President of Council Kathy McNear called Council to order on April 5, 2000, 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 Danbury, Galster, Pollitt, Squires, Vanover, Wilson and McNear.

The minutes of March 15, 2000 were approved with seven affirmative votes.


"Dear Council: Across the country, the relationships between the police and citizens are strained Ė even to the breaking point in some cities. Right now, it seems as through the police can do very little that is right. But in the City of Springdale, I am proud to say that the police can do something right. While leaving to go to work several weeks ago, I was unfortunate enough to lock myself out of my home. Luckily, I discovered the mistake before I pulled out of my garage. Had I left the garage, I would have been locked out of that as well. About 40 minutes passed as I tried, unsuccessfully, to pick my lock. I was completely stressed and on the verge of tears when I thought of the Springdale police. I was lucky enough to have my cell phone in my purse and called the department. Within several minutes a police car pulled up to my home and Lt. David Koonce stepped out. I offered my hand and explained my situation. His firm handshake and smile had a calming effect as I explained that my husband was out of town and that I got caught not having a spare key to the house. Itís funny. We have four vehicles and I have spare keys to all of them. But not to the house. It was a lesson learned the hard way.

Lt. Koonce had me back into my home in minutes. He even talked to me about taking self-defense courses sponsored by the police department. He was incredibly kind, extremely professional and exceptionally soothing and consoling. He is not only a credit to our police department, he is a credit to our city. Nice work, Lt. Koonce. Sincerely, Ashley Young, Director of Communications, Cincinnati Area American Red Cross and Springdale citizen"


Introduction of new Finance Officer/Tax Commissioner

Mr. Knox said Ordinance 29-2000 on the agenda tonight is to confirm Mr. Williamsí appointment. He began work on Monday. I have his resume and background check if anyone would like to see it. Mr. Knox introduced Jeffrey T. Williams, who came from the State Auditorís office.

Presentation Ė Charter Revision Committee Recommendations

Mr. Schneider said everyone has received a copy of the proposed amendments to the proposed revisions in the Charter. In paragraph F of Article VII, there was consideration given in the third paragraph to changing $1,000 to $3,000. We checked into that and cannot do that. The State statute is controlling there. I have suggested that the pursuit there is with the State Legislators. Iím sure there would be a lot of support from a lot of other cities throughout the State.

Mrs. McNear asked if Council should do a resolution.

Mr. Knox said I was going to propose that I contact the State Senator and Representative plus the people who are running for office, but a resolution would be much better.

Mr. Schneider said there is one other change in that section. Ed, I need your assistance with that one.

Mr. Schneider said Executive Article III Ė Clerk of Council/Finance Director has been modified to provide for a successor to the Clerk of Council/Finance Director. The committee has reviewed a lot of alternatives and felt that in the absence or disability of the Clerk of Council/Finance Director, a member of Council appointed by the majority of Council will be the Acting Clerk of Council/Finance Director. If the position is not filled and performed for a period of sixty days, then that position is vacant. In Article IX, paragraph C, a vacancy is defined as "an office shall be deemed vacant in any event after sixty consecutive days of inactivity as to the duties by the incumbent unless Council grants leave of absence status to the incumbent within the period of inactivity.

Mr. Danbury said in the absence of the Clerk of Council/Finance Director, it should be a member of Council. That person would still be on Council and hold a dual role. In the event of a tie would the Mayor be the tie breaker or appoint someone?

Mr. Schneider replied the Mayor would appoint someone if the Council does not fill the appointment of the vacancy. At their next meeting following the vacancy that is a Mayoral appointment. There is no provision for the Mayor breaking a tie. Itís strictly for Council to determine. If Candidate A doesnít get a majority, you better look at Candidate B. If it persists for sixty days the Mayor will make the appointment permanently.

Mayor Webster asked would the Mayor fill the appointment with anyone who is qualified or would it have to be an elected official?

Mr. Schneider replied there is no limitation on the appointment by the Mayor.

Mr. Galster said the vacancy section states the appointment is until the next general election.

Mr. Knox said the other addition is in the fourth paragraph. At the end of the second line, it has added the parenthetical statement, "which is presently $5,000."

Mr. Schneider said the $5,000 should be $15,000.

Mayor Webster said this paragraph automatically changes when the Ohio Revised Code changes. Why wouldnít we use that same language in the previous paragraph so we donít have to change the Charter if we are successful in getting the State Legislature to address this?

Mr. Schneider responded thatís probably a good suggestion. The next item is the Planning Commission appointment. Itís putting into the Charter the wording we have for the Board of Zoning Appeals appointment. The change would be "seven members who shall be electors of the municipality, two of the members shall be members of Municipal Council, one of whom shall be elected to Council at large and one of whom shall be elected from one of the districts." We are modifying that so that it is clear. It did not have clarity and we ran into a problem at the beginning of this term. It functioned this way but it makes it clear if we reword it exactly as the Zoning Board is worded. Charter Revision Committee is recommending that you make that change as outlined here.

Mr. Vanover asked have they addressed the issue of realigning the responsibility of redistricting?

Mr. Schneider replied they are still reviewing that. There are federal census issues involved as to what the requirements are to the Board of Elections. Theyíll need additional time to finish their review and ask us to draft a document for consideration. My understanding is that they intend to do that after the next election.

Mayor Webster said I also attended the Charter Revision meeting and they are going to delay any decision on that until after they get the final number from the next election. The only problem is I was hoping they would address the language on who does the redistricting and change some of the shalls to may. Right now Council is really hamstrung on what they can and canít do with the Charter. I think Council should have more leeway than they have. If they recommend a change it would have to be at the primary election next year.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. Schneider what is the next step?

Mr. Schneider responded I have to redraft the one. August is the timing to get on the November ballot. We will have to pass an ordinance before that date to authorize each issue to go on the ballot. We can bring the ordinances in in May.

Presentation Ė Leaf Vacuum Program - Dave Butsch

Mayor Webster said I asked Cecil and Dave to pull together some numbers and present this to Council. If there was one service I heard requested last fall as I was going through the neighborhoods, it was a leaf collection program. We looked at this several years ago and the cost was prohibitive. Mr. Butsch is to be commended on what heís pulled together. I donít think itís quite as prohibitive but itís not cheap. Itís going to be a program that will require a lot of management, some capital outlay and some ongoing operation cost. I think itís really needed, especially in some areas of our City. We spend a lot of money on our forestry program. As those trees grow and mature, they will produce more leaves and I think we need to seriously consider a program like this.

Mr. Osborn said Daveís presentation will include the costs for two different approaches to starting a program. One would be a proposal that we start a pilot program where we pick a portion of the community and target that as our test area, and only buy sufficient equipment to provide the service to this test area. A major factor in this long term will be manpower. Based on the experience in other communities weíre not quite certain how we would be able to staff this without fulltime people. We want to try to use a combination of full-time and temporary if we go to a full-fledged program. We will show you numbers that will allow us to start this on a pilot basis but still accomplish probably half the City. The numbers will also be given to you for a program that would be capable of providing the service to the entire City. My only reservation about doing that is that we would have to add full-time people to reach that level of service. I would encourage Council to look at the information and give some consideration to the initial step of just buying sufficient equipment to provide the service on a limited basis so we can test our assumptions here about costs and how far we can get with the available manpower. David has a very good powerpoint presentation that summarizes his use of data from other cities to calculate how we can establish a program here in Springdale.

Dave Butsch gave a presentation on the program. Mr. Butsch said to estimate our best guess of how much leaves we would have based on other cities, I took the cubic yards of other cities and their square miles and divided it to get cubic yards per square mile. I took the nine cities, divided the cubic yards per square mile and arrived at an average number. Then I took the area of Springdale, approximately five square miles, multiplied it by the average per square mile that we obtained from this information and I arrived at just short of 7,000 cubic yards of leaves. In that Springdale has a large commercial base and areas that would be handled by the commercial businesses, I arbitrarily took a number between 15 and 20% and came up with 17.5% and subtracted that out. I came up with 5,800 cubic yards for Springdale.

The next problem would be disposal and everybody seems to have a place to go with the leaves. We could open an EPA registered compost facility. EPA is pretty touchy on their requirements. You would have to turn it and have the equipment to do that, to mulch and give it away to the residents. Itís a labor intensive program. Another option is to take it to businesses that will take it. The costs vary from $10 to $75 per load.

Mr. Butsch said the pilot program would require the use of two dump trucks which we currently have available, the purchase of two leaf machines, and four persons to staff the trucks, which would require a minimum of two full-time personnel with the possibility of using two temporary persons. The dump trucks require CDL licenses and based on where they will have to drive, I wouldnít recommend anything other than a full-time employee with a CDL license driving out of the City at all.

Mr. Osborn said we are showing two leaf machines but one is a back up. We have a very limited window to pick up all of these leaves and if a machine goes down we canít let it sit for two or three days. Also, the leaf machines are relatively inexpensive compared to the rest of the program.

Mr. Butsch said one will fill up and go to the dump. The other will immediately hook up and continue on. When the first one gets back they will rotate again. We may even have to cycle in a third truck but we have that truck available if we need to. The leaf machine is a unique item and you canít rent it. We might be able to borrow one from another city in a pinch. It is a high maintenance item. Rocks, bottles, cans, sticks, etc. that get sucked up in there take their toll on the machine. It runs constantly at high speed all day long.

Mr. Butsch said to do a City wide program would require 4 dump trucks, 3 leaf machines, 8 persons Ė 4 full-time and 4 temporary. If we went this route we have four big trucks. To continue the wood chipping program we would have to purchase another truck and that would not leave any back ups at all. Through the month of October we offer the large dump trucks in the debris removal program. The option at that point was to stop the program the first of October instead of the first of November which would free the two dump trucks for this operation.

The cost would be $15,000 each for the leaf machines; $4,800 to buy two leaf boxes, less if we made them in-house; dumping fees based on Grailville fees would be $2,500; labor at $7,500 and miscellaneous (tools and fuel) at $3,000. The total cost would be $47,800. This does not include full-time salaries. We have tried using temporary people several years ago and did not have much luck. Other cities have had retired employees come back and help them out. Blue Ash uses permanent part-time people. Glendale has advertised for part-time people the last two years and received none. Of the $3,000 under miscellaneous, $2,700 is for fuel. That does not consider wear and tear on the vehicle, 5,000 to 6,000 more miles per year. We currently get twelve or thirteen years out of our big trucks and this will double the mileage on our trucks and decrease the service life.

The city-wide program would require 3 leaf machines, 4 leaf boxes, 4 temporary persons, an additional dump truck and miscellaneous costs (fuel, tools) at a cost of $130,730. This cost does not include full-time employeesí salaries or the hiring of additional personnel.

Current fall services we have are the debris removal program (year round); holiday decorations (4 man job for the entire month of November); chipper program; grass cutting and fall landscaping; tree planting program; snow removal.

Mr. Butsch said the comments we received from other cities were: leaves get into the sewers and clog the inlets; leaf dust on cars; leaves kill the grass; sticks and other debris mixed in with leaves; takes so many people other services shut down; machine related problems, high maintenance equipment.

Mayor Webster said if we do the whole city-wide program itís a total of $130,000. Itís not $130,000 plus $47,000 if we do the pilot program first. If we want to run the city-wide program we would have to add two additional people. That sounds like overkill for an eight-week program, but if you look at the Capital Improvements budget we are showing two additional personnel coming on in the Maintenance Department, one in 2001 and one in the future. I think Dave has given a very honest, unbiased presentation. I think he tried to point out some of the problems and pitfalls that other cities had with the program, but this does come with the whole-hearted endorsement of the Administration.

Mr. Danbury said the capital costs for the leaf machines is $45,000. How quickly do they depreciate?

Mr. Butsch replied most cities get ten to fifteen years out of them.

Mr. Danbury said when we were talking about this before, one of the most common things we heard, a lot of communities said the residents love it but the cities said once they got into it, it was very difficult to get out because the people got used to it. Some of the problems associated with this are clogging of the catch basins. That would take other personnel off of necessary road improvements or snow removal, etc. to unclog the catch basins. Another issue is trees will drop their leaves at different times. In Heritage Hill we have a parking problem. A lot of people work different shifts or just leave a car out there. Thatís a big problem I see with us doing a program like this. I personally think it would be a great program for the citizens but I think we have a lot of potential problems if we were to try to implement it. Someone may be on vacation the week their leaves are supposed to be picked up so they blow theirs out the week before. They go in the street and fly everywhere else. I think the parked cars are going to be a major problem. To do this City-wide is $130,000. The ongoing costs are $15,000 for employees, dumping, fuel, and wear and tear on the machines.

Mr. Butsch said the ongoing costs would be $17,600 to $26,100. If we would need to dump at the Rumpke facility, the figures would be between $41,600 and $60,000 per year.

Mr. Danbury asked have you figured out how to address the issue of parked cars?

Mr. Butsch said I think that was the point the Mayor brought up with the pilot program. We could do that with the personnel in-house. If we decide this isnít going to work we could probably get rid of our leaf machines to other communities.

Mrs. McNear asked do you have a recommendation for which area you would want to use for the pilot program?

Mr. Butsch replied probably The Terrace and possibly Cloverdale. Again, it could be The Terrace or Heritage Hill. The streets in Beacon/Oxford Hills are a little wider. I donít think it would be as much of an issue.

Mr. Vanover said there could be safety issues with children playing near the street. Whatís the difference in the efficiency of the machine with wet leaves versus dry leaves?

Mr. Butsch responded wet leaves will lay down easier. Frozen leaves are somewhat of an issue. Wet leaves Ė lot less dust.

Mr. Vanover asked what about the wear and tear on the equipment?

Mr. Butsch said if thereís a light snow you can handle it. If itís a heavy snow and the temperature drops enough it will ice the inside of the machine.

Ms. Pollitt said $10 to $75 is a large discrepancy in the cost to dump per load? Is there any possibility that Grailville or Hafner and Sons would refuse to accept our leaves and we would have to go to a more expensive dumping area?

Mr. Butsch replied thatís always a possibility. Right now, Grailville and the other location have been accepting them for years. They process them, regrind them, and sell them as mulch.

Ms. Pollitt said you talked about the dump trucks. Could you suspend the wood chipper during the leaf pick up time or would that create a hardship?

Mr. Butsch answered having had the wood chipper service for the last thirty years, that might.

Ms. Pollitt said I wonder if they would be willing to do away with the wood chipper for two months in order to have both services.

Mr. Butsch replied thatís a possibility. I donít know if I could recommend that at that time of the year. People do a lot of trimming at that time of year.

Ms. Pollitt said say we did go with a city-wide program. Would it be similar as we do with the chipper?

Mr. Butsch answered until we established a track record I donít know what time span it would take to go through an area.

Ms. Pollitt said I was afraid some of the residents might be late and you had made your final sweep of the neighborhood.

Mr. Butsch replied thatís always a possibility. It sometimes happens with the wood chipper. At one time we were running all over the City making pick ups but weíve pretty much stopped that. We spent more hours picking up less material.

Mr. Osborn said Iíd like to address some of the questions that were brought up. I think we have to emphasize that we canít schedule this like the chipper because the leaves do fall at the same time all over the City. All of the residents would be expecting the same level of service. We can schedule the chipper because it is more of a volunteer program. People can schedule when they trim their trees according to our chipper schedule. Again, given the variables for the leaf fall, we may have to make two cycles through the City some years, maybe more than that because they are falling over a slow period of time. As David said, sometimes youíll get a major leaf fall and theyíll all come off in a very short period of time. We may have to make only one cycle through the City but there will be a ton of work to pick up on that one cycle. For us having no program to base it on, itís hard to predict how many cycles we would have to make through the City and the timeframe, etc. Thatís another reason we are encouraging the use of a pilot program approach.

Mr. Osborn said in some other jurisdictions they suspend all other activities and devote all their people to leaf pick up. As much as residents want this, I donít think they want us to stop the chipper program or stop putting up Christmas decorations or planting new trees or all the other things we do in the fall. I suggest that if we try to do this program, that we try to do it without having to sacrifice other programs. The manpower that we have been referring to on the pilot program we feel we can borrow from the Parks Department if the seasonal or temporary employees donít become available to us. We are bringing you our best estimate on some of these things. While weíve pointed out some of the pitfalls to this, they are being presented to you, not as a way of suggesting this program shouldnít be accomplished, but rather to present a realistic picture of what we have to deal with. We want to try to make this program work.

On the cost figures you see, we had to make a decision whether to include the current full-time salaries or just the new cost. We decided to show you just the new cost, not the cost for personnel we already have on staff. Weíre suggesting we can run the pilot program with two seasonal personnel. If that doesnít happen we can borrow some people internally without giving up anything. The Parks Department could probably spin off two people for two months. They have work that they have to do in the fall too as they have to re-grade all the fields. We decided to leave that cost off the summary because, although in the full-time program we are recommending two additional people, we donít want to load up the annual cost of this program with an annual salary for those two people. There are other justifications that we already intend to bring to you for at least the first of those personnel. A few years ago we used to have a very active work release program through the courts. Weíd get thousands of hours a year through work release. We hardly have any work release hours anymore. We used to say we would only put a full-time maintenance worker on overtime on the weekends if we had three or more personnel. We wouldnít call a second one in until we got up to six people, etc. We have had to change that to two. If we can get two people on a Saturday, we will bring a person in to work them. We still are not seeing that turnout that we used to and it was free labor. Given the continuing growth in the workload and the decline in that program, we had already intended to come to you for an additional person. We didnít feel it was fair to burden this proposal with that additional cost but we want to make you aware that we donít think we could do this program without two additional people to add to the work force.

Mr. Vanover asked have you heard of any other sites opening up to take the leaves?

Mr. Butsch replied everybody seems to have their own little spot and they donít want to share it. Blue Ash was dumping locally in Blue Ash and now I think they have to truck it a few miles away. If there are other places Iím not aware of them.

Mayor Webster said Dave has included a pamphlet from Greenhills and they have a schedule. It would probably be impossible for us to do this the first year. Even beyond that it will depend on the weather and whether all of them drop at once. We could lay out a schedule and say this is what we hope to accomplish. Once we got to this point the chipper program could be dovetailed in here.

Mr. Danbury said if we were to go into this, I think we would have to establish a barometer for success. Blue Ash uses 50% of their department for a full two months. This will tax or eliminate some of the other functions our Street Service people do. I look back at some of the problems weíve had such as with catch basins and the flooding in some of the basements. This would hurt that and also tax our Fire Department because they will be out there pumping out basements. We will have people who love this program but it may be at what cost. It may be impacting more people in a negative way. It may cost us more than what we are looking at on paper, just with man hours and problems.

Mr. Galster asked, Mr. Butsch, if you have a car parked on the street, how much time are talking about blocking the road in order to go by two or three houses?

Mr. Butsch stated you would have to pull around to the next driveway and actually push the leaves by hand all the way up to the chute itself.

Mr. Galster said you said our regular dump trucks that we use for snow plows are $35,000 apiece and their life span is going to be cut down from twelve years to six years.

Mr. Butsch responded they are $65,000 and their life span would be reduced. The mileage would be doubled.

Mr. Butsch also stated that for us to have a good chance of receiving the leaf machines and boxes they should be ordered by mid April. Everybody usually waits until the last minute to order replacements so they have an influx of requests for the boxes and the machine itself. Thatís probably the next stumbling block we would have.

Mayor Webster said weíre advocating a target area on a trial basis so we wouldnít add a dump truck under that scenario. So I donít think weíre holding a gun to your head and saying we need a decision tonight so we can order a truck. Once the program is concluded this year weíd have to evaluate it and get a truck on order if we decided to expand it to the whole City. So weíd have a couple of months to evaluate whether we want to go forward with the program or not. We do recommend starting this on a target basis. I donít think Council has to make a decision tonight. You have a copy of all the material Dave has presented. Take some time to look it over and maybe talk about it again at the next meeting.

Mr. Danbury asked are you asking for an ordinance at the next meeting?

Mayor Webster replied I think we just need the nod of Council that you want to go ahead with it. Then weíd get the specs.

Mr. Danbury said if we do the pilot program we would need $30,000 for the leaf machines.

Mayor Webster said thatís two separate purchase orders.


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

Mr. Danbury said in Exhibit A, under A, a, I was wondering if we could change "such a department", referring to the Police and Fire Departments, to "any City departments". If we were to go forward with this program Mr. Butsch just presented, under this law he could be cited if there was an emergency and he had to park his leaf machine in the right-of-way.

Mr. Schneider said we have specific departments listed that could be justified. We are trying to eliminate hazards in the right-of-way. The Fire Department may need to leave a pump there to pump basements out; the Police Department search lights. To justify the regulation for everybody else we have to be strong about making exceptions. If weíre making an exception for any department at any time and anybody who works for the City goes free, weíve violated the law and weíre not going to be able to uphold it against anyone else. If we need to broaden it for a specific purpose because they are likely in their function of health and safety to leave something in the right-of-way. These are the only ones that weíve come up with that need to leave something in the public right-of-way in performing a service. I donít think we need to leave a leaf pick-up unit in the public right of way.

Ordinance 18-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


Ms. Pollitt made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded. Ordinance 19-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said this project involves the reconstruction of the street system south of the Municipal Building in our urban renewal area. It will bring about the total repair and replacement of Walnut Street and Pear Street with new concrete curbs and street cross section with full-depth asphalt. In addition to the curb and new street system, we will also construct sidewalks in the area and a bus pull off area for the elementary school. The estimated cost for the project is $210,000. We do have a grant of $105, 000 through the Hamilton County Community Development Block Grant Program. The timing is a little protracted because we need to work around the school schedule. We donít want to be tearing up the street while school is in session. We will be doing some utility relocation during the school year but in order to capture the best construction period we anticipate finishing the design on this project by July of this year. We would then do some utility relocation in the fall and advertise for bids in February 2001, open bids in March 2001 and award the contract in April. We would then do the construction during the summer months while school is out of session.

Ordinance 20-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said this engineering service relates to the relocation of a water main that is associated with the grade separation project. The actual cost for the relocation and replacement of the water main is already integrated into the cost of the grade separation itself so there would not be any direct cost to the City for the construction. This is a pass through cost for the design. The sister ordinance that will be read next will allow us to enter into a contract with Water Works and they will pay us the $24,800 we are paying our engineer to design the work. Weíre doing this to expedite the design process for the grade separation.

Ordinance 21-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. Squires made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded. Ordinance 22-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said the next two ordinances combined deal with the right-of-way on McClellanís Lane, which is being vacated as a result of all the properties being acquired by Costco to develop their facility. This first piece of legislation deals with the existing right-of-way north of the point where the church property stops on McClellanís Lane. The vacation is pretty typical with the exception that we are reserving an easement for a storm sewer. The drawing in your exhibit represents the north end of the street and the hashed out area you see there is a storm sewer easement which we are reserving. Ultimately we will convey this storm sewer easement to Costco once they complete all of their improvements for the detention facility. In order to have the easement to support that detention facility, we needed to make that reservation.

Ordinance 23-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said this is the piece that has complicated this particular vacation to the greatest extent. This has been on your pending legislation list for two months at least. The problem we have run into is that the church property is changing hands and we believe we know how it is going to be reused and weíve had discussions with the potential purchaser and developer. But in order to retain the Cityís capacity for managing the curb cuts, not only on Kemper Road but also the future driveway that will be built by Costco, we need to retain our right-of-way interest in this portion of McClellanís Lane. In order to allow the Costco project to go forward, we are proposing to issue a license to Costco that will allow them to make the improvements as shown on their site development plan of January 21, 2000 but reserving to the City the right to vacate the right-of-way at any time we choose. We are trying to allow the development on the church property to mature more so we have a better idea of how itís going to be developed, what the curb cut issues are going to be. We think those have all been worked out but we donít want to give away the right-of-way and then find out that deal fell through and find out we have to go through the discussions again with less authority than we do right now. Weíd be giving up some of our clout if we give away this right-of-way at this point. Weíd like to issue a license to Costco to go ahead with their project and build it on the right-of-way and we would have sole discretion over when the agreement terminates and we would do that by vacating the right-of-way.

Mr. Shuler said my copy has extra pages attached. So that there is no confusion later, attached to the ordinance should be a licensing agreement and a drawing representing the area where the licensing agreement is and a legal description. My copy also has attached a memo and a legal description from the last ordinance. The last three pages should be removed.

Ordinance 24-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Ms. Pollitt seconded.

Mr. Schneider said if you turn to the first attachment in the upper right hand corner youíll see changes. The underlined portions are additions and the etched out portions are deletions.

Mr. Osborn said as I explained in the legislative update, this is a revision to the ordinance we adopted in 1996. At that time we had a consultant working with us to project out the impact of the regulations as it applies to our City given the location of liquor license holders and the location of residential properties, churches, etc. During the course of that exercise there was an error made on the map and we had to go back and reduce the setback number that was in the ordinance and totally remove the reference to the setback from a liquor license permit location. Last month as Mr. McErlane was looking at this ordinance, he found the error on the map and brought it to my attention. We then asked the City Engineerís office to work with the Law Directorís office and take the standards and see what the actual impact was. We found that it was significantly less than what the Cityís intention had been. We then asked the Engineerís office to work with the Law Directorís office and try to restore as many of the original criteria as we could. We were able to put it all back. The primary changes are we have increased the setback distance from protected locations or from liquor license permit locations or other sexually oriented businesses from 450 feet to 800 feet. We also restored the reference to a liquor license permit location and have put that setback at 800 feet. The ordinance before you this evening is to try to correct an error we found and try to cause the ordinance to be consistent with the original intention of the ordinance adopted in 1996 before we made the changes I just described to you. I encourage you to give this favorable consideration.

Ordinance 25-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Schneider said you can throw away the attachment that says changes now. The second attachment is a clean face for your ordinance.


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

Mr. Vanover asked for a thumbnail on the necessity of this.

Mr. Parham said if you recall, earlier we came to you for an ordinance in the amount $54,833, with $50,000 of that being for the unsuitable soil under the gymnasium. I have reported on at least one other occasion that that $50,000 plus an additional $18,000 was the number that we were holding as our position for a total of $68,000. We had offered to Mardis and Meehan that if they would come back with additional information relative to their number ($174,000) that we would consider adjusting our numbers. Mr. Osborn, the architect staff and I met with members of Mardis and Meehan. They made a presentation to us relative to their position on the numbers here. The rates that were used as part of the original bid process were inserted anticipating a smaller quantity of soil to be removed. The quantity of soil came back with extreme numbers. They had to employ a second contractor to remove that soil. We took a look at their cost for removing that soil. The difference was $20,002. We thought to take a fair position with the contractor and to move this issue off the books we would recommend that we adjust the numbers. This $39,345 covers the cost of that additional contractor coming in and removing the soil plus their bond fee they are required to pay. We ask that Council consider this legislation favorably.

Mr. Galster asked are there any other issues separate from this?

Mr. Parham replied there is the extremely large issue of the welding procedure. They have presented a number of $47,000 and want us to consider paying for a portion if not all of that. We are re-evaluating that as we did with this particular issue. There are small things that come up constantly. We know there will be additional soil removals. As a part of agreeing to this number we have also required that the originals that were in the original bid be used. When we know what the quantity is we can apply the rates and weíll know the number.

Mr. Osborn said I think this was a good faith misunderstanding on the part of both parties. That spec document for this project is very complex. There are several locations where line item costs are cited for earth removal. The unfortunate part is when this soil condition was encountered last spring, we were at a very critical point in the construction. This was under the slab for the gymnasium and we needed to keep the project on pace. The contractor and City said take out the material and keep track of the volume and weíll work out the cost as we go along. They looked at one part of the specification and picked out a number and we felt it was a different number. It was not a matter of the contractor taking advantage of the situation. I think they legitimately felt they were pricing this under a part of the contract when they put their numbers together. Through the negotiation process we were able to resolve it with a comparably minor change order. I think they tried to be fair with us and although it was a bone of contention with us for a long time, I think both parties worked at trying to resolve it. There are other issues pending and we have not attempted to tie this one to any other because we felt we could resolve this one. Some of the others may not be so easily resolved. We wanted to get this one resolved before we got to some that may be a point of impasse.

Ordinance 26-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Ms. Pollitt seconded.

Ms. Pollitt said we went over the compensation issue and also housekeeping. We reviewed compensation to all boards and commissions and after much discussion decided we would leave the compensation as it is and not increase it at this time.

Ordinance 27-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


First reading.


Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded. Ordinance 29-2000 passed with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. Galster made a motion to withdraw. Mr. Danbury seconded. The resolution was dropped.


Mr. Knox said at the last meeting I asked Council if I should contact the Chief of Police about permit renewal objections. I did contact Chief Laage and he said there is no place in the City that they object to having permits. He also pointed out that they have rigorously enforced the ordinances of the City and the Ohio Revised Code and have cited some places for underage drinking.

Mr. Schneider said I need to make two comments on Charter Revision. In Article VII, Section F, in the fourth paragraph it refers to $5,000. Thatís not the bidding amount. Thatís the $5,000 appropriated and authorized and that is correct at $5,000, not $15,000. The $15,000 is provided for on page 4 by our reference to Section 703 of the code. On page two, the first full paragraph starts out "In addition to providing the certification for expenditures". That paragraph is an addition in its entirety and itís a paragraph that has been set out by the Auditor of State as acceptable wording for a Charter city to put in relative to certifying monies available in excess of $5,000, provided the monies have been appropriated and are available in the accounts and the Clerk of Council/Finance Director certifies that the sum of money is lawfully appropriated, authorized or directed for permitted purposes. It sets out in the middle of the paragraph that specific purposes are defined as recurring and reasonably predictable operating expenses of the City. It lists about 10-12 items. We were advised that the Clerkís office and the Tax Commissionerís office would run much smoother if we put that in and it has been cleared by the State Auditor as acceptable.

Mr. Knox said the reason I didnít bring it to your attention is that weíve actually been doing it because it is totally legal. It just wasnít in the Charter. We have requested that this be codified and made part of the Charter.

Mr. Osborn asked what is this paragraph doing for us?

Mr. Knox replied it is the size of the open requisitions. Weíre allowing for the larger figure of $5,000.

Mr. Osborn said as of April 4 Springdale residents have returned 66% of their census forms. The goal for Springdale by the Census Program is 82%. Hamilton County has a 61% return, State of Ohio, 62% and United States, 55%. Looking at other jurisdictions in Hamilton County Iíd say weíre right in the middle. The highest number I see is 75% and the lowest is 55%. I would encourage anyone who has not returned his/her census information to do so. It is incredibly important that we not be undercounted. It has a dramatic affect on our ability to get federal funds, and also state funds that are related to population. In the event that you have misplaced your census form, we have census forms here at the building and they are available at the libraries.

Mr. Danbury said IĎd like to respond to the letter Mr. Osborn sent out to the residents. It was a very well written letter dealing with the possible tax petition. I would encourage everyone who gets it to talk to other people, not only in your neighborhood, but work, church, whatever. This not only affects Springdale; it affects everybody. If you have any questions contact one of us or the City. Itís very important that people read it and understand it.

Mr. Parham said we have a start date of May 1 for the Cameron Park equipment. The completion date is mid to the end of May.

Ms. Pollitt asked do you know what criteria they use for sending the long form? I have a neighbor who did not want to complete the long form. Can she come up and pick up a short form?

Mr. Osborn replied I donít know how they select those folks. There must be some mechanism for somebody who objects to all that detail to do the short form. You could have the person call Martha Brillhart. Sheís our coordinator for our local census activities. We provide a place here in the building for census personnel to be recruited and later to be trained so Martha has a fairly good connection with the local census director. Iím sure she can get that answer for you and if anyone else should have a question, he/she should contact Martha Brillhart. The long form this year is shorter than it has been in the past. I think there is a greater reluctance on the part of society today to disclose personal information. In some cases you have to wonder what is the value of the information being collected.

Mr. Knox said Ms. Pollitt and I were discussing the possible tax petition after the last meeting and she suggested that we send copies to the surrounding communities so with Councilís consent I will do that and they can possibly go forward.


Mr. Parham said on March 29 we opened bids for the selectorized strength training equipment. There were five bidders. The bids were as follows:

Bidder Bid Trade In Net Bid

Nautilus $42,496 $ 6,700 $35,796

Cybex $43,020 $ 2,000 $41,020

Omni Fitness $40,250 $ 2,000 $38,250

Magnum $35,134 0 $35,134

Body Masters - had no bid bond and was not considered.

Mr. Parham said the Recreation staff and I will be visiting the two low biddersí sites to examine the equipment. We are familiar with Nautilus; thatís what we have in our current center. We are unfamiliar with Magnum Fitness Systems so weíre going to make a couple of road trips and talk to organizations that are currently using this equipment. We hope to have a recommendation and request for legislation at the next meeting with an emergency ordinance.

Mr. Parham said I placed in your mail bins this afternoon a memorandum outlining the 2000-2001 insurance renewal rates. United Medical Resources is our third party administrator. This year United Medical Resources came back with a slim increase of 10 cents in the administration of dental claims. The medical and other smaller items remained the same. There is a federal program that requires that the City send certificates to the employees who left our employment. In our current agreement we pay UMR $1 per certificate. They are requesting $2 per certificate increase. I donít know how many we sent out in the past year. I canít imagine itís any more than twenty. The question is whether they have to send a certificate when a dependent leaves the program. Iíll get the rate information for you at the next meeting. With the re-insurance our current rates are $30 per month for single and $72.85 for a family. The renewal rates are $34 and $81 respectively, an increase of 13% for the single and 11% increase in family rates. There are specific amounts for the aggregate rate. Our specific amount is $25,000, a $25,000 deductible. Once it exceeds that the re-insurance kicks in. Thatís the stop loss or re-insurance rates. The aggregate amount is once you factor out the total number of employees, there is a factor that the insurance company will give you using the total families and total singles. Thatís the attachment point. The aggregate rate reflects the attachment point. Our worst case scenario, if you look on the first page, $618,264 from $558,862. Thatís the attachment point. Once it exceeds that number, the re-insurance kicks in. The re-insurer is the same organization as Iíve indicated in the memorandum. U. S. Benefits was bought out by a company by the name of HCC Benefits in September 1999. The $439,793 is as of March 29. We are anticipating that we will have at least four more payments remaining. Thatís been averaging about $40,000 a month so if you annualize that it would be $480,000, far below our attachment point. Right now the insurance market is hardening so they are not giving the breaks that they used to. Everyone has experienced an increase. Our increase is about 10%. Most are averaging 26%. I would like to request legislation at the next meeting for both the third party administrator and the re-insurance with emergency clauses.


Planning Commission April 11, 7 p.m.

Board of Health April 13, 7 p.m.

SYB Ė Opening Day Parade April 15, 2000, 9:00 a.m.

BZA April 18, 7 p.m.

Mayorís Night In April 24, 7 p.m.

Parks and Recreation May 2, 7 p.m.

Tim Garry will be attending in place of Ken Schneider April 19.



Compensation for elected officials April 19


Purchase of weight room equipment April 19

Contribution to Partnership for Gr. Cinti. April 19

Third Party Administration of Health Insurance April 19

Re-Insurance of Health Insurance April 19

Resolution for change in state purchase order amt April 19


Council adjourned at 9:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,




Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Kathy McNear, President of Council



__________________________, 2000