Finance Caucus - June 3rd 2013

MINUTES OF THE FINANCE CAUCUS MEETING
Monday, June 3, 2013 – 7:30 p. m.
Main Conference Room – Mayfield Village Civic Center

 The Finance Committee meeting was held on Monday, June 3, 2013, in the Main Conference Room at the Mayfield Village Civic Center.  Mr. Marrie called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

(Click here for a print friendly/pdf document)

Present: Mr. Marrie and Mr. Marquardt

Also Present: Mrs. Cinco, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Wynne, Chief Edelman, Mr. Metzung, Mr. Marrelli, Mr. Thomas, Interim Chief Carcioppolo, Mr. Cappello, Mr. McKnight, Ms. Wolgamuth, and Mrs. Betsa

1. Volunteer Appreciation Event (not to exceed $7,500)

Ms. Wolgamuth reported, we have scheduled this for Friday, August 2nd.  I think everyone really enjoyed the band last year for the Mardi Gras.  One of the main things they do is blues, so I suggested a Blues and Barbecue theme and everyone seems to like that.  The amount is the same as last year.  

Mr. Marrie asked, any questions?  There were none.

2. Fire Station Mold Issue

Mr. Wynne reported, we have had health issues with some of our full and part-time firefighters over at the station.  We had a company called Auburn Environmental back in February do a study and they found we have a mold issue caused by the roof not being properly ventilated.  We went out and got quotes to have the mold remediated, duct work wrapped and ceiling tiles replaced.  These items are on the Special Meeting agenda this evening. We are asking for approval to begin the process to move forward.

Mr. Marrie stated, for what it’s worth, the total on the four items is $19,465.69.  Any questions? There were none.  Mr. Marrie stated, we will move it on to the Special Meeting tonight then.  If it is passed, they can get moving on it tomorrow especially because of the health.

3. Sports Field Restrooms

Mr. Marrie stated, this was discussed this evening in Safety and Service.

Mr. Marrelli reported, the bids came in. The low bid for the building itself was $260,000.  The low bid for the utilities was $64,500.  As you can see from the memo, and I am not going to take credit for the memo because Diane did most of it, Progressive has volunteered to step up and do the pavilion part of it which is going to be the pavers and the landscaping and the picnic area.  This is in their front yard. When the design was done, it was done with the idea that it has to blend and not look like an outhouse in their front yard which it doesn’t, if you see the diagram. 

At this point, we have a low bid of $260,000 and $64,000. We need authorization to enter into this contract if Council chooses to go ahead with the soccer field project.

Mr. Marrie asked, do you want this to just move on to Finance which is not until two weeks from now?

Mr. Marrelli replied, I would like to have it moved in to the agenda tonight.

Mr. Marrie asked, the Special Meeting?

Mr. Marrelli replied, why not?  Sooner is better. Any time we can get to get started, I would like to have it.

Mr. Marquardt asked, when did this pavilion get introduced?  It’s the first time I have seen it.

Mr. Metzung replied, the pavilion has always been discussed as an additional item.

Mr. Marquardt stated, it’s never been shown to Council in any kind of documentation.

Mr. Metzung replied, we never anticipated, when we looked originally, and this goes back to the moving of the trailer, we talked about getting restrooms up there and at some point you put a pavilion up there of some sort so people have somewhere to hang out.  I don’t think anybody looked at doing one massive project at any one given time. The bathrooms were always the focus. We needed to just take care of that piece.

Mr. Marquardt stated, like I said, it’s never been introduced to Council on any kind of documentation.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, it was in the drawings when we took it to the Rec Board. There was also a memo to Planning and Zoning. Those were all attached to that. I believe that they have been on since the beginning.

Mr. Marquardt stated, there was never anything presented to Council as far as a pavilion in this.  I don’t think that this is a contribution to the restrooms from Progressive. This is an added feature that was not in your original planning.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, we did it as an alternate because we didn’t know it was something we would want to do.

Mr. Marrelli stated, we don’t have to do it at all. We can just put the building out there.

Mr. Marrie asked, what was Progressive paying for? The pavilion?

Mr. Marrelli stated, yes.

Mr. Thomas added, it’s about $80,000.

Mr. Marrie stated, I don’t understand. If Progressive is willing to do that, the pavers, etc., why would we not?

Mr. Marrelli stated, I don’t know why we would care.  If they are going to pay for it, who cares?

Mr. Marquardt stated, well the issue is that this has been billed for weeks now, months now, that Progressive was going to contribute to these restroom facilities and they are not. They are buying the pavilion. They are not contributing to the restroom facilities.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, they did say they were not willing to cut us a check to help pay for the restrooms but they did want to participate and their participation is using their crews and their people to build something.  From the beginning that was always my understanding.

Mr. Marquardt stated, that’s not again been communicated to Council on that matter.  The impression from the communications to Council is that Progressive was contributing to the restroom facilities.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, I can go back and pull the memos.  I don’t remember exactly what was said.

Mr. Marquardt stated, see if it was said in Council.

*(See footnote at conclusion of discussion of this item)

Mr. Marrie stated, I thought it was said in Council that they were going to contribute to the project.  I don’t think they ever said individually what.

Mr. Marquardt stated, there was never a definition of the project as including a pavilion either.

Mr. Marrelli asked, when have we ever built anything and not put landscaping around it or an accessway to get to it?  That’s all part of it.

Mr. Thomas added, that trailer originally was going to have viewing for about 60 or some people in the trailer. That was originally the thought. This is basically replacing the trailer.  It’s a picnic shelter.

Mr. Marrelli asked, what is Council’s impression of the project?

Mr. Marquardt replied, that it’s a restroom facility.

Mr. Marrelli asked, did you see pictures of it?  Did you see a site plan?

Mr. Marquardt replied, I saw pictures of the building. 

Mr. Marrelli asked, like these?

Mr. Marquardt replied, I saw a drawing of the building.

Mr. Marrelli asked, did you see this picture with the pavilion or the picture without the pavilion?

Mr. Marquardt replied, I don’t recall seeing that picture with the pavilion.

Mr. Marrelli stated, I am surprised that you didn’t know about the rest of the project. We never build anything without putting landscaping around it.

Mr. Marquardt stated, I would expect that. 

Mr. Marrelli stated, it turns into landscaping and a patio.  It never stops.  It always gets better and bigger. 

Mr. Thomas stated, it certainly will be used.

Mr. Marquardt stated, the budgeting was for the restroom facilities.

Mr. Marrelli replied, correct.

Mr. Marrie stated, it still is.  Mrs. Cinco agreed.

Mr. Marquardt stated, but I am saying, that’s what set the expectation for the facility was the budgeting.

Mr. Marrelli stated, the $260,000, they are not giving us any money towards the $260,000.

Mr. Marquardt stated, that’s my issue.

Mr. Marrelli stated, that’s your point.  You are correct if you want to look at it that way.  We are looking at $260,000, $64,000, that’s utilities and the building, then if you add the landscaping and the pavilion and everything, that’s another $80,000.

Mr. Marquardt asked, was that in the budget?

Mr. Marrelli replied, no.

Mr. Marquardt stated, okay, that’s my issue.

Mr. Marrelli stated, we are not paying for it.

Mr. Marquardt stated, it doesn’t matter.  It was not in the budget.  It was presented that Progressive was contributing to this. The impression was they were contributing toward what we had budgeted. What was defined as the project.

Mr. Marrelli asked Mr. Marrie, was that your impression?

Mr. Marrie replied, no. That’s not my impression.  Mrs. Cinco agreed.

Mr. Marrelli stated, then go back and see what was said, I guess.  Maybe it was just the wrong impression.

Mr. Marrie stated, I always thought they were going to contribute to the project.  Period.  At that point we didn’t know what that was.

Mr. Marquardt stated, I knew that the project was budgeted for $300,000.  That is the way the project is defined.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, we really didn’t know until last week exactly what Progressive was going to commit to.  I called and said we have gotten our bids, we want to go to Council. Can I get you to commit so I can tell them what you are going to be willing to do?  At that point, he said, we will do the pavilion, we will do the paved terrace and we will do landscaping.  I didn’t want to push them too hard before then to commit.

Mr. Marrelli stated, it’s value added.  It’s hair splitting to go back and say they are part of it, they are not part of it, they are paying for the building or they are not paying for the building.

Mr. Marquardt stated, I think it should be as clear to Council if it’s being made to Progressive.

Mr. Marrelli replied, okay. That’s easy enough.

Mr. Marquardt continued, since we did say Progressive is approving this project.

Mr. Marrie asked, Bill, you are not against them building a pavilion and paying for the pavers?

Mr. Marquardt replied, I am against the way this thing has been handled.  It’s been misleading. I will make that determination next meeting when we vote on this.  This is not on the agenda tonight.

Mr. Marrelli stated, no it’s not.  But if you are looking for the wording to change, what if they changed with the wording and just went with the budgeted items which we all agreed to and didn’t have a problem with and said Progressive is now adding part of it?

Mr. Marquardt stated, come on.  Let’s not talk semantics.  We understand what’s going on.  You understand what my position is. I voiced that. I think Council should be aware of the scope of the project, not be walked down the garden path that we are going to get Progressive’s contribution to the project that we budgeted and we are not.

Mr. Marrie stated, if you want to break it down, I don’t have a problem with that. Go ahead and do it.  But I certainly wouldn’t turn Progressive down.

Mr. Marrelli stated, the scope is three items.   It’s the pavilion.  It’s the building. It’s the landscaping.

Mr. Metzung added, the walkway.

Mr. Marrelli stated, that’s part of the pavers.  I am calling it the landscaping.

Mr. Marrie suggested, present it to Council as Bill wants then so everyone knows exactly what it is then.   Let’s do it that way.  Any other questions?

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, I don’t understand, presented how?

Mr. Marrie replied, Bill is saying it wasn’t presented that Progressive was going to put in basically what we were talking about the project at that time which was the restrooms.

Mr. Marrelli added, he wants it clarified.

Mr. Marrie continued, he wants it clarified that Progressive is, correct me if I am wrong, he wants Council to know that this is the project cost for the restrooms. This is the cost for the utilities and Progressive is not giving us money for that part of it.

Ms. Wolgamuth asked, is that different from what the current memo says?  That’s what we reported in the current memo.

Mr. Marquardt replied, I am saying that this has been going on for months. We set a budget based on the restroom facility. There was nothing talked about in that budget relative to what Progressive is giving us. The understanding since then was that Progressive was contributing to the budgeted project.  They are not. They are contributing an extra item that was not in the budgeted project. That’s my issue.

Ms. Wolgamuth asked, Mr. Wynne, what was in the budget?

Mr. Wynne replied, we budgeted $300,000.

Ms. Wolgamuth asked, is that only for restrooms?  Or is that for the project?

Mr. Wynne replied, the project.  It was primarily to cover the restrooms and the utilities.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, until the bids came in, we didn’t know how much that $300,000 would cover. We kind of hoped that it would cover both buildings. That didn’t happen until we got the bid numbers back. We couldn’t know how that would wind up with the budget numbers until we went out to bid.

Mr. Marquardt stated, the scope of the project was the restrooms.  It didn’t include the rest of this stuff.  It didn’t include the pavilion.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, the plan always did.  We planned to do it as an alternate. 

Mr. Marquardt stated, it wasn’t presented in any way, shape or form, the pavilion portion of it. When the budget was set, it was a restroom.  I don’t want to keep going around and around on this thing. I have explained myself.  I think that it’s pretty clear.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, we are only asking that the Village cover the cost of the restroom.

Mr. Marquardt stated, I understand that.  I am talking about the fact that it was misleading to say that Progressive was contributing to the budgeted project when they are not.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, we never said to the budgeted project. We never said that.

Mr. Marquardt stated, that was the impression that was given.

Ms. Wolgamuth stated, that was the impression you had that these people are saying they didn’t have.

Mr. Marquardt stated, that’s fine. We will see how many other Council do.

Ms. Wolgamuth asked, so how do we clarify it?  I am not sure how to clarify it.

Mr. Marquardt stated, it’s already clarified.  I understand it. I‘m saying I don’t like the way it was done.  That if you are going to be as clear to Progressive as you are with Council, that’s one thing. But it wasn’t as clear to Council as you are presenting it to Progressive.

Mr. Thomas stated, I don’t think we had that information from Progressive. We literally found out last week after all the bids came in, then we were able to present something.

Mr. Marquardt stated, let’s just present it to Council. Everything I have to say has been said.

Mr. Marrelli stated, the main thing is you know where the numbers are.

Mr. Marrie stated, make sure when it goes to Council that it is broken down into three things so everyone knows individually what they are. The two budgeted items are this, they are less than what we had proposed, and the third item is coming from Progressive.  Let’s move on. Call it whatever you want.  I don’t care.  But I’m certainly not going to turn it down.

*Supplement following Finance Caucus meeting of June 3, 2013:

The Council Packet dated Feb 22, 2013 included a Memorandum from Mayor Rinker regarding the Sport Field Restrooms.  This Memo was addressed to the Planning & Zoning Commission and copied to members of Council, Department Heads, the Architectural Review Board and the Recreation Board.  Attached to this Memo were proposed site plans and design elevations for both fields, including pavilion designs and placement.  In addition, the Memo stated that Progressive Insurance has “offered to donate labor and materials in support of this project” at the soccer field.  Subsequently, at the March 4, 2013 Council Caucus meeting, there was discussion about pavilions being part of the project and the extent of Progressive’s likely participation.  An update was also provided where it was reported that unofficially they [Progressive] are interested in contributing to building a pavilion at the soccer fields.  (see, p. 2 of the Finance Caucus Committee Minutes of May 6, 2013).  Council Packets and Meeting Minutes can be found at www.mayfieldvillage.com.

4. 2013 Road Program – Change Order

Mr. Metzung reported, we have experienced a great deal more concrete slab replacement as part of the project. As the memo indicated, Tom’s numbers show that we spent $135,000 more in slab replacement than anticipated. Some of it has to do with just more concrete. Some of it has to do with the fact that we made areas thicker and some of it is that we had to dig out some of the base and put some new base down.  It’s certainly a significant number.  Not a number that we have run into in the past two projects.  The concrete in this area was much more brittle and some of it was horrendous.

Mr. Marrie asked, it’s the oldest of all, isn’t it?

Mr. Metzung replied, it is.  The things we saw when they tore the cement off, you can see where there were organics in the ground, a tree laying there and they poured concrete over it. That’s the kind of stuff that is really not forgivable.

Mr. Cappello added, in certain sections we found that were contributing part of the problem. After we ground the inch and a half of concrete off and saw cut some of the areas which we marked, when the trucks are driving over it, the slabs just started disintegrating. Those compounded the problem. Again, for whatever reason, no under drains were installed at Oakwood. We installed those. We had to replace some aprons to get drains in.  The amount of undercut we did at  Oakwood was really significant. We had to take out approximately six inches to a foot of the bad material and put back premium material. Those are some of the areas. At this point today we are done with the base repair.

Mr. Metzung stated, we don’t want to get in a position where we have no more contingency money if something comes up and we have to delay the project because we can’t move forward.

Mr. Marrie asked, do you want to go to Council for the $104,000?

Mr. Marquardt asked, that first item, $250,000 for 700 square yards, they actually did 730 and the actual cost was 40.  How did that happen?

Mr. Cappello replied, what we ended up doing, there’s a portion of Sandalwood right by SOM which was so bad.  It’s right next to another concrete street. We were going to replace about 170 feet of it. That was the third item down.  It was originally 500 square yards. When we got out there, we realized we had to do a little bit more and it ended up being 230 linear feet which ended up being close to the 662 square yards. That number went up about $9,000.  Now we will step back to the 5 ½ inch. As part of the other two jobs which we have done, all of the joints were deteriorating. We hopefully minimized the joint repair.  It worked really well at Aintree over here.  As we found out, after we did that, we were walking the streets and took larger sections.  The problem I had, when I got sections that were 60 feet, over 20 feet, we had 60, 80, couple hundred feet long.  We wanted to put in low transfer devices which are basically steel rods at each joint.  I have to thicken the pavement up to make that functional. We got a price from the contractor on those areas.  Instead of performing roughly 4700 square yards, we only did about 730.  The big number, the second item down, there was no original plan for that, we just modified that by making it thicker and adding heavier baskets. You can see that number is 5167 square yards. So that’s something we actually built. That’s the difference between the first two items plus additional pavement.

Mr. Marquardt stated, all I am comparing is 700 square yards for $250,000.

Mr. Cappello stated, that’s 4700.  It’s a typographical error.  The difference is then, if you look at the total of these two items.

Mr. Marquardt stated, I understand what you are saying, it just didn’t make any sense.

Mr. Cappello clarified, it should be 4700.  As you can see, some of the other items that were not expected that were extra are the under drain and concrete walk, some concrete apron repair by Sandalwood and the undercut and backfill at a section of Oakwood.

Mr. Wynne stated, even with the change order, it’s still coming in about $50,000 below what was budgeted for the construction cost.

Mr. Cappello stated, hopefully by the end of the project, this number may actually be less.

Mr. Marrie asked, any other questions? There were none. This matter will be passed on to Finance.

5. Bid Results – Phase I Infrastructure Work at The Grove

Mr. McKnight reported, we issued the documents for Phase I of infrastructure improvements which is essentially drainage improvements, a stage and an accessible walkway.  On May 21st we opened the bids. We had six bidders ranging from the low at $57,360 to a high of $71,302.00.   We had a second low bid of 58,360.00.  We are comfortable with the low bid number. We added a line item in the budget of $50,000.  The additional items we had were essentially a connecting walkway that led from the bike path back to the pool walkway and an accessible curb ramp at that location.  We also switched the specification from asphalt which was in the original estimate back in February to concrete pavement so you have 6 inch concrete pavement all the way in to the stage area. 

Mr. Marrie asked, why the change from asphalt to concrete?

Mr. McKnight replied, we felt that was ultimately a better product.  In the long run, long term maintenance.

Mr. Metzung added,  the additional work was going to be concrete.  That’s what it already is by the pool. It didn’t seem to be uniform to have asphalt. The additional down by the pool I asked for that to be added because that was not going to be in the original project, they thought maybe Service would be able to do that, but we have a contractor on-site doing that work. It totally makes sense to have it done by someone there doing the work. 

Mr. Marrie asked, will we be able to make the switch budget-wise and handle it?

Mr. Wynne replied, we budgeted $50,000.  If Council approves going forward with the project, we will just have to amend the budget for the cost. Same as with the restrooms. When we went to budget planning for both projects, the restroom and this one, we conceptually knew what we wanted but we had no hard numbers until we went out to bid and got the bid results back.

Mr. Marrie asked, any questions? Do we want to put this on the Special Meeting agenda tonight for a vote?

Mr. McKnight replied, we would really prefer that. The issues we have is tentatively some special events later this summer. We need to get a jump on them with the weather.   

Mr. Marrie stated, since there’s no objection to it, I don’t see any reason not to.

Mr. Marquardt asked, do we have a long term business plan as requested on The Grove?

Ms. Wolgamuth replied, no. I have been speaking with Council President Buckholtz and Ron and I are putting together those numbers. As I tried to tell him, it’s not going to have a lot of going forward numbers until we figure out what the programming is going to be.  From my perspective, it’s very similar to the Community Room. We are trying to get a feel of what residents would like to see before we decide what the infrastructure is going to be. These infrastructure improvements we feel are going to need to be made no matter what the programming direction is.  It’s drainage. When he says stage, it’s really just a paver to define the area and an ADA walkway.  It’s nothing that you wouldn’t use no matter what the future of The Grove  programming is.

Mr. Marquardt would like to see a business plan on the long term. I asked for it on the first vote and it wasn’t there.  I won’t support it until it is there.

Mr. Marrie stated, we will put it on Special tonight then and see what happens.

6. Motion to go out to bid for sale of police vehicle and motorcycle

Chief Edelman reported, these are two vehicles I am ready to sell.  One is the motorcycle we replaced last year.  It’s a 2004 Harley Davidson. The other is a 1999 Chevy pick-up that we got from the Fire Department a couple of years ago. It’s outlived its usefulness. 

Mr. Metzung added, Service will be piggybacking with two Ford Taurus’s that we replaced.

Mr. Marrie stated, usually with a motorcycle, you get a pretty decent price for that. I  don’t know what you are going to get for the truck. Can the truck be used anywhere else?

Chief Edelman replied, it’s beat up.

Mr. Marrie replied, all right. Any objections to going out to bid? There were none. 

Mr. Marrie stated, okay. It’s a done deal.

ANY OTHER MATTERS

Mr. Marrie asked, any other matters?  There were none.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary E. Betsa, Clerk of Council