Caucus: July 10th 2017

MINUTES OF A COUNCIL CAUCUS
Mayfield Village Civic Hall - Mayfield Village Civic Center
Monday, July 10, 2017 - 8:00 p.m.

The Council of Mayfield Village met in Caucus Session on Monday, July 10, 2017, at Mayfield Village Civic Hall in the Mayfield Village Civic Center.  Council President Saponaro called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Mr. Jerome, Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Marrie, Mrs. Mills, Dr. Parker, Mr. Saponaro, and Mr. Williams

Also Present: Mayor Bodnar, Mr. Diemert, Chief Edelman, Chief Carcioppolo, Mr. Marrelli, Mr. Metzung, Mr. Cappello, Mr. McAvinew, Ms. Wolgamuth, and Mrs. Betsa

Absent: Mr. Wynne

MAYOR:

Mayor Bodnar stated, we met with County officials.  We are getting going on the Vision Plan.  They gave us a sample of the survey they have put together.  We spent a lot of time going through it, tweaking it and making sure that it covers all of the issues of the Village.  That will be going out probably within the next month.  Mika, who is in charge of our plan is going on vacation.  After that, Mika will go out and get the ball rolling and then we will start our meeting shortly after that.

LAW DEPARTMENT:

Chairman Saponaro stated, we are adding to the agenda.  We are going to discuss not only the political sign ordinance, but there is discussion regarding use variance, a memo that has gone out, so we need to have a discussion on that as well as EMS billing for non-residents as a potential ordinance.

  • Use Variance Granted by BZA for Permanent Parcel Number:  831-05-015

Mr. Diemert stated, I gave Council and all Department Heads a letter outlining the procedures on the use variance that was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Artis Memory Care proposal for the northern part of the Village on East Commons.  The vote was 4-1.  The BZA had two meetings and had a quite a bit of evidence submitted by the Administration as well as the proponents for the variance including expert testimony from our side as well as their side. 

As a result of the vote, the matter now is automatically mandatorily referred to Council and Council then has to refer it to Planning and Zoning for a public hearing with 30 days’ notice and a report back to Council and recommendation within 90 days.

Council President Saponaro stated, that’s the confusing part for me, Joe, because when I looked at the Charter, the Charter says that Council does the 30 day hearing, not P&Z.

Mr. Diemert replied, okay.  I’m sorry, yes.

Council President Saponaro stated, I just wanted to make sure.  And I was asking John, I am confused by one other thing.  1105.02 says that any person may appeal a decision of the Building Commissioner or the Planning Commission. So, if it goes to the Planning Commission, then it goes to the BOA, then it gets referred to Council who refers it back to the Planning Commission?

Mr. Diemert replied, yes.

Council President Saponaro stated, I am not following how that works.

Mr. Diemert replied, let me give you a more detailed explanation.  The Charter Review Commission, when they made the recommendation, made it pretty clear that they wanted Planning and Zoning to have this shot at it and Council is, under 10, 11 and 12, required to send any rezoning or change in use to the Planning Commission.  In that language under those sections of the Charter, it is required that it go to Planning and Zoning Commission.

Council President Saponaro asked, which it would go to anyways, I would imagine, right?  So it can conceivably go there twice?

Mr. Diemert replied, conceivably, yes.  No change in use can be done without it going to them once the ordinance is developed.  So if someone goes to the Building Commissioner and asks for a permit, they are really not going to go to Planning Commission.  They will be denied right off the bat and then they go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.  The Planning Commission can’t hear something that’s proposed for a non-permitted use, so I don’t think it would ever go to Planning first.  Does that make sense to you?

Council President Saponaro replied, yes.  So when we are granting variances, that’s what doesn’t make sense.  If we are granting a variance, it would never go to Planning Commission?

Mr. Diemert replied, in the first instance.

Council President Saponaro stated, so I guess that’s where maybe the ordinance, subpart (a) may be confusing because it says it here that if the Building Commissioner or the Planning Commission, it goes to Board of Appeals after a decision, right?

Mr. Diemert replied, the old language is mixed with the new language.  The old language, people could go to the Planning Commission and Planning would refuse to approve, let’s say a permitted use, but they didn’t like the subdivision and therefore they disapproved the subdivision or whatever it is that John would bring to them to approve.  If the Planning Commission denied something on another matter besides use, it could be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance at that time on that subject.  For instance, Planning Commission might get an application to put an air conditioner somewhere in your yard.  That’s the kind of things that BZA gets a lot of, driveway locations, side yard locations, and Planning Commission might be in the course of reviewing a subdivision or a house or a new home and say we are not going to approve the air conditioner there and we are not going to approve the driveway there and you violated the side yard, you are going to need three variances.  So then the applicant would appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals and they would grant or deny the variances.  Those do not automatically go to Council.  Only the use variance automatically goes to Council.  That was by design of the Charter Review.

Council President Saponaro stated, there is confusion.  I know there is for me.  I was talking to John and there is confusion from a practical standpoint.

Mr. Marrelli stated, I think what is happening is we are used to projects going to the Planning Commission first, the permitted uses and conditional use permits.  But now that this new chapter is in the books for a use variance, the whole thing has kind of turned upside down where you start at the Board of Appeals.

Mr. Diemert stated, they start at your office.

Mr. Marrelli stated, they start in my office.

Mr. Diemert stated, and you deny it.  Then they go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Marrelli stated, I deny uses that are conditional uses as well when someone comes in and says, I want to put a Go-Kart place or something on Beta Drive.  I turn them down.  They come for a conditional use permit.

Council President Saponaro asked, and that goes where?

Mr. Marrelli replied, it goes right to Planning.  A conditional use permit which is renewable goes directly to Planning Commission versus a use variance which goes to Board of Appeals then Council then Planning then back to Council.

Mr. Diemert stated, I did a comparison some years ago of special use permits and conditional use permits.  Maybe we should update that now that we include this use variance process.

Council President Saponaro asked, once you are granted a use variance, you are granted for the life of the property or your particular use on that property?

Mr. Diemert replied, the use goes with the land.  It travels with the land.

Council President Saponaro stated, okay. Conditional use permits have to be renewed?

Mr. Marrelli replied, right.

Mr. Jerome stated, I guess my question is, when I was reading this, could we go the old way of doing it with doing conditional use permits where they have to come back every two years?

Mr. Diemert replied, sure you can do that, but the applicant would not want to do that.

Mr. Jerome stated, when the Charter Review Commission came up with this idea, we were trying to look at another tool in the toolbox for applicants that were going to put a lot of money into something and we wanted to keep them here and we said, hey, if we do this use variance, you are guaranteed to use this forever.  You don’t have to come back to us every 2 years.  I did not see from the Charter Review Commission that this automatically became what we go to.  I don’t see why we couldn’t decide what we wanted to go with, if that makes sense, why we can’t direct this toward the conditional use?

Mr. Diemert replied, it’s not automatic.  This is the first one you have had and it is now a year and a half later.  It’s not an automatic thing.  The Georgian application came in and they couldn’t get the use variance because it was residentially-zoned land and the Charter Review Commission did not want people in residential to be able to get a use variance.

Council President Saponaro asked, in that instance they went to Planning and Zoning, right?

Mr. Diemert replied, they wanted to get it rezoned and then they wanted to get a conditional use permit.

Council President Saponaro asked, and rezoning it, because it is residential, has to go to the vote of the electorate?

Mr. Diemert replied, right.  But Council didn’t pass the ordinance, so it didn’t go to the ballot.

Council President Saponaro stated, right.  Unless they did it themselves which they very well could have.

Mr. Diemert replied, right.

Council President Saponaro stated, okay.  So that’s a different type of issue here.  The way that we have look at this, it goes from John.  If John says I don’t believe it fits the use, then it goes to the Board of Appeals, then it goes to Council.  So now it’s at Council. So if I say I am referring it to Planning Commission tonight, it would refer to Planning Commission, or do I have to do something?  Does it have to be an official act?

Mr. Diemert replied, we have to draft an ordinance first.  So for your next meeting we will have an ordinance granting the variance.

Council President Saponaro asked, why do we have to draft the ordinance first?

Mr. Diemert replied, the Charter says an ordinance proposing to give a use variance would be referred automatically to Planning and Zoning according to 10, 11 and 12 of Article III.

Council President Saponaro asked, can’t I refer it to Planning and Zoning just as a matter of course?

Mr. Diemert replied, Council can’t act officially without a meeting.  If you just told us to give it to them directly instead of coming through Council?

Council President Saponaro stated, what I am saying is if –

Dr. Parker stated, does it have to be an ordinance, is what you are saying.

Council President Saponaro stated, yes, what I am saying is, we are not doing anything.  It is going to come to us with an ordinance that we are not going to do anything with because we can’t even weigh in on it because it’s got to go to Planning and Zoning.  It seems to be exacerbating and elongating the situation.  We are trying to help these people and it seems like we are making it a longer process.

Dr. Parker stated, we are not always trying to help them though. Sometimes we won’t approve that ordinance so it may not go forward.

Council President Saponaro stated, we can’t vote on it.  Until it goes to Planning and Zoning. We have to have 2 reads, a public hearing and then we can approve or disapprove it.  We have to go through that whole process.

Dr. Parker asked, is there anything that requires us, I know it’s sent to us, but is there any requirement for us to move it ahead?

Mr. Diemert replied, there’s no requirement that you wait until the ordinance is here.  We could send the ordinance to Planning and Zoning and simultaneously to Council for its next meeting.  Is that when Planning and Zoning meets next, at the next Council meeting?  Usually it coincides? We can send it to them whenever they are meeting next and let them know this is coming, get it on your agenda and your radar and Mary Beth will get you all of the minutes to read and review and evidence that was submitted.

Council President Saponaro asked, will that count as Council referring?

Mr. Diemert replied, we will still do it at the next meeting.

Council President Saponaro asked, what do we have to do at the next meeting to make it official?

Mr. Diemert replied, entertain a motion to refer it to Planning and Zoning.

Council President Saponaro stated, okay.

Mayor Bodnar stated, in reading the Charter, Article III, Section 11, the ordinance would be drafted first, it says, “nor shall any ordinance referring to zoning or other regulations controlling the use or development of land, [etc.] be adopted unless it [and I think it’s referring to the ordinance,] shall have been submitted to Planning and Zoning for report and recommendation.” We might want to take a look at those three Charter sections a little bit more closely.

Mr. Diemert stated, the outline says that it would be in ordinance form if you wanted to expedite it.

Council President Saponaro stated, Joe would have it in ordinance form and it would go to them at the same time and that same night we would –

Mr. Diemert stated, whenever their next meeting is.

Council President Saponaro stated, that makes sense now that I am reading this.  We have to approve it.  We have to refer it officially.

Dr. Parker asked, you say be adopted without, what if it’s something, do we have any discretionary process in terms of even not adopting?

Mr. Diemert replied, absolutely.

Dr. Parker asked, does it have to, what if we feel it’s not even appropriate?

Mr. Diemert replied, your Charter requires that any ordinance concerning this type of subject matter be sent to the Planning Commission.

Dr. Parker asked, before we would vote it down?

Mr. Diemert replied, correct.

Dr. Parker stated, got it.  Just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. Diemert stated, and if they recommend the variance and you want to turn it down, you will need 5 votes as opposed to a simple majority.

Council President Saponaro asked, but in that case, because it went through BOA, now it went to Planning Commission, what is our charge at that point?  Are we like a de novo type of review here or are we looking at, did they follow everything appropriately and so yes it passes muster?

Mr. Diemert stated, as I said in the short outline I just did off the top of my head tonight for you, you can follow the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the evidence that is before them and use that solely as your decision or the basis for whatever your decision is.  You can also open up de novo if you would like and ask for additional information or ask for additional evidence if you are so inclined.  That would be contemplated by a condition of the BZA.  Attached to it they want a development agreement approved before Council gives final approval because unlike going to the electorate, this is the end once Council acts.

Mr. Jerome asked, if they don’t go for this, they could go to the electorate?

Mr. Diemert replied, they would have to go through an initiative petition.

Mr. Jerome stated, that process, right.  There’s another way.

Mr. Marrelli stated, there’s no zoning classification for the use.

Mr. Jerome stated, it’s already zoned commercial, so it still wouldn’t.

Mr. Marrelli stated, they would have to go back to the conditional use permit.

Mr. Jerome stated, that is an option, but now they have started this process, according to the Charter, they have to at least take these steps to go in to Council.

Mr. Diemert replied, if they did initiative petition, they would have to do two things to create the rezoning of their property.

Council President Saponaro stated, Mary Beth, I would like to get all of the Minutes from the Charter Review on this particular matter so we understand what the intent was in case anyone wants the background on it.  We have Joe’s information on it.  You are then going to draw the ordinance up that grants the use variance, right?

Mr. Diemert replied, right.

Council President Saponaro asked, and then you are going to provide it for us?  Then we as Council are going to make a motion to refer this to Planning Commission?

Mr. Diemert stated, and the Mayor also asked for a timeline like I did before on the Georgian matter sort of taking the schedule of all of the Commissions and Council and seeing what the normal progression would be in trying to fit it in to your dates. You can always amend those dates, call special meetings like BZA did.

Council President Saponaro asked, in any other instance, would Council have to make a formal motion on the floor at a Council meeting to refer something to the Planning Commission?  By the way, I have Planning Commission in one part of this, I have Planning and Zoning, and I don’t know what it is, but I think we need to speak the same language, as a sideline. But where else would we ever have to refer to Planning Commission with an affirmative motion on the floor?

Mr. Diemert replied, Section 11, “no public building, street, boulevard, parkway, path, playground, bridge, tunnel, publicly or privately owned utility or part thereof shall be constructed or authorized to be constructed in the Municipality, nor shall any street, avenue, parkway, boulevard or alley be opened for any purpose whatsoever…widened, narrowed, relocated, vacated, or its use changed, nor shall any ordinance referring to zoning or other regulations…”  All those things, changing any of the existing zoning, “be adopted unless and until it shall have been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for report and recommendation.”  All those things.

Council President Saponaro stated, okay, so I know, since I have been on, I don’t recall any time that we have made it a motion.  That’s why I am asking.  I think the language we have in this new 1105.02 says, a mandatory referral.  Is that why we have to make it a formal, on the floor motion?

Mr. Diemert replied, no.  1105 was amended to coincide with the amendments to the Charter.  1105 is only BZA.  Only what the BZA’s authority is under the Charter was incorporated into that Codified Ordinance.  Only when, and that deals with them granting variances.  All of the language in there is pretty much the same except for if they grant a use variance which the Charter now allows them to do.  We amended your codified.  Council amended the codified to accommodate that ability for them to grant a use variance but then it reflects what the Charter mandates, that is, referring it to the Planning Commission.  Mandatory referral to Council. Council referring to Planning and Zoning.  No emergency clause.  Three readings.  No suspension of the Rules.

Council President Saponaro stated, okay.  I guess all I am saying is, I don’t recall ever having done it before.

Mr. Jerome asked, is it automatic?  Do we have to make a motion?

Mr. Diemert replied, I think every public building we have ever approved has gone to Planning and Zoning, hasn’t it?  Every new building.

Council President Saponaro stated, it goes there, Joe, I am not saying it doesn’t go there.  I am saying, I don’t recall saying I make a motion to have this go to Planning and Zoning.  That’s what I am trying to differentiate.  Are we being a little obstructionist?  That’s what I am concerned about.

Mr. Diemert replied, all those other things go to Planning Commission.  Council doesn’t have to refer it there.  But you can’t really adopt the sale of a building or a parkway or a widened street unless it has been to Planning and Zoning.

Council President Saponaro stated, right and they give us a recommendation and report.  The same applies here.  We can’t do anything until they give us a recommendation and a report.

Mr. Diemert replied, it has, “nor shall any ordinance referred to zoning or other regulations controlling the use or development be adopted unless and until it shall have been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for report and recommendation.”  It doesn’t say you have to do that, but somebody has to.  If you want the Administration to send it to them, like I said, we can do that simultaneously.  I just would like you to keep your record clear that you are referring it to them, you are not going to act until you get their report and recommendation.  It will be considered tabled on reading until that time has passed.

Council President Saponaro stated, I think it is clear for hopefully everyone on Council that we can’t act in any capacity until it goes through and we get the recommendation and approval.  It’s a little more confusing.  This is the test case.

Mr. Diemert stated, it’s the first time you are going through it.

Council President Saponaro stated, right.  Now you have BOA involved, but they were involved before Planning Commission gets involved which is just; BOA is Board of Appeals so it seems like why would the Planning Commission be after the Board of Appeals because it’s appealing something.  That’s why it didn’t make sense.  I got it now.  Going back to what we said before, we should do the ordinance.  Let’s have the ordinance in place.  Then we will make a motion to refer it.  That way it is official for the record.  It will go to P&Z.  Planning Commission will then report and make a recommendation. It will come back to Council.  When it comes back to Council, they could come back and say we make a recommendation but we would like to change this part of the ordinance, is that part of what they can say, or is the only recommendation they can make is it passes or it doesn’t?

Mr. Diemert replied, the only thing they are going to report on is what the ordinance is.  I am going to reflect only what BZA gave them in the way of a variance which is the conditional use variance.

Council President Saponaro asked, but they can act on their own and say, we will grant it, but we want these other conditions on there, right?

Mr. Diemert replied, they might make recommendations which they are allowed to do, for things they would like to see in the development agreement.  You might learn of some other recommendations when you have your public hearing about other things you would like in the development agreement and then we might amend the ordinance to include it.

Council President Saponaro stated, that will make an amendment to the ordinance at that point?

Mr. Diemert replied, when you so choose, yes, prior to final adoption.

Council President Saponaro stated, right.  So we don’t have to be concerned about this in terms of well we have a reading, now it has been amended?

Mr. Diemert replied, no.

Council President Saponaro stated, okay.  I just wanted to make sure we are following it.  So then we would have two readings and prior to the third reading would provide 30 days’ notice to the public for a hearing.  Would the hearing then occur and then the third reading would take place after or do you have to wait?

Mr. Diemert replied, you can do it the same day as your public hearing if you want.  That could be the third reading, or it could be the second reading.  I have to look.  I think it is between the second and third in the Charter.

Council President Saponaro stated, 30 days after the second reading and prior to the third, okay.

Mr. Diemert stated, so it could be the same night if you want it or the following week.

Council President Saponaro asked, so, if in the recommendation, Planning Commission votes, and it passes, then a majority of Council would be required to pass it?  If P&Z doesn’t pass it?

Mr. Diemert replied, if they recommend against.

Council President Saponaro asked, if they recommend against, then we need a supermajority?

Mr. Diemert replied, right.

Mr. Jerome stated, it’s the same the other way too.  What if they recommend it and Council doesn’t approve it, we would need-

Mr. Diemert stated, I think it only applies if you are going to grant the variance against the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Jerome asked, so if they are for it and we are against it; if 4 people on Council are for it, that would be fine then?

Mr. Diemert replied, if Planning Commission recommends it, yes.  We will advise you on the steps as we go along.  You are thinking 3 months down the road.  That’s okay.  We just want to get a general idea of where we are headed.

Council President Saponaro stated, I know we just got this this evening.  Does anyone else have any questions right now?

Mr. Jerome stated, it’s a good idea about reviewing what Charter Review Commission’s intent was.

Council President Saponaro stated, it gives us some context.  Diane or John, did you want to add anything to the discussion?

Mr. Marrelli replied, no. I am here for direction.

Council President Saponaro stated, that’s how you and I started the conversation.  From a practical standpoint, you need more guidance.

Mr. Marrelli replied, I think that’s why Joe is going to put a timeline together so the next steps are clear.  This is what we do today; this is what we do next time.

Mr. Diemert stated, I think I gave John a detailed letter on the procedures from when the guy walks in the door for the first time.  I gave him that back in January or February.  He’s had his guidance on that and he has handled it correctly all along.  It’s out of John’s hands at this point.

Mr. Marrelli stated, right.  It’s in Council’s hands.

Mr. Diemert stated, it’s in Council, Planning, that’s it.  As we get a development agreement and start working on that, then John will be back involved.

Council President Saponaro asked, we don’t ever go back to BOA?   BOA’s done?

Mr. Diemert replied, they are done.

Council President Saponaro asked, so the only other place it goes to is Planning and then it comes back to Council?

Mr. Diemert replied, when we get the development agreement and plans, we give them that.  They may need other variances.

Council President Saponaro stated, I understand that.  I am just saying in this part of the process.

Mr. Diemert replied, correct.

Council President Saponaro stated, thank you.

Mr. Jerome asked, there’s no timeline on the speeds that we need to do?

Mr. Diemert replied, there is not.

Mr. Jerome asked, so we don’t need to rush?

Mr. Diemert replied, Planning has an arbitrary 90 days that’s in the Charter, but it gives Council the ability to extend that time period for them.  You have no time period.

Mr. Jerome stated, okay it shouldn’t take no more than 90 days per the Charter.

Mr. Diemert stated, except what equitable interests would be.  Legislators have tabled things forever and it dies on the table.  Is that procedurally due process for the property owner?  Probably not.  I don’t recommend you would do that.

Council President Saponaro asked, any other questions on this?  The discussion will obviously continue.  Thank you, Joe.

  • Further discussion - Political Sign Ordinance

Mr. Diemert reported, we introduced at the last meeting an amendment to the political sign ordinance to coincide with Supreme Court decisions.  I mentioned to you that we made them consistent as to size.  I just saw a sign going up at Deacon’s tonight when I drove by.  It looks like it’s 9 foot square.  Maybe it’s even bigger.  Maybe we should get an idea so when you drive by, take a look at it.  We had before all different kinds. Real estate signs were 2 foot by 2 foot.  Political signs were 3 foot by 3 foot. Development signs were 10 foot by 20 foot. All kinds of different sizes.  The Supreme Court wants us to make them consistent unless there’s some reason not to.  That makes sense under health, safety and welfare.  I drafted it.  John and I talked and we picked a middle number.  You are welcome to change that number or think about it or question it in any way you want.

Mr. Marrie asked, no billboards allowed?

Mr. Diemert replied, no.

Council President Saponaro asked, that will go on Second Reading?

Mr. Diemert replied, yes.

Council President Saponaro stated, okay.  Perfect.  Does anyone have any questions for Joe on this?

There were none.

  • EMS Billing

Mr. Diemert reported, the Administration has not come to a consensus yet on amending the fee for non-residents for ambulance runs.  The Chief brought out through the course of this zoning appeal area and also he had mentioned before in reports to Council about the increased runs and the large percentage that is spent at Governor’s Village and if there is going to be other such institutions, the impact that has on his department in a negative way.  The Police Chief has also given similar testimony on that.

Administration is talking about maybe defining the residents who are excluded from such charges in a different way.  We could include in the definition of non-residents, we have done some research on it, institutional people in buildings with 10-20 more people who require assisted or nursing care facilities that might fit the definition to be able to be fit into the definition of a non-resident.  That’s something we are considering.  We will make a recommendation to Council maybe before the next meeting, maybe not.

Mr. Jerome asked, a couple of years ago we did change something were we did start billing non-residents’ insurance companies?

Mr. Diemert replied, in 2011 we started billing non-residents.  We have a whole criteria that is multiple sections on different insurance, how to bill for Medicare, for Medicaid and instructions to our billing companies.  We have also got a cap in there of $1,200 as a fee that Gino’s going to look at to see if we should change that amount as long as we are amending the ordinance.

Mr. Jerome asked, can it be on a case by case basis?

Mr. Diemert replied, yes.

Mr. Jerome asked, like Governor’s Village, you get 2 per person or per facility?

Mr. Diemert replied, we didn’t do that but under 1523.01, et al., there’s different sections.  The Finance Director was given discretion to declare someone a hardship case or uncollectible and cease the billing on that instance.

Mr. Jerome asked, if after 2, then you pay or something like that?  Does that make any sense at all?

Chief Carcioppolo replied, it would be very difficult to track each individual person.

Mr. Diemert stated, I think he is saying the facility itself.

Chief Carcioppolo replied, again, if you read the Minutes from the Board of Appeals, I still contend that the people in those occupancies are not residents.  They are occupants of an institutional facility.  The institutional facility is there to care for their medical needs.

Mr. Diemert stated, they may be domiciled here but not have declared or intended their residence to be here.  Those definitions are something we have been researching to see if we can justify having them determined not to be residents.

Mr. Jerome stated, we could charge all residents.  It’s really up to us.

Mr. Diemert replied, we can bill all residents, sure.

Chief Carcioppolo replied, and that’s something I can tell everyone that we are not, we are probably one of the only, if not the only, fire department that does not bill equally residents and non-residents.  We have been that way since we started billing.  We don’t hard bill.  We have a billing agency that does the billing for us.  They submit to the insurance company and basically whatever the insurance company is willing to pay is what is received as payment.  They don’t send people to collections.  Again, we have not ever billed residents.

Mr. Diemert stated, and you don’t bill residents’ insurance companies.

Chief Carcioppolo stated, and we don’t bill their insurance companies.

Mr. Diemert stated, that’s something you are losing out on.

Chief Carcioppolo stated, it could be a substantial amount of money, probably in the neighborhood of $200,000-250,000 a year.  So there’s two sides to look at that from.  There’s a side that is, that you are the only ones not doing it and this money is what insurance companies are expecting to pay and you are not even submitting a bill for it.

Mr. Diemert stated, and they are charging premiums to our residents based on that.

Mr. Jerome stated, right.

Chief Carcioppolo stated, their insurance company is designed to pay that and we are not submitting for it.

Council President Saponaro asked, so why aren’t we?  I don’t understand that.  It doesn’t affect the residents.

Chief Carcioppolo replied, from what I was told, it was not a popular idea back when it was introduced.

Council President Saponaro stated, okay.  So you are saying this is just past practice but it needs to be revisited, sounds like.

Chief Carcioppolo replied, to me, our department prides itself on just going on calls and it’s to a point irrelevant but since we are talking about on the institutional side of it, we are talking about the residential side of it as well.  I guess that’s a decision for Council to make.

Council President Saponaro stated, I think it’s a decision for you to make.  I don’t know how Council makes the decision.

Chief Carcioppolo stated, because it would have to be passed.

Council President Saponaro stated, I understand that. I know the official part of it.  I am just saying, you are the one who has all of the information, so if we are leaving $250,000 you think on the table, from an insurance billing perspective, so all I am saying is we are not going to go after anyone collection-wise, so the worst thing they can do is deny it, but the best thing they can do it is pay it, or pay a portion of it.

Dr. Parker stated, I don’t know that it was that simple when we discussed it because there are billing issues that deal with, and we could have our legal department look into it, that deal with what you bill a patient versus what you collect from a patient.  If I recall, it was looked into and I think, if you bill a patient and you bill the insurance company, you need to collect from that patient what was billed because it’s a co-payment kind of thing.  Now maybe there are exceptions to that.

Council President Saponaro asked, you mean like a deductible situation?

Dr. Parker replied, yes.  And more so than that, they are responsible for the difference and you just can’t write it off necessarily for any old reason you want to perhaps.  I don’t know, but I think we would have to have our legal department look into the ramifications of that for the insurance carriers we would be charging.

Council President Saponaro stated, it seems to me that if every other community is doing this, then it is out there.

Dr. Parker stated, I don’t know what other communities are exactly doing it.  They may be expecting their residents to pay the difference and if we want to expect our residents to pay the difference, that can become a nightmare to some extent.

Council President Saponaro stated, I don’t think that’s the intention.

Dr. Parker stated, it may not be the intention, but legally it may be the requirement.

Chief Carcioppolo replied, I can try to reach out to our billing company and ask because again we don’t actually bill. The billing company takes the calls that we go on.  They refer it to the appropriate insurance company and they handle the collectibles.  They receive a portion of the 7% or 8% that is recuperated.  That’s their payment.

Mr. Diemert stated, so Council did adopt a number of instructions to the billing company such as when the billing company is going after Medicare and Medicaid payments they are to waive all co-payments, deductibles and any balance remaining. Council has instructed the billing company to waive that for non-residents.

Council President Saponaro asked, is that in the ordinance?

Mr. Diemert replied, yes, it’s in the ordinance.

Council President Saponaro asked, which ordinance?

Mr. Diemert replied, 1523.

Mr. Jerome stated, so right now when we are billing the non-residents, they are still not billing out of pocket?

Mr. Diemert replied, we are not billing residents at all now.

Chief Carcioppolo stated, the non-residents’ bills are just being submitted to their insurance companies.

Mr. Jerome stated, we are billing non-residents.  We are, but they are not paying out-of-pocket?

Mr. Diemert replied, we are billing the non-residents.  We are giving waivers if they have insurance that we will accept whatever their insurance company pays.  We won’t go after the deductibles, we won’t go after co-pays.

Mr. Jerome asked, what if they don’t have insurance?

Mr. Diemert replied, then it says they are still responsible, but it’s up to the Finance Director to pursue it.

Dr. Parker stated, I just think we need to look at it from a legal aspect and to make sure we are not doing anything that can be construed as fraudulent.

Mr. Diemert replied, the Attorney General opinions have upheld these.  I don’t know if there are any court cases yet.

Council President Saponaro asked, what year is that from?

Mr. Diemert replied, 11 is the last one.

Council President Saponaro asked, 2011?  Okay.

Mr. Marrie stated, I for one am deadly against billing any residents for emergency calls of any kind.  If you want to talk about the so-called money left on the table to go after the insurance companies, fine, but I don’t think residents should have to pay.

Council President Saponaro asked, the difference?

Mr. Marrie stated, of any kind.

Council President Saponaro stated, I think we are all in agreement with that.

Mr. Marrie stated, they pay taxes for that.

Council President Saponaro stated, I don’t think anyone’s disputing that at all.  I think there was a concern that we may want to do that, but the unintended circumstance may be we are required to and that is the concern.

Mr. Diemert stated, it says expressly in here that because Mayfield residents pay income tax to the Village, they were waiving anything out of their pockets personally.

Dr. Parker stated, and that might be something we are allowed to do.  I assume it was at the time.  What the deal is now, we don’t know.

Mr. Jerome stated, most communities are still not billing their residents, but they are billing their insurance companies.

Chief Carcioppolo replied, to my knowledge, everyone bills the insurance companies.  There may be some communities that bill the residents and want everything, but I am pretty sure, and I can poll some of my counterparts and see if they have similar billing companies that bill the insurance company and accept whatever the insurance company is willing to pay.   The only other thing I would end it with is if you guys decided to go down that path I would say that you might want to earmark the monies received from that in an account for EMS equipment or related expenses because we have had no issues getting anything but it doesn’t make sense to me to bill that equipment and then, I think that money should be earmarked in an account specific for equipment purchases whether it be an ambulance, a heart monitor, those are all high ticket items so it is something to think about that could preserve and keep intact those services in the event that there were any financial hardships.

Council President Saponaro asked, any other discussion on this?  Obviously the discussion will continue as more information becomes available.  Mr. Diemert, anything else?

There was nothing further to report.

POLICE DEPARTMENT:

  • Declaring police vehicles surplus and selling on govdeals.com along with old K-9 car.
    • 2013 Dodge Charger, VIN: 2C3CDXAG0DH590910, mileage: 99,875
    • 2013 Dodge Charger, VIN: 2C3CDXAG0DH590909, mileage: 95,224

Chief Edelman stated, these are two of my older cars that I pulled out of use earlier this year.  I am asking Council to declare them as surplus so that I can put them on Govdeals.com for public bid.  At that time, I would also put my old K-9 car on Govdeals.com as well.  I have been trying to get rid of that for a while and have not had any luck.

Council President Saponaro asked, and we have already approved that?

Chief Edelman replied, you have already declared that as surplus.

Council President Saponaro stated, thank you.  Any questions on this? 

There were none.

SERVICE DEPARTMENT:

  • Trailer Mounted Heated Asphalt Hauler for road repair (Concord Road Equipment - $24,804.01)

Mr. Metzung stated, we are looking to replace our trailer mounted heater unit for carrying asphalt.  It is replacing a 20-year-old unit.

  • Salt Bids

Mr. Metzung reported, the new salt bids came out this year at $29.12 which is .11 cheaper than last year.  Same vendor, Cargill.

  • Siding Replacement – 734 SOM

Mr. Metzung stated, I am working on getting a bid for siding replacement for the old ODOT garage.

  • Tree Removal

Mr. Metzung reported, we have 5 or 6 tree removals on Wilson Mills that we need to take care of.  We are out getting bids for those now. I don’t know if that will be over the Mayor’s spending limit or not.  Come two weeks, we may need to approve that.

Mr. Jerome asked, will it include planting new trees?

Mr. Metzung replied, no.

PARKS & RECREATION:

  • Intergenerational Park at Parkview

Mr. McAvinew reported, are out to bid for this.  The estimate is $625,000 with an additional add on as alternates $50,000.  The bid opening is on Friday, July 21st.  It is required that this project be completed by November 1, 2017.  Consideration by Council at their August meeting should work.  It should not be an issue.

Mr. McAvinew continued, also, tomorrow night we have our Activities Committee meeting here at 6:45 p.m.  If you want to attend, we will be talking about the different events we have done so far this year from the Pancake Breakfast to Cruise Night to the July 4th Celebration.  Also, I want to take note, the Ribbon Cutting at the Grove Bandshell, I have to say I have been in public service for nearly 23 years and rarely do you come upon a project with all compliments.  From the band coming and loving the acoustics to residents; I was looking at our Facebook page for the Grove Ampitheatre and since the creation of it, it has doubled in the amount of people coming to that page who like that page.  Every week we pick up more.  The Village needs to be proud of that project.  The residents are very proud.  The bands and entertainment all feel blessed to be here when they come.  If you have the opportunity, we have some beautiful pictures taken, some by the Mayor’s husband and some by Ed Parker on the evening of fireworks.  They are outstanding.  Moving forward we need to keep on supporting the Grove and get numbers down there.  It will grow.  I already see us growing.  It will continue over this season and the next.

Lastly, this weekend at the Grove we have an adaptive program, Dancing Wheels and then adaptive showcase.  We actually start on Thursday with John Fazio with a history presentation.  Next week we have Out of Eden at the Gazebo which is an Eagle’s Tribute Band.  That also should be a good evening.

Mr. Cappello stated, in addition to what Shane said regarding the Intergenerational Park, something I forgot to mention in the previous meeting was we did receive a grant for the tennis court portion of this project.  I think it was around $91,000.  Just so everyone knows that $625,000, we are getting a grant for $91,000.

Mr. Jerome asked, if we ever wanted to add two more tennis courts, was that part of the plan?  There’s room.

Mr. McAvinew replied, there’s space available.  At this point it is not part of the plan but the popularity is something we can revisit if we see increasing use of the tennis courts.

Mr. Jerome stated, I wanted to make sure.  Two is not that many, but it is better than zero.  I just wanted to make sure we foresee the possibility of that.  Bill talked about this many years ago.  That was something he said if we needed it down the road, we could do it.

Mr. McAvinew replied, that was part of the process.  We were looking at different spots and locations.  I think the locations we were looking at we have the possibility of that if it would be a demand and the citizens would need a third or fourth court.  We also are looking at moving forward with Pickleball lines on the courts so they will be used not only for tennis but also for Pickleball which is very popular and growing in the community.

Mr. Jerome asked, aren’t the nets not the same height?

Mr. McAvinew replied, you bring in portable nets.

Mr. Jerome asked, but the lines are there?

Mr. McAvinew replied, the lines are there.  They will be universal.

Mayor Bodnar asked, can we do the Pickleball lining?  We did that survey.

Mr. McAvinew replied, we did that survey and I have a phone call out to the State.  She was on vacation last week and a half.  I got on the phone first thing this morning and was put through voicemail.  I am waiting for her return call.  I want to talk to her about the survey findings and get her e-mail and show it to her and then have that discussion to make sure that is okay to move forward with.

Mr. Cappello stated, just so you know, the Pickleball is just striping. I have that as a separate bid item.  If there is an issue that can be non-performing and would just be tennis courts.

Mr. Jerome stated, we could do it down the road.

Mr. McAvinew replied, you would still need approval if you did it down the road at a certain timespan.  You would still need approval because the State has invested that money into the project, but there would be a time span where that would go away.  It would be within a year.  I have had open communication with the State about it.  She is pretty open.  I am hopeful.  We did a survey on-line and the responses came back.  Some people wanted it dedicated. Most people had no preference one way or the other.  Only 50% of the people had no preference one way or the other.  That’s what I will talk to her about.  It’s not conclusive saying, yes, I want Pickleball, yes, and I want tennis courts.  It’s in the middle here.  I want to play tennis, I want to play Pickleball, but I don’t know.

Mr. Jerome stated, it doesn’t hurt the tennis court.  It’s just a line.

Mr. McAvinew replied, it’s just a line, but you also have to take into consideration the color you color those lines.  You make it more universal.  You will see a lot of times almost every turf field put out anymore for lacrosse, soccer, football and everything in between, those lines are everywhere.  People adapt to it pretty quickly.  It just wasn’t in the original proposal.  It was not found out until we submitted it to the State for approval and she came back and said these are the steps that you need to go if you want to have it.  She didn’t say no.  She said, take these steps.  I think what we did was we went above and beyond to be honest with you because she was okay with a letter from the tennis community.  I thought a survey really would be the better route to go.  It would be a fair comparison.  That survey was sent out to 2,000 people.

Dr. Parker stated, first as Pickleball is concerned, it doesn’t really hurt the Pickleball game to have a smaller court but I don’t know what impact it would have on someone wanting to have a tennis game and having those lines and their mobility around the court and how the ball would bounce differently or whatever.  If it doesn’t great.  But if it does, it might detract from the quality of the tennis court.  With two tennis courts, going to Mr. Jerome’s statement, it is kind of almost minimum.  If you really want to do it nice, and we have so many nice facilities here, and you want to maybe incorporate it into some of the other summer programs we have, four courts is really a minimum in terms of if you want to have some kind of tournament that’s more than just a couple of people going out and playing with each other so that camps and things, local places can use it and really take advantage of it.  If the work is being done and there’s people there, I am not going to say it’s not that much more to do two more courts, but if you think about everything there and you are doing all this paving and everything else, maybe it makes sense to just bite the bullet at this stage and do it really nice like we do everything in this Village. I would like to know what it costs or the differential.

Mr. Cappello replied, if I remember correctly, my estimate for two tennis courts, the Pickleball is nothing, the Pickleball is just striping.

Dr. Parker stated, I know, but when you are running around in a tennis court –

Mr. Cappello stated, I am just giving you an idea.  That cost is nothing.  Really minimal.  So minor.  If I remember correctly, my estimate for the two tennis courts, the fencing, the paving, the grading, was around $137,000 for two.

Dr. Parker asked, what about for four?

Mr. Cappello stated, for four I guess you could double it.

Dr. Parker stated, are you really doubling it?

Mr. Cappello replied, you are.  It’s purely material.  It might be a couple thousand less because you are saving one of the fence lines.  It’s not going to be substantial.  The other thing is the further we place the tennis courts, if I move further to the east you start getting close to the baseball fence.  Could it be done?  Sure.  I guess we could do it.  Is it conducive?  No.

Dr. Parker stated, my concern is this and I have always been a proponent of tennis courts but I kind of put it on the back burner, I know having a child playing tennis and not being able to have them play tennis in Mayfield Village growing up.   Mine are all grown.  But maybe other people, when we are talking about making our Village very user-friendly and trying to make our Village very attractive to people moving into the Village and raise the values of our homes because people sell homes that have such amenities.  It seems like you are telling me we’ve got the space, but it’s really not too good.

Mr. Cappello stated, where we put the space, we felt it was the optimal.  Can I add to it?  Sure.  We would have to do it to the east.  I don’t have the plans in front of me.  I can’t give you the exact dimensions.  That was an area where it was kind of like there’s walks through this whole area, some new asphalt walks.  That was going to be a rounded area.  Obviously if you are going to do this in the future, you don’t want to be having to move that mound again.

Dr. Parker stated, in my opinion, I would prefer to see four.  I think we do it really nice.  We make it just like we do our soccer field.  Just like we do our baseball field.  Just like we do at our pool.  We could have a first-class group of tennis courts that we can really attract people to our community with.  That’s just how I feel.  I feel that we are spending a lot of money. It’s great to have two, but I don’t think we are doing it justice.  That’s just my opinion.

Council President Saponaro asked, can we see a plan?

Mr. Cappello replied, sure.

Council President Saponaro asked, why don’t you share that with us?

Mr. Cappello replied, I can e-mail it to Mary Beth and she can easily distribute it. It will be pdf’s.  You can see what we have out there.

Council President Saponaro stated, $625,000 is the bid, but that’s not just for the tennis courts. There’s a whole complex here.

Mr. Cappello replied, the tennis courts was roughly $137,000.  There’s 4 bocce courts that are going to go between these tennis courts a little north along the one softball field.  Between that and the softball restrooms, there’s four courts there.  We are putting two sand volleyball courts by the soccer field restrooms up there and then we are doubling the parking.  Right now the parking is about a 63-car parking lot.  We are making it 126 cars.  It is going to be asphalt parking.

Mr. Jerome asked, the softball parking lot?

Mr. Cappello replied, yes, the softball parking lot.

Council President Saponaro stated, my only comment on that is that we spent a lot of time when we were building the police department, when we were looking at Wiley Park to remove a lot of the pervious pavements so that we didn’t have the storm water run-off.  We put in planting.

Mr. Cappello replied, that was required.

Council President Saponaro stated, it may have been required, but it’s also a part of being a green community, a community that doesn’t create big blacktop areas.  I think that we should talk about if there is any other alternates.

Mr. Cappello replied, we had the gravel lot.  You can ask Doug.  That didn’t really function that great.  To go to pervious pavers, you are talking about increasing that cost tremendously.  This is designed, it doesn’t have water quality treatment, a swale.  It’s an enhanced swale.  The water sheets flows off the parking lot into about a four foot wide flat swale and then goes to the northeast to the area behind the softball fields. There’s one in there already.  We are treating the stormwater.  We are taking that into account.  As far as that goes, the bocce fields are all gravel.  In between it’s going to basically have gravel pats.  That’s basically pervious.  Sand volleyball would be pervious.  The only thing that’s not is the parking lot, tennis courts and the trail.  We have some asphalt walks in this area.  I definitely will get you guys copies of the plans so you can see them.

Council President Saponaro replied, very good. I think that will be beneficial for everyone.

Mr. Jerome stated, whether we do it now or later, we want to make sure there could be space somewhere.

Mr. Cappello stated, I will verify that to see if it’s the best and what would have to be done.  It’s just that that area I think I could put in would be an area where right now I am saving money by putting mounds there.

Mr. Jerome asked, would it have to be next to each other?

Mr. Cappello replied, I think there’s that option.  I would think you would want courts pretty close to each other.

Mr. Jerome stated, right.

Mr. Cappello stated, you will definitely get the two.  I was not involved in the original application, but how did we determine we wanted two?  I imagine there was some sort of rationale.

Dr. Parker stated, personally, it was not a big priority at the time, I hate to say it because we were going through various grant vehicles and things and did not have the money for the courts at the time but I think like with anything we do, whether it be the community room, we have to look long term and short term into what we would do long term, what would it cost us long term to go back and redo things and what is in the best interest long term in terms of having the facilities we want.  I just think, and if you add Pickleball to two tennis courts, I think you are really diluting the significance of those courts.  In that case I would say have four and add Pickleball to two of them or one of them or whatever, but I think turning two tennis courts into Pickleball courts is like really demeaning the people who want to play tennis.

Mr. Cappello stated, again, I did not have anything to do with that section of it, but from talking with Shane, the reason why they want Pickleball, Shane can talk better about it as far as the demand, but at the high school people are playing, there are 15 courts at the high school?

Mr. McAvinew replied, there are usually about 40-50 people playing.

Mr. Cappello stated, I did not realize Pickleball is that popular.

Mr. McAvinew replied, I did not realize until I came to Mayfield Village how popular Pickleball is.  They offer it at Wildcat 3-4 days a week and fill the courts up the whole entire time.

Dr. Parker stated, if it’s that popular, then it is just going to make it more difficult for people who want to play tennis to play tennis.  Those courts will not be available for tennis.  They will have Pickleball people playing.  So you are kind of defeating the purpose of creating this ability to play tennis here especially what you are saying you need more.  I think we really need to consider if we are going to create a multi-purpose tennis court it’s going to lower the value of the people who do play tennis.  There’s a lot of people who play tennis and we should definitely then consider having four courts because it’s not the way I think we have ever done anything in this community to say, well, we will plan for two more.  You know how it is.  I just feel strongly about that as you can tell.  Thank you.

Mr. Jerome stated, I agree.

Council President Saponaro asked, any other comments on this?

There were none.

ANY OTHER MATTER BEFORE COUNCIL:

Council President Saponaro asked, is there any other matter than needs to be brought up at this point?

There were no further matters.

There being no further matters, the meeting concluded at 9:06 p.m.