Council was called to order on November 6, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. by President of Council Randy Danbury.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by the governmental body and those in attendance
Roll call was taken by Mr. Knox. Present were Council members Boice, Galster, Manis, McNear, Vanover, Wilson and Danbury.
The minutes of October 16, 1996 were approved with 7 affirmative votes.
Letter addressed to Mr. Knox from Bruce S. Crutcher, Real Estate Division of 5/3 Bank.
Dear Mr. Knox: As you are aware, 5/3 Bank played a pivotal role in the development of Northwest Business Center. Along with the City of Springdale, we reinvested an additional $600,000 in the development of this project. This reinvestment including our original loan amount was based on establishing an overall development plan as currently exists for the site. Given the highway frontage, this site can serve as a "gateway" to the City of Springdale. This is perhaps the last remaining significant parcel of high profile land in Springdale. We believed, and Council affirmed, that Mr. King's Pictoria Island project met City objectives for this site. We have patiently awaited Mr. King's attempts to satisfy our mutual objections and believe Pictoria Island continues to meet the goal for intentions at this location. Sincerely, Bruce S. Crutcher, Commercial Real Estate Specialist.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
ORDINANCE NO. 76-1996 "AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE TO ADD SECTION 90.155 KEEPING AND HARBORING WILD OR POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMALS AND TO AMEND SECTION 153.055 DEFINITIONS"
Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt and Ms. Manis seconded.
Mr. Danbury said it has been a long time coming. I want to thank everyone for all the work because it has been to a lot of different committees, Board of Health and Rules and Laws a number of times. I'm glad we could finally get something on the books.
Ordinance 76-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO.78-1996 "AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THE HAMILTON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR YEARS 1997, 1998 AND 1999"
Ms. Manis made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded.
Mr. Danbury said we have eight different items listed. This is basically an application for a block grant program where we are trying to get funds for various types of items the City would like to undertake. Are there any other additions to this list from either the public or the Council?
Mr. Vanover asked are the flashing school zone signs at Chesterdale replacement of existing signs or new signs?
Mr. Osborn replied we would be replacing the existing school area signs with new flashing signs.
Mayor Webster asked if the eight items should be read for the public.
Mr. Danbury stated the items are:
1. Repairs of a footbridge connecting the north and south sides of Chamberlain Park.
2. Playground equipment for Chamberlain Park.
3. Overlay of the tennis courts in Chamberlain Park.
4. Rechannel the creek upstream from the twin culverts at Chesterdale Road to reduce the potential for flooding.
5. Install concrete channels at inlets at twin pipes under Chesterdale Road to reduce erosion, silt build-up.
6. Install flashing school zone signs on Chesterdale Road for Heritage Hill School.
7. Install sidewalk handicap ramps at various locations throughout the City.
8. Install public bus shelters at various locations throughout the City.
Mr. Danbury said if there are any additional items that people in the audience would like to see they can step forward at this point. (No one came forward.)
Mr. Osborn said I want to re-emphasize that to be eligible under this program, the projects have to meet a test, and that is to benefit low and moderate income persons or to serve to eliminate slums and blight or to meet a local urgent need. They also have to meet certain tests under federal regulations concerning the use of Urban County Community Block Grant Funding. Our projects, we believe, will qualify. Taking in total, we are applying for $270,000 worth of funding over a three year period.
Mrs. Boice asked Mr. Osborn, on the bus shelters, what are the locations we are looking at? I think we have quite a number throughout the City now.
Mr. Osborn replied we certainly do but I think there are others we can be putting in, particularly in the area of the Maple Knoll Center. We are also looking at the Tri County Mall area and possibly again on Kemper Road at some locations where we do not currently have bus shelters, across from Thriftway as an example. We have a pad but no bus shelter there. If we hit on all the funding we have applied for we would be putting in six bus shelters over three years and I think we could find the locations for those.
Ms. Manis asked if we submit this list with a specific amount of money, or do we submit them separately and maybe get some and not some, or get a lump sum of money and we prioritize them?
Mr. Osborn responded we will put these into a prioritized list over a three year period. On the sidewalks and bus shelters I have indicated we have applied for $20,000 a year for three years for handicap ramp construction, $10,000 a year for three years for bus shelters. Let's take the rechanneling of the creek upstream from the twin culverts. We would look to try to balance out our applications so that the three years are fairly equal but we would present them to the County in the manner we feel will constitute the priorities and the County will look at it and agree or disagree with us, or give us partial funding. They will fund specific projects. They won't give us a lump sum.
Ordinance 78-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO. 80-1996 "APPROVING THE REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PUD) OF APPROXIMATELY 10.6 ACRES LOCATED AT 205 NORTH COMMERCE WAY IN THE NORTHWEST BUSINESS CENTER"
Tom Bennington, Staubach Company, representing Air-Tite Window Company said a couple of years ago you were presented with a plan to change the PUD to more of a retail development on the front acreage that is closest to I-275. Because that development has not gone forward we are asking for the ten acres right next to Avon to be re-looked at and changed back to its original intended use which is General Industrial. Air-Tite Window Company is currently located in Union Township. They have approximately 17,000 feet and they can't expand their building anymore as they are landlocked. They hired our company to look for alternative sites and we have narrowed it down to this site. This ten acres needs to be rezoned so they can build a building there. The project we plan on doing is a 96,000 square foot office/manufacturing headquarters for Air-Tite Windows. We currently do business in Ohio/Indiana/Kentucky as well as in Cincinnati. As you can see, this is a very nice, upscale building. It's not your typical industrial building. It will be a very nice looking building, a nice entryway as you come into Springdale and get off the I-275 ramp there at Rt. 4. Air-Tite Windows will bring to Springdale approximately 80 jobs. Their payroll today is about $2.2 million. Three years from now they expect to hire 18 new employees and their payroll should go to $2.4 million. I believe this is a good project for you as well as for Air-Tite. We appreciate your help and any questions you might have I'd be more than happy to answer. We've worked with Planning Commission to answer any of their objections and over the last couple of months we have answered most of those. We are working with them to make sure what we plan to do there is what they and Springdale wants.
Stephen King, developer for Pictoria Island said I am here to speak in my interest. I'd like to cover background, fundamental assumptions for the development that was approved a year ago, timing and summary of where we are at. I'd like to speak as opposed to the change in zoning. I would like you to vote tonight to deny the use for the Air-Tite Window contract. As a matter of background, we worked very carefully for about 15 months with members of the City to put together a project for the entire 23 acre tract. I have spent $2.3 million of capital. I've done engineering surveys, marketing work. You graciously approved our plan a year ago and we have moved into the next phase of the development. Some of the fundamental assumptions we covered when we brought the development here were the City Gate concept. We looked at this site from Rt. 747 to Rt. 4. We looked at one mile north of I-275 as a single corridor as the main entrance to the City of Springdale. We considered a well conceived project that Avon did. They have a 35 year track record of a well landscaped, well designed development and we engineered a project that created one visual vista from S.R. 747 to Rt. 4. We considered all the impact in the area, looking to develop something that is citizen friendly, community friendly and user friendly to customers. We came up with a plan that was a homogenous development for the entire 23 acre tract so it wouldn't go through piecemeal trying to get it developed. We believed we acquired what is the highest and best use by going with this retail zoning. We believe it's the best economic use for the community as well as for the development. We received the support approval at the time from Avon, the sellers of the Renaissance property, 5/3 Bank and for myself. We all supported the project together in unity and City Council voted unanimously to grant the retail zoning. From a timing perspective, I did work from November 1995 to the time the sellers requested we close on the ten acres. We only had sixty days from the time zoning was approved until they asked for closing. We were not able to get complete relief on the Avon deed restriction at the time we had an agreement in principal to do a hotel development next to Avon. Without that deed restriction lifted we were unable to close on the property so the property went on hold while we were negotiating for contract extensions and negotiating with Avon. In the meantime, the Air-Tite Window people came to the surface. We were not able to get tenants lined up on the 23 acre development when we only control 13 acres. The project may have to be scaled back from 550,000 feet to take it forward. I don't have a plan for this. The model we have is a homogeneous plan. If we scale back to something half that size we'd still be at about a $30 million development and result in a payroll of around 800-1200 jobs with a much higher real estate tax base than the current plan you see here with Air-Tite. I believe our plan is the best use and best impact for the City. In summary, Air-Tite signed their contract to purchase this piece of property with full knowledge of what the zoning was. We wanted to do the right plan. They have the same access to the same City Gate information. I have no ax to grind with their particular type of development but they have many other options. There are many other industrial sites in the market that they can acquire. This is the only site I have for development for the type we outlined for Pictoria Island. I believe you should compare and contrast the idea of an industrial use for ten acres in the middle of the corridor between S.R. 747 and Rt. 4 and compare contrasts with the idea of a homogeneous vista from S.R. 747 to Rt. 4. There is only one opportunity for you all to approve what is your City Gate and what I would like to do is a quality development here. I am maintaining my commitment to do a quality project at this site but I would need you to reject the current plan application in front of you tonight.
Mr. Bennington said it is our full intention to close on the land at the end of this month assuming we are able to come back here and talk to you again. Making the assumption that you pass this tonight, we will be back at your next meeting to talk about tax abatement. We plan to have the project built by December 1, 1997.
Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt and Ms. Manis seconded.
Mr. Galster said I want to bring you up to date on Planning and some of the concerns Planning has. With your ordinance you have notes from the staff as far as things that weren't in compliance. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to read minutes from Planning but in general, there were three major concerns, one being the pole sign that was proposed. Originally there was a 30-40 foot pole sign that may now be dropped down to about 24 feet high. There are mixed feelings on Planning Commission as to the need for a pole sign for this type of industry along I-275. The GI district in general allows for a maximum height of 12 feet. The last thing I think we saw was 24 feet or basically the height of the building. The other item is the tree replacement problem. This particular ten acres has 329 caliper inches that have been allocated to that site from previous removal of trees on the whole site in general, plus the amount of trees they would be taking out for this building, 388, leaving a total 717 caliper inches of trees that according to our ordinance, needs to be replaced. The applicant has come forward with about 328 caliper inches asking for relief of 389 caliper inches. Through Planning Commission they have shown some improvements to the building that they think compensates for the lack of replacing all the trees. There is some agreement and disagreement on the board as to those expenditures to the aesthetics of the building. I personally believe If they are going to market the building at some later date, these expenses they incurred to make it a better looking building, they will recoup when and if they ever sell the building. In one of the Planning Commission meetings there was a question as to how long this company would be here. I believe Mr. Bennington said with the growth of the company they may be growing out of this building in five to ten years. Once again getting away from the Commissions' feelings and getting to my feelings, if we are looking at this ten acre site and we are going to allow a building to go in that may be here for five to ten years in that particular use, plus the tax abatements, and they move out because they have outgrown it, is there an advantage to the City? I don't know. Those are concerns I have and concerns Planning Commission has in general in reference to this project.
Mr. Wilson said some of those points were already addressed by Mr. Galster but to Mr. King, what are your plans if this is rejected, in terms of starting construction? Do you have anything going on? We have been going back and forth for over a year and the only thing there is the Pictoria sign and monument. When are we going to see some groundbreaking?
Mr. King responded to do a project of that magnitude I have to have tenants in place. My ability to market and finance when we got into the deed restriction issue with Avon, sixty days after you voted for the zoning, put me in a standstill position. I have been back and forth with the owners of Renaissance the entire time trying to secure an agreement that will allow me to go forward. I continue to stay in touch with potential users but there really is very little I can tell them.
Mr. Wilson said at one of our meetings you and your developer brought in some potential tenants. Are those people still interested in this project?
Mr. King replied I now have more interested. They were prepared to sign earlier in the summer but I did not have control of the ground. In response to Mr. Wilson, Mr. King said one potential tenant is a 50,000 square foot user. One is a 40,000 square foot user. There are potentially six or eight.
Mrs. Boice said in regards to the preliminary site review notes we got on September 10, under item 5 it says signage for the development is to be on the building for each tenant in parenthesis. Is there going to be more than one tenant in that building?
Mr. Bennington replied Air-Tite will occupy approximately one-half the building to start with. From a cost standpoint it makes more sense for them to use the larger building because of some of the restrictions on the site. It made more sense for them to build the whole building because of their expansion needs. From a construction standpoint it costs them less to build more upfront than later on. So to start, they would occupy one-half of the building and have one, maybe two or three tenants on the other side. The way their sales have gone my guess is they will take up more than half the building to start with.
Mrs. Boice said in my reading of the Planning Commission minutes and I usually read them pretty thoroughly, I did not pick up on the fact that there would be other tenants. Number one and this is only a personal opinion, I don't know where you are going to get those tenants from when they know as you expand, they're are going to have to go out. I've had some experience in rental work and managing office buildings and there is a lot of expense incurred in moving and leasing whether it's a one man office, a two man office or a large concern. That concerned me. Mr. King, on Pictoria Island, I'm very glad to have you here tonight. I hope a lot of the people who have called me are going to see this on cable TV and you can answer their question because I am getting weary of answering it. Everyone asks, how long is that thing going to sit up there. I was under the impression it was supposed to be shrubbed. I'm going to be honest with you. Right now it looks bad. Everyone keeps saying when is something going to happen and I keep saying they are going to put shrubbery and it's going to look better there and nothing is happening. From what I am hearing from you tonight I get the feeling nothing is going to happen real quick from this point on either.
Mr. King responded you have to control the grounds. Early in the process I contacted nine different hotels and had nine rejections on hotels. Today I have two hotels at the same time interested in the site but today I don't control that particular piece of ground.
Mrs. Boice asked what do you believe are your chances of controlling it?
Mr. King replied I believe it's in your hands. I believe if you deny this zoning request in front of you I will be able to buy the Renaissance piece.
Mrs. Boice said if all that falls in line and you buy the Renaissance piece tomorrow, then what are we looking at in time?
Mr. King replied his timing would be to immediately pursue marketing the entire 23 acre development in terms of tenants. I've got $2.3 million in the project today and I'm earning nothing on it. One of the things I pledged when I came before you initially was I wouldn't come in and say if you don't approve our original project I'm going to hurry up and do this. I was going to develop this patiently. Patience was built on the idea that we do a quality job. Quality takes longer.
Mrs. Boice asked would you give some consideration to either dressing up that Pictoria Island object or else removing it? From the minute that went up everybody got real excited. I don't know about the rest of you but I am weary of answering those questions.
Mr. King replied if you approve their zoning request I have no need for the sign beyond today.
Mr. Danbury stated I would love to have Air-Tite in Springdale. I think it's a nice building. I think it's a good stable company. The way I look at it is this is probably the most important decision we have because this is the last parcel of land that is that valuable. I've been on record before. I voted against the creation of the commercial area where Best Buy and Dick's is because I feel we have too much retail. However, even though I would like to see you there this is just too valuable for us to be changing the zoning from what we did with Pictoria Island to this. From what Mr. Galster stated, the tenant may be there five to ten years and they may expand and move out. Hopefully, they would expand and stay in Springdale. I'm thinking maybe there is another parcel of land that is not frontage to I-275. I look at the parcel of land and the possibility of 80 jobs. Let's just say it doubles within five years and it's 160 jobs versus 800-1200 jobs. I think it's going to be more valuable to stay with the original proposal we approved last September for Mr. King, not to say Air-Tite shouldn't have a place in Springdale. One of the things we have done, if you look at the Rt. 4 Corridor Study, is we always wanted a great big gateway to Springdale. Mr. Osborn and I met with some of the officials from ODOT to try and see if we can have some signage saying you are now in Springdale. We are trying to get away from the Tri County name. With Rt. 4 that will be our main corridor. That is one of the things I really liked about the Pictoria Island design from Mr. King and his firm. I personally would love to see Air-Tite in Springdale but not for this particular parcel. I think the City would be best suited by denying this.
Mr. Bennington said we have been in Planning Commission twice and have had various meetings with Ann McBride and Bill McErlane. I think if they were here they would speak on our behalf on our willingness to make this project look how Springdale would like it to look. We did originally ask for a pole sign. Mr. Galster, I don't know if you have seen the revised signage requirement and the revised landscaping plan. You asked us to take a look at those things. Mr. Wilson, you were there. We addressed everything you mention. Everything that was a negative we changed to a positive to meet your needs. We want this to look like a very nice, high image, upscale entrance to Springdale. We understand it's the gateway. This project is ready to go today. We want to build this project. There is no hypothetical here. I'm telling you we will do this project. We don't have five or six tenants who may come here. Retail could still go in this corner. This is going to have the same look as Avon, the same landscaping. We're not going to do anything different.
Mr. Danbury said this came to Council from Planning Commission with a 7-0 vote. Basically, they just look at the plans for the building and usage and they don't consider anything else and they shouldn't consider anything else. They did their job and did it well because it looks like a nice plan. What I'm looking at is the return on our dollar. We have a TIF zone out there and we need to pay that off as soon as possible and get a return on our dollar. I think apples to apples for the usage of that land, the City would get a better return on something that isn't necessarily in that design. You can make that to be the greatest building on earth but if you just look at the total tax dollars the City will get in return, I feel as though your plan, although attractive, it's more attractive to go with the original plan.
Mr. Bennington said I guess you will have to ask yourself how long you are willing to wait. This project is here ready to go. You have been told for a year, year and a half, that Pictoria Island is going to go there and it hasn't.
Mr. Danbury replied that's valid but it's been dormant forever so far and now we have two people looking to develop it. I don't think it's going to be that big of a wait for us.
Mrs. McNear asked Mr. Bennington if this is a manufacturing or an assembling facility or a corporate office. Do you know what the hours of operation would be?
Mr. Bennington replied it is all of the above. I don't believe it would be a 24 hour a day operation at first. Jeff Gulley, the president of Air-Tite Windows is sitting here.
Mr. Gulley said presently we have one shift. There is a possibility of going to two shifts. We are at 17,000 square feet presently. If we were to grow out of the business in ten years we would have done exceptionally well. Right now we're running four ten hour days in one shift.
Mr. Wilson said you talked about a tax abatement. I have a concern about that when we are talking about a short period of time that you are going to be there. We are going to have a nice building. You are going to move out in what we initially thought was five years, now it's ten years. So ten years down the pike we have a vacant building. I'm not sure what type of company would go into that building other than another window company.
Mr. Bennington said this is a building that is built to market standards. It is very similar to what you approved for IDI. There are 24 foot clear ceilings, tilt up concrete construction. The upgraded front of the building is not typical for an industrial building. It's a higher image than what you have in that same park. Because of the highway visibility we want the higher image as well as you want the higher image. This building can be used for any manufacturing facility, any storage facility, any assembly or plant.
Mr. Wilson stated the second point is the tax abatement you are asking for as a condition, yet you are looking at a five to ten year period after which you are going to move out. Where are we going to get a return?
Mr. Bennington responded it is not Air-Tite Window's intention to move out of that facility. If anything we might make it all office and have the manufacturing facility somewhere else. That piece of property is a great location for our company to be in because of the high visibility, it's central location to the cities in which we do business. We do business in Lexington, Louisville, Indianapolis. We don't think we will ever have to leave that building. We may have to build another manufacturing facility because our distribution channel would be better if we built in Indianapolis or Louisville.
Mr. Wilson replied now I am a little confused. First we were talking about manufacturing and marketing, everything in one building. Then we were talking about moving out in five years. Now your president is saying maybe moving out in ten years. Now you are saying you may not move out at all because you may take your manufacturing somewhere else. Are you speaking for Air-Tite?
Mr. Gulley said I am speaking for Air-Tite. Nobody is going to tell you they will move into this building and they won't be there next year. Our plan is to stay in that building. We are proposing to build a 96,000 square foot facility. The five or ten year that Mr. Galster mentioned Mr. Bennington said was a possibility with our growth potential is not going to happen. I don't recall Mr. Bennington saying the five to ten years, possibly he did. I said the ten years would be unbelievable growth for us. We've gone from a 5,000 to 6,000 square foot facility to a 17,000 square foot facility in eighteen years. I don't believe in ten years we'll be ready to move out of that. There's no way. I'm not trying to dance here. We're building this facility not to move out in ten years. That's why we're building a 96,000 square foot facility. Since we have started this we have manufacturing capacity in another state. If we would need to we could have some manufacturing done out of state. That's not something we are planning on doing or needing to do, or wanting to do. We do not enjoy going through the process of building a building. It is something we need to do. I think we are very fortunate to be in the situation we are in. Why this land is available I don't know. If I had it under contract I sure wouldn't let it go out of my control but it did. We were there and we have a contract on it. We are real dependent upon you folks granting us the zoning change to enable us to build the facility that I believe is a nice facility. I can appreciate your concerns, Mr. Danbury, on down the road on what your returns are going to be on that parcel of land. I just hope you will consider our needs as well as yours. Being a part of Springdale is a positive for us as well as for you. You approving this would be a big bonus for you also. We're a strong company and are not planning to move in ten years. 96,000 square feet is a big building and I encourage you folks to come out and take a look at what we do in the space we do it in.
Mr. Wilson responded you say you are ready to break ground but you are going to request some things from us such as tax abatements, some kind of give away on the tree ordinance and other things.
Mr. Gulley said we had presented another packet one day last week. It's somewhere here if you would give that a look. We have addressed those issues.
Mr. Wilson said they would receive those packets for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Bennington said I have a copy with me tonight. If you look at the landscaping plan you'll see that we have exhausted that site. We have come real close to what you folks were wanting. We have put in trees without just throwing them on top of each other. I encourage you to take a look at that as well as looking at our facility.
Mr. Wilson stated you have made those concessions which none of us has seen and yet we're here to vote on this. Mr. King, timing, groundbreaking, maintenance of property you already own, could you address that? Mrs. Boice brought forth on more than one occasion maintenance on that which you do own, Pictoria signage, grass or lack of.
Mr. King responded if Air-Tite is approved tonight we'll be taking the sign down next week. My timing is contingent on market conditions. That is why I addressed the possibility of scaling the project back. Scaling back would not in any way impede the concepts behind the design and the homogeneous approach for the whole corridor and looking at the entire vista. There would be one plan and it is going to be tenant and market driven. I do not have $30 million to build projects. I am dependent on customers to build the projects. I have spent the $2 million that has been spent to date. There is plenty of seed money for a project of this magnitude but I know of no project of this magnitude that has been conceived where there are not obstacles. As soon as I get the customer base we'll move forward immediately. It is in my economic interest to move forward. I will not build and cannot get financing for a spec project. I need tenants. I do have two hotels simultaneously pursuing me at this time. Maybe a scaled back project can be done and we'll do the hotel phase first.
Mayor Webster said to the Air-Tite people Mr. Wilson alluded to the tax abatement. What kind of abatement are you looking for, percentage-wise? Could you quantify that for me in dollars and cents?
Mr. Bennington replied we would propose as much of a tax abatement as we could get, very similar to the one you granted Champion Windows more than a year ago.
In response to Mayor Webster, Mr. Osborn said I don't recall what Champion received. It may have been in the magnitude of 50%. In this particular tract, you have to recall that 70% of the increase in real property value is already dedicated to service payments for the TIF so we have a ceiling of 70% to begin with. Since the Champion deal we have been classified as a non-distressed enterprise zone so there is also a ceiling in legislation on our ability to grant an abatement at 75%. My anticipation, if we were to go forward with this project, would be that we would end up somewhere around 50% given past practice with such projects as Fresh America which is in the same industrial development as this site is located.
Mayor Webster asked, with 50% abatement would the project still be a go?
Mr. Dale Yates said it is my understanding after the TIF is taken off we actually end up with a 52.5% abatement on that property. Air-Tite is agreeable to that.
Mayor Webster said Mr. King, given the type of development that you have, you would not qualify for any type of abatement. Are we on the same page there?
Mr. King replied, yes. Under the original plan when we were going to build a 1,500 space parking garage we were trying to explore ways to acquire some type of TIF financing for the parking. If we do a scaled back project I won't need parking garages and I'd have no request for any type of tax abatement.
Mayor Webster asked if he was saying no or maybe. Mr. King replied with scaled back parking I would be asking for no abatement.
Mr. Osborn stated as a retail development that project would not be subject to enterprise zone tax abatement. We are talking about two different types of funding here. At one point we were looking at a city owned parking facility that would be associated with his project when it was first brought before us. One of the things we contemplated was using TIF funds to build those parking facilities which we would then lease to Pictoria Island. That is different from an enterprise zone abatement which would be the circumstance under which Air-Tite would make application. Mr. King's project would not be eligible for enterprise zone funding.
Mr. Bennington said my understanding is the planning and development Mr. King has presented will not reduce the TIF dollars the City has allocated to improvements to the roads and those things, and it's excluded that the other parcels in the park do pay for that.
Mr. Osborn replied that is not correct. In fact, it is the other way around. The only parcel that will be paying 100% towards the TIF is the parcel he owns that will support the restaurant facility. The other parcels are only paying 30% towards the TIF. All other properties in the park will pay 30% towards the TIF.
Mrs. McNear said Mr. King, Mrs. Boice and Mr. Wilson asked what is going to happen with the sign. We know you are going to take the sign down if we approve tonight. They've both asked the question and I've heard Ms. Manis ask the question in the past, what are you going to do, when are you going to do it, to fix that sign? It doesn't look acceptable right now. I don't think that is typical of the quality of work you would do should you continue on with your project. I am asking for the third time this evening, can you please tell us.
Mr. King replied I am not trying to avoid the question. If you reject their plan, I will immediately take steps to completely renovate the landscaping around that sign to bring it to first class condition immediately.
Mrs. McNear asked when we can expect that completion.
Mr. King replied it should be done by the end of the year.
Mr. Galster asked how long the 50% tax abatement is that typically for.
Mr. Osborn replied that would be based upon the negotiations. It would only be so long as the company has a lease interest or a fee interest in the property. When an agreement is negotiated we have to see a lease commitment or ownership in the property. If the party gives up its ownership or its lease interest, they have violated the agreement and the abatement automatically terminates. There is a provision that protects the community from anyone breaking that lease or moving out of the City.
Mr. Galster asked if they stay in the City for the next 100 years, how long would that abatement run?
Mr. Osborn responded ten years is the maximum. I might add that it doesn't say they couldn't come back and ask for an additional agreement or something of that nature. The length of any one agreement is ten years.
Mr. Galster asked the applicant what is your intention on the abatement?
Mr. Bennington replied we would ask for a ten year tax abatement.
Ms. Manis said the expansion building in the parking lot is still in the plans. What is that for?
Mr. Bennington said the front section of the building facing I-275 would be the first phase of the project. The second phase would be the smaller building in the back. We have a marketing operation that is housed inside the building.
Ms. Manis said our notes state that no permission has been submitted. I guess that has been submitted already from the current owner, Renaissance. What about Avon, do they have any problems? I just remember Avon has always been here when someone is coming in with a plan.
Mr. Bennington responded we have agreed to all the agreements they have with Renaissance as far as setbacks. I think if they had had a problem with what we have done we would know.
An Avon representative said it is not our intention to comment on the quality of one project or another. That's clearly your decision. I will say our concerns have been and continue to be, as a neighbor, the issues of setbacks, use as relates to traffic, and the deed restrictions we do hold with Renaissance on the property and I believe the deed restrictions as they currently stand are either for GI or office use.
Ms. Manis asked if the building would be used as a showroom and how large would that part be? How was the parking done?
Mr. Bennington replied about 3,000 to 4,000 square feet would be showroom.
There is more than enough parking.
Ms. Manis replied I would rather see less parking in these but it doesn't fit in the code.
Mr. Bennington stated because of the berming you won't see the parking at all.
Mr. Vanover asked if MSD has indicated they are willing to grant approval on this. It says we have approximately 660 linear feet of existing sanitary line that will have to be relocated.
Mr. Shuler said that was one of our office's review comments of the plan itself. However, at this time this is just a preliminary development plan. None of those details has moved forward. It's just a note of one of the items that would have to be accomplished before the final development plan could be approved for construction.
Mr. Vanover said the water retention is just a note and it has not been addressed to this point.
Mr. Shuler replied as far as all the details that is correct.
Mr. Danbury said I would love to see Air-Tite in Springdale. You have a good reputation but I just feel for the site available right now it is not the best use of this land for the City to get a return.
Mr. Vanover said I will be abstaining from this vote due to a potential conflict of interest. I am currently doing business with a competitor and I would feel it would best served if I sit this one out.
Ordinance 80-1996 failed with no affirmative votes. Mr. Vanover abstained.
ORDINANCE NO. 81-1996 "AMENDING THE ZONING CODE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO TO PROVIDE FOR THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 3.958 ACRES LOCATED AT 11320 SPRINGFIELD PIKE FROM OB (OFFICE BUILDING) TO PR-2 (PUBLIC FACILITIES) (KARL J. FREY AND FRED G. FREY)"
Fred Blatchford, representing the special contractor and development manager proposing to build a 42 unit assisted living facility said Sterling House was formed in 1990 by two individuals for the purpose of building and operating assisted living facilities in the United States. As of September of this year they had 36 operations in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. They have approximately 34 under construction in those states plus Ohio, Florida, Nebraska and Colorado. Their intention is to build 300 nationwide. There is always some confusion with assisted care versus nursing homes. These are not nursing homes. They are assisted care facilities. They provide care for the frail and elderly who need just the basics such as meal preparations, timely taking of their medication and maybe assistance getting in and out of the bathroom. Sterling House does not provide the level of care that nursing homes do. I have a typical floor plan of a Sterling House facility. These facilities are all one story. Each unit within the facility is an apartment, not just a room. They go around the perimeter of the building with an interior courtyard with seating. It also has a kitchen and dining room. Occupants can purchase a meal plan similar to what the universities do where you can buy one, two or three meals a day. The apartments do have cooking facilities in them. They are all one story. They are constructed to look as residential as possible. The exterior materials are selected to blend in architecturally with the other structures in the area. They have shingled roofs like a house would. The front of the building is brick with some natural stones around the main entrance and some siding. The colors are selected to blend in with the area. The average age of the occupants is 80. We have not created a traffic problem. The only traffic in and out of the facility would be visiting family members and the staff. Normally they employ about 15-20 people depending on the size of the unit. It's generally 6-8 per shift and that varies somewhat from one facility to the next. There is always a full time nurse in the facility. There is a nurse's assistant, cooks, maintenance people, etc. They are very secure buildings. They are made that way purposely to make the occupants feel comfortable. Each unit has a nurse's call. If an occupant should feel ill during the night he/she can push the button like they have in the hospital. That call system is also hooked up to the telephone. The facilities are well landscaped with a lot of grass and as many trees as possible. The exterior facilities are vinyl siding with asphalt shingles. The stone and tile are all natural. This facility has 42 units made up of 30 units of assisted care and 12 units of Alzheimer's care.
Ms. Manis made a motion to adopt and Mr. Wilson seconded.
Mrs. Boice said I am familiar not only with assisted living homes, but retirement homes and skilled nursing homes. I had charge of an aunt for quite a number of years, who moved from level to level. You were speaking that the average age of your tenants is 80 and up. You were saying there is a full kitchen in each apartment
Mr. Blatchford replied there is a kitchen where they can cook simple meals. I don't think they would want to cook a roast beef dinner but they can prepare their own breakfast and sandwiches.
Mrs. Boice said it isn't real extensive - there is some danger there. I was particularly interested in reading the review as to the amount of staffing. Originally you had said 4-5 employees on staff. I am very familiar with a 100 unit facility with assisted and independent living. Most of these people do need assistance, right?
Mr. Blatchford responded most need very little assistance. The assistance they get here is to make sure they take their medication on time, getting in and out of the bath, very simple assistance. The philosophy of Sterling House is to give elderly and frail people a nice, secure, safe place to live. If you need care beyond that you should go to the next level.
Mrs. Boice said if you are going to be assisting with baths and assisting with passing out medications, I was pleased to hear 6-8 employees. But then in the same sentence you said 12 of the units are going to be Alzheimer units, which I'm sure you are aware of as well as I am, require a tremendous amount of attention. That was a concern of mine. I know that really doesn't fit in here as to whether we should rezone the property or whether we shouldn't. That is a matter of concern to me as to your staff. It seems a little light from what I'm familiar with. Also on the zoning review, I see no permission has been provided by the current owner to allow rezoning of the property. Does that still stand?
Mr. Osborn said I'm not certain if the letter has been received but I know for a fact that the Freys have been in negotiations with these folks to sell the property so I'd be amazed if they weren't supportive of the application for rezoning. Typically a check off item for Planning Commission is that there be a letter from the current property owner that the people holding the option to purchase has their agreement to go after rezoning.
Mrs. Boice stated I would be rather hesitant unless we know we have that in hand. I'm sure it is fine but I wouldn't the Freys coming in here later.
Mr. Osborn said if Council sees fit to vote on this this evening, if this is an issue then perhaps approval could be granted contingent upon production of the letter from the Freys.
Mrs. Boice replied I would be more comfortable with that. Has any adjustment been made on the parking spaces. I see that 97 spaces are required and you are only showing 27 parking spaces. I know you say there isn't a lot of traffic. Dealing with the experience I had going to the assisted home where my aunt was I prayed for a skyhook because there never was any parking so that does concern me.
Mr. Blatchford said most of the Sterling House facilities have 30 spaces. Most of the traffic from visiting members involves pick up and drop off at the main entrance. Other spaces are provided for the staff and there are some occupants who do still drive but very few of them. Thirty spaces in the past have been more than adequate but in site design if more than 30 are required I'm sure they can be accommodated.
Mrs. Boice said I know typically and unfortunately a lot of times these people do not have a lot of visitors. I'm fully aware of that. There are certain days of the year when a lot of people show up. It's a nightmare if you don't have the parking spaces. I'm not just guessing on this because I've lived through it.
Mr. Blatchford said it's been our experience that on those holidays the occupancy is very low. Most of the occupants are with their family members in other areas. There are more visitors on those days but during the holidays most occupants are taken to their families' homes.
Mr. Osborn said I just want to direct Council's attention to the fact that they City Planner's review confirms that this project meets all the standards of the Springfield Pike Corridor Review District both in terms of the architectural style, finished material, land use, etc. From the standpoint of the Rt. 4 Corridor District this is a very good fit as it is being proposed. I've also asked Mr. Parham to call Mr. McErlane at home if he might recall whether a letter came in on this property.
Mr. Galster said there is also a note in the engineer's report that says as part of the approval for rezoning that we need to get an additional five feet of permanent highway easement. Is that something we would need to add to this motion as well? Right now they are only developing that one part. Is this something we need to get in that letter that gives us right of way across both pieces of land?
Mr. Shuler said what we were referring to in our master plan for the Rt. 4 improvement will require an additional five feet of right of way across the frontage of this property. It was suggested that that may want to be negotiated with the applicant at the time of the rezoning and if possible, like Maple Knoll did, a dedication of that additional right of way would be helpful at this time for our future planning.
Mr. Galster said we would require that, not only on this 3.95 acres but also the additional 2.918 acres.
Mr. Osborn asked Mr. Shuler, if we were to ask for that five foot additional right of way, does their current plan reflect that or would this have an impact on their proposed plan (setbacks, parking, everything they have laid out)?
Mr. Shuler said the only impact it would have would be on the setback requirements. The additional five feet would not alter physically any of the driveway, parking, or any other physical improvements proposed but it would alter the 100 foot proposed setback from the current right of way line by that same five feet.
Mr. Osborn said I would like to pursue that question with the applicant. I know you were distracted a little bit but during the planning process it was pointed out by our Engineer's Office that we have a plan to expand Springfield Pike and the property immediately to the south of this location, Maple Knoll Village, recently gave us a donation of an additional five feet of right of way. We would like to try to ask that same concession from this owner once they acquire the property. The purpose of the donation is to widen the road into a three lane format with bike lanes and sidewalks. I asked Mr. Shuler if this would impact on the plan as laid out and he indicated it would only impact the setback. It would not impact anything physical. I guess the building is set back 100 feet so the five feet is not going to have a significant consequence. Do you think your client would be favorable towards the five foot donation of additional right of way.
Mr. Blatchford replied I think they probably would. I can't be 100% sure but I'd be surprised if they didn't. This has happened before around the country and it's not unusual..
Mr. Danbury said do you feel that we might want to add that as a Section 3. Since there was a concern I thought we would add Section 3.
Mr. Osborn said let's go ahead if Council agrees, add that as a condition as well and then if for some reason, if the corporation has an objection they can come back to Council and discuss that.
Mrs. Boice made a motion to add Section 3 to be read and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Mr. Knox suggested we add a Section 2 and then change Section 2 to Section 3.
Mr. Galster asked if we are going to put in the letter of approval from the owner and also the five foot easement, not only on this property but on the other part of the property that is not being rezoned?
The section was changed to read "This zoning is contingent on current owner to allow rezoning of said property and an additional five foot permanent right of way dedication across the frontage of the entire property.
Mrs. Boice withdrew the first motion.
Mrs. McNear made a new motion to accept the additional section and changes. Ms. Manis seconded.
The motion to add an additional section passed with 7 affirmative votes.
Ms. Manis said it's a come and go as you want facility.
Mr. Blatchford said the facility is secured. For an occupant to leave he/she must go through the nurse's station.
Ms. Manis asked if each apartment has a locked door and Mr. Blatchford replied yes. The nurse has the master key.
Mr. Danbury asked what kind of different features are you going to be doing with the Alzheimer's residents? I don't recall the traffic count but I believe anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 cars go past there every day.
Mr. Blatchford responded I'm not really qualified to answer that. They have certainly more care than the others but I can't really answer that question. The entire building is secure and they must see the nurse to leave. They cannot get out of the facility without assistance.
Ms. Manis said I think it is a very nice design. I think it looks very nice. It fits in our Corridor Study well and it's a pleasure not to have to fight with somebody to get it to look that way.
Mrs. Boice said he has some of the interior pictures which I was interested in. It does include activity rooms, beauty shop, open areas for people to sit and chat, which is very important when you are dealing with a facility like this. I must say I was impressed with the type of apartment. The kitchen facility is very small and very simple which I always think is a matter of concern.
Mr. Knox asked what provisions are made for emergency exit in case of fire.
Mr. Blatchford replied it meets all fire safety codes. As for the occupants going out if someone goes out the door and it's not an emergency the alarm goes off.
Mr. Galster said Planning is still concerned about the outside flow of emergency vehicles and location of fire hydrants to allow us to possibly fight a fire. That's still being worked on and will be addressed in more detail on the final.
Ordinance 81-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO. 82-1996 "AUTHORIZING PFLUM, KLAUSMEIER & GEHRUM TO PROCEED WITH THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ZONING WORK NECESSARY FOR ZONING CODE UPDATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
Mrs. McNear made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded.
Mr. Galster said not only is this designed to help reorganize the zoning code but I think there are going to be other additional proposals that are included into the zoning code; for example, our Corridor Study right now has a lot of should be's, could's, as opposed to would's and shall's. We're going to try to incorporate some of those changes into this as well. I don't know if we need to make it part of our agreement with Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehrum as far as having an advisory board to go over the recommended changes prior to them just starting to rewrite.
Mr. Osborn said we have been through this a couple of time before and it's a very labor intensive process. Certainly Planning Commission is going to be the key player in terms of dialoguing with the consultant. But it could be a decision on part of Council to form a working committee made up of a few people from Council and a few from Planning Commission to work directly with the consultant. As we go through this, if it works correctly, there will be a lot of conversations about past problems and new issues. We ought to be able to bring all these things to the surface and get them considered as we go through this process. If there is a single unit, either Planning Commission itself or a special committee of Council, it would certainly be beneficial because there would be a focal point to direct all this information, whether that is Rules and Laws Committee or a special committee. I think that's a good idea, Mr. Galster. The type of rewrite we are talking about here is not just cleaning up some punctuation's, etc. It's modernizing this code and that is going to take a great deal of effort. That means a lot of review time on our part so I would suggest if Council so desires that would be a reasonable approach.
Ordinance 82-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
Mr. Danbury said we do have a request from Administration to go into executive session to discuss real estate and personnel. We don't anticipate any legislation so I would like to put that at 13-A.
Mr. Schneider asked to add litigation to that.
ORDINANCE NO. 83-1996 "AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH NORTH AMERICAN FOR THE PURCHASE OF HIGHWAY DE-ICING ROCK SALT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt and Mr. Wilson seconded.
Ordinance 83-1996 passed with 7 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE NO. 84-1996 "AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO, CHAPTER 77, SCHEDULE IV REGARDING SNOW EMERGENCY ROUTES"
Mr. Danbury said I spoke with a resident the other day and it's an old problem. It's traffic going to and from Springdale and Beacon Hills into Forest Fair Mall. He just wanted to know if there is any way we can prohibit foot traffic from going in there. I recall a long time ago we discussed something like this and I don't recall what the solution was, what we can or can't do.
Mr. Osborn said we can look at the fence to make sure it is in place. There was a fence constructed, a gate at the north end of the project that is supposed to be locked. People can climb the fence, I assume. More typically they push away the netting and go under the fence. We can see if the fence is secure. If not, we can have Forest Fair Mall make necessary repairs. We can also advise the Police Department if there are specific areas along the fence that we need to be watching. As you know, there is only one point where a public street actually approaches the fence. The rest of the time it is behind residential property. If you could give me the name of the specific resident and where this is occurring it would help us try to react to it a little bit.
Mr. Galster said in reference to the Charter revisions that were just voted on, six residents just asked me why we didn't get more information out to them on items in relationship to the Charter. I explained to them that in Public Relations, Mrs. McNear and I tried to get it into the newsletter but the actual drafting of those Charter revisions didn't get in in time to make the newsletter that had to be out before the 75 days prior to the election. If this comes up again I would like to maybe make an amendment to that ordinance to allow the Charter revision statements or at least the changes to go out to the residents even if it is within that black out period, something drafted by the Law Director, no political influence one way or the other. At least the people taking the time to vote on something, would have the opportunity to review it in a timely fashion. I know in trying to schedule out the newsletters and trying to make that happen with the Charter revision drafting, it may not happen on a timely basis. My other question in reference to the revisions is when do they actually go into effect.
Mr. Knox said when the board of election certifies it to us.
Mayor Webster said Ms. Manis, at the last Council meeting you asked a question about the status of the Shultze property that the City now owns. This is an historical inventory of Hamilton County and relates to Springdale. You are correct that the Shultze property was listed at the time as the third oldest building. The one next door is the second oldest building. So there is some historical significance to the property. Does that make a difference on what we do with it? As I indicated three weeks ago, you all let us know what you think. If you have any ideas we'll be happy to pursue them and give you the pros and cons of whether we can make those ideas work or not.
Mr. Osborn said we had a bid opening on November 1 for patrol vehicles and a mid size sedan for the Police Department. We received one bid from Kerry Ford. Kerry Ford's unit price for the police cruisers was $19,644. The state bid price is $19,235 a unit. When you project that out over four vehicles the state purchase price is about $1,500 less expensive than the Kerry Ford bid. We do anticipate making our 1997 cruiser purchases through the state contract. On the mid size sedan which would be a Taurus, unfortunately this year there was not a state bid for this size vehicle. The Kerry Ford bid for this vehicle was $16,692. We believe this is a good price. As you have probably followed the market, Tauruses have gone up a little bit but we believe it's a good price and we do request legislation before Council at the next meeting authorizing these vehicle purchases. Just to give you some additional background, this is a 1997 budget item but we want to get the purchase process started now because of the delivery time and the fact that they do cut off production of police vehicles earlier than the routine production schedule. The 1997 budget amount was $97,000. These units in total will cost just under $94,000. Finally, you may recall, you authorized the sale of some surplus vehicles and bicycles earlier this fall. The auction was held October 31 at Cincinnati Automobile Auction. For our twelve vehicles we received $24,087. For our bicycles we received $1,457 so we netted $25,544 for the equipment we sold earlier this fall. Two points of good news in that area. One, we will be under budget for our purchases and two, we received extremely good returns on our surplus equipment. The second item I have relates to two agreements with the Ohio Department of Transportation that will authorize an agreement between the City and the Ohio Department of Transportation for the maintenance of traffic signals in the limited access right of way on both S. R. 4 and S. R. 747. We already have an agreement in place for the signals on S. R. 747. It was the first one of its type in the state. Since then the state has developed a standard form agreement as they will normally do. Fortunately, it's about 90% what our agreement looked like three or four years ago. Nevertheless, they want to adopt a new agreement so we will be bringing those before you at your next meeting. Under the provisions of this agreement they pay us a flat fee of $2,000 per signal per year for maintenance and we are very comfortable with that number. The third item I have deals with the amendment to the section of the Springdale Code of Ordinances that sets the authorization for staffing in the Police Department. I'm sure you'll recall the 1997 budget authorizes a thirty-third police officer. In looking at the schedule for training of new police officers we found there will be a class that starts the latter part of January. As a result we would like to ask Council to consider amending the code at your next meeting, increasing the staffing level to 33 so that we can begin the recruitment process as soon as possible and hopefully have someone picked out by the first of the year. The reason this is critical is, even if we get the party into the school that starts in late January he/she will not graduate from the academy until May and by the time he/she finishes his/her ten week riding period with our personnel, he/she won't be on the road by himself/herself in a cruiser until August. So as you can see there is a lot of lead time in selecting and training a police officer before we can put him/her out on the street. Again, just so we don't waste a whole year here we'd like to get a running start on this and the first step in that process is to have the code amendment amended to allow for a thirty-third police officer.
Mayor Webster said I did have one item to share with you under Old Business. I see you were copied on the Spirit of Springdale costs for 1997. I think we said we'd share that with you as soon as we pulled it together. It looks like we're looking at a 10% increase from what we experienced in the past year so we're probably looking at a gross expense of $44,000. That's for fireworks, increased security and more port-a-lets, temporary lighting, increased bus transportation. There are areas that have not been covered in the past.
Ms. Manis asked if the new officer will be a juvenile officer or will we start training someone from our department to be the juvenile officer.
Mr. Osborn said the person who fills that slot will be a veteran police officer. Certainly we would hope to be able to duplicate that training period so that when the party comes out on the street we can move that other individual into that type of duty. I can't tell you who that's going to be yet but I can tell you it will be a veteran police officer.
MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Board of Zoning Appeals November 19, 7:30 p.m.
Tax Review Board November 7, 6:30 p.m.
Board of Health November 14, 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission November 12, 7:00 p.m.
Parks Recreation Commission November 13
Mrs. Boice said Mr. Parham told her the lady who is doing the update on the history wants a tour of the City as she has already corrected the original document. She is wanting to get in her mind where these sections are, Heritage Hill, Terrace, etc. Mr. Parham asked me if I would do that so I will be taking her on a tour of the City tomorrow morning at 10:00.
Ms. Manis said I would just like to wish Wanda Price all the best. She was in a serious car accident a couple of weeks ago and she's home recuperating now. She does a lot for the City and the kids and I just wanted to tell her we are thinking about her and our prayers are with her.
Mayor Webster said all of you have received a mug. They will be made available to the public for approximately $4.75. We are asking the Community Center to be the outlet for that. We will be presenting lighting awards again this year. The judging will take place on December 19 and 20 from 6 to 9 p.m. We'll be touring the City, all seven districts and we'll be giving six awards to each district. There will be a tree lighting ceremony right outside Council Chambers. The tree came out of Mr. Danbury's yard and we appreciate the contribution. That will be Sunday evening, December 1 at 7:30 p.m. We urge all City officials to be here. We are trying to line up a choir from the elementary school.
Mr. Osborn said we have been attempting to organize a local Chamber of Commerce for the last month or so. We had one organizational meeting in October and the next organizational meeting will be here at the Municipal Building at 8 a.m. this Friday. We are encouraging the private sector to come forward and discuss the concept of the local chamber. We have resources through the Greater Cincinnati Chamber available to us in terms of how to form a chamber, etc. It is our objective to try to serve as a catalyst. If there is sufficient interest in the private sector then hopefully the leadership will come from the businesses and they will take this on as a program. On the short term, until we can identify some leadership in the private sector and give it a little nudge to get started, the City is playing that roll. Our next meeting will be this Friday at 8 a.m. I'm sure any elected officials who want to sit in will be more than welcome.
Mr. Danbury said I would like to publicly congratulate International Paper. I assume everyone received a copy of the correspondence from Mr. Osborn. As you all know they make a lot of effort in taking care of the environment and for the second straight year they have the American Institute of Baking Superior Rating which is a high award. Basically, it recognizes companies for safety, hygiene and control practices. It's the highest rating a company can receive. I want to congratulate them in their efforts.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none
UPDATE ON LEGISLATION STILL IN DEVELOPMENT
Mayor Webster said I would just like to call Council's attention to Item 9 on the last page. We would ask that you consider an ordinance at your next meeting for the renewal of the contract with John Flessa to serve as prosecutor. I apologize for asking for an emergency on this. This contract has never really had an expiration date. It's like sixty days notice. I would like to get that approved at the next Council meeting and have his term run concurrent with that of the magistrate. We will put that on the automatic scheduling system to bring that to your attention next September, have two readings for both of those contracts in October, hopefully with final passage the last meeting in October and go in effect December 1. The terms and conditions are the same as they have been.
RECAP OF LEGISLATIVE ITEMS REQUESTED FOR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING
Mr. Danbury said we're going to have Item 2 - Snow emergency as a second reading. We might possibly have legislation for an administrative secretary and administrative assistant (Item 5).
Mr. Osborn said it is very unlikely to be at the next meeting. We have a consultant that we've brought in to give us some assistance on that and I don't think you'll see anything until mid December.
Mr. Danbury said on Item 6 we have two separate ordinances. This will be the first reading. Item 7 is a revamped noise regulation and this would be a first reading. We have an emergency reading for Item 8 - Additional police officer that was discussed earlier. We also have Ordinance 9 - Contract with Mr. Flessa as prosecutor and that is with an emergency clause. Item 10 can be held off until December. I also heard we want an emergency for the purchases of police vehicles.
Mrs. Boice asked how long are we going to deal with Item 1? They asked for our assistance. It seems to me they ought to be getting it off the burner.
Mayor Webster said they asked us for a proposal. The Chief has put a substantial amount of work into it. The ball is in their court. They may choose to never act on it. We did not initiate this. They came to us and we fulfilled their request for a proposal.
Mr. Osborn said we have been told by both their Mayor and Administrator that this is an active issue that they would like to pursue with us. I don't know what the circumstances are with their Law Director. I think they reassured the Mayor recently at a meeting that this is an item they want to follow up on.
Mr. Schneider said we were in touch with the Law Director two weeks ago and he indicated it is his fault. He said it got shuffled to the back burner but he was getting it back before Council's consideration. We had reviewed the initial provisions and modified the agreement relative to liability. He had to take that back through Council again. I think it's back on track again.
Mrs. Boice made a motion to go into a meeting as a committee of the whole for an informal discussion of real estate, personnel and litigation and Ms. Manis seconded.
Council went into Executive Session at 9:10 p.m. Council resumed at 10:12 p.m.
Council adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Edward F. Knox
Clerk of Council/Finance Director
Randy Danbury, President of Council