Council was called to order on February 5, 1997, 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, Wilson and Danbury.
The minutes of January 15, 1997 were not available.
COMMUNICATIONS - none
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Mayor Webster said I did not forward this card on to Mr. Knox but I'd really like to take the opportunity to read this. I appreciate Council's indulgence in our giving out the Christmas awards and landscaping awards. This is very heartwarming to get a card like this and I'd like to share it with you.
"Mayor Doyle Webster: Want to take this opportunity to thank you for the Christmas Decoration Certificate (first place for the second straight year). This year it was really a struggle to put out the decorations. Our mom, who owned the property, always looked forward to Christmas and getting everything set up just right. However, in August she was diagnosed with cancer and by Christmas wasn't feeling too well, nor was she able to get out and supervise the set-up. She did supervise by sitting at the front window. When Mom was informed that our house won first place again this year, she was so happy and told everyone as soon as they entered the house. Unfortunately, Mom passed away January 8 prior to receiving the actual certificate. Needless to say it won't be the same without her come Christmas 1997 and there is a strong possibility the decorations won't be put out again. Thanks so much for the award. It made someone very, very special to us extremely happy. Good luck in 1997. Shirley Fastnacht, 363 Cameron Road"
ORDINANCE NO. 5-1997 "AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH BERGE & COMPANY LTD. FOR A PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE AUDITS FOR YEARS 1996-2000 WITH APPROVAL OF THE STATE AUDITOR AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
Mrs. McNear made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Ms. Manis asked is this proposal submitted to the State of Ohio and then they tell us they accept it?
Mr. Knox said there were three bids received. We selected and ordered the best bids and sent them to the State of Ohio. They approved it in the order we suggested.
Ordinance 5-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO. 6-1997 "AUTHORIZING CDS ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROCEED WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING WORK NECESSARY FOR THE SPRINGDALE COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
Mrs. McNear made a motion to adopt and Mrs. Boice seconded.
Ms. Manis asked why is it so much, Mr. Shuler? What do you do to get ready for it to go in?
Mr. Shuler replied there are actually two parts, the mechanical design part and the electrical work. We not only have the normal contract document preparation but we need to go out and secure the services of a mechanical/electrical firm to do those other two parts of it. It's not quite as easy as when we just do everything in-house. We do need outside help.
Mr. Osborn said since the units were put in eight years ago the code has changed so the space requirements had to be re-engineered; that's the volume of square footage of air that has to be moved per hour per person, etc. We had to take another look at that so we would meet code in terms of air volume movement. We're also relocating the structures to the roof instead of through the wall so we had to make sure the roof load was within limits of the design of the building and finally, we are filling in the holes that are being vacated by the existing units with matching block. It's more than just replacing the units in kind.
Ordinance 6-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO. 7-1997 "AUTHORING CDS ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROCEED WITH THE SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING WORK NECESSARY FOR THE CREEK RECHANNELIZATION PROJECT AT HUNTER'S GLEN/HERITAGE HILL SCHOOL AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
Mr. Wilson made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Ms. Manis asked who owns the land?
Mr. Osborn replied primarily the school with the exception of a small portion down by the road which belongs to Hunter's Glen. We've already given the school district indication that we want to sit down with them and talk about an easement. I talked to Fred Pinzinger, the business manager and told him as soon as we had a more detailed drawing showing the actual requirements that we'd sit down and he seemed very positive about working with us on it.
Ordinance 7-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
Mr. Knox said we are requesting that Ordinance 8-1997 be delayed until the next meeting if possible. The exhibit which we attached is exactly as we asked Mr. Schneider's office to complete it but in looking at it again, we thought the City needed more protection in the wording so we would like to reword the exhibit and also make a minor modification in the ordinance itself.
Mrs. Boice made a motion to table Ordinance 7 and Ms. Manis seconded.
The motion passed with 7 affirmative votes.
Mrs. Boice said I was in Ms. Ridge's office Monday and in the course of conversation she said she was concerned about the quote that said it might it affect us $3,000 to $5,000 a year. I think she was concerned that we really don't have an accuracy in that figure yet.
Mr. Knox said one of the tax returns that came in was from a person who apparently made over $100,000 in Boone County last year. We don't think there will be too many of those although it would be nice if we had people who did that consistently. Ms. Ridge, of her own volition is having a study made on this as much as we can, and we should have better information rather than a guesstimate. We should have something a little more solid but it may be more than we originally estimated but I don't think it will be too much more.
Ms. Manis asked if this is effective this year for tax paid this year in 1997, not for tax paid in 1996?
Mr. Knox said part of the wording is to say it takes effect on 1 January for taxes after that so it would not affect anything in 1996 or prior years which is part of the protection we want to build into that. Mr. Knox said we should have this by the next meeting as I believe we have the correct wording right now and I intend to talk to Mr. Osborn, the Mayor and Mr. Schneider about that this evening.
ORDINANCE NO. 9-1997 "AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN URBAN RENEWAL AREA AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF AN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN"
This is a first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 10-1997 "AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE VILLAGE OF GLENDALE TO PROVIDE PRISONER CONFINEMENT"
This is a first reading.
RESOLUTION NO. 3-1997 "OPPOSING SENATE BILL 19 DESIGNATING THE STATE OF OHIO AS THE FIRST LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE FOR FIVE MIDWESTERN STATES"
Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mrs. Boice seconded.
Mrs. Boice said I read the packet that was in our mail and unless I missed something what are on earth benefit did the governor think this was going to be to the State of Ohio? Is there a high financial benefit?
Mr. Danbury said from my understanding and I'm speaking just from what I've heard, there usually is a high price tag they pay.
Mrs. Boice said the transporting in of it is what concerns me the most. I'm not going to say the State of Ohio is rolling in it, but they do have a surplus and I just cannot imagine the thinking. We have enough problems with our own hazardous waste in this state without transporting it in from Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, etc. I was appalled when I read that. If it's big bucks I don't think it's worth it.
Mr. Osborn said in response to your comments about the cost, I really don't know anything about the particular bill but in terms of bringing in out of state materials like solid waste or other products to be land filled in Ohio, under interstate trade regulations, the State cannot charge an exorbitant amount to out of state versus in-state. There has to be a reasonable spread. It cannot be a major spread. It cannot be prohibitive so if you are thinking that there might be one price for in-state and a tremendously big price for out of state, interstate trade restrictions won't allow that to happen so I don't think that ought to be a factor in whether or not Council is in favor of this resolution.
Mrs. Boice responded I was curious as to why the Governor would even sign the bill. You always feel in something like this it must have a big price tag attached because I cannot imagine any governor wanting hazardous waste from five different states being dumped in our state. Let them dump it in their own states. Why bring it in here.
Mr. Vanover said a "Business Week" article mentions in a California site the project was to generate $50 million in annual cash flow.
Mrs. Boice replied it's not worth it.
Mr. Knox stated I have objections to portions of this resolution. Whether it's good for it to be shipped in or not is up to Council but in the sake of accuracy, I object to Section 3 which makes it sound as if this Council does things in closed sessions behind locked doors. This Council does not do things of that sort and I think this gives the wrong impression. Secondly, in the third paragraph starting with Whereas, it starts off saying there is no safe technology for the disposal of low level radioactive waste. I know that is absolutely false. There are several safe technologies. This is a flat misstatement and I would recommend that Council at least modify this resolution to remove that portion of it because it is not correct.
Resolution R3-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
Mr. Osborn said last week Chief Posega brought to my attention a new CO detection system that we have available to our residents. Because we are also in the very beginning stages of a smoke detector program which was one of the department's 1997 performance goals, we felt this would be a good opportunity for the Chief to come forward and make this presentation to Council and promote both the smoke detector program and the CO detector program we are doing through the Fire Department. There are clearly life saving types of devices and practices that we want to make sure the public understands and has access to.
Chief Posega said we have had for several years a carbon monoxide detector which we carried on our fire engine when we got those types of calls. We took it with us and checked the home, business, etc., for carbon monoxide. I'm sure you've all heard through the media that those calls have really increased. Unfortunately in 1996 we did not have our computer program set up to account for those types of calls versus others. In 1997 though we will be able to track that. I'm seeing some indications in trade journals that calls are increasing by 20-30% due to people calling in regards to carbon monoxide detectors going off. CO detectors were out 15-18 years ago but the technology really hadn't been developed so they sort of disappeared. They just weren't developed good enough for home use yet and what they could develop was much too expensive. In the last few years they have come back and they have a device now that sells from $20 to $60. They are fairly reliable. When a person puts a carbon monoxide detector in his/her home, the instructions that come with it tell you if it ever goes off, immediately open all the doors and windows and get out of the house. When you open the doors and windows you've ventilated the place and the carbon monoxide disappears. Five to seven minutes later the Fire Department shows up with our detector and say there's no problem. Now we really have a problem because the next night the person calls again and we're chasing our tails. The detector we had was older technology and in need of some repairs that would have made it not worthwhile. So we invested in another detector which is not only a detector for ourselves but one we can afford to loan to the public. The one we carry is much smaller than the other technology and this one can measure carbon monoxide levels, combustible gas levels and oxygen levels. It's completely automatic. You turn it on and it self tests it. It determines and tests those three types of things constantly. If we have a problem it will alarm in any one of the three modes. This still doesn't solve the final problem of the person who has the carbon monoxide detector that goes off, opens all the doors and windows and ventilates. We turn this one on and it says everything is fine. Now we have another device, a carbon monoxide detector which the public can purchase. The cost of this device is around $60. Right now we're only able to purchase it from a distributor. It's the same brand as the old detector we had. We received three of these and one is out right now. The reason it is out is when we get there and cannot get a reading, we pull this one out of the other bag and give it to the homeowner. We place it in their home for 8-12 hours. If that detector gets into a level that is dangerous to life it will alarm just like any carbon monoxide detector. If it doesn't, if the levels are slight, we come back the next day, and leave another device that is a reader. This device merely attaches to the detector. There is an LTD transmitter and receiver. We press a button and it tells us how much carbon monoxide is there right now. We hit the button again and it tells us what the peak level of carbon monoxide was that that detector saw. We hit the button again and it tells us exactly how many hours ago it saw it. We hit the button again and it can tell us how much carbo-oxi-hemoglobin may be in a bloodstream of anyone who may have been in that building at the time. By pinpointing the time of the peak we may be able to point to the problem, such as someone working on a car in the garage with the motor running, or the furnace running excessively hard, etc. We can then clear the micro-processor and wait for the next call. We really want those people who may have a problem to not be afraid to call and borrow this. Since the first of the year we have had at least one of these out every week, sometimes two. We have found some problems. I can't say we solved the problem of where the carbon monoxide came from but at least we were able to apprise the homeowner and business owner that so many hours ago you had a problem and you had better have someone look into it. Some were serious enough that we had CG&E involved. We just want the public to know that that's available. We have three of them to loan at any one time. Should we not have one today we should tomorrow because we tend to only leave them out one day at a time, a 24 hour period is probably the max. To the best of my knowledge we are the only department that possesses this portion of it. There are quite a few departments that have the one reader but we are able to leave one with the resident.
Ms. Manis said last year we had the Fire Department come out and check our furnace and we did end up having CG&E come out and turn it off. We also had a carbon monoxide detector in the house that never went off. Do you recommend a place to put them?
Chief Posega replied some detectors are made to alert one time and if they sense enough carbon monoxide, the actual processor inside that sensor goes bad and must be replaced. The electric detectors are better than battery. I don't really recommend any particular brand but if you read "Consumers Reports", they did an extensive study on carbon monoxide detectors and we feel their report is very valid. It particularly names one as the best buy and it's the one I own too.
Ms. Manis asked if they should be high or low in the house or does it matter?
Chief Posega responded the instructions with the detector will tell you. I feel good that we found this thing and may be able to help anybody who has a need for it. We've had at least one need every week since we've been using it.
Mr. Danbury said we had a unit at our house last week. What are the tell-tell signs that people should check carbon monoxide?
Chief Posega replied if your face is turning red and you have a headache. Those are the two quickest, earliest signs of carbon monoxide poisoning. If you catch it at that time and get fresh air and oxygen you usually will be okay. Other than that, it's colorless, odorless.
Mayor Webster asked Chief Posega to give the public and press a phone number that people could call to request the service.
Chief Posega we have information at the Fire Station as to loaning the detector as well as purchasing it. The number at the station is 671-3576. Everyone over there is prepared to answer those questions if anyone should call. This detector is $60, probably at the high end of spectrum. They run $20 to $60. This one is battery operated.
Mr. Osborn asked Chief Posega to give us information on the smoke detector program and the manner in which we are raising funds.
Chief Posega said our Chief Fire Prevention Officer put out some letters to the fact that were going to install smoke detectors for anyone in Springdale who needed them. He sent letters to businesses throughout the community to attempt to get donations to fund this. We were disappointed but I guess we shouldn't have been as we put them out the end of December. A number of companies we approached have parent companies somewhere else that they need to get approval from. On January 1 we were ready. We had fifty smoke detectors donated through another program through the City of Cincinnati and Radio Shack. We started installing those. As of today we have in excess of forty smoke detectors installed. We have gotten donations back from Home Quarters for $200; Copaz, $100; and Roberds Furniture, $100. Right now we have about $200 in our account and about 50-60 more smoke detectors ready for installation. When we put it in the Enquirer we had an abundance of calls. When it was in the local papers we had another rush so I'm hoping after this is telecast that we have another rush. I'd like to see us get to 100 installed before the end of June. We're still waiting for other donations to come in and we're hoping some people will see what others are doing and will decide to jump on the bandwagon and give us a hand. Our people are having a time getting them installed. We seem to be helping a great number of elderly people. We're already looking into a problem we ran into with a gentleman who is hard of hearing. We have found out the Sheraton Hotel has smoke detectors for the hard of hearing. We're in the process now of finding out where they bought those so we can look into purchasing them for anyone here who might be hard of hearing. We are also offering an in-home review which is basically a safety check of houses. We have done in excess of fifteen of those. We're looking for more money. We know that smoke detectors do save people's lives.
Ms. Manis said in all these homes, they did not have smoke detectors before or are some replacements?
Chief Posega replied some did but very few. Some had older ones that weren't working perhaps, but the greatest majority didn't have any.
Ms. Manis asked if they are doing this for apartment dwellers also. Chief Posega replied apartments are required to have them by code.
Ms. Manis said we can probably get you more money. It's a lot easier to say no to a letter than a person.
Mr. Danbury said I know what you are doing is really great and I know the residents really like it. I admire the fact that you are going out and doing this on your own.
Mayor Webster said this time last year we were discussing the issue of reinstating the position of full-time fire inspector. I think we are all seeing the fruits of that person's labor. If we can save just one life it will certainly be worth adding that position back to staff. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Chief and Chief Fire Inspector Hoffman for their efforts and the guys who are going out doing this every day.
Mr. Wilson said it is my understanding that everyone has received a copy of the Capital Improvements Budget for 1997. Hopefully everyone has read it. I will open the floor at this time for any questions. I will not insult your intelligence by reading the cover letter because I'm sure everyone has read it and understood it.
Mayor Webster said Mr. Osborn has prepared to go through the highlights if you'd like. We are talking $2.7 million.
Mr. Osborn said we'd also like the public to know what we are talking about too. It helps to do a summary. The Capital Improvements Committee met on January 30 and in addition to the items that had previously been approved for the 1997 budget, we looked at additional items that had either previously been discussed with Council or which had appeared on our long range five year budget and we examined those projects which would make reasonable candidates for consideration as part of our 1997 program. Ultimately we identified just under $900,000 in additional projects. Because we didn't want to make this a hollow exercise and increase the items to be considered without some reasonable hope of financing them, we also looked at the revenue side of our budget. We concluded that if the City would make an additional $500,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Improvements Fund as well as a $257,000 loan from the General Fund to a Special Assessment Fund that we could virtually cover those items. The reason we can take this under consideration is that the $757,000 that would be required is available to us as unencumbered balance in the General Fund. At the beginning of this year we had an unencumbered balance of just over $3.1 million. We made our budget and had it approved by the Budget Commission with a projected unencumbered balance of $1,899,431 so we're about $1.2 million above what we told the Budget Commission we were going to have for the beginning of 1997. If you look at the projects we've talked about I've broken them down into three segments, the first segment being budgeted design and construction projects, projects that have to do with highways or the HVAC at the Community Center, etc. The next group, Section B, has to do with other items that had previously been budgeted in 1997 when we were doing the budget back in 1996. You'll notice that there is only a slight difference between the original budget and the total budgeted items at this point, somewhere around $40,000. Keep in mind that on many of these I've just taken the budget line item across because we don't have a true cost yet and I'm just using the budgeted number as the estimated cost at this point. In some other cases we have made changes where we know those costs more specifically now. I think the critical area is this third segment, Other Projects to be Considered by City Council for potential addition into the 1997 budget. If we look through these very quickly the first two are items we have discussed including in the 1997 street repair program. The first is the median reconstruction on S.R. 747 on the north leg of the Kemper/S.R. 747 intersection. This project was a recommendation that came out of the 402 safety study we did in 1996 and was one of the primary recommendations to help reduce accidents at that intersection.
The second item is a project we've discussed before, completing the outside southbound lane on S.R. 747 in the I-275 area. Right now there is a gap in there and for a very minimal amount of money we can close that gap and allow traffic to continue south and eliminate some of the problems we have with that weave underneath the expressway.
The third item is the study we're doing on the entrance ramps to I-275 at S.R. 4 northbound with the intention of trying to convince the State that we can do a continuous right lane onto the expressway, much as we did coming northbound. The next item contains many smaller issues related to enhancing the Community Center pool. This is something we have discussed. The filter system is currently on the five year budget out in the year 2000. I think we've expressed to you before that we just don't feel comfortable trying to keep that system functioning much longer and we'd like to do the repairs in the fall of 1997. The other items, the pool slide, rain tree, etc. are improvements we feel would be necessary up to a standard for the entertainment of our patrons that would be consistent with what you see in other jurisdictions in the 1990s.
The sixth item is a project we just adopted legislation on this evening for engineering. It is also related to the CBDG grant for $97,000 for the rechannelization of the creek at Heritage Hill School so I think that is something we clearly want to pursue yet in 1997. Item seven is a project that has been held over from 1996. I've listed it here as unfunded because we did not encumber the money. We had not gotten far enough along in the project to actually engage a contractor so we just let the money go back into the Capital Improvements Fund. We are now budgeting the item in 1997. Again, it's the same amount of money. We had it budgeted for $35,000 in 1996 but we had not gotten to the point that we had engaged a contractor so we just unencumbered the money and let it go back into the Capital Improvements Fund and we're recommending we pick it up again and complete the project in 1997.
The next item is the improvements we would anticipate at the Street Maintenance Garage should we complete the acquisition of that property. We would intend to put in an asphalt surface and a screening fence as a minimum on the initial leg. I should also point out if you go back a page, you will see under the very top item there, the acquisition of property, we had budgeted $80,000 in 1996. We had no idea what or if we would be able to negotiate. We actually had between last year and this year $130,000 budgeted for this project. The purchase price is estimated to be on the high end at $131,000. Fortunately the Law Director is still negotiating some fine points with the property owner which we hope will substantially reduce that final number. The $100,000 on the next page is just a working number. We really don't have a good idea as to what our costs are going to be.
The next item is the driveway apron project which we have discussed. The $75,000 represents our best estimate as to the encumbrances we may have to absorb for refunding in 1998 and 1999. Certainly the project will cost us more than that but we anticipate we will get some payments immediately. We also anticipate that some sites that have been identified as requiring repair will be accomplished by the homeowners themselves without our involvement, without our contractor being responsible for doing the work. When you take out what the homeowner does, when you take out what we think we will get a direct payment for, we're anticipating about $75,000 out of pocket costs that we'll have to carry over 1998 and 1999. That is one of the three assessment projects we referred to earlier. Item 10 is a gas main installation program which I described to you in a separate memo. This again is an item where you would put out the maximum cost out of pocket on the front end. I don't have a good idea what the final cost would be to us but certainly this is the worst case situation, that we never reach that amount because we would be able to recover in most cases, all of our construction deposit for those various streets. The example I gave you in the memo dealt with Grandin Avenue. There is about 1,000 feet on Grandin Avenue not serviced by gas. There are thirty-three homes within that 1,000 feet. The reimbursement formula through CG&E right now is 100 feet of gas main cost for each meter installed. If we had ten of the thirty plus homes in that section of Grandin sign on to take a gas meter and to hook up to the gas line we would recover 100% of our cost when the project was completed. I think we could look at each street identified in that report from CG&E and make a determination of how big a program we want to do here. We could also screen those streets by surveying the property owners and getting advance commitment from them. If the commitment from a particular street was not significant enough in the opinion of Council we could drop that one from the program. While I'm showing $162,000 here, the ultimate cost of that program is going to be substantially less than that.
The final assessment project on this list is item 11, which is the Glenview street lighting program. That resolution of necessity will be before Council at your next Council meeting. This is obviously something we intend to carry forward with. Another long range cost item is the underground wiring at the Community Center. Right now it is on the long range budget for 1999 but we had another incident this spring which tells us we probably won't be able to wait that long. This is direct buried electrical cable that has been in the ground since 1972. All of the splices are in splice kits but they are exposed. The shrinkage and expansion over the years with the freeze/thaw cycle, I'm certain has taken its toll, not only on the cable and its housing, but also on those splices. We would like to look at moving that project into 1997 and frankly undertake it yet this spring because we believe we can do it and still not interfere with the regular softball and baseball schedule.
When you take all twelve of those projects and add them up you come up with a figure of about $900,000. When you look at all projects previously budgeted and these twelve we are now discussing you reach a total of just over $2.6 million. If you look at rolling in the deficit figure from the end of year balance for the CI Fund we get a grand total of just under $2.7 million.
The Route 4 project is another project on our long range plan. It was for design in 1998 and construction 1999. This would involve the widening of Route 4 to a typical three lane cross section from Cameron Road to Sharon Road with a center turn lane and a travel lane in each direction with a bike lane and sidewalk on both sides of the street. We have acquired the necessary right of way, virtually along the entire eastern side of the project. You may remember when Maple Knoll came in and donated the right of way to us. They have made that commitment. They have a problem with a lien on the property right now because of a dispute over some construction but as soon as that lien is cured they are going to consummate that donation of the right of way. We would like to undertake the engineering on this project in 1997 with the idea of then applying for funding in 1998 for construction. The project would lend itself to being a multiple jurisdiction project in that just south of Sharon Road, Glendale owns the eastern half of the right of way and the County owns the western half of the right of way. We would like to encourage Glendale and the County to join us and take this project all the way down to the Woodlawn corporation line at S. R. 747. Part of our preliminary work has been to discuss this project with those other jurisdictions. While they are not committed to it they obviously have a great deal of interest in it. In order to get this project underway we would like to undertake the design of the project, and this is only enough design to put together a funding application. I don't believe this is the total amount of work.
Mr. Shuler stated it is not the total amount of work but it is sufficient so that we have a set of right of way plans so as development occurs in the corridor we know what additional right of way the project may require. It will be sufficient design so that we can talk with any property owner on how the proposed project would affect their property and give us sufficient details so we could do a more detailed cost estimate for the funding applications.
Mr. Osborn said the cost is very substantial in terms of construction and we don't feel that the City can bear this cost on our own but in order to generate the necessary funding we'd like to initiate the design at this time so we could move forward with a funding application.
Going back to the last page and walking through where we see the money coming from, we have a cash requirement of just under $2.7 million. We have an existing 1997 CI fund transfer of just over $1.6 million. We are taking a credit of $50,000 out of the street program because we have $50,000 set aside for aprons. If you recall when we packaged the 1997 street program we left $50,000 for aprons. I've pulled that cost out, expanded on it and put it as a separate item. We have two items, unfunded projects number 1 and 2 as I mentioned earlier, which we intend to put under the 1997 street program. Again we would take that as a credit against the $500,000 set aside for the street program. Then we would initiate a second CI transfer, an additional $500,000 CI transfer from the General Fund to the CI Fund. Finally we would create a special assessment fund and finance the projects identified as the three assessment projects through a loan to the Special Assessment Fund. The proceeds from those assessments would then be paid back to the general fund as they become available to the City. Another factor I mentioned earlier is the spread on the present unencumbered balance of the City. We have a positive spread of $1.2 million. Another factor to be considered in terms of our cash position and what might occur in 1997 is the earnings tax performance in 1996. We made the 1997 budget with a projection of $6.3 in revenues from earnings tax. In 1996 we collected almost $6.8 million so in 1996 we collected just over $400,000 more in earnings tax than is budgeted in 1997. We think our earnings tax collections will be significantly better than originally budgeted and that should help our cash position overall for the general fund. The purpose of this exercise was to put all the projects on the table that have been discussed by Council or the Administration that we could identify and then attempt to come up with a means of funding these projects. I indicated to the Capital Improvements Committee we believe each one of these projects has to justify itself and live and die on its own merit. Certainly each one would be subject to scrutiny and approval by City Council. We just wanted to put all this on the table for you, let you know what your options are and encourage your dialogue and review of the material.
Mr. Danbury said on Item B5, Other Improvements, $100,000. Did you touch on that?
Mr. Osborn replied that's a number we put in the budget each year. It's unfunded projects, either items Council recommends to institute that we had not previously budgeted or a project that may have gone over budget. It's a little bit of a margin for us; it's $100,000 not committed.
Mr. Danbury asked about C5, Pool Repair, Miscellaneous and AE.
Mr. Osborn replied the AE is the design. I'm not sure without going back and looking at the margin, I can't imagine it's too much. I would image most of that is A&E (Architectural and Engineering).
Mr. Wilson said Mrs. Boice pointed out something to me I couldn't answer, Item 5 under C, Pool Slide, $75,000. What kind of slide are we talking about that would generate that kind of cost?
Mr. Osborn responded we are talking about the type of slide you see at waterparks. I could be wrong but I think it is a 60-75 foot slide. It curves and turns, etc.
Mr. Wilson said I think before we actually commit to dollars we are going to see some design.
Mr. Osborn stated this was just a general presentation. Before we would ever begin to think about asking for an individual project we would have to document it a lot more than we have here this evening.
Mr. Wilson said we need to recognize that this is an aggressive budget in terms of items. We may not be able to complete all of these by year end. The pool was committed and hopefully it will work out. The dollars are estimated and of course, we have to vote on it at Council before it even starts. These are items that had been discussed as Mr. Osborn mentioned, and prioritized. The attempt is to bring them before Council and let you know what we are doing with the CI budget, where we stand. As each item comes up, vote on. These priorities can change and the budget will reflect whatever changes we have to make.
Mayor Webster said as most of you recall, when we initially opened the pool in 1972 we had a slide there. It wore out or was damaged and at that time there was a real insurance issue about slides in municipal swimming pools. It was a very hard insurance market at the time so we elected not to replace the slide because of the insurance issue. The insurance market has softened a great deal since that time. You look around at other communities and they do have slides. It's probably one of the things most frequently requested as far as enhancements to our summer program. We'd like very much to go ahead with that. Also with the tour the Park and Recreation Commission took last spring in Evendale, Sharonville, and Blue Ash, one of the other items they saw was the rain tree. It looked like a very nice thing to have in a pool and something that is really enjoyed, especially by the smaller children. We'd like to add that and also the two foot section for a step in. Contrary to what we want to do with the field lighting, these enhancements would not be undertaken until the day after the pool closes. If it is Council's desire for us to proceed with this, we really need to go ahead and get the engineering done and the bidding process, etc., so the day after the pool closes we can go in there in earnest and attack all of these. The filter system is really not an enhancement. As Mr. Osborn indicated it falls in the same category as the underground wiring. The filters have been in there for twenty-five years and the way the thing is configured presently, if one of those filters goes down we will close the pool. We won't have any choice and it very possibly could remain closed for the summer depending on how quickly we could get someone in there and get the materials for a twenty-five year old filter system. They may be available, they may not be available. We are keeping our fingers crossed that we can make it through the 1997 season but we certainly would like to start in earnest making these improvements the day after the pool closes.
Mrs. Boice stated Mayor Webster, I agree with you completely that the pool needs some updating. I know over the years I have been rather negative about the pool slide because of the insurance factor. When I look at the estimated cost of the filter system at $90,000, that does not surprise me. We need to have a good filter system. But when I see right below it, pool slide at $75,000 I don't know. I don't know that much about pool slides but that has to be an awfully big slide. I'll be most interested in seeing the company. Ninety thousand dollars for a filter system and $75,000 for a slide sounds totally out of whack to me.
Mayor Webster said I'm not all that familiar with pool slides but as I indicated before, I think we need to get started with the engineering and especially in this particular item, share with Council what the options are. If this is a 60 foot slide and you don't want to spend $75,000 for that, maybe we could find a 40 foot slide. What we are asking for is a nod that we could go ahead with these enhancements to the pool and we'll share the cost with you as we go along.
Mrs. Boice said if I had seen $120,000 for filter and $45,000 for pool slide - those figures just seem strange to me. Those figures seem astronomical. We are at a point where it needs to be updated. It's been kept in good shape but it does need some enhancements.
Mr. Danbury said I would like to see the figures. Are we going to expand this pool? is it big enough to handle a slide? Where would they put it? Is it necessary to expand the pool?
Mr. Osborn replied these recommendations we are making should accommodate the needs of the pool for some time to come. We have met with Mr. Burton. The Recreation Commission has toured other facilities and this is the list they came up with. Certainly there will be a healthy dialogue when we bring this project in for discussion because our going in position will be that these items we have identified will substantially bring the pool into a level of readiness, not requiring anything substantial for many years after that.
Ms. Manis stated you know at water parks you don't need a lot of water for these type of slides. You don't need fifteen feet of water.
Mr. Danbury said the landing area which is going to take away from the other people in the pool will have to be identified. Pool slides are popular and I don't have a problem with it. I just want to make sure if we do that, you don't want to put a seventeen foot catfish in an aquarium with no room to move around.
Ms. Manis asked why, if these things are such a problem that we have to do them now, weren't they included in the budget to begin with? As we talked about then, there were things we knew had to be done that were pushed up in the future and the pool filter system was one of them. Now all of a sudden it's a great urgency to do them.
Mr. Osborn responded since then we have had a major failure of the system. Fortunately we were able to make the necessary repair but we were very lucky. There is a giant pipe, about a foot in diameter, that comes out of the water source, goes into the first filter, comes out of that one into the second big filter, etc. There are no cut-off valves that can separate out one filter. When we replace this we want to have a system with some redundancy so if one part of it fails we can pipe around it and use the other filter. We can't do that right now. Right now it's all one big system. We had a failure on that main line. Fortunately it was a piece we could get and get it repaired. There is another segment that the people have already told us, if it fails they don't know where they're going to get the parts. It's heightened our concern about this. We can take a chance and leave it out to 2000 but having experienced this this past spring after the budget process, we want to move that pool filter system further up in the agenda if we can do that. I'll be glad to respond to any of the other ones you have in mind.
Ms. Manis said we knew the filter system needing replacing. Talk about Cameron Road. I'm sure we've been thinking about it for a while. I know all these things need to be done. I'm just concerned that all of a sudden it's a million dollars added on to Capital Improvements.
Mr. Osborn stated many of them are things that Council has already discussed. Although they were not part of the 1997 budget they have been agreed to somewhat already.
Ms. Manis replied right, we do this continuously throughout the year. There will probably be others added on to this also.
Mr. Osborn said I'd like to reemphasize that what we are talking about is taking this as a concept. As Mr. Wilson indicated we could not get all this done in 1997. We don't have the resources. I'm not talking about the money, I'm talking about the manpower to oversee this much construction in one construction period. All of this isn't going to happen but we wanted to show you that we have the flexibility in terms of financing to do it and we do want to aggressively approach as many of these things as we can. Two of the most critical ones we feel that need to be moved up are the pool filter system and the underground wiring because we experienced a condition after the budget was put together with a failure last spring and it again highlighted the need to bring these items into the 1997 budget consideration. We are not suggesting all these have to be approved carte blanche. We're just trying to consider all the projects that have been considered or discussed since we put the budget together. The burden will be on us to justify them as we bring them forward to you.
Mr. Danbury said I think that is the key right there. These are the areas they are targeting and it's up to each of us to determine the priority that each project needs.
Mr. Wilson said this is just a proposal. Realistically we don't expect everything to be completed but at least this gives Council and the public an idea of what we plan to do with their money, the improvements we plan to undertake for the betterment of the City and our residents.
Mrs. Boice said I do appreciate this kind of aggressiveness. I can go back a few moons ago where we did have a Capital Improvements Committee that sat on projects year after year while this funding was sitting in the bank. Granted, it was earning interest but I remember some of us said at that time if we're not going to do the projects that the people need in this City and keep rolling with them then we better turn those coffers back to the people. You'd need a miracle to do all of this in this year but I am very glad to see it keep rolling where we have had these things to look at. I do commend the Administration and Mr. Wilson's committee for staying on top of this. I appreciate having these long range items we can look at.
Mr. Vanover said I agree with the creativity. If there is any way we can do it today in today's dollars versus projected dollars down the road, we should do our level best to do it. I appreciate the hard work everyone has put into this.
Mr. Danbury said I assume everyone received the correspondence from Mr. Schneider concerning the procedures for handling citizens complaints. Mr. Schneider, I really appreciate it and I think this really addresses everything. For the public, I asked Mr. Schneider to see if we could come up with an informal policy, not something that has to be enforced, but guidelines if we had a citizen come up to us and ask if we could find out the status of a situation. The memo Mr. Schneider came up with handles it all. It just reinforces that as Council people we are a legislative body. We do not interfere with the executive authority that resides with the Mayor's office and the Administrator. There is one part where he mentioned if for any reason there is a concern about the satisfactory or timely handling of a situation it could be referred to the President of Council to pursue it. I would encourage everyone to do it him/herself. I would like to be a liaison if you need someone but the President of Council is just a Council person so he can't really deal with matters. I would encourage everyone to take up these issues with the Mayor. I just had a situation where a resident contacted me and he had a question on a police matter. I went to the Mayor and they were able to go through the proper channels. This is not to say Council people can't go to the Police Department but as it's stated, you could be subjecting yourself to personal liability and criminal charges.
Mrs. Boice said I just had a question procedurally as to what the Administration prefers. Just a few weeks ago a resident had called me and I referred him/her to the Building Department. It had to do with setbacks. From time to time I've referred someone to the Maintenance Department. Would the Administration prefer that we bring that through you for referral to the various departments or is there any problem with us going directly to the department?
Mayor Webster replied if someone has a technical question regarding setbacks, etc., I think that's the proper channel. I don't think those have to come through us. If someone is complaining about the Building Department, that should come through the Administration.
Mr. Osborn stated that applies to other things as well. In many cases the response from a member of Council should be "have you asked that department about this situation recently". Many times I think if you would just suggest that the resident call that particular department, he/she will get quicker service because we'll pass it down through the chain of command. If it's a matter of a complaint we would truly like to be involved on the front end of that.
Mr. Danbury said if someone asked the status of something I think we should be able to talk to some of the people but we have to realize we can't tell them what to do and we can't interfere with their day to day jobs. If someone says something is wrong with whatever, I want to let Bob Sears know but I don't want to tell him what to do. The examples Mr. Schneider brought out show that you can get yourself in trouble.
Ms. Manis said it was my understanding that we weren't allowed to talk to the department heads about issues without going through the Administration first.
Mayor Webster stated I've never issued any kind of mandate that prohibited any Council person from talking to the department heads. I have asked that you not give them orders and instructions. I've never said you cannot talk to the department heads.
Ms. Manis said I don't mean talk like how are you doing but if we have a question or concern about something, I thought it was supposed to come through the Administration. I thought that was how we left it last.
Mayor. Webster said I think it depends on the situation, Ms. Manis. If everyone uses good common sense I don't think we'll have a problem. I don't think we had a problem last year and I know for a fact that a number of you have talked to department heads. I think it has worked fine. You just have to be aware that there is a chain of command and those people are taking orders through that chain of command. If you start telling them you want this done and that done, then all of a sudden you are putting those people in a crossfire. Whose orders to they follow?
Ms. Manis said that is correct. I would never give a department head an order. That was just my understanding and that's the feel I got from this memo also. Thank you for clearing that up.
Mayor Webster said these two items refer back to the Capital Improvements report. I would like to refresh Council's memory about business memberships at the Community Center. A number of years ago Council authorized 100 business memberships. I think the most we have ever had is 23 individuals. We would like to step that up and make sure the business community is aware that we do have 100 memberships for individuals or families who don't live in Springdale but the business is located here and he/she is an employee of that business. We would appreciate any publicity the papers could give us on that. We also have changed some of the rules. The people may utilize the gymnasium Monday through Friday, noon to 5:30 p.m. That's subject to change for special events. They may use the equipped exercise room during normal hours of operation. Again the hours may change due to other things that come about. If we see all 100 of these people flock in there at 5:00 or 6:00 we may have to restrict that. Right now we'd like to say we're open, you're welcome. They may utilize the racquetball courts during normal hours of operation. They may utilize the pool during normal hours of operation. We're probably lucky if we hit 60 to 75% capacity on those days. With another 100 memberships available it's certainly not going to push us anywhere near capacity on the pool. We'd like to standardize pricing on that. There will be one price, $100 either single or family and it would give them the rights we have talked about. It would not include youth sports for their children and it does not include them participating in the adult activities, leagues, etc. The hourly racquetball court would be $8 versus $6 for residents. We'd very much like to accommodate 100 people if at all possible.
On the driveway aprons it has been brought to our attention that there is a contractor and my hat is off to this person. He has gone out and put fliers out to the community and it reads: "Dear Springdale Resident: The City of Springdale is in the process of determining which driveway aprons are in need of replacement." They explain what that is, the section between the sidewalk and the curb. "The cost of replacement will be the responsibility of the homeowner. We have enclosed a bid proposal for your apron. For all signed contracts we receive by February 28 we will reduce the price by 10%. The City will notify you by mail in the spring if your apron needs to be replaced." Underlined in bold letters it says "contract is null and void if replacement is not necessary. If you feel comfortable with this offer simply sign and return the white copy to us and keep the yellow copy for your files. Don't hesitate to call us with any questions. We sincerely appreciate your business. Signed, Reinel Custom Pavers and Concrete" We got a number of calls at City Hall regarding this. We have had Mr. Sears get in touch with this contractor and he has agreed that on any other fliers he puts out he will put a disclaimer at the bottom that says "I am a private contractor not affiliated with the City of Springdale or any department thereof." I'd just like to make sure the residents of the City realize this is a private individual who saw in the paper or on TV that we were in the process of developing a criteria to determine whether you need to replace that apron or not, so he's taken it on his own to circulate these throughout the community. My hat's off to him. He's a very energetic person. However, I would appreciate that disclaimer being put on all future fliers and also to tell the people that the project is still being talked about. We're nowhere close to making that decision.
Mr. Knox said for those people who wondered what happened to our January 29 meeting as one of the local papers said we were supposed to hold, that was in error and the newspaper is being informed of our true schedule for Council meetings.
Mayor Webster said one of the local papers still lists our meeting time at 7:30. Are we going to adopt the 7:00 as a permanent change? All of the other boards and commissions in the City meet at 7:00 p.m. except BZA. Is there any benefit to having all boards, commissions and Council meet at the same time, 7:00 p.m.?
Mrs. Boice stated we'll be happy to take that up with our members of Board of Zoning at the next meeting and get with you.
Mr. Danbury said I have a request for a liquor license transfer from Don Pablos to Don Pablos. It appears that it is the same company. There were no objections. There is also a transfer from Ground Round to Vincenzo's for a D5/D6 license. There were no objections.
Mrs. McNear said there have been some changes on the schedule dates for the newsletters. They have been moved up because of the Council race this fall and also to be better in line with some of the issues in the City. The deadline for the next newsletter is February 17. It will be mailed out April 1. The next one has a deadline of June 20 and mailout August 1. The last one has a deadline of October 20 and mail out December 1.
Mrs. McNear continued that it is that time of year again and we have to consider the student council night if we want to do one again this year. I'm open for any suggestions. I thought the second meeting in March, March 19 might be a good night.
Mrs. Boice said in the last few years haven't we had a hard time getting students? Is this a problem? Are the schools working with us on this? I don't want to force anybody to participate but I know from time to time we have really struggled to get the students and that concerns me.
Mrs. McNear said it was very difficult to get the students last year. A lot of students signed up to do it and between that time and the next two weeks before we actually had Student Government Night I probably had twelve name changes, even up to the night of the event when somebody brought a buddy because somebody had somebody who backed out at the last moment. It helps when you have an in, like a couple of years ago when Mr. Osborn had a daughter in the right age group for that. That was a big help in getting some students here. My son's a junior this year and I think I can probably exert a little pressure that way. Unless you have an in with some students in the right age group it's very difficult to get people.
Mrs. Boice said that is what concerns me. There is a lot more preparatory work for the President of Council but all of us are in a position of writing up one or two reports. I know the Clerk of Council has to go through a lot of people with his alternate as the Mayor and the Administrator do. It's always been an enjoyable evening but I really am not that anxious to pursue something if we have that feeling that we have to drag them in here. I know the year you had it, Ms. Manis, you had a great deal of trouble getting students. I didn't know until that night who my student was going to be. We do do a nice evening taking them out to dinner. If it's a case where we have to be pulling teeth to get somebody in here I'd just as soon forego it.
Mrs. McNear said also considering the fiasco we had with dinner last year I might suggest we have something catered here rather than going out to dinner and holding up the cable people and having the students here until 11:00 on a school night.
Mayor Webster asked do you think we would get any meaningful feedback from the school? Explain some of the problems we have had and get their input as to whether we should even try to continue it. If we decide to continue instead of having a caterer here, let's approach the Manor House and see if they would host the event. They have a meeting room that will accommodate 22-24 people. Maybe we could get in there. The student participation had a lot to do with it last year where you have students still coming in at 7:00. We're supposed to be back over here by 8:00 and they are still coming in at 7:00 to get served.
Mrs. McNear said the head of the history department is my son's teacher this year. Although I worked with him last year I'm hoping with repeat business we can do a little better in getting the students signed up. When I talked with him he did try to tell the students if they sign up this is a commitment and you must be there. I don't know if they are giving them any additional credit. Maybe we can ask them to give additional credit so not only are they getting a learning experience, but they are getting something in the way of school work or some kind of recognition that they went out after hours to learn something new.
Mr. Vanover said Mrs. McNear, you don't want to step on anybody's toes but the new superintendent whom I've had a lot of interaction with, is a super individual and he might be very interested and willing to help out. He's been very high profile and very interested in being involved in the community.
Mrs. McNear said maybe we could take it a step further rather than just have the teacher post a letter on the door, maybe I could make a personal visit and say this is what we do, this is what we expect and this is what you can gain from it. We have so many members here who are Princeton graduates, being in student government there and now in City government.
Ms. Manis said it still seems like we are begging for students even going to the superintendent, going to their classroom and saying this is what we can do for you. I think that's baloney. When I was on it we had to write something and were chosen, there were so many people who wanted to do it. I think maybe we should look at putting something in the paper and open it up to anybody who wants to in the City. If you want to come to Student Government Night send in your letter stating why you want to do it. Right now we do slight Roger Bacon and some of the other schools by just going to Princeton.
Mrs. McNear said if we do that we would be asking other Springdale students regardless of what school they go to. I can contact the other schools too.
Ms. Manis said it's fun. It's always fun when they are here but I'm not going to go beg. I hated it the year I had to do it.
Mrs. Boice said I think it's very discouraging because we all go out of our way to prepare our reports. We try to pick a nice place to take them to dinner. My youngest daughter participated also and they were gung ho.
Ms. Manis said when they get in here the students are great. Maybe it's the way it's gone about in the school, the way it's presented, etc.
Mrs. McNear said I will do it if you all agree. Council told her it's a judgment call. If she doesn't get enough response, drop it.
Mrs. McNear said then let's plan on March 19. I'll make some phone calls and send appropriate letters. If we don't hear we'll discontinue it.
Ms. Manis said I'd rather do it for two or three who really want to than ten who aren't interested.
Mr. Osborn said we had a bid opening on January 27 for two trucks for the Public Works Department. The first is a 1997 31,000 GVW dump truck that is replacing a 1984 truck of the same size. The low bid was by Tri-State Ford at $56,000. The price includes the snow plow and the UTG salt spreader. That also includes our trade in. Our net cost is $56,000. We had budgeted $64,000 for this item in 1997. The second truck is a 15,000 GVW or more commonly referred to as a one ton dump truck. We would anticipate replacing a 1985 3/4 ton pick up truck with this larger truck. The reason we want to do this is that it is important to have enough horse power in those cul-de-sacs on the narrow streets in the subdivisions and the 2 1/2 ton dumps are just too big to get back in there. Sometimes the 3/4 ton pick up truck is not quite enough. We used to have a one ton truck years ago but we replaced it with a bigger truck for other reasons. At this point we would like to look at replacing the 1985 3/4 ton pick up truck with the one ton dump truck. We budged $30,450 for this. We are recommending a bid of $34,490 from Tri State Ford as the best bid. They were not the low bidder. The low bidder was McCluskey Chevrolet at $1,448 lower. However, they had a much more protracted delivery specification. They would be able to deliver between four and nine months whereas Tri State Ford indicated they would be able to deliver in four months or less. When Mr. Sears inquired about these delivery dates it turns out that Tri State Ford has the chassis available and can almost immediately take it to have the dump body work prepared whereas the Chevrolet dealer would have to order the chassis and then send the chassis out to the hydraulics people to have a dump body installed. As a result we are recommending the second low bid with the understanding that we believe that the earlier delivery is important to us. In looking at these two trucks in combination we will come in under budget by just under $4,000. We would request legislation at your next meeting awarding the contracts to Tri State Ford for both the 31,000 and the 15,000 GVW dump trucks.
The second item deals with the planning services agreement we have Pflum, Klausmeier and Gehrum. When we entered into this agreement in the fall of 1996 I requested that Pflum, Klausmeier and Gehrum maintain the same rates we had been billed at for the earlier part of the year. The company had undergone a corporate rate increase in April, 1996 which had not been passed on to the City. At the time Pflum, Klausmeier wanted to make that their starting rate in the fall of 1996 but I asked them to postpone any increase in the rate until after the first of the year because we wanted to try to get them on a calendar year basis. They did maintain the rates that had been in effect since earlier than January, 1996. I advised them at the time that we would consider an increase in their rates following the first of the year and we have received a proposal from them which is attached to the memorandum on legislation under development. We would request that Council consider an ordinance at your next meeting amending the agreement with Pflum, Klausmeier and Gehrum reflecting the rates effective January 1, 1997 through at least December of 1997 that were initially published by the company in April, 1996.
Mr. Danbury asked if we know what kind of increase we got.
Mr. Galster replied 30%.
Mr. Osborn said the final item I have is Rossi's Fireworks contract. We have a contract each year with Rossi's for the July 4 festival. We'll ask that legislation be brought in for a first reading at your next Council meeting authorizing the contract with Rossi's.
Mr. Knox said we have given each Council member, the Mayor, Mr. Osborn and Mr. Parham copies of the revised Home Rule Charter for Springdale, Ohio which incorporates those items that were approved by the voters in last November's election. The tan colored ones are the operative ones now.
Ms. Manis asked what is Ann McBride's position?
Mr. Osborn replied she is a senior professional.
Ms. Manis said since you brought up the fireworks, will there will be a parade this year? The books are out and they are very nice.
Mr. Vanover said Warner is unrolling the final line up. I had several calls yesterday that stations weren't where they are supposed to be. As of last night everything appeared to be back to normal but those of you who are on direct feed without the converter box, you had better check closely.
Ms. Manis said I have had several people complain to me about their cable service. I am telling them to call the City and register complaints.
Mr. Osborn said it would be better if they call ICRC because they do maintain those records. When they call us we make a note of it and then ask them to call ICRC because they can call specific people about specific issues.
Mr. Vanover said I was at the quarterly meeting for ICRC. They are scheduling a meeting with Warner to sit down face to face to address these problems. They have been numerous and we need to get this ironed out quickly.
Mrs. Boice said we knew they were coming through with the new equipment and I have to say I was perfectly happy with the old equipment. I have now found my bill is almost $10 more than it was previous to this. When I'm looking at the TV I know what I am going to look at. I don't need this thing to tell me what it is. Also I called because I don't use the channel guide and I asked that it be taken off my bill and I was informed that if that is taken off my bill, then it will increase because it was a package deal. I am not comfortable with being forced into something I don't want and it's going in the wastebasket. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I have seen an almost $10 increase in my bill and I was not prepared for that. I don't watch that much TV. I'm gone a lot of the time so I'm going to be assessing how much I'm going to continue with. I wish you would raise that issue.
Mr. Vanover said if anybody has any concerns feel free to shoot me a note. I'll be happy to carry that to the table for discussion.
Mr. Knox said I would remind Council that under the current FCC rules the franchise authority must be the persons who make the complaint. The City of Springdale is the franchise authority and in order to make the complaint we need two residents complaining within a period of sixty days of the rate change which goes into effect January 1. So March 1 if we don't have two people we lose that window where we can officially make a complaint.
Mr. Danbury asked Mr. Schneider if it was appropriate for him to address one issue that was raised tonight.
Mr. Schneider replied if it is on Warner Cable that someone else answer it.
MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Planning Commission February 11, 7:00 p.m.
Board of Zoning Appeals February 18, 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Webster said we have made an appointment of the thirty third police office and we have appointed a Violations Bureau clerk, both of whom will start work February 17, and I would like to have both of those people before Council and introduce them at the next Council meeting. We also have a new part-time health nurse but I'm not sure of her start date so I will also try to have her in attendance.
Ms. Manis said Sharon Casselman, our new Assistant Recreation Director, has been selected and is in the latest edition of "Who's Who in Women in America". I think that is quite an accomplishment and shows the kind of people you have working here.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
UPDATE ON LEGISLATION IN DEVELOPMENT
Item 1 is Ordinance 10 dealing with the prisoners and we will be voting on that at our next meeting.
Mr. Danbury asked if we anticipate anything on Item 2. Mr. Osborn said I have a meeting with the consultant tomorrow morning and we are trying to finalize the scale that is going to be used to do the grading of the positions. I would expect to have the final report yet this month for distribution.
Item 3 is Ordinance 9 dealing with Urban Renewal.
Item 4 - don't anticipate anything until March.
Item 5 we did tonight.
Item 6 - we'll get a resolution together.
Item 8 are the two dump trucks Mr. Osborn discussed earlier.
Item 9 is a wage increase.
Item 10 is Ordinance 8 which dealt with the tax credit.
Mr. Danbury said we should have items 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 at the next meeting
Council adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Edward F. Knox
Clerk of Council/Finance Director
Randy Danbury, President of Council