fogt questioned the platting of future developments.  Keystone Crossing and Chestnut Park have been through preliminary plat phase, but were tabled at the final plat phase because of the moratorium.  The final phases for these developments will be on the October Planning Commission agenda for approval. 

 

2)     Trash Collection Contract

 

Mr. Morehart reported the current trash collection contract expires this year.   Currently in the process of going through the advertising process.  The bids will be opened Monday, September 26th.  One proposal has been added where bidders can present option 2 which would indicate changes to our current way of doing things, such as volume based pricing, fixed rate pricing, etc.  If there are major changes to the current way of doing business, it will have to be approved by Council. 

 

3)     Impact Fees

 

Mr. Wardell Wilcox of Edwards & Kelsey gave an update on the Thoroughfare Plan and the Impact Fee Study that was done a while back.  Mr. Reams stated at the time the study was done, it was 90-95% complete.  It was tabled due to some of the complexities involved.  The issue was the idea of dividing the city into different zones and having each zone contribute only to that zone.  Can the zones be redefined or how can they be redefined.  Mr. Wilcox stated the zones were established by following the zip codes, so typically zones are zip codes and TAZ zones, Traffic Analysis Zones.  The State has them set up for censes purposes and also with OKI and MPO .  These zones are used for allocating a lot of economic data which helps on the state, federal and local level to understand where development is anticipated to occur in those particular saturation areas.  It is the discretion of the city whether to redefine and/or restructure zones.  It is suggested that the City still adhere to the current zip code zones, because it makes it a lot easier when doing an analysis as far as what available land is still outstanding to be developed and/or for the existing density to do rooftop analysis.  Zones typically follow the street grid. 

 

Mr. Pleasant asked for an update on Beavercreek.  It was the legal test when this was done.  Mr. Wilcox stated the decision was upheld.  They ruled in favor of the city, so the impact fee assessment and the impact fee assessment districts that Beavercreek established are bound and they are moving forward.  They expanded their zones throughout other sections of the city.  From that standpoint, it has been tested and is still a test through the court system.  As far as the appropriate allocation and the directing of funds, Beavercreek is still holding to their zones and earmarking whatever funds they receive to go to specifically address the infrastructure improvements that are within those zones.  He suggested that is probably the way Marysville would want to continue.  May want to look at the way Marysville has been set up.  As zones or districts are established, have a healthy balance of the residential versus the retail use if at all possible.  Depending on the city’s land and land planning, may or may not have that type of leverage. 

 

Mr. Reams stated in the study, there were five proposed zones.  He asked why five and not three, four or six?  Could Marysville have three or four zones in a city our size?  Response was “you could.” Ms. House asked, “Why not one?”  Mr. Wilcox said he’d have to go back to see if the conditions are acceptable.  He feels if you have only one zip code, he doesn’t see why there couldn’t just be one zone.  The downside would be as you go forth with making improvements, will all areas of the one zone be equal and fair treatment. 

 

The main issue with Beavercreek was more retail commercial versus residential.  The fee assessment was not fair.  The retailers did not complain, it was the home owners/builders who had an issue.  The retailers can hide the costs.  In general most of the developers are prepared; they understand there are infrastructure improvements that they are expected to make.  Most home builders come in and expect the existing roadway system can support what they anticipate building.

 

Mr. Pleasant asked if there were any other models comparable to Marysville.  Mr. Wilcox stated almost everyone, especially in the state of Ohio have backed completely away from impact fees.  Several municipalities wanted to investigate impact fees, but didn’t pursue it.  Mr. Fogt noted that Delaware has impact fees, which includes Fire and Police. 

 

Mr. Pleasant asked if the Committee was interested in pursuing this, would the study need to be updated and how much.  What types of things should we look for when pursuing in that direction.  Mr. Wilcox stated the scope for the city would need to be updated to understand what the current build is versus what we demonstrated in the original document and what the future plans are as well.

 

Mr. Reams asked if it would be fair for the City to make some adjustments to this study in terms of the zones and move forward with the fees as developed in the study, then spend the next year reevaluating and seeing what they may need to be adjusted to.  Mr. Wilcox stated you could.  The risk that you assume is how the dollars for 1999 and 2000 would relate to 2005/2006.  That would be a gray area.  Work with your legal departments to make sure that everything from the city’s standpoint is covered in your defense of that, when using the 2000 report.   Mr. Reams asked about the recommendation that the payment of the fee occur at the time that the building permit is issued.  Can that be done at the time the occupancy permit is issued?  Mr. Wilcox stated that is at the City’s discretion.

 

Mr. Reams feels one zone could be difficult for the city in terms of being legally defensible.  Three is reasonable.   Mr. Wilcox stated zones can be set according to planned development and can be modified as necessary. 

 

In summary, Mr. Reams confirmed that it was at the City’s discretion to redefine zones based on some of the thoroughfares that were identified for major levels of investment in the future and use that as a boundary line so that two zones could contribute to that.  It would be acceptable to spend money from the two zones on a shared roadway that divides the two.  Mr. Wilcox agreed. 

 

Mr. Fogt feels we need to look at Fire and Police and throw some other things in.  It had been mentioned in the past that Parkland Funds should be rolled into one fee with the rest.  Mr. Reams stated you would not use Parkland funds to pay for streets, etc.  Feels each fee should be separate.  Mr. Fogt referred to Delaware impact fees.  They cover parks, recreation facilities, police facilities, fire and emergency medical facilities and it’s not limited to these.    Mr. Reams said he is not opposed to making development or growth pay for growth, but he does not want to spend two years studying the impact of that, while we know the $1,000 per house impact to the City, and we’re bleeding every year.  Would rather put a bandaid on this one now, get moving forward, revise it as needed and look at the others as well. 

 

4)     Discussion – Town Run at 5th Street

 

Mr. Reams asked what could be done with the Town Run to clean up the area, not only to make it functional but to make it not be an eyesore right in the middle of the uptown.  Mr. Roush said a meeting is scheduled in about two weeks with the EPA to talk about the potential of some Brownfield Funding for reclamation to see what some possibilities may be for that area.  Ms. House said so far there has been no luck in getting funds.  It would be mostly aesthetics and it’s difficult to find money for that purpose.  Will continue to pursue it.    Ms. Davies stated that she and Joe Tracey went to that site a few months ago to look at it since the City was talking to the potential property owners to see if there was anything the city could do to help improve the situation.  Joe Tracey’s crew would be the ones doing the work.  The City does not have any of the equipment or people with the expertise on staff to do it, so all work would have to be hired out.  Mr. Reams questioned if the City would want to do something to make it look better or could it be hidden somehow, such as a brick wall.  Mr. Roush stated one of the big issues with that is because it’s such a major waterway, in order to put a box culvert in there, it would take a few hundred thousand dollars to do any good.  Mr. Reams asked Administration to keep the Committee informed of any new funding developments. 

 

In closing, Mr. Reams would like to continue discussing impact fees.  Would like to move forward with looking at the traffic as well.  Would like to continue to work on the Town Run at 5th. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.