President of Council Marjorie Harlow called Council to order on November 17, 2010 , at 7:00 p.m.

The governmental body and those in attendance recited the pledge of allegiance. Mrs. McNear gave the invocation.

Mrs. McNear took roll call. Present were Council members Diehl, Emerson, Galster, Hawkins, Squires, and Harlow. Mr. Vanover was absent

The minutes of November 3, 2010 were approved with six affirmative votes.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICIAL REPORTS

Civil Service Commission                      -     no report

Rules and Laws - Mr. Hawkins said the Rules of Council committee met October 27. It is the recommendation of that committee to have legislation drafted with regard to amendments to the Rules of Council that involve gender, title changes such as President Pro Tempore versus Vice-President, time change for the meeting and a typo. The exhibit will have the changes in red. There are more substantive changes that will come to Council after the first of the year. We’ll talk with Madam President about whether to have a special meeting or incorporate that into our regular meeting.

In response to Mrs. Harlow, Mr. Hawkins stated the first ordinance is housekeeping. There are a few more issues we are going to go through and tweak again. After the committee has ironed that out completely I’ll speak to Madam President as to whether you want to have a special meeting or not. Those things will probably be attacked section by section throughout the chapter so we can focus on each section at a time and bring those before Council in that manner.

Mrs. Harlow said if we handle it that way we may be able to incorporate it into our regular meetings.

Finance Committee        -    no report

Planning Commission - Mr. Galster said Front Room Furniture has a wall sign beam which was originally discussed July 13. They were to remove the truss work part of the beam and try to come up with artistic graphic panels to utilize the beam. They presented some black and white pictures of furniture which was not what I had envisioned. They were allowed to leave the beam without having a sign and no time frame was given. Tri County Towne Center had come before Planning before concerning landscape islands in front of their main building and also a sign modification on the message board on SR 747. The applicant requested that the message board be changed out to hold six permanent panels and the landscaping be done only along the front building because they are doing it in stages. That was approved 7-0. Thompson Thrift requested a 7700 s.f. addition for Phase II development plan for 165 East Kemper Road. It’s my understanding that they have both tenants signed up and they are ready to move forward. That was passed 7-0. There was discussion about revisions to the Water Management Sediment Control ordinance in the Subdivision Regulations. These were housekeeping items. We’re under our own quality management program here in Springdale separate from Hamilton County which incorporates a lot of the other jurisdictions. In order for us to comply with the State law for quality water management control, these modifications need to be updated into our plan. That was recommended to Council by a 7- 0 vote.

Board of Zoning Appeals – Mr. Hawkins stated the owner from 1205 Wainwright Drive requested a variance to store a recreational vehicle in the driveway. That was denied 7-0. Thompson Thrift requested six variances based on the approval they got previously from Planning Commission. The variances included a rear building setback and side yard setback, green space, dumpster enclosure in the side yard, paving setback, parking spaces. Based on the overall plan some of these things aren’t going to be an issue.

Mr. Galster said a lot of the setbacks are because they haven’t gone into Phase III yet. Once Ponderosa and Skyline, if they are included, the setbacks will go away. Originally when they did Phase I they had to split the property into two lots in order for them to get financing. Now we have a separate piece of property for Phase II and once that is completed they need to consolidate that back.

Mrs. Harlow asked does the same corporation hold all that property?

Mr. Galster replied the area is held by different people and different trusts. There are leases, subleases that come into play. That’s what has made it pretty difficult to even get to this point.

Mayor Webster said I think the Planning Commission and our City Planners have done an excellent job to this point. I think we’re very fortunate to have found a developer like Thompson Thrift who will come in and work with the City. Nine months ago we had a vacated gasoline station and some buildings that didn’t look all that great. Now we have a new building and a nice Phase II coming in. I think they do have some options on other buildings so the chances of Phase III happening are pretty high at this point. We have to give them these setbacks because when all three phases are done these setbacks are mostly going to disappear.
   
Board of Health – Mr. Squires reported there were two hotel/motel inspections and school inspections that were all good. As of November 4, 373 flu shots had been given and there are 217 doses available. The mammogram van will be back January 27. Mayor Webster will talk about SOS.

Mayor Webster said Marsha Bemmes drives the Christmas program. So far we have 41 requests for help and 25 sponsors signed up. Even though we are not doing the Food Fines program we are accepting donations of food for the needy. Also we have identified fourteen children who need hats, coats and gloves. We are making an effort to get those even before the holidays. We are still looking for sponsors and donations.
   
O-K-I - Mrs. Mcnear said I missed the meeting this month and there will be no meeting in December.

Mayor’s Report – Mayor Webster stated we had our first observance of Veteran’s Day on the memorial site. We had a great turnout and the comments I heard were very positive. I would like to share a couple of correspondences from people who were there.

Danny Mastrullo, 518 Lafayette Avenue wrote: “As a proud veteran and resident of Springdale I just wanted to drop you a note to share with City Council. The Springdale Veteran’s Day Ceremony was just great. I hope that each year that we will never forget this day. I sent thank you notes to the Springdale Police Department, the Honor Guard and the Springdale Elementary School for their participation. I salute you and the Council on a job well done.”

Jackie O’Connell did an outstanding job putting this together. She continues to outdo herself and I just want to read you the thank you note she sent out to all the participants: “I just want to thank you for your participation and support of Springdale’s first Veteran’s Day ceremony. The weather was beautiful, the crowd was better than I anticipated and the participants were superb. I cannot fully express my appreciation to you for your assistance, some of you at the last minutes such as the Springdale Color Guard in making our first Veteran’s Ceremony extraordinary. I’m sure every veteran in the crowd felt the gratitude of Springdale and our community for their service to our country. Even the civilians in the crowd could not help but be moved by the words and songs at the day’s celebrations. Again, thank you for your participation in today’s event to honor all who fought and continue to fight for our freedoms and liberties.”

Mayor Webster continued today I had the pleasure along with Mr. Tulloch, Mr. Diehl, Mr. Squires and our Chamber of cutting the ribbon at Home Emporium. They took the old Wal-Mart facility. It’s a nice operation and I think it will fit in well there. We are in the process of making the selection for police chief. We have interviews set up for Friday and Monday and hopefully at or before the next Council meeting we will be in the position to announce our new police chief. On a personal note, Sharonville Mayor Virgil Lovitt’s daughter has been in the ICU for a week or ten days from complications from her pregnancy. She is still in the hospital but doing better. Mr. Lovitt and family, this is great news and we hope she continues to do well.

Clerk of Council/Finance Director – Mrs. McNear said I received a check for $107,000 from the Department of Transportation. Mr. Parham was very happy because he was expecting $93,000 with a delivery date unknown.

Mr. Parham said this survey refund was from the SR 747 urban paving project. They had notified us that it would be $93,000, then they came back later on and told us it would be $107,000. As I shared with Mrs. McNear, I told Mr. Williams I didn’t feel all that confident that we were going to get it this year until last week when they sent us a notification that it would be coming out next week.

Mrs. McNear said I have an updated list of elected officials. It is yearly request from the State so you can file your 2010 disclosure. I will pass the document around so please verify your name, address and service dates.

Mrs. McNear stated OKI is requesting a representative from the City of Springdale. Mrs. McNear agreed to be the representative again.

Administrator’s Report – Mr. Parham said we want to request legislation requesting a contract with ODOT and OKI for the upgrade to the traffic signal system. It’s been in our five year budget process for a number of years where we applied for funding and were successful in receiving a CMAC grant for $836,660. They forwarded the legislation to us and requested that Council pass it if we are so inclined. At the same time our share has to be deposited by January 18, 2011 in the amount of $220,456. If you recall, this was a project that received 80 percent CMAC funding, 20 percent City funding. When you begin to look at the number we have outlined in the budget, and look at the $220,456 as our 20 percent share and the $836,660, they will not add to the number you will see in the budget. If you recall, ODOT did require that the City pay for three intersections at 100 percent our costs. The cost of those is incorporated according to their estimates into the $220,456. With your concurrence we’d like to have legislation at your next meeting with the emergency clause.

Mr. Parham said we do have the final cost containment day scheduled for next Friday, November 26. The Municipal Building and Public Works Department will be closed. The Community Center will be open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Law Director’s Report         -     no report
   
Engineer’s Report – Mr. Shvegzda said the SR 4 southbound lane addition bid opening was October 21 and Barrett Paving was determined to be the lowest and best bidder. The ordinance is before you tonight and it is estimated construction will begin in the spring of next year. The letter of map amendment for the flood insurance letter has been submitted to FEMA. They have asked for additional supporting documentation on that and that has been submitted. It is about a sixty day process for them to have comments back to the City.    

    COMMUNICATIONS                     -     none

    COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE         -    none

    ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

ORDINANCE NO. 38-2010 “ACCEPTING A BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNSEL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH BARRETT PAVING FOR THE STATE ROUTE 4 SOUTHBOUND LANE ADDITION PROJECT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”
Mr. Squires made a motion to adopt and Mrs. Emerson seconded.

Mr. Parham said this is the continuation of the SR 4/Crescentville Road project that began in 2009. It was substantially complete this past year. It was also the one where we had a lot of frustration because the contractor walked away for a while. That project added a lane northbound north of the Crescentville/SR 4 intersection as well as an additional through lane on the south side of the intersection, and then created an additional right only lane that would head north on SR 4 to East Crescentville. It also added an additional left turn lane from westbound Crescentville to southbound SR 4. This particular project would add an additional lane to the on ramp of I-275 which would give us two dedicated lanes onto I-275. Right now if you are coming out of Fairfield you see cars trying to jockey over and get into the one lane in order to get onto the interstate. This would have two dedicated lanes. For this particular project we were very successful in receiving outside funding. The original breakdown would have been 60 percent LTIP funding, 20 percent MRF funding and 20 percent local share. When the bids actually came out they were about $38,000 higher than what the City Engineer’s estimate was so those funding amounts were locked in. The percentages are now at 55 percent LTIP, 18 percent MRF and 27 local funds. The dollar figures are $258,909 LTIP, $86,300 MRF, and $124,582 City funding. We ask that Council favorably consider this legislation. If you have any questions I’ll be willing to answer those.

Mayor Webster asked Mr. Shvegzda, have we had any conversation with Fairfield about signage north of the intersection at Crescentville in Fairfield identifying what lane they should be in if they want to go east or west on I-275?

Mrs. Shvegzda replied part of this project will include the signs to direct traffic.

Mayor Webster said right now the people just single lane coming out of Fairfield and they back up all the way to the marina instead of after they go through the intersection.

Mr. Parham asked will that sign be north of the intersection? Where will it be?

Mr. Shvegzda responded it will be across from the Shell Station.

Mr. Parham stated the original plan for that initial project was to have an additional lane from Woodridge coming south but the City of Fairfield decided not to add the additional lane and you’ll notice it picks up just about where Glenmary’s drive is and then turns into three lanes heading south into Springdale.

Mr. Galster inquired other than construction costs, what other funds will the City need to spend on this project such as construction management?

Mr. Parham answered ten percent of the construction cost is the general rule of thumb so I guess it would be about $46,000. Mr. Shvegzda, do you know if the construction engineering has been included?

Mr. Shvegzda replied no, it hasn’t.

Mr. Parham asked Mr. Shvegzda if there is any funding and Mr. Shvegzda said he could check.

Mr. Parham said if not then that would be another $46,000 the City would be responsible for.

Mr. Galster asked when do we actually need to act in order to not lose the OPWC and MRF funding?

Mr. Parham said our fund has to be deposited by January 18, 2011.

Mr. Galster asked this has the emergency clause in order to act before the bids expire, I assume? Mr. Parham said yes.

Mr. Galster questioned what would happen if we didn’t act before the bids expire? Would we have to rebid it or see if they would extend it or what? We don’t need to make this deposit of $170,000 until January 18 and with the budget scheduled to be out in the next week or two, what’s the ramification of not acting before these bids expire so that we have an opportunity to see where the budget comes in. I know that it’s nice to lock up 55 and 17 percent funding from other sources but, at the same time, it would also be nice to look at the budget and see what the impact of the $330,000 overrun on Northland Boulevard has had, to see where this actually fits into the budget.

Mr. Parham said the number is in the budget at $29,000 for the construction engineering.

Mr. Galster said even though that number is now closer to $47,000.

Mr. Parham stated that number is based on a number of $431,515.

Mr. Galster said the overall over budget amount is what?

Mr. Parham responded the bid came in at $469,791. The last night number I had was $431,515 which is about $38,000 higher than the last number I had.

Mr. Galster asked what is the total number we had in the budget prior to these bids coming in and prior to the modification to the construction engineering services? How much over budget is this project if we look at the $171,000 total cost?

Mr. Parham replied the construction engineering cost is not a new number. That number has always been there. It is $29,000. The only difference is the $38,000 when the bids came in versus the number that was already in.

Mr. Galster said so right now we’re just $30,000 plus whatever small amount of engineering to cover that $40,000 difference. When we budgeted you game me a number equal to about ten percent. In this case we’ve budgeted a number of $29,000, which is not the ten percent so am I to assume that the $29,000 will hold even though it bid out at a higher number?

Mr. Shvegzda said in this case, the $29,000 is a very accurate number.

Mr. Galster said so the $124,000 should just add the $29,000 to get the total cost.

Mr. Parham said in response to your second question, what would happen if we don’t pass it tonight. In our bids we say the bids are accepted within a thirty day period. If the contractor tries to pull out we go against their bid bond. If we don’t act on it, at that point I would have to think that we would have to go back out to bid. It doesn’t mean we’ll meet our date of January 18. If we don’t hit the date of January 18 then you stand the chance of losing funding.

Mr. Galster said so it’s not a simple question as to whether or not they can extend their bid time.

Mr. Parham said they run the risk that you may not keep them if you don’t accept their bid. Some contractors may be willing to take that risk; some may not. I’m sure in their mind they would be wondering why don’t you want to accept my bid.

Mayor Webster said Mr. Galster, you are saying we are going to spend $154,000 out of the General Fund next year. Your question is do we maybe not even want to do the project if the numbers don’t look good in the budget.

Mr. Galster said to a certain extent yes, because of the large overrun we had on the Northland Boulevard project. I’d like to see how that has impacted the complete budget and what we’re looking at as far as revenues for next year. I have the five year but it would be nice to have the one year budget before I have to make a commitment on a number of $150,000 or $250,000 on the signals, or any capital improvement items. I understand we are in line to get $258,000 and another $90,000 in outside funding.

Mayor Webster said we are looking at an excess of a half million dollars on the signal project.

Mr. Galster said I understand but just because they are giving us the money, if we don’t have the $250,000 to do our share, I don’t know that it’s the right thing to do. It would be a lot easier to make those decisions if I had another week or ten days when the budget comes out.

Mayor Webster asked what is the expiration date of the bids? Mrs. Harlow responded October 21. Mayor Webster asked would we have to go back to all of them or just the successful bidder and ask them to extend that for another two weeks?

Mr. Forbes said you could not just talk to this one bidder because even though the recommendation is the lowest and best bidder, they are not actually declared the lowest and best bidder until Council acts on it. If you were going to do anything you’d have to talk to all the bidders. I’d have to look at the bid documents but if you don’t accept a bid within that thirty days, it’s almost like they’re deemed rejected. You would have to go back out to bid.

Mayor Webster said if we do that, when could we get another ordinance back before Council?

Mr. Shvegzda said the bid is for a two week period. It wouldn’t take very long to get the legal notice back in the paper and get that done so I’d say we could have the bid opening within four weeks.

Mayor Webster said the January Council meetings are the fifth and nineteenth so we’d have to have something back by January 5.

Mrs. Harlow said there is quite a bit of discrepancy between the lowest bidder and the next bidder all the way up. Is there anything given the time of the year that the bid is going out, materials, anything that would factor into a possible significantly higher bid?

Mr. Shvegzda replied this time of year continuing on would normally be the most advantageous time for us. The only other thing that may factor into it is if there are any other projects that the contractors may want to pursue and look at this as more than a secondary fill in project. We don’t know if that is currently the condition. As far as materials there is nothing I am aware of that may change significantly from what we’ve seen prior to this date.

Mrs. Harlow asked what will cost to take it back out for rebid?

Mr. Shvegzda responded it would be the legal notice in the paper, additional printing, bid opening, review the new bids. I would be less than $3,000.

Mr. Parham said the figures that are in the five year budget are the same figures you’ll see in the one year budget. We had the bid numbers in time to have them in both documents.

Mr. Galster asked are the numbers in the complete five year budget year one the same that you are going to submit to us next week?

Mr. Parham said relative to this project the numbers that are in the five year budget are the same numbers that are in the annual budget. Relative to the overall budget process, there are different things. There are numbers in the five year on Century Circle that are not going to be in the annual. The only thing you will see in the annual is the design engineering. In the five year there are numbers relative to construction. Overall, in the entire document some things have changed but relative to this project the numbers are the same in the five year and the annual.

Mr. Galster said I understand we are looking at a $38,000 overage on this project. I’m trying to find out if that budget you are going to present to us in a week can absorb that based on the other things that have happened with Northland Boulevard.

Mayor Webster said I think the bigger question is not just the $38,000, it’s the City outlay. Do we want to spend $150,000 to extend that lane when that money could be left in the General Fund for other purposes. I think that’s the question for Council. We haven’t put the final touches on the annual operating budget but the numbers you see there are pretty close to what you will see on the final budget. We are probably looking at a carry over balance of less than a million dollars going into 2012. We can put this decision off for two more meetings accepting the contract if the decision is to move forward. At that time you will have adopted the annual budget.

Mrs. Emerson asked are the bids public to each other? There is quite a difference from the lowest bidder and the next one down. What keeps them from coming back with a higher bid and we lose more money in that direction?

Mayor Webster said if you are a contractor and you see that $469,000 is the low bid, if anything, you want to drive that number down. If you know someone’s going to do it for $469,000 what good does it do to bid $470,000. If they want to bid $460,000 it would be to our advantage. If we rejected these every time we got bids and rebid them, we’d probably save money. Do you all agree with that?

Mr. Shvegzda said a lot of it would depend on whether the contractors have filled their pipelines with additional projects. It’s very difficult to anticipate how they are going to re-evaluate this particular project. The range will certainly come down.

Mr. Galster said as likely as it is the low bidder would raise their bid up to the second lowest bidder, it’s just as likely the second lowest bidder would lower their price to the number one bidder. It is a little bit of a gamble. Everybody could raise their price and the projects going to cost us another $20,000 because we decided to wait and be prudent, I guess I’m okay if it meets the budget as tight as the budget is. This is expenditure alone is fifteen percent of what we’re carrying over to the beginning of the year. It’s not a small amount of money.

Mr. Diehl stated I think it comes down to do we want to do this project or not based on the financial situation and I have a change of heart. I think we should not do this project. It’s not that great a benefit to the community and I think we can save this money for other projects as needed.

Mayor Webster said I understand where everyone is coming from but just let me ask you this. Just so we don’t keep spinning our wheels on these projects I’d like for the next meeting to talk in depth on the traffic upgrade. We have $836,000 in funding. We’re going to spend about $200,000 out of our budget. Do you want to cancel that project now and let it go? Tell us now so we don’t spend engineering fees, time and effort trying to get it to the floor of Council and then, at the eleventh hour say we don’t do the project. I think we’ve already stopped the application process but all these things are two and three year projects. This is Phase II of a five year project. This is the final leg of it. Finances have turned sour. If we want to scrap it, scrap it. Mr. Diehl, I don’t disagree with you at all, because since Day One I’ve had questions about the benefit of Springdale. I think for the regional traffic flow it needs to be done. I’m not sure how much benefit Springdale residents get from it so I’m not all that upset about canceling it but let’s try to look ahead and shut these things off before we are in the process rather than waiting until we get them on the floor. If it’s Council’s desire to reject the bids tonight, that’s fine. We’ve been told here that we can still go ahead and get it ready for you to accept on January 5. If you just want to make a decision tonight to cancel it, then let’s take the vote and do it.

Mr. Galster said I was just going to chime in on the signal upgrade. I know you asked us not to chime in, that you didn’t need a response tonight, but that kind of project is different to me. It’s not new construction, it’s about maintaining equipment that is presently in place and basically handles the flow of all traffic within this community. If we don’t upgrade, we have costs associated with outages. We have costs associated with replacement parts, objects that become obsolete, software upgrades, which is totally different from a new lane addition. I think it’s still important to see how it fits into the budget process and does the budget still allow us to look at it. It needs to be looked at on its own merits once it’s plugged into the budget.

Mr. Diehl stated I couldn’t agree more, Mr. Galster and I couldn’t agree more with you, Mr. Mayor, on the other project. Ninety-nine percent of the benefit is going to people outside the City on the extra lane and I, for one, don’t want to spend the money to help folks in other communities.

Mrs. Harlow said I have been listening to everybody and I have a different take on it. If we want to be a player in the region, we have to have the infrastructure to be a player. I think it will impact economic development down the road if we don’t have access to get on and off the expressways. I’m going to say I’m in favor of continuing on with the project, if not voting tonight, at least bringing it back for discussion in early January.

Mr. Galster said, if in fact, there was a project that involved X amount of jobs, that would only happen if we built this second lane, then I would agree with you and I would be all for bonding it out in order to entice that business to locate to Springdale. At the same time, the traffic in the City flows pretty well. If you look at other strong office and retail communities, the traffic flows pretty well. I think we’ve done a darn good job of building that infrastructure. It doesn’t mean you have to overbuild.

Mr. Parham said I think Mrs. Harlow is exactly right. When we began looking at this project, it was about the development of Pictoria where you’re supposed to have two large office towers, parking structures. If you continue to wait for them to come you’re not going to have the funds later on. You have the funds before you right now. You are not guaranteed to have these funds at a later date, especially if you continue to say to the State that we are willing to take the dollars and at the eleventh hour you say no, we don’t want them and turn them back in. We talked about that last time and our reputation. Right now we have an excellent reputation with that. We haven’t turned dollars back in. This project is not just a benefit for the residential community. We talk about the people who actually bring the dollars into the community with the jobs and that is the business community. That is to address those businesses that are at that intersection. If you look at the improvements that have occurred in this community over the last four years with I-275 widening, the improvements at Crescentville and SR 4, Crescentville and SR 747, all of those things connect in getting traffic in and out of this community. Yes, we have done a very good job in other parts of the community but it still may be a concern, at one point it was a concern and the reason these projects came about.

Mr. Galster said, Mr. Parham, I agree you need to be ahead of the curve. At the same time, Pictoria Island was presented to us as two towers, five additional ones, etc. I don’t know how many years ago, but what we have there is one tower right now. There are six additional office towers that haven’t been built. How long would it take to build six additional towers? Who knows when and if that will happen. I think we have done a lot of infrastructure improvements that need to happen in order to support additional volumes of new development over there, but I surely don’t think in the next three or four years we are going to see six office buildings over there. When we were originally looking at adding the second turn lane, the complete redevelopment of that intersection, I don’t know if we assumed that was all going to be developed. It was a number of years ago and the economy wasn’t in the state that it is now. I don’t foresee this economy changing so rapidly that we won’t be able to stay in front of the curve on six office buildings being built in town.

Mrs. Harlow said we don’t know what’s going to happen with the hotel and maybe it won’t factor into it, but in my opinion if someone was looking to lease that property or redevelop that property, having expressway access would be a key for that.

Mr. Tulloch said the hotel property has some bearing on it. It’s so complicated at this point. Hopefully in five years we’ll see something concluded on that. One of the few places we have for new development is at Pictoria. We’re still coming out of the recession and it’s probably 2013 or beyond that when we see new development. We did secure First Financial in Pictoria which the City did the incentive agreement on so we will be adding 435 jobs through the first quarter of next year. Certainly the two lanes will benefit anything that goes on at Pictoria. I think it could be an immediate benefit and asset in the future. Will the two dedicated lanes cause that property to develop, I would say questionable. Would it be an advantage, definitely because ingress/egress whether it’s retail property or office property is very important and I agree we have a sterling reputation, especially with the completion of I-275 having to do with ingress/egress. You can see that in some of the office and retail decisions that have been made. I think it is important to future economic development. Is it here now, no. Is it in our near future, I believe it is.

Mrs. Harlow said we can vote on this issue tonight and we can pass or fail it. We can table the ordinance and bring it back up in our January meeting.

Mayor Webster said I don’t know if you want to go up or down with this first but if you still want to do the project you probably need to adopt an ordinance to reject all the bids. That would withdraw this from the agenda. If you want us to continue to get an ordinance ready for January 5, fine. Some people say they want to continue with it, some people say they don’t. Just let us know what you want to do. If you want to wait for the budget to come in, ok. You’ve all seen the five year budget and you know it’s not a pretty site. I’m telling you that the annual operating budget is not going to change.

Mr. Squires said the fact that this lane doesn’t go all the way back to Woodridge, which it should ideally start, is that going to have an adverse affect?

Mr. Shvegzda said this particular project does not deal with that. The project in the area of Woodridge was the previous project that was finished in the last year. This project starts at the southern terminus of what was recently constructed.

Mr. Squires said it sounds like Fairfield backed out on this or were they supposed to be in on it to begin with?

Mr. Shvegzda said they decided not to extend it to the northern terminus of the SR 4/Crescentville project. We still have the three southbound lanes at Crescentville. That allows those lanes to queue up for eastbound and westbound I-275. That still functions.

Mayor Webster stated from my perspective, Fairfield caved to the business community that is located between Woodridge and Glenmary Missionaries. Those people did not want to see the traffic flying past their businesses. They wanted to see them bumper to bumper waiting to get through the intersection. They enjoyed seeing those people backed up there so they caved to their businessmen and said no, we’ll just pick up this other lane south of Glenmary. If the whole project was built as originally designed you could have a sign at Woodridge in the curb lane going south saying this lane I-275 west, this lane I-275 east You could have separated that traffic at Woodridge Lane and it would zip right through there. If that hadn’t happened it probably would have all been in one phase and would have been done.

Mrs. Emerson said with all this said, I go with the old saying “if you build it, they will come”. I think it’s more attractive if we have access on and off. I think we’re better apt to pull more businesses in. If we do it now, we have the funding. I think we should go.

Mrs. Harlow said that’s how I feel but we do have a motion on the floor.

Mr. Squires said I move that we vote on the motion on the floor.

Mr. Galster said keep in mind that we still have the option to rebid this and get new numbers in in time to still award this contract prior to the expiration of federal funds once we’ve had an opportunity to see how it impacts on the budget. It’s not just a question tonight on whether we’re going to do the project, but whether we want to do the project before we have a chance to look at the budget. If you reject the bids and send it back out to rebid, that does not mean we’re not ever going to put the lane in there.

Mayor Webster said I would like to request a recess of Council.

Mr. Hawkins said along the lines Mr. Galster said, I think I’d be more inclined to get the budget and maybe looking to go back out for rebid rather than supporting this ordinance tonight.

Mr. Galster made a motion that Council take a ten minute recess. Mr. Hawkins seconded. The motion passed with six affirmative votes.

Council went into recess at 8:22 p.m. and reconvened at 8:38 p.m.

Mayor Webster said I respectfully ask that this ordinance be withdrawn from the agenda or voted down. When we look at the numbers we’re going to end the year with and we look at the $154,000 outlay of cash here, we need to see the final year end budget numbers before we commit to this. I’d like to see us put it off and not even rebid it. Having said that, we’ve asked Mr. Shvegzda to contact the County to see if we can push that January 18 date back to March or April. At that point we’d have plenty of time to see the year end budget numbers and there are a couple of other things that come into play here items-wise that we’ll know more by the end of the year. If those like we can still come up with $154,000 then we rebid it and try to hold onto the funding. At this point in time, based on the numbers, I would have to ask that you vote it down or withdraw it from the agenda.

Mr. Galster said if we find we can’t push back the January 18 date, there won’t be another meeting to reconsider going out for rebids.

Mayor Webster responded that’s the dilemma we have on all these projects. You have money on the table. Do you try to spend 20 to 30 percent of the project cost of City money to secure that 75 percent or do you let it go. We have the same dilemma on the traffic signal upgrade. I know it’s a different type thing but it’s a huge amount money on the table but we have to come up with $200,000. That’s a lot of money to come out of General Fund but if we can secure $800,000 funding for something we’d eventually have to spend anyway, we almost have to do it. This is the final phase of a multi-year project but things are a lot different than when we started down this path. I think the year end balance the way we see it today is going to be close to what the five year number is but there are several things in play that should drive that number up. I don’t know if that means $50,000, $100,000. There a couple of other things we are thinking of doing that could have a possible positive impact on that. The bare fact is we need $1.3 or $1.4 million a month to run this City. The number you are seeing in that five year budget says it ain’t going to happen. The number you see in the operating budget says we’re not going to have $1.3 million. Let’s save $154,000 and reject this and jeopardize the funding we have secured for it.

Mrs. Harlow said the options are to vote on it or withdraw it. If it’s a withdraw then the people who first and seconded will have to make a motion to withdraw.

Mr. Galster said if the ordinance is voted on, does that mean all bids are rejected or do we still have to come up with a motion of some type to reject the bids?

Mr. Forbes said if this is voted down, it just means you didn’t award a contract. The bids would then expire in a few days. The cleanest thing to do is to take action to reject all the bids.

Mr. Squires said I made the motion to adopt. Mr. Forbes, do I withdraw that?

Mr. Forbes said you made the motion so you’d have the right to do that. Right now you have a motion on the floor to adopt it. You’ve had discussion. It’s ripe for a vote.

Mrs. Emerson asked if we vote this down does that mean we’re not going out for more bids?

Mr. Forbes said all this does is not authorize a contract with Barrett Paving. It does not accept any bid. It doesn’t have anything to do with weather you rebid it, don’t rebid it. That’s a separate issue you’d have to address. If you vote on the motion, you will either adopt this ordinance or it will fail. If it fails you will need to take additional steps, whatever those may be.

Ordinance 38-2010 failed 4-2.

Mr. Forbes said given the result of that I think it would be prudent for Council to take some action on rejecting the bids so that is a clean slate.

Mr. Galster made a motion that Council reject all bids for the southbound lane addition on SR 4 as discussed in Ordinance 38-2010. Mr. Squires seconded.

Mayor Webster asked, by motion or resolution?

Mr. Forbes replied generally it would be done by resolution because generally we would make that decision prior to it being on the Council floor. I believe a motion of Council that is voted in is effective to do that. If Council would feel more comfortable adopting a resolution, I have a hand written one. That’s up to Council to decide.

Mr. Galster withdrew his motion and Mr. Squires removed the second.

Mr. Forbes read Resolution RX -2010 rejecting all bids for the SR 4 southbound lane addition project.

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

The resolution passed with six affirmative votes.

Mayor Webster said you’ve done away with the ordinance. You’ve voted it down. Do you want to just sit tight until the final budget numbers are in to reconsider this issue? In the meantime Mr. Shvegzda can see if he can get that deadline extended or do you want to try to protect that funding source and have him go out for bids and have an ordinance before you on January 5. We are talking about another $3,000 to $5,000 to make that happen?

Mr. Diehl said I’m not in favor of funding this project today and I probably won’t be in favor next month or the month after.

Mr. Galster said my only reservation is for those who think this project has merit. In order to properly vest those merits, I think it would be important to try to have something happen until we can have a full Council here that can decide based on its merits after having seen the budget. We only have six members here and I’ve heard enough people talk about the merits of the project I hate to totally shut it off without having the opportunity to investigate it even though my opinion is that I don’t think I’ll be supporting the project on January 18.

Mayor Webster said somewhere along the way you have to make a decision. I side with Mr. Diehl. Knowing what I know about the budget process I don’t think I would support the project next month, in two months, etc. If we can get the date extended until spring I think it’s a whole different ballgame.

Mrs. Emerson said in fear of tarnishing our reputation I think we need to make a move. We’re just holding up the funding by spacing it out.

Mayor Webster said based on some information they shared with me back there, there is more than a $10,000 discrepancy between the original Engineer’s estimate we used to acquire the funding versus what actually came in so I think we have a good valid reason to reject the bids and go back to the County. That would help protect our reputation. That speaks to the other question I asked before. What do you want to do about these other two big projects we have out there. You want to see the numbers first but you can’t wait until you see the numbers to make these decisions, Mr. Galster. You have to make them and live with the consequences.

Mr. Galster said I understand but at the same time I’ll see these numbers in a week.

Mayor Webster said you’ll see them in a week but that doesn’t speak to the $200,000 you will have to belly up to the bar when we bring in the final ordinance on the street signal upgrade.

Mr. Galster said it may be beneficial to know when those federal funds will be expiring as well and ask the same questions now as opposed to waiting until it’s on the floor of the next Council meeting. Maybe those can be pushed back. That project is different from this project and I need to evaluate them separately.

Mr. Parham stated the budget is scheduled to be delivered to the Finance Committee this coming Friday. That budget will reflect these projects in the numbers. I need to know what you want to do relative to that as well.

Mrs. Emerson asked how common is this to go on if they can’t extend the date and we decide later on we want to do this. Is it common to come back at a later date and ask for funding for the same project?

Mr. Parham said we’ve never turned anything back. Mr. Thamann has never done that in his previous opportunity.

Mrs. Harlow said we have no guarantee for any of the funding for the future and with the new turnover in legislation in Congress, we don’t know what they are going to do. There may not be any funds coming.

Mr. Parham said we are still waiting for the funds for southbound SR 4 that we have been approved for but it’s never been approved by Congress.

Mayor Webster said we’re still spending a lot of time on this budget but sometime, hopefully before the first of the year, let us present to you a list of all the projects we have in the pipeline, what kind of funding we are going to get and how much local share we will have to have. Why have the Engineer and Administrator waste a lot of time trying to move these projects forward when there is no desire to do them especially if it means we have to cut something else.

Mrs. Harlow said I think what I am hearing is that they would like Mr. Shvegzda to go back and get us a drop dead date, then we’ll consider that for the next Council meeting.

Mayor Webster said if the answer is we can’t get the date pushed back then it will be too late at the next Council meeting to get a new set of bids. Do you want to say if the answer is no, then go ahead and get an ordinance before you on January 5? If the answer is yes, then we just wait.

Mr. Hawkins stated my personal opinion is if they are not able to extend the date, then the answer is no. Mr. Squires agreed.

Mrs. Emerson said I don’t want to pass up an opportunity for this funding.

Mrs. Harlow said I think it needs to be done but I’m not in favor of spending additional funds to go out and repeat a process that we just did.

Mayor Webster said if the answer is no, don’t rebid it.

Mrs. Harlow said we will look at the signaling in comparison with the budget.

Mr. Parham said you can begin to get a head start on that project and we’ll continue to pull information together. In the five year budget we have identified the amounts we would be receiving in outside funding versus what we would be responsible for but we’ll put a document together and summarize it for you.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Galster said I picked up a large recycle canister. Just so you know, you cannot put that out until January 1, 2011 because they don’t have the ability to pick those up yet. They do have quite a few of the used receptacles available.

    NEW BUSINESS                     -     none

    MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

    Finance Committee                     -     November 23
    Tree Lighting Ceremony                 -     November 28
    Board of Health                      -     December 9
    Planning Commission                 -     December 14
    Board of Zoning Appeals                 -     December 21
   
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE    -     none


UPDATE ON LEGISLATION STILL IN DEVELOPMENT

Water management/sediment control        -     future date
FOP/OLC agreement                 -     December 15
Resolution for Buch Hafer                 -     December 15
Final appropriation                     -     December 15
Temporary appropriation                  -     December 15
Council/Mayor Appointments             -     December

RECAP OF LEGISLATIVE ITEMS REQUESTED   

HUD/OKI traffic signal upgrade             -     December 1
Rules of Council changes                 -     December 1

Council adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

                        Respectfully submitted,




                        Kathy McNear
                        Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:
Marjorie Harlow, President of Council



__________________________, 2010