President of Council Randy Danbury called Council to order on February 3, 1999 at 7:00 p.m.
The governmental body and those in attendance recited the pledge of allegiance.
Mr. Knox took roll call. Present were Council members Galster, Manis, McNear, Pollitt, Vanover, Wilson and Danbury.
The minutes of January 20, 1999 were approved with 7 affirmative votes.
E-mail from Ken Zinnecker, 497 Dimmick Avenue "To All Responsible: I would like to congratulate the city of Springdale for its efforts at snow removal during the difficult weather of late. After traveling to many other municipalities of the metropolitan area during this time period, I found Springdale had more passable roads than any other area. It was comforting, as I watched the news about lack of snow removal elsewhere, to know that our streets were clear. Thanks to all of those whose hard work made our lives a little easier."
Letter from Susy Spence, Springdale Garden Club: "Dear City Council Members and Administration: In recognition of our 45th anniversary in 1998, the Springdale Garden Club is presenting to the City of Springdale a sundial, concrete bench, and additional plantings to the Triangle Area at Route 4 and Orange Street. Plantings in this area were our original gift to the city during our countryís bicentennial.
The sundial and plantings are in place and the bench is waiting to be installed at the convenience of the city maintenance crew. A dedication will follow in the spring. At this same time we have replaced one of the damaged trees in the triangle area in memory of one of our recently deceased members, Fay Marion Howard.
I would like to commend Dave Butsch and his crew. They have been extremely helpful with this project. Springdale Garden Club has enjoyed contributing to the cityís beautification over the years in our small way with trees, shrubs, Arbor Day programs, holiday greens, and the cityís entrance signs, to mention just a few. We hope these additions will also be appreciated and enjoyed by the community. Sincerely, Susy Spence, Chairman, 45th Anniversary Committee"
Mr. Danbury said I donít think the Springdale Garden Club gets the recognition they truly deserve. They do a lot for the City and Iíd like to commend them for their efforts.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
ORDINANCE NO. 4-1999 "AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE AND THE GREATER CINCINNATI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PERTAINING TO "PARTNERSHIP FOR GREATER CINCINNATI" 1999-2003"
Mr. Parham said I requested this at the last meeting but did not put on the floor that an emergency clause be added. The sooner we are active in the process the sooner we can receive some of the benefits. As I reported before, in making this donation we would be a part of the oversight committee.
Mr. Vanover made a motion to add the emergency clause to initiate the program at the earliest possible date and Ms. Pollitt seconded. The motion passed with 7 affirmative votes.
Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded.
ORDINANCE NO. 5-1999 "ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL UNDER THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH 32 FORD-MERCURY, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO 1999 FORD F-550 CHASSIS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
Mrs. McNear made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Mr. Osborn said in addition to purchasing the chassis and cab for each unit we are also having a few features added by the Ford Company while the vehicle is being manufactured. These are alternates that are not directly on the state bid but they are within that number you see there that we are paying for the vehicle. On the Parks truck we are adding a sliding rear window and a PEP trim package and weíre deleting the carpeting and putting in rubber mats. Thereís a swing there of $1,500 but thatís in the price you see here of $24,900. Weíll reference this ordinance with a PO and issue a separate PO to the vendor for the balance. We found out just this week that apparently state law now requires you to separate the true bid costs from any options you add to the vehicle.
Mr. Danbury asked are going to trade in the old trucks?
Mr. Osborn replied we will probably sell them at auction as we have had better success with that. We are not proposing to trade them in right now. The Parks truck chassis is going to cost us $24,900 and the body is $9,350 for a total cost of $34,250. We have $43,000 budgeted so even without the trade-in we know we will be under budget. That spread will be even larger when we receive the trade-in for that 1982 pick-up truck. While we donít reflect the trade-in here youíll see a return to the City because we will collect those vehicles in a group and sell them at the auction.
Mr. Danbury asked do you see any advantage to keeping the 1982 truck for yard waste.
Mr. Osborn replied no, it is in really poor condition.
Ordinance 5-1999 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
Mr. Osborn said he had been advised by the City Engineerís office that we have acquired all of the right-of-way on Phase II of the Kemper Road storm sewer project. It was a much more rapid situation this time. Itís probably because everyone got to see what happened in the first phase of the project and there was no resistance or concerns of any significant nature expressed by the residents in the process. We were able to obtain all of the right-of-way by donation.
Mr. Vanover said Tim and Carol Weaver of Chesterdale wanted to thank the City and Police Department for their cooperation. Mr. Weaver was the gentleman who was here about the traffic on Chesterdale. He has been singing the praises of the City. Even though he is not a resident of Springdale he has gotten much greater support from our group than his home town.
Mr. Parham stated I distributed a memorandum to you dated January 29 relative to our waste collection contract. As you may recall in 1996 we opened bids for waste collection and received a rate of $5.95 per household per month. In 1996 we found that you no longer had to separate yard waste from household waste. At the time of our contract we had a yard waste program in which the resident purchased yard waste stickers for 75 cents and then had to contain the yard waste in a paper bag or some other designated vessel. We then changed our program and began to provide the yard waste stickers for the residents. After Rumpkeís decision not to require the separation of yard waste we entered into a restructuring of the rates for the contract . At that time we were purchasing about $15,000 in yard waste stickers from Rumpke. We raised our rates in 1997 to $6.35. The 1998 rates would rise to $6.50 where they currently reside. Our agreement with Rumpke at that time was that we would look at the affect of the change of our program from 1997 and 1998 in tonnage results and come to a decision as to what the 1999 rates would be. We experienced about a 30% increase in our tonnage for total waste collection, including yard waste. I sat down with a representative from Rumpke about a week ago and reached a tentative agreement pending Councilís approval of a 20 cent increase to $6.70 which reflects a 3% increase. I would ask Councilís approval and legislation at the February 17 meeting to approve an addendum in the contract raising the fee to $6.70 retroactive to January 1, 1999.
Ms. Manis said I donít think itís a bad price. If Rumpke hadnít discontinued their yard waste collection program, wouldnít the combination of that and our regular garbage be the same as this, too.
Mr. Parham responded they were taking it at the time and my argument to them was that they would realize some savings as they would no longer have to have a separate truck come into the community to collect only yard waste. We were paying only an additional $15,000 at that point. We have probably realized a little higher cost in that we have just over 3,000 units in the community and our fee is now $6.70 per unit/per month. That is higher than the $15,000. At the same time we may not have had to purchase $15,000 worth of yard waste stickers each year. When we made the change we still had approximately $7,000 in stickers on hand.
Mr. Osborn said I just wanted to point out that one of the reasons we thought there was some reason to give Rumpkeís request consideration is the fact that when we entered into the agreement, we told them we were going to separate the yard waste and that that would be paid for by the bag. So they were looking at their costs with that tonnage being paid for through a separate revenue stream. In the middle of that contract we elected to discontinue this sticker program because we saw communities all around us doing the same thing. When we did that Rumpke said you are adding all that tonnage back into your regular household collection. When we entered into the agreement we didnít expect that much volume coming out of your City. We felt there was legitimate room to discuss the issue and I think Derrick did a good job working through this with Rumpke. How do we compare with other jurisdictions?
Mr. Parham replied the Village of Evendale pays $6.75 for regular waste collection. They have a three year contract that will expire in 2001. Sharonville currently pays $6.52 and their contract expires March 31. The City of Montgomery pays $11.25 and that includes recycling and yard waste programs. That is a three year contract. After the third year they have the option to extend the contract for another two years. In the fourth year they have agreed to a 5% increase and another 3% the following year. Reading currently pays $5.95 per household and their contract expires in 2001. They also have a 75 cents yard waste sticker program. The City of Mason in 1999 is $10.35. They have an administrative fee of 75 cents and I have no idea what that encompasses and on top of that they have a yard waste program of $1 per bag paid by the resident.
Mr. Osborn stated if you look at the market we are well within the market. We are trying to finish out a four year contract where we asked to change the way we do waste collection. I think the numbers are fair. I canít tell you we wonít see a dramatic increase when we renew our contract but we have attempted to be fair with the vendor and I think it would be appropriate to consider this increase. If we donít agree the contract would be terminated and we would be back out bidding. I think the 20 cents a unit is worth prolonging this contract one more year.
Ms. Manis asked do we have reason to believe that it will be substantially higher at the next contract?
Mr. Osborn replied we will know more after March when Sharonville opens theirs. That will show us where the trend is right now.
Ms. Manis said I guess we had the police exam. I have gotten some requests from people who were interested in taking the test. Have we ever had a test during the day for people who canít take it at night, such as other officers in other cities?
Mr. Parham answered we have not, primarily because if you look at the population, most people are working that normal 8-5 time period. You try to provide a time that the majority of applicants can make it to the examination. Also, the members of the Civil Service Commission are the ones who are registering the individuals as they check in and their work hours are day time hours.
Ms. Manis said we do so much to get the recruits in here and I would agree with that argument in a normal job situation. Iím sure there are a lot of working officers who have rotating shifts who take the test. I would think that would be a consideration.
Mr. Parham responded that there are probably many more firefighters that take the firefighter exam than police officers that take the police exam. One option may be to hold the test on Saturday.
Ms. Manis said a lady called about cars parked on the street. Is there is anything we can do about that. The ordinance we have now says you have to move your car but you only have to move it two inches. I know the car has to be running and have tags. There are places in the City where cars on the street are a hazard as far as blocking your sight line. I donít know if there is anyway to address it. If a vehicle is obstructing a view or is considered to be a hazard, then they would need to move it to a different location. We have a lots of situations in Heritage Hill where its amazing that accidents havenít occurred. I donít have a solution but Iím open to suggestions.
Mayor Webster said if weíve got people parking too close to intersections we can put signs up prohibiting parking beyond a certain point. The woman who called me is concerned about someone parking across the street. She is concerned that when she backs out she doesn't have room to turn. Thatís all over. I donít know what we can do about saying you have to be 15 Ė20 feet away from a driveway. That would eat up a lot of parking in the City. If anyone knows areas where we need to put up signs to restrict parking to keep cars away from intersections and on curves, pass that on to us. Weíve got a few people in the City who know what the law is and they have two or three cars and take up parking spots. They go out every 72 hours and move the car so that the mark that the police put on the wheel no longer shows. Itís very frustrating on the part of the police and Building Department trying to force the property maintenance code. If Rules and Laws can come up with some solution we would welcome that.
Ms. Manis said we have letters going out and everyoneís gotten a garbage can letter. It seems like if the cars are eyesores that would fall under the same type thing.
Mayor Webster responded if it is roadworthy and has been moved within 72 hours there isnít a whole lot you can do.
Mr. Vanover asked is there something in the Ohio Revised Code about parking within the intersection?
Mr. Schneider said you cannot park in the intersection at all. I think itís a 30 foot setback from the stop sign. I think itís within ten feet of driveways.
Mayor Webster said if we perceive that as a danger we could set it back more than 30 feet.
Mr. Vanover said there is a big bend on Ledro but what do you do. There are three or four homes in that radius so you could ban parking but then you are creating a hardship on those families. I donít have a problem with restricting cars from parking too close to the intersection because if they are too close to the intersection that throws the other vehicle too close to the center line. If somebody coming in cuts the corner then youíve got bodily injury or property injury, etc. But I think we all have to be good neighbors on some of this and realize that others have as much right to use an area as we do.
Ms. Pollitt said the paperwork I was given says you can only park 48 hours. I do agree it is a sticky situation. I know a lot of times a car may be a spare car and not driven all the time. I agree with what Mr. Vanover says about being a good neighbor. Officer Wells and I spent a lot of time working on a particular situation and we still didnít get it resolved to the satisfaction of the homeowner.
Mayor Webster said unfortunately you have people who take up multiple parking spaces. They work on cars so we have to have laws on the books to guard against that and make sure the car gets moved. Then we end up penalizing a resident who doesnít do that but just has two cars or maybe they have a two car driveway and have a third car. If someone is ill or on vacation and the car doesnít get moved, then those people end up paying the price of the people using our streets as a parking lot. Itís a no win situation.
Mr. Danbury said I have one issue that I spoke with Mr. Osborn about. Maybe you have noticed in the news lately, the City of Cincinnati and a number of other communities are considering outlawing laser pointers for children. I know that some people think it is harmless but everything Iíve heard and read says it could damage your eyes. Iíve heard that people will sit around and point these lasers at motorists as they are going by or they shine it in other childrenís eyes and they can do permanent damage. Iíd like to see if the Board of Health can look into this and bring it to the forefront. I hate controlling people but some people just donít have common sense. If itís true that it does do permanent damage to someoneís eyes, then we need to act on it.
Mr. Vanover said I know of a couple of instances that article referenced were that the lights were shined on police officers and thatís the same thing as a laser gun sight. I shudder to think what his reaction would be but if I were a police officer and suddenly faced what I perceived as a lethal threat I would react accordingly. Unfortunately we do have to get involved in legislating lack of intelligent thinking. That was probably one of the strong points.
Mr. Danbury said people have a right to freedom but when it involves public safety someone could get killed.
MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Webster said I just want to remind everyone about the survival seminar. The announcement went out to all of our homes last Thursday and Friday. The maximum number we can accommodate is 400.
Mrs. McNear said the class is full but there is a recording and you can leave your name in case there is a cancellation or a second class is scheduled.
Ms. Manis said I talked to Captain Hafer who said the fliers went out Thursday or Friday and in that time they got 200 calls.
Mayor Webster said Iím glad you brought up Captain Haferís name because he has done an outstanding job with this project. I take this opportunity to commend him for his efforts.
Planning Commission February 9, 7:00 p.m.
Board of Health February 11, 7:00 p.m.
Board of Zoning Appeals February 16, 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Danbury announced that Mr. Shuler told him Mr. Shvegzda would be attending the first meeting of the month and Mr. Shuler would be here for the second meeting.
Mr. Vanover said Public Works will have a meeting next Tuesday prior to the Planning Commission meeting to go over the street program.
Ms. Pollitt said Iíd like to point out that we have our new cameras installed so our viewers at home will be seeing a new set up. Thatís thanks to the ICRC.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
UPDATE ON LEGISLATION STILL IN DEVELOPMENT
Newsracks next month
Rumpke Waste Removal next meeting
Mr. Vanover made a motion to go into executive session as a committee of the whole to discuss personnel issues, possible real estate acquisition and pending litigation. Mr. Galster seconded. The motion was approved with 7 affirmative votes.
Council went into executive session at 7:51 p.m. and returned at 8:50 p.m.
Council adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Edward F. Knox
Clerk of Council/Finance Director
Randy Danbury, President of Council