President of Council Kathy McNear called Council to order on February 21, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.

The governmental body and those in attendance recited the pledge of allegiance. Mr. Knox gave the invocation.

Mr. Knox took roll call. Present were Council members Danbury, Galster, Pollitt, Squires, Vanover, Wilson and McNear.

The minutes of February 7, 2001 were approved with a change stating the minutes of January 17 were approved with six affirmative votes, not seven. Mr. Wilson abstained.


Civil Service Commission Ė Mr. Coleman reported they met February 9. There was a letter from Mr. Parham requesting certification of names for firefighter and another request for certification of names for patrol officer. We extended the certification lists of names for firefighter and patrol officer. Mr. Parham also advised us that he needed a list of ten names certified for the violations bureau clerk position. We conducted the test on February 15. There were 128 applicants for two positions. Over 190 people filled out applications but only 128 showed for the test. We believe we will end up with a good group of candidates. We welcomed Mary Charles as the new recording secretary of the Civil Service Commission. We want to publicly acknowledge Debbie Dunfeeís efforts and give her a heart-felt thanks for all of her efforts in supporting the Civil Service Commission. I talked to Debbie today and advised that even though she is no longer in that position, I still will be in touch with her and we may rely upon her as things progress. She certainly indicated her willingness to do so. There was some discussion in regards to seniority issues for the bargaining individuals, which would be the Police and Fire Departments. That information was concluded on the basis that once the Civil Service Commission has forwarded the names to Mr. Parham, it was within his jurisdiction to determine those items of seniority.

Rules and Laws - no report

Public Relations - no report

Public Health, Safety & Welfare - no report

Public Works Ė Mr. Wilson stated the plans for the 2001 street program are complete and have been advertised for bid opening on March 6. The anticipated construction schedule for the project is to award the project on March 21, start construction mid April, and complete the project in late August.

Public Utilities - no report

Capital Improvements - Mr. Danbury said the City was awarded a grant from ODOT through the railroad grade separation program. The City will receive approximately $4 million from ODOT to off-set additional costs for construction and right-of-way. I understand Mr. Parham will go into more detail on this issue later. The right-of-way acquisition will be completed by July 2002. The project will be bid in September 2002, awarded in December 2002, and construction will encompass 2003 and 2004. Work is still being done on the East Kemper Road improvements. The water main relocation is basically complete. The storm water installation and modular retaining wall construction is continuing. This will be completed later in August. The opening bid was held on the Walnut-Pear Street improvements on February 13. Due to some pending issues with Cincinnati Waterworks there will not be a recommendation until our next meeting, March 7. We will have another meeting on March 5 on the Springfield Pike streetscape program. We will go over final plans that we would like to present to Council at the next meeting. If Council agrees it will be targeted for construction in the spring of 2002. Kemper Road Phase II from Commons Drive to Chesterdale Road is being reviewed for engineering issues. Detail plans will be done in July 2001, right-of-way drawings will be completed the following month and right-of-way negotiations should be completed by June 2002. I would assume that weíll do construction in the spring of 2003 because I would assume we donít start construction before we have the right-of-way.

Mr. Shuler stated we will be completing the right-of-way in June but weíll probably be bidding and awarding that contract in the spring with anticipation that construction will start as soon as the right-of-way is enhanced. At this time we are looking at construction to begin in 2002.

Finance Committee - no report

Planning Commission Ė Mr. Galster said there were two additions for separate residents at Maple Knoll Village. Both were approved with a 7-0 vote. A representative from Maple Knoll was there and we were talking about coming up with some standards for construction that they were okay with, so hopefully some of these additions can be handled more by staff approval of pre-approved construction methods. Skyline Chili requested modification to the building elevations. That was approved 7-0 pending BZA approval. We had discussion on amending our tree preservation ordinance to include proposed redevelopment requirements. Right now, the way the ordinance reads, if a new developer cuts down any trees for a parking lot, etc., they need to replace the trees at about 50% of the caliper inches they cut down. The problem is there has been redevelopment where people have taken down trees and then tried to replant half of those. If the site is redeveloped enough there are no trees left to be replaced. There will be a comprehensive plan meeting March 19 at 5:00 p.m.

Board of Zoning Appeals Ė Mr. Squires said Ken Shroyer at 538 Smiley requested a variance to allow the construction of a garage only one foot from the side property line and nineteen feet from the front property line. The lots on Smiley Avenue are legal but non-conforming to todayís Zoning Code standards. This is the only way Mr. Shroyer could construct this garage. The Building Department will require Mr. Shroyer to have certain material on the side wall of his garage at that location. The variance was approved with seven affirmative votes. Tipton Interests for Arhous Furniture at 35 Tri-County Parkway wanted to construct a monument sign zero feet from the right-of-way and eight feet from the east property line. There was considerable discussion and they decided to table their request and come back at a later date.

The additions at Maple Knoll Village that Mr. Galster mentioned were approved, but the one at 11100 Springfield Pike is for a brick wall in front of their building. It is 182 feet long and six feet high. We asked the managers if they would come before our City Planner and Planning Commission with this. Springdale-Mason Pediatrics Association is interested in a lot to build a 9,135 square foot office building next to Sterling House. The building will only be twelve feet from the side yard setback. Due to the nature of the lot, thatís about the only way they can get that building on the lot. That was approved with seven affirmative votes.

Michelle Salter, 994 Ledro Street, wanted to convert her garage to living space. She has already done it so she has problems with the Building Department. We had no choice but to approve it. We couldnít ask her to tear it down. We have a new restaurant at Gentry Center. They want to maintain 299 parking spaces when 334 would be required. Due to the nature of their business and their operating hours, that was allowed. That was approved with seven affirmative votes.

Skyline Chili is completely redesigning their store. They have a huge sign on top of the store and also a pole sign and ATM sign. They were allowed to keep the sign on the top of the building. The manager wants to take the pole sign down and put up a monument sign but the cost is prohibitive at this time. He will come back with that. This was approved with six affirmative votes. Springdale Ice Cream and Beverage wanted to extend their "Now Hiring" banner. They have a 95% rejection rate in the people they hire. They interview a lot of people but not many pass their background check. We will allow them to keep their banner until April 30. Ms. Pollitt, 259 Harter Avenue, wanted to construct a 10í x 18í shed on her property. That was approved with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Galster said in reference to Springdale-Mason Pediatrics, two months ago the doctorsí office was before Planning and it was conceptual plan approval. There has been no preliminary plan approved so Iím curious as to why that is already at BZA.

Mr. Squires replied Iím not sure I can answer that. They presented quite a booklet to us. We felt with the shape of the lot they didnít have any choice.

Mr. Galster responded Iím not disagreeing with BZAís decision. Iím just concerned with granting a variance to a plan that hasnít been presented. Mr. Schneider, can you help clear that up?

Mr. Schneider said I think anyone has a right to appeal for a zoning variance at any time. Iíd have to check to see if we have any procedural limits. Theyíre seeking to build a building in violation of a variance of one foot. Before you can approve it, they have to have the variance.

Mr. Galster said usually Planning approves the site plan and a preliminary stage, then they get feedback from BZA. The final plan is approved pending them being able to get variances from BZA for the final presentation of their project.

Mr. Schneider said Iíll have to check to see if we have a procedure that requires them to do that. If there is then they have to follow procedure. It would seem to me that they have taken a step to save some time later. If they came up with a plan that is not acceptable to you, itís not your decision. You are deciding a site plan and now you are allowed to decide a site plan within one foot of the setback.

Mr. Galster asked does the zoning variance stay with the piece of land? Mr. Schneider replied yes. Mr. Galster said now this property has the variance. What if these people donít buy the property and the next developer gets a preliminary plan to have something else done there without having developed the plan at all. We could theoretically end up with an empty piece of land with variances from five or six applications that have never been presented for actual review by Planning.

Mr. Schneider responded I think you raised a good procedural point and that could happen. We probably need more coordination between BZA and Planning Commission on that issue. I think Bill McErlane is the one to coordinate that. Why not talk with Bill in the morning and raise that issue.

Mrs. McNear stated I was on BZA for years and we were not able to grant a variance to anyone who did not own the property. Was someone there who owned the property and said they were in agreement with that should Springdale-Mason Pediatrics buy that property?

Mr. Squires replied yes.

Mr. Galster said we are looking at a residential style building here. What if that becomes an office building or multi-family building? That variance is still good.

Mr. Schneider replied I think that is a good issue. Iíll be glad to raise that with Mr. McErlane or Mr. Parham can.

Mr. Galster said my final comment is on the Skyline sign. We had asked them to bring their pole down. We appreciate the effort BZA put forth on that effort.

Ms. Pollitt said Mr. Galster, sitting in the audience last night, I believe I heard that they (Springdale-Mason Pediatrics) wanted to make sure that they could get the variance before they went through with the plans.

Mr. Galster stated I have no problem with getting a feel for the board but issuing the variance with no plans is what I have a problem with.

Mr. Squires said I thought I had a plan in front of me. The affidavit was signed by the owner and also an optionee.

Mr. Schneider said I will follow up with the Building Department.

Board of Health Ė Ms. Pollitt reported that the Health Commissioner shared an annual financial report for the State. He shared the monthly animal bite, food sample, pool and nurseís reports with the board.

O-K-I - no report

Mayorís Report - no report

Clerk of Council/Finance Director - no report

Administratorís Report Ė Mr. Parham said on February 13, bids were opened for the Walnut/Pear Street improvements. We received ten bids. The base bid was as follows: Ray Prus & Sons, $302,750.89; L. P. Cavett, $304,297.90; Trend Construction, $291,998,90; Mt. Pleasant Blacktop, $296,032.60; R. A. Miller, $307,450.75; Sunesis Construction, $279,554.00; Barrett Paving, $373,764.60; Adleta Construction $310,061.80; Brass Eagle Inc., $296,995.00 and Fred A. Neuman, $299,388.05. There were alternate bids as part of this project. Alternate 1 was for construction of a sidewalk on the west side of Walnut Street and all sidewalks on Pear Street. Alternate 2 is for the final asphalt wearing course for both Walnut and Pear Streets. Alternate 3 is for the southern 8.5 feet of widening on Pear Street, south concrete curb and south concrete drive aprons. We budgeted $200,000 for the project. The least amount of these bids was for $279,000. We did receive a grant from the Hamilton County Community Development Office in the amount of $105,000. The engineering department is still reviewing these bids and we hope to have a recommendation and ask for legislation at the next Council meeting.

Mr. Danbury touched on the fact that we were notified as of February 9 that we would receive $4 million as part of the railroad grade separation program. In previous meetings Mr. Osborn and members of the engineering staff indicated that this is a new program started by the Ohio Department of Transportation. Originally it was our belief that we were responsible for the engineering for the grade separation project as well as 20% of the right-of-way. We have always estimated that the right-of-way would be around $1 million. Our estimate of our cost for the right-of-way was around $200,000. When the number came in we were responsible for anything above the $800,000 ODOT would be responsible for. I think that was around $1.3 million. That along with a number of other costs indicated that we were short approximately $3.9 million. With this award we should be able to fund this project in totality.

Mr. Parham continued I will reserve comments on Ordinances 14-2001 and 15-2001 when they come up on the agenda.

Mr. Danbury said, Mr. Shuler, I was looking at the correspondence from your office on the Walnut Street/Pear Street improvement and noticed one of the reasons weíre a little bit over is that there has been a 30% increase in prices for asphalt for 1999. Is that supply and demand?

Mr. Shuler replied asphalt goes up and down just like gasoline does. Itís oil based and when oil prices go up, we see significant costs. We cut back on the street program last year because it had been budgeted earlier before we had the rapid increase in asphalt prices a year ago. We shifted some of last yearís street program work until this year because of asphalt prices. There are a number of issues concerning that project that weíre still dealing with and one of the reasons we have a number of those alternates in there is that we are hesitant of going ahead with work surrounding the UDF/Burns block, not knowing how that block is going to redevelop. We really donít want to spend a lot of money putting in new curbs and pavement and sidewalks and have it torn out. One of those alternates is on sidewalk; one is on street work and one is to reserve the final resurfacing of the total project for a year to let all of that construction get out of the way. There were a number of other issues concerning what is happening in that area. We did more work with the school to accommodate the school bus loading and unloading than had been anticipated on the project. There is a substantial amount of water main relocation work that is in the bid but we donít know if we have to do it yet or not. We took our best guess of what that might be and put it into the bid. Thatís one of the reasons we have asked for a delay in awarding this as we are trying to get those issues worked out with Waterworks before we award the contract. It seemed like a very simple project when we got into it but it got very involved. There are a number of issues that affected both cost and scheduling.

Law Directorís Report - no report

Engineerís Report Ė Mr. Shuler said one additional comment on the railroad grade separation grant. Its timing was very advantageous to the City. Itís a brand new program and this is the first time any monies have been awarded out of that program. One of the very difficult things we have with any of these ODOT funded projects is that the application for funding for the project was put in place and approved ten years ago. At that time there was absolutely no way we could estimate what the right-of-way costs were going to be ten years later. As Mr. Parham indicated, it had always been the policy that it would be shared on an 80/20 basis. Approximately two years ago ODOT found that on most projects, right-of-way costs were escalating substantially so they changed their policy. Instead of being an 80/20 shared cost, they were only going to pay what they agreed to originally in the grant application put in place ten years ago. In the middle of the ball game they changed the rules and said if the local entity wants to do the project you have to come up with the extra money. We ran into some of the same issues in the design phase and the extra cost of construction. They were the entity who was reviewing the project, telling us what we must do to get approval of the project, then they turn around and say we are not going to give you any more money to do it. We got ready to go to the next phase and they say itís going to cost an extra $3 million to $4 million, after the City has already invested close to $1 million dollars in the environmental and design phases. This has been one of our priorities for some time now so this new grant program was absolutely, essentially the right program at the right time for the City and saved us substantial dollars that we would have had to find in our budget or postpone the project, which would have been devastating to what we have been trying to achieve in that area.

Mr. Vanover asked, Mr. Shuler, has anyone pointed out to ODOT that their genteel handling of projects like this has created this situation? We had a three-year environmental impact study and it got lost in Columbus for the longest time. We have had many challenges with the design phase. They have to shoulder some of the blame on some of this.

Mr. Shuler replied the bottom line is if you want the federal dollars you have to follow their program. When we did the first SR 747 project the City said weíre not going to wait ten years. Weíre going to use our own funds. Probably if they had waited ten years the local share would have been the same.


Mr. Knox stated we delayed a communication from the last meeting. The Mayor has contacted the family but he, being the one who spoke to them, would prefer that we delay the communication until he returns.


Public Hearing


Mr. Vanover made a motion to read by title only. Ms. Pollitt seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. Schneider, could you explain what this ordinance is about?

Mr. Schneider replied specific questions could probably be answered better by Mr. McErlane, but this is basically to clean up a few matters in the code. It was recommended by Planning Commission and the Building Department. They are the ones who asked for this consideration and we put it together at their request. It met all the legal requirements.

Mr. Parham said Planning Commission did recommend the changes. The areas to highlight are: the definition of an area or building; principally permitted uses in support service districts; a table to clarify parking stall and aisle dimensions; and the buffer lighting zones. There was a recent court case that made it necessary that we amend our code related to political signs.

Mr. Galster said a further explanation of a buffer lighting zone is that we are trying to eliminate some of these developments that are so lit up such as the Shell at the corner of SR 747 and Kemper Road. We are trying to contain the light from the site on the site.

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

Mr. Danbury said I was looking at page 7 where it says "no more than one political sign may be displayed on a single tract or parcel of property." Would that hold up in court if someone wants their constitutional right of offering their support towards a congressional candidate as well as a judge, etc.?

Mr. Schneider responded a political sign is a sign expressing an opinion or advocating action on any non-commercial issue, or a sign identifying a candidate for public office. Section 153.29 says "signs in residential districts shall be designed, altered or moved, and maintained as provided in this section. The types of signs permitted as to use, structure, size, and number for each dwelling lot shall be regulated as follows: E. Except as provided below, no more than one political sign may be displayed on any single tract or parcel of property within a residential district. Such a single political sign may be displayed without a limit on its duration, provided it meets the conditions set forth herein." Later on it says " In addition to the single political sign permitted in paragraph (E)(1) above, additional political signs are permitted in any district including residential districts, subject to the following conditions: Prior to the general election . . ." limits the timing that they can be there. So you are permitted to have more and we faced the situation where we had to expand the time that we permitted the signs because a court case said anything less than what we now have could be considered too restrictive, too strong a police power.

Mr. Galster said E.2.a still is allowing one sign per candidate and one sign per issue on residential lots. I think your question was related to one political sign and thatís really not the case because it meets the exception of one per candidate and one per issue. That part of the Zoning Code didnít change.

Mrs. McNear said a few minutes ago we talked about the lights spilling off-site onto a property. If you look on the third page, number 5, it says "light fixtures shall be designed so as to prevent the casting of direct rays of excessive brightness upon adjoining residential districts or cause a glare hazardous to pedestrian or operators of motor vehicles on nearby public streets and roads." If this passes this evening, can we go back to the sites where this is a problem such as Best Western, where the lights shine right into your face as you are trying to enter I-275 eastbound?

Mr. Schneider replied this is a zoning regulation so you donít have the authority to change the zoning requirements on something that is grandfathered. If it is hazardous and dangerous and we can determine that, we may have the right for other police regulations to seek to have them modified or removed. We can talk to the Building Department and see exactly what the conditions are. They can do light readings and things of that nature.

Mrs. McNear stated I have mentioned that site a couple of times and I know we are waiting for some legislation for that. Itís a problem sometimes when Iím trying to exit onto SR 4. It looks like there is a helicopter in the parking lot because the lights are so bright, so itís a problem in both directions.

Mr. Galster said those lights have changed over time. Iíve heard that the Building Department has talked to them about reflecting them but I donít know what the status of the resolution is. They are concerned about safety in their lot.

Ordinance 103-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Ordinance 11-2001 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Ordinance 12-2001 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Ordinance 13-2001 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Parham asked for an emergency clause.

Mr. Galster made a motion to add the emergency clause to Ordinance 14-2001 and Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Parham said for the last six years or so we have held the employee recognition and appreciation dinner for the employees of the City. Over the last year we have been fortunate enough to add Mr. Jeff Williams, the Finance Officer/Tax Commissioner to our staff and he has done a fine job. He has brought a great deal to the organization. His past is that of an auditor for the State of Ohio. As he began to examine our program it raised some concerns in his mind as to whether it was appropriate for the City to purchase alcoholic beverages for any particular function. As a result we asked Mr. Schneider to present us with a legal opinion. According to Mr. Schneider, because we are a charter community, we do have the ability if Council so desires, to make such purchases.

Mr. Schneider said we researched the subject at the request of the Administration and Clerkís office and determined that there is no law that would preclude the City from doing what itís been doing for a long time, spending money in this way. In consulting with the Stateís Auditorís Office, they made it quite clear that if they see expenditures for alcohol, they will make citations. Rather than take that on and have legal issues, it seemed a prudent way to handle that would be to make it quite clear on the record that this has been authorized by Council. It is within the authority of the Administration to spend monies in this manner because it is in the budget, but since the Auditor may want to raise an issue, the City can probably save money from defending a citation or trying to challenge the Auditor in making a finding against us. It is within the authority of the legislative body and we have that full authority within the Charter.

Mr. Vanover stated, if my memory serves me correctly, we have not been cited for this in the past. Is this a new audit law?

Mr. Schneider replied it is not a new law at all. Itís a policy that the Auditor feels is prudent. He is questioning whether the expenditure of money for public purpose can be spent on alcoholic beverages. There is no case law to support it.

Mr. Danbury said for the public, this is an event that we have held for the past six or seven years. Itís a time where the City recognizes the various people who have contributed to the City over the years. Itís an appreciation dinner and a way for the different departments to intermingle and have fun. This is not necessarily a party. Itís an appreciation dinner.

Mr. Knox said Mr. Danbury hit it right on the head. This is a sit down dinner and for awards mostly. I personally get resentful when the people who administer the law, start making the law themselves because as Mr. Schneider has said, there is nothing in the law that says this. I think that by doing this we can avoid any further problems, but itís one of those things Iíd like to see us fight, but in this manner we wouldnít have to.

Mr. Squires asked, is this something recent that the Auditor is doing or is it just this Auditor?

Mr. Schneider replied I donít know for how long but I know several communities in the State of Ohio have been cited. How many and how long I donít know. It was called to my attention and we contacted the Auditorís office directly without telling them who we were or where we were from, and determined that they have a set policy in this regard which suggests that the prudent course of action be to short-circuit it rather than fight it.

Mr. Squires asked can the citations be backed up if there is no law to back them up?

Mr. Schneider responded he has some authority in his office to determine what he thinks expenditures under public policy and public health, welfare and public benefit. There may be some things that come down that are weird, odd, etc. and he has to be able to make a determination. The expenditure of funds for alcoholic beverages seemed to be questionable and heís going to challenge it.

Mr. Parham said just for clarification, we have not been cited for this. This was Mr. Williams doing what we asked him to do; that is, if he recognizes things that raise red flags, bring them to our attention. As Mr. Williams was examining it, he had concerns and brought it to our attention. We then went back to the Law Director to find out if it was appropriate or inappropriate, and if it was inappropriate, were there other mechanisms of how we can provide this opportunity for our employees. What we have here tonight provides that opportunity. The legislation does make reference to the annual employee celebration but this ordinance is more for general events that Council deems an appropriate event for these types of expenditures. Our event will be March 10 which is why we have this before you this evening.

Ms. Pollitt asked Mr. Schneider, the fact that we are a charter city makes all the difference in the world in this, doesnít it?

Mr. Schneider replied that makes it abundantly clear that we have the full authority without limitation. It probably is a basis for a statutory city to challenge the Auditor on this also.

Ms. Pollitt responded I know as a State employee, we are not able to purchase alcoholic beverages with state funds and Iím sure thatís where Mr. Williams is getting that. If we have an employee dinner and awards night it has to be a cash bar. This is a very good ordinance that will safeguard us from that.

Mr. Knox said Section 3 will be amended to read, "This ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare and shall be effective immediately upon its passage. The reason for said declaration of emergency is to have this ordinance take effect at the earliest possible date."

Ordinance 14-2001 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Parham said the bridge replacement at Ross Park is part of our 2001 budget. The park was developed around the early 1960s and since then, the most we have done to the parking lot is slurry seal it. We never have overlaid that lot, and the bridge has been deteriorating over the years. We think it is a necessity to replace the bridge. We budgeted $170,000 this year; $149,000 for the replacement for the bridge and $21,000 for the parking lot and basketball court resurfacing.

Ms. Pollitt asked what are you going to be doing to the bridge area, Mr. Shuler? I donít understand the hydraulic part.

Mr. Shuler replied the hydraulic analysis is a study that we will be doing of the stream before we actually redesign that bridge so that we can assure ourselves that we will have proper flow through and under that bridge when weíre done. We are going to upgrade that crossing. Right now it is a series of pipes that cause a maintenance problem because they plug with debris which forces the water up, over and around, cutting off use of that parking lot. We will try to design a structure there that will allow us to cross that stream with vehicles up to what would normally be considered the hundred year storm event. We will be replacing that with either a con-span which is a pre-cast section that will have a single opening rather than multiple openings, which will cut down on future maintenance costs as well as prolong the life and serviceability of that area. It also will give us a greater degree of safety protection for any vehicles that may be in that parking lot when we would have a storm event and may get trapped over there. We will also be raising the elevation of that bridge somewhat so that you are not going down through a dip and then back up into the parking lot.

Ordinance 15-2001 passed with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. Danbury said I just want to thank the Community Center staff and Youth Boosters for the event they had a couple of weeks ago with Marty Brenneman. It was a great showcase for everyone and I enjoyed it.



Capital Improvements (Streetscape) - March 5, 7 p.m.




Walnut and Pear Street Improvements - March 7

Council adjourned at 8:18 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,




Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Kathy McNear, President of Council



__________________________, 2001