Ordinance Review - May 10th 2016

ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Mayfield Village
May 10, 2016   

The Ordinance Review Committee met in regular session on Tues, May 10, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. at the Mayfield Village Civic Center Conference Room. Chairman Bill Marquardt presided.      

ROLL CALL

Present: Mr. Bill Marquardt (Chairman), Mayor Bodnar (left @ 5:30 pm), Mrs. Mary Ann Wervey, Mr. Paul Fikaris, and Mr. David Hunter

Also Present: Mr. Joseph Diemert (Law Director), Mr. Tom Cappello (Village Engineer), Ms. Deborah Garbo    (Secretary), Mr. Doug Metzung (Service Director), Ms. Diane Wolgamuth (Director of Administration), Mr. Joseph Saponaro (Councilman), and Mr. Ron Wynne (Finance Director)

Absent: Mr. John Marrelli and Dr. Stephan Parker

CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: April 12, 2016                       

Mr. Fikaris, seconded by Chairman Marquardt made a motion to approve the minutes of April 12, 2016.      

ROLL CALL

Ayes: All                       
Nays: None              

Motion Carried. Minutes Approved As Written.

PROPOSALS:

  1. Chapter 955; Drainage & Infrastructure
    Sections 955.05 & 955.07 (Law Dept.)
  2. Chapter 155; Senior Center and Community Room Building
    Community Room Ordinance (Law Dept.)

OPEN PORTION:

Chairman Marquardt welcomed new Committee Member David Hunter who has agreed to serve on the Committee to fill the vacancy caused by the resent resignation of Jerry Catalano.  

OATH OF OFFICE

Mayor Bodnar administered the Oath of Office to David Hunter.

Mr. Diemert states, I understand David you’ve been briefed by Debbie already on what the Ordinance Review Committee does and the purpose of this committee.

Mr. Hunter replied, yes.

Chapter 955; Drainage & Infrastructure
Sections 955.05 & 955.07

Mr. Diemert states, this section came up in discussion at a past Ordinance Review Committee meeting about Ordinance 955.05. The purpose of this chapter was to allow for drainage problems throughout the Village on private property to be addressed by the Committee and the Village in situations where it was causing a nuisance on adjacent public property or involving multiple property owners. It came about back in a time when a lot of surface water drainage issues were arising in the Village. It’s something that the Administration wants to revisit in the near future and perhaps propose a number of amendments to this chapter that might be more relevant in this day and age.

This came up because I think someone wanted to know about getting into bigger projects worth more than $10,000. I’ve been working on an opinion for Council and the Mayor basically to explain that the D & I Committee makes decisions under this Ordinance as an advisory committee to the Administration and to Council. Whatever it is that that Committee were to recommend is really something that Council or Administration could do on their own. There’s no limit really to any project that Council would want to do.

The $10,000 limit under 955.05 which is really what the issue was, was being discussed as to maybe it should be increased. Not only does it need to be increased, but it really doesn’t need to be there at all. We just wanted the Committee back in the days when this was adopted 16 years ago, to focus mostly on smaller projects. It was thought at that time that a $10,000 limit would be considered a smaller project. They didn’t want them to be listening to anybody who wanted to redo a whole subdivision worth $10 million.

Those were issues that probably in the discussion in front of Ordinance Review were not pertinent at that time because there’s no proposed amendment to this Ordinance. If Ordinance Review wants to recommend a change, certainly I think that Council and Administration would listen to what your recommendations would be. But it’s really not in the defined scope of what the Ordinance Review Committee would normally do. You ordinarily look at ordinances and review them for changes that are needed somewhere by somebody. In this particular case, Council can do as large a project as they want. They’re not capped by $10,000 and Drainage & Infrastructure issues are not capped at $10,000. The Village can approach any drainage issue they want and correct it or make proposals and adopt legislation in order to cause those improvements to take place.

All of that is not in this Chapter. It wasn’t intended to be in this Chapter. It’s something on a larger scale the Village deals with over time, like SOM Ctr Rd and all the sewer issues that went with that, and all the infrastructure issues that go with any kind of project. The purpose and intent was to evaluate and prioritize resident’s requests for drainage issues. Maybe it’s a swale that got blocked up and how it got blocked up. We decide whether or not that’s a private property issue or is it a Village wide health issue? We’re not obligated to do anything on private property. The Auditor’s prohibit us really from spending tax payer dollars on anyone’s personal property for their personal enhancement. We have to balance the line there to see when we can determine this to be more of a public issue.

Mr. Diemert concludes, I’m working on research to put in here whether or not there should be a cap and what the cap should be and whether or not there’s any changes that need to be taken into this particular section.

Councilman Saponaro said, I came tonight as a member of D & I Committee. Everything goes through Council anyways. There really shouldn’t be a limit or funding on here. According to this, the D & I Committee shall limit any one project to $10,000 and if it’s above that, it then has to be specifically approved by Council. The intent was not to have the funding be a part of it because it really doesn’t need to be a part of it. We help Doug and Tom evaluate as a part of that Committee. We make as Joe said, a recommendation in an advisory capacity. We have to establish and Ron has to be responsible for each separate fund. He has to allocate funds to take fund money in and out of. It’s an accounting issue that we don’t think we need to do.

Chairman Marquardt asked, how do you control the funding? We have no allocation in the budget for any kind of work of this kind. If somebody came through with a half million dollar project, would you just pass it?

Councilman Saponaro replied, it’s going to go into the budget anyway. You can make it a part of the line item and keep the fund if you want, but the D & I Committee doesn’t determine how that’s being used, Council is, so why make it a part of the Ordinance. If you want to keep the fund, I’m fine with that. We don’t ever as a committee vote to do anything except bring it to Council for Council’s approval. If Administration wants to put $25,000, $50,000 or $5,000 aside, it’s up to them to do it. It’s a budgetary issue.

Chairman Marquardt said, we haven’t used that funding since 2005 & 2006.

Councilman Saponaro corrected Chairman, we use the funding every year. I’m telling you that this Committee does not need to have anything to do with the funding aspect of it. With this in there, it becomes confusing to the other members. We make recommendations. We do the evaluation, create the rubric, determine if it’s an important project and we get advice from Tom and Doug on it. The funding piece does not need to be in here.

Mayor Bodnar asked, does the Committee go out and look at the projects? I would say that Doug and Tom have the expertise to evaluate the projects.

Councilman Saponaro replied, we can. They bring it to us. Steve Jerome goes out but it’s not a requirement. Someone files an application, they usually have pictures attached which shows how their property and other properties are being affected by it. Then Tom, Doug or both go and assess it. They say yes we think it’s this or no it’s not going to be a part of that. We look at it as a Committee and we run the numbers, I think 17 total points. It talks about topography, how many properties are affected, that kind of thing. Once it gets scored, it’s determined do we do this or not. These guys give whatever their opinion is, generally what’s followed by the Committee.

Ms. Wolgamuth states, for what it’s worth, we talked about it at the last meeting. We couldn’t find the minutes from when this was originally passed for what the rationale was. We speculated the $10,000 was put in there because Council at that time wanted to make sure that these projects stayed smaller. Again, that’s speculation.  

Councilman Saponaro said, quite frankly, after we score the rubric we don’t even know how much it’s going to cost until these guys come back and say this is going to be a $5,000 or $12,000 job. Regardless, even if the Committee says it scored high enough that it affects all the different properties, it still goes to Council, still has to go through the vetting process, Safety and Service & Finance. It’s a piece of the Ordinance that doesn’t make sense for us. That was the reason why we brought it to this Committee. Not to limit it, not to increase any monies. It was just to say we don’t need the funding mechanism of it.

Mr. Diemert said, I don’t think there needs to be any action on the part of Ordinance Review if there’s going to be proposed amendments. I think Joe and the Mayor will make them and we’ll put something together. We’ll bring those changes back to you.

Councilman Saponaro said the only thing we’re proposing as the D & I Committee is to remove the two pieces that we talked about; the $10,000 limit for any one project and the $25,000 allocated per year for use on projects. If there are any other changes proposed, I haven’t seen them. This is new to me, this is the first I’m hearing that we’re making changes to this Ordinance.

Mrs. Wervey said, when you remove these two limits, nowhere in the Ordinance does it really say that the recommendations go to Council. If you remove those two things, I think you have to make it clear that it goes to Drainage & Infrastructure and they then make a recommendation to Council.

Mr. Metzung states, anything over $5,000 would have to go to Council anyway. That’s true, there were occasions where smaller projects were not taken to Council per say. They would have been approved by the Committee and if they were under the Mayor’s spending limit, they would have been completed. There’s rationale to say if you’re going to move this to Council, then you’d move them all.

Mayor Bodnar states, we visited this subject many times and I don’t think we need to prolong it, but I think it may be worth going over this now. We know the two sections we want to remove for sure. We need to make sure it dovetails what Joe Diemert’s description of the Committee is, it’s an advisory capacity, so things are set forth in a straight forward manner. Maybe we want to take a little time to see if there’s any other changes and put it before this Committee to look at it in total.

Mr. Fikaris said, my guess for the reason the $10,000 was put in was to limit the scope of the Drainage Committee to things that influence residential, and has that funny line where it crosses over residential. I think it maybe was a limiter to say all we can approve is $10,000 on a single project.

Mr. Wynne states, from discussions I had with Bill Buckholtz about the Committee when he was Council President, his reason for the limits in there were because like Paul is saying, it’s a slippery slope spending public funds on private property.

Mr. Metzung said, I don’t mean to disagree with Mr. Buckholtz’s discussions with you Ron, but back in the day, he envisioned it being much larger. It started with doing $200,000 / year for the Sanitary Fund. He envisioned doing the same with stormwater. He envisioned a grand plan. Maybe after time he thought it got a little out of hand, I don’t know. Originally, he envisioned large scale, big money. But they were looking at capital projects such as the Worton Park drainage which was $1,000,000.00 plus. Maybe the compromise was to get to this.

Mayor Bodnar asked, was this a way to have smaller projects dealt with so that everything didn’t have to come to Council?

Councilman Saponaro replied, I think it was more so that everything didn’t have to go to these guys all the time; “Doug’s not returning my calls” or “Doug didn’t agree to do the job” or “Doug said this”. I think it created a buffer.

Mr. Metzung thinks it created some protection. Before me, Gus would go in a backyard and dig a swale. I was leary about going in people’s backyards. This was meant as a protection for that type of work.

Councilman Saponaro said, if multiple properties are affected, everyone has to agree to it, if there needs to be an easement, everyone has to sign. It’s a mechanism, more of a protective measure. Whatever the original intent of the Committee was, the way the Committee functions right now is we are really more of an advisory capacity to these guys. Even if residents come to us, it’s not like we say; your project’s too expensive so we can’t do it. We don’t talk about cost, we talk about the project first. We have no problem as a Committee being advisory and creating that buffer and being a place for residents to come and talk. There was a time when residents could only come at a certain time of the year. It doesn’t matter now. Anytime of the year that somebody wants to submit something, we hear it and talk about it. We’ve tried to be more open for the residents and help these guys deal with the issues.

Mayor Bodnar states, I think we should post the minutes on line for our own protection.

NEXT STEP:

  • Recommendation to remove funding language in Sections 955.05 & 955.07.
  • Law Department to draft changes and bring back to Ordinance Review Committee for review & approval

*************************************************************************

Chapter 155;
Senior Center and Community Room Building

Mr. Diemert states, in light of the Community Room nearing the end of its construction, the Administration has been making new application forms, new criteria, new rules & regulations for people to rent it and use it. The old and the new are the red lined version that you see of Ordinance 155.01, etc. The old language has got a line through it. The new language is underlined. That’s the kind of changes Administration is looking at. It’s taking out words to update it & scheduling procedures.

We looked at it, the Mayor, Director of Administration, Service & Building Dept, Police & Fire all weighed in on these recommendations for the changes in the Ordinance. We’ve also done a final proposal for the application form, bringing it into current legal status with all applicable laws relating to HIPPA and smoking and so on. The proposed changes are set forth in what’s before you.

Councilman Saponaro said, I think we should change it from “Room” to “Center” because it’s more of a center, it’s going to be more than one room, and that’s more descriptive of what it is. 

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, that’s one of those that everybody has a different opinion. I’ve been told calling it a “Center” would cause confusion with the “Civic Center”.

Mr. Fikaris said, I understand there’s a smaller and a larger room. Could there possibly be two events at the same time, or if somebody rents the room, they rent the whole thing?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, it does have a partition so you can separate the main room, but that’s for programming during the day, not rentals. Rentals will be the whole building.

Mr. Diemert said, there’s nothing life changing in here. It’s just kind of updating.

Mrs. Wervey asked about rental costs.

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, it’s been set at $200 and a $200 security deposit. At Council’s suggestion, we set it at $200 for a 6 hr use. If you go over 6 hrs, it’s an additional $25/hr.

Councilman Saponaro refers to the Salt Shed Community Room rules from 1982; main room rental was $100, the entire bldg. was $250, over 75 people was $150, the fireplace room was $150. It’s interesting that the pricing has not really changed.

Ms. Wolgamuth said, the application prior to this, we were at $100. I don’t know when they stopped doing the $250.

  • Mayor Bodnar leaves @ 5:30 p.m.

Mr. Diemert said, a maintenance cost is really all you’re asking people to pay.  

Councilman Saponaro brings up liability. We have all new equipment and if something gets damaged, $250 is not going to cover replacement.

Mr. Diemert asked, do you think we should take the cost of that building and amortize it over the rental uses of the next 20 years, and make that the rental?

Chairman Saponaro replied, I think that would be high, but I think we have to do something.

Ms. Wolgamuth said, we’ll have an employee on site overseeing all events. They’ll be doing a checklist at the end of the night.

Councilman Saponaro said, if you have to go after a resident for $500, it’s not going to happen. It should be built-in or a credit card attached. We’ve got some really high end things in there.

Mr. Diemert said, once this Ordinance is done, I think that’s something Council and Finance Committee might want to focus on. It’s mainly a service to your residents. It sure has been used a lot. Your residents are really enjoying that service much like the mulch, table & chairs. You have some great amenities in this Village.

Councilman Saponaro asked, do we want to keep the fee schedule in the Ordinance? The problem comes in when you want to change it.

Ms. Wolgamuth agreed. We took it out. It should be crossed out.

Councilman Saponaro brings attention to the damage deposit consideration in 155.06 (ab), so if you want to change the damage deposit, you don’t have to change the Ordinance. It makes it more flexible.

Mr. Hunter asked, do we have the same rental fee for non-Mayfield Village residents?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, it would be the same rental fee, but a nonresident cannot rent the new Community Room until 60 days before their event. That gives residents more of a lead, and they have to have a resident sponsor them. The discussion was if you have a different rental fee, then that makes the nonresident put pressure on the resident to put it under their name so that they get the lesser fee. We went to Citizen’s Advisory Committee, they said keep it at one rate.

Mr. Hunter asked, did you say you’ll have someone present in the building the entire time?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, yes. We’ll be hiring a part time employee through the Service Dept to oversee the events.

Mr. Hunter asked about the cost.

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, $11 to $18 per hour range. We haven’t hired anyone yet.

Mr. Hunter said, your rental fee will be incurring that cost alone.

Mr. Diemert said, a stranger just can’t come off the street and rent.

Mr. Hunter asked, is the nonresident allowed to schedule the event?

Mr. Diemert replied, no sooner than 60 days and has to be sponsored by a resident.

Mr. Hunter asked about the meeting groups during the week.

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, those are usually committee groups; the Garden Club, Historical Society, etc. An individual would only be doing weekend rentals.

DECISION:

Mrs. Wervey, seconded by Mr. Marquardt made a motion to approve the Senior Center and Community Room Ordinance amendments as proposed.

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Mr. Marquardt, Mrs. Wervey, Mr. Fikaris, Mr. Hunter        

Nays: None                          

Motion Carried. Recommendation to Council.

ANY OTHER MATTER:

Chairman Marquardt opened up to any other matter for discussion.

  • Codified Ordinances Review - Administrative Code Section

Councilman Saponaro said, I met with Michael Kelly, President Walter H. Drane Company who does the codification of the ordinances. I had some questions. I wanted to understand why in the Charter we changed the salary of the Mayor and Council but in the Ordinance it didn’t get changed. I started going through some Ordinances. We have committee’s that are not called the committee’s that we actually use. The thought came we should have this Ordinance Review Committee to go through the Administrative Code Section, much like what Charter Review Committee would do. For example, what you’re doing right now with the Senior Center / Community Room, Commission on Aging, or Civil Service. There’s a lot of antiquated and really not used information on here. We can do it in any way this Committee wants to review it.

Mr. Diemert asked, did you want them to do that before we approve the recodification pages?

Councilman Saponaro replied, no. Mr. Kelly brought up some things. He said, you don’t have to approve codification once a year. You could approve twice a year, every quarter. There’s a lot of different ways of doing that. It was very enlightening.

Mr. Diemert said, he gets paid every time he does that.

Councilman Saponaro said, the changes and the corrections that he’s making right now are part of the initial fee. He’s going to do that pretty quickly so we could get the Ordinance and everything cleaned up. If we make any recommendation for changes, he’ll tell us how much it’ll cost.

Mr. Diemert asked, didn’t this Committee at one time take the code book and just start going through it?

Chairman Marquardt replied, the Committee waited until somebody brought it to us.

Ms. Wolgamuth mentioned that the Mayor has asked all the Department Heads to look at all the Ordinances that relate to their departments and come back with any suggestions or changes needed. I would think that they would be able to do that much easier than this group that’s less familiar with the day to day operations of what we do.  

Chairman Marquardt states, we’ll need to have any changes reviewed by the Law Department. We’ll get this set up departmentally, one section at a time.

Councilman Saponaro asked, are you talking Administrative Code only?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, Administrative only for now.

Councilman Saponaro said, I’ll put it out to Council as well for any changes, concerns or comments.

NEXT STEP:

  • Department Heads to begin review of Codified Ordinances, Administrative Code that relate to their departments.
  • Recommended changes or suggestions to be brought to Ordinance Review Committee and Law Department for review.

Next meeting date Tues, June 14th @ 5:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT:

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

ROLL CALL

Ayes: All                                                 

Nays: None                      

Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.