Loveland, Ohio – Mayor Mark Fitzgerald announced at the beginning of the May 23 Council meeting that he has instituted a “Zero tolerance policy” towards the public’s whispering or passing documents among themselves during meetings. He said it was because it was intentionally, “Preventing the audience from hearing or knowing the business of the body discussed.”
He further stated that a disruptive person waives their right to attend council meetings and the Council can remove the person from the meeting.
The Mayor was speaking on behalf of all of Council. None objected to the policy.
Loveland, Ohio – Diane Powers and Steven Smith took to the open forum podium at the May 9th Council meeting and both played out how they would like council member to proceed with the possible tearing down of City Hall and replacing it with a four-story commercial building in Historic Downtown. The plan is for City Hall to occupy the second floor, with retail on the bottom and apartments on the top two floors.
This memorandum is the Community Improvement Corporation’s (CIC) update to City Council regarding their recommendations and options for build a new City Hall. This recommendation was presented to City Council at their meeting on May, 9. City Council was expected to vote on setting a date and time for public hearings on the recommendation, but could not reach consensus on how the meetings should be conducted, or how many meetings to have.
Loveland, Ohio– On May 9th Jay Stewart the President of the Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) presented the final recommendations to City Council with options on how to repurpose the City Building. Part of the recommendation was for Council to hold “public hearings” on the recommendations before proceeding with the project. Mayor Mark Fitzgerald asked for a motion to hold a hearing at the next meeting.
Both Weisgerber and Phelps wanted more than a “public hearing” style of opportunity for the public to weigh-in on the proposal. They want a more give and take opportunity for the public, where there would be dialogue, instead of monologue; a more informal format. Weisgerber said he wanted, “General sessions, informational sessions, or charrettes with the public to get input.”
Phelps said that this was the first-time the CIC has addressed City Council to discuss the repurposing of City Hall. He had the same questions as Weisgerber, and, “More.” He wanted to find out more about the process and how the CIC arrived at their recommendations, and why the three- story option was eliminated. Both Phelps and Weisgerber said that he would not be in favor of holding a public hearing at this point.
Fitzgerald thought Council should follow the recommendation of the CIC.
The motion by Vice-Mayor Angie Settell was voted down with a 3-3 tie vote. Fitzgerald, Settell, and Pam Gross voted, “Yes.” Ted Phelps, Rob Weisgerber, and Kathy Bailey voted, “No.” Stephen Zamagias was absent.
Weisgerber then moved to have no less than three open sessions with the public in Council Chambers, during after-work hours that all of Council can attend, to talk about design options and receive public input. The motion was seconded by. Bailey. The motion received loud applause from the audience.
Phelps said the meetings proposed by Weisgerber would allow, “Stakeholders, neighboring property owners, and downtown residents to weigh-in on the project.”
Fitzgerald then said he did not understand why Weisgerber did not want to begin with the formal type of public hearing at the next council meeting that was the recommendation of the CIC. He then abruptly shut off debate on the motion and called for a vote.
The motion also failed, with a 3-3 tie, reversing their votes on the earlier Settell motion.
During the open forum part of the meeting, Diane Powers asked Council to have three or four, “across the table discussions” to build trust and dialogue with the residents and stakeholders. She urged Council to “take some time off” before they position themselves, and take a vote.
Fitzgerald said he found it, odd that Powers would want to delay the recommendation of the CIC, because, “It would not preclude other meetings.”
Steven Smith also took a turn at the podium urging more community input on the project and explained in a detailed handout, how it could be accomplished.
These two LOVELAND MAGAZINE VIDEOs are of the Council votes.
So many people stopped by to see the damage, not to gawk, but to mourn
This photo was taken Tuesday evening at the site of the fire that nearly destroyed two historic buildings in downtown Loveland. Scaffolding was being placed to protect the integrity of the brick facade in preparation for the possible restoration.
Loveland Councilwoman, Kathy Bailey
[dropcap]W[/dropcap]e all experienced a loss this past weekend with the fire in downtown Loveland. We all feel it personally, because this is the town we love with all our hearts.
So many people stopped by to see the damage, not to gawk, but to mourn.
We all rejoiced at the news that the buildings can be saved. This is Loveland. Everyone of us that calls Loveland and the surrounding area home knows exactly what that means. Like we always do, we will band together, wrap our arms around the building owners, the businesses and their employees, and the residents, and do all we can do to get them through this, and restore that block to all its glory.
It warms my heart, and reminds me why I love this town, to see all the businesses in the Loveland area reaching out to help, and to hear residents ask what they can do and where they can donate. (See this website for information on how to help!).
A shout-out, too, to Chief Huber and our amazing fire department and police department for all their hard work this past weekend.
This is a hard time, but this is Loveland, and with all of us working together and doing all we can to help, we will come through this stronger than ever!
The opening paragraph and first salvo of a lawsuit alleging City officials violated open meeting laws on two separate occasions.
Loveland, Ohio – Loveland resident, Patty Horton-Sandmayr has sued the City of Loveland, individual council members, the City Finance Director, the Community Improvement Corp (CIC) and four of its members for violating Ohio’s open meeting law. She alleges Council illegally went into an executive session on September 13, 2016. She also alleges four members of the CIC went into an illegal closed-door meeting on March 20 of this year. She is asking the Clermont County court to prohibit these actions in the future by issuing an injunction, restraining the City, the CIC, and the individuals, from committing further violations of Ohio’s Open Meeting Act. She is also asking the City and the CIC to each pay a civil forfeiture of $500 each, court costs, and the cost of litigation.
Horton-Sandmayr told Loveland Magazine, “It is time for the people of Loveland to know what our local government is doing. I felt it was time to put all of Loveland issues on hold – hoping we can work together as one community to keep our wonderful town fun and peaceful”.
City Attorney, Joe Braun told Loveland Magazine in an email on Saturday morning, “The lawsuit claims City Council and the Community Improvement Corporation of Loveland failed to designate in their minutes on two occasions the proper section of Ohio law when holding an executive session. I have reviewed the lawsuit and it is based on inaccurate information and has no merit under law. The City will vigorously defend it and seek to have it dismissed.”
Loveland Magazine followed up by asking Braun, ”What information in the suit is inaccurate? Is it that the minutes were not written accurately? Were the proper citations made orally before going into executive session? Or is it something else specifically?” Braun has not responded with an answer.
You can read the complaint that was filed in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas here: Complaint
Named individuals are Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, Vice-Mayor Angie Settell, and councilmembers Kathy Bailey, Pam Gross, Ted Phelps, Rob Weisgerber, and Steve Zmagias. The Community Improvement Corporation members named are, Cory O’Donnell, Jay Stewart, Karl Weidner, and Kelly Flanigan who is also the City Finance Director.
Horton-Sandmayr said that her family moved to Loveland in 1967, and she moved back in town about eighteen years ago.
The CIC is an Ohio not-for-profit, quasi-government agency of the City of Loveland. Recently the CIC has made a controversial recommendation to City Council to demolish City Hall and replace it with a possible 4-story office building in Loveland’s Historic District with one floor of retail, City Hall on the second, and two additional floors of apartments. The CIC has come under fire by both residents and some members of City Council for meeting in a too-small room and during non-traditional hours for public meetings. The CIC has also recently been given the responsibility of selling and developing the City purchased, Loveland Bowling Lanes.
The lawsuit doesn’t purport to know what was discussed during the meetings the public was prohibited from attending other than generic economic development issues that the bodies shouldn’t have been discussing behind closed doors. Horton-Sandmayr told Loveland Magazine on Saturday that she is in the dark as to what was discussed. Neither City Council nor the CIC publishes minutes of their discussions when they are behind closed doors.
Horton-Sandmayr’s attorney is Matt Miller-Novak with the Cincinnati law firm of Godbey Law.
Good afternoon. I am a relatively new resident, having moved my family from Blue Ash to Loveland in 2014, though I grew up in Symmes Twp. and have spent a great deal of time in Loveland since childhood.
I am writing to share my disappointment in the recent activities and decisions regarding the future of City Hall, as well as ask some questions so that I may have a better understanding of the process.
There are many questions being circulated amongst residents, of which I am sure you are aware. There was a motion made at the May 9 th meeting by Mr. Weisgerber to engage with the public in discussions and idea-sharing sessions, to hold a true dialogue. To me, this would be a tremendous step towards resolving some of the hostility currently being displayed between residents and council.
[pull_quote_right]To those of you who voted against this motion, your lack of willingness and openness to this engagement is disheartening at best.[/pull_quote_right]
To those of you who voted against this motion, your lack of willingness and openness to this engagement is disheartening at best, sorely disappointing, and quite frankly, feels like a violation of the trust we, as residents, should have in our elected officials.
I am not opposed to change and well-planned, well-thought out growth and development, but I do have many questions about the City Hall project. As much as I appreciate the opportunity to attend the CIC meetings to possibly get answers to these questions, I am unable to do so. Like so many residents, I hold a full time job during the day which precludes me from attending, so I am posing some of my questions here.
I have copied Mr. Kennedy as well in hopes that someone can and will provide some insight for me on the following.
1. Can you please tell me, what is the harm in slowing this process down just a little, for, if nothing else, the sake of repairing relations with the citizens you are supposed to be representing?
2. Are there significant financial (or other) consequences of pushing this project back 6-12 months to allow for better education of and input from residents?
3. If Loveland does not have the infrastructure (streets, parking, etc.) to accommodate large community events, how will the increased traffic and stress of so many additional apartment units be handled?
4. Have any environmental studies been conducted, or when will they be done? I am curious about this given the proximity to the river and the floodplain status of the property, as well as for the impact the dust and debris will have on neighboring businesses and residents.
5. How can we be assured the architecture and design of any new building will fit in and help maintain the quaint, historic charm of our downtown? Something that was missed with Loveland Station and the new “Historic Downtown” sign at Veteran’s Park. Will there be scheduled and announced times for residents to provide any input on the design plans?
Loveland Sweets is a purveyor of hand-crafted chocolates, caramels, marshmallows, and ice creams. Our house-made candies are prepared in small batches.
In describing her version of how the dust-up transpired, Pam Gross turned to Kathy Bailey and said, “And, you can sit there and think, oh, whoopee-do – but, it’s a big deal.”
Loveland, Ohio– CeeCee Collins, the President of the Little Miami Chamber Alliance appeared at the Loveland Council meeting on April 11 and spoke at the open forum about the Chamber’s recent expansion into Miami and Symmes Townships. She talked about Chamber programs and how they have helped new members since the expansion.
Collins also commented on what she described as, “The two events that were taken from the Chamber” by the City of Loveland: Christmas in Loveland and the annual Fourth of July Celebration. She said, speaking about their Firecracker Festival and why it was moved to Symmes Township, “Make no mistake, we were consulted by City Staff and Council to do so.” She said the event was moved to “appease” leadership at City Hall. She said the Chamber wants to reach out to the City and let them help with these two events that last year cost the taxpayers over $20,000 when the two events were organized by City Staff. She said if the City should decide to again to partner with local businesses, the events would cost taxpayers nothing or a minimal amount.
She asked Council to vote during the meeting to return both events to the Chamber. “We hope you will put your City and the businesses first.”
Councilwoman Kathy Bailey made a motion to return the events to the Chamber. She said there is no question the City lost money on the events and, “We’ve got someone willing to run them – that’s run them well.”
In making a case for the City retaining the events, Councilwoman Pam Gross said that the Chamber’s vision for a community event is not “Our vision of a community event.” Gross continued by going over her interpretation of why the Chamber’s Fourth of July event was moved to Symmes Township’s Home of the Brave Park. She said that behind the City’s back, Collins contacted Symmes officials in March of 2016 because the Chamber wanted to have the Firecracker Festival in one of their parks. She turned to Bailey and said, “And, you can sit there and think, oh, whoopee-do – but, it’s a big deal. “The point is, they want to grow their event and I respect that, but, logistics here in Loveland and the infrastructure here in Loveland does not fit an event of 10,000 or more people.”
Gross said, speaking about Christmas in Loveland, “No one can steal events.”
Laughter of disbelief came from the audience with someone saying, “Yes you did.”
Gross responded to the audience by saying, “Excuse me. You cannot steal something that does not belong to you, OK? The events belonged to the community. These were community events. Cities all across the United States put on events and they put on these events because it fits what they think the community wants and needs.” Gross said she does not support Bailey’s motion.
Councilman Steve Zamagias said he didn’t think Council should vote on issues that the Chamber and City staff should work out.
Bailey, Ted Phelps, and Rob Weisgerber voted to return the events to the Chamber. Angie Settell, Steven Zamagias, Mark Fitzgerald, and Gross voted, “No.”
BACKGROUND: “On the sly” – How City Hall pirated Christmas in Loveland
![[VIDEO] Mayor announces Zero Tolerance Policy: No whispering or passing papers during meetings](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/frog-free-speech-feature-w_lines-100x65.png)
![[Video] Loveland’s 2017 Memorial Day Parade](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/maxresdefault-11-100x65.jpg)
by Stacy Mullenix
