Council was called to order on December 18, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. by President of Council Randy Danbury.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by the governmental body and those in attendance. The Invocation was given by Mr. Knox.

Roll call was taken by Mr. Knox. Present were Council members Galster, Manis, McNear, Vanover, Wilson and Danbury.

Mrs. Boice arrived at 7:40 p.m.

The minutes of December 4, 1996 were not available.


RULES AND LAWS - no report

PUBLIC RELATIONS - Mrs. McNear said she had a note from Hoxworth Blood Center. President Clinton has declared January 1997 as National Volunteer Blood Donor Month to recognize the 8 million volunteer blood donors nationally who supplied more than 14 million pints of blood to needy patients last year. They are trying to get more people to volunteer and we do have a Hoxworth Blood Center in Springdale on Northland Boulevard and they would appreciate any donations they could get, especially at this time of year. With so many more people traveling there are a lot of accidents and illnesses and they need all the blood they can possibly get their hands on.


PUBLIC WORKS - Mr. Vanover asked Council's support for Ordinances 96 and 97 which begin the engineering work for the 1997 summer street program.


CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - Mr. Wilson said on Ray Norrish Drive everything is done except for the guy wire which is the responsibility of Cincinnati Bell. They've not done it yet. Once the guy wire is done we can finish.

FINANCE COMMITTEE - Finance Committee received a letter and telephone call from Mr. Schneider regarding a small increase in his retainer. He would like to change the retainer from $12,800 to $13,200 and increase the hourly rate from $115 to $118. In areas of litigation and labor negotiation they would like to change it from $118 to $130 per hour. We would like to request legislation to this effect.

PLANNING COMMISSION - Mr. Galster stated they met December 10, 1996. All members were present. Election of officers was held. Mr. Syfert remained as Chairman; Mr. Okum, vice-chair and Bob Seaman was appointed secretary. We had a conditional use permit for Cellular 1 to put up a 135 foot monopole. That was the one that was in litigation and that was approved 7-0. Community Management requested approval of additional parking at Wimbledon Plaza. It ended up being a net gain of 12 parking spaces to allow more parking by the Outback, new Dairy Queen, etc. There is elimination of some green space but that is not visible from Route 4. That was approved 6-1 providing that they also look at modifying that entrance. I don't know if everyone else has the same problem but when I come in off of Glensprings to make that right hand turn into their plaza going towards Outback, it's an awfully tight corner. We're going to eliminate one spot, move that down and try to line it up a little better. Kerry Ford requested approval of proposed signage for Kerry Ford Subaru, 155 W. Kemper Road. They have completed their addition and this was to add wall mounted signs. We had had conversation in Planning Commission previously and there was a verbal understanding with the Kerry Ford people and Planning Commission that they were going to address the sign issue as a whole package and possibly eliminate some of the pole signs, make them directional signs. That's the idea Planning Commission had. Kerry Ford doesn't recall having those conversations. To say the least we are a little disappointed in their recollection and reconstruction of that. Because their signage comes under their allowable amount it was approved 6-1. The next item was final plan approval for Sterling House, the assisted living residence at 11320 Springfield Pike. That was tabled until January as they needed to clean up some of the checklist items. Lanco Development requested rezoning of property at the northeast corner of Kenn Road, I-275. That was tabled as there was no representation. We had a conditional use permit to allow office as the main use in the general industrial district at Vineyard Community Church, 11353 Century Circle East. They want to put up an office building that they could possibly subdivide and sell off at a later time. They aren't sure if they are going to sell it or lease it. It passed as a conditional use 5-2 even though there were some pretty major concerns about the replacement tree ordinance. That is still going to be looked at pretty closely. Jake Sweeney Chevrolet Geo, 33 W. Kemper Road, requested approval of a proposed renovation to replace the existing sales office building. This was passed 7-0. They are proposing to eliminate the used car office they have in the middle of their lot and incorporate that back into their main showroom area, redo the facade and get a new updated look. They proposed removing two pole signs, the used car sign on Kemper Road and the Geo sign on S.R. 747. They are still a substantial amount over the allotted signage even though it is back on the building now. Planning Commission thought it was a little more attractive and it passed 7-0 pending approval from BZA for a variance to allow that difference. Best Sign and Service requested a variance for Jiffy Lube, 300 E. Kemper Road, adding some small identification signage. That was approved 7-0.

Ms. Manis asked if on the Kerry Ford Sign, was the man from Holthaus Sign Company there or was there a Kerry person?

Mr. Galster replied the man from Holthaus and an attorney for Kerry Ford were there. It was show me what we have to do because we are within the allotted square footage for our property. We don't have an argument other than the perception that was presented before planning. Planning Commission has in the past passed applicants' requests based on if we address this, will this need to be addressed, etc. I think we found out the hard way, especially on signage, that someone's word, which was spoken from the audience as opposed to being on record, we had some enforceability problems. I think we'll be more cautious with that type of statement.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - Mrs. McNear reported they met last night at 7:30 p.m. All members were in attendance. We also had election of officers. Mr. Mitchell is chairman; Mr. Squires, vice-chairman; and Mrs. Ewing, secretary. There was no change from last year. Mr. Steve Buffington, 232 W. Kemper requested a variance to sell customized stingray bikes in his mother's garage at 226 W. Kemper. You may recall from childhood that those are the bikes that have banana seats and the handlebars that go up. He was going to build those and sell them out of his garage. The board really didn't have a problem with him building those but we did have a problem with him putting a sign in his front yard. He also wanted to sell parts so there would be some traffic with people backing in and out. We thought that was a safety concern. The biggest issue was that the City has tried so hard to maintain that residential flair and we thought if we started putting up signs there that would be a precedent. Before you know it we'd see a sign for some kind of agency or business in every building along that strip. That was denied by a vote of 6 against with one abstention. Mr. James O'Brien and Brad Johnson requested a variance to allow the use of a temporary building to be placed in the Olde Gate Plaza parking lot. I have a picture if anyone is interested in looking at it. It would be called the Santa Snow, a shaved ice business. It is self-contained. There is no running water but they have barrels of water there. All the flavors are brought in by pick-up truck. They would also have an ice machine placed in the parking lot next to the building. They would also have a mailbox where children could send letters to Santa and it would cost 50 cents. They would donate that money to the community programs. This would be placed about as far from the street as the bagel shop is. It would be in the far right corner and that was denied by 7 votes. Jake Sweeney Chevrolet came in requesting a little over 150 square feet additional signage over their current variance. As you know, BZA works with whoever comes in, a little give, a little take. Basically it was put to us that we are the experts. We know how to sell signs. We know how to sell cars and if you don't take it the way it stands we are going to leave our pole signs and be done with it. They want us to rubber stamp it. We said how much leeway do you have? He said I don't have any leeway to deal on this at all. This is the way I want it. He started getting rather nasty with everybody and at that point I just said you don't have the ability to deal with us. Emotions are running a bit high and I suggest we table this until you get somebody here who can talk with us about it. We tabled it 7-0.

Mr. Galster asked if Mr. Sweeney was there. Mrs. McNear replied no.

BOARD OF HEALTH - no report

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION - Mr. Coleman reported they did conduct additional oral evaluations for the Violations Bureau Clerk position. That information has been tallied and the evaluation scores have been presented to the City Administrator/Assistant City Administrator for their review. We're hoping to move forward with those candidates and ultimately fill that position. I do also want to add that I am very appreciative of Council's support in my being part of the Civil Service Commission. I welcome the opportunity to serve additionally. We have not yet elected officers but I do believe that there will not be a change in the office of chairman. Things seem to be going very well. Thank you.

Mr. Danbury asked if we are interviewing now for positions in the police force.

Mr. Coleman replied no. We've recently completed the oral evaluations for the Violation's Bureau clerk.

Mr. Parham said one correction. We have been interviewing. We had a list of candidates that were certified. I think we received two additional names that were certified from the Commission to us. We've made a tentative selection at this point and have completed the interviewing process.

Mayor Webster said there has been a tentative appointment made pending a background check and physical. Hopefully we will have that announcement on January 2.

O-K-I - no report

MAYOR'S REPORT - Mayor Webster said the community survey has been completed as of December 11. I've talked to 15-20 people in the community who were called. Everybody was very complimentary of the way it was done. It was done in a very professional manner. The data is being analyzed and being put in report format. We should be hearing back from the institute some time next month. I just want to remind everyone that tomorrow night and Friday night are the nights we will be judging for the Christmas awards. I'd like to have those presentations made on January 15.

CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR - Mr. Knox said I would like to recommend to the Council Ordinance 98 and publicly recognize the work of Rhonda Ridge, Marty Holden, Martha Brillhart and Lisa Hogeback on the work they did in preparing this in the short time that was available to them to do it. I would also like to recommend to the Council Resolutions 34 and 35. Resolution 34 is an outgrowth of the Charter amendment and Resolution 35 is a necessary document we need in order to receive funding from the County and the State.

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - Mr. Osborn stated as you may recall from our last meeting we are in the market for a one-half ton pick-up truck, extended cab. We have in hand a purchase price of $17,525 under the state purchase. In order to determine how competitive that amount is we then advertised for bids here. We hand carried specs out to three local dealers and on the date of the bid opening we received no bids back so the state bid must have been pretty good. We are requesting that Council consider legislation this evening so we can encumber this purchase as a 1996 expense. The second item I have deals with a CG&E energy audit which we requested performed on the Municipal Building. We also had them performed on some other buildings in the City too but I am going to limit my comments this evening to the City building. We found there would be a significant cost savings if we replaced the existing fluorescent lamps in the Municipal Building. There is a new lamp called a 32 watt T-8 high efficiency fluorescent tube. They were not available at the time this building was built In order to use those lamps we did have to change out all the transformers. We have undertaken that and we had to accomplish that feat by the end of December in order to qualify for a rebate from CG&E. Our total materials cost was $12,600. Our estimated rebate from CG&E is just under $3,300 so our net materials cost is $9,300. Our labor costs performed by our own personnel is $9,600. Our total labor cost is about $18,900. The estimated energy savings per year is $4,200 so we are looking at a 4.5 year cycle payback and from that point on the cost will be a direct savings to the City. I just want to commend the members of the Public Works Department who worked so diligently in here changing out the ballasts and lamps. They also found some other deficiencies in the lighting that they were able to take care of on their own. Again, I think this just reflects how diverse and talented our people are. All this work was done by City personnel. While I give you this as a labor cost, keep in mind these people are on the payroll and we would have them doing winter type work some place in the City and all of it is obviously important, but in the wintertime you do look for inside work and this happened to be a good inside project, and even factoring in their labor, it will result in a payback on the investment within four and one half years.

Mayor Webster stated $9,600 of that $18,900 cost is soft cost. It is labor cost we would have incurred anyway. When you take that out of the equation the payback is just a little over two years. It would have been foolish not to seize the opportunity and proceed with that. Mr. Sears' work force did a splendid job as usual. They really busted their chops to get that done on time.

Mr. Knox said I might add that the type of fluorescent bulb currently in use will no longer be available. They are not being made so eventually we would have to change over anyway.

LAW DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Mr. Schneider said we have a motion to dismiss up for hearing Monday on the Christy Shepherd suit against the City for $13 million, $6.5 compensatory and $6.5 punitive. There are various motions but our motion to dismiss is one and there are some different sort of motions by her as well that will be heard at the same time. Hopefully by the next meeting we will have a report. I don't know if we'll have the matter cleaned up or not but we'll be able to update you on the status before Magistrate Tim Hogan, who is the new federal magistrate. I also want to mention Ordinance 99, purchase of the property. Everyone got a copy of the plat we just received from the company. At first they were quite anxious to get that matter resolved before the end of the year and thus, we tried to accelerate getting things on the agenda so we would have the authority rest with the Mayor and Clerk of Council/Finance Director but it looks like they will be forced to carry over in view of some additional approvals they need from Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning Commission. Now that we have a little time the City Engineer is going to review, relative to the set-up of the street across from the entrance where a proposed new drive is shown on that map you have, to make sure we have adequate clearance to tie into that right of way. They have verbally agreed to that so it's just a matter of making the description fit. It may result in a few more square feet or a few hundred additional square feet, I don't know. If it does we'll amend it. I suggest we have a first reading tonight with an emergency clause and then have it in place with an amendment at the next meeting.

Mayor Webster said you're probably going to redo the ordinance with different figures. Why not add the emergency clause then?

Mr. Schneider replied that would be fine. We will amend it at least to that extent if there is no change in square footage.




Sandy Edmison, 11681 Van Camp Lane said I am here because I just found out my Boone County tax withheld from my check is not recognized by the City of Springdale and I would like to see if somebody can do something about changing that. I also found out that there are other taxes such as Kenton County that are not recognized also. From what information I can gather it seems any time anybody wants to make a change to have a tax recognized, something has to be done. It has to be voted on. I don't know if each individual locality has to be added to the ordinance or what but it seems very inefficient if that's the way it has to be done. Unless somebody comes and says I would like this tax to be recognized and takes the time and effort, and gets it on the ballot, etc., obviously I get stuck paying tax here plus tax in Boone County. This morning it took me three hours to get to work because I was at the bridge at 8:00 but unfortunately, Kentucky doesn't really figure out that they can use the salt on the roads so nobody can go anywhere. I would rather my money be in Springdale, not Boone County but I really hate paying it twice. I pay there and I pay here and it really doesn't seem fair because other residents' taxes they pay other places, get recognized, and as a point of reference, the cities of Sharonville, Forest Park, Evendale, Cincinnati, and Fairfield all recognize Boone County taxes but Springdale does not.

Mr. Knox said it's not part of the Charter and if I'm not mistaken, it's not part of an ordinance.

Mr. Schneider said he is not aware of us listing city by city exemptions. There may be a general statement and the difference may be not in Ohio.

Mayor Webster said I can't imagine we don't give credit for local earnings tax paid in all jurisdictions. I know we do throughout Ohio and I can't imagine why we would draw a line at the river and not give credit for earnings taxes paid in Kentucky. That's what you are being told by the Tax Department?

Ms. Edmison replied yes, $500 worth.

Mayor Webster said on the surface that sounds like something we need to change but that has nothing to do with the Charter. It would be strictly in the tax code which Council can amend, repeal, add to any time they want.

Mr. Knox asked if we had Ms. Edmison's phone number. She replied yes, she had talked to everyone in the Tax Office and the Boone County Tax Commissioner many times since she found out this wasn't recognized. I can't get Boone County to give me the money back even though I'm not a resident and my company withheld it and they weren't required to withhold it until October of 1995 but they withheld it the whole year of 1995. I can't get anybody to do anything about it other than say too bad, you have to pay it.

Mr. Knox responded let me find out what we have in writing. If it's an ordinance we'll have to approach the Council on it. If it's part of the Tax Code that might be a different matter. Let me research that tomorrow and hopefully I will be able to get back with you on Friday or over the weekend and at least tell you where we stand. Then we'll go forward from there. I agree with the Mayor, double taxation is not really something Springdale is interested in. We'd like to avoid it if at all possible.

Mayor Webster asked if it is classified as a earnings tax in Boone County.

Ms. Edmison replied it is earning tax and residents of Boone County pay 1% and non-residents pay .95%. Evidently they put an issue on the ballot in Boone County in October 1995 asking the residents of Boone County if they would like to tax non-residents who work here and of course, they all said yes.

Mayor Webster responded that is not uncharacteristic. We do the same thing.

Ms. Edmison stated just because we do it and everybody else does it, it doesn't make it right, to be honest. The people who pay the taxes don't get a chance to vote on them. If I work in Kentucky I don't pay Kentucky state taxes and Ohio state tax. But I live in Springdale and I pay Springdale income tax and Boone County income tax.

Mr. Danbury said the only thing I can suggest is that you get with Mr. Knox and if it needs to be rectified by Council, Mr. Knox can work with Mr. Schneider. If we need to change something we can do it at our first meeting, January 2. If at all possible we can have an emergency on it. I don't see a problem.


Mrs. McNear made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.

Mr. Osborn said for the benefit of the audience, this represents a 3 1/2% wage increase for all full-time members of the work force and all part time members of the Springdale Fire Department, the one exception being the Violations Bureau clerks in the Police Department who are presently in wage negotiations as we speak. I think that this is certainly well deserved. Our community has the benefit of a very, very stable and talented work force and on behalf of them I'd like to thank Council for this compensation increase.

Mr. Danbury asked why have it for December 22?

Mr. Osborn replied the reason for December 22 is that is the beginning of a bi-weekly pay period and we have traditionally made that change so that we don't have to split a pay period and try to factor the cost of the pay increase for two different rates within that pay period.

Ordinance 94-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes. Mrs. Boice was absent.


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

Ordinance 95-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes. Mrs. Boice was absent.


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

Ordinance 96-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


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

Ordinance 97-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said in the general fund we are appropriating an additional $124,472 into the general fund budget from the inactive funds in the general fund. That is a precautionary measure on our part to make sure we don't run out of money before the end of the year. This is our last chance to balance line items without having to call you all back for a special meeting. I can also tell you that, in general, the fund is in extremely good shape. We are finishing the year with $1.1 million dollars more than we had estimated in terms of income. That is just on the income projections. Our total general fund year end balance should be around $3.4 million.. I thought I should touch base with you on some of the major cost items that did drive us to the point of making this supplemental appropriation. We have had refunds in the tax department, performance bond deposit refunds in the Finance Office greater than anticipated. This is money we are holding that we have to pay back to the person. This is not really a true loss to us but we have had to appropriate an additional $77,000 into this budget this year for refunds for various purposes. We have also seen our engineering costs go up considerably this year. We have a $77,000 overrun in engineering but I think a lot of that has to do with projects we added as well as the Glenview Subdivision. That has been a cost factor. Our workers' compensation ran over $35,000 beyond what we had projected. Our waste collection was $34,000 over budget. A major part of that, $28,000, was the unbudgeted dumping of materials put into the trucks through the Community Pride Program. That was an unbudgeted item but obviously something very popular and something the community has benefited from. The salt purchases are over about $20,000. You may recall we had a rather icy, snowy first quarter of 1996. Again, that was something that caused us to go beyond budget in that matter. The magistrate has been added to the budget. That's another $16,000. The Civil Service Commission budget went over by about $16,000 because of testing. We had one test alone where we had 800 people. It gets rather expensive to test and it's hard to predict when you are going to have a test of that magnitude given the budget cycle we've been on in the past. We added personnel in the Fire Department. We had predicted to you that this would be a wash at some point in the future but not the first year and that is the case. As you may recall, we are cutting back from eight to six on the part-time personnel per each part-time slot. We're doing that by attrition and that has not totally evolved yet and as a result, we have gone over on staffing in the Fire Department. That is a general overview of some of the more serious excesses by line item and again, I just want to point out that the $124,000 supplemental is going to appear as a surplus because we have other monies that we're just not willing to transfer between line items at this point because we are fearful of cutting ourselves too thin on any given line item. The health insurance trust fund is another critical one I want to draw your attention to. We had budgeted $450,000. This year to date we have expenses of $844,000. We have had a very significant loss history this year. We had one particular preemie that has been an exceptional cost to the system. We had four or five other patients who have reached their individual attachment point so for the first time since we have been operating a program we have exceeded our aggregate attachment point. While we are experiencing a dramatic overrun on our costs, our aggregate attachment point for this contract year is $494,000. So far in FY96 we have received $134,000 in refunds and about $120,000 of that is from the current contract year. We are going to continue to see refunds from the current contract year through April of 1997. This is a reimbursement process and we'll be getting money back from our re-insure after the audit is completed at the end of the contract year. This was the reason why we have a reserve built into the health insurance trust fund. Even with this major hit we'll still have a year end balance of over $150,000 in this fund. The system is working. Obviously, we don't like to see a major hit like this for many reasons, one for the welfare of the individuals but secondly for the health insurance plan itself. Fortunately, we've been able to cover those extreme costs within the fund itself without having to borrow money from the general fund or any other resource. While it is a major cost center for us this year, we will get substantial reimbursement in first quarter 1997 under this continuing contract year that ends April 30. Finally, in the Capital Improvements fund, we had a supplemental appropriation of $342,000. Again, these are projects that have been approved by Council during the past year that were not original budget items and we are covering those costs again within the original transfer from the general fund and unappropriated revenues within the capital improvements fund.

Mr. Knox said previously I commended Messes. Ridge, Holden, Brillhart and Hogeback. It wouldn't be fair if I didn't also commend Mr. Osborn and Mr. Parham for the work they did in preparing this.

Ordinance 98-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.



Mr. Osborn pointed out a typo on the attachment, paragraph 4. Ms. Manis suggested deleting an before electronically.

Mr. Osborn stated I just want to explain to the public that the purpose for this ordinance is to allow police officers to cite without the requirement of having a complainant. Reasonableness in court is based upon whether or not we can prove the noise has disturbed the peace. In order to do that, typically we have to have a complainant from the public saying it has bothered him/her. This gives the police officer a prima facie evidence of violation. You'll notice that the three paragraphs above are similar prima facie limitations on other types of violations of the noise ordinance and what we are doing with paragraph 4 is adding a prima facie of violation which will allow the police officer to cite without the requirement of a complainant.

Mr. Danbury said in the legislation still in development, is this Ordinance 100-1996, item 3? Mr. Osborn replied yes.

Mayor Webster said this is probably one of the most frustrating things we have had to endure. We've had on numerous occasions had residents, especially from Royal Oaks subdivision in here complaining about the car dealerships on Kemper Road. It's really been frustrating from the police standpoint and for the residents so we asked Mr. Schneider to do some research and see what we could do on this. He has come up with something we think will work. Hopefully we can put a stop to this once and for all.

Ms. Manis asked Mr. Schneider, the problem I have with the ordinance is say my neighbor's stereo is blaring. The people say during the day I can play it as loud as I want. Is that not true? What is the difference between A and A(1)?

Mr. Schneider replied it's a prima facie case if they violate it during those hours. On the other hand, if anyone operates it in such a manner and to be of such intensity and duration as to create unreasonable noise or loud sound and which causes inconvenience and annoyance to persons or ordinary sensibilities which puts the burden on the City to prove it was of that nature, then that's a violation. It would be a prima facie case if the firm caused to be operated or permitted to be generated sound by the above described devices or any means under the following circumstances. Then we set up the time frames. That's my understanding of the difference.

Ms. Manis asked if it's during the day we have to prove it; if it's at night we can just cite them?

Mr. Osborn replied no, ma'am, if you go back to paragraph 4, it refers to all electronically amplified sound devices. Back to the question you put to Mr. Schneider, if my neighbors at 12 noon decided to play their stereo as loud as they wanted to, I could call the police or the police could stop in there and say turn your stereo down, even during the daytime. Keep in mind, Section 1 deals with all noises; construction noises, street sweeping, the vacuum they run at Value City that we used to get all the complaints on. That controls that type of general construction noise. This amplified sound is going to be prima facie, residential or commercial any time day or night. If I'm trying to sleep because I work third shift and my neighbors decide to play their stereo as loud as they want to they can't do that anymore. They couldn't do it anyhow but now it is a prima facie violation. If you want to exempt residential, we'll take it out.

Ms. Manis said no, she thought the excuse was that during the day I can do whatever I want.

Mr. Osborn stated that's not the case under paragraph 4. Number 1 was everything covered by paragraph A including construction noise.

Mr. Danbury said I spoke with a resident a while back and he had a complaint about the softball tournaments we had down here. They may go past a certain time. The fireworks go past 10:00. Can we exempt ourselves or do we have to adhere from there?

Mr. Osborn replied as the corporate entity we are exempt from these laws. That's something we have dealt with in the past. The lighting at the Rec Center, snow removal during these very hours we are talking about here. There are many times we violate our own laws, particularly this noise ordinance - a fire truck running down the street blaring its sirens. As the corporate source of these laws we are exempting ourselves from them.


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

Mr. Wilson said I was privileged to have spent time serving with Mr. Stephenson on Charter Revision. He comes to meetings prepared. He sits back and listens to all of us babble and then he makes his comments. His comments are always right on time. If we are off target he brings us back on target. He will be missed.

Ms. Manis said I'd like to thank Mr. Stephenson also. One thing about him you all noticed he came to Council meetings occasionally to actually see what is going on in the City. He was genuinely concerned about the City and I think he's done an excellent job.

Mr. Danbury stated I've known Mr. Stephenson for a number of years. He's a very, very gentle person and the thing that impressed me is if he doesn't have anything to say he doesn't prove it. He doesn't just open his mouth and yak. He does show up to a lot of our meetings. I think with the exception of Mrs. Webster he's been to more meetings than any other board members or residents. He did this prior to being on this board and I would hope that he would continue to do so. I really want to thank him for his time of service and hopefully he can get back in.

Resolution R33-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mrs. McNear seconded.

Mr. Galster asked if we have something under $200, what will be the procedure? Will it be a verbal order; do we have a handwritten note that we circulate for inter-office purposes only?

Mr. Osborn said we have a form called a request for purchase. It's a requisition form. We do those on everything. When it exceeded that $25 we then had to forward that requisition on to get a purchase order made. Every purchase that is made in the City will still be documented on a requisition form. That's not going to change.

Mr. Danbury asked if the intention is to review this on a yearly basis to see if $200 is adequate.

Mr. Osborn replied this requires an annual resolution from Council.

Resolution R34-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

RESOLUTION R35-1996 - Mr. Knox said Schedule A and Schedule B which I would have to read normally are filled with zeros except for one line. With Council's permission I'll only read the one line that has numbers other than zero.

Mr. Galster asked if we could read the resolution by title only with a brief description from somebody on staff who explains it so everybody can understand it. I would have a hard time trying to figure out how to read this all.

Mayor Webster said I think what makes it a little hard to understand is that none of the blanks are filled in. It should say Council, City of Springdale, met in regular session on December 18, 1996 at the offices of the Springdale Municipal Building. In the third paragraph it should say resolved by the Council, City of Springdale. The only one that ever gets read is the one that has pertinent data on it, Schedule A, the general fund, then the dollar amount and millage involved.

Mr. Galster made a motion to read by title only and Ms. Manis seconded.

The motion was approved 7-0.


Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt and Ms. Manis seconded.

Mr. Knox said this means we are accepting and authorizing a tax levy, in our case in the amount of 3.08 mils for monies that will be returned to the City by the County under the Rollback and Homestead Provisions. More simply put, if we don't pass this we won't get the money. There is a provision in this for more than 10 mils so for the citizens of the City this is a rather low rate. Other cities are much higher than that.

Ms. Manis asked what's column one?

Mr. Knox replied that is the amount of money we should receive from the County as approved by the Budget Commission.

Mayor Webster said the heading Amount Approved by Budget Commission Inside 10M Limitation, the key word is inside the 10m limitation. As Mr. Knox indicated we could go up as high as 10 mils. We are only assessing 3.08 which is our perpetual millage that was granted to us in incorporation. That's what the auditor estimates is going to be generated by that 3.08. If we had other millage such as a fire levy, that would be in Column 2, Outside the 10M Limitation.

Resolution R35-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Mr. Osborn said I just wanted to refer Council back to the discussion of driveway aprons. I believe I distributed a memo to everyone outlining our history on that topic. While we don't have to resolve it this evening, I think if this is going to be an issue we pursue in 1997 we should get a resolution of the issue in January. Either way we have a lot of work ahead of us if we are going to pursue some time of program for apron replacement.

Mr. Danbury asked Mr. Osborn if he wanted a discussion tonight and Mr. Osborn replied it's up to you if you want to do it tonight or next meeting. We have a Capital Improvements meeting January 9, 1997. If we decide to spend City money to do this we'll have to come up with the money some place. If we decide to do the work and assess it out, again we'll have to come up with the money internally because we are going to be floating that cost for up to two years while we get recovered under tax assessments. This a long time frame in getting this off the ground. If we are going to do it in 1997 we really need to get a policy decision in January.

Ms. Manis said I don't think it will be that much of a discussion. I think it will be quick. I don't think the City can pay for this. I don't think it would be fair. Mine really needs it. I would love it. But I know my neighbors have paid for their own as recently as two years ago. I think that's the way it is most places in the City. It's quite an amount of money for us to pay out for that. Would there be a way a number of residents who wanted to get their driveways done could use the same contractor and get a rate that is more beneficial?

Mr. Osborn said we bid it as a consolidated project and get a rate per square foot. Then we tell the resident what that is going to be and allow them to go out and do the work themselves. We had 191 orders in 1989 but we only did 109 driveways. The difference there was driveways that were done by the residents themselves through another contractor, a friend of theirs, etc.

Mr. Danbury said if I recall correctly back in 1989 there were instances where we had variances because there was a manhole cover right in the middle. There were certain extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Osborn said those were appealed to an equalization board. Whenever we do an assessment, by statute, we have to appoint an equalization board and give all residents who are being assessed an opportunity to appeal that assessment to that board. This board of their peers makes a decision and we, the City, have to live by that decision. In 1989 we had three appeals, two of which went in the City's favor and one that went in the resident's favor. That particular case did have a sanitary sewer manhole in the driveway apron.

Ms. Manis said I wasn't necessarily talking an assessment as far as us floating the money, just making it known that we have this contractor who would do it if you'd like to contact him on your own. You'll be given the Springdale rate and pay for it yourself. It might not even be the contractor we would bid with on the City projects. It might be Joe down the street who will give us a good deal on 200 driveway aprons.

Mr. Osborn said then we'd promote that through the newsletter rather than a formal program, have something where we would solicit proposals for non-City work.

Ms. Manis said if we did it for a request for as many as 100 residents. I wouldn't do it for ten requests.

Mr. Osborn said I think we could do that but it doesn't address the issue of all the deteriorated aprons in town. There are going to be quite a number and a lot of folks are not going to want to fix them voluntarily. In many cases those deteriorated aprons have a direct impact on the curbs and sidewalks the City replaces. That's how we got into it originally in 1989. We had a number of aprons that had settled and were causing the curb to be broken down. We couldn't replace the curb because what's the good of replacing the curb at the height it is required if the apron is lower. That is going to get busted off in a matter of weeks anyhow. That's how all this got started back in 89 but because it's such a big project, a lot of correspondence, a lot of distress for the residents, for the City, we didn't do this every year. At this point we're looking at eight or nine years separating the two projects. But I think at some point we're going to have to wrestle with the issue of what we are going to do with all those deteriorating aprons in the community.

Ms. Manis suggested we could address it street by street like we do with the street program. I would still assess. I know my street is not going to be paved in the next year or two. I would still take advantage of the apron program.

Mr. Osborn said last time we did it in one year. Suppose your apron is $850 which you can assess over four payments in two years. That's about $200 extra at tax settlement which I think is a fairly nice way to budget it out. Obviously we are going to take a hit carrying that expense for two years in our Capital Improvements budget but it's a benefit to the resident in that we're allowing them to spread that cost. It certainly is a benefit to the whole community in that we're getting these aprons cleaned up. We have to come around to the issue of what we're going to do comprehensively about driveway aprons.

Ms. Manis said I agree but I also thought we were talking about replacing every apron that was a little cracky there.

Mr. Osborn said I think we would have a criteria and we would bring that criteria back to City Council. Last time it was 1" differential between the curb and sidewalk or 50% deterioration in the surface, etc. There is criteria and we can bring that back to Council for your approval which we did the last time as well. That will determine how many aprons we order out. If you say 1" it will be one number; if you say 1 1/2" it will be less. II think we can give you a rough idea of how many aprons you will be ordering corrected.

Mr. Wilson said it seems to me I remember when we did the aprons we gave our residents the choice of paying for it themselves if they chose to use the City contractor or having it assessed to their property taxes. Are we still talking about doing the same thing?

Mr. Osborn replied yes, we would bill them. We would give them thirty days to pay that bill. If they fail to pay that bill in thirty days it automatically gets rolled over to an assessment. At least that's what we did last time. As Ms. Manis pointed out, we also give the resident the opportunity to repair the apron without being part of our program.

Mr. Wilson said I think it is a good idea. We ought to move on this. Some of the neighbors on Glensprings have mentioned to me, what are we going to do about this. Is the City going to do it or do we have to do it. If so, is there a specific contractor we can use or can Johnny next door do it. I said no, it has to be a licensed contractor but I'll get back to you because there is something pending. I think we need to get going on it and do the announcement in the newsletter and let people know as soon as possible so they can get their monies together if they elect to do it themselves and give them their options so they'll know what's going on ahead of time.

Mr. Danbury said we are looking at having a third party the residents could go to. I think we ought to try to negotiate a GSA type structure with two or three different people. Legally could they come back to us and say this is the contractor you told us to go to. The contractor may get bogged down. Maybe if we could get two or three different names. Mr. Shuler, do you think we could get a good price break if we can get contractors competing against each other.

Mr. Shuler replied the problem we're going to have with any contractor is that we are not going to be able to guarantee him the amount of work. Because of that he is going to be very reluctant to give us a specific price. When we're giving the people a choice we just don't know how many will accept it especially if we have two or three contractors. There would be even less of a fixed amount of work the contractor could depend on to be able to divide his cost between. It certainly could be done but I'm not sure how good a rate we'll get though. We will get a good rate if we know and can tell the contractor here's how much work you are going to do.

Mrs. McNear said in Capital Improvements we talked about coming up with a recommendation for Council but it looks like we're into a full-blown discussion of it tonight. Where does it end? It's on your personal property. Next will it be porches, roofs? If we're going to make a recommendation mine is that we don't get involved in this. Don't be in the business of financing through an assessment which is basically what it is. If their driveway is in disrepair do like we do with anything else that is a problem with the house. If it needs to be painted we send out a notice and I think that's what we should do with the driveways.

Mr. Osborn stated the difference is in this case if they fail to do it we do it ourselves, which we don't do about a roof. We send them to court. It's a criminal violation. In this case we are talking about the City physically doing the work and then assessing it against the property. I think that's a legitimate public function. This is in the public right of way which makes a difference between the driveway or the roof or the siding on the house. This apron is in the public right of way.

Mrs. McNear responded I don't have any problem doing that, Mr. Osborn, but we are also talking about the City paying for it.

Mr. Osborn replied I am not suggesting that but I would suggest to make this more palatable to the residents that we look at assessing it over maybe a two year period.

Mrs. McNear stated I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want the City paying for it.

Mrs. Boice said my feeling is the same. It is private property. I think it is important. We have to get those repaired because of the effect they do have on the road. I think it is most gracious to be able to say you can pay it over a two year period. I'll be honest with you. I guess I'm not real sympathetic toward that. That is our own personal responsibility. I guess I am going back to when I had a driveway fail in sixty days and the contractor had gone out of business. My husband and I had to put in another driveway and there was no way you could pay this much this year and that much next year. I'm just concerned as to how many dollars we are going to go out on a limb over that period. I'm not trying to sound really difficult but the City of Springdale does a lot for our residents. We're talking trees, curbs, sidewalks, garbage pickup, recycling, chipper service, etc. I think there comes a point where as a homeowner, these are things that just simply have to be done. We have so many other amenities in the community and I will share this with you. My youngest daughter is really wishing she was living in Springdale at this point. She has squirrels in her attic and it is going to cost her $100. The first squirrel is free. If they find any more after that it will be $25 a squirrel. There are so many free things we do. I think this is solely the homeowner's responsibility. I have a little trouble with this business of spreading it out a couple of years.

Mayor Webster said to speak to Mrs. Boice's point, I disagree. We could be looking in some people's case at $800 to $1,000. Once you've given us a criteria for the City to go around writing citations and demand that the people do that. If they don't do it, then go ahead and do it and expect them to pay right away. I think that could really cause some financial hardships. I really don't want to see the City pick up the tab and it definitely has to eventually be paid by the homeowner. However, I would not be opposed to seeing the City allowing people to use four tax bills which would be a two year time frame to pay that. A $1,000 driveway would be $250 four times. Yes, the City is carrying that interest free but I would favor a program. I would help our residents to that extent if they want it. I think there is a slight carrying charge. I think the County Auditor adds to that $1,000 bill but there is no interest that comes back to the City. I think Mr. Wilson hit on the key point. I think there are a lot of people just waiting to see what the posture of the City is going to be on this. We need for Council to state what the policy is going to be on driveway aprons. I don't hear any sentiment here at all for the City picking up the tab. We could make a proclamation that the driveway aprons are the responsibility of the homeowner. I think you will see some of those aprons get repaired on their own. If we can do something as far as developing a list of qualified contractors and make that list available to anyone. I think we have to be careful that we don't end up guaranteeing that the work is going to be done by ABC contract and they are coming back on us. I think all we can do is give out a list of three or four contractors we've had some experience with. The process is a long process once we start down this path. As I recall the deadline for 1998 assessment is around August or September 1997. We'll have to go like gangbusters if we want to get anything on the 1998 tax bill. If we are going to do driveway aprons in 1997 we need to get cranking on it to try to get the assessments to the County Auditor around September 1997. If you miss that window you wait a whole year to get them on the 1999 tax bill. The City picks up the tab and pays the contractor in 1997, then we won't get our money back until 1999 and 2000 if we're not careful.

Mr. Danbury said I think that is one key point. We look at what CG&E did. They raised the rates 26% and it's just a major whammy for a lot of people. From the impression I get everybody is in agreement that it's not the City's responsibility to absorb the cost. For the sake of the press we are looking at 2 1/2 to 3 million dollars possible per round and this is for a life span of possibly less than 20 years. Once you start it you have to continue it. Maybe we could do it in a two year span or start sending out notices now. If you have a car and the engine has 200,000 miles on it, you will start saving for a new one instead of getting whacked right now. I think if people can start planning and say I know about what the cost will be, they can start setting aside some money and preparing for it.

Mayor Webster said what I am hearing you say is that Council has decided they are not picking up the tab for driveway aprons. The next thing is for Council to give us a criteria as to what you want to see us enforce. Maybe Mr. Shuler and Bob Sears can give you some alternatives as to how many would be involved at 1/2" sinkage versus 1 1/2", etc. and try to get that to you as early as possible. Do you want us to start working on the criteria so we can bring you back some options?

Mr. Danbury said I think that would be appropriate. Obviously if you have a depression of 2" it's going to be more critical than someone who has 1/4".

Mayor Webster replied the deeper you allow it the fewer violations we're going to have. If you say it's an inch we'll have 200-300 in violation. If you say 1 3/4" we'll have a lot less. Let us give you the numbers and I think we can give you a pretty good estimate as to how many driveways would be involved at various sinkages.

Mr. Galster asked are we going to do this city wide at one time and say all these aprons meet these criteria? Now everyone start replacing them or are we going to tie it in to the street program? We're saying if the curb is replaced and the driveway is bad, we're damaging the curb. Are we going to tie it in to when we're actually doing work on the street or are we going to do it city wide?

Mr. Osborn replied this will be a city wide inspection. I think that's the most appropriate way to do it. We would be doing it every year if it was tied to just the work we are doing with curbs and sidewalks. If you have a situation where it's depressed and you're not in a position to have to replace the curb yet you soon will be. I think it's good to get in there and correct those as well if they are in excess of the criteria Council sets. This would be a city wide inspection and the next step for us would be for the Public Works Department to make a city wide inspection of all aprons, come back to you with an indication as to how many aprons are in excess of 1 3/4", how many in excess of 1 1/2", etc. I think that's the most efficient way to go at this. There are a lot of mechanics in an assessment process and I wouldn't want to see the City have to do that every year. As the Mayor indicated we won't get the assessment on by August 1997. This will be a 1999 tax bill. We will have this process ongoing through the end of 1997. We won't finish all the paperwork and legislation this year. We will be here at this time next year and all the work won't be completed.

Mr. Galster said when you say there is a lot of groundwork to do the assessment, is that just in the filing of the assessments for the tax or is it doing the analysis city wide?

Mr. Osborn replied it's the mechanics or giving notice to everybody. We have to give physical notice to everybody either by hand delivery or certified mail. We have to allow them to respond. We have to do a reinspection to see what work has been completed. We have to issue the permits to those people who want to do it themselves. There is a considerable amount of work involved. We have to do legislation indicating our intent to assess. There are a lot of steps involved in this process.

Mr. Galster said I am having a hard time understanding why it is more intensive to do it a year at a time as opposed to doing city wide.

Mr. Osborn replied we would be doing it perpetually on that basis and it is a lot of work that would be duplicated that you wouldn't have to do. You can do 100 certified mailings just as quickly as you can do 50. I think we would rather do it all at one time and try to treat it as a once every five or ten years program than once a year. We do have a cost associated with this. I think that will be a controlling factor for Council. There are a couple of things that are variables that allow us to control that cost. One is the criteria we have discussed. You may want to cut it off at 1 1/2" or 1" just based on the number of aprons that will have to be replaced. Another factor is we are talking about no interest being passed on to the person receiving the benefit of the apron being replaced. We can pass on the interest and maybe Council will want to look at still making it attractive but passing on some of the interest or all of the interest. That is another variable Council can look at in terms of cost when we get to that point. In the short term, if Council is in agreement that we should start this type of program, the next two months will probably be involved in generating documentation as to what the conditions of the aprons are out in the field, coming back to you in late February.

Mr. Shuler stated some of it will depend on weather because we have to field inspect these so depending on what kind of weather we have in January will have a big determination on how soon we can get the inspection done so we can give you the information. It will be a couple of months at least.

Mr. Galster said if we do it more on a yearly basis like the street program there is a lot less money being expended by the City in a one year period. Given a certain amount of time we'll get a return on that money. Then we can start using that to float the next year's worth of apron repairs.

Mr. Osborn said I don't think I'm doing justice to the amount of work that is involved in just doing one assessment cycle. Maybe Mr. Galster, if you can stop by the office, I can show you the documentation which is in multiple volumes of files, from our last assessment program. I don't think I'm doing justice to amount of sequential steps we have to take to get from here to where everything is in place out in the street. There are a lot of statutory requirements we have to go through. Rather than do that every year I really think we would be better off doing it on a five or maybe ten year basis as opposed to annually.

Mr. Wilson said to Mrs. McNear and Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear you mentioned not being in favor of driveways because you go from driveways to houses, etc. and Mrs. Boice mentioned her driveway. Are you talking driveways or just aprons? Mrs. Boice said she was talking about driveway and apron and Mrs. McNear said she was talking about aprons. Mr. Wilson said my concern is that we do give the options to our residents because we have senior citizens on fixed incomes. We have to think about them as well. We just need to get started on this. How do we define those aprons, Mr. Osborn?

Mr. Osborn replied they are in the public right of way but they are the responsibility of the resident.

Mr. Wilson said which we enforce.

Ms. Manis asked Mr. Shuler, if I redo my apron and then you come by my street, pave it and redo my curb, is my apron now going to be below the next year?

Mr. Shuler replied it should not be because when we do a curb replacement program, the curb goes back in at the same elevation it is at now unless we are into a total street construction. I don't think we're talking about that in any of those areas. Anybody who does replace his/her apron, if it matches the top of curb it should be fine for any curb replacement we would do in the next few years. When we're looking at criteria we may want to look at more stringent criteria on streets where we are getting ready to do a street repair knowing we may be doing excessive curb work in a certain area just to make sure that those streets we'll be working on in the next couple of years we get all of that done even though we're doing a city wide program. I think there are a lot of options we can consider.

Mr. Vanover said when we're in an area and we're replacing the curbs we should look hard and fast at those for the same reason we did the legislation tonight to get started. We've boxed the asphalt and seal in one and the concrete work in another because if we can guarantee x amount of dollars of work we're going to get a more favorable price rather than piecemeal for each separate project. I think that's an idea we can carry on here. We all know as homeowners that there are hidden costs we have to plan for. We replaced our apron a while back and that was a shock we weren't quite ready to take on at that time. I think the assessment is a fair option. I don't want the City paying for it by an measure of the word. As Mrs. Boice mentioned, everybody up here will agree we probably do more for our residents than a lot of municipalities a whole lot bigger than we are. We'll have a better feel when figures come in from Mr. Shuler because we have budgetary limits. We saw the 1997 street program with the $50,000 in the line item for that. Whether or not we want to use all that now, that's a limitation we have imposed on ourselves at this point. I think this is the fair way to go even though I agree it is the homeowner's responsibility. We can be much like BZA. When people come in for appeal of zoning we negotiate, give and take. I think this gives us that option. You can pay for it up front. You can work with our contractor. We'll even allow you to make time payments on it. I think it gives you a number of options you can choose. Once we get the notification out they can start planning for some of this too. We get that rolling and figure out what our criteria are going to be. Then we can get people notified and get that planning process started.

Mr. Danbury said I agree with that. I just want to make sure we have a clear cut signal to Administration. Everyone is in agreement that the City should not absorb the cost of this. Is everybody in agreement that we should provide up to a two year assessment time for payment?

Mr. Osborn said we really don't need to decide that tonight. We need from you a general indication that we want to undertake a comprehensive apron repair program and that it would be a City wide inspection. It would be coming back to you with multiple options on criteria. I think at that point Council can make a decision on not only the criteria we use but how long we'll allow the cost to be floated by the City, etc. I think that will be more of a cost factor than what we have to decide tonight.

Mayor Webster said last time we did this we had 144 driveway aprons that had to be replaced. Some did it on their own; some the City did it and they paid the City. We ended up carrying $40,836 in debts. That is what we certified to the County Auditor and we got repaid. Last time we assessed no interest and they had one annual installment paid semi-annually. We are proposing to give them two years to make the payments this time.

Mr. Danbury said that's a lot of money taken out of other projects.


Mr. Danbury said we have a liquor license transfer from Tri County Shell to Peakload Inc. of Texas. I guess it's just a transfer from one company to another at the same location. There were no objections to the transfer.


Next Council meeting on Thursday, January 2, 1997

Parks and Recreation January 7, 1997



Mr. Danbury said Items 1 and 2 are open. Item 3 was covered with Ordinance 100. Item 4 was done tonight. Item 5 will be done at the next meeting. We should also have a resolution authorizing investment of municipal funds, Item 6 as well as Item 7. Carrying over from this meeting I have Ordinance 99. I understand we have a request for an emergency on that. Also we will carry over Ordinance 100 as well.

Mr. Danbury said he had a note from Mr. Shuler. Mr. Shuler will not be at our next meeting and neither will Mr. Shvegzda. If there are any questions or concerns get with the Administration so we can get everything squared away.

Mayor Webster asked Mr. Danbury if he has Mr. Shuler's letter regarding the 1997 fees.

Mr. Danbury said let's send it to Finance and if it is approved let's go ahead. Ms. Manis said she would call Mr. Schneider.

Council adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Randy Danbury, President of Council

__________________________, l996