Council was called to order on December 4, 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.

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

The minutes of November 20, 1996 were approved with 5 affirmative votes. Ms. Manis abstained.




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

Ordinance 85-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Ms. Manis asked when this would go into effect.

Mr. Shuler replied two of the signals on the previous ordinance are already under an agreement with the City. When the state completed the construction of the closed loop system last year we were then in a position to request these agreements of them to put the other signals on our system for maintenance and for them to pay us to do that. It's taken us that long to get the paperwork here. Mr. Osborn and I talked earlier about when we can start billing them and my thought was as soon as we pass that we'll bill them for 1996. Two of them are already on the system. All we're doing is adding three more. Since they constructed them we have been operating those signals.

Ms. Manis stated it says in here that we can't change the pattern without their approval. Can we fix it a little bit if we have problems?

Mr. Shuler said our policy is when we do any adjustments to those signals we simply notify them and report to them the changes we've made. The problem we would run into, if every time we wanted to make an adjustment we needed to get their prior approval, it would take about three months to get that done. We've talked to them and we are operating with them on the basis that we're simply reporting to them any changes we make. If after they do review any changes they have any concerns about them we can always talk to them and make an adjustment. That has not happened.

Ms. Manis responded we get to control them and they pay us?

Mr. Shuler said there is maintenance cost and we have to maintain them. They are reimbursing us on an annual basis for the maintenance cost to keep those signals operational.

Mr. Osborn said there is an overriding issue for the Ohio Department of Transportation and that is keeping the interstate system free and clear. They will immediately object if we should configure the corridor so that it favors the local traffic as opposed to traffic exiting the expressway. As long as everything we are doing is working towards trying to reduce the potential for safety problems on the interstate, they are going to work with us. I think their overriding concern is that we get the traffic off the interstate.

Ordinance 86-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Ordinance 87-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said the City's Recreation Department is staffed by a recreation director, two assistant directors and a few years ago we converted two part time positions into one called program supervisor. In the intervening five or six years that particular position has taken on duties and responsibilities that are on a par with the two assistant recreation director positions. We feel we need to recognize the workload that has been assigned to that particular position because it truly is equal to the responsibilities of the other two assistant positions. Consequently, we are asking Council to cause a reclassification from a position called program supervisor to one called assistant recreation director. This will mean a pay increase for the individual in that position but again, we strongly believe this reflects the true duties and responsibilities of the position.

Ordinance 91-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Ordinance 91-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Mayor Webster said this is an issue that has surfaced from time to time over the last several years. We're implementing this primarily to try to save some money. There are four cost components if everything was working the way it should. Number 1, when someone comes to Mayor's Court on arraignment and pleads not guilty, he/she is given a court date. If the person pleads not guilty the case is not going to be heard on that day. Most of the time not knowing the indigent people are indigent we give them a court date in the future. The person will ask for continuances two or three times and eventually it will surface that the person does not have an attorney and does not have the money to pay for one. Whenever that surfaces, we immediately transfer the case downtown to Hamilton County Municipal Court. Once we do that, we are still responsible for the prosecution. The first appearance downtown is an arraignment. We pay a prosecutor $102.50/hour to go to court and sit there until the case is called to get a court date. The court then assigns a public defender. Our prosecutor has to come back on the court date, sit and wait his turn at $102.50/hour with the meter running. If an officer is involved, the officer is there on the second call and if we are lucky the case gets heard. It's not unusual for us to go through that process two or three times. We are really burning a lot of legal fees and a lot of officer overtime to compensate for us not having a public defender. If we had a public defender, when the fact surfaced in Mayor's Court that the person was indigent and needed a public defender, which would be determined after certain questions have been answered, after the person has signed an affidavit stating he/she did not have the income or wherewithal to provide legal counsel, then the City would provide the person one at $125 a case. This is $125 whether it's one appearance, three appearances or five appearances, whether it eventually goes downtown. The City is capped at $125 per case. I would say over the last year since I've been sitting in the court, we've probably had 8-12 cases where people have transferred downtown because they wanted an attorney and we could not provide them one locally. As I said, there are four cost components including the officer's time and the prosecutor's time. We should be getting a bill from the Hamilton County Public Defenders Office. We are not actively receiving bills from Hamilton County to compensate for the services they are providing. Fifty percent of the fines stay at the County once the case goes down there, even though we are providing the prosecution. All the court costs stay there. We get some money back but nothing comes close to compensating us for the legal expense. We just have to be somewhat judicious on this and make sure it's not abused here at the local level. I can guarantee you I sit there in court. I think it would be logical for the magistrate to make the call on that but we will be very judicious in the way we do that. If I'm sitting there witnessing the fact that that's not being performed judiciously I'll reassign the responsibility to someone else or take it over myself.

Ms. Manis asked who the public defender would be.

Mayor Webster replied I have talked to Patrick Garry who happens to be the public defender serving in the same capacity for the City of Montgomery. He has indicated a desire to do that for the City. Mr. Gaines, who is the magistrate in Montgomery recommends him. John Flessa, the prosecutor is very comfortable working with Mr. Garry.

Ms. Manis asked if he would come and sit to wait for one of these or will he have to make more than one appearance.

Mayor Webster responded if someone pleads not guilty and needs an attorney, like the situation we had today, we would give the defendant Mr. Garry's phone number and have him make contact with him. We gave this defendant a court date in the future and we would expect him to show up then and be prepared to go to trial. But no, Mr. Garry will not be here unless he has a case to be heard.

Ms. Manis asked, then we are not supplying the public defender? We would not be making the contact for them. It's still up to the defendant to make contact?

Mayor Webster said that's the way we have reasoned it out. We could call Mr. Garry and have him call the defendant.

Ms. Manis stated the defendant doesn't have to use the public defender. He could still come back and say he doesn't have an attorney.

Mayor Webster replied if he doesn't have an attorney and he refuses the one we offer, I'd say we're still going to go to trial.

Ms. Manis said we were questioning whether we had any liability for this public defender if he gives misinformation if we are supplying him.

Mr. Kenworthy said I don't think there would be any liability on the City. The fact that the City is facilitating his representation does not mean in effect, the City is responsible for his services. He is still an independent contractor and is responsible for himself, just like the public defenders for Hamilton County and everywhere else.

Ms. Manis asked if we had to have an emergency clause and vote on it tonight.

Mayor Webster said I apologize for that and if Council wants to think about it, I certainly understand. It's just that I asked for this before today's court session. We've got two or three pending right now that are waiting to go downtown. I just thought rather than burning the legal fees to send them downtown I asked Randy to consider this with the emergency clause. But if Council wants to wait that's fine.

Mr. Galster said I have a question regarding liability but also on the prosecutor. Do we have a minimum charge or minimum number of hours if he goes down there? Is it a running clock or is it like our police officers who have a minimum when they go down?

Mayor Webster replied there is no minimum. I think we're probably paying portal to portal. I doubt if we have any fifteen minute charges.

Mr. Dabury said Ms. Manis, you brought up something. We do have a motion on the floor. Does everyone feel comfortable about voting on this with an emergency clause?

Ms. Manis asked if we would have a contract with this person? Can we fire him at any time? I just have a lot of question and all of a sudden this was brought before us tonight without any memo explaining it before now.

Mayor Webster said I have an agreement. It's a sixty day cancellation, can be terminated by either party. It's the same agreement we have with the prosecutor. The ordinance says the Mayor appoints someone. I'm not sure we even need an agreement. We could do it by purchase order. In Mr. Flessa's case, it's $20,000-$25,000 a year. I envision this to be around $1,000 a year.

Mr. Danbury said at first I was skeptical and wanted to resist this. If you really look at it, for $125 per case, the cost of taking the prosecutor downtown and the police officer(s) involved in the arrest with the overtime and possible continuances, I think this is a better way to go and we can cancel this.

Ordinance 93-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Vanover said I have worked with Mrs. Hart as liaison to Board of Health and she brings vast knowledge and experience and is a very willing and able participant in the Board. She does a very solid job.

Resolution R28-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Danbury said I worked with Dr. Ketring when I was on the Board of Health. He is just unbelievable. He's well known in the veterinary area and well known for his landscaping too!

Mayor Webster said I don't want to slight Mrs. Hart by not saying anything about her because she is very valuable but I'd say if we're going to need an MVP it would certainly go to Dr. Kevin Ketring. He just brings a vast wealth of knowledge to that Board and does a great job.

Mr. Vanover said just to echo pretty much the same. Dr. Ketring would be my nominee for MVP but also, he's a very good negotiator and compromiser and when we reach an impasse, he's very good at negotiating through that so that we can come to a conclusion. I definitely enjoy serving with him also.

Resolution R29-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Mrs. Boice said I was going to try to talk to some of our state legislators. I did get hold of Mr. Dale Van Vyven. He also said it came as a surprise to him when he read it in the paper; that the legislators had not been notified either, which normally they are in case their constituency contacts them. He said he would follow up with the PUCO which he did and he got back to me later that afternoon. The PUCO informed him that there had been two months of hearings. In the article I read in the paper tonight they said there were no hearings. They also told Mr. Van Vyven that the decision is due December 11 or 12 and the gentleman he talked to at PUCO did indicate that there was a feeling that this was a very large increase and I certainly don't want to put Mr. Van Vyven on record or myself, but there seemed to be some feeling there that possibly the 26% coupled with this other 8% they are planning to put through, probably would not be acceptable. In the article I read in the paper tonight it said because it was a case of just passing expense on to us, it did not require hearings. The man told our state representative that they had two months of hearings. They certainly heard it without any of us hearing anything about it, is all I can say. A decision is due December 11 or 12 which I guess they'll probably advise us about on Easter Sunday because they certainly didn't give the original decision any press play.

Ms. Manis said they will advise us sooner, because it will be in our bills.

Mrs. Boice replied I have been tempted to figure out that increase and see how long, if I don't pay that increase, before they turn off my gas service. That probably wouldn't be a very good idea but 26% just tells me they're not running their business very well down there.

Mr. Danbury said I don't know what this resolution is going to do, probably nothing, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I just wrote a note and I don't know if I should be talking about it, but Congress passed a law regulating rate increases on cable TV and that's not a necessity in life. But this right here is. If people can't afford to pay their bills, their water pipes burst and it affects their health, etc. I think this increase is totally outrageous. Hopefully something will come of this.

Resolution R30-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.

Resolution R31-1996 is where we will be appointing a member to the Charter Revision Committee.

Mr. Danbury said Mr. Roger Stephenson is the member as of now. His term expires December 31. Mr. Stephenson is interested in continuing on.

Ms. Manis nominated Mr. Stephenson again. She said he did a fine job and will continue to do so, I'm sure.

Mrs. Boice said when we had the opening for Planning Commission we had all these wonderful resumes come in which I think all of us had said we were going to keep and refer to from one time to another which I did. The resume of Robert Simmons who has served on both Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning Commission was in there. I called him and he wasn't in at the time. His wife, Judy, said if Bob isn't interested, she would be interested. We began to talk and I called her back the next day. Bob said, no his true love was Planning Commission and Judy was interested. She has an interesting resume, far too long and far too skilled to go into a lot of detail. She and Bob have been residents of Springdale since 1968. She has a degree in chemical engineering. She is a member of the Society of Women Engineers and what particularly interested me was, in the mid 1980s she was involved in a massive reorganization of that society and I look at the Charter Revision Commission as a reorganizational group that has to consistently deal with possible changes within the Charter. She was also employed by P&G and has had experience in marketing consulting. I nominate Judy Simmons.

Mrs. Simmons received 4 votes; Mr. Stephenson 2.


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

Resolution R31-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.

Mr. Danbury said Mr. Coleman is interested as continuing as a member of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Vanover nominated Mr. Robert Coleman.

Mr. Danbury said by acclimation Mr. Coleman will continue on Civil Service Commission.


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

Mr. Danbury said Mr. Coleman deserves it. He got thrown into the fire. As soon as he got in there he was elected chairman. It's been a lot of work so far but he is eager to continue.

Resolution R32-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


Mr. Danbury said we need to have a Volunteer Firefighters Dependence Board meeting before the end of the year. As Mrs. Boice brought up at our last meeting I would like to remind the public and press that our first Council meeting in January will be Thursday, January 2, 1997 so if we could publish that it would be beneficial.

Mrs. Boice asked if the members on the firefighters board are appointees or is this a decision of Council? If it's a decision of Council it should be opened up.

Mr. Danbury said they are committee assignments. The only time the board meets is if there is catastrophe with the Fire Department. By state law they have to meet one time a year before the end of the year. It's not an active committee; it is reactive.

Mrs. McNear said I would just like to publicly recognize a couple of our City employees. On Thanksgiving evening we had occasion to use the Police and Fire Departments. They did a great job. When we heard fire, 911 was called. By the time we grabbed the kids and the coats and made it to the porch Officer Michelle Kohorst was pulling up to the driveway. By the time we got to the sidewalk there were two fire trucks pulling in. There was no damage and they didn't have to use the fire hoses but just seeing how quickly they responded was amazing to me. I wanted to publicly thank Captain Ralph Ritchey and Crew Unit Number 3 and Officer Michele Kohorst.

Mayor Webster said there have been 293 requests for debris removal. We have had somewhat of a conflict with the snow we have had. We will have to pull our horns in a little on putting those trucks out during the winter months. We still have two older pick-ups that are not part of our front line snow removal fleet. Wherever possible we will try to make those available to the people. If we've got something scheduled we'll go ahead and honor those but we are going to instruct the Street Maintenance Department to discontinue honoring those requests until we get through the snow season. It's the possibility that if a truck is out, we'd have to go get the truck in the middle of night. There's no place to dump it so we're stuck with it until Rumpke opens the next morning, then we have to get it dumped and get it back. It's just not a good situation.

Mr. Knox said I would like to announce to the public that the Board of Elections has returned our proposed Charter amendments as certified. Each one of them passed very handily and copies of the amendments have been provided to members of Council with the votes that were taken on those. I would like to remind you that under amendment 14 the Council may, on an annual basis, adopt a resolution exempting municipal purchases up to $1,000 from certification requirements. There will be a vote necessary on that.

Mrs. Boice said concerning those amendments, yes, they all did pass handily but I think it was particularly interesting and this is a personal bone of contention with me anyway, but the proposed Charter amendment that received the most no votes was the one dispensing with reading the ordinances in full. I would like you to bear that in mind from time to time. Sixteen hundred people out there said they weren't that fond of that.

Mr. Danbury said I understand but if we have a fifteen page ordinance like we have in the past. I initially brought that forth because we have things that are so much legal mumbo jumbo and we've sat here in Council and asked legal representation, what does this mean?

Mrs. Boice said on a selective basis I have no problem with it at all.

Ms. Manis said based on the calls I got after the election that either they were written very well or people will just vote yes on anything. I had numerous people ask me what were those ordinances about they voted on. People had no idea when they went in what they were and even when they came out they didn't know. But most of them voted yes.

Mrs. McNear said I was a judge on election day and the Charter amendments were probably what we had the most questions about. People didn't understand them and said they didn't hear anything about them. We told them it was in the newspaper and in Council but I think we probably need to do a better job of informing people. I don't know if we need a voice mail line to explain them or if we need to put out a special mailing but I do think we need to do a better job informing people. They were asking us how to vote and we can't advise people on that.

Mr. Danbury said Vice President of Council is a one year term. Mrs. Boice is our current vice president and that ends today.

Mr. Vanover nominated Mrs. Boice for the position.

Mrs. Boice said thank you, Mr. Vanover. I am going to decline that nomination. I would like to nominate Kathy McNear. She has been through two elections and has rolled up some pretty impressive figures. A lot of people out there in Springdale are very impressed with her as I am. It is my delight to put her name in as vice-president.

Mrs. McNear is the new vice-president.


Mr. Osborn said referring back to the Charter amendments that were recently adopted by the electorate one of those dealt with the setting of a specific number by Council that would serve as the minimum amount required to issue a purchase order in the City's purchasing process. As I've explained to Council in correspondence, right now we use a figure of $25. Every transaction that occurs in the City that involves an expense greater than $25 has to have a purchase order cut. In looking at the process of putting together a purchase order, that costs us about $4.90 per unit for each purchase order in terms of wages, etc. In 1995 we did 2,320 purchase orders and this year to date we have done 2,185 purchase orders so we're well on our way to another year of around 2,300. When you factor out that $4.90 cost towards the total process of purchasing, it's clear it's a substantial amount. We have concluded that we could work just as effectively by raising that number and Council now has the authority to increase that number up to $1,000. We obviously do not have a desire to see it go that far that fast. We recommend to Council that the number be set at $200 effective January 1. We have worked out some statistics and we may have communicated this to Council, if the purchase order limit is set at $200 we will eliminate approximately 53% of all purchase orders. That is a very cost effective decision. Again, at $4.90 a unit, that represents a savings in wages approaching $6,000. We would like to request that Council consider a resolution at your next meeting which would authorize the figure of $200 as the minimum amount required under the City's purchasing process for a purchase order.

The second item I have deals with a budget item we tried to execute in the spring; that is the replacement of a pick-up truck in the Fire Department. However, we missed the cut-off for the state purchase process. The specifications and bid results for the 1977 State Purchase Program just came out this week. We have scheduled a bid opening for a local bid for the unit opening December 16. We'd like to ask Council's concurrence to bring a recommendation with legislation to you at your next meeting, either authorizing a purchase under the state purchase or under a local purchase, whichever gives us the better number. The reason for the compression of the time is that this is a 1996 budget item. We'd like to get it encumbered under 1996 and carried forward into 1997. Even though we won't get delivery until 1997, we'd like to execute the purchase in 1996 and that means with the next meeting being the last one for the year, we'll have to bring in the recommendation and legislation the same evening.

Finally, we will be bringing into Council at the next meeting, a supplemental appropriation and transfer ordinance. Again, it's been our practice to try to get legislation out to you on Thursday or Friday of the week prior to the meeting. In this case, we'd like a little latitude as we'd like to give the department directors until Friday, December 13 to formulate their final line item projections. The Finance Officer would then prepare the transfer and appropriation ordinance and we probably would be able to distribute it to you on Tuesday. Rather than getting it to you on Thursday or Friday, this is the type of situation where we would like to provide as much time for the department directors to make a projection because as I said to them in a memo today, we only get one chance to get this right. Otherwise we have to come back to Council and ask you for a special meeting on the last day of the year and I don't think anybody wants to do that. Again, we'd like to bring in the supplemental appropriation and transfer ordinance, the one caveat being we probably won't get it distributed to you until that Tuesday.

Mayor Webster said I have one more thing, the appointment to the O-K-I board.

Ms. Manis asked if the O-K-I position is an executive position.

Mrs. Boice said years ago Mr. Webster told me we should be represented at O-K-I and I was the representative as he is now. So I did go to the meeting and I ended up in one of the caucuses and they were electing women and I got elected to the executive committee. I came home and called Mr. Webster that night and told him I was on the executive committee. I remained on that and Lynn Waxman followed me on it; then they changed their election procedure which Lynn and I challenged. It became kind of a back door thing as far as I was concerned. If we had someone on the executive committee we would have some input, but as just a representative you have no input.

Mayor Webster said I would be more than happy to do it if no one else wants to do it. I think it would be a crying shame for someone to take off work to go down there and listen. I'll go when my schedule permits.

Mrs. Boice nominated Mayor Webster and he accepted.

Mr. Vanover said before you is some information. First is the 1997 street program. This has been done just a little differently this year. In the Public Works Committee since we have a number of projects going we're going to try to break them into two bidding projects. If you will note, the first column on the left hand side is asphalt resurfacing and crack seal projects. The right hand side is the concrete curb and pavement repair projects. With the amount of work we have we feel it would be more beneficial and economical to do it this way. Attached to that you will find a couple of maps, the first being D, the southbound lane additions on S.R. 747 and I-275. The second one is E, S. R. 747 center isle and reconstruction north of Kemper Road. Item 3, driveway aprons, under the concrete work will take Council discussion. That is a sizable amount and is something that has been reoccurring for a number of years and finally it has come to the point that Council needs to make a decision on which way we want to go with that program. I will open this to questions and invite Mr. Shuler to give input.

Mr. Osborn asked, do you recall the estimate at the committee meeting for these same projects? It seems to me that the numbers are significantly higher.

Mr. Shuler said what you may be looking at are the two budget items that we will be bidding as part of the street program which is the Community Center resurfacing and the Firehouse concrete apron. Those were items that are in the budget for next year that are not street program items and weren't part of the street program budget. They are separate budget items; however, we are going to bid those under these programs simply so we don't have to do a separate set of contract documents for them. If you add those to it, it's about $140,000.

Mr. Osborn responded that probably makes the difference. My recollection was we were at just about $620,000 on the street program.

Mr. Shuler said we had talked in the Capital Improvements meeting of bidding those two items as part of the street program so when I did the new summary I listed them here. The other item we didn't have at the committee meeting was the engineering work.

Mayor Webster said I wanted to point out to Council that we have $500,000 for the 1997 summer street program. As Mr. Shuler pointed out we also have two other budget items that constitute another $140,000. We're still about $150,000 over budget.

Mr. Shuler said other items pushed that up such as D, E, F, which are items that are special problem areas that we're trying to deal with as part of the street program. Items A-C are what we normally see in our street program. That's resurfacing, repair and maintenance work other than the driveway aprons Mr. Vanover commented on. The additional items are all items of need that were investigated this year. We felt if Council concurs, this is the best way to proceed with those additional items. They are all small in themselves as far as trying to put a project together but clearly we feel we can get much better bids by packaging a number of these items as we've shown here to get the best cost benefit. We also discussed putting in an earlier completion date on the contract for next year.

Mr. Osborn said when we were at the committee meeting we were looking multi-year, not just next year. Even with that, trying to balance the years out over the next two or three years, we still had an average of over $600,000 a year but we felt comfortable with that because as Mr. Shuler indicated, some of these stand alone projects were estimated as just that, stand alone projects. We hope there is some efficiency by combining them as part of the bidding process. While the street program, factoring out those two other budget items, is still significantly over the $500,00 number, we felt comfortable going into the bidding process, just to see how the numbers came out. On the other item Mr. Vanover touched on, the driveway apron program, we have $50,000 in this budget for that item. It will take a significant decision on the part of Council as to what to do about that. This was initiated by Mr. Wilson. I would like to suggest that we leave this $50,000 increment in here as a budget number at this point. I would like to put together a report to Council on the past history in terms of what the City has done with this issue of replacing driveway aprons. Then, perhaps when Mr. Wilson can be here and speak for his particular position on this, maybe have a policy discussion on the part of Council at that time.

Mr. Danbury said if you are going to be presenting that, I would like to also find out what you have planned for 1998 and 1999. We get asked questions on that and it would be beneficial.

Mr. Osborn said I can certainly do that but you have to keep in mind that that's pretty flexible. We move those back and forth as conditions change. I would hate to tell a resident his/her street is going to be paved next year and then we make a decision not to pave that street next year. We can certainly show you the longer term projection of the street program.

Ms. Manis asked if A on both sides is just things that we find in going around that need fixing.

Mr. Shuler said all the items in A are general items we do inspections on in the spring. We basically look at the entire City and determine where we have sidewalk, curb, etc. You will note when we have our final payment in the project, some of those items go over those amounts; some are short of those amounts. We just budget a lump sum amount to get it in the contract and it will not come out exactly to those numbers.

Mr. Osborn stated this really is more of a lump sum number. We know generally how much to expect to spend in a particular area. We can't tell you right now what sections of sidewalk are going to be replaced. I think we can realistically expect to spend around $15,000. That may go up or it may go down. We'll inspect the whole City and the worst sidewalks will get replaced. We could spend $500,000 on almost any one of these items but we try to be a little more judicious and just take the worst case situation. These will change. They are not too specific at this point.

Mrs. Boice said back to the driveway aprons Mr. Wilson had indicated that he was interested in our pursuing that. As I recall, when we discussed replacement of driveway aprons we were still back in the old building. That is a very expensive procedure. Don't the aprons have to be poured deeper?

Mr. Osborn replied they have to be poured deeper than the sidewalk but the sidewalk in front of a driveway has to be poured just as deep as the apron. The point is that there has been some expression by members of Council, Mr. Wilson specifically, about the City taking responsibility for the replacement of aprons. As you may recall, we did a driveway apron repair assessment 10-12 years ago. Council has not been inclined to do that since then. The only exception has been the replacement of aprons as part of a street project. Grandin Avenue would be a good example. When taking out the curb, the apron, if deteriorated, may fall apart. We replace that apron as part of the street. So we've been doing that. We have not been going through the City, inspecting aprons and ordering people to replace their aprons. We did that one program that one time and Council wanted to pull back from that. There were a lot of problems that resulted from that and a lot of debate. We replaced the curb, the sidewalk, why don't we replace the apron in-between? Mr. Wilson has raised that question again and my recommendation is that I'm not in a position to speak for him and I would suggest that we defer that dialog until he can be here because he was the person who initiated the issue with us. I will be able to provide you with more information for the other members of Council who were not part of the discussion back in the 80s.

Mrs. Boice said I don't disagree at all with waiting until Mr. Wilson is here to speak to it. I am glad it was brought up this evening because I think as you drive throughout the City, Council members, you might be a little more cognizant and take a look at the aprons. I can tell you, there are a lot of aprons. If the City were going to get into that business we're talking a big chunk of money. This will give you time to look at it throughout the City.

Ms. Manis asked when we are going to bid this.

Mr. Shuler said first Council needs to come to concurrence on the committee's recommendation of the program. We then need to get the engineering contracts in place. Then it will take about sixty days to bid. Our hope was that we could get general agreement on the program this evening. If Council would bring ordinances at the next meeting for the engineering work that would put us out to bid about the end of February which would be ideal. We would rather do that than wait until April, May or June to bid this out when everybody else is out on the street with their projects. The earlier the better as far as we are concerned as far as prices.

Ms. Manis said these items listed under general repair work are just there for our benefit. You are going to say general repair work and a number.

Mr. Shuler said we will have in the bid documents, in fact, a number of units of square feet of sidewalk. It doesn't say where they are. It just says 1,000 square feet of sidewalk replacement. Then we get a unit price from the contractor to do sidewalk repair work. Then he knows these are scattered throughout the City and he will work with Mr. Butsch who will identify which particular pieces he wants done. We put enough quantity in the bid documents that would approximate these lump sum amounts to be spent on sidewalk, curb, etc.

Ms. Manis said what if we kept the amount in for aprons and then we decide not to do them.

Mr. Osborn stated I would not hold off deciding about the scope of this project tonight simply because of that apron issue. The point Mrs. Boice was getting at is if we are going to address aprons this could be an incredible number. The $50,000 a year would not even be a maintenance level. This is going to take a great deal more consideration by Council. We would like you to look at the plan comprehensively. We recognize that the driveway apron issue needs to be discussed individually. Maybe we could get concurrence this evening on the general nature of the program and defer the specific issue of the driveway apron.

Ms. Manis said I just don't want that $50,000 kept in there and then spent on something else.

Mr. Osborn replied it won't happen that way.

Mayor Webster said I want to follow up on Mrs. Boice's comments about how much this is going to cost. We have some numbers we can share with you and that will be part of the report we give you as to what this could cost us annually, what the projected life of a driveway is. If Council is going to belly up to this and say yes, we're going to do it, then it's hard to say that this year you spend $50,000 and replace Mr. Danbury's driveway and Ms. Manis's driveway. Then the next year we pull in the horns and now Mr. Galster's needs replacing. He says you did Mr. Danbury's and Ms. Manis'; why don't you do mine? You need to look at the entire scope of this and the magnitude of it. Mr. Osborn is right. We could spend as much on this project alone as we do on the annual summer street program. It's a matter of priorities but Council needs to be aware of what we are looking at before we start down this road.

Mr. Vanover said as Mr. Shuler pointed out, this did have the Public Works committee's approval. If we can get Council's concurrence then we can get the process started. As we mentioned numerous times before, with the early start we did benefit financially this year. We are hoping to duplicate that success.

Mr. Danbury said I was just looking at the Sharon Road bus drop off pads.

Mr. Shuler said those are two different items. Under that new sidewalk area we have two areas we are looking at. One is to complete the sidewalk on Sharon Road. The second item is the item Ms. Manis asked about a couple of meetings ago when we were having the public hearings on the Community Development Block Grant program.

That was the comment that we do have at least one location in town and we found out there are many others where the busses are discharging passengers and there are no sidewalks, drop off pads, nothing for them to step out onto. Mr. Sears is in the process of getting information from Metro to determine where ridership drop off is greatest. Then we're going to look at all the locations in town where this may be necessary and we'll evaluate that when we have the additional information. There are actually two items we will be looking at there.

Mr. Vanover said I'm just verifying that we have Council's concurrence. Mr. Danbury replied yes.


Board of Zoning Appeals December 17, 7:30

Planning Commission December 10, 7:00

Board of Health December 12, 7:00



Mr. Danbury said Item 1 is still open dealing with the jail facility we are going to extend to Glendale. Ordinance No. 2 we anticipate in January. Item 3 we did tonight. We'll have Item 4 which is the loud noise ordinance on December 18. Item 9, final appropriation and transfer ordinance, is one Mr. Osborn touched on earlier this evening.

Mr. Osborn said those are the ones I can identify that are out in the periphery some place.


Mr. Danbury asked Mr. Kenworthy that a resolution be brought forth commending Mr. Roger Stephenson for his duty to the City. Also there is a resolution for no purchase order for up to $200 minimum. We have an emergency ordinance for the purchase of a pick-up truck. Items in outstanding legislation are Item 4, loud noise ordinance and the final appropriation and transfer ordinance.

Mr. Knox asked if Council wants an emergency on the purchase order ordinance. Mr. Osborn stated it is a resolution.

Mr. Vanover said I would like to have legislation in so we can get the engineering portion underway to get the street program set up for the early bid.

Mrs. Boice made a motion for Council to go into a meeting of the whole to consider real estate and personnel issues. Mr. Galster seconded.

Council went into Executive Session at 8:30 p.m.

Council reconvened at 9:36 p.m.

Mayor Webster said last week or the week before Mr. Osborn circulated a note to all of Council asking them to make a decision on December 18 as to whether or not we should raze the Schulze property. I know some of you have taken us up on that and toured it. One Council member said they didn't need to. They knew the condition of it. The demolition contractors arrived on the scene across the street to take down the Lobb property. We got a quote and P.O. ready to go on the property across the street. Is there any sentiment to wait until December 18 to make that final decision? Is everyone comfortable with us razing those three structures on those two lots?

Mr. Danbury said I would like to go in them but go ahead and tear them down.

Council adjourned at 9:38 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Randy Danbury, President of Council

__________________________, l996