President of Council
The governmental body and those in
attendance recited the pledge of allegiance.
Mr. Knox gave the invocation.
Mr. Knox took roll call. Present were Council members
The minutes of
Mr. Squires nominated Tom Vanover to
be vice-president of Council for this year.
There were no other nominations. Mr. Vanover was awarded the position by
acclamation.
COMMITTEE AND OFFICIAL REPORTS
Civil Service Commission - no report
Rules and Laws - no report
Public Relations - no report
Public Health, Safety & Welfare - no report
Public Utilities - no report
Capital Improvements – Mr. Danbury said a water main tie-in on
the CSX project should be completed by mid February. A sheet pile wall installation on the west
end of the temporary railroad will be done this winter.
Finance Committee - no report
Planning Commission – Mr. Galster reported the Bergman Group
who was requesting a sign for the
Board of Zoning Appeals - no report
Board of Health – Ms. Pollitt said the first focus group for
the data assessment was held and went well.
The SOS meeting has been scheduled for January 26. This will be a
conduit for people who need services to organizations who can provide those
services. There will be a speaker series
at the Community Center. February 17 is
Heart Health, and April 7 is Are You Stressed? Twenty people visited the
mammography van in January.
Veteran’s Memorial Committee - no report
O-K-I
- Mr. Knox said I attended the meeting last week and it came to
my mind that nobody knows what OKI is except the people who are on the
board. OKI is an agency that brings together
nine counties so plans can be made. A
plan shown at the last meeting showed what is needed in the next twenty years
in the area of transportation and roadways.
They give their best opinion on how to proceed.
Mayor’s Report – Mayor Webster said OKI is a very critical
component when you are trying to acquire funds for projects, especially
transportation projects.
Mayor Webster continued saying we received e-mails and notes commending the
staff on the snow and ice removal. We
have spent $39,973 on snow and ice removal so far this winter. That’s split 50/50 in salaries and
materials. Our salt dome has the
capacity for 2400 tons. We started the
year at 2200 tons. We have 1600 tons
left. We lost some calcium but we’re at
full capacity.
Mayor Webster stated the Food for Fines was a successful
program. Wal-Mart found out we were
having this program and offered ten $150 gift cards to give to ten needy
families. We want to commend Wal-Mart
for their involvement in our community.
We had 240 citations issued where people took advantage of the
program. We had to forego $9,064 in
fines. The proceeds were donated to Soul
Ministries and
Clerk of Council/Finance Director - no report
Administrator’s Report – Mr. Osborn said part of a gabion wall
has collapsed at Beaver Run Creek. The
wall was installed in the late 1970s.
We’ve had a contractor out to give us an estimated cost on repair. We are applying for emergency funding from
FEMA. The wall protects residential properties
and I think it’s important to get that wall up as soon as possible.
Mr. Osborn said Dave Butsch and Mr. Knox will be attending a
meeting on January 28 where representatives of local jurisdictions will be
briefed on how to make application for reimbursement. Under FEMA policy when a snow declaration is
made local jurisdictions can recover their costs for any forty-eight hour
period.
Mr. Osborn stated Cincinnati Water Works intends to put a
water main down
Mr. Osborn reported the Corps of Engineers has been
undertaking a general re-evaluation report on the Mill Creek for the last
twenty years. The Corps is recommending
a modified channel alternative. This has
a cost of just over $606 million. On
this option the federal government would fund $429,000,879 and the local
jurisdictions would have to find funding in the amount $176,921,000. We all had a great deal of interest in the
deep tunnel approach that was being proposed by MSD. The numbers on that project are even more
severe. The price tag is $1.6
billion. That would leave $1.2 billion
for the locals to pick up. The Corps is
taking comments on their proposal through the end of this month. There will be a special meeting tomorrow
night of the Mill Creek Watershed Council where all stakeholders are
invited. The Army Corps will not be
there so we will be able to have a frank and open discussion.
Mr. Osborn said we are revising our snow emergency policy to
reflect the designations of snow emergencies into levels one, two and
three. In an effort to get a better
handle on this issue, the Hamilton County EMA (Emergency Management Agency)
called a meeting yesterday of all jurisdictions so that we can all try to be consistent
in how we define these various levels.
The
Mr. Vanover asked was the gabion wall that collapsed one
that had been undercut and just finally gave out?
Mr. Osborn replied I don’t know if that was the entire
problem or probably the weight of all the heavy soil it was trying to
restrain. My guess would be the
tie-backs that go into the hill have rusted through and there was nothing
holding the gabions back.
Mr. Vanover asked was any thought given to re-enforcement on
the face of that to help break the current channel driving into that?
Mr. Osborn answered I think it was ground saturation and
failure on the part of the tie-backs. I
wouldn’t recommend going to a different technology as we have done in other
parts of that creek simply because this is hard up against private
property. We have very limited room
behind the wall with which to work without affecting private property.
Mr. Vanover stated I received a letter from CWW and the
first line says in order to provide better service to their customers. That water line is for
Mr. Osborn said I had that same argument with Cincinnati
Water Works and I still feel the same way.
They contend that because it helps loop the system better it is a
secondary benefit to us as well, although we’re not taking any distribution off
of it.
Ms. Pollitt said if you live in an area where a vehicle is
not supposed to be parked on the street during a snow emergency please move it
off so the snow plows can do their job.
I know sometimes the police have had them pulled off the streets. That just adds more work at a time when they
are already overworked.
Mr. Osborn said we try to avoid towing vehicles. They run the license, get the address and try
to get the people to move them. If we do
have to tow, we try to tow it to a clean street. That’s our last step and we don’t do it very
frequently.
Mr. Danbury asked what is the construction timetable for the
water main construction?
Mr. Osborn replied I don’t know now because it was
originally supposed to kick off last June.
It seems like the
Law Director’s Report - no report
Engineer’s Report - no
report
COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Knox stated the level one snow
emergency means that the roadways are hazardous with blowing and drifting
snow. At level two the same is true and
only those who feel it is necessary to drive should be out on the roadway and you
should contact your employer to see if you should report to work. Level
three is all municipal, township, county and state roadways are closed to
non-emergency personnel. You shouldn’t
be out there and you could be arrested if you are out there.
We received a letter from Cinergy
stating that they are making application for an increase in electrical
distribution rates. You can read about
that in your newspaper. That will take
effect in January 2006 if approved.
We have two letters about the sound
walls. They will be available in my
office for anyone who would like to read them.
One is against the sound walls being proposed by the City of
Mr. Galster said the one in favor is
from Mr. and Mrs. Maymir who were present at the
Council meeting when the vote took place.
I have received a couple of phone calls from residents, one in favor of
the walls and one opposed.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Monny
Mack,
Joyce Walker,
Jerry Bridgeford,
David Traut,
Mr. Wilson said I listened to the
residents in the audience, but no one asked what effect it would have on
residents 500 feet away or two blocks away.
I think we have to take that into consideration as well. Something is going to bounce over. Council did not flat out say we did not want
the walls. We asked for other options
like earthen barriers.
Mr. Galster stated Ms. Walker
mentioned that ODOT assured her there would be no bounce-back. My recollection was that when ODOT was here
they said just the opposite. These walls
have a sound absorption material that is put on at the factory. They cannot be repaired. They cannot be painted if they are
damaged. This is not a sponge that will
suck the sound out of the interstate, but it also does not throw it back and
forth anywhere near the amount the old design did. But there are also additional problems with
getting ODOT out to repair the panels if they get damaged. There are some places along I-275 where we
have edge of payment, guardrail, wall. It’s a tunnel affect as you come into the SR
4 exit. There will be damage to that
material if anything should fly off the road or a car accident. I’ve watched the repair history of walls
regardless of surface, and it always seem to be lacking. I went to the meeting last summer. I asked the gentleman last summer if you are
going to install these walls and you didn’t have to worry about financial
restraints, what would you do? He said
they would put them up at an angle and deflect the sound up into the air. It costs too much to put it at an angle. Just because the State or federal government
decides that there is money available, I don’t necessarily agree that all of it
needs to be spent. I can’t tell the State
that I would like to see that money spent on education instead of sometimes
sound walls that will not necessarily be effective. Eventually they will run out of money to pay
for this. From what I saw from ODOT’s
presentation we saw a 4 decibel reduction in what I consider their best case
scenarios. That’s not a significant drop
although I’ve talked to people who told me if you drop it ten percent of
decibels it cuts it in half. They are
looking at a five percent cut.
Mr. Vanover said one of the problems
with their efficiencies is that there will be higher sections on one side and
unless you build the walls equal on both sides you will have the bounce
over. If they absorb sixty percent, then
forty percent of that sound is still out there maneuvering. When you build a box you are building an
amplifier. You are now increasing
because they are now bouncing faster. A
four decibel reduction if I recall right, is a whisper conversation, so you are
taking a whisper out. When
that jake brake breaks loose that whisper isn’t going
to make any difference. Unless
somebody can give me a better return on the dollar I haven’t seen any benefit.
Ms. Pollitt said I have seen the
walls in the
Mr. Danbury said our job is to try
to make the lives of all of our citizens better. If we were absolutely convinced that these
walls would eliminate to a great extent all issues of noise, and would be well
maintained and the State would pay for it, we would be crazy not to do it. They did not convince me that these are
effective forms of eliminating the noise.
The walls take a geographic area that is affected by noise and spread it
out, so we now have more households that are affected. If we could outlaw jake brakes that would be a great thing.
Mayor Webster stated various Council
members have done a very good job of articulating what we perceived as
unanswered questions and problems with the walls. There was no case made that would address
those concerns. The one thing we did
know for sure from the pictures and diagrams is that there would be sections of
Mr. Galster said just prior to the
meeting with ODOT, there was a publication in reference to diesel fumes and how
this particular area is high for the percentage of homes that are affected by
diesel fumes. Nobody from ODOT can tell
me what the walls will do in reference to these fumes.
Mrs. McNear said Council did not
take the decision lightly. I assure you
we have not. We’ve all been to meetings
and done a lot of homework on this. We
just weren’t convinced it was the best solution for everybody.
Mr. Mack said the minutes from the
October 6 meeting said Mr. Clark from ODOT said their model predicted an
average 8.4 reduction in decibels. Ten
percent reduction in decibels is equivalent to half. We know that trees have to be really dense to
make an impact. Twelve years ago we were
not talking about expanding the highway.
If not walls, then what? We need to protect the interests of the
residents. What happens to
Mr. Galster said there was confusion
at the meeting. Sometimes they were
talking about decibels and sometimes percentages.
Mr. Bridgeport said I heard your
introduction and reply. My feeling was
you didn’t know nothing. You had some limited information and you’re
saying it really isn’t available. You
mean the State of
Mr. Vanover replied we had questions
that the State of
Mr. Knox stated nobody from ODOT
offered any testimony from people who live near the sound walls. Why didn’t they have that? I don’t believe it exists. This Council doesn’t believe it exists
either.
Mr. Vanover said the best solution
to cutting the noise is cutting the traffic.
Just last year there was a mass transit proposal on the ballot and
Mr. Osborn said I thought the way it
was left was that Council gave them direction that they would prefer the
planting as opposed to the wall, but I don’t recall any obligation on the part
of ODOT to come back with additional options.
Mr. Traut
said I live where the
ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE
NO. 4-2005 “SETTING
COMPENSATION FOR
Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr.
Danbury seconded.
Mayor Webster said this takes affect
Ordinance 4-2005 passed with seven
affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE
NO. 5-2005 “AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH
BALESTRA, HARR & SCHERER, CPA’S, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES
FOR THE AUDITS FOR YEAR-ENDED 2004 THROUGH YEAR-ENDED 2008”
Mr. Danbury made a motion to adopt and Mr.
Vanover seconded.
Ordinance 5-2005 passed with seven
affirmative votes.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE NO.
6-2005 “AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE TO
CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 1.08 ACRES BOUNDED BY 148.01’ ON WEST
KEMPER ROAD, 311.34 ON HICKORY STREET AND 146.5’ ON CHERRY STREET FROM
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE HOUSEHOLD – HIGH DENSITY (RSH-H) TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
HOUSEHOLD – HIGH DENSITY – TRANSITION OVERLAY (RSH-H-T) AND TO CHANGE THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 2.50 ACRES FRONTING 284.11’ ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST
KEMPER ROAD FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE HOUSEHOLD – LOW DENSITY (RSH-L) TO
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE HOUSEHOLD – LOW DENSITY – TRANSITION OVERLAY (RSH-L-T)”
Mr. Galster made a motion to read by title
only and Mr. Danbury seconded. The
motion passed with seven affirmative votes.
Mr. Danbury made a motion to adopt and Mr.
Squires seconded.
Jeff Pearson, Childress & Cunningham Inc., said we are
currently working with two clients who are both interested in developing
properties that are affected by this ordinance.
We would take down the deteriorating building at 311 West Kemper and
replace with new construction. In
another case we would be using the residential building. In all cases we feel very comfortable meeting
the requirements and guidelines of the transitional overlay which include landscape
screening the buildings and breaking up the parking areas. We see this as a new opportunity to bring in
small businesses and services.
Jim Knollman,
Mayor Webster said I’m just wondering if anyone is unaware
of which lots we’re talking about.
Mr. Galster said we’re talking about having a transitional overlay on top of the
residential. It doesn’t change the
residential use. All the zoning
requirements, setbacks and buffers are still intact on each of these properties. Recently we had the school come before City
Council. They are tearing down the old
school and expanding to the east. The
property we are dealing with tonight is directly across the street from the
school. There are two ill-maintained, crackerbox houses directly next to the church. The third property is Mrs. Todd’s property which
is a nice, two-story brick building. Mr. Knollman’s
residence is in front of the back panhandle of Mrs. Todd’s property. There is one additional residence on
Leanne Russell,
Mr. Galster said any plan that would come before Planning in
this district will be residential in style.
Traffic numbers would be important.
Lighting will be addressed. We
will be overprotective of residential uses.
We will make sure the transition is smooth.
Ms. Pollitt asked when would your busiest times be?
Ms. Russell said it is to our detriment to have the facility
scheduled extra busy. We have two client
rooms at our current location.
Mrs. Pollitt asked do you have evening hours?
Ms. Russell replied that varies by facility. The current facility hours vary from day to
day.
Mrs. Todd stated I am the owner of the property. I have been Jim’s neighbor for many years and
the other Jim who isn’t here. I don’t
think he will notice much difference because there is so much honeysuckle
across his back property that you can’t see through anyway. I feel very pleased and would be proud of a
community that would allow a
Mr. Bridgeport, Olde Gate, said
our concern is for the people in that area.
It is too early for us to get answers.
I’m just interested that it doesn’t affect residents who live in Olde Gate.
Mr. Galster responded Olde Gate
would be no different than any other single family residents. They have a good tree and shrub line. You might see more trees or shrubbery. You might see a light pole but those will be
kept to a minimum. The glare and
spillover of light will be contained on their site.
Mr. Danbury said when I first heard what was proposed I was
against it because I didn’t want to see anymore development going down
Mr. Vanover said you are welcome to come to Planning
Commission anytime. It’s another chance
to see it in action, get the true feedback and see the plan as it comes to
fruition.
Tom Rielage,
Mayor
Webster said I am in the process of forming a service organization called SOS
(Springdale Offering Service). This
organization will be comprised of several of the area’s service organizations
like the Lions’ Club, Kiwanis, Rotary, churches, two
food pantries and also Pregnancy Care of Cincinnati. We’re very pleased that we will have an
organization in the City that provides the kind of support that they do for
people who really need that. The
organization will try to match up people in need with people who can provide
the service.
Ordinance 6-2005 passed with seven affirmative votes.
Council recessed at
ORDINANCE NO. 7-2005 “AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE EIGHT (8) PARCELS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF HICKORY AND WEST KEMPER ROAD AS “TRANSITIONAL OFFICE”
Mr.
Galster made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Mr.
Galster said this is to update our land use, comprehensive plan, future land
use plans to reflect the changes that were made here tonight.
Ordinance
7-2005 passed with seven affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO.
8-2005 “AMENDING THE LAND
USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE 4.03 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF WEST KEMPER ROAD, RECENTLY REZONED TO “PF-L” AS “PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL”
Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded.
Mr. Galster said this ordinance is to bring the
comprehensive plan up to its current state based on what was done for the new
Ordinance 8-2005 passed with seven affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO.
9-2005 “AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR
TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT WITH MYERS Y. COOPER COMPANY AND THE BERGMAN GROUP FOR
THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF,
AND TO NEGOTIATE FOR, THE REDEVELOPMENT OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF
SPRINGDALE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”
Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and
Mr. Wilson seconded.
Mr. Osborn said the current agreement
has expired. We are very pleased with
the participation involvement and performance by the Cooper/Bergman Group.
Randy Cooper said I have negotiated
leases for the new facility. The tenants
want to know where they will be located so I had to come up with a site
plan. We are getting closer to having
something to present to Planning Commission.
This is a real long piece of property.
One roof line would be very boring and monotonous. We have established varied roof lines and
chimneys to give it character.
Mr.
Osborn said I can’t summarize the number of concepts we have looked at and
there probably will be changes. The plan
has been reviewed twice by staff. We
looked at a number of his properties and selected one that had good eye
appeal. There will probably be some
changes made.
Mr. Knox said you are showing a series
of one-story buildings. Would you
entertain a two-story building?
Mr. Cooper replied I would like to have
a two-story building because of the height.
My experience in second floor office space proved to be economically
difficult, not only because of the fire codes but because of the second floor
economic value. It costs as much or more
to build the second floor.
Architecturally I think it would be a great addition. Parking is also an issue.
Mr. Osborn said there will be a landscape
easement on the corner. We will have a
substantial piece of property that the City will do something with. We still have some money set aside in the
Phase I project that will provide for a planting area and installation of a
Mr. Tulloch said there has been a lot
of work done by CDS. There is other
necessary work going on that you don’t see.
Ordinance 9-2005 passed with seven
affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE
NO. 10-2005 “AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH
32 FORD FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE 2005 FORD MODEL F350 TRUCK POWER TRAIN CAB AND
CHASSIS ONLY AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”
Mr. Danbury made a motion to
adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Ordinance 10-2005 passed with
seven affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE
NO. 11-2005 “AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 152 OF
THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
First reading.
Mr. Osborn said Mr. Galster asked at
the last meeting if the fee changes would impact single family properties. I asked Mr. McErlane to prepare a summary of
the changes and they are very minimal. The
fee structure will still be below
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Parham said at the end of the year I had requested a
motion from Council extending the fact-finding period under our labor
negotiations with the FOP. We are at a
point that we know we are not going to have the contract settled by that
time. I would ask that Council extend
that period until
Mr. Danbury made a motion to extend the fact-finding period
until
NEW BUSINESS - none
MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Board of Zoning Appeals - February 15
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
UPDATE ON LEGISLATION STILL IN DEVELOPMENT
Ordinance 11-2005
RECAP OF LEGISLATIVE ITEMS REQUESTED - none
Council adjourned at
Respectfully
submitted,
Edward F. Knox
Clerk
of Council/Finance Director
Minutes
Approved:
Kathy
McNear, President of Council
__________________________,
2005