President of Council Randy Danbury called Council to order on April 1, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.
The governmental body and those in attendance recited the pledge of allegiance.
Mr. Knox took roll call. Present were Council members Galster, Manis, McNear, Pollitt, Vanover, Wilson and Danbury.
In the minutes of the March 18 Council meeting, Mr. Danbury said on page 6583 it says there was discussion on the idea of expanding Kemper Road to four lanes. On the second line it says we discussed widening the road between Greenlawn and Rt. 4. I just want to make sure that it is understood that Council or the Administration in my opinion has never discussed that. The minutes of March 18, 1998 were approved with 7 affirmative votes.
COMMUNICATIONS - none
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
ORDINANCE NO. 23-1998 "AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR THE RELOCATION OF OVERHEAD POWER LINES AT THE SPRINGDALE MAINTENANCE FACILITY"
Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mrs. McNear seconded. Ordinance 23-1998 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE 24-1998 "ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH PERSONAL COMPUTER SERVICES (PCS) TO PROVIDE NETWORK AND LAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE LOCAL AREA NETWORK AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Ms. Pollitt seconded. Ordinance 24-1998 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
Ms. Manis passed out a draft copy of an ordinance on invisible fences. This was drafted by Ken before we received comments from the City. The only comments we received were from Chief Freland. If you read the ordinance it sounds like we have a leash law but we don't. I think we are going to change paragraph B where the current wording of Section 90.01 does not prohibit a dog being walked without a leash if it is under the physical control of its owner. It could be voice control. We changed paragraph B to say "to roam without any form of visible, effective restraint" instead of positive control and not under the visible, physical control of its owner. Then we put "visible forms of control are leashes, chains, fences and cages." Those are changed in paragraph D as demonstrable voice control will be changed to physical control. We might even want to call out leash there also. It also makes the invisible fences 30 feet from the public right-of-way which is the same as the setbacks we currently have. That basically makes it to the house and does away with any in the front yard. I don't know if we want to do that or not. I also want to know what you think as far as requiring people to post a sign. They could pick it up from the Building Department so they are all the same and you can recognize them right away. Also if we are going to go with the 30 foot setback and none in the front yards, we have to decide if that is for public safety or will the existing ones be grandfathered in. If they have to be taken out will the City pay for it or will the owner have to pay? There are several issues to be discussed before it is finalized.
Mrs. McNear suggested we discuss it at the next meeting after we've had a chance to digest it.
Mr. Vanover said on a corner lot the side yard would have to be treated as a front yard.
Mr. Galster stated some homes are closer than 30 feet to the right-of-way so that would move the fence into the back yard.
Mayor Webster asked for a copy of the current proposed ordinance before the next Council meeting and Ms. Manis said it would be distributed.
Ms. Manis said I asked the mailman what he did if he saw a dog in the front yard and he replied they don't go there at all.
Mr. Galster said as a follow up to residents' concerns on Kemper Road, the meeting was this past Saturday. Is there an update?
Mayor Webster replied we are down to three; the two residents who were here and the Pauzer property.
Mayor Webster said Mr. Parham has given everyone a report on the landmark project.
Mr. Parham stated the attachment lists the pledges for the project. After the February 4 meeting where Mr. Osborn made the presentation to Council and indicated there were 112 pledges, we took some other steps to solicit additional pledges, such as restructuring of the prices, additional mailers, articles in the local media. The new prices are 1-2 bricks, $40; 3-4, $30 and 5 or more at $25 each. To date we have 406 pledges for the 4"x8" bricks for an amount of $13,845. We have received five pledges for the medallion bricks priced at a total of $2,500. We have four pledges for benches at $1,000 each. We have three pledges for trees at $1,000 each for a grand total of $23,345. On March 16 Mr. Shuler provided Council with a breakdown of the cost as you had requested previously and provided alternates if you decided to make deductions to the project.
Mrs. McNear said it's a good start on the collections for it but I don't think we should stop here. I also don't think we should just take this and say okay, let's pay the rest of it. We have a busy season coming up for the City with the parade, festival, pool, etc; and maybe we should get a brick and show people.
Mayor Webster said one resident arrived after we had Communications from the Audience and I know why she is here. It is dealing with this project.
Pam Poindexter, resident on Lafayette Avenue, said I have interest as a resident and also as a monument dealer. I believe this project is a good project and I think a lot of things could be injected into it to make it more interesting. I think it's good for Springdale because there are a lot of citizens who have been here a long time and they've had businesses that are gone because of the expansion of Rt. 4. There is a history behind Springdale and it might be nice to have some of that information put on a brick, like where the Fire Department used to be and where different businesses were on Rt. 4, etc. If you need a sample brick I have that available. I talked with Mayor Webster yesterday and I think it's a good project. I own a monument shop and am particularly interested in the work but as a citizen I am interested too. If you need ideas or different things we would be glad to help you any way we can. For the benches, granite will engrave better than concrete. While you are doing this project I think it would be nice to add a memorial to the policemen and firemen who have passed away because they do a good job for us.
Ms. Manis said this started as a fancy signboard. The majority of us like all of these ideas and we have talked about making it more of a City shrine. We could do so many other things that wouldn't be that much more expensive. We could do a time capsule. I don't know how long people are willing to wait or what they want to make out of it.
Ms. Pollitt said I'm not opposed to the project but I do have a couple of comments that were made to me. Someone asked if on the survey we sent out could we put an insignia that it was from the City.
Mr. Parham responded that we sent the survey to the printer and recognized too late that it did not have any identification.
Ms. Pollitt said I am concerned about all the other projects we have going on. We have two sewer projects and the plans for the Community Center expansion. Do we actually have enough time right now to devote to this?
Mr. Danbury replied we don't have any set time frames. We just wanted to get as much commitment from people as possible.
Mr. Galster said I agree with Mrs. McNear. We should continue to go along getting pledges where we can.
Mayor Webster stated we have been talking about this for 1 1/2 to 2 years. I was led to believe in January when we made the decision to send out the questionnaires that we would make a decision when we got those back in. I really would like for Council to make a decision. I don't know how much more we can do. We made a mailing to every single home in the City. We can mention it in the newsletters. I think all of you are aware that we got 412 responses to the Community Center. That is scheduled for discussion next Wednesday at the special meeting. I don't think I hear anybody say we only got 412 responses so let's not go ahead with the Community Center. We got 418 responses for this and I think there were 4 negative responses. If we don't want to do it, that's fine. I don't think we should leave it open ended. How long are these people going to maintain their interest in doing this. Ms. Manis, you made the comment a couple of meetings ago that we are not going to get enough money out of this to make it go or not go. You are looking at $23,000 with all the effort we put in up to this point. Now I hear people say they don't want to make up that difference. I think that means you would like to walk away from the project and that's what I'd really like to see us do. If this is not a good enough commitment, then let's walk away from the project. We started this as a small project with a budget of around $35,000. It was just a simple sign out here instead of relying on the marquee at the Community Center. If you take Mr. Shuler's numbers from March 16 and start with $152,950 and back out all the deducts it comes out to $26,950. It's even less than our blue sky estimate. If the decision is to build it, then we can continue to get pledges. I think we will get pledges from people who maybe don't even understand what we are doing here. We can have them engraved after they have been laid. I think we will continue to have people sign up long after we've built it. The Administration's recommendation is that we authorize the engineering to build it as presented or we walk away from the project and forget it.
Mr. Wilson said we started with $25,000 and now we're at $150,000. We went with bricks and electronic signs and waterworks and plaques. I think we need to come up with a design and do it. I'm in favor of getting a final engineering design and saying this is what we want to do.
Ms. Manis said my feeling is I would vote no on this as presented at $152,000. I would probably vote for a non-electronic sign and the pavers and the landscape. It doesn't all have to be done right now. I would still like to see more of the monument type things done. I don't know why we couldn't do that later. This project has been on the table for a long time but I don't think the idea of the bricks and community involvement has been that long. The mailing of the fliers was a good indication that people are interested. I think as people started seeing something there, they would get more involved.
Mayor Webster asked can we decided what you want to deduct and have the engineer draw up the specifications for what you want in there minus what Council doesn't want to support?
Ms. Manis replied we could do that but there are other people on here and everybody has to decide. I thought that was what we were doing tonight.
Mayor Webster said I thought we were going to reach a consensus to do it all, part of it or do none of it.
Mrs. McNear said I think the electronic part is an important part. If we have the little letters that somebody has to stick in, it's not going to be used and that's the purpose of this. I think it's important that we have that computer terminal where we can actually key what will go into that sign. Otherwise it will be under-utilized and then it will be a big waste. I'd like to see it go forward but I don't want to pay for the majority of this. There has been a tremendous amount of support for the wall but I don't know whether I'm ready to vote on $100,000 or $150,000 or to pick and choose the different items. I am interested in doing the project.
Mr. Wilson said I'm not so much for the electronic sign because we are not making changes every day. We're talking about somebody going out one day and giving the list of events for that week. I don't think we need to get involved with electronics. That's a costly thing.
Mayor Webster said Mr. Shuler has listed the deducts so if we want to take out the electronic sign we can do that. Our recommendation is to leave it in. You are right, the sign is not going to change every day but it's something that can be changed from a computer terminal. It will be protected from the weather. You don't have to worry about the letters blowing off or vandalism. We feel the electronic sign is justified but if the majority of Council doesn't, let's go without it.
Mr. Wilson said it could be enclosed in glass to protect it from the weather. Vandalism is something we can't control
Ms. Manis said the sign is a big expense, $40,000 out of the $152,000. I was driving around other places and nobody has electronic signs. I think it would be nice but I don't think it's a necessary expense.
Mr. Vanover said there are a lot of things that can be done later. If we drag it on much longer we can throw these figures out because the cost factors are going to change. I think the electronic sign would be a classy marquee. With this being an exterior corner it can become more of a target. I think we need the pavers, benches and trees.
Mr. Danbury said the purpose of the sign is to inform. I think all of the other things we've added are to make it more appealing and attractive. I would love to have an electronic sign but if people are going to vandalize one sign, they will vandalize the other. If it is vandalized maintenance would be less if it is not an electronic sign. We have $23,345 pledged and I believe there is probably that same amount of people who have not turned in their pledges so far. I'd like to go in phases. I'm not for the sign right now. I would like to have a basic sign, something that we can add on to in phases.
Ms. Pollitt asked could someone address the electric charge of $15,180? Is that for the electric part of the sign or the electric to work the plumbing?
Mayor Webster responded that is for anything electric for the project, lights, pumps, etc. If we don't have the water feature we can eliminate the plumbing. If we don't have the electronic sign and we don't want any lights, then we can do away with the electric.
Mr. Shvegzda said the biggest part of the electrical cost you see in the top figures is due to the requirements of the water features. A deduction of that is reflected in the $26,500 figure as some of those items were packaged as deductions.
Mr. Knox said I envisioned a scrolling type sign. Tonight's discussion indicates we will have a single stationary message. Which kind of electronic sign is this?
Mr. Galster replied we will not have a flashing, changing sign. That is not permitted in the City by anyone else.
Mayor Webster said Ms. Manis, you struck a nerve with me when you mentioned the time capsule. I wonder how many of the seven Council members are aware that we have a time capsule in this building that is totally empty. We are 5 1/2 years into the occupancy of this building and we have an empty time capsule.
Ms. Manis said she would take that on as a project.
Mayor Webster said we talked about taking money out of the Urban Forestry Fund. Mr. Galster, I had to leave the room but I know you brought this subject up with the Target rezoning.
Mr. Galster replied with Target's inability to replant the trees and the fact that our tree program is adequately funded for replacement of street trees, the determination was made that we would ask for that donation to go to some city beautification fund. We have a commitment of $35,000 to $38,000.
In response to Mayor Webster, Mr. Knox said the balance of the fund is $50,000, plus interest. Mayor Webster said they have brought this up with this developer. What if, from this point on, we change the name of that fund, or if someone thinks we have a commitment to use that for trees, then we start a new fund for urban beautification and from now on we ask Planning Commission to use their discretion as to whether they think it's an area that needs trees replaced or if, in this case, it could go to an urban beautification fund, and we earmark that money for this project.
Mr. Galster said in Planning Commission we have made some comments to a couple of the applicants. I believe Duke was there at the meeting when this was asked and they were open to discussing contributions to this type of project. There was another gentleman who made a commitment also. It is something that could be brought up but I think it is something that takes some time. I think it's important to wait until the project is approved, denied, etc.
Mayor Webster said it's in our code that they have to replace so many caliper inches and if they don't, Planning has the leeway to give them relief but also to assess a dollar amount that they have to contribute to the Urban Forestry Fund. I'm asking could we change the code so that Planning Commission can decide if it goes to the tree fund or the Urban Beautification Fund?
Mr. Galster replied I don't think there is anything in our ordinances right now that prohibits us from using the tree fund for whatever we want.
Mayor Webster said if nobody has a problem with that we have $70,000 with another $35,000 coming and $25,000 in pledges. I don't think we are going to break the bank if we do this and I don't think the citizens of the City are going to do without some much needed service if we build this.
Mr. Galster said I have a problem with building in stages. I think if we are going to do something we should do it and do it right. If it means we have to wait a little bit which I'm more in favor of, then I think we should. We haven't gone after the business community at all. We have a cost of $152,000. We have $24,000 in pledges; $35,000 in the beautification fund. If we look at a conservative estimate of doubling the pledges we have that's another $24,000 and we're down to $60,000. And we haven't even tapped the business community at all or touched the tree fund which I don't particularly want to do. It's not out of the realm of financial possibilities to do this and do it right. If we vote to do this as it is right now, I'm surely not going to vote to put out a sign that we'll use as the holding pattern and then build from there.
Mr. Wilson stated I think whatever we do, we will do it tastefully. If we decide to go with a non-electronic sign it's going to be done tastefully. We do expansions on our homes and public buildings and it's tastefully done so I don't think if we start small and expand, that it's going to look tacky. To me to spend $40,000 for an electronic sign with four lines on it when you can do it manually just as tastefully at a lesser cost, spend the money on something else. I'm not in favor of the electronic sign. I don't feel comfortable with taking the money out of the tree fund and not spending it on trees or landscaping. We're taking down trees and we have an ordinance that says a certain amount of trees has to be, and then we're going to use the money for something other than trees or landscaping. That defeats the purpose of having that ordinance.
Mr. Vanover said the staging can be done but you have to plan for it. If we are going to add water then we have to put the conduit in the ground and have it ready. Otherwise you may have to take up pavers to put it down. You don't want to have a nice looking facility and then tear it up.
Mr. Danbury asked Council do we want to make a decision tonight or do we want to continue to advertise and go after some of the business community, show some of the bricks we have? If we make a decision we need a dollar level that we would be comfortable with.
Mrs. McNear said we should do the whole wall at one time and if we have to give something up it would be the water. Even though it would be very aesthetically pleasing, it's not a necessity and it's a major chunk of money. I don't think we should do it piecemeal. I don't have a problem making a decision tonight but I think it will be difficult getting everyone to agree on what goes in. It seems like the major issues are electronic, non-electronic and the water feature. We also have the issue of going piecemeal or not. Perhaps we should take a hand vote of who wants what. I don't think you can do it any other way except to come in with an ordinance and it's going to be defeated that way.
Mr. Wilson said we need to vote on each item as to whether we want it now, want it later or not at all. I think we've all agreed that we want the pavers, the medallion, the trees and the bench. The discussion is centering around the electronic sign and the water feature.
Ms. Manis suggested everybody write down what they want and give it to Administration. If there is a majority of anything we have an ordinance at the next meeting.
Mr. Danbury said this caught me off guard and I wasn’t even ready to discuss this tonight. I'd like to wait one more meeting.
Mr. Galster stated I am in favor of waiting and seeing if the difference is $20,000.
Mayor Webster said I don't have a problem in waiting another year. I want some ideas from Council about how you go about soliciting more support for this. I think we have exhausted our means as far as the residents are concerned. I think you need to look at what the pavers are doing. We got accused earlier of trying to make a profit on the pavers. They came on the scene to try to raise money to offset the cost of this. Right now, if we put concrete in lieu of pavers and no engraving that would save us $51,500. We have $23,000 in pledges and if we double that we now have $46,000 but we're still losing money on the pavers.
Mr. Galster said it's still a good idea.
Mayor Webster said I think your water is a good idea. There are no bad ideas here. It's a matter of feeling comfortable spending this money for these good ideas.
Mrs. McNear said the pavers without names makes it wall with a walkway. The wall with pavers makes it a community project. I think we should do that even if we lose money on it. That makes all of us have ownership in it and it's a source of pride. Rt. 4 is supposedly the entrance way to the City. I have lived here almost thirty years of my life and that's not where most people think it is even though it's where our complex is. If you want to make it a source of pride I'll lose money on that piece. I'll give up the water.
Mr. Vanover asked what would be the possibility of incorporating a granite/marble memorial that can be engraved. We probably can do it more economically. It's not going to be visible from the street so the people will have to be on the property to see it. We've got the landscape grade that we could make work to our advantage. We have an expert in the crowd if Council is interested in exploring that possibility.
Mr. Danbury said for me the biggest hold up to this project is the cost. When you look at putting up granite or marble you will be quadrupling the cost.
Mr. Vanover responded versus an individual paver that has to be etched? What's a 4"x8" slab of granite? They are etched chemically so they can be added or deleted. If we're going to spend the dollar let's get more bang for our buck.
Mr. Danbury said if we go back to granite or marble, should the list of pledges we have now be thrown out?
Mr. Vanover replied we should take this interest and roll that over to the new form, having a wall instead of individual paving stones. Instead of a walkway of fame we'll have a wall of fame.
Ms. Pollitt said I'm really not in favor of the water feature at all and I was wondering if we could have a sign company give us some information on the electronic sign. I thought it was one of those running sign.
Mayor Webster gave Ms. Pollitt literature on the sign.
Mr. Parham said the sign being proposed was prepared by a sign company. They provided the design of the sign and the figures.
Ms. Pollitt stated I could support this sign but I would want to do away with the water feature at this point.
Mr. Galster made a motion to table the discussion until April 15, 1998. Mr. Wilson seconded. The motion passed with 7 affirmative votes.
Mr. Parham said he had distributed earlier a memo relative to our 1998/1999 health insurance renewal. We have received the quotes and unless the rates have changed the contract continues to roll over. If the rates change we bring it back before Council. We have a self-funded program in which we have a third party administrator who administrates the program. The City pays all claims. There is a specific limit of $25,000 per individual in the group and then there is an aggregate attachment point whereby the insurance company comes up with a monthly figure per employee and factors that out over the total number of employees. That's our worst case scenario for claims. Once we exceed that point the reinsurance kicks in. The rates for the administrative part of the plan have not changed. The only reason I've brought it back and am requesting legislation is that there was one addition. The federal government passed a new law referred to as HIPPA and under HIPPA, the employer is required to provide a certificate to any employees who have left the employment. The third party administrator will handle that for us. That is $1.00 per certificate.
Our contract year runs from May 1 to April 30. In our contract year of 1996/1997 we experienced our worst year of being part of a self-funded program where our attachment point was $494,000. Unfortunately we exceeded the $600,000 limit. We received a number of reimbursements back from the reinsuror. When you reach that point with them, then your rates will reflect it in the next year. Our rates did increase last year. In the present year our claims are down to about $400,000 at the end of February. We still have March and April to come in. Because our renewal is May 1 I have to ask them to supply that information to me as soon as possible so we can bring the legislation before Council and have it passed. We are currently paying $27.97 for a single and $67.88 for a family. The monthly renewal rates, because we are below that attachment point, are down to $25.64 for a single and $62.26 for a family. I think these numbers are good numbers. I've asked that the third party administrator go back to the market to see how we can do. These numbers are slightly higher than one of the insurance companies that chose to bid. The reason I recommend that we stay with U. S. Benefits is because the difference is $400.00. The labor in making that change is not worth the $400.00 and you run the risk of leaving some of your employees unprotected for making the change at those rates. They have worked with us very well over the years. I ask that we have legislation for both the administration and stop-loss rates at the next meeting.
Mr. Parham continued that I received communication that Champion Windows has filed for a enterprise zone agreement with the City of Sharonville. They will be leaving the City of Springdale and their new facility there. Their current facility is 80,000 square feet. They have indicated that they could probably get by at this location for a couple more years. They also have a site in Woodlawn that is soon to be busting at the seams. They have had to construct a temporary structure outside of that building to handle their storage. They can't make any move right now because they are going into the busiest part of their season. Their rationale is if they are going to make a move of one of their facilities, why not move them together and put them in close proximity. They currently have 123 employees with a $6.9 million payroll in Springdale. It's unfortunate that they are leaving the community but where they are currently located, we just don't have the ability to allow them to expand and are unable to locate any other site to meet their requirements.
Ms. Manis reported that the slide and mushroom are up at the pool if anyone would like to take a look.
Mr. Danbury stated that we have a request for a liquor license transfer from Norwood for Cost Plus. It is a C1/C2 - beer and wine carry out.
Mr. Vanover said we hashed this out at the last meeting and would not issue a letter of approval. My feeling is to let this go through without at least noting that we contest it is improper. I know our hands are tied and there is not a whole lot we can do, but I disagree.
Mr. Danbury said let the record show that Council does not approve this.
Mrs. McNear said as Ms. Manis stated, we haven't done anything with these in the past because we really can't do anything with them. Do I mind? Yes I mind. Am I going to make a fuss about it? No.
Ms. Pollitt said I would like to go on record saying I don't agree with it either.
Mayor Webster said if four members of Council oppose it, Mr. Knox has an obligation to return the request and check the box saying we request a hearing on the advisability of issuing a permit. Then we'll go down and make our case; that we don't appreciate Springdale being a dumping ground for liquor licenses.
Mr. Galster made a motion to request a hearing on the advisability of issuing a permit and request that the hearing be held in our county seat. Mr. Vanover seconded.
The motion failed 4-3.
Mr. Knox said I have a letter from the Ohio Department of Commerce and I'll read the first paragraph and next sentence. "The purpose of this letter is to notify you that all permits to sell alcoholic beverages in your political subdivision will expire on June 1, 1998. In order to retain permit privileges every permit holder must file a renewal application. The ORC provides legislative authority with the right to object to the renewal of a permit and request a hearing." I'll make copies of this and give it to each Council member. We have to do something before June 1 if we want to do something.
MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Planning Commission April 14, 7:00 p.m.
Board of Zoning Appeals April 21, 7:00 p.m.
Board of Health April 9, 7:00 p.m.
Mayor's Night In April 22, 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Schneider said Lisa Rammes will be here at the next meeting. I will be in Ecuador on a medical missionary trip for 17 days.
Mr. Parham said next Wednesday at 7:00 will be the presentation of the Community Center survey results.
Ms. Manis asked will there be a plan presented at the meeting?
Mr. Parham replied no, this meeting is for CDS to present the results of the survey and at the same time to have some open discussion with the residents as to feedback on the survey, items they may want to see at the Community Center.
Mayor Webster said we promised the residents we would have a town meeting for residents to voice their pleasure or displeasure.
Mr. Galster asked is it from this meeting that we move forward to the next stage as far as getting the actual plan together?
Mayor Webster replied I think that is exactly right. I think this will be the last opportunity before the June 3 meeting when CDS is supposed to make a presentation.
Mr. Parham said I think what will happen at the June 3 meeting is to take the information those who went on the field trip gathered and made comments to; the information back from the survey; and the information and comments back from next Wednesday's meeting and put that together so that they can then provide a plan for City Council to either give some direction or move forward on June 3.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
Ms. Poindexter said if there is anything I can help you with or give you direction if you decide to go with granite I will be glad to help you.
UPDATE ON LEGISLATION STILL IN DEVELOPMENT
Underground fences - resolution soon
Public news rack - still open
Codification for ordinances - first reading next meeting
Adopting supplement to code- first reading next meeting
RECAP OF LEGISLATIVE ITEMS REQUESTED FOR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING
Third party administration services for health and dental -next meeting
Self-funded health insurance program -next meeting
Mr. Schneider said I suggest we hold off the supplementing the recodification and the changes until the department directors have had a chance to review it and we get their responses back. We've incorporated everything in it and that may need to be discussed. Rather than have a first reading and have to make changes I'd rather have it in final form before it comes to Council. I'd like to set that off until the first meeting in May for a first reading and a second reading the following meeting.
Council adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Edward F. Knox
Clerk of Council/Finance Director
Randy Danbury, President of Council