Good morning.

Um I'm calling the municipal service and properties committee to order.

Today is Monday, November 10th, 2025.

Madam Clerk, can you call the meeting?

Can you call a row?

Here.

Present.

Kelly Moore.

Okay.

Can you uh excuse the absence of Councilman Starr?

And um uh Councilman Kelly should be joining us here shortly, but I'm not sure.

Okay.

All right.

So first up, let me have uh let me have uh um public works up first, please.

Morning, Commissioner, Commissioners.

Uh is the director joining us today?

The director is getting sworn in right now, so we are uh filling in for him.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, ordinance number uh thirteen fifty-one twenty twenty five by council members Bishop and Griffin.

This is departmental request.

It's emergency ordinance authorizing the procurement by one or more requirement contracts of the rental of large capacity trucks with operators for the division of streets, Department of Public Works for a period of one year with two one year options to renew exercisable by the director of public works.

Okay, Commissioner.

Which which one of you um is uh here representing this uh Scott?

Okay, Commissioner Scott.

Can you cut on your mic, Commissioner?

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman and the council.

Uh can you pull it up to your TV order?

This is our uh large capacity truck contract that's associated with our residential resurfacing program.

Uh it's for the large capacity trucks that haul the asphalt to our resurfacing uh projects, and it comes with uh vehicle operators as well.

When you say come with vehicle operators, what do you mean?

Uh truck drivers.

Truck drivers?

Yes, sir.

So when you say so, our personnel will not be driving the trucks.

Uh these particular trucks are large capacity triaxle trucks.

Uh we we they're uh we order them as needed through a vendor.

Um this allows us to go out to bid for our next contract.

Okay, so when so when these trucks have to be used, Commissioner.

You mean so you're saying that it'll be a driver accompany with these trucks?

There'll be a truck and a driver based upon requests uh and based upon operational need.

Okay.

Um the so the the um so our drivers, city drivers won't be part of this operation.

Mr.

Chairman, no, these trucks carry uh are much larger than our city fleet.

These are the trucks that carry up to fourteen tons of asphalt to any particular any particular load.

Uh so we our fleet does not is not that large.

We don't have that type of capacity.

Okay.

All right.

Um so I'm gonna open this up to the committee.

Any questions?

Councilman Brian Casey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman to the Commissioner.

I see that the we're using the street resurfacing budget to pay for these?

Mr.

Chairman, yes.

This is associated with the residential street resurfacing program that is funded through capital uh capital resources.

And oh, so it's funded through capital?

That's correct.

So are these trucks do we have the capacity to purchase these?

Because I see another piece of legislation we're purchasing trucks for or equipment for more than half half a million, but this is a 2.5 million over the course of a year?

Over the course of three years.

Three years?

All right.

And do we, Mr.

Chairman to the Commissioner, do we have the capacity to purchase these trucks?

And if we did, would we have the capacity to operate them?

Mr.

Chairman, I would say suggest to you no, sir.

And why not?

Uh these trucks are very large capacity trucks.

Uh number one, I wouldn't have a place to put them.

Number two, uh you know, in association with our rest of our fleet.

Number two, uh they require drivers that have over almost over the road experience in a lot of cases, and and number three, uh the repair and maintenance of these trucks would be astronomical.

And then, Mr.

Chairman to the director, did we use any of these trucks this past year?

We use them during our yes, through our residential resurfacing program, they were used daily.

All right.

And then this so the residential street resurfacing initiative this year went slowly, right?

And I know that it was due to a lot of contract issues with ADAs and and all that other stuff.

Does this give us the capacity or the ability to when we start a street be able to complete it in a more timely fashion?

Our goal, Mr.

Chairman, and speaking with the director, is to make some changes to the program that will allow that to happen by getting our own ADA contract.

Okay.

So the ability or lack thereof to have this, Mr.

Chairman to the Commissioner, to have this piece of equipment was not part of the delay in in getting some of the streets done.

This was not a factor.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, is there any other questions from the committee?

All right, Director.

Um, so I mean, Commissioner, I'm sorry.

So we're not um when we're never gonna buy these this piece of equipment, right?

We're gonna lease this or rent this on um on an ongoing basis?

Mr.

Chairman, that's correct.

Okay.

And the reason is because they're just too large and we don't they're too large, and uh we don't have the capacity to see to house them or to repair them or to uh provide the drivers for them.

Okay.

Um and they will be only rented during the paving season.

That's correct, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, all right.

All right, seeing no further questions, ordinance number 351 2025 is approved.

Please sign on.

Ordinance number 350 2025 by council members Bishop and Griffin, this is a department of request.

An emergency ordinance authorizing the purchase by one or more standard and requirement contracts for the purchase lease and or lease with options to purchase of various on-road vehicles, apparatus and off-road equipment, cabs, bodies, and accessories, equipment and other aftermarket items necessary to equip the vehicles authorized for their intended purposes, including vehicle rehabilitation, training, and inspection as needed for the Department of Public Works.

All right, Commissioner.

Uh to the Chair, this is uh piece of legislation that uh will allow us to purchase a number of rotors, uh asphalt rollers and trailers uh in conjunction with the uh resurfacing program that Streets does right now.

These will be replacing some very old, outdated pieces of equipment that we have in place that are are getting to the point where they are non-repairable due to uh uh parts availability.

Okay.

All right, so um.

So uh Commissioner Scott, you won't be involved with these pieces of equipment or is these equipment piece of equipment for your department?

Mr.

Chairman, uh you're correct.

This these are for the division of streets, and uh they're part of our street repair uh program and pothole program.

Okay.

All right.

Um and this will equip us for um taking over the streets from uh MoCAP, correct?

We can Mr.

Chairman, let me make one correction.

This is for our pothole repair crews and our street general repair crews.

This has nothing to do with resurfaces.

Okay, it has nothing to do research reserving.

Okay, Commissioner, is that it?

That's there any uh questions from the committee?

Councilman Casey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Chairman to the Commissioner.

What's just if you could educate us on the difference between a pothole roller and an asphalt roller?

Mr.

Chairman, they're both one and the same.

One is just some are just larger than others.

The ones for resurfacing are very large, heavy, heavy rollers for uh maximum compaction.

These are for potholes and they're more versatile, they they're for potholes and small utility cuts, and they give us the versatility to move quickly and to transport them quickly, and they're not as heavy as the asphalt rollers for resurfacing.

In addition, um these rollers will be replacing rollers that are almost we've had for over 20, 25 years that are obsolete, and so it's time to buy some new stuff.

Yes.

The size is the big issue.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, thank you, Councilman Case.

Is there any other questions from the committee?

All right.

I want to make a correction.

I said ordinance number 1350 2025.

So this is ordinance number 1350, 2025.

All right, is there any other questions on ordinance number 1350-2025?

No, but uh oh, sorry, Chairman.

I have a uh miscellaneous for the commissioner before he leaves.

Okay.

All right, we'll we'll take the miscellaneous.

Is there any other questions on 1350?

Seeing no further questions, ordinance number 1350, 2025 is approved.

All right, uh Councilwoman Mahr.

Thank you.

I just wanted to confirm that we're sending those pothole rollers to the Fleet Avenue Bridge.

Which and that the bull nose, we're going to take care of the bull nose, right, Commissioner?

Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you, Councilwoman.

All right, uh Director, I mean, Commissioner, I'm sorry.

Um thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, if you see the director before I do, uh, could you tell him that I need to talk to him, please?

Okay.

All right, can we have up uh community development?

Somebody here for community development?

I saw I thought I saw the director walk in.

Yes, she had another meeting, and so Jennifer and myself are going to handle this for the first time.

All right, come on.

Okay.

Good morning.

Good morning.

All right, ordinance number 13 10, 2025.

This is by council member Spencer.

This is an emergency ordinance requiring the director of the community of Department of Community Develop andor Director of Finance upon receipt of any voluntary payment in lieu by Hairloom Company to deposit to deposit such payments for the sole purpose of Herman Park renovations and site improvements.

Okay.

So uh director, you want to brief us on this or I'll take the first stab, Chair.

Thank you.

Through the chair to the to the committee.

Uh so this is community development or the director of finance will this is requiring them to direct funds to this Herman Park project that will be in the future.

Um this also ties in with the tax abatement.

So um there is a community development project that's already been tax abated, and it will be the first project that will be required to give a payment in lieu of affordable housing, and that's in the amount of six hundred and sixty thousand dollars.

And so um, this is councilwoman Spencer's piece, and she wants to make sure that those funds will be directed toward the Herman Park project renovation that's going to be undertaken in the future.

It's in conceptual design phase.

Okay, so um let me understand this.

The councilwoman Spencer has set aside 200,000 towards the project.

Now, where is the 585,000?

What is that?

Um that's a preliminary design estimate.

So the work hasn't started yet.

I mean, in the future, um Director DeRosa's department will be bringing legislation for a public improvement project.

Okay, correct.

So this is just this is real, it's about that project in the future, but it's making sure that these um tax abatement required funds, the payment in lieu of affordable housing fund will go towards that Herman Park project in the future when it's received.

Okay.

All right, correct.

And then, Mr.

Chairman, once that money is received, then Capital Projects would would uh do public engagement, finalize the design, and move forward with that project.

Um but the idea is to um to amass um both her 200,000 and then this payment in lieu of um for um hopefully the majority of those park projects.

If not, then we'll we'll come to council for authorization to add to it.

Okay.

All right, Councilwoman Spencer.

Thank you so much, Chairman Bishop, for hearing this piece today.

I want to begin with some appreciation first to our attorney Jennifer Hein O'Leary, who drafted this piece, and then also to Director DeRosa and Director Hernandez, who did need to step out for fully vetting it under administrative review and working in collaboration towards what I hope will be uh Herman Park improvements uh when these these funds are actually received.

So I just really appreciate the collaboration that has gone into this piece.

And I do want to add for members of the committee that this was meant to be a companion piece, if you will, to an ordinance that was heard a couple of weeks ago 1307, which will rename the park as Judge Raymond L.

Pianca Park at the time that park improvements are completed.

So we're what we're trying to do with these two pieces of legislation is sort of anticipatory.

Um these these improvements will obviously occur beyond my tenure on council.

So this is putting things in place where when funds are received and when park improvements can begin, at the conclusion of that process, we would have a renovated park, and at that point the renaming would become official.

So these are a bit anticipatory, but they're meant to go together.

Okay.

And and Mr.

Chairman, if I could just add too, there's a lot of um there's a lot of momentum around this park.

Western Reserve Land Conservancy has acquired a rail spur that goes into this park and is fundraising and doing community engagement around the improvement of that spur, and that's really related to the redevelopment of this park as well.

So this is just another piece to make sure that this park gets renovated, which is what the community is really looking for.

So the park is something separate in this piece of legislation we hear into this morning.

Uh through the chairman, these dollars would be used to improve the park, but that park improvement wouldn't happen until this payment from the developer hits uh the city's um accounts.

Okay.

Is there any questions from the committee?

Councilman Casey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And my questions in no way, shape or form are against uh the the project at all.

But if you can you explain to us what the hair loom is, what the tax abatement is, how much money is coming through the I mean, how much this is.

Um I'm reading the legislation, I'm kind of understanding it, but can you explain what money it is?

Because you keep saying tax abated money, right?

So I mean, I understand the councilwoman has put 200,000 in the NAF, but how much more we are we looking at and just explain this whole process and how this goes, because I've never heard of this before.

And there's a good reason for that through the through the chair, the councilman.

Uh so when we pass the the updated tax abatement ordinance, do you remember there were the affordable housing requirements?

And there's also um an option that if you don't meet the affordable housing requirements, you can instead make a payment in lieu of affordable housing requirements.

So my understanding is that this will be the first uh multifamily development project that is going to be paying the payment in lieu of.

And that was done through community development.

And so that amount, it's it's actually, you know, it's according to a formula.

They'll be paying $660,000 in a voluntary payment in lieu instead of providing affordable housing.

And then that's gonna go into a fund.

And and the tax abatement ordinance actually says that that will be set up by finance and all expenditures from that fund will require legislative authority from City Council.

So we have the authority to determine how those funds are spent, and councilwoman Spencer is saying those those funds will be spent on Herman Park project.

Okay, so Mr.

Chairman, to our attorney or the director, not used to having our attorney at the table.

Let me see if uh just so that I can I understand.

So Hairloom is a developer.

Yes.

Okay, Herloom is a developer.

Yes.

And instead of providing affordable housing, correct, they're making a payment in lieu of 600 some thousand.

Then that six hundred thousand is going toward Herman Park.

Correct.

I just want to make sure I'm correct in that.

And the heirloom company is currently constructing this project as a residential multifamily project and is right by Herman Park.

Right, right.

So it says 640 Herman Park.

And so, you know, Councilwoman Spencer is just directing the funds that haven't come into the city yet, but they will they come in after the certificate of occupancy is issued.

Right.

Now for future knowledge, right?

If this happens again in the in the future, is it the local council person who will have the authority or the wherewithal to direct whatever those PI the future PILs would be?

I mean, in other words, could that 600,000 come in?

And again, this is not this is just for educational purposes.

That 600,000 could come in, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be spent in that ward, correct?

Correct.

Correct.

I mean that the tax abatement legislation just says there will be a fund determined by finance, and all expenditures shall be so require legislative authority from council.

Okay.

So it's pretty broad as the council gets to say.

So in the future, if something like this happens and there's 600,000 that comes in and Councilman Harrison wants I don't know, a street repaved or a park redone in his ward.

He could use PIL dollars, right?

From a downtown project or a ward, whatever project to use in his ward.

Correct?

I mean possibly I'm asking.

Yeah.

Well, and this is where um Director Hernandez would probably be helpful to have at the table because again, this is the first everyone.

This is the first time we're doing this, right?

I'm not aware if the administration has any sort of policy or what they're trying to do with these funds.

But the legislation does say that, you know, it requires legislative approval of council.

So I'm sure there will be instances as well where the administration wants to propose, you know, how to spend the PIL.

But you would have to approve it.

And then, you know, in this case, council is doing it proactively.

Okay.

And then um to our to Joe uh to our staff, can we can we see if we can get that question answered before finance, whether those PIL dollars for a project stay locally within that that ward or within that community?

Or unless Councilman Harris did it.

Mr.

Chair.

Councilman Harrison.

Thank you.

So when we when we we added this provision, we we did it for a reason.

So they that you know uh so that council has greater involvement in how the dollars going to be spent.

Uh so yes, if if the the money and what we did not do at that time is set up restrictions on it that had to be set to one particular area.

Now, in conversations as this was going on, you know, most people will want the money to be used near the project that is happening.

But it can be used if it's the will of the body uh to use the dollars um anywhere across the city uh should there be a need or a want to do so.

So the led the ordinance that we passed did not require that.

We just made sure that the body will have say so and how the money is going to be spent.

Administration can recommend council has the authority to approve.

We can recommend and then we we decide whether we want to approve what the recommendation is from the body.

So uh we we did not get that far to set restrictions on where, but more so left it broad enough for the body to decide how we want to use these dollars uh moving forward.

Okay.

All right, and that that that clear that clears a that clears a lot of it up, but um, but this is the first time the city is doing anything like this, correct?

And then Mr.

Chairman to to the director, do we know when these PIL dollars are anticipated through the chairman to the councilman?

It is when the certificate of occupancy is is issued, but do we know when that might be I know that the project is underway, right?

It's being built currently.

It'll just depend on when the project ends, is completed and when building and housing issues the certificate of occupancy at that point is when they're required to make the payment.

You do you have more to add about the nature of the project?

My last question, Mr.

Chairman to the director, is will that certificate of occupancy be issued without them making the PIL?

And is that is it one lumps, is it one lump payment, or can they make payments over time?

Do we know?

I believe it's a lump payment.

Okay.

Do you know do you know councilwoman?

Thank you.

Uh through the chair, the um my understanding of the way our tax abatement law was written is that it's a lump sum payment due at the time of certificate of occupancy.

Okay.

All right.

So they won't get their certificate of occupancy unless the city receives the the PIL.

So they won't get their certificate of occupancy unless the city receives the PIL.

I think that vigilance would be so I this is one of the items I'll be briefing the future incoming council member on.

Uh because since it's the first time this has happened, I think it's worth having some vigilance and making sure that that coordination occurs when the time comes.

So can we get that question answered for uh the councilman?

Um at some point.

Now who can answer that question?

Um the chair, I mean director of community development, but I mean there is a letter from community development that that requires them to pay the PIL and the PIL is required by ordinance.

So they can't just not pay the PIL.

So and it does say in the letter that the PAL is due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Okay.

So can we get that question answered from the director of community development?

Okay.

Uh Councilman Casey, are you uh are you?

Yeah, I'm good.

Thank you.

All right, Councilwoman Spencer.

Thank you.

And yeah, I to just to add to that, um thank you for that reminder, Jen.

The this is required for them to get tax abatement.

So it's sort of is like a it's all interrelated.

So they they they need tax abatement for this project to work.

They cannot get the abatement until they make the PIL.

So I think there are there are safeguards in place, if you will, or guardrails to ensure that the payment is made.

But I still think it's important for members of this body to be to monitor, but there should be guardrails in place.

All right, thank you.

All right, is there any other questions on yes?

Yeah, Consulman Harrison.

Thank you.

Uh just a quick question.

Uh the through the chair to the director and the um uh our attorney, uh the hairloom company, have they done other projects in the city of Cleveland?

Or is this their first one?

Councilwoman.

Through the chair, I don't know.

You mean whether Hairloom Heirloom company has ever done another project?

I think the councilwoman has been.

Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Yes.

Thank you, Councilman Hirston.

Um this is the first time this developer has done a project under this entity name.

However, they developed a project on Detroit Avenue in the 5400 block called the Wellion, uh, which has been was completed several years ago.

So that project was completed, then they were looking for their next project in the area, and this was the site that they selected.

It was very interesting because they are not requesting a TIFF.

So they opted to not go forward with a TIFF, however, due to them being subject to the new tax abatement law, and I do want to thank you for your leadership in getting that done with more council oversight, uh, which brings us to this moment.

Um they they opted not to create the affordable units, and instead that's why they have to make this payment.

So I think it was very valuable the way we as a body set up that new tax abatement structure.

Sure.

Thank you.

Um I'm curious why they chose not to do affordable units.

What was the reason for that?

Well, I think this might have been part of the risk when we as policy makers were working on the a law and trying to kind of peer into that crystal ball of how developers might behave.

Um and by the way, just a quick pin.

It's my understanding that we have to reauthorize tax abatement again in a couple of years, so there's chance there'll be opportunities to further improve it if the body deems that important.

But we didn't know if developers would choose this payment and lie option or whether they would go with the affordable unit option.

And I I haven't spoken with the developer in depth about it.

It but they they must have determined that from a cash flow basis, this was what their pref preference was.

Sure.

No, I appreciate that through the chair uh to Councilwoman Spencer.

You know, the intent was to to in certain neighborhoods to really um enhance the number of affordable units.

We we did not want to the intent was not to have people pay the payment in move, but really to push them to provide affordable units in particular areas of the city, which is why we um uh had the penalties as they are, the percentages as they are, and laid out the things uh that we we ultimately passed of the tax above.

So I was just wondering why they chose not to do affordable units in this neighborhood uh where it the affordable units are really needed versus the money for a part where their their occupants are going to enjoy the park as well.

So I I just you know, just was curious why they decided not to uh provide affordable units, which would have been a had a greater impact, you know, for the community than the investments here at the park because there's other ways that you know the park renovation could have taken place.

But finally, I just just my thoughts and curious why they chose that.

Thank you and lastly they said it decided not to go for a TIFF is is it because of the same reason they decided to pay the payment loo they just didn't want to have to deal with the restrictions or or the requirements or what yeah those that's a that's a great question I am not sure how those internal um discussions went for them and how the the numbers ended up working for them.

Gotcha.

I do I do want to add though that interestingly Herman Park under the city's old capital improvement plan was meant to be improved when when I joined council five years ago um former councilman zone said this you gotta get this done this community's been waiting for for years for this park improvement and it hasn't happened he said it's you know it's on the plan it's gonna happen and then as we all recall um the administration moved forward with a separate a new parks and recreation planning process and Herman Park is not um so but for this legislation her I don't believe Herman Park renovations would happen um for a decade or more because it is not uh under the new parks and criteria it's not included so we would not have a basis for it to be included as part of the capital improvement plan.

Sure.

No thank you for that through the chair and I'll end with this you know um you know I think that's been the benefit of having our NEF dollars you know to make investments like in parks where it does not on the the administration's uh top priority list or you know with our downtown TIFF short of quarter shore um part of those dollars to be used for parks and and park enhancements across the city where this body's gonna have to make determination where those dollars are going to be spent so I again I'm just thinking about all the other pieces and parts that are moving that that this body has worked on for years uh that will uh ultimately push the benefits to the communities and where we all represent so just curious about why they chose not to do the uh the affordable units where that to me and just from your years of uh advocacy of affordable units that that would have been the the best um the the the the greatest need for that community um at this moment so thank you Mr.

Chair all right thank you councilman Harrison all right is there any other questions on ordinance number um 13 10 2025 all right saying no further questions ordinance number 1310 2025 is approved please sign it's just gonna be all right last but not least if you have yeah yeah yeah yeah so good ordinance number 1073 2025 thank you um attorney by council members bishop and harrison and griffin is a department of request an emergency ordinance authorizing the mayor and the commissioner purchases purchases and supplies to sell certain city owned property no longer needed for the city's public use located at the terminus of Bern Avenue to Greg Shindale for the purposes of consolidating with is it is this existing land to be used for green space and garden development.

All right who is here representing this piece um Mr Chairman so um commissioner de Janeiro is here she's gonna speak to this piece it's for the sale of surplus property that's under this jurisdiction of the mayor's office of capital projects okay commissioner thank you good morning uh so the legislation would authorize the mayor's office of capital projects to sell a remnant piece of property that was left over from the construction of the Jennings freeway it was acquired by the city in connection with that project um it's a very narrow piece of property about 26 feet by 95 feet it's uh like a 20th of an acre just a little sliver um and it's located in between two parcels that are owned by the purchaser Mr.

Greg Snadel uh this is in the old Brooklyn neighborhood um north of Spring and west of Jennings kind of where Jennings Road crosses over Jennings freeway um and so Mr.

Snadel owns three parcels that are adjacent, and this little sliver parcel is right in the middle.

Um so he wants to acquire it.

He's going to use it for gardens, gardens and green space.

He's sent me pictures of his gardens.

They're absolutely a slice of heaven, pollinator gardens.

Um he's got native plantings, really, really beautiful uh setting, and he's a good steward of the land.

He's going to purchase the property for uh appraised value of $500.

And um I think that's all I have for you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner, the guy who's purchased the properties.

Um you say he owned three pre-parcels?

Correct.

Has he gardened any one of those parcels through the city?

Um I don't not to my knowledge.

Okay.

Because um the city has historically turned folks down once they sold them one parcel, correct?

Am I correct in it?

Oh, I can um jump in on that.

Oh no, I'll just minute council.

Councilwoman.

So the city has turned folks down.

I know the city has turned folks down that has sold parcels to individuals before.

When they come back for the next parcel, they've turned them down.

So I want the councilwoman, I want her to speak to if this guy has uh acquire parcels from the city.

Yeah, thank you.

Um and I am I'm looking up the transfer records right now, but even if it does come from the city, I want to distinguish a couple of things.

Um in terms of the multiple acquisition rule, that's for side lots, um, not uh for properties that are gonna be purchased at what's essentially fair market value.

So this isn't a side lot acquisition.

This is uh and this is not a buildable parcel in the way that a side lot would be.

Um the last thing I'd note is that actually community development just changed that rule.

Um so they you can um acquire multiple parcels uh with the councilperson and CD's permission.

Um but again I am happy to to check this.

But this is not a buildable parcel.

It's not usable for anything other than sort of extending the green space.

And this is sort of a public green space that Mr.

Schnadel maintains um and that is is really beloved in um uh old Brooklyn.

And actually uh it looks like uh he purchased the lot on the far side um from the state of Ohio in 2006 for uh fair more than fair market value.

It looks like 20,000 to get that.

Okay.

All right, come uh Commissioner, is there any other you want any other have you want to make any other comments on this piece?

No, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, is there any questions from the committee?

Yeah, all the questions.

Councilman Casey.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Commissioner, who's been maintaining this parcel.

Um I don't know.

So the city hasn't been cutting it.

Well, it it's heavily wooded.

So uh in terms of maintenance, um, I I can't imagine that much has been required.

Mr.

Snadle, as I mentioned, has been a good steward of his own properties, the properties to the to the east.

Um his primary residence um abutts um West 10th place, and he purchased the property from apparently a relative back in 1990, and so he's been there for a very long time.

I can't speak specifically to the maintenance on this parcel, but I would assume that he's been kind of looking after it.

Okay.

And then does the city have um any type of standard for individuals who've been maintaining uh city-owned property?

Like in this case here, right?

This guy has probably been maintaining it for so the qu my question is why are we selling it to him?

Why don't we just give it to him?

He's been maintaining it for years.

The city isn't what's the city gonna do with the $500?

He's put more than $500 into maintenance of the property just probably by cutting it alone for the last since the Jennings Freeway has been has been you know there.

Why are why are we selling it to him?

Through the chair to Councilman Casey, um we we are constrained by our codified ordinances as well as state law that requires that the city can't give away taxpayer-owned assets um below fair market value.

So we did have to sell it to him at fair market value.

I understand your your concern.

Um and there are instances where people do maintain city property, but you know, technically um they're not really supposed to.

It's kind of I and and Mr.

Chairman to the commissioners, I understand that, right?

But let me give you an example, right?

If I had a lot next door to me that was city owned, right?

I'm gonna be able to maintain it better myself than the city would.

So I'm just gonna mow it because I don't feel like looking at the way that the city would maintain its vacant property.

And I do that for 10 years, 15 years, whatever.

And then one day I decide, well, geez, maybe I should just no one's ever going to do anything with this property.

No one's it's not buildable or whatever.

I want it, right?

I've been maintaining it.

Um then I put in for that, and then all of a sudden the city wants to charge me, you know, whatever 500 a thousand dollars for this piece of property that they've never maintained that I've maintained.

Isn't there something on the books that were people who maintain side lots or or parcels like this that we can't just say, you know, I mean if we're selling it if we didn't, if he didn't maintain it, the city would be spending a heck of a lot more money than $500.

Sometimes I think we just need to be good stewards, right?

And good neighbor we need to be good neighbors as well to to people who've been maintaining our property.

I understand through the chair um your concern, but I guess and it it makes sense what you're saying, but our preference would be if you've got property next door to you that's not being maintained by the city, the right thing to do is call the city, notify the city, the city, I think is usually pretty responsive.

Obviously, Commissioner, through the through the chairman, you've never lived next door to a vacant vacant lot.

They actually do, right?

And and the you know, in the city?

Yes.

Okay, yes.

Have you ever cut it?

I've never cut it, but um we've contacted the city, and the city has been very responsible.

Well, maybe it's because you're in the administration.

Well, I've not I've not been the one to call the city, let me be clear.

My neighbors um I just am aware of the.

And then my my last question is, Mr.

Chairman to the to the to the commissioner, suppose he didn't put in for this and he just built his garden on it.

Then what through the chair, um if your question is, can a private individual claim city owned property through like an adverse possession kind of action, the answer is no, um, because the city is immune from those sorts of legal actions.

Right.

So no, unfortunately, right?

But I mean, suppose he did.

What do we gonna throw them off it?

We're gonna tell them to remove his garden.

We're never gonna maintain the property.

I'm just I'm just trying to, I'm just I'm just trying to to come up with a reason that I mean this guy's been handling this property for probably years and years, and now he wants to do the right thing and make just make it part of his property.

And we're gonna say, okay, and and 500 bucks is cheap.

I mean, I've seen some other more expensive ones come through the through the pike.

Through the chair, you're you're correct.

Um councilman Casey, I I would say there's no hard and fast rule.

I'm I'm just suggesting that if an individual is interested in acquiring city property that they go through the right channels.

Because if you just kind of try to claim land, uh we are going to require that Mr.

Snadel consolidate, hire a surveyor and prepare a consolidation plat to consolidate all of his parcels.

Um if if you were to attempt to do that and you you kind of just took over the property and didn't go through the proper channels to have it titled to you, then you would not be able to consolidate it and eventually sell it.

So there's a there's a benefit to the owner um in going through this these proper channels that we have in place to transfer city property.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner.

All right, thank you, um, Councilman Casey.

Uh Commissioner, what Councilman Casey uh narrated happens in my ward all the time.

Um I'm sure it happens in other folks' ward all the time where folks take care of city property because the city is just inadequate um to their standards.

And I'm not saying this to everybody's standard, but to the to their standards.

They just want the property to take care of in a certain manner.

So anyway, what he's narrating happens in my ward all the time.

Champion Councilwoman Marr.

Thank you.

Um I'll just encourage everyone.

Um, if we were to move to a MOTA-owned model, I've been advocating for that for the last three years.

That would have to go through community development uh for their the the city land bank lots.

This this parcel is not in the city land bank um in the same way that most side yards or things that would be qualified for MOTA own is.

So I would just say there's uh other cities like Akron have achieved MOTA owned very easily.

It's something that I I think we should absolutely look at and um community development and the city land bank is where to go for that.

Mr.

Chairman.

And if I could just say that the distinction between land bank and non-land bank is important, um we have a project in Councilman Harsh's word where neighbors had put fencing on a city park and we were renovating that park, so we had to send letters to the homeowners to explain that their fence was on the city park and we had those fences removed um when the new fence was put up on the city park, push their their property, if you will, back to where their property line was.

And so that that's a real distinction to think about between land bank versus non-land bank parcels.

All right.

So land bank properties are because of tax foreclosures.

So when a property owner doesn't pay their taxes, or if there are other assessments on on the property that are not paid, then it goes through a foreclosure process, whereby if it's vacant land, then the city has the ability to take those into our land bank.

If there's a structure on it, then the city, while it has that ability, chooses not to take structures into our land bank.

So we have vacant land in our land bank all through the tax foreclosure process.

The county land bank typically takes uh parcels with structures on them.

Okay.

All right.

Is there any other questions on ordinance number?

Yes.

1073.

Councilman Harrison.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, to uh the commissioner and director, so this the state law that you that the administration typically recites of not being able to uh reduce the price of a a uh city parcel of land that we sell.

Um what is that state law?

Can you can you get that to us uh so that our our folks can review that?

Uh and and secondly, does the state law have a provision that allows for the city uh for whatever reason to uh take a reduced dollar amount uh that's below uh fair market value for a particular piece of property to the chair?

Uh through the chair too, Councilman Hairston, I do not have the revised code section with me, but we can provide that information to you.

I'm not aware of a provision that allows for a below fair market value transfer.

Um but there may be instances you know where that might be considered.

It really just um our rule is that surplus property belongs to the taxpayers.

Um we have a duty to sell that property at fair market value.

And that that's basically the rule.

Okay, so go ahead.

Um Mr.

Chairman and the Councilman, again, just to the distinction between land bank parcels and non-land bank, we really don't have that much surplus property that's not in the land bank.

Right.

There are some parcels, but but generally speaking, we have a public use on the non-land bank parcels.

There's a few, you know, this would be considered kind of a scrap that you know the homeowner, it's important to them, but it it it's sort of a you know, it's it is just an unused remnant.

So we don't have that many cases where we have these parcels to sell.

Sure.

Through the chairs to the to the uh director and commissioners.

What I'm hearing is that the state law says it, but then you all still have the you you you can you still like you just say there's some cases where you will uh a lot of property out the door under fair market value, correct?

Through the chair to Councilman Hairston, I am not aware of a specific instance where we've done that.

I'm just stating that there, you know, with property, I mean there it every property is unique.

Um and there may be a set of circumstances wherein you know the city it would be reasonable for the city to consider other factors in transferring property, but typically to the director's point, there's not a lot of surplus land that's not spoken for in terms of city-owned surplus land.

With the land bank, the rules are are separate.

So there I'm not sure I can't speak for the land bank.

I don't know if they still do the flat fee transfer or if parcels are appraised.

I don't know if it's it's possible that in a residential setting there might be a flat fee, there might be a less than fair market value transfer uh with commercial, probably not.

Um but that's that's really if you know I understand your concerns, but really um most of the extra, you know, um unused land is in the land bank.

So a different set of rules would apply.

No, I hear you.

So what I'm hearing is that there is uh there isn't the state law is recited, but that's but you can do things other than what the state law that you that you say is because if there are a set of circumstances that can be considered, that means there's some provision somewhere.

If the law says you cannot, you cannot, regardless of what the circumstances are, right?

So if there if there if there is if there's no it has to be one, a provision through the chair to the to the administration, a provision that allows you to consider other set of circumstances that would allow for property to be considered below the fair market value, right?

So then my question about what is there a provision or some sort of um something there that allows you to do that, it the fact that your response is that it says that two things.

Either it has to be some sort of provision that allows you to review other set of circumstances to allow for property to be uh uh so at a lower value than a market market rate value, or that there is the the state law says that this the city municipality can either follow our law or that they can develop their own policy uh set forth uh that is that is not conflict uh uh this the state law.

And so my my thought is it so that must be either one of the two things.

Uh so there's a policy that the city through the chair to the team, I'm almost done.

Uh through the team that um that that the minute that your department or division of real estate has created uh written policy that's that that says that you all can consider certain circumstances, or does that the prerogative of the commissioner or director or or the mayor to make those decisions to the chair?

Through the chair to Councilman Harrison.

Um so s let me give you an example.

Sometimes we will transfer property for a dollar to Metro Parks, for example.

It's a dollar and other valuable consideration.

In that instance, Metro Parks is taking over uh property and they're maintaining it.

So that that's the set of circumstances that I'm alluding to.

Providing something to the residents.

Right, providing a value to the other valuable consideration to the city that kind of accounts for that makes up the fair market value.

So it hopefully that example clarifies.

So yeah, to the to the chair, and I won't I won't belabor this point, but so the does the state law says that that you know other valuable considerations can be taken in consideration?

I don't have any revised code provision in front of me, but we'll why not um let's let's look at it and we'll I guess I'm just looking forward to director to show show show us, show the council in writing everything that you just gave us, where that applies, whether it's through state law, whether it's to an internal policy that the administration has has created, or where that exists so that way when you give us the answer, right?

Just like if we give you an answer and you say, okay, well, show us where that where that exists, right?

Uh just just wanted to have that uh show whether it exists because I know in I don't I don't deal directly with your land a lot just in in my chairmanship, but we do we deal directly with the land bank per se.

That there is the land bank if if you are developing affordable housing, right?

If it's not market rate or if it's some sort of lavish development, that the department will uh will reduce the price of the land, right, to either little or nothing because of the type of project or development that you are building on the uh the the uh the site.

Uh for example, we've had uh there's been several projects that we've we've been a part of, uh not only in War 10, but outside of War 10 that there have been uh truly deep um affordable units that are developed or or uh affordable projects that are happening in the in the in the lots have been transferred to little or nothing, right?

And you know, I know that that is I know how that operates, but this other land that we have here in the city, you know, what's the what policy are you following?

Is it is it a prerogative of the department, is it state law, is it eternal policy, what so we can go back to that.

You can you can get all that information together for us and have that over to us so we can uh we can have that.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair, for the time.

Um Mr.

Chairman, happy to provide that information.

Um we do have codified ordinances that direct us.

We do have a written policy that that may have been updated, um, but I know that that it goes back, you know, 12-13 years, a written policy of how how we proceed with our real estate transactions because for us, we understand that to the public it's a little bit confusing that we have different rules than land bank.

So we found it to be um essential to have written policy that we could send everybody so that they knew that we were treating them the same as anybody else in in our world versus people that call to say, hey, but I could get a land bank side lot for two hundred dollars, why can't I get this for two hundred dollars?

Well, so we we have um written uh policy that's based upon uh the codified ordinances.

So we we have written uh policy that's based upon uh the codified ordinances and um and and just to go to commissioner's comment about the metro parks, the difference there is that that's a true public benefit to the to the all of the public.

Um so if they're putting in a trail or if they're using that land for a public park versus um say this particular resident who might say, well, hey, I have this flower garden and it's it's available to all my res all the neighbors.

That's a different, you know.

Exactly.

They come in smoking flow my flowers.

That's just a different uh animal and it's it's really not the same as when there's a big public purpose.

So do the chair had to say um not that he asked for that, but I'm just gonna go.

No, no, you can just no, you know, because this is a conversation we as you see we all typically have.

And you know, amongst all the other things that we've had to deal with over the the years, this is just one we have not been able to dig into.

And so thought we would since it came up, we would ask these questions, right?

And so it seems like you know, once you get that information, this body will have a decision whether they want to amend the codified ordinances or or or or issue or or draft ordinances or resolutions that direct administration as a you would as a signal as a policy directive, right?

Uh then that's what they would need to do.

So I'll wait for that information.

Well, we'll wait for that and uh you may get it over to Mr.

Titra, and then we all and the chairman then we can review that.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you, Councilman Harrison.

Uh you bring up a lot of good points.

Um thank you for your leadership and your um insight.

Uh is there any other questions on ordinance number 1073?

Councilman Bryan can't just one question, Mr.

Chairman.

Commissioner.

Um other valued consideration.

Who sets that standard?

Through the chair.

Um that's an interesting question.

So other valuable consideration is kind of a standard real estate term.

Um you'll you'll often see in a deed a reference to that.

Um I don't have an answer for you.

I again, I think it would be something that would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Okay.

But it's is that something that Mr.

Chairman of the Commissioner is that something the administration considers?

Is it something that's in state law?

Is it something that somebody's just sitting around going, yes, this could be considered value or this isn't considered value?

Through the chair, we have the administration has considered that.

I'll give you another example.

Um we lease land to Playhouse Square, and we actually made a checklist of everything that they are doing to maintain this land for the benefit of the public.

So we looked at that the sum of those parts and and asked ourselves, is this valuable other valuable consideration?

And the answer was yes in that instance.

And through the chairman of the councilman, not just maintain it, but they actually constructed the improvements that were in it at their cost.

Yeah, I was just gonna do that.

Um and then I would just say that you know, based upon the codifieds, we look at um our responsibility division of real estate is to um sell property at fair market value.

Community development has the um you know the charge to support supportive housing.

So if somebody wants to build supportive housing on a piece of land that the general fund owns, our role is to sell it at fair market value, their role is to provide a subsidy through their um programs.

The same with Department of Economic Development.

Our role is to sell at fair market value, their role is to provide a subsidy um that could be used for that trail market value.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, thank you, Councilman Casey.

Is there any other questions on ordinance number 1073?

All right, seeing no further questions, ordinance 1073 2025 is approved.

Please sign it.

Thank you.

All right, is there any other miscellaneous?

All right, seeing no further questions, I hereby adjourn the municipal services and properties committee to the next caller to the chair.