Finance Caucus: July 6th 2015

Monday, July 6, 2015 – 7:15 p.m.
Main Conference Room
Mayfield Village Civic Center

 The Finance Caucus Committee meeting was held on July 6, 2015 in the Main Conference Room at Mayfield Village Civic Center. Mr. Saponaro called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.

Present: Mr. Saponaro, Mr. Marquardt and Mr. Marrie

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

1. New server – Police Department (TAC Management Co. - $8,084.00).

Mr. Wynne reported, I spoke with the Chief on this. The server is about 4-5 years old. In speaking with Jeff Thomas, that’s about the normal life we get out of these. This is something we would have planned on replacing regardless of whether we kept dispatch or consolidated. It’s part of dispatch’s capital budget. The Chief and Jeff both confirmed that it’s about time to replace.

2. Promotional testing for Police Sergeant (Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police – not to exceed $10,385.00).

Mr. Saponaro referred to the Minutes of the Civil Service Commission where this was discussed. They do both forms of testing whereas the other ones only do the written and not the oral examination. They felt it was important to have both.

Mr. Marrie stated, our Chief felt very strong about that.

Mr. Saponaro stated, the Civil Service Commission agreed as well.

Mr. Jerome asked, what is an alternative? Before this existed, what would you do? People just interview and pick people?

Mr. Saponaro stated, we have always had to go out for testing through a third party so you remove yourself and anything that may exist there.

Mr. Jerome stated, so this is something that has always been this way?

Mr. Saponaro stated, what the Chief was saying on this was because they do both types of testing it makes the most sense. You have to pass the written examination in order to go to the oral. The cost is a not to exceed because we don’t know how many are going to take it.

Mr. Jerome stated, there might be someone else that might cost a little less, but what you are saying is if you are going to go through it, you want to have both to put the right person in there.

Mr. Wynne stated, this was not a budgeted item. This individual decided to retire eaerlier than expected. We expected this person to retire next year. In addition, we are still working up the final numbers, between $40,000-50,000 of accruals, which we will need to pay out to this individual.

Mr. Saponaro asked, again not budgeted?

Mr. Wynne replied, not budgeted.

Mr. Saponaro stated, because it was anticipated for 2016.

Mr. Wynne replied, correct.

3. Advertise for bids for sale of two police vehicles.

Chief Edelman reported, these are the old cars we had replaced in the beginning of the year.

Mr. Wynne stated, there will be a third vehicle, the old Building Department vehicle.

Mr. Metzung stated, if we wait a month, I will have some trucks to go.

Mr. Saponaro asked, is it better to do the bids all in one?

Mr. Metzung stated, it’s easier for Mary Beth if we did it all at once.

Mr. Saponaro asked, do you have room to put the cars somewhere for now?

Mr. Metzung replied, yes.

Mr. Saponaro stated, if it makes the most sense, why not?

Mr. Jerome asked, what about the Mazda, are you getting rid of that?

Mr. Metzung replied, I would love to. Does the pool need it?

Mr. Thomas replied, we are using the golf cart now.

Mr. Metzung stated, then that goes as well.

Mr. Saponaro stated, we can wait and do it all together.

4. Air compressor and carbon monoxide monitor (not to exceed $28,000).

Chief Carcioppolo reported, our air compressor is 20 plus years old. It is what we use to fill our self-contained breathing apparatus. I have been keeping money in the capital budget to replace it in the event it breaks. Because of its age, we have been having difficulty procuring parts to fix it. Last year I spent $1,500 on parts. It took a month and a half to get because the part was stuck on a boat somewhere coming here. It broke again. It’s time to replace it. Our fill station is made by the same company, Bauer. That’s newer, so bottles sit in the fill station that’s designed in case when you are filling it and the bottle ruptures it won’t explode and hit people with shrapnel. That’s still okay. The actual cascade bottles, which are the larger bottles that hold the volume of compressed air to fill the smaller backpack units we wear are fine. They are steel and can be reused. The only thing this is for is the actual air compressor. $20,000 was budgeted but with the carbon monoxide sensor, the cheapest quote was $24,220. It uses ambient air and is in the apparatus base. If there’s a problem with the hot water heater or the diesel exhaust removal system which is going to probably be on the agenda next year to be replaced because it might not be working appropriately, so the carbon monoxide from the vehicles starting and turning off and then the utilities in the building, it needs to be able to sense that.

Mr. Jerome asked, it doesn’t take air from the outside?

Chief Carcioppolo replied, no.

Mr. Jerome asked, it takes it from the inside of the building?

Chief Carcioppolo replied, yes.

Mr. Marrie stated, but the carbon monoxide is not tied in with just a compressor?

Chief Carcioppolo replied, for this it is. It senses all the air. The air has to be tested and recorded which we do. We receive a certificate to make sure the moisture levels are right and that there’s exactly the correct percentages of nitrogen and oxygen and other inner gases. It needs a sensing capability on it.

Mr. Saponaro asked, are we going with Breathing Air Systems out of Reynoldsburg?

Chief Carcioppolo replied yes. There are people who have been servicing everything. It makes sense.

Mr. Saponaro asked, they blacked out the warranty?

Chief Carcioppolo checked the original. It’s highlighted in red. It just copied and came out black.

Mr. Jerome asked, the first one is $24,207.30 out the door?

Chief Carcioppolo replied, yes. With shipping.

Mr. Saponaro stated, so it’s really going to be not to exceed $24,207.30, or $24,300.

Mr. Jerome asked, what are some other options of testing the air? Do you have any filter for the air in general in there?

Chief Carcioppolo replied, that filters the air.

Mr. Jerome replied, just for that unit, not the whole space itself.

Chief Carcioppolo asked, for the apparatus bay?

Mr. Jerome replied, yes, maybe the apparatus bay, but the doors open and close so much and the air changes a lot in the winter time.

Chief Carcioppolo replied, we have an exhaust system. The company that made it is based out of Canada. They don’t make it any more.

Mr. Jerome asked, you have some new systems you are looking at for next year maybe?

Chief Carcioppolo replied, yes. We have a surplus of these parts that we have been bootlegging on there to get it to work. It’s 25 years old.

Mr. Saponaro stated, put it in the budget.

5. Fireworks – 2016-2018 (American Fireworks - $10,000 for 2016; $10,250 for 2017; $10,500 for 2018).

Mr. Saponaro stated, Bill, you talked about fireworks during Safety and Service. To recap, this is the quote you received from American Fireworks in Hudson for three years. You are also going to go back to Zambelli and see what their pricing is?

Mr. Thomas replied, correct. Absolutely.

Mr. Saponaro asked, and Zambelli is out of Pennsylvania?

Mr. Thomas replied, correct.

Mr. Saponaro asked, any questions on that? There were none.

6. New GMC Sierra 1500 (1/2 ton pick-up) for building maintenance (Collection Auto Group - $20,978.50).

Mr. Saponaro stated, this was discussed in Safety and Service. It’s a new GMC with better capabilities, a light duty truck for easier getting in and out with better storage for equipment, correct?

Mr. Metzung replied, correct.

Mr. Saponaro asked, and the current one right now?

Mr. Metzung replied, currently we use a Ford Econoline van. It’s going to go right to the junkyard.

7. Purchase and installation of plows and safety lighting for three new-pick ups (Best Truck Equipment - $18,374.91).

Mr. Saponaro stated, this was what was over budget by $8050. Any questions or discussion? There was none.

8. Winter salt program (1,500 tons at $52.98 per ton – Cargill).

Mr. Saponaro stated, this was discussed at Safety and Service. With the winter and summer fill, it averages to about $66 per ton. Any discussion? There was none.

9. Senior Snow Removal Program (2015-2016).

Mr. Thomas stated, we start the process now by going out to bid.

Mr. Saponaro stated, what I noticed on the program itself is that we allow the opt-out to go pretty far in to the season. Is there any reason for that? Is there any advantage or disadvantage?

Mr. Metzung stated, when we first got into the opting out program, people were coming to us late in the year. That was a way of saying, we are booked, if you find someone we will reimburse you, or people were complaining after a snowstorm and they wanted out immediately.

Mr. Saponaro asked, if we determine we need “x” amount of drives done and then we get a slew of people who opt out, these guys have bid based on a certain amount, do we reduce it for them or is that a guarantee?

Mrs. Mills stated, what he is basing his figures on is the number who opted in.

Mr. Thomas asked, we were under with all of them, right?

Mrs. Betsa replied, we went over on one.

Mr. Saponaro stated, by about $9.75. Anything else on this? There were no further comments.

10. Proposed legislation – incentive agreements.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, Ted is on vacation returning tomorrow. He has been working with the Law Department and Ron to develop the legislation and agreements. If there are any specific questions, I would be happy to have him prepare a follow up memo for Friday packets.

Mr. Saponaro stated, I talked with Mark Guidetti for about a half hour on the phone to clean up the agreement. One of the things that need clarification from my standpoint is MCIC is the payment mechanism. The Village funds to them, but there’s language in here that has not included them. I told Mark we need to explain who they are in this agreement. They are akin to a third-party administrator, so we need to spell that out in here. We have some duplicative definitions that I discussed with Mark. The other thing is in the agreement, we go to RITA and get the report from RITA. In order to tell them they are deficient, we have already gotten the report. Plus we don’t have a timeframe. If you object to it, you have ‘x’ amount of days within receipt of the report from the Village or from MCIC. Who would be giving the report? I would imagine if MCIC is going to be administering it, they are going to be collecting the report, so I think you have to look at that standpoint.

Ms. Wolgamuth asked, you have talked to Mark about all those things?

Mr. Saponaro replied, no. It’s in the Minutes for a reason. I told Mark I was going to bring this up. It can be addressed this way.

Mr. Saponaro continued, with regard to the termination language, we give each other 60 days to terminate for whatever reason and then we narrow it by saying we can terminate for this reason. I am concerned about that. We need 60 days both ways. Ron, you worked on it as well. I think there’s a conflict with regard to the termination clause. We have a broad 60 days to terminate, it doesn’t matter what the reason is and it’s either side. If we choose to terminate, then they have to pay back if they have not met the requirement, but that leads to a different question which is, so if they are deficient in year one, what do we request them to pay back?

Mr. Jerome asked, do you have to wait until year 5?

Mr. Saponaro stated, do you have to wait for the aggregate. The way it is written is the aggregate of the income tax revenue for the term, the difference between that and the aggregate minimum income tax revenue for the term. We are kind of waiting until the end but that doesn’t make sense if we can terminate it in 60 days.

Mr. Jerome stated, the one thing I talked to Ted about was it’s a double edge sword. Every community is offering credits. They may decide to go to Mayfield Village and see if they can get some money back. For example, Freedonia, we are going to do a 5 year plan with them. Is it worth putting language in that they can’t apply for this again for another 5 years after that? Every 10 years they can reapply. They only get the grant for 5 years.

Mr. Saponaro stated, they can apply again. It doesn’t mean they will meet the requirements or the funding will be available. I would not advise keeping them from it because what you are doing is is penalizing someone who has received it and so that funding can sit there and no one can apply for it and no one gets it. If it’s available and they meet the requirements, it shouldn’t matter. If they meet the purpose of what the grant is there for, it shouldn’t matter. We have no automatic right to give it, plus we can terminate at any time. If they are not meeting the requirements, we can terminate. In Freedonia, we are getting 30% in 2016. The payment date is not until April 2017. We have this budget and next year’s to go through. If we terminate it, then whatever they have received because they have not met the minimum, they have to give it back. You are going to be able to capture it.

Mr. Jerome asked, let’s say in 2020, they come back to us and want to do the same thing for another five years?

Mr. Marrie stated, you can say no.

Mr. Saponaro stated, you can say yes or no.

Mr. Jerome asked, do you think it’s a bad idea to say you can’t apply?

Mr. Saponaro stated, it kind of frustrates the purpose of economic development from this standpoint up here because if you are saying everyone come to the table and if you meet the requirements, here’s the pot of money. If you are all looking for it, we may not be able to grant it for all of you, but we want to seriously look at everything.

Mr. Jerome stated, the ones who are applying, if they meet the requirements.

Mr. Saponaro stated, if we want to accommodate 10 companies instead of 5, we may not give as much. It will be on a case by case basis. That’s why I think you don’t want to limit that part of it. Some of the language in the QED one is what they asked for specifically. They want it a certain way. If it doesn’t make sense in terms of defined terms and things of that nature, we will have to clean that up. There’s work to be done on the agreement. This is what Mark told me was to be expected. This is the first run. Everyone expected there to be questions. Also, in the Default/Remedy section, MCIC was not listed at all. We are not concerned about them defaulting. They are the payment arm. But if there’s a default they can be affected by it because if the funds start to come back to them and they are not getting them, they are directing the fund, they have to be included in that. I talked to Mark about this. Tell Ted I will be happy to go through my comments with him if he wants.   Does anyone have any other comments on that? There were none.

11. Business Insurance Coverages for policy year 7/1/15-6/30/15 (Wichert Insurance - $82,365.00 – straw vote approved 6-29-15).

Mr. Wynne reported, $85,000 was budgeted for this.   Of the $82,365, we will be billing between $3,000-4,000 of it back to the Hillcrest Tech Rescue Team and the Fire Investigation Unit, bringing it down to about $78,000-79,000. Last year we paid about $77,000.

12. RITA Cost of Collections.

Mr. Wynne reported, every month, every dollar that RITA collects for us, they keep 3% of it for their administrative expenses. After the year is done, they do a reconciliation of the actual expenses and we get a refund for the excess cost we have paid. We budgeted to receive $200,000. We received $299,000. They collect 3%. Their actual cost of collections this year was 1.11%. Last year it was 1.07%, so the cost has been pretty constant.

Mr. Marquardt asked, why don’t they adjust their percentages?

Mr. Wynne stated, that’s what RITA has as the percentages.

13. Tax Budget 2016.

Mr. Wynne reported, this is on the Special Meeting agenda for this evening. We are required by July 15th to pass a temporary budget for next year and submit it to the County by July 20th. It’s a real rough budget for next year. The County’s main concern is to make sure we have enough funds coming in to meet our debt obligations for next year. This is not our normal budget by any means.

Mr. Saponaro asked, are there any questions on this? There were none.


Mr. Saponaro asked, are there any other matters?

Providing an update on the community room, Ms. Wolgamuth reported, we had another interior finishes meeting last Thursday. It was really a recap of the prior meeting. There were not a lot of changes. Everyone seems very happy with all of the interior finishes. TDA is trying to be pretty careful about staying within budget. There are a set of plans they brought over for Ron to take a look at. They are hoping to go out to bid in the next couple weeks.

Mr. Saponaro asked, the furniture is going to be bid separately?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, yes.

Mr. Saponaro stated, they pulled out certain things that will be bid separately, correct?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, right. The furnishings are not going to be bid. They felt we should buy that directly.

Mr. Saponaro asked, Ron, you will be reviewing that?

Mr. DiNardo replied, yes.

Mr. Saponaro asked, when will we have a report on how we are going to bid this? Once we review it and go back to them, they will put all the specs together?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, right. They are working on the specs right now. Once we have that whole packet, I think we will get it electronically, we will be able to share it with everyone at that point. I would anticipate if it goes forward as planned we should have bids by some time in August that we can bring here.

Mr. Marquardt asked, the furniture, do they put it on-line?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, if they did it as part of the bid, there would be mark-up.

Mr. Marquardt asked, you would just do it through local distribution?

Mr. Saponaro replied, they have all these sourcing companies they utilize. It might be out of state. There are two or three of those companies in-state. A lot of the factories they come from is North Carolina.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, I am not really sure how that would work, whether they give us a list of items and whether or not it is up to us to purchase them. Are we bidding all those items as a package?

Mr. DiNardo replied, remember, the furnishings are tables, chairs. We can buy those direct if we need to. When we bought the chairs for the stage area, John and I just went through it and ordered it direct. There are ways to save money by going direct.

Mr. Saponaro asked, is there anything about the size of the package that would require us to go out to bid for something along those lines?

Mr. DiNardo replied, no, not for tables and chairs.

Mr. Saponaro stated, but you are talking tables, chairs, couches, outside furniture, movable stuff.

Mr. Wynne stated, if you think it is going to be over $25,000 then we have to go out to bid.

Mr. Jerome stated, it depends on if you want to buy everything at once.

Mr. DiNardo stated, remember, we still have tables and chairs. We can reuse it for the new building and can save money over a period of time.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, Jeff and I met with TDA to go over audiovisual needs. I will be sending an e-mail to everyone tomorrow with what we discussed and what they are suggesting.

Mr. Jerome stated, we discussed some very good ideas at the meeting. TDA presents and we comment and make suggestions. They have been receptive to that.

Mr. Saponaro asked, any other updates?

Mr. Wynne reported, every year, we have General Obligation Notes which mature in August. We typically pay down $200,000 to the Note and go back to the market. They are $1.1 million. We are just going to pay them off in August when they come due and that’s it. We are done with them.

Mr. Saponaro stated, fantastic. Great.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. The next Finance Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Conference Room.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary E. Betsa, Clerk of Council