Finance: June 15th 2015
MINUTES OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, June 15, 2015 – 7:30 p.m.
Main Conference Room – Mayfield Village Civic Center
The Finance Committee meeting was held on Monday, June 15, 2015 in the Main Conference Room at the Mayfield Village Civic Center. Mr. Saponaro called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Mr. Saponaro and Mr. Marquardt
Also Present: Mrs. Mills, Mr. Wynne, Chief Edelman, Mr. Cappello, Mr. Thomas, Chief Carcioppolo, Mr. Metzung, Mr. DiNardo, Ms. Wolgamuth, and Mrs. Betsa
Mr. Saponaro stated, there are residents here this evening who wish to address the recent road widening survey that took place.
950 Beech Hill
935 Beech Hill
Mr. Saponaro asked, were either of you subject to the survey that went around?
Mr. Levak replied, I was.
Mr. Saponaro stated, at Caucus we had folks here from your community that wanted to address Council. You are certainly welcome to come to Council this evening and address them as well. What were your concerns?
Mr. Levak replied, we feel the road should be widened. He has three kids. I have a daughter now. As far as people walking their dogs or kids, an extra four foot would make a huge difference.
Mr. Saponaro stated, that was part of the reason we did the survey. We wanted to get people’s opinion. First of all, the widening is not a budgeted item, so it’s above our budget and we have to go through a different process. Part of it is a bidding process. I don’t know if you guys had an opportunity to look at the Minutes of the Caucus meeting when Rich Prosen and some other folks spoke.
Mr. Levak stated, I didn’t realize that meeting took place.
Mr. Saponaro stated, it wasn’t a meeting specifically for that purpose alone. Because it has to go through Committees, we have to determine if we have to go beyond our budget. One of the things we wanted to do was address the members of the community to find out the thought process and ask them if they wanted it widened or not. A lot of communities building new roads are building more narrow roads.
Mr. Levak asked, with sidewalks?
Mr. Saponaro stated, I would imagine without sidewalks. Again, we wanted to hear what the residents have to say. In terms of the vote, Diane, can you tell us the results?
Ms. Wolgamuth stated, since the last update provided to Council, I have had one more call. It was from Beech Hill. It was a no widening vote. The final votes I have are 29 or 54% saying no and 36% who would like to see it widened. The remaining people did not have an opinion one way or another.
Mr. Levak asked, how many people?
Ms. Wolgamuth replied, we spoke to 54 total.
Mr. Saponaro stated, you visited 76 homes and received opinions from 55 of the 76 visited. So, 55 of the 76 visited provided a yes or no answer based on that. There’s a lot of schools of thought. We would certainly like you to have the opportunity to talk with us. We understand your concern. We are charged with, as a Finance Committee, is it a budgeted item? No, it’s not. Beyond that, we can always amend if we needed to. What does the community want? The community basically came back and said they did not want this. Diane spoke with people firsthand.
Ms. Wolgamuth added, as did Steve Jerome and Tom Cappello.
Mr. Levak stated, before you even showed up at my house, I got a text from a resident that was kind of a knee jerk reaction that said when the Engineer and Mayor’s representative comes to your house make sure you vote no. I did quite a bit of research. There’s three foot ditches on either side. My kids, when they see a car coming, they have to get off the road and find a driveway to get into. Many times they fall into the ditch just to get out. It would be one thing if everything was level and flat, but it’s not. That’s my main concern. There’s random speeders here and there. Most of them are 16-26 year olds. We stop them. We get on the street and tell them to slow down. It’s not a cut through there. The only people on the streets 99% of the time are residents and police officers. That’s the only people coming down there.
Mr. Saponaro stated, the concern people voiced was their having to give up part of their property. That was a very big concern.
Mr. Levak stated, that’s a valid concern, landscaping, trees, I understand that. With regard to speed, I think a lot of people voted based on the text sent out to a bunch of residents. If you do any research on it, it’s not true. People voted before they even knew any of the facts.
Mr. Saponaro asked, was speed the reasoning?
Ms. Wolgamuth replied, yes. There were many people who said that they were concerned if the roads were widened people would travel faster.
Mr. Levak asked, what about across the street, by Kenwood, they have wider roads. Do you get a lot of speeders over there?
Mr. Saponaro replied, yes, we do.
Mr. Hess stated, but that’s also a cut through. Streets that are not cut throughs, like Eastgate or Meadowood, those are -
Mr. Cappello replied, those are about 20 feet wide.
Mr. Saponaro stated, speed was a concern, what else? Were there other concerns?
Ms. Wolgamuth replied, I didn’t realize there had been a text. It was really mostly speed and the loss of property. Those were the two factors for people being against it.
Mr. Saponaro stated, I talked to the Chief briefly beforehand. I asked if there was a probable connection between wider roads and speeding. He said I don’t know where that reasoning came about.
Mr. Levak stated, on streets 25 miles an hour, no there isn’t. Faster bigger streets yes, absolutely, people tend to speed more. Four lane highways, yes. Not for a residential street. We police our own. I see people coming down 30-40 miles an hour and I make them stop. I explain to them nicely that I have children, we don’t have sidewalks here and we have three foot ditches on either side with rocks in them. The day after you came, I had to pull the mailman out of my ditch because he was trying to turn around. I called Rich Prosen who came with his truck and pulled the guy out. I was teasing him saying if we had wider streets, this wouldn’t have happened. Either here or there, I know you guys have a lot to do. I just wanted to make my voice heard.
Mr. Saponaro stated, we appreciate it. We don’t take things lightly. That’s why we felt it was really important to go out to the community and talk to them.
Mr. Levak stated, absolutely. The way they explained to me, they could level it off and put pipes in. At least the kids could step out on to the grass when a car comes instead of stepping down into a ditch.
Mr. Saponaro stated, I don’t know if the information that they are getting is correct. I don’t know if the road got widened what it would do or not do.
Mr. Levak stated, it’s an individual basis.
Mr. Saponaro stated, it is. But the other problem is is the taking of the land aspect of it. We were going to move water from one side to the other.
Mr. Cappello stated, it’s staying the same way.
Mr. Saponaro stated, there were a lot of factors. A lot of considerations.
Mr. Levak stated, I understand that. They have their trees. One resident was concerned that the finish on his driveway was going to match what he put in two years ago. There’s a lot of questions. I just think it totally outweighs it safety wise. There’s going to be five new kids by August on our street just in that area. Everyone walks. Our community is a walking community. I am for it. I just wanted to see what was going on.
Mr. Saponaro stated, that’s really what everything came down to. We discussed it. There was no vote on it. There won’t be a vote on it because it has not been put to Council to vote on it. It’s just discussion to see what everyone’s thoughts were. We appreciate you guys taking the time. You are certainly welcome to stay for the rest of this meeting and stay for the Council meeting. You can certainly talk to your Ward Council and the At-Large Councils, myself, Tom Marrie and Steve Jerome. Call any of us and voice your concerns. Thanks for taking the time. We appreciate it.
1. Discussion of a motion to authorize expenditure in the amount of $11,187.30 to Deere & Co. for purchase of John Deere Gator (State purchasing).
Mr. Wynne stated, $15,000 was budgeted for this item.
The Committee recommended Item #1 for approval.
2. Discussion of a motion to authorize purchase of 1,200 tons of salt through the ODOT summer salt program from Morton Salt at $80.06 a ton.
The Committee recommended Item #2 for approval.
3. Discussion of a motion to authorize expenditure in the amount of $7,850 to Jennison Ice for purchase of ice machine at the Fire Station.
Chief Carcioppolo reported, the revised quote was sent out with the two different options for the larger cubing machine. I would have to have Shannon Electric come out and put a 220 circuit in to run the bigger one. I could just get the smaller one.
Mr. Saponaro asked, is this the smaller one?
Chief Carcioppolo replied, the price was the same. They were going to give us a 1,400 pound ice maker at the same price. It still has a full warranty.
Mr. Saponaro stated, you can price it out with Shannon Electric and bring the expenditure in front of the Committee.
Chief Carcioppolo replied, I already did. It’s $950 to put in the larger electric supply but I can just get the smaller 500 pound ice cuber and not have to change the electric.
Mr. Saponaro stated, either way it’s $7,850. Then it becomes an expenditure that you could either choose to do or not. Why wouldn’t you get a larger one?
Chief Carcioppolo replied, that’s the thing. When you have a higher demand, it will be able to keep up with it. Nothing has changed with the price.
The Committee recommended Item #3 for approval.
4. Discussion of a motion for authorization to go out to bid for replacement windows for the Fire Station.
The Committee recommended Item #4 for approval.
5. Discussion of a motion to authorize acceptance of bid and approval of expenditure in the amount of $126,385.00 to Tucson, Inc. for Palermo Pond Expansion – Phase I Project.
Mr. Wynne stated, just for the record, the total cost of this project with engineering all in would be $148,400. We had $150,000 budgeted for it.
The Committee recommended Item #5 for approval.
6. Discussion of a motion to authorize acceptance of bid and approval of expenditure in the amount of $58,910.00 to Baumann Enterprises for building demolition and site improvement project at 734 SOM Center Road.
Mr. Wynne stated, with engineering, the total cost would be $74,000. We budgeted $75,000.
The Committee recommended Item #6 for approval.
7. Discussion of a motion to authorize acceptance of bid and approval of expenditure in the amount of $294,004.20 to Perk Co. for SOM Center Road Sidewalk Project.
Mr. Wynne stated, with engineering, the total cost would be about $327,000. Our budget is $225,000. We will need to make a budget adjustment for $102,000.
Mr. Saponaro asked, any comment on this?
Mr. Marquardt replied, it’s kind of a grand project for a sidewalk. I don’t know whether it’s worth the extra $100,000, but I will go for it.
The Committee recommended Item #7 for approval.
8. Discussion of a motion to authorize acceptance of bid and approval of expenditure in the amount of $304,917.00 to Specialized Construction for Civic Center Parking Lot Improvement – Phase II.
Mr. Wynne stated, the budget was $330,000. Total cost would be $334,000 with engineering.
The Committee recommended Item #8 for approval.
9. Discussion of a motion to authorize expenditure in the amount of $10,303 to Anselmo’s Inc. for Drainage & Infrastructure project located at 6818 Bonnieview.
The Committee recommended Item #9 for approval.
10. Discussion of a motion to acknowledge receipt of financial reports for May, 2015 and to approve of same as submitted.
The Committee recommended Item #10 for approval.
11. Discussion to accept the proposal of DiGioia Excavating in the amount of $10,500,00 for house demolition and site restoration at 6826 Meadowood Road.
Ms. Wolgamuth reported, the survey results were pretty clear on this one. There was not much disagreement.
The Committee recommended Item #11 for approval.
12. Discussion of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-11, entitled, “An Emergency Ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into an agreement with Geauga County for the boarding of prisoners.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.
Mr. Saponaro stated, based on Bedford’s closing, you felt this was the best option for the boarding of prisoners.
Chief Edelman stated, it is a full service jail.
Mr. Saponaro asked, any other discussion or questions?
Mr. Marquardt asked, you are going to need this tonight?
Chief Edelman stated, the ordinance I will. I don’t have the contract yet.
The Committee recommended Item #12 for approval.
13. Discussion of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-12, entitled, “An Emergency Ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor and President of Council to enter into an Agreement for the collection of soft recyclables with Great Lakes Recycling, Inc.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.
Ms. Wolgamuth reported, we revised the agreement to make it clear that participation is voluntary.
The Committee recommended Item #13 for approval.
Mr. Saponaro stated, agenda item numbers 14-19 are the result of Charter Review Commission recommendations. They will all go on three reads in Council. Ron, you were a member of that Commission if you want to comment on them.
Mr. DiNardo stated, the items here are the result of what the Commission came up with as modifications to the Charter. They are self-explanatory unless you have specific questions. We went through every section of the Charter. The members were diverse in every aspect. We had members from Planning, BZA, attorneys. We went through everything. What you have here is a good representation of the changes we felt needed to happen.
Mr. Marquardt asked, what was the impetus behind 18?
Mr. Saponaro stated, let’s go through all of them and get to that one.
14. Discussion of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-13, entitled, “An Ordinance proposing an amendment to Article III, Section 6, relative to the compensation of the Mayor and members of Council.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.
The Committee recommended Item #14 for approval.
15. Discussion of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-14, entitled, “An Ordinance proposing an amendment to Article III, Section 4, of the Charter of Mayfield Village to substitute the term “Civic Center” for “Village Hall” in this section and throughout the Charter where applicable.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.
The Committee recommended Item #15 for approval.
16. Discussion of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-15, entitled, “An Ordinance proposing an amendment to Article V, Section 6(E) of the Charter of Mayfield Village to allow competition for appointment to the position of Chief within the police and fire departments to include individuals outside the department should there be two or less qualified interested individuals from the supervisory lower ranks, and to eliminate classified civil service status for part-time employees.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.
The Committee recommended Item #16 for approval.
17. Discussion of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-16, entitled, “An Ordinance proposing an amendment to Article V, Section 6(B)(3) clarify positions excluded from the Civil Service.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.
The Committee recommended Item #17 for approval.
18. Discussion of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-17, entitled, “An Ordinance proposing an amendment to Article XII, Section 9 of the Charter of Mayfield Village to provide availability of amended copies of the Charter to the residents.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.
The Committee recommended Item #18 for approval.
19. Discussion of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-18, entitled, “An Ordinance proposing an amendment to Article V, Section 12(A), and any related subsections so as to allow the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant “use” variances in non-residential districts only, and requiring Council approval after public hearing.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.
Mr. DiNardo reported, this is an opportunity for the Board of Zoning Appeals and Council to look at an applicant who brings in a project, for example on Beta, strictly commercially-zoned property. Not residential. It’s a vehicle to allow for a use variance. It’s an opportunity to work with potential applicants coming down Beta for a change. It could be a mixed-use. It could be an office building they want to bring in. It could be some other type of business not allowed currently. This is strictly a vehicle. It still has to go through the procedure of getting approvals. There’s a variety of items that have to be met. If you go through the Minutes, Joe Diemert did a really good job in explaining what those requirements are. Don’t think it’s a slam dunk if someone brings in a project and it goes to the BZA. They have to truly prove the reason why they are requesting the use variance.
Mr. Marquardt stated, sounds like a zoning change.
Mr. DiNardo stated, it wouldn’t be a zoning change. It carries with the land. Otherwise it would be worthless. It’s an approval process. This will be in front of the voters to allow the change in the Charter.
Mr. Marquardt asked, so this is going to change the requirement of zoning changes going to the electorate?
Mr. DiNardo replied, correct. The last time this was in front of the residents it was any property, commercial or residential. We are saying this is strictly for commercially zoned property. Nothing to do with residential. No resident is going to come in and say, hey, you are changing my zoning. This is strictly property already zoned commercial. An applicant can come in. It’s another opportunity for a change down Beta. If they meet the criteria they need approval from not only BZA. It still has to go through Planning and Council.
Mr. Marquardt asked, it is restricted to Beta, or any commercial?
Mr. DiNardo replied, any commercial. Specifically to non-residential districts only.
The Committee recommended Item #19 for approval.
20. Resolution No. 2015-07, entitled, “An Emergency Resolution amending Resolution No. 2007-13 changing the Fund name of “County Innovation Zone (CIZ Fund,” also known as the “Mayfield Innovation Zone (MIZ) Fund,” to “Mayfield Community Improvement Corporation Fund,” authorizing the deposit of funds into such account, and merging all related funds.” Introduced by Mayor Rinker and Council as a Whole.
Mr. Saponaro stated, this is a housekeeping measure so that the Mayfield Community Improvement Corporation Fund administers the funds for any incentive program we have in the Village businesses. Any questions? There were none.
The Committee recommended Item #20 for approval.
ANY OTHER MATTERS
- 2015 Road Program
Mr. Saponaro asked, any updates?
Mr. Cappello asked, what are we doing? Do I widen it or don’t I?
Mr. Saponaro replied, we don’t make that determination. You either put something in front of us and say vote for it, tell us you want it widened or you don’t. So if there’s nothing in front of us, there’s nothing to vote on. We can’t recommend or not recommend something that is not in front of us. As far as I am concerned, we had a discussion on this. However, no one from Administration has come to Council or this Committee and said this is what we would like to do. There’s nothing to be done except what you have been already charged to do. Unless it changes. Administration would change that. It’s up to you guys.
Mr. Saponaro asked, any other matters? There were none.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Mary E. Betsa, Clerk of Council