Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rockside Road Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Valley View council authorizes steps for Rockside Road utility extension tied to Pete and Pete development
Summary
At a Nov. 12 special meeting, Valley View council authorized the mayor and village engineer to proceed with planning a utility extension to serve a proposed Pete and Pete development on Rockside Road, directed engagement of bond counsel and financial advisers, and heard preliminary cost and risk estimates.
Get email alerts on the Rockside Road Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a Nov. 12, 2024 special meeting, the Village of Valley View council voted 5–0 to authorize the mayor and village engineer to proceed with planning a utility extension to serve a proposed Pete and Pete development along Rockside Road.
Law Director Dave Lambros told council the parcels include roughly 176 acres on one side of Rockside Road and 117 acres on the other, and described the combined area as "the largest piece of property left in Cuyahoga County to develop." Engineer Sciano said any developer would need utilities to start construction and that the village would accept the new infrastructure as public utilities once built. "This property is our largest opportunity to secure a large tax base for the future of the village," Sciano said during his presentation.
Pete Ristagno, representing Pete and Pete, told the council he is willing to develop the property and to assume debt for the utility extension with the village's assistance. Bond counsel Todd Hutt of Roetzel & Andress outlined the steps for a development assessment and bond issuance: the engineer must produce detailed cost estimates; the developer must submit a petition; council must enact legislation reflecting the assessments; a financial adviser must analyze bond issuance options; and counsel will complete legal work to issue bonds.
Hutt said assessments would be placed on the tax duplicate for 20 years and "are treated as real estate taxes" paid every six months; he noted the primary risk to the village is nonpayment, in which case foreclosure on the property would be the remedy. Council members asked procedural questions about who signs the petition and how assessments are collected; Hutt said the owner signs and the village's legal framework treats unpaid assessments similarly to unpaid taxes.
Engineer Sciano provided preliminary cost guidance: the developer was "comfortable" with a $5 million to $6 million total range and gave a construction cost estimate of about $5.2 million; those figures will be refined as the engineer and bond counsel complete detailed estimates. Law Director Lambros said the village would also pursue tax‑incentive or investment groups to offset soft costs such as engineering and legal fees.
The motion authorizing the mayor and engineer to proceed was moved by Councilperson Wilson, seconded by Councilperson Spieth, and passed by roll call, AYE: 5 / NAY: 0. Council directed staff to engage bond counsel and advance cost estimates and legislative drafts for future council consideration.
Next steps recorded in the meeting: the village will refine engineer cost estimates, the developer will draft the petition and proposed assessments, a financial adviser will prepare bond issuance analysis, and Roetzel & Andress will be engaged to prepare legal documentation for potential bond issuance. No formal assessment or bond authorization was adopted at this meeting.
