City Council - Regular Meeting

Aaron O'Rourke from Troop 817 to come up and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Well done. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All the role plays, Mr. Kennedy.

No, shoot.

Whenever you're ready.

Mayor Bailey.

Here.

Vice Mayor Bateman. Here. Mr. Goodyear. Here. Ms. Hamlin. Here. Mr. Hart. Here. Ms. Hazel Baker.

Here.

Mr. Derenick. Here.

Welcome, everyone. Tonight, we have our Director of Finance, Mark Medler, Assistant City Manager, Chris Weinage, Dave Kennedy, City Manager, pulling double duty as Clerk of Council, City Solicitor, Joe Braun, Police Chief, Michael Gabrielson, and former Councilmember, Todd Osborne. Welcome, everyone. And first is open forum with Jim and Susan Black. Yes, sir.

Well, thank you very much for your time. I want to talk about traffic safety because I think it's very important. And Loveland has a lot of residents that are going driving around all the time. And there's some displays that come when the holidays happen that kind of impede the traffic a little bit. We're all familiar with the big skeleton that's over across from LECC. I saw one like that last October for Halloween at another place and it had fallen, but it did not get into the street. Now, we have a house that's up on the corner of, it's up on 48. As you go across there, you can see all the inflatables that they have, which I think are really cool. And I would not restrict what they put up in any way, but it would be nice if there would be some kind of an ordinance or a zoning ordinance that would move back everything that they put up at least 10 feet from the street. And if something in the display is taller than 10 feet, that should maybe be back as far as it is tall.

I have some pictures here that show you what it looks like because the important thing is to have a .

We do need you to be at the podium because people are listening online. But they can't hear if you're not with the microphone.

Thank you. This shows you what happens sometimes when the inflatables deflate. Now this, for us he didn't melt, but he deflated and he kind of is getting close to the highway. This actually depicts one of the inflatables that is into the highway. And you can see the car coming around. So it kind of impacts the traffic flow quite a bit. And as a matter of fact, my wife said this. She went through one time. There's a five-foot-tall figure. I don't know if you know Ralphie from A Christmas Story. The bunny?

He sits right on the street. And so the cars in front of me, the kids were trying to get him out the window as they went by. And we go by this all the time. And it's a known display. Many years. We could turn out 13 years. But what has happened then is. Ralphie got run over right in front of him. He fell on the street because he was right at the street. And he says, Holly, he turned the corner. You saw Ralphie and you thought that was the kid because he looked just like the kid in a bunny suit, granted. But he did look just like the kid and the car ran over and hit him. And the car in front of me stopped to see if It's okay. But just to set them up again. But what's happening, it's on the curve. Two cars are passing each other like this. They're going around not to hit each other. They're going around. And when those balloons go over, if it's windy, they come closer and closer to the road. So sometimes they are turning back. And then sometimes they're all the way up to the street because the wind has taken them, even with their weights on it. Those are big balloons they have up. So we're just thinking about a setback line. Not official, you can't do this. I don't want to say no decorations. They're cool. We loved it. But you can see where all of a sudden, when I saw they were sticking their hand out to hit Ralphie as they went by, I thought, that's probably not cool.

Why don't we show what it looks like from the car's perspective?

This shows you what the

What you see as you drive by and you can see how close everything is. We're not targeting this particular house. We think that any display in the city of Loveland should at least be 10 feet back from the road so you can see around it, especially if it's like this where you have a blind curve and the blow-up characters impede you from being able to see what's coming in the other lane. So that's our suggestion. We really appreciate your time, but we think it would be a lot safer for people driving around the holidays if the holiday displays were set back at least 10 feet from the curb, or if something's taller than 10 feet, at least that far back so that if it fell over, it wouldn't get into the roadway.

Okay. Well, thank you. We appreciate your suggestion, and we'll look into it. Thank you. Thank you. Todd Osborne.

Todd Osborne, 1100 Sunrise Drive. I will recommend six feet. I have the largest, if not the largest display in the city for Christmas. It's always behind the sidewalk. Six feet. No. Good evening, council. Tonight, I would like to discuss our current zoning code and the proposed. And enforcement. I am assuming this was reviewed by the Law and Ordinance Committee. A year and a half ago or so, there was a permit that was submitted and reviewed by the zoning administrator. The permit process was signed off numerous times. in the original plot plan developed by the manufactured home manufacturer, not a modular home as touted in various emails over the months. The plot noted or notated side setbacks. The current side setback has been 15 feet on each side, established way before this city hall was built. The lot size is 70 feet. Minus 15 feet each side, that's 30 feet. Total, the plot described a 56-foot two-piece manufactured house. One that the city police chief asked in an email if it was illegal. With sides reaching 9 feet and 10 feet from the side boundary. Side setbacks are 15 feet. No variances were issued. The zoning code was ignored. Four different times over a six-month span, whomever was responsible for signing off was derelict of duty. I'm aware of multiple separate properties having monstrous-sized weeds. The person who reported the weed violations just this year awaited several weeks to see if the zoning department would cite the owner. That never happened. In all cases cited, a resident was required to report and object to be the bad person. The refreshed code proudly says its responsibility is in the hands of the zoning administrator, the zoning director, all of the above. Will it? You have placed a lot of duties onto the zoning administrator. History shows a useless department. If the current zoning code can't be enforced, why do you believe the new code will be also enforced or will it? Thank you.

Thank you. Jonathan Baer.

So this is my first time doing anything like this. And so if you give me some patience with any accidental breaches of, you know, procedure or whatnot, live up on 387 Broadway Street. Good evening, council members and fellow Americans. I've come to talk about the flock cameras that you've seen around town. Who has seen the fancy new flock cameras they're putting up? I don't know how many of you are very well versed with the issue. This is a public surveillance issue. I've passed 13 of them on my drive home from work this afternoon, including two of which have already been vandalized by someone with spray paint expressing their own not quite harmless civil disobedience to the situation. There is a court precedence against the use of these cameras, both constitutionally and federal court, Supreme Court cases. The Supreme Court case of Carpenter versus United States in 2018 set a precedent that cops needed a warrant to make cell phone companies give over your phone location. In 2012, they ruled in the United States versus Jones that cell phone location was a reasonable expectation of privacy that normal citizens could expect that their phone location would not be distributed without a warrant as well. And in 2026, that ruling was upheld in Chaudhry versus United States. The issue with these flock cameras is there's not currently any laws in place that protect against a simple law enforcement check on them. So it's not technically legally illegal for them to simply say, I want to see where this car goes. And they can follow any citizen home accordingly. They're a violation of the Fourth Amendment, in my opinion, and a danger to your children and grandchildren. I know a lot of you in the city council are proud parents or grandparents even. I would someday like to be a father myself and I have a harder time picturing myself bringing kids into this world whenever bringing into a world that would not be safe for them. I'm not sure how familiar you guys are with AI systems. They're incredibly sophisticated and when used properly, they can be amazing for medical healthcare purposes, you know, But what they can be used for with these systems is to track locations and build a pattern of life. I come from a military family. Building a pattern of life is a common law enforcement or military technique to figure out if a suspect is associated with a certain location, certain peoples, and so on and so forth, to either confirm their danger or to eliminate them as a suspect. When it comes to these cameras, if someone malevolent were to get a hold of them, they could figure out exactly when your children are least affected. Least protected, least safe. When I was a kid, I used to stand at the bus stop for five, ten minutes, depending on how light the bus was. If it was a cold day, my mom would be waiting inside the house. If someone malevolent had access to these security cameras, they could absolutely use that information against my family. I could have been absolutely kidnapped if someone unauthorized had access to these cameras or someone authorized but with ill intentions. And over the past few months, we've seen across the United States dozens of cases of law enforcement agents getting indicted or resigning over suspicions or accusations or even confirmed cases of misuse. where they would leave incomplete documentation on to why they were following somebody home or why they had followed their ex-wife for 500 different camera footage over the months. In the best case scenario, we have good law enforcement agents locally. All our police officers are good law abiding citizens with nothing but the best intentions for our people. The problem is this system is networked to the entire nation. So if you don't trust the federal government at all, or if you have even the slightest misgivings, maybe you can see how this could be a hazard to your family, yourself, anyone. I'm gonna deviate a little bit from what I wrote down here, just cause I'll admit I wrote this in a place of frustration and it's probably a little bit more hostile than I wanna come across as. It's really not hypotheticals either. There was a case in Dunwoody, Georgia, where the, I believe it was the vice president of marketing for the company, Block Cameras, was advertising the benefits that you could see for their cameras. And the cameras were installed in a community gym center of sorts. Think of like a YMCA, but state funded. And that included cameras in the children's area to theoretically track if someone had broken in and had access to the children when they shouldn't. The issue is they spent 20 minutes watching three, four, five-year-olds do gymnastics. Theoretically, sure, I could see the benefit in a perfect system where we would have surveillance and it wouldn't be misused. But if random people with a lot of power can simply watch children do gymnastics from their office with no oversight, with no legal requirements, with no judge warrants required for them to get access to that footage, I hope you guys can understand the concern there. Finally, this one may not be completely universal, but I've seen several... Is that my time?

That is your time. You can wrap up your thoughts, Mr. Bear.

Yes, thank you. The last note is that a lot of these cameras have not been installed per safety code when it comes to the streets. They don't have proper breakaway plates. If you hit a stop sign, the stop sign goes with your car. If you hit these, your car stops and everyone inside could get hurt. As a fellow American and a strong believer in the Constitution, I urge you members of the City Council to reconsider the implementation and usage of these cameras and decide if it's worth giving up the liberty and privacy of your families for the perception of safety. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. All right. And our communications, we do have a letter from Dave, Barb, and Will Parker who live on Pheasant Hills. Dave's on a couple of our committees just thanking Public Works for their hard work in repairing a major water main break on Pheasant Hills that they had to come out at midnight one evening and took care of it. And he was very impressed with it. how they cleaned up, how quickly they got it taken care of. So it's nice to hear good things here and there. We now have the minutes from the July 28th meeting. Is there any changes, additions to those minutes?

Move to approve as written.

Second. Thank you. Call the roll, please.

Vice Mayor Bateman? Yes. Mr. Goodyear?

Yes.

Ms. Hamlin? Yes. Mr. Hart? Yes. Ms. Hazel Baker?

Yes.

Mr. Taranek?

Yes.

Mayor Bailey?

Yes. All right. Next is the public hearing. We need a motion to open the public hearing.

I'll move to open the public hearing for the easement of Little Miami Conservancy for 128. Second. Thank you. Call the roll, please.

Mr. Goodyear?

Yes.

Ms. Hamlin? Yes. Mr. Hart? Yes. Ms. Hazel Baker? Yes. Mr. Jaranec? Yes. Mayor Bailey?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Bateman? Yes.

No one signed up to speak. We have a motion to close the public hearing.

Who closed the public hearing? Second.

Call the roll, please, Mr. Kennedy.

Ms. Hamlin?

Yes.

Mr. Hart? Yes. Ms. Hazel Baker? Yes. Mr. Jarenick? Yes. Mayor Bailey? Yes. Vice Mayor Bateman? Yes. And Mr. Goodyear?

Yes.

All right. Mr. Weinert?

Thank you, Mayor. Before you is the second reading for the formal zoning text amendments, which is the zoning code rewrite. After the first reading or before the first reading, council had some time to deliberate and talk about the zoning code. And there were several issues and several comments that were brought up. And I had said I would bring back some answers to some of that and also a red line version that incorporates some of those changes. So the red line version, which would be the attachment to the ordinance, is in front of you. That does encompass many of the changes that were contemplated at the last meeting. I tried to get most of those in there. And then we also talked about a couple other things, which was the short-term rental application process. um in the memo i kind of we kind of outlined how that will take place i think the biggest thing here with the short-term rentals to to take away is currently once again currently there are no legally registered short-term rentals within the city in january 2026 is when they were to become uh come forward with applications and we have zero on on file so there are technically none so this process in my opinion It it is it can be very easy, I believe. I think the most difficult part for staff will be making sure when we do get an application, immediately putting it on a map so that the following application that comes in, we can identify whether or not it is within that density circle that we've created for each zoning district. But I do believe, as I outlined in there, I think it's possible and easily attainable for staff to handle this. So I do think it's a good direction. And then I gave you also a table. One of the comments was about the administrative relief. The table in that memo kind of outlines what that means exactly. So if someone comes My example is someone in the office residential district. They come in asking for a modification from the front setback, which would be currently 30 foot. The administrator is able to look at that up to 26 feet would be the threshold there. So that's that plus or minus 15%. And I go through all of the different different areas that that relief can be granted. So you can kind of see what that deviation is. Other than that, I've got a couple other things in there, just the clarifications that you had asked for. But I will take any questions if there are any as far as the memo goes.

Any questions on the memo, Ms. Hamlin? Questions or comments at this point? This is your turn to talk. So I, first of all, let me say I appreciate the fact that the concerns that I raised in the last meeting were addressed. Clearly most of them are in there. Not all, but most. I feel like, though, there have been some material changes between the first reading and the second reading. Material changes that, in my opinion, as I mentioned in the last one, need to go back to P&Z. And in addition, our own city website says that the function of the Law and Ordinance Committee is to review proposed laws and ordinances for clarity, accuracy, and legality prior to city council. consideration. To my knowledge, the Law and Ordinance Committee was not consulted. So, yeah, again, as I mentioned in the last meeting, I think it's premature and I don't see any benefit to rushing this thing through.

Anyone else? Any questions for Mr. Wynich? Are there any comments on this? I'll come, yes.

No, just a lot of gratitude because I had a lot of questions. I appreciated the notes and the details, appreciated the red lines and the clarity there. For me, I think there's always going to still be work to be done. So I am looking forward to maybe planning and zoning and the crew kind of seeing how this like melts, see what feedback we get. And then kind of trying to maybe take a look at it again in a year or so. But do appreciate the changes made and again those updates of the processes kind of added in. So thank you.

Anyone else? Kind of explain where we are here. My understanding is you took some of the comments that were made by Ms. Hamlin, which were at the meeting, didn't provide anything after that. And then Ms. Hazel Baker had some comments, whatever you looked at, whatever you had. And staff looked at everything and came up with what they thought were not such substantial material changes that it needs to go back to planning and zoning. Is that accurate?

Yeah, I think based on the way and Mr. Braun can can clarify, too, if needed. But I believe any the recommendation brought forth from planning and zoning, which is in your packet, the original the original document can be modified by city council. And that modification would need a three force majority vote to pass.

I'm just asking you.

Oh, yes. I don't I believe. Yeah. I mean, the major changes that were that took place were in the definitions, which were pretty standard. A lot of them were clerical errors. We did change the should to shall for the 50 units in the short-term rentals. But other than that, there weren't any large changes, mainly definitions.

All right, so our options are that we can vote on the current not redlined version, but the original version that was introduced at the last meeting. And that would require a simple majority vote to pass. Or we can entertain a motion to amend the zoning text amendments to include the red line revisions that you see in your packet. That motion would require also a simple majority vote. Then that is the version that we would be voting on. And because there are any changes, It doesn't matter whether they're material or not. If there's any changes then, because we have the right to look at what P&Z has done and given to us, but if we want to make changes to that, that would require a supermajority vote, which is 75% in this case would be six votes to pass. Is that accurate? Once we pass the motion to consider the red line version, that is the version we cannot go back to the other one. It either passes with the super majority or it doesn't. We would then have to, on a different night, figure out what to do in that instance. So that is the process. That's my understanding. And does that raise any further questions or comments?

I can make a comment. Yes, sir. I mean, from planning and zoning perspective. I can say, I mean, I hesitate to speak for the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, but I feel pretty confident that these changes listed in the red line version represent councils, editorial privilege on this and that if it were to go back to planning and zoning, there would likely be very little changes to that red line version. I think we've spent a good amount of time on this. And by good amount of time, it's something like, you know, substantive work from planning and zoning in the neighborhood of, you know, 20 months. So I don't think we're going to reinvent the wheel if we're given another bite at the apple and i think that the planning zoning commission generally would accept these changes uh as i said as council's right to uh to make those changes so if in the if in course of of those options if you explain this were to have to go back to planning and zoning, I think that would be a pretty redundant process and one in which it would only be a matter of a few, of a procedural meeting to forward this right back into our labs.

Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Goodyear.

Just quickly about the comment about the Law and Ordinance Committee. Obviously, there are times when law and ordinance is asked to look at either an issue without an ordinance exists, like we are right now with the noise ordinance, or sometimes to look at updating or changing ordinances that exist. But certainly, there are many, many ordinances that are passed by city council that are never in any way considered or impacted by law and ordinance. So I don't think there's any requirement that law and ordinance be involved in every ordinance that comes before council. And I think that is appropriate considering that this is an overhaul of the zoning code that P&Z is the ones that look at this and make a recommendation. So I just want to clarify, and I understand Ms. Hamlin's comments, but certainly most ordinances in the city do not go through .

Any further comments? All right. Would anyone care to make the motion to amend the zoning text amendments to include the red line revisions?

I move to adopt the proposed zoning code as amended and reflected in the red line version presented to council.

Second.

All right. Is there any conversation, comments on that motion? All right. Call the roll, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Hart? Yes. Ms. Hazel Baker?

Yes.

Mr. Jarenick? Yes. Mayor Bailey?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Bateman? Yes. Mr. Goodyear? Yes. Ms. Hamlin?

No. All right, so now, you will read the second reading of the ordinance, Mr. Kennedy, and at the end of the ordinance title, you will read as amended.

Ordinance amending the codified ordinances of the City of Loveland, Ohio, Part 11, Planning and Zoning Code as amended.

Call the roll, please.

Ms. Hazel Baker?

Yes.

Mr. Jarenik?

Yes.

Mayor Bailey? Yes. Vice Mayor Bateman? Yes. Mr. Goodyear? Yes. Ms. Hamlin?

No.

Mr. Hart? Yes.

Passes six to one. I'm going to help you tonight, Mr. Kennedy.

please i'm going to help you tonight okay thank you oh i i was supposed to say that and that is number six and that is uh misty would say that is uh ordinance number 60 20 26 62. she told me uh she gave me a little prep on the way home i already forgot i forgot i wrote it up here 62.

Okay. All right. Well, now we're back to you again in your city manager head.

Okay. So, as council remembers, back in April, council adopted a resolution authorizing the purchase of 30 portable radios. Those radios have since been purchased, have been placed into service, and are now being utilized. Chief Huber and the department has requested the approval from council to sell 20 of those to neighboring fire departments. The remaining 10, they want to keep five as backups, and they are basically, for lack of better words, donating five to Public Works. We actually would have been using these tonight for Public Works. As a matter of fact, I have one that sits at my desk. It was a very busy night, so that's an example. And we were discussing a little bit procedurally the there is an advantage so the reason why chief huber was sort of explaining to me it's best to sell these to another department is to some departments all of these motorola radios are no longer supported so they operate they function but you can't get parts for them and they can't be modified if it breaks you're on your own so the way he explained it to me uh was the biggest advantage is some of the smaller communities would purchase these to some cases part them out or basically use them until such time they're in a position like the city was back in April to acquire new radios. We were going over this a little bit in the beginning, but we I believe that there is a carve out that allows the city to sell these specifically to another department. When we would sell these, we would take the chip out. So they would serve no function unless they get reprogrammed by, I guess, a citizen could figure out how to program them. But it's more likely that if Village of Newtown needed five of them, for example, they could get them programmed to operate on the same circuit that the Village of Newtown. I'm no radio expert. It's just what Chief Huber has taught, what he has explained to me. So that is sort of the nuts and bolts of it. He, if I help, I said, if he said he would hope to get about a thousand per radio, he And it may be 10 to 10 to 10. I know my former community, we we we sort of this was a big deal for us to get these kind of things. But this the resolution would simply allow us to authorize the sale of these.

All right. Any questions or comments? Ms. Hamlin?

So back in January of this year, we voted to pass a resolution that authorized any unused property must go through auction through GovDeals or DealsGov. I can't remember which it is. And I'm wondering if there is a carve out that allows us to not abide by that resolution. And Mr. Braun, if you're able to comment on that.

Yes. As a charter community, We're authorized to sell it to another local government without competitive bidding as long as we do it through the legislative process.

Thank you.

And just to point out, we wouldn't have to do it for GovDeals because we passed that resolution. But if we're going to do it the way we're doing it, we have to do it through legislation, which is why it's on the agenda tonight.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Read the resolution, Mr. Kendall.

Resolution authorizing the sale of surplus portable radios previously utilized by the Loveland Sims Fire Department.

Call the roll, please.

Mr. Jarenick?

Yes.

Ms. Mayor Bailey? Yes. Vice Mayor Bateman? Yes. Mr. Goodyear? Yes. Ms. Hamlin? Yes. Mr. Hart? Yes. Ms. Hazelbaker?

Yes.

Okay. So, following.

Past 7-0.

Oh, she's, Pete's past 7-0. Resolution 2026-63. Gosh, she was municipal clerk of the year for a reason. I'm sorry. Boy, 7-0.

6-1. All right, you're back to being city manager. Okay.

So, following tonight's public hearing, and not to go in, that's why I tried, I used the old, the old resolution, the old memo. So when the city put together the Clean Ohio application back last fall, and we did, staff worked on it for most of the summer. As I mentioned to you, during that process, we actually reached out to Little Miami Conservancy. Little Miami Conservancy came to and sat in a room and said, quite frankly, IF YOU WEREN'T GOING TO GO AFTER THIS PROPERTY, WE WERE GOING TO IN THE FUTURE. WE THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING THAT THE CITY IS DOING THIS. BY THE WAY, WE'D LIKE TO SUPPORT YOUR APPLICATION AND AUTHOR YOU $100,000 SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER THE MOST RESTRICTIVE PART OF THIS PROPERTY, THE 100-FOOT. BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, DAVE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT ANYWAYS. AND THAT WILL ALLOW US TO DO MUSCLE RELEASES. THERE'S A TON OF INVASIVE SPECIES, SO ON AND SO FORTH. So to us, it was a great deal. It decreased by $100,000 because we were able to use those funds towards our local match. So that's all that. So we're at that point now. There was a change. The executive director left. Chris and I met with the new executive director. She's a wonderful lady, and she said, yep, they mentioned it right off the bat that this was something we were going to work on, so we're now getting ready to do that. Councilmember Hazel Baker asked me just to make sure with the state that this doesn't impact the first layer, which is the Clean Ohio. I spoke to Ashley today with OPWC. She administers the Clean Ohio, and she said, absolutely know that that is the main one. If you want to put language in it, Dave, which if we want, I can add it, but for the second reading that simply says in the easement, said easement shall not impact, I'll come up with better language than what I'm making up here, but something to the tune of just ensuring that no matter what happens, the main layer, which is the Clean Ohio layer, is the dominant layer and everything else is sort of subservient to that. And Joe and I will come up with that before the second reading. But Clean Ohio was well aware of what we were up to and actually applauds this effort because while Clean Ohio has quite a bit of restrictions, this really added protection to that area of the river. And that was that. If you want, and it's probably a good idea, Joe and I will come up with some language, and there'll be a red line version, and we'll do as amended next time. And you'll have a better clerk, so it'll go a lot smoother.

Okay?

Any other questions?

If you think it's necessary. I mean, I guess, I don't know if it even is. You can speak to that, Mr. Brown, but it would seem to me if the community could that easily subvert the requirements of the Clean Ohio grant by simply selling the property to someone else. that would make it meaningless. So, I would imagine it continues and it's probably a deed restriction. Right. It goes with the property, correct? So, I mean, I can't imagine it's necessary to protect us or to protect it to do that. But what, I suppose we'll let Mr. Braun and Mr. Kennedy think about that later. And if it's not necessary, I wouldn't bother with the red line. But if you think it is, that's fine. Does anyone have any questions or comments on this ordinance? Oh, Vice Mayor, I thought you were just.

No, no, no. I was, I just, this takes me back to when this was under consideration for development. And I think one of the things that's interesting about this is that the easement, what made it challenging, this piece of land, was the fact that it's zoned in three different, that lies within three different zones for our city zoning. And I think that the easement, as is indicated, roughly overlaps with the scenic waterway, which was kind of the, you know, untouchable piece of land. So I think that while this does represent an ownership transfer, in many ways it kind of, validates the existing zoning and kind of goes along with exactly what was already there. So I think it's going to make things pretty streamlined for whatever we end up doing with our portion of that without complicating it as it was so complicated when it was under consideration. for other uses. So just sort of a more of a land use quirk, but just something worth I thought was maybe worth mentioning.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions? If you want to do the first reading only, go ahead and read the ordinance please.

Ordinance authorizing the sale of a conservation easement to the Little Miami Conservancy over a portion of city-owned property located along Riverside Drive, declaring the property subject to the easement as not needed for public purposes, and authorizing the city manager to execute all necessary, all documents necessary to complete the transaction.

Very good. Mr. Medler.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Council. Before you for your consideration is the second quarter financial report that was brought to the Finance Commission at our last meeting and was recommended for your approval there. A lot has happened in the first half of the year, specifically the second quarter. The city had two pieces of property that were purchased, 100 East Broadway and 128 South Riverside. So this resulted in over $600,000 of expenses. So expenses were a little high because of that. But these are two pieces of property that have been determined to be very important for the city moving forward. So that explains the higher expenses there. Funds are continuing to being received and spent related to the new fire station, which is now open and operational. As with any construction, there is always some lingering invoices that get paid after the fact. And I believe we're still looking to receive some funds from USDA to complete those transactions. So we'll see some more revenue coming in from that. PFAS design invoices continue to come in being received and paid. And one thing I should have put under the highlights section is that the amphitheater is going in a bit. So we are seeing obviously you can see a lot of work happening over there. And yes, we are paying our bills. So there are expenses that are hitting for the first half in there. On the investment side, something we talked about last time is even though rates have been going down over the same period last time, we are being a little more aggressive in leveraging our cash so that we are having a little bit more of our cash in our Star Ohio account, which is our main investment account that we have. keeping that over there as opposed to our main checking account. So our main checking account does not get as much interest as StarOhio, so we try to keep as much as we can over in StarOhio until it's absolutely positively necessary to use. So in our main checking account, we usually try to keep about two to two and a half million dollars just to keep things liquid so we're able to cover our expenses. If we do have a month where we have higher expenses, we are able to move money from Star Ohio within about 24 hours. So unless we get very surprised by something, which we won't, we're able to access that money very quickly. Our main revenue income tax for the general fund that is coming in a little bit lower than we had hoped. We knew that in 2025, we had a large net profit revenue that kind of inflated the year. So we finished last year with over $7 million in income tax. We are anticipated to fall a little bit short of that. I'm looking at about $6.9 million this year, so about $300,000 short there. I do anticipate that we will make that up and have a balanced year because we are looking to sell some property for the city and those proceeds will help us out significantly. Property tax has been down just ever so slightly, but for a $1.7 million budget, being down 9,000 is a very small percentage for that. We're keeping an eye on property tax, of course, with all the legislation that has been proposed and passed at the state level. There's still efforts to abolish property taxes. We're not seeing that as getting close right now, but we'll continue to look at that in the future.

Shh.

Looking at our fire and EMS funds, things are very solid there. You'll notice that we have had a slight decrease in fund 23. We had lower than expected EMS run revenue, but I think we'll see higher revenues for that. It'll probably balance out by the end of the year. As I mentioned, we've been getting more revenue in for the fire station, which is why fund 29 has had higher revenues than in past years. The historic Loveland TIF, aka the downtown TIF, has been lower than last year. I have staff looking at that just to see what has been the driver of that. Sometimes there'll be property owners that'll pay their entire tax bill at the beginning of the year. Sometimes they'll split it up first half and second half. So we're going to be looking into that just to make sure that the health of the downtown TIF fund is where it should be. And with our enterprise funds, we've had some funds on the decrease just because last year we had had some grant revenue that came in specifically for a water capital fund and also for stormwater. We had not received such grants this year from those funds, which is why they have been decreasing. So there's the main points that I have for the second quarter of 2026. If anyone has any questions, I will address them now.

Mr. Hart is our Finance Commission representative. Do you have anything to add?

Sure. I would say that with the property we purchased this year, that's one of the things that we talked about as a council in terms of reducing some of our reserves and making sure that our taxpayer money was actually working and not just sitting in accounts. So, um, you know, through Mr. Miller's guidance and, uh, you know, making sure we're making prudent choices and that we can handle it. We are putting more taxpayer money to work in those ways, um, allowing some more freedom there, which has been nice. Um, I would say that the, uh, the finance commission, I mean, those, those gentlemen are incredibly smart and, um, uh, I'm always amazed when I sit and listen to them. But one of the things that they're bringing up right now in this conversation was our water fund and how that's going. And the discussion was they wanted to make sure that it was on our radar here at council. And I assured them it certainly is on our radar. And one of the things that was driving that was trying to figure out what we were going to do with PFAS and what those funds look like and how we were going to be able to finance that because we wanted to make, I think staff is looking to make one move there and not a multitude of moves over those issues. So people paying, you know, the finance commission is paying attention to the line by line and Mr. Medler driving that train is doing a nice job in keeping us right where we need to be.

Thank you. Any comments or questions?

Just appreciate the gratitude of the update and the finance commissions. I, again, always like dig back in some of the minutes and stuff and looking at those water funds. So appreciate the finance commission's work on that and the updates here. I just have one question for on the quarterly reports just looking at like then and now approvals and anything unbudgeted. just have a clarity on kind of those items so we can have like a running list for the year. But otherwise, just appreciate all the details and kind of keeping us abreast when like things are shifting.

Thank you. All right. Anyone else? All right. We do need a motion to approve the second quarterly financial report.

second quarter financial report second call the roll please mayor bailey yes vice mayor bateman yes mr goodyear yes miss hamlin yes mr hart yes miss hazel baker yes mr darinick yes all right mr watch

Thank you, Mayor. Here I'm going to talk a little bit about the quarterly report for PFAS. We're working pretty hard with AECOM, our consultant, to get these drawings to a point where we're going to be ready to get them out to bid next year. We just finished up the 60% drawings. Those were approved by staff and the 90% drawings are going to be due to staff for review in September. If you recall, back in April of this year, we submitted a nomination to WSRLA for funding assistance, and it was announced last week that we were selected to receive $4 million in grant funding and $10 million in 0% loan over 30 years for the construction of the water treatment plant. There are only six other public water systems across the state that were selected to receive that maximum $4 million. And that's thanks in part to staff, to Ricky Gregory, who's been really working hard with AECOM. It's really... They look at one of the scoring criteria is readiness to proceed. And based on where we were at in our drawings being 60% and which takes you to the point where you submit for a permit to install through the through Ohio EPA, that really helped the scoring for that. So with that said, that is what we were striving for. That is, to our knowledge, as far as staff and as far as Southwest Ohio, the communities around here that we talk to very regularly, this is the only money available right now. And so we were able to land that. We went hard after it, just kind of giving you another perspective on it. We went hard after it for this period, even though we're not quite ready for bidding, because no one knows if this program is technically over at the end of this year. So no one knows what money will actually be there. Um, so for us to get in and get this and for them to, you know, speaking to Ohio EPA this past week that they're going to be centered over the contracts to sign. Once we get that all signed, I mean, we're, we're locked in, which is fantastic. So with that said, this does fast track it a little bit in a sense. This puts us on track for bidding in April, May, April, May of 2027 with construction commencing in July of 2027. This is a 21 month ish construction project, which puts us puts us at completion around April of 2029, well within the original parameters of the US EPA's guidelines. But with that said, I have had discussions with Ohio EPA regarding the $10 million loan, as well as the addition. So let me back up. The the cost estimate is still around $17 million. So 10 plus four, we got 14, we got $3 million that we have to make up. We do have some cash on hand from some settlements. So we're looking at around $1 million, potentially a little bit more based on based on operational costs. They will give us a loan at subprime for that remainder. But the conversations I had with Ohio EPA is that $10 million, 0%, as well as the remainder loan, should anything shake loose between now and bid opening, we want to be able to retract any of our obligations, any of that 10 million or the additional. And they said, absolutely, we get it. So that's been communicated. So with that said, we are still actively looking and pushing for additional funding. But this is a good, good first step. So other than that, that was kind of the highlight of it. If anyone has any questions, I'll take any questions.

Mr. Hart.

Not a question, just as much as a comment. I'm extremely impressed with the work that has been done to make this happen, to not only get a maximum amount of money, and that is due in no small measure to the work that staff is doing on a day-to-day basis. to get this issue resolved. I think it's incredible that you guys have, as a team, have secured that money and put us in a position to be, I have to imagine, we're going to be one of the first communities in the state that can say that we're ready to do this, that we're ready to fix our water system and put our residents where they need to be.

So kudos to staff.

I'm always amazed at the work you guys do, and this is no different. So thank you very much for the work you've done on this.

Anyone else? Yeah, you haven't spoken much tonight. Go ahead.

Well, thank you, Mayor Bailey. I just want to echo what Mr. Hart said. And, you know, I think about this PFAS issue and it's gone. And I mean, nothing in government work is quick, but in a relative sense, it's gone quickly from a big issue out there that we have to get our hands around. So now we're at a point where we're almost ready to start taking concrete action to make sure that our water for our citizens is safe. And I think it's incredibly impressive. And when I found out about the fact that we obtained this money, it was it took me back a little bit because it's pretty amazing. I mean, we've had conversations here at council so many times, but where's the funding going to come from? How are we going to pay for this? How is this possible? And now we're starting to see it live in the tunnel and that's all due to the hard work of staff. And I think it's very impressive. And as Mr. Hart said, you know, as a council, we've been focused on this issue for quite some time, pushing forward, pushing to get this done as quickly as we can. And I think we're going to be one of the first. Certainly, there's a number of local communities that are impacted by this that aren't nearly where we are. And I think, as Mr. Hart said, statewide, we're going to be among the cutting edge on getting this done. So I just really appreciate it. And I think you guys have done a great job. And taking the kind of general goals and ideas of what we're trying to accomplish and getting it done is very impressive.

Ms. Hazel Baker.

I won't belabor the awesomeness of this update, but my face probably expressed it. But I think we should share this really well with the community because I think it's important. stay ahead of as well. So that's just my only encouragement is to maybe shorten it down a little bit and give that to the community as an update.

Yeah, the plan is, if I may, the plan is to put out a formal press release, but also followed up with a more concise version through social media and through all of our outlets that we reach the public. So yeah, we will.

All right. Anyone else? You?

Am I allowed to speak? I mean, I waited.

We would love to hear from you.

I just want to say, for those of you out there, you have never seen somebody, one person, grab a topic by the horns as Chris did when he showed up with his beef boss. And we were making efforts, but we were sort of moving slowly. And what you're also forgetting is the funding that we got that Chris was able to secure for us that we're using for the design would make that gap at the end even bigger. So to be at this position where one person has come in, he worked side by side with Ricky, and Ricky's loving this, to get us to where we're at, it is really something. I joke, but it's true. I got invited to lunch by a very prominent city manager. That doesn't happen very often. I'm not that big of a cool person, I quickly realized the reason I got invited was because they wanted me to bring Chris along. I didn't speak during the entire lunch because they wanted to hear what Chris says. I just really want to commend Chris. I've got to see firsthand what he did and take control of this and get this city where we are with what all you said. don't know if we're first or in the top five but we are certainly answering what people in the city have made a major priority and i can't say enough for what chris did i get to see it every day and this funding and the funding that we've got is allowing us to not have to use the settlement money for the design because designs on things like this are what one thousand i mean hundred thousand over what 1.8 million you know, a ton of money going just into the design of this that we were able to use on that. So I just want to state that. I'm sorry, I was a little loose, fast and furious with the numbers there, but you get the point. It was something to see to put the city where we are today to know that construction is forthcoming. So that's all I wanted to say.

It's all true. We're very fortuitous when you arrived here, Juanesh, and you have, certainly we know you have staff that help you with this, but this has been your baby and we're very appreciative. All right, does anyone have any reports? Misty's not here to give me a whole list of stuff to talk about. I don't have any. Does anyone have anything? How about a motion to adjourn?

Move to adjourn. Second.

Ready? Call the roll, Mr. Kennedy.

Vice Mayor Bateman? Yes. Mr. Goodyear? Yes. Ms. Hamlin? Yes. Mr. Hart? Yes. Ms. Hazelbaker? Yes. Mr. Jaranec? Yes. Mayor Bailey?

Yes. meeting is adjourned.