Charter Review Commission
March 13, 2007
Agenda
1) Presentation from Director Bob Brown on City Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
2) Presentation from Director Sharon Dumas on Finance
3) Presentation from Commissioner James Hardy on procurement and accounts (division of Finance)
Charter Review Commission Meeting
March 13, 2008
Vice Chairperson Robert Triozzi called the meeting to order at 8:43 AM, and Bob Brown, Director of City Planning provided an overview of the Planning Department to the Charter Review Commission. Director Brown explained the role of the city planning commission, which is a lay body that makes decisions and advises the city of Cleveland on city planning issues. Director Brown had mentioned that these issues may range from building permits, planning permits or other planning related items, which are normally approved by the city planning commission. Ordinances that deal with city property, land use and other kinds of planning related legislation must go to the city planning commission for vote and approval.
The City Planning Commission meets twice a month. There are 7 members (6 appointed by the Mayor and one by City Council). The Commission is the final authority on building permits, in which City Council has no direct role. The Commission has been in place since the 1920’s. Ordinances on Zoning Land use and related issues mandatorily go before the Planning Commission. The decision of the Commission is advisory, but a 2/3 vote of the Council is needed to overrule it.
Richard Horvath specifically mentioned Section 76 in the charter and stated that there are couple of changes they would like to make; the first item would propose that one architect, one attorney and a real estate developer be placed on the city planning commission in order to have technical and professional expertise. We need to have this expertise because when discussing planning related items or other specific planning issues in a city planning commission meeting.
Richard mentioned the second proposed change, which is a proposal that the Planning Director serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. Under the present format the Planning Director is presently nominated by the City Planning Commission. Horvath reasoned that the Planning Director serves in the same capacity as other Cabinet Members and should, therefore, be under the same appointment rules.
The next item that Richard Horvath brought up for discussion was mandatory referral for planning ordinances. Richard Horvath mentioned that the language in these specific needs to be tightened up, and that we need to consider using similar type language that Cleveland City Council uses as a guide for the Clerk to determine what is forwarded to the Commission. Horvath mentioned that any legislation involving zoning, land use, land, public grounds, streets, housing all would be under mandatory referral to city planning. Council’s language also gives the Council the “option” to refer.
The Planning Commission has come up with it’s own guide, but there needs to be more specific guidelines, which the charter change will help. Bob Brown mentioned that those items being referred to the City Planning Commission should be items that the Commission is familiar with, for example, if there is proposal doing renovation in a plant is this something that the planning commission has expertise in? Director Brown also mentioned that there is are questions as to whether some of these ordinances should be going to the planning commission. There are some specific projects that the Planning Commission may need to look at such as the major expansion of CPP.
Director Brown also added that there are interior areas that are used by the public such as Cleveland Hopkins Airport that could be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Public improvements projects of this nature may be something that could be referred to the City Planning Commission.
Richard Horvath mentioned about limiting the public improvement projects that go to the City Planning Commission; however there may be some interior improvements on some of the projects that the city planners want to see. However, there may not be as many public improvements that need to go to the commission.
The City Council protocol in regards to what should and should not be referred to the City Planning Commission needs to be further examined. The purchase of machinery or equipment is something that the Planning Commission would not need to see, and other projects such as economic development would not need to be required as well.
It was suggested that maybe there could be a way to craft the language in regards to what specific projects or items should go to the City Planning Commission.
Bill Callahan mentioned if there could be two referral points; one in planning and the other in city council that could be used in order to look at what should be referred. Richard Horvath indicated that he will look to see what other cities are doing in this specific area.
Comments were made that the present process is too slow, and that making revisions to the process could help move planning legislation and other key ordinances through the legislative process much quicker.
Director Brown mentioned that the City Council appreciates the input from the City Planning Commission because you have another entity looking at specific planning issues and ordinances as well.
Roosevelt Coats suggested that a sub-committee should look at this issue of mandatory referrals and other related planning issues.
Ken Johnson added that mandatory referral is necessary, and that the City Planning Commission should see legislation, and we are asking for trouble if we take the City Planning Commission out of the process and leave major planning decisions to the legislative body. He pointed out the Council members are not planning experts and sometimes need to be advised. At times plans Council sees are not realistic and the Commission serves as a way to spot that.
Patricia Britt clarified that the proposal to outline mandatory referral would serve as a better way to determine what needs to be referred rather than to eliminate the process all together.
Ken Johnson also mentioned that there are some things that the City Planning Commission should see that are planning related. Director Brown mentioned that the City plan should be seen as a guide.
Richard Horvath mentioned that we need to narrow the public improvement requirements so we can reduce the volume of ordinances that the planning commission must see.
Richard Horvath and Bob Brown both indicated that they will work together to develop a list on what items could be taken off of mandatory referral.
There has to be some way for other governmental entities to access the planning commission in getting permits approved for planning purposes
Richard Horvath mentioned that there will be more work done on the mandatory referral process.
Greg Huth raised the question as to whether the 30 days could be shortened; Richard Horvath mentioned that the Planning Commission only meets twice each month and this could be problematic from an operational standpoint. According to Bob Brown, this has not been a problem under the present format.
The public improvement definition will also be looked at in regards to what kind of public improvement projects and ordinances should come before the mandatory referral process, and there are usually timing issues and much pressure to get legislative pieces passed before city council goes on summer recess. The current system can hold things up and we need to find a way to move things through faster, so if there are public improvements that the commission does not need to hear, then we need to take such items off of the list.
Richard Horvath mentioned that this will be brought back for further discussion at a later date.
Roosevelt Coats raised the issue about 6 year term and if there are concerns about the length of time a member serves on the Commission and the application of the residency requirement for members. Director Brown indicated that there is a residency requirement that members must adhere to. Bill Callahan raised the question if the city residency law is overturned by the court is this something that would be have to be revisited in regards to the City Planning Commission? Richard Horvath mentioned that we would need to look at this again if the court were to rule against the city residency requirement.
Residency is an issue that will come up, especially if this will affect the charter. As it stands, Commission members must be City Residents because it is a paid position and all City employees must be residents. There was another question raised regarding whether there is there a plan B? Horvath mentioned that you can propose that city officials be required to comply with residency requirement. Triozzi pointed out that language requiring that Commission Members are electors of the City of Cleveland, like the Charter Review Commission, could also solve the issue.
Richard Horvath mentioned that he can look at all of those city officials who have to be residents of the city as required by charter.
Section 76-6 zoning appeals – There was a proposal that this five member board consist of one attorney, and a real estate development professional in order to have some expertise at all times.
Presentation from the Department of Finance – Sharon Dumas and Commissioner Hardy (Purchasing)
Director Dumas provided an overview on the department of finance to the commission members. She mentioned the responsibilities of the Finance department, including a $1.2 billion budget, 8 divisions that deliver services, and Enterprise funds. Overall, there are 12 divisions (and Commissioners) under the Finance Department and more than 300 employees.
Richard Horvath mentioned that all city ordinances go into effect 40 days after being passed by the Council. While 80 to 90% of ordinances are emergency because of concern for the safety and welfare of residents or because they pertain to City operations, the other 10 to 20% follow the 40 day window. Referendums also have a 40 day window; in the area of bond financing this can pose a problem for the city, especially with bond counsel. Director Dumas mentioned that disturbances in market and citywide debt, and variable interest rates and this impacts the city tremendously, a major impact. The 40 day period would give the city a longer time to speculate and Cleveland is the city with the longest time period for referendum in comparing to other Ohio cities that Richard Horvath looked at. It was recommended that the time period be reduced from 40 to 30 days.
This would give the city advantage in taking advantage of more reasonable interest rates and could take pressure off of debt.
Thirty days is more realistic timeframe, the standard for every other City in Ohio and we should go with this.
A continuous audit was mentioned and the entire city budget is audited, talked about modernizing language and get rid of antiquated language
Patrick Mangan raised a question regarding if the qualifications for finance department positions should be included in the charter. Director Dumas mentioned that this is something that would need to be discussed with the Mayor and City Council
Accounting procedures of the city were also discussed and it was mentioned that there needs to be an update in the language for accounting procedures.
Section 98 in regards to doing an audit – the city have not been doing this on a regular basis and we need to change this to when audit is requested by Mayor or council – internal audit.
Section 108 – Commissioner Hardy passed out handouts and spoke about modernizing the contracting process. Commissioner Hardy provided a brief overview of the purchasing section. Best practices and procurement processes was stressed. Harding spoke about surveys that were done and length of the contracting process which was identified as being too long, 47% of people felt that doing business with the city was too time consuming and that there was too much paperwork involved.
Hardy mentioned that by turning transactions around faster this will benefit the city greatly.
It was suggested that we raise the bid threshold from $10,000 to $50,000 to allow the city to get more responses from vendors, and to make the system more effective.
We need to make the bidding process more effective and efficient.
Give city council authority to change in future if it needs to CPI changes and bidding requirement if the council feels it needs to be changed.
$50,000 breakpoint when you need to get ordinance to council
$10,000 can cause severe operating issues for the city according to Director Dumas, who also mentioned that this threshold is so low; a higher threshold would allow the city to become more efficient.
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that there is a trust issue, if the same administration was in place for next 20 years there would be no problem, but since this is not the case he would not be comfortable with this. Richard Horvath mentioned that Council has some control over lowering the threshold for the under $10,000 contracts.
Council can still define the process from $0 to $50,000 if it chooses to do so.
We could eliminate 200 pieces of legislation through this process according to Hardy.
Callahan would like to here more of it. Robert Triozzi would like to know the differences in the numbers, provide same figures for different thresholds in order to see what the real impact would be. Hardy mentioned that there are 1,000 procurements between $10,000 and $50,000 Director Dumas will provide information on the procurements to the Commission members.
Statistical analysis showing what it would be at $40,000 and $60,000 will be provided.
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that if information could be provided before the next meeting and could have some of the other Council colleagues come in who have been here longer who good look at the data and give their impressions of it
Commissioner Hardy commented that other vendors see bid bond requirement adversely affects small local minority businesses, the pay to play that the city uses, make many vendors see this as a disadvantage.
Richard Horvath mentioned that the Finance Department will come back for the next meeting, and wanted to know where we will be going from here, and what about civil service. The CSCA would like to come in and testify before the commission on either March 20th or 27th.
Richard Horvath suggested we do Section 108 and then do the Civil Service, which may take up some time.
Chairperson Cleveland adjourned the meeting 10:40 AM
|