President of Council Marjorie Harlow called Council to order on October 6, 2010, at 7:00 p.m.

    The governmental body and those in attendance recited the pledge of allegiance.

    Mr. Vanover, Acting Clerk of Council took roll call. Present were Council members Diehl, Emerson, Galster, Hawkins, Squires, Vanover and Harlow.

    The minutes of September 15, 2010 were approved with six affirmative votes. Mr. Hawkins abstained.

    COMMUNICATIONS

    Mr. Vanover said SMOQ, 275 Pictoria Drive, requested a new D-5I liquor license. There were no objections.

    COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE    -     none

    ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

    Mrs. Harlow stated Ordinances 29 and 30 will be a first reading only.

ORDINANCE NO. 29- 2010 “AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ACCEPT AN IDENTITY FEATURE EASEMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KEMPER ROAD AND PRINCETON PIKE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (SPRINGDALE POINTE)”

Mr. Squires made a motion to read by title only and Mr. Hawkins seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Parham said at the last meeting there was an Ordinance 29-2010 before you that we requested be tabled until this meeting. At that particular time the ordinance was identified as accepting a sign easement. This ordinance speaks to an identity feature easement. We are receiving an easement as part of the development of the Thompson Thrift property at the intersection of SR 747 and Kemper Road. They agreed previously when they went before Planning Commission to grant an easement to the City for the piece of property at this corner. There had not been a determination as to what the particular feature would be located at that intersection. In any event, we did not want to limit ourselves only to a sign. We felt if we had passed the legislation at the last meeting identified as a sign easement, we would have had to get an additional easement from them if we chose to have a feature other than a sign. We have attempted to provide an opportunity to give the City some flexibility as to what we will put there. The reason for requesting this as a first reading is that we had not given you an opportunity to review the document. There is no rush for us to pass it this evening and we will request the emergency clause at the next reading.

Mr. Parham further added that the reason for a first reading on this ordinance is the same rationale for Ordinance 30-2010. You have not seen these documents. Mr. Thamann will provide a report on waste collection before the next meeting.

ORDINANCE NO. 30-2010 “ACCEPTING A BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH RUMPKE WASTE, INC., FOR WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”

First reading.

Mr. Galster asked Mr. Parham, can you give me a ballpark idea of the percentage of increase over what we were paying?

Mr. Thamann responded that based on the total cost for waste collection, recycling, dumpster service and the residential debris program under the new contract we will realize a savings of approximately $33,000 per year for a three-year contract. When I provide the report, there are some costs for legal fees with the consortium that I will add in there. You will have all the expenses as well.

ORDINANCE NO. 31-2010 “AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $338,000.00 TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT OF ADLETA CONSTRUCTION FOR THE NORTHLAND BOULEVARD REPAIR AND RESURFACING PROJECT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”

Mr. Squires made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.

Mr. Parham said the Northland Boulevard project is substantially completed. The staff, construction engineer and a representative from Adleta will get together in the next day or so to finalize the quantities to make sure everybody is in agreement as to what the numbers are relative to the amount of material that was used on the site. Once they come to that conclusion they will finalize our total cost. The only thing remaining after that will be the punch list items and staff will go through those things and provide Adleta with a list of items that need to be addressed. I think there was some concern as to whether or not Adleta had taken advantage of an opportunity when we arrived at the $338,000 figure by giving us a higher cost to finish off this project. That’s not the case, because when they provided the bid, they identified the cost associated with the primary item that has caused this increase, which is the full depth repair process. If you look at the bid document, there is a line item for full depth repair and the rate associated with that is $86. There is also a line for partial depth repairs as well as well as a normal paving process. If you look at the breakdown at the conclusion of the project, you will see in the full depth repair areas the number is higher because of what we encountered out on the site. You will see decreases in the partial depth repair. The rate is the same one they used at the beginning of the project, anytime there had to be a full depth repair. The one other item I’d like to point out is that the ordinance says $338,000. The attachment says $338,323.06. The numbers really should match but at the same time, as the staff has indicated to me, we believe we won’t even hit the $338,000 number.

Mayor Webster suggested adding the word “approximately” $338,000 for a change order.

Mr. Vanover said in Section 2 it says “not to exceed.”

Mr. Galster made a motion to amend Ordinance 31-2010, Section 1 to add the words “not to exceed” before the sum of $338,000 and Mrs. Emerson seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Galster said I am glad to see $338,000 rather than $400,000. I’d like to be made aware of the final numbers of what they took out extra. We looked at almost a fifty percent increase for this change order. I’m not saying their numbers aren’t right. I’d just like to have those numbers so I can look at them. I’d also like to know if that full depth repair was in line with other bids that we had for that alternate. I know it doesn’t matter. We accepted the base bid. I just want to have that for my knowledge and future reference.

Mr. Parham asked Mr. Galster for clarification regarding “if that full depth repair was in line with other bids that we had for that alternate.”

Mr. Galster stated I assume that the other proposals we received prior to awarding the contract had a similar per unit price in there for full depth repair. I just want to know if these numbers are close to each other or if they are way different from each other. I understand we are in a contract with this company but I’d like to know if we are paying $86 to this company if the other proposals were $40, $80 or $100 per unit. I just want to clear up in my mind why we’re hitting this kind of number percentage-wise to the base contract and if it’s something we need to be paying more attention to in future bids. I can’t make that determination if I don’t know what those numbers are.

Mr. Parham said when the engineer puts the document out to bid there is a form that each bidder picks up. They simply apply what their figures are going to be for each feature on that bid form. We can look back at those others but if the full depth repair number is less for bidder B, then there’s a bunch of other things in their bid that are much higher than what this particular bidder put forth. We can provide that information for you. The lowest bidder for this project was Adleta so overall they provided you with lower rates in many more categories than what the other bidders provided.

Mr. Galster responded I don’t know if they provided us lower rates with what we anticipated the work to be. We didn’t anticipate that we would be doing the full depth repair.

Mr. Parham replied yes we did but not to the extent that we had to complete. Everybody bid on the same thing based on what they were presented. When we got out in the field, we found out we had to do much more full depth repair. If we had gone back to one of those others, I guarantee you the price would have been much higher than $86. If there was a feature that we needed to perform that was not already identified, at that time, that contractor is going to boost their cost up high. As long as you already have the rate and it’s already identified and you know you what you have to perform, then you can very quickly determine what your costs are going to be by identifying how much of a quantity you had to use in order to hit that rate.

Mr. Galster said I understand, and only because it’s such a large percentage increase, I’d like to know how that number compared to the other bidders.

Mr. Parham said we can get that for you.

Mayor Webster said I understand what you want. I think this is the single biggest line item on the bid. If some other contractor had been substantially lower than Adleta, then they would have gotten the contract so I think we will find that Adleta will be the lowest but there could have been some other offsets that caused them not to get the bid, but that’s water under the bridge at this point.

Mr. Galster stated it may make me more aware of some of the precautions we need to take in the future on some of these projects to make sure that we are more conservative in our approaches to what the final cost may be or if it’s just this project and there’s no way we could have told.

Mayor Webster said I don’t think there is anything we could have done prior to letting the bid other than doing 10,000 core samples. As far as the bid process and letting the contract I don’t think there is anything anybody could have done about this astronomical change order.

Mr. Galster said once again, because of that percentage increase I’d just like to know what the numbers are. I’m going to end up not being satisfied, I’m sure. I’m not making an accusation about the contractor. I just want to know the numbers for piece of mind.

Mayor Webster said what makes this especially hard to swallow is that it was a free project.

Mrs. Harlow said I don’t ever remember having a bid come in in a situation like this.

Mr. Diehl asked is there anything we can do in the future not to have this ugly event happen again.

Mr. Parham replied the only thing I can think of is if you just bore everywhere. You’d have to bore every one of the horizontal or longitudinal and transverse joints to get a sense of what it was. As the Engineer and Public Works Director first enlightened me of the problem I’ve had plenty of questions for them, just as you have tonight. As they explained to me, the unfortunate situation here is that the signs you normally see when you have deterioration of the horizontal and vertical joints we weren’t seeing. If they don’t see the signs they are accustomed to always seeing, then you assume you will have that amount of full depth repairs and X amount of partial. Unfortunately when we began to dig the road up we see that the joints are just gone. Mr. Shvegzda has more expertise on that but based on the discussion I’ve had with him, that’s the information I’ve received.

Mr. Diehl asked if you could put a contingency factor in the contract.

Mr. Shvegzda responded there were but obviously nowhere near enough to cover this. Fortunately, Northland is the only roadway within the City that still has the concrete base with an asphalt overlay.

Mayor Webster said Mr. Diehl, in most of the contracts the City executes, you tally up all the quantities, unit costs and add in all the other stuff and get a subtotal. It’s usually ten to fifteen percent. That’s what we bring to Council. In this case, it was woefully inadequate.

Mrs. Harlow said it’s not all that different than doing a project at home. You don’t know what’s behind the wall. You have to tear the drywall out and you are looking at more repairs than you thought you were looking at. There were no warning signs with this project. I can’t see putting a patch job on it when down the road we will have to look at it again. I think we made the right decision.

Mr. Galster said I believe Glenfalls still has the concrete base and blacktop overlay so we may want to make sure our contingencies are more in line with what could possibly be out there.

Mr. Parham said the good thing is that Glenfalls is much shorter than Northland Boulevard.

Ordinance 31-2010 passed with seven affirmative votes.

RESOLUTION R15-2010 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE AMOUNTS AND RATES AS DETERMINED BY THE BUDGET COMMISSION & AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY TAX LEVIES AND CERTIFYING THEM TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR”

Mr. Galster made a motion to read by title only and Mr. Diehl seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mayor Webster said the County is asking Council to accept the rates. It’s the same 3.08 inside millage that we’ve had in perpetuity since we were incorporated in 1959. The County is telling us that it will generate $1,516,006.

Mr. Squires made a motion to adopt and Mr. Hawkins seconded.

Resolution R15-2010 passed with seven affirmative votes.

    OLD BUSINESS                     -     none   

    NEW BUSINESS

    Mr. Parham stated I had a request from the Police Department that we auction off two police vehicles. One was an unmarked police car, a 1997 Ford Taurus with over 107,000 miles and blown transmission. The second vehicle is a former cruiser, a 2002 Ford Crown Victoria with over 109,000. There are major mechanical issues with this vehicle as well. We request legislation at the October 20th meeting with an emergency clause to auction off those two vehicles.

    Mr. Thamann said also we are requesting legislation to allow the City to participate in the 2011 Workers’ Compensation Group Retrospective rating program. For the past several years the Miami Valley Risk Management Association (MVRMA) has provided a workers’ compensation group rating program that will unfortunately dissolve at the end of 2010. This is another opportunity to join a group rating program to reduce some of our premiums with the Bureau of Workers’ Comp. This is a relationship with the Ohio Municipal League and Comp Management will still remain the third party administrator (TPA). Comp Management was the TPA for the MVRMA Group as well.

    Mayor Webster said Mr. Parham and I received a request this week from the Police Chief regarding “Food for Fines.” We did not do that last year and I don’t think we had a tremendous change of food dropped off so we’d like to refuse that request again this year.

    Mayor Webster requested legislation for the magistrate, public defender and prosecutor. Their contracts expire November 30.

    MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
    Planning Commission                 -     October 12   
Board of Health                     -     October 14
    Rules of Council                     -     October 27
    Woodcrafter’s ribbon cutting             -     October 7
    Farmer’s Market last day                 -     October 28
    Chamber of Commerce Business Expo         -    October 19
Flu Shots                         -     October 19

    Mr. Parham said tomorrow at 7 p.m. we plan to have an All Call through the Code Red system that the Code Red organization has requested. It gives us an opportunity to increase the number of participants that are on our Code Red system as well as update any numbers individuals may have. I believe you can receive e-mail and text mail messages through the system also. We picked that time trying to give individuals an opportunity to be home and not interrupt their dinner time.

    Mr. Parham said a memo from Officer Bemmes stated the Drug Take Back program was very successful. She indicated that we took 86.9 pounds of drugs back. There was nothing but positive feedback from the public and all evidence has been released to the DEA for proper disposal.
   
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE        -      none

UPDATE ON LEGISLATION STILL IN DEVELOPMENT
Ordinance 29-2010                         -     October 20
Ordinance 30-2010                         -     October 20

RECAP OF LEGISLATIVE ITEMS REQUESTED
Auction of police vehicles                     -     October 20
Workers’ Comp Group Retrospective Program participation-    October 20
Municipal Court officers contract renewal        -     October 20

Council adjourned at 7:47 p.m.

                        Respectfully submitted,


                        Kathy McNear
                        Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Marjorie Harlow, President of Council

__________________________, 2010