Council OKs $12.4 million city budget
Grandview Heights City Council approved a $12.4 million budget for 2013 during its Dec. 3 meeting.
The final approved budget was $607,500 higher than the original budget package Mayor Ray DeGraw presented last month to council.
The budget ordinance was amended to include the transfer into the general fund of the $250,000 in revenues from the levy voters approved in November that will be earmarked for street improvements. The $250,000 also was added to the appropriations listed in the budget under the street maintenance and repair fund.
The grand total of transfers to the general fund appropriations also was revised to include $57,000 coming from the additional inside millage the city will receive.
The general fund transfers were revised to include the payment the city will make to a trustee as part of the Grandview Yard development agreement.
Also at last week's meeting, an ordinance to rezone the Style-Line property at 901 W. Third Ave. died after a motion for approval was not seconded.
The ordinance would have rezoned the property from Light Industrial District (M-1) to Grandview Commerce Mixed Use District (GCMXD), the same zoning classification as the surrounding Grandview Yard development.
The Propheter family, which owns the property, had requested council reintroduce and approve the legislation to give them more flexibility to redevelop or sell the site.
The ordinance was tabled in June after a plan to sell the property to a developer interested in creating a mixed-use project at the site fell through.
The legislation was discussed prior to the council meeting during a joint meeting of the planning and administration and economic development committees.
"The reason we are having these joint (committee) meetings is to figure out how to help the landowners and other landowners figure out how to move projects forward," said council member P'Elizabeth Koelker, who heads the planning and administration committee.
"We're not killing the idea; we're straightening out the process," Koelker said.
It is not appropriate to approve the current legislation because it was recommended and sent to council by the planning commission for a project that is no longer being proposed, she said.
"I don't think it applies" anymore, Koelker said. "My preference would be to start over ... but I don't want the landowners to think we're not interested in helping them figure out what they might be able to do."
City Attorney Joelle Khouzam clarified that when the property owners requested council remove the ordinance from the table and vote on it, the expectation was a new project proposal was forthcoming.
"It was never the intent that it be acted on in this particular manner," since the original project is no longer "the actual project," she said.