Safety & Service and Finance: August 7th 2017

Main Conference Room – Mayfield Village Civic Center
Monday, August 7, 2017 – 7:30 p.m.

The Combined Meeting of the Safety and Service Committee and Finance Committee met on Monday, August 7, 2017 in the Main Conference Room at the Mayfield Village Civic Center. Presiding Chairman Marrie called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL:          

Present: Chairman Marrie, Mr. Jerome, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Marquardt, and Mr. Williams

Also Present: Mayor Bodnar, Mr. Wynne, Mr. Diemert, Mr. Metzung, Chief Carcioppolo, Mr. Marrelli, Chief Edelman, Mr. Cappello, Mr. McAvinew, and Mrs. Garbo

Absent: Mr. Saponaro and Dr. Parker


  • Signage Regulations

Mr. Marrelli stated, where we left it at the last review was the sizes of the temporary signs, I believe if I am assuming correctly, Council did not like the 3 x 3 size as much as they liked the 2 x 3 size.  At that point, we went back to the Law Department to revamp the proposed Ordinance and change the 9 square feet to 6 square feet.  With that I have to ask for direction on whether you want us to proceed with that size and go ahead and rewrite the ordinance with those square footages or would you like to refer it back to the Ordinance Review Committee for study and recommendation.  How would you like to handle it?

Mrs. Mills stated, when do we officially allow signs to go out?  October?

Mr. Marrelli replied, it’s still 60 days. In our Ordinance the way it stands today, it’s still 60 days prior to and then I believe it is 7 days after the event, they have to be removed.  But I don’t think that was the issue.  I think it was the size requirements.

Mrs. Mills stated, no, I wasn’t talking about that.  I was talking about the time to get the legislation prepared in time.  Another thing is, if any of the people running are going to order signs, they need some lead time to do that in time.

Mr. Marrelli replied, that’s correct.  If they had run previously and have 3 x 3 signs available in their garages or whatever, if they put them up today, if they were allowed to, they would be legal.  Timing is critical.

Mrs. Mills stated, at the cost of signage, they only want to do it one time, right, Steve?

Mr. Jerome replied, right.

Chairman Marrie stated, for this particular election, I think we should just leave it at 3 x 3 now and then it will give you some time to work it out.

Mr. Jerome stated, that’s what it has been.  I think we are stuck with that for now and see what happens.

Mr. Marrelli stated, I have to defer to the Law Department.  The reason we even got into this arena is because of the lawsuit between the Federal Government and the City of Garfield.

Mr. Jerome stated, correct.  That was the main reason to make it more uniform across the board.

Mr. Marrelli stated, that’s correct.

Chairman Marrie asked, what is uniform?  3 x 3 or 2 x 3?

Mr. Marrelli replied, whatever you like.

Mr. Diemert asked, what’s the number on political signs now?

Mr. Marrelli replied, 9 square feet, 3 x 3.

Mr. Diemert stated, and we still had people with bigger signs and so on and we still had people with banners and we still had violations that we tried to control.  John tried to control it as much as he could, but the ones we knew were definitely illegal, we tried to ignore them because we did not want to get into a legal battle.

Chairman Marrie stated, this is just my opinion, the 3 x 3, that’s 9 square feet?

Mr. Marrelli replied, yes.

Chairman Marrie asked, why are you changing it to something smaller?  Did people think the other was too big?

Mr. Marrelli replied, because to be uniform, it would also allow garage sale signs to be 3 x 3 and any kind of real estate signs to be 3 x 3.

Mr. Diemert stated, real estate signs are less than that.  They are even less than 2 x 3.  Those are the people that would normally end up going to court with this, besides the political people.  It’s the real estate signs. We currently made the maximum size of real estate is 2 x 3 and most of them are less than that.  They are standard sizes.  The fact that we made it all standardized was just so the courts wouldn’t bother us.  I don’t think the real estate people will make their signs bigger, but political signs will probably go bigger.  So if you wanted to make it 2 x 3, I think that’s fine.  Smaller is probably better.  But we have to be consistent with everybody.

Chairman Marrie stated, we are better off going with 2 x 3.  Why open up a can of worms when we don’t have to?  Make it 2 x 3 then?

Mr. Diemert stated, if you adopt this at your Regular Meeting, it is going to then be just a week or two before the 60-day limit and John can then be prepared to let the candidates and issue people know there is going to be a maximum of 2 x 3.

Mr. Marrelli stated, yes.  6 square feet.

Chairman Marrie asked, do we need to change the legislation?

Mr. Diemert replied, we can change it before your meeting with no problem.  Whether or not you are sending it to Committees, then you will have a delay.

Mr. Marrelli stated, so then the question is do you want to act as a Council and get it through, get passage or do you want to bounce it back to another Committee?

Chairman Marrie stated, I am not involved this year, so it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.

Mr. Marrelli stated, timing is kind of critical.

Chairman Marrie stated, that is what I was leading into.  I think we should make a motion tonight to go to 2 x 3 with the addendum that if they had run before, they can use their old signs for this year only.  Can you do that, Joe?

Mr. Diemert stated, I think that would be a problem.

Mr. Marrelli stated, no grandfather clause, I guess.

Mr. Jerome asked, do we know what other communities have?

Mr. Marrelli stated, maybe Joe can tell you what happened with the Garfield case and how other communities might be revamping their temporary sign codes.

Mr. Diemert stated, everybody’s been advised that they better do it or face sanctions.

Mr. Jerome asked, do we know what size they are unifying theirs to?

Mr. Diemert replied, no.  They are all different.  That’s why I picked something in the middle of them all, 3 x 3.  If you kept it all at real estate level, they are 2 x 3.

Mr. Marrelli stated, that’s a standard sign.  The real estate signs are not going to change.  They are not going to start making those bigger all of a sudden because they are standard across the country.

Chairman Marrie suggested, let’s take a vote here.  In fairness to the people running.  I do not personally want to send it back to another Committee because then it would be another couple weeks to come back here.

Mr. Diemert suggested, why don’t we forget this election period and adopt it afterwards?

Chairman Marrie stated, that would be fair, Joe.  Steve, do you have stuff left over?

Mr. Jerome replied, yes.

Chairman Marrie asked, anyone else?

Mrs. Mills asked, Al, do you?

Mr. Metzung asked, are the ones you have left over bigger than Code?

Mr. Jerome replied, they will be.

Chairman Marrie stated, then I think, Joe, your suggestion is a good one.  Why don’t we just leave it alone this year and then write up the ordinance for it to be 2 x 3.  That will keep us out of all future problems.

Mr. Diemert stated, you run the risk of raising the legal issue.  The ordinance is currently unconstitutional.

Mr. Jerome stated, the worst that could happen, you do it how it is with 3 x 3 because that’s what we have been talking about for two months. Next year we decide we want to change it.  Is that more of a hassle at that point to go back?

Mayor Bodnar stated, people will go out and buy 3 x 3 this year because it’s legal.

Chairman Marrie stated, why don’t we just go with 2 x 3 and be done with it?

Mr. Marquardt stated, leave it at 3 x 3.  It’s only for politicians.  They take it off in a couple weeks.

Mayor Bodnar stated, it’s for garage sales and real estate signs and everything.

Mr. Marquardt stated, leave it at 3 x 3.

Chairman Marrie asked, Joe, we could leave it 3 x 3?  There’s no problem with that size?

Mr. Diemert replied, no.  As long as it is conforming to all.

Chairman Marrie asked, in our Village?

Mr. Diemert replied, correct.

Mr. Jerome asked, just leave it?  We have already talked about it for a couple months.  We might as well leave it as is.

Chairman Marrie stated, 3 x 3.

Mr. Jerome stated, and we where we are at next year.  If we change our mind, we change our mind.

Chairman Marrie stated, if we change our mind we can bring it up next year.

Mr. Jerome stated, we need to do something.  We might as well keep it as is.

Chairman Marrie stated, to the people who are running. You should think about that too.  But Bill’s right, just leave it 3 x 3.  Let it go at that.  I think that’s fair to the people running.

Mr. Jerome stated, I agree.

Mr. Diemert stated, you guys understand there were some members who saw the 3 x 3 during election season and thought it was too big.  That’s your call.

Chairman Marrie stated, but Joe, 3 x 3 is what we have had for years.

Mr. Diemert stated, and likely real estate people will not increase theirs.

Mr. Jerome stated, right.  We made the real estate timeline stricter, right.  They have less time after a sale?

Mr. Marrelli stated, we changed the time limit on the political signs and garage sale signs and real estate signs to be the same, 7 days after the event.

Mayor Bodnar asked, it takes 7 days to figure out your garage sale is over?

Mr. Jerome asked, what was it before?  It was higher for real estate.

Mr. Diemert stated, the same with real estate.  Why wait 7 days after it is sold?

Chairman Marrie stated, they like their name out there.  So, is everybody okay with 3 x 3?

There were no objections.

Mr. Diemert stated, with regard to garage sales.  John and I talked about this.  They will still be taking them down the next day.  They don’t want people showing up at their garage.

Chairman Marrie stated, okay, it’s 3 x 3, the way it is written.

Mayor Bodnar stated, and we are going to vote on it in August.

Chairman Marrie stated, yes.  Is that fine with you Joe?

Mr. Diemert stated, fine.  As long as you are constitutional, the size really does not matter to me.


  • Bid Results:  Asphalt Trail Maintenance Program

Mr. Cappello reported, we received bids last Friday for the Asphalt Trail Maintenance Program.  This is maintenance for the trail along SOM Center Road, White Road, North Commons, and Parkview.  The old section originally built 18 years ago.  We received one bid.  He was under the engineer’s estimate.  He was one of the contractors that the product manufacturer for sealcoating recommended.  He was the only one who took out a bid.  He’s qualified to do the work.

Chairman Marrie asked, have you ever used him?

Mr. Cappello replied, no.  We have never done this type of work before.

Chairman Marrie asked, is this maintenance or a little bit of new stuff too?

Mr. Cappello replied, it’s all maintenance.  It’s basically sealing the top of the existing trail.

Mrs. Mills asked, is there tear up if needed?

Mr. Cappello replied, Doug did the repairs.

Mr. Metzung replied, Service has been out there and did the patching and then we crack sealed the whole thing.

Mr. Cappello stated, we modified the spec to that.  The spec originally calls for them to do that work but Doug did it in-house.  I had it removed from the contract.

Chairman Marrie stated, fine.  Any other questions?

Mr. Wynne stated, from a budgeting standpoint, our hope is that for the 2017 Road Program we have contingency money left we can use to cover the cost of this.  But we might not.  We might have to make a budget adjustment at the end of the year for part of the cost of this.

Chairman Marrie asked, any other questions?

Mr. Jerome asked, we have never done this treatment on the road?

Mr. Metzung replied, no.

Mr. Jerome asked, but we feel for a trail, this is a good way to keep it?  It’s not something we are getting a lot of traffic on where we are ripping the whole thing out anyways, so at this point of the game, it makes sense.

Mr. Cappello stated, the asphalt gets old over time.  It oxidizes.  We went and saw this product in Sandusky.

Mr. Metzung stated, it’s called liquid road.  People do use it on roadways in parking lots and subdivisions and things of that nature.  This is perfect.

Chairman Marrie stated, you have the specs, so you are following the specs.

Mr. Cappello replied, yes.

Chairman Marrie asked, any other questions?

Mr. Jerome asked, could it be an option for our roads in the future?

Mr. Metzung replied, sure.  For subdivisions, sure.  Certainly.

Mr. Jerome asked, it’s like tarring your driveway on steroids?

Mr. Cappello stated, it has sand mixed in with it.  This has some teeth to it.  Abrasion resistance and thickness.

Mr. Jerome asked, but not as bad as chip coat?

Mr. Metzung replied, correct.

Mr. Cappello stated, it goes down to two layers.

Mr. Metzung stated, I don’t know if you lived on Robley when we did Roddy Mack which is another cement-like product. That stuff wears like iron but you can’t get it anywhere here.  It’s in-between the coal tar you use on a driveway and Roddy Mack.

  • Bid Results:  Intergenerational Park Project

Mr. Cappello reported, we received bids also last Friday for the Intergenerational Park.  I ended up adjusting the bid documents so we could get 2 bids, one was the entire project with the 2 tennis courts and the same project with 3 tennis courts.  That includes obviously the tennis courts, the bocce courts, the sand volleyball and the parking lot.

We had 6 bidders.  As you can see here, there’s a base bid which was for all of the work and prep work for site lighting minus the light poles, foundation and wiring.  The add-alternate was to cover that if we decided to light the site this year.

You can see here, the low bidder was H&G Construction.  If you total up the 2 tennis courts options he was about $696,000.  For the 3 tennis courts, he was about $728,000, so about $32,000 more.  I have never worked with H&G before.  I did check his references.  He did receive very good references.  I find no reason not to award it to him if we decide to go forward.

Mr. Jerome asked, how much more is it to do the third tennis court?

Mr. Cappello replied, between what he bid for the 2 tennis court option and the 3 tennis court option, about $32,000.

Chairman Marrie stated, going that far, and it is has been talked about for years, I think we should just go ahead and do the whole thing at one time and be done with it.

Mr. Jerome stated, I agree with that.

Mr. Cappello stated, the one other thing, just so everyone knows, I apologize, after I did this and submitted it, I realized when I said 3 tennis court option, 2 tennis court option, the inferences for building 2 tennis courts and 3 tennis courts are close to $700,000.  That’s not the case.  If you look at the bid tab, it is broken down into 4 or 5 parts. The tennis court, his bid is $147,000 of which we are getting $91,000 in a grant to help cover that.  It’s all broken out.  It’s not just tennis courts.  You have a parking lot.  We are doubling the parking lot size.

Chairman Marrie stated, that’s the biggest part.

Mr. Cappello replied, it goes from 63 gravel to 126 with asphalt surface.

Chairman Marrie asked, any questions?

Mr. Jerome asked, what did the lighting include in the plan?  Just the tennis courts or the parking lot too?

Mr. Cappello replied, it lights bocce courts, tennis courts and the parking lot.

Mr. Jerome asked, and the parking lot?

Mr. Cappello replied, yes.

Mr. Jerome asked, also two of the volleyball courts will be by the soccer field?

Mr. Cappello replied, by the soccer field restroom?  There’s no lighting for those now?

Mr. McAvinew added, I believe $715,000 was originally budgeted for the project?

Mr. Cappello replied, yes.  That also included surveying, my fee, inspection.

Mr. Jerome asked, $715,000?

Mr. McAvinew replied, $715,000 was in the budget.

Mr. Jerome asked, this price does not include any of your work?

Mr. Cappello replied, no.

Mr. Jerome asked, but it was actually budgeted for 2 tennis courts?

Mr. McAvinew stated, we got close to 3 tennis courts plus the lighting.

Mr. Jerome stated, which wasn’t originally budgeted?

Mr. McAvinew replied, it wasn’t originally put in the budget.  It’s actually a pretty good number.

Mr. Jerome replied, I think so.

Chairman Marrie asked, any other questions?

There were none.


  • Monthly Rental Increase:
    • 6500 Wilson Mills Road
    • 6536 Wilson Mills Road

Mr. Wynne reported, on two of our rental properties, we have not increased the rent for some time.  We notified the tenants that the rent was going to go up 10% effective November 1st.  6500 Wilson Mills will be from $650 to $715 and then for 6536, that’s $550, so that will go to $605.  On 6536 they will also start paying for their water and sewer project.  It’s not part of their Lease Agreement right now.  This has been communicated to them.  We will need legislation passed on the rental agreements.

Mr. Jerome asked, we are going to start paying the water bill?

Mr. Wynne replied, no.  They are.

Mr. Jerome stated, oh.  We were paying it.

Mr. Wynne replied, initially when the leases were prepared, it was handled similar to like an apartment.  We are getting away from that.  This will be the last one we have to do to get away from that.

Mr. Jerome stated, you would have to have the rent covered to figure it.  You would have to raise the rent up even more.  This is better that we are doing both.  Do you know these houses’ value?

Mr. Wynne replied, not at the top of my head.  The houses along that same stretch of Wilson Mills, I am going to say, $125,000-130,000 range.

Chairman Marrie asked, any other questions?

There were none.


  • Legislation: Establishment of an Emergency Operations Plan

Mr. Diemert reported, this is Resolution 2017-08. It is the establishment of an Emergency Operations Plan for Mayfield Village.  Most political subdivisions in the urban areas are developing these and putting them together.  The County is programmed to make everyone ready.  Basically it is coordinating all of your safety services and actually every department in some fashion or form to address any natural or technological or adversarial type of disaster that may occur.  This would protect the community and the staff.

Chairman Marrie asked, this is what we want to do?  When do we start putting this together?

Mr. Diemert replied, as soon as you adopt the ordinance, the Administration will start putting it together in coordination with the County according to the mission plan attached and filling in the blanks on how we are going to do it, who is going to be in charge, who is going to be called and who is next to be called and so on.  Our police and fire departments have their own emergency plans already for such disasters but they don’t deal necessarily with technological.  They don’t really prepare ahead of time for natural, adversarial or third-party interruptions that they are ready to go now or will be ready for all possibilities.  We want everyone coordinated.

Chairman Marrie asked for the Chiefs thoughts.

Chief Carcioppolo replied, this is on a big disaster to deal with.  We deal with emergencies every day.  This is just the big picture, like if a tornado blows through town and we need to house a bunch of people.

Mr. Diemert added, the other support systems.

Chief Carcioppolo continued, it’s the bigger picture.

Chairman Marrie stated, it’s a bigger picture, but you are already handling this in both cases?

Chief Carcioppolo replied, yes. It’s not a true accreditation but it is similar in the fact that if an outside entity comes in to review certain things on a preparedness level and they say you have gone through these lengths to prepare, you are prepared.

Mr. Diemert stated, and you also have mutual aid with surrounding communities.  This is going to be County-wide, adjacent County and State type thing.  We will get help from everyone.  We are all on the same page.

Mr. Jerome asked, is there a cost to this?

Mr. Diemert replied, no.

Chairman Marrie asked, any other questions?

There were none.


Mr. McAvinew reported, I have been able to secure staffing, lifeguards, managers and maintenance, to leave the pool open two extra weekends this particular year.  I have received multiple phone calls from the first day I was here about how early the pool closes. In the past, we were unable to staff the pool.  With cooperation from Highland Heights and Mayfield Heights, they will send lifeguards over at their cost to cover a couple of shifts.  Our staff ended up picking up about 80% of those shifts.  Especially with the short summer we have had with the weather, I would like to leave the pool open for a couple extra weeks for the residents to get use out of it.

  • Increase in chemical usage at Parkview Pool ($2,400 – Sal Chemical)

Mr. McAvinew stated, with the above report comes increase in chemical use.  That $2,400 was based upon the week we had remaining.  Just for a buffer so we don’t have to come back a third time to increase it a little bit more, I would like to increase it.

Chairman Marrie asked, is that for weekends only?

Mr. McAvinew replied, for weekends only?  We will conclude this Sunday and then we open Saturday the following week from 12:00-6:00, Sunday 12:00-5:00 and then the same thing the following week.  I have an e-mail of all of the members of Parkview Pool.  They will receive an e-mail this week.  I will invite them to come to the pool two extra weekends.  We will need to increase the chemical costs.  The other reason the cost is up is I pushed to keep the alkaline and calcium levels to the correct levels especially with the calcium which really was not addressed heavily in the past.  It damages the heating system internally.  They spent more money on calcium chloride and sodium bicarbonate to keep the alkalinities and calcium levels where it is going to protect your pool.

Mr. Jerome asked, now that you have a year under your belt, you are going to start looking at future maintenance?

Mr. McAvinew replied, I met with a pool company I have worked in the past twice now.  He recommends a handful of things there that need to be addressed this year or in the next five years.  If we can increase the expenditure from $2,400 to $3,000 that would be great.  I did not factor in the extra weeks.  I believe $2,400 is enough, but I would rather be cautious.

Mrs. Mills asked, so you want $3,000?

Mr. McAvinew replied, yes.  I like to have a buffer so we don’t have to come back.  I believe it will end up around $2,200, but as soon as I say that, I am back here for more.

Chairman Marrie suggested, make it to $3,000 maximum.

  • Bid Results – Senior Snow Removal Program – 2017-2018

Mr. McAvinew stated, Donna recommends dividing them in 2 sections for Arnold; 3 for Ameriscape; and 2 for MJO.  The bid tabulation sheet is in the back of the recommendation.

Everything is the same.

Mr. Jerome asked, what were the bids last year?

Mr. McAvinew replied, I can get that e-mailed to you.

  • Opt-Out Program – Senior Snow Removal Program

Mr. McAvinew stated, this program is the same.

  • Fall/Winter Parks and Recreation Brochure (P/M Graphics – not to exceed $7,000.00)

Mr. McAvinew stated last year it was around $6,000.  It’s not just Mayfield Village.  Mayfield Village, Mayfield Heights and Gates Mills Library contribute to this.  We just do the billing and we bill out for each of the organizations.  We also receive advertising money through the brochure.  I believe it is going to be around $2,000 back on top of that.  This goes out to the whole entire School District, not just Mayfield Village.  That’s why it is divided up.

Mr. Jerome asked, so Mayfield Heights will give us money?

Mr. McAvinew replied, yes.

Mr. Jerome asked, and who else?

Mr. McAvinew replied, Gates Mills gives us a small amount.

Mr. Jerome asked, Highland Heights?

Mr. McAvinew replied, Highland Heights did not participate this year. In the past, Mayfield Heights was the one that coordinated with them and Sean Ward said they did not get information to him.

Mr. Jerome asked, the School District?

Mr. McAvinew replied, we cover five pages.  Wildcat is 10 pages.  Mayfield Heights covers five pages.

Mr. Jerome asked, we get to use the School District’s postage?

Mr. McAvinew replied, yes.

Chairman Marrie stated, it’s a little bit more than last year.

Mr. McAvinew replied, the only change Sean Ward and I talked about in the past was the newsprint was dark.  There is a whole new layout this year.  We talked about going with white paper versus the newsprint.  We both agreed that would be beneficial.

Mr. Jerome stated, it makes it easier for people to see it.

Mr. McAvinew stated, it’s a sharper appearance.  I will e-mail everyone or print out a copy of the color version of it.  Once I receive this, I will also e-mail everyone in our database a color version that they can print out on their own.

Chairman Marrie stated, thank you.


  • 2017-2018 Winter Salt Fill (Cargill - $29.12 – 2,000 tons)

Mr. Metzung stated, I don’t have the exact figure, but it is within .10 of last year’s number.  I think it’s .05 less.

Chairman Marrie stated, I saw on the chart you sent with the map, some of them are paying $55-59.

Mr. Metzung stated, Cuyahoga County has the luxury of having the mine right here. That saves us a lot.

Chairman Marrie stated, basically, it’s just the transportation, right.

Mr. Metzung replied, mostly, yes.

Chairman Marrie stated, because they are buying mostly from the same people.

Mr. Metzung replied, right.  But as I recall, I think Lake County is actually a few cents cheaper.  Usually they use more.

  • Siding of ODOT building (Garland/DBS - $67,296 - $80,313)

Mr. Metzung stated, this proposal was done the same as we did the roof on the Service garage through a Cooperative Purchasing Agreement. The numbers came back.  The first total number is $77,000.  That’s basically what Garland’s engineer estimate was.  They went out to bid with some vendors.  They had two vendors.  One came back at $67,296. That’s the number then that we would use plus another $3,249 for gutters.

Chairman Marrie asked, this is the first big work we have done for that building anyways, isn’t it?

Mr. Metzung replied, yes.

Chairman Marrie stated, we knew this going in when we bought it.

Mr. Marrelli stated, we didn’t buy it.

Mr. Metzung stated, the building cost nothing.  This is the first dollars we have invested in other than tearing things down.

Chairman Marrie asked, any questions?

Mr. Jerome asked, this will be more pleasing since we see it from the trail?

Mr. Metzung replied, it will be more pleasing and will help protect the building.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.  The next Finance Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 21st at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Conference Room at the Mayfield Village Civic Center.