BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 1
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Blue Ash, Ohio, was held on August 9, 2012.
Mayor Mark F. Weber called the meeting to order in Council Chambers at 7:00 PM.
2. OPENING CEREMONIES
Mayor Weber led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Councilman Tom Adamec, Councilman Rick Bryan,
Councilman Robert Buckman, Vice Mayor Lee Czerwonka,
Councilwoman Stephanie Stoller, Councilman James Sumner,
and Mayor Mark Weber
ALSO PRESENT:
City Manager David Waltz, Deputy Solicitor Bryan Pacheco,
Clerk of Council Jamie Eifert, Assistant City Manager James
Pfeffer, Assistant City Manager Kelly Harrington, Treasurer
Sherry Poppe, Parks & Recreation Director Chuck Funk, Public
Works Director Gordon Perry, Assistant Fire Chief Greg
Preece, Community Development Director Dan Johnson,
Recreation Supervisor Brian Kruse, Administrative Assistant
Karla Plank, members of the press, and interested citizens
4. DECISION OF COUNCIL regarding the denial of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the
appeal of the order of the Zoning Administrator regarding the removal of a horse.
Mayor Weber advised that Council will vote on an appeal for a denial of the Board of Zoning
Appeals of the order of the Zoning Administrator regarding the removal of a horse. He
asked Deputy Solicitor Bryan Pacheco to provide a brief overview.
Deputy Solicitor Bryan Pacheco indicated that during the Council meeting in June, Attorney
George Parker was present on behalf of Ingrid Anderson regarding the appeal of an order
requiring her to remove the second horse at the Conklin Road residence. At that time, Mr.
Parker suggested a procedure whereby there would be briefs submitted to Council to render
its decision. Mr. Pacheco further indicated to Council that he had a discussion with Mr.
Parker wherein Mr. Parker would not be present at tonight‟s Council meeting and that Mr.
Pacheco would make him aware of Council‟s decision.
Mayor Weber indicated that there would be a roll call. A “yes” vote is an affirmation of the
decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and a “no” vote accepts that appeal of the appellant
from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The Clerk called the roll. Councilpersons, Adamec, Bryan, Buckman, Czerwonka, Stoller,
Sumner, and Mayor Weber voted yes. Seven yeses. Decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals is upheld.
Mr. Pacheco indicated that he will draft the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the
next meeting and pass the decision at that time.
TH
5. PUBLIC HEARING – 7:05PM – DEFFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 13 COUNCIL
MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER – Appeal of the Board of Zoning
Appeals decision of June 11, 2012 regarding a proposed multi-family residential
development and an existing commercial building at 4900 Hunt Road
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 2
6. APPOINTMENT OF PERSON(S) TO READ ORDINANCES IN FULL IN REAR OF
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mayor Weber appointed Kelly Harrington to read the legislation (ordinances) in their entirety
in the rear of Council Chambers.
7. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
Councilman Bryan moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to accept the agenda. A voice
vote was taken. All members present voted yes. Motion carried.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
OPENING CEREMONIES
ROLL CALL – Clerk of Council Jamie K. Eifert
DECISION OF COUNCIL regarding the denial of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the
appeal of the order of the Zoning Administrator regarding the removal of a horse
PUBLIC HEARING – 7:05PM DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 13TH COUNCIL
MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER – Appeal of the Board of Zoning
Appeals decision of June 11, 2012 regarding a proposed multi-family residential
development and an existing commercial building at 4900 Hunt Road
APPOINTMENT OF PERSON(S) TO READ ORDINANCES IN FULL IN REAR OF
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Regular Meeting of July 12, 2012
b. Special Meeting of July 30, 2012
COMMUNICATIONS
a. Communications to Council – Clerk of Council Jamie K. Eifert
b. Reports From Outside Agencies
c. Mayor‟s Report – July 2012 – Honorable Mark F. Weber
d. Financial Report – Motion to accept the report for July 2012
HEARINGS FROM CITIZENS
COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Parks & Recreation Committee, Robert J. Buckman, Jr., Chairperson
1. Ordinance No. 2012-40,
authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and
enter into a contract with Cincinnati United
Soccer Club regarding their financial
participation in artificial turf placement at the
Blue Ash Sports Center
2. Ordinance No. 2012-41,
authorizing City Manger to carry out public
improvements authorized under Ordinance No.
2006-47
3. Ordinance No. 2012-42,
authorizing contract for architectural services
associated with Phase 1 of the Airport Park
b. Public Works Committee, Thomas C. Adamec, Chairperson
1. Resolution No. 2012-11,
declaring intent regarding no-interest loan
related to the Carver Road improvement project
2. Ordinance No. 2012-43,
authorizing the negotiation and execution of
grants of easement related to 2013 Cooper
Road Sidewalk Project
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 3
3. Ordinance No. 2012-44,
12.
13.
authorizing the negotiation and execution of
grants of easement related to 2012 Sidewalk
Project involving portions of Reed Hartman
Highway
4. Ordinance No. 2012-45,
authorizing the negotiation and execution of
grants of easement related to 2013 Plainfield
Road Bike Path Project
c. Planning & Zoning Committee, James W. Sumner, Chairperson
th
1. Motion setting 7:05 PM, Thursday, September 13 as a hearing concerning
an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding a proposed multi-family
residential development and an existing commercial building at 4900 Hunt
Road
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilman Buckman moved, Councilman Adamec seconded to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting of, July 12, 2012. A voice vote was taken. All members present voted yes.
Motion carried.
Vice Mayor Czerwonka moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to approve the minutes of
the special meeting of July 30, 2012. A voice vote was taken. All members present voted
yes. Motion carried.
9. COMMUNICATIONS
a. Communications to Council
The Clerk noted receipt of two liquor permit requests:
Permit #: 9699500; Type: STCK
To: Winstons Grill LLC, d/b/a Incahoots Restaurant & Bar, 4110 Hunt Road, Blue Ash, OH
45236
The D5I license is issued to qualifying restaurants. It is for liquor by the glass for on premise
consumption, and beer and wine for on premise consumption or carry out in original sealed
containers. It permits sales until 2:30 a.m. Incahoots currently has the D-5 license. No
carry out business exists at this bar/restaurant. The Police Department has reviewed this
request and has no objections.
There were no objections expressed by Council.
Permit #: 2600015; Type: TREX
To: FJAJ LLC, d/b/a Café Mediterranean, 9525 Kenwood Road, Suite 10, Blue Ash, OH
45242
A D2 permit is issued to a restaurant for the sale of wine and mixed beverages for on
premise consumption or carry out until 1:00 a.m. The Police Department has reviewed this
request and has no objections.
There were no objections expressed by Council.
b. Reports From Outside Agencies
There were no communications presented to Council.
c. Mayor's Report – July 2012
RECEIPTS:
Fines....................................................................................................................................... $ 17,698.19
Vendors/Solicitor’s Permits..................................................................................................................... $0
Bonds carried over ................................................................................................................................. $0
Bonds collected ...................................................................................................................................... $0
Bonds applied ......................................................................................................................................... $0
Restitution Payment collected ................................................................................................................ $0
TOTAL RECEIPTS: ......................................................................................................................................... . $16,353.00
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 4
DISBURSEMENTS:
To Blue Ash
Fines/costs/Expungements/forfeitures/NSF check charges, vendor permits) ............................. $ 11,825.00
To the State of OH:
Victims of Crime ................................................................................................................................ $1,242.00
General Rev Fund ............................................................................................now included in 2b on SC form
Expungements........................................................................................................................................... $0.00
Indigent Defense Support fund ......................................................................................................... $3,403.00
Drug Law Enforcement Fund ............................................................................................................... $465.50
Justice Program Service Fund
Indigent Driver’s Alcohol Trtm’t Fund................................................................................................... $199.50
Seat Belts ............................................................................................................................................. $370.00
Refund of overpaid fines ................................................................................................................................. $0.00
Bond Money applied ....................................................................................................................................... $0.00
Bond Money returned ............................................................................................................................. $0.00
Restitution payment ............................................................................................................................ $193.19
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. $17,698.19
BALANCE IN BONDS:.............................................................................................................................................. ...... $200.00
Mayor’s Court traffic citations .............................................................................................................................138
Mayor’s Court criminal citations ................................................................................................................... 18
Total Mayor’s Court cases ........................................................................................................................ 156
Blue Ash rev. from Mayor’s Ct. Cases: .......................................................................................... $11,825.00
d. Financial Report –July 2012
Councilman Buckman moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to accept the Financial
Report for July 2012 as submitted. A voice vote was taken. All members present voted yes.
Motion carried.
CITY OF BLUE ASH FINANCIAL POSITION STATEMENT- MONTH ENDING July 31, 2012
MONTH TO DATE
2011
2012
START OF MONTH FUND BALANCE:
$35,884,029.67
$34,311,248.44
7-1-12
Revenues:
Earnings Tax Collections:
2,721,558.85
2,453,403.86
Debt Financing (long term)
0
0
Debt Financing (short term)
0
1,500,000.00
Other Revenue Received:
831,733.37
1,223,551.80
= Total Monthly Receipts
3,553,292.22
5,176,955.66
Expenditures:
Long Term debt retirement
Short term debt refinancing
Other Expenditures:
3,978,303.81
2,728,557.83
= Total Monthly Expenditures:
3,978,303.81
2,728,557.83
END OF MONTH FUND BALANCE:
35,459,018.08
36,759,646.27
7-31-12
YEAR TO DATE
START OF MONTH FUND BALANCE:
7-1-12
Revenues:
Earnings Tax Collections:
Debt Financing (long term)
Debt Financing (short term)
Other Revenue Received:
= Total YTD Receipts
Expenditures:
Long term debt retirement
Short term debt refinancing
Other Expenditures:
= Total YTD Expenditures:
YEAR-TO-DATE FUND BALANCE:
2011
2012
33,676,246.12
18,760,091.27
6,179,485.41
33,264,957.20
19,933,685.20
1,500,000.00
7,396,317.08
24,939,576.68
1,928,827.00
21,227,977.72
28,830,002.28
1,911,722.22
23,423,590.99
23,156,804.72
35,459,018.08
25,335,313.21
36,759,646.27
100% of the fund balance was invested as of 7/31/12. Interest paid to date on matured investments: $8,115.07. Receipt and
expenditure figures do not include interfund transfers.
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 5
BLUE ASH INCOME TAX DIV. INCOME TAX RECEIPT SUMMARY - MONTH ENDING July 31, 2012
MONTH-TO-DATE STATUS
2011
2012
Business Net Profit
720,341.81
252,308.04
Resident Net Profit
85,918.40
94,134.25
Non-Resident Net Profit
15,804.28
12,909.98
Subcontractor Net Profit
352.00
1,493.25
Net Profit Total
822,416.49
360,845.52
Withholding
1,831,183.42
2,021,482.78
Subcontractor Withholding
67,958.94
71,075.56
Withholding Total
1,899,142.36
2,092,558.34
Monthly Collection Totals
2,721,558.85
2,453,403.86
-9.85%
YEAR TO DATE STATUS
Business Net Profit
Resident Net Profit
Non-Resident Net Profit
Subcontractor Net Profit
Net Profit Total
Withholding
Subcontractor Withholding
Withholding Total
YTD Collection Totals
3,569,926.27
724,737.84
168,055.53
23,455.58
3,445,013.67
720,120.63
162,585.94
59,153.88
4,486,175.22
13,943,856.78
330,059.27
YTD Refund Totals
14,273,916.05
18,760,091.27
707,206.97
4,386,874.12
15,216,052.15
330,758.93
15,546,811.08
19,933,685.20
6.26%
662,015.51
10. HEARINGS FROM CITIZENS
Dave Parker, 7860 Village Drive, spoke before Council regarding an addition to the Blue Ash
Veterans Memorial in recognition of our Veterans that are in the ongoing Iraq/Afghanistan
conflict. The current statues that represent the respective wars need to be joined by a
caricature that bests represents the current campaign. Mr. Parker introduced his son, Staff
Sergeant, Ben Parker, who was raised locally and went to Mapledale through Sycamore
High School. He is an Eagle Scout from Blue Ash Troop 299. Most importantly, he spent
two of the last three years with boots on the ground in Afghanistan. His unit just returned to
Ft. Carson, Colorado and he was just awarded his second bronze star. With Council‟s
permission, Mr. Parker yielded to Staff Sergeant Ben Parker.
Staff Sergeant Ben Parker, 7763 Westwind Lane, stated it is a true honor and privilege to
speak in front of the distinguished members of the Blue Ash City Council. Sergeant Parker
is an EOD team leader. EOD is “Explosive Ordinance Disposal.” Their job is to clear any
and all explosive hazards on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. This includes Improvised
Explosive Devices (IED) or roadside bombs. IEDs have caused over 80% of the casualties
in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently there are soldiers, airmen, Marines and Navy
sailors, facing these hazards and these threats overseas. Due to the significant nature and
threat that these devices cause, this could be a type of tribute that could be fitting for the
Blue Ash Memorial. The State of Ohio has lost over 188 individuals in the Iraq/Afghanistan
War. It is the 5th highest loss in the United States. Three of Sergeant Parker‟s classmen
from Sycamore High School have been killed. Southern Ohio has lost nearly 20 individuals
to the War. A heavy price is paid and it is important that they are represented. Yet, they
give willingly and would give their life if it would assure that our way of life would continue. It
is that important to them and they would do it for free. Sergeant Parker suggested, showing
a picture of himself three years ago in Afghanistan and kneeling over an IED , stating that
these are the threats that are faced and the image represents the hazard, the risk and the
selfless service that is put forward everyday to ensure that our friends come home. An IED
doesn‟t care if you are a kid, an innocent Afghanistanians – it doesn‟t care. The first person
that comes along and steps on it, that is who it will kill. That is why they serve – to make life
better because everyone deserves it.
Councilman Sumner indicated that Council previously spoke about when the appropriate
time would be to add the next statue. Several years ago, Mr. Sumner was the one that said
that it wasn‟t quite time. He now believes that it is time and respectfully requests Council to
carefully consider this request to place another on our Veterans Memorial.
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 6
Mary Kuhl, 2436 Homestead Place, a Cincinnati resident, indicated that Cincinnati‟s pension
system is underfunded, the streets are in horrible shape, services have been cut, and taxes
have been raised. Cincinnati cannot afford the streetcar and Council has the lynch pin to
stop the funding. Cincinnati City Administration continues to take more money from its
citizens and cuts costs by not paving roads and not funding a mandated pension plan. She
asks Council to be fiscally responsible, when Cincinnati elected officials are not, and do the
right thing.
Scott Meyer, 7107 Overton Way, continues with the discussion of the streetcar funding and
the upcoming Ordinance 2012-41. He feels it is important for everyone to understand that
Council does not have to approve this Ordinance. It is not necessary to undo the current
agreement to gain ownership or the right to proceed with the airport park. The City of
Cincinnati has already issued eviction notices for all the businesses at the airport. Cincinnati
has already told the FAA that the airport is closing. There is nothing wrong with the current
agreement and; therefore, no reason to rescind it. Mr. Meyer feels Ordinance 2012-41 is
about allowing Cincinnati to skirt Federal regulation and giving Cincinnati the ability to freely
spend this money on non-aviation related projects and, specifically, the streetcar. He further
feels there will be some period of time where the property, the park property, will no longer
be under contract and little ability for Blue Ash to be protected during that period of time that
the property is not under contract – important details that are not mentioned in the
ordinance. Mr. Meyer feels that by voting for this Ordinance, Council is affirming Cincinnati‟s
streetcar and putting the park project in jeopardy. The airport has already been lost as has
been the B-17 Memorial, and requests that the park not be lost too.
Chris Finney, 7373 Beechmont Avenue, is an attorney for the Coalition for the Opposed
Spending and Taxes (COAST). Mr. Finney spoke with a number of the Council Members
individually and has seen the press releases from the City of Blue Ash. He was a dismayed
in talking with some of the Council Members, in that before the public comment, it was his
belief that minds had been made up. He felt Council wasn‟t willing to listen. He believes
Council has been told that if Council doesn‟t pass this ordinance, they will get entangled in a
legal mess relating to the FAA and City of Cincinnati. Mr. Finney feels this is not true in that
Blue Ash has been given a Limited Warranty Deed to the property and has clear title. Mr.
Finney assumes that Blue Ash bought title insurance when the property was purchased. It is
his belief that if Cincinnati does anything to challenge the title to the property, Cincinnati will
pay the damages arising from it and pay Blue Ash‟s legal fees. In contacting Council
Members, Mr. Finney asked who they felt was going to sue them and Council indicated that
they didn‟t know and he felt it wasn‟t a real thing. Mr. Finney feels they don‟t know because
no one can make a credible threat of suing and feels either Council believes it incorrectly or
they are telling the citizens to believe it to mislead them into thinking there is a valid basis for
voting for this ordinance. He feels the only thing left to be done is for Cincinnati to surrender
possession and feels under the contract, it has to be done by the end of the year. Cincinnati
is in the process of doing it by the end of the month. Cincinnati has asked Council to redo
the deal in order to facilitate the streetcar and that is the only reason. Blue Ash has a
Limited Warranty Deed, it owns the property, no one is challenging Blue Ash‟s ownership, or
the use of the property. Mr. Finney feels the problem is that Blue Ash will entangle
themselves in legal problems if they pass this Ordinance. Mr. Finney informs Council that he
guarantees that he is going to potentially referendum this issue and that it will be on the
ballot. It is of Mr. Finney‟s opinion that Blue Ash‟s lawyer drafted the ordinance to avoid the
referendum because Blue Ash allows referendum even for emergencies and this does not fit
within one of Blue Ash‟s Charter exceptions for what can be referendumed and could mean
the transfer could be held up until November of 2013 until this can be voted on. Mr. Finney
promises Council that COAST‟s litigation team has committed that they will go to court to
prevent this from going into effect. Mr. Finney feels that what Council is doing, if Council
chooses to do something they have no obligation to do and get no benefit, will stop the
development of the park for at least 14 months unnecessarily. In addition, Mr. Finney
believes that the City of Cincinnati is doing this because if they sell an operating airport, they
must use the proceeds from that airport for aviation purposes. But when the City of Blue
Ash re-conveys the property to the City of Cincinnati for $6 million, Blue Ash is selling an
operating airport. Mr. Finney questioned whether the FAA will require Blue Ash to dedicate
that $6 million in the same way for aviation purposes? Mr. Finney feels that Council is doing
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 7
precisely what it claims to not want to do which is to embroil Blue Ash in litigation. It is
guaranteed that Blue Ash will.
Ray Warrick, 5466 Grand Legacy Drive, owns a business in Blue Ash at 10979 Reed
Hartmann Highway. Mr. Warrick feels that when the airport property deal was done in 2006,
it was one of those things that had been placed on the ballot and the citizens voted to go
ahead and raise earnings and wage taxes to pay for it. Mr. Warrick feels that Blue Ash
citizens were able to vote to take the money, a large majority of the money from people who
are unable to vote – which is called taxation without representation. Mr. Warrick doesn‟t
know why government is in the business of owning, developing and brokering property, and
feels it should pay attention to police protection, fire protection, roads and sewers. He
doesn‟t know why Blue Ash owns a golf course and feels that Blue Ash went into the
banquet business in the downturn in the economy. Mr. Warrick has been to the Crowne
Plaza, the Embassy Suites, Parkers and countless restaurants and hotels and motels in the
City and feels Blue Ash decided to go into business against them and during a down
economy. Blue Ash is a nice community and has done a good job; however, he asks
Council to think about what they are doing – allowing Cincinnati to put money on a streetcar.
Mr. Warrick feels President Obama wants Mayor Mallory and Cincinnati to have a streetcar.
Tom Brinkman, 3215 Hardisty Avenue, stated that in the City of Cincinnati, residents are
trying to fight the idea of a street car. A street car that he feels will rank with the stadium
deal and National Underground Railroad Freedom Center - ideas that were half baked in his
opinion and never had any clue on how they were going to fund them. Mr. Brinkman
indicated that Governor Kaisich came in and took away about $50 million in funding despite
the fact that it was the top-rated transportation project in the State of Ohio. Further,
Congressman Steve Chabot has introduced legislation to try and cut all funding for the
streetcar because he feels it will handicap the City of Cincinnati and their taxpayers. State
Senator Shannon Jones has introduced legislation that cut off one other form of funding.
The County Commissioners have said they will not allow money from MSD to be misused for
the streetcar. Mr. Brinkman appealed to Council to not go through with the Ordinance.
Jeff Capell, 9354 Hunters Creek Drive, expressed his opposition to what he feels are Blue
Ash‟s efforts to help fund the Cincinnati streetcar which jeopardizes Blue Ash‟s land
purchase at the Blue Ash airport and the death of the airport itself. Mr. Capell cited two
quotes from Mayor Weber and City Manager Waltz in a February 17th Business Courier
article. Mr. Waltz stated that “he is not comfortable with rescinding the 2007 deal” and said,
“we entered into a good faith deal.” Mr. Weber expresses concern that “another party might
try to top Blue Ash‟s offer once Cincinnati repossess the land.” One of Mr. Capell‟s
problems with the proposed rescission is the idea that a final agreement ceases to be a final
agreement just because one party doesn‟t like what they signed. Mr. Capell has seen three
different news releases from the City of Blue Ash calling the Ordinance an amendment to the
2007 deal and saying the Ordinance merely finalizes the 2007 deal. Blue Ash‟s own
documents and documents recently passed by Cincinnati City Council prove otherwise. Mr.
Capell speaks of an August 2007 joint press release from Cincinnati and Blue Ash that
reads, “Cincinnati and Blue Ash finalize sale of airport property.” The first sentence reading,
“the Cities of Cincinnati and Blue Ash today officially closed on Blue Ash‟s purchase of 130
acres of Cincinnati‟s Blue Ash airport property.” The paragraph later reads, “Cincinnati
Mayor Mark Mallory and Blue Ash Mayor Robert J. Buckman, Jr. officially closed the
transaction at a small signing ceremony in the Mayor‟s office.” He feels Blue Ash‟s
communications team back tracked and said, “while this technically undoes and then redoes
the deal, this finalizes the transaction.” Mr. Capell feels there is a chance that Blue Ash will
lose the property if Cincinnati retakes ownership and questions why Blue Ash would take
that risk to help Cincinnati build a streetcar. Mr. Capell feels Blue Ash Council is taking an
extraordinary step in sending a legally binding final deal from five years ago to help pay for
the Cincinnati streetcar. He states that the Cincinnati streetcar is not Blue Ash‟s problem
and feels Council is faced with two choices: 1) risk the property that Blue Ash legally owns to
help Cincinnati build a streetcar; and 2) that Blue Ash stays out of Cincinnati streetcar issues
and guarantees that Blue Ash keeps the property. Mr. Capell asks Council to keep the
property out of Cincinnati‟s hands and keep Blue Ash out of Cincinnati‟s streetcar fiasco.
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 8
Gwen Marshall, 1417 Burncliff Avenue, has a personal interest in this Ordinance as she is a
taxpayer of Blue Ash and a taxpayer in Cincinnati. Ms. Marshall supports mass transit and
would support a rail-line from Kings Island to the airport. She is not anti-transportation. Ms.
Marshall makes a reference to the Monte Python and the Holy Grail movie, and feels the
streetcar has had its arms and legs cut off and it continues to bob about in a most ridiculous
pattern, and Cincinnati is trying to involve Blue Ash in this fight. She feels Cincinnati is trying
to get Blue Ash involved in their dealings with the FAA, and envisions a federal lawsuit which
that Blue Ash would be drawn into. Ms. Marshall claims that Cincinnati is $54 million behind
in its pension fund and is planning to borrow $64 million to do the streetcar. Cincinnati plans
to pay back $28 million they get from downtown TIF funding; $25 million is a property tax
increase for the citizens of Cincinnati. The next $11 million was to come from the airport
deal. Ms. Marshall prefers to not see Blue Ash get involved.
Matt Dunn, 9352 Hunters Creek is proud that Council is voting to improve our parks. He has
worked for the park district for six years and has received many Ohio Parks and Recreation
Awards. He doesn‟t feel that Council would do anything to threaten or tarnish the Parks and
Recreation Department‟s history and the good work that it does and continues to do in the
future. Many people take advantage of the great events such as the Taste of Blue Ash, the
Fourth of July fireworks, etc. Mr. Dunn hopes that Council is making the correct decision
and hopes that the City of Blue Ash and its Parks and Recreation Department continues to
persevere in the manner that it has over the years.
Jim Dyer, 5275 Myerdale Drive, feels that Council‟s minds have been made up regarding the
ordinance and that they are making it an emergency. He is embarrassed that the title of the
Ordinance is deceptive in how it is worded. He has made suggestions to Council over the
years, got chuckled at, and feels a one-year council term is necessary because people seem
to forget meetings like this when it is two years before the election.
Charlie Wilfong, 4426 Chesswick Drive, wanted to remind Council that they are elected by
the residents of the City of Blue Ash and Council is elected to do what is in the best interest
of the people of Blue Ash. He feels that the Ordinance is not in the best interest of Blue Ash.
Lawsuits are being threatened from both sides and it seems that the Blue Ash is running
away from one threat and into the face of another threat. He feels that Blue Ash owns the
property, a deal signed a number of years ago, and feels the only reason that Blue Ash
would turn back the clock is so that the City of Cincinnati can accomplish what they would
like to accomplish, which Blue Ash has no business in that decision. Council‟s job is to stay
focused on what is done in Blue Ash and for the people of Blue Ash.
Cheryl Popp, 8627 Calumet Way, is an Airport Support Network volunteer and member of
the National Board of Directors of the Airport Support Network Arm with the Aircraft and
Pilots Association, and wanted to thank all of the members of the Preserve Blue Ash Airport
Committee. She indicated that it was a privilege to work with them on the Preserve the
Airport effort. With the air show and other events associated with the airport, Ms. Popp feels
that is a travesty that two cities cannot agree to keep a national historical asset and watch
the exit of My Gal Sal, the famous B-17, which was restored by many Blue Ash residents
with hundreds of hours of volunteer time, and then close the Blue Ash Airport. With the
closure of the airport, she wished Blue Ash the very best with its park and wants Council to
remember when they walk on the airport park, that they walk on the history of the airport.
She feels Council has squashed the dreams of all those who had hoped to learn to fly and
stay flying there. She never thought City Council would let her down.
George Etesse, 8899 Brittany Drive, indicated that he was perplexed by the August 17th
news release stating that legislation will prevent potential time consuming litigation, clear up
miscellaneous transfer issues that have accrued and allow City of Cincinnati to use funds for
the sale of 130 acres to the City of Blue Ash for the streetcar project. He questioned what
the miscellaneous transfer issues are. When Mr. Etesse moved to Blue Ash, he heard about
the Blue Ash Airport, and remembered three different occasions where Blue Ash wanted to
buy the airport. Each time Blue Ash made an offer to buy the airport, Cincinnati upped the
price. He questioned that with this ordinance, what is going to prevent Cincinnati from doing
the same thing again?
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 9
Tom Sperber, 11124 Huntwicke Place, indicated that the last time he was at a Council
meeting, he concluded by saying “do the right thing.” Since then he spoke with his
Councilman and had an interesting discussion about what they discussed several years ago
on how the airport will never close and it just couldn‟t happen because of FAA law. Further
discussions were had about the last Council meeting where other reasons given with regard
to this transfer of property. It was convincing that what was being done was the right thing.
Mr. Sperber doesn‟t want to see the Blue Ash Airport close but understands the
circumstances. What concerns him is Blue Ash is redoing the contract to get $6 million. He
feels it is wrong and the deal with Cincinnati is for their streetcar. Whatever amount of
money Blue Ash is being paid, Blue Ash is getting paid to get into bed with the City of
Cincinnati. If a deal is made and it is an enforceable deal, then do it. That is the right thing.
Bryan Schribe, 3638 Brentwood Avenue, is with COAST and wanted to try to clarify earlier
statements about the FAA money issue. He feels the $6 million that the City of Cincinnati
gives Blue Ash will not be able to be used to buy back the airport because the airport will no
longer be an airport. Further, with respect to the $6 million, he feels the plan is that
Cincinnati will give Blue Ash back as part of the rescission which requires both parties be put
back in place had the contract not be entered in to. Blue Ash gets $6 million back that was
given over the course of six years, but Blue Ash will not get interest that it should be entitled
to and feels Blue Ash gave the City of Cincinnati a $6 million interest free loan if Blue Ash
goes through with the rescission. Mr. Schribe requested that Council keep the original deal.
Glen Mavity, 9524 West Avenue, is dismayed by the controversy that has come from the
ordinance. He feels Blue Ash has a harmonious atmosphere and everyone gets along;
however, three years ago, there was a situation to relocate the Veteran‟s Memorial from
downtown. Councilman Jim Sumner was the only Council member that stood his ground,
and it caused an uproar of the community. Mr. Mavity is concerned that if Council proceeds,
there is going to be obstacles that will drag this out until the next election. He feels that street
after street, neighborhood after neighborhood, will be fighting each other on trying to get
current Council out of office which is not harmonious. The community doesn‟t need any
disruption over a few dollars.
Martha Lunken, 1350 Herlin Place, questioned that if Council does not renegotiate the
contract with the City of Cincinnati, Cincinnati could face using the money from Blue Ash for
aviation purposes and it could go into Lunken Airport. Ms. Lunken hopes that Council will
not renegotiate the contract.
Michael Holder, 4843 Laurel Avenue, has had the privilege over the past six months to talk
to many pilots and has spent a lot of time at the Blue Ash Airport. He indicated that Council
told him time and time again that it is Cincinnati that is closing the Airport. Mr. Holder
indicated that Council has not done anything to hurt these pilots, to hurt the airport, to hurt
aviation. But felt if Council votes for this Ordinance, they assume some responsibility to
make some impact on aviation. Do something for aviation. Mr. Holder agrees that the
airport can‟t be saved, but asks Council to put the person back in “Councilperson” and take a
stance.
Gregg Evans, 6818 Midnight Sun, is a pilot and it bothers him that Council is facilitating a
way for the City of Cincinnati to get around using the money that they have taken from the
Federal Government to develop airport properties and use it for something else. As a pilot,
he feels the money should be used for what it was intended. Mr. Evans read that Blue Ash is
of the opinion that if Council doesn‟t do this, there is going to be a lot of litigation; however,
he feels the FAA is going to fight Cincinnati on using that money for aviation. Mr. Evans
feels this only helps the City of Cincinnati get around a law that if it takes federal money for
airports and then sells the airport or close it, you can‟t use the money for anything else. He
seems to think that there is a lot of potential hazard in the future if Council goes along with it.
Kathy Kishpaugh, 4290 Fox Hollow Drive, has been a resident of Blue Ash since 1979 and
has always been an advocate of Blue Ash. Blue Ash is the greatest city to raise a family and
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 10
it has been noted around the World for its amenities. The citizens voted in good faith for the
.25% earning tax for a recreation center, golf course, and a park. Ms. Kishpaugh lives in a
neighborhood that is very close to where the park is going to be built. Many neighbors are
excited about the park being built and will be very disappointed if Blue Ash sells them out.
Greg Henley, 10569 Kendridge Drive, doesn‟t care if Cincinnati builds a streetcar and
doesn‟t feel Blue Ash should get involved in helping with their plan. At the time of the
purchase, Cincinnati said that they were going to help move the runway and make all of
these improvements. Mr. Henley didn‟t care as much for the park as much as it all being a
part of keeping the airport there and doesn‟t understand why Blue Ash is changing the deal
to help them. He feels there is no reason for Blue Ash to do anything but to sit tight.
Tom Sperber, Jr.,11 Carpenter‟s Run, feels the City of Cincinnati didn‟t bargain in good faith
and understands that the City of Blue Ash paid Cincinnati tens if not hundreds of thousands
of dollars for the purpose of moving the hangars. Blue Ash paid that to Cincinnati and feels
they did an end around on the City of Blue Ash. There is no reason to think that Cincinnati
would not do it again if Blue Ash gave them the ball.
Joe Davidson, 4607 Perry Street, has lived in Blue Ash for over 20 years and feels Blue Ash
has an excellent reputation for making sound, smart, ethical, business decisions. The airport
in Blue Ash has a lot of personal meaning to Mr. Davidson. He has spent a lot of years in
GE Aviation. The influence and proximity of the airport to GE is very significant and feels
there is a lot of interaction with GE and the facility being so close is extremely important to
them and is used by them a lot. Mr. Davidson feels Blue Ash is in a perfect location for a lot
of things and it has a unique ability with that facility to utilize it. Mr. Davidson encourages
Council to keep making the sound, ethical, honest business decisions and keep the
reputation that it has built for decades.
Colleen Greissinger, 11206 Foremark Drive, asked Council to consider who to trust more,
the residents of Blue Ash or the City of Cincinnati.
Peter Nord, 10527 Kenridge Drive, indicated that he and the Mayor, before the meeting
started, had a conversation whether the audience was composed of Blue Ash residents or
Cincinnati residents. After a show of hands, it appeared to be comprised mostly of Blue Ash
residents. Mr. Nord really likes the airport and is sorry to see it go. He voted for the tax
increase and organized his neighborhood and lobbied for his neighbors to vote for the tax
increase with the understanding that Cincinnati would work to reconfigure the airport and
Blue Ash would have a park. He feels the City of Cincinnati has stuck it to Blue Ash and
gets a $250,000 credit for doing this deal. When Mr. Nord read the ordinance, it appeared to
him that all it does is give the City Manager carte blanche to do whatever he feels is
appropriate. There is nothing about renegotiating the deal, there is nothing about the airport,
and it just allows the City Manager to do whatever it is he wants to do. There have been
several questions that the City of Blue Ash may have some legal liability. Mr. Nord would be
interested to find out what the City Manager intends to do if this ordinance passes. He would
also like the City Solicitor‟s opinion on whether or not Blue Ash has any liability in either case
whether we pass the ordinance and allow Mr. Waltz to do what he feels should be done. Mr.
Nord feels there is nothing in the ordinance that says Blue Ash has to give the airport back to
Cincinnati or buy it back or do any of the things that people are talking about. It merely gives
the City Manager carte blanche to do whatever he feels is appropriate.
Clayton Werden, 4400 Chesswick Drive, is amazed in that he believes that three Council
members didn‟t even read the contract that was signed. The contract called for the 130
acres that Blue Ash bought to be undeveloped except for a park and we can put a
Performing Arts Center there but it cannot be commercially developed. So if Blue Ash
rescinds the contract, he hopes that the clause is at least taken out so it can be
commercially developed. Secondly, he would like Blue Ash to keep the airport as it is a
viable thing that the Flying Neutrons Club has placed in Council‟s hands. Mr. Werden feels it
would be nice to bring tax dollars into the city and develop the land. He questioned the City
Manager as to what the viable reasons are for the decision.
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 11
Tim Lomison, 9490 Wynnecrest Drive, represents a large number of his neighbors in the
Barwyn Acres Subdivision. Mr. Lomison sent a copy of the letter to Council today regarding
updating the zoning code. Over the last few months, the City has been involved with
proposals submitted by Hills Properties. He and his neighbors believe that there are some
areas of the code that are ambiguous and are leading to misinterpretations of the code and
feels there is not enough protections for existing residential areas that border the downtown
district that should be addressed. Mr. Lomison requests that any new proposals for
development in downtown follow the proper procedures and be sent to the Downtown Design
Review Committee for approval. A supplemental appeal document submitted by Hills
Properties contains a new plan that was not submitted to the DDRC. He and his neighbors
don‟t believe that it should be considered by City Council as part of their upcoming appeal.
Lastly, he indicated that there are a lot of supporters who try to attend each meeting, so
when meeting dates get moved, it can be an inconvenience for a number of residents. For
any future requests for a continuance, he asks that requests be submitted earlier so that the
word can be spread and the inconvenience for so many people will be factored in before a
continuance is granted in the future.
Hearings from Citizens was declared closed at 8:25 PM.
11. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Prior to the Council meeting, Council members received the following report describing
agenda items:
This memo offers a brief description of the topics included on the August 9th Council agenda.
11.a.1. Ordinance No. 2012-40 – Authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and enter
into a contract with Cincinnati United Soccer Club regarding their financial
participation in artificial turf placement at the Blue Ash Sports Center
As has been discussed with Council, the Administration has worked with the Cincinnati
United Soccer Club administrators and legal counsel over the past several weeks regarding
finalization of the agreement associated with Cincinnati United Soccer Club‟s financial
participation in the placement of artificial turf on Soccer Field B at the Sports Center. This
agreement benefits both Blue Ash and Cincinnati United Soccer Club, and artificial turf would
offer a more permanent and weather-proof home field for organized soccer activities,
practices, games and tournaments. Blue Ash would benefit in this arrangement through its
savings on maintenance costs as well as from expanded opportunities to offer community
sports.
Ordinance No. 2012-40 authorizes the City Manager to enter into a multi-year contract
addressing financial terms, usage, access, maintenance, and other issues with Cincinnati
United Soccer Club. Dinsmore & Shohl has been involved with discussions with Cincinnati
United Soccer Club regarding the details associated with this arrangement, and the contract,
when finalized, will be “approved as to form” by the Solicitor.
Please direct questions regarding this ordinance to the Parks & Recreation Director.
11.a.2. Ordinance No. 2012-41 – authorizing City Manager to carry out public
improvements authorized under Ordinance No. 2006-47
This legislation will address FAA procedures, complete possession by Blue Ash of the
property and allow for construction to begin on schedule as contemplated in the original
2006 document. The amended agreement will also provide at $250,000 credit to the City of
Blue Ash. Further, the approval of the amendment will allow Blue Ash to immediately obtain
possession of the property no later than Friday, August 31st so it can continue development
of a phenomenal voter-approved park.
Please direct questions regarding this ordinance to the City Manager.
11.a.3. Ordinance No. 2012-42 – authorizing contract for architectural services
associated with Phase 1 of the Airport Park
As has been discussed with Council, the Parks & Recreation and Public Works
Administration sent out Requests for Qualifications to solicit informal quotations for the
architectural services associated with Phase 1 of the Airport Park. The City received
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 12
responses from 6 firms. After review of the submitted materials and narrowing down the
prospects, the team interviewed three firms.
The team recommends that a contract be authorized with MSA Architects for Phase 1 of the
Airport Park project. The ordinance stipulates hourly amounts for the firm, plus allows the
payment of usual and customary reimbursable expenses as approved by the City.
Please direct questions regarding this ordinance to the Parks & Recreation Director.
11.b.1. Resolution No. 2012-11 – declaring intent regarding no-interest loan related to
the Carver Road improvement project
As Council is aware, a significant portion of the Carver Road Rehabilitation Project will be
funded via a 10 year no-interest loan. The Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC) has
notified the City that due to tax regulations issued by the IRS, the Commission is required to
follow guidelines related to the disbursement of funds to local governments receiving loans
associated with construction related project costs. Since Blue Ash plans to bid and pay the
contractors directly for the project, these regulations affect the Carver Road Rehabilitation
Project.
Therefore, Resolution No. 2012-11 coincides with the OPWC‟s request for a “declaration of
official intent.”
Please direct questions regarding this resolution to the Treasurer or Public Works Director.
11.b.2. Ordinance No. 2012-43 – authorizing the negotiation and execution of grants of
easement related to 2013 Cooper Road Sidewalk Project
In conjunction with Council‟s intent to improve overall “connectivity” throughout our
community, plans are to continue the construction of additional sidewalk in 2013. This
ordinance relates to necessary easements for a sidewalk planned for 2013 on the south side
of Cooper Road between Plainfield Road and Waxwing Drive.
This ordinance authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and thereafter execute Grants of
Easement documents associated with property owners of real estate as described within
Section I of the ordinance (all properties are located on the south side of Cooper Road
between Plainfield Road and Waxwing Drive). Although contact has been made with each of
the property owners, the status of those discussions at the writing of this memo varies
among the properties. Resolution on all properties has not yet been completed and will
continue.
Please direct questions regarding this ordinance to the Public Works Director.
11.b.3. Ordinance No. 2012-44 – authorizing the negotiation and execution of grants of
easement related to 2012 Sidewalk Project involving portions of Reed Hartman
Highway
In conjunction with Council‟s intent to improve overall “connectivity” throughout our
community, plans are to continue the construction of additional sidewalk in 2012. This
ordinance relates to necessary easements for a sidewalk planned for 2012 on the west side
of Reed Hartman Highway between Osborne Boulevard and Cornell Road.
This ordinance authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and thereafter execute Grants of
Easement documents associated with property owners (or future owners if sold) of real
estate as described within Section I of the ordinance (all properties are located on the west
side of Reed Hartman Highway between Osborne Boulevard and Cornell Road). Although
contact has been made with each of the property owners, the status of those discussions at
the writing of this memo varies among the properties. Resolution on all properties has not
yet been completed and will continue.
Please direct questions regarding this ordinance to the Public Works Director.
11.b.4. Ordinance No. 2012-45 – authorizing the negotiation and execution of grants of
easement related to 2013 Plainfield Road Bike Path Project
In conjunction with Council‟s intent to improve overall “connectivity” throughout our
community, plans are to continue the construction of a major bike path improvement for
2013. This ordinance relates to necessary easements for a bike path on the east side of
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 13
Plainfield Road between Cooper Road and Glendale-Milford Road.
This ordinance authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and thereafter execute Grants of
Easement documents associated with property owners (or future owners if sold) of real
estate as described within Section I of the ordinance (all properties are located east side of
Plainfield Road between Cooper Road and Glendale Milford Road). Although contact has
been made with each of the property owners, the status of those discussions at the writing of
this memo varies among the properties. Resolution on all properties has not yet been
completed and will continue.
Please direct questions regarding this ordinance to the Public Works Director.
a. Parks & Recreation Committee, Robert J. Buckman, Jr., Chairperson
Councilman Buckman asked the Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2012-40 by title only.
THEN WAS PRESENTED AND READ BY TITLE ONLY:
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-40
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND
THEREAFTER ENTER INTO A MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT WITH
CINCINNATI UNITED SOCCER CLUB REGARDING THE
INSTALLATION, USAGE, AND MAINTENANCE OF ARTIFICIAL
TURF ON FIELD “B” AT THE BLUE ASH SPORTS CENTER;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Councilman Buckman moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to suspend the rules of
Council requiring a second reading of the ordinance. The Clerk called the roll.
Councilpersons Buckman, Czerwonka, Adamec, Bryan, Stoller, Sumner, and Mayor Weber
voted yes. Seven yeses. Motion carried.
Councilman Buckman moved, Vice Mayor Czerwonka seconded to adopt Ordinance No.
2012-40.
Councilman Adamec requested the Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Funk to elaborate
on what is being done.
Mr. Funk advised that the City is working with Cincinnati United Soccer Club to install
artificial turf on Soccer Field B at the Sports Center, similar to the deal made with Ursuline
Academy on Field A. Cincinnati United Soccer Club is one of the largest soccer clubs in the
area. There are a lot of Blue Ash and Sycamore residents that are a part of that Club.
Similar to the previous deal, the City has a good opportunity to pay this back in four to five
years due to maintenance savings as well as new revenues that will come into the park.
One of the changes in the contract different from the Ursuline contract is the Cincinnati
United Soccer Club will be paying the City an additional $3,000 per year for maintenance
and will also be escrowing money for the replacement of the turf at the end of the process.
There being no further discussion, the Clerk called the roll. Councilpersons Czerwonka,
Adamec, Bryan, Stoller, Sumner, Buckman, and Mayor Weber voted yes. Seven yeses.
Ordinance No. 2012-40 passed.
Councilman Buckman asked the Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2012-41 by title only.
THEN WAS PRESENTED AND READ BY TITLE ONLY:
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-41
REAFFIRMING THE CITY‟S INTENT TO ACQUIRE AND TO RETAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON A PORTION OF THE BLUE ASH
AIRPORT PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS CONSISTENT THEREWITH; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Councilman Buckman moved, Vice Mayor Czerwonka seconded to suspend the rules of
Council requiring a second reading of the ordinance. The Clerk called the roll.
Councilpersons Adamec, Bryan, Stoller, Sumner, Buckman, Czerwonka, and Mayor Weber
voted yes. Seven yeses. Motion carried.
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 14
Councilman Buckman moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to adopt Ordinance No.
2012-41.
Mayor Weber stated as follows: “The deal between Cincinnati and Blue Ash for the sale of
130 acres of airport property is really quite simple. In a nutshell, Blue Ash purchased 130
acres from Cincinnati to build a world-class park. Blue Ash would pay Cincinnati about $37.5
million over time. Cincinnati agreed to use best efforts to seek a grant from the FAA to
reconfigure the airport on the 100 acres it still owned. Blue Ash agreed to contribute $2
million for the cost of the reconfiguration of the airport. Cincinnati conveyed title to the 130
acres to Blue Ash by a Limited Warranty Deed recorded with the Hamilton County Recorder
in 2007. Possession of the 130 acres was to be given by Cincinnati to Blue Ash on or before
August 31, 2012. Payments totaling $5 million has so far been made by Blue Ash to
Cincinnati. However, as a result of Cincinnati‟s indifference and neglect toward the Blue Ash
Airport, programmed deterioration of the Airport became a major part of Cincinnati‟s
rationale for the airport‟s demise. It became apparent to me that closing the airport and
cashing out was really Cincinnati‟s long-term goal. As we all know, Cincinnati has
announced the closure of the airport. It is also indicated that it would like to sell the 100
acres it still owns for an asking price of approximately $24 million. For the last six years,
Blue Ash has performed its obligations under the contract with Cincinnati to the letter. The
same cannot be said for Cincinnati. Now Cincinnati wants Blue Ash to rescind the contract,
have Blue Ash re-convey the property to Cincinnati, allow Cincinnati to formally close the
airport, and then re-execute the contract and Cincinnati would re-convey the property back to
Blue Ash. Even though Blue Ash has done everything correct in its dealings with Cincinnati,
Blue Ash has been maneuvered into a position which is inconsistent with our good faith and
potentially quite detrimental to our best interest. If Blue Ash does not rescind the contract,
we have been warned that we will not have possession of the 130 acres by August 31st.
That Cincinnati might not formally close the airport and that Cincinnati might not properly
reimburse Blue Ash for real estate taxes that Blue Ash has paid even though those are the
City of Cincinnati‟s obligations under the 2006 contract. Furthermore, if we don‟t rescind the
deal, Cincinnati has implied that it will involve Blue Ash in litigation with the FAA over how
Cincinnati can spend the payments from Blue Ash after they have been received by
Cincinnati. Rescinding the contract opens up a can of worms that may be more detrimental
to Blue Ash than the consequences threatened if Blue Ash does not rescind the contract.
Rescinding the contract invites other special interest groups to weigh in with litigation. I
would rather take my chances with questionable litigation brought by Cincinnati than
aggressive litigation initiated by political zealots. Please understand that any differences of
opinion on our Council are strictly a matter of risk assessment. Our Council is strongly
committed to the construction of our park in an efficient and expeditious manner. However, I
am very uncomfortable with this ordinance. I am concerned how Blue Ash will be perceived,
not only by our residents, but the greater Cincinnati community. From my perspective as an
attorney, a resident of Blue Ash and a member of City Council, a deal is a deal and we
shouldn‟t mess with it.”
Councilman Bryan thanked the Mayor for his very well thought out comments and stated as
follows: “I would hope that the citizens of Blue Ash understand that, while we may view the
situation in front of us differently on Council, all of us will be voting based on what we believe
is the best action for our City and our residents. Not everyone in Council Chambers came to
hear the discussion about the airport and the contract. So, the rest of you might be
confused. Let me review for a moment. Back in 2006, Issue 15 was put before the
residents of the City of Blue Ash. We asked our neighbors to accept a .25% increase in the
earning tax rate. In return for that .25% increase in the earnings tax, they would get a
dramatically enlarged and improved recreation center. That project is done and I see many
of my neighbors there most mornings. We promised a world-class event center and golf
course club house with infrastructure improvements to our golf course. You may call it a
palace as one of the disparaging comments was wrapped up, but it is a very nice facility. It
is fully booked through the end of the year and our rounds of golf are up dramatically. The
third component was promising the residents of Blue Ash a 130 acre world class park. I
think all seven of us on City Council are committed to delivering that 130 acre park. So, if
you just arrived tonight, you may be surprised, because I think Jeff Capell said it best,
„Ladies and Gentlemen, this all about the streetcar.‟ Well for us, it is not about the streetcar,
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 15
for me it is not about the streetcar, I will talk in first person. What it is about for me is about
Issue 15. Issue 15 was approved by the residents of Blue Ash. 66% to 34%. The voice of
the residents was loud. We want a recreation center, we want a clubhouse at the golf
course and we want a 130 acre park. So what we are voting about tonight is how best to get
to that point. Let‟s not be confused. The streetcar involves primarily citizens of the City of
Cincinnati. One of the world‟s sharpest lawyers, who spoke earlier tonight, actually wrote
ballot language two times and put it before the citizens of the City of Cincinnati. The
question was, shall we stop the streetcar project. Friends, neighbors, the people of the City
of Cincinnati in 2009 voted 56% to 44% let‟s not stop the streetcar project. Well maybe the
citizens of Cincinnati were not smart enough to get the nuance. They were confused by the
ballot language of the world‟s smartest attorney. In 2011, the similar issue was put before
the residents of the City of Cincinnati. The residents of Cincinnati who will pay for the
streetcar, who will be burdened with any future debt, but will also enjoy any benefit from it,
again voted 52% to 48% to let this project go forward. Now, if I was worried about anything,
my friends, I would be worried about a group of people who do not hear the voice of “WeThe-People” because they don‟t think that you get it. Many of them have been applauding
here tonight. Let‟s move on. The streetcar is the streetcar. What we agreed to is to buy a
130 acre piece of property. We agreed to pay the City of Cincinnati $37.5 million. We did
not put any strings on that $37.5 million. What our friends from COAST are doing and are
very effectively using Brian Thomas on the radio; very effectively using Willie Cunningham;
very effectively using midnight literature drops that are unsigned and unattributed to the
author; ignoring the fact that there were no strings on our end. Whether or not there is a
streetcar in Cincinnati has been voted on by the people who are empowered to vote on WeThe-People. Last point, I would have voted no for the streetcar. I have no interest in the
streetcar. My interest though is in the 130 acre park. Here is what we have to evaluate.
There are three dogs in this fight – three parties with vested interests. Party number 1 is the
City of Blue Ash – what we want is access to that land so we can start building a park. What
Cincinnati wants is $37.5 million. As Blue Ash residents, unless you share Mr. Finney‟s
obsession with stopping the streetcar, it is not our direct interest. What the FAA wants is the
following of process. The City of Cincinnati wants the airport closed before the airport is
sold. Here are the facts – if this deal is amended, Blue Ash should get the 130 acre park.
We should be able on September 1st to begin working on it. The City of Cincinnati just wants
their money. Same as you would want your money if you sold your car to me. Would you
allow me to tell you how to use the proceeds of that sale? Well, they sold the land to us.
There should be no strings attached to the sale. Last point, the FAA only wants process
followed. If the deal is amended, the airport will officially close which will be August 29th, the
FAA has already given assurance that they will go away happy. There is no issue. So if the
deal is amended, the only people, residents of Blue Ash, who will stop your park from going
forward are the folks that will be waiting – we have been promised – we were threatened,
you were promised, that they will be at the Taste of Blue Ash, they will be out waiting in the
hallway to do a referendum drive. So if you really would like the park delayed for as long as
the litigation takes – it might not be as long as Mr. Finney thinks, that is the process that will
go forward. There will be different points of view but that is mine.”
Councilman Sumner stated as follows: “I have listened carefully and appreciate hearing all
the different views. I appreciate all the email traffic and phone calls over the last couple of
weeks. I find it very disheartening that some opponents of Cincinnati‟s project would stoop
to downright dishonesty and threats. Mr. Finney called my home and threatened to extort
my vote in voting his way, so that he can accomplish his goals related to a Cincinnati project.
He did that at the risk of impeding Blue Ash projects. We heard him tonight threaten
litigation if we didn‟t vote his way. I find that very disingenuous. I respect the fact that he
may have an opinion about Cincinnati, but to try and extort a vote here in Blue Ash is very
inappropriate to me. I have watched the process to try and sell the airport to the City of Blue
Ash for over 20 years. From the very first discussions, the free use of the funds was an
issue. Up until 2003, there was a grant in place that prohibited the free use of the funds.
But that expired in 2003 and everyone had the opinion that the funds could be used in a free
form and in any fashion at all. When we signed the contract, the original agreement with the
City of Cincinnati, the impression was that the City of Cincinnati could use the funds in a free
fashion. It was only after the contract was signed; in fact, within the last year or two, the
FAA objected to that approach. I find it interesting that none of the facts shared tonight is
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 16
that the FAA is the one that proposed this solution. I am going to repeat it – the FAA
proposed this solution to the City of Cincinnati. We have been on the phone with them, we
have heard it personally. They have proposed this solution. I would also note that the FAA,
despite repeated attempts by the citizens of Cincinnati – maybe not as efficient as we would
have like to have seen – the FAA did deny grants to keep the airport open. Not acting
tonight, in my opinion as I have looked at this over the past couple months as we have
discussed the possible revision to the contract, or replacement, or however, you want to
rephrase it, it is a replacement – as we discuss this over the last couple of months, it
became a pro and con risk assessment. I respect the fact that some Council Members have
a different view, but when I look at the pros and cons, if we don‟t act tonight, we don‟t begin
digging on September 1st. The risk of litigation is real. Councilman Bryan talked about the
FAA process. The FAA is about process. They suggested this solution and have indicated
that if this goes forward, they won‟t object to how Cincinnati uses the funds. So that means
there is reduced risk of litigation between the FAA and the City of Cincinnati. So that‟s a
win-win outcome. We get the property on September 1st. The airport is likely going to close
but we get possession. There is also no risk of ongoing litigation. If we don‟t take
possession, we are going to have to sue Cincinnati for possession. We had a contract that
allowed possession to stay with the City of Cincinnati through this time, but it is likely we will
st
have to pursue litigation to actually take possession after September 1 . At this point, I
remain convinced, based on everything that I have heard tonight, as well as careful study
over the last several months, that this is the best course of action for the citizens of Blue Ash
to deliver the park on time.”
Vice Mayor Czerwonka indicated that his comments would begin once Deputy City Solicitor
Bryan Pacheco goes through the details on the issue, and answer the questions of why and
explains the details of the benefits to the City of Blue Ash.
Deputy City Solicitor Bryan Pacheco responded as follows: “Council has indicated that they
have to make a risk assessment and the risk assessment is very clear. Even the opponents
of this legislation, kind of understands, and is publically saying, that FAA and Cincinnati will
battle it out if Blue Ash does nothing. Quite simply, Blue Ash will be pulled into the muck and
mire of that litigation and probably litigation, if anybody who knows, will go to federal court
before you do anything, it will be 24 months. That means that we are not digging in the
ground, that means we are not doing anything more with the park except sit there for 24
months. That is if we do nothing. That is acknowledged by opponents of this legislation – so
they know litigation is coming if we do nothing. That is number one risk assessment that you
have to factor. The second point, as Councilman Bryan and Councilman Sumner pointed
out, what this does is allows the City to take possession on September 1st. Do we have the
st
right to take possession now? Yes, we do – on August 31 but as already acknowledged by
the opponents of this legislation, if the FAA and Cincinnati get into an inevitable battle over
the proceeds, we are not going to get the property. Guess what we will have to do if we do
nothing? We would be in the same place as we would be if we go through with this
legislation and that is we will have to sue the City of Cincinnati for possession. It would be
no different other than you have attempted to take out that risk as Councilman Bryan and
Councilman Sumner have rightly pointed out. Now, I don‟t want to get into a whole lot of
what my view of litigation strategy is because it is already been threatened against us and,
apparently, it has been threatened against various Council Members, so I don‟t want to get
into a whole lot of that because I don‟t want to provide free discovery for what our inevitable
challengers will be if Council decides to pass this. Let me just say, the Limited Warranty
Deed deals with title defects. Nothing here has anything to do with a title defect. It has to do
with possession. Possession is 10 tenths of the law and right now, we don‟t have it. If you
pass this legislation as Councilman Bryan said, we want this property, Cincinnati wants its
money and the FAA wants its process. All of this is accomplished and we get our property.
The Limited Warranty Deed has no protection for possession. The other thing with respect
to litigation, again as the opponents have acknowledged, that will be battled out between the
FAA and Cincinnati. Make no mistake that Cincinnati will attempt, I presume, to get out of
the contract if Cincinnati cannot use the proceeds in whatever manner it deems fit. That will
drag this property through litigation. It is very simple. As Councilman Bryan has pointed out,
if you go through this legislation, then you will have addressed the three items for the three
different parties and the only thing that will stop you at that point will be litigation challenging
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 17
this legislation tonight. I don‟t welcome litigation because it delays things, but I certainly
welcome the opportunity to vindicate the position of the City. Further benefits would be that
you are minimizing the cost and, keep in mind, there has been a suggestion that just stand
pat and when Cincinnati doesn‟t give you possession, go ahead and sue them. Well, I
guess, but that costs money too – taxpayer money. It is not free to sue and we don‟t know
the results and it is for specific performance which is a more involved lawsuit as well. So we
don‟t know how long that is going to take either. That will cost more money, that will result in
additional litigation and that is going to result in further delay.”
Councilman Adamec questioned Mr. Pacheco concerning issues brought up earlier that this
might not revert back and Blue Ash might not be able to buy it. He asked what the intentions
are in doing this because he is not certain this is something Blue Ash would want to get into.
Blue Ash wants to get this park underway as soon as possible. Are there provisions that will
prevent Cincinnati from reneging? Does Blue Ash trust Cincinnati? What is expected?
Mr. Pacheco responded as follows: “Ordinance No. 302-2012 specifically obligates the City
of Cincinnati to re-convey the property to Blue Ash following the City‟s closure of the airport.
First of all, Cincinnati does not have any legislation authorizing them to sell it to anyone else.
So make no mistake, there is no other bidder, there is no other property owner that they can
sell this to. They don‟t have legislation authorizing it. So anybody that tells you otherwise, is
not correct and they don‟t understand municipal law. The second point is Cincinnati is
obligated to sell it back to us. If it doesn‟t, we have a lawsuit. We are in the same position
that we would be if we don‟t do anything which is we have to sue Cincinnati anyway, so we
have the protection in the legislation itself. They cannot sell it to another third party. They
can‟t sell it to the „highest bidder‟ that is in their legislation. So that scenario is not going to
happen.”
Mayor Weber questioned if Cincinnati has said at anytime that they will not give Blue Ash
possession on the date that they are entitled to possession if we don‟t pass this ordinance?
Mr. Pacheco responded that the answer to the question is not specifically what they have
said this litigation will ensue in involving possession of the property. Cincinnati has made the
point, as everyone has acknowledged that if this is not done, then Blue Ash is not going to
get possession on August 31st.
Councilman Adamec stated as follows: “We all have received a note from John Curp,
Cincinnati Solicitor, and besides saying that they are going to close the airport, it is a done
deal according to them. It goes on to say that „the airport cannot sustain itself as an
outgoing enterprise and will close regardless of whether we conform to the transaction or
proceed through litigation with the FAA.‟ What does that mean? Do we go through Federal
Court? Do we go to local court? What do we get with the FAA because I hear a lot that
maybe nothing will happen, but this is in their letter I am reading it to you. It is not made up.
That is basically saying that they are going to litigate. So tell me a little bit about what that
means.”
Mr. Pacheco responded that he is not advising Cincinnati to sue us, but since it involves the
FAA and the interpretation of a Federal statute, it would be addressed in Federal Court. His
legal experience is that because of the backlog of the courts, it will be 18 to 24 months
before any decision is received from the Trial Court much less go to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeal which adds another 12 to 18 months.
Councilman Adamec questioned that, if Cincinnati was successful, we all go on our merry
way. If they are not, then the next course is to sue Blue Ash or Blue Ash would sue
Cincinnati for possession, etc. which could get into another lengthy litigation.
Councilman Sumner wanted to clarify that it will be literally hours that Cincinnati would be
owners to the property. This rescission is all going to happen on August 29th, give it to the
City of Cincinnati, they give it back to Blue Ash per the agreement and on the same day,
they will transfer it back to Blue Ash. A misstatement was that there is no $6 million in extra
money. The $6 million that they are returning is what Blue Ash paid to them to-date and is
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 18
being returned back to Blue Ash the same day. The compensation involved in this is to
offset our expense, time and effort of $250,000. By passing this ordinance, City Manager
David Waltz is authorized to execute this agreement, in that fashion and nothing else.
Councilman Adamec stated as follows: “The audience inferred that Council is not
considering citizens comments and that Council has already made up its mind. I take
exception to that. Whoever said that should be ashamed. I think that it something that
should be called out. I am glad to talk to anyone in public. The person who said that has
never talked to me about it and maybe not to anyone else. I think that is really shameful to
bring that up. We are elected members and some people mentioned that because they felt
Cincinnati was crooked, etc. which is inference and is totally ridiculous. Now, the second
thing that you heard, is at least 80% of the people are concerned about Cincinnati and the
streetcar, but your problem is really with Cincinnati. If they get extra money for whatever
reason, you need to go talk to them about fixing your roads or streets versus whatever they
may want to do. Now, maybe they can‟t do that but that is who you should be talking to.
Now, the folks that really brought up a great point, is one that we have to consider. We are
not going to consider the streetcar, that doesn‟t matter either way. I will tell you that we have
had people send notes out that ask if you will vote for it or will you vote against it and it all
had to do with the streetcar. That is the farthest thing from our minds. To bring that in here
is the wrong place. This is about Blue Ash and moving forward to getting the park. I heard
about risk mitigation and it definitely is. We have Cincinnati and FAA on one side and, make
no mistake, if they chose to go forward, that will be a very lengthy period because Federal
Courts are not very easy to work through. Now the other way that we have been threatened
but we will have to deal with because that will be the best way to proceed on this for Blue
Ash.”
Councilwoman Stoller stated as follows: “She was not appreciative of someone going
around the City putting flyers under doormats without a signature on it. I kept getting calls
as to who this person was. I think a lot of you here are people who must have voted against
the streetcar when they had the two elections. We cannot help you through this, I am sorry.
Cincinnati is going to have the streetcar. I truthfully think that it is a great idea for
Cincinnati. You must remember one thing – Cincinnati is the hub of this whole community.
Without Cincinnati, we are nothing. Therefore, I think we want to see Cincinnati succeed, so
why don‟t you give them the benefit of the doubt truthfully. On the idea of us telling
Cincinnati what to do with their money, we don‟t do that. We don‟t tell them they can‟t put
money on the streetcar, nor do we want them to tell us what we can do with our money. The
people that have gotten involved in this have heard half truths of everything. In fact, the last
email I received today was so descriptive, it said, „I don‟t like the streetcar.‟ This is not what
we are about. We are about what is best for Blue Ash.”
Vice Mayor Czerwonka stated as follows: “I concur with the rest of the Council Members. I
don‟t appreciate a third party, through cowardly acts, sticking notes on our residents‟ doors.
If you can‟t put your name or your organization on it, it is cowardly and I don‟t give it any
respect whatsoever. I am elected here by the residents of the City of Blue Ash and that is
who I represent. Not Cincinnati. That being said, I don‟t agree with the streetcar. I don‟t
care for it, but it is not on our plate here. In Blue Ash, we focus on Blue Ash. The park is
what the residents want. The park is our focus. The reason this is being considered is that
it gives us the path of least resistance to get the park up and going now. Our records are
very public. Our communications could be better but nonetheless, that is where I speak for
myself and I know that some of my Council Members feel the same.”
There being no further discussion, the Clerk called the roll. Councilpersons Bryan, Stoller,
Sumner, Buckman, Czerwonka, and Adamec voted yes. Mayor Weber voted no. Six yeses.
One no. Ordinance No. 2012-41 passed.
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 19
Councilman Buckman asked the Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2012-42 by title only.
THEN WAS PRESENTED AND READ BY TITLE ONLY:
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-42
AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH PHASE I OF THE
AIRPORT PARK PROJECT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Councilman Buckman moved, Councilman Adamec seconded to suspend the rules of
Council requiring a second reading of the ordinance. The Clerk called the roll.
Councilpersons Stoller, Sumner, Buckman, Czerwonka, Adamec, Bryan, and Mayor Weber
voted yes. Seven yeses. Motion carried.
Councilman Buckman moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to adopt Ordinance No.
2012-42.
Councilman Bryan questioned when would the architectural planning commence on the
airport park?
City Manager David Waltz indicated that the Administration had spent the summer
interviewing architects, engineers and construction managers to begin design work
associated with the airport park. It shows how intent Blue Ash is in moving forward with this
airport park. We are recommending MSA. A meeting is scheduled next week to begin
laying out the ground work for long-term design elements associated with the airport park,
particularly, Phase I which would be the social zone of the park. An internal committee will
be working through some issues building upon a master park plan, and around November or
December there will be some preliminary ideas and concepts that will be coming forth for
input and from there, further discussions with the public. So commencement will begin next
week doing detail work on the park.
Councilman Bryan questioned when would we break ground?
Mr. Waltz hopes to begin work on the park this fall and not necessarily break ground on
major projects but provide some very rudimentary trails so our residents have some very
basic access to it. It will not be well-improved trails, it will not be great stuff, it won‟t be
landscaped and manicured by any stretch of the imagination. The park will be accessible as
soon as October of this year so people can walk through the park in a much unsophisticated
fashion. A more visible part of the project, such as infrastructure of buildings, etc., due to
the design involved would be next summer before there would be a hard ground breaking.
The desire is for people to take a walk through the woods this fall.
There being no further discussion, the Clerk called the roll. Councilpersons Sumner,
Buckman, Czerwonka, Adamec, Bryan, Stoller, and Mayor Weber voted yes. Seven yeses.
Ordinance No. 2012-42 passed.
b. Public Works Committee, Thomas C. Adamec, Chairperson
Councilman Adamec asked the Clerk to read Resolution No. 2012-11 by title only.
THEN WAS PRESENTED AND READ BY TITLE ONLY:
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-11
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT AND REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF THE CITY OF BLUE ASH ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE OF OHIO (THE BORROWER) TO REIMBURSE ITS
FUND #444 – CARVER ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT
(OHIO PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION PROJECT NUMBER
CB22P) WITH THE PROCEEDS OF TAX EXEMPT DEBT OF
THE STATE OF OHIO
Councilman Adamec moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to adopt Resolution No. 201211.
Public Works Director Gordon Perry explained that this is a road repair project which is also
completing a section of sidewalk that will complete the section from Glendale-Milford Road to
Cooper Road for 2013. This will be a sidewalk around the perimeter of the future airport
park.
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 20
Councilman Sumner expressed his excitement in the project that was planned a couple of
years ago to improve connectivity. These next four ordinances related to executing on that
plan and beginning the process.
There being no further discussion, the Clerk called the roll. Councilpersons Buckman,
Czerwonka, Adamec, Bryan, Stoller, Sumner, and Mayor Weber voted yes. Seven yeses.
Resolution No. 2012-11 passed.
Councilman Adamec asked the Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2012-43 by title only.
THEN WAS PRESENTED AND READ BY TITLE ONLY:
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-43
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND
THEREAFTER ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH GRANTS OF EASEMENT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
THE 2013 COOPER ROAD SIDEWALK PROJECT
INVOLVING PORTIONS OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF COOPER ROAD BETWEEN PLAINFIELD
ROAD AND WAXWING DRIVE; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY
Councilman Adamec moved, Councilman Sumner seconded to suspend the rules of Council
requiring a second reading of the ordinance. The Clerk called the roll. Councilpersons
Czerwonka, Adamec, Bryan, Stoller, Sumner, Buckman, and Mayor Weber voted yes. Seven
yeses. Motion carried.
Councilman Adamec moved, Vice Mayor Czerwonka seconded to adopt Ordinance No.
2012-43.
Mr. Perry explained that after the initial connectivity plan created a number of years ago to
connect our community, business and residential areas to various amenities within the City,
the City has constructed more than 10½ miles of sidewalk and bike paths throughout the
City. As of this year, the City will have completed another mile in the Reed Hartman
Highway area to Cornell Road and along Osborne to Creek Road. Next year, the plan is for
2½ miles of sidewalks. There is a mile section along Plainfield Road from Glendale-Milford
to Cooper Road. There is about a half a mile from Cooper Road to Plainfield Road to
Waxwing and the previous portion that was mentioned on Carver Road. Two and a half
miles are scheduled next year for construction.
There being no further discussion, the Clerk called the roll. Councilpersons Adamec, Bryan,
Stoller, Sumner, Buckman, Czerwonka, and Mayor Weber voted yes. Seven yeses.
Ordinance No. 2012-43 passed.
Councilman Adamec asked the Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2012-44 by title only.
THEN WAS PRESENTED AND READ BY TITLE ONLY:
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-44
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND
THEREAFTER ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH GRANTS OF EASEMENT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
THE 2012 SIDEWALK PROGRAM INVOLVING PORTIONS
OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF REED
HARTMAN HIGHWAY BETWEEN OSBORNE BOULEVARD
AND CORNELL ROAD; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Councilman Adamec moved, Councilman Buckman seconded to suspend the rules of
Council requiring a second reading of the ordinance. The Clerk called the roll.
Councilpersons Bryan, Stoller, Sumner, Buckman, Czerwonka, Adamec, and Mayor Weber
voted yes. Seven yeses. Motion carried.
Councilman Adamec moved, Vice Mayor Czerwonka seconded to adopt Ordinance No.
2012-44.
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 21
There being no discussion, the Clerk called the roll. Councilpersons Stoller, Sumner,
Buckman, Czerwonka, Adamec, Bryan, and Mayor Weber voted yes. Seven yeses.
Ordinance No. 2012-44 passed.
Councilman Adamec asked the Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2012-45 by title only.
THEN WAS PRESENTED AND READ BY TITLE ONLY:
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-45
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND
THEREAFTER ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH GRANTS OF EASEMENT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
THE 2013 PLAINFIELD ROAD BIKE PATH PROJECT
INVOLVING PORTIONS OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF PLAINFIELD ROAD BETWEEN COOPER
ROAD AND GLENDALE MILFORD ROAD; AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY
Councilman Adamec moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to suspend the rules of
Council requiring a second reading of the ordinance. The Clerk called the roll.
Councilpersons Sumner, Buckman, Czerwonka, Adamec, Bryan, Stoller, and Mayor Weber
voted yes. Seven yeses. Motion carried.
Councilman Adamec moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 201245.
There being no discussion, the Clerk called the roll. Councilpersons Buckman, Czerwonka,
Adamec, Bryan, Stoller, Sumner, and Mayor Weber voted yes. Seven yeses. Ordinance No.
2012-45 passed.
c. Planning & Zoning Committee, James W. Sumner, Chairperson
Councilman Sumner moved, Councilman Bryan seconded to set 7:05PM, Thursday,
September 13, 2012 as a hearing concerning an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals
regarding a proposed multi-family residential development and an existing commercial
building at 4900 Hunt Road
A voice vote was taken. All members present voted yes. Motion carried.
12. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Mr. Funk reminded Council that the 27th Annual Taste of Blue Ash will be held on August 24,
25, and 26th and hopes to see everyone there.
Mr. Waltz welcomed Sergeant Parker home for his break – wished him well and supports his
efforts.
Councilman Sumner informed that the East Side Players show is this weekend and next
weekend. They will be celebrating their 30th Anniversary in Blue Ash. The Mayor has
agreed to provide them with the appropriate recognition for that milestone which will be
delivered next week. The show is Once Upon a Mattress.
Councilman Bryan questioned Mr. Funk as to how many rounds of golf are up from last
year?
Mr. Funk responded that at last check, it was approximately 3,000 rounds ahead of last year
which is an increase of 10-12%. There have been 15 new outings. It has been a really good
year. He indicated that the staff has done a great job keeping the course up. Mr. Funk
further stated that the cart path project, which is the last part of the project, should be
completely done by the end of August. Obviously, Cooper Creek is doing extremely well with
rentals.
Councilman Bryan thanked Sergeant Parker for all he does for us which is overwhelming.
He commented on the standing ovation that Sergeant Parker received tonight and the
heartfelt applause and affection received for what he is doing for our country.
Councilman Buckman thanked Sergeant Parker and is keeping him in his prayers until he
comes home as a civilian. Thank you.
BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2012
Page 22
Vice Mayor Czerwonka thank Sergeant Parker for his honorable service. It speaks highly of
you and your family.
Vice Mayor Czerwonka expressed his comments regarding the streetcar project and feels
that there are a lot of people that probably don‟t like the streetcar, including himself. The
fact of the matter is Blue Ash has an agreement with Cincinnati. When Blue Ash entered the
deal six years ago, there was no mention of the streetcar. Council is elected to represent
the City of Blue Ash and its residents and that is first and foremost. The park has been
approved and it is Council‟s number one priority to start it.
Mayor Weber thanked everyone who showed up tonight on the many issues that were dealt
with. The passion that was in Council Chambers is probably as great as he can remember
in the eleven years on Council. He thanked everyone for their interest and involvement.
13. ADJOURNMENT
All items on the agenda having been acted upon, Vice Mayor Czerwonka moved,
Councilman Buckman seconded to adjourn the meeting. A voice vote was taken. All
members voted yes. The Council meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:20 PM.
______________________________________
Mark F. Weber, Mayor
_________________________________________
Jamie K. Eifert, Clerk of Council
MINUTES RECORDED AND WRITTEN BY:
________________________________________
Karla Plank, Administrative Assistant