Council was called to order on March 19, 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. The Invocation was given by Mr. Knox.

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

The minutes of March 5, 1997 were approved with 7 affirmative votes.


RULES AND LAWS - no report

PUBLIC RELATIONS - Mrs. McNear said the latest issue of the newsletter has been completed and is at press now. It will be mailed out shortly. There will be an employee blood drive April 7.


PUBLIC WORKS - Mr. Vanover reported the 1997 crack seal program bids were opened March 14. Only one bid was received and the contractor is one who performed this work satisfactorily for us in the past and the bid was approximately $3,000 below our estimate. We would request that an ordinance be brought in at the next meeting to award the contract to Terry Construction. The 1997 concrete repair program bids were opened on March 14. Two bids were received with the low bid being approximately $30,000 below the final estimate for this work although it exceeds the original budget. The main reason is when the West Kemper Road resurfacing was removed from the asphalt program we doubled the amount of curb and sidewalk repair in this program. We would request that an ordinance be brought in at the next meeting to award this contract to Ray Prus & Sons, Inc. The 1997 asphalt repair and resurfacing program is currently out to bid. The bids will be opened next Wednesday, March 26. As long as the bids are reasonable and the contractor is recommended by the Engineer, we would like to bring in an ordinance at the next meeting to award this program. That would conclude my report.

Mr. Galster asked if we ever get into splitting up the projects. We are looking at five projects here. Granted the total for the one contractor is the low bid but do we ever look at the low bid on each one of the five projects and maybe do two contracts?

Mr. Shuler said when we first assembled the entire program for 1997 we tried to package the elements of those projects so that they would be consistent as to types of work with the rational being, if we can put together a bigger package of light type of work that overall we will get better prices. Individually in most projects contractors will load their bids differently based on the type of work so that it's really very difficult to compare item by item because we don't know where they put an unfair amount of their overhead on a specific project, so we do not pick and choose items. This year we did break the project up into three different contracts and we could make it into smaller increments but I think if we get much smaller than this, we'll be spending more time and money just putting the engineering contract documents together than we would save on any construction site.

Mr. Galster said none of these projects are really small projects other than the bus pad. Each one individually is a nice project itself. I know when I bid for my company if there are five items that is a savings I pass along to the customer, but at the same time there are plenty of times when it is broken down and I may get two out of the five.

Mr. Shuler replied in this type of work we see that there is a lot of cost just to bring the equipment into town. There are a lot of set up charges just to move the equipment in and out so we try to do as much work as we can once they get that equipment here because we feel we get a better price overall that way.


CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - Mr. Wilson said the Community Center HVAC replacement is under contract. The pre-construction meeting will be held in April and the construction work will be performed in July and August. The Common Creek improvements at the Heritage Hill School design work is now being completed for City review. Permit plans were submitted to the Corps of Engineers March 5 along with the permit application. The project schedule is as follows: advertise and open bids May 1997; award the work June 1997; construction June through August 1997. The State Route 747 CSX grade separation final environmental document has been submitted to ODOT for review. We anticipate this project to be approved by ODOT to begin the detail design work by mid 1997. Community Center pool repair and improvements - Ordinance 23-1997 is on the agenda tonight to authorize the architectural engineering work. It is important to approve this tonight so the design work can be completed and the construction contract let in June in order to begin work when the pool closes in August. Community Center field wiring replacement bids will be open on March 26. We would like to award the contract at the next meeting so the work can be completed before summer.


PLANNING COMMITTEE - Mr. Galster said they met March 11, 1997. Under Old Business we had Douglas and Arlene Eades requesting preliminary plan approval of Charing Crossing Phase I revised. That was tabled from the February meeting and there was no representation so it was removed from the agenda. Under New Business Pine Gardens Landominium requested approval of totally screened in or totally windowed in decks for their development at Princewood Court. There was a lot of discussion as to whether that was actual living space and a lot of discussion about the actual intrusion of the actual building into the surrounding residential areas. The applicant asked that we table the issue until they could address some of those concerns. That was tabled 7-0. They requested permission to place For Sale signs at Springfield Pike and Lawnview Avenue on weekends only and they were informed that that is City property and no signage is permitted there. There was concept discussion of a proposed Holiday Inn Express at 12037 Sheraton Lane, the previous location of Pizza Hut. They were talking about putting a three story building there. It was concept discussion and it was determined that the Corridor Study and the PUD in that area only allows a maximum of two stories with the exception of the Sheraton. Once again, being up on a hill it would be a pretty sizable building so the applicant is looking into the financial feasibility of reducing the size of that.

Mr. Danbury questioned putting a motel where a pizza restaurant had been and Mr. Galster explained it's not like moving the Sheraton over there. It's a lot smaller than that but still, by the time you have the building and parking lots it's pretty heavy use of the property.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - Mrs. Boice reported the board met last evening with all 7 members in attendance. A. G. Hauk Company requested a variance to allow 112 parking spaces for the fitness store at 11336 Princeton Pike. They had asked that we table their request at the February meeting. They were sent a letter reminding them to be in attendance at the March meeting which they were not, so a motion was made to drop that from the agenda. That carried 7-0. If they choose to be back on the agenda they will have to reapply. Recker and Boerger, 169 Northland Boulevard, requested a variance to allow window signage. After a bit of discussion they decided to withdraw their request for a variance and will conform with the allowed signage and are going to work out the details with the Building Department. Golden Tanning Systems, 338 Northland Boulevard, requested a variance to allow window signage. That variance was denied 7-0. Jerricha Lang, 899 Clearfield Lane, requested a variance to allow the conversion of one-half of a two car garage to a workshop. Before we went into session we were notified that Ms. Lang chose to have that dropped. Dan DiMarco, 585 Grandin Avenue, requested a variance to allow the removal of an existing carport addition of a garage room and to add a second story. This is one of those occasions where the applicant is so openly willing to work with the City. There were some problems because all of the residences in that area are one story. Mr. Shecker brought up the point of putting a two story on there and could we not angle that a bit because of the configuration of the neighbor next to them. There are some problems with the side yard set backs and measurements. Mr. DiMarco was more than willing. After the discussion he wanted to go back to the drawing board and requested that this item be tabled. He is going to redraw his plans and will be back on the agenda next month.

BOARD OF HEALTH - Mr. Vanover stated they met last Thursday. In the animal nuisance program we captured one opossum last month. We are looking into a Cholestech LDX System. You can put one drop of blood on a cassette and it will read the lipid profile, which is the HDL/DLDL and also triclycerides and also estimates the ratio of LDL and DLDL. We are bringing it on board and starting a screening program for the employees and also will open it up to the community.

Mayor Webster said that is our intent. First we want to make sure we're on solid legal ground. Dr. Webb, the consultant to the board, whole-heartedly endorses what we are doing here. It's a capital outlay of about $2,000. The cassettes cost around $10 each. We'd like to get the system in; offer it to the employees free of cost and then we'd like to take it City-wide on a per cost basis. If Council chooses to subsidize that and do it for our residents for less than $10 that's fine but our concept is to make it available to anyone who wants to get a cholesterol screening test at a very low cost.


O-K-I - no report

MAYOR'S REPORT - Mayor Webster said Resolution R6 on the agenda is supporting the construction of the Lincoln Heights Healthcare Center in Lincoln Heights. I was approached by the County and they have asked all the cities to pass this resolution. They are not asking for money. They are just asking for our support. I checked with our health nurse and Director of Public Health to see if any of our residents use that facility and I am assured that they do. We send a number of people there. We don't keep any records so I can't give you a number but the residents of the City of Springdale do take advantage of that facility. I understand it is very old, somewhat dilapidated and they do need to rebuild that. They have a lot of state and federal money committed to it but they still need to raise about $3.5 million. At this point, they are not asking for money, just our moral support. We ask Council to support that.

The other item I'd like to report on is back in December 1996 Council passed Ordinance 93-1996 authorizing me to establish the position of public defender and authorizing me to staff that position and pay the defender $125 a case. I'd just like to report that we've used that service three times. I personally have witnessed two of the defendants that were served by the public defender and believe me, I was very proud that we could offer that service. The people needed it. In fact, one lady could not even find her way from City Hall to Mayor's Court. We had to send an officer up to escort her down after she tried numerous times to find Mayor's Court. That's how bad a shape this lady was in mentally. She certainly needed and deserved a public defender so I was very proud that we were able to offer that, especially at $125 a pop. To date we have committed $375 to that program. If it continues like that the rest of the year I certainly think it is money well spent. We certainly save more than that by not having our prosecutor go downtown and prosecute those cases.

CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Mr. Knox said I'd like to report that the Hamilton County Development Commission Tax Incentive Review Board met March 13. The companies here in Springdale are doing quite well with the exception of three. Two of them will receive letters, in one case stating they have not spent the amount of money they said they would, and the other is behind in the amount of personnel. Neither case is substantial. The third was the company we discussed at the last meeting, Foppe Thielen. They have reorganized and have received the information. To answer a question that was raised at the last meeting, whenever they meet the criteria they will immediately be moved back up to 75%. The Development Commission is encouraging them using that method. I think that's the best outcome we could have from that.

Mr. Danbury asked if it is at 25% until they meet that and Mr. Knox replied yes.

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - Mr. Osborn said I would like Council to consider the driveway apron report which was tendered to you yesterday. We tried to reduce the criteria to make it as straightforward as we could. It was very complex to begin with. We have come down to using two criteria; one, where the differential in the elevation of the driveway apron to either the curb or sidewalk is greater than one inch or where that differential is greater than 1 1/2 inch. The other criteria is 50% or more surface spalling is consistent between the two options. If you look at the number of aprons involved using the one inch criteria there would be 359 aprons in the City that need to be replaced for a total of just under 38,000 square feet. Using an estimate of $5.50 per square foot this comes out to a potential gross cost of $208,000. Back in 1989 almost 45% of the people who received notices replaced their own aprons and so we did not have to bring them into the program. If we use a more conservative number of 40% we can estimate that the construction project using this criteria would be around $125,000. Using 1989 as a model of the 106 people who received notices, 41% of those allowed their apron to go to the assessment rolls. If we use a more conservative number of 50% we can look at an assessment value of around $62,500. This is well within the $75,000 which is currently in our 1997 Capital Improvements budget for the assessment phase of this program. The other criteria is 1 1/2 inch and that would result in the replacement of 194 aprons or just over 20,500 square feet. Again, using $5.50 as our cost per square foot, we'd have a gross cost of $113,500. We would have a more realistic construction cost of $68,000 and an assessment value of about $34,000. Given the fact that the use of the one inch criteria is something we feel we can accomplish this construction season and still meet the deadline for filing the assessment against the 1998 tax year we'd like to encourage Council to adopt the one inch criteria so we can repair the greater number of aprons in one year and finish off this phase of the program. If Council would so agree the next step would be to bring in a resolution of necessity and develop the specifications for the bidding of the project. We would like to get a reaction from Council tonight, if possible, because if we are going to move forward with this project we need to get as early a start as possible.

Mr. Galster asked if we use the criteria of 1 1/2 inch for this year and notify everybody else who has the one inch that next year we are going to go to one inch, is there a great savings to us?

Mr. Osborn replied I can't tell you we would save a lot of money. I just think that would drag the program out over two years when we could really get it all done at one time. A one inch differential is fairly significant. We had used less than one inch, one inch, 1 1/2, 1 1/2-2, etc. It just got too complex so we thought these were the two critical, reasonable numbers to look at. Looking at how it compares with our budget numbers, the fact that we think we do have enough time in the construction season to get this number of aprons completed, we'd like to try to complete the project this year.

Mr. Galster asked if it was one inch or 1 1/2 inches the last time we did this. Mr. Osborn replied it was one inch.

Mrs. Boice asked if the Royal Oaks area is included in the Springdale Terrace area. Mr. Osborn replied yes.

Mrs. Boice said you are recommending moving with the total of 359. Based on our past experience I would have to go along with that rather than stretching it out. Otherwise, it is going to go on from year to year to year.

Ms. Manis said I agree also with the one inch. After the resolution of necessity do we send letters out?

Mr. Osborn said the resolution of necessity will actually list the property owners and the square footage of apron they will have to replace. We will then send them a written notice and give them thirty days to undertake the repair on their own. If they have not undertaken the repair by the time our contractor is ready to perform the work, then we will perform the work. We honestly do want to encourage people to do it on their own because that reduces the size of our program. As soon as we adopt the resolution of necessity, we will send a notice to all the property owners.

Ms. Manis said what if someone gives you a notice that the job is lined up but it will be more than thirty days.

Mr. Osborn replied we will be reasonable about that. They will have to get a permit. Our program is going to run for some time. If someone gets a permit and has a contractor lined up we're going to pass them over. But if we get to the end of the program and they are still there, we are going to go back to them.

Mr. Galster asked if we do the work how long do we give them to pay the City before it goes to assessment?

Mr. Osborn responded thirty days.

Mr. Galster asked when is the tax assessment actually due if they don't pay in that thirty days?

Mr. Osborn said after the work is complete we will bill the individual and give him/her thirty days. If they have not paid at the end of the thirty days we will include them on an ordinance of assessment which has to be filed with the County by September 8. We have a Council meeting on September 2. That's our target date for the ordinance of assessment. We've worked backwards from that date and hopefully we can try to conclude all this work by the first or second week of August. We can also allow that thirty days to overlap with the filing at the County. The Auditor's Office told me that we can scratch people from the list after they have received it. If we receive the money after the filing of the document with the County we can continue to scratch people from that list up to the first of the year.

Mayor Webster said I would encourage Council to pass this. I think this goes hand and glove with what we have been trying to do the last year or so as far as the Community Pride Program. In answer to your question about the assessment, Mr. Galster, that's going to be Council's call as to how long you want to give people to pay that. We talked last time about giving them two years. That would be four installments over two years. If $62,000 becomes the number we would get two installments in 1998 of $15,000; then the other $32,000 would carry over into 1999 and we would get two installments there. You can give them four years or whatever you like.

Mr. Danbury said I think the key component of this, if we can explain to people in the audience and people watching this, why are we doing this?

Mr. Osborn stated we have to be concerned about a driveway apron, not necessarily because that is where the public drives but because that apron abuts both the curb and sidewalk which are publicly maintained. The greatest cause of curb failure is deterioration of an apron, water getting behind the apron or between the apron and curb and freezing, or the apron being depressed and people driving over the curb which is exposed and breaking off the top of the curb. The same thing for the sidewalk. From a maintenance standpoint we have a concern and also from a safety standpoint in terms of people tripping, etc. We are very aggressive about repairing curbs and sidewalks in the City and while we could, under law assess that cost back against the individual property owner, it's been a long tradition here that that's absorbed as a public expense. But when it comes to the apron we feel that's the responsibility of the individual property owner and in order to protect the integrity of our curb and sidewalk system we want to make sure they are well maintained.

Mr. Wilson said I'm sure some of us have received phone calls from residents who have expressed concern about the deterioration of their aprons. I know I have. I think this is not just the City's concern but several residents' concerns and I think that once the word gets out that we are going to offer this service, maybe we won't feel as uncomfortable as I sense some people are. I don't think there is going to be a problem. I think we have enough people who are interested in the maintenance of their property and as such, would want to get this started.

Mr. Danbury asked if everyone is in agreement that we should go with at least a one inch criteria for the resolution at the next meeting.

Mrs. McNear said I think we should go with the Administration's suggestion.

Mr. Osborn said my next item is the report by Lee Meyer on the administrative secretary classification. The classification is made up of six individuals presently and we included in this study another classification, one position in the Account Clerk II classification in the Police Department because of its administrative duties. The purpose here was to examine those positions to determine if they all belong in the same classification because there was a real sense that there were people working outside their classification at a more challenging level. I think it's important to keep in mind as well, that this is not and was not an evaluation of how hard people are working or how good they are at their jobs or how dedicated they are. This is not an evaluation of the individuals. It's an evaluation of their positions and the responsibilities and duties that are assigned to their particular work area. The study began by a questionnaire being sent out to all the employees by the consultant. After she received the results of those surveys she then interviewed all the employees. She then developed a position description which she circulated back and forth between the employee and herself until there was an agreement on the content of that job description. She then performed a job analysis and a comparative analysis which allowed her to do a quantitative evaluation of the positions. When she used that quantitative analysis the 7 positions stratified into three clear categories. Based on those scores she has recommended that two positions remain at pay grade 9 in the classification of administrative secretary. She has recommended that three positions be reclassified as administrative assistant at pay grade ten which is a 5% higher pay grade and she has recommended that two of the positions be classified as a senior administrative assistant and office administrator. Those two would be pay grade eleven. She made a distinction in the titles between those two positions because one has greater supervisory responsibilities than the other. Obviously when you start to evaluate positions of folks who you work with every day it becomes very difficult to draw distinctions and come to a conclusion like this. I have tried to meet with every individual to review the results of the report. Obviously some people are more happy than others but in the long run, the purpose here is to assess how we assign duties to our individual employees and appropriately compensate those who are given more challenging duties and responsibilities. Again, this was not an effort to evaluate the individuals but the workload that is assigned to them. Based on Mrs. Meyer's report we would like to ask Council's consent to adopt the new classifications: administrative assistant, senior administrative assistant and office administrator. Under the City's charter the Mayor would then have the opportunity to reclassify some of these positions into those classifications so my request this evening is to get Council's support for the adoption of an ordinance that would add the classification of administrative assistant at pay grade 10, senior administrative assistant at pay grade 11 and office administrator at pay grade 11.

Mr. Danbury asked if this would be retroactive.

Mr. Osborn said I would like to do two readings with the second reading having an emergency clause. At that point the classifications would be created. The Administrative office would do the reclassification, notify the Civil Service Commission. It's up to the Administration to set the person's pay rate within the pay grades, etc. It's been pointed out that this is not a promotional exercise; it's a reclassification exercise.

Mayor Webster said nothing would be done retroactively.

Mrs. Boice said I have skimmed through this. I have not had a good opportunity to really go into this in depth and I would not be prepared to discuss it this evening. I apologize. I was a little late picking up my mail because I have been out of town but I really need more time to look at this before I could discuss it with any intelligence.

Mr. Osborn asked if it would be possible to bring in legislation for a first reading at your next meeting and continue discussion at that point? Mrs. Boice agreed.

Mr. Wilson said, Mr. Osborn, you said something about putting this in the charter? Mr. Osborn replied no, under the charter the Mayor has the ability to reclassify people.

Mr. Osborn said my last item has to do with an ordinance before you this evening for an agreement with the State of Ohio for the reconfiguration of two traffic signals and I'll provide you with additional information when that is brought up for its reading.

Mr. Parham said you received a copy of a March 12 letter that I forwarded to Marilyn Cassiselli of Rumpke Waste Removal Systems in which I informed her that a discussion had taken place at a prior Council meeting of the City's desire of no longer collecting yard waste separately from the normal trash. You'll notice in my letter I did indicate to them that our preference would be that there would be no adjustment to the rates. Rumpke has indicated they would like to have an increase if we were to no longer collect yard waste separately. At this time I don't have a recommendation for you because we are continuing to evaluate options for the program. Our hope is that we can come to some agreement with Rumpke or if there is an increase that we would carry it out for a number of years. Their request is for only one year and then come back and evaluate the program which in my mind means they are going to ask for another increase. At this time I simply offer that we would come back to you, hopefully at the next meeting, with a resolution to this.

Mr. Galster said the reason we are proposing to do this in Springdale is because Rumpke is not separating them any longer at their landfill. I just want to make sure everybody is clear on that; it's not that the City says we don't want to separate our yard waste anymore. We've just been informed that Rumpke no longer has to do that and they aren't going to be doing it, so why are we separating it?

Mayor Webster said in essence that's true. The City did not initiate this change; Rumpke did. I don't think we are going to be able to send letters out to our residents saying as of April 1 you can co-mix your garbage with your yard waste. I think we're still going to have to continue the existing program until such time that we can come to some agreement with Rumpke as to what they are going to charge us to pick up this mixture, for how long they'll do it and at what price. Unfortunately, even though you're going to put it in a bag and get stickers and Rumpke's going to mix it up as of April 1, we're still going to have to separate it all the way to their trucks.

Mr. Osborn said what Rumpke has proposed to us is a real disincentive. We have a contract in place that runs through December 1999. I think we have favorable rates. We hear that Rumpke is discontinuing to collect yard waste at the curb because it is not profitable for them. So we say to them, okay, let's discontinue collecting yard waste at the curb with the City. They are saying okay, we'll do that for you if we can throw away the contract that runs through December 1999 and increase your cost per month per unit by 80 cents. That works out to over a $30,000 increase. The yard waste program is costing us $10,000 to $12,000 a year. They are asking us to more than double our cost for yard waste and throw out a contract that runs through 1999 for an 80 cent increase for one year with a renegotiation after the end of that one year. There is no incentive for us to accept that proposal. I've asked Mr. Parham to look at some alternatives because there has to be a better way to address this issue than what Rumpke is proposing to us.

Mayor Webster said we really do not have the desire to negotiate this in public. We are very concerned about it and we're going to do everything we can to try to not shell out another $30,000 for yard waste. Negotiations are not going well and we'd like to leave it at that.

Mr. Danbury said we have a contract and we are living up to our end.

Mayor Wester stated that the contract calls for people to separate their yard waste, put it in paper bags and use stickers.

Mr. Danbury said if it is costing us $12,000 a year and it would cost us $30,000 to go with their proposal right now, the City is saving money if we continue with our present program. We do have a contract that we agreed upon, they agreed upon. I don't see what they have to negotiate with.

Mr. Osborn said a factor you should be aware of because it does affect our negotiations is that both parties have the right to cancel with ninety days notice. These are not iron-clad, you cannot escape contracts.

Mr. Vanover asked, Mr. Parham, other than the fact that it is costing them money to separate, have they given us any other reason for the increase? They are still theoretically going to make the same amount of trips.

Mr. Parham replied they have indicated to us that if we do away with this program, our residents will change the mentality that we have gained over this time period of composting and mulching and they will simply stop that practice and put yard waste out. That's their argument.

Mrs. Boice said frankly, I don't think their argument is a very strong one. To me the trucks are coming through. What's the difference what you pick up now that we've gotten to the point that they are going to mix everything together after we've gone through this massive education in the City and our people have really done a super job of separating. For them to even consider an increase, I don't know what cloud they are up on but that's absolutely ridiculous and I hope that the City, and I know full well that you will, Mr. Parham, argue that one tooth and nail. To me they are going to race through. They're not going to be bringing in extra trucks so what's the deal. It seems to me it's an easier thing for them. You just throw everything in and forget it instead of the separation. An increase to me would be totally and absolutely unfair. They're out there on cloud 27 and they better come down to earth and face that fact.

Mr. Knox asked if our contract is similar to the contracts that other cities in the surrounding area have?

Mr. Parham replied they pretty much are. We often share a lot of information. We share the formats so a lot of them are very similar. There may be a few things that are different to some of them.

Mr. Knox asked then I take it they are treating the other cities in the same manner they are treating us?

Mr. Parham replied they are. In fact, the City of Sharonville has pretty much agreed with Rumpke to an increase of $1.50 for their contract. Their contract that is currently in place was due to expire in 1998. I do believe that they were contacted by Rumpke and given the ninety day notice. Therefore, they have decided it would probably be best for them if they were to enter into this agreement to accept an increase of $1.50. Some of the other communities that have gone out to bid have seen increases as much as $3.00 per household per month from their previous contract. Part of the problem is that there aren't many players. There is pretty much Rumpke that handles residential. BFI has about four contracts, two in northern Kentucky and two just north of here. Waste Management is no longer in the residential collection practice. They sold all their residential contracts to Rumpke three or four years ago.

Mr. Knox said it might not be honest but it's the only game in town then.

Mr. Danbury asked if it would be possible to solicit bids from anybody else, Mr. Osborn?

Mr. Osborn replied that's the direction we are looking in, maybe other blocks of communities might try to attract a second player into the market. I think we have always been very satisfied with the service we get from Rumpke. It's just hard to negotiate with somebody who won't negotiate because they know they are the only player. Maybe another strategy might be to form a coalition of communities and try to attract another vendor.

Ms. Manis asked if there had to be a fault or if you can just break the contract after ninety days?

Mr. Osborn replied the contract can be broken with no fault.

Mr. Parham said GTE Mobilnet currently located in the City of Sharonville on Crown Point Drive near Sharon Road and I-75 is looking to relocate their administrative operations into the City of Springdale. They have contracted with Neyer to construct a 42,000 square foot, two story building at Tri County Parkway across from Benihana. There are approximately 3.4 acres of land there. They are seeking an enterprise zone abatement. I met this afternoon with representatives from GTE Mobilnet and the school district. GTE currently has about 55 employees. By the end of this year they anticipate being up to 75-80 employees. At the end of two years they should max out at 85 employees. They are anticipating a payroll of $2.73 million. They are looking at an investment of tangible property of $360,000. The cost of the facility is $2.4 for a total investment of $2.7 million at that site. Because the payroll exceeds $1 million on an enterprise zone agreement, the school district and the City outside of a signed agreement, must share the revenue from the income tax at 50/50. We met this afternoon and came to an understanding with the school district, GTE Mobilnet and ourselves that the City will maintain 100% of the revenue generated from the earnings tax and GTE Mobilnet will compensate the school district by a lump sum payment annually or by in-kind services. Both of them seem to agree that they prefer the in-kind services. If you are familiar with GTE Mobilnet they have handheld telephones, wireless communications. We're offering them an abatement of 65% which saves them approximately $27,000 annually. We ask Council's support and legislation at your April 2 meeting to approve the abatement. It is scheduled to go before the County Commissioners next Wednesday, March 26. Because they are located in the State of Ohio they did require a waiver from the Ohio Department of Development that was granted. We were notified Monday. I also met with Sharonville and they voice no objection to the abatement.

Mrs. McNear commented on the blood drive the Fire Department is having on Monday, April 7, between 8:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. It will be held at the Fire Department and we would encourage everyone to stop by and make a donation.

At the last Council meeting we made the announcement that we would begin collecting goods for the flood victims. The Fire Chief tells me we have collected enough goods to fill twelve eight foot bed trucks of goods. We have been delivering those to the St. Vincent DePaul Center in Evendale. They have been so inundated with donations that they have asked that we now deliver those to their downtown facility. We still have a lot of things. They have collected items from baby food to furniture. We also had a number of individuals provide checks. We ask if you are going to make a check out, that you make that out to the Red Cross. We're continuing to collect items.

Ms. Manis said the paper said last Friday was the cut-off but if they had more they would take it.

Mr. Parham said people are continuing to drop things off and we are accepting them.

Mayor Webster said I would just like to thank the community. The outpouring of support is so gratifying. I was in the office last evening. I came to the office in a driving rain storm last evening and an elderly lady followed me in and asked me what to do with the things she had. She had her truck completely filled so I went over to the drop off point with her and helped her unload her truck. It was just filled with clothes and food. It's really gratifying to see the things the community has donated. Mr. Danbury, I commend you on a great idea.




Letter to Mayor, City Council, Fire Chief, Police Chief, Street Dept., Health Dept., Tax Department or any City Dept. or employees I may have forgot. "I am sure you know this - but I want to tell you anyway. You people and all your people are doing a great job. We have the best run city in the state - maybe the U.S.A. We have owned the same house for 25 years in Springdale. Raised 4 kids and they have all graduated from Princeton. We never needed Fire Dept. (Hope we never do). But they will be here if we do. We have used police - wreck, home theft, kids' crap, etc. We use the Street Department every day -snow removal, limb & junk removal, etc. Snow removal has got to be best in state/nation, salting, plowing, etc. Streets are kept repaired, holes filled, etc. Sidewalks kept in good repair. Tax Dept. treats you like you are a person. Health Dept. - we can eat in restaurants and feel safe; that we won't get sick. The only problem we have is outsiders. But we need them to help pay for this service (retail, etc.) and employment. This is just a quick handwritten note to tell you people again, you are doing a terrific job. Also, I (we) agree with Sgt. Jeffrey Witte in his Readers View statement (Sunday Enquirer 3-9-97 - 100%. Jim and Jeanie Campbell, 956 Castro, Springdale, Ohio 45246"

The second communication refers to a note in the Cincinnati Enquirer, referring to improvements proposed to our swimming pool.

Mr. Parham, "Just a short note to let you know how much in favor I am of adding steps at shallow end of pool. I am only 61 years old and not handicapped, but find it very difficult to enter and exit the pool with the present "toe" holds that are built into it. Tom and I very much enjoy taking our grandchildren, ages 6 and 8, to the pool perhaps once a week in the summer months. However, we find this difficult (entering & mostly exiting) to maneuver. Whatever you can propose in this regard will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Helen Kolde, 1072 Ledro St."


Mr. Bob Coleman said after hearing the comments this evening regarding Rumpke and the service I must ask the question, what happens to the residents here? From one perspective, Rumpke is going to continue getting their money. The City of Springdale is advocating possibly no change in the contract which keeps the cost from increasing for the City of Springdale. I am resident. I still have to buy the brown bags. What happens in terms of my costs? Am I still going to be required to purchase these brown bags?

Mr. Parham said currently the program will continue as in place as part of the contract now. You have the option of either placing your yard waste out in the brown paper bags or you can designate some other vessel, some other yard waste can and simply attach your sticker to that can. The program is not changing at this point until we can hopefully come to some agreement or understanding with Rumpke.

Mr. Coleman said since Rumpke has indicated in so many words that they no longer need to do this type of service in terms of them separating it at their facility, if I put my yard waste into a plastic bag and put a Rumpke sticker on it, will they still collect it as such?

Mr. Parham replied at this time the program is, you must place it in a brown paper bag or some other container, not a plastic bag. It can be a rubber can and they will collect it with the sticker on it. They will not take it in a plastic bag and if you don't put the sticker on, they will not collect it.

Mr. Coleman said the residents are still on the cost end for the paper bags.

Ms. Manis said it makes no sense to us either but it will cost you one way or the other, whether it comes out of your pocket for the bags or the tax money.

Public Hearing


Dave Eyrich, attorney for Dave & Buster's, said I am representing them in this request for an amendment to the PUD popularly known as Tri-County Commons. The location of the property is directly adjacent to Roberds Grand. Dave and Buster's is the 60,000 square feet immediately to the west and facing I-275. Mr. Eyrich introduced Dave Corbo and Buster Corley who are here on behalf of Dave & Buster's. We were before the Planning Commission on February 11 and did receive approval of the preliminary plan. In that approval were certain conditions. We have submitted as of this date, a final development plan and revised sign packages which address all of the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission. I would like to call on Mike Flannary of Wolpert to go through an overview of the site plan and discuss some of the changes to the site plan that we have reacted to as a result of the Planning Commission's conditions.

Mike Flannary of Wolpert said the plan you see before you is the preliminary PUD plan that has been submitted to Planning Commission and Council. I would like to walk you through that plan, explain how that plan has evolved and later show you a plan that does address comments brought up by staff and Planning Commission. The plan you see provides for a parking field along the complete frontage of what is know as the existing warehouse west of the Roberds Store. It also provides for a parking field on the west side of that building. The employee parking is being provided in the rear of the proposed Dave & Buster's with a small connector road from that parking field out to a ring road. That ring road would provide circulation from Kemper Commons Circle to the existing road that was constructed as part of the Roberds project. The storm water detention for this project is being provided by expanding the existing retention basin at the northwest corner of the site. They are going to be filling in the retention pond basin that is immediately in front of the Dave & Buster's building. We would be detaining for the project by holding a portion of the Cassinelli Square and Tri County Mall area and actually releasing the Roberds/Dave & Buster's immediately onto I-275. We are providing a regional detention basin that will detain a much larger area rather than have multiple basins. That actually reduces the peak discharge from that site by about 100 cfs for a 25 year storm so it has more than exceeded the requirements for storm water regulation. Landscaping for the site is provided very similar to the Roberds project. We have continued the same concept with the large islands. Landscaping is also provided along the outer portions of this site. One of the comments we received from staff and Planning Commission is that the parking field was too large. The plan we submitted provided for 1400 parking spaces. Planning Commission asked us to reduce that and eliminate the parking on the western portion of the site. You can see this plan that has been submitted for Planning Commission approval next week at a final PUD hearing, would reduce that to about 790 spaces. It provides parking directly in front of Dave & Buster's, has eliminated one of the parking fields to the west and has limited parking on the west side of the building which is currently the existing truck dock area. The roadway is still in place as originally proposed which will provide better ingress and egress for both Dave & Buster's and the Roberds project as well. An additional comment we received from staff was to add landscaping within the project around the ring road. As you can see, we have done that. In addition to that there are various islands that have been added. That's something that was not done with the Roberds project that is being done here so certainly I think we have gone above and beyond what had been done there in the past in the way of landscaping.

Mr. Eyrich said the original sign package had a separate pylon sign for Dave & Buster's. It had a monument sign at Kemper Road which was about seventeen feet high. There were numerous comments to those signs in discussion with the Planning Commission. I believe you have an updated copy of the sign package which has been submitted which complies with the Planning Commission requirements. The pylon sign has been moved to a different area. The pylon sign is a sixty foot sign. The other sign, the monument sign on Kemper Road has been reduced to 11 feet 4 inches.

Buster Corley said it is our belief that we have accomplished all the requirements and suggestions of staff and Planning Commission. We are back tonight with hat in hand hoping for your approval.

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

Mr. Galster said even though I know Council is looking at this as to the approval of the PUD but signage and all that stuff seems to come up anyway as opposed to just the use. I want to address the pole sign. There is a sixty foot pole sign that had been approved previously. It had 324 square feet of signage on it. Planning Commission was able to get them to utilize that same pole but there was an increase in square footage from 324 to 567 in order to accommodate the front property as well WalMart, Sam's, etc. Also the owner has the understanding that there will be no additional pole signs for the rest of his development which is a key sticking point as far as Planning Commission and staff are concerned. Otherwise, I think it's a good fit. We looked at the traffic analysis that was presented by Engineering. Everybody knows the traffic around the Tri County area is heavy. I know that this development will actually decrease the amount of traffic we anticipated when we originally approved the PUD. I just want to make sure I give you the feeling that Planning Commission had. This was a very well done project with our unanimous support and I support it as it has been modified.

Ms. Manis said I know when you come down I-275 you can just see Roberds and then there is a hill. You can see a berm on the other side of their parking. You can't really see the front of what will be your space. Will that all be graded out where you can see it from the highway?

Mr. Corbo said that is where the detention pond is. That will be moved to the northwest part and it will be graded out.

Ms. Manis replied I could see your signage concern if you couldn't see the front of the building. I'd like to commend you for working with Kemper Associates, and Kemper Associates for getting the sign approval worked out. I think that's how it should be done instead of always coming to us for a new one. Will you be having a Dave & Buster's shuttle bus from the hotels as you do in some other cities? It would cut down on traffic.

Mr. Corbo said we haven't really gotten into that but it sounds like a good idea, especially if we charge for it.

Ms. Manis continued my husband was in Atlanta and went to your establishment there. He was very impressed with the quality of food, the pricing. He talked to the bartender who said their party room had not been vacant once since it opened. We got some brochures when you were here last time but he brought some more as to how they handle the kids in the place. No children under 21 after 11 p.m. During school it is 10 p.m. and they have to be with an adult the whole time. I thought that was handled very well.

Mr. Vanover said the storm water retention that is for a twenty-five year storm. The plot looks good but I've got a real concern with the traffic on Kemper. We're at critical mass on stacking lanes out there now without this development going in. We don't have any proposed improvements. How are we going to handle this, Mr. Shuler?

Mr. Shuler said the two general comments I was going to make are this: When the original PUD was developed and traffic was estimated for that development, we, the City, determined that certain improvements on Kemper Road would be necessary to handle that increased traffic that the development was creating. Since that time, as changes to the PUD have developed, we have compared each of the new proposed uses to the original PUD with the rationale being that yes, anything we do will create additional traffic. Our biggest concern has been, is the current proposal creating more traffic than the original plan that was developed and planned by the City? In essence, we have already required the developer of the property to provide the public improvements for that projected traffic. That traffic has increased significantly since the development in this area started but as we all know, there have been a lot of different properties developed over that same time. I think the issue you are asking about now, how are we going to deal with future traffic, will be addressed as part of the Kemper Road Corridor Study that we are starting. We are going to be looking at that entire corridor, the development that has taken place, the development that is currently proposed and the potential development that is yet to occur on the undeveloped sites so that we can formulate some kind of master plan to address those issues. We purposely stayed away from the impact that this proposal would have on Kemper Road because we believe it should be compared to the traffic impact of the uses this is replacing. As we've looked at this in detail this is a more intensive use, but at the same time, there is an office building being eliminated from the original plan and the loss of traffic that that office building would have generated is basically providing the ability for this project to pick up that additional traffic generation and not exceed the peak hour traffic that the site is generating as it was approved by the City in 1992.

Mr. Vanover said on the site itself the easternmost entrance onto the site at the southeast corner of Sam's, is there an upgrade to that? I've been in there now where we've had gridlock.

Mr. Shuler said I think we need to remember that that driveway and signal have always intended to be a temporary situation until the rest of the City's thoroughfare plan is achieved which would be the extension of Century Boulevard north and connecting into Commerce Drive which will then allow us to remove that traffic signal and make that driveway a right in, right out only which will then make those signals function much better than they do today. That is a bad situation now and it was compounded with the driveway from Best Buy and additional traffic coming out. As much as we try to encourage that traffic to exit out at Century Boulevard we still see most of that traffic try to exit at that light. It's a bad situation; it's a difficult situation and frankly, it will not improve until we can do more with the Century Boulevard and complete the thoroughfare plan in that area.

Mayor Webster said I see a couple members of the press here and our ICRC cameras here. Would you want to take a few minutes and explain what Dave & Buster's is, for the people who are not familiar with it? I think all of us up here have heard your spiel and seen the tape.

Mr. Corley said our proposed facility here would be the eleventh in a chain that was founded in 1982. We are based out of Dallas, Texas. We are a restaurant and entertainment complex. Our stores are 50,000 to 60,000 square feet in size. They employee 300 people. We would anticipate putting $10 million into this facility and besides the hard numbers of the taxes and jobs, Dave & Buster's is a lot of fun. In the communities we are in presently we have an outstanding reputation for the way in which we do business. We're just good guys.

Mr. Corbo said 35% of our total sales, which is approximately $12 million per facility, is food. We will be the largest grossing restaurant in this area. Forty-five percent is amusements and 20% is bar sales. Dave & Buster's is a big area. We have world class billiard tables. We have a million dollar midway with virtuality, $1.5 million worth of electronic gizmos and toys. "You have to see it to believe it" is one of our slogans and there's no place quite like it. I think it's something you would be very proud of. We're only going to do one in this whole area. The nearest one might be Indianapolis some day.

Mrs. Boice said I've not had the pleasure of being in a Dave & Buster's but I have heard a number of people who have and have said what a fun facility it is and it appears to be. I guess in my own mind I am really not convinced that is the best location for something like this. I am concerned about the traffic on Kemper Road. Mr. Shuler, in addressing the traffic on Kemper Road, there has been no reference to S. R. 747. It's my assumption there are going to a good number of cars coming off I-275 getting up to that intersection of S.R. 747 and Kemper and looking at that a week or so ago, the stacking lanes there are not very long. The intersection we are talking about is a nightmare almost any time of the day you go there. Also I do think that stacking lane could present a problem on S.R. 747. Has any study been pointed in that direction?

Mr. Shuler stated the concrete repair program we reported on this evening as part of the summer street program does have a section in there that is going to rebuild those traffic islands and increase substantially the amount of stacking capacity for that left turn.

Mrs. Boice said when we say substantially, I see that traffic coming off of I-275 and of course, that exit off of I-275 is a bear to begin with, and crossing over as the traffic is coming down S.R. 747. In fact, I've gotten to the point where I find it easier to just exit at Rt. 4 rather than losing half the side of the car every time you come off the other one. When you say it is being addressed, addressed to what extent. I'm asking for numbers. Will there be room for two more cars, twenty more cars?

Mr. Shuler said what the project does and I don't remember the exact length it's going to add but it seems like maybe a couple hundred feet of stacking in that area because we have two lanes. We are going to be eliminating the cross over that now exists between Tri-County Mall and Princeton Plaza at Wendy's. You will no longer be able to exit Wendy's or that driveway and turn left. The area that is now used up in that crossover is going to be used for stacking of vehicles waiting to turn left at Kemper Road. At the same time that's going to allow us to increase the left turn stacking capacity for the northbound traffic that wants to turn into Princeton Plaza at the BP Pro Care, Frisch's light, which now is limited to two vehicles and we have a safety problem as those two vehicles stick out into the two lanes. We are going to be addressing both of those safety problems as part of this city project we are doing this summer. Long term, you may remember that part of the grade separation project with the railroad will eliminate that crossover underneath the interstate that now exists and we will be able to hopefully, eliminate much of the safety issue that deals with that interchange. At the same time we are not only going to be looking at the Kemper Road Corridor, but that area between Kemper Road and the interstate as part of that traffic study we are going to be doing this year that is going to be done around July. We realize you cannot look at Kemper Road in a vacuum without looking at where the traffic is coming from. We do already know that certainly the majority of that does come off the interstate at S.R. 747 so we are going to be looking at that area between Kemper and S.R. 747 and the interstate and S.R. 747.

Mrs. Boice said I understand that those corrections are going to be made with the grade separation but that is not going to be started until the year 2000. We are looking at a few years down the road. Again, I have heard nothing but very, very good things. It sounds like an exciting place but I am not comfortable with it in that location. I'm not sure that's where it should be. I could think of a few other places I would love to see it be and I'm still hung up on the traffic.

Mr. Danbury said the issue I had was traffic as well. I think it's a good plan. If you look at page 2 of the Engineer's Report on the traffic, the first paragraph says during the peak hour projections it's not going to exceed what we approved in 1992. It says it's not going to impact it anymore than what the original PUD was. There have been some changes in that entire area. There are three different options with this property. You are either going to have a restaurant like this, warehousing or some type of retail. With warehousing you are going to have 18 wheelers going during peak hours and you talk about trying to get through some of these intersections, Mr. Vanover. Sit behind an 18 wheeler on a hill where there's a light and it takes forever. If it's loaded it's going to take forever to get out of there. That is going to congest that area so much. Retail is going to impact that area even more during the times that area has the most traffic. When these gentlemen were here last time they hit on two key points. Most of their traffic is going to be during the times when there isn't as much traffic out there because it's going to be towards the later evening hours. Also, it's not like a movie theater where everyone leaves en masse. You will have people coming and going. Those factors alone alleviate my concern about the traffic. I don't want anymore concern about the traffic. That's the biggest problem we have here. Ideally that would be some type of park but there is a building there. It already has approved uses for it. Although I wouldn't want to impact it anymore I think this would be the best type of solution for that area.

Ms. Manis said I've talked to lots and lots of people about this since the first time you were in. A lot of people are very excited about it and can't wait for it to get here. The people who are not address the traffic issue. They say we don't need anything else there. It's not that we don't need Dave & Buster's there; it's that we don't need anything there. And I say well, you are going to get something. The traffic is going to be there regardless. It would be a perfect world if we could say no, we can make them let that building sit there empty but it's not going to happen so I think you have to look at a best use¸ when is the traffic going to be there, what kind of traffic and base your decision on that.

Mr. Osborn said I would like to revisit some of Mr. Shuler's points back when this was approved as a PUD in 1992. We assumed a certain volume of traffic being generated off of the site based upon the mix of use. We've always contended that we wanted to see a good mix of uses on this property in order to distribute the traffic much like Mr. Danbury described. In fairness we negotiated with the property owner, Springdale Kemper Associates, that in turn for allowing this preliminary plan to be approved, we extracted from them certain public improvements on Kemper Road, lane additions, signal system upgrades. Their predecessor, which is part of their cost of buying the property, contributed $250,000 towards the widening of the bridge. They have paid their price to get this type of development on this site. In the same vein, we have met with them and told them, be ready when you bring in something else, because you are at the very max right now that you can generate off this site and be within the limits of what we approved in 1992. If you come in with anything else, we're going to be looking to you to mitigate the traffic flow somehow on the public streets. I think we have to have some longer term vision here as to what we agreed to back in 1992. The fact that they are still within those limits, although this is maxing out their limits and it would not be fair at this point to extract from them additional improvements. We had a meeting last Wednesday going through these very numbers, what could be expected the next time something comes in, if it's a use that generates more traffic than we have out there right now. We have to assume that development will occur on this site, redevelopment will occur and we will continue to negotiate with the property owner as that occurs. But as of right now we're still within that parameter that we agreed to back in 1992 and I think we need to recognize that.

Mr. Vanover said I understand what you are saying, Mr. Osborn, and I'm willing to go along with it. We do have some stuff out there. Yes, these are off hours but the residents know now that after 7:00 they can come back. Now we're extending that window that they stay away. If we can route traffic different ways I don't know if I'd want to shuttle any more onto Route 4 because we're already beating it to death. Traffic is a major concern. It's there and it's not going to go away. Something is going in there and I'm willing to concede that point. We have to look at everything hard. That's our job, whether we like it not. We can't just say something is going in there. That doesn't matter. Whatever goes in there, we're charged with making that consideration because we all get phone calls. We all have and we all will in the future. That's part of it. A recommendation that might help is I don't know if you have entertained the advertising on the interstate signs, maybe put one in at Mosteller and bring the eastbound I-71 and I-275 traffic in the eastern end of Kemper Road. That could probably help some although any increase there will add to a neighbor's problem. It's coming and I'm willing to accept that. I don't necessarily have to be completely joyous about it. As Mrs. Boice mentioned, I was at the intersection of S.R. 747 and Kemper Road yesterday afternoon and the traffic was backing up on the left hand turn lane into the intersection where nobody could go anyplace. It was because people were trying to turn into Michael's or Tri-County. Once those people cleared the traffic moved. But for 5 or 10 minutes we were creating a gridlock situation where someone could have been very seriously injured or killed. We have to consider that.

Mr. Galster said I don't think anybody who sits up here, lives in this city, or works in this city is not familiar with the traffic problems on Kemper Road. I think there are major issues the City needs to address. I don't think they are necessarily issues we need to be addressing when we consider whether this is a good change to the PUD for Dave & Buster's. The traffic is there. We need to look at ways of alleviating that traffic, maybe more aggressively than we have in the past and come up with some solutions. As I pointed out earlier this is a reduction in what is approved to go there. We are reducing the amount of traffic that we could have and that could be developed on the site. I know there is traffic there. I just think it's an issue we need to be addressing as opposed to Dave & Buster needs to be addressing. I did get a call from the attorney about possibly changing the height of the pole sign to 65 feet. The reason I bring it up is to make everybody aware of the fact that there was some discussion about possibly trying to raise it. He was curious as to whether it would be before Council or before Planning. I don't know if that is still an issue but just so everyone understands that conversation did take place.

Mr. Eyrich said that is not an issue. It is 60 feet and we worked it out.

Mrs. McNear said I guess we have 180,000 to 240,00 square feet left in that facility. Does that allow enough parking for the rest of that facility?

Mr. Osborn said they don't require all that parking for their facility. This is something that has been worked out between Kemper Associates and Dave & Buster's. They wanted to make sure there was not a disruption of the area in the immediate vicinity of their store, if and when that parking lot should be expanded. Secondly, we have made it very clear to North American Properties that we don't see how the remaining portions of this site can go retail without some sort of major mitigation of the traffic impact on the public streets. I can't tell you what is going to happen in the balance of that 240,000 square feet. Two years ago I certainly never could have predicted Roberds coming in and taking 300,000 square feet; or Dave & Buster's coming in and taking 65,000 square feet. Both of these are uses, in the opinion of our staff, are better for us to have than a retail operation and they fit well into the plan. While we have consistently told Kemper Associates that we would not favorably entertain retail in that balance of the 240,000 square feet, I think the last time we discussed this I also cautioned that we should never say never. There might be something come along that might prove to be a use that is agreeable to us and a low generator of traffic. But we have taken a very firm position with Springdale Kemper that the operation that exists in that remaining 240,000 square feet can only change if it generates no more traffic than it is right now. If it generates more traffic than there is right now, we're going to have some very serious discussions, not only about parking, but about the impact on the public street system. It would be hard to say whether or not that parking field is adequate for what is going to happen there in the future because I don't think any of us have an idea what is going to happen.

Mr. Danbury said you have it broken down into total food sales, alcohol and entertainment. What percentage of your business do you generate after 9:00 p.m.?

Mr. Corley replied 50%.

Ordinance 21-1997 passed with 6 affirmative votes. Mrs. Boice voted no.


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

Mr. Osborn said we applied for funding in 1994 and were advised in 1996 that we had been awarded funding. We adopted Ordinance 15-1996 agreeing to enter into a contract with the State of Ohio. We received information just last week that the sale date for this project is April 10 and they needed documentation from the City back by April 2 or before. Consequently, we needed to bring this before you this evening with an emergency clause. As it says, the local share of the project is $28,060, essentially 20% of the estimated cost of $140,300. I should also say we have to make a deposit of $28,000 with the State of Ohio. If the project comes in below this estimate we will get a refund. If the project comes in more than their estimate then we will have to make an additional payment to the State of Ohio. Going into the project this is approximately $20,000 higher than our Engineer's estimate of $120,000 for the project. We'll just have to see where it comes out. We also need to keep in mind that we need to pay the State for construction engineering which will come out of this deposit as well. We would recommend that City Council adopt this legislation because this will cause the upgrading of the intersections at Lawnview and McGillard with the construction of the mast arm systems that you see at most of our other intersections. It will also provide for new signal heads, new controller boxes, etc. While we have to pay $28,000 as the local share, we are well ahead here, not only in sense of new construction but the fact that this causes us to avoid maintenance on the existing system that would otherwise have to be done. We strongly urge Council to adopt this ordinance.

Ms. Manis asked what's the total work link being "0"?

Mr. Osborn replied that's a standard form document and is also used for highway projects where it may begin at station mile point 2.7 and end at station mile point 7.6 so they have the length of the project. This project doesn't have any length because it is a signal project.

Ordinance 22-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Shuler said at the last meeting when this topic was discussed Council asked the question as to what the cost would be to upgrade to a longer slide and if the space was available to put in a longer slide if you chose to do so. I distributed to everyone this evening before the meeting a second drawing showing how a 140 foot slide could be developed on the site. The drawing Mr. Burton and Mr. Green had at the last meeting showed two locations of the shorter slide. They did develop this additional drawing to demonstrate how the larger slide could be sited in the area we have available. In addition to the information we submitted as part of the proposal, you will note that the cost increase from the 98 foot slide to the 140 foot slide would be approximately $25,500. At some point we do need a decision as to which slide you do want to go with. We don't need that decision this evening but if we could make it, it would make it easier.

Mrs. Boice said Ms. Manis had raised the issue at the last meeting and had asked the cost factor for the additional height of the slide. Over the years I have opposed a slide because of insurance factors because of the concern of it dumping into the pool which is no longer anything to consider. Looking at the expense we are involved in I am inclined to lean toward making that slide bigger while we're at it. If we are going to do it we might as well do it well. I am not sure that 98 feet is going to give us what we are looking for. I would think maybe we could settle that situation tonight. Two years down the road to backtrack and replace we are looking at really big bucks. Considering we haven't done any major improvements on the pool in 25 years, maybe this is when we need to go a little more full tilt with it.

Mr. Danbury said I agree 100%. If you are going to spend the kind of money they are looking at, don't break the bank but let's do something we will be happy with.

Mr. Vanover said I too am in favor of going with the longer slide.

Ms. Manis said to tell the truth when I saw the number I was quite surprised at how much more it was for just that amount of slide but I agree in the overall total that we should go for it.

Mr. Wilson said the two previous speakers said what I was going to say. I have to look at it from a cost standpoint. In a few years that smaller slide will become obsolete. If we have to replace the whole thing what is the cost going to be? If we go with the 140 we are at state of the art. Hopefully it will be a longer period of time before we will have to replace it. The only thing we have to contend with now is what is the cost to maintain it versus the smaller unit. If it's all polyurethane or plastic we're probably pulling out one section and putting in another. Is that correct, Mr. Shuler in terms of maintenance of the slide. Is it easily replaceable if it is damaged? Is there a big maintenance cost between 140 and 98?

Mr. Shuler replied no.

Mr. Galster said I agree. I wouldn't mind seeing a dual slide. Anytime we can actually improve the services we provide the residents on a daily basis I think we ought to do it. I think this is a good investment and I think it will bring memberships back to the pool. I am all for it.

Ordinance 23-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Ms. Manis asked how long before they start giving our chamber $10,000?

Mr. Osborn said we are hoping the two chambers will be affiliated and that there will be a very close working relationship between the two. We have to recognize that we are a regional economy. The role of the Greater Cincinnati Chamber will be focused at a regional, national and international level. The role of our local chamber will be more local. We certainly benefit from the Chamber's activities. Some of these major move-ins we have had the last year or two were very much influenced very much by the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce so I think we see a benefit from this relationship.

Ms. Manis asked if they had been helpful to us in forming this one.

Mr. Osborn replied, absolutely. We are working hand in glove with the Greater Cincinnati Chamber. They have a representative at every one of our meetings. Our acting director and representative from the Cincinnati chamber have been negotiating some agreement that can be adopted by both parties in terms of formalizing the relationship we've talked about.

Mr. Danbury said I want to publicly thank Mr. Osborn and Mayor Webster for the work they have done in trying to create this chamber in this city. They have put a lot of work into it. Basically they are starting from scratch and they have done a fine job of getting business leaders together and the City is now just providing the space. In the years to come I guarantee you the City is really going to gain a lot by having this here.


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

Ms. Manis said I have had the opportunity to be down there quite often in the past. I worked with one of the doctors who was down there. The place was always busy. I don't remember the facilities being that bad but I know they could use updating. It's a real busy place. It's one of the centers of the community and is really vital.

Resolution R6-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.



Mr. Osborn said we have been a doing strategic planning exercise within the organization for well over a year now. We have employed an outside consultant to help train our personnel and stimulate the process. The next step we'd like to take in this effort is to work with City Council on a visioning exercise. We would like to look at the weekend of May 10. We could begin the exercise on Friday evening and be done by noon on Saturday or we could start on Saturday morning and be done by 3 p.m. Saturday afternoon. We really want to encourage every elected official to be present. The exercise will review the purpose of strategic planning. The exercise will cause you to put forward what you believe to be the key issues facing our community long term and then resolve some sort of vision as to where we want the community to be in five years. Consequently we really do want to work with all the elected officials. It seems that that weekend is available. Would you like to start with a dinner Friday evening and then do part of the exercise Friday and then come back Saturday morning; or work Saturday morning and part of Saturday afternoon.

Ms. Manis said I like it split up. You hear some stuff, go home and have time to think about it, then come back with more ideas.

Mrs. McNear asked what time Friday?

Mr. Osborn replied dinner about 6:15 or 6:30 and then work from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. and then come back Saturday for a continental breakfast at 8:30 and finish around noon.

Mrs. McNear said 6:15 is a problem for me on Friday night. I could probably make it by 6:30 or 6:45 p.m.

Mrs. Boice made a motion to start Friday evening and wrap up Saturday morning.

Mr. Osborn said if you could mark your calendars now I sure would appreciate it. We'll cater the meal in this room and have the work session in the caucus room.

Mr. Knox stated I would like to point out Mr. Parham has been elected as president of the OAMMA (Ohio Assistant Municipal Managers Association). I would like to offer my congratulations and those of Council.

Mayor Webster said we were talking earlier about the flood relief drop off center. I could do a proclamation but I thought Council might want to take the opportunity to acknowledge some of our City personnel, C. J. Nichols, Rusty Teague and some of the scouts who went door to door collecting food, clothing, etc. If Council would rather bring in a resolution that's fine. If not, I'll take care of the proclamation.

Ms. Manis asked Mr. Shuler, are they starting the sound walls in Forest Park or are they just doing some repainting on I-275.

Mr. Shuler responded I have not heard anything about sound walls in some time. I think it's hillside stabilization.


Planning Commission March 27, 7:00 p.m.

special meeting to

discuss Dave & Buster's

Board of Zoning Appeals April 15, 7:00 p.m.



Item 1 - next meeting, first reading

Item 2 - next meeting with emergency, dealing with traffic signals

Tax Code - second meeting in May

Item 4 - next meeting, first reading, will add emergency

Item 5 - next meeting, first reading, will add emergency

Item 8 - bringing in recommendation with emergency clause on April 2

Item 9 - bringing in recommendation with emergency clause on April 2

Mr. Danbury said we also have two resolutions: one dealing with the driveway apron program; and the other honoring the employees for flood relief efforts. The last ordinance we have is for GTE Mobilnet for 65% tax abatement.

Mr. Osborn said GTE might be a resolution rather than an ordinance.

Council adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Randy Danbury, President of Council

__________________________, l997