FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
DECEMBER 14, 2016
Committee Member Mr. Evers opened the meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. Members of the Committee in attendance were Mr. Evers, Mr. Hoefle and Mr. Zuren. Present from Council were Mr. Meyers, Mr. Kasunick, Mr. Spotton and Council President Ms. DePledge.
In attendance from the Administration were Mayor Morley, Fire Chief Whittington, Police Chief Reik, CBO Menn, Service Director Rubertino and Finance Director Schindel. Law Director Klammer was absent and excused.
Also in attendance were members of the public.
Members of the audience that were recording the meeting:
To discuss the Matching Funds Requested for Chagrin Watershed Partners Grant
Mr. Evers: At this time I will turn the meeting over to Mr. Kasunick.
Mr. Kasunick: Both Ms. Lawson and Ms. Beattie should be here any minute. I don’t know if you want to go to one of the other items.
Mayor Morley: I am trying to get them out of here before the levy discussion because they don’t need to be here for that.
Mr. Kasunick: So we will proceed with this then?
Mr. Evers: Yes proceed.
Mr. Kasunick: The matter is that there are two parcels of land that are adjacent to the former little league ballfields are…the public boat ramp. On the other side of the river there is a little pennoncelle called Thumb Print. That is locked from road way access. There is no way on or off other than to trespass onto somebodies private property. There are two parcels that we could acquire that would rectify that problem. The question is whether we want to pursue with this Clean Ohio Grant. The problem with that one would be some restrictions which I think Ms. Lawson and Ms. Beattie will talk about. If not and we don’t wish to pursue that what other options do we wish to explore? How much from our fund or land acquisition would we be interested in to contributing to this cause? With that I will turn it over to Ms. Beattie and Ms. Lawson from the Chagrin Watershed Partners.
Mr. Evers: Mayor Morley?
Mayor Morley: Just to add on to that this is just a backup plan. We have talked about when we write the grant that they believe that this will be better that we have on there that the city would possible do the matching from our 620 Land Aquishion Fund that could be used to do this. Right now we are working on and I will let Ms. Lawson and Ms. Beattie talk a little bit more about it. We are working on a grant to receive those properties through the grant. I’ve told them our procedures are that Council will still have to approve it. The deadline is the end of January.
Member of the Chagrin Watershed Partners: January 27.
Mayor Morley: I figured that we would have this discussion in case we want to throw out some legislation before the end of January. They are going to explain a little bit of what we are doing and how they want to get to that end point correct?
Member of the Chagrin Watershed Partners: Yes.
Ms. Beattie: We appreciate the opportunity to come and speak with you today.
Ms. Beattie: We are both from the Chagrin River Watershed Partners. A member base watershed organization founded twenty years ago. Eastlake is one of our member communities. One key component of what we do is that we help communities write grants to implement projects like the one that you can see here. This project…this whole conceptual plan was part of some thing that happened in 2013 with the Cleveland Foundation. So this is a vision brought together by many different people in the community and what we want to do to enhance this park property. We have been really excited that there has been some more recent momentum and really starting to implement this plan. You can see here that there are different colors on the map, but basically it’s an overview of all the different components. I just thought that we would start out by saying that we have already started working on implementation of this plan. Just recently we submitted a grant to the Cleveland Foundation to help implement this. It was for development…and there is going to be an American with Disabilities Act approved boat launch or a canoe kayak launch in this area here. We just applied for funding for a permeable payment there and some enhancements just in that area. We are working on discussing potential additional improvements as well. That gets us to and you can see here that this is what is known as the Nature Land Love Area. It is a really nice piece of land if you’ve been out there at all. It is much wooded, but right now there is no access to it. The only way that you can get there is that there are two small parcels right here that are up for sale. That is what you guys were talking about initially. I thought that I would just pass this around in case anyone is not familiar with where those two parcels are. This wasn’t part of the initial conceptual design; however, these parcels are really important for allowing access to this area. The only other way that you could have access right now is if you added in a pedestrian bridge. That is something that could happen in the future. These two parcels could really allow for direct access to there.
Ms. Lawson: As Mayor Morley has indicated we have been working with the city and the Port Authority of Eastlake to potentially develop. We are looking into the options of developing a Clean Ohio Fund application for acquisition of the two parcels plus a conservation easement on those two parcels. We have also considered a conservation easement on the entire Erie Road Park area as a whole. Our discussions with the Ohio Public Works Commission the entity that administers the Clean Ohio Grant Program through the state of Ohio…they mentioned that any conservation easement would have to be on the entire parcel. The parcels are in the process of being split and part of it will be transferred over from the City of Willoughby to the City of Eastlake. Many of the future components of the park plan implantation would be on that parcel that would be affected by the Conservation easement. At this time and with our discussion with the Ohio Public Works Commission we believe that a conservation easement on the entire area would be limiting for the future developments there. That is why our next thought was to pursue the Admiral Drive parcels in addition to conservation there. As I have said we are still considering those options. I know that accessibility was an important factor for both the city and the Port Authority. As Ms. Beattie mentioned that one of the reasons why these parcels are so valuable is because they provide access to previously land locked area…although parking would not be allowed on those two parcels. We have sweep of options available to present to the Finance Committee. Moving forward with the Clean Ohio Fund application there is a 25% match required for such an application. The Port Authority has partnered with us and offered to contribute a $20,000.00 cash match for this particular project. That would bring us up to the required 25% match as the two parcels are currently for $80,000.00. The Clean Ohio fund application scores all of the applications on a scoring rubric. It is based on several different features of application such as if it meets the goals of the Clean Ohio Fund Program. This particular project would somewhat meet the goals of the program but it is lacking that the parcels are so small. It is a little bit tougher to make that argument that we are enhancing green space…although we are protecting patient corridor and improving upon the Erie Road Park Plan. With that being said Ms. Beattie and I did some number crunching and we think that out of 100 to the application…could gain about 50 of those points right now. Five additional points could be added to that scoring rubric if we have a greater match commitment from Project Partners. We have developed a range that could be considered by the Finance Committee if the city would like to contribute any of its land acquisition funds as a cash match for the Clean Ohio Fund application. To keep the application at a 25% match, which would just be the cash match committed by the Port Authority would be a zero dollar commitment by the city out of that fund. To bump it up one point on the scoring rubric…would be a 26% to 32% match range that would require the city to contribute about $5,280.00 from that fund. To bump up the score on the application two more points it would be a commitment of $10,020.00. To bump it up three points it would $14,760.00 and to bump it up four points it would be $19,500.00. Any additional match over 50% does not add any points to the application. We would not recommend not contributing more than $19,500.00 towards the Clean Ohio Fund application. That is something for the Finance Committee to consider. If they would like to contribute any sort of cash match towards this application from the cities land acquisition fund I recommend that to the City Council for their review. If so at what level would they like to contribute? As I mentioned we have a sweep of options. Another option is to pursue another opportunity instead of Clean Ohio Fund there is also the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Nature Works Grant. It is a similar grant in that you can use the funds for land acquisition, trail development and other park improvements. But rather than green space protection the grant is more focused on improvements to parks. It could be a little bit easier to make the case for what we want to do for the Erie Road Park improvements. Again it is a 25% cash match but that program is even more competitive than the Clean Ohio Fund. You must request a smaller amount of funds. If we consider the Port Authorities $20,000.00 cash match that would require a $40,000.00 cash commitment from the city if they choose to do that. The third option in our sweep of options is that the city may continue partnering with the Port Authority to purchase the parcels outright. This might be something to consider. Any grant opportunities are going to take a long time to approve and to actually get the funds. It could take up to a year or longer to have those funds to purchase that land. As we have mentioned grants have an inherent restrictions on them. Some restrict commercial activity if there is an easement or future structures on the land. If you purchase the parcels outright you would not have the restrictions. It might be easier for us and the Chagrin Water Shed Partners to partner with the city and the Port Authority on getting some grants for stream bank restoration, trail development or for other developments in the future. That is another option as well. Ms. Beattie did I leave anything out?
Ms. Beattie: No and it sounds really good. The one thing that we would like to emphasize is that we are just presenting this sweep of options. We are here for you and so whatever direction that you want to go in and that is what we are here to do. At this point if you have any questions about these different options please ask them or we can give more details.
Mr. Evers: Mayor Morley?
Mayor Morley: I think that the direction that we had at the last couple of meetings is that we are going to for the Clean Ohio…basically go with the Port.
Mr. Kasunick: As long as we are clear on what exactly the restrictions are…can you go over what the restrictions would be if we did go with Clean Ohio? Parking would not be allowed on these parcels and if you look on the map where these parcels are…that would mean that if someone wants to…if we did a little trail development there. If somebody actually wanted to use it…unless they are a resident who lives right there…that would mean that they would have to park all the way down by the livery that area there and walk all the way out to Erie Road and across Admiral Drive. That is going to be quite a walk for them if you don’t allow any parking what so ever on those parcels.
Mr. Evers: Actually there is some parking on the corner of Erie Road and Admiral Drive. There is an old bus stop in there that is not being used anymore. When there is a flood they park there.
Mr. Kasunick: They would be permitted to park there?
Mayor Morley: We’ve talked about the pedestrian bridge and the issue with that is and everyone knows is that it would have to be a little high…the Port Authority is looking at to see the height of it for the boats that do launch there can make it under the bridge. That is one thing that they were looking at. Mr. Kasunick and I have talked a little and we talked with Ms. Lawson and Ms. Beattie and the group that we’ve been sitting in…the Clean Ohio is the best. Again this is a back up from us and we are just trying to see if Council would think about releasing any of the funds out of the land acquisition fund. I talked to Ms. Schindel about it before…that fund can be used for this recreation or whatever. We are just trying to get ahead of the game in case…that is what we do when we fill out the application out.
Ms. Lawson: Chagrin Water Shed Partners is happy to assist in whatever application the city or Port Authority would like to move forward with. We just wanted to be up front with you and that we did look at that rubric and it may not be very competitive application. I just wanted to present the considerations of parking restrictions as well. But it sounds like there could be some other options for parking.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Hoefle?
Mr. Hoefle: Mayor Morley off hand how much do we have available in the Land Acquisition Fund?
Mayor Morley: $160,000.00.
Mr. Hoefle: Is this similar to the same proposal that was presented a few years back?
Mayor Morley: No it is a different park.
Mr. Hoefle: A different area. I remember on that area some of the residents were…
Mayor Morley: Yeah this is a different area. If you go down Admiral Drive where the ice builds up on the corner it is the parcel…there is a “For Sale” sign…it is right past the little bridge where they would go under. It is right there on the corner on the right hand side if you go down Admiral Drive, right before the bend.
Mr. Hoefle: I remember the one meeting that there was a lot of opposition to that one.
Mayor Morley: The people that live in the house are the ones that have the property…that own the house that is there right now.
Mr. Hoefle: Right there…okay I see it. Thank you.
Ms. Lawson: If it is ever a desire to also to assist in any additional public input that may be requested for any projects moving forward. We did want to pass this around as well. Just to summarize what kind of cash match requirements that would be required for each of the opportunities that we presented this evening.
Mr. Evers: Ms. DePledge?
Ms. DePledge: To purchase the parcels it is $60,000.00…is that for both parcels?
Ms. Lawson: That is for both parcels and is in addition to the $20,000.00 cash match contributed or committed by the Port Authority.
Ms. DePledge: I heard you say $80,000.00 and I wasn’t sure if it was $80,000.00 for each parcel or just $40,000.00 a piece.
Ms. Lawson: I am sorry for not being clear on that. It is actually $79,000.00 for both parcels.
Mayor Morley: The Port Authority is agreeing to put $20,000.00. So there is $60,000.00 and what we’ve talked about is if we go for the grant instead of us taking $60,000.00 out of the fund. That if we go to $19,500.00 is a little bit better than $60,000.00. Unless the grant would fail then we can have father discussions. But at this point right now we are looking at and I would suggest $19,500.00. No matter what number we pick even though the other ones are under the $12,500.00 it is still coming just to make sure that you guys are okay with that.
Ms. DePledge: Even though the 25% match is $15,000.00? I guess I’m trying to figure out how you’re doing the math.
Mayor Morley: She just said that if you…if you listened to what she just said about giving the points of $10,000.00…$19,500.00 was the most. The beginning was $2,800.00. Did you hear all of that?
Ms. DePledge: I heard all of that but when you said 25% match for the acquisition I came up with $15,000.00 as 25% of the $60,000.00. I was trying to figure out how the match and I understand the $19,000.00 and all of the figures and the points, but I don’t understand how the 25% match works.
Ms. Beattie: The Port Authority has committed $20,000.00 in cash match and we were calculating that as the 25% match requirement.
Ms. DePledge: On the $80,000.00?
Ms. Beattie: Yes.
Ms. DePledge: Now I am with you.
Ms. Beattie: Any that are above and beyond that would add points. I can repeat that rage…
Ms. DePledge: I heard you…when you said the 25% and I was looking at the $60,000.00 and not the $80,000.00 that was the only difference.
Mayor Morley: We are not looking for an answer tonight. We just want everyone to be aware that we may come back and say that when we fill out the form that this is what we are looking for.
Ms. DePledge: So when we come back we would be looking for $19,500.00?
Mayor Morley: Yes.
Ms. Lawson: The one thing that I would like to emphases is that this is a really exciting opportunity to get these parcels. We are also planning on working together to implement additional phases. One of the phases is going to be some stream restoration work to help enhance this. By the…there is some erosion happen so we can apply for 319 funding through the EPA…some other funding. There is an opportunity for some trail development so if we do acquire those two parcels we could have a trail head starting at those two parcels. It would loop around in the nature lab area going through the whole park. Together with the kayak and boat launch it is a great environmental benefit, but also an economical one in terms of attracting people to this park.
Mr. Evers: Does anyone else have any questions?
Mr. Rubertino: Do you have any small copies of that? That we can hand….
Ms. Beattie: I may even have one with me that I can give to you.
Mr. Rubertino: Thank you.
Ms. Beattie: Thank you so much for your time everyone.
To discuss a Tax Levy.
Mr. Evers: I will ask the Mayor to fill us in on where we are going. Mayor Morley?
Mayor Morley: After the…with the taking of the reciprocity off of the table Ms. Schindel and I have been talking…I know that Mr. Zuren talked about a Fire Levy. Here are the two things that I am going to throw out there to you. I don’t know how many of you are aware that Cleveland passed a two and a half percent for their income tax. Ms. Schindel received some information from R.I.T.A and it is about 1,100 of our residents that work in Cleveland. If we went for the two and a half percent the people that work in Cleveland, which is 1,100 people it would not affect them. So effectively that may help with any referendum that maybe they are going to say well it’s not affecting me that could be a yes vote. The other one is and we have discussed about if we do a Fire Levy and it would be for $4.5 Mill. That would be for apporicimatly $2 Million and right now it is about $1.7 Million to run the Fire Department. As we have talked before and I know that both of the Chief’s have discussed along with Mr. Rubertino and the other Administrators have said. Usually what happens if we go out and ask for $1 Mill Levy and it brings in $470,000.00 then we are going to take $470,000.00 away from them from the General Fund. This is probably correct. If we are going to go after the Fire Levy then I believe that we should do what is going to run the whole department and that will free the $1.7 Million out of the General Fund to use for the other departments. The reason that I am saying for $2 Million instead of the $1.7 Million that it is currently…that we put a little buffer in for future years and for the next couple of years with increases. When I talk about increases…what Ms. Schindel and I have been working on with the Unions for the last three weeks is our health care came in and the first number that we received was a 31% increase, which is $360,000.00 that we do not have. When it is all said and done they are down to 21% and it is still too much. So we have been in discussions with in the last couple of weeks and probably…we have asked for an extension with the health care. We are talking with the Unions about going to something that we would be the first city to do this is to go the HSA accounts with a high deductable. What we are working on now is what…even with us paying the deductable for our employee’s it ends up being about a 7% increase instead of 21%. The logistics on that at two weeks for us is that we have to have the six unions agree. We have to get HSA set up and so there are a ton of things that we are doing to try and get to that. If not we can’t afford the 21% we just can’t. We have to give comparable insurance at what we have according to the labor agreements. It’s great that the unions been working with us, so we are trying to get a common goal. We were just meeting before this meeting on that and our plans are to meet every day until we can get it figured out and set up. That is the reason for the buffer in going from $1.6 Million to $2 Million. For the $4.5 Million on a $100,000.00 house it would $158.00 more a year. My question to everyone is do we want to try for the Income Tax again or do we…if we believe that we can get this Safety Force Levy passed…is that what we want to do?
Mr. Spotton: It would be a Fire?
Mayor Morley: Yes it would be a Fire Levy. Obviously the Fire Levy would help the three employees to stay here instead of laying them off in June. We are looking at trying to figure out on how to get an ambulance. Ms. Schindel the Chief and I have been working on that…Lt. Chief Loyd…so we are trying to get that figured out for a lease. These are things to get us…this will stabilize. It opens up $1.7 Million and it’s not to say “hey we’re getting $1.7 Million and all of a sudden we’re going to bring back all of the employees…it is going to stabilize us for the next few years. That is where I’m at unless you have anything else to add?
Ms. Schindel: That pretty much covers it.
Mr. Evers: It’s my understanding that since we are fewer than 100 employees that most of the bigger insurance companies are refusing to even quote us?
Mayor Morley: Yes.
Ms. Schindel: True. I have dealt with four different brokers in the last two weeks.
Mayor Morley: Too be far we’ve asked the County again to give us a break in and it’s… them that we’ve talked to. There is a lot that would have to happen in two weeks and to be fare from the County this consortium they just aren’t going to rush in and something that we really don’t understand it this point. It is something that we can start looking at again maybe in March. Obviously none of us thought that it was going to be at 31% at all. It is what it is with the claims that we’ve had.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Zuren?
Mr. Zuren: Mayor Morley what does the 7% equate to dollar wise? If it ends up being what we…
Ms. Schindel: $85,000.00 to $90,000.00…somewhere in there.
Mayor Morley: The 31% was $360,000.00. So we are down to about $90,000.00 with the 7%.
Ms. Schindel: The consortium is self insured.
Mayor Morley: On that one we may have to have an Administrator and we are not ready for that obviously.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Rubertino?
Mr. Rubertino: My question is going back to the levies if I could touch base on that. What is our alternative plan if number twelve or thirteen fails again, where are we at? Because then we are so far behind on everything and we fail again, which in my opinion appears to be where we’ll end up again. Because everything that has been proposed is exactly what was proposed for the last elven levies that we’ve tried. Whether it’s for Fire, Safety or Recreation…what is the alternative? If this fails and hopefully it doesn’t, but if it fails and you forward with this then where are we at? What is the next step another levy in November? When is it going to stop?
Ms. DePledge: Then we are going to be in the same position that we were two years ago.
Mr. Rubertino: We’re going to be in a worse position.
Ms. DePledge: When the levy failed and we still needed the money and we talked about doing reciprocity then it was too late, because of a genuine up roar of outrage of people who said we don’t want a new tax. Then we were going to try to do the reciprocity to save jobs and cuts. The residents had a fit.
Mr. Rubertino: Do you think that we can afford fifteen more employees being laid off?
Ms. DePledge: No.
Mr. Rubertino: With no equipment to work with?
Ms. DePledge: No. I hear you. You asked me where we would be and I’m telling that is where we are going to be.
Mr. Rubertino: I’m not asking where we are going to be I want to know where we’re going. If it fails where is it going to put us next?
Ms. DePledge: That is what we need to discuss.
Mr. Rubertino: What is the next step that we are going to take to resolve an issue that we haven’t been able to resolve in twelve years? And we’re going to wait another six or eight months to try and get another levy. I love the city and I love my job. I have been here 25 years and I’m not ready to leave, but I am disheartened because I don’t know what your alternatives are. I don’t know by not passing reciprocity whether the majority of this city likes it, or a majority of Council likes it or doesn’t like it, I would like someone to tell me what you’re going to do to resolve the issues that we are already so far behind? Even if you get $1.7 Mill like the Mayor said we’re not bringing all of the employees back. Are we bringing any, are we going to have any equipment, and is it going to do anything positive? That’s if it passes. What do we do if it doesn’t pass? Where are we at? I’m telling you I can’t afford any more employees and I need employees not to lose more. You guys haven’t given anything out there to what the next step is other than a levy. And the levy fails where do we go?
Mr. Evers: Mr. Rubertino I really wish that I had an answer for you. We have been dealing with this like you said for…for me it has been ten years. There is no easy button and there are no easy answers. All we can do is approach it one day at a time and one step at a time and hope for the best.
Mr. Rubertino: How do we fell that that’s going to be any better? What do you have to put out there that says, that makes you believe that another levy with the same language is going to change the people’s votes? What is there that makes you drive to think that somehow this is going to pass this time? Because in your mind you hope that and you’re new Councilmen and I understand that. We had a past Administration that for me being here for as long as I have knows what they did. They did nothing and now we have an Administration that actually cares about the community. That is out there trying to get business and trying to improve and we’re not doing anything to help it. We are staying stale like the last Administration did because he didn’t care. The ones that do care are the ones sitting on the bottom with nothing to look forward too. We have nothing positive to look forward too. I am just looking for you to give me something that says “Okay Mr. Rubertino if this levy fails again this is what we are going to do to improve or get you what you need to get the Fire or Police Department where it should be or the equipment that we don’t have. That is what I’m looking for.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Zuren?
Mr. Zuren: I just wanted to make a comment. I support the city in every way I can. I’m studding the past twelve years of levies and from my understanding there have been five Fire Levies. Fire Levies are what passed. Four of them passed and one failed. My understanding of getting a background of the one that failed. It failed by 100 to 150 votes because somebody didn’t support it that was within the city. If you have four out of five that passed and everyone here is going to support it. I am absolutely sure the Fire Levy is the way to go. That is the one that gets the most supportive every single time.
Mr. Rubertino: My question to you is what if it doesn’t pass? Where are we at?
Mr. Evers: It’s important to note the four that you talked about passing in the last ten years I believe have been renewals. There have been no new tax levies…none. The one that was a new one did fail.
Mr. Zuren: By 100 to 150 votes.
Mr. Evers: It doesn’t matter. It only takes one vote to fail a levy. The four that did were renewals they were not new. We need to make sure that we are clear on that with the public. Mayor Morley?
Mayor Morley: I don’t have a problem and that is why I threw both of them out there. I don’t have a problem doing the Fire Levy but it has to run the whole department. It can’t be that we are just going to peace meal it and it will open up Mr. Rubertino $1.7 Million. I’m not saying that we’re not going to bring any employee’s or look for employee’s, but there are other things that we need t o stabilize before we get to that point.
Mr. Rubertino: I know Mayor. I just don’t and again what you just said doesn’t answer my question.
Mayor Morley: Even if we do with the reciprocity that everyone wants in the city or our employee’s at least. It is going to bring $2 Million that is the same amount of money. So it’s not going to be any better than what we are trying to do. It’s not going to be any better. So what you’re asking is and I will throw it out there from my perspective. If this does fail and part of what we are going to have to talk to our resident’s about…I guess beg and plead that we need to stabilize the city. If it doesn’t then we may have to look at reciprocity, including myself. I know that Chief Reik looked at it the opposite way. He looked at it as let’s put it in and tell them that hey we will take it away if you vote yes. I’m going to be the opposite. Either way it is a double edged sword, because we will all take abuse whether we say if it doesn’t pass we may end up putting reciprocity…it’s a double edged sword. We can’t win either way and we all know that.
Mr. Evers: Ms. DePledge?
Ms. DePledge: Here is one of the issues that we had with reciprocity the last time. The public said “what are you going to do with the $1.7 Million?” They felt like we didn’t tell them. I think that we did and I think that we said it repeatedly. I think the Chief Whittington said it repeatedly and I know the Mr. Rubertino itemized a ton of things that we needed the money for. In this meeting if we can say it again “what would that money be used for?” It doesn’t have to be exclusive, it doesn’t have to be perfect and the numbers don’t have to be spot on. We need to retain three firemen. What is that $250,000.00 or $270,000.00 with training and everything else? We need a roof for City Hall and we need to fix the bay in the Police Station. What are we going to do with that money if that’s what the public wants to know? If we could put that out there then maybe we have a better chance of them supporting the levy. I agree with you on the reciprocity levy or levy of reciprocity that either way it’s a double edged sword and the public is going to hate it. I don’t know if the Department heads are here and if they want to just put a general description of what they need on the record and the cost that they think it would be. If you are interested in…I know that the Chief and Mr. Rubertino have both done it before. But apparently it didn’t get communicated.
Chief Whittington: I think that we are just trying to run the city and I don’t know…we don’t go to the resident’s and explain to them that we do budgeting hearings every year. If they passed a levy and have extra money in the budget you guys decided where we spend the money we don’t. We come and tell you what we need and you pass a budget. We do that every single year. So I’m not sure what the resident’s want. You guys are elected to pass the budget for them. I know that what they are asking for are specific items of what we are going to do. But we don’t do that now. In the past you guys represent them. I mean we can’t forget that. If we pass a levy at the end of the day you decide where the money goes when you pass the budget. We bring to you our concerns and what we are looking for. I’m not sure that I’m required to publish all of that. I bring it to you as a Council and say that this is what I want to do and what I need this year. We sit down here at budget meetings like we have done here in the city since 1949 and decide what I’m going to do with the money. I understand that were requests to have that but I’m not sure that’s an effective leg. You guys make the budget.
Mr. Evers: When were you looking to put this on the ballot?
Mayor Morley: For May.
Mr. Evers: For May.
Mayor Morley: We have to have it done by February 1, 2017 if we are going to do it in May. Then what Mr. Rubertino is saying and especially with the renewal even. If a renewal would ever go down here…that’s why we are doing May and if it fails in May we go to November. So we have two chances.
Mr. Evers: We have two chances at it. Chief Reik?
Chief Reik: If it’s a double edged sword I don’t understand why we don’t use the side of the sword that is going to guarantee us the money. If it’s reciprocity first…we are going to take a beating either way. Because is someone what’s go give you a beating they will find a reason to give it anyway. Why not take the way that supply’s the money and incentives them to go to the polls to make it a shared responsibility.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Rubertino?
Mr. Rubertino: With me and both of the Chief’s our hearts are in the city. I’m not here to make it a complaint…I come off a little gruff. I am legitimately concerned with our ability to provide the service that I am comfortable with, with what you are comfortable with and with what the residents should have. I don’t have that right now. No matter what I do right now I can’t supply it. I had five trucks go down over the weekend. Four went down on Saturday and one went down on Sunday. If it happens again, say on Friday of a three day snow storm we are not cleaning roads. What do we do with our resident’s that can’t get out? I get twenty calls…on a road that we cleaned at eight o’clock in the morning to get back to that road its twelve hours later. They’re screaming because you’ve never been on our road, but we have. We don’t have the ability to go back there in four hours and continue a rotation to clean it that allows us a good time frame to get back to that road. Then you have the people that call that genuinely concerned because they have a 94 year old neighbor. They are concerned that the fire trucks or the ambulance can’t get there. I can’t give it to them. I don’t have the ability to get those roads open on a basis that I just stop what I’m doing and go to that house or that street. I get multiple calls that way. I can’t get back to all of those streets that everybody’s concerned with. That is my legitimate concern. I want to give the residents, myself, you and everybody else here what they should have. If they don’t want to give it to us then we’ve got to give it to ourselves. Provide them the service and unfortunately if they are unhappy then I don’t know what to do. I have an Administrator here and I’m not blowing the Mayor’s horn but he is legitimately someone who came here to care. The last ten years we had a guy who didn’t give a crap about the city and did nothing and it shows. Yet we’re the ones taking the brunt now because we don’t have anything to work with and nothing to look forward too. It’s just difficult from a personal stand point.
Mr. Evers: Chief Whittington?
Chief Whittington: Going back to what Mr. Rubertino says and I think that all of the Director’s…obviously not to beat a dead horse all of you know our position on reciprocity. We wanted it done right away so that we could plan for 2017 and that fell on deaf ears and it was taken off of the table. The question comes about and I know that there are Council Member’s that a levy is the way to go…so the question from me especially if you’re going to do it under the opuses of the Fire Department. What are we doing to approach it differently than we did with the last twelve? Is there a plan to sell it differently? I can tell you that I’ve worked every levy in the city. I know the last time Chief Reik and I had coffee, met for dinners and we talked to people. If there’s not going to be a different approach I think it goes with what Mr. Rubertino said…I’m not sure what is different this time? If you’re going to umbrella the Fire Department and somehow that is going to be the only thing gives people to vote on it. I’m not sure that’s the way to go…we’ve failed. I’m looking to Council to say for the people who are in favor of the levy what are we doing different this time that we didn’t do the last twelve or thirteen times?
Mr. Evers: Mayor Morley?
Mayor Morley: I talked to Superintenant Thompson today and I may sit down with him…they ran a few others besides Eastlake’s they’ve ran Riversides and a few others. I was going to sit down with him to see what they think the different things that we can do. Obviously what I believe is it can’t come from us. We have to get a committee of people that want to do this. We get the people that come to the podium that say that they are going to help…again we are going to talk about it in a few minutes. These task forces we have eight people out of the city and everyone put them in their articles and it is out there. It can’t come from me. It can’t come from you and it can’t come from them. If we don’t get our resident’s on board to a committee…that can start a committee and get some funding for signs and literature. I agree we may be a number twelve loss.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Zuren?
Mr. Zuren: The Mayor stole my thunder. I have talked to Superintenant Thompson and he did offer to help. He said that he would run a levy the same way that he ran his levy and he is more than happy to help. At the Ward 1 and Ward 4 meeting there were a couple of people who specifically said that they want to be involved in a levy task force. I think that we have their names and numbers and that is the only thing that they wanted to be involved in. At least there is a small group of people who are interested in helping there.
Mr. Evers: Mayor Morley?
Mayor Morley: Where do we want to go? I know that the Director’s want to know and I guess Ms. Schindel and I need to know. Do we want to go after a levy or do we want the $2.5 Mill. I sounds like and Mr. Zuren is the only one talking that would want to look at the Fire Levy. I am fine with but we all have to be on board with whatever we are going to do. Even if it is one of us or one Council person against it, it hurts. It hurts in the long run. We say that when we tried to get the $2.5 Mill the last time. We had one that was against it and it turned it. We are either all on board. We’re either all in or all out. Then we discuss where if we’re not going to put a levy on.
Chief Whittington: If I could just interject. I’m not sure if I got my question answered about what we’re doing differently other than Mr. Thompson coming in. If we’re not sure what direction how do we know the levy is the right way to go? If we don’t know how we’re going to run the levy and we don’t know what we’re going to do differently? How do we know that the right thing to do?
Mayor Morley: I think that it comes down to is it’s a levy or…either way it’s a levy. It’s a tax increase…if we’re going with an income tax or we go to a Fire Levy. That’s the difference it’s one or the other.
Chief Whittington: You’re totally missing my point. The point is what are we doing differently to try and sell levies in the city? If we don’t have that plan right now then how do we know that levies are the right way to go? Everybody is convinced the levy is the right way to go but we don’t have a plan to address that after we have failed the last twelve. My question is how do we know that the levies are the right way to go?
Mayor Morley: Let’s go this route it’s the only way to go unless we put reciprocity in. There is my answer. That’s the easiest answer that I can give you.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Hoefle?
Mr. Hoefle: I hear your asking if Mr. Thompson would help…isn’t it a fact though that not one prescient in Eastlake passed the Willoughby-Eastlake Schools?
Mr. Evers: Seven out of twelve failed.
Mr. Hoefle: A majority of it failed in Eastlake. I know that he put on a great presentation and it passed in other cities, but it failed in Eastlake. If we do this levy in May and if it fails…I think that is what Mr. Rubertino and all of the other directors are asking is if it fails like the last twelve have. Are we all going to be on board to do the reciprocity? To be honest with you if you are a resident or a senior citizen would you vote for a levy knowing that if it fails that they are going to have to do reciprocity and it’s not going to cost me anything? I just want to throw that out there.
Chief Whittington: That’s another thing to a Fire Levy does affect every resident where an income tax increase doesn’t. Anybody who is on a fixed income, pensions or disabilities the income tax increase would not affect them and if you went for a Fire Levy that could affect them. Obviously my frustration is done and over with. I have already said my piece and I’m doing my best to provide a service over there but the wheels will fall off eventually. You guys have been made aware of my position on the things that I need. Eventually when something does happen I can turn to you and say that you guys already knew about it. If the levy is the way to go I just want to know what are we going to do differently to approach it? Why do we think that is the best alternative if we don’t have a plan to approach it? That is where I’m at.
Mr. Evers: Ms. DePledge?
Ms. DePledge: When there is a resident who has tried to get the reciprocity on the ballot last year, it was Mrs. Wittreich. TheSuperentendant gave us his right hand woman Ms. Beil, to come over and talk to the group of volunteers. To come over and talk to us and help us organize and give us their magic formula for success and the group fell apart and it was unsuccessful using that formula. We already know how they pass levies. We have already tried to put it into use one time and it didn’t work. Their formula did work on the school levy in Eastlake. Again I have to question whether or not that’s anything different. It looks like it has already been tried here and it hasn’t worked. I think that we are going to find ourselves in the same place. Looking at each other wondering who has the answer.
Chief Whittington: Now mind you I’m not against the levy but I’m just looking to see what we’re going to do differently. What’s the plan of attack and if Mr. Thompson is just the answer that I’m getting I’m not sure that I’m comfortable with that. What’s he going to do differently for me? Is he going to come in and coach us? Are we going to make phone calls to every resident to see where they stand before hand? Are we going to get the yes votes and are we going to send a bus out to their houses to make sure that they get to the polls that day? What are we going to do? Again just to say Mr. Thompson I’m not sure that’s the umbrella that I’m looking for. If that is the direction that you guys want to go then…I think that the Mayor is right that we all have to be on board with it. I would not be the clog in the wheel. I’m just looking for how are we going to approach it differently?
Mr. Evers: Are there any other thoughts on this? Mr. Zuren?
Mr. Zuren: I’m not sure exactly how levies were run in the past before I got to Council. From what I see works and this is really why a task force needs to be created…hope that the department heads are all there. From what I see on what works is going door to door. That is how people campaign and win and that is how you get stuff passed. So if it means going door to door with the Councilmen and talking to the resident’s. Giving them the information and the reason why then if that is what it takes I’m willing to do it.
Chief Whittington: That’s what needs to be said then. That’s what your approach is going to be then that is what you need to say to people. You need to get in on record to say that we are going to start going door to door and we are going to start letting people know. Again I’m not sure that everybody knows that.
Mr. Rubertino: And it has been over the last couple of years.
Ms. DePledge: It has been done.
Chief Whittington: I’m not trying to be the clog. If that is what we are going to try and do then the approach need to be transparent on what you’re going to do here. I don’t know.
Mr. Rubertino: I’m 100% on board. I will do whatever I can to help. I’m just frustrated with the fact that it doesn’t seem like there is anything out there to change the public opinion to give us the votes. Levies just don’t seem to be the answers. I’m like the Chief…100% and I will do anything I can to help this community. I’m just frustrated with it.
Chief Whittington: What was the S.O.S Committee…how is that different then a task force?
Ms. DePledge: That was actually a citizens based task force. They didn’t call themselves a task force, but there were probably 25 people at the first meeting. At the end of the day the only person left at the podium was Mrs. Wittreich. Everybody bailed on her. She went door to door, got signatures, tried to get people on board, and she said that it was exhausting and people were hateful.
Chief Whittington: What the task force difference now with S.O.S in the past?
Ms. DePledge: I don’t know. I don’t know what the difference is. I wish that I could see the hope that you guys see for a levy. I will support you if that’s the way that the majority wants to go. This city has not supported levies. They just haven’t and they haven’t supported the superintendent theory of success. Citizens based group going out…they spent months and literally. Once you start going door to door and talking to people, they have things that they want to say and they want to be heard. That’s all great and we all listen, but the people on the task force didn’t always have the answers or the right answers. We tried to give them all of the information that we could. We had potential questions and the answer so that we could get information to people…it was exhausting. They didn’t want to do, it was abusive and nasty. People invite you into their homes so you can talk to them and then they corner you and abuse you. I don’t have a better word for it but that is kind of what happens. Then you are like you know what I really don’t want to do this anymore. The whole task force…20-25 people dissipated. Mrs. Wittreich was crying at the podium because she felt like she failed Council and she failed the city, because it didn’t work. That was somebody who poured her heart and soul into doing something great for this community. She tried to organize and tried to do everything that she could and we supported her. We supported her 100% in any way that we could. She would call saying I have this question what is the answer? She would get the answer and get back to the resident and give them the answer and it didn’t work.
Mr. Evers: Chief Reik?
Chief Reik: I was going to talk a little bite about the door to door. We did the door to door, we dropped things off, we set up meetings to get them to come to us, and we had the Town Hall forums. Again the same groups over and over that showed up. The people that we talked to after…and I’m sure that the other guys ran into the same thing. People that we know in the city that we know had the information didn’t have the information. The color wheel charts and all of that stuff. The thing that Mr. Thompson did do that…if a levy is the way whether pre or post reciprocity that makes sense. I think is getting one person set up something at their house and invite their friends, because that is who those people trust. They trust that they bring you into the house and have an open house at their own home that is going to have more of an affect. The problems that you can’t do more than one or two of those a night and the time restrictions come in. Mr. Thompson is a sharp guy but again he didn’t pass a levy in this city. It would be like going to Huge Jackson right now to figure out how to win a football game. That isn’t the guy to go and talk to. We don’t have someone in the similar situation that we are looking to for advice for, because if he had it, it would have passed in more precincts in Eastlake.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Zuren?
Mr. Zuren: I don’t have the full background of the past levies but from what I’m hearing is the Council Members…it’s great that we had a task force, but the Council Members have to be going door to door with the task force. We should support them but we all have to be out…if we want to pass it then we have to be out there with them to answer the questions and put the time in and make it a priority to pass the levy. That is great that there were 25 people and there will probably be 25 more people on the task force. Unless we’re out there with them…every single one of us it’s probably not going to pass again. It is going to come down to us. We were elected and we need to get it done.
Mr. Evers: I could tell you we went door to door. I had this man with me, this man with me, and I had this man with me.
Chief Whittington: The unfortunate part for Council and I think that we’ve discussed this in the past is that the positive thing is that you probably have a better opportunity than in the past to be unified. Whether it’s the elected officials and the directors to all be unified. The issue that Councilman Zuren probably pounds his head against the wall is that he is formulating these plans and for a lot of us we feel like we’ve been down that road. That is probably the precursor to my question is that I know that I’ve been down this road before so why is it different? That I guess is one of my questions. If you look at some of the people that run successful levies that had their back up against the wall, they don’t spend any time on the “no” votes. I think that we need to figure out is to find our “yes” votes and our “no” votes. Eliminate the “no” votes because they are not going to change their minds. You focus on making sure that all of the “yes” votes have rides to the poll, then you find the “maybe” votes and you spend your time on the “maybe’s”. You’re not going to change anyone who is going to vote “no” in this city. Maybe going door to door is not the best way to find the “no” votes. I think that maybe phone calls or something along those lines to say “would you support a levy?” If they say “no” then you scratch their name off of the list and we don’t waste any time with them, because you’re not going to change their mind. You need one more “yes” vote than a “no” vote. If I could offer any suggestion on that phone banks can get phone numbers and make the phone calls. That saves a lot of the leg work. You have a lot of people around a desk making phone calls and you just focus on your “yes” and “maybe” votes. As a group we need to be able to focus in on those “maybe” and sell it to the “maybe” votes. In the past Chief Reik and I did a lot. We spent a lot of time on the “no” votes and at the end of the day they are still “no” votes. I could tell them anything to let them know, so if I could offer a suggestion that might be one of them. Is to start looking at where your support is and maybe and focus your attention on them.
Mr. Evers: Mayor Morley?
Mayor Morley: We had five Town Halls the last time and we had about 90 people show up. The good thing on that is…and again if we’re going to try and get people to a forum…I know that Councilman Spotton was one of those gentlemen that came to one. He was a “no” when he came in and when he was a “yes”, because he understood after the director’s got up and talked. I talked a little, but I let my Chief’s and the director’s talk and that is what we need. How do we get them to come to a Town Hall?
Chief Whittington: You’re not going to.
Mayor Morley: Not unfortunately but Mr. Zuren needs to see it up front to believe what everyone’s been saying that’s been happening here for the last ten years. That’s what he needs then we’ll help him. That’s not anything bad, but I know that he doesn’t like to hear that this is what we’ve done in the past. I have everyone that and we need to move off of that. But he needs to see that…and I have said this before we can go door to door. I remember standing at the polls and people saying that they voted but at the end of the day it lost 2-1. Most people are not going to tell you to your face what you don’t want to hear.
Chief Whittington: Why would we do something we know that doesn’t work? I don’t know we just…Board of Election and get your registered voters list and start making phone calls to say that we need to put a levy on. Here are the reasons why. We have a standardized statement that we make to them saying “would you support this?” If they say “no” then you scratch their name off and go to the next phone number.
Mayor Morley: We can do that.
Chief Whittington: Not coming to us. We have to go to them. That is how I feel. If it’s time to get down and dirty that is what we need to start doing, because they are not going to come to us. The 90 people that come in here are either the “yes” votes or the “no” votes. It is usually split down the middle as far as that goes. I say that we just get that list, divide it up and do a preliminary call saying “would you be in favor of a levy?” We write something that someone can say to people. This is the situation of the city, this is what we are looking to do, this is how it will affect you, this is how much it would cost your household, these are the reasons why we want to do this, and would you support us on that?” If it’s an automatic “no” scratch it off. Then we compile that list; get back together again to highlight the “yes” votes. If we have somebody that is sways then we call them back up. Saying that “this is Councilman Spotton, Councilman Zuren, Mayor Morley, or Chief Whittington and I know that in the past that maybe you wouldn’t support a levy I just want to make sure that I follow up with you. What can I do to help clarify things?” I am making myself available as the Fire Chief, as a Councilman or as a Service Director whatever the case maybe. Then we focus our attention on that. That is how I think that if we want to start getting down and dirty that is what we need to start doing. We need to do it now; we can’t wait until February or March to do this. We need to start doing this as soon as the New Year comes along. If the people in this room are willing to sit down…when we have 8,000 houses in this city but we don’t have that many registered voters. We get a list…I don’t even know what it is anymore I think that it is almost 4,000 registered voters.
Mayor Morley: 13,000.
Chief Whittington: Some of them are mixed houses so you have the husband and wife in the same house. So you will have to call both of them. You take 13,000 and divide it in half or split the list up and start making phone calls. We spend nights together and we make it work. We need to state that…and do it that way. This is my suggestion. I’m telling you right now the one thing that you think that they are going to come to us they are not going to come. It’s not going to be there.
Mr. Evers: I think at this point we really need to decide. I am in favor of the Fire Levy. Ms. DePledge?
Ms. DePledge: I think that we need to do reciprocity and a levy. I support both.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Spotton?
Mr. Spotton: Push back on reciprocity I am for the Fire Levy. It just failed in 2013 by 200 votes. The Police Levy was on at the same time, which is kind of problematic. I think that we can get it passed.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Hoefle?
Mr. Hoefle: I will support the Fire Levy if we do it. I really want to find out is if it fails will everybody in this room be supporting the reciprocity? Because we are going to have to do it. It’s not if we’re going to do it. It’s when we’re going to do it. I am going to tell you right now this city is going to have to have reciprocity. That is the way that I feel about it.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Kasunick?
Mr. Kasunick: I agree to move the levy forward.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Meyers?
Mr. Meyers: Same with the levy I agree.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Zuren?
Mr. Zuren: I am for the levy and I will be giving you a call.
Mr. Evers: Committee to move forward. Mr. Hoefle?
Chief Whittington: Can I add one thing?
Mr. Evers: Yes sir.
Chief Whittington: How is this going to affect…we have the Capital Levy for the Fire Department too. It brings in about $200,000.00. That is another thing that we need to consider. Now if I put an operating levy for the Fire Department now we have a Capital Levy are they going to renew both levies? I really think that we need to give a little consideration back to those income tax increases. I think that fire levies…historically you will probably have good leeway. But if we sell that income tax increase…the numbers have to be thrown back at me. The last time we went through this and we deal with Town Halls…the last time we approached the way that it was written 60% of that money was generated from people that do not live in the city. That if people that work in the city. That left 40% of the money that would come from residents, but it protected the senior citizens and the disabled. I think that it may be something to at least consider before we jump to the Fire Levy. To say is there going to be the contingent of Ms. Smith who is retired and would support that levy knowing that she is not going to pay. But after the Fire Levy gets pushed forward she may have to be affected by that. That is something else to think about as we move forward. I understand the position about moving forward on a Fire Levy, because the attractiveness of passing it. I think that there is an equal attractive to an income tax increase protecting people that are on fixed incomes. If we are out there making phone calls like we want to do and we need to do. We tell them “are you on disability? Are you on Social Security? Then you are not going to be affected by this, however it is really important that you go out and cast your vote. Because it needs to help us operate the city we are having trouble with staffing and things like that.” I think it is a good selling point for the geriatric population that does go out and vote. They won’t have to pay extra money…that is 60% of the people. I know that the Mayor spoke to a couple of business people the other night. The guy told him that if you increase income tax to 2.5% I have employee’s that will never even know that you increased it to 2.5%. Their paycheck will never even fell that. It is pennies on their paycheck every two weeks. I am just thinking if that’s the way that you want to go I will help you jump right to the fire. Those are my thoughts. I am not sure if you guys want my thoughts on here.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Hoefle?
Mr. Hoefle: As I said we do a Fire Levy I will support a majority. But if it fails and we have to go for reciprocity will we have the support of the other Councilmen?
Chief Whittington: I say that we…pass this levy.
Mr. Hoefle: Will we have the support if it fails?
Mayor Morley: I think that you need to get by one herdal before…I’m not on Council. That is a whole other talking.
Ms. DePledge: I just think that it’s a backup plan. We have to do something.
Mr. Hoefle: We have to plan B.
Ms. DePledge: It’s a Plan B. If you commit to it…if we’re committing to the levy we will commit to the levy and we are going to do it. But what we are saying is if it fails what’s our back up plan? What are we going to do? We should have that in place.
Mr. Hoefle: That is what I’m asking.
Mr. Evers: I think that before we worry about a backup plan…this has to be into the County by when?
Mayor Morley: February 1st.
Mr. Evers: February 1st we have sixty days. If we form a Task Force we need to sit down and get that going. I think that we need to prioritize and look at what we’re doing here right now. Do we move forward with the levy?
Chief Whittington: I’m not sure we need a Task Force. You have enough people in this room right. You go get that list and start making phone calls. If we wait for Task Force people then you are probably going to end up making assignments and things like that. If we start on January 5th as a group…we sit down on Saturday and Sunday afternoons and start making phone calls. We are all in the same building doing that we could probably kick a list out before we even have to decide on what levy to go to.
Mr. Evers: Ms. Schindel?
Ms. Schindel: I just want to make a point of clarification that the renewal is a general operating levy. It is not capital it is general operating and it is for $108,000.00.
Mr. Evers: Now is that going to be under in April? Or on May 2nd? So if it fails in May we can put it back in November.
Ms. Schindel: Exactly.
Mr. Evers: So we get two shots at it.
Mayor Morley: I’m going to throw out there that I don’t believe will fail. You never know but I don’t believe that a renewal will fail.
Chief Whittington: But if you put two fire levies out there it might be confusing.
Mayor Morley: We are not putting two fire levies out there.
Chief Whittington: If you go after a Fire Levy you would have two fire levies out there.
Mayor Morley: No we don’t.
Chief Whittington: Yes you do.
Mayor Morley: How do you figure that?
Chief Whittington: I already have a Capital Levy out there. If you put an Operating Levy out then you will have two Fire Levies.
Mayor Morley: Not at the same time.
Chief Whittington: You won’t have it at the same time. But when it goes to a vote is someone going to look at it and say that they have one…I’m just asking.
Mayor Morley: One is supposedly for equipment…what we have discussed.
Chief Whittington: I’m just bringing it to your attention.
Mayor Morley: I get it. I understand what you’re saying.
Mr. Rubertino: Can you poll Councilmen with what Mr. Hoefle keeps asking?
Mr. Evers: Let’s get past this first step. Are we going to do the Fire Levy? Mr. Hoefle move it forward or hold it?
Mr. Hoefle: I still would like to have an answer to my question.
Mr. Evers: The question is do we move forward with this levy or do we hold it?
Mr. Hoefle: Like I said I’ll move forward with it but as a majority. That is the way we go through as a majority.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Zuren?
Mr. Zuren: Absolutely and we need to pass it.
Mr. Evers: Okay the levy is passed. The Fire Levy will be on the ballot in May.
Mayor Morley: We will get all of the numbers from the County.
Chief Whittington: Can you call and see if you can get a…list too?
Mayor Morley: I can download it myself.
Chief Whittington: Is that with phone numbers though?
Mr. Evers: Yes.
Mayor Morley: No phones just the addresses.
Chief Whittington: We need the phone numbers.
Mayor Morley: I don’t know if we can get phone numbers from the County.
Chief Whittington: You will have to call somebody.
Mr. Evers: The County will not give you phone numbers. They will give you the name and address. Mr. Hoefle?
Mr. Hoefle: Once it comes out of Committee does it still have to go to Council-as-a-Whole?
Mr. Evers: Correct.
Mr. Hoefle: So it doesn’t mean that it’s on there yet.
Mayor Morley: No you’re going to have your three meetings or whatever you’re going to do.
Mr. Hoefle: It comes out of committee.
Mr. Evers: It comes out of committee and goes to Council.
Mr. Hoefle: So what we’re saying right now is it comes out of committee. It still needs to go to Council?
Ms. DePledge: Council-as-a-Whole…if we do three meetings it goes on this Tuesday and two meetings in January.
Mayor Morley: We may have to do some specials.
Mr. Evers: We may have to do some specials.
Mayor Morley: We may need some specials anyhow on the healthcare just so you know. On the healthcare we have to come back with whatever we come up with.
Mr. Zuren: Does this have to go to three readings if we have a 7-0 vote? So that we can get going on the suggestion of making those calls?
Mr. Evers: It can be passed on an emergency measure.
Mr. Zuren: Because it is an emergency.
Ms. DePledge: Topically we take a lot of back lash from the public when we shove tax levies through. People say that you tried to sneak that through and you didn’t go three readings.
Mr. Zuren: Well if everyone is going to get a call from the city it’s not going to be snuck through.
Ms. DePledge: I’m just saying that’s the back lash by doing that. People don’t like that either. They looked like you tried to sneak it by you. Tried to rush it through that you tried to push it through the process and we take heat that way. You can’t win.
Chief Whittington: The plan is to put a levy on correct?
Ms. DePledge: The plan is to put a levy on.
Chief Whittington: What stops you from going to work? It doesn’t stop us from…phone call.
Ms. DePledge: You put in on three readings you start your phone calls and will you support it? It still can go through the legislative process. We can still do that and you can start your phone calls today.
Mr. Evers: Next item on the agenda is to discuss the Mayor’s Court Task Force and the Impound Lot Task Force.
To discuss a Mayor’s Task Force Committee and an Impound Lot Task Force Committee
Mayor Morley: I sent out an email a couple of weeks ago and we gave it until the 15th for resumes. I know that this didn’t come from me but I guess that I will answer it. Council wanted a Task Force and I just want to know if have names? I submitted mine in and if we’re going to do this we’re going to do it. If we’re going to say that we’re going to think about having a Task Force and not start it then I need to know that too. I handed in my three names and I am looking for Council’s names if we are moving forward on it.
Mr. Evers: Mr. Hoefle?
Mr. Hoefle: I’d like to have a Motion to move this into Executive Session, since we are talking about resumes and people on the Task Force that would be my recommendation.
MOTION: Mr. Evers moved to go into Executive Session to discuss resumes for the Mayor’s Task Force and for the purpose of forming said Task Force and forming the Impound Lot Task Force Committee. Ms. DePledge Second.
Roll Call: Yeas unanimous.
Mr. Evers: The information that you have on the resumes is not public information.
MOTION: Mr. Zuren moved to adjourn out of Executive Session. Mr. Spotton Second.
Roll Call: Yeas unanimous.
There is no Legislation Pending.
Mayor Morley had nothing to report.
There were no further questions or comments.
Ms. Schindel had nothing to report.
There were no further questions or comments.
Mr. Klammer was absent and excused.
There were no further questions or comments.
REGOGNITION OF PUBLIC:
Chris Krayanjak, 1278 Waverly Rd, Eastlake, OH
Mr. Krayanjaki: I have a question in regards to the Land Acquisition Fund. How much is in the Land Acquisition Fund? I know that the last Land Acquisition was $4,500.00…Skate Park. Do we know how much the balance is?
Mayor Morley: $160,000.00.
Mr. Evers: I think that it is roughly about $157,000.00. I don’t have it in front of me but it’s…
Mrs. Krayanjaki: One more question. It seems to me that you’re doing either reciprocity or a levy and that’s it. Is there still a consideration of doing both? An immediate reciprocity and then doing a levy with the funds…reciprocity is that something that is being looked at or are you just doing an either or?
Mr. Evers: I think that right now we are just going to focus on the task at hand and that is getting the levy on the ballot in April.
Mr. Farwell: Where did you guys end up on the committee’s?
Mr. Evers: That will be discussed…
Ms. DePledge: At the December 20 meeting.
Mr. Evers: At the December 20th meeting. We need to contact those people.
Ms. DePledge: Everybody needs to be contacted and let them know. See if the people who put in their resumes actually accept and if they don’t accept then we will have to re-evaluate where we are.
Chris Krayanjak, 1278 Waverly Rd, Eastlake, OH
Mrs. Krayanjaki: I know that Mr. Thompson talked to you guys. Was he doing it on behalf of his company that he shares with Captain Beal? Or is this something he is willing to just offer advice on? Is he willing to steer this a little bit as far as the company goes? I know that when I spoke with him he said that he didn’t want his name involved as much that we could company. I’m just looking for clarification.
Mr. Zuren: I’m confused. Mr. Thompson is the Superintendent of the Willoughby-Eastlake Schools.
Mrs. Krayanjaki: For the levy steering the levy.
Mr. Zuren: My discussion with him he just offered to help and give us advice to help put it through. There was not talking about a company or anything else involved in the conversation. He would like to see it go through…
The meeting was adjourned at 7:__ p.m.