July 10, 2008
Charter Review Commission Meeting Agenda

I.            Continued review of proposed charter change recommendations.

II.        Presentation by the Greater Cleveland Partnership

III.    New business

July 10, 2008
Charter Review Commission

Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:45 AM and mentioned that Debra Janik from the Greater Cleveland Partnership is here to address the commission and that the Commission will review the rest of the charter proposals.  Debra Janik from the Greater Cleveland Partnership came to the table and mentioned that there are five or six points that she would like to make to the commission in regards to the charter.  Debra Janik provided a copy of proposed recommendations from the Greater Cleveland Partnership to all commission members. Debra Janik then reviewed each of the proposed recommendations made by the Greater Cleveland Partnership.  The first recommendation pertains to Chapter 17 § 108 pertaining to authorization of contracts.  The Greater Cleveland Partnership recommends that all contracts involving any expenditure in excess of $100,000 should be authorized by the City Council, instead of the present $10,000 threshold.  Debra Janik mentioned that this revision would provide better bids from the businesses and resources and would help small businesses as well. 

Mandatory referrals were also mentioned by Debra Janik as the second proposal the Greater Cleveland partnership would like to see revised.  §76-3 should be eliminated and this would be replaced by a thorough reviewing process by the City Planning Commission.  Debra Janik mentioned that Chapter 11 §76-8 pertaining to Port control and the separate police operation at the airport and recommended that there should be a separate police operation which can help to maximize the airport operations.

The greater Cleveland partnership also recommends that the charter review meet every ten years instead of every twenty years to review the city charter. This would enable the city to keep the institutional knowledge of this process and conduct more regular reviews of the charter in order to make the city more current and up-to-date with the changing local environment.

Chapter 5 §45 alienation of Water Front Lands was discussed and Debra Janik mentioned that the Greater Cleveland Partnership would like to see this change to where the council surrenders or releases its rights of the city of Cleveland to waterfront property.  Under this proposal this would allow for the sale or leasing of waterfront land based on city council approval without it being put to a vote for approval or disapproval by the citizens of Cleveland.  This would be applicable only to the waterfront properties. 

Ken Johnson raised the question about the lakefront property and why was it done that way, Richard Horvath mentioned that he did not know why it was structured that way in the charter in regards to any sale of such property must be presented to the citizens of Cleveland and put to vote.  Richard Horvath mentioned that it may have been due to the fact that many of the city assets were being sold off to balance the budget during that time and the people of Cleveland were concerned that the waterfront property could be sold another asset that could be sold as well. 

There was a comment made regarding how the people of Cleveland would accept taking away their right to vote on the sale of lakefront property?  This could be a political question?  Chairperson Cleveland wanted this clarified if the citizens would be more concerned about losing their right to vote on the sale of lakefront property.  Ken Johnson cautioned about the proposal which would take away the rights of the citizens of Cleveland to vote on the sale of waterfront property.

Bill Callahan mentioned if the planning commission would have a map on the territories that would be covered under this plan.  Richard Horvath mentioned that the Planning Commission would have this. 

Support of the safety forces was mentioned by Bill Callahan which the intent is to support the proposal which Janik had presented.  Robert Triozzi mentioned about missed opportunities that Debra Janik had mentioned regarding potential development projects that may have taken place on the lakefront and wanted examples on what these missed opportunities are.  Debra Janik mentioned about having discussions in the past about what to do on the waterfront with various developers who were interested in doing some development on the site as well as specific things that could be done to make it competitive.  The waterfront plan under the previous Campbell Administration was also mentioned.  What could be done to turn the waterfront into a waterfront similar to Chicago or Baltimore was asked during the discussion.  We could be in a position to capitalize on these opportunities accord to Ms. Janik. 

Vicky Johnson mentioned that the subcommittee on contracts during their meetings did want to go higher on the contracts limit but did not know if the rest of the committee would agree to raise it higher than $50,000. 

The Length of time to work on the charter was also mentioned and Chairperson Cleveland pointed out that it should be no longer than 12 months. 

Colleen Gilson questioned if the language regarding the waterfront includes the Cuyahoga River, Richard Horvath mentioned that it does not and this has been treated separately but he will check to make certain this is the case.

Mabel Jasper mentioned that she strongly objects to waterfront land being sold without the approval of the voters of Cleveland.  Matt Silverstein raised the question if other cities have similar provisions that the Greater Cleveland Partnership is seeking and he agrees with Jasper regarding this issue and wonders if this affects the development of the waterfront.  Debra Janik mentioned that research is currently being done on other cities in regards to waterfront properties. 

Debra Janik mentioned that in regards to other development that takes place in the city there has been due diligence on the part of developers and public officials (Mayor and Council) regarding the planning and development of properties, and the same attentive detail would be paid to waterfront properties.

Matt Silverstein mentioned that this may be a very inflexible provision that we have presently in the charter and the proposal presented by Ms. Janik makes it more flexible. The citizens of Cleveland could make this determination in regards to whether they would want to accept the provision to give up this right to vote on the property or not.  If the city has an offer to build a development project on the site, it could not proceed with the developer on agreeing to a contract contingent on it being voted for by the citizens of Cleveland.  Mabel Jasper mentioned that there would not be any protection if a deal were to be agreed upon between the city and the developer without there being a vote from the people.

Vicky Johnson mentioned that we should ask the people if the clause should be maintained in the charter in regards to the lakefront property which is what Deb Janik was recommending. 

Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the most valuable resource is our lakefront and that the growth and development that lies ahead depends on how we develop the lakefront.  Coats commented that he is concerned with some of the language in the proposal especially in regards to control and release.  Debra Janik mentioned the greater Cleveland Partnership is looking at maximizing the development opportunities on the lakefront and believes that the both the administration and legislative branches of government would be more effective in making the right determination on how the proposed projects could help greatly enhance the waterfront. 

Surrender and release of property according to Debra Janik would go to the prepared development plan and developer in regards to the property.  Ms. Janik mentioned that the provision would allow the council to execute changes on the waterfront property without going through the vote of the people. 

Robert Triozzi mentioned whether or not community buy-in might prevent the enjoyment of the asset.  Debra Janik mentioned that voters could approve amending the language in the charter in regards to property rights on the lakefront.   Robert Triozzi mentioned that there is a vested interest as to what is on that property and that citizens are attracted to the lake, which is what brings them to Cleveland and the concern is whether a developer could restrict the ability of the citizens to enjoy the lake and he has a vested interest in the lakefront. 

Debra Janik mentioned that the proposed language has the flexibility to empower the council in regards to lakefront property and development and the sale of the lakefront property if the right development opportunity occurs. 

Bill Callahan mentioned about identifying the very specific dry property and property that is underwater in regards to the lakefront and citizen access.  Callahan further mentioned that it is important to clarify what is being defined in regards to lakefront property.  Are there significant access issues that are being raised in regards to the lakefront that is associated with potential development on the site?  Callahan also questions access in regards to development opportunities and does not believe this would benefit the people and want to make sure that the public controls the access to the water. 

Vicky Johnson mentioned that there may be property that the public cannot get to anyway, which would be less important in regards to citizen access to the lakefront.  Vicky Johnson added if language be put into the proposal in regards to public access and we need to have more specific language regarding what it is that we are talking about. 

Ken Johnson mentioned that there should be some effort made to come to an agreement as to what they would want to see that is equitable and mentioned that this vote would affect future generations of citizens in Cleveland once this has been voted on.  If the vote were to support the removal of these property rights and a private developer now has access to the lakefront, then future generations of Cleveland residents might not enjoy access to the lakefront and this would be bad for the city.

Greg Huth mentioned that he supports this proposal by the Greater Cleveland Partnership because he knows how thoroughly this lakefront property would be reviewed in regards to any development plan that is presented to the city based on his experience as a former acting director of Economic Development for the City of Cleveland.  Debra Janik cited the recent work by the council and administration on the flats east bank project that was recently approved where access and development was discussed by both Council and the Administration.

Patrick Mangan mentioned that he would feel comfortable giving the authority to the council to make the decision on such property.  Mabel Jasper mentioned that to give away this land would not be good for the city, to sell such property would be a big mistake because the developers would then own this lakefront property and the accessibility of the residents to the lakefront would be limited.  It was further commented that public access could be threatened if private developers were to take it over. 

Robert Triozzi mentioned that should this proposal be  taken to the people it would be voted down.  They would not agree to sell an asset especially the lakefront. 

Mabel Jasper raised a question as to what the contractors would do with the property once they purchased it.  Would they charge citizens to use the beachfront?  Debra Janik mentioned that she does not know what development proposals would come forward.  The authority should rest with the Council and administration in regards to making development decisions that will benefit the citizens of Cleveland.  This proposal would also provide for more flexibility in dealing with lakefront property. 

Roosevelt Coats asked is there any development proposal that is related to the lakefront that the partnership is aware of at this time.  Debra Janik indicated that she and the partnership are not aware of any imminent project in place at this time. Roosevelt Coats mentioned that there are a number of cities in the greater Cleveland region that have lakefronts and asked if the Greater Cleveland Partnership is considering asking these communities to do the similar thing they are asking Cleveland to do.

The $100,000 bid limit was also discussed in regards to purchasing contracts.  Commissioner of Purchasing Hardy came to the table and mentioned that they are looking at larger cities such as Detroit to see what the bid limits are for contract bids.  Hardy mentioned that there is the $100,000 limit, and Commissioner Hardy mentioned that based on his research on this topic New York and Chicago, both have a $100,000 threshold.  Columbus has a 25,000 threshold in bid limits.

Richard Horvath mentioned that the purchasing subcommittee had asked for a breakdown on the bid levels and passed out information provided by Purchasing Commissioner Hardy.

Colleen Gilson wondered why didn’t the administration come forward to comment on the alienation rights on property and requested that Planning Director Robert Brown, Community Development Director Daryl Rush and Economic Development Director Barbara Nichols appear before the commission to explain whether or not they would support or oppose this proposal by the Greater Cleveland Partnership.  Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that they will ask them to appear before the commission.

Commissioner Harding presented to the commission his research on the threshold for competitive bidding.  Only asking for the policy space to do quick bids.  This process would begin from $10,000 to $50,000 and provides for a competitive marketplace. Trying to remove hindrances to competition is the major goal.  The higher that we can raise the threshold the better the opportunities will be. 

Chairperson Cleveland then had Barbara Langhenry from the   Law Department come to the table and also mentioned that the civil service union provided some information that is being distributed.

Barbara Langhenry presented recommended changes to charter section 191 regarding the compensation of officers and employees.  Added a clause for employees in classified position that council sets the compensation schedule and proceeded to explain the revisions.  Langhenry also provided a hand-out of the proposed changes. 

Roosevelt Coats raised a question about prevailing wage and how this relates to the contractors.  Barbara Langhenery mentioned that the contractors are not provided benefits by the city but are paid the prevailing wage. 

Bill Callahan mentioned that he would like to hear from the building trades council about this proposal in order to see if there are issues with this proposal. 

Kevin Kelley mentioned that his subcommittee met Wednesday on the council rightsizing topic and the Council consultant  James Dykes will be coming to the subcommittee meeting next  Wednesday, July 16th at 8:30 AM.  Kevin Kelley mentioned that there were 7 issues that were identified at the meeting which took place yesterday.

Bill Callahan mentioned that he asked if there were additional things to add to the charter in regards to the rightsizing issue.  This is something will be discussed at the next subcommittee meeting.

Richard Horvath drafted up the different City Council rightsizing proposals that have been presented so far and provided a copy of each proposal.  Horvath proceeded to describe each of the proposals that was presented over the past couple of weeks. 

Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that Cleveland EMS CARE union will be coming in next week to discuss their proposal and reminded commission members to review the civil service proposal that was submitted by the Civil Service Employees Union.  Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that the  rightsizing of city council update will be provided by the sub-committee being chaired by Kevin Kelley, and that we need to make a determination on the remaining number of work sessions that need to be scheduled for the Charter Review Commission since the July 31st deadline date is rapidly approaching.  Chairperson Cleveland indicated that she will circulate an e-mail to everyone on when would be a good time to meet.  Patrick Mangan mentioned about extending the meeting time of our weekly meetings in order to finish the charter review, because all of us are already here and it may be more convenient.
  
Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that we will try this at the next meeting to see how well the extended meeting approach works out. 

Meeting was adjourned at 10:45 AM.