By Patricia A. Scheyer
NKyTribune reporter
The city of Park Hills held a special meeting instead of a caucus meeting this week, and while no one walked out, and no one shouted at one another, council members were in serious disagreement.
Mayor Kathy Zembrodt had decided to have Attorney Daniel Braun draw up resolution 6 in order to put the Z21 issue to rest and induce the council members to get along. This resolution simply stated that resolution 5 was rescinded and that the city will stay with the Z21 plan they had before resolution 5 was even mentioned.
City Attorney Braun read the resolution, which was the only business listed on the agenda. The resolution cancels resolution 5 in its entirety, which was the resolution that initially started the standoff with council members. Resolution 5 added the RM zone, along with more density to the Z21 zoning plan that was sent to the Kenton County Planning and Zoning, or PDS. PDS recommended against the resolution and sent it back to the city.
Immediately after Braun read resolution 6, Council member Sarah Froelich motioned to substitute a resolution she created. It was immediately seconded, and Froelich proceeded to read her version, which was lengthy, and spoke about how resolution 6 was ‘procedurally flawed’ and repeals resolution 5, because it was ‘adopted without quorum’ and ‘created confusion and delay.’ It also called into question whether the developer of the Szechuan property can even apply for a map amendment due to the minimum acreage required. At one point it said this resolution doesn’t want to ‘rehash’ disagreements, but it did reiterate some disagreements, and then relayed the disapproval of the PDS staff, who at one point apparently likened resolution 5 to a ‘Trojan horse.’
There had been a problem among council members when the vote was originally taken on resolution 5 to send the resolution to PDS, because council member Froelich walked out just before the roll was called for a vote to send the resolution, and that created some doubt as to whether the council had a quorum, as they did in the first part of the meeting. Two council members were absent at that meeting. If Froelich walked out and had left the building, as she maintains, they did not have a quorum to pass the resolution. Other council members recalled that she was still in the room, so the vote would have been valid.
As a result of the confusion, a resident, Gretchen Stephenson, subsequently filed a complaint with the Kentucky Attorney General, and that office ruled in favor of the vote being legal.
However, Council member Froelich was not happy with the resolution the attorney wrote.
“This resolution is just not written the way it should be,” she stated.
Over the weekend prior to the meeting Froelich had submitted a few versions of how she thought the resolution should be worded to Attorney Braun and Mayor Zembrodt.
She had distributed her final version to all the council members over the weekend and at the meeting she called for a vote for her resolution to be passed instead of the one Attorney Braun had drawn up. Once motioned and seconded, Froelich made a speech, saying this resolution is about moving forward, and ended by imploring that they ‘put this behind us.’
Council member Laura Cardosi made a speech and then council member Emily Sayers made a speech, both echoing the sentiments expressed by Froelich, and underlining their view that resolution 5 was passed without quorum.
A vote was held and, as expected, 3 voted against the new version of the resolution, and 3 voted for the resolution. Apparently if a council vote ends in a tie it fails, unless the mayor steps in and breaks the tie.
Council member Pam Spoor spoke up, saying much the same message as Froelich, agreeing that ‘we need to get along, not only as council members, but as neighbors, and as people.’
“Right now our city looks frankly pretty radioactive to businesses and investors,” she said. “Just something to consider. It seems like there is not one single thing we can undertake as a council where we agree on the direction of our city. I don’t understand why this enmity exists. We love our city, we want to do good things for it. Isn’t there anything we can agree on?”
A motion and a second was made for the resolution authored by Attorney Braun.
Again, the vote was split, 3 to 3.
Mayor Zembrodt was able to step in and break the tie. A few council members objected, saying she could not break a tie on a zoning matter, but Zembrodt told them she talked to Braun and to PDS and because the resolution was not a zoning matter, it was reducing a request made to PDS, and it repealed a previous resolution, so she was permitted to break the tie.
“We can disagree on things, but we can’t paralyze our city,” stated Spoor after the vote.
“This is what I was trying to achieve the whole time,” Froelich responded, unhappy because she felt her version of the resolution was the better version. “What I put together was very thoughtful. Language is important.”
The meeting was subsequently adjourned.