President of Council Marjorie Harlow called Council to order on October 20, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.

    The governmental body and those in attendance recited the pledge of allegiance.

    Mr. Vanover took roll call. Present were Council members Diehl, Emerson, Galster, Hawkins, Squires, Vanover and Harlow. Mrs. McNear arrived at 7:10 p.m.

    The minutes of October 6, 2010 were approved with seven affirmative votes with one correction. Mr. Hawkins stated on Ordinance 29-2010 the vote to read by title only should be 6-1. Mr. Galster voted no.

    COMMUNICATIONS                          -     none


    Civil Service Commission - Mr. Potts stated they reviewed correspondence from the Police Chief asking for the removal from the patrol officer eligibility list of several individuals who had either moved away, changed phoned numbers or found employment elsewhere. The Commission approved the request. They also addressed some challenges to the most recent police sergeant promotional test. It was found that an error was made in scoring the test by the testing administrative service. That was resolved to satisfaction. The top three applicants were certified for the position. The Commission approved a request by Administration to waive testing and Civil Service oversight of positions of maintenance worker as well as Chief Fire Inspector.

Rules and Laws - Mr. Hawkins reported the Rules of Council subcommittee met on September 8. We have gone through the complete Rules of Council document, made changes, forwarded it to the Law Director who forwarded it back. It has been disseminated to the committee. We will make sure all the changes are as we had intended and then will discuss within the committee bringing that to Council.

Finance Committee    -        no report

Planning Commission - Mr. Galster reported the landscaping plan for Springdale Towne Center was tabled until the next meeting. A revision to the PUD Transition District development plans/signs at 600 Kemper Commons Circle (Home Emporium) was approved 6-0. A revision to the PUD Transition District development plans/signs and smoker for SmoQ at 275 Pictoria was also approved.

Mrs. Harlow asked is the smoker outside? Is it in a walled off area?

Mr. Galster replied yes. The walls are twelve feet tall. Karlos originally had those built to enclose their cooler as well as dumpster location. They will have a display smoker they may operate out of one of the parking areas for a few weeks. If, in fact, they like that smoker, there will be barriers around that or it will be manned.

Board of Zoning Appeals    -        no report
Board of Health – Mr. Squires said the FSO/RFE/Vending licensing fees will be slightly higher in 2011. The Springdale Health Department received a bronze award as a Healthy Ohio/Healthy Community, one of fourteen communities to receive the award. Three hundred vaccines were given at the flu clinic Tuesday. A second clinic will be held October 26.

Mr. Galster asked for a ballpark increase in food licenses.

Mayor Webster replied they are all very modest increases and below the other Health Departments in Hamilton County. The State provides a program that dictates the methodology. It penalizes you for being efficient.

Mrs. Harlow said if I remember correctly from when I served on the board, if we did not take an increase and our costs escalated, the next year we were only allowed to take a certain percentage of an increase.

Mr. Galster said so the percentage of increase is capped each year.

Mayor Webster said I’m not that familiar with the formula but once you leave it on the table you can’t go back and recapture in subsequent years.
O-K-I    -        no report

Mayor’s Report – Mayor Webster said yesterday was a big day at the Community Center with the flu clinic, blood glucose screening and blood pressure checks in the auxiliary gym and the Business Expo in the new gym. There were about twenty vendors including City departments. This year there was a chili cook off. There were nine contestants. Mr. Tulloch had the idea and he came in second. He won the People’s Choice Award. Halloween will be held on October 31 and there will be a Veteran’s Day celebration on November 11. The Ohio Army National Guard will present the colors, Springdale Elementary fourth graders will sing the National Anthem; William Marshall Duke of the Springdale Nazarene Church will give the invocation. I’ll make a few opening comments and our guest speaker will be Staff Sergeant Paul von Haver, an Iraq war veteran. The fourth graders will sing again, there will be a benediction, we’ll place a wreath on the memorial and Larry Dupree from Bugles Across America will play Taps.
Clerk of Council/Finance Director – Mrs. McNear stated so far this year our earnings are $12.575 million, 78.4% of our anticipated budget. We have been tracking the top five sources of our earnings. It is $11.493 million which is 91% of the budget. For every quarter this year the top five earning sources have been in the exact same order every single quarter. Year to date we have expended $11.297 million which is 72% of the anticipated budget.
Administrator’s Report – Mr. Parham said the solid waste and recycling contract is on the agenda tonight. Mr. Thamann forwarded to your attention a memo outlining the savings and the program we are recommending. We ask for your support on that legislation as well as the legislation allowing the City to participate in the Ohio Municipal League’s retrospective group rating program for Workers’ Compensation. Earlier this year we requested that you provide authorization which you did through Ordinance 8-2010 to give the Administration authority to investigate and hopefully find savings through as electrical aggregation process. We were pretty successful as we partnered with the Center for Local Government and a broker, Good Energy out of New York. We ended up with Direct Energy as our provider for distribution services. At that time, we indicated that once the electrical process was complete, we would attempt to find a savings on the gas side. Gas prices fluctuate a bit more than the electric. The Center has decided that they are going to try to pull together a group to come together and experience those same kinds of savings on gas. The Center has requested that each municipality that wishes to participate provide them with twelve months of their bills. They asked for a deadline of this Friday to submit them. On the electric process we provided them our bills and they provided us with an estimate of savings at roughly 38 percent with up to 18 communities participating. When we did reach the agreement there were ten participating communities with a savings of 40 percent. We don’t think we will receive a 40 percent savings with the gas but any savings we can enjoy to reduce the energy costs would be very helpful to our organization as well as the remaining municipalities that choose to participate. I asked the Law Director’s office for legislation but since I had not had the opportunity to have this discussion with Council, I would like your concurrence that we forward our bills on to Good Energy and then bring forth the legislation at the next meeting of Council to join the group if we believe that will be the best option for us.

Mr. Galster made a motion to allow the Administration to move forward with the exploration of gas savings. Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.

Mayor Webster stated we are still on target for two ballot issues for November 2011 for electric and gas aggregation for the residents.

Law Director’s Report     -         no report   

Engineer’s Report – Mr. Shvegzda reported we got word from ODOT that they approved the construction permit for the SR 4 southbound lane addition at I-275. The mast arm delivery date is so extended that there will be no substantial construction until spring 2011. The Northland Boulevard repair and resurfacing project is substantially complete. The Flood Zone “A” study information has been submitted to FEMA. We received an e-mail today acknowledging that they received it and they are in the process of reviewing it. They will give written notification within sixty days. The SR 747 and I-275 ramp modification is a project we submitted to OPWC for LTIP funding. We are reviewing the ratings on those and it looks like we may have to appeal a couple of the ratings. That is an ODOT project and the bid opening is January 2012.   


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

Ordinance 29-2010 passed with seven affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Parham said Mr. Thamann pointed out that a number of jurisdictions in the Greater Cincinnati area under the Center for Local Government came together to examine the possibility of a joint purchase for waste collection and recycling services. It’s a process that has occurred throughout the State of Ohio in a number of other locations and has proven to be successful for those jurisdictions, particularly the Columbus Consortium. It has also proved to be a successful process for us here, in the southwest Ohio region, as well. The Center engaged a law firm out of Columbus, Eastman, Smith Ltd., who presented the proposal to fifteen to twenty jurisdictions. Only four jurisdictions decided to take advantage of the opportunity. Eastman and Smith provided a range of costs for their services to be $25,000 to $30,000 to put the specifications together. The participating jurisdictions would be responsible for paying that fee. The Center was able to secure grants to assist with paying for this process. They received a grant from the Government Cooperation Efficiency Project for $10,000 and one for $6,000 through the Hamilton County Solid Waste District. That $16,000 will go towards paying the Eastman, Smith bill. To get the process going each jurisdiction had to pay $1,500. If none of the communities take advantage of the opportunity, the $1,500 is all they would have paid. The results were outstanding for each community (Fairfax, Greenhills, Loveland and Springdale). Springdale’s waste collection rate is going from $8.45 per household per month to $9.50 per household per month. The curbside recycling program will go from $2.40 per household per month to 75 cents per household per month. The final analysis is that based on comparing our 2010 current costs with what we are proposing is a savings of $33,000 per year, almost $100,000 over the three years of the contract. This contract will include unlimited solid waste collection for single family households and condominiums, and curbside recycling on a subscription basis. Currently we use 18 gallon recycling bins. Those will be provided at no additional charge and residents can ask for more than one bin. Rumpke is offering a 96 and 64 gallon waste containers for $1.50 per month rental or you can purchase the 96 gallon container at $75 plus tax or the 64 gallon can at $70 plus tax. They can be used for waste collection or the recycling program. There will be no charge for collection of the dumpsters at the various municipal buildings as well as our recycling drop off center at the garage. I want to commend Jerry Thamann and Jeff Agricola and also the Center for Local Government for their efforts in this process.

Mayor Webster said Mr. Parham and Mr. Thamann did a wonderful job and the Center for Local Government did a marvelous job. You see more and more of these co-ops. It’s a shame we don’t get better direction at the County to do some of this stuff countywide. We have a representative from Rumpke here tonight to answer any questions you may have.

Ms. Ann Gray, Rumpke representative, said Mr. Parham, you said you could use the large containers for recycling as well as waste. That I wasn’t sure of, but I can certainly take that back because I thought we were just offering the eighteen gallon bins for recycling. You may know something I don’t because I am standing in for my colleague.

Mr. Parham said the specifications have an option for both waste collection and recycling.

Mayor Webster said I think we have discussed bigger recycle bins in Council before. The City is going to provide the eighteen gallon bin. If you want more we have negotiated a contract and rate but the resident will pay for it. Eighty-four percent of our residents recycle. I think very few cities in the county could match that.

Mr. Vanover asked is the eighteen gallon bin the biggest other than the carts?

Ms. Gray replied yes. Someone has to actually pick up the eighteen gallon container and dump it in the truck. That’s about the limit for someone to pick up when the driver does about 500 stops a day. With the larger containers it is automated. The carts are definitely the way of the future.

Ms. Gray asked does anyone have questions on the materials we accept or don’t accept.

Mr. Parham said I just wanted to speak to Mr. Vanover’s question about the bins. Over the years you have asked about different sizes. I had a chance to observe a collection on the part of Rumpke in another jurisdiction with the big waste haulers. As I watched the driver with the arm, I’m thinking they are dumping the recycling into the trash. All jurisdictions want you to dump the recycling in the recycling because the County district provides us with an incentive for our recycling. I contacted Mr. Turchiano with Rumpke to let him know I observed this and I also talked to the manager of that community. Mr. Turchiano got back to me after investigating it and said it is actually a new program they have with the large bins. When I asked why we had not been introduced to that, he said it was a test market in that community and they did not have enough trucks to use these in every jurisdiction so by the time we came up for renewal they would have enough trucks to have them in place.

Mrs. McNear said you can use the 64 or 96 to co-mingle. Dublin Ohio has a lot of different containers and does a lot of co-mingling. I was in Canada and it was very unusual to see a bin where people were throwing their cans and pop bottles and also throwing food in there and it was all recyclable.

Mr. Parham stated you can co-mingle your recycling into one vessel but the waste and recycling are separate. If you co-mingle garbage and recycling it will go to the landfill. Perhaps Ms. Gray can comment on some of the things that can be recycled.

Ms. Gray said when we say co-mingle it does actually refer to the recycling. I would invite all of you to come and take a tour of the recycling facility. We’ve recently completed an upgrade and it’s very state-of-the-art. There are only twenty-three other facilities in the nation at this level of sophistication. I imagine the most confusing part of recycling is just because something has a recycling symbol on the bottom doesn’t necessarily mean we can accept it at Rumpke. Our parameters are the market we have for this material. If we can sell it we can accept it.

Mrs. Emerson asked are the bins color coded for waste and recycling?

Ms. Gray responded the ones for recycling are green. You cannot use those for trash. Rumpke sells the large brown bins.

Mr. Diehl said last year I had the opportunity to go through the recycling facility. It was fascinating.

Ms. Gray said we have tours All you need to do is give me a call at 242-4401, extension 7164.

Mr. Squires stated you said you do not accept everything that is recyclable. Are there certain numbers you do not take?

Ms. Gray replied I think the most confusing area is the plastics. Now we say we take plastics 1 through 7 but it has to be a bottle or jug. The companies we use want containers that have been made by the blown method. They want bottles and jugs. That eliminates yogurt containers, clam shell containers, frozen food dinner trays. We hate plastic bags at Rumpke.

Mrs. Harlow said I want to let our residents know that used big brown trash containers can be purchased from Rumpke if they have them in stock. They are clean and refurbished. The containers make it a lot easier to move your waste to the curb and I’m sure it makes it a lot easier on the workers also.

Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr. Squires seconded.
Mr. Parham stated in the past when we’ve auctioned vehicles we have used Cincinnati Auto Auction. I’m told Adesa Cincinnati is pretty respected in this area for auctioning vehicles. We expect a charge of both $150 and $230. One of the units has a blown transmission so they will have to pick it up.
Mr. Diehl asked what do we expect to get for these vehicles?
Mr. Parham replied I think the willingness to pay comes into play at this point. It depends on who’s there that day and whether they identify these vehicles and how strongly one wants the former cruiser or the former Taurus. You have to also compare the mileage, the years, etc.
Mr. Diehl asked what about past history? It seems like a lot of trouble to go through when we’re probably not going to get a lot of money for these. Can’t we just dispose of or donate them?
Mr. Parham responded in order for the City to dispose of anything non-land we first have to get a determination of value. If it is less than $500 the Clerk of Council can identify it as such and we can dispose of it at that point. If it is greater than $500, we must go through a fair market disposal process. In other words, we give everybody an equal opportunity to obtain the item through the auction process. We have had times where we’ve not only auctioned off vehicles but also other things such as computer hard drives, monitors, cameras, etc. It’s the fairest way for every individual to have an opportunity to obtain that object.
Mayor Webster stated we have to make sure there is no favoritism and no matter what process we use to sell these, somebody will object that they didn’t get a fair shot at them. We pay a modest fee to the auto auction and everything is totally above-board and we don’t have to worry about it. As to the value, in one of my previous careers I ran across a cab company is Northern Kentucky and they loved to get their hands on Springdale police cruisers.
Ordinance 32-2010 passed with seven affirmative votes.
Mrs. Harlow said Ordinances 33-35 are all first readings. They are the same terms as last year.

First reading.

Mr. Hawkins said the public defender had four cases this year. Is that typical?

Mayor Webster replied yes, we’ve never had more than eight to ten in a year.

Mr. Hawkins asked does the City get back any of the money it pays per case?

Mayor Webster replied no.

First reading.


First reading.


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

Mr. Parham stated MVRMA served the City well at keeping our workers’ compensation costs as low as possible. In the last ten years our rates have increased tremendously and the bureau has taken a position that they are not in favor of group rating plans. They believe that those communities that are not allowed to participate in a group are paying the fair share for those who are allowed to participate in a group. For the most part, most organizations that are in a group are not penalty rated but in the MVRMA Group we did experience a few years where we were penalty rated but we were still allowed to participate. Unfortunately, that group had to disband. It was not advantageous for a number of the communities to continue to participate. They would experience better savings on their own. Mr. Thamann has worked pretty hard with our third party administrator, Comp Management Inc., and has been able to engage in an opportunity for us to participate in the Ohio Municipal League. It is a group rating retrospective program. The programs we had been involved in recently had just been group rating programs. Your experiences are measured as of today. With the retrospective programs your experiences are measured a year later and if there is some savings, then the bureau will recognize that and at that time you will receive some benefit from that process. Based upon our experience and our rates, they have offered to accept us into this group if Council so desires. They can’t promise us a savings amount today because they don’t know what other communities are going to participate but they are offering us an opportunity to be a member of the group.

Mrs. Harlow said that would be less expensive than going out on our own.

Mr. Parham stated we believe that to be so. Once they identify the members they will have a better sense of putting us together and running an analysis to determine what we would pay.

Ordinance 36-2010 passed with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. Parham reported the final numbers for the Northland Boulevard project are at $302,448.06. That’s a savings of nearly $35,000 from the change order you passed.

Mr. Parham said Mrs. Boskins and Mr. Keller of Allen Avenue had come before Council and we told them we would investigate the situation and get back to them. A rather detailed research was conducted by the engineering staff and Public Works Director. The staff along with Mayor Webster and me met with Mrs. Boskins and Mr. Keller and presented all of our information to them. What we found is that there is a 33 inch pipe coming off Cloverdale that goes into the rear of properties located at 686 and 682 Cloverdale Avenue. The pipe opens up into a creek area that then flows onto the property near 681 Allen Avenue. The 33 inch pipe was installed by the City of Springdale as part of a 1971 Capital Improvement Program. No easements had been granted by the property owners, accepted by the City or registered with the County. Even if an easement was granted, the easement only provides the City access to come on the property and construct the pipe. A second easement allows you to come on the property and maintain the pipe, not any part of the resident’s property, just the pipe. Because there was no easement, we don’t have the ability to go on the property and fix the pipe. Thank goodness at this time there is no indication that there is anything wrong or malfunctioning with the pipe. So everyone understands, this does not suggest that we come onto the property and try to fix the erosion of the bank because of the velocity of the water. If you come into my office I can show you a number of other locations throughout the community in which a pipe was constructed and then left open into a stream or creek. At 665 Allen, the property owner put in a 24 inch pipe when the house was constructed. The City then apparently extended the pipe and connected it to the manhole at the intersection of Harmony and Allen. There is a 30” pipe that comes from the north on Harmony and connects in the manhole. Coming from that manhole is a 48 inch that goes back northeast and flows into the creek that eventually ends up back here at Perkins. There are other examples we can show you where the pipe was constructed but it ends at a creek or body of water. Fixing the erosion problem is the responsibility of the property owners. As I indicated, we did meet with Mrs. Boskins and Mr. Keller. We had the engineer’s staff put together a couple of options for them to look at for repairing their property to prevent further deterioration and loss of the trees as he had indicated. Mr. Shvegzda also had costs associated with those, but as we explained to him, our responsibility had there been an easement, would have been to maintain the pipe, not to address the erosion of his property. I’m willing to answer any questions.

Mrs. Emerson asked how was that pipe originally laid on that property without easements originally.

Mr. Parham replied the City’s contractor put the pipe there. There is a big creek between 665 and 681 Allen where Mrs. Boskins lives. The original property owner at 665 Allen apparently filled the creek in front and constructed the home. He put in a 24 inch pipe that allowed him to build that home at 665. At 686 and 682 Cloverdale there was a creek as well. Our assumption is that the pipe was placed there as well to allow those two homes to be constructed. The City’s project was a 1971 project that installed the sewer on Cloverdale as well as putting in the 33 inch pipe. The property at 686 received their Certificate of Occupancy in 1972. The situation that occurred at 665 Allen was the same thing that occurred on Cloverdale except at 665 Allen the owner put the pipe in.

Mrs. Emerson said the difference between the example you make where the Harmony Creek – that whole creek flows in people’s back yards. The difference you have here is that this creek goes over the resident’s front yard. It’s not dumping into a creek. It’s a little landfill. Ten years ago it was a property. It was not a creek ten years ago.

Mr. Parham said I can show you documentation that there was a creek there. The pipe goes from off of Cloverdale between the two properties (686 and 682) to the rear and comes out near the rear of 681 or one of the lots they own into a creek and flows along, until it gets to 665 Allen. There is a home at 665 Allen and 681 Allen. In between is a creek. The 33 inch pipe comes off Cloverdale and ends up at one of those other lots that Mrs. Boskins owns. There are five vacant lots between those two and Mrs. Boskins owns all but the center one. We found correspondence where Mr. Boskins had made application to then City Engineer, Mr. Shuler that he wanted to connect a pipe to fill that creek as well but he never got it accomplished. He did acquire all the properties except one but he was never able to connect the piping. Part of that problem would have been a 33 inch pipe connecting into a 24 inch pipe.

Mrs. Emerson replied what I’m saying is that Mr. Duncan’s front yard isn’t a creek. It’s his front yard. When that overflows into that smaller pipe, it causes his front yard to flood. It’s not emptying into a creek like at Harmony.

Mr. Parham stated I would agree with you. I never said that was the case. I said there is a creek between the two homes. There is a 24 inch pipe that was placed in the ground in front of the Duncan’s residence. When that backs up, you’re right. In fact, we had to have Mr. Duncan clean that area out and he’s done it. We have had to ask him a couple of times over the years.

Mr. Vanover said the catch basin at the end of my driveway dumps into Beaver Run on the back corner of my property. There is another one that comes through that vacant lot. I know there is an easement parallel to our driveway but I think it’s for the utilities.

Mr. Parham said in some of these instances we can find where easements were granted for the City to construct that pipe. In this particular case there was no easement.

Mrs. Harlow asked do we need to do something about gaining an easement for maintenance of that for the future?

Mr. Parham replied that would be accepting responsibility. We haven’t had a problem so far. If we have a problem we would look to the homeowner because we can’t gain access to their property.

Mrs. Harlow said Mr. Shvegzda did work with the homeowners on some solutions to their problem.

Mayor Webster said I don’t think there’s any doubt that if we were building or reconstructing Cloverdale, Smiley, Allen, Park, etc. today as was done in the early 70s, that there would be an easement. We would require an easement before we would put a drain through from one street to the other going through private property. But it wasn’t done back then.

Mr. Galster said they probably would have continued that pipe underground until they got to the sewer.

Mayor Webster said there are a number of situations where the City has allowed storm water and expedited storm water to get it off the street and dumped it into a public right-of-way. This one is no different. As much as you feel sorry for these folks, if you want to take the responsibility of doing the repairs, then you better get the keys to the vault because you are going to have tons of families lined up saying you enclosed that up there, I want mine enclosed. Then you will have a ton of sewer work in this city and you might as well forget any other projects for years and years to come.

Mr. Galster said I probably need to look at the drawings to fully understand, but the eighteen inch pipe that is closer to Harmony and Allen storm sewer, was that put in by the City as well? All the pipe was put in but the 24 inch pipe that the owner did one property up from where the pipe presently ends. Where the pipe presently ends that property owner put in a 24 inch pipe on his property to extend the pipe and move the water down one more property.

Mr. Parham replied the Boskin property is at 681. Then there are about five lots in-between, then the property at 665 Allen. On Allen down the center of the road is an 18 inch pipe. The creek apparently overflowed onto the property at 665 before the home was constructed. We believe that when they constructed that home, they put in a 24 inch pipe in order to make it a buildable lot. I believe what then occurred was either during a 1971 street project or 1974 street project the City decided to connect that 24 inch underground and take it to the intersection to that manhole. The eighteen inch goes to that manhole. The 24 inch stays in front of the property at 665 and goes over one more property and then angles into the center of the street at the manhole. In response to your question earlier, if we had fixed it, the problem is that you have this 33 inch pipe coming into a 24” pipe.

Mrs. Emerson asked Mr. Parham, you said the developer put in the 24 inch pipe?

Mr. Parham replied the property owner.

Mrs. Emerson asked did that not have to go through the City for approval?

Mr. Parham replied yes, maam they do but maybe somebody is building something right now that we don’t know they are doing. People don’t always come in and see us when they are constructing things. Therefore, when we find out we send them to BZA, but in that instance I can’t tell you. I have to imagine that the City did not know that person was putting the pipe in.

Mrs. Emerson asked why did we tie in to that pipe?

Mr. Parham said I would have to think to take that water somewhere rather than just ending right in front of that property owner. At some point the City decided to connect it to the manhole.

Mrs. Harlow said if we were doing a street repair that would probably not be unusual to do if there was a situation that needed to be rectified.

Mr. Parham said if you think back we used to have a lot of flooding in those neighborhoods and we were able to secure funding for Kemper Road and we filled in the ditch on the northern side of Kemper Road and we did a few other things. That improved the flooding so we don’t get those calls any longer. Our Fire Department spent a lot of time in those years assisting residents pumping their basements. When we find there are problems and we have the necessary resources, and it isn’t going to lead to something greater (a bigger problem), we can do that.

Mrs. Emerson asked what kind of money are we talking for the solutions that were offered to the residents.?

Mr. Parham replied I think one was about $8,000 to build a channel at the bottom of the creek.

Mr. Shvegzda said that was the one where there was rock channel protection on the toe of that slope to basically stabilize it and protect it from the velocity of the water. That was the less expensive of the two options.

Mr. Parham stated the other was about $32,000 and the project would be very similar to what we did on Beaver Run Phase 1.

Mr. Shvegzda said we have a fairly steep slope and we regarded that at a 3 to 1 and provide a fabric to stabilize it with some rock channel at the bottom. That would be the more green way but it is the more expensive of the two options.

Mrs. Emerson said when the City tied into the pipe, we didn’t think back then that it would be a problem?

Mr. Parham responded we were probably helping those two owners that sit at that location where the 24 inch pipe was located and it goes in front of the second property to take it into the manhole. The City probably assisted both of those homeowners after the first property owner put it in.

Mr. Vanover said the improvement was taking the water off the surface through the pipe and then dumping it into the manhole.

Mr. Diehl said this year’s business expo was the best ever. Job well done by the Chamber of Commerce of Springdale.



    Furlough day                         -     October 22
    Rules of Council subcommittee             -     October 27
Planning Commission                     -     November 9
Board of Health                     -     November 11
Board of Zoning Appeals                 -     November 16


Ordinance 33-35/2010                 -     November 3


Gas co-op aggregation                 -     November 3

Council adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

                        Respectfully submitted,

                        Kathy McNear
                        Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:
Marjorie Harlow, President of Council

__________________________, 2010