Finance - January 21st 2014

MINUTES OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, January 21, 2014 – 7:30 p. m.
Main Conference Room – Mayfield Village Civic Center

The Finance Committee meeting was held on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 in the Main Conference Room at the Mayfield Village Civic Center.  Mr. Delguyd called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

(Click here for a print friendly/pdf document)

Present: Mr. Marrie, Mr. Marquardt, Dr. Parker and Mr. Delguyd

Also Present: Mrs. Mills, Mr. Jerome, Chief Edelman, Mr. Metzung, Mr. Wynne, Mr. Thomas, Chief Carcioppolo, Ms. Wolgamuth, Mr. Esborn, Mr. Dinardo and Mrs. Betsa

ELECTION OF CHAIR

Mr. Marrie nominated Mr. Delguyd as Chair of the Finance Committee for 2014.  Mr. Marquardt seconded.  Mr. Delguyd will serve as Chair of the Finance Committee for 2014.

Mr. Delguyd stated that the Finance Committee has asked that when the agendas  are put together, that the new items are clearly highlighted on the Finance Committee agenda if it is has not been discussed at Caucus. 

Mr. Marquardt added, Caucus and the Committee meeting are part of due diligence. Adding items in between; get your act together and get it on the Caucus.  It is then reviewed there and at Committee.  If it is truly an emergency or something that has popped up, okay.  If you can’t get it on the Caucus, wait until the next cycle unless it is an emergency.  Keep them numbered so we know what has been added.  Put it at the bottom.

1: Discussion of a motion to authorize an expenditure in the amount of $38,175 to Community Partnership on Aging for renewal of Senior Services for 2014.

Mr. Delguyd stated, this was discussed fairly extensively at Caucus. 

Mr. Thomas stated, hopefully that packet we put together explains it in detail.  We hope that answers some of the questions.

Mr. Delguyd replied, it answers what the services are.

Ms. Wolgamuth added, and how the fees are calculated.

Mr. Delguyd asked, where is that by the way?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, in the first chart it has population and percentage of the total. They take their working budget. We pay 5% of their total budget for the year versus the other cities.  In the Annual Report, they show their yearly expenses. The breakdown of the $38,000 is very difficult because when you have full membership, you have the transportation, you have the social work, you have those individual programs. But when you have full membership, you also participate in all the programming.  If you look at the original proposal, she has set out numbers to go with the transportation and social work but then there’s an increased number with full membership. That’s not broken down.  I understand it is confusing.  It is the way they do it.

Mr. Marquardt asked, so it means that we are either subsidizing, because I don’t believe we are getting $38,000 worth of service from what I read, so we are either subsidizing the other communities or they are operating inefficiently?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, I think they only have three full-time staff. They certainly do not have a lot of staff. They have a lot of volunteers.

Mr. Marquardt stated, if what I am saying is correct, we are not really getting $38,000 worth of service.

Ms. Wolgamuth asked, how do you define that?

Mr. Marquardt replied, look at what services are provided. I  didn’t see $38,000.

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, because it’s not based on services provided.  It’s based on availability of services.

Mr. Marquardt stated, my point is I don’t think we are getting our monies worth.

Mr. Delguyd stated, he’s saying we are not using it.

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, I understand. One of the questions was utilization so I did go back because I knew she had given it to me.  The other cities’ utilization, the highest one is South Euclid.  20% of their senior population use the services.  With our 138 people who used it this year, we are at 12.8%.

Mr. Marquardt asked, so maybe the allocation should be based on utilization and the population?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, I don’t think they can do it based on utilization.

Dr. Parker does not think it would work out to our favor. We are paying 5% to have 12% of our population participate.

Mr. Marquardt replied, it wouldn’t work out the same because you have it factored by the number of people in the community. You would have to use both factors to get a fair number.

Mr. Marrie stated, South Euclid has been at it for –

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, since 1978.  They have done it this way since 1978.

Mr. Marrie stated, they have been at it a lot longer than we have. They are only at 20% and ours is at 12%.  Maybe we are not getting our money’s worth, but maybe what we have to do is promote it more so we do get it.  But it’s only a year and a half old.

Mr. Delguyd asked, what about Mayfield Heights?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, 12% of their senior population.

Mr. Wynne added, they joined around the same time we did.

Mr. Delguyd stated, a lot of their senior housing provides these services on their own as part of rent and utilities.  If they can provide a breakdown of the $38,000, we can take an educated look at it and say, if I am looking at the original proposal of $58,000, the way they broke it down they had full membership.

Mr. Thomas added, social services at 35%, volunteer services at 14%, transportation 26%.  That comes up to 75%.

Mr. Delguyd asked, as a full member, you are paying a lump sum and it’s not ala carte?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, right, but we could choose that.

Mr. Delguyd stated, the use I saw we were using in terms of the programming and volunteers and social services work I thought was good. We got value there.  It was transportation that I thought, we are using it for 3 individuals 3-4 times a week and then 15 individuals once a week.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, it’s just a decision of whether or not you want to provide it.

Dr. Parker stated, look at the amount, $38,000.  I don’t want to get into what we paid Eunice or how much it would cost us to hire a professional to do some of the services they do.  It also comes down to quality of life for the existing people we have here. We have a large senior population.

Mr. Thomas replied, 1,200.

Dr. Parker added, at this point, I think for $38,000, give it another year and see how it is. We try to promote it.  We could go out and try to reinvent the wheel but by the time we spend all that time and money and figure it out, we could have done this already.

Mr. Delguyd agreed.  The fact of what we paid Eunice, the reason it is relevant is we are not going to go back to paying someone $60,000 when we are getting the same value for $38,000.  That’s silly.  To go out and rehire these services is clearly going to be more expensive.

Mr. Marrie stated, Bill and I went back and forth on that last time.  Eunice is gone, but the point is that this $38,000 is far less than what we were paying and we are getting a lot more.  Although what Bill was asking, putting a dollar amount to each one is very hard.  I wrote down the three things to find out what the percentage was.  I came up with almost the same numbers as Bill did.  75% of that $38,000 was not going directly to us.  It isn’t administrative or anything else. For $38,000 I think it is money well spent for the seniors.  I really do. It would be nice and I think we should strive to get as Bill had mentioned an actual number to put maybe on some of these areas like transportation or social services.  I think it’s money well spent for seniors for $38,000 considering what we do in a lot of other areas.

Mr. Delguyd suggested we give it another year.  The transportation, you are saying there’s 138 seniors using it?

Ms. Wolgamuth referred to the chart on the second page that breaks out the usage for each of those.

Mr. Delguyd stated, we have a lot more than 138 seniors.  That’s the 12%.

Mr. Marquardt proposed that they revise the allocation process by population and utilization. That would come out with a fair number.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, it is run by a COG. We are part of that.

Mr. Delguyd stated, we can ask for it.

Dr. Parker stated, we may open up a can of worms that we don’t like. Let’s first see how we can drive our utilization up.  Let’s first see whether we feel there is more value than we think there is now.  Now that we have some time under our belt.  It’s a good idea if we find it doesn’t make sense, but what if we open up their eyes to the fact that, maybe we should be charging Mayfield Village more than 5%.  Maybe they are paying too little really for what they are getting.

Mr. Delguyd stated, at the end of the day we are going to be at the mercy of their proposal.

Mr. Marquardt stated, at a lower percentage than you are now.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, but if we get to 20% utilization, we are still only at 200 some people and that’s the maximum. These are communities that have been doing it for 30 years. The expectation is you are not going to get 50 or 60 or 70% of your seniors using the program.

Mr. Marrie stated, but it’s available for them if they want it. That has to carry some weight.

Mr. Delguyd stated, particularly in the professional services, social services, having that available is worth it. The transportation I look at it as 18 people, 3 regularly, 15 once a week.  If that’s a cost they can break out.  If $20,000 of that is transportation.

Mr. Marrie stated, transportation is combined, but that’s 26%.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, I think that’s what they end up paying the transportation company to be available to pick people up.  They are not paying for utilization. They are paying for the availability.

Mr. Jerome stated, it’s like insurance.  You never need it unless you get in a car accident or something.  It’s there, something you can rely on. That’s part of the cost.

Mr. Marrie stated, I think transportation is possibly one we can look at, whether it’s being used and what we are being charged.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, maybe we can cut the transportation piece out.

Mr. Delguyd stated, that sounds like the only thing you can single out. Of the $38,000, what’s the transportation?

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, and I could ask her if we were going to drop transportation, what would our cost be?

Mr. Wynne stated, before we signed on with these guys, Eunice and I took a ride out to West 150th, Senior Transportation.  We had them put together a proposal.  It was $25,000 a year just for transportation.

Dr. Parker stated, that was my recollection when we looked at transportation.  It seemed like it was an awful lot of money to spend on a small population.  A whole lot of money.

Mr. Delguyd asked, meaning what Ron just talked about?

Dr. Parker replied, right.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, when we combined it with all these other services, that’s when it becomes more worthwhile because it’s not just transportation. We can’t even do Meals on Wheels unless we  have a social worker who will go and assess the house and make recommendations. So, to be a community who doesn’t have social workers, people can’t get Meals on Wheels.

Mr. Delguyd suggested we recommend approval this year.  I would hope that by the next meeting we would have the transportation number. I would also suggest a six month analysis of use.

Mrs. Mills stated, she does that. She gives us a half year report. Stacy is very good with that. She was at our Commission on Aging meeting.

Mr. Delguyd stated, I don’t think anyone in this room argues the benefit, particularly the social services and programs.  I am more interested in the transportation. We are clearly going to have social services for Meals on Wheels. There are things we are paying for here that are allowing us to do other programs.  It’s worth it.

The Committee recommended Item #1 for approval.

2: Discussion of a motion to authorize an expenditure in the amount of $15,000 to OneCommunity for annual subscription and fiber maintenance fee for 2014.

Mr. Esborn reported, I talked to Jeff Thomas about this the day of Caucus last week.  He had no additional comment.  He basically just said this is our internet and phones.  It’s been an annual expense.  It has been the same since we started with OneCommunity.

Mr. Marrie asked, it’s fiber also for Beta?

Mr. Esborn replied, that’s right.  Not only is it our internet and our phones, but it also fuels our fiber optic network which has Panzica, Mayfran, QED and us.  They pay fees to OneCommunity for that service. We spend the $15,000 each year. We make some of that back from our users.  Those funds are stored in an account at OneCommunity. They can be used either to expand our network and I just talked with a property owner on Beta today about expanding the network, or we could use it to pay our bills. It’s there. We do get payback each year. As our network grows, we keep paying $15,000 but we get more in fees.

Dr. Parker asked, why don’t more people use it?

Mr. Esborn met today with the owners of the Beta Center. We have connections to three commercial properties right now.  The biggest problem the whole time has been a business wants access to fiber, their interest in it alone doesn’t justify that owner to pay to run the line from the street to the building.

Mr. Delguyd clarified, the building owner, not the business.

Mr. Esborn replied, right. Which is why, especially with the Beta Center, it might justify spending some of our funds dollars.

Dr. Parker stated, that’s where I am going.  I look at that and remember when we discussed it how it was going to create this technology park.  I don’t know that it has or that it is effectively attracting – we obviously have QED, that’s another story, - but attracting, we have empty warehousing space there.  Does it make sense to, we put a lot of money into a lot of things, is this something that will potentially generate income?  Is there any way to get funding through the government or someone who would help us to pay for this so we can spread this out amongst areas and get higher utilization and attract new businesses?

Mr. Esborn replied, it was through the County initially that we were able to put the fiber on Beta Drive. What it might take honestly, we have a situation now where if we, through the funds we have at OneCommunity, if we were to dedicate more of those, it might not take that to convince these property owners to wire all of their buildings.  If they are left to their own, they are going to say, well, that’s not really worth it until we have enough people interested in it.

Mr. Delguyd asked, how much does it take to wire a building?

Mr. Esborn replied, $15,000.

Mr. Delguyd asked, from the street to the building?

Mr. Esborn replied, that just goes to a building. For instance, Beta Center, four buildings, probably would be about $12,000 to get to one building, about $20,000 for all four. 

Mr. Delguyd asked, plus wiring the whole building?

Mr. Esborn replied, I don’t know.  Probably.

Mr. Delguyd asked, how much do we have at OneCommunity?

Mr. Esborn replied, $17,400. We are getting to the point where we could do something significant. I  know we would want to be equitable in future situations. That’s where we are at. I am having conversations with the property owners.

Mr. Marquardt stated, maybe they are making smart business decisions.  They don’t see any demand for it.  Not everyone needs that kind of stuff.

Mr. Delguyd replied, financial companies don’t like being tied into governmental. They want their own. 

Dr. Parker asked, isn’t it just like using an internet connection?  If you are using Time-Warner or someone else, it’s not that different.  It’s just an internet.

Mr. Esborn agreed.

Dr. Parker stated, maybe the wrong businesses are in Beta Drive right now to utilize it. Correct me if I am wrong, maybe technology isn’t the type of business we want to attract there, but how do you attract them unless there’s some easy accessibility to this kind of stuff?  I know people who are into that kind of stuff. They would come to this area if they had that kind of high speed ability.  If it’s not available, maybe it’s worth for them to pay for it, maybe they don’t know it’s there.

Mr. Esborn stated, one of the problems is these property owners do have decent occupancy with non-tech companies. These are companies that have been there 10-20 years.

Mr. Delguyd stated, so they are saying why am I going to invest?  I won’t rewire until 60% of my tenants demand it.

Mr. Marquardt recommend we approve this item and save this discussion for something else.

The Committee recommended Item #2 for approval.

3: Discussion of a motion to authorize an expenditure in the amount of $7,500 to CodeRed for 3-year weather notifications.

Chief Edelman reported, this is the add-on for weather notification. We approved the emergency notification at the end of last year.  We want to do unlimited minutes on that.  We just got the invoice for this part of it.  It’s a separate part of the whole Code Red system.

Mr. Wynne clarified, it’s not $7,500 for three years, it’s $7,500 total - $2,500 a year, which is the same amount we paid for the past three years.

Mr. Delguyd asked, is this in the budget?

Mr. Wynne replied, yes.

The Committee recommended Item #3 for approval.

4: Discussion of a motion to authorize an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $15,000 to City of Bedford Heights Jail for prisoner housing for 2014.

Chief Edelman reported, this is for 2014.  As last year, toward the end of the year, we may go over and I will have to come back to Council to request additional funding.

The Committee recommended Item #4 for approval.

5: Discussion of a motion to authorize expenditure in the amount of $8,217.44 to Division of Water for Annual Hydrant Fee for 2014.

The Committee recommended Item #5 for approval.

6: Discussion of a motion to authorize expenditure in the amount of $5,000 to City of Mayfield Heights for Hillcrest Mobile Air Unit and Tech Rescue Team/MAUTRT Annual Fee – 2014.

The Committee recommended Item #6 for approval.

7: Discussion of a motion to authorize an expenditure in the amount of $6,660.00 to Shannon Electric for fixtures for exterior Fire Station.

Chief Carcioppolo reported, this was added on.  It came up last year.  They didn’t submit a finalized quote.   More than half of the back parking lot lights are out. We called Shannon Electric to fix them. Some of them were corroded to the point where they couldn’t fix the head. It’s old. They can’t replace those heads. This is something orchestrated through the Building Department overseeing it.  The manufacturer is offering a two for one deal.  They will give you two heads for the price of one.  It’s less expensive than when the promotion is not going on.  The $360 is labor to install. We can use the heads from the back parking lot that are in good condition to fix the ones in the front if they break. The front lights will not match the back lights.  These are LED lights.  They are energy efficient.  The promo ends in February.

The Committee recommended Item #7 for approval.

8: Discussion of a motion to authorize an expenditure in the amount of $5,500 to Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District for 2014 Annual Appropriation of Euclid Creek Watershed Coordinator.

The Committee recommended Item #8 for approval.

9: Discussion of a motion to authorize an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $17,200 to Progressive Fitness Center for 2014 memberships for residents (pass through).

The Committee recommended Item #9 for approval.

10: Discussion of a motion to approve an expenditure in the amount of $4,885.96 to the Village Prosecutor for 2013 legal fees.  This amount is above the amount previously authorized in Resolution No. 2013-05 - $23,871.56

The Committee recommended Item #10 for approval.

11. Discussion of a motion to fund the Medical Expense Reimbursement Plan for 2014.

Mr. Delguyd asked, this is $175,000?  Mr. Wynne replied, yes.

The Committee recommended Item #11 for approval.

12: Discussion of a motion to authorize expenditure in the amount of $6,090.00 to Creative Microsystems, Inc. for 2014 support for Finance and Payroll Systems.

The Committee recommended Item #12 for approval.

13: Discussion of a motion to authorize the Mayor to enter into a 60 month lease with Neopost USA for  digital mailing system, including equipment maintenance, rate change protection, installation and training at $407.87 a month.

The Committee recommended Item #13 for approval.

14: Discussion of a motion to accept donation by Progressive Insurance of pavilion and paver terrace and to assist with landscaping the area adjacent to the Mayfield Village Soccer Field Restroom Facility and Site Improvement Project and to authorize expenditure in the amount of $22,589.00 to Miracle Midwest in payment of pavilion and paver terrace.

Ms. Wolgamuth clarified, the $22,589 is only to buy the pavilion kit. We will buy the kit. They will pay us back. They will put up the kit. They will do the paver terrace and all that separately.

Mr. Delguyd asked, they, being Progressive?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, yes. Their crew is going to have it done.  They will pour the cement for the pad and do a paved terrace.

Mr. Marquardt asked, there’s no net cost to the Village?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, no.

The Committee recommended Item #14 for approval.

15: Discussion of a motion to authorize the Service Director to seek proposals to demolish the house located at 6128 Wilson Mills Road.

Mr. Delguyd asked, which one is that?

Mr. Metzung replied, the second one next to the High School.

The Committee recommended Item #15 for approval.

16: Discussion of a motion to authorize expenditure in the amount of $7,884.00 to Carlson Service Company for cleaning the police station for 2014.

Chief Edelman reported, this is the same cost as last year.  It’s an annual expense.

The Committee recommended Item #16 for approval.

17: Discussion of a motion to acknowledge receipt of financial reports for December 2013 and to approve of same as submitted.

Mr. Delguyd asked if there were any questions.  Ron, any highlights?

Mr. Wynne replied, I have a bunch of highlights. I will go over it in Council.

The Committee recommended Item #17 for approval.

18: Discussion of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2014-01, entitled, “An emergency ordinance establishing the compensation of the Animal Warden for Mayfield Village, Ohio”  Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.

The Committee recommended Item #18 for approval.

19: Discussion of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2014-02, entitled, “An emergency ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor to enter into an amendment to Appendix B to the Billing Services Agreement with Life Force Management, Inc.”  Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.

Mr. Wynne stated, if you want to leave this on for three reads you can.  If you pass it tonight, they can start billing for the co-pays and deductibles right away.

Dr. Parker stated, we might as well pass it tonight.  It is a time-sensitive thing.

The Committee recommended Item #19 for approval.

20: Discussion of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2014-03, entitled, “An emergency ordinance amending Codified Ordinance Section 1523.91(c) relating to the recovery of costs for emergency services provided to non-residents.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.

The Committee recommended Item #20 for approval.

21: Discussion of Resolution No. 2014-01, entitled, “An emergency resolution confirming the reappointment of Ronald Wynne as the Director of Finance for Mayfield Village, Ohio and establishing the terms, conditions and compensation. ” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.

The Committee recommended Item #21 for approval.

22: Discussion of Resolution No. 2014-02, entitled, “An emergency resolution confirming the appointment of Mary E. Betsa, as Clerk of Council.”  Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.

The Committee recommended Item #22 for approval.

23: Discussion of Resolution No. 2014-03, entitled, “An emergency resolution providing for the employment of an Engineer for Mayfield Village, Ohio.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.

The Committee recommended Item #23 for approval.

24: Discussion of Resolution No. 2014-04, entitled, “An emergency resolution re-establishing the terms, conditions and compensation for the services of the Prosecutor for Mayfield Village, Ohio.”  Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.

The Committee recommended Item #24 for approval.

25: Discussion of Resolution No. 2014-05, entitled, “An emergency resolution re-establishing the terms, conditions and compensation for the services of the Director of Law and Assistant Director of Law for Mayfield Village, Ohio.”  Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.

The Committee recommended Item #25 for approval.

26: Discussion of Resolution No. 2014-06, entitled, “An emergency resolution providing for the employment of a municipal architect for Mayfield Village, Ohio according to Ordinance No. 70.7 and Section 1301.03 of the Codified Ordinances.”  Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.

The Committee recommended Item #26 for approval.

ANY OTHER MATTERS

Mr. Delguyd asked if there were any other matters.  There were none.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary E. Betsa,
Clerk of Council