Ordinance Review - February 9th 2016

Mayfield Village
Feb 9, 2016  

The Ordinance Review Committee met in regular session on Tues, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. at the Mayfield Village Civic Center Conference Room. Chairman Bill Marquardt presided.      


Present: Mr. Bill Marquardt (Chairman), Mayor Bodnar, Mrs. Mary Ann Wervey, and Mr. John Marrelli

Also Present: Mr. Mark Guidetti (Law Department), Mr. Tom Cappello (Village Engineer), Ms. Deborah Garbo    (Secretary), Ron Wynne (Finance Director), Doug Metzung (Service Director), Diane Wolgamuth (Director of Administration), and Allen Meyers (Citizen’s Advisory Committee)

Absent: Mr. Jerry Catalano, Mr. Jim Farmer, and Dr. Stephan Parker 


Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made a motion to approve the minutes of Oct 13, 2015.     


Ayes: All
Nays: None

Motion Carried. Minutes Approved As Written.


Mayor Bodnar states, as per Chapter 125, Section 125.04; Bill Marquardt (Council President Designee) shall serve as 2016 Chairman to the Ordinance Review Committee.


  1. Ordinance adjustment to maintain compliance with Ohio EPA & Phase II  (Engineer)
    • Chapter 1128;
      Comprehensive Storm Water Management Ordinance
    • Chapter 1129;
      Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance
  2. Drainage & Infrastructure Committee (D&I Committee)
    • Amend Section 955.07; Funding (Council)
    • Ordinance 2015-24; Section 955.04; D & I Committee


Mayor Bodnar administered the Oath of Office to Mary Ann Wervey as a Member of the Ordinance Review Committee.


Drainage & Infrastructure Committee

  • Ordinance 2015-24; Section 955.04; D & I Committee

Chairman Marquardt begins with Ordinance No. 2015-24. There was a mistake in Council’s approval on Dec 21, 2015 as far as the number of Council Members “At Large”; Section 955.04.

Mrs. Wervey said, I was not here, but I read the minutes. The minutes stated we did not recommend the change to two (2) “At Large” and to keep the Ordinance as is; three (3) “At Large”. The decision was to re-visit it if the Law Director had something else to add.

Mr. Guidetti said I don’t think there’s a whole lot for Ordinance Review to discuss since you already discussed it at length. The way forward if Council so desires is to rescind the Ordinance that was passed.

Mr. Marrelli said, we wanted it to be (3) “At Large” because the problem is Village wide versus Ward wide. It was stated adequately by Bill in the minutes of Oct 13th;

“Chairman states, I feel compelled to throw out the history of this, the rationale for having (3) “At Large” Council members as Committee members. Number one, Drainage and infrastructure was to look at drainage issues as they were brought up and look at them as they impact across Wards, across the Village altogether. That’s one of the reasons for having the (3) “At Large” Council members. The other reason was to avoid any appearance of impropriety where you might have somebody that was requesting something in a Ward and you might have a Ward Councilperson that’s advocating or at least the appearance of that Ward Councilperson advocating for that particular neighbor or that particular person bringing it up. In order to avoid that was to have (3) “At Large” Council people designated to be the ones that were serving on the Committee. It’s the only Committee in the Village that restricts the members on Council. That was the logic behind it”.

Mrs. Wolgamuth comments, I don’t think any of us realized it passed at the Council meeting. I think that’s because when it gets read at the meeting it just says relative to section 955.04. I don’t think anybody realized that we were talking about the composition of D & I Committee. If it had said Drainage & Infrastructure Committee, I think everyone would have remembered that Ordinance Review had not recommended the change.


Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made a motion to correct the error that Council passed amending Section 955.04, Ordinance No. 2015-24 erroneously. It should be rescinded.    

Chairman Marquardt asked if any other discussion. There was none.


Ayes: All
Nays: None

Motion Carried. Recommendation to Council.

Mayor Bodnar states for the record, according to the statutes, I am actually a Member of The Ordinance Review Committee.

  • Amend Section 955.07; Funding

Chairman Marquardt said our next Drainage & Infrastructure item is amending the funding in 955.07 from $25,000 per year to whatever is recommended. Can someone explain the rationale?

Mr. Metzung said, we talked about this at D & I Committee. Steve Jerome questioned the amount. I don’t know what prompted that. My opinion is why we even have a number attached to it when the number could just be whatever is budgeted at the beginning of the year. Council & the Finance Director could just budget a number. If something were to come up, you couldn’t go after that because you’d be outside the Ordinance, because the Ordinance limits it. We’ve circumvented our rule. We had a project at one point, the Peto project in Hanover Woods that rated very highly when we did the scoring. It was a good project, just very expensive to add those pipes. We apparently ignored our Ordinances and went ahead with the project. Knowing now we have these kind of rules, maybe a dollar amount doesn’t really make a lot of sense as opposed to funding it at the beginning of the year with a budget.

Mr. Marrelli asked, can’t you go to Council if you run into a major project like that and ask for it to be increased?

Mr. Metzung replied, you’d have to change the Ordinance.

Mr. Marrelli asked, do we do this every year?

Mr. Metzung replied, it’s funded for $25,000 per year.

Mayor Bodnar said, I’d like to know how much we spend historically every year and how legal it is for us to be funding individual’s backyard problems. Mark, can you address that?

Mr. Guidetti states, the way the Ordinance is drafted, it’s legal because it has to have some correlation to benefit the public and to the Village. If there’s a Village easement in the area and you have a drainage & infrastructure issue that impacts that intimate area, you could go ahead and authorize the expenditure of those funds for the project. But, you don’t want to get into situations where you have a limited project, limited in scope and it affects 1 or 2 property owners and doesn’t really benefit the public. That’s the test legally.

Mayor Bodnar said we have to be careful if it’s only benefitting one or two people, then we should not be doing these projects.

Mrs. Wolgamuth gives some history. First of all, I asked Susan who is currently in charge of the D & I Committee to look back the last few years to see how much has actually been spent on D & I projects.

  • 2012; $8,400 was spent
  • 2013; $5,200 was spent
  • 2014; Nothing was spent
  • 2015; $6,690 was spent

We’ve not been anywhere near the allocated $25,000 per year. When I was handling the D & I Committee back in 2005 – 2009, we developed a point evaluation system. John, Tom and Doug were there at that time. It was a 17 point system. In 2008 we had 11 projects/applicants in that year and only 2 of those projects moved forward and they were the ones that scored over 8. Anything below that the Committee rejected and sent a letter saying; sorry you don’t qualify. I was hoping that Steve might be here tonight to talk. I believe the point evaluation system is being utilized still by the Committee, although apparently not consistently. I know this year Tom when you did this chart of all the projects, one of the projects rated a 2 and was still approved for funding. I think the criteria for approving has evolved or changed over the years. I was hoping to have some discussion about that tonight. Is the criteria still one that we should be following? If so, what does constitute a project that should go forward?

Mr. Cappello asked, did we ever say it had to meet a number?

Mrs. Wolgamuth replied, in the minutes at some point Joanne Cinco said if they don’t score at least 8, we should reject it. Diane explains scoring re properties affected; if it only affected one property, they’d get one point.

Mayor Bodnar said, I think we have to be very careful. Do we get audited on this?

Mr. Wynne replied, no. They look at it, but nothing’s been questioned.

Mayor Bodnar said I think we need to be careful how we’re spending their money. I think we should have a rubric that ties into what’s legal. If challenged, we can pull this out of the file and say here is our evaluation, and we could back it up. That’s why we approved or didn’t approve this project.

Mr. Guidetti said there’s various ways you can implement that through a change in the Ordinances or through the Committee itself.

Mrs. Wervey asked, the approved projects that you spent monies on, were they done by Village forces or did we hire somebody?

Mr. Cappello replied, we usually get a proposal, they’re so small. Those numbers Diane talked about, that’s not one project, they’re multiple projects.

Mrs. Wervey said, my opinion is you do need a dollar amount in the Ordinance. If you’re not competitively bidding, you shouldn’t be able to just spend whatever you want.

Mr. Metzung said the work is competitively BID.

Mayor Bodnar asked, is it always competitively BID?

Mr. Cappello replied, these are so small, we usually get proposals. Competitively BID is when we go over $25,000.

Mrs. Wolgamuth said back in the day we would lump them all together and BID them as a group. That’s changed over the years.

Mr. Metzung said now we do them as they come in versus when we used to hold onto them.

Mr. Cappello said, trying to get people to do these because some of these are so small, it’s hard to get numbers. We have one or two guys we use all the time because they’re very reasonable. We’ve had Snavely or Bill Gehlfuss from DiFranco plumbing.

Mr. Marrelli asked, why is the allocated $25,000 not enough?

Mayor Bodnar agreed, why is it not enough? Historically it’s 2 ½ times more than what was spent.

Mr. Wynne said last year we might have only spent $6,690, but we had two projects that totaled $18,000 that we approved that the residents haven’t paid their 10%, so we haven’t moved forward.

Mr. Cappello asked, can’t you just put $25,000 in the budget in case something legitimate comes in at $45,000 that might affect 13 properties?

Mr. Metzung said there’s a project out there now on Echo. It’s the end of a drainage pipe. The angle of the pipe itself goes into the side of the hill. It’s knocked the tree over. It’s a vertical cliff now. There’s no easement for it. It’s outside of Regional Sewer District. The only place it could fall becomes D & I, or does it go to the Village on its own, but we have to get an easement for it. How do you tackle some of those kind of projects? That could be a significant dollar project, could be $15,000.

Mayor Bodnar said depending on the origin of the project, we have to be looking at the Sewer District too to help us out.

Mr. Cappello & Mr. Metzung assured we do. We held Mr. Mackie up for years advising him it’s on the Regional Sewer District.

Mrs. Wervey asked for more detail on the Echo project.

Mr. Cappello said it’s right in the middle of two properties. The pipe hangs on the creek and kind of turns. It eroded over time, the tree fell. It needs to get corrected at some point.

Mayor Bodnar, reviewing criteria sheet, it looks like we didn’t score at all for any projects for last year.

Mr. Cappello said Joe Saponaro asked me to make a chart. I made the chart and sent it over to Susan.

Mayor Bodnar said, nothing was scored. That leaves us wide open for liability for funding private projects.

Mr. Metzung said some of those weren’t funded.

Mayor Bodnar said the one on Seneca was rated. Why do you recall that Peter & Sandra Batcheller who scored a 2 got approved?

Mr. Metzung replied, biggest reason was because they showed up. We did a project for them once already. They rated the project, kind of said that’s not looking good. Asked Tom to go over and help figure out what they could do. Tom went out. They asked what the price would be. Tom gets a price for it. The Committee said o.k., fund it.

Mr. Wynne asked, what type of analysis is done by the Committee to make sure there’s a public purpose to approve spending?

Mr. Marrelli replied, the score sheet. It’s a point system.

Mrs. Wolgamuth said we developed the point system in 2005 and revised in 2006. I think no one realized back in those years there was a cap. I think the Committee went way over $25,000 many years back in the late 2008 & 2009.

Mr. Cappello said the biggest factor is how many residents are affected. That was what the intent was. One of the first ones we did was on Hemingway which was a really good one as far as multiple properties. We were able to affect 3 or 4 yards back there putting up a storm sewer.

Mayor Bodnar said, back in 2008 Tony Setlock on Bonnieview came to us for help. He scored 1 on property affected which meant it affected only his property and 2 for topographical nuisance. Total points 3. They came back again in 2014 and scored 11 points and got approved. Do people feel if they don’t score the first time, they can keep retaking the test?

Mr. Metzung said I can’t answer how they got rated the first time. They may only have the one property affected, but they are the downhill recipient of Bonnieview. Everything on Bonnieview comes down to their house and that’s where it spills off the hill and goes into their backyard. While you can argue he’s just one property, I can say he’s the recipient of a whole bunch of crud coming from up the hill.

Mrs. Wolgamuth said I’ve got the minutes from 2008. We talked that the back half of the yard is the flood plain and the applicant has already put in a drainage swale. The only thing to do is bring in fill dirt. I don’t know if you were being facetious or not, but it says Mr. Metzung suggested that the applicant be congratulated for maintaining a Riparian Setback. It goes on to say points were assessed by the Committee and this application received 3 points.

Mr. Marrelli asked, how did it go from a 3 to 11?

Mrs. Wolgamuth replied, different people on the Committee.

Chairman Marquardt states, this tells me we’re not short on money for this thing. The $25,000 is not a shortage. The issue is, do you have the reports done properly? That’s the issue to bring forward. If it does turn into a shortage of money, then we could look at it.

Mr. Cappello asked, if a legitimate project comes in at $50,000, what would you do, amend the Ordinance?

Mr. Guidetti replied, you’d go through Council.

Mayor Bodnar said there’s a limit of $10,000 per each project in the Ordinance.

Mr. Cappello said, that’s another thing that got thrown out.

Mr. Wynne said I wasn’t here but I’m sure that cap was to limit spending public funds on private property.

Mr. Metzung said that’s an old Ordinance. Does that need to be revisited?

Chairman Marquardt said that’s not the problem at this time. If you get the scoring done and come up with a bunch of projects that need some money then we’ll look at the funding again. Right now, there’s no argument to increase the funding.

Mayor Bodnar agreed.

Mr. Metzung said, we didn’t put this on here just so you know.

Mrs. Wervey commented on change in scoring. A project could change in six years in my opinion or even four. Somebody up-streams or does something that changes the dynamics of the topography. I point to that.

Chairman Marquardt recommended the Committee not act on request.

Mr. Marrelli asked, is there a proposal to the Board that we need to act on?

Mr. Metzung said, I don’t know who brought this to the attention of the Board.

Mr. Guidetti said Mr. Jerome raised the issue and I believe Council President Saponaro asked that it be reviewed by this Committee.


No Action Taken on Section 955.07 Funding.

Chapter 1128; Comprehensive Storm Water Management Ordinance
Chapter 1129; Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance

Mr. Cappello covers both Chapters at the same time. They’re housekeeping measures to keep current with The Ohio EPA Permits for construction and storm water and our general MS4 which is municipal storm sewer system.

This is a model Ordinance that Chagrin River Watershed Partners has put together. What they highlighted in yellow and the red strikethrough text, those changes need to be made for us to be compliant with the Permit, those are mandatory. What’s highlighted green is what they recommend us to do to help us with TMDL’s (Total Maximum Daily Load). We discharge to the Chagrin River. The EPA has put a limitation on TMDL of 5 or 6 different criteria. Bacteria is one, phosphorus, nitrogen.

I’m currently going through the Ordinances. I have questions on some of the ones highlighted in green. We’re in the process of meeting with CRWP to go over both these Ordinances as well as our Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). That was the original plan we filed back in 2003. We need to keep that updated with the code. That Ordinance needs to be passed by I think Dec 22nd of this year. We’re well ahead of time.

I’ll go through this, work it out with them and then come back here with recommendations and get it to Mark. I can have CRWP come in as well if you have any questions.

Mr. Metzung said we have to meet certain criteria. We have to show the EPA that we are going to correct these items. Some of those green items are correcting some of these things. In other places, we may be able to correct them in another manner. We have choices we can make in getting to that goal.

Mr. Cappello said everything in green is their wish list. CRWP made a matrix of what is required. Now they call them Stormwater Control Measures (SCM). They were also called Best Management Practices (BMP). SCM could be a bio retention basin, a swale, or pervious pavers. I want to be careful what we put in the code. What we put in the code, we have to follow. That doesn’t mean what they have in green we can’t recommend in the future. We’re trying to be compliant but do what is reasonable. Just street sweeping meets 3 out of 4 TMDL’s we have to meet. We revamped the parking code a while back. We made spaces a little smaller. That’s another thing we can take credit for.

Mr. Marrelli said, when you go through these and look at them will you think about measures that aren’t going to require a lot of maintenance on the property owners. They don’t really get it when it comes to maintaining these.

Mr. Metzung said some of that is in regard to the Post Construction.

Mr. Cappello said there’s only so many things you could do water quality wise. Deacon had no choice. He had so much paving. At minimum he would have had to have some sort of bio retention swale and maybe some underground detention which would have cost him a lot more money. He had no choice. We’re trying to do here what environmentally makes sense.

Mr. Marrelli said, not maintenance intensive if that’s possible.

Mayor Bodnar asked, will it come back to this Committee and Drainage & Infrastructure?

Mr. Cappello replied, Ordinance Review & Council, not D & I.

Mayor Bodnar asked, why not D & I?

Mr. Cappello replied, D & I only looks at the private yards. If I recall correctly, it was Councilman Buckholtz who defined D & I Committee back in the 90’s. He said all his neighbors had drainage problems and wanted to know how we could help them. It was meant for good.

Mrs. Wervey said, I think it’s a good idea.

Mr. Metzung said Mentor does a similar program. They go onto private properties.

Mr. Cappello said yes, Mentor helps the private property owners. They don’t do a 90 / 10 split. I think you buy the material and the city fixes it. I think what makes it somewhat legal is the buy-in, paying the 10%. Then the homeowner has skin in the game, something invested.

Mr. Guidetti comments, the buy-in is a factor to consider.

Mayor Bodnar requested Mark get her what those factors would be.

Mrs. Wervey said the Storm water Ordinances is more permitting, whereas D & I is correcting little problems.

Mr. Cappello agreed. This is more for development, regulations for storm water.


Mr. Cappello to meet with CRWP for review of Model Ordinances.

Legislation required to pass by Dec 2016.

Chairman Marquardt asked if any further discussion. There was none.


Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made a motion for adjournment.


Ayes: All
Nays: None

Motion Carried. Meeting Adjourned at 5:40 p.m.