Council was called to order on Tuesday, July 2, 1996 at 7:30 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 June 19, 1996 were not available.


Mr. Knox said we have one communication from Warner Cable of Greater in Cincinnati and I will read it in part. "Although final rule-making is still in progress on the telecommunications bill the initial affect on local franchising authorities relative to the rate complaint procedure are listed below. They are:

1. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows only franchise authorities to file rate complaints received from residents. (We here at City Hall are the franchise authority.)

2. The local franchise authority can only file a complaint about tier rates after receiving at least two valid complaints within 90 days of a rate change. The local franchise authority must file the complaint with the FCC within 180 days of a change in tier rates. "

In discussion with Ms. Pam McDonnell of Warner this afternoon she stated there would not be any rate increase at this time. However, in September when they plan to introduce the new cable box there would be a small increase and she has volunteered to come and address us at the meeting of August 7 about that.

Mayor Webster said back in March Council authorized us adding to our Park staff two park patrol officers. What you approved was x number of hours for us to employ 1, 2, 3 people to perform a function at the Recreation Center which we looked upon not as law enforcement, but rule enforcement. Mr. Burton will introduce the two young men. We have heard some very glowing reports up to this point.

Mr. Jim Burton said I have been at the Center 20 years and the number of activities we have compared to 1976 have greatly increased. We have the festival coming up this weekend. We have punt, pass and kick competition, Halloween carnivals, 5 voting precincts at the building, 3 mile runs/walks and the regular activities we have have intensified over the years. It's very hard for one person to cover the 20 acres and the building and all the activities going on. On a more negative note, people have changed. People have become generally more aggressive. We have had a number of negative instances over the years and fortunately, they have not been more volatile or potentially worse than they could have been. They have been well documented. Mayor Webster and I have had some conversations since the first of the year and it was quite evident we needed some assistance. That assistance is more as a liaison between our staff and the Police Department, another set of eyes and ears and hopefully a deterrent for some of the petty things that go on out there. These gentlemen are in a precarious situation because they are not law enforcement but more of a liaison. The Mayor thought this would be a good move and I concurred. Obviously, you all felt the same way. At this time I would like to thank Chief Jim Freland for helping me uniform and set up training for these individuals. The easiest thing to do was order the uniforms and schedule some training. We just finished three Monday nights of 4 Monday nights of training. It's a 16 hour program. The uniforms, leather gear, bikes, etc. were the easiest things to do. The hardest thing to do was find quality candidates. The program is only going to be as good as the candidates. We wanted to try to find some people who fit the mold we were looking for. Again Chief Freland was quite instrumental and we started advertising at the academies. We were able to fill these two spots and get these two gentlemen started. I do have some basic information for you. We have budgeted for about 700 hours, figuring we would use these gentlemen April to October at roughly $8,000 in salaries. We will expend $800 this year in training. We have approximately $5,000 in gear. This first year will cost $14,000 to $15,000. After this point, other than some shirts or shorts, $10,000 for salaries should continue this program. The key will be the quality of personnel we have and I can tell you we are off to a very good start. As the Mayor indicated rule enforcement is what we're looking for - no dogs, parking in certain areas, loud music, language, bikes, etc. The first gentleman I'd like to introduce is Mike Smith, a 1991 graduate of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Academy. He is a resident of O"Brienville. He has worked with the Elmwood and Addyston Police Departments. He is currently serving full-time as an EMTA with Colerain Township and is a part-time police officer with the city of Loveland. Through the Butler County Sheriff's Academy Ben Ballinger came on board. Ben just graduated from there about a month ago. He is a resident of Hamilton, a member of the Army Reserve and he is currently seeking full-time employment. We are off to a good start. These are two fine individuals.


Karlton and Diane Rhodes, 486 Rockcrest Drive said about 4 weeks ago it came to our attention that the City plans to call for re-routing a sidewalk in front of our property. It's something we weren't aware of when we moved into the community which was November 1994. We are long-time Springdale residents. We want to take issue with the proposed routing of that sidewalk. We had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Shuler and Mr. Sears yesterday and they reviewed what the plans were. One of the problems that appears to face the implementation of this sidewalk is that it will entail changing the grade on our driveway in order to blend in with the sidewalk proper. That would entail digging our driveway up from the edge of the proposed sidewalk approximately 25 to 30 feet back. It's estimated that this work will probably take two weeks so during that interval we would not have access to our driveway and have to park on the street. We are here to take issue with that proposed route. I would propose that the sidewalk that is currently laid in the subdivision that goes along Vista Glen simply be routed out to the Sharon Road side of that subdivision as opposed to making a loop around the Rockcrest Street. We are concerned about the problems it might create and we are not too sure what the benefits of running that sidewalk would present.

Mayor Webster said for the Council people who weren't here when we went through the annexation of the Glenview Subdivision, there were a number of agreements we struck with Zaring as having the subdivision annexed into Springdale. One of those is that the City is obligated to put in a certain amount of sidewalk and this is the section the City is on the hook to put in. The plans that were initially filed with the County and subsequently with the City call for a sidewalk to be put in there. We want to finish the sidewalk area in that subdivision. The Rhodes live three houses from the end of the subdivision on Rockcrest. We need to finish the sidewalk. There are three houses that are occupied and two vacant lots immediately to the east of the Rhodes. I hear what Mr. and Mrs. Rhodes have to say but we have a contractual obligation to perform here under the agreement of the annexation with Zaring. As all of you know we have other drainage issues with Zaring. I would not want to see us deviate from those plans because if we do it, what's to say they can't do it. We're looking at the entire subdivision. There will be pedestrian traffic on that sidewalk system but that's why it was designed and that's what it is there for. As for digging up the driveway, I think that is extremely unfortunate. Zaring was well aware that the sidewalk had to go in there. The City's posture has always been we do not put the sidewalks in until after the other construction goes in because we don't want the concrete trucks running over the sidewalks and cracking them. In retrospect we wish we had put the sidewalks in and then made Zaring replace the cracked sidewalks. But we didn't do that. We allowed Zaring to put in their driveways and foundations and houses. So now when we go back to put the sidewalk in, the sidewalk does not line up with the elevation of the driveway. The driveway comes in at a certain angle and the sidewalk comes in at a different angle. If we just build the sidewalk the way it's supposed to be built and not redo the driveways, we create a drop-off there and it would be an unsafe condition for anyone riding a tricycle, walking, jogging, etc. It also would be in violation of ADA requirements. The mistake has been pointed out to Zaring. You've got some driveways you haven't poured at the proper elevation. Zaring admits that and they are willing to redo the driveways at their cost, not the homeowner's. But Zaring can't just go in and do it because the property no longer belongs to Zaring. It belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Rhodes. Therefore, for Zaring to go in and redo the driveway so we can properly put the sidewalk in requires a right of entry from the property owners. Up to this point Mr. and Mrs. Rhodes have not given us that right of entry which is certainly their right to do. However, for us to live up to our contractual obligation what Mr. Shuler has been able to do is figure out a way we can come along with the sidewalk and jut it back out to the curb right before we get to their driveway and pick it up again on the other side of their driveway and jut it back out again. That's not the most attractive situation in the world and we wish we didn't have to do that. I have some empathy for someone who says they don't want a sidewalk and we say they have to take it. We have to look at the long haul and if we say no, we're not going to do it because Mr. and Mrs. Rhodes don't want it, what are we going to do five years from now when maybe someone else owns the property or one of the other four property owners adjacent to the Rhodes comes in and says where is my sidewalk. I saw the plans for the sidewalk when I bought my house and now, City, I want you to put the sidewalk in. It's an unfortunate situation that we are in the middle of. All we are trying to do is fulfill our part of the obligation.

Ms. Manis asked if the Rhodes have a problem with the sidewalk altogether or with how it's being put in.

Mr. Rhodes replied we feel the sidewalk is going to detract from the looks of the property. From the curb inward we are talking about ten feet. We're not very fond of how that's going to turn out. That was one of the issues as well as the demolition work and pre-construction work on the driveway that would have to occur to implement the sidewalk and make it look proper. In the course of reviewing this issue yesterday with Mr. Shuler he did have a sketch that pointed out this little zigzag as a possibility. I personally think it is very unsightly and would not be the proper way to implement the sidewalk.

Mayor Webster responded we don't take exception to that. It is not the proper way to do it but it is the only way we can do it given the situation.

Mr. Wilson asked the Rhodes if they have talked to some of the neighbors and gotten some input from them as well.

Mr. Rhodes said there are only three houses there who would be impacted by this. One has already agreed to it and the other seems to be neutral.

Mr. Wilson asked are you more concerned about how your driveway will look after it's done? I get the initial impression there is that two week period when you're not going to be using your driveway, obviously the dust that will happen as a result of the construction, the trucks being there and your cars in the street.

Mr. Rhodes replied we are concerned about the interval in which it will be out of service and I'm a little concerned about the steeper slope that will result after this modification. I haven't really had a chance to look at it that closely to determine if it would be a problem.

Mr. Wilson stated I would have a concern trying to get up or trying to come down if there is ice or even wet. I assume that was a concern.

Mrs. Rhodes said it takes away from the uniformity of the neighborhood. We would be the only houses in that area that would have sidewalk in front of them. When we purchased that lot we were not told there would be a sidewalk routed inside of our property. We are concerned with the look and I'm sure any of you would be. What we had envisioned when we built that home and then be told two years later that they are going to put a sidewalk right on our property and take away from the frontage of the home, the look of it as well as the uniformity of the neighborhood, I am extremely opposed to.

Mr. Danbury said it's not only sidewalks. We agreed to a certain amount of trees and other items. This is what we agreed to to be able to annex this property. I think there was a communication problem with the salesperson or the company. They should have informed you of that. Has the Administration been in contact with Zaring to see if they are interested in being a little more lax on this and not holding us to that?

Mayor Webster replied we have not taken that approach at all. I personally have been approached by some residents wondering when they are going to get their sidewalks. As far as I was concerned, I looked at the plans and said we're going to do them.

Mr. Shuler said it's part of the whole sidewalk contract where we did the work on Crescentville, Vanarsdale, Rt. 4, and Sharon. We had intended to do it a year or so ago but they asked us to wait until the houses were built and as the Mayor indicated, we have this after the fact problem. Mr. Sears and I had a meeting this afternoon with some of Zaring's people today, not the people that were involved at the time of the annexation but the people responsible for getting the construction done out there. We were talking about how we would coordinate the sidewalk/driveway work if we went ahead as it was proposed. It looks like it may be 7 or 8 days instead of two weeks. When we spoke last night I certainly didn't want to tell Mr. and Mrs. Rhodes it would be a week and then take two. There is a question on the grade of the driveway. It's approximately 14% and 13%. It changes a little bit as you are going up the hill to the pad behind their garage. I believe the proposed grade is just slightly less than 15%. It's obviously very steep. Ideally we don't like to see a driveway grade that is over 10%. We have a situation here where the house was built, the driveway put in and now we're trying to deal with the situation where there are not too many options.

Mr. Danbury asked if you think it's possible we could regrade their front yard to match the sidewalk?

Mr. Shuler responded there will be some regrading that would be required behind the walk but the driveway is really the problem because we cannot maintain the same grade that you are coming down the driveway across the sidewalk and then the apron between the sidewalk and the street because of the cross slope that would put on the sidewalk. It would be unsafe. If you had that steep slope going out to the curb we would be in the situation that if someone pulled in across that curb they would be dragging a rear bumper on the street or hitting a front bumper on the steep slope going up from the curb. We have looked at, thought about, and tried just about everything we possibly can and had other people looking at thinking we had looked at it too long and there has to be a solution here. With the short distance we have to work with and the elevation problem, we just don't have many options if we are going to put a sidewalk on that street.

Mrs. Rhodes said, Mayor, with all due respect, the neighbors from the community who have addressed you about their sidewalks. It would be our sidewalk too. However, the people who are addressing you are not the ones who are going to be inconvenienced or have their property distorted at all. It's not serving any purpose other than it's a contractual agreement that was put in place between the annex and Springdale. It's not serving a purpose. All the problems that are going to come as a result of trying to renovate our yard to put in the sidewalk is a costly, costly adventure. Those costs could be put to use some place else. I think it's unfair.

Mayor Webster responded as far as the cost the only cost to the City is the actual cost of the sidewalk itself. That has been bid out as part of a contract. I'm sure we can put a change order in if we decide not to do it. Have we put the sidewalk in across the other two vacant lots?

Mr. Shuler replied we have not put any of it in. The contractor wants to do it all at one time.

Mayor Webster said we can put a change order in and save the City that money. I don't think we are talking about a huge amount of money. To tear out the driveways and do the regrading there is Zaring's problem and unfortunately, it's the Rhodes' problem.

Mrs. Rhodes stated when Zaring pulls out of that community they are gone.

Mr. Rhodes said last night when we had our discussion I was under the impression that the City would actually supervise and be in charge of the regrading. We've had some bad experiences with Zaring from a grading standpoint and they are still not resolved. I would not want to entertain such a major task as we are talking about here to be solely in their hands.

Mr. Shuler said Mr. Butsch would be supervising all of that. Zaring would be responsible to have their subcontractors do that work under our supervision.

Mayor Webster said I think Mrs. Rhodes made an excellent point in that once Zaring is out they are out. We'll never get them back in here. If we walk away from this and not put the sidewalk in, then if some future Council or some future homeowners want sidewalk there, you need to be aware of the fact that you are talking major, major money because you have to tear out one, two, maybe three driveways in order to put the sidewalk in properly. The City will have to foot the bill for those driveways, not just the sidewalk as we have today, but also tearing out, regrading, replacing shrubbery, etc. to put sidewalks in this section of the City. Right now Zaring is on the hook and is willing to participate and do the right thing. Once they are gone they are gone for good.

Mr. Galster said when we are talking about the zigzag, the reason for the zigzag is only because the homeowners have not allowed us to do the driveway. If in fact, if they agreed to do that the sidewalk would come across just like any other sidewalk in the City. What percentage of the subdivision will ultimately be sidewalked.

Mr. Shuler replied the subdivision plans called for a sidewalk basically across the Sharon Road frontage and then just west of the main entrance. It cuts into Vista Glen, runs along Vista Glen and then when it gets to Rockcrest, the sidewalk goes across Rockcrest to Ballinger. The City is also going to put a piece of sidewalk in on Ballinger and the plan also calls for looping back across Sharon Road to the point where Rockcrest is very close to Sharon and cutting back in. You have a circle on the end of the sidewalk system that would run all the way up Rt. 4 across Sharon and then have this circular plan right at the end of the corporation line. That is the only area of the subdivision where sidewalks were proposed as part of the original subdivision plan. The plans were prepared, approved by the County, construction was started under the County and then the City got into it after that.

Mr. Galster asked if we have a layout of the sidewalks in the subdivision we could look at. As far as residences it's only that one area.

Mr. Shuler replied there is probably a layout in the Building Department. The sidewalks would be in front of five residences, the three that are built and the two vacant lots. There's other sidewalk on the residential street but it's not in front of homes in that area.

Ms. Manis said I remember Mr. Osborn, when they were first coming in there was discussion that it didn't meet our code because of the sidewalks and how that's how the homeowners wanted it, liked it without the sidewalks, etc.; yet these sidewalks were on the plans from the very beginning.

Mr. Osborn said the subdivision developers, Zaring, approached us about developing the projects with limited sidewalks and we felt there had to be some public sidewalks available. This was the compromise we came up with and it ultimately became part of the subdivison plans and the contractual agreement between the City and Zaring.

Mr. Rhodes said they also have a new phase at the eastern end of that subdivision. Are there any plans to run the loop up to the new phase?

Mr. Shuler responded there are no plans for a sidewalk on that cul-de-sac which would be on the east end of the project. That is where the sidewalk on Sharon goes all the way down to Rt. 4. That ties in as part of the City's sidewalk masterplan for the entire city.

Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Shuler if we're talking about a certain amount of linear feet that has to have concrete on it. Is there another area where we could put this sidewalk and be in compliance without affecting the residents here?

Mr. Shuler replied the agreement said the City would provide a certain number of feet of sidewalk, probably 700-800 feet. I don't know where else you would put it in the subdivision because it wouldn't tie in to anything. I think the original linear footage was identified in the agreement from a measurement we took off that plan so it was documented that the City would be putting in the sidewalk that was called for on the subdivision plans as approved by the County.

Mr. Wilson said we talked about Sharon Road and putting the sidewalk out there. Is that all contracted from the entire strip there? Do we have an area where we could make an adjustment?

Mr. Shuler replied we haven't really looked at other places we could use sidewalk because the way the sidewalk was laid out, it fulfilled our plan of having a sidewalk system that would address all the residential subdivisions and this plan being inside and outside the subdivision provided a sidewalk east-west all the way from the corporation line over to the east side of the subdivision. This year we have entered into the contract to pick it up at that point and take it on up to Rt. 4 so the residents in that subdivision can walk on a pedestrian way and get to other areas in their subdivision. We could look at other streets but we'd be running 700-800 feet of sidewalk down a street that wouldn't be part of any plan or tie into anything. I can't think of any area where it would be of great benefit.

Mr. Wilson said my concern is that we are putting up 800 linear feet of sidewalk that really only has an impact on a maximum of five residents.

Mr. Shuler replied when they laid out the subdivision they really weren't looking at it as impacting on any number of residents. They were looking at a sidewalk system that seemed to make sense that everyone could get to the sidewalk system from the subdivision and then could walk that sidewalk system to basically the downtown eventually when we get it all done. We are trying to develop a sidewalk system that will tie all the residential areas to the Rec Center, the parks and the other common areas of the City that people use and in some areas we have people walking out in the street. We are trying to eliminate as much of that as we can.

Mr. Danbury asked if we are contractually obligated to complete this at this time? From a cost standpoint it would be much more economical to put a sidewalk system in if there were five lots that were already completed as opposed to a piecemeal situation where we go to the Rhodes' residents. Maybe we could put this on the back burner and find another area where we could transfer the sidewalk system, find a more appeasable way. If we have all five houses there we can lay it out at one time. Sidewalks are a touchy issue because five people may want it and five not. You really have to look at what the majority of the people want and the best use for the land and for public safety. I don't believe you should spend money unless people want it but we are contracted though.

Mr. Osborn responded I have been asked by Zaring when we are going to complete and we told them we would complete it this year. There is nothing in the document that says we have to complete now but I would anticipate they would want us to have it complete before they are finished with the subdivision.

Mayor Webster said the contract calls for all five lots to have sidewalk. We are going to put the sidewalk on the vacant lots also. We are not going to do anything piecemeal. When Zaring builds on those two lots, if they damage the sidewalk, we'll ask them to fix it which I'm sure they will or it will go against their bond. This is what we didn't want to do. If we had put the sidewalk in initially before the Rhodes even looked at their lot we wouldn't be talking about it tonight. Normally we wouldn't put sidewalks on a vacant lot but Zaring is getting down to the end of their involvement so we are going to do all five of those lots at once.

Mr. Galster asked if the other two lots are sold. Could we put it off a little bit. I understand we have a sidewalk that is shown on the drawings. Somebody up there may have bought the house assuming they would get a sidewalk and that would be a problem. You bought your house thinking you wouldn't get a sidewalk even though it was shown on the drawings. If we can get the three existing people to agree to no sidewalks maybe we can get that part taken out of the plan because the other two aren't built yet and they can be shown without sidewalks. But if there is one person there who is counting on that sidewalk I think because we approved the plans showing the sidewalk in front of all five residents, it would be awfully tough to say to a resident who was wanting and expecting the sidewalk that he can't have it because someone else decided they didn't want it. If the residents don't want it I'm sure Zaring doesn't want it. I have a hard time changing midstream if someone living there now wants a sidewalk, was presented with one and doesn't get it.

Mrs. Boice said my understanding is that this part includes what would be a sidewalk system, a connecting deal. That has to be looked at also. If we alter that what happens to the sidewalk connection of moving the pedestrian from here to there.

Mr. Galster said it would only be for those five residents. It's like a spur more than part of the loop of the whole City of Springdale.

Mr. Rhodes said I understand it is just a leg that would run in front of these residences. A future piece would run along Ballinger and run east west along Sharon Road.

Mr. Shuler stated it is not a dead end spur. The sidewalk that would go in front of these residences and the sidewalk behind them on Sharon creates that loop on the west end of the City's sidewalk system.

Mr. Vanover said if they decided not to do this section do we have any legal ramifications? The plans were approved by the County with the sidewalk in place. We have the contract with Zaring. Would that put the City in any legal jeopardy as far as ADA requirements?

Mr. Schneider responded I don't see where any ADA problems would result. I don't think we are required to have that sidewalk as an access. Once we do it we have to do it with proper standards. We have a contractual obligation but contracts can be mutually amended if we choose to do that. If that's the intent of the City I will certainly try to accomplish that.

Mr. Vanover asked if an agreement has been reached with the Homeowner's Association.

Mayor Webster said if we are going to be doing any negotiations I think we should be doing it with the Homeowners' Association. They just formed their own board this past Tuesday night. That board doesn't officially take over for sixty days when Zaring closes out their 67th home and are 2/3 of the way sold. I really think just to protect future Councils and Administrations from people in that area coming back and demanding sidewalks then we really should hear from the Homeowners' Association. Let them poll the majority of their membership and act accordingly. If the majority say they don't want it let's make sure we don't have any legal ramifications of that. If the majority of the citizens in that community which is what we have dealt with all along, want it, again we'll do what Council wishes. If Council wants to back away I think you are incurring ramifications for some future Council.

Mr. Danbury asked Mayor Webster to draft a letter to the Homeowners' Association.

Mr. Shuler said he would try to get a drawing showing where the sidewalks are on the approved plans so when you go out and look at it you'll understand.

Mr. Wilson said you are going to show us a drawing that shows it is impossible to put the sidewalk somewhere else.

Mr. Danbury said we can make decisions but I think Mr. Galster hit it on the head. Some people may have bought that property with the intention of using a sidewalk.

Mrs. McNear said I believe everyone up here would like to go look at the property and where the proposed driveway would be. Do we have your permission to go into your driveway to walk it off so we have a better feeling for where the driveway would be and also the zigzag approach? The Rhodes' gave consent.

Tim McNamee, 90 Silverwood Circle, said his son, John and two of his friends, Jeremy Ortman, 11985 Greencastle and Russell Bender, 665 Allen have had some communication with the Mayor and maybe some of the Council members regarding skateboarding. It came to my attention the other day. My son was stopped by a police officer while riding down one of the streets in our subdivision. Our subdivision doesn't really have thru traffic and a lot people play in the streets. The officer threatened to cite him. I met with the police officer and I understood his concerns. There is possible damage to private property. I agree they should not be damaging property. I know they have concerns about where they are allowed to ride skateboards and if there is anything that can be done to accommodate skateboarding. I know the City does a lot of things for a lot of people to do different sports. We have been to Lunken Airport to see the ramp and different things for the skateboarders to use.

John McNamee said we are always getting in trouble for skating on private property. We're getting kicked out of places. I don't know why I get kicked out of a subdivision street when there are no cars coming by except maybe one every five minutes. There is no where else to skate. Russell Bender said we get kicked out of the Community Center. People rollerblade there and bike. There are signs that say no skateboarding.

Jeremy Ortman said they provide rollerbladers barrels to play hockey with. When we try to skateboard where they play hockey they kick us out and/or call the cops.

Mayor Webster said Jeremy Ortman has been in contact with me and we've had a brief conversation. Mr. Burton and I have an appointment to go out to Lunken Airport and take a look at their facility, take some pictures, get some measurements. He has some contacts with the City of Cincinnati and we're going to see what all went into that, what the parameters are. If we charge we have some liability issues so we probably don't want to charge for this if we do it. We'll work up some cost estimates and give Council some options. If you'd like to provide this for the kids I think it would be great. We are always looking for other things we can offer especially for the youth of this City. This is one who's time is long overdue and I'd like to see us do it. At this point I don't know what kind of money we are talking about. Let us get some preliminary data, then sit down with a group of these kids and show them what we got.

Mr. McNamee said at Lunken they do have an adult sign consent forms saying they are not liable for any injuries and they do enforce wearing safety gear. You can provide your own or rent theirs but if you get caught using the facilities without safety equipment they throw you out.

Mr. Galster said the Mayor and I talked about this earlier when we were talking about the budget and the juvenile officer. It seems to me we need to provide more activities for the 14-17 year old kids rather than corral them in after they have gone off the beaten path so to speak. This is one of the things I was thinking. The kids today skateboard, in-line skate, BMX bikes. I watched the X games on ESPN and thought they were interesting. The problem I see with the liability and consent forms is if we do come up with the track system, we'd have to fence it in to keep everybody out or come up with a key card system to limit access so we make sure the parent comes in and signs a consent form before the kid gets out there. Would you guys where helmets, knee pads and elbow pads?

John McNamee said they can wear the helmets, wrist guards and elbow pads but the kneed pads are not good. They get in the way.

Mr. Galster said I think we need to encompass not only the skateboarders and the rollerbladers but I think it will help get them away from the businesses that are complaining and give the young adults another outlet.

Ms. Manis said I think we try to throw money at everything. I think one of the main problems you addressed here is why you can't ride them on the streets and why you were pulled over. Does anybody know why that was? I think that needs to be addressed more than throwing money at it and building a lot. There is a path at the Rec. I know it would be neat to have ramps. I watched the X games too. I think we have some outlying park where just some little things could be done. Ross Park would be a great place.

Mr. McNamee said they throw us out of the Rec for waxing on curbs and things. Most of the time we are just going through there. They make us get off and walk.

Mr. Danbury said the obvious thing with a bike is that it has brakes.

Mr. Osborn said it is against the law in the City of Springdale to ride a skateboard in the public street. The reason is safety. There is a difference between riding a bike and riding a skateboard. While they may be expert at controlling them they can't control pebbles, rough gravel and holes in the street. Imagine hitting a pothole in the street on a bike versus hitting a pothole on the street on a skateboard. The next thing you know the young person is lying out in the street in front of traffic. That's what we have been concerned about. We did allow skateboarding at the Center and we suffered severe damage as a result of that, not just curbs, but benches, walls, anything you could jump on with a skateboard got damaged. I think the idea of creating a facility where people can use their skateboards in a challenging way is a very good idea. I would prefer to see us develop a facility where they can use their skateboards rather than relying on them to go onto somebody's private property, going into the public street where they are at risk, having to fight with us over whether they can be on the property at the Rec Center. I think the best solution I've heard is to come up with a facility where these young people can engage in their sport without any hassle and frankly, on a facility that is going to be more entertaining for them than what they can find out on the street.

Mr. Vanover said I agree with Mr. Osborn in that respect. We don't want them on the street because there is a control factor. I was coming down the hill on Ledro off Tivoli and there was a young man body luging down the street. He is presenting a profile on the street ahead of me of about 13-15". If a driver wasn't alert, that kid is gone. I'm sympathetic. I ride a bicycle and bicyclists have to observe all the laws of the road just like a motor vehicle does. I definitely think a site specifically for the skateboarders is a very good thing. I would be very supportive of that.

Mr. Knox stated as the father of a competitive skateboarder and having seen quite a few young men in the last five or six years I would encourage Council to look into coming up with a facility for the young men and ladies who engage in that sport.

Mr. Danbury said Ordinance 20-1996 and Ordinance 21-1996 will go back to Planning after the first reading for consideration.


Mr. Danbury said I urge you to consider and support Ordinance 52 which is basically saying by title only. On the second reading I have to have a motion and a second and a majority to vote. Did we advertise a public hearing for this?

Mr. Osborn responded we did not set a public hearing for this, only the two related to the Rt. 4 corridor and the cellular tower. This could have a public hearing set on it this evening. We would have it before Planning Commission on July 9 and be back before you on July 17. Obviously we can't have a public hearing on July 17 but possibly on August 7.

A public hearing was set for August 7.


Mr. Wilson made a motion to read Ordinance 46-1996 by title only and Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with 6 affirmative votes. Mrs. Boice voted no.


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

Ms. Manis asked if we paid anything at the time we got this land.

Mr. Osborn replied this was part of subdivision developed by Marvin Guttman in the 1970s. This cul-de-sac was the original terminus of Century Boulevard and because it was an industrial subdivision it had to have a very large cul-de-sac. We no longer need that cul-de-sac because other streets have been built. Rather than retain that on the public registry and also maintain that much of a street, we abandoned that section of the cul-de-sac when we rebuilt the street and we are proposing to return the property to the adjacent property owner so it goes back on the tax rolls.

Ordinance 46-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


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

Mayor Webster said I asked last time if this is through the end of the year. It is not, it is through October 31, 1995. Every time this comes up I raise the point. It's a real inconvenience and it's absolutely ridiculous we can't get the thing on the calendar year. The 1995 supplement should include all the ordinances for 1995. You shouldn't have two years of that hanging over, not to be pulled in until the next codification. For whatever reason the request falls on deaf ears. I would certainly like for somebody on Council to demand that all future codifications be effective through the end of the year.

Mr. Knox said as it is codified at the moment, it goes through November 1, 1995. I did some research and found there were no ordinances passed by Council in November and December so in fact, every ordinance from 1995 is included. So with Council's permission I would like to make a call to American Legal and have them amend that to show 12/31/95 because that is the true situation and thereafter to operate through the entire calendar year. If we tell them in advance there should be no cost and there are some very minor things that they traditionally make at no cost to us.

Ordinance 47-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Public hearing August 7, 1996


Public hearing August 7, 1996



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

Mrs. McNear asked if we could take a couple of minutes to read the attachments since we didn't get this until after the meeting started this evening.

Mr. Osborn said there are only two changes. On the first page of the exhibit, paragraph 5 is the active language. That entire paragraph has been added and that's the one that deals with the issue of food vendors. The rest of the document is the same except for a reference on the second exhibit. there was an incorrect citation being corrected by this ordinance.

Mrs. McNear said I have two attachment As.

Mr. Schneider responded one is with the markings. The markings did not come out too clearly. Under canvasser or solicitor where it has the correction Mr. Osborn just referred to, the last one is 112.16. You cannot see it too well but we tried to do a graying of number 5 showing that's the only change. The second attachment is the true copy with no changes marked.

Mayor Webster said at the last meeting I brought to Council's attention that under the existing laws if someone wants to sell ice cream throughout our neighborhoods he/she would be required to post a $1,000 bond and acquire a permit from the Board of Health. We have had one vendor comply with that. That lady said she was going to come to Council tonight and ask Council not to pass this since she paid the $1,000. We have had to deny a lot of people the ability to come in and service the neighborhood because of that $1,000 bond they had to post. We would very much like to be able to issue these licenses for people to sell. This is not door-to-door. This is someone who is going down the street and you come out of your home and patronize him.

Mr. Galster said I know we didn't get them away from the residential areas at dinnertime but can you tell me again what the hours of operation are?

Mr. Osborn said the hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. That won't apply to the exceptions here such as food vendors. There is no limitation right now.

Ms. Manis asked if they are stopped regularly to see if they have their licenses.

Mr. Osborn said they have been in the past. This has been an issue because they have been unlicensed and we particularly want them to get the health license.

Ordinance 51-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Mr. Danbury said in Section 3 Ordinances and Resolutions where Council can suspend the full reading on long documents, if this was passed by us and the voters could Council make a blanket motion?

Mr. Schneider replied it would have to be done one ordinance at a time.

Mr. Vanover said Section 1 says special election and Mr. Schneider replied it should say general election.

Ms. Manis asked will we get to see a copy of what will be on the ballot.

Mr. Schneider replied it's our choice to give full text or condensed text. I could run that by Council. We have until September 1.

Mayor Webster stated midway down Section 3 it says an ordinance needs four members of Council to pass. Some issues take a super majority. Council could establish that.

Mr. Schneider replied it is in Charter now.

Mr. Vanover made a motion to amend the ordinance to change special election to general election.

The motion passed 7-0.




Mr. Glaster asked if $1,000 is the amount that has been established.

Mr. Osborn stated we introduced Charter language to give City Council the authority to set the limit every year at that point at which a purchase order must be issued up to but not exceeding $1,000. As I've said in correspondence to you regarding this proposal, we don't anticipate requesting anything near that limit but we felt there ought to be a limit in there that would probably be able to remain in place for some time before you have to go back and change it again.

Council recessed at 9:52 p.m. and reconvened at 10:08 p.m.

Mr. Danbury said I would like to release Mr. Shuler and Mr. Schneider. Are there any issues to be brought up under Old or New Business to either of these gentlemen. Let's bring it up now.

Ms. Manis said someone on Audie said that the Mayor had been out and was going to correct a drainage problem. We've talked about it several times before with Mr. Shuler and it wasn't able to be corrected at that time.

Mayor Webster responded we are not going to be able to correct Mr. Hubbell's drainage problem in his backyard. There is tremendous pooling of water on the sidewalk that does present a real hazard, especially to kids going to and from school. We are proposing to try to correct that. There is no way we are going to correct his backyard drainage problem. It would appear that his next door neighbor has built a fence and done substantial planning.

Ms. Manis said there is a swell and gully that runs by there. Mr. Shuler has been out several times and I was always told we couldn't spend the public funds to correct his private problem and he's under the impression it is going to be fixed.

Mr. Danbury said I received a call from the general manager at Tri County Mall. They have some representatives from the city of Denver coming into Tri County to look at the renovation and the economic impact. This is one of the model malls they are looking at and they wanted to invite any City official. That will be July 11 between 9:00 and 10:30 a.m. There will be introductions and questions about how it's impacted the City and how did the construction go, etc. If anybody is interested in going they can contact me.

Public Hearing


Mr. Osborn said the presentation tonight will be a collection of slides from the budget augmented with some additional information. We distributed copies of those slides which Council would not already have access to through their budget. I just want to begin by reviewing five critical features of the budget. The principal one being that the 1997 budget projects an increase in expenses of 10.84%. The 1996 projected expenses are just under $9.9 million. We're looking at a 1997 budget of $10,968,256. The reason for this significant annual growth is due in large part to the increase in the transfer to the Capital Improvements fund. That single transfer has increased by 38% going from $1,185,000 in 1996 to $1,635,000 in 1997. We were able to do this added increase in the transfer to Capital Improvements and put a heavier emphasis on capital improvements because of the good revenue performance we've seen over the last two years. In that two year period the General Fund beginning balance has increased by over $1.8 million. In terms of revenues for 1997 we are looking at 6.7% growth over 1996. We think this is a rather conservative number, however, because our projected 1996 revenues are almost 5% below collections for 1995. Finally, the staffing changes in the 1997 budget will include one additional police officer bring our police force to 33 sworn officers, and one part-time nurse to assist our existing full-time nurse. Looking at the revenues projected in the General Fund you will see the 1996 revenues are significantly below actual collections for 1995. If you compare our projected 1997 to actual 1995 you can see that there is very little increase. I think this accurately reflects the conservatism of our revenue numbers. We have not even adjusted our 1996 numbers upwards based on 1995 experience and we are still in a good position with our ending balance. We have broken out the different expenses in the General Fund. The single biggest expense in the General Fund is law enforcement. After that, the second biggest expense is transfers. I think this can be misleading because certain departments such as Public Works which is supported by several different funds, could actually be over $1 million higher if we rolled in the other funds. If we included all the funds under which Public Works is funded it would be the second largest cost center for the City in terms of overall expenses. Our single biggest general revenue is income tax, followed by the property tax and then it's pretty close between the inter-governmental revenues and other local taxes. Other local taxes are entertainment tax, transient occupancy tax, etc. This certainly demonstrates quite clearly how dependent the City is on its income tax. Finally, the last table shows our expenses for 1996 and 1997 and projects an ending balance of $664,592. I believe this is a very conservative number. I think we'll see another year in 1996 where revenues will probably exceed expenditures even though we don't depict it that on this chart. I think the actually history will be to the contrary. I believe at this stage in the budget process a $664,000 year end balance for 1997 is more than adequate. We have a summary of some of the major projects in the Capital Improvements budget. The single biggest budgeted item is our 1997 street improvement program. That's an annual event. It's one of those facets that really ought to be lumped under Public Works expense. This is really a preventative maintenance type budget and it's something we contract out. Other cities may not contract out this service. The other projects include the replacement of the HVAC units in the club room, the Kemper Road repair project from Tri County Parkway to the CSX railroad bridge, the East Crescentville Road reconstruction and engineering, the Kemper Road bike lane project between Rt. 4 and Kenn Road, and urban redevelopment funds. These are the primary projects. There are a number of other projects that have a projected cost of less than $100,000. The next page is a summary of expenses devoted to road improvements. The column on the left is local funds, the column on the right is outside funds. There seems to be a trend towards less outside funding. That can be explained when you consider the fact that we have picked off those projects that are most attractive for outside funding. There is a point of diminishing returns on going after funding because we have less projects that meet the criteria that will bring in funding. You can see that we have been very aggressive in this process and will continue to do that. We don't have the same opportunities in the next few years because the projects we have left to go after just don't score as well with the outside funding sources. The next page is a summary of the Capital Improvements budget. We have estimated expenses in 1996 of just under $1.6 million and in 1997 of just over $1.6 million. The ending balance for 1997 of $1 is really very artificial. There certainly will be a much more substantial ending balance in that fund in 1997. Just as you see the beginning balance of 1996 at $374,000, all of that money is encumbrances which are brought forward into the next budget year. We'll see the same thing with the 1997 ending balance. We will see a balance brought forward in 1998 but that will be money committed to projects in progress. In the chart of the summary of all funds, the first chart shows our revenues by source. I think it's important to note that of all our revenue sources, income tax makes up 51% of our revenues at $6.3 million. This is given the fact that we are showing transfers in here as revenues even though that's an artificial fact. We have to account for those transfers. If you factor that out our income tax would probably be closer to 60% of our total revenues. The next chart shows our 97 expenditures by category allowing for categorizing by funds. The single biggest area of expense in the City is in law enforcement at just over $3 million. Street Maintenance shows $1.3 million but again we don't take the capital improvements and break out street repair programs and some other factors or it would show a bigger percentage as well. The next slide shows a representation of how we have faired over the past few years comparing our revenues versus expenditures. It demonstrates that in 1994 and 1995 we were able to hold expenses down below revenues. While we show revenues being short of expenses in 1996 I think we'll come very close, if not revenues surpassing expenses in this year. 1997 shows expenses being greater than revenues. At this point in the budget process that's not an unusual situation. The last sheet shows us the summary of all the City's expenses for 1996 and 1997. If you look at our estimated expenditures for 1997 it says $14 million but that includes the transfers. If you factor out the transfers we are looking at a $12 million budget overall for the City in 1997. That's a brief summary of the 1997 budget. We had a much more detailed line item discussion at our last meeting and I'd be willing to try to answer any questions you have about the 1997 budget.

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

Mr. Danbury said I think it's a good budget but I cannot support it unless I get an assurance. I've thought about this and I've spoken with a lot of people. I cannot support the expenditure of $15,000 to put a batting cage in. I will support this if I can get assurances from the Administration that we will get some kind of legislation before anything is actually, officially done on this. I can change my mind but I've spoken with a number of people and they think for the short time frame it would be utilized we could utilize this money elsewhere.

Mayor Webster said our estimated cost is $15,000. I know there are a lot of increments that go in there: concrete work, electrical, fencing, purchasing of the actual machine. There's a good chance that this particular $15,000 could be spent without coming back to Council just based on the Annual Appropriation Ordinance but if the feeling of Council is you want to look at that issue before we go forward with it, I have absolutely no problem with that. Due to the lateness of the hour I think we could forestall the debate on that.

Mr. Danbury replied I played baseball here and my child will in the future. I still think we could utilize that money better. We could use that money to build something for the three youths who were in here tonight about skateboarding.

Ms. Manis said I'm very excited about changing the budget cycle. I hope we can get that in the works and do it as soon as possible. I think it will make the numbers a lot more real for everyone involved. I'm not supporting the budget. I think it's basically a good budget. I commend all the department heads. When we're looking at the capital improvements that we have to do now and in the future. There are some things we are talking about for four or five years from now and I don't think they are just pipe dreams. I think we should be budgeting a little bit for those now - a sub-station fire department, an expansion to the Rec Center. I think all those things are needed and will be before the five years are up or we will be left behind. I think we can eliminate some of the things in the budget now and start planning on these other major improvements.

Resolution R21-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes. Ms. Manis voted no.



Mr. Osborn said there was a bid opening on June 28 for gasoline and diesel fuel. BP was the only bidder and the only vendor the City has had for a number of years. Their bid was very good. We will be saving 2.71 cents on gas and 5.66 cents on diesel over cost of delivery. The vendors bid on the mark up to the OPIS (Ohio Pricing Index Service) cost for gasoline or diesel. It's essentially the terminal price at which distributors like BP buy gas in Ohio. We would recommend that the City enter into the contract with BP for the provision of gasoline and diesel fuel to the City.

Mayor Webster gave the Community Pride report. We have completed 1,216 property inspections plus 81 calls or referrals which resulted in 89 violation letters being sent out. In progress right now is the Cloverdale area, the Terrace, Cameron, Naylor and Springdale Knolls. We have had 114 requests for the residential debris pick-up. The program has just taken off. Mayor Webster showed the six signs Steve Galster made to attach to the sides of the dump trucks. Mr. Galster donated all his effort. All he asked for was reimbursement for the materials. He also made the plaques for the cars for the July 4 parade. At the next Council meeting I would like to have the recipients of the landscaping awards in and present the Mayor's award. We have a new wrinkle this year. We are awarding three of the big plaques to businesses throughout the City. The judging was going on last week and this week so we'll know the winners by this weekend.

Mr. Danbury said I have just moved and I have a ton of paint. I asked Mr. Osborn and Mr. Sears what can we do because Hamilton County will take it but only four times a year. The next one is in August. Mr. Sears said people are getting violations because they need to paint gutters, shutters, etc. Is there a way citizens can dump paint somewhere? If I'm going to get rid of this paint and these people may need it I may not be able to get in touch with them. Is that logistically a nightmare?

Mayor Webster said I believe the intent on August 10 is that you can drop off and pick up on the same day.

Mr. Osborn said if we took it now where would we store it? You've been to the garage and you've seen our facilities. I really don't have the capacity to put that in one of our buildings right now, keep it sorted, etc.

Mr. Danbury said we have one gentleman at the end of Cloverdale who is so excited about this program he is putting signs in his yard.

Ms. Manis said I don't think it's a good idea to say the areas that have been done on the Community Pride program because I've had people ask if they have been in their area yet because we are going to move our garbage cans back as soon as they come through.

Mayor Webster stated that's a good point but I hope people realize they can be cited at any time.

Mrs. Boice said I have heard that one of our Springdale teams did very well in the softball tournament and I was wondering if we could bring in a resolution for that. Mr. Galster said it is the Springdale Top Guns, a D-1 girls' team. They probably won four games during the regular season averaging about 2 runs per game. They averaged 18 runs per game in the tournament and won the whole thing. We didn't want to bring it up because my daughter and Ms. Manis' daughter play on that team.

Mrs. McNear said perhaps because of the length of our agendas recently and in the next couple of meetings that temporarily we could start the meeting at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m.

Mrs. Boice asked if we could get our materials here a little more prompt. I don't like having all of this cold in front of me. I'm sure the bulk of Council, when the material is there, reads it before they get into a meeting. I found tonight very distressing. If we could get our material here more timely, it would be a lot easier.

Mr. Danbury asked if the 7:00 meeting time is okay. Mayor Webster said I don't think you have to give advance notice.

Mrs. McNear said I wouldn't want to make that a permanent change because when the weather is bad it's harder to get here by 7:00 for a meeting but in the summer it doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

Mr. Danbury said our next meeting on July 17 will be at 7:00 p.m.

Mrs. Boice said January 1 is on Wednesday. Can we move the meeting to Thursday?


Board of Zoning Appeals July 16, 7:30 p.m.

Planning Commission July 9, 7:00 p.m.

Board of Health July 11, 7:00 p.m.


Council adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Randy Danbury, President of Council

__________________________, l996