Loveland, Ohio – The Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) got serious with numbers on April 24 when consultant Ken Geis brought slides with his facts and figures about what a new City Hall might look like and the costs associated with several variations.
These LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV videos are the only recording of the meeting and will be presented in several parts so viewers can digest what is being proposed – stop, then go back at your viewing pleasure. You will find that the conclusion of the meeting is most, revealing.
For most of City council and staff, this is also their only opportunity to see what transpired at this 1 PM meeting. The Fire Marshall came and reduced the number of attendees in the too small, crowded room which included some city staff who volunteered to leave. Some members of the public never quite made it into the undersized room in the first place.
Also, as an exclusive to our readers, CLICK below to see all of the slides Ken Geis used while making his presentation to CIC.
Loveland, Ohio – Neil Oury began an election speech during the public forum at Tuesday’s council meeting by reading part of the preamble of council rules:
As leaders of the community, City Council as a body and as individual members must lead by example and as such, shall hold themselves to the highest professional and ethical standards at all times. Council members are expected to be honorable and courteous while conducting city business.
He said the preamble was why he was there speaking at the council meeting. “I feel it is very important for open and honest dialogue to happen at all times. That every person’s voice be heard and acknowledged, to understand each others’ views and opinions, but most importantly it is time to make sure we as citizens and a council do what is best and approved by for the City of Loveland.”
Oury further said he was unhappy with the “Current majority actions and that recent changes to the membership of the CIC Board do not project transparency. The City is being rushed into a multi-million dollar public-private partnership without resident sanctions.”
Loveland Mayor Mark Fitzgerald had no comment at the council meeting about the efforts to recall him. (File Photo)
The CIC (Community Improvement Corporation) is a private corporation allowed under Ohio law to be a quasi-government development arm of municipal governments.
[pull_quote_left]Oury said he feels that Mayor Mark Fitzgerald has lost the trust of the residentsl.[/pull_quote_left]Oury said he feels that Mayor Mark Fitzgerald has lost the trust of the residents and in his eye it’s time for change on City council He said he has twice asked him to resign and since he has not, he is presenting a petition for recall to the City Solicitor and the Council Clerk. (See Petition below)
When the meeting was over Fitzgerald was asked if he had any comments he wanted to make about the recall petition. He said, “No” and walked away from the camera. The petition was being circulated at the meeting for residents to sign.
Oury also announced that he was running for council to replace Fitzgerald. He said the recall committee will need 600 signatures of registered Loveland voters, and he will need 400 signatures on his own nominating petition. It is unclear if the recall election will be held on August 8, the date the Ohio Secretary of State has set for a “Special Election” or if the recall election will be held on the General Election date of November 7.
Fitzgerald is currently into the 2nd year of a four-year term which ends in December of 2019.
There will be 4 seats open for Council this November. The terms of current members, Pam Gross, Ted Phelps, Robert Weisgerber, and Stephen Zamagias will expire on December 4, 2017.
Loveland, Ohio– This acrimonious, City Council debate may have brought to close the months-long debate over fees the Loveland Farmers’ Market and other groups planning public events in the City will have to pay. It will almost certainly not bring to end citizen debate about future vision for the City.
[quote_left]”The majority’s unilateral decision to welch on the deal is nothing short of outrageous.” – Kathy Bailey[/quote_left]The debate at the Council meeting on April 11, angry and loud at times, was over the last piece of legislation regulating public and private events. The Transient Businesses and Vendors, Mobile Food Vendors and Food Trucks ordinance was approved. The last contentious provision was that people and businesses supporting public and private events in the City will be required to undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The ordinance also regulates vendors going door-to-door selling goods and services.
Councilwoman Kathy Bailey said that after many hours negotiating what she thought was a compromise agreement that Council would vote on, a different ordinance was placed on the agenda. Council members, Rob Weisgerber and Ted Phelps also were surprised that the replacement ordinance appeared. Bailey said she did not know where it came from or who wrote it. The ordinance passed with Bailey, Phelps, and Weisgerber opposed. Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, Vice-Mayor Angie Settell, Pam Gross, and Steven Zamagias voted, “Yes.”
Gross did not agree with Bailey’s assessment of a compromise, saying, “I have no idea why you think there was an agreement.”
[quote_right]”You can’t renege on something no one has ever agreed to.” – Pam Gross[/quote_right]”Bailey said, “The blue line version that was distributed on March 28th represented the compromise reached between the majority and the minority, with Ms. Gross and myself representing each respectively, with Mr. Braun acting as an intermediary.” Joe Braun is the City Solicitor.
Bailey said that everything in that version had been previously agreed to by all parties. The major changes from that version versus what the majority surprised us with in the April 11th packet have to do with the fees charged. According to Bailey, the agreed-upon version capped fees for special events. “The version sprung upon us by the majority removes that language. I thought the blue line version represented a fair compromise and would like to have seen that passed. If the majority disagreed, the time to raise the issue was during our many hours of discussion and negotiation, not two weeks after agreeing to the blue line version.”
Bailey said that she was encouraged that, despite all the recent turmoil, the majority and minority were able to come together, albeit through an intermediary, and engage in a dialogue to reach a compromise. But added, “The majority’s unilateral decision to welch on the deal is nothing short of outrageous. The majority’s nonsensical explanation that there was no deal is patently false, and does not bode well for future collaboration, as without trust there can be no meaningful dialogue.”
In the end, Bailey was able to push through two amendments. The ordinance now says the event organizers, instead of City staff, will be responsible for ensuring individual vendors, or the event itself, has suitable insurance. The event organizers will also now be responsible for the background checks.
In this video below, Bailey expresses her dismay that the compromise ordinance was not in front of Council for a vote. Pam Gross said, “Ms. Bailey, first of all, you can’t renege on something no one has ever agreed to.” Debate on the compromise that Gross said never happens ensues and a final vote is taken.
Farmers’ Market spokesperson, Peggy Goodwin told Loveland Magazine that despite the last-minute changes the market will open May 2. Read her Guest Column:
An Open Letter to Loveland City Manager Dave Kennedy by Loveland resident Richard Fisher:
Hi Mr. Kennedy,
It would seem there is certainly plenty of financial justification for the removal and replacement of our current city hall based on the intent of 4 of 7 council members on moving against what I think is a majority of the public against doing so without more study and input by the public.
I would like to ask for any/all financial justification for doing so, and I would also like to get all projections on how and when all debt for this project will be relieved. I really need to know all long-term income projections from the city hall replacement.
Finally, because this project would generate a lot of particulate in close proximity to many residents and businesses, I would like to know what environmental studies are being done to alleviate any/all public health concerns, along with where all the construction debris will be taken.
Gross alleges a local company’s truck was “kinda lurking” in the parking lot
Loveland, Ohio – It was a jaw dropping and eye-rolling allegation directed at a Loveland business and any, one, of their 75 employees when Councilwoman Pam Gross said from the council table on April 11, “There was a truck, for lack of a better word, that was kinda lurking in the parking lot.” She said she had just left the previous council meeting, heading to her car, when a truck seemed suspicious because it, “Kept stopping and slowing, and stopping and slowing.” Gross said it returned after a trip around the block. Gross identified a company name on the truck, and called out a resident who had just spoken at the public podium. She wanted the resident to identify who was driving the truck. The resident works for the company Gross made the allegation about and had also spoken at that previous council meeting.
Cries from the audience were of disbelief and became hostile, “Excuse me – are you kidding” and “Oh my God.”
Mayor Mark Fitzgerald pounded his gavel telling the audience, You’re out of order, you’re out of order. Cease. You’ll be asked to leave.” He quieted the crowd, but not his council colleague.
The resident, who Loveland Magazine is not naming, went to work the next day and reported the allegation to the company owner. It was discovered, “The “lurking” pick up Ms. Gross referred to at our city council meeting last night, was a salesman leaving after a long day at work and dinner at Paxton’s. One Irish Coffee and an appetizer.”
Gross said that she wasn’t accusing the resident of anything, but wanted him to identify the driver. This was her clarification after she began her allegation by saying to the resident, “There is something on my mind that is directly related to you.”
When Gross said she wasn’t accusing the resident of anything, someone shouted from the audience, “Yes you did. Yes you did.”
This LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV video has portions blurred and some audio deliberately distorted so neither the resident, co-workers, or the local business would be harmed by the allegation.
The Local Newspaper that has the MOST “LOVELAND” news!
Member of the Ohio Newspaper Association
Will youCHIP IN today to keep your local newspaper strong?
It’s easy, painless,and you can choose your level of supportusing a credit card or PayPal.
[quote_box_right]I wonder if we are in for more the same – buildings that are too tall for the historic district, lacking any charm or character, and lacking compatibility with the architecture of historic Loveland.[/quote_box_right]This is an “Open Letter” to Loveland City Manager Dave Kennedy by Loveland resident, Mary Ann Lynn.
Mary Ann Lynn
Mr. Kennedy,
Like many residents of Loveland, I am growing increasingly concerned regarding planned development in historic Loveland. I am extremely disappointed in the design, eye appeal and lack of historic compatibility of the Loveland Station development. When I hear there is another planned development in the works for the current site of Loveland City Hall, I wonder if we are in for more the same – buildings that are too tall for the historic district, lacking any charm or character, and lacking compatibility with the architecture of historic Loveland. In fact, at four stories, the new development at the city hall site would be an even worse dynamic.
[quote_left]Relative to these concerns, I have several questions.[/quote_left]Relative to these concerns, I have several questions. I don’t know if it is appropriate for you to answer these independently, or if I will be able to direct these toward city council at the upcoming meeting 4/25.
Is there a finalized plan/street scape in place for the building that would replace Loveland city hall? Can this be viewed by the public at city hall?
Has this plan (design/composition -retail/office/government) been approved to move forward, or is there still more planning and approval that needs to occur?
Will final plans be approved prior to demolition of the existing building and the trees in front of city hall?
What architectural guildelines/requirements exist for new construction in historic Loveland? Are these available on the website or elsewhere for public review?
I understand this type of project falls under the jurisdiction of the Loveland “CIC.” Is CIC part of the City of Loveland or a separate entity? Who sits on the CIC?
Lynn says this new “Wayfinding Sign” misses the mark.
On a smaller scale, but related topic, the new “Welcome to Historic Loveland” sign in Veteran’s Park on Loveland Avenue completely misses the mark! There is nothing charming or historic looking about that signage. Again, it makes me wonder about any architectural guidelines in place to ensure new additions, big or small, are consistent with and support the “historic” district that represents the very heart and soul of our community. Was this sign design approved by a specific committee? By Loveland City Council? By a single individual?
I would like to know which of these questions are best addressed with council at their bi-weekly meeting.
This is an “Open Letter” to Loveland City Manager Dave Kennedy by Loveland resident, Lisa Freeman.
Mr. Kennedy,
As a resident of Loveland for the last 12 years, I sincerely hope you will stop the demolition of city hall.
I have attended many city council meetings over the years and am particularly dismayed at the lack of transparency of this council on this particular issue.
Additionally, there seems to be a push by the majority of the council toward large scale development. While I am not opposed to development in and of itself, I am concerned about the way the council seems to be ignoring the residents of Loveland who merely want input into this issue.
Furthermore, I am appalled that the mayor of Loveland is still the mayor of Loveland!! This man needs to step down, resolve his legal issues in North College Hill, make full disclosure to the citizens of Loveland regarding the resolution of his legal trouble and then we’ll see about putting him back in the position of mayor. It seems we may have a very dishonest person leading our community.
Please use your position as City Manager to actually manage the business of the city and put a halt to the destruction of city hall.
Tom Calarco is a resident of Historic Downtown Loveland
by Tom Calarco
It’s a little over three years since I moved to Loveland and less than two years since I moved downtown. I have no personal investment in the community, other than that I rent an apartment here. I could just keep quiet and enjoy the bike trail, park, and other amenities that it offers. However, I’ve always been self-righteous and believed in doing the right thing and when it comes to government, it’s to serve the best interests of all the people and the community it represents. As a result, I feel the need to speak out regarding what I feel is the outrageous flaunting of power of the current city administration, and also some concerns about the proposed new city hall project.
It was very apparent last year when the city council, or at least its majority that supports the current mayor, tried to block the Farmer’s Market from operating downtown Loveland that something was amiss. [quote_right]It seemed pretty transparent to me that the mayor had a vendetta against its founder Donna Bednar.[/quote_right]It seemed pretty transparent to me that the mayor had a vendetta against its founder Donna Bednar when he removed her from the city’s Beautification Committee and followed it by trying to block her Farmer’s Market, which had a one-year hiatus at another location because of downtown construction, from returning to downtown. This vendetta originated when Fitzgerald himself was removed as Loveland’s city manager during the late 1990’s when Bednar’s husband was on the city council.
Dave Kennedy alleged the reason the city opposed the return of the market was due to traffic concerns. However, when the people of the city arose in protest, he found a way to allow it to come back.
Now, it seems like déjà vu and once again the city council’s majority is trying to find a way to block not only the Farmer’s Market but also other events that take place downtown which provide immeasurable benefits to the community, some of a charitable nature. Ostensibly, it is not because they oppose the city hosting these events but because of concerns of revenue. The city wants to levy heavy fees that no other community in the area levies on the vendors who participate. Furthermore, they want to require background checks on these vendors, which adds another fee to participation because the checks need to be paid by those who are checked.
The bottom line is that these fees are going to make it prohibitive for many of these vendors to come to Loveland and hinder some of these events from continuing here. The question that remains to be answered is WHY ARE THESE FEES NECESSARY?
That brings us to another part of the issue: the proposed new City Hall.
I listened to some of the discussion about it on Loveland Magazine, and it reminds of Joni Mitchell’s song, Big Yellow Taxi, and the line, “they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”
[quote_left]Apparently, Pam Gross has no use for the trees and green space there.[/quote_left]I listened to Pam Gross say that in demolishing the current obsolete city hall that we should tear up the unused space in front of it. Apparently, she has no use for the trees and green space there. Better to put concrete and pavement that can be used for economic development and revenue.
Also, Dave Kennedy talked about making Grill Millitzer a two-way street lined with retail shops. It was a little unclear how they were going to do this, and in fact, nothing is yet set in stone about this proposed project. But it seems to me that this is the beginning of a transformation of downtown Loveland that has already begun with the construction of Loveland Station. This project is being administered by the Community Improvement Corporation led by Gross with the advisement of experienced economic developers. And it’s all about the money.
[quote_right]Would it better serve us to remain as the place the average person comes to relax and get away from the encroachment of urban development?[/quote_right]The question that needs to be answered is what lies ahead for downtown Loveland? Should it be transformed into a money pit that will gradually erode its quaint charm and green space? Or would it better serve us to remain as the place the average person comes to relax and get away from the encroachment of urban development?
Another question that also should be considered is: Do the members of the majority faction on the Council stand to gain financially from this urban transformation?
As Joni Mitchell sang: “Don’t it always seem to go, you don’t know what you got till it’s gone.”
For Background Read what Tom Calarco has read …
Loveland Magazine pulls back the curtain on the process of building a new City Hall
These exclusive LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV videos will tell you what is being proposed
These exclusive LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV videos will tell you what is being proposed
by David Miller
Loveland, Ohio – Last December it was announced that City Hall would be demolished and a new four-story building would take its place. City Hall offices were to be located on the second-floor, with retail and commercial on the first-floor. The top two-floors would be residential. City operations would temporarily move to a leased building on Cottonwood Drive when City Hall was demolished. In January, City Council was positioned to vote on the $89,000/year lease, when something went wrong, exactly what, has never been disclosed.
Loveland Magazine was quite surprised with this announcement and apparently many in the community as well. After reviewing meeting minutes from various City meeting going back several months and finding nothing about this specific plan, Loveland Magazine sent an Email to City Manager Dave Kennedy on January 26 asking if this detailed project had ever been discussed in open meetings at City Hall. This is how he responded:
?’s about new City Hall – January 26, 2017
LM: Did Council ever made a public vote on the decision to proceed?
DK: No they have not made an official public vote.
LM: Was there ever any public discussion in open session of Council or other public bodies, about the specific plan that was announced in the Straight From the Heart newsletter of December 15, 2016? I know I heard general discussions over the past year of perhaps selling City Hall, but I do not recall reading about or hearing any discussion of this specific plan.
DK: I have updated council through our council goals which includes the project. At the most recent council meeting I discussed the status of the project.
LM: If I have missed any of this and you could point to specific Council minutes, could you tell me which ones I should read?
DK: (Kennedy did not answer)
LM: I guess I am interested to have answers to these same questions if they pertain to the Planing and Zoning Commission, CIC, or the Finance Committee.
DK: We have referenced/updated the Finance Committee on the concept of the project.
DK: Could you tell me where all of the financing for this project comes from? Including legal, and cost of hiring McGill Smith Punshon Architects, or any other outside costs now attributed to planning and implementing this project, including bond counsel.
DK: That is still being formulated.
Resident Neil Oury has also recently questioned the apparent done deal and lack of transparency. Read background: “Here’s what Vice-Mayor Settle didn’t want you to know” published on March 22. Oury said he also research City Hall records going back several months and found nothing. He was also critical that an architect had been hired and drawings completed without the public knowing anything about the project.
Below is the announcement made in the City newsletter on December 15, 2016
The re-branding
Loveland Magazine was the only media outlet at the Community Improvement (CIC) meeting last Tuesday when the City Hall project was re-branded as if the December announcement had never been made. Today we are publishing the first of a series of videos from the meeting. It was quite a long meeting, so the meeting is presented in a series of shorter segments so you can view them one at at time, and go back at your leisure and not feel lost.
Apparently, the CIC has been given the task of making recommendations to City Council on the rebuilding of City Hall, although when or where that decision was made is anyone’s guess.
It will take a lot of effort on the reader’s part to view the entire discussion, but when finished you will be one of just a few in the community who know what options are under consideration and the recommendations that are going to be made to City Council.
The next CIC meeting is at 1 PM on April 24 at City Hall.
Loveland Magazine will not be summarizing the discussions. It is the public’s homework to do, and they can draw their own conclusions.
Loveland Magazine was the only media outlet to attend and report from this council meeting
Loveland, Ohio– Peggy Goodwin spoke at the Loveland City council meeting on March 28, explaining how provisions in a proposed “Transient Business and Vendors” ordinance can have a negative impact on the Loveland Farmers’ Market and other public events in the City. She told Loveland Magazine yesterday via an Email, “We are moving ahead with plans to open the market on May 2, but I’d like to withhold comment on the proposed changes until this ordinance comes back to Council next week. We want to be sure those changes negotiated by Kathy Bailey and Pam Gross are actually adopted by the full Council as our successful operation depends on the provisions outlined in that draft document.”
At the meeting, the ordinance that had been previously introduced was voted down, and replace with that draft document. The revision, a red and blue lined document, that can be read below, was not passed out to those in attendance until after the open forum. The ordinance that will be in front of Council for a vote this Tuesday can also be read below. Goodwin is one of eight volunteers that manage the market. At the open forum, she said they have serious concerns about the ordinance. She said, “This places an undue burden on the market and our vendors.” She told the council that the fees and process make the Loveland market uncompetitive with markets in areas surrounding Loveland.
Goodwin said many of the farmers who sell at the market will have to make a 2-hour round-trip to come to Loveland to fill out paperwork and pay the fees. She detailed other concerns, and you can learn about them in the video below. Included are requirements for insurance, fingerprinting, and background checks. She said that many vendors will find the entire cost too much and they might soon realize that Loveland is no longer an “Attractive entity.”
Clerk of Council Misty Cheshire said on Friday that the ordinance has been amended further, but did not disclose if there are further changes.
Joe Wahler, a nearby resident and vendor at the market who sells jams and jellies also urged council to reconsider what they were doing. He started what he felt was an amusing presentation by saying, “Howdy. How y’all doing? I’m back again.” He continued, “Um, I feel really, really ignorant – because, I cannot for the life of me begin to comprehend or understand what it is about the Farmers’ Market that makes you think that putting us out of business is going to bring more money into the City of Loveland.” He asked council if they were serious about wanting to fingerprint him and make him undergo a background check just to sell jams and jellies.
Mayor Mark Fitzgerald told Wahler that the open forum was Wahler’s chance to speak, but would not enter into a dialogue. The question Wahler asked went unanswered. Fitzgerald said, “You’re our guest and we welcome you, but we are not here for your question and answer – so if you’d just please conclude your comments.”
Wahler responded, “I’m tickled no end to be here.”
“I will be paying much attention to how the voters react when they find out that their daughters in the Girl Scouts selling cookies need to be fingerprinted, and that their sons in the Boy Scouts selling popcorn need to be fingerprinted.”
![[Exclusive Video] CIC’s talks dollars and cents on new City Hall](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/pro-forma-feature-w-lines-1-100x65.png)
![[Exclusive Video] Process of building new City Hall – Re-set and begins in ernest](https://i2.wp.com/lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/maxresdefault-9.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&resize=350%2C200)
![[Exclusive Video] Oury will run to replace Fitzgerald in recall election](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/recall-feature-w_lines-100x65.gif)
![[Exclusive Video] Farmers’ fee fight ends with bitter bite](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/maxresdefault-22-100x65.jpg)
![[Richard Fisher] “I really need to know all long-term income projections from the city hall replacement.”](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/views-100x65.png)
![[Exclusive Video] Process of building new City Hall – Re-set and begins in ernest](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/maxresdefault-9-100x65.jpg)
![[Exclusive Video] Joe Wahler barks at Council and their proposed vendor ordinance](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/maxresdefault-23-100x65.jpg)
