Archive for Community Issues – Page 3

Is it time to revisit the Roundabout Issue?

Articles continue to flood the media about the merits of traffic roundabouts that increase public safety, save fuel and more efficiently handle traffic flow. An additional benefit of a roundabout is that they force motorists to slow down on approach and ‘calm’ traffic flow. Both Butler and Warren counties are continuing to add roundabouts.

It is my opinion, it is not too late for Columbia Township and Mariemont to revisit the feasibility for a roundabout at Murray and Plainville. This five or six way intersection is confusing to motorists and pedestrians alike and calls into play real safety concerns. Why a roundabout at this location was opposed initially is a mystery to me and most everyone I have talked to. Maybe someone can shed some light on why this community improvement was initially voted down even as it was fully funded with public monies.

Further commentary by Rick Greiwe

roundabout_new

The Revised Mariemont.org Web site

The new Mariemont.org website sponsored by Village Government and launched several months ago is an improvement from the earlier one. Curiously, it copies some of the features of Mariemont.com including the FrontPage slider of photographs and calendar of events. The business directory is limited to those entities within the boundaries of Mariemont.

What is missing is a posting of the current or up to date minutes from the numerous Counsel Committees (Finance, Health and Recreation, Planning and Zoning, Public Works and Safety, Rules and Regulation). Moreover, the minutes from Council Meetings and Meetings of the Whole are posted but the icons are not dated making navigation to specific meetings difficult. There are many links to other Web sites but I was unable to identify a link to ICRC that videotapes all Council Meetings for Community Television (www.icrctv.com).

The web site has contracted with PayPal for residents to pay for fees such as tennis memberships and swimming passes, but it does not integrate with the tax office to electronically file and pay income taxes.

The Web site has a wealth of information but is quite generic with no platform for interactive information exchange within the Village. There is no blog. The Village is indebted, however, to Premier Internet www.premierinternet.com for their quality work.

Opinions on the Sidewalk Issue

In response to a Nextdoor Mariemont post about the removal of sidewalks and putting up of a fence around the tax building by Mr. Dan Spinnenweber, I replied to resident Stephanie Eversole’s post where she shared that the elementary school has now opened the lower lot near the playground for parents to park in for pick up and drop off. Here is my added comment to her post, and then the continuation in response to Cynthia Wolter’s post, sharing a few of my experiences with the Mayor and Council and how I have seen things work.

“Stephanie is right. However, Steph, the school sent that letter only a couple of weeks before school let out. I’m hoping they advise parents/grandparents/guardians again as school starts up so perhaps more people will take advantage of that lower lot. I happen to know the school is also looking into other possible parking lot expansion solutions, but many are cost prohibitive right now, especially with the hill at the edge of the existing lot that goes down into the field. Options are being considered, though, so know that the school board is on top of this. It’s just a shame that talks weren’t pursued more aggressively with Mr. S and the Mayor prior to this sidewalk removal being given the go-ahead.

Cynthia, regarding political posts on Nextdoor Mariemont, the site is great for curb alerts, sales and upcoming events, but it is also a forum for discussion on community issues that all residents need and deserve to know about. Nextdoor andMariemont.com are the only two places people can do so freely. Not everyone can make council meetings, and in many, many cases, the public isn’t informed of “hot topics” and so they don’t know they NEED to go. (Although I strongly urge residents to call Sue Singleton at the Village Administration Office and ask to be added to the email list for Council Meeting agendas and minutes.) And even if residents do make it to meetings, the “3 minute limit” that was put in place a couple of years ago stops people from having their full say – or the Mayor threatens to have police throw you out (check out ICRC tapes if you don’t believe me). Town meeting speakers get shut down from talking about topics of importance – or get dirty looks from certain council members, as my husband and I did this year when we brought up the sidewalks, others tried to chime in, and the Mayor kept redirecting the issue.

I do agree that residents should reach out to their Council reps as well. I have personally called my Council rep, Dennis Wolter, regarding chalking tires in the tax lot to see if METRO riders were actually parking and taking up parking space back in 2012 – in hopes of targeting the real issue in Spinnenweber’s lot and avert any sidewalk removal or fence building. Nothing ever came of it, except for the Mayor presenting it as Dennis’ idea during a Council meeting. But it was never pursued.

I called Dennis and Chief Hines about putting crossing guards at the Inn crosswalk to PNC due to the ridiculous timing of lights and the drivers who whip around the corner into the crosswalk without looking. I was told the lights can’t be changed as they are on timers and it’s very intricate, and I was also told there was no money for a crossing guard/officer there. So, I suggested putting up bright “children crossing” signs or those bright green safety men at the crosswalks during school drop off/pick up times. The Chief was really good about getting this together, but the signage was not permanent and eventually disappeared. The Village never did anything else to provide better safety, and the numerous signage posted at stop light level is to confusing for drivers to take in, especially if they are not from around here.

I asked Dennis and the Chief about trimming the overgrown bushes along the tax building’s lot on Madison Rd. because drivers coming out of those driveways could not see around them and it was a safety hazard for students/parents walking in the morning.  The Chief did address this immediately and worked with Spinnenweber to cut down the bushes.

And I asked Dennis about finding a suitable route for kids to walk to school this past year since the sidewalk after the alley by Mios had been torn up due to construction of the new condos. Dennis said he was going to look into it, but I never got any answer or resolution to the issue. Dennis may have pursued this, but I never heard back, nor was anything ever done.

Cynthia, I am aware of the commitment and time Council members give to the Village. I have had several friends who’ve served on Council over the years. They do care about the community, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems with leadership. Just a few of these are:

  • Bad decisions being made at the top – some of which are out of the Mayor’s jurisdiction but which he is involved in anyway,
  • Lack of regular and accessible communication with the public,
  • A long-needed for an overhaul of our Village Codes and Ordinances to allow for smoother decision-making and less emergency votes and one-off changes of the code as issues come up,
  • Too much oversight from the Mayor, who sits on almost every resident-seated committee (these are supposed to be separate to allow for fair decision-making),
  • No term limits on the Mayor’s seat, which does not allow for fresh ideas and leadership as needs and dynamics in our Village change.

And these are just a handful of items.

People in Mariemont feel intimidated by the Mayor and are quickly belittled or ignored by a couple of Council members, and so they choose not to spend time and energy where their voices won’t be heard. So, regarding posting political action items on Nextdoor – and Mariemont.com – I say let people share what they know and voice their concerns where it works for them and where fellow residents can support and encourage eachother to take action toward positive change. AND I would strongly encourage residents to contact Council members – the more we bring issues of concern to light, the more attentive residents will be on future items of public concern so they won’t mysteriously slip through the cracks like this sidewalk issue did.

Suzy Weinland

A Vision Statement for Mariemont: All Parts

A Vision Statement for Mariemont

Vision 2021 Redux

“Dr. Emmett Brown: You’ve got to come back with me!

  Marty McFly: Where?

  Dr. Emmett Brown: Back to the future!”

By Mike Lemon and Richard Wendel

               In November 2008, the Mariemont Preservation Foundation (MPF) undertook crafting a bold plan called Vision 2021 to act as a guide for steering Mariemont into the next decade. MPF methodically collected input from hundreds of interested parties representing the entire spectrum of opinion. This included businesses, social organizations, boards and commissions, school officials, elected officials, Village employees and students

            The MPF Vision 2021 Committee was composed of respected leaders including Richard Adams, Don Keyes, Frank Raeon, Millard Rogers, Jr. and David Zack. Working as a team, they compiled a 50 page document containing their findings. In January 2011, the Vision Plan 2021 was referred by the Mayor to the Economic Development and Planning Committee for a report and recommendation. After no report was made by the committee for months, in September 2011 MPF’s leadership attended a council meeting and recommended that the Village’s elected officials appoint a broad based Vision Commission. Specifically, the Mayor was encouraged to spearhead the effort to assemble a Vision Committee comprised of 15 respected volunteers.

            Council debated elements of the plan. However, neither the Mayor nor Council moved forward on the Vision 2021 Plan proposal, nor did they modify it or develop an alternative plan. After many additional months with no report or action taken by the Economic Development and Planning Committee or the Mayor, the topic was unceremoniously dropped from the Council Agenda after April 2012.

            The potential financial benefits to the Village had the Mariemont Vision 2021 Plan been adopted in 2012 and used as a blueprint for future developments in Mariemont:

Let’s assume that the Mariemont council adopted the MPF Vision 2021 Plan to use as a guideline for the future and that an ad hoc Vision 2021 Commission with 15 members was selected and entrusted with the task of implementation.

As a first step, several full-day retreats with councilmembers, the mayor and commission members were held to condense, prioritize and financially analyze the recommendations in Vision 2021. A mission statement and strategic plan emerged on the final day of the meetings. Basically, the mission statement stated a goal “to sustain and improve upon the quality of life enjoyed by Mariemont residents and engage the community in every phase of the planning and implementation process.”

One recommendation to jump start and sustain the process was the hiring of a full time Village Administrator. Council contracted with a major consulting firm to thoroughly vet qualified candidates for this position and aid in the process of refining and implementing a strategic plan for economic development, improved services and cultural enhancements

Fiscal Sustainability

With the continued loss of revenues from the State of Ohio and inheritance taxes, the long term threat to a balanced budget was quickly recognized and, unfortunately, this downward pressure on revenues was compounded by the shrinkage of the employment base in the Westover industrial park with the closing of a major business.

It was obvious to the Council and Vision 2012 Committee that alternate pathways to fulfill budgetary needs were imperative.

  1. The opportunity to partner in JEDZs (Joint Economic Development Zones) with surrounding communities was seized upon as one available means to fill some of the funding gaps. These partnerships with local townships generated hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly in unfettered revenue. This permitted the Village to move forward on infrastructure improvements and cover the increasing cost of services without increasing taxes to residents and businesses.
  2. After being schooled in available public financing options, the Economic Development and Planning Committee of Council identified types of businesses needed for the community and pursued recruitment strategies. To stimulate economic development, incentives and tools such as the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA), Tax Increment Financing (TIFs) , and Community Investment Corporation (CIC) were considered as pathways to clean up contaminated sites, revitalize the Westover industrial park and attract new businesses. These incentive programs enabled public-private partnerships to attract new businesses and retain and grow existing ones. They had the effect of revitalizing the business community that enabled commercial property owners to improve their rents and maintenance while increasing the number of employees and customers.
  3. Council also realized that additional savings could be achieved by shared services with surrounding communities. This eliminated duplication of expensive equipment and services without compromising safety while reducing costs. A cultural shift in governance from structured independence to an atmosphere of cooperation, sharing and coordination resulted in improved relationships that leveraged mutual interests and directions.

The new financial position from these three initiatives was consistent with no new taxes even as the Village could proceed with needed improvements in infrastructure.

As part of this series, the authors invite you to consider the following questions:

  • Should Council adopt the Vision 2021 Plan or develop and communicate its own Vision Plan?
  • Should Council investigate and make a recommendation on whether to hire a qualified professional Village Administrator and rely on outside Consultants?
  • Should the Economic Development and Planning Committee proactively develop a strategic plan for business development, business retention and recruitment?
  • Would collaboration and shared services with other communities benefit the Village and lower operating costs?
  • Should Village officials reach out to other communities and begin a conversation on topics of mutual interest?

 

Positive Change and Outcomes

With the Vision 2021 Plan adopted by Council, Village officials initiated a collaborative program with the schools, community groups, businesses and Village service departments. Gaining consensus was a key step in real change that kept Mariemont the best community in which to live in Ohio.

  1. The financial initiatives undertaken by Council increased the pool of operating funds available to maintain quality services. For example, it enabled the Village to keep trash and recyclable collection in the rear or side of residences. This provided convenience to residents and kept the streets and driveways free of bulky containers that detracted from the curb appeal of homes and businesses. Indeed, this single distinguishing feature helped to maintain the Village’s reputation as the most walkable community in Cincinnati and provided a significant talking point for real-estate agents.
  2. The Master Plan for the South 80 developed by the Parks Advisory Board and consultants brought into focus an expanded range of possibilities for this acreage. Safety issues and crowded spaces around the Dogwood Park playfields during baseball and soccer seasons helped to focus the Parks Advisory Board and landscape architects on the potential of the South 80. An exciting schematic of the layout for additional ball fields and walking paths included:
    1. A dog park
    2. Picnic shelter and grounds
    3. A fitness trail/par course
    4. Expanded gardening plots along with a storage shed supplied with a water source and electrical outlets
    5. Expanded and repaved access road and a large convenient graveled parking area.
    6. Two regulation baseball fields
    7. Two soccer fields
    8. A circumferential paved bike path

Although flooding occurred about every three to four years in this flood plain, the structures were built to make clean-up relatively simple. These ambitious plans were made possible through economic development incentives given to new businesses and grants obtained. It became a regional attraction for local sports and recreational activities.

ODOT, meanwhile, had tabled the Eastern Corridor project because of funding issues, public resistance and engineering problems and the Oasis Rail Line project was abandoned because it was not economically viable. Thus, the concern about the Ohio 32 extension coursing through the South 80 became a nonissue. Bike path connectors were completed to the Wasson Way project, Newtown and Lunken Airport.

  1. New flower beds and landscaping highlighted a broader range of Village venues. The Village’s natural environment was compartmentalized into two landscape maintenance categories: Land Management and Landscape Maintenance. By differentiating these areas, financial reserves set aside earlier were released for the high visibility areas in the Village while giving attention to other important tracts of land. The endowment fund established for parks and the Town Center provided additional funds for capital improvements to the parks. The on-going tree planting and replacement program, based on John Nolen’s original plan, drew wide acclaim for protecting the existing urban forest in the Village. The efforts of the Tree Advisory Committee  and the accredited urban forester helped minimize the damage created by insect infestations, helped protect property values, and maintained the beautiful visual ambience of the community.
  2. Concerts in the Park and an amphitheater at the Concourse were planned to satisfy music lovers. Funds to market the Carillon concerts to the surrounding area were set aside to increase the audience for these World Class performances, a unique attraction in Mariemont. The 4th of July fireworks became a Village business sponsored annual event.
  3. Gas and electric aggregation to save on utility bills became available to all residents along with Duke Energy’s Smart Grid for energy efficiency. Aggregation eliminated the need to search for the ‘best provider and rates’ by individual household or business, even as that remained an option.
  4. Fire prevention education and voluntary home and business inspections were performed as part of shared services which helped reduce the risk of fire. Free fire alarms and carbon monoxide monitors made homes safer and lowered home insurance. The CPR training, infant car seat installation and other programs available made the Village a better, safer community.
  5. Although a national historic landmark, the Village adapted to the digital and technological age by becoming a wired community, with free Wi-Fi access throughout the Village business districts.
  6. The Village web site provided electronic filing of taxes, payments for building permits, swim and tennis passes and trash collection fees. The site also provided residents a master community calendar, business directory by category and electronic posting of the TownCryer and Minutes from Council and Council Committees.

After having fallen out of the top 25 in the 50 Greater Cincinnati suburban rankings in Cincy Magazine, Mariemont was once again ranked as a top ten community in Greater Cincinnati and was poised to close in on Number 1.

As part of this series, the authors invite you to consider the following questions:

  • Do trash and recycling containers at the curb detract from the attractiveness of the Village?
  • Do you favor development of the South 80 beyond a walking path/ vegetable garden? If so, should the Village hire a professional consultant to explore and move forward on the possibilities for the South 80?
  • Should the Village retain an urban forester to advise the Village about protecting and maintaining an ongoing tree preservation program?
  • Would you support a Concert in the Park program and other cultural events in our parks?
  • Would you like to see a gas and electric aggregation program sponsored by the Village?
  • Would you favor having Village-wide free Wi-Fi access?
  • Should the Village develop a more integrated, interactive web site with the Village Code of Ordinances, zoning requirements, archives and other pertinent Village information?

Village Gateway

A new landscaped roundabout at the 6-way intersection announced the entrance into the Village while safely guiding motorists through what had been a confusing and difficult intersection. The roundabout created a dynamic threshold between Mariemont and Columbia Township which aided revitalization on the Village’s northern boundary and helped facilitate the connection of the bike path between Fairfax and Newtown Road. The new development projects on the Village’s northern boundary replaced aging and declining properties and spawned new customers and clients for Mariemont businesses which in turn brought new jobs and new revenue to the community.

Historic District

A Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) similar to 3CDC that is revitalizing the Over-the-Rhine community breathed new life into the aging Village historic district apartments and townhouses. New revenues channeled funds into the CIC for purchasing, renovating and rehabbing the aging structures. The CIC was able to preserve the historical integrity of the buildings before selling them to private investors. The improvements and new amenities brought a a strong demand for both owner-occupied and rental living units.

Establishing the Historic District as a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District fostered road, sidewalk and park improvements through tax incentives that dove-tailed into the building improvements undertaken by the CIC.

The result was a revitalized, renovated historic district that was lauded by preservationists and urban planners in the region. The improvements made national news and created excess demand for the living units in the district.

The historic district renovation and economic development plans for the Village led to the recruitment of retail and antique stores in and around the Old Town Square. The Mariemont Preservation Foundation sponsored guided tours and carriage rides to increase tourism in the Village.

Transportation

Infrastructure improvements including new sidewalks, curbing paving, signage and expanded on-street parking were carried out with the stream of new revenues, long term public financing and reserves from the permanent improvement fund. A new underground parking garage was erected behind the theatre and restaurants doubling the number of parking spaces. This relieved the Village’s intractable parking problems. A business consortium, municipal bonds and tax incentives for businesses financed the project. The project was the keystone to making the Village a true destination. It attracted new businesses, new construction and new customers. Commercial occupancy rates approached 100%.

Village traffic and safety measures were implemented based on scientific and historical data illustrating the need for change rather than perceived threats or danger. Professional analysis and engineering ended the signage proliferation that detracted from the attractiveness of the Village.

The vibrancy and excitement of Mariemont was soaring!

As part of this series, the authors invite you to consider the following questions:

  • Should Council improve safety at the six-way stop and improve the aesthetics of entry into the Village from Plainville Road?
  • Would you like to see new development on the northern boundary of the Village?
  • How should Village government participate in redeveloping the historic district?
  • Should Council undertake responsibility for a long-term parking plan for the community and hire a traffic engineering consultant?
  • Would you like to see a parking garage built for commercial business parking in the Village?
  • Does the Village have too many signs?

 

Town Meeting

With greater transparency and collaboration within Village Government, the Town Meetings became focused on community engagement and development. The issues facing the Village were candidly communicated and this increased the participation and attendance of residents. Reports from ad hoc committees dealing with specific issues were openly discussed to seek the best solutions and outcomes.

As a part of this new frame, greater attention was give to recruiting and nominating candidates for elected Village positions with a diverse range of skills, knowledge and experience. This added an improved leadership and management quality to Village affairs that took greater advantage of opportunities and provided solutions to any threats facing the Village. Tighter term limits were imposed for the elected positions within Village Government.

Civic Association

Greater emphasis was placed on the activities of the Civic Association. The Civic Association developed bylaws, a legal structure, a membership list and mission statement. Outside experts on various subjects gave presentations that attracted a large membership. A civic association Foundation was formed to permit private tax exempt donation and act as an operating foundation within the community with a goal of preserving the heritage of the Village.

Advisory and Community Organizations

Recognizing that public officials can’t be experts in every facet of governance, council began utilizing advisory groups extensively for fact-finding, research, and council committee recommendations. Aware of the value of advisory groups for decision-making, council found a treasure trove of expertise and community interest from the new pool of engaged citizens.

By working hand-in-hand with organizations like Marielders, Kiwanis, Mariemont Preservation Foundation and Pre-School Parents Group, community needs were better identified and addressed collaboratively.

Symbiosis with the School District

The awareness of the strong symbiotic relationship between a community and a school district led the village government and the school board to establish a joint effort to work together to improve communications and cooperative planning efforts that strengthened the bonds of the two entities for the enrichment and improvement of their common constituents.

As part of this series, the authors invite you to consider the following questions:

  • Should the annual Town Meeting expand its mission?
  • What sort of process could establish criteria to endorse nominees with a wide range of business, professional and talents for elected office?
  • How can the Civic Association become a robust organization and address a wider range of Village issues and needs?
  • Are advisory boards used effectively in the community?
  • Can village government and community organizations work together more effectively?
  • Is there room for better coordination between the Village and the school district?

 

The first spade of earth for the construction of Mariemont was turned by Mary Emery in 1923. In 2023 the Village celebrated the centennial of the founding of Mariemont. The dream of Mary Emery for a “National Exemplar” had moved a little closer to reality.

This vision of the Village’s future is very realistic and achievable but it will take vision and leadership to accomplish it. Adopting a vision plan, such as MPF’s Vision 2021 is a giant first step in the right direction. It is time to give this planned community a plan for its future.

 

“Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality. “—Warren Bennis

Mariemont Elementary students learn about local history

Mariemont Elementary students learn about local history

Contributed  by Claire Kupferle  of the Mariemont Preservation Foundation

The Mariemont Preservation Foundation (MPF) has been busy with presentations to local school children on a variety of historical topics.

Mariemont Elementary third graders recently took a field trip to the seat of Mariemont government – Council Chambers in the Municipal Building. Docent Claire Kupferle presented some of the history of the Village and how its government is set up. Students then role-played positions as community officials and other leaders as they determined what new attraction might be good to add to their community. The students really enjoyed the debate and got a first-hand look at how difficult it is to govern.

Fourth graders from Mariemont Elementary also were given a lesson on local history. They learned about Mariemont’s benefactor, Mary Emery, and the history of Mariemont. The presentation was given by Docents Cindy Dougherty and Linda Swensson and the students were fascinated by the many old photos of Mariemont. The following day the students enjoyed a walking tour of the Historic District, led by Docents Susan Bezerra and Harmon McClung.

Claire Kupferle

 

 

Cindy Dougherty presents the history of Mariemont and its founder, Mary Emery.

A Vision Statement for Mariemont: Part 1

A Vision Statement for Mariemont

 Vision 2021 Redux

“Dr. Emmett Brown: You’ve got to come back with me!
Marty McFly: Where?
Dr. Emmett Brown: Back to the future!”

 By Mike Lemon and Richard Wendel

                In November 2008, the Mariemont Preservation Foundation (MPF) undertook crafting a bold plan called Vision 2021 to act as a guide for steering Mariemont into the next decade. MPF methodically collected input from hundreds of interested parties representing the entire spectrum of opinion. This included businesses, social organizations, boards and commissions, school officials, elected officials, Village employees and students

            The MPF Vision 2021 Committee was composed of respected leaders including Richard Adams, Don Keyes, Frank Raeon, Millard Rogers, Jr. and David Zack. Working as a team, they compiled a 50 page document containing their findings. In January 2011, the Vision Plan 2021 was referred by the Mayor to the Economic Development and Planning Committee for a report and recommendation. After no report was made by the committee for months, in September 2011 MPF’s leadership attended a council meeting and recommended that the Village’s elected officials appoint a broad based Vision Commission. Specifically, the Mayor was encouraged to spearhead the effort to assemble a Vision Committee comprised of 15 respected volunteers.

            Council debated elements of the plan. However, neither the Mayor nor Council moved forward on the Vision 2021 Plan proposal, nor did they modify it or develop an alternative plan. After many additional months with no report or action taken by the Economic Development and Planning Committee or the Mayor, the topic was unceremoniously dropped from the Council Agenda after April 2012.

          In this first installment of a four-part series, let’s examine the potential financial benefits to the Village had the Mariemont Vision 2021 Plan been adopted in 2012 and used as a blueprint for future developments in Mariemont:

Let’s assume that the Mariemont council adopted the MPF Vision 2021 Plan to use as a guideline for the future and that an ad hoc Vision 2021 Commission with 15 members was selected and entrusted with the task of implementation.

            As a first step, several full-day retreats with councilmembers, the mayor and commission members were held to condense, prioritize and financially analyze the recommendations in Vision 2021. A mission statement and strategic plan emerged on the final day of the meetings. Basically, the mission statement stated a goal “to sustain and improve upon the quality of life enjoyed by Mariemont residents and engage the community in every phase of the planning and implementation process.”

One recommendation to jump start and sustain the process was the hiring of a full time Village Administrator. Council contracted with a major consulting firm to thoroughly vet qualified candidates for this position and aid in the process of refining and implementing a strategic plan for economic development, improved services and cultural enhancements.A.   

Fiscal Sustainability

With the continued loss of revenues from the State of Ohio and inheritance taxes, the long term threat to a balanced budget was quickly recognized and, unfortunately, this downward pressure on revenues was compounded by the shrinkage of the employment base in the Westover industrial park with the closing of a major business.

It was obvious to the Council and Vision 2012 Committee that alternate pathways to fulfill budgetary needs were imperative.

  1. The opportunity to partner in JEDZs (Joint Economic Development Zones) with surrounding communities was seized upon as one available means to fill some of the funding gaps. These partnerships with local townships generated hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly in unfettered revenue. This permitted the Village to move forward on infrastructure improvements and cover the increasing cost of services without increasing taxes to residents and businesses.
  2. After being schooled in available public financing options, the Economic Development and Planning Committee of Council identified types of businesses needed for the community and pursued recruitment strategies. To stimulate economic development, incentives and tools such as the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA), Tax Increment Financing (TIFs) , and Community Investment Corporation (CIC) were considered as pathways to clean up contaminated sites, revitalize the Westover industrial park and attract new businesses. These incentive programs enabled public-private partnerships to attract new businesses and retain and grow existing ones. They had the effect of revitalizing the business community that enabled commercial property owners to improve their rents and maintenance while increasing the number of employees and customers.
  3. Council also realized that additional savings could be achieved by shared services with surrounding communities. This eliminated duplication of expensive equipment and services without compromising safety while reducing costs. A cultural shift in governance from structured independence to an atmosphere of cooperation, sharing and coordination resulted in improved relationships that leveraged mutual interests and directions.

The new financial position from these three initiatives was consistent with no new taxes even as the Village could proceed with needed improvements in infrastructure.

As part of this series, the authors invite you to consider the following questions: 

  • Should Council adopt the Vision 2021 Plan or develop and communicate its own Vision Plan?
  • Should Council investigate and make a recommendation on whether to hire a qualified professional Village Administrator and rely on outside Consultants?
  • Should the Economic Development and Planning Committee proactively develop a strategic plan for business development, business retention and recruitment?
  • Would collaboration and shared services with other communities benefit the Village and lower operating costs?
  • Should Village officials reach out to other communities and begin a conversation on topics of mutual interest?

To view the entire Vision 2021 Plan click here

Eastern Corridor Update from ODOT

As usual,  ODOT is short on details in this Eastern Corridor Update. This update was received through e-mail.

 

State Route 32 Relocation – PROJECT UPDATE 
Project Enters into Collaborative Process

May 27, 2014 – Beginning this month, the proposed State Route (SR) 32 Relocation project, which is one component of the multi-modal Eastern Corridor Program, is entering into a collaborative process that is expected to continue through the summer and fall and conclude by the end of the year. Information gained through this process will help determine the options available for moving forward with the proposed project.

The SR 32 Relocation project is one of the most complicated projects under consideration in the country as it is located in a region that requires coordination with multiple federal and state agencies which have varying and sometimes differing interests. These agencies include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corp or Engineers; the Federal Highway Administration; the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Scenic Rivers; Ohio Historic Preservation Office; and others.

To help coordinate among these agencies, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has engaged the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution and its contracted independent organization, the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), to assess the interests of the agencies in relation to the proposed project and determine how best to work through potential conflicts.

To support their work, CBI will be reviewing project documentation, completed studies and recommendations including the Eastern Corridor Major Investment Study, the2002 Land Use Vision Plan, the 2005 Green Infrastructure Concept Master Plan, the 2004 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement and the 2006 Tier 1 Record of Decision. They will also meet with local and regional governmental agencies, as well as consider input from local communities, business organizations, and other stakeholders.

ODOT is integrating this work into their project development process for the SR 32 Relocation project. At this time, potential corridors within which possible roadway alignments could be located have been recommended, but specific routes have not yet been identified. This process will result in identification of both challenges and opportunities within the corridors to address the transportation needs of the region.

As one of the primary thoroughfares within the Eastern Corridor region, SR 32 is an important element of the Eastern Corridor Program. Currently, this road experiences high volumes of commuter, heavy truck and residential traffic. This creates high levels of congestion and accident rates and poor levels of overall service, inhibiting economic development and access to the growing number of jobs. In addition, travel is primarily limited to car and truck-based traffic. The proposed SR 32 Relocation project is intended to address these issues and provide direct, multi-modal access to US 50, the Red Bank corridor and I-71 using a boulevard-style, four-lane road. For more information, visit www.EasternCorridor.org.
###

The Eastern Corridor is a program of integrated, multi-modal transportation investments that, together, will provide essential east-west connectivity for the Greater Cincinnati region. Currently in its second phase of study, the Program will address critical congestion issues and mobility challenges expected to worsen by 2030. Planned enhancements will improve travel and connections between central Cincinnati and the communities extending east through Hamilton County into western Clermont County. Program elements include improvements to existing road networks, new and expanded roadways, rail transit, expanded bus routes and improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The Eastern Corridor Program is administered by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Eastern Corridor Implementation Partners: Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District (HCTID), Clermont County Transportation Improvement District (CCTID), City of Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) and the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA). More information about Eastern Corridor is available at www.EasternCorridor.org.

 

News on Keebler in the Business Courier

News on Keebler/Kellogg in the Business Courier: April 25th

Summary:Tax breaks woo Keebler in NKY 

Avure Technologies Inc. and the Keebler Company each submitted project proposals for tax incentives to the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and were approved on Thursday. Keebler Co. was approved to receive $2 million in tax incentives from KEDFA to purchase new equipment and add manufacturing lines at its Florence facility. The snack food manufacturer, which is owned by Kellogg, plans to invest about $19.2 million in the project as part of its corporate four-year global growth and efficiency program. It is expected to add 75 jobs in the next 10 years.

For full text click go to http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/04/25/tax-breaks-woo-keebler-avure-to-grow-in-nky.html

In the Mayor’s April Bulletin he boasts that the “Kellogg’s Plant Manager does an Outstanding Job.” He goes on to say that “despite absurd rumors to the contrary, the Kellogg Snack Division in Mariemont is still going strong. When plant manager and village resident James Biro took over operations at the plant, there were approximately 450 employees at the Mariemont location. Mr. Biro raised that number to 560 workers. The company is laying off about 50 employees, but that leaves more than 500 working at the plant, which is more than were there when Mr. Biro took over the operation of the plant. Kellogg’s has a contract with their union employees that run through 2017, so the rumors of total shutdown of the plant at the end of this year are incorrect. We want to thank Mr. Biro and Kellogg’s for continuing to be one of the Village’s strongest supporters.”

Contrary to the Mayor’s opinion, a union contract offers no insurance that a company will not close one of its facilities. Indeed, the Business Courier article strongly suggests that Kellogg plans to consolidate its local operations into the Florence facility and close the Mariemont lines. The loss of revenue from the payroll tax from 500 hundred assembly line workers will be sizeable, possibly equaling or exceeding 10 percent of total Village revenue from payroll taxes.

One nagging question remains. If the Mayor or a Village Administrator  proactively courted Kellogg with tax incentives and State support, would Kellogg have retained the Mariemont facility and even invested the $19.2 million in enlarging and upgrading the plant?

MPF’s Vision 2021 Plan

MPF’s Vision 2021 Plan: A Remarkable Gem of a Document that garnered a resolution of support from the Village Council in 2009 and was published in 2011, but withered primarily due to resistance from the Mayor. The MPF committee members David Zack, Frank Raeon, Millard Rogers and Don Keyes put in endless hours of work compiling creative and constructive ideas from an exhaustive range of sources. A brief summary of the process and general recommendations of the plan are posted below as well as on the MPFs web site. Next week, Mariemont.com will post the unabridged 50 page electronic version of the Vision 2021 plan. All residents should be acquainted with this Vision Plan as it is a work of love dedicated to the promising future of the fine Community of Mariemont.

MPF’s Board of Trustees has a collective eye on Mariemont’s future. We are excited to share with the Village and its administrators our contributions toward a comprehensive ‘Vision Plan’ to guide future Village development and redevelopment. This plan will create a defined roadmap for future projects. It has been nearly 100 years since the original John Nolen plan for Mariemont was released. We think a Vision Plan is a wise investment for Mariemont’s next 100 years and beyond. Vision Plan Committee members David Zack, Frank Raeon, Millard Rogers and Don Keyes worked on this initiative.

Vision 2021 is a good example of what the Mariemont Preservation Foundation has been doing for more than 30 years – providing leadership and resources which have helped Mariemont remain a National Exemplar – a very special place for people to not only live, but to work, learn, and visit.

On September 26, 2011 the Mariemont Preservation Foundation formally introduced our recently published Vision 2021 document to local elected officials. Based upon a collaborative effort lasting more than two years, this important document is intended to act as a “blueprint” for guiding the future of the Village of Mariemont.

Vision 2021 identifies a “basket of ideas” which includes 21 important Themes and 21 Priorities. MPF’s hope is that Village Council will, over a period of time, not only embrace but implement many, if not most, of its recommendations.

Some important items which we think are worthy of becoming “next steps” include (a) hiring a full-time Village Administrator, (b) hiring a part-time Historic District Coordinator, (c) expanding our local tax base, (d) seeking grant monies, (e) updating the Village’s Zoning Code, and (f) the appointment of a representative, action oriented Vision Commission.

Working closely with Village Council as well as with local boards and commissions, the primary responsibility of the 12-15 member Vision Commission will be two-fold: (1) to develop strategies, time frames, cost estimates, and implementation responsibilities, and (2) to periodically update Vision 2021.

If you are interested in learning more about Vision 2021, please visit the Mariemont Preservation office at 3919 Plainville Road. You can also call MPF at (513) 272-1166 and purchase a copy of Vision 2021. The cost for purchasing this informative, handsome, and well illustrated 50 page booklet is only $10.00. (Mariemont Residents may purchase the booklet for $5.00).

Resolution of Support

On January 29, 2009, MPF received a resolution of support from Mariemont Village Council:

“The Council of the Village of Mariemont supports the efforts of the Mariemont Preservation Foundation to create a Vision Plan which involves Village residents, local organizations, local business people, local property owners, local public elected and appointed officials, Village Staff, local school officials, Board of Education members, students attending Mariemont schools, and, persons who live outside the Village but have an interest in being involved in helping create a long term vision for Mariemont.”

What is a Vision Plan?

Definition of Visioning

Visioning is a process for looking into the future in order to define both a community’s desired image and values.

Purpose of Visioning

To create a plan – a “blueprint” or “roadmap” – which can subsequently be used to help guide future public and private investment in the Village during the next 10 years.

Sources of Input

Broad based input includes all of the following “resource” groups:

  • Village residents
  • Local elected officials
  • Local appointed officials
  • Local organizations
  • Local business people
  • Local school officials and Board of Education Members
  • Students enrolled in Mariemont schools
  • People working in the Village
  • Major property owners
  • Non residents who have an interest in the Village’s future

Methods of Input:

  •  Public meetings
  • Community surveys
  • Community workshops
  • Village website
  • Mailed commentary and drawings
  • Vision Plan Components
  • Local tax base
  • Open space
  • Housing
  • Historic preservation
  • Redevelopment
  • Public facilities
  • Tourism
  • Schools
  • Local government
  • Public amenities
  • Community enhancements

 

 

 

Mariemont’s South 80

South 80 Trails, Gardens, and Park Advisory Board

April 8, 2014 Meeting Notes

Meeting time and place: 7:00 – 8:00 pm, Village Council Chambers

Attendees:  Mark Erhardt, Joe Stelzer, Tim Duever, Jason Brownknight, Andrew Seeger,Rob Winget

Absent: Doug Welsh, Mark Glassmeyer, Chris White, Debbie Henderson, Karen Sullivan

Guests: None

Meeting Notes:

The meeting opened with an update from Joe Stelzer on the Wasson Way trail project.  The new Mayor of the City of Cincinnati is making it a priority and it is very probable that the Village will be approached at some point to discuss the possibility of using the South 80 as a link for the Wasson Way trail between Xavier and Newtown.  Mariemont has been engaged in the project for several years and Councilmen Dennis Wolter provided a key business contact for discussions with the railroad for acquiring the right of way.  Considerations include right of way, path of the trail, and impact on the tunnel and access points to the South 80.  There are no proposals on the table at this time but may come very soon.

Doug Welsh was unable to attend, but provided a gardens update via email.  114 of a 122 plots have been rented.  Gardeners have been coordinating plans for composting, common fencing, and tilling.  The drilling of the well is tentatively scheduled for Monday, April 28.  Joe Stelzer remarked about the positive feedback he receives from members of the community on the gardens this year, especially in regards to improved communications and organization.

Mayor Policastro passed along a note from the new Assistant Fiscal Officer Chris Elridge regarding a grant program for trail development.  The Board discussed next steps in pursuit of this grant and possible application by Mariemont.

Mark Erhardt said that Mayor Policastro had reviewed the vehicle access and parking proposal with Chief Hines and that we would receive their feedback on the proposal soon.

Saturday, April 26 is the tentative date for the Spring Clean Up Day.  The Board has a few additional details to work out and will publish information on the Spring Clean Up Day on our South 80 Trails Facebook page soon.

Andrew Seeger agreed to be the liaison between the Board and the Boy Scouts for future Eagle Scout projects on the South 80.  Joe Stelzer commented that the recent campground Eagle Scout project with Scott Matthews was a great success.

Karen Sullivan is coordinating a bird watching day on April 27; details are on our Facebook page:

“Enjoy a spring walk in the South 80 Park with experienced birder Ann Oliver, former President of the Cincinnati Bird Club. The fields, emergent wetlands, and forested areas provide habitat for a variety of species, including migrating neotropicals. Join the search for warblers passing through on their annual spring route North, as well as the diverse mix of birds that make their home in the South 80 Park.”

The meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.

 

Minutes, Ideas and Recommendations from the South 80 Trails, Gardens, and Park Advisory Board

South 80 Trails, Gardens, and Park Advisory Board

South 80 editiedMarch 11, 2014 Meeting Notes

Meeting time and place: 7:00 – 8:00 pm, Village Council Chambers

Attendees:  Mark Erhardt, Joe Stelzer, Doug Welsh, Tim Duever, Jason Brownknight , Andrew Seeger, Mark Glassmeyer, Chris White, Rob Wingert

Meeting Notes:

The meeting opened with a discussion on parking in the gardens area.  The specific rules for parking are not well known or posted.  Mariemont resident Michael Kintner addressed the Board and expressed his concern for the safety of users of the South 80 and Gardens due to cars traveling up and down the narrow drive and through the tunnel under the railroad tracks.

The Board discussed his concerns and agreed to recommend to the Mayor and Chief of Police a number of ideas to improve traffic flow and clarify parking rules for the South 80 and Gardens (attached).

Doug Welsh provided an update on his work on organizing the Public Gardens; great progress continues to be made.   Joe Stelzer, Mark Erhardt and Mark Glassmeyer provided a report on the site visit by a representative of Jersey West Drilling.  There appears to be no issues with proceeding with having a well drilled in the gardens area for watering purposes only.

The meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.

Attachment to March 11, 2014 Meeting Notes:

Recommendation to Mayor Policastro and Chief Hines on vehicle access and parking in the South 80 and Mariemont Community Gardens

Recommendation # 1: Vehicle Access and Parking Restrictions

  • Vehicle access and parking should be limited to the following:
  1. Individuals who have paid for Mariemont Community Gardens plots for that calendar year.  Gardeners will be provided with a paper pass to post on their dashboard.  Gardeners should park near their plot(s) if possible.
  2. Vehicles with handicap tags or signs; or with a pass issued by the Village
  3. Vehicles registered with overnight campers
  • All others should park in the pool parking lot or on the street near the pool

Recommendation # 2: Rules Postings and Signage

  • Full vehicle access and parking rules should be posted on the South 80 bulletin board and once a year in the Mayor’s Bulletin
  • A sign should be posted at the top entrance to the South 80 road stating “Authorized or Permitted Vehicles Only – general parking available in the pool parking lot”
  • Stop signs should be posted at both entrances to the tunnel along with signs that says “Turn on lights and honk horn before entering”

Recommendation # 3: Safety Mirrors

  • Mariemont Police should determine if one or more “bubble” mirrors be installed at the turn before entering the tunnel or at either end of the tunnel to improve visibility for walkers, cyclists and drivers

Recommendation # 4: Patrol and Enforcement of Parking

  • As Mariemont Police are patrolling the area, they should periodically check vehicles parked in the gardens area to ensure that they meet the authorized vehicle criteria detailed in Recommendation # 1
  • Ticketing of unauthorized vehicles should be left to the standard policies of the Mariemont Police Department

Recommendation # 5: Formal Policies

  • Additional vehicle access and parking recommendations may be suggested by the Advisory Board based on community feedback, but the Mayor, Mariemont Police and Village Council should establish any formal rules or policies based on overall community safety needs

 

South 80 Trails, Gardens, and Park Advisory Board

February 11, 2014 Meeting Notes

Meeting time and place: 7:00 – 8:15 pm, Village Council Chambers

Attendees: Mark Erhardt, Joe Stelzer, Doug Welsh, Tim Duever, Jason Brownknight , Andrew Seege, Mark Glassmeyer, Chris White

Meeting Notes:

The meeting opened with an in depth discussion of the merits of drilling a water well in the gardens area to provide non-potable water for the gardens.  The Board unanimously agreed that a well was a needed upgrade to the current situation.

The Board reviewed cost and logistic factors and determined that a 75-foot well with a manual pump would be appropriate.  The Board then voted unanimously to recommend to the Mayor to proceed with the well project at a budget not to exceed $4,000 with likely actual costs closer to $3,500.  Mark Erhardt will communicate the recommendation to Mayor Policastro; Doug Welsh will contact Maintenance Superintendent Scherpenberg to discuss logistics; Joe Stelzer is going to discuss grant funding for the project with the Mariemont Preservation Foundation, the Mariemont Civic Association and private donors.

Doug Welsh provided an update on his work on organizing the Public Gardens; great progress has been made.  The Board reviewed proposed 2014 Mariemont Community Gardens Policies and Responsibilities and suggested a few minor changes.  Doug will make revisions and re-circulate the document for final review.

The Board discussed general maintenance issues: re-routing a few trail sections, removal of invasive species such as honeysuckle and removal of previously cut trees and plants.  Board members divided responsibilities: Mark Glassmeyer to organize of removal of felled trees; Mark Erhardt and Chris White to organize a general clean-up day with community volunteers; Tim Duever to look into providing means for trash removal; Andrew Seeger to continue to work with the school cross-country coaches on holding meets in the South 80, Jason Brownknight is continuing to look into re-forestation and invasive species removal options, and Joe Stelzer to work with the Village Office on the campsite registration form and process.

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm.

Development Ideas for the South 80:

Provided by Karen Sullivan

  • Plan seasonal events (new Mariemont traditions?) and promote them within the community and region
  • Establish a plan to restore and enhance riparian corridors and other environmentally sensitive areas – would include invasive species removal, tree planting, native wild flowers, trail enhancements to help with soil erosion, etc.
  • Develop educational features, such as programs with the schools, PTA, scouts, etc., and could also include signs along the trails describing the importance of wetlands, Native American heritage, and other historic and natural features of the South 80 and Little Miami River Valley
  • Enhance the community gardens
  • Create a Master Plan that incorporates the vision for the South 80 and establishes priorities and timeframes.  This could be shared/vetted with the community (and could help with grants)

Provided by Rob Wingert

I think the trails we have are great and can’t really see needing more on the existing areas. It might be good to improve a couple of areas where there could be safety concerns (although these are the most fun for mountain biking).

Since Dave Motz has allowed us to add trails on to his property this would be an area to explore. It would require crossing the slough which might be best served with a permanent structure – bridge. This may be more complicated then what we want to take on. We could have a trail down and across the bottom but it would not be accessible a good part of the time because of the water backing up in the slough.

Obviously the river presents a lot of opportunities for recreation. An area for canoes and kayaks to come in and out of the river would be fairly easy. Posted areas for fishing would also be a thought. Not sure of the liability issues or anything.

New aerial map in color – about 18″ by 24″ – from a company called mytopo (mytopo.com). We could get some much better maps to put up at the entry point by the pool.

Provided by Chris White

From the last meeting, I’m still not sure what the long term vision of the South 80 is. It seems we will be addressing that in tonight’s meeting. If we can get some consensus on what we hope to ultimately see it would be great.

Very generally, what do we hope to become?

  • more nature oriented, light/minimal impact  (ex. California woods)
  • larger scale improvements to include a nature center, gravel trails, better signage, etc. (Cincinnati Nature Center)
  • more of a recreational approach. paved trails, possible usage of fields for soccer, more trails, etc. (Otto Armleder)
  • a hybrid of all three?

For the long term plans/vision, I lean more toward a California Woods. Much as we have been doing already. An approach toward light improvement for betterment of the park with minimal impact and minimal expenditure.

 

  1. Plans for incorporating the existing trail system in the Dogwood Park into the South 80 trails if feasible, joining the two trail systems together could provide more residents and the schools with walking access to the entire trail system from Dogwood park.
  2. Plans to incorporate the “boat house” in Dogwood Park into congruent use with the South 80.  – I believe the boat house is already listed as a “nature center” if we can use our resources/group to develop this into a nicer, more user friendly nature center, it could become a great starting point for the entire area.
    1. Having a nature center within close proximity to the schools could take away the need for busing or travel to the existing trail head by the pool.
    2. If used with the south 80 trails, could be a jump off point for group hiking, weekend or scheduled nature center hours, nature classes,
    3. Plans for future sources of funding. Handling/pursuing donations, etc. – acknowledgement of donations through signage, benches, trees, etc.
    4. Plans for a canoe/kayak take-out/launch
    5. Further development and/or incorporation of “island” and other adjacent land for continued trail expansion.

 

Provided by Mark Glassmeyer

Buy Fairfax VFW and turn into park entrance / nature center.

  • Canoe racks by river.
  • Nature information sign (info for kids on things they may see).  Historical site info also on signs.
  • Plant a tree in kindergarten program.  Each incoming class at Mariemont Elementary plants a tree when they start…take photo…high school grad take picture by tree.  “Look how we have grown.”
  • Take back small field “out of play for Haffner” and use area for trees. = the “reforestation of that field.”
  • Solar farm for village…my wild hair idea…energy credit back to village for all…would make big news.

Provided by Andrew Seeger

  • JH cross country race’s
  • HS cross country race’s
  • Access to the island –  during the times of the year when water was low
  • I would like to add some trees in certain area’s
  • Look into getting some more marketing done / pins / patches / flags – I have attached a couple of picture’s related to places I have been with the outdoors in mind.  The pins are some National Parks and the patches mostly of parks and outside places. Maybe we could get the schools involved and have students as well as community send in ideas and drawing.
  • Very long term and Joe S. has been working on for a very long time is the tie into Bass Island / Wasson Way / Armleder Park tie in’s..

Provided by Jason Brownknight

Five Ideas for Potential Usage of South 80

1. Maintain as open green space with a wooded riparian zone in perpetuity.

2. Maintain safe hiking trails for multiple users such as nature lovers, solace seekers, runners, mountain bikers, dog walkers, education groups, and casual walkers.

3. Maintain community garden plots.

4. Opportunity to restore and enhance the natural landscape through tree planting, invasive species management, native forest regeneration, agricultural best management practices (BMPs), habitat management for wildlife (e.g., vernal pools and native grasslands.

5. Celebrate the natural and cultural history by providing space for educational programming (e.g., nature hikes, garden programs, exhibits, and school groups).

 

Mark Erhardt provided a brief assessment of the recent flooding.  There was no significant damage to the South 80, but there is a section of the Red (woods) trail which may require repair or re-routing due to being too close to the creek to the south.

Erhardt, Stelzer, and other Board members will complete an assessment of this section of trail when weather permits.

Doug Welsh provided an update on his work on organizing the Public Gardens.  Fees for plots will depend on whether we add a well for water that will make the plots more valuable.  We know that other community gardens charge fees substantially higher than Mariemont.  Preliminary research on installing a well in the gardens area are encouraging, so Mark Glassmeyer is going to conduct additional research and report back to the Board with a proposal at our February meeting.  Doug will submit two fee proposals for the Board to review: one which assumes that a well will be available to gardeners and one which assumes no change to current water access.

The Board and Mayor Policastro discussed whether additional asphalt scrapings would be needed for the field trails or new the gardens.  The Board recommends not adding any new asphalt scrapings at this time as the current scrapings are sufficient and additional asphalt could negatively impact the gardens.

The Board discussed options for tree planting and native tree reforestation.  There is interest in pursuing this and Jason Brownknight will provide an update on an upcoming regional reforestation meeting at our February meeting.

Due to limited time, we were unable to have a detailed discussion to review each Board member’s top five ideas for the South 80.  Since many submitted ideas in writing, they are attached to these notes and will be discussed at a future Board meeting.

Mariemont South 80 Acres

Thoughts on potential usage of Mariemont South 80 acres. Jason Brownknight, South 80 Advisory Committee Member

January 15, 2014

Notes on the Landscape

The South 80 is a community asset that increases the quality of life to residents and

visitors of Mariemont. The acreage, located along the National and State Scenic Little

Miami River, provides health benefits to park users and village residents by offering

green space for solace seekers, nature lovers, gardeners, dog walkers, and recreational

users. The landscape of the South 80 is of extreme importance. The Little Miami River

was the first National and State Scenic RIver in the United States. It is recognized as a

priority ecosystem by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

The South 80 landscape is a mosaic of cropland, riparian forest, and community

gardens. The width of the riparian zone provides a buffer strip along the river, overflow

channels, and tributaries. However, the riparian forest community is highly degraded

from an ecological perspective. The canopy is dominated by mature native species

such as cottonwood, sycamore, and sugar maple. The sub canopy layer is dominated

box elder, young maple, and green ash. The shrub layer is dominated by Amur “bush”

honeysuckle. The herbaceous layer is dominated by non-native invasive species such

as winter creeper, lesser celandine, poison hemlock, and garlic mustard. Other native

tree species include silver maple, hackberry and pignut hickory. Little native tree, shrub,

and herbaceous regeneration is occurring due to the presence of non-native invasive

species. Despite the condition of the riparian zone, it still provides benefits as forested

green space along the river. Opportunities to implement forest restoration and

preservation do exist; including funding sources for planning and implementation. The

cropland is managed well with good access.

The trails provide access into the riparian zone and to the river and traverse the

agricultural fields. They are made of two trails surfaces – natural and crushed blacktop.

The natural surfaces are dominated by sandy-loam soils therefore are soft and dry out

well. Only a few spots are holding standing water. The side slopes along the riparian

trail are well designed to promote water runoff. A couple of low spots holding water can

be considered seasonal routes or can be re-routed. Stream bank erosion is occurring

along the overflow channel and threatens the stability of some sections of the riparian

trail. The crushed blacktop provides a multi-use surface that keeps users out of the

mud.

The South 80 also provides habitat to a variety of wildlife including, but not limited to:

mammals such as White-tail deer, coyote, red and grey fox, beaver, woodchuc