††††††††††† President of Council Kathy McNear called Council to order on April 6, 2005, 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 16, 2005 were approved with five affirmative votes.Mr. Danbury and Mr. Wilson abstained.




††††††††††† Mr. Knox read an e-mail from Sandi Taylor, 871 Summerfield Lane.ďIím not sure who to direct this note to, but I had the Cincinnati Enquirer at my home today to take photographs of the damage ODOT created when they came in unannounced for a soil analysis behind the Summerfield properties for sound barrier walls for a community which doesnít want them.


††††††††††† I want to get my message out to the community about the walls.This photographer was amazed at how little noise was present at my home in the backyard from the highway.However, when we approached the top of the hill (I have about a 45 degree embankment of earth at rear of property), there was the ďhighway noise.ĒI have lived in this home for over 19 years and have never complained of noise.We have an outdoor pool as well, and comfortably swim and enjoy conversations and music all summer, without an inability to hear one another.


However, if walls were to be erected, in my situation, that would literally push the noise right into my bedroom windows (two story home).The hill in our backyard shelters our home from a large majority of the noise.I am convinced the noise affecting residents on Summerfield (from halfway up the cul-de-sac all the way up the hill to Cincinnati Mills) would be severely compromised and actually have an increase in noise.If you have any doubts to my theory, please come visit me and I will show you first-hand that the walls are not the right solution to the current highway situation.This severe earthen embankment looks nice, preserves trees, and certainly should be considered as a possible solution.Unfortunately, ODOT might not have any financial incentive for anything other than a hideous, unsightly wall, but youíre talking about MY home and MY community, and I donít want to look like Lockland, Cross County Highway, Montgomery or West Chester.This is Springdale and it should be preserved.


††††††††††† And as a side note, how do you feel emotionally when driving down the interstate through a wall of tunnel?I donít enjoy my drives across town where I have to look at those unsightly structures.


††††††††††† I live at 871 Summerfield and welcome discussing this issue with you further.Ē


††††††††††† Mr. Knox read another e-mail from Wendi L. West, Knolls Condominiums.ďMy name is Wendi L. West and I am in support of the noise barriers.I live 20 yards from I-275 in The Knolls condominium complex.I deal with the noise day in and day out and welcome the opportunity for noise reduction.Not only would I appreciate the barriers in reducing the noise, the barriers would also help me in terms of resale for my condominium.Iíve met with representatives from ODOT in person and talked with them at length about the project and I feel that the noise barriers are a good thing.They are not an eyesore as have been described and would help those of us who made the decision to live near a major highway.Please support ODOT in this endeavor.


††††††††††† Ms. Pollitt said I had a communication from residents opposing the sound walls,Brett and Carol Marlar.I have it available if anyone would like to see it.


††††††††††† Mayor Webster said in addition to the phone call yesterday in support of the walls, I also have this letter which I believe was initially sent to The Enquirer.ďThis letter is in response to Kevin Aldridgeís comments in your March 25, 2005 edition regarding ďNeighbors Renew I-275 Wall Fight.ĒFirst, let me tell you that my family and I have resided in Springdale for over thirty years and my property backs up against I-275.Both Mr. Aldridge and Ms. Taylorís comments appeared to be biased against the proposed noise barrier walls.When we met with the Springdale Council and Mayor several years ago, the Council spoke first and voiced that they were against the walls.Also, in attendance were several residents of Springdale who favored the sound barriers but were defeated prior to open discussion, even with the knowledge of the benefits these walls would bring to our community.These benefits include an improved quality of life through noise reduction and an improved sense of security as they would create a barrier between our homes along I-275 and would-be intruders bent on vandalism and thievery.Surveys were sent twice to the residents along I-275 and the response was in favor of the sound barrier walls.The one survey cited in Mr. Alridgeís column showed a 67% favor rating among those who took the time to respond.To quote your article, State Transportation Officials sent surveys to 590 Springdale residents who live within 500 yards of the highway asking whether they favor the noise barriers.One-hundred sixty-two people responded to the survey, of which 109 said they favored the noise barrier.Now the City of Springdale will conduct its own survey asking all 11,000 residents to weigh in on the noise barriers according to Mr. Parham, Springdaleís Assistant City Administrator.Why should all the residents of Springdale have a voice in the walls that will only affect the property owners along I-275?This suggestion by Mr. Parham should be totally rejected.Furthermore, the property affected belongs to the State of Ohio and/or the Ohio Department of Transportation and they have the responsibility to maintain it.If the desire to construct a sixteen or twenty-foot wall, so be it.Ē


††††††††††† Mayor Webster said Mr. Parham was certainly acting on our behalf and itís totally unfair to take out your frustrations on Derrick.


††††††††††† Mayor Webster said I have another letter that reads, ďOn behalf of the Springdale Sailfish Swim Team I would like to thank you and the entire City Council for supporting a proposal allowing Glendale residents to join the Springdale pool this summer, thus allowing their participation on the swim team.We are hopeful that this proposal will help the swim team in both increased participation and revenue.Iíve already contacted the Administration in Glendale providing them with information about the team.We are a fortunate community in having the recreational facilities that we have and I understand that this alliance can have a positive financial impact.While there will be supporters and detractors of this decision, the City Administration has the obligation to do what it can to maintain the standards that residents of Springdale have come to expect.Please extend this thanks at the next Council meeting.I will follow up later in the season and let you know how much this has helped us.Sincerely, Russ Miller, Parent Board President of the Sailfish Swim TeamĒ


††††††††††† Mr. Knox said the letter Mayor Webster just read accurately quoted The Enquirer article that said 500 yards.It should have been 500 feet so if anyone wonders why they werenít included, that wasnít correct.


††††††††††† Mayor Webster said I have a lot to say about the walls.There was some confusion about whether it was 500 feet or 500 yards.It is 500 feet.Now comes another piece of information that was shared with me moments ago by Ms. Pollitt.The person who supports the walls says theyíve gone on the internet and looked up a regulation and itís really 660 instead of 500 feet.Hopefully, all of you have received this newsletter.We wanted to get it out around the first.The target was also to have the ODOT survey in the homeownersí hands by the 4th or 5th.We were told by ODOT that they would send those surveys to us along with the mailing labels and we would be responsible for mailing them out but the responses would go back to ODOT.We welcomed that opportunity because we wanted to look at the mailing labels to see how many of those were Springdale residents.Today we were told that they will mail them out themselves on Friday.However, they have taken it upon themselves to look through the mailing list to make sure it is proper and all Springdale people.There are 200 labels in there that are Forest Park people.So many of the 109 people who said they want a wall may not even live in Springdale.They donít know that and weíll never know that.Hopefully, the affected residents within 500 feet will get the surveys on Saturday or Monday.We urge everyone, regardless of how you feel, to please respond to that survey.Weíd like all residents to let us know how you feel.


††††††††††† Mr. Parham stated we had requested that they go through their mailing list to make sure it is Springdale residents only.I asked them to forward a copy of the list of addresses.They sent me a copy of the list.Out of 375 on the list, I have found fourteen not to be Springdale addresses, four additional are duplicate addresses.The true number is 357 surveys of impacted residents.They have agreed to remove any language referencing a berm.The issue is simply do you want walls?Our survey in the newsletter does not give a deadline either but we urge you to get those back in as quickly as possible.




Mr. Traut, resident, said Iím surprised there arenít more people in attendance.I received the newsletter and itís referencing the 1994 proposed project and this project.There is a distinct difference between those two projects and I would like Council to advise why these two projects are distinctly different and why one was basically open to all residents of Springdale and why this one is specific to the residents within 500 feet.Iíve never seen the 660.Regarding the articles that appeared in The Enquirer, I did contact The Enquirer as well after that article came out, advising them of a couple of the errors.†† There was also another article in the March 26th Enquirer that was submitted by the officials at the Ohio Department of Transportation.If you would like to read the article you are welcome to.The article basically states that the article from the 25th indicated that the expansion of I-275 could be in jeopardy based upon the results of the Springdale survey.This gentleman, Ron Mosby, said he wanted to clarify this.It basically states that the project is not in jeopardy, regardless of what Springdale City Council or the results are.I do have another question.You have been very adamant in indicating that you did not feel the 27.5 percent response rate from the prior vote was significant to represent the position of the affected Springdale residents.I would like to ask what level of participation is necessary in order for that vote to represent the impacted residents of Springdale.


††††††††††† Mayor Webster responded I all along have contended that I donít think itís right for 109 people to make a decision that affects all of us in the City of Springdale.Now I find out that the 109 figure is contaminated.Therefore, I canít answer your question, although if we can ensure that 350 is the right number to go out and 60 to 70% of the people respond in an affirmative manner, as far as Iím concerned itís a dead issue.If, in our survey, we get 500 people who are adamantly opposed to the wall, then I think we have a dilemma on our hands.In regulations that Iíve seen says that if the majority of the residents being polled by ODOT say they want the wall and this governing body votes no walls, that the federal government can withdraw the funding for the project.Would we do that?I canít imagine that we would.I donít think the Feds would do, regardless of what the regulation says.We have to wait and see the numbers.In 1994, ODOT had the funds to build the wall but there was never a survey that went out to the entire community.We advertised the fact that we could get federal funding and do the walls, ODOT made a presentation and Council Chambers was packed with people.The majority of the people said they didnít want the walls.


††††††††††† Mr. Traut said there is a difference in the types of the two projects.In 1994 you were dealing with a Tier 2 project, where noise abatement is an option.However, there is not going to be a substantial change in the highway.Today we are dealing with a Tier 1 project, where the noise abatement is being presented; however, it is based with a major change in the highway.That is why the residents within 500 feet are being surveyed and not the entire population of Springdale.


††††††††††† Mayor Webster replied and you expect us to adequately explain that to 10,500 people in the newsletter?I think we did a pretty good job in giving an unbiased report.


††††††††††† Mr. Traut said I donít want to get into an argument here but if we are going to present information from 1994, we should at least attempt to indicate to them what the difference is.Anybody that does not know the difference would say back in 1994 we did this.Today we are doing this.What is the difference?Without the explanation, nobody knows.Anybody who reads the minutes or catches this on public access can hopefully understand that there is a difference in these two projects.


††††††††††† Mr. Wilson stated we donít know what affect the decibel count would have on the residents over 500 feet away.If the noise barriers were constructed for the benefit of the residents 500 feet or less and it was an increase in decibel count for those over 500 feet away, would you still support that or expect us to?


††††††††††† Mr. Traut replied if you take a pool of water, put a barrier in the water and throw a rock in, waves will eventually reach the other side.The residents that are over 500 feet are going to have an increase in noise regardless if the walls are built or not.The problem that occurred along one section on I-71 in Montgomery, and this is what everybody likes to argue about, is that there was a stretch of roadway there where the walls were not built properly.That actually acted as an amplified and increased noise levels by five decibels.


††††††††††† Mr. Wilson said we have to deal with what will happen to the residents over 500 feet away as well as those less than 500 feet away.If they are going to be more adversely affected we have to consider them.No one has told us what that decibel count is even now. ††There is a good possibility that that decibel count would be increased tremendously because the noise would bounce over everything and land more than 500 feet away. Until I personally see some decibel counts and can see that it is not going to adversely affect residents over 500 feet away, then thatís a consideration.We serve all the residents, not just the ones within that 500 feet.


††††††††††† Ms. Pollitt said, Mr. Traut, when you talked about the impacted residents, I think all the residents of Springdale are impacted.When we decide an issue, I donít only consider the people living in that small area, I look at the entire population of Springdale.I think our survey will give us some direction on how we need to go.


††††††††††† Mr. Danbury said this is an issue that seems it isnít going to die.I have a friend who owns a restaurant by the railroad tracks in Glendale.I was there and a train came by.I asked doesnít that bother you?He replied you just get used to it.The impression that once these walls go up you are living in the middle of the country is false.Youíre still going to get noise.The people outside the 500 feet range are going to get it with an additional lane but do we need to intensify by putting up a wall.Thatís what we have heard over and over and over.By your own admission these walls are going to reflect.You were concerned that Forest Park was having walls on their side and if it absorbed as much as they said, you just made our point, that it is going to deflect it.The area where people have to deal with it will be larger and louder.I care about all the people in the City.††In 1994 we were told overwhelmingly that the people donít want the walls.Itís a hot issue.I support you and the way you feel.There is no right or wrong but as a Council person we have to look at the whole of the City. ††Would you rather look at trees or a wall that looks like a prison?


††††††††††† Mr. Knox said there are nine elected officials up here, seven of whom get to vote on this.The people donít want the sound walls.You can quote all the pseudo-science and junk that comes out of Washington that, in many cases, has gaping holes in it, but the people donít want the sound walls.


††††††††††† Mr. Vanover said my biggest problem with the science is getting the answers.On the north side west of Kenn Road there are three homes that back up to the walls that would not see any improvement from the walls.This is data that we got from ODOT.The wall is going on the south side on top of that ridge in Forest Park.If any sound comes off of that wall it will be about thirty feet above the wall protecting Springdale. They canít give me any answers to what the backwash from that is.We have a canyon out there.Sandi Taylor talks about the hillside in her backyard and ODOT has continually told us that berms donít work. If itís hitting an earthen berm you have a mixture of texture and solidity in that berm and itís not all going to bounce off.


††††††††††† Mr. Galster said ODOT has admitted that berms are the better way to do it but we donít have room to make an earthen berm that will be effective.Theyíve also admitted that angled walls are better.Straight walls are more economical.They tell me these walls do not produce any bounce, yetthey tell me it would be better if they put them at an angle because the sound would bounce up into the air.I still believe there is some amount of bounce over and bounce back that will happen.I know the world is out there but it doesnít bother me that much.I think there are a lot of reasons why this board as a whole has a problem embracing these walls.Aesthetics is one, the fact that it is not the best way to mitigate the noise problem, the amount of people and what actual affect it will have.I havenít gotten anything from ODOT that will change my mind.






Mr. Galster made a motion to add the emergency clause and Mr. Squires seconded.The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. Osborn said we are asking for an emergency clause because the property in question is undergoing a Phase I evaluation by our environmental consultant.That is more directed at identifying asbestos and other material internal to the building.Prior to that both the prior owner and the City ran tests on the property as related to perchlorethylene spills that resulted from the previous operation on that site.We solicited a proposal from the Payne Group to remediate both the water and soil for $79,450.They indicate they can start to work two weeks after the property is vacated.The property was vacated Sunday.They also indicated it will take four to six months for the remediation to have its effect.Weíd like to start the remediation as soon as possible.


Mr. Squires said this seems like a very good deal for the City.Did we not receive from Springdale Cleaners something like $100,000 for cleanup?


Mr. Osborn replied no, it was more complex than that and involved another piece of property.That $100,000 in escrow applied to the former Burns property.We did make a settlement with them on this site.I think we are within the margin of what we expected to pay when we made the deal for this cleanup with the former owner.


Mr. Knox stated I read it the old way so I have added the emergency clause in the title and in Section 3.


Ordinance 18-2005 passed with seven affirmative votes.




First reading.


Mr. Osborn reported this will broaden the definition of the material that is regulated by our existing code regarding when material may be set out for collection.Currently it just says rubbish containers but the practice has become routine for people to set things out in plastic bags.We donít find that to be a problem; consequently we donít want to prohibit it, but under the current code we can only tell a party that they have to put their waste containers back.We canít tell them they have to put their plastic bags back.†† In paragraph C, 155.0592 we are just extending the definition to include trash, rubbish, debris, or other items to be disposed of.




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


††††††††††† Mr. Osborn said this roof is not part of the work we did a few years ago when we modernized the Community Center.This is the roof over the auxiliary gym that was untouched at that time.We are experiencing leaks down there that do jeopardize the floor, which was refurbished.This was a 2005 budget item. We will be a little over the estimated cost in the budget but we believe this is the best bid and encourage Council to adopt the legislation.


††††††††††† Ms. Pollitt asked is that the original roof that was on the building?


††††††††††† Mr. Osborn replied no, the roof we had on there in 1972 had actually been replaced in the mid 1980s so it has been on there over twenty years.


††††††††††† Ordinance 20-2005 passed with seven affirmative votes.




Mr. Osborn said we did receive notice from the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce requesting our annual contribution to the Cincinnati USA Partnership.We have participated in this program for about sixteen years.We entered into a five years pledge last year that runs through 2008.Our annual contribution is $10,000 and I would like to request legislation at the next meeting.This group promotes the areas as a region and we are certainly part of a regional colony.


Mr. Osborn said Iíd like to pass out to Council the revised version of the legislation dealing with parking of commercial vehicles in residential districts.†† The staff has been reviewing this for a month since you last saw it.We have two pieces of legislation.This one deals with changes to the Zoning Code.A companion ordinance deals with changes to the parking regulations and has to go to Planning Commission.I was hoping to have discussion tonight, have it referred to Planning Commission for their consideration and have it come back to Council on the appropriate schedule for a public hearing.We have tried to address the issues brought forth by members of Council. We do have a provision that states ďone commercial vehicle other than those defined in Section 153.480(F)1 shall be permitted to be parked or stored upon a driveway in a residential zoning district provided it does not exceed eight feet in height or 20 feet in lengthĒ.At the same time we have specific prohibition on things such as cement trucks, tow trucks, flatbed trucks, semis, etc.


Mr. Danbury asked where would a wood chipper fall in?


Mr. Osborn answered it would be under non-recreational trailer.We can get more explicit if you want us to.


Mr. Knox said we received a check for $27,595 for the snow removal during the Christmas time.I must compliment Mr. Butsch on the work he did getting this all together.


Mr. Knox reminded everyone that all taxes are due by April 15th and all elected officials must submit their surveys to the Ethics Commission.


Mr. Danbury said I was speaking with some residents along Smiley.When we did the road improvements, they did it so late in the year that they didnít seed.Is our contractor going to follow up on that?


Mr. Osborn responded they have an obligation to do that.If you give me specifics I can also check with the Superintendent of Public Works and have him take a look at the entire area.


Ms. Pollitt said I wanted to talk about the street repair work on Lawnview.I notice there are some gas lines being replaced and I assume it is because they are lowering the road bed.A resident from Van Cleve said they came and dug her yard up.


Mr. Osborn said there may be two different issues going on.


Mr. Shvegzda said on Lawnview the original gas line may have been put in so shallow that the curb may have interfered with that.I donít know about Van Cleve.


††††††††††† NEW BUSINESS


††††††††††† Mr. Wilson asked Mayor Webster, do you want to comment on our block watch meeting?


††††††††††† Mayor Webster said it was very well attended.We did have some issues.We had some good suggestions and a good plan going forward.


††††††††††† Mr. Parham reported we received the quotes for the 2005/2006 health insurance program.I would like to request legislation at the next meeting.


††††††††††† Ms. Pollitt said we had our crime watch meeting in District 3 last evening.Weíd like to invite all the residents to come out on May 3rd and join us.




††††††††††† Planning Commission††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† -†††††††††† April 12

††††††††††† Board of Health†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† -†††††††††† April 14

††††††††††† Board of Zoning Appeals†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† -†††††††††† April 19

††††††††††† Opening Day†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† -†††††††††† April 16


††††††††††† Mr. Danbury said Springdale Automotive is underwriting four teams and I think they should be applauded.




Mr. Traut gave the ODOT reply to The Enquirer article to Mr. Knox.I would like to see a copy of the 1994 minutes.


Mr. Knox stated they are available in my office during normal business hours.


Mr. Traut said I asked what number of residentsí response is needed to be legitimate. The response was 60-70%.Iíve never heard of required participation with a vote.I think it is a dangerous precedent to require participation to vote.




Ordinance 19-2005†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† -†††††††††† first reading




Chamber of Commerce payment††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† -†††††††††† April 20

Health Insurance (2)†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† -†††††††††† April 20


Council adjourned at 8:15 p.m.


††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Respectfully submitted,





††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† EdwardF. Knox

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Clerk of Council/Finance Director


Minutes Approved:


Kathy McNear, President of Council




__________________________, 2005