DRAFT

CITY OF ROCKY RIVER

MARCH 7, 2005

The Committee-of-the-Whole was called to order by Mrs. Bobst, President of Council, at 8:28 p.m.

Council Members Present: Mr. Gollinger, Mr. Potterfield, Mr. Frost, Mr. Hurtuk,

Mrs. Bartolozzi, Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Bobst

Administration: Mayor Knoble, Mr. Linden, Mr. Koran

Law Director: Mr. Matty

Press: Mrs. McKenzie

Mrs. Bobst announced that both this meeting and the preceding meeting were being recorded by a resident.

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

Mr. Koran announced that the most important economic news for the community is the closing of Dillard's at Westgate and the entire Westgate project. He said that he would remain for the discussion of the density issue.

MAYOR'S REPORT:

On Saturday, the Senior Center staff put together a life style seminar. Beginning at 9:30 with registration and a well-known keynote speaker on the challenges of retirement, it was followed by workshops covering diverse topics, lunch and entertainment. The event was very successful and well-attended by over 100 residents. He complimented the staff at the Senior Center.

The Planning Commission held a special meeting last week and completed its study of the Master Plan. The minutes will be approved next week so that Council can proceed.

Another meeting on the job cuts at NASA was held today in Congressman Kucinich's office. The Mayor was unable to attend, and Mr. Koran attended on his behalf. Over 60 people were in attendance; another meeting will be held next week.

The Stormwater Management Commission will meet tomorrow afternoon.

The Beautification Committee will also meet tomorrow at 7:00 pm. at the Don Umerley Civic Center.

Thanks to those who participated in the Rocky River Education Foundation's fundraiser at the Yacht Club last Saturday night. It was a very successful evening and showed good cooperation between volunteer organizations, the schools and the City.

Discussion: Mr. Hurtuk recalled that a couple of years ago, a Westgate Mall Task Force was formed which included real estate professionals and community leaders. He asked Mayor Knoble if he felt that Fairview Park would find it valuable to reconvene the task force, and said that he believed the members would be willing to contribute.

• •The Mayor said that he would approach Fairview Park once their plan is revealed and offer to reconvene the Task Force for input by members of both communities. He feels that something will happen soon.
• •Mr. Hurtuk added that Dilliard's is the fee-simple owner of property at the south end, and as yet, there have been no transfers of the title. He feels that the task force could be beneficial to both communities.
  
  

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

Resolution No. 133-04: This resolution adopts the Master Plan. Mr. Potterfield reported the Planning Commission has completed its review. He indicated that he would like to schedule a meeting of his committee, and asked members if they were available on Thursday. It was determined that the committee will meet at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 10 to continue discussion of the Planning Commission's recommendations relative to the Master Plan. In this way, he hopes to keep up with the Planning Commission's discussions. Only minutes approved by the Planning Commission will be under discussion.

Resolution No. 1-05: This issue, appropriation of property, was postponed indefinitely at the Special Meeting which preceded this meeting.

Ordinance No. 2-05: This rezoning ordinance has been read twice. A Public Hearing has been scheduled for March 21. Mr. Potterfield remarked that it was his intention to read it for the third time at the Legislative Meeting the week after the Public Hearing and call for a vote.

• •Mr. Matty reminded Council that the week of that Legislative Meeting, March 28, is Easter week, and that he will be out of the area. He requested, since there was opposition expressed to this rezoning, that the vote be postponed until April 11.

Ordinance No. 22-05: This is the annual budget. Next week it is scheduled for a Public Hearing and a third reading.

Ordinance No. 24-05: Mr. Hagan explained that this ordinance will repeal Ordinance No. 134-04 and bring the City into conformance with other cities in the WCOG. An addition to Exhibit A was received this evening. Mayor Knoble added that the state is considering, relative to local government funding, assisting those cities who participate in cooperative projects with other cities, and this would qualify. Mr. Hagan requested that this ordinance be placed on the Consent Agenda.

Ordinance No. 29-05: This is a contract for maintenance and repair of fire suppression systems. The bid summary shows that there were 3 bidders, with the lowest being recommended. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Linden about the company recommended. Mr. Linden stated that it has been used by the Fire Department and is a very good firm. This will be on the Consent Agenda.

Ordinance No. 30-05: This sets fees for the City's swimming pool. Mrs. Bobst indicated that it is important to note that there are no increases in pool membership fees in this ordinance. It clarifies fees and definitions. Mrs. Bobst asked that this be placed on the Consent Agenda.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:

Residential Zoning - Density Issue: Mrs. Bobst called upon Mr. Koran, the City's Economic and Community Development Director, who had prepared five matrices to help Council decide how it views density in certain areas of the City.

Mr. Koran distributed zoning maps which showed land in Rocky River currently zoned for apartments. He noted that this residential property which has various uses is much in demand from the developer's point of view. On Center Ridge Road, on property zoned for apartments, a proposal has been made for single family detached homes. Because of the way the Building Commissioner, with the advice of the Law Director, interprets the Code, developers in this situation do not have the opportunity to build what they might in other communities. The BZA turned down the proposal which has far fewer dwelling units than would be permitted under the apartment classification.

Some time ago, Mr. Koran prepared a matrix showing a proposed number of dwelling units which could be permitted at a .15 increased figure. He explained by saying that in an R4 zoning class, 22 D.U. per acre are permitted. In this particular situation on Center Ridge, that would have meant that the developer could have placed 26 units on that parcel. Instead, he proposed 8 cluster units, but the BZA turned down the variance. He has tried to find a way to permit such a less dense development which he said is the goal of Council, too. He believes that the problem is actually the zoning of the property. When the Master Plan has been approved, the next step is to see how zonings compare with it. Mr. Koran feels that this property on Center Ridge should not be zoned for apartments, but for something less dense. His proposal is a way for a developer to have permission to build more units than would be permitted under present zoning regulations, but far fewer than the R4 zoning would permit.

After preparation of this proposal, Mr. Matty asked him to prepare further matrices using incentives from .05 to .25 since he did not know how conservative or liberal Council would feel. Mr. Koran then explained how he arrived at each of the figures on the charts which provide a bonus to a developer who would propose a less dense development than permitted in R4. His aim would be to have the level accepted by Council codified and permissible without variance. He stressed that all other requirements listed in the zoning code would remain; only the density, the number of dwelling units per acre, would be affected.

Mr. Koran added, that even if Council did not pass the ordinance, he would urge members to study the map, seeing where the apartment zonings occur in their wards. Once the Master Plan is approved, the Administration will do this more intensively. There is probably some property which should not be zoned for apartments.

• •Mr. Potterfield stated that in speaking of the R4, R5 or R6 zonings, it should be noted that the project has a 35' height restriction which was implemented some time following the construction of Harbor Court. The townhouse concept ran into height problems, so the cluster was considered, which is lower, but takes a bigger footprint.
  
  

Mr. Koran agreed, noting that it was only the R4 classification that was being discussed as to bonus or incentives.

• •Mrs. Bobst sees this as an incentive for less dense development. Where potentially 22 dwelling units could be build, there would, under this plan, be 6.8.
  
  
• •Mr. Hagan pointed out that some might see this as a potential increase. Because 6.8 are now replacing fewer single dwellings, some see this as an increase. The fact that 22 could have been built is unknown.
  
  
• •Mr. Matty said that zoning or rezoning is within the prerogative of Council. If an incentive is favored by a majority, the five charts apply different incentives. In some cases, he pointed out that a developer with property zoned for cluster development could request a rezoning to R4 in order to take advantage of the bonus or incentive. This would, however, be a two-step process, and would be unlikely to be approved by Council if the zoning were not appropriate, e.g. surrounded by single family dwellings. Still, in theory, it would be possible.
  
  
• •Mayor Knoble commented that the areas of the City which are zoned for apartments undisputably cause the most grief in terms of socio-economic and criminal situations. He supports this by his regular reading of police reports. The Administration has adopted a policy which does not encourage new apartment development, but tries to persuade developers to consider another type of development. If some incentive cannot be agreed upon, the Administration will begin to submit proposals for rezoning, as there are already too many apartments already in the City. Some need to be razed and redeveloped. He feels that single family development is in the best interests of the City, and this would be a good tool to encourage that development.
  
  
• •Mr. Frost asked for Mr. Koran's recommendation. Mr. Koran said that he would be in favor of the .15 incentive. An incentive in this range would enable the BZA to refuse variances for more dense development since the bonus has already been codified by Council. This would mandate 6.8 and no more.
  
  
• •Mr. Matty noted that Council has the ultimate say on granted variances. Denied variances cannot be reviewed, but granted variances can be reversed or modified under authority granted by the Charter.

Mr. Koran indicated that potential developments will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and only if variances are required will they go before the BZA. Again it was emphasized that all other requirements are unchanged and any variance of those requirements will require BZA approval.

• •Mr. Potterfield asked when was the last time apartments were built in Rocky River.

Mr. Koran acknowledged that it was before his time, but he did confirm that apartment developments have been proposed since his time and have not been encouraged by the Administration.

• •Mrs. Bobst then instructed the Law Director to work with Mr. Koran upon his recommendation to draft legislation in accordance with his .15 recommendation. From that point, Council will discuss it and make changes as required.
  
  
• •Mr. Matty first wished to make certain that a majority wishes to proceed with the idea of an incentive for less development than already permitted in R4 zonings. The consensus was that the majority favors such legislation, so he will proceed.
  
  

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Finance Committee: Mr. Hurtuk reported that the Finance Committee met this evening in a final committee meeting unless an issue comes up. Good discussions were held this evening. He thanked the Mayor and Mr. Thomas for preparation of a good initial budget. Every year the framework of what the Administration and Council want to follow is presented, with alterations made along the way, if necessary.

• •Mrs. Bobst thanked Mr. Hurtuk for his leadership in the discussions which are moving the process along.
  
  

NEW BUSINESS:

Ordinance No. 31-05: This ordinance was passed unanimously at the Special Meeting which preceded this meeting. Mr. Hurtuk commented that the agreed-upon price from 18 months ago did not change, and he thanked the Mayor and Mr. Matty for their impressive performance in keeping the costs down.

Ordinance No. 32-05: This ordinance was initiated by the Administration following last week's discussion of the topic. The subject originally was raised in a discussion of a traffic study. Mr. Potterfield turned to Mayor Knoble who recalled that the topic was raised in the Beachcliff Market Square project and then the Westgate project. The question was in how to get numbers necessary to consideration of the projects without its becoming a burden to the City and its finances. Mr. Koran found a section from Westlake which mandates developers to cover the cost of required studies. The Mayor's original intent was to include parameters, but he was advised by Mr. Matty not to do so. There is more involved than originally thought: he noted that last year, for example, the City paid the Cuyahoga Soil & Water Conservation District fees totaling $8,000 for advice and inspection on runoff from construction sites. Those could have been charged back to developers if this legislation had been in place, and the City would not have to bear the burden of the cost.

• •Mrs. Bobst noted that there is further information to be reviewed. She also wished to make certain that provisions were made for either the City to perform or commission the study and be reimbursed, or to have the developer do so at his expense.
  
  

Mayor Knoble said that timeliness is an issue, and he would like to have some legislation introduced by the time the Westgate plan is presented by developers.

• •Mrs. Bobst indicated that this ordinance can be read for the first time next week and questions can then be considered.
  
  
• •Mr. Frost asked if, under present circumstances without the ordinance, a study can be requested by the Planning Commission, BZA or Council. Mr. Matty responded that probably only the Planning Commission, as a general planning authority, could request the study. A question about the depth of the study or payment could be raised without this legislation. That is why the Administration would like this legislation drafted, so that there would be no question.
  
  
• •Mr. Matty suggested adding "In the event the City or applicant is required..." to respond to Mrs. Bobst's concern that it may not always be the City which actually performs the study. He said that sometimes small developments can have a large impact on neighboring areas which would be difficult to assess, particularly without a City Planner or Engineer on staff that can deal with such issues. This could be a useful tool to confirm or deny any assertion.
  
  

Ordinance No. 33-05: Mr. Gollinger explained that cationic polymer is used annually by the WWTP in the dewatering process. There were three bidders this year, and the Safety-Service Director has recommended the lowest bidder. Mr. Gollinger asked if Mr. Linden is familiar with this company. Mr. Linden responded that he is, and that the City has dealt with the company before. This will be on the Consent Agenda.

Ordinance No. 34-05: Authorizing the purchase of tree lawn trees, the Mayor explained that the Beautification Committee has recommended this program to get more trees planted. Although the budget for this year has not yet been passed, this program had to begin because the trees must be ordered and planted in April. A number of residents have made donations, and 100 trees have been requested. To give balance, two or three streets have been selected in each ward for the first phase of an ongoing program.

• •Mrs. Bartolozzi has received questions about sweet gum trees which drop balls onto lawns asking if they were part of the intended plantings. She was told that they were not. This ordinance will be placed on the Consent Agenda.
  
  

Ordinance No. 35-05 and 36-05: As discussed earlier at the meeting of the Finance Committee, Mr. Hurtuk noted that hiring outside auditors is necessary because the State Auditor's office can no longer provide the service for the City or the WWTP. He asked the Law Director if a bidding process is necessary. Mr. Matty responded that for personal and professional services, one proposal acceptable to the Finance Director is legally acceptable by Charter. The cost for these services will eventually be down to $16,000 or $17,000, but because of set-up costs, will be higher in the first years of the multi-year quote. Mr. Hurtuk will do further due diligence on the subject, consulting with Mr. Thomas.

• •Mr. Frost cited experience with this firm (Ciuni & Panichi) when he worked with the State Auditor. He said they have a good reputation for work with public entities and a good level of service and strong qualifications.
  
  

Ordinance No.37-05: This ordinance is for the measurement of sewer flow and strength, and Mr. Gollinger noted significant interest on the part of bidders. The lowest bidder was selected in a range of bids from $44,500 to $113,625. This current assessment is timely and needs to be accomplished in March, April and May as provided in the agreement of operation of the WWTP. The study, done every 5 years, determines what member cities will pay for next period of time. It can be done more frequently at the expense of the requesting municipality.

• •Mayor Knoble added that this firm is the one which did the study in the Wooster/Story Rd. area.

It was noted that Exhibit A has been received this evening. The ordinance will be placed on the Consent Agenda.

Ordinance No. 38-05: Mr. Hagan turned to the Mayor who explained that this agreement with the Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District has already been in existence, and is being renewed. The Mayor indicated that the CSWCD provides two different types of services consistent with Stormwater Management regulations and inspection. The City has required a combination of both types of service, which last year was $10,000 and an additional $5500 for the education program. The Mayor is hopeful that if Ordinance 32-05 is passed, a part of this cost will be reimbursed to the City. This ordinance will be on the Consent Agenda.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: NONE

As there was no further business by members of Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

_____________________________ _____________________________

Pamela E. Bobst Misao Kurokawa

President of Council Clerk of Council

Please note: This is a draft copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee-of-the-Whole of

March 7, 2005. These minutes may be revised or amended at the next Legislative Meeting.

DRAFT

CITY OF ROCKY RIVER

MARCH 7, 2005

Special Meeting

The Special Meeting of Council was called to order by Mrs. Bobst, President of Council at 8:00 p.m.

Council Members Present: Mr. Gollinger, Mr. Potterfield, Mr. Frost, Mr. Hurtuk,

Mrs. Bartolozzi, Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Bobst

Administration: Mayor Knoble, Mr. Linden, Mr. Koran

Law Director: Mr. Matty

Press: Mrs. McKenzie

Mrs. Bobst opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. She then made a statement that the purpose of the Special Meeting is to discuss Resolution 1-05.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION:

Gerald W. Phillips, 35955 Detroit Road, rose to address both pieces of legislation on the agenda. He expressed surprise at finding legislation to buy the property which was the subject of the resolution of intent to appropriate. He asked what public purpose would be served by making the City a landlord until July 31, 2008. He labeled it invalid, illegal and a waste of taxpayers' money. He further commented that under the terms of the lease agreement, the City would have an obligation for taxes, insurance and other items. He also expressed curiosity about where discussions for this ordinance took place, wondering if there was a violation of the Sunshine Law. In short, he said the attempt to pass the legislation is illegal and submitted a copy of the current lease agreement, noting that Council will be subject to its terms. (Exhibit "A")

ORDINANCE NO. 31-05 BY BRIAN F. HAGAN AND BRIAN A. HURTUK

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTY INTERESTS LOCATED AT 2154 WOOSTER ROAD, KNOWN AS PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 301-27-113, IN THE CITY OF ROCKY RIVER, OHIO, AND AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"

1^ST READING

Moved by Mr. Hurtuk, seconded by Mr. Hagan, that the rule requiring that Ordinance No. 31-05 be read on three separate days be suspended, and that Ordinance No. 31-05 be placed upon its passage:

Discussion: This topic has been discussed for some time. Although undecided last week, Mr. Hurtuk now believes that the best course of action is to honor the lease in place and still accomplish the goals of the Administration. This action should be implemented immediately without taking three meetings to read the ordinance.

Vote: Gollinger - aye Potterfield - aye Frost - aye

Hurtuk - aye Bartolozzi - aye Hagan - aye

Bobst - aye

7 ayes 0 nays PASSED

Moved by Mrs. Bobst, seconded by Mr. Gollinger, that Ordinance No. 31-05 be passed as read:

Discussion: Mr. Hurtuk began the discussion by commenting that he found last week's discussion fascinating and the testimony outstanding. Concerns, both for and against the legislation, were delivered in a professional manner.

The Administration has been discussing acquisition of the property, making improvements to complement the neighborhood for many years. It is not Council's role to set policy, but to challenge as to why things make sense and to be sure that projects are affordable. Funds needed to make the purchase are available, and there is no better landlord than the City. When someone has a lease, he has every right to live out the terms of the lease, so this is a win-win situation for everyone.

Mr. Matty, in giving background of the ordinance, stated that the City started negotiations in good faith. A voluntary meeting took place in Mayor Knoble's office and those in attendance were Mayor Knoble and Mr. Matty representing the City, Mr. Abdallah and his attorney, Mr. Hack, and Mr. Spremulli and his attorney, Mr. Cottichia. Under discussion was what the City was willing to pay the owner and the terms of a lease. At one point, Mr. Spremulli asked to leave to speak to his attorney, and stepped into the Law Director's office. In his absence, participants tried to determine a purchase price, not something involving Mr. Spremulli.

In the final negotiations, the Mayor yielded because he wanted a shorter term lease. It was agreed that the Law Director would draft a purchase agreement and Mr. Abdallah's attorney would draft a lease for Mr. Spremulli's signature. Mr. Matty indicated that he made this statement, not to assign blame, but to make a record of the proceedings that is accurate in fact. He participated, and other attorneys participated, and all know what happened.

Mr. Matty further stated that the owner had no issue with the compensation agreed upon in August, 2003. In Ordinance No. 32-05, the amount is the same. During the past week, there were no violations of the Sunshine Laws. With the cooperation of the owner, he tried to take a situation which was a confrontational legal issue and tried to revert to what it was, a voluntary agreement of the City to purchase property from a landowner. Voluntary purchase has a broader scope: some cities are buying property to plant grass, some to take land out of development, as much as 40-50 acres from individuals.

What he tried to do through voluntary purchase was to:

• •Avoid confrontation with the tenant.
• •Avoid higher payment to the owner, and have to pay to extinguish the lease term
• •Unlike the former situation which had both constituents arguing, this benefits both.
• •The City can recoup close to $60,000 of the purchase price under the terms of the lease.
  
  

Mr. Matty noted that the lease drafted by the owner for the tenant in August 2003 is not a part of this purchase. The existing lease gives the tenant more rights to renewal as long as he meets his obligations. He could extend his term to July 31, 2008. At that time, if Council or it successors wish to sell, this tenant has the first right to buy. Council would be subject to terms of the lease. Mr. Matty read conditions from the lease:

"In the event Lessee leases the property through the entirety of the lease term and its extensions (i.e. 4 additional years), at the end of such additional terms, Lessor shall provide Lessee with the first opportunity to purchase the property on terms and conditions set by Lessor, and further providing that Lessor wishes to sell the property."

Mr. Matty further explained, if the owner does not wish to sell, the lease expires.

The owner has asked that if the City wishes to proceed, that it do so immediately. Mr. Matty drafted the new agreement, circulated it and returned it, signed. This signature will nullify any intent to appropriate and he asked that, if Ordinance No. 31-05 is passed, that Resolution No. 1-05 be postponed indefinitely. Within 90 days, much remains to be done such as checking the title. Addressing the environmental situation, he will ask the engineer and fire chief to supply information to Mr. Koran. He will begin escrow and the process of the transfer of ownership. He noted that there is no increase in compensation from the amount agreed upon in 2003. Subject to the terms of the lease, Mr. Spremulli can continue to conduct his business if he wishes.

• •Mayor Knoble mentioned that a recent precedent was the purchase by the City of homes on Yacht Club Drive for eventual public improvement project. Until ready to proceed, the homes were leased to tenants.
  
  
• •Mr. Frost asked about proration of lease payments which would also entail the security deposit being held by the owner, and subsequently might be held by the City. Mr. Matty said that will be worked out through escrow.
  
  

Vote: Gollinger - aye Potterfield - aye Frost - aye

Hurtuk - aye Bartolozzi - aye Hagan - aye

Bobst - aye

7 ayes 0 nays PASSED

RESOLUTION NO. 1-05 BY MAYOR WILLIAM F. KNOBLE

A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO APPROPRIATE A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL ESTATE

1^ST READING

Moved by Mrs. Bobst, seconded by Mr. Hurtuk, that Resolution No. 1-05 be postponed indefinitely.

Discussion: As noted by the discussion above, for Ordinance No. 31-05, this resolution is no longer needed.

Vote: Gollinger - aye Potterfield - aye Frost - aye

Hurtuk - aye Bartolozzi - aye Hagan - aye

Bobst - aye

7 ayes 0 nays PASSED

As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m..

__________________________________ _____________________________

Pamela E. Bobst Misao Kurokawa

President of Council Clerk of Council

Please note: This is a draft copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Special Meeting of

March 7, 2005. These minutes may be revised or amended at the next Legislative Meeting.

DRAFT

CITY OF ROCKY RIVER

MARCH 7, 2005

Finance Committee

The meeting of the Finance Committee was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Hurtuk, at 6:42 p.m. in the David J. Cook Council Chambers.

Finance Committee Members Present: Mr. Hurtuk, Mrs. Bobst, Mr. Frost, Mr. Gollinger

Council members present: Mr. Potterfield, Mr. Hagan

Administration: Mayor Knoble, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Linden

Law Department: Mr. Matty, Mr. Hotz, Ms. Murphy

Mr. Hurtuk opened the meeting by reviewing the meeting of February 3 at which the Finance Committee had met with members of the Administration and exchanged good information. Since that meeting, several members of the committee have talked with the Finance Director voicing comments and questions. On February 11, several revised pages were received, and line items were addressed. At this evening's meeting, Mr. Hurtuk expected discussion of revenues and expenditures. This will be followed by a public hearing next week.

In his discussion of revenues, Mr. Hurtuk noted that there are four major categories: court income (fines), income tax, property tax and estate tax. He asked the Finance Director if projections are holding up. Mr. Thomas found it very encouraging that the income tax is where it should be. The court income is steady and it does not appear that there will be any big surprises. In answer to a question from Mr. Hurtuk, Mr. Thomas stated that income from property taxes is received semi-annually in January and July. Personal property tax is received in May. The City receives 16% of the total of property taxes assessed to residents of Rocky River.

• •Mr. Hurtuk brought out the fact that the last few years there has been new construction, and although it may take 18 months for new taxes to be realized, County estimates of new construction values have risen from $3.5 million in 2003 to $5.3 million last year.
• •The Mayor added that he had received a letter from the County Auditor stating that for 2004, the estimate is $5,305,790.
• •Mr. Hurtuk observed that this year could see $5 million or more.
• •Mr. Thomas indicated that the actual value increase was about $1.8 million as taxable residential property.
  
  

Mr. Hurtuk then asked about tangible personal property which has dropped a bit, and he wondered why. Mr. Thomas noted that values have dropped from 2003 to 2004 which impacts the total tax value of the City. The Mayor feels that the study asks more questions than it answers. Some concerns that he knows were in business during the period are listed as having a zero value. The largest in the City is Home Depot, with an inventory of $1.5 million, but some businesses showed nothing. The Administration is investigating the situation and will distribute the report when questions have been answered, working through the City's records and the County.

• •Mr. Gollinger indicated that businesses have a responsibility to report accurate figures. The Mayor agreed, but said that the system is self-policing with little auditing or enforcement. Reports are made directly to the County without copies for the City.
• •Mr. Hurtuk asked the Administration to keep Council posted.
  
  

Mr. Hurtuk's next topic was income tax. He noted that there had been changes between the 2003 and 2004 list of the City's top ten withholding employers, with companies such as McDonald & Company and Real Estate Mortgage Corp. making strong showings and moving up on the list. He felt this was a good sign that existing businesses are growing and have larger payrolls.

• •Mayor Knoble indicated that he would like to look at the raw data, as he finds it puzzling that a stable operation like Heinen's has dropped completely off the list. Mr. Thomas has the raw data available.
  
  

Estate tax was the next to be discussed. On February 23, the Finance Director provided a five-year analysis. During that period, estate taxes of $2.4 million, $1.7 million, $4 million and $3.3 million have been received.

• •The Mayor noted that last December a $300,000 advance was received, taken then, rather than waiting until January of this year.
• •Mr. Thomas mentioned that he had spoken to a representative of the County who told him that they did not have sufficient data. It may be that the State can give him more information.

It was decided that, in view of the fact that the amount of the estate tax is unpredictable, that the projection be reduced to $1 million.

Mr. Hurtuk also mentioned that the grant recently received by the Fire Department from Homeland Security has not been included. He requested revised revenue projections and the amendment to the appropriations ordinance.

Mrs. Bobst also suggested that in the five-year comparison, health insurance not be included as revenue as it may be misinterpreted and lead some to believe that the City receives income from health insurance. Instead, she suggested it may be viewed as a transfer.

• •Mr. Thomas suggested removing it and reflecting it below as a net figure with what is paid in against what is expended.
  
  

Mr. Hurtuk raised the question of bond ratings. He asked if the City returned for a second rating on the past issue.

• •The Mayor responded that the City was rated last year for the October bond issue and reaffirmed by telephone this year for the Civic Center Improvement bonds with a Aa2 rating, Moody's second best.
• •Mr. Gollinger, noting that this has been discussed in the past, felt that the conclusion was that this was the best rating possible for the City.
• •Mr. Thomas commented that there are other agencies, but Aa2 is the second highest rating with the Aa1 highest being earned by only three communities in Ohio. Our rating does what is necessary for the City.
  
  

It was further noted that revenues from the State of Ohio in local government funding may be shrinking.

Mrs. Bobst asked about a historical perspective of fund balances for the last 3-5 years. Mr. Thomas stated that the aim was not to spend balances down, using estate tax revenue when necessary. Our fund balances are used by Moody's in rating the City, and are about 25% to 26% of revenue. The numbers have remained consistent in recent years.

Mr. Hurtuk then moved on to expenditures. He noted that in the area of personnel expenditures, the City is in the third year of contracts with police, fire and service personnel. He noted that the Administration is already updating its information from neighboring communities who are completing last year's negotiations.

• •Mayor Knoble explained that it is very, very difficult to compare one city's union labor contract in terms of wages only. For example, the education allowance is strong in this City; others have none, or pay police officers for pistol training instead of an education allowance. He said that he will gather information all year long to be prepared for negotiations.
  
  

In capital expenditures, much has to do with last year's projects for which contractor payments will be made this year.

Mr. Thomas noted that the Civic Center improvement is also included because it is part of the bond issue. Also, not much of the outdoor pool contract was spent last year so it is an encumbered carryover.

Mr. Hurtuk also pointed out the new debt service representing the amount refinanced to take advantage of a more favorable interest rate.

Mr. Gollinger, referring to payroll taxes which are continuing to increase, wondered if there is a point where it would be beneficial to do a comparative analysis of the fees paid to the CCA vs. RITA vs. the cost of in-house collections, and whether in-house can be considered.

• •Mr. Thomas explained that in-house collection would require space, computers, technical help and staff. With current staffing levels, it might make sense to compare CCA vs. RITA.
• •The Mayor commented that the Westshore finance directors have looked at the situation and feel that cities are much better off with the CCA than RITA, which has had significant problems with computer systems and is suing the installer of their system. Costs in Lakewood, for example, are up 18%.
  
  

Mr. Hurtuk then raised the question of accounting services in preparing financial statements which are usually provided by the State Auditor's office. This year, they will not provide the service.

• •Mr. Thomas explained that because of the State hiring freeze, there are insufficient personnel at the Auditor's office to provide accounting services. He contacted some firms and asked for cost proposals. Although the City typically spends $15,000 to $16,000 for this work, the fee will be more for the first year, the mid-$20's, but a several-year commitment shows that each year the rate goes down, and in 3-4 years, it is almost back to current levels. This is subject to Council's annual appropriation.
  
  

The Mayor also announced an offer of funds from a resident to be applied toward an SUV-type vehicle for Rylo, the police dog, where he will have more room. The offer is for about 20% of the cost of the vehicle, and the Administration is considering taking funds from the POPAS account to purchase a Ford Explorer. Because of this generous offer, the cost of the SUV could be in the $15,000 range.

Mr. Hurtuk then turned to Mr. Matty. Because the Law Director was unable to assemble his staff at the previous meeting, he had requested presentation at tonight's meeting.

Mr. Matty thanked the committee for allowing his department to make its presentation this evening. He asked for the committee's input, either a confirmation that what they have been doing what Council would like to continue, or whether it would recommend a different direction.

The entire legal budget for 2004, including the Law Director, Prosecutor and part-time services, was $171,000. Two other cases required outside counsel, one in Columbus at a liquor hearing, and bond counsel. Except for Fairview Park, no other Westshore suburb is even close. He explained that he was fortunate to have the assistance of Lynn Murphy, a law specialist in the municipal area, whose priority has changed from the practice of law to the raising of her family. She works at a very reasonable rate, and works when the City needs the work done. Gary Hotz is on the staff as the City's prosecutor on a part-time basis. These three attorneys work for the City, Ms. Murphy @ $50/hr and Mr. Hotz and Mr. Matty @ $85/hr, rates which are probably 2½ times less than they could be. (The City paid the attorney in Columbus $165/hr and Mr. Coyne, $195/hr-negotiated rates lower because Rocky River is a public entity.)

Further outsourcing includes providing Mr. Matty with $5700 to pay the costs of a legal secretary for work performed in his office. If the office were to be moved to City Hall, costs would be $40,000 to $45,000 with benefits. He also does not have the services of a paralegal, as in North Olmsted. The total of legal fees was far less because of outsourcing than in cities with larger legal staffs. Mr. Matty recommended the continuation of this outsourcing program, if it is confirmed by Council.

Comparing the costs of other suburbs in the prosecutorial staff, Rocky River has a great bargain in Gary Hotz who prosecutes more cases without additional staff than other cities with more prosecutors.

Mr. Matty added that the Law Department cannot control its budget because his duties are determined by the Mayor or Council according to Charter. He has tried not to go to outside counsel because he would lose control of litigation. Salaries are on the low side, and he feels that his streamlined system is working.

• •Mr. Hurtuk indicated that since 1989, Mr. Matty has been very efficient. Mr. Hurtuk did not realize that the effects of hiring outside legal counsel could be so devastating, and stated that Mr. Matty and his entire department is to be commended.
  
  
• •Mrs. Bobst praised his accessibility when needed as invaluable.

• •Mayor Knoble, on behalf of the Administration, urged Council to continue the program as it exists because it has been very workable and effective. Mrs. Burt, the Mayor's assistant, can also help with ordinance preparation. He feels it is key that it works well at an effective cost. He encouraged Council to continue the same program.
  
  
• •Mr. Gollinger stated that the cost is important, but more so are results which he feels have been positive.
  
  
• •Mr. Hagan commented that everyone can see the good work performed by Mr. Matty, but his experience in court has given him the opportunity to see the prosecutor in action. He does his job well and is well respected, dealing with a large docket without assistance. He expressed his opinion that the legal department should continue doing what it has been doing.
  
  

Speaking for the committee, Mr. Hurtuk encouraged Mr. Matty to "Keep doing what you're doing."

Mr. Hurtuk continued, noting that Mr. Thomas has prepared a revised financial summary. This is a work in progress which the Finance Director will create to compare from year to year. Stating the importance of having a one-page summary, Mr. Hurtuk urged Council members with ongoing questions or suggestions to communicate with him or with Mr. Thomas.

• •Mrs. Bobst, in looking at revenue on the Financial Summary, pointed out the "Other Revenue" item which is $3 million. Council can see what this represents in the budget, but she suggested a breakdown, if possible, for others who may consult this summary.
  
  
  
  

MOTION:

Moved by Mr. Hurtuk, seconded by Mrs. Bobst, that reading of the minutes of the meeting of the Finance Committee of February 3 be waived, and that the minutes be approved as submitted.

Vote: Hurtuk - aye Bobst - aye Frost - aye Gollinger - aye

4 ayes 0 nays PASSED

Mr. Hurtuk requested revised budget sheets in time for packets on Friday. After the Public Hearing, the ordinance will be read for the third time and a decision reached at that time if it should move forward.

Mayor Knoble indicated that a memo had been received from the City Engineer, Mr. Lesiecki, dated March 7 which is an summary of the Orchard Park/Bates Improvement Project. It includes a detailed foldout sheet which summarizes all of the bid items on the project. Since Mr. Lesiecki's employment with the City will terminate at the end of this month, the Mayor encouraged everyone to read the report and question Mr. Lesiecki next week, or during the week so that members thoroughly understand the project. The total to do the job right will mean spending 40% more than the City originally intended to spend.

The Mayor said that he is comfortable with Mr. Lesiecki's explanations, but not comfortable with what happened. He will not be here next Monday, and Council members must be prepared with questions so the issue can be resolved.

• •Mr. Hurtuk asked if additional work will be done by the same contractor. The Mayor said that it will not. New specs must be prepared and it must be rebid.
• •Mr. Frost asked if DiGioia Construction has been paid for all work invoiced. The answer was no.
• •Mrs. Bobst asked about work not done by the contractor. The Mayor said that he has not been paid for work not performed at our request.
• •Mr. Hurtuk asked if additional costs were unbudgeted. The Mayor said that some costs were included in the budget, approximately $200,000 this year.

He urged Council members to take the time required to study the documents and to come prepared with questions next week.

There was no further discussion from Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.

_______________________________ _______________________________

Brian A. Hurtuk, Chairman Misao Kurokawa

Finance Committee Clerk of Council

Please note: This is a draft copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Finance Committee of

March 7, 2005. These minutes may be revised or amended at the next Legislative Meeting.

DRAFT

CITY OF ROCKY RIVER

MARCH 10, 2005

Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee

The meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Potterfield, at 8:05 a.m. in the David J. Cook Council Chambers.

Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee Members Present:

Mr. Potterfield, Mrs. Bartolozzi, Mr. Gollinger, Mr. Hurtuk

Council Members present: Mrs. Bobst

Administration: Mr. Koran

Law Director: Mr. Matty

MOTION:

Moved by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mrs. Bartolozzi, that the reading of the minutes of the meeting of February 22 be waived and that the minutes be approved as submitted.

Vote: Potterfield - aye Bartolozzi - aye Gollinger - aye Hurtuk - abstain

3 ayes 0 nays 1 abstention PASSED

Mr. Potterfield then opened the discussion of the Planning Commission recommendations on the Master Plan which he noted was a continuation of the previous meeting. Referring to the motions recorded on page 18 of the minutes of the Commission of December 21, 2004, Mr. Potterfield raised the next point, which was a recommendation in the Old Detroit, Middle Detroit and Linda St. to encourage property owners, commercial, private, and residential owners, and the City to continue enhancing the streetscape.

• •Mr. Potterfield explained briefly that this referred to the area at Detroit and Linda.
• •Mr. Gollinger noted that this is a benign issue when the funds are in place to develop the streetscape, it will be beneficial to businesses and residents to maintain it.
  
  

Moved by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mr. Gollinger, that the committee recommend to Council the recommendation of the Planning Commission to encourage property owners to continue enhancing the streetscape.

Vote: Potterfield - aye Bartolozzi - aye Gollinger - aye Hurtuk - aye

4 ayes 0 nays PASSED

The second directive considered was to encourage stronger building frontage where appropriate which was recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Potterfield commented that for the last 20 years, businesses have been moving back from Detroit. This would encourage future renovations or construction to move toward the front of the lot with parking behind. This would only be done where feasible.

• •Mrs. Bobst pointed out that it could occur with banks, as in River Square Shopping Center, and other outbuildings being closer to the street.
  
  
• •Mr. Gollinger indicated that new buildings could be repositioned and old ones grandfathered.

Mr. Potterfield commented that this is for new structures as opposed to renovations.

• •Mr. Hurtuk cited the example of Taylor Motors which was for sale for some time before the Beachcliff Market Square project. If someone had bought it and wanted to build another type of business on the lot, with current setback regulations, that small lot would have been unbuildable without many variances. Each case must be considered separately
  
  
• •Mr. Gollinger proposed the possibility of not recommending this for the entire area, leaving out Linda St.

Mrs. Bartolozzi felt that it could be encouraged where appropriate, and that the directive leaves room. At the time of a proposal, the case could be reconsidered.

• •Mr. Potterfield reminded the committee that this Plan gives only general guidelines, not specific details.
  
  
• •Mrs. Bobst explained that the Master Plan Working Group (MPWG) was opposed to all the visible asphalt in commercial areas. It would enhance any area if the business were more visible.
  
  

Mr. Koran came forward to explore the subject in more depth. He maintained that this is an important concept and questions the enforcement of setbacks which the City has pursued for a long time. The MPWG questioned by such regulations were enforced in the case of Mitchell's Ice Cream, for example. He suggested that their aim was that the City rethink setback rules. Outbuildings, for example, were not permitted. Since they work, the question is why not allow them. This does not apply to residential areas but to commercial areas where businesses like to be up front. Instead of setback lines, some cities have "build to" lines.

Moved by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mrs. Bartolozzi, that the committee recommend the Planning Commission's approval of stronger building frontage where appropriate.

Vote: Potterfield - aye Bartolozzi - aye Gollinger - aye Hurtuk - aye

4 ayes 0 nays PASSED

The last topic from that meeting was approval of the directive to create stronger connections within neighborhood and to surrounding neighborhoods.

Mr. Koran explained that this refers to making the transition from residential to commercial esthetically pleasing, using proper landscaping, attractive signage, paths instead of fencing and other separations. Streets like Wright and Prospect could be part of the linkage of the two types of development.

Mr. Gollinger noted that it seems as if a buffer is always placed between commercial and residential areas which prevents traffic from flowing through from commercial to residential. He asked Mr. Matty if there is a historical basis for this.

• •Mr. Matty responded that historically, when there is a new or renovated commercial area, neighbors come out en masse. The Planning Commission has tried to create separations from commercial development so that neighbors cannot see that it exists. There are fences or mounds or landscaped mounds in the traditional plans. With the encouraged esthetically pleasing continuity, it will be interesting to see neighbors' reactions.
• •Mrs. Bobst remarked that the comments about Lake and Linda and connections from retail to mixed use may not apply as much as we see it now, but if it develops as this guide suggests, it may be more obvious how the connections can be made.
  
  

Mr. Potterfield indicated that the ideal would be smooth transitions from General Business through Local Business through Multi-family to Single Family.

Moved by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mr. Gollinger, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the directive encouraging stronger building frontage where appropriate for the Old Detroit, Middle Detroit Rd and Linda Street area be recommended to Council

Vote: Potterfield - aye Bartolozzi - aye Gollinger - aye Hurtuk - aye

4 ayes 0 nays PASSED

Before leaving this section of the Master Plan, Mr. Potterfield commented that on Page 76 of the Plan, he had read the potential development statistics. With the new residential development of 200-400 lofts/condos which would bring a large infiltration of new residents, he wondered how it will be handled in terms of infrastructure and streets. He indicated that this was a general comment, and that it would be dealt with project by project, but further study would be necessary.

Moving to the Planning Commission minutes of January 18, Mr. Potterfield raised the next discussion topic, the Yacht Club Basin. He commented that the Commission reviewed the section, but only one vote was taken. Approval of the minutes was delayed because members wanted refinement of the motion to recommend what had been recommended by City Architecture. It was a good discussion, and the amended minutes reflect that they recommended to Council the Master Plan section for increased public view. There were differing opinions on the subject during their discussion. In past discussions, he has observed that residents of the Yacht Club Basin do not want a lot of traffic, generally speaking, driving into their area.

Mr. Koran explained that the idea of the MPWG was to increase access for Rocky River residents to see the river. It is a beautiful asset, but very difficult to see unless you are on the Yacht Club bridge. The goal is to get some public view and appreciation for this asset. At one point, a tram or some type of lift from the Detroit Road bridge was suggested so people could get down there and enjoy it. A pedestrian path or perhaps a path behind the Westlake is a possibility. No one has envisioned taking property or building a park in the Yacht Club Basin; this concept has been misunderstood. It is possible to have some viewing south of the railroad trestle which would fulfil the goal which is access and view, not a large park.

• •Mrs. Bartolozzi found there was more focus on the area behind the Westlake Hotel.
  
  
• •Mr. Potterfield indicated that one question was pedestrian access vs auto access.
  
  

Mr. Koran said that it might be possible one day to apply to the ODNR for a grant to get people down to the river.

• •Mr. Gollinger pointed out that, to his recollection, this is all private property. He asked why it is necessary to view the Rocky River from Rocky River. From the Metroparks there is an excellent view.

Mr. Koran said that there is a difference of opinion. The Plan does not want to upset people north of the trestle, but it would be nice for the residents to get down to the river.

• •Mrs. Bartolozzi added that the focus for this area was up to the tracks. She did not think it encroached that much on residential area.
• •Mrs. Bobst observed that the river is an asset, like the lake, and residents would be happy if they had access.
• •Mrs. Bartolozzi added that she would not expect to see this happen next year, but if the opportunity arose, she would like to see it.
  
  

Mr. Koran commented that originally the idea was about the area behind the Westlake, but if land became available, a passive park would be appreciated by residents.

• •Mr. Potterfield asked how many parks we already have in the City.
• •Mrs. Bartolozzi said that she favored increasing green space, just for sitting or resting.

Mr. Koran further remarked that the plan came from residents. The MPWG wanted to bring up the concept of access to the river.

• •Mr. Hurtuk indicated that he was confused by the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He said that the McKay study had nothing to do with access. He said that if something became available, it would be no different from the gas station situation. He would not want to preclude purchase by the City if it became possible v. another building which would require many variances to fit on a small lot. This would give the City control. He is not prepared to vote for the recommendation of the Planning Commmission.
• •Mr. Potterfield made three observations: 1) From his experience in dealing with YCB, while the residents want infrastructure improvements, the60+ residents of the area are not looking to increase traffic or visitors with vehicles. 2) Some years ago, a developer who built condos south of Detroit on Wooster looked at a tramway to give access to the lower Rocky River level. It was difficult from an engineering standpoint because of soil conditions, and therefore very expensive. 3) He is not hearing clamor by residents who feel they need access to the River.
• •Mr. Hurtuk felt that if you poll 100 people, the majority would favor access. Mr. Potterfield's ward is not close to the river, so he would not hear such requests.
  
  
• •Mrs. Bartolozzi emphasized that the recommendation for improvement of the infrastructure where people in the YCB live is separate from the issue of make accessible views of the river.

It was determined that the McKay study is complete; members requested copies.

Mr. Hurtuk indicated that he would prefer not to vote as the McKay study is complete, and more dialogue on accessibility is needed. He raised the question of the small triangle of land adjacent to Cliff Towers which is not buildable, but could be a viewing area.

• •Mrs. Bobst pointed out the many points along Wooster down to Yacht Club with great views
• •Mrs. Bartolozzi observed that there are many people in River who walk for various reasons and who would appreciate a tiny destination such as a passive park with a great view. People would be encouraged to walk, rest and view nature. She sees nothing wrong with creating green space to encourage this activity. As to requests, most residents just haven't thought of it.

Mr. Koran added that Mrs. Bartolozzi's comment is what the MPWG was envisioning if an opportunity arises to build a passive pocket park to take advantage of the view. He also agrees with Mr. Hurtuk.

Mr. Potterfield reiterated that the Master Plan is conceptual only.

Mr. Hurtuk agreed, saying that some believe that the Master Plan will become the Code. He said that by having this document, the Administration is being given a tool for the next five or ten years to encourage future investment.

Mrs. Bartolozzi felt that the recommendation of the Commission deals with two different issues which should not be combined.

Mrs. Bobst indicated they may want to look at various sections. Along Wooster there is also viewing access and they may wish to view the whole issue in the Plan in each of those sections.

Moved by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mr. Hurtuk, that this issue be referred back to the Planning Commission with a request for further review of the Yacht Club Basin. Mr. Potterfield will attend the meeting to ask for further clarification.

Vote: Potterfield - aye Bartolozzi - aye Gollinger - aye Hurtuk - aye

4 ayes 0 nays PASSED

Mr. Potterfield then asked Mr. Matty about the process. When the committee recommends or does not recommend to Council, he asked about the process of making changes. He wondered if it should it be forwarded to Council as a whole or if modifications should be made during the process.

Mr. Matty said that the timing was up to Council. The procedure is that the Planning Commission recommendations should be discussed, and Council should decide what it wishes to do on any particular recommendation. There is an ordinance with exhibit on the agenda, and by a majority vote, the exhibit can be changed, kept the same, or additions or deletions made, so that Council would pass the document as a whole. The Committee will make recommendations, and Council as a whole may accept those or do something else, but changes need to go into the document as a whole.

Mr. Potterfield confirmed that it is Council as a whole which decides on any changes, if desired.

Mr. Matty confirmed that, but noted that the committee has four members which is a majority of Council, if they all agree. He suggested that a Public Hearing be held before modifications are made to allow resident input and then changes, if any, be communicated to the consultant. He noted that the Planning Commission will not re-review the Yacht Club issue until April.

Mrs. Bobst noted that the Commission has focused on the directives, with which she concurs. She thought it possible that they will also focus also on the city-wide recommendations. Their meeting is next Tuesday evening.

There was no further discussion from committee members, and following a motion by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mrs. Bartolozzi, and a unanimous affirmative vote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.

_______________________________ _______________________________

Earl W. Potterfield, Chairman Misao Kurokawa

Planning, Zoning and Economic Clerk of Council

Development Committee

Please note: This is a draft copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee of March 10, 2005. These minutes may be revised or amended at the next Legislative Meeting.