President of Council Kathy McNear
called Council to order on
The governmental body and those in
attendance recited the pledge of allegiance.
Mr. Knox took roll call. Present were Council members Galster, Squires,
Vanover, Wilson and McNear. Mrs. Harlow and Mr. Danbury were absent.
The minutes of
COMMUNICATIONS - none
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE
NO. 59-2006 ORDINANCE NO. 59-
“REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 40-2004 OF THE CITY OF
Mr. Galster made a motion to read
by title only and Mr. Vanover seconded.
The motion passed with five affirmative votes.
Mr. Vanover made a motion to
adopt and Mr. Galster seconded.
Brenda Weimer stated this
ordinance repeals the bond authority passed two years ago. It is better if the Port Authority issues the
bond. Ordinance 40-2004 should be taken
off the books. If something should
change and the Port Authority does not close the bond, we could issue a new ordinance. The resolution is declaring the necessity of
the special assessment. The Port was
asked by the owner to manage the assessment to pay for the garage. If the TIF is not enough to make the
payments, the assessment will cover.
Ms. Weimer said the next item is
the ordinance determining to proceed with the special assessment. Usually you would address the resolution of
necessity at one meeting and then have some time before addressing the
ordinances. In this case, the property
owner has requested the assessment by petition rather than Council determining
to impose this on a rental property.
They have waived all notice periods, public hearing periods and all the
procedural matters to allow you to address the Port Authority and resolution at
the same Council meeting.
Ms. Weimer continued the third
item is to actually levy the assessment because they are the sole property
owner. You can levy the whole thing
against one person. They have waived their right to pay the
assessment in thirty days and want you to immediately certify it to the
Mayor Webster said if we don’t
get a special assessment payment, then we don’t send anything.
Ms. Weimer responded you are not
required to come up with a certain amount of money. You are merely required to send what you get.
Mayor Webster asked, in your
opinion, are we in better shape now than if the bonds were issued in the name
of
Ms. Weimer replied yes, because
you are not the issuer. It doesn’t go on
your balance sheet against your credit.
There’s also now being imposed a second layer of revenue payments
through you. Special assessments are
adding to the TIF revenue to make them even more liquid. You won’t be the issuer of the bonds so the
bond holders will not look to the City of
Mayor Webster asked do the
special assessments run with the term of the bonds?
Ms. Weimer replied yes, they are
set up for forty-eight semi-annual payments because that’s how the
Mayor Webster asked are we in
better shape for Phase III? Are we
still bound by the original service agreement?
Ms. Weimer stated this does
nothing to affect Phase III. These only
address Phase II. You will have to
address Phase III at a different time.
Mayor Webster said this has been
a long and complicated situation. It has
been eight to ten years since we started talking with the developer. The principal is now deceased. A lot of things have happened. I can’t say enough for the work that Mr.
Knox, Ms. Weimer, Mr. Schneider’s office and the Port Authority have done. The bonds will not be in the name of
Mr. Wilson said we’ve heard all
the positives about the Port Authority issuing the bonds instead of the City
but what does it cost us?
Ms. Weimer said you lose control
of some revenue because you have to turn it over. Right now there are no
excess revenues and no expectations that there will be. If there are, they will go back to the
parties that have paid shortfall payments.
The fees are to be paid by
involving other parties. There are
additional legal fees coming out of project revenues. Since this is not currently cash flowing, it
is really the developer’s last property owner who has to foot that bill.
Mr. Parham asked what about the
agreement between the developer and the school district.
Ms. Weimer said that agreement is
still in place. Right now you are
receiving the money from the
Mr. Knox said we would pay the
school district within fifteen business days.
Now we will send it to the trustees in seven days and they will pay the
school the next day.
Ordinance 59-2006 passed with
five affirmative votes.
RESOLUTION
R11-2006 “A
RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NECESSITY OF ACQUIRING AND CONSTRUCTING CERTAIN PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN COOPERATION WITH THE PORT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”
Mr.
Galster made a motion to read by title only and Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with five affirmative
votes.
Mr.
Knox stated Mr. Schneider had inserted in more than one location this
statement. “The obligations of the City under this agreement do not and shall
not represent or constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and creditor taxing
power of the City., and the authority, the Trustees and holders of the bonds,
do not have and shall not have any right to the taxes levied by the City for
payment of City contributions. City
contributions are as they were described by Ms. Weimer. They are things that come to us and we pass
them on. Later on it does say that no personal liability for any administrative council or any
other person associated with the City . . .
In other words, people can’t sue you as an individual. If any suits do come up there is a statement
that says administrative expenses allowed under the trust indenture include
other reasonable expenses, including legal fees incurred by the Authority or
the City to comply with their obligations.
We do have some overhead obligations but they are actually less than
what we had before. Three types of
payments make up the bond payment:
service payments in lieu of taxes, special assessment, and supplemental
payments. If they make a mistake on the
estimate of how much they need to pay the bonds, the administrator will see
this and call upon the owner to send more money. Annually, the administrator will send figures
to Mr. Williams. This is what we
estimate will be needed for the special assessment. The petition puts the owner up for 100
percent. If the owner does not pay any
taxes the special assessment will be 100 percent of the estimated cost. We will that percentage into an amount in
dollar figures called the City reduction amount, and will present an ordinance
to Council for your approval. If Mr.
Williams doesn’t like the figures the administrator sends to him, he doesn’t
have to accept them. He can negotiate
with them what is the best and truest figure.
Mr.
Squires made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Resolution
R11-2006 passed with five affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE
NO. 41-2006 “ORDINANCE
DETERMINING TO PROCEED WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO CERTAIN PROPERTY, AS DESCRIBED IN
RESOLUTION NO. R11-2006 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”
Mr. Galster made a motion to read
by title only and Mr. Squires seconded.
The motion passed with five affirmative votes.
Mr. Galster made a motion to
adopt and Mr. Squires seconded.
Ordinance 41-2006 passed with
five affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE
NO. 42-2006 “AN
ORDINANCE LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”
Mr. Galster made a motion to read by title only and Mr.
Squires seconded. The motion passed
with five affirmative votes.
Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt and Mr. Squires
seconded.
Ordinance 42-2006 passed with five affirmative votes.
Mr.
Knox said it was necessary for the ordinances and Resolution R11-2006 to be out
of order because we had to get rid of Ordinance 40-2004, then have the
resolution before ordinances 41 and 42.
ORDINANCE NO. 56-2006 “AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF
COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
Mr.
Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr. Wilson seconded.
Mr.
Galster said this will be first come, first served for the extra space.
Ordinance
56-2006 passed with five affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO. 57-2006 “AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF
Mr.
Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded.
Ordinance
57-2006 passed with five affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO. 58-2006 “PRELIMINARY LEGISLATION ORDINANCE
58-2006 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”
Mr.
Galster made a motion to read by title only and Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with five affirmative
votes.
Mr. Knox
said this is a State document. The City
is responsible for 100 percent of the engineering, right-of-way, and non-state
and non-federal construction.
Mr.
Galster said this an ordinance authorizing the City to
enter into an agreement with ODOT under the Urban Paving Program to repave SR4
from the south edge of the Glensprings intersection, north to a point
approximately 800 feet south of the Crescentville intersection. The anticipated costs were $103,006 with ODOT
contributing approximately $131,104
Mr.
Galster made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Ordinance
58-2006 passed with five affirmative votes.
RESOLUTION R15-2006 “COMMENDING THE
Mr. Galster made a motion to table
and Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion
passed with five affirmative votes.
OLD BUSINESS - none
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Knox said R. W. Junkiness asked for a transfer of their liquor license from
R. W. Junkiness Companies to the Gilligan Oil Company
at 11595 Princeton Pike. There were no
objections.
MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Planning Commission - August 8
Board of Zoning Appeals - August 15
Bicentennial parade - August 23
Mayor Webster reported I received a letter from Dusty
Rhodes. They had an unspent balance of
$14 million in the auditor’s real estate assessment fund and they returned
$25,812.61 to the City. The check was
received yesterday and goes into the general fund.
Mr. Knox said in Today’s Tri-County Press they quoted the
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
UPDATE ON LEGISLATION STILL IN DEVELOPMENT - none
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
__________________________,
2006