Caucus Minutes - January 14th 2013
MINUTES OF A COUNCIL CAUCUS
Monday, January 14, 2013 at 8:00 p.m.
Mayfield Village Civic Hall
The Council of Mayfield Village met in Caucus Session on Monday, January 14, 2013. Council President Buckholtz called the meeting to order at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Present: Mr. Buckholtz, Mrs. Cinco, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Marrie, Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Delguyd and Dr. Parker
Also Present: Mayor Rinker, Mr. Wynne, Mr. Diemert, Mr. Cappello, Chief Edelman, Acting Chief Girbino, Mr. Metzung, Mr. Marrelli, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Dinardo, Mr. Hartt, Mr. Esborn, Ms. Wolgamuth and Mrs. Betsa
- Presentation of Resolution to Terry Skomrock
Mayor Rinker asked Terry to approach the Council table.
While you were away, Council was very diligently passing this Resolution, so it is my pleasure to read Resolution No. 2013-01, “A Resolution thanking Mayfield Village Police Executive Assistant Terry Skomrock for over twenty-six (26) years of dedication and service and congratulating her on her retirement.” Mayor Rinker read the Resolution in its entirety.
Mayor Rinker additionally presented Terry Skomrock with an award of Outstanding Citizen of Mayfield Village, Ohio.
Mayor Rinker stated, if you look in our hallway, we have gotten a few of these together and Diane is supervising featuring along the walkway out here all of our Outstanding Citizens. You will be among the first in a truly prominent location.
Mrs. Skomrock thanked the Mayor and Council. I will miss the work, but most of all, I will miss my friends, the employees of Mayfield Village. That is what I will miss most. Thank you very much.
Mayor Rinker replied, don’t be a stranger.
Council took a break for refreshments at 8:05 p.m.
Council reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
Council President Buckholtz stated, once again, Council and Administration thank Terry Skomrock for her years of service. We thank all of her friends and family who came out to celebrate.
IN COMMITTEE (STATUS)
- Planning and Zoning
Update on East Commons Office Development
Mayor Rinker stated, for everyone’s benefit, a little background, this involves the eastern half of the Midvale properties which for many of us historically near and dear to our hearts, it’s probably almost a primer on different kinds of planning, zoning and land use issues over its life. To refresh everyone’s memory, Midvale was originally platted in the late ‘20’s, pre-depression. Because it was platted that way, and never removed from the books, it was technically a residential subdivision, kind of like old-style Euclid would have been, 40 foot frontage, 120 foot deep lots. It went all the way through to the centerline of I-271 because it, of course, pre-dated all of that. When we were working with Progressive on its north campus, we bisected that as we put in North Commons Boulevard. That created a couple of different pieces of litigation, one, it was our eminent domain to acquire the property and then the property owners disputed that and we ultimately settled that case. Basically, it paved the way for Governor’s Village to go in on the west side. That’s important in terms of the architectural design features which Dave Hartt, John Marrelli can comment to or Sam if you want to address it.
With regard to the east side, we had agreed with the property owners then that we would allow them to donate to us and gave them an opportunity to get certain tax credits for it. For us, it gave us property that as we were assembling parkland in front of the north campus for Progressive, it seemed to make a lot of sense. Subsequent to that, in fact, we acquired property on the south side and the west side of Mt. Sinai Cemetery. We had this continuous land running from White Road really all the way down to the Fappiano property to the south, just north of what is now going to be the library site.
Several years later, when Progressive was very seriously talking about Campus III, we ended up resolving the litigation with Sam Costanzo, the owner of that property, where Don Ray used to be. Sam Costanzo had the building there. Part of that settlement included transferring this eastern half of the Midvale properties inclusive of what used to be the old Phil and Irene Lazarro property that fronted on SOM Center Road. We had a number of requirements in the Settlement Agreement which ultimately was recorded. Some of those requirements Dave and Sam can address tonight because they are also part of the Development Agreement that has gone through a series of drafts and really is the culmination of probably about two years of working between Mr. Canatta as developer and Mayfield Village. Our CEDC Committee has had a chance to preview a lot of this in recent months, but Council as a whole really has not had a chance to get a full presentation. Dave Hartt and Sam Canatta thought and we agreed it would be a good idea for them to give the overview. Dave can give the more recent, kind of the last two years, nuts and bolts as a preliminary set up for Sam then to let us know where he plans to go with this, hopefully as soon as this Spring.
Mr. Hartt asked, does everyone on Council understand exactly where this property is and what property we are talking about? Okay. The Mayor said it was two years to get to this point. I actually think it’s been longer than that. What precipitated to a certain degree the length of time it’s taken to get to this point is that the Settlement Agreement basically said the development on this site should be in scale with the architecture of Governor’s Village which to us, the Village, connoted that the buildings were going to have to be smaller therefore than putting one big building in the center of the site which is what would have to be done to be in compliance with the zoning. So, in order to address this scale issue in recognizing smaller buildings, the building is going to be spread out and it would therefore require a lot of variances.
We worked with the applicant to come up with a plan we thought the Village could generally support, at least from the Administration standpoint. We took it to the Planning Commission and said, what do you think? The Planning Commission gave its informal okay but did not approve the preliminary plan until it went to the Board of Appeals to secure fairly significant variances. Quite often the Planning Commission can approve the plan subject to the variances being granted but since the variances were so fundamental to achieving the concept, it seemed to me that you better go get the variances before you approve the preliminary plan.
They went to the Board of Appeals and essentially got the variances that were requested based on the development plan approved and the impacts on the surrounding property which are the Village to the north and the Village to the south and with some buffering conditions for the Kinnards to the east. Then it went back to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission approved the preliminary development plan which you now see before you.
The second major reason this took so long is the contingency in the Development Agreement that says we have to clarify the zoning, so there was some uncertainty related to the zoning because the Court settlement that the Mayor talked about for the Costanzo property essentially said that we were not changing any zoning boundaries. When the applicant came in and started presenting the plan and we looked more carefully at the zoning boundaries, the zoning boundaries between the residential and the office laboratory was not along this line as we believed to be the case at the time of the Court settlement, but the zoning boundary is back about 150 feet from this lot.
Mr. Delguyd asked, just to clarify for the record, this line being the western border of the Kinnard property?
Mr. Hartt replied, yes. The Kinnard property. So this is approximately 5 acres. This is about an acre. We know there is no development here except for the retention pond and a trail around the retention pond, but there is an area just west of the Kinnard property that presumably is still residentially zoned but unintentionally residentially zoned because of the terms of the Settlement Agreement which would leave an unusable portion of residential property. So the two things that triggered the Development Agreement was the deviation from the zoning code and all of the variances so we got a quality development plan that was acceptable to the Village which was all part of this approval process. The second reason is because we needed to go through the step to clarify the zoning of this easterly portion of the bulk of this property. So, the Development Agreement says that if you approve it, then the Village Administration would go back to the Probate Court with the consent of the applicant as well as I understand it in talking to Mr. Diemert’s office the consent of the Costanzos to get clarification from the Court that this entire 5 acre parcel is in fact zoned in the office laboratory classification. That’s the history. If the Development plan is approved, the variances are approved, we need clarification on the zoning, if that contingency then is eliminated from the site and clarified, then the applicant would come in with final site plan approval on the portions of the development. The first phase of development are these two buildings and the construction of the road with the retention basin at least being designed and able to accommodate the development of the entire parcel.
I am the developer for this project. Thank you for allowing me to come and present the project. As it was mentioned, we have been at this for about two years. It’s a good project for the Village. We have been before Planning and Zoning a few times and I don’t know how many times I have been in John Marrelli’s office.
The basis of this project, since the real estate downturn in 2009, we have found that there is a demand for smaller buildings for professional people that want to own their own building to come in to a town like Mayfield Village and have a nice looking building, but a smaller building, not a 3 or 4 story office complex. We see so many of those become empty or dormant to foreclosure.
We wanted to make it look like almost a residential area that has nice landscaping, a winding road with a cul-de-sac, and buildings situated so it’s not cookie cutter. I think this is the design we have come up with. We are happy with it.
Some features of this project that are set in stone are these two buildings are going to be set facing the road with the center road going between these two buildings. That was determined after much design and discussion with Mr. Hartt for the best look for the project.
This is the lot that in the Settlement Agreement was to remain undeveloped. We are going to keep this green and incorporate a walking path or maybe your bike path to tie in to this development if it makes sense for your community and then have the detention pond here. That will be a dry pond. It will just be wetland when it rains.
We intend to build these two buildings immediately when we get the final permits for the project.
Are there any questions?
Mr. Marrie asked, in a couple of the meetings, you met with the homeowner and he seemed very satisfied?
Mr. Canatta replied, this is in a good location I think in the Village. It’s not near too many residences other than Mr. Kinnard. We have had extensive conversations with him. He plans to stay here for a while. We are going to take extra care to make sure that he is okay with the impact to his home. We have discussed a number of things, one of which is that there is a large oak tree at the corner of his property. We are going to make a good faith effort to keep that up. We are also going to do some mounding along his property that he would like to see. We will taper the mound into his property and then put landscaping on top of it so that there’s a nice screening from his house so he does not have office buildings in the back. We will continue to have a conversation with him and make sure that he is okay and will work with the Village as well to make that happen.
With regard to the Village property, the ballfields are down here. We have identified an area that we are going to leave uncut right here. There’s some nice trees here that we are going to leave up so that there’s a buffer. The areas that won’t have a view court, we are going to plant trees and we will work with the Building Department and the Village’s Arborist to make sure that that’s okay.
Mr. Delguyd asked, there’s a mound there, correct?
Mr. Canatta replied, the fields come down in to the property. They angle down. We are going to put the adequate drainage in. We have discussed Mr. Kinnard’s drainage issues. We will take the water here sitting into our detention pond so we take care of his stormwater problem in his yard too. If there’s any issue with the Village’s property, we will do that.
Mayor Rinker refreshed everyone’s recollection. The old Parkview Golf Course to the south of the Kinnard property used to have one of the ponds that they used for irrigation. The grade was much lower then. It was pretty much the grade of SOM Center Road back in the day. Part of our widening project of SOM Center Road incorporated using a lot of spoils, relatively clean, but construction debris was put into that space at a time when we owned the property to the north. Frankly, we were looking at combining those things. Doug will remember very well that Chuck Kinnard was pretty vigilant about making sure that any water run-off, because we really raised the grade, I think, a good 20 feet probably. It’s a plateau to the south there where it used to be pretty much level or just some kind of a rolling swale area. We were able to get that resolved for a couple of years with a ditch that intercepts that. From a historical standpoint, that’s why Mr. Kinnard has been very sensitive because it has been a generally wet area in and around there pre-dating and post-dating our changes.
Again, I think for Council’s benefit and for the record, a lot of the discussion over the last several months has really been dealing with some of these details. If I recall, an appeal was even in front of Council. Things were resolved at that point. So there have been some moments where some of these issues have seemed a little bit more acute, but in the long run, a lot of attention from a lot of different players, especially from Planning and Zoning as well as through our administrative personnel, but Planning and Zoning has looked at this pretty extensively along with BZA.
Mr. Canatta continued, one other concern that we have overcome this past summer and that’s again why this has taken longer, but we have gotten most of the big hurdles out of the way. We have done a wetland study and identified that there were two very small wetlands. We had the Army Corps and the Ohio EPA do the analysis and in fact I have already purchased the wetland mitigation so that is all taken care of in case there is a concern. It’s not an issue anymore. It’s actually a very small one here and one back here.
We are very excited. We appreciate the opportunity to allow me into your community to do a development like this. I want to make it First Class and something we can all be proud of. Thank you very much.
Dr. Parker asked Mr. Diemert, from your perspective, is there any impact on the zoning of the Kinnard property as it relates to, once this is in, is there any reason anyone can come in and claim that because of its location and proximity they could make an argument for changing the zoning of that property or are we good on maintaining it as residential.
Mr. Diemert replied, we are good on all of it. We have paid special attention to it because the Kinnard property was there when we had the settlement before. It was all contemplated at the same time. The remaining piece that is going to be clarified by the Court is inconsequential because it could never be developed residentially anyway if you left it that way. We have already cleared it with the Probate Court that they are in agreement with this process and indicated that this would be the best process to clarify the Court’s previous Judgment Entry.
Mayor Rinker added, at the time of the settlement, we were keenly sensitive to that very kind of issue as we have with all of the development along SOM Center Road and consistently on that corridor, the frontages on SOM has been stressed as remaining single family residential, so when we acquired the Lazzaro property and that was incorporated into the settlement, we put deed restrictions in there. The requirements are that it would not be developed, nor would there be any curb cut access off of SOM Center Road into this site. If anything, it’s intended very much such we went into that settlement to fortify the Kinnard zoning.
Mr. Canatta referenced the lot next to Kinnard. It is going to remain zoned residential. There’s not going to be a deviation from the standards that have been established.
Mr. Delguyd asked, that lot is the trail part of phase one?
Mr. Canatta replied, yes. What we plan to do is make the road and all of the storm sewer and development improvement part of phase one. In addition to that, we are going to take the storm sewer back and make this phase one as well so everything will be draining and operating from the get go.
Mr. Marrie asked, all of Mr. Kinnard’s issues will be taken in that first phase?
Mr. Canatta replied, yes. We want to put in all the main storm sewers. If these buildings are not built, we will have the feeders going in.
Mr. Delguyd asked, are you clearing the entire property? Are 3, 4 and 5 going to remain trees?
Mr. Canatta replied, what we want to do once we get all of the permits is clear the entire property and set up the stormwater protection and put in all of the improvements. After you have cleared this area and this area, this is pretty much cleared. You are really only talking maybe a couple acres.
Council President Buckholtz asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. Delguyd asked, is this going to be passed at the next Council meeting and then it’s passed contingent on the Court ruling?
Council President Buckholtz stated, this has been vetted through all of the processes as far as BZA and Zoning. We will have it on the Regular Meeting. Thank you very much. Nice presentation.
- SAFETY & SERVICE
Mrs. Cinco reported, Safety and Service met this evening. All items were sent to Finance. These are just normal yearly expenditures.
Mr. Marrelli reported, along with Sam’s project, across the street Governor’s Village will be before our Planning Commission on Thursday for a 48-bed extension to their property which will bring them to 92 beds. We are also looking forward to development on both sides of North Commons probably this Spring. Stay tuned for that.
- Committee Appointments – 2013
Mayor Rinker stated, I went over with Council at the Organizational Meeting the specific Committees, but just a reminder to everyone, because the holiday falls on Monday, next Tuesday when we meet is when we have all of our swearings in for all of our volunteers. I certainly hope that Council will be there. I previously reminded Council representatives that if they know of some residents who are still interested and there may be some openings on a few of these committees, let us know. We have sent out notifications for all of the reappointments and the additions that have been outlined in our previous packets.
- Council Committee Appointments – 2013
Council President Buckholtz stated that the only Committee set in stone for this evening is Safety and Service so that the Committee could meet. I will be contacting everyone post-haste this week to go over what I would like to see and what you guys want to do. I don’t see a whole lot of changes, but we will go over that this week.
- Annual Subscription and Fiber Maintenance Fee for 2013 (OneCommunity - $15,000)
Mr. Esborn reported, this is an annual payment. To avoid any confusion, I wanted to give a quick overview of the annual payments we have made to OneCommunity. We get two annual invoices from OneCommunity. One is $15,000. The other is $7,000. The $15,000 invoice we have been getting since 2005 when we became subscribers to internet through OneCommunity. The $7,000 invoice we have been getting since 2009 when we built a fiber ring.
What is on the agenda this evening is the $15,000 invoice. That’s broken down into $12,000 for actual internet service which we use for our phones because they are IT based and which we use to provide internet service to client companies on Beta Drive that avail themselves of the fiber network. All of that is done with the actual bandwith that we pay $12,000 a year for. $3,000 of that $15,000 is for subscriber and maintenance fee. We have been paying this as long as we have been a subscriber. I am pretty certain this is a fee that OneCommunity charges for any maintenance for your direct connection, your switch, the equipment that’s needed just for you to have a connection to their network. That’s what that $3,000 figure is for.
At some point later in the year we will get the $7,000 invoice. That is for maintenance on the fiber ring that we own. That too is an annual fee, but I wanted to clarify it because the last few years we have gotten this $15,000 but then we have gotten the $7,000. I wanted to give an overview at the beginning of the year that what we are paying now is for the actual bandwith service and the maintenance on our connection.
Council President Buckholtz asked, do we get any kind of a benefit by being a charter member?
Mr. Esborn replied, we were subscribers of OneCommunity back when they were OneCleveland. I have never heard of us as a first generation.
Council President Buckholtz asked, have the fees gone up but not for us?
Mr. Esborn replied, that’s a good question. I can find the answer to that.
Mr. Delguyd asked, do you have any idea the number of businesses using the service?
Mr. Esborn replied, QED, Mayfran and the Panzica Companies. Then, subclients are the smaller companies in Panzica owned buildings which Panzica reaches through radio equipment. They also access the internet through the internet we purchase from OneCommunity. Panzica is able to access them using different equipment which we would like to see other multi-tenant owners do, like Mt. Vernon, Geis, Caputo. We are right on the edge now of really starting to get interest from smaller tenants. We are starting to get the kind of tenants interested in high bandwith which was not necessarily the case even three/four years ago. We are starting to get the kind of interest, but we are right at that point where those interested tenants need to compel their landlords to work with us to get that connection to the building. Panzica has found a good way to do that. We need to find ways to make that happen on other properties.
Council President Buckholtz asked, do we know if as we get new tenants and expand that list, does our subscription fees or any other fees related with OneCommunity rise? The lateral connection would be something we take on?
Mayor Rinker replied, we have done that.
Mr. Esborn replied, all of the lateral connections so far have been paid by property owners. With the users on our network paying monthly fees, a portion of those fees are going into an account building an account for Mayfield Village to use either for building new lateral connections to other properties or we could use those funds to pay our invoices if we choose. At last check, there’s about $11,000 in that account. It gives us options.
Mr. Delguyd asked, what does a lateral connection cost?
Mr. Esborn replied, an average lateral is between $8,000 and $15,000. There are some above and some below, but that is pretty much in the middle.
Council President Buckholtz replied, some of that is because of the frontage. They can be as low as $3,000-3,500. But, that account we are collecting from comes from where?
Mr. Esborn replied, the payments that user companies are making to OneCommunity, because OneCommunity does our billing and collection, and when they receive payments, OneCommunity takes a certain portion for the maintenance and customer support they give to those companies. They take a certain portion for OneCommunity and the rest goes into that account for us. As the list of users has grown and the trickle strengthened, we have started to see those funds come in.
Mayor Rinker stated, the background with the CIZ, why we put the fiber ring in, one of the goals was to promote business development and to start attracting the kind of tech users that would find this desirable. It’s nice to see that’s starting to take hold.
Mr. Esborn replied, it is. What we are seeing anecdotally, a tenant at one end of the building and another tenant at another expressing an interest. We are having discussions with the building owner who is still a little iffy about making the connection for two out of 15, 16 tenants, but it is becoming more and more compelling.
Council President Buckholtz thanked Mr. Esborn. Is there anything else?
Ms. Wolgamuth had one more quick item. I wanted to let Council know that in December we recorded the three easements we needed for the Greenway Trail from Progressive. So, at this point, all necessary easements have been recorded except for the one at Euclid Industries. As we know, Euclid Industries property just transferred to Premier. We expect to have that one shortly. URS has made our Stage 2 and Stage 3 submittals to ODOT. We remain on schedule to go to bid in April.
Council President Buckholtz asked, any questions? There were none.
- Retention of Village Engineer for 2013
Mr. Wynne reported, the Village Engineer’s position is up for reappointment in 2013. Mr. Cappello has provided us with a request for a nominal increase in his hourly rates and retainer for the year which was in your packets. Administration has no issue with what he is requesting. That will be up for passage next week.
Mr. Delguyd asked, is that an annual renewal?
Mr. Wynne replied, yes.
- Prosecutor legal fees for balance of 2012
Mr. Wynne stated, back at the end of 2009 when we were having some budget concerns, our Prosecutor’s fees were considerably out of line with what other communities were paying. We approached our Prosecutor and at that point in time we capped his fees at $50,000 annually which was a combination of about $26,000 for his retainer and then $23,000-24,000 in fees from the firm to be billed monthly. For 2010-2011, we were within that $50,000 cap. For 2012, we are currently, based upon invoices received, about $4,700 above that. We still have to receive the bill for the month of December. We potentially will be between $5,000-7,000 above the cap for 2012 that is in the legislation passed by Council at the beginning of last year. Most of it is more required Court time on cases he is handling for the Village. Our Court fines for the year in 2011 was $132,000. This year it’s $157,000 which I think is a reflection of the increased case activity he has been handling at Lyndhurst for us based upon the number of cases being brought by the Police Department. I put it out there for discussion for Council to what our options are. We can hold the Prosecutor to the $50,000 cap for 2012 and not pay those services or pay him in full or settle on something in between. My recommendation would be to call the Prosecutor and work out an arrangement of something in between the $50,000 cap and what his total fees would be. I am just throwing it out for discussion at this point.
Council President Buckholtz asked if there were any questions? There were none.
- 2013 Medical Expense Reimbursement Plan
Mr. Wynne reported, this Plan if you will recall, was put in place last year when we moved our health insurance over to the County Regionalization Plan. It provided for the funding of the $2,000/4,000 deductibles on the high deductible plan. During the year in response to some collective bargaining issues, we also agreed to fund the $250/500 deductible on the other plan. We need to amend the medical expense plan to provide for the funding of the $250 and $500 plan and are also going to put another amendment in there that in the event we hire new employees, the amount we fund those cards for is proportionately reduced based upon the length of time they work for the Village during their initial year of employee. So instead of hiring someone in June and paying the full $4,000, we will only pay 6/7 months worth of the $4,000 should they elect to go with that Plan. There will also be a motion to fund the Medical Expense Reimbursement Plan for 2013. That number will be in the range of around $160-165,000.
- Prisoner housing for 2013 (City of Bedford Heights Jail - $15,000)
- Cleaning of police station for 2013 (Carlson Cleaning Service - $7,884)
- Monthly CRIS/LEADS/NCIC usage for 2013 (CRIS - $15,000)
- Code Red Emergency Notifications (Emergency Communication Networkd ba Code Red - $6,350)
Chief Edelman reported that the above items are all annual service fees for various contracts.
Council President Buckholtz asked, any questions on any of the items? There were none.
- MARCS fees for 2013 (Treasurer of State, Fund 5C2 - $7,280)
Acting Chief Girbino reported, this is an annual fee for 2013. It covers both Police and Fire.
Council President Buckholtz asked, any questions? There were none.
Mr. Esborn reported, the Application for Mayfield Village to DOPWIC, the District One Public Works Integrating Committee, the Committee for Cuyahoga County that evaluates project applications receiving infrastructure funding from the State of Ohio Public Works Commission. Our application was for new sewers and new waterlines on Eastgate and Meadowood. We made this application last year and did not receive funding. Our application was for $500,000 in grants, $726,000 in no interest loans. It’s a multi-step and fairly complex process. What we can say for sure now that the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission has made its staff recommendations is that we have a much stronger application this year. It’s evaluation was scored much higher than our application last year. All indications are that we are likely to receive State funding for Eastgate and Meadowood sewers. All I can really do is continue to monitor the meetings taking place. It goes from the staff recommendations to the actual committee then down to Columbus. It’s really just a series of groups affirming the recommendations of other groups. Things will become more and more formal as we go. Things are looking good for the funding of this project.
Mr. Delguyd asked, is that an all or nothing decision?
Mayor Rinker stated, historically, as a reminder to everyone, a few years ago, I think it was on this project or a similar project, we did it through what was then the small government’s aegis. We were approved at the local level and then we got kyboshed down in Columbus. It was rather startling. Nobody in Cuyahoga County expected it. No one in Columbus bothered to explain it. In fact, they were rather annoyed with us for having the temerity to ask them why they voted it down. Right now, we are quarter finalists. The DOPWIC has not formally voted. The staff has made the recommendation.
Mr. Esborn replied, DOPWIC votes on Thursday.
Mayor Rinker stated, historically what we have seen locally, the staff recommendations are pretty consistently followed unless you are right on the cusp. We seem to be higher. Ron had gone over that. I am sure next week when he does an overview for finances at the end of the year, but one of the things we did is we decided we just need to put more money in the pot. We have been saving up chunks of money over the last two or three years for that purpose. It bodes well. Typically we cannot start putting that money into the ground until the first of July. It’s a fiscal year requirement. If things work out as we hope, we would look to be doing that some time this year if at all possible. Once we get the word from Columbus, if we get the green light, the final plans, specs, going out to bid and trying to get the project lined for the middle of this summer.
Mr. Esborn stated, July is when it becomes official.
Mayor Rinker stated we have been trying for the better part of a decade for this particular neighborhood. We have gone through so many different combinations, iterations, trying to get the winning combination with DOPWIC. I have explained this in the past that what we have discovered to our dismay is that road projects tend to get a lot more attention now because they are graded on the impact to the community at large. There are just so many people that use the roads that they kind of had a leg up that heretofore they have not had. I think when this program started out, it really was not viewed as an adjunct to ODOT to be blunt. It’s changed a lot. That’s been a change in the way in which the funding scoring has affected communities such as ours. We have gotten to the point where we recognize we have to get this done. We started salting money away a few years ago. We looked at a good revenue stream this past year. It has made a lot of sense for us to go ahead and get this done. The outcome as we have explained before is that we want every resident in the community to end up bearing the burden proportionate with every other resident where these conversions have gone through. So with every project we have to deal with all of these other variables so the one real constant will be that the impact to individual residences is pretty constant.
Council President Buckholtz asked, what indications other than staff that we are in a better scoring position this round from last round?
Mr. Esborn replied, they make their actual scores available. Our score is significantly higher. I think for what it’s worth, it went from about 118 to 181. We picked up 60 some points. We looked at this project before we applied where the scores fell last year. We wondered if we could make enough of an impact in the different scoring areas to get us into the funding area. We hit all of the areas we needed to hit to get that score impact. They make it very clear what their scores are based on. The increased funding had a lot to do with. We got real strong letters of support from Cleveland Water, the County Health Department and Chagrin River Partners. That had a lot to do with it. A lot of the data we got from the Health Department, a lot of the measurements that had gone just this year provided a lot of strong support.
Council President Buckholtz asked, is that meeting open to the public Thursday?
Mr. Esborn replied, yes.
Council President Buckholtz asked, when do they meet?
Mr. Esborn replied, I can find that out.
PARKS & RECREATION
- Residents’ memberships to Progressive Fitness Center for 2013 ($22,000 – pass through)
Mr. Thomas replied, this is a pass through. It is an annual membership. Whatever we take in, we pay.
Council President Buckholtz asked, any questions?
Mr. Delguyd asked, is this based on past history?
Mr. Thomas replied, we average about 150-175 members.
The other item Mr. Thomas wanted to make sure everyone got the e-mail Diane sent out concerning Groundhog Day. It is in the evening this year at 5:30 on January 31st. It is also kind of a State of the Union address by the Mayors as well as our new Superintendent Dr. Keith Kelly. Please contact Diane if you are interested in attending.
ANY OTHER MATTERS
Council President Buckholtz asked if there were any other matters.
Mr. Marrie reported that Cuyahoga County Representative Jack Schron plans to attend our Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting on Monday, January 28th at 7:00. He will give us a presentation on the current County government and its relationship to the local communities. It would be nice if you could attend. It should last about an hour.
With regard to the Finance Caucus meetings, Council President Buckholtz stated we will be reviewing the structure of the meeting as relates to date and time of the meeting. I will keep everyone posted.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 9:15 p.m.
Mary E. Betsa, Clerk of Council