Council
Chambers
March 10,
2009
A) CALL TO ORDER
The Council for the City of
B) PRAYER
C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
D) ROLL CALL
On roll call, the following members answered present: Mr. Gabbard, Mr. Sanker, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Moore, Mr. Thornbury, Mr. Barlow, and Mr. Mumper.
E) AMENDMENT OF AGENDA
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Sanker, it was moved to amend the agenda by moving item H-B) immediately following Approval of Minutes, and by adding item J-F, and Communications O-4 and O-5. All members present voted “YES”.
f) Minutes of previous meetings
Minutes of December 8, 2008, December 23, 2008, and January 13, 2008
On a motion by Mr. Thornbury, seconded by Mr. Schneider, it was moved to approve the minutes as if read. All members present voted “YES”.
H-B) ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANS FOR ST. ALOYSIUS ORPHANAGE SCHOOL COVERED BY THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE OVER 2420 DREX AVENUE
Mr. Gabbard asked the representatives for St. Aloysius to
step forward and asked if the facility is still an orphanage. Mr. Trauth said
no, it is mostly “schooling”. Ms. Joan
Tumblison, Associate Director of
Mr. Gabbard asked the similarities to the current facility
in the
Mr. Gabbard asked about security procedures. Ms. Tumblison replied that students are checked upon entry, and supervised during school hours. Mr. Gabbard then asked the number of police runs involving the institution this year. Ms. Tumblison said there are 2 to 2.5 times each month that the police are involved in incidents.
Mr. Gabbard then asked the reasons for the intention to move. Ms. Tumblison said the current building is old and the goal was to find a building that would require less renovation. They considered building a new school on property but that would have been cost prohibitive.
Mr. Mumper asked if the Holy Trinity facility meets Jared’s Law. Ms. Tumblison said it is much closer, but it is still being reviewed by the Health Department for the necessary renovations.
Mr. Sanker asked if weapons were carried by faculty and staff. Ms. Tumblison said there is no armed security. Our teachers are our security force.
Mr. Mumper remarked that the Holy Trinity property is not equipped with sprinklers at this time and understands that sprinklers would be required for such use. Ms. Tumblison affirmed and mentioned there are plans to add sprinklers to the facility.
Mr. Schneider asked if other locations had been investigated. Ms. Tumblison said they had looked at many locations, but none were as close to the Bond Hill location as desired.
Mr. Moore asked for Mr. Trauth to explain his position and his claim. Mr. Trauth explained the non-conforming use and details of P.U.D. covering this property. Mr. Moore expressed concern and noted that he would like to eradicate non-conforming use. Mr. Trauth said the Parish continued to use the facility throughout this time and there for there was no lapse in usage.
Mr. Moore asked a clarifying question and asked if the main argument was the continuation of the non-conforming use? Mr. Trauth answered yes, and that was the claim of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mumper asked if Mr. Trauth had represented parties in similar matters and if there were other cases where nearby residents were against a particular use case. Mr. Trauth answered that he has had some previous cases that were related.
Mr. Gabbard asked Mr. Trauth whom he was representing St. Aloysius and the Archdiocese? Mr. Trauth answered that he is representing St. Aloysius.
Mr. Thornbury asked what Mr. Trauth would say to residents concerned about negative impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Trauth said they have been at the current location in Bond Hill since 1861. They have always tried to be a good neighbor. The property is exquisitely maintained and noted there is no threat to the neighborhood.
Mr. Mumper questioned an adverse situation with Bond Hill Council. Ms. Tumblison said it is zoned as RM2. They are trying for a zoning change to that building as well but the neighbors are on record opposing the redevelopment and that project has been shelved. Neighbors wanted a green space as a buffer to the residential area.
Mr. Moore expressed concern over legal issue, continuing non-conforming use is questionable. He is also skeptical with “the only possible use” of this facility. The best case is always the current case and sometimes a better option lies in waiting.
Mr. Mumper asked for Mayor William’s comments. The Mayor thanked everyone for their honesty and candor. Mayor Williams responded by noting that there are monetary implications across the board and we must protect our community as well. This is not about the children; they currently have a school location that is a very nice facility. Our first responsibility is in the best interest of the City. Mayor Williams continued by explaining that a PUD is placed onto property to protect the best interest of the City. That is the definition of the purpose of the P.U.D. If there is a question to its use, then we should never place another P.U.D. on our property.
Mayor Williams then noted that this isn’t a vote against any cause; the #1 responsibility is to the City of Norwood. There are many potential uses for any facility and we have actual cases in and around City Hall in a similar situation.
Mr. Thornbury asked the Mayor specifics about what in particular is not in the best interest of City? The Mayor wondered if there have been other explorations; there is a lot of concern. The Bond Hill location is buffered by lots of green space and by Norwood Lateral, and major roads, protecting nearby property owners.
Mr. Schneider is concerned this is a zoning issue. Comparing residential area to some of the commercial examples, what is the role of the City in these discussions? Those sitting vacant are not desirable. Mr. Schneider noted he will vote consistent with zoning laws.
Mr. Mumper reminded that we don’t own the property. That is the case with almost everything we do in influencing which projects are undertaken inside the City. In other situations we have worked very hard with developers to get certain concessions. The reason we are here is to do what is good for the City. 90% of those in his ward, to whom he has spoken on this matter, are against this particular use. Mr. Mumper added that he has had more constituents contact him about this issue than on the Health Department, which was a huge city wide issue.
Mr. Barlow commented he sees how St. Aloysius benefits monetarily, sees how the Archdiocese benefits, but sees no benefit for the community or City, and asked rhetorically what process this starts?
Mr. Thornbury is trying to understand the concern and the nature of students coming into area? In researching, Mr. Thornbury mentioned that he had talked to the principal of North Norwood School and visited the website as well as discussing with several members of the Police Department. He has discovered that there are approximately, 4-5 runs a month, but not sure of the impact to the neighborhood. He is not hearing the same response that Mr. Mumper has received.
Mr. Sanker pointed out the vote is not for the “type” of school. That is not the issue. The vote is on zoning regulations, not fear of what type of school or students. Based on current zoning and P.U.D. no school is permitted on that site without provisions.
Mr. Gabbard said he can’t go anywhere in the City without getting questions on this matter and receives multiple emails on the topic on a regular basis. After all this discussion, Mr. Gabbard noted he is confused as to why we haven’t heard from property owners on this issue. Whatever goes in there needs to be in the best interest of our City and noted he is tired of getting bullied or forced into taking something because it’s the only option. Are they giving us an apple for their potential gold bar? The claims that rejecting this would be Non-Christian is ridiculous. We have been approached by other churches as well and those churches had to deal with consequences and abide by our regulations. With this issue there has been the threat of litigation from the very first reading and these fear tactics and those imposed by the fact there is a stenographer sends the message that we need to watch our words out of fear not in making the right decision. Mr. Gabbard continued that he has kept a mental tally on residents opposed to this and noted quite a few members of the Parish who are opposed to this but have expressed that they have refrained from speaking out due to intimidation. Mr. Gabbard noted that in addition to the opinions expressed by residents that he will vote with his conscious. Mr. Gabbard reiterated his unhappiness with this process. We must remember that we represent citizens of the City of Norwood. Is this really the only option?
Mr. Schneider added that he remembered the closing of
On a motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Thornbury, it was moved to hear the third reading of the proposed ordinance. All members present voted “YES”.
On a motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Thornbury, it was moved to pass the proposed ordinance. Voting against the motion were Mr. Gabbard, Mr. Sanker, Mr. Moore, Mr. Barlow, and Mr. Mumper. Voting in favor of the motion were Mr. Schneider and Mr. Thornbury. The motion failed (5-2).
Before proceeding, a recess was called. After the recess, Council considered with the agenda as amended.
G) REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
1. Community Development Re: Updating Zoning Code
Mr. Mumper asked if professionals will be invited to present at the committee meeting. Mr. Moore confirmed and noted that the dates have already been set aside.
Mr. Schneider asked the last time the zoning codes were revised. Mr. Moore said they are constantly being “tweaked” but not revisited in total since 1985.
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Schneider, it was moved to accept the Committee report and place the item into the Committee of the Whole. All members present voted “YES”.
2. Finance & Audit Re: Claims
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Sanker, it was moved to accept the report. All members present voted “YES”.
3. Finance & Audit Re: Appropriations
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to accept the report. All members present voted “YES”.
H) third
A) ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PAY SCALE
FOR SEASONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF NORWOOD RECREATION COMMISSION.
Mr.
Mumper did not like the way things were worded but would vote in favor of Mr.
Schneider’s suggestions. Mr. Schneider
clarified that the $35.00 was an officiating fee quoted as per game.
On a
motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to hear the third
reading of the Ordinance. All members
present voted “YES”.
On a
motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to pass the
Ordinance. All members present voted
“YES”.
B) ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLANS FOR ST. ALOYSIUS ORPHANAGE SCHOOL COVERED BY THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE OVER 2420 DREX AVENUE
As
amended, this item was considered previously.
I) SECOND
A) ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF NORWOOD TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
NORWOOD AND THE CINCINNATI METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
Mr.
Schneider asked for a quick update and clarification from the Mayor. The Mayor explained this was basic
housekeeping for property on Bosworth Avenue, located in Cincinnati with a
corner of the parcel within the City of Norwood.
On a
motion by Mr. Sanker, seconded by Mr. Schneider, it was moved to suspend the
second and third readings. All members present voted “YES”.
On a
motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to pass the
ordinance. All members present voted “YES”.
J) INTRODUCTORY
A. ORDINANCE
TO CHANGE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE YEAR 2009, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Mr.
Schneider asked for clarification on the modifications. Mr. Barlow explained
adjustments to the Fire Department. Mr. Stith added an explanation of the
change in appropriations of C.O.P.C. Grant.
On a
motion by Mr. Barlow, seconded by Mr. Mumper, it was moved to suspend the rules
and hear all three readings. All members present voted “YES”.
On a
motion by Mr. Barlow, seconded by Mr. Schneider, it was moved to pass the
ordinance. All members present voted “YES”.
B. ORDINANCE
PROVIDING RAISES FOR APPOINTED EMPLOYEES, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Mr.
Schneider asked if appoint official would have discretion up to 2%. Mayor Williams confirmed.
Mr.
Schneider asked the Law Department if a supervisor could modify the raise for
less than the 2%. Mr. Kiser said a straight 2% raise is the way it is worded,
but this could be modified upon Council discretion. Mr. Schneider said there is no reason for
this to be modified immediately, but in the future he would like it to be
worded in a manner that gives discretion.
On a
motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Schneider, it was moved to suspend the
rules and hear all three readings. All members present voted “YES”.
On a
motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Schneider, it was moved to pass the
ordinances. All members present voted “YES”.
C. ORDINANCE CREATING AND ESTABLISHING THE LINDEN-POINT-TIF-SCHOOL- DISTRICT-COMPENSATION FUND, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Mr.
Gabbard asked for clarification on the Ordinance as well as the urgency. Mr. Stith explained that said we should try
to pass the ordinance tonight. In
meeting with State Auditor we were advised to establish this separate fund as a
housekeeping measure.
On a motion
by Mr. Gabbard, seconded by Mr. Schneider, it was moved to suspend the rules
and hear all three readings of the ordinance. All members present voted “YES”.
On a
motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to pass the
ordinance. All members present voted “YES”.
D. ORDINANCE
CREATING AND ESTABLISHING THE CORNERSTONE-TIF-SCHOOL-DISTRICT-COMPENSATION
FUND, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
On a
motion by Mr. Barlow, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to suspend the rules
and hear all three readings of the ordinance. All members present voted “YES”.
On a
motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Barlow, it was moved to pass the
ordinance. All members present voted “YES”.
E.
ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING SECTIONS 3735.65 THROUGH 3735.70 OF THE OHIO REVISED
CODE, ESTABLISHING AND DESCRIBING THE BOUNDARIES OF A COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT
AREA IN THE CITY OF NORWOOD, OHIO, DESIGNATING A HOUSING OFFICER TO ADMINISTER
THE PROGRAM, AND CREATING A COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT HOUSING COUNCIL AND TAX
INCENTIVE REVIEW COUNCIL, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Mr.
Moore thanked the Law Department for this Ordinance and explained the purpose
of a CRA as a way to attract investment and improved housing in our area. It
makes properties more attractive to investors by limiting incremental property
tax liability on improvements. This is
limited to owner-occupied house improvements. Mr. Moore added that Norwood is
competing for these potential owners, and must make our housing stock more
attractive than surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr.
Schneider added that this program is opt-in, but asked if this would be a
hindrance towards home improvements? Mr. Stith said no, only affect is to reduce
tax burden for 10 years for those who apply.
On a
motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Schneider, it was moved to hear the first
reading of the Ordinance. All members present voted “YES”.
F. ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE SAFETY-SERVICE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT WITH AFSCME OHIO COUNCIL 8, LOCAL 3278 FOR THE YEARS 2009, 2010, 2011.
Mr.
Mumper asked the Mayor for his thoughts on the matter. The Mayor answered that there was good
negotiation on both sides, not sure of timing requirements. Ms. Grote commented
that there is a 30 day period from the time it is presented to Council. The Mayor added that if that is the case, it
could be passed at the next meeting.
Mr.
Schneider asked if it had been ratified.
The Mayor answered yes.
On a
motion by Mr. Thornbury, seconded by Mr. Schneider, it was moved to hear the
first and second readings of the Ordinance. All members present voted “YES”.
K) ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
The
Mayor began his Report by announcing the results of the 2008 Recycling
report. Based on the calculation 5,868
trees were saved.
Mayor
Williams also commented that on the recent decrease in the City’s insurance
premium. In 2009 our costs will be
$160,000, 2008 premiums were $173,000, and 2007 premiums were $281,000. This is a great example of our diligence in
controlling costs.
The
Mayor also noted that Fenwick Park grant work is nearing completion, and added
that Brown Mackie College is opening March 19th with an open house. Their
current student enrollment is 550.
Mayor
Williams also reported that he had received several calls about coupon drops
and the Mayor’s Office wrote a letter advising them to place these on porches
only or face litter citations. The
Administration will continue to monitor the situation.
Lastly
the Mayor noted that www.NorwoodMayor.org is up and running and encouraged
feedback.
When
opened for questions, Mr. Gabbard thanked the Mayor and Mr. Stith for working
with schools on issues. Mr. Gabbard asked
if our recycling effort provided funding as it had in the past. The Mayor
responded yes, but was not sure of details. He will investigate and follow up
accordingly.
Mr.
Gabbard asked for an update on the Kroger project. The Mayor said part of the
lengthy construction period was due to repositioning a sewer line. Kroger wants
it done as soon as possible. Expects completion remains for early Fall but with
a possibility of an earlier completion.
Mr.
Schneider asked if the street sweeper is active. The Mayor said he believes so,
but will confirm exact activity and schedule.
Mr.
Gabbard said at last week’s Parks and Playground meeting there was a question
about any upcoming plans. Mr. Gabbard
asked the Mayor if anything was in the works for the near future. The Mayor said there are several irons in the
fire, but if there are specific ideas, pass them on and we will do our best to
investigate options.
Mr.
Stith was present and opened the Auditor’s report by mentioning that his office
is working with the State Auditor’s office to wrap up the 06/07 audit. The office is ready to upgrade to the new
software.
Mr.
Schneider asked for a brief summary of the departments doing well and those
having difficulty in managing their costs within the budget. Mr. Stith answered that his office publishes
reports each month and noted that the VIP software is working well with the
Police and Fire Departments. The
Recreation Commission is getting better at understanding the state of the
budget. There are some departments not
as vigorous in managing budgets, but the Auditor’s Office is working with these
departments as needed.
The Law
Director was also present and began his report by announcing the Empire Tavern
decision. The decision was very detailed
and the liquor license was not renewed.
This was a decision worth reading.
This was a great group effort by Police, Council and Law
departments. The decision could be
appealed, but that is unlikely at this point.
Regarding
item H-B, the St. Aloysius Orphanage School, it is the most important issue we
have faced in quite some time. This
Council’s Professionalism and the democratic process are to be commended in
this effort
Mr.
Gabbard offered kudos to all involved on the Empire Tavern decision. Mr. Sanker asked if the license was available
for transfer or sale. Mr. Kiser said once it has been lost he is not sure if it
is returned to the waiting list. If the
owners choose to appeal it could take quite some time.
Mr.
Mumper also thanked Mr. Kiser and all departments for their efforts and
collaboration in eliminating a significant neighborhood issue.
Mr.
Schneider commended the recent news regarding sex offenders he is grateful we
have strong ordinances in place. He asked for updated on Mayor’s Court and
Juvenile Court. Mr. Kiser noted that
this issue on a Juvenile Court is in a holding pattern - we will proceed when
our contact is available for further discussion. There is no new information on
Mayor’s Court.
L) OTHER REQUESTS TO
ADDRESS COUNCIL
There were
no requests.
M) UNFINISHED BUSINESS
On a
motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Mumper, it was moved to request a Finding
of Facts and Conclusions of Law regarding St. Aloysius Orphanage School from
the Law Department. All members present voted “YES”.
Mr.
Gabbard asked the status of PACE Board and local cable channels. Ms. Grote, who
is a member of the Pace Board, explained the franchise agreement that expires
in 2010. She also commented on franchise fees and impact on the funding of PACE
and community channels. The Board is
trying to set aside funds to sustain this crucial capability for our city, but
additional funding will be required at some point.
N) NEW BUSINESS
Mr.
Sanker reminded everyone that yard debris and material needs to be bagged, bound
or canned. Bundles should be 4’ or less
and cans are not to exceed 70 pounds in weight.
Recycle bags are available, at no charge, from the Health Department. Leaves need to be bagged, not just raked to
the curb.
O) COMMUNICATIONS
1. Letter from Tax Department Re: Sales Tax Report of February 2009
On a
motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to receive and file
the letter. All members present voted
YES.
2. Letter
from Mayor’s Office Re: Mayor’s
Court Report of February 2009
On a
motion by Mr. Sanker, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to receive and file
the letter. All members present voted
YES.
3. Letter
from Mayor Re:
On a
motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to receive and file
the letter and to approve the Mayor’s appointments. All members present voted
“YES”.
4. Letter
from Safety Service Director Re:
Public Entities
On a
motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to receive and file
the letter. Council thanked the Safety Service Director for his diligence
regarding this matter. All members
present voted “YES”.
5. Letter
from Health Department Re:
Liens for Grass Cutting
On a
motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to receive and file
the letter and send a request to the Law Department. All members present voted
“YES”.
P) EXCUSE ABSENT MEMBERS
All
members were present.
Q) ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Moore, the meeting was adjourned. All members present voted “YES”.
______________________________ ______________________________
J. Brian Mumper Jane
M. Grote
Clerk of Council President
of Council