Council was called to order on July 17, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. by President of Council Randy Danbury.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by the governmental body and those in attendance. The Invocation was given by Mr. Knox.

Roll call was taken by Mr. Knox. Present were Council members Boice, Galster, Manis, McNear, Vanover, and Danbury. Mr. Wilson arrived at 7:20 p.m.

The minutes of June 19, 1996 were approved with 6 affirmative votes.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-1996 "CONGRATULATING THE GIRLS SPRINGDALE TOPGUNS SOFTBALL TEAM"

Team members are: Madison Galster, Katelyn Crow, Karmen Page, Kari Pandilidis, Natalie Stultz, Marie Huth, Sue Ann Schaeper, Lindsay Turner, Keyna Austin, Courtney Hatter, Lauren Macke and Monica Manis.

Mrs. Boice made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.

Ms. Manis said I want to thank all the girls and their parents. It was an excellent tournament. They did a great job.

Mayor Webster said I happened to be down there for some of the games. The team was a hitting machine. They averaged five runs a game during the season and eighteen during the tournament. Congratulations, we're real proud of you.

Mr. Galster said I want to congratulate the girls. They were extremely well-behaved, very sportsmanlike, had good attitudes. They made some unbelievable defensive plays in this tournament as well as good hitting. Congratulations to the girls, coaches and parents. You represented the City well.

Mrs. Boice said it's always a personal pleasure when we have girls in the audience. I always remind the young people that it was Mom and Dad behind you, Mom and Dad who put the Band-Aids on, Mom and Dad who bought the treats. When you go home tonight be sure to thank Mom and Dad.

Sharon Casselman from the Community Center said this was a great group of kids. The Rec Department is very proud of you. On behalf of the City and the Rec Department, congratulations.

Resolution R22-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes. Mr. Wilson was absent.

Mayor Webster presented the resolutions to the team.

Mayor Webster said we started planning in February for the landscaping awards. It's the same as last year with the City divided into seven areas. We have added four awards for the business community. The Garden Club did all the judging.

Cheryl Crow, president of the Garden Club said I want to thank everyone for coming tonight to receive their awards. We judged on two major areas: design and maintenance. We looked at the overall impression of the yard, creative use of color and texture. We look for a variety of perennials, annuals, trees, shrubs, year round interest, and originality. The judging was done in groups of two and the members really enjoyed the judging.

Mayor Webster said there will be no three consecutive year winners, no elected officials or their spouses, no Garden Club members and the yards must be seen from the street. I had the pleasure of looking at all of the seven winners to try to judge the Mayor's Award. I was really pleased and proud just riding through our City and seeing all the beautifully landscaped yards. All of you did a really marvelous job and it's really a pleasure to announce these things. Later on in my report on the Community Pride program I'll be telling how many citation letters we've sent out.

Dave Butsch, Assistant Superintendent of Public Works, presented slides of the 7 residential winners and other landscaped yards as well as some from the business community. Mayor Webster and Cheryl Crow presented the awards.

AREA 1 Beacon and Oxford Hills

Kenn Rd. (north of I-275)

1st Place - Posey Family of 12131 Greencastle Dr. (repeat winner)

2nd Place - Beesley Family of 12005 Elkridge Dr.

3rd Place - Williams Family of 11995 Brookston Dr.

Honorable Mention - Lux Family of 792 Clearfield Ln.

AREA 2 Springdale Lake Dr.

Ray Norrish Dr.

Glensprings Area (including the five cul-de-sacs)

1st Place - Ballinger/Butrum Family of 12020 Springdale Lake Dr.

2nd Place - Maupin Family of 535 Ray Norrish Dr.

3rd Place - Martin Family of 525 Ray Norrish Dr.

Honorable Mention - Harkins Family 12100 Springdale Lake Dr.

AREA 3 Cloverdale Area, Smiley, Park, and Allen

West Kemper (west of Route 4) (north side)

Kenn Rd. (south of I-275)

S.R. 4 (north of Kemper)

1st Place - Amyx Family of 570 Cloverdale Ave.

2nd Place - Whittaker Family of 687 Cloverdale Ave.

3rd Place - Laage Family of 616 Cloverdale Ave.

Honorable Mention - Blevins Family of 713 Park Ave.

AREA 4 Observatory Area, Grandin Area

Baldwin Subdivision

West Kemper (south side)

1st Place - Clark Family of 562 Lafayette Ave. (repeat winner)

2nd Place - Crockett Family of 519 Lafayette Ave.

3rd Place - Stegman Family of 357 Church St.

Honorable Mention - Brinker Family of 529 Observatory Dr.

AREA 5 Glenview Subdivision

Cameron Rd. Area

West Sharon Rd.

Olde Gate

1st Place - Ketring Family of 403 Vista Glen (repeat winner)

2nd Place - Warken Family of 361 Naylor Ct.

3rd Place - Pedicini Family of 10995 Fallstone Dr.

Honorable Mention - Randolph Family of 387 Cameron Rd.

AREA 6 Springdale Terrace Subdivision

Royal Oaks Subdivision

W. Kemper (east of Route 4)

1st Place - Woody Family of 163 Harter Ave.

2nd Place - Bourne Family of 11825 Lawnview Ave.

3rd Place - Squires Family of 150 Ruskin Dr.

Honorable Mention - DeMeyer Family of 11818 Mangrove Ln.

AREA 7 Heritage Hill Subdivision

McClellans Lane

East Crescentville Rd.

1st Place - Schmidt Family of 1003 Pilgrim Place

2nd Place - Dearman Family of 911 Tivoli Ln.

3rd Place - Johnson Family of 12067 Cornavin Ct.

Honorable Mention - Starkey Family of 707 Ledro St.

Mayor Webster said it's with a great deal of pleasure that I present the Mayor's Choice Award for outstanding landscaping for 1996 to the Dr. Ketring family, 403 Vista Glen.

Dr. Ketring said it is a family project and labor of love. We enjoy having nice landscaping and a nice environment. We have lived in Springdale about sixteen years. We appreciate the fact that our efforts are acknowledged and appreciated. We thank the City, the Garden Club and the Mayor.

Mayor Webster said the Ketrings do all their own work - planting and trimming. He said they did have some help with the mulching. In addition to the award they can hang in their home, we will add their name to the City plaque.

BUSINESSES

Pentecostal Church at Kemper and Walnut

Tri-County Mall

Shell on Route 747 and Kemper

Honorable Mention: Olde Gate on Kemper

COMMITTEES AND OFFICIAL REPORTS

RULES AND LAWS - no report

PUBLIC RELATIONS - Mrs. McNear said the newsletter deadline is July 22. It is scheduled to be mailed out no later than September 1. If you have anything you would like to have in the newsletter please get it to Debbie Dunfee.

PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE - no report

PUBLIC WORKS - Mr. Vanover said on the 1996 street improvement program, the project has been awaiting the completion of the St. Rt. 747 resurfacing since the same contractor is doing both. We anticipate this work to begin shortly and be completed by the end of November.

PUBLIC UTILITIES - no report

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - New sidewalk and Crescentville Road curb replacement project is now completed except for the sidewalk on Rockcrest which has been put on hold pending review by City Council and the Administration. Century Boulevard Phase II concrete work is complete. This week the contractor began work on the pavement replacement phase of the project. We expect the project to be completed in about three week. Ray Norrish Drive improvements and the Crossings resurfacing gas main relocation work is complete and the electric and telephone relocations work is in the next phase. As soon as the utilities are out of the way our contractor can begin the pavement work. We anticipate the roadway work to begin about the first of August.

FINANCE COMMITTEE - no report

PLANNING COMMISSION - Mr. Galster said they met July 9, 1996. Home Quarters, requesting approval of outside storage of pallets was tabled until August 13. Kiwanis and Hooters Restaurant was dropped. White Castle requested approval of a drive-thru that would go across the front of their property and that was tabled until September 1996. AT&T Wireless requested approval of a telecommunications tower. That was approved 5-1. The location will be next to the old Kroger plant where there is a little electrical substation. It will be 165 feet tall. We had final plan approval for a proposed Q Lube at 605 Kemper Commons Circle and that was approved 6-0. The final plan approval of a revision of Charing Crossings Estates was tabled until August 13, 1996. We also had some discussion of some items that were sent back to Council with Planning Commissions' recommendations. They were the exotic animal and composting ordinances.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - Mrs. Boice said they met last evening. The first item was reconsideration of the variance that had been granted to Karen M. Kidd, 11493 Bernhart Court, to allow the extension of the driveway into the back yard. There was a great deal of discussion and because it was a reconsideration the previous variance was considered not granted. The variance was denied 6-0. Under New Business this evening Mrs. McNear and I would like to discuss with Council the situation that exists there. As you are aware, there was a mistake made in giving them the information as to what they could do. The mistakes need to be paid for. We need to face up to the fact that it has caused some financial expenditure on the Kidds' part. Laura Striker, 11869 Lawnview Avenue, requested a variance to allow the closing off of a portion of her existing garage for a storage room. That was granted 6-0. Mr. Sam Burns requested a variance allowing the building at 11631 Walnut Street, which is General Business zoning, to be used as a residence. That was denied 6-0.

BOARD OF HEALTH - Mr. Vanover gave the creek sample results. These are wet reports and the figures are astronomical. Rt. 4 and Northland Blvd. - 20,000; Rt. 4 and Glensprings - 28,000; Ross Park - 18,000; Neuss Avenue - 18,000; and Chamberlain Park - too numerous to count. We'd obviously had some overflow from the storm that had come through. A total warning is issued by the state for water quality at 2,000.

Mayor Webster said there was considerable discussion about the exotic animal ordinance. Mr. Winfough is working on that at the present. We felt there needs to be some clarification on the interchange of the terms exotic and wild. We'd also like to offer some definitions. The definitions surfaced when we were researching other districts' rabies control regulations. The Board is going to adopt our own Springdale rabies control regulation. Up to this point we have been using the state's but we can do better with our own which will include vaccination of domestic cats. In looking at those various regulations we found some excellent definitions and would like to put those forth for Council's consideration. Hopefully those corrections will be coming back within the next week to ten days.

Ms. Manis said we keep hearing all these numbers about the water and we have lots of kids who live down there and play in the park. Should we be posting "stay out of the water" signs. Are they that bad? Will the kids get sick if they drink the water?

Mr. Vanover replied we've traced these figures wet and dry. Usually within two days after a heavy rain it has flushed itself through and it's pretty much safe. You should use caution throughout. They probably won't suffer any real adverse situations. In the worst case scenario they may get a little gastrointestinal upset. When these figures get really astronomical is when we have an overflow, and the system is designed to work that way. When the sanitary sewers have reached capacity they overflow into the creek. It's working the way it should. When we have a heavy rain we probably should try to hold the kids out of the creek for a couple of days and let it settle back down. If they have any contact down there, just as a precaution, I would have them wash their hands and tell them if they are playing in water, don't put your hands to your mouth.

Mrs. McNear said you can tell your kids not to do something and they do it anyway. Parents might want to tell them what fecal coliform is and they may not be so interested in jumping in that water.

Mr. Osborn said I discussed this topic with the Health Commissioner last week. My recommendation to him is that the Board of Health consider discontinuing monthly tests. I think we are not learning anything new. I think we've established a baseline. We've been doing it almost two years. We've established a cycle. We know the cause and effect. We know when we have heavy rain we're going to get high fecal coliform counts in the creeks. We know we can't do anything about it. I think this is a good baseline for us in terms of history. Perhaps we ought to be spending our time on more generalized hazardous material testing as opposed to the fecal coliform. I really don't think we are gaining anything by continuing to test this on a monthly basis.

Mr. Danbury said we do have a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission on the exotic animal ordinance.

Ms. Manis said it went to Planning and Board of Health at the same time and it will have to go back to Planning and then to Council again.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION - Mr. Coleman said the position of Violations Bureau Clerk has remained vacant pending the recent resignation. We are moving forward. We have scheduled the Civil Service test for August 15. Hopefully that position will be filled by year end.

Mr. Danbury asked what the qualifications would be for the position. Mr. Colemen replied the job will require shift work and there will not necessarily be a typing test but particular keyboard speed will be required. Further qualifications will be published through advertisements.

Mr. Parham said the qualifications are rather basic: a high school graduate or GED equivalent, U.S. citizen at least 18 years of age. That's pretty much what we require for most positions except the Police Department, where we require that you are at least 21 years of age.

O-K-I - no report

MAYOR'S REPORT - Mayor Webster said we have completed 1,742 property inspections plus 96 calls or referrals. That has resulted in 135 violation letters being sent out. We have had 139 requests for trucks for debris removal. It looks like it peaked in June with 42 requests. So far this month we have had 31 requests. As all of you know we had a very successful Spirit of Springdale festival July 3-4. By August 15 we should have a handle on all our direct and indirect costs that were associated with the 1996 festival. By September 14 we've asked all the department directors to give us the projected cost for 1997. There are some things we did extremely well and some things we didn't do well due to the record crowd. There were in excess of 10,000 people and if we are going to continue to do it at that magnitude, we can't do it with the resources we had on hand this past year. Mr. Burton and I visited the Lunken Airport play field last Monday and had a meeting on it today. Mr. Osborn has written a memo to our Law Director and our Loss Prevention Officer, Mr. Parham, to explain the liability issues of what we want to do there. Hopefully that will be forthcoming in the next couple of weeks.

Mrs. Boice asked if the detailed financial report on the festival will be shared with Council and Mayor Webster replied yes, absolutely.

CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Mr. Knox said during the parade I noticed that several people had popsicles along the side of the route. I began asking and searching for whomever was passing them out. I found a young man passing them out and he handed me a card. I would like to thank the people at the Vineyard Community Church, 1391 East Crescentville Road for their popsicles and I believe the flags.

Ms. Manis said I think we should thank everybody who participated in the parade. Everyone was asked to participate and I think everyone who participated needs some congratulations. The Girl Scouts, FRYS, and several different organizations were there.

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - Mr. Osborn said I would like to let Council know we have a second employee in the Public Works Department who has been certified by the International Society of Arborculture as an arborist. Darrell Perkins scored an 86 combined total on the ten elements of the examination. He passed all ten elements in one sitting. That's most unusual. Like professional type certifications you can pass six or seven of the elements and then retest. He passed all ten elements on the first try with an overall score of 86. We are very happy to recognize Mr. Perkins on his certification as an arborist. I'd like to report to Council that we've been asked by the Village of Glendale to consider going into a contractual relationship whereby we would assist them by housing prisoners in our facility. They have a very low need for a jail. They average less than a prisoner a month. Glendale Police Chief Combs and Chief Freland have developed a preliminary agreement. There would be no more than one Glendale prisoner at our facility at a time and that prisoner would stay for no more than five consecutive days. Under the agreement as proposed the Village would pay $70 per day for a prisoner and there would be a thirty day cancellation clause under which either party could escape the agreement. There are also many other details in there that put responsibility back on Glendale for transportation of the prisoner, medical treatment, etc. We believe we certainly have the capacity to assist the Village given the low demand they have. With a small department it is difficult for them to transport to the County because it takes virtually half their staff. We'd like to recommend to Council that you consider legislation authorizing an agreement between the City of Springdale and the Village of Glendale for our housing of prisoners for them. The third item I have deals with the local food vendors legislation we adopted at the last meeting. It was pretty obvious at the meeting that I had a misunderstanding with the Law Director as to whether the hours of regulation that are imposed on all vendors would apply equally to those vendors who are under the definition of mobile food vendors. That being the case, that means ice cream trucks, the vehicles that go to construction sites early in the morning and late at night, would fall under the language that would prohibit their operation from 7 p.m. at night until 9 a.m. in the morning. We'd like to propose Council consider an amendment to that legislation that would regulate the hours of operation for mobile food vendors only in residential areas. We recommend for those vehicles that go to construction sites or factories at beginning of third shift, we not have any regulation of hours for those in commercial districts. We would recommend the hours of 10 a.m. to dusk for mobile food vendors in residential areas. Again, we are putting this forward to rectify what was a misunderstanding between the Law Director's Office and myself at the last meeting because 7 p.m. is an unrealistic hour to try to cut off the ice cream trucks in residential areas. We'd like to make it a more reasonable period and that would be dusk. The last general item I have relates to the Lobb property across the street. We acquired that a couple of years ago. One of the points of discussion at our staff meeting in June was potential uses of the property. We had our people look at, analyze what it would take to make it operable for different types of public use, what alternatives it could be used for. We've concluded there is not a value in the structure to us for future use. As such we'd like to get Council's concurrence to raze the property, that is, tear the building down and clear the lot rather than maintain the structure. It does not require legislation but before we take a step like that we'd like a motion from Council that would concur with that recommendation. We've looked at it from every angle: recreation, storage, etc., and we just don't think it's worth maintaining the structure. Finally, we'd like to request an executive session on a personnel matter later in this meeting.

Mr. Danbury asked if the Lobb property would just be left as vacant space.

Mr. Osborn replied it's obviously got a future use for us. We can incorporate it into parking as part of the overall complex. I'm sure you've been to events recently where we've not had enough parking. Originally that site was anticipated as part of the parking for this site and we essentially built around it. The first thing you think about is we could ultimately expand the existing parking lot across the street onto this site but we've not gone to the point of coming up with construction cost or anything of that nature. We're at the point where we have to decide whether we're going to maintain it, just put some money into it, paint it, etc. or whether we should just tear it down.

Mayor Webster said I don't think at this point we are advocating that we go ahead with the parking lot. There are too many other things going on in the area for us to do that at this time.

Mr. Osborn said if there is no other discussion could we have a motion from Council on that? In response to Mr. Danbury, Mr. Osborn said we don't need legislation. We just would prefer that there be some record on Council's part approving the demolition.

Mr. Danbury said I would like to wait. I know it needs work but I'd like to investigate to see if a senior citizens' group or whatever might be able to utilize it. Once it's gone, it's gone. I know it's going to cost some money and I know we're in violation but I'd like to check it out.

Mr. Osborn responded if we use that for a meeting facility there are certain modifications that have to be made to the structure as a public facility; ADA requirements, and other issues we'd have to address.

Mr. Danbury said I understand but I'd like to make a recommendation that we think about it because I don't want to rush into it.

Ms. Manis said I think we should tear it down. I'm afraid it's going to be a liability to us if someone gets hurt messing around over there.

Mr. Osborn stated I think you will all come to the same conclusion if you take a hard look at it. We just want to get to a decision rather than spend money to fix it up and then come to a conclusion six months from now that we're going to tear it down. We'd like to reach that point some time this summer if we could.

Mrs. Boice said I'm always concerned about a piece of property that is vacant. I think you are leaving yourself wide open for problems. I haven't looked that closely at it but now that we have a little time I certainly shall.

LAW DIRECTOR'S REPORT - I'd like to report that the City of Cincinnati has asked us to at least advise them on sexually oriented business legislation. I've been contacted and they requested that someone from the City appear before their Planning Commission to point out what we're doing in this area. They've apparently seen it on the television or heard about it elsewhere. Either I or Mrs. Gasser will stop by and see if we can give them good counsel as to leadership the City of Springdale is showing in this area.

ENGINEER'S REPORT - Mr. Shuler said in addition to the Springdale construction projects that have already been reported on there are ODOT projects in the City that are getting very close to conclusion. The St. Rt. 4/I-275 ramp project has some punch list items that have to go down. That will be done shortly. In addition, the resurfacing project on St. Rt. 747 went much smoother than we anticipated. We were really concerned about the traffic we had out there. That project is getting very close to conclusion. A number of the traffic signal loops were damaged or destroyed during the grinding/removal process and those are in the process of being put back in so very shortly that project will be done as well. In regards to the grade separation at CSX and St. Rt. 747 we've been working the last few months preparing all the preliminary plan information that ODOT requires so we can have our public involvement meeting. This is the meeting where we invite the public in to explain the project to them in very general terms and get public input for the project. Then ODOT reviews all the comments we get from the public involvement meeting and will make a determination on what the final environmental document is we have to prepare. We have to generate as much support for this meeting as possible to show that there is a wide range of interest in the project and support for the project so we can continue to move forward. The date of that meeting is set for Thursday, August 15. We'll have that from 5 to 8 in the evening and it will be in this building. It will not be a presentation type of meeting. If you've ever been to these information type meetings we will have the project displayed in a couple of areas. We will have a number of the engineering people here who will explain the project to people as they come in and record their comments at that time. Also, we are going to be contacting all the businesses in the area, all the folks in Butler County, because in addition to attending, if people wish they can also submit a letter showing support for the project. We're going to be working the next couple of weeks getting letters out to everybody so if you want to put that on your calendar, it will be August 15, 5 to 8 p.m. Finally, when we were preparing the plans for the Ray Norrish Drive widening project, there was a need for some additional right of way. Ten feet was needed from the West Shell building. We contacted the property owner and after having two or three discussions we convinced him to donate that property, we prepared a replat of his property, a dedication plat. We have all the signatures and it now needs City Council acceptance, then we can record that additional right of way he is donating. With Council's pleasure we would need an ordinance for the City to accept that dedicated right of way.

Mayor Webster said he heard from one of the department director's that the suit from Ms. Shepherd, the tax protester, has been withdrawn.

Mr. Schneider replied he had not heard that.

Mr. Parham stated that as of July 2 Ms. Shepherd had filed a notice of withdrawal and that was being handled by the attorneys with the Ohio Valley Risk Management Association.

COMMUNICATIONS - none

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none

Mr. Danbury said there are some questions on Ordinance 21-1996. I have a recommendation from the Planning Commission in favor of Ordinance 21-1996 regarding compost regulations which does not correspond with the ordinance before us. Theirs deals with amending the codes of the City of Springdale to enact new Section 155. Didn't we place Ordinances 20 and 21 for a public hearing at our next meeting, August 7?

Mr. Osborn said only one of the two required a public hearing.

Mr. Schneider said Ordinance 21 does not require a public hearing and it was read on July 2.

Mr. Danbury said we set a public hearing for Ordinances 20, 48 and 49 and I wasn't sure if we did Ordinance 21.

Mr. Galster said Planning Commission did review Ordinance 21 which was read at the last meeting, not this Ordinance 21 that is on the agenda today.

Mr. Danbury said Ordinance 21 that should be voted on tonight is the one dealing with discarding litter.

Mr. Knox said you stated we had not read Ordinance 21.

Mr. Danbury replied we did read Ordinance 21. We had a first reading for Ordinances 20, 21, 48 and 49. I set a public hearing for Ordinances 20, 48 and 49 and the question is whether there should be a public hearing for Ordinance 21 as well. I received correspondence from the Planning Commission dealing with Ordinance 21 which was not the same as Ordinance 21 here. If you look at the agenda we had Ordinance 21 that was amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Springdale to enact new section 95.03 "Discarding Litter Prohibited". That is the one we should be voting on tonight.

Mr. Knox stated the 95.03 was what was read at the last meeting. I don't know where you got the other one from.

Mr. Danbury responded Planning Commission came up with this ordinance here.

Mayor Webster said the confusion goes back to when these ordinances were originally drafted. They were assigned numbers and then the review came forward when the numbers were criss-crossed. I went through the same dilemma trying to figure this out. That confusion still exists today and it looks like the wrong ordinance got read at the last meeting. I think 95.03 got read at the last meeting, not this one. I think Planning Commission reviewed the proper one but they did not review the one that was read at the last meeting.

Mr. Schneider asked what are the sections involved in the one you're indicating is a second number 21. What is the content of Ordinance 20, the one Planning Commission is referring to Ordinance 21? I believe it refers to Section 155.067, 023 and all that. That is Ordinance 20. That's what the Mayor was pointing out to us. Ordinance 21 is the one Mr. Knox read. The one Planning Commission had was mislabeled.

ORDINANCE NO. 21-1996 "AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO, TO ENACT NEW SECTION 95.03 DISCARDING LITTER PROHIBITED"

Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mrs. McNear seconded.

Ordinance 21-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

Mr. Osborn said for clarification, I understand what Planning Commission read as Ordinance 21 is actually labeled Ordinance 20 on Council's agenda. It was read for the first time on July 2 and has a public hearing set on August 7.

Mrs. Boice said I'm puzzled, Mr. Schneider. Whenever we've amended the code in the past we've always had a public hearing. Why is this an exception here?

Mr. Schneider said we have a public hearing when it involves zoning and most of the time it does involve zoning. That's why it seems like we do every time. We do not have a public hearing if the matter does not involve the zoning code. If it's just a section of the code we are amending, we do not have to have a public hearing but most of the amendments we make involve the zoning code so it appears we have public hearings.

Ms. Manis said I was feeling the same way as far as this ordinance and the sexually oriented business one, but when you do think of it, we've had a lot of police things, changing DUI laws, etc. and we never had a public hearing but it always seems we do.

Joint Public Hearing for Ordinance 42-1996 and Ordinance 43-1996

ORDINANCE NO. 42-1996 "AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO, SECTION 153.133 (B) REGARDING SIGN DEFINITIONS AND SECTION 153.049 SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS"

LaVonne Webster, 12142 Peak Drive, said I think 75 days for political signs is ridiculous. All of the candidates here get them up and down in a reasonable time. Seventy-five days is just another month. I don't think any of the locals would put them out that far in advance but you have to worry about the state, federal, judges. I personally don't want to see signs out here two and a half months.

Ms. Manis asked isn't it true I can put a political sign in my yard right now if I want? We're giving guidelines but if someone challenges us we might not have a say about anything.

Mr. Schneider replied you can have free expression of your opinion on candidates. There are specific rights to speak your choice. We have gone by the guidelines within the law. We do have reasonable right to regulate political signs for aesthetic purposes. We cannot be abusive to people who are stating their opinions on issues. There are some issues that can be raised and we think this proposal will fit within reasonable guidelines as they exist presently.

Ms. Boice said we are trying to be reasonable. I agree that two and a half months is terribly long. I know I would not want to have to maintain my own personal signs for that long. Is there anyway we can incorporate into this how many days they have to get the signs down? Everyone's so worried about their freedom to get them up; how about getting them down.

Mr. Schneider stated we had the provision in previously in which we had some limitation - five days after the election but that has been removed. We were asked to draft it in that manner to allow for 75 days. My only concern would be if there was a recent case law that came out that said we could no longer limit it. I think the same regulations apply; namely, reasonableness, for purposes of keeping the neighborhood clean and orderly, and safety. As long as we tie it to those reasons we have a right to make reasonable limitations. If Council would like me to look into some regulation about specific time frame for removal, perhaps we can institute that.

Mrs. Boice replied I know this has been in the process for a long time and I certainly do not want to hold it up. I'm just curious as to why that no longer exists.

Mr. Galster said I know when we evaluated this in Planning Commission we know that here in Springdale it's a tradition that the signs come down the night of the election. I think it is something everyone in the City would abide by. It's so tough to limit freedom of speech and expression. We tried to come up with a time frame that was reasonable according to Mr. Schneider's recommendation on what we could reasonably enforce and still have some type of control.

Mr. Vanover said I don't like the 75 days either but I recall when I was on Rules and Laws and we sat in on the sign meeting, that everything short of 65 days had been struck down by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Schneider said the limitation is probably not to tie it to the election but the right to limit the total time.

Mr. Osborn asked how you would know when a sign is up 75 days. I don't know how we're going to regulate it.

Ms. Manis said I think it's unenforceable but I don't know if there is a better way.

Mr. Danbury said somebody could take us to court and it could be a major problem.

Mr. Osborn stated my recollection is that it did come as a result of a legal opinion that our current campaign signs were violating a recent Supreme Court decision that related to political signs; political signs being those that were stating a position on an issue. A lady out west had put up a sign in opposition to the Gulf War and the local jurisdiction ordered her to take it down. They sued her. She won the case and established under the Supreme Court's ruling that a resident has a right to express himself/herself publicly on his/her own property. That reflected on how you deal with campaign signs. We've come up with a regulation that is a reaction to what happened here, I don't know how we're going to manage it. I'm not suggesting any solution or suggesting somebody didn't do something properly in bringing this forward but the outcome is probably not beneficial to us.

Mr. Schneider said the other factor that came into play here is that we cannot segregate political signs from other temporary signs. These regulations apply not only to political signs but to other signs as well. We're regulating political signs, special event signs and temporary signs. We have no right to segregate political expression from other temporary signs because they all should be regulated on the basis of clutter, aesthetics, etc. If you were to classify and require a take down period or shorter period for that than other temporary signs you are effectively stopping someone's right of political expression.

Mayor Webster said the way it is written we can't even begin to enforce this until 75 days after an election. If that's the case why have stupid legislation we can't enforce?

Mr. Vanover said according to the definition the campaign season is defined as a 75 day period immediately preceding a general or special election. So basically day one after the election their time window is up. I think it becomes enforceable the day after. We have the Supreme Court to thank for this dilemma. It's not just political signs but those seem to be the most obnoxious during that time frame. It's never been a problem with the locals. It's always been the state, federal, county.

Mr. Osborn said if you look at the bottom of page 2 it says "a property owner may erect one sign per parcel at any time." During a campaign season a property owner may erect one additional sign for each candidate running for office and each issue appearing on the ballot of which the property owner is entitled to cast a vote. You can have one temporary sign up 365 days a year. During the 75 days prior to the election you can have one for each issue or candidate.

Ms. Manis said we are missing the point. If you have a sign in your yard chances are you are going to pull it up. It's not going to look like campaign season after the election. Other people who come into town and put up signs generally put them in the right of way and they are taken down anyway. We can get those down regardless.

Mr. Galster said there are other good things that come out of this ordinance that make it so people don't paint the sides of their houses. There is a size requirement on the signs. Any time you try to regulate freedom of speech and freedom of expression it's going to be a problem. If we get challenged on something we'll just have to deal with it when it comes up. I think there are a lot of good points that come with this ordinance as it sits. I think the time is too long personally but 365 days is obtainable if somebody wanted to.

Mr. Knox said I have great faith in the electorate in Springdale that if someone puts up too many signs or lets them deteriorate I think the electorate will let that individual know about it by way of the ballot box. How are we going to keep a record of when the signs go up and who's going to do that?

Mr. Danbury said I think this should be a resolution as opposed to an ordinance. There's no way we can monitor it.

Mr. Osborn said I agree with Mr. Galster that there are other regulations in the body of this ordinance. My purpose is to point out to you that we cannot enforce the campaign signs realistically but there are other regulations that are valid and relevant.

Ms. Manis said it's not just political signs that cannot be enforced. The Building Department will tell you we have other signage in the City that is impossible to enforce also.

Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt and Ms. Manis seconded.

Ordinance 42-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE NO. 43-1996 "AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO, SECTION 153.066 SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICTS, SECTION 153.092 SIGN REGULATIONS, SECTION 153.108 SIGN REQUIREMENTS, AND SECTION 153.0160 TEMPORARY USE"

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

Ordinance 43-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE 50-1996 "AN ORDINANCE ENACTING NEW CHAPTER 120 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE REGULATING THE LOCATION OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES"

Mr. Galster made a motion to read by title only and Mrs. McNear seconded.

Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mrs. McNear seconded

Ordinance 50-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE 52-1996 "ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO, AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER TO REVISE ARTICLE II, SECTIONS D(1) AND D(3)(c)"

Mr. Galster made a motion to read by title only and Mr. Vanover seconded.

The motion passed with 6 affirmative votes. Mrs. Boice voted no.

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

Ms. Manis said I think we should vote yes on all the ordinances to go to the voters. I think the people should get a chance to read them themselves.

Mr. Wilson said these are a lot of housekeeping items the Administration wanted Charter Revision Committee to look at. We discussed it at length at our meetings and decided this was something that needed to be done. As Ms. Manis indicated, if anyone would like to read these ordinances in their entirety, we will have these ordinances available in the Administrative Offices so the electorate can read it prior to the election.

Mr. Danbury said Mr. Osborn's memo to us was very to the point and summed up everything. Maybe we could have that as an attachment so the public could glance at it instead of reading four or five pages.

Mayor Webster said just to clear up what Mr. Wilson said the majority of these did come from the Administration but this particular one came from Council.

Mr. Schneider said we need a motion to amend as there were some amendments made since last time. We changed special election to general election.

Mr. Danbury said they covered the amendments last time.

ORDINANCE NO. 53-1996 "ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO, AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER TO REVISE ARTICLE III, SECTIONS C AND D"

Mr. Galster made a motion to read by title only and Mr. Wilson seconded.

The motion passed with 6 affirmative votes. Mrs. Boice voted no.

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

Ordinance 53-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE NO. 54-1996 "ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO, AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER TO REVISE ARTICLE VI, SECTION C"

Mr. Galster made a motion to read by title only and Ms. Manis seconded.

The motion passed 5-2. Mrs. Boice and Mrs. McNear voted no.

Ordinance 54-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE NO. 55-1996 "ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO, AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER TO REVISE ARTICLE VII, SECTION F"

Mr. Galster made a motion to read by title only and Ms. Manis seconded.

The motion passed with 6 affirmative votes. Mrs. Boice voted no.

Ordinance 55-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE NO. 56-1996 "ACCEPTING A BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH BP OIL COMPANY FOR GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"

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

Mr. Wilson said when we did this open bid it was my understanding there were only two responses to this.

Mr. Osborn replied there was only one. The reason we recommended the bid is that it is lower than our expiring contract which was also with BP. We try to get as much response as we can to these bids but in this case, BP has probably driven a lot of people out of the market with their rates. They beat the price they gave us two years ago.

Ordinance 56-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

OLD BUSINESS

Mrs. Boice asked where do we stand on getting bids for the update on the history?

Mr. Parham replied I have a meeting schedule with Mr. Peterson of the Historical Society. Since the discussion here he has been rather busy and has been out of town quite often. The young lady who worked on the history before apparently fell ill and she hasn't really gotten back into the business but he does have someone in mind and she will be meeting with us also.

Mr. Schneider said on the sexually oriented business ordinance we just considered, there is a fill-in that needs to be included and there were two other amendments that were made since the last reading that I failed to point out to Council before the vote. I'd like you to get this ordinance back in front of you and turn to page 5. We want to insert today's date at the bottom of the page. Today's date should be inserted. Also on page 9, Section 120.03 (A) is inserted in your copy but was not present in your copy at the last meeting. I want that section to be included as well. There is a word change on page 12 under (G). The last words "the Chapter" is changed to "this Chapter and the Zoning Code". That's already in the copy you have. On page 14, 120.10, the corrections are already made "Representatives of the city enforcement agencies, including but not limited to, the City police department, fire department, building department and health department"... That was modified since the first time you saw it. On page 4, which is the first page of the exhibit, "and licensing" in the second line was added. Those corrections were made since the copy we had before you at the last meeting. What you have in hand is the final ordinance once it is approved. I would like Council to consider a motion for reconsideration and amend the ordinance.

Mrs. Boice said let me take the page numbers out and say corrections and additions made in 120.02, item (P); 120.03 was added in total; the word chapter was added on item G under 120.06. She said I make a motion to reconsider these portions Ordinance 50-1996. Mr. Wilson seconded.

A discussion of page numbering followed. The page numbering question was resolved to reflect the proposed ordinance read by the Clerk of Council

The motion passed with 7 affirmative votes.

Mrs. Boice made a motion to amend Ordinance 50-1996 and Mr. Vanover seconded.

The motion passed with 7 affirmative votes.

Mrs. Boice made a motion to adopt Ordinance 50-1996 as amended. Ms. Manis seconded.

Ordinance 50-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

Mayor Webster asked Mr. Knox if his Exhibit A was amended 7-10-96 or do you still have the original one?

Mr. Knox replied it was amended 7-10-96.

Mayor Webster said I understand what you had to do, amend it referencing the sections but I still don't understand why we have a copy with Exhibits starting on page 4 and Mr. Knox's starts on page 1.

Mr. Schneider stated that it was drafted originally different page numbers. Upon final review we sent out the original copy with corrected numbers consistent with the record copies we have done for all prior legislation. It did not make sense to me to bring everybody new copies tonight with just new numbers on the exhibit pages. So that's why you have the exhibit starting on page 4 and Mr. Knox has page 1. However, there is no difference in the content.

Mayor Webster replied I would have thought a simple explanation to tell us that would have been in order.

Mr. Schneider responded I probably should have told you ahead of time and I apologize. I should have mentioned the ordinance changes ahead of time and we would have saved time on the reconsideration. I apologize to Council for that.

NEW BUSINESS

Mrs. Boice said the property of Mrs. Karen M. Kidd, 11493 Bernhart Court, was on the Board of Zoning Appeals agenda for the fourth time last night. We had tabled it several times and I just want to bring you up to speed on what happened. At our last meeting in June the variance was granted by a 6-1 vote. We had been given a verbal opinion by the chairman of the committee that because the Kidds had been told they could do what they intended to do, we had no choice but to grant that variance. It was a mistake. The proper footage is not in the right place in the code and it was a mistake by one of the inspectors. We all were really caught off guard. We had no written opinion in front of us. I pushed as strongly as I could to table that because I felt one mistake is enough. Two mistakes aren't going to cure anything. I felt granting that variance was a mistake. I voted against it as you know. After that meeting I did talk to Mr. Osborn a day or so later. I talked to Mr. Schneider about it. I guess I let anybody who wanted to listen know of my displeasure at the way this was handled. I did not think it was fair to Mrs. Kidd anymore than it was fair to the neighbors. Consequently, some research was done on this which had we delayed, it could have been done originally so we wouldn't have had to back track. The opinion came in that we could do this because an error had been made by an inspector saying you can do this when you really can't. Legally you don't have to be responsible for it. You can go back and say, I'm sorry, we made a mistake and you shouldn't have done this. Legally that's the way it is. I think we have to look aside from legalities here. The variance was not granted last night and in our discussion both Mrs. McNear and I indicated we would come back to Council and we both felt very strongly that the City made a mistake. Mrs. Kidd has expended some sums. I have no idea what the total is. There was a figure mentioned last night for this strip of driveway. There was something like $1,500 involved. They have also had an attorney whom they did bring in to one of our Board of Zoning Appeals meetings. Mrs. Kidd was not clear what the expenses were there. I cannot give you a figure at this point. What Mrs. McNear and I are seeking from Council tonight is some type of show of support to allow our Administrative people, our Building Department, our City Administrator and the Mayor, and Mr. Sears to sit down with the Kidds and find out what they had expended before they were told they couldn't do this and what they may have expended after they were told. I'm not asking the City to pay for something they did without any permission at all. We are seeking concurrence from Council that the Administration be allowed to pursue some type of restoration or payment to Mrs. Kidd for the mistake that was sincerely and honestly made by the City. Legally Mr. Schneider has said we have no obligation at all, but I think morally we have a very strong obligation. We are not setting a precedent here. I understand it was quite a number of years ago that a mistake was made and it was necessary for the City to go onto private property and restore that property.

Mrs. McNear added that it was more than just Mrs. Boice and myself who felt strongly. Mr. Squires who is also on the Board of Zoning Appeals is with us this evening. He may want to put in his two cents worth as well. I think everyone felt very strongly that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to the people to either restore their property, reimburse them, or a little bit of both. We would definitely appreciate support on that because we think it is very necessary that we do this.

Mr. Danbury said my personal feeling on this issue is I think you have to do the right thing and I really want to congratulate you, Mrs. Boice, because I know you are the one who really started the opposition as far as reversing BZA's decision. I was unaware we could do that. You have to do what's right. If anybody would go out and see what's there, it's really not going to be a nice situation for the neighborhood, but again, I think we do owe it to the people because we told them they could put it in there. Are you looking for support to reimburse them or to restore it?

Mrs. Boice replied I'm looking for permission from Council for the Administration to pursue some negotiations. Then legislation must be brought in for whatever that amount would be. There are legal fees. She had her attorney present for one meeting and in fact, because she didn't have her attorney present last night, the question was asked on three different occasions, would you rather we wait until you have your attorney? She stressed she had been here four times and naturally, she's upset and she wished for us to proceed, and then she would do what she felt she had to do. All I'm seeking is for the Administration to be allowed to negotiate.

Mayor Webster said Mr. Osborn has directed the inspector to reinspect the property and develop a list of exactly what has to be done and at that point sit down with the Kidds and see if they want to do that or if they want the City to do that. If they want the City to do it, then naturally they have to sign a release, right of entry and all the legalities. Over and above that we can identify what has been done and what has to be torn out and what cost was associated with putting that in. The important thing here is what date did some of these things happen. If they did some things before the inspector told them to go ahead, then I don't think the City is liable for that. But from the time he told them, which I understand is sometime in 1995 until last night if they have started some projects (we've heard they want to put a garage back there and they want to put a shed. Both of those require a permit. If they've started those and they have to tear those footers out, we're not going to pay for that. But we would like to explore, with Council's concurrence, the possibility of identifying what we, the Administration, have caused the Kidds to spend and once we feel comfortable with that number, we'll bring it back to Council.

Mr. Danbury asked if there was any opposition to that. There was none.

Mr. Danbury said I received something from Planning Commission. I have three items that are affirmative recommendations for consideration. One is dealing with an ordinance for keeping and harboring wild animals, Ordinance 20 which will have a public hearing at our next meetingand the other one is an ordinance with no number.

Mr. Osborn said this is a separate ordinance from Ordinance 50-1996 which supports Ordinance 50. Ordinance 50 is a section of the code dealing with licensing businesses. This is a separate ordinance that will deal with zoning changes necessary to support Ordinance 50.

Mr. Danbury asked that a number not be assigned until the ordinance comes up on the agenda. Mr. Danbury set a public hearing for August 21.

MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mayor Webster reported the community garage sale is August 10, 1996, 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. at the Community Center. Around thirty-five booths have been rented. We can accommodate 100 or more. Sign up is available until July 20.

Mr. Danbury said Police Officer Fred Romano will be running a 26.2 mile marathon race to raise money for a friend of his for the Leukemia Society. I know the City can't endorse this with public funds but I'm going to contribute. I think it's a great cause and that's a long way to run.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

Jim Squires, 150 Ruskin Drive, said on behalf of myself and also Mrs. Boice and Mrs. McNear and the other members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, thank you for your consideration for what you are going to do about the Kidds' property. It's a very delicate situation but I think you will find you will get a great deal of cooperation from these people. At least I certainly hope you will. I don't recall a public hearing for Ordinance 50-1996. Please don't read the entire ordinance. Can you explain to me what Chapter 120 of the Codified Ordinances is and what is happening to our City that we need something like this. Have we got some people who want to establish this type of business here or is this an attempt by us to put up some legislation that will make it very difficult for these people?

Mr. Danbury responded it is cheaper to keep them out ahead of time than to throw them out afterwards.

Mr. Knox read the first sentence of Chapter 120, "The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate sexually oriented businesses through the application of uniform zoning and licensing requirements to promote health, safety and moral and general welfare of the City of Springdale, and establish reasonable and uniform regulations for the operation of those types of business, etc."

Mr. Schneider said basically these types of businesses are moving into the areas. As you have concluded we are trying to regulate them because we do not have a right to prohibit them. Constitutionally they are allowed to function as businesses in communities. If we put in the regulations soon enough, before they come, then we can determine on a reasonable basis where they should be located. We cannot make it so objectionable that they really couldn't locate anyhow so we had to do a very definitive review and the Building Department did a very thorough review of what areas might be available and still meet the requirements of not being 450 feet from residential structures and certain other structures. A significant survey of the community had to be completed prior to adopting this and with this regulation we are hopeful that if they should come in, it would be in areas with the least impact on our community.

Ms. Manis said we weren't required to have a public hearing. There is a separate part of it that is an amendment to the Zoning Code and that we will have a public hearing on.

Mr. Vanover made a motion for Council to go as a committee of the whole to discussion of personnel issues and Mr. Galster seconded.

The motion was approved 7-0.

Council went into Executive Session at 9:22 p.m. and reconvened at 9:42 p.m.

Mayor Webster said he was approached by The Community Press to issue a letter to endorse production of a guide to Springdale.

Ms. Manis asked if we will see it before it goes out.

Mr. Danbury said there would be no review, only an endorsement of the concept needed.

Mayor Webster said they want the letter to show merchants when they solicit advertising. No campaign type information will be in this publication.

Mrs. McNear asked what the start time for the next Council meeting will be and Mr. Danbury replied it will be 7:00 p.m. until further notice.

Council adjourned at 9:42 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Randy Danbury, President of Council

__________________________, l996