President of Council Randy Danbury called Council to order on July 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.

The minutes of June 17, 1998 were approved with 7 affirmative votes.


Letter to Mr. Randy Danbury: "I wanted to send a short note to thank the City Council for its consideration and decision on the pet containment system issue. I feel the councilís final decision is in the best interest of all the residents of Springdale. I especially wanted to thank the council for taking time and showing interest in the concerns of myself and the other residents that came to speak. Sincerely, Barbara J. Ortman"

Letter to Springdale City Council: "This letter is in regards to the expansion planned for the Springdale Community Center. I was present at the council meeting when it was decided to make the expansion a top priority for may reasons, the primary being lack of available gym time and space. I also attended the Town Meeting in which the needs were outlined and the decision was made to move forward and have plans drawn. I will be honest. When I left that meeting I may have been a little naïve but I was under the impression that what was proposed was going to be built. Imagine my surprise when I attended the council meeting of June 17th and listened to the new options that were presented. It seemed to me that in this meeting most of the focus was on option #4 (which appeared to be a "scaled down" version of the proposed expansion). I listened to different council members ask about the ability to expand on option #4. I found it odd that the building had not been built yet and already we were looking at expansion options. Why would we build a building that we already are aware is not going to meet our needs 5 or 10 years down the road? With the way costs go up every year, I canít understand how it can be cost effective for the City to expand 10 years from now versus biting the bullet and building with the future in mind. I was hoping that with the addition of meeting rooms, multipurpose rooms and a double gym, that the staff at the Community Center could use their talents and come up with new programs that are not just sports related and the facility would truly become a Community Center. I also believe that with the addition of another gym the amount of practice time could be increased allowing the children playing to learn more and in turn they would also be more competitive against other communities. I spend quite a bit of time at the Community Center so this is obviously something I feel very strongly about. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. Sincerely, Sandy Burt"

Letter to Mayor Doyle Webster: After the council meeting of June 17, 1998, I was disappointed to learn that there were additional, cost cutting options proposed in the expansion of the Community Center. I am certain that each person residing in Springdale has their own opinions as to where these cuts could be made. I would like to hope that before Council makes a final decision to deviate from what the Recreation Center Staff worked long and hard to determine were the communityís needs, that they would choose the option that will benefit all members of our community.

Gym time is just one part of this expansion. It would certainly be nice not to have to rely on the availability of the Heritage Hill Elementary School for basketball practice times to be scheduled because there are just not enough time slots in the gym at the Recreation Center. It would be nice to have organized sports practices scheduled before 7:00 p.m. on school nights particularly for children still in elementary school. "Open" gym time is also a rarity during the winter months. I would like to hope that council would consider only the options that best serve all members of the community without cutting back to the point that alterations to a project this size would have to be considered in the near future. Sincerely, Sally Wilson"


Jim Warner said I would like to review with you variations for Option 4 in regards to meeting room space. We kept intact all private offices, conference and working space but we were able to introduce a meeting room next to the art room. We now have five meeting rooms between existing and proposed on each of the four options. The adult gathering room was not considered to be meeting rooms but thatís certainly a possibility for Options 1 and 2. We were able to get more meeting room space without increasing the footprint of the building or impacting the budget. Mr. Warner showed the comparisons between the four options.


Feature comparison

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

3 stories

3 stories

2 stories

2 stories

70,384 sq. ft

74,500 sq. ft.

68,236 sq. ft.

59,036 sq. ft.

double gym/2nd floor

double gym/2nd floor

double gym/1st floor

oversized single gym/1st floor

1/12 mi. running track over double gym

1/10 mi. running track over gym/lobby area

1/12 mi. track over gym

1/12 mi. over single gym/lobby

dance room Ė 2748 sq. ft.

dance room Ė

2748 sq. ft.

dance room Ė

2500 sq. ft.

dance room Ė

2500 sq. ft.

equipped exercise Ė3079 sq. ft.

equipped exercise Ė 3079 sq. ft.

equipped exercise Ė 2500 sq. ft.

equipped exercise Ė 2500 sq. ft.

teen game room

2000 sq. ft.

teen game room

2000 sq. ft.

teen game room Ė 1800 sq. ft.

teen game room Ė 1600 sq. ft.*

meeting rooms Ė 1465 sq. ft. (3 meeting rooms)

meeting rooms Ė

1465 sq. ft. (3 meeting rooms)

meeting room Ė 870 sq. ft.

meeting room Ė 870 sq. ft.

storage/flexible space - 3669 sq. ft. Ė can accommodate batting cage

storage/flexible space Ė 3669 sq. ft. Ė can accommodate batting cage

storage/flexible space Ė current equipped exercise room

storage/flexible space Ė current equipped exercise room

80 parking spaces added

80 parking spaces added

100 parking spaces added

79 spaces added

adult recreation

adult recreation

not available

not available

existing locker rooms + family locker room Ė pool dedicated locker rooms

existing locker rooms + family locker room Ė pool dedicated locker rooms

existing locker rooms + family locker room

existing locker rooms + family locker room

child care

child care

child care

child care

adult gathering room

adult gathering room



storage room Ė 280 sq. ft. additional

storage room Ė 280 sq. ft. additional

storage room Ė 756 sq. ft.

storage room Ė 756 sq. ft.

* Existing game room is 1000 sq. ft.

Cost Comparison


Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Hard Costs

$7.46 million

$7.8 million

$6.8 million

$5.7 million

Soft Costs





Prel. Design

$ 75,000

$ 80,000

$ 70,000

$ 60,000

Final Construction Plans/Specs.





Construction Administration





Construction Observer





Pre-Construction Testing/Misc. Design Costs





Grand Total

$8.94 million

$9.35 million

$8.18 million

$6.89 million

Mr. Galster said according to the revision we were handed today, the study room and meeting room become the teen study area. The family locker rooms are not included in the drawings I have.

Mr. Warner replied we are trying to figure out a way to do that but we havenít worked out the details yet.

Ms. Pollitt asked why a specific area in Option 3 and 4 is not utilized.

Mr. Warner stated we were looking at ways to reduce costs. Consequently, that area is where we formerly had a pool oriented locker room. That seemed to be an obvious place to conserve dollars.

Mayor Webster said we would like to present to Council what we presented to the Finance Committee last evening. Mr. Osborn has a hand-out.

Mr. Osborn said this is a combination of several types of financial analysis of the Cityís long range capital budget and how we can finance some of the projects we have on that budget and include the Community Center under all four options.

Mayor Webster said we can go into any detail that Council would like. We have eliminated some of the miniscule funds such as adult sports fund, drug law enforcement fund, law enforcement fund, DUI, vehicle mobilization, etc. Operating expense is the general fund less transfers plus the money we get from street construction, state highway, which has to be spent on roadways, insurance trust fund, health insurance trust fund, residential recycling fund, parks and urban forestry funds. We presently have $1,752,000 in the insurance trust fund that was created in the early 80s. There was some doubt as to whether we could buy liability insurance for the City so we starting putting money away back then. For a number of years we were earning enough interest to pay the insurance premiums. Thatís no longer true today. The premiums have outstripped the interest we are earning. I donít think it would be financially prudent to drain that fund. We proposed to Finance Committee last evening that we take $752,000 and pull it into the equation but leave the $1 million set aside. We went back over the last six years and looked at the growth rate. It averages 3.5% so weíve added that to the operating costs starting in 1999 through the year 2005. We also have added $150,000 to the operating costs beginning in 2000. The earnings tax after 1999 is projected at 5% which I personally think is not a very conservative number.

We ended 1997 with $6.1 million excluding those small minor funds. Weíve taken off the $1 million rainy day fund. We started 1998 with $5.1 million, revenues of $15 million, property expenses at $10 million, debt service on the TIF of $2 million, which leaves us an operating balance of $7.7 million. We are saying we need $4.26 million to take care of the capital improvements projects which leaves us a carry over balance going into 1999 of $3.1 million. In 1999 we are projecting $15 million in revenue, $10.8 million in expenses, debt service of $2 million leaving an operating balance of $5.2 million. In 1999 we need $8.4 million to build alternate 1 which leaves us in the hole $2.1 million. Mr. Knox needs some capital to run the City for a month or so until he starts getting some of next yearís earning tax in. Weíre proposing we maintain an operating fund balance of at least $2 million. Thatís what you see from 2000 to 2005. That says the City ends 1999 in debt $5.1 million. We have estimated the expenses prior to the Community Center and after the building of this building and we have averaged $1.97 million a year in capital improvements for the City, including $500,000 a year in the summer street program which needs to be bumped up to $750,000 - $1 million. The last line shows you how much of the debt we can retire each year throughout this exercise and all of this is predicated on us rolling notes for seven years. At the end of seven years we would seek long term financing. At the end of 2005 we would have a $7 million debt.

Alternate 2 would be at $7.6 at the end of 2005. Alternate 3 would be $6 million; and alternate 4 would be $4.2 million.

At the Finance Committee meeting last night we discussed how long we would feel comfortable issuing debt on the new facility and the renovated one. The consensus seemed to be ten years. We are talking about issuing the debt seven years from now. By the time we retire this debt we are talking about a 42 year old structure for the existing center. The new expanded part would be 17 years old.

Mr. Galster said these numbers are based on us doing everything in our five year budget, not cutting any projects, and still maintaining the same capital improvements that weíve always done. If we save a million, half a million, etc. it could make an impact.

Mayor Webster stated when you add the hard costs, soft costs, finance costs the totals are:

Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4

$13.866 million $14.577 million $12.487 million $10.145 million

This is a far cry from the $330,00 we had in the budget as late as 1992. That got blown up last year to $5 million. Today, even looking at the lowest cost alternative we are looking at upwards of $10 million.

Mr. Danbury said all four options have different aspects. Even with Option 4, the finished product is going to be three times what we presently have. The biggest differences I see between 1 and 2, with the gym , track and basement; and 3 and 4 with no basement. The biggest difference I see is that the exercise room would be scaled down a little bit but it would still be four times bigger than it currently is. The dance area would be 2500 square feet; the teen room would be scaled down a little bit. The biggest cut I see would be lack of storage space because we wonít have the basement. We wonít have a permanent batting cage and the number of meeting rooms.

Mayor Webster said right now our Community Center has 22,700 square feet. When we get through with the renovation Option 1 would take it 70,384 square feet; Option 2 to 74,512 square feet; Option 3 to 68,236 square feet; and Option 4 to 59,036 square feet. I know a lot of you have been to Sharonville and we love it. It looks great. That facility expanded is 51,000 square feet. We are proposing a facility that is 8,000 square feet more than what you see in Sharonville, but it does have its differences such as the double gym and permanent batting cage.

Ms. Manis asked if we assume a couple of things with Option 4, such as the batting cage in half of the gym in the wintertime; and based on 24 basketball teams, 2 cheerleading squads and 10 volleyball teams practicing twice a week while the games are going on, that puts us up 72 hours of practice time, not including second grade basketball if we add it. Then if we have the three practice courts Monday through Thursday, 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. and Sundays most of the day, that gives us 54 hours of practice time. Weíre short already with Option 4.

Mr. Burton responded the cheerleading practice would probably go into another facility. The batting cage is the key. During a worst case scenario during December, January and February, we can demonstrate on paper that we can have all the games and provide two practices for everybody and have approximately twenty hours of open gym time a week. The difference between the oversize gym in Option 4 and the double gym would be about 8-9 more practice hours a week.

Mayor Webster said thatís assuming a 25% increase in youth basketball. Mr. Burton replied that would be based on 30 basketball teams in the year 2000.

Mayor Webster said today we have 24 teams and that includes bringing menís basketball back.

Ms. Manis said we donít need the batting cage in the gym. I never felt it was beneficial. If you are going to get the full use of it, it would be beneficial to have it up through the wintertime.

Mr. Danbury said not only are we increasing the square footage for basketball but we are opening up the present gym now because we are taking the aerobics and wedding receptions away.

Mr. Galster asked if, in fact, the batting cage was not in half of the existing gym, how much open gym time would we pick up.

Mr. Burton replied that was the difference between the oversize gym and the double gym. On Saturday afternoon you could run grades 5-12 on one floor for nine hours. If you could do that in one gym that leaves the whole other gymnasium open the whole day. In Option 4, we would play four hours in our current facility, five hours in the other and have open gym time on the end of those schedules.

Mr. Galster said Option 3 is where we pick up the 8-9 hours. In Options 1 and 2 we not only pick up those 8-9 hours but we would also pick up the whole time with the batting cage not being in half of a gym.

Mr. Burton said in any scenario when you pick up the double gym, you will pick up 10 more hours during that worst case scenario. That is based on putting the batting cage up in late March or early April. Once you put it up earlier that changes all the stats Iím giving you.

Ms. Pollitt asked when was the last time Springdale was in debt, what was the debt and how long was it carried?

Mr. Osborn replied we borrowed $3 million in the 70s that was used to build the first municipal building on Lawnview Avenue. That was paid off in the early 80s.

Mayor Webster stated that was paid off in 1984 and the only debt we have incurred since is the TIF for the Northwest Business Park.

Mr. Danbury asked would it be possible to take the existing storage room and existing weight lifting room and put the batting cage there?

Mr. Burton replied I donít think you have the height clearance you need. Another problem would be giving up that storage.

Mr. Galster said Option 2 is more expensive than Option 1. What we get is a little longer running track over the lobby. In my mind I have thrown that out. I look at Option 1 and Option 3 as not being a lot different. In my evaluation I look at Option 1 and Option 4. In the locker room in Option 1 we end up with a separate pool locker room, an interior locker room for the exercise room and a family locker room. With Option 3 or 4 the separate ones are eliminated and the family ones are questionable. If someone is in the exercise room now and wants to shower what is the process they have to go through to gain access?

Mr. Burton replied during the pool season the door to the hallway is locked. Either a staff person letís someone in or we give them a give to unlock and lock it when they go in.

Mr. Galster said if we go with Option 3 or 4 we would still have to go through that procedure. Do we have a lock on the pool side to prevent someone from the teen room going to the pool?

Mr. Burton responded I donít see us ever locking the doors from the locker room onto the deck. It may violate a code issue.

Mr. Galster said weíre talking about equipping these locker rooms. Will we equip them as a pool locker room or a little more upscale for the people in the dance and exercise area?

Mr. Burton replied we havenít discussed that. I would think that is something we would do in the next six months.

Mr. Galster said Option 1 has a new meeting room area that allows us to have a large area that we can subdivide as the need arises. Option 3 and 4 have small areas that weíre trying to make larger for when we have a larger meeting.

Mr. Danbury asked how many requests would you say we have for meetings that hold 30 or more people?

Mr. Burton replied it is not uncommon. Between January and the end of June we had 414 meetings. We have 28 groups that repeatedly use the rooms.

Mr. Danbury asked if we go with Option 3 or 4 would that accommodate the typical group that is meeting now?

Mr. Burton replied some of the groups that are meeting could meet in smaller rooms freeing up the larger rooms. I think meeting space has been accommodated. It just depends on whether you are trying to go to larger blocks of parties or new programming.

Mr. Osborn said one of the things that has become apparent to us is to discontinue as a rental hall. These are typically wedding receptions in groups of 100-200. We have about six a year. We break even but itís a lot of hassle for the staff and the benefit to the community is limited because only a few take advantage of it. There are many options available to people in this area that werenít here back in 1974 when the facility was first built. I think there will still be occasions that you want to have an open house type event. You could have 2-3 of those rooms open and have people circulate.

Mr. Burton said we have to move tables in and out of the club rooms to accommodate the gym. We have requests for groups of 75-100. They usually end up being a headache in spills, tears and breakage, getting patrons in and out in a timely manner.

Mr. Osborn said also in a group of that size we have to monitor the consumption of alcohol to prevent it being available to minors and damage to City equipment.

Ms. Manis asked when we were doing tours Evendale had a big room. One of the reasons for doing the meeting rooms like Options 1 and 2, were to maybe attract some meetings from business groups.

Mr. Osborn replied we could attract that market and we would have the ability to accommodate those folks. On the list Jim referred to before of repeat users of the facility no one has a head count of more than thirty. Business associations are typically that size. I hope with additional rooms we will be doing additional programming.

Ms. Manis said I agree totally. I didnít think there were enough in Option 1 and I said before I donít necessarily like the term meeting room as opposed to classroom.

Mr. Galster said Iíd like to discuss storage and expandability. Iím a big proponent of realizing the fact that we may not know everything for what weíre going to need 3, 5, 7, 10 years from now. I look at Options 3 and 4 and see every inch of every space being utilized. The teen game rooms are not dictated by what size they need to be but by what size is left over. Option 1 has an area housing the batting cage and has 3600 square feet that is located such that the meeting rooms or exercise area or dance area could be expanded into that area. There is no room in Option 3 or 4.

Mr. Danbury said some people approached me on that because I brought up expandability last time. We could build six gyms and we may need to expand in the future. I want to make sure we donít waste our money, that we donít over-expend at the possible cost of other projects that we may have to put on hold. Expandability is a big option to look at. Iíd like to see some flexibility. In the old municipal building, initially we were told we could add a second a story. When they were looking at expansion we found out that was not possible so thatís why weíre sitting in this place here and it cost us more money.

Mr. Galster said I started looking at the congregation area. I was trying to find a spot where I could look at everything going on. In Option 1 I can. In Option 3 you see a hallway start to form and you canít find a place to see everything. In Option 4 we literally have a hallway. In Option 1 we have areas where people can sit down and have a conversation. It gets worse down to Option 4. We did the UC survey, our own survey, we got Community Center staff input, Rec Center Commission input, Council input, and Option 1 is what all those things came up. Thatís what meets the needs of the community. I know the Mayor said look up needs in the dictionary. I know we donít need a rec center but those are the wants of this community. Option 4 is what our budget says we can afford to do least painfully. What can we change Ė the budget or can we change the needs and wants? You canít change what the community needs or wants. I think we need to look at changing the budget.

Ms. Pollitt said Iíve had three people talk to me about the study room and all three people were opposed to the study room. I also question the staff as to who would be monitoring the computer and who would be the technical person? Would it involve another employee?

Mr. Burton said we have a number of units that get shifted around from office to office and they arenít worth a lot. We havenít gotten to the mechanics of how we would operate it.

Ms. Manis asked Ms. Pollitt if the people said why they wouldnít want the study facility. Ms. Pollitt said they have a problem getting their child to study at home with a parent looking over their shoulder. I believe most families here in Springdale have at least one computer in their owns. I called 12 people in my district and all 12 had computers including an 85 year old lady.

Ms. Manis said I live in a district where lots of people live in apartments who donít have the advantages of other people. I donít think it was envisioned for the kids to go there from school to do their homework. I think it was more a tool for people who canít afford computers to get to use them. Heritage Hill School is open every day from 9 to 11:30. My kids are down there every day. Itís another thing to keep them off the streets.

Mr. Danbury said we are looking at a piece of paper that says study room. This could be changed for senior studies. It could be a library for travel or estate planning. I think we need to look at the needs of our citizens and see how much we need to put down for it.

Mr. Burton said that area could be changed over a dozen times in five to six years. We have been charged with doing something for the teens. Kids are burned out on sports by the time they are 12 years old. We were looking to serve that group from 12-18.

Mr. Wilson said you already addressed some of my issues but I want to key in on some. When I was thinking about the study area I was thinking about computers. I also talked about a reference library. This could serve as a small research area for our young people. We need to look at plan 4. I donít see a lot of room to grow. Weíre talking about a seventeen year debt and we need room to grow. I donít want to invest millions of dollars into a project that is obsolete before the debt is paid off.

Mrs. McNear said in 1972 and the Recreation Center opened, I was fifteen and there was not enough gym space then. As I got older and had kids they wanted to have

gym time. There was never any open gym time. Option 1 is pricey; Option 4 doesnít meet our needs. I think we need as much gym space as we can get. If that means two full size gyms plus the one we have, Iíd rather spend the extra money to do that.


Beth Chavies said I attended the last meeting. Mr. Danbury explained that which option is chosen would be Councilís decision and not Mr. Burtonís because Mr. Burton may be an expert in the Cityís recreational needs but not the overall budget of the City. I would like Council to know that we are counting on you to represent the needs of the community and the priority must not simply be how much the City spends but rather are we making smart decisions, meeting our current needs and wants, as well as planning for the future. The Mayor made references at the last meeting that even if Council chose the least expensive option, that still would not be shortchanging the community. I think any enhancement we make would be a benefit for the community; however, as a native of Springdale I would certainly question Councilís approval of a project of this magnitude and expense if we leave potential to fall short of the mark 2, 3, even 5 years from now. Mr. Vanover commented that citizens may flock to the center early on and that traffic would eventually taper off. I think it is hard to gauge right now how many people do not use our current facility simply because it is inadequate. I see Options 2 and 4 as the extremes of choice. I recall Option 3 being consistently referred to as adequate to meet our current needs, which concerns me for future needs so I would like to see Council vote for Option 1. I would like to thank Council for staying the course.

Ms. Manis said I called Sharonville this morning to see if they had seen a decrease in the use of their facility. I was told that it had decreased a little but they contributed it more to summer rather than the facilities themselves.

Mr. Kenneth Nance said I coach basketball. Now sports are no longer a session; itís year long. You have to do that to really be successful. I hope you all choose the best option for the future.

Mr. Vanover said I think everybody knows we weigh need and dollars. Weíve looked at total costs from $10 million to $14.5 million. If need be, would you be willing for a tax increase? Thatís something we have to think about. We have limited dollars come in. We donít know what the growth is. We have projections but letís be realistic and say how much am I willing to partake of this issue. Nobody has said anything about this. Iím not using it for scare tactics but itís something that needs to be thought about. I donít want to have to reach into my pocket any more than anybody else. I would appreciate any comment anybody would have on that.

Mr. Danbury said Iíve never heard anybody say we are going to raise peopleís taxes. I totally disagree with that . We can trim the fat here and there. I do not want to support what you said in any shape or form.

Mr. Wilson said the last thing we want to talk about is a tax increase. Our City has a creditworthiness about us that we can go to any lending institution and borrow whatever we want and have the capability to pay it back. I think taxes are the last thing we want to talk about.

Mr. Vanover responded nobody has said anything at all about that but it is an issue we have to think about. The voters went out on the ball parks and supported it. They said we're ready to pay more. Iím just playing the devilís advocate.

Mr. Danbury stated thatís why weíre elected. Our job is to provide the best services to the people with the amount of money we have. If you feel strongly that this would put us in debt, then you vote your conscientious. Donít just say weíll do it because you want it but weíll raise your taxes.

Mr. Knox said two of us are elected officials and neither one of us will get to vote. The Mayor has stated his opinion and I feel I must state mine. Option 1 includes just about everything everybody wants. Essentially you arenít making any decision when you vote for Option 1. Most people are talking about under-building. Letís talk about over-building because if we overbuild the debt is going to be the same. We will have to pay it every year. Weíre in a good economy right now and things look rosy. But they wonít always be that way. When the downturn comes then Council will have to make the decisions and the decisions will be what are we going to cut. We must think about that. If Council votes for Option 1, fine; if you vote for Option 4, fine; but we must address the total amount of money that will be spent.

David Tarwater said I recently moved to Springdale and I do use the facilities. During the conversations earlier I noted mention made by Mr. Galster of the central atrium that allowed members of the community to be able to meet each other. Iím familiar with the apartment concept where people are always going back and forth and are unable to congregate. Mr. Knox, I happen to be a fiscal conservative so what you are saying does not escape me but I felt that issue should be considered for the community to get to know each other better.

Keith Chavies said as long time resident, long time coach and someone who grew up spending the majority of my life at the Recreation Center, I would just like to talk about the pride that we live in a city that takes enough time and money to even consider expanding our facilities. Sharonville has a wonderful facility and I get jealous every time I go there to play basketball, but itís still nice to come back to Springdale. If we look at the money issue too hard we can start cutting things that certain people donít think are necessary. As a coach I would love nothing more than to have three gyms and a batting cage all year. I am a baseball nut and baseball is a year round sport for me. We do it year round but we do it at our own expense. Why stop short of having something we can all be extremely proud of to save a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Ms. Manis said a couple of people have told me that they think it will benefit them even through their children are grown.

Dave Kamer said Iíve been a resident for sixteen years and Iíve been a coach at the scholastic level and in the community for a number of years. I have three boys and they are involved extensively. Last winter I coached my middle son and we had to go to Springdale School because of space. We survived but I donít see that as a positive thing for the community. I would like to see an expansion to two more gyms. Where I work we built a new gym. We had an option to build a gym with bleachers on each side or we could extend the gym and put a stage and bleachers there. We chose for the lesser option. It was not more than a year when we realized we couldnít get the whole school in that facility. I would hate to see that happen here at our Community Center.

Mayor Webster stated I was going to hold my comments until the end. Thank you all for coming. I appreciate your comments. Mr. Chavies, just for the record, weíre not talking about a couple hundred thousand. Weíre talking several million dollars. Itís not just pocket change weíre talking about. We hear about the population and I hear what Ms. Manis said about some kids moving in. My question is where are all of these people? Why doesnít this increase show in our population numbers? We have greatly expanded the youth basketball and volleyball. Even in Option 4 we tried to make allocations for that. Weíve increased the number of teams by 25%. I think we have addressed that. I think alternate 4 is something the community could be proud of. I donít think we have to hang our head when we take the Community Center of 22,000 square feet that we are now proud of and we are going to almost triple the size. We are going to take it to 59,000 square feet. Option 4 is not the Cadillac. Weíve looked around, kicked the tires, looked at the prices and I personally have a lot of sticker shock. I think we need to address the needs of the community. I think 90% of the things that have been identified are accommodated in Option 4. Option 1 was not really a decision. We went out and shopped and everything we saw we said put it in there. As Chief Executive Officer of this City I have to try to maintain things on balance. As Mr. Galster indicated, there is a heck of a difference in what we all want and what we need. We all want Option 1. Weíd all love to have at least three gyms, year round batting cage, endless supply of meeting rooms, expansion rooms; but I think we have to make prudent decisions. Everybody sitting here has to make his/her own decision. They have to think about what these options will provide for the community and what it will do to the budget. We wonít talk about raising taxes because I would despise that as much as anybody else up here. But at the same time we canít talk about cutting anything either. When we start talking about cutting everyone wants to know "what are you going to cut?" Weíre not living in a make-believe world. We have so many dollars and we have to make those dollars go. I want to read a letter I just received and my decision is Iím not going to support Option 1, 2 or 3. I will support Option 4 because I want to do everything I can to make sure that future mayors of this city and future council members of this city experience the gratitude and the feelings I experienced when I opened up this letter this evening.

Letter dated June 30, 1998 to Messrs. Bob Frank, Jeff Peck, and Nick Bristow: On May 27, 1998 you three gentlemen responded to my 911 call that my wife was having a heart attack at my residence at 428 Grandin Ave. here in Springdale. You arrived in a matter of minutes and quickly knew that the situation was critical. Had you not arrived when you did I feel that my wife would not have survived. So it is obvious that her immediate and extended families plus her hundreds of friends are, and forever will be, grateful to you for saving her life. From Mercy Fairfield hospital she was transferred the following morning to Christ Hospital where the outstanding Dr. Tom Ivey and his medical team performed quadrupled bypass surgery on her. She was released four days later and is now recuperating very nicely at home.

This coming December we will have been married 50 years. We are eagerly looking forward to celebrating this special event in our lives. As we do so we will think much about you three wonderful people for making it all possible. Needless to say that will be true at every other festive occasion that we enjoy in the future.

We intend to somehow enshrine your names, not only in our hearts, but in our home that we may always be reminded of the incalculable contribution that you have made in the lives of two elderly people who need each other. May God continue to watch over and keep you safe as you continue the work of saving lives and turning bleak and desperate situations into future expectations of brightness and joy. With all our gratitude, Elma and Irv Turner

P. S. To the Honorable Doyle Webster we would like to say that we feel greatly blessed to live in a community like Springdale, which cares about and is able to provide this level of care that directly provides its citizens a new lease on life.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what public service is all about, being able to provide services like this, providing recreational opportunities of what we are proposing in the low end, economy model alternate 4. I, for one, want to make sure that we continue to provide services like this, not only during the remainder of my term in office but also future mayors and councils can continue over the years to see this. Over the years, other councils and administrations had to make to tough decisions. This is not the first time that a council or administration has had to make a tough call on how they spend the public monies. I will very joyfully support Option 4. I will be very proud of what that does for the community, the fact that we are going to double our gym space. If you look at the total cost over seventeen years, if you take Option 4 over Option 1, weíre looking at $3.7 million difference in cost. If we bond this after seven years weíre looking at $939,000 a year for Option 1 for ten years beyond the initial seven versus $378,000 in Option 4. I think we can afford $378,000. Based on the numbers we see here we can afford $939,000. But how do we know what the economy is going to do? How do we know weíre going to be able to keep our operating costs at 3.5%? We shared with Finance Committee last evening a potential of our Fire Department just over night with a judgeís upping our costs over $400,000 just so we can continue to provide outstanding paramedic services like this. I want to make sure that not only this administration, but other administrations, have the flexibility to continue to provide that without considering the dreaded tax increase. The City is not on the brink of going broke; the City has an outstanding credit rating. Our debt limitation would allow us to go about $12-$15 million. I certainly cannot support putting this City in debt to the tune of $7 million at the end of seven years. You can leave thinking that your mayor doesnít support leisure time activities, doesnít support recreation. I went around to businesses and begged businesses to allow us to put in with our own labor, soccer fields, baseball fields. I cut the fields, I striped the fields, I umpired games, I coached. Iíve done everything I could do for the youth of this City and as long as I live in this City, I will continue to support the youth. I was active in the Recreation Commission long before I came into public service and I plan on continuing supporting the youth long after I leave public service. As Chief Executive Officer of this City I have to make some tough calls and in this one I certainly will exercise my power of veto on any legislation that commits the City to these kinds of dollars. Here again, Council has to do what they have to do. If they have five people who want to build Option 1, then thatís what weíll joyfully go about doing.

Jennifer Oliveri asked Mayor Webster, are you saying if we go with Option 1, at some point in the future we will have to cut the paramedic or fire services we offer?

Mayor Webster replied we are not allowed to talk about cutting services or raising taxes. Mr. Danbury made a comment in the paper a couple of weeks ago that he didnít want to build by cutting public services. He was confronted at the next Council meeting demanding what services he was proposing to cut. Mr. Vanover just raised the possibility of this turning into a tax increase. He is chastised for raising that question. Weíre going to do with what we have and continue to provide all the services. Are we going to have money to do all of those things? I donít know. We are looking at seventeen years into the future. I think what we are doing here is not spending the Cityís monies prudently. It doesnít means we wonít use the facilities. It doesnít mean we all wouldnít love to have it. I donít think itís fiscally responsible to spend that kind of money on this project.

Ms. Oliveri said I cannot believe this panel would consider anything but Option 1. The decision making comes in your part to vote for that. It meets every need of every person who wants to have this facility in this community. You talk about the dynamics of the population. The reason you donít see a change is because families like me move out to get these facilities. I can move to another area and pay the same property and income tax rate. Four families and friends of ours with young kids did just that. Mr. Vanover, you talk about what the citizens are willing to pay for this. I currently pay almost $4,000 in private memberships to get these facilities and I go outside Springdale to do that. Youíre driving people out by not offering the facilities here. Mr. Osborn, you talked about the use of the meeting room and the number of people. Where do the statistics come for that and over what time line is that project is going through?

Mr. Osborn replied I am relying on the experience of the Recreation staff. The meeting room criteria was the first half of this year. The cycle is 28 groups that meet at least monthly. We probably have another 200 hours of meetings during our peak month.

Have we done any projection studies on what they would bring in if we offered the other studies?

Mr. Osborn replied no, because we havenít talked about what the programming is going to be either. If you look at the open time we have, it does seem that we can accommodate additional meetings. We are adding another full meeting room. Weíre providing for two smaller meeting rooms in which we can divert smaller groups into and free up a larger room. It is our belief that those four rooms are adequate to meet our needs if we eliminate the big group rental hall concept that we initiated in 1972.

Ms. Oliveri said I donít perceive Springdale as being a resident friendly community. I look at this building and wonder if all this time and effort was put into deciding where we were going to cut to have this lavish, beautiful building for you all to have beautiful seats to sit in and me to stand at this wonderful podium. How much consideration went into what the residents thought of that? Whatís the value added to a citizen who pays taxes by having this building as opposed to having a recreation center or facilities such as the paramedics or fire department. I just think you need to start thinking about the residents and tax payers or youíre going to drive a lot of people out of here. If you wonder why projects fail, listen to yourselves talk. You worry about the little, bitty things and you donít get the big picture.

Mr. Danbury said I donít think itís fair to go after anybody on Council about this building because nobody on Council voted for this building. Whatís going to happen with the economy? A couple of years ago we took a double hit where Avon was shutting down 2/3 of their plant and we got notice that we were losing almost all of the GE jet engine jobs within a year. That is where the majority of our tax dollars come from. We lost $500,000 to $750,000 in taxes from those businesses. That could happen again. The first charge given to us by the staff and citizens was more gym space. If we had before you tonight Option 4 as the top option, everybody would be looking at this as number 1. It is the least expensive option and doesnít have all the frills. We could have asked for costs on an indoor soccer field, ice rink, etc. Personally I would like to see Option 1 but we do have a fiduciary responsibility to try to see if we can do this if the City should take a major hit in the future. I apologize, Mr. Vanover, but we may have to come back and raise taxes. Once that note is out there we have to pay it.

Mr. Knox said I find it very praiseworthy that you take the time and expense to spend $4,000 on memberships for your children but there are quite a few families in this City who cannot afford $4,000. They canít stand a tax increase. Weíre trying to protect those people by coming in with something we know we can live with that will do the job. Thatís what the Mayor was talking about, Mr. Danbury is talking about. The decision has to be made and I personally donít believe that just throwing everything in and saying Option 1 is wonderful.

Mr. Galster said Mr. Mayor, when you gave the numbers itís $561,000 for Option 4. The last couple of comments Iíve heard say Option 1 has everything that we wanted. I donít see an indoor pool. I donít see the roller blade courses and skate board jump rings. Weíve taken the input from the community and weíve applied our judgment. I donít think there is everything in this building that the community wants. I take exception that it has everything we could possibly wish for.

Mr. Knox replied if you take a list of things that were set in the survey, try to find something in the first fifteen items that arenít in that plan. I admit we donít have an indoor pool. That wasnít in the top 15. I never heard of a roller rink or indoor soccer. They must have been so far down the list I didnít get that far. The major items are all in there.

Ken Zennicker said the sticking point for most people seems to be two gyms. Maybe Option 1 has too many bells and whistles and maybe Option 4 doesnít have enough, but what Option 4 doesnít have is a double gym. Maybe your work is not done here. Maybe there is an alternative between these that does have a double gym and doesnít have everything that number one has. If weíre to meet the future recreational needs of our community, letís meet those needs. Iíd hate to see us shortchange the future residents and the present residents by putting a band aid on a wound that needs considerably more attention. This would only insure future problems and expenditure of future and more costly dollars.

Bob Coleman said I wholeheartedly agree with this gentleman who was just up here. I donít think your work is done. I would be very surprised if you were able to vote tonight and decide on one of these four options. I think there is some medium between 1 and 4 that you have to address because there is a need for two gyms. I agree with Mayor Webster on the cost factors. I challenge you to go back to the drawing board and come up with something workable and affordable.

Mr. Danbury said Option 3 is basically what you are talking about. Option 1 has a basement and storage space.

Mr. Burton stated there is no basement in any of the options. The key is not necessarily the double gym. The key is probably that undedicated space. Even if you have the double gym, if you donít have that undedicated space and you are going to run activities back in the gym, itís not going to make any difference.

Council recessed from 9:35 p.m. to 9:50 p.m.

Mr. Vanover asked do we want to explore modifications before we vote. I would be interested in finding out some cost factors for Option 3 with a basement.

Mrs. McNear stated perhaps we should keep in mind that Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not just what we see on the board. You can massage what actually goes into it. It also means dollars. Perhaps we should limit the amount we can spend.

Mr. Wilson said letís take Option 3 and work with it.

Mr. Galster said the difference between Option 1 and 3 for $750,000 itís the locker rooms, family locker room, additional meeting rooms, open concourse, adult gather area, the difference in sizes and the expandable space. To me those are major issues. I think we looked at building in the basement and found it to be cost prohibitive.

Mr. Osborn said we have looked at several other configurations. Putting a basement in Option 3 drove the cost out of sight.

Mayor Webster said itís Councilís prerogative to throw out any option but donít say none of the residents support it. A lot have supported Option 4. Of the four members at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting last evening, two very emphatically endorsed Option 4. The other two said it was between 1 and 4 and given the cost of 1 they would go with 4 also.

Mr. Wilson said the residents have spoken too. Iím sure there is someone in my district who doesnít want a gym expansion but I havenít talked to them.

Mr. Osborn said we want Council to make an informed decision and feel comfortable with the decision you make. Any delay in the process will push back the start date and completion date. Given the size of this project we are going to be required to do an RFQ (request for qualifications) for a design team. We cannot just go to CDS under our current contract, ask for a proposal, negotiate it with them and enter into a contract. Under state law we have to do an RFQ. We will advertise in a publication of general circulation that we would like proposals for a certain type of project. It will probably take six weeks to two months to get things in place.

Mr. Galster made a motion to move forward with Option 1. Ms. Manis seconded.

Option 1 failed 3-4.

Mrs. McNear made a motion to move forward with Option 3 and Mr. Vanover seconded.

Mr. Galster said most of the dollar figures are at the high end of the spectrum. Would it still be possible to find out through the bidding process what a few of the other options of Option 1 would cost in addition once we get to a firm bid stage?

Mr. Osborn said we have tried to be conservative in all of the numbers. Can you take more than one option to an RFQ? I donít know. Iíve never done it. I wouldnít know how we get a response from a consultant. The RFQ does not talk dollars about the project. It talks qualifications. Once you get the qualifications established for that type of project, you then talk about fees. In order to talk about fees you have to have an idea what you are going to build.

Mr. Galster said so when we go through the RFQ and they come back and weíve got four people who are qualified to bid the project based on what we told them the project is going to be in general, then weíll request.

Mr. Osborn said we would pick the best qualified firm. We wouldnít negotiate fees with four firms. You look at their qualifications and pick the best of those firms. Then you negotiate a fee with that firm. If you canít reach agreement you throw it out and start all over again.

Mr. Galster said the price difference between Options 1 and 3 is within ten percent. Iíd like to see how close they actually come. Once we get the most qualified person and start negotiating with them, is this too much of an option difference to get hard numbers quoted on both options?

Mr. Osborn asked if we were to continue the selection process past this point for more than one option do you see it adding to design cost? Would you have to go into twice the detail up to a decision point? Weíre asking them to continue to work but weíre not going to be in a contract with them for the design.

Roger Kirlin, CDS said itís been our experience that when you go out for an RFQ, you go out on a qualifications based standpoint where you use a plan as a basis for that. Weíve never participated or heard of going out for multiple or variety of plans. You are going to be incurring some additional expenses up front to get into more analysis or detail. Thatís not uncommon. On the back end of the design, the numbers you have before you this evening are probably going to change. Weíre going to miss a bidding period. The most optimum time for going out to bid is the first of the year. If you wait longer the numbers are going to change because the construction market isnít going to recognize this as a favorable project four months later.

Mr. Osborn stated there is a lot of competition for work in the early part of the year. As contractors get booked they are less competitive. Eventually the market dries up entirely and you can hardly get reasonable proposals.

Mr. Galster asked, if in fact, we get to this point and weíre basing it on Option 3 and we ask, can you give us an add price to add a floor underneath?

Mr. Osborn said weíre asking our current design team to do additional research. Can that overlap with an RFQ process? I donít know why it canít but at the same time, we have to realize that we may not be able to stay on track if we prolong this process out to August or September.

Ms. Manis said with Option 3 I think that flex space that takes things out of the gym and gives us room to move is really important. I think anything we do here is going to raise the price that will make the difference between the $1.3 million. Itís not worth the additional design expense and additional time we waste in bidding. Based on that I donít think I can support Option 3.

Option 3 passed 4-3. Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis and Ms. Pollitt voted no.

Mr. Osborn said we can start the RFQ process as soon as you have indicated that you have reached a decision and that will take approximately six weeks. The Mayor has indicated that he intends to exercise his veto on any project other than 4. There are only four votes to support Option 3. I suggest you bring that ordinance forward and see if you have five votes to override the veto or go back to the other options.

Mr. Galster made a motion to allow the continued investigation of Options 1 and 3 simultaneously. Ms. Manis seconded.

Ms. Pollitt said I can support Option 4 because that is what the people in my district have instructed me to support.

Mr. Danbury asked what common ground would you like to incorporate from Option 1 to Option 2. Option 1 as I see it just has a bottom floor. The addition of $1.4 million so we can have a permanent batting cage that is going to be used for three months, I donít see how you can justify it.

Mr. Galster said itís the meeting rooms, locker rooms, open concourse, adult gathering areas, the batting cage and the room to expand. If you look at the total finance cost itís $1 million. The raw cost is within 10%.

Mayor Webster said the only way you are only going to find that out is to take it all the way through the bidding process. Do you want us to do two RFQs and have two design teams working concurrently?

Mr. Galster said I donít think they need two RFQs. I think the scope of the work is similar.

Mayor Webster said the qualifications are. Then we are going to select the one is best qualified and enter negotiations. What are we going to negotiate?

Mr. Galster said I have no problem with proceeding with negotiating Option 3 but have some requests for options to make it Option 1 without creating anymore paperwork or legwork or design work than we have to, but to create an option to see what the real difference is. Weíre basing it on higher numbers.

Mr. Kirlin said we could do what you are mentioning. Itís not an easy alternate. This facility you are in this evening was put out to bid. It was a very easy alternate for a partial basement or not a partial basement. That did not require a lot of extensive additional drawings. What you are alluding to here is going to be pushing the building out into the parking lot some more. Itís going to be more than just an easy alternate. It can be done but itís going to be very elaborate.

Mr. Galster withdrew his motion.

Mr. Wilson asked can we agree on Option 3 as a base and incorporate with modifications?

Ms. Manis asked how much would it be to do an alternative such as the locker rooms? Mr. Kirlin said that wouldnít be bad.


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

Ordinance 52-1998 passed 4-3. Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis and Ms. Pollitt voted no.

Mayor Webster vetoed the ordinance.

Mr. Vanover made a motion to override the veto and Mrs. McNear seconded.

The motion passed 6-1. Ms. Pollitt voted no. Ordinance 52-1998 is passed.


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

Ordinance 48-1998 passed with 6 affirmative votes. Ms. Pollitt abstained.


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

Mr. Osborn stated we did have a Resolution of Necessity back in February 1997. At that time we received no objections to the proposed assessment. The actual cost of the project came in slightly below the original estimates so I donít think that there is any reason for anyone to be alarmed or concerned. Once you have completed the adoption of this ordinance we will initiate the billing process July 6. We anticipate having allowed everyone thirty days to pay that bill. We will then make notice to the Hamilton County Auditorís Office and the assessments of any costs not paid within the thirty days will be tendered against two semi-annual payments in 1999. This was done on petition from the property owners so I think it is a pretty clean project.

Mr. Wilson said you stated cash. Payment can also be made by check, money order or credit card.

Ordinance 49-1998 passed with 6 affirmative votes. Ms. Pollitt abstained.


Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded. Ordinance 50-1998 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


First reading.

Public Hearing


Mr. Osborn said by state law we have to submit an estimate of our revenues for the next fiscal year. We take pretty basic operating expenses as the basis for our costs but we try to be very accurate in terms of revenues. There is a cover letter dated June 5, 1998 to the Finance Committee which sets out the details of this particular tax budget. The estimated 1998 earnings tax revenue is projected to be 10% higher than actual 1997. We believe this figure is conservative in that earnings tax collections year to date through May are running at 18% ahead of last year. Using the 1998 figure as a base the 1999 earnings tax number assumes a 5% increase. There is no transfer included in here at this time for the construction cost of the Community Center expansion because at the time of the writing we hadnít decided what we were going to do but we knew the estimated construction range was going to be around $6 million. We used that as the base number. We put all the soft costs in and anticipated the construction costs for 1999 would be supported by the issuance of some sort of note. It doesnít show as a transfer from the general fund to capital improvements. That construction would be supported by note as opposed to a transfer.

Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded. Resolution R8-1998 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Ms. Manis said I had a phone call with a suggestion to take to O-K-I. One issue we hadnít talked about was all the smog alerts we had been having. Coming I-275 trucks are on the road longer and create more problems. Another suggestion was compromise. Maybe from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. trucks come around to avoid the traffic downtown. From 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. they can go through the City.


Mr. Knox said Joy Landry of the Hamilton County Park District will make a ten minute presentation with slides on the improvements at Winton Woods at our next meeting.

Mr. Osborn said as a follow up to Ms. Manisí comments we also plan to direct a letter to the Federal Highway Administration expressing our opposition to the proposed permanent extension of the ban. I think the points you raised are very good ones which we can add to our list. We are also going to propose, should the Federal Highway Administration see fit to continue that ban, that they provide cities like Springdale with the resources to build sound barriers that are consistent with what we feel is appropriate, not what the State of Ohio tells us is appropriate.

Ms. Manis said I have this parking sign that I took off a cone today. These were on the street Saturday and Sunday, yesterday and today, and we have yet to see anyone come down our street. This is a small cul-de-sac; people have been parking in their yards; no work has been done; and everyone is quite angry with me. They have finally given up and are parking on the street.

Mr. Knox said I contacted State Senator Howardís office on the barriers. I have not received a reply yet.

Mayor Webster said the landscaping awards will be presented at the next meeting.


Planning Commission July 9, 7:00 p.m.

Board of Zoning Appeals July 21, 7:00 p.m.

Finance Committee Meeting met June 30, 7:00 p.m.

Spirit of Springdale festival July 3-4, 5-12 p.m.

Community Pride/Recycle Day August 15, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The recycling center will be open August 14 staffed from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. As you know we recycle paint. The dates for redistribution of recycled paint will be August 28 and 29, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Tax Review Board met last evening and will meet again July 14.



Resolution for Bob Sear July 15

Ordinance 51-1998 second reading July 15

Council adjourned at 11:06 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,




Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Randy Danbury, President of Council



__________________________, l998