President of Council
The governmental body and those in attendance recited the pledge of allegiance.
Mr. Knox took roll call. Present were Council members
The minutes of
Mr. Knox read a communication from
Mr. Shuler, CDS, announcing his retirement effective
Mr. Knox said the second letter is from Time Warner Cable that they are going to increase the rates. The basic rate will have no change; standard rate increases $2.18 in the upcoming year.
Mayor Webster said I received a
Mr. Danbury said you were elected
Mr. White replied no. Since I’m the boss I can set my own
schedule. Mr. Gaines is still a
magistrate for the City of
Mr. Schneider said Mr. White has a very high respect by the legal community and is well thought of in the circles he travels in.
Mayor Webster said the salary will be $16,500 annually. He would be covered by PERS but receive no other City benefits.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE NO. 53-2005 “AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH LIFESPHERE, INC., PROVIDING FOR SENIOR RECREATIONAL SERVICES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY”
Mr. Squires made a motion to adopt and Mr. Danbury seconded.
Mr. Wilson said I thought in one of the readings I went through it said up to $50,000 for up to two years.
Mr. Schneider said it’s in the agreement but we can insert that in the ordinance if you want.
Mr. Osborn stated just for clarity it wouldn’t hurt to insert “a year” after $50,000.
Mr. Vanover made a motion to add “a year” to the ordinance and Ms. Pollitt seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.
Mr. Danbury said Maple Knoll will move their Bingo to the Greenhills American Legion.
Mayor Webster said just so there is no misunderstanding this does not allow non-residents to use our swimming pool or the fitness center. It does allow them to use the racquetball court, the walking track and use the club rooms or outside activities.
Ms. Pollitt said this is a good use of our Community Center.
Mayor Webster said I spent
the day at the Community Center for the Chamber of Commerce Business and
Community Expo. There were 19
businesses, four City booths and four food establishments. There was an
extraordinary number of older residents who patronized that event. There was a lot of buzz about what’s going on
here and the possibility of the growth of the Springdale Senior Citizens Club. It makes you feel good to talk to that many
Ordinance 53-2005 passed with seven affirmative votes.
Ms. Pollitt made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Ordinance 54-2005 passed with seven affirmative votes.
Mr. Osborn stated at the last meeting we had an open period for people who may have suggestions or proposals for applications related to the Community Block Grant Fund application years 2006 through 2008. The discussion portion tonight relates to the three applications that the City is recommending and the priority we have for those.
Mr. Osborn said there are three projects that the City is recommending. The first one is the modification to the Community Center. Anticipating that there will be a successful expansion of our senior programming, we looked at what we might be able to do to better accommodate that growth. We want to expand the meeting rooms, create a new hallway and create a new room on the other side of the hallway that would be available for senior activities. Even though we are taking part of the storage room there is still enough room for the batting cage and the golf cage that are in there now. Because we already have heating and ventilation into what is now the storage area, the cost to do the modifications are relatively low at $165,000. That cost will include new sinks and cabinetry in meeting rooms A and C as well as in the new senior activity room. It will create storage space in that room as well for the senior citizen activities. The meeting rooms will go from a combined total of 1,081 square feet to 2,104 square feet. The senior activity room will be 950 square feet. This means we are adding a total of 1,373 additional usable square feet. The total square feet added and renovated is 3,090. This would be our first priority. Senior citizens are moderate to low income persons by the definitions the Community Block Grant Program uses. It’s a one-time use expense which means there is not on-going funding related to the application and it is a fairly straightforward proposal.
The second priority would be the acquisition of real estate in the City’s southern urban renewal district. When we created that district and acquired property for the CMHA Senior Housing Project there were two parcels that we did not acquire at that time. We believe that acquisition of those parcels would be instrumental in causing an economic redevelopment of that area. The goal would be to retain the multi-doctor medical practice and veterinary clinic that are in that area, but also see additional retail and office space created that would benefit the senior citizens living in Baldwin Grove, the CMHA site, but also at the Maple Knoll and Meadows facilities. That’s our second priority. The numbers are pretty high so I’m not too optimistic. We would be asking for assistance in acquiring two parcels that have a total appraised value of $345,000.
Mr. Osborn said the third application would be for funding
related to the senior programmer we would employ to manage our senior
programming at the Community Center in 2006.
Wages, benefits, etc. has an expense projected at $42,797. We plan to apply for that amount each year
for three years for a total of $128,392.
While on the surface it would seem to be an eligible expense, and it is,
Ms. Pollitt said the third item would be paid over a three-year period of time. Would the first two items be split that way? Do they prefer to have it broken down over three years?
Mr. Osborn replied I suggest we apply for priority number 1 in fiscal year 2006 and also priority 2. They prefer it to be broken down over the three years and the third one is very easily broken down. The construction cannot be broken down. We could push the real estate out into 2007.
Mr. Danbury made a motion to approve the application and prioritization of the projects. Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
Mr. Osborn said earlier this year we made application under the Municipal Road Fund and SCIP for an improvement project on SR 747 in the I-275 area that has a price tag of $919,000. This would cause the full depth repair and resurfacing of the area between the terminus of the grade separation project and the eastbound I-275 exit ramp. The results have come out on the grading of all applications. We rank seventh and the top eleven should score well enough to be funded. The appeal process has not yet run but I think it would take a considerable amount of jockeying projects around to bump us out. I think it’s fairly safe to say that it looks like we’re going to get funding in 2006 on this project. The breakdown for that project would be $367,600 from OPWC in the form of SCIP funding, $183,800 from the Municipal Road Fund and $367,600 from the City. Sixty percent of that funding will be from outside. East Kemper Road Phase 3 is a two-year, $2 million project. Fifty percent of Phase 3 is budgeted for 2006 and now we’ve budgeted for this project so we will have two OPWC projects underway at the same time so we will have a fairly substantial capital budget next year.
Mayor Webster said I had a report form the Police Chief informing us that things went extremely well during Halloween. There were no incidents. There were two officers on bikes and three auxiliary officers as part of the patrol.
Mr. Osborn said I am requesting an
ordinance authorizing an agreement with Cincinnati Water Works regarding the
incorporation of their thirty-six inch transmission main into the East Kemper
Road Phase 3 construction. The phase
being built this past year was on Chesterdale and the next phase goes along
Mr. Osborn continued, we received a communication from Brenda Weimer. Peck, Shaffer, Williams has been serving as our advisor and bond counsel on an as needed basis. They would like to establish a relationship with us through an engagement letter. We have that document and draft ordinance and would like to have that ordinance at the next Council meeting.
Mayor Webster said he would like contracts renewed with Jonathan Smith, Public Defender; John Flessa, Prosecutor; and Magistrate Don White.
Mr. Danbury said I assume there will be positions on boards and commissions that are up for reappointment. We might want to consider that at our next meeting.
Mayor Webster said on
Mr. Parham stated in the second
meeting of March 2005 Council adopted Ordinance 15-2005, the regulation of spot
blight for the community. We discussed
that this would be a situation where this is a last ditch effort. We will try to exhaust all other measures prior
to moving to this point. We have
exhausted the City’s resources time and time again. As Mayor Webster indicted the property
Mr. Parham said the steps are that the Administration is to issue a report to Council which is the letter I issued to you this evening. Council is to schedule a public hearing no sooner than thirty days and no later than forty-five days to give Mr. Anderson an opportunity to present any evidence he may have as to why his property should not be identified as a blighted premise. Your Council meeting of December 7th would fall right into the timeline. Once Council has established the hearing date, then the Clerk of Council/Finance Director is to issue a notice to Mr. Anderson notifying him of the time and place and his right to be heard. He would have the right to present evidence and witnesses and the City shall have that same opportunity. If he fails to show for that hearing, the Administration has the ability to present any evidence and/or witnesses to demonstrate why this property is considered a blighted premise and why we feel compelled that the property should be acquired. At that hearing this letter that was presented this evening must be read and then each party gets their opportunity to present their case. The Council has the ability at any time to take a recess, to continue the hearing or make the decision on that particular evening.
Ms. Pollitt asked will the neighbors in close proximity of this house be notified of the public hearing in writing?
Mr. Parham replied yes. I think it is important to identify the neighbors and give them the opportunity to attend the hearing as well as any former neighbors who had resided in that area. We believe that some former residents of that area were so disgusted with the lack of upkeep of that property that they chose to relocate to other areas.
Ms. Pollitt said I hope some of them will take the opportunity to come and speak about this.
Mr. Danbury said I have spoken with a lot of residents who are upset with some of the conditions of some of the housing stock around here. They feel as though it is going down. I assured them that we are trying to identify and correct certain things. We can’t see things in the back yards in some places but it is very vital for the City to handle these situations. The person in question has been given ample opportunity to correct everything.
Mr. Knox asked is Mr. Anderson current on his real estate taxes?
Mr. Parham replied I don’t know. Mr. Knox said I will look into that.
Mayor Webster stated you can look into that but I don’t think it has any bearing on the subject. After Council makes their decision and I assume it’s the position the Administration is advocating, what is the next step?
Mr. Osborn responded if Council declares this property to be blighted under our definition and authorizes the Administration to pursue the acquisition, we would certainly make an effort to negotiate an acquisition. I don’t think that will be successful. Council’s decision could authorize us to pursue condemnation of the property. That just gets us up to the starting line. By finding this property blighted and authorizing the condemnation, you are giving us direction to start pursuing that condemnation process. The Law Director can then institute the necessary notices and actions. We would eventually have to adopt legislation stating our intent to acquire through condemnation. The process would go directly from here to court but the fact that we’ve held a public hearing and given the individual an opportunity to discuss the issue before Council to persuade Council not to take the step of declaring the property blighted weighs in our favor especially if we have evidence from the community, people who come forward and say this has been an on-going nuisance for the past decade. We do know people who have moved out of the community because they did not want to live near this home anymore. We can use those same witnesses in our case downtown.
Mr. Vanover made a motion to
schedule a public hearing for
MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Planning Commission - November 8
Board of Health - November 10
Board of Zoning Appeals - November 15
Mr. Osborn said I wanted to follow up on the Springdale Chamber’s Expo. It was very well organized and executed. I was very impressed with the response from the business community, the number represented and the crowd that was there. We hope this was the first of an annual event.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
Mr. Danbury made a motion that Council go into executive session as a committee of the whole to discuss personnel matters and possible real estate acquisition. Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.
Council went into executive session at and reconvened at
Council adjourned at
Edward F. Knox
Clerk of Council/Finance Director
Kathy McNear, President of Council