Council was called to order on September 4, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. by President of Council Randy Danbury.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by the governmental body and those in attendance.

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

In the minutes of August 7, 1996 Mr. Danbury said on page 1, in the introductions for the Time-Warner presentation the gentleman's name is Keith Bowman, not Ken Bowman. The minutes were approved with five affirmative votes. Mr. Vanover abstained.

In the minutes of August 21, 1996 Mrs. McNear said at the top of page 5476 in the BZA report it says the variance was granted 5-0. It should be 5-1. The minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.


Letter to Mr. Osborn. As you know Time Warner Cable of Greater Cincinnati has completed Phase I and Phase II fiber construction in the City of Springdale. Our schedule has accelerated slightly and the third and final phase which is converter deployment is scheduled to begin September 12, 1996. Residents in your community will now receive the benefits of an enhanced fiber optics cable system with additional programming services. We will contact customers to set up individual appointments for converter change out. Once the new in-home terminal is installed, the customer will be on the new system. We appreciated the opportunity to appear before Council on August 7 to discuss our plans for the final stages of the upgrade project. All of us here at Time Warner are excited about providing an advanced level of service to our customers. Sincerely, Pamela McDonald, Manager of Government Affairs


Mr. Tim Reynolds, Queen City Metro said thank you for inviting us to talk about some of the issues Metro faces as well as what the region faces in terms of transportation and public transit. Metro has been in Springdale since the late 1970s. SORTA (Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority) and Metro are one and the same. The agency was created in 1968 as a nine member board. The board is appointed by the County Commissioners. Four of the board members are appointed at the recommendation of the City of Cincinnati. Metro was created about 1974. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of that year opened the door for federal participation in operating assistance. Prior to that time the feds did contribute, on a grant basis, money for capital projects such as bus garages, the purchase of busses, etc. Things really took off in 1974 in terms of public transit in Cincinnati. The local funding source for SORTA is the City of Cincinnati's 0.3% earnings tax which is dedicated to transit. That comprises about 51% of Metro's annual operating budget. Additional revenues from the transit fund also goes to local match for capital purchases such as busses. Fares are about 32% of our costs. Transit nowhere in the United States is a money making, profit making proposition. It hasn't been for decades. We receive about 8% of our budget from the State of Ohio. The federal operating assistance which was higher than 10% in past years is down to about 7% and dwindling. Metro Service consists of 44 bus routes. We have about 380 busses. In fact, some of our newer busses were placed in service in Atlanta during the Olympics. We carry about 81,000 passenger trips a day on a school day with an annual ridership of about 25 million. About 82% of our service is within the City of Cincinnati. That's in large part due to where our local funding comes from.

Mr. Reynolds introduced Nancy Core-Edwards, Senior Planner with our Planning and Development Department to talk about some of the issues facing Metro today, particularly as they relate to the City of Springdale.

Ms. Core-Edwards said as most of you are probably aware, Metro has three bus routes that serve the City of Springdale: Route 20 that comes up Winton Road and ends in the Tri County shopping center; Route 78 that comes up Vine Street to Springdale and ends at WalMart; and Route 23, Tri County Sun Run Express that starts in Forest Park, comes across Kemper Road to I-75. All three of those routes eventually end in downtown Cincinnati. We worked closely with the City of Springdale, most recently in getting the layover in WalMart. Also you have been very generous in allowing the layover on Northland Boulevard and helped us with bus stops and route changes. The City of Springdale has also installed many bus shelters along those routes. The issue facing the fixed route is the need for park and rides. More and more people are coming from the outer parts beyond where the busses go and want to be able to ride busses into the downtown area. We need places for people to park their cars. Right now there is no form of park and ride in the City of Springdale but there is a lot of informal parking and riding along Kemper Road. Many people try to park and ride on Chester Road and many people park and ride in Forest Park. We've been trying to lease parking spaces on Chester Road and along Kemper with mixed success. We're in the process of building our first park and ride in Forest Park. We own it. We built it just for park and ride. The other issue is the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), civil rights legislation that guarantees people with full disabilities full participation in every part of life. It guarantees access to public transit, for us that means primarily for people who use wheelchairs. Since 1991 any new bus we would buy would be lift equipped so a person in a wheelchair could use the bus. We just received 88 busses over the last year with other improvements so that people with other disabilities can also make use of the system. We will receive 59 more busses next year. With those busses all weekend services with Metro will be lift equipped. Route 20 will be made lift equipped next month and Route 78 will be lift equipped next year. For wheelchair accessibility there are two main components. There is the bus itself with the lift and tie down system to make it safe for the person to be on the bus. There is also access to the bus itself. I've met with the Public Works Director, Mr. Sears, to demonstrate how the lift works and we went through every stop in the City and looked at what it would take to make each stop fully accessible. Our para-transit system is door to door, on demand response system for people with disabilities who can't use the Metro. We call it Access. Access provides service in Hamilton County inside the I-275 beltway so all of Springdale is served by Access. The ADA has defined what the para-transit service area should be and that is within 3/4 of a mile of what the fixed route is, operating at the times the Metro would operate. The Access service area is currently larger than the Metro service area but the hours are not as inclusive.

Mr. Reynolds continued that I want to look at the longer range horizon. Even though we're a regional transit system by name, because of the way our local funding source is, Metro really is more of a city transit system than its name implies. Times have changed with ISTEA, the Intermodal Service Transportation Efficiency Act, and that gave local areas a lot more discretion in terms of using federal transportation dollars and has opened the doors to a little more flexibility. This has given a lot more responsibility to the Authority and definitely to the regional planning agency which is the O-K-I Regional Council of Governments. We work with them. It's a learning relationship on how this will affect us in the future. We've been playing a major role in the corridor studies which are going on in this region right now. The 33 mile I-71 corridor study is looking at what it will be like in the year 2020. The idea is if trends continue I-71 will be at gridlock conditions at certain times of the day. We have that here and there once in a while now but it's not that extreme. Transit works best when you have a lot of people going from one spot to another and you can run that bus back and forth. That's altered when you have people living all over the place but they can funnel into one quarter and then go to that one big destination downtown. Downtown is no longer the dominant place to take people, whether it's to work, shop, or conduct their business. Travel patterns now are considered many to many so it's a challenge in how you manage traffic with your street system. How does transit compete and what's transit's role in all of this. The car cannot be beaten in most situations but you get to the point where you cannot continually add lanes and cars to a limited area. These studies are looking at things like light rail as well as other alternatives such as busway and HOV which is high occupancy vehicle lanes. Twenty-five U.S. cities have light rail systems and 28 have HOV lanes. One mode that has been discounted for I-71 but is being looked at for the eastern corridor is commuter rail. It is anticipated but there is nothing in writing, no funding for these things. Where is Metro in all of this? Metro is on the oversight committees. We play a pretty vocal role. With some federal funding we have purchased a series of old railroad rights of way for the express purposes of preservation for potential future mass transportation use. If the corridor studies come up with nothing, perhaps we'll sell them back. We've lost a lot of those links around the region in the last 10-20 years and as things come up, Metro has considered them seriously and in some cases has purchased them. As Nancy mentioned, we are getting more into "we own it - park and ride". When you rely upon a church or shopping center whether you have an agreement or not, they can opt out in six months. One thing that is happening in downtown Cincinnati is Government Square which is our main transfer facility downtown. Almost all of our service funnels to downtown and if you want to get from A to B and it's not on that particular bus route, you make a transfer downtown. There are Knowlton's Corner, Peebles Corner, and other transfer locations but the bulk of transfer business is downtown. That can only fit about half of our service so we are looking at expansion concepts. As an umbrella to all of these corridor studies the Regional Transit Commission was established. We have SORTA on the Ohio side, TANK on the Kentucky site, CART (Clermont Area Regional Transit), different new transient authorities in the suburban counties whether or not they have service right now. The Commission's conclusion was we don't want to come up with the institution and funding mechanism yet. Let's find out what the community wants in regional transit. One of the concepts being looked at is the transit center concept. If you are in Springdale and you want to get to someplace on Montgomery Road, the only way to do that now is to go downtown, transfer and go all the way back. Cities like Dallas, Houston and Minneapolis have ringed their central cities with very nice transit hubs and they have connected them with services where you can travel from one suburb to another rather than go all the way to the central city. That is more reflective of the way people move today. Transit centers are a nice focal point where people can wait. People are uneasy sometimes with bus service because it is not fixed. Essentially you have a curbside waiting area. Springdale is more progressive than most communities in providing bus shelters. There is still uncertainty about using the bus because it runs in mixed traffic. But by providing a network of hubs and Tri County would be a typical area where there would be a transit center, you can provide all kinds of services, from regular bus service to mini-busses which would be more appropriate in neighborhoods. Or you could have greyhound type busses where you would charge people a little more but they would have a higher level of amenity to go to downtown or another major employment site. Mr. Reynolds showed slides of transit centers in other cities. At one facility the transit authority purchased the surrounding land and they are attempting to develop a convenient store, fast food place, car care center, day care center, apartments, activities that will help attract people onto transit. It helps to minimize all those errand trips at 5:00 when you get off work.

Ms. Manis said I rode the Metro downtown for ten years starting on the 78 and then the Sun Run when it came into existence and I know Mrs. Boice did too. One of the major problems is the parking and riding especially on Kemper and Chester Roads. If you park on one side it's convenient in the morning but you still have to cross the road at night or vice versa. We've had problems like Thriftway and other places saying no, you can't park here. I think it would be a real advantage to have some park and rides where you can drive in and the busses came inside there and picked you up.

Mr. Reynolds responded the one in Forest Park would be designed for the bus to get right in there. We have the same situation at Beechmont where sometimes the door of the bus will be where the parking lot is but in the afternoon you are running across eight lanes of traffic with no signals. I give everyone credit for going through that. That's why we are heading in that direction of getting our own piece of territory where the bus can lay over and for the reason you just stated.

Mr. Knox said Nancy, you said Access is provided inside the I-275 beltway. There are a substantial number of people living in Springdale who are on the other side of I-275. Are you saying all of Springdale is included?

Ms. Core-Edwards said the Access service area is Hamilton County inside the I-275 beltway. Some of Springdale is included but not all of it.

Mr. Danbury said it's my understanding that Access is not only wheel chair accessible but also for others who are not wheel chair confined.

Ms. Core-Edwards said Access is for people who are functionally incapable of using the Metro. They are incapable of walking to the bus stop or they are incapable of navigating the system. They don't understand what a transfer is or what bus to catch or because of a medical condition, they can't use the Metro.

Mr. Danbury said when I was a kid I used to get the bus at Tri County and go to the Reds' games. Are they going to try to activate that again?

Ms. Core-Edwards replied we have that for the Bengals and for special services such as Riverfest.

Mr. Reynolds said the board has a policy where special services have to either pay for themselves or come close to paying for themselves. Over the 80 baseball games there was not enough ridership to pay for the service.


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

Ordinance 64-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Ordinance 67-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


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

Mr. Osborn said this is a preliminary type review of a proposal that has been before Council a couple of times, most recently proposed by Mr. Wilson; that is to allow northbound traffic on S.R. 4 that has intentions of going eastbound on I-275 to continue without interruption at the signal. We met with the Ohio Department of Transportation in July and while we received very favorable comments from ODOT, there is no guarantee that once we complete this study, they will still allow us to undertake the project. The purpose of this study is to accumulate data which will allow them to evaluate the impact of this proposed change on the interstate system. If they should determine that because of some change in traffic patterns this modification would negatively affect traffic patterns on I-275 to a severe degree, they could reject the project. I think we ought to understand that this is not a guarantee we are going to have the project. It's merely the first step to analyze whether or not ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration will allow us to proceed with further plans to modify the interchange.

Ordinance 68-1996 passed with 6 affirmative votes.


Mr. Parham said at the last meeting of August 21, we indicated to you that we were victorious with the arbitration for the patrol officers' contract. I've completed the additional language to the contract and will be forwarding that to the FOP for their approval. We would ask that legislation be brought to the September 18 Council meeting for approval with the emergency added.

Mr. Osborn said I would like to bring back two items of old business. One is the proposal that the Recreation Department evaluate the use of cellular phones by coaches at outlying parks. I put a memo in your mail bin today. Yesterday afternoon I received a report from Mr. Burton, our Recreation Director. This topic was discussed at last evening's Recreation Commission. The cost to lease four phones with a service agreement would come to just under $700/year. This would not include air time. We would obviously have a billing for air time in addition to that. The issue did go before Recreation Commission last night and the outcome there was they did not recommend favorably on this proposal but I am bringing this information back to you for your consideration.

Mayor Webster stated the feeling was primarily that we're not sure four phones would do the trick. Most of those outlying fields accommodate two practices a night so you're probably not going to get by with four phones. We see it as a major control problem for the Rec Center staff. Right now we have trouble just getting equipment returned. I see all kinds of logistical problems with coaches doing that; trying to go to the Rec Center, check it out, bring it back. I don't think that is going to happen. I think it's going to be an administrative nightmare. Also, if we are concerned about the safety of the kids and we all are, there is no outlying park that is in a remote area. There are residences surrounding most of the parks. The only one you might classify as semi-remote would be the Chamberlain Park complex. Here again, you have rows and rows of apartments adjoining that and I can't believe if a child was hurt, you couldn't get someone in that complex to let you use a phone. That's assuming there was no parent there with a cell phone. Four of the Parks and Recreation Commission people are coaches or former coaches and there was absolutely no sentiment at all for the proposal.

Mr. Wilson said to the Mayor, has anyone thought of an alternative plan on the board? We still have that safety issue during the practice sessions where a child could get hurt. Has the Commission just flat said no, cell phones won't work? Do they have an alternative to get the child to the hospital without having to run door to door trying to find someone to answer the door? Not many parents are at many practices. There may be a practice session with three parents, two of them coaches.

Mayor Webster replied there was no alternative. I understand after the last Council meeting Mr. Osborn was asked to look into call boxes. We discussed that with Mr. Burton and the three of us figured we'd be lucky if those call boxes lasted a week. I think you'd be in there repairing those. Mr. Wilson, we are all concerned about the safety of the kids but as we look back over the history we have not had a problem with kids getting injured. Does that say we're never going to have a kid get injured in the park? Probably not. It's not a thing where we are allowing kids to lie bleeding to death in parks. That's just not happening. There's a limit to what you can do and what you can provide and no, there was no alternative suggested.

Ms. Manis said I brought this up because some of the coaches came to me with it saying there are no parents there and no cell phones. I'm just a little surprised at the language in here that it's a perk. I don't consider it a perk necessarily that the coaches are looking for a free cell phone to use. It was completely a safety issue. I'm at every practice so it doesn't really bother me. If that's the way the City decides to go that's fine. I will pass on the information.

Mayor Webster replied I would have to agree with you that perk is a very poor choice of words and to be honest with you I did not see it in there until you brought it to my attention. I don't look upon it as a perk but I do look upon it as something as a major, major control issue.

Mr. Osborn said I do have another item that was discussed earlier by Council. That is the question about skateboard or in-line skate facilities. We have taken a considerably long look at what's available in the area, what we would have to do to provide a facility and we've come up with a span of options ranging from what we consider to be the low end entry point into this type of recreational activity to one that would be one of a more higher end type project. The basic entry point we see would involve the construction of a concrete pad 40 feet by 150 feet. It would also involve the installation of bumper blocks and 2 1/2 inch pipe rails, different obstacles of that nature that the kids like to jump their skateboards onto and trick off of. The cost of a facility like this would be approximately $22,000. A larger more complex project would cause the construction of a concrete depression approximately 72 feet long, shaped something like a swimming pool, 8 feet wide at its shallow end and 20 feet wide at its deep end and it would range from a depth of 0 to 10 feet. There would be a 9 foot deck around this facility and the sides would be ramped to allow the users to skate down into it and skate back out of it. We've looked at several options including wooden vert ramps and other types of parks that have this type of facility. Because of the high maintenance and the potential for vandalism, we evolved away from that to a concrete facility. The cost for a facility such as this would be about $90,000 to $95,000. This would be fence enclosed because of the fact that it is a depression and people could walk in the dark and fall into the depression without notice. We also determined what our liability position would be on this type of facility. As long as we don't charge a fee, as long as we have it open to the public, and it's in a park, we are protected by limited governmental immunity. I think our consensus is that we would put a facility like this in Ross Park in the area where the tennis court used to be. This is an open area. It would not interfere with any existing recreational facilities. There is parking nearby. The property is not now being utilized. Given the vandal-proof nature of the facility we would not expect that we would need to or expect to provide on-site supervision of this facility. I don't think it would have a dramatic impact on operating costs. There would be some maintenance involved but not a significant amount. We're looking at a project that could be staged, at a project that could go no farther than the first step, or a project that could become very grandiose. This project did go before the Recreation Commission last night and again, based upon their dialog it did not receive a favorable recommendation coming out of the Rec Commission and again I will defer to the Mayor to maybe amplify some of the comments made by the Recreation Commission.

Mayor Webster said I've heard from three youths who wanted this facility and it was the three who were at Council four or five months ago along with one of their parents. I have had no phone calls, no letters, no communications whatsoever from any other residents who want to see this built. I've had some informal conversations with a couple of Council people who thought we ought to look into it which we have done. We've taken a long time and looked into this. In good conscience we cannot recommend even the $22,000. Mr. Burton came up with the first cost of $91,000. We said no, is there any way we can do this incrementally. Then he comes back with the $22,000 proposal but the $22,000 does not come off the $91,000. If that was a huge success and we wanted to build the $91,000 facility we're still talking about a total of $91,000. The $22,000 is just to get your feet wet and see if this is something we really want to do. There are a lot of places the Recreation Commission would like to see us spend $22,000 or $91,000 versus building this facility of which there is just no outpouring of requests for this throughout the community.

Ms. Manis stated I've had about five people talk to me about it, none of them for it; everyone saying they can't believe we would build this. Their thing was the liability issue which you now say is not a factor. They say we can't have a slide at the pool but you're going to build this facility. I think that would be the feeling throughout the community whether it was true or not.

Mayor Webster replied that is the response we got from the Parks and Recreation Commission because we take the summer off so they hadn't really met officially since May. All of this has been going on since then and they'd heard bits and pieces. Last night was the first time they got the whole picture. Their mouths dropped and they said we can't believe you're considering doing this. We replied we were just responding to a request and sharing information with them.

Mr. Knox asked if we were to build such a facility could we restrict it to Springdale residents only?

Mr. Osborn replied we could do that but then we would have to police it. Our contention is that we don't want to get into a position where we have to staff this type of facility. It would be unrealistic to try to limit it to just Springdale residents.

Mr. Danbury said I think it is neat if we had a big interest but for $91,000 we could enclose the amphitheater. I think we can effectively spend the money more towards the entire community at large.

Mr. Osborn said if you look at our 1997 five year capital budget there are a considerable number of projects out on the horizon for the recreation program. This clearly would have to compete with all those projects if we were to start to put this into the pipeline. You've heard the comments already from Recreation Commission and from Ms. Manis. You have to hold this up against some of these other improvements that are pretty fundamental such as relighting the Recreation Center ballfields. We have to do that and that's a big, big cost item. Replacing the filter system at the swimming pool is another. We have an incredible list of capital projects that we are going to be bringing to you over the next five years to try to maintain what we have. To try to squeeze out another $22,000 to $90,000 on top of that would be a considerable burden on the capital budget. I thought you ought to know and the public ought to know that this isn't necessarily a desire on the part of anyone to withhold money from the recreation program. Just to the contrary, we have a substantial amount of our resources projected to support the recreation program over the next five years.

Ms. Manis said I wouldn't say it's dead. Like you said there are a lot of things going on at the Rec. There are a lot of things with the parks and maybe something could be worked in in the grand scheme of things later on but I just think building this right now is not the best use of our money. I think there may be room for it later or something of the same nature.


Mr. Danbury said as everybody can tell, our agenda is a little different tonight. Due to some problems we've had in the past, we had a meeting with all the powers that be and all the people who actually help put the agenda together. Some of the things we are now adding is a recap of legislative items to be requested for the next meeting. I am going to try to keep track of that and if anyone has anything else they would like Mr. Schneider to put on for our next meeting, make sure we can inform him and I will provide it to him in writing. Basically, we will try to have a schedule where everything is to Mr. Schneider in a timely manner. Mr. Osborn and I are going to be giving him everything by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, eight days prior to our next meeting. I need everything in here with as much information as possible. From time to time we may have a request from Council or elected officials to have a resolution honoring someone, not necessarily one of our sports team, such as the one Mr. Vanover had with the man who found the problem with the contaminated water. It's imperative that the person who would initiate that give all the specifics because Mr. Schneider can't read people's minds. We need to get it to him as quickly as possible. Also if there is anything you want on the agenda, whether it be a speaker like we had this evening or whatever, let me know by Tuesday, eight days prior to the meeting and we'll put it on the agenda. I want to make sure everyone gets the information in place and that we get it to Mr. Schneider on time. He can get it back to us and we can get it to everybody so you have ample time to consider all the legislation we will be voting on. The other issue is legislation still in development. We'll touch on that when we get to Item 14. It's a guide to let everyone on Council and the elected officials know that these are the items Mr. Schneider, Mr. Osborn and the Mayor have put together and there is some kind of draft ordinance or working ordinance. I'm not going to go through and I'm not going to list them on the agenda every meeting but I do want to touch on a few items. If I know it's in a committee, I would like to have some specifics as to where it's at and what the problems are, when we can expect it brought to the floor because sometimes other committees are waiting for that. I have heard some requests from other committees. I want to thank everyone involved from Mr. Schneider, Mr. Parham, Mr. Osborn, the Mayor and Mr. Knox. I think it was a very productive meeting and hopefully it will be very smoothly run from here on out.

Mr. Knox said I have a piece of new business that concerns what was known as Senate Bill 81. Because of several financial disasters throughout the United States and some in the State of Ohio, the Ohio legislature has passed a law that requires investment and depository policies to be promulgated by various bodies such as counties and cities. We had a meeting on it in Springdale City Hall last Thursday, August 29 and we got the final information we needed. In order to meet the law we do need in this City to have a policy on the investment of funds. I have taken the liberty to write such a policy and have very briefly shown it to the Finance Committee and I would like to give a copy to each one of the members of the Council to review and we can discuss it at the next meeting. Time is of the essence because we need to get this back to Columbus by September 27. I will be passing this out and you can read it. I have taken the ordinance as we have in effect and quoted it exactly with some preamble to it saying what the policy of the City is. One other item that is interesting is any sales person who wants to sell something to the City must read this policy and sign a copy of it before they contact us so it does have some good sides to it.


Board of Zoning Appeals September 17, 7:30 p.m.

Planning Commission September 10, 7:00 p.m.

Board of Health September 12, 7:00 p.m.

Springdale Jr. Olympics September 14

Ms. Manis said you don't have to be a Springdale resident and it is a good time. They usually have registration for the winter sports at that time also.

Mr. Osborn said the seminar Mr. Knox referred to earlier on investment policies for Ohio was put on by the Center for Local Government. We're working in conjunction with the Center for Local Government to host another seminar. This one is going to be on the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It will be a full day seminar on Wednesday, September 25. Registration begins at 8:30 a.m. and the program will begin at 9 a.m. It's scheduled to run until 4:30 p.m. The presenters will include Telecomm Planners, a consulting firm and Amy Gasser-Callow from Wood and Lamping. The program is very timely as you know because of the impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on a municipality or township's ability to regulate such critical issues as wireless communication tower locations and the ability to regulate and franchise with cable providers. If any members of Council would be interested, please advise Martha Brillhart and we'll see that your registration is cared for. This same information will be passed on to Planning Commission.



Mr. Danbury said I don't believe I heard any requests so if anything else comes up before next Tuesday Mr. Osborn or I will get in touch with you.

Mr. Osborn said Mr. Parham did request the ordinance on the contract with the FOP and there will be a sister ordinance to that putting many of those policies in place for other members of our work force.


Mr. Danbury said we have the ordinance dealing with wild and exotic animals. From information I have here this was with Mr. Vanover. Do we expect some kind of report at the next meeting?

Mr. Vanover replied I forwarded a copy of the Board of Health's comments to Ms. Manis Friday of last week. Ms. Manis replied she didn't have anything and Mr. Vanover said he would forward it again.

Ms. Manis said if there are any changes the ordinance will have to go through Planning again.

Mayor Webster said items 2 and 3 on the status report are scheduled to be on the September 18 agenda. They need to be added to the recap of legislative items for the next meeting.

Mr. Danbury said what I was looking for mainly was something that was in committee. This was listed here. There are a few items here; one we will be looking at in October.

Mr. Osborn said on Item 8 the status is going to be changing. We have concluded our review and the Law Director has our comments this evening. We would hope to have an ordinance before you at your next Council meeting regulating hunting within the City limits. In response to Mr. Danbury, Mr. Osborn said we would like two readings with an emergency clause. We'd like to have it in place before deer hunting season this fall.

Council adjourned at 8:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Randy Danbury, President of Council

__________________________, l996