President of Council Kathy McNear called Council to order on September 18, 2002, 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.

Mrs. McNear said on page 7640, the third paragraph says "Mr. Knox said we will do this "will" level payments." It should be "with" level payments. The minutes of September 4, 2002 were approved with seven affirmative votes.



Civil Service Commission - Mr. Strange said we have correspondence from the City that three patrol officers and two firefighters have met their pre-employment screening and have started their probation period. There was discussion on backfill for violations bureau clerk. The previous person in that job has become a patrol officer. Weíll be looking to backfill that position. We also reviewed several of our hiring process letters. Weíre looking at rewording some of the terminology to cut down on some of the confusion. We also responded to some correspondence from the City.

Rules and Laws - no report

Public Relations - no report

Public Health, Safety & Welfare - no report

Public Works Ė Mr. Wilson reported on the street program. The asphalt overlay has been completed and a rejuvenator additive will be placed on the new asphalt in the next two weeks. The widening along SR 4 at Cameron Road will take place some time during the week of September 23.

Public Utilities - no report

Capital Improvements Ė Mr. Danbury said the CSX grade separation underground telephone and overhead electric relocation is underway at this time. We will be awarding the project in December with construction from March 2003 to 2005. We have Resolution R24 before us tonight that is approving the Cityís cost responsibility for the project. The Springfield Pike streetscape project is starting this week. Kemper Road Phase II project was awarded to Barrett Paving and a pre-construction meeting was held September 3. The construction this year will be retaining wall, storm sewer and water main project. Construction will shut down at the end of the year and commence again next year. The West Sharon bike path will not be done this year. The agreements for the SR 4/Sharon Road improvements and the right-of-way closings are scheduled for two properties.

Finance Committee - no report

Planning Commission Ė Mr. Galster said the first two items were approval for a conditional use permit for Springdale Nazarene Church to allow a non-residential driveway in a residential district and the approval of the driveway. The church has purchased residential lots on Sharon Road and wants to run an ingress/egress out to Sharon Road to relieve some of the congestion on SR 4. It was approved with conditions such as when it could be used and no lights on unless itís in use. That was approved 7-0. Ruby Tuesdayís asked for an elevation change, a facelift to their new design. That was approved 7-0. There was a request for a Christmas tree lot at Tri-County Mall at the corner of SR 747 and Kemper Road. That was approved 6-1.

Board of Zoning Appeals Ė Mr. Squires reported there were three items on the agenda and two were withdrawn. Chris Shaver, 269 West Kemper Road, requested a variance for a two-story addition to his residence which would include a 1252 square foot garage. A variance was granted for a 1118 square foot garage by a 6-1 vote.

Board of Health Ė Ms. Pollitt stated there will be a public hearing on food licensing fees on October 10. We had a report on the West Nile virus. Eighty-eight people in Ohio have fallen ill and five are deceased. Ms. Pollitt stated we do not anticipate a shortage of flu vaccine. The nurse will put out a schedule later in the fall.

Veteranís Memorial Committee Ė Mr. Wilson stated they met this evening and looked at a concept design for the memorial. It was then a consensus that we were to get together with CDS to help us with the preliminary design.

O-K-I Ė Mr. Squires said I didnít attend the meeting as Mr. Knoxís representative but part of the agenda was the light-rail transit system and I know that considerable discussion was involved around that issue. I have a report from a gentleman who is heading the alternative to light rail. Iíd like to share that with Mr. Knox and together weíll give this report to Council.

Mayorís Report Ė Mayor Webster said I received a letter from Pat and Susan Stockman from Continental Drive in Sharonville. The lady takes bakery products around to various fire departments. She just wanted to share with us how gracious our firefighters are. They are very receptive to what she is doing compared to the reception she gets in some of the neighboring fire departments.

Mayor Webster said Iím sure youíve all heard about our coyote problem here in Springdale. Unfortunately last Thursday the family at 677 Cedarhill put their small dog outside in their fenced in yard. About a half-hour later they went to get the dog and it had been destroyed by a coyote(s). Needless to say the people are very upset and I would be too if it were my dog. I think this has escalated to a level that we have not seen before. We are getting reports that this was not the first animal that had been killed. We knew there had been some attacks and strange disappearances but nothing confirmed it as much as this. We have had lots of reports of sightings of coyotes. They have almost always kept their distance and certainly nothing as brazen as to jump a fence in broad daylight and attack a small animal. We are very concerned that they have become this brazen. We have dispatched a couple of police sharpshooters and on Monday we pulled in our trapper. He has been working with our police department. We have had some success but we know there are more coyotes in there. Weíre not going to tell you that we are going to eradicate every coyote in that 100-acre forest because we arenít going to do it, but we will certainly do everything we can. One of the things we can do is an education program. We will be getting a letter out to all of the residents on Cedarhill and also on the other side of the hill on Springdale Lake Drive just trying to tell the people what they should or shouldnít do, keep an eye on small pets and children. We also are planning to have someone come down from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and invite any resident who wants to come and hear first hand the perspective from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. WKRC had someone on this morning and it was very educational. We are not alone with this problem. I was talking with the mayors of Sharonville and Evendale and both of them have seen sightings of coyotes in their cities recently. I donít want to come across as being callous but weíre still going to have to learn to co-exist with these animals.

Mr. Danbury said coyotes are in every county in the State of Ohio. Weíve been aware of it and unfortunately we had this one dog that was killed by them.

Mr. Wilson said I met with Mr. and Mrs. Pender and they said they were so appreciative that the Mayor and Assistant Police Chief responded so rapidly to their dilemma. You hear negative things but when our public officials respond to a resident and are there to comfort them you donít see that in the press.

Mr. Squires said a number of us who live in Springdale have a residence that borders a wooded area. It behooves all of us to take some precautions there. They are a threat to small animals but from all the information I have been able to obtain, they are not a threat to humans. Nevertheless, we need to take precautions and co-exist with these animals.

Mayor Webster said that is right, humans are a predator for the coyote but if I lived in one of those areas I would not leave a toddler in the yard unattended. Some people have reported lying out sunbathing and a coyote would come up and bite them on the hand or foot. So letís not take any chances with our children.

Clerk of Council/Finance Director Ė Mr. Knox reported we have received from Moodyís Investor Service an Aa3 rating. I canít release this report publicly because it is copyrighted by Moodyís but I will quote one line. It says "Springdale has a favorable debt profile characterized by a modest level of rapidly retired debt." The good things you do pay off in the long run. Previous administrations and Councils have put us in a good position and that good position paid off when we issued the $5.9 million bonds to retire the note on the Community Center. It paid off to the point as the Mayor alluded that he thought it would be under 4.41. It was 3.62%. You have to add in the various costs of Moodyís, Bond Counsel, etc. It ends up over the fifteen year life a weighted average of 3.72%.

Mayor Webster stated I was told that we sold our issue during the lowest rate week in thirty years. I think our timing was impeccable.

Administratorís Report Ė Mr. Osborn said I would like to go back to the Capital Improvements Report. We opened bids on September 12 for the SR 4/Sharon Road project. Unfortunately, the low bid came in higher than our anticipated costs for this project. When you roll together the contract costs for construction and our design costs and then subtract the funding we have through the Municipal Road Fund, we have a shortfall of $34,680. Weíre looking at the project to see if there are some items we can take out to help reduce that gap, such as the sidewalks. On the west side of the project we can withhold construction of the sidewalks until a similar sidewalk program we have next year. Weíve already approached the County about additional funding and there is none available. Even though weíre going to try to bring down this cost, it is very likely that this project will come in above the funding levels that we have set aside right now.

Mr. Osborn said most of you received this update on the Planning Partnership activities. One of the items is a potential for a presentation by Storm Water Management Education Task Force. This is a group of various agencies and organizations that have been pulled together to try to provide some sort of educational resource for Hamilton County for storm water management. They have a presentation that lasts about a half-hour, then they are available to answer questions. It would be very timely for us to have that presentation at Council because we are getting closer to the time when we will have to make some decisions about the Cityís obligation or Phase II of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and MPDES Standards, etc. I was wondering if we could try to pick a date in October or November.

Mrs. McNear said weíll leave that to you to set it up.

Law Directorís Report - no report

Engineerís Report - no report




Mr. Osborn said the City has an opportunity to make comments or impact the material that will be approved by the Planning Partnership on September 25. The material I sent you is a draft of the recommendations on the comprehensive goals, the more specific goals, the core goals and their objectives. If we remain silent, all these items will go forward without our yeah or nay. I thought much of this was important enough that I asked for a point on the agenda for an open discussion about this material. This is broken down into very specific areas, the first starting on page 5, are comprehensive goals. These are things we have seen before and they are general enough that I donít know that they breed any controversy for us. The core goals and objectives start to talk about some of the prioritization and core goals. These are rather general in nature and I didnít see anything that appears to be too controversial. Priority initiatives and related strategies are proposed strategies that would fit under these goals we just looked at. The goals are very general in nature and comprehensive. Here we are getting down into details. Under the collaboration on county-wide issues I did have a question I was going to ask for clarification on. Strategy 2.1.7 Implement Essential Changes In Existing Structures For Government Collaboration And Initiate Additional Structure Where Needed may include development for incentives for government collaboration. If this means that they are trying to create opportunities for collaboration I think thatís a good thing. But if it means they are trying to change the structure of local government, then itís not good. I think they mean they are going to try to create better opportunities for collaboration but I think that needs clarification.

Mayor Webster said I think we are getting into the area where I personally have the greatest concern about this project. That is, the regionalization of government. I think there is certainly a movement and I think it behooves all of us to be very much aware when they try to centralize local government and parts of the county become one government entity and pretty soon you have total regional government. I have always been a very strong advocate that the government that is the closest to you is the best government youíve got. Once you start regionalizing and doing away with local fire departments and police departments, there may be some economies involved there but there are also some service and accountability issues. I donít think you get that with a large metropolitan government. Will you see that spelled out in here? No, because the authors are certainly aware of the strong feelings of some people like me who donít want to see government be totally regionalized. If you read through here you can see that this is the first step towards that. We have not had any discussions in this chambers as to whether or not we support light rail. All of us have our individual opinions about that. I was approached by Mr. Green who wanted me to join forces with the Alternative to Light Rail group which I very politely declined to do. I think I support light rail but Iím not sure. I supported Ĺ% sales tax for two stadiums which Iím still kicking myself for doing because we were promised something we didnít get. Iím not ready to support another Ĺ% sales tax for light rail for fear of what I might get or not get. That doesnít mean Iím against light rail. I think in the long run we have to have it. We very well may want to go on record either for or against this because this is saying one of the strategies is to build a county-wide regional light rail system.

Mr. Osborn said you have to think about the source of these recommendations. This was not put together by a concise committee of elected public officials. It was developed by these COMPASS teams. Each team may have had thirty or forty people on them from all walks of life. If you read the comments by some of the team members at the conclusion of the exercise, some people pointed out that, over time, a lot of people drifted away and it got down to a situation where the people who spoke the loudest and most often made the greatest impression and had the greatest influence on these goals and objectives. I donít think that anybody would say they are satisfied with all these items. I certainly am not. I think the Mayorís point is well made. We entered into this process of being part of the Planning Partnership for the very reason he said. We want to protect the autonomy and integrity of local government. There is certainly nothing wrong with having a comprehensive plan for the county as long as it respects the authority of local government. If we can come up through collaboration with certain regional approaches to problems, then all the better, but again our mission is to try to do that in a way that does not erode the authority of local government. Thatís why I thought it was important that you all see this. This is going to be put before a vote on September 25. This is going to be put forward as a single entity. Then itís going to be up to individuals to recommend amendments to it. I told them we are not going to get this done in two hours. They have ten minutes set aside for a presentation as a lead up to it and then an hour for discussion. I told them it would take us three weeks to get through this. Itís ultimately going to reach a point where the two representatives from Springdale either have to vote yes or no on the whole document. Right now I couldnít vote for this document because there are things in here that I wouldnít agree with. Iím looking to see if there are things we want to see changed before they are adopted and if so, what are those and if we donít get those, then authorization to vote against the proposal. I donít know if itís going to get that far Thursday night because I canít believe they can cover that much ground in the time they have allotted for this. I think the Mayorís points are well made and I would not disagree with them.

Mr. Knox said in private conversations at OKI I have on several occasions heard a drift towards this regionalism. There are people out there who want it to happen and will work toward it happening. I donít personally think itís a good idea. I agree with the Mayor that local government is the best because it is closest to the people. We must guard against that so hereís an opportunity to get them stand up early and be specific in their wording to where they intend to go with this.

Mr. Danbury said it sounds like us adopting legislation and then weíll fine tune whatever we want later. Is there a reason they have to go forth on September 25th?

Mr. Osborn replied it is the time line the Planning Partnership has laid out for itself. The meeting on the 25th is a special meeting. Right now the body of the Planning Partnership only meets once a year. That meeting was held earlier this spring. This meeting is exclusively for the review and approval of the recommendations that came out of the COMPASS teams. Back in January we had that meeting downtown. Leading up to that meeting there were focus groups and I participated in a couple of those focus groups and Mr. Parham did. That was all input to set up the big meeting downtown. The big meeting downtown tried to put some parameters on the missions, goals and objectives for the Countyís Comprehensive Plan. Those areas that came out as being critical through that meeting in January were then assigned to these COMPASS teams to develop more specific recommendations. That is what we have in front of us here, more specific recommendations. Itís very much like legislation because they are saying here is what you are going to vote on on the 25th. The only way we get to change it is by saying during discussion Iíd like to move that a section be amended.

Mrs. McNear said under Priority 5, Initiative 20 Improving School Performance. That could be a three-month discussion just on that topic alone.

Mr. Osborn said I would recommend that we not be supportive of "Explore Alternative Funding Sources For Schools; for example, establishing uniform policy or income tax sharing with local governments as part of the tax abatement incentives; consider changing the state funding formula. We already have by state law a requirement that tells us when a tax abatement situation exceeds a payroll of $1 million, a certain percentage of the income tax has to be shared with the local school district, or a separate agreement has to be negotiated with them. It has worked fine for us so far so I wouldnít want to change the law. The next strategy Ė Develop A Working System Of School Choice In Hamilton County That Allows Children To Attend An Alternate Public School Of Their Parentsí Choice. Iím not quite sure what thatís going to do. That means any child could go to any school they wanted to no matter what district they are in, no matter where they live. Who provides the transportation? Does the resident school district provide the transportation? I think itís hard to say yes to that one right now.

Mayor Webster said 3.3.8- Lengthen The School Day And/Or School Year. All of a sudden we have some county government telling the local school boards how to run the school system. I donít think that should be what the county government is all about. We all know what a mess the City of Cincinnati has gotten itself into with Issue 3. Weíre going the route here on page 19 in 3.5.4 Ė Take a County-Wide Stance Against Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation In Employment, Housing, Public Accommodation In The Area Of Jurisdictions. The City of Cincinnati tried to create a separate class for people of different sexual orientation and they ended up in court. Itís really torn the community apart. Why should the county get involved in something like that and why should they ask the cities to support this. I think they are branching into areas where they have no business.

Mrs. McNear said I didnít see the line in here where they could figure out how Princeton Schools could come up with $105 million to build all the new schools. It seems like they are trying to provide answers for everything here.

Mr. Galster said I agree that local government is the way to go. Some of these issues shouldnít even be considered by Hamilton County. As example, Priority 5, Initiative 20 on School Performance. I donít think that should be in here. It reminds me of the growing pains and process we went through with our own comprehensive plan. Sometimes we were so wide in our view of things that it wasnít helping us get where we needed to be. Sometimes we were nitpicking and trying to define it so well that we were losing the focus of what comprehensive planning was all about. I went to page 14 and saw modifications to the tax structures and seeking ways to seek regional revenues region-wide, joint and coordinated investment technology, economic development assets and programs. I donít want to see funding that we go after be limited because Hamilton County has this plan of planned priorities when Springdale may have a different priority. I had a conversation with Mr. Osborn earlier and it was similar to GE Park. What if Hamilton County thinks that ought to be a mall. How do you stop them once you are a part of it and it has grown so big. I think itís important that we get in here and challenge these things fairly early. It was also one of the reasons I think it was a good idea to join as opposed to being on the outside looking in.

Mr. Danbury said this has a lot of pork in it. Itís layers and layers of bureaucracy. I say letís give a negative recommendation.

Mr. Galster said I also think there are some good things in here. There are some good ideas but if we have to look at it as a whole, then I think we have a problem. On page 16, item 10 Ė Establish Incentives And Disincentives To Enforce The Desired County-Wide Development Framework. What is a disincentive?

Mr. Osborn said I had that same one highlighted because we are talking about building a collaboration. I can see giving incentives to get jurisdictions to do what you want but I donít think disincentives is the way to build collaboration.

Ms. Pollitt said I would like to address on page 15, item 7 Ė Collaboration and Integration Of Higher Education. There is a lot of cross-registration by transfer students currently going on. There are also different integrations among different types and levels of education. I see this as something that is already happening. I donít see that the county should be that involved in education. On page 19 Ė Health Care, there are accessible services for people who need health care in the county. We pass bonds and levies for that all the time and I donít see that this Planning Commission needs to be involved in that part of it. Is there a reason all the schooling issues are not lumped into one area?

Mr. Osborn said the reference numbers will take you back to a common area. I canít tell you why the initiatives are not together. I think it is true that a lot of the decisions that were made were not informed decisions. There are a lot of things happening already that this suggests we ought to do. It doesnít take that into consideration.

Mr. Osborn asked would it be a fair statement to say that Council does not feel we can support this as a package and our two representatives will be voting against it. As an alternative we recommend that they find some way to make this more concise and less global in some of the things that it wants to do. It just seems to me that itís hard to ask any representative body to sit down and agree to all of these things when there has not been any dialog as to how they came to these conclusions or what they mean by it. A lot of these are subject to interpretation.

Mrs. McNear said we donít like it when the federal or state government dictates what we have to do. We didnít like having our hotel tax changed by the City of Cincinnati and weíre stuck paying it because we are part of Hamilton County. Thatís what this document does. It forces a lot of things down our throats that we are not interested in.

Mr. Osborn said I can circulate something that I have heard you specifically object to but not necessarily exclusive so that when they say they will try to revise it, they will have positive feedback.

Ms. Pollitt said on page 9, Priority 1 Ė Strategy 1.3.5 can you tell me about this Land Banking Throughout the County and exactly what their intent for that would be?

Mr. Osborn replied I have no idea. I donít know where the money comes from or who owns it or holds title. I donít know if itís owned by the County. It seems to me it would be a plan for green space for all the area within the County but it would be up to the individual jurisdictions to implement it.

Ms. Pollitt stated I am concerned about the term land banking.

Mr. Osborn responded I think that means conservation. I donít know that it would necessarily be land for development. You want to do that as soon as you can.

Ms. Pollitt said on page 9, Strategy 4.3.5 Ė Lobbies State To Be Able To Assess Impact Fees. What are impact fees?

Mr. Osborn answered those are fees that you can level against a developer. Letís suppose GE Park should come back to us and they want to put a mall there and Council decides okay, weíll let them put a mall there. An impact fee is a way of extracting from that developer resources to help with infrastructure improvements, park improvements, etc. We do a lot of that right now just through negotiations. This would formalize it and put additional authority behind what the City is doing and in some cases, may limit what we are doing. Iím not so familiar with impact fees to give you a detailed answer.

Mr. Galster asked what about the fact that Mr. Huddleston is going to be gone? Is there an alternate voting member?

Mr. Osborn replied I talked to the director of the Regional Planning Commission and all Council has to do is identify an alternate for Mr. Huddleston and that person will have the authority to vote.

Mr. Danbury said if you look at page 13 it appears a lot of this is going to help the City of Cincinnati period. Iím looking at one Ė Recruit More Retail Restaurants And Events Around Fountain Square, The Heart Of Hamilton County.

Mr. Osborn said I donít disagree with that. We cannot have a good regional economy unless we have a good solid core city. I donít think there is anything wrong with us encouraging the City of Cincinnati to do more to attract and redevelop downtown.

Mr. Danbury said this document as I see it could be adopted by the City of Cincinnati. We have some vacant property here that was built to have some of these businesses, then these people feel we should help promote these people moving down to Cincinnati. Iím sorry, thatís your problem. We have other issues to deal with. There is another one under Marketing/Branding Ė Develop a New Source Of Funding To Market The Arts, Retail And Entertainment on the Avenue of Arts, Music Hall, Memorial Hall, Art Academy. I think thatís very good for the quality of life and the enriched life that Cincinnati has and Iím not saying Iím against it, but that is something that either the City could do or the private sector or the arts group, but I donít think that pertains to Amberly Village, Springdale, Blue Ash, etc.

Mr. Osborn replied I think it does in terms of economic development. Certainly this particular element of it is focused on Cincinnati, particularly downtown Cincinnati, but when you think about it, the reason we can be success as a suburban area is that we have a central city that is very rich in arts and other types of things we couldnít support ourselves. Weíre not big enough. If Cincinnati is not a clean, well-lit place; if itís not safe, people will not go down there and it will diminish and not be able to support those arts. I think itís in our best interest as a region to make sure the City of Cincinnati has a vital downtown. Should we do some of the things they have here? I donít know.

Mayor Webster said the people who should be making those decisions are the people closest to the issues, the people in the local government of Cincinnati. Somebody in Amberly or Springdale shouldnít be speaking for downtown Cincinnati. Thatís the fallacy in what they are trying to create here.

Mr. Squires said this thing reeks of central government. As long as central government is responsive to local government, fine. If they want to take over the whole show I donít think anybody is going to benefit from that. Page 12, Priority 5 Ė Improving School Performance should not be there at all. We have an outstanding board of education. Thatís their job.

Mr. Galster said I think itís important to do regional planning but without it being regional government. They are trying to come up with a mix on how to do that. Some of these things are a little bit out. I think the policies and initiatives are what everyone wants to have happen. We all know if downtown Cincinnati doesnít survive all the burden of all the other services that are going on in Hamilton County they are just going to drift out this way anyway. Itís always in our best interest to make sure we have a healthy area. Mr. Osborn, if nobody else is interested I will go on the 25th.

The Council agreed that Mr. Galster would take Mr. Huddlestonís place at the next meeting.

Ms. Pollitt asked is the Convention Center factored into this and if not, how come?

Mr. Osborn said I donít recall seeing it in there.

Ms. Pollitt said bringing business and trade into the city is a vital part of the use of the downtown hotel rooms, restaurants and economy.

Mr. Osborn said if I were a facilitator I would want to stay away from specific projects, but as you see, we have a lot of little nitty-gritty stuff in here.


Mr. Osborn said as indicated at the last Council meeting, the City has the opportunity to apply for Community Development Block Grant funds for our calendar years 2003, 2004 and 2005. The requirements we have to meet have been set out. We put an ad in the paper identifying those. They deal with the elimination of blight, the benefit to low and moderate income persons, or any other significant need of the community. That last item is not so general that we can do anything that we want to do. We have to demonstrate that if we do a project, it is done in an area where there is, statistically through the census information, a concentration of low to moderate income persons. Unfortunately, we tried to attract input from those areas of our community but the census process hasnít caught up with this application process. Iíve called the Hamilton County Community Development Office, which manages this program, and the census block data for low to moderate income persons isnít available yet. I canít tell you what part of town is eligible but I can tell you the types of things we envision doing. If we can find eligible areas the type of curb and pavement weíve been doing, weíd like to supplement our current program with funding from this source to help with this program. Remember what the Terrace looked like in the spring and what it looks like now. It really dressed up that area. I think if we can find an area with a significant number of low to moderate income persons living, we could put that program in that area. That would provide the City with an opportunity to use other resources in other parts of town.

Mr. Danbury said I make a motion that Council go into executive session as a meeting of the whole to discuss possible real estate issues and also possible litigation. Mr. Galster seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

Council went into executive session at 8:13 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.


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

Ordinance 62-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said this is a very small piece of right-of-way that we need to acquire for the project at SR 4 and Sharon Road. The Corfmans were very gracious in negotiations with us and I think we have a very beneficial mutual agreement.

Ordinance 63-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said this is also a very small piece of right-of-way but it does impact this property significantly in that the improvement will take away all their landscaping, their trees and signage. The agreed to number is just slightly over our appraised value on this site by about $1,000. I think itís a pretty good compromise given the impact weíre having on the property.

Ordinance 64-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said we need to correct this ordinance. The prices you see in there are our summer prices. For several years we have been bidding it hoping to get a break between summer and winter so that we could stockpile the material in the summertime as opposed to buying at the winter rates. There are two rates that have been quoted to us by North American. The winter rates are $31.98 for dumped and $34.23 for piled. I think we should have those in the ordinance as well. I can tell you that if we buy under the summer rates we will save about $4,000 to $5,000.

Mr. Squires made a motion to amend and Mr. Wilson seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Danbury asked do you know how much tonnage we will be requiring? I think we hardly touched it last year.

Mr. Osborn replied we are 75% full. We will not buy any salt this fall. Weíll probably top off under the summer rates.

Ordinance 65-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.


First reading.


Mr. Osborn stated I think we have to remove the sixth Whereas because there is a structure on the property. There is a garage that the City will take as part of this easement.

Ms. Pollitt made a motion to amend and Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

First reading.


Mr. Osborn said we would like to request an emergency clause this evening. Under the current Code of Ordinances the Mayor has the authority to grant up to three days of sick leave to an employee when there is an illness in the immediate family described in the ordinance. We want to consider the circumstances where the employee may have a spouse who is experiencing a catastrophic illness where the doctor has indicated that the individualís illness is potentially fatal or irreversible, or where the individual has experienced a physical trauma that is life threatening. The idea is that we would limit this to something smaller than what was defined earlier in this section. It would be limited to the employeeís spouse, child, stepchild, mother or father. We would effectively give the Mayor the authority to grant an employee the use of up to twelve weeks of sick leave time to care for a family member who has experienced a catastrophic illness or accident. We had to break it down by different hours because different people work different schedules. We have had circumstances like this in the past and we are faced with it now. Weíd like Councilís consideration this evening. When faced with how to assist the employee we have looked at other options. This seems to be the cleanest to undertake immediately without further review because we are allowing the employee access to sick leave he has already accumulated. We are still controlling it to make sure that itís used in a way that is extraordinary.

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

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

Ms. Pollitt said I would like to commend the Administration on this document. This speaks very highly on how we value our employees. When you have someone who is ill your mind doesnít work. Your mind is at home with your family members. If they have the sick time I think granting them the time with those stipulations youíve set forth is the compassionate thing to do.

Mayor Webster said Mr. Osborn and Mr. Parham did the work on this and I would like to commend them also for their compassion and feelings for the work force.

Mr. Danbury made a motion to read the document by title only with the emergency clause. Mr. Knox re-read Section 3 with the emergency clause.

Ordinance 68-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mayor Webster said Ms. Holmes has something she would like to add to this.

Ms. Holmes said we are not moving forward at this time but we are asking your consideration authorizing us to enter into a contract. We have had some things come up with the existing contract and we will have to clean up some mechanics liens. We may need to have you amend this to take out the price.

Mr. Squires made a motion to amend Section 1 to remove the purchase amount and Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mayor Webster said what if we just table this ordinance until the next meeting. I hate to see us pass an ordinance to execute a contract with no dollar amount in there. I think that sends the message that we will pick up the mechanics liens.

Ms. Holmes said we can table this and it will be on the sellerís shoulders to clear it up.

Mr. Squires made a motion to table and Mr. Wilson seconded. The motion to table passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Squires withdrew his motion to pass the ordinance and Ms. Pollitt seconded.

Mr. Squires withdrew his motion to amend.

Ordinance 69-2002 was tabled.


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

Mr. Osborn said this is an agreement where we are pledging to work exclusively with the Bergman Group through 31 May 2003 regarding the redevelopment of this area. Some of the other details include that they will be working up leasing plans, looking at square footage requirements, etc. We, in turn, are working on architectural elevations that would be a skin on this square footage. Collectively we will be working towards a detailed development plan. This gives us the resource of a retail developer who is essentially saying that they will spend time and money to help us develop a concept if we pledge to exclusively work with them through May 2003. Weíre not under any obligation to sell them property in the future. We sought them out because we did feel we wanted to work with a developer to get the market side of this. We chose the Bergman Group because they are a known entity to everyone sitting up here. We have always found them fair and reasonable to work with and feel they will be a real asset in trying to put together a retail development plan for the Old Town portion of Springdale.

Ordinance 70-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mayor Webster said itís a sad situation. His health has given way on him. He has been a diligent member of the Board of Health. At the April meeting Harry came to the meeting and told us he was going to have a serious operation. He said he was having it the next day; that he had planned it so he wouldnít miss a Board of Health meeting. He was back for the next meeting. We will miss Harry. He was one of my first appointments in 1996 and I know he served several years prior to that. We will miss him and wish him well.

Ms. Pollitt said I too would like to commend Harry for his service. His position will be hard to fill.

Resolution R23-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. Danbury made a motion to read by title only and Mr. Wilson seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

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

Mr. Osborn said by this resolution we are committing to make a deposit with the State of Ohio of $500,973. Of that money $209,000 will be our obligation towards the local match that we committed to last year. The other $291,973 is pass-through money for Cincinnati Water Works. I had sent them a letter requesting their payment to us so that we could make a quick payment to ODOT after we adopted this legislation. Itís my understanding that the check should be coming out to us Friday.

Resolution R24-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. Vanover made a motion to table and Mr. Squires seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.



Mrs. McNear said about a week ago I was out doing my three-mile walk and I saw this bouncing light. The bouncing light was the flashlight of one of our residents who was out walking her dog so she could clean up after her pet. I was so amazed that I stopped and told her she was a great neighbor. The next night my husband went with me. As weíre walking down the street I see her again. This time I introduced myself and said I was so impressed by what a good neighbor she is that I am going to ask Council to give her an award. She said that wasnít necessary; that she is doing what she should be doing. I said I understand but we have been talking about how there are not bad pets, just bad pet owners and since this is my pet peeve I wanted to ask the indulgence and cooperation of Council to come up with a good neighbor award for Ms. Annette Austin.

Ms. Pollitt said I would like to request that Council offer condolences to Officer Amy Reimanís family. Amyís father passed away September 10. He was just here in Council Chamberís watching his daughter be sworn in. It was a very sudden passing. Iím sure that youíll all join me in offering condolences to the family.




Ordinance 59-2002 Public Hearing - October 2

Ordinance 60-2002 Public Hearing - October 2

Ordinance 66-2002 - October 2

Ordinance 67-2002 - October 2

Ordinance 69-2002 - October 2

Resolution R25-2002 - October 2


Council adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,




Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Kathy McNear, President of Council



__________________________, 2002