Happy New Year!

I don't know about you, but I am more than ready to say goodbye to 2009.

Let's hope 2010 brings a return to economic vitality, plentiful jobs, and a well managed city administration.

Upcoming events

The new council get sworn in on January 5, 2010.

I haven't seen the agenda for that meeting yet, but I know that a number of city administrative and paid city committee positions are up for appointment/reappointment.

The buck stops with Mayor Coleman with regard to the appointments, as council's role is limited to giving either a thumbs up or thumbs down on the candidates that the mayor selects.

It will be interesting to see which individuals Mayor Coleman gives his personal stamp of approval to, by including them on his appointment/reappointment list.

end

The Last Hurrah: Dec. 15th Committee of the Whole Meeting

Forget Noah. Let’s Fix The Problem

Council devoted most of the Dec. 15th meeting discussing Highland Road sanitary sewer backup/flooding problems with two engineers from the Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer’s Office (CCSEO).

Apparently residents along Highland Road, between Pinehurst and Bishop Roads, are being impacted by excess storm water, which has been infiltrating the upstream sanitary sewer line, causing their downstream basements to flood.

After conducting extensive testing (council was shown cool video of that testing, taken from inside the sewer line), CCSEO engineers determined that a major cause of the problem is deteriorating clay lateral piping coming from houses on Jefferson Drive. Apparently water has been leaking from those lateral pipes into the underground trench that holds both the storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines, and that water has been getting into the sanitary sewer line, causing the flooding farther down the line.

The good news is that Highland Heights homeowners pay fees, as part of their taxes, which are set aside by the county for purposes of maintaining the sanitary sewer lines in our city. So some of the necessary repair work, at least, will be paid for by the county.

In fact, the CCSEO engineers are pursuing a plan to pick up the entire projected $ 700,000 cost to reline not just the county-owned portion of the Jefferson Drive lateral piping, but also the portion that homeowners are legally responsible for as well—to make sure that the entire problem is corrected. (The engineers said that they believe the extra cost of relining the homeowners’ portion of the piping would be minimal, if it is done as part of their repair job). So excellent news for Jefferson Drive homeowners---they may have a hole dug in their lawns (the county has the right to do that, to access the sewer line), but in exchange the county may reline the private portion of the lateral piping for them.

This project (which has been ably spearheaded by Councilwoman Cathy Murphy and the other members of council’s Drainage Committee) is still in the early stages, but homeowners can expect to hear more about it in early 2010. A public meeting will be held to answer questions and provide residents with additional information.

While there will be some mess and inconvenience involved, it sounded to me like both a necessary and worthwhile project—one which I am sure the impacted Highland Road residents feel is long overdue.

How About You Tell Us the Whole Story?

In the latest edition of the Highland Heights newsletter, both Mayor Coleman and Councilman Frank Legan beat the drum for spending (a very significant amount of) taxpayer money to fix up the old church building on the city hall property. This unified drum-beating certainly confirms Coleman’s and Legan’s very public, post-election alliance. I expect to see more marching-in-step by the two of them in 2010.

The mayor’s comments, in particular, caught my attention.

Last August, Mayor Coleman was quoted in the Sun Messenger saying,

"I have a feeling it (the church building) will likely be torn down…I am very happy that we have it, if we keep it standing, or decide to use the property for something else.”

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_council_consi.html

It appears the mayor is now singing a slightly different tune.

In the December newsletter he declares that he is:

“pleased to report…that the (old church) building is structurally sound” and
that he is “reluctant to tear the building down until we exhaust all ideas for
potential uses of the structure.”

While Mayor Coleman admits that the building needs “new roofing, new heating and cooling systems and many cosmetic enhancements to the interior,” he doesn’t mention other items such as the probable asbestos tile, the obsolete septic and electrical systems, the substandard doors, windows and insulation, or the mold infestation (the roof was leaking even before the city bought the building in 2008).

Do you suppose the mayor considers safe electrical systems, properly connected toilets, and mold and asbestos abatement to be mere “cosmetic enhancements”? Hmmm.

In the newsletter, Councilman Legan and Mayor Coleman have encouraged speculation in a vacuum---they have asked residents to come up with ideas for using the building, while neglecting to disclose one very pertinent piece of information---the 2008 structural engineer’s report on the building, which includes cost estimates for repairing the building to make it useable again.

While Mayor Coleman and Councilman Legan state in the newsletter that they have arranged to have pictures of the old church building posted on the city’s website for residents to view, they apparently did not make any attempt to post the 2008 structural engineer’s report---which would provide good perspective for residents when viewing those pictures.

Why withhold the report? Well, possibly because it might have a negative impact on residents’ enthusiasm for renovating the building. According to the engineer’s report, it would cost more than $ 773,000 (in 2008 dollars) just to make the building usable again—a figure that does not include reconfiguring any of the existing rooms or space for non-church use.

It is very disappointing to see Mayor Coleman and Councilmen Legan attempting to whip up residents’ enthusiasm for renovating the church building without disclosing or discussing the price tag involved.

It reminds me of the last time I went car shopping. The salesman spent all his time talking about exterior colors and fancy wheels—hoping I’d fall in love with a car before discussing how much it was actually going to cost me.

I didn’t fall for that sales tactic then, and I can only hope that residents don’t fall for it now.

My Oct 2nd blog (in the archives) provides specific details from the structural engineer’s report on the old church building---including the project cost of renovating versus razing the building. Check it out.

Swan Song

As the Committee of the Whole was wrapping up, soon-to-be former Councilman Ted Anderson returned to his pet project one last time: the proposed $ 300,000 old pool house renovation project.

Anderson stated that the project was the “Park & Recreation Committee’s # 1 priority for 2010 and that renovating that building was “definitely something that we need for our park. He also asked the next council to “allocate a couple of $ 100,000 so the project can happen.”

The way he said it, it sounded like he thought $ 300,000 was just some spare change the city had lying around.

While he talked up the pool house renovation project, Anderson studiously avoided mentioning the one thing that he knows will cost the city far more than spare change to fix next year: the worsening leak at the city pool.

I have to say this about Anderson, he was persistent and consistent to the end.

end

More on the Recreation Department’s Financial Woes

Qualifications, Anyone?

In Highland Heights, the mayor is pretty much given free rein in choosing city administrators. In fact, the city Charter and ordinances do not impose any specific licensing or credentialing requirements for several positions, including the Finance Director, the Service Director, the Acting Building Commissioner or the Recreation Director.

Similarly, the city does not have an anti-nepotism policy, which bars related individuals from being appointed to city administrative positions. The reason businesses have such policies is because of the inherent conflicts of interest and conflicts of loyalty that can arise when related individuals work for the same employer.

The nepotism issue was an unspoken elephant in the room during last night’s Legislative & Finance Committee meeting.

At that meeting, Finance Director Tony Ianiro was faced with the difficult task of explaining the significant deficit-spending engaged in by his brother, Dave Ianiro, the city’s Recreation Director, this year.

As I have previously reported, the recreation department is the only city department that has its own exclusive source of funding (it receives 1 mil of the property taxes paid by residents each year). It also keeps, as revenue, the fees paid for pool passes, swim lessons, and other city recreation programs. According to a recent financial report, the rec dept. took in $ 615,000 in revenue this year, but it had $ 733, 513 in expenditures (including about $ 20,000 in carryover encumbrances from 2008).

Prior to this year, no city Recreation Director had ever submitted a budget that anticipated deficit-spending by the city’s rec. dept. Recreation Director Dave Ianiro broke that record; he submitted the city's first deficit-spending rec dept budget in 2009.

At the Legislative & Finance Committee meeting, Finance Director Tony Ianiro had to explain why he was asking council to allow him to adjust the rec dept’s budget, to reflect additional deficit-spending (beyond the budgeted amount) by his brother, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro.

The Finance Director sounded quite defensive at times during the meeting, and he certainly tried to put a good face on things on his brother’s behalf (the baseball program was “wildly successful” he declared, even though the 2009 revenue projections for that program were not met).

At the same time, while wearing his Finance Director hat, Tony Ianiro acknowledged that council had good grounds to be concerned over the rec dept’s financial performance this year.

Meanwhile, the person at issue, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro, was nowhere to be seen. As occurred during the budgeting process last spring, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro appeared content to let his brother, Finance Director Tony Ianiro, do the talking for him.

Here are some highlights from the meeting:

1. Finance Director Tony Ianiro emphasized that although the rec dept overspent its revenue by over $ 98,000 this year, general funds were not used to cover the deficit. Instead, the deficit-spending was covered by drawing down the rec dept’s (emergency) reserve fund.

That was a big hit to the reserve fund. As currently projected (and if it is lucky), the rec dept may end the year with $ 146,00 in its emergency reserve fund rather than the $244,000 it would have had if no deficit spending had occurred. Another year of similar deficit-spending will deplete the reserve fund—a fund that is needed to cover things like emergency pool repairs (the rec. dept is already on notice already that the pool may need potentially expensive repairs in 2010 to address an ongoing leak that recaulking and repainting failed to fix this year).

Unless the rec. dept. changes its way of operating, the reserve fund (built up over many years by prior Recreation Directors) will be depleted by 2011---which will leave taxpayers (through the general fund) picking up the tab for current Recreation Director Dave Ianiro’s deficit-spending.

So while the rec dept may have dodged a bullet this year, by dipping into its reserve fund, it won’t be able to do that much longer.

2. Finance Director Tony Ianiro reported that the city’s---and the rec. dept’s---property tax revenues are likely to decrease by 8 % next year, due to the downward property reappraisals adopted by the county auditor’s office this year.

Conservatively, that could mean at least a $ 28,000 drop in revenue for the rec dept. next year--- a new additional financial reality that the rec. dept. will have to face when coming up with its 2010 budget.

3. Finance Director Tony Ianiro highlighted a couple of the major contributors to the rec dept’s deficit-spending. These are by no means comprehensive.

-- The 8 week summer camp program operated at a $ 27,500 loss. This program has been a significant money-loser for the rec. dept. over the last several years, but the rec. dept has not taken any steps to address those financial losses. Instead, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro (along with Councilman Ted Anderson and the Park & Rec Committee) have asked the city to spend $ 300,000 in taxpayer money to renovate the old pool house for use by the money-losing camp program.

- -Recreation Director Dave Ianiro hired 15 additional pool employees (beyond the 2008 staffing level)---costing $ 28,689.55 --even though the Recreation Director had not included money in his budget for those additional hires (and even though the cold weather last summer significantly cut down on pool attendance). That piece of information came as a real shock to council members.

Councilman Leo Lombardo asked at the Committee of the Whole meeting, “How could the Recreation Director hire more employees when he was blowing his budget by 20 % ?”. He and other council members wanted to know who was aware of the extra hiring and/or who authorized it.

Mayor Coleman (who appointed Recreation Director Dave Ianiro and is his boss) did not directly answer Councilman Lombardo's question. Instead he stated that, “the hiring of employees is directly related to the number of participants in programs.” ---a statement that makes sense in the abstract, but not in reality.

In fact, they don’t station more lifeguards around the pool just because 20 more kids are swimming (the lifeguard chairs are fixed in place around the pool, which determines the number of guards on duty during each shift). Plus, the revenue figures don’t show a significant increase in pool-related participation for 2009.

Since Recreation Director Dave Ianiro did not attend the Committee of the Whole meeting either, the circumstances surrounding his decision to hire those 15 additional, unbudgeted-for pool employees remains a mystery.

--Finance Director Tony Ianiro mentioned, without explanation, that the rec. dept. spent $ 4,820 more in umpire fees than the budgeted amount. The city spent more than $ 16,000 on umpires for the 2009 baseball program.

What were Council members’ comments about Recreation Director Dave Ianiro’s financial performance this year?

• “The rec dept went 18 % over its (already deficit-spending) budget.”
• “The rec. dept. is out of control. All of the (city’s) other departments did a good job of staying within their budgets. This is out of sight."
• “Park & Rec went $ 98,000 over their budget. It stood out like mad.”
• “We have to look at tighter controls.”
• “The rec. dept. met its revenue projections. A decrease in revenue does not explain their deficit spending.”
• “We have got to have some accountability here.”

I say "amen" to that.

The person tasked with straightening out this financial mess is, of course, Mayor Coleman because:

• The Recreation Director is the mayor’s appointee.
  
• Recreation Director Dave Ianiro rep reports to Mayor Coleman (and not council) .
  
• Mayor Coleman is ultimately responsible for the rec dept's portion of the budget because he submits it as part of his own budget for the city.
  
• Mayor Coleman prides himself on being a financial guy, and he's been in office for 6 years, so he should be able to mentor the Recreation Director and the rec. dept through this financial challenge.

Mayor Coleman was very quiet during council's discussion of the recreation department's deficit-spending and financial situation. Let's hope he was paying close attention and taking good notes.

end

Point-Counterpoint

Upcoming Events

• Senior Citizens’ Holiday Party. Tuesday, Dec. 8th. HHts. Community Center. 12:30-3:30 pm.
• H1N1 Flu Shots. Fire Chief Turner announced that an HINI flu shot clinic is being planned for early December. Details TBA.
• Rain Barrel Clinic. Service Director Thom Evans reported that the Cuyahoga County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Friends of Euclid Creek will be co-sponsoring a Rain Barrel Clinic on Feb. 23rd at the HHts. Community Center. Rain barrels can be attached to residential gutter systems, to catch run-off from roofs. The collected water can then be used to water lawns, gardens, etc.

Heads Up—New Fees Assessed

Service Director Thom Evans also reported that the N.E. Ohio Regional Sewer District is planning to assess additional monthly fees on all residential and commercial property owners to cover the cost of a new regional storm water management program. Owners of smaller homes will have to pay about $ 50 additional each year.

Heads Up---Neighborhoods with Water Detention/Retention Basins

Last night, the Council Drainage Committee discussed a report that detailed the condition of the many water detention/retention basins scattered throughout the city. Committee chair, Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, stated that she hoped to use the report to develop appropriate maintenance standards for the basins.

Several challenges exist with regard to that plan. First, the basins are not uniform in design or construction (some are even underground). Second, the identity of the individuals or entities who own and/or are responsible for some of the basins (such as the one next to Hawthorne Drive) is unclear. Still, the report is a place to start, to insure the proper functioning of the city's storm water management system.

Red Flags Abound

It is Mayor Coleman's responsibility to keep council informed about city business and upcoming agenda items prior to council meetings. In fact, council members receive “packets’ of information from the mayor every Friday.

I get very suspicious when important information is withheld and/or not provided to council members in a timely manner and is, instead, delivered to them as a meeting begins.

Such was the case last night.

There were 3 different financial resolutions listed on the Nov. 24th agenda, for action by council. Council, apparently, did not receive any information, prior to the council meeting, about any of them. Red Flag.

The resolutions asked council to approve appropriations of money: 1) to tide the city over between January 1st until the 2010 budget is passed; to transfer money from the general tax fund to the city’s capital improvement fund; and 3) to cover additional, unbudgeted expenses for 2009---i.e., to cover overspending by the administration during this past year.

Finance Director Tony Ianiro distributed information pertaining to the third resolution only (the one pertaining to 2009 overspending) just before the council meeting began. He did not provide council with any information about the other two items that were listed on the agenda for council action.

Call me paranoid, but I always think that the withholding of information until just prior to a council meeting does not bode well. Such behavior makes me wonder whether the administration is trying to slip something by council or is trying to minimize bad news by preventing council members from having enough time to see, digest and analyze pertinent information before making a decision or voting on an agenda item.

Either could have been the case last night. Council President Scott Mills allowed for a first reading of all three resolutions (rather than calling for an immediate vote) and then immediately referred them to the Legislative & Finance Committee for review---which will slow down the process and bring about full and appropriate discussion between council and the administration before any final action is taken on them.

This morning, I asked Finance Director Ianiro for a copy of the information sheet that he passed out at last night’s council meeting and for some other financial information as well. He promptly complied with my request. Thank you, Mr. Ianiro.

It appears the administration overspent its budget by over $ 92,000. That may look like a drop in the bucket compared to the city’s $ 17 million+ budget, but it is worth a good discussion nonetheless----particularly as almost half of the deficit spending is attributable to the city’s increasingly problematic recreation department.

Point—Counterpoint (From Last Night’s Council Meeting)

• Point. Current projections are that the city will spend spend a total of $17,178,848 in 2009.
• Counterpoint. Highland Heights has approximately 8,800 residents. That means the city spent $ 1,952.14 per resident in 2009. I'll have to do some more research to find out how that compares with other cities' spending.
  
• Point. The city overspent its budget (across the board) by $92,475, or .054 % of its entire budget.
• Counterpoint. The original budget projection was that the city would spend all but $283,000 of its 2009 revenue. That figure now is smaller, due to the $92,475 in over-spending. The final figure could be even smaller if (as it likely) the budget’s revenue projections were inflated.
  
• Point. Finance Director Tony Ianiro is asking council to approve an additional transfer of $ 41,675 from the general fund to cover expenditures by the city’s recreation department.
• Counterpoint. The recreation department already received an infusion of additional taxpayer money in the beginning of the year (in addition to the automatic 1 mil that they get from property taxes), so this transfer is in addition to that. Significantly, this is the first year—ever---that the Recreation Department projected in its budget that it would spend more than it took in as revenue.
  
  The current actual year-to-date numbers show the true extent of the Recreation Department's deficit spending.
  
  According to detail reports provided by the city’s finance director, the city Recreation Department had $ 615,000 in revenue in 2009 but spent $ 733,512—that’s a difference of $ 118,512 (or approximately 19 % of its income). That's how much it actually deficit-spent this year.
  
• Point. Councilman Ted Anderson announced last night that he again wanted to discuss his pet project, the proposed $ 300,000+ old pool renovation project, during the Dec. 15th Council Meeting. That meeting is Mr. Anderson’s last meeting as a councilmember, and it is also the last council meeting for 2009.
  
• Counterpoint One. Although he was anxious to continue his attempt to steamroll over the old pool house renovation project, Councilman Anderson was reluctant to discuss a more urgent financial matter pertaining to the park.
  
  When giving his report about the Park & Recreation Commission’s November meeting, Councilman Anderson entirely neglected to mention one very significant (and potentially very costly) item: the city’s swimming pool is leaking and has been leaking for quite some time.
  
  It was only after the subject was brought up by several sharp-eyed council members (who took the time to actually read the cryptic minutes from that meeting) that Mr. Anderson acknowledged that the problem existed---and then he immediately (but unsuccessfully) attempted to downplay its significance.
  
  Apparently the city’s swimming pool has been leaking since 2008, the leak got worse in 2009, efforts to stop the leak (by re-caulking and re-painting the pool this year) have failed, a significantly large sum of capital improvement money may need to be spent in 2010 to get the leak fixed (tearing up the part of the pool itself may be required), and council probably won't know the true cost of that repair until spring.
  
• Counterpoint Two. As readers of this blog are aware, Councilman Ted Anderson has regularly and uniformly pointed to the city’s 8 week summer day camp program as the justification for spending $ 300,000+ to renovate the old pool house building.
  
  The stats about that program are in. According to Finance Director Tony Ianiro, 108 families/households paid to have children participate in at least one week of the 8 week camp program this year. (I had previously heard that 1/3 of those households were nonresidents, so that means that we are talking about maybe 80 HHts family who participated in that program in 2009).
  
  According to the 2009 financial numbers, the camp program was a significant money loser for the city. $ 89,282.00 was spent on the camp, but only $ 61,475.50 in fees were collected. That’s a $ 27,806 deficit. That is not a new trend. The 8 week summer day camp has experienced similar financial losses over the last few years.
  

I have to admit that I have yet to fully understand why Councilman Ted Anderson thinks that it makes good sense to spend a huge amount of additional taxpayer money to renovate a building for a summer camp program that not only loses a lot of money every year, but also is a significant contributor to the recreation department’s overall deficit-spending.

The Bottom Line

1. There is only so much money to go around.
   
2. I wonder about the priorities of Councilman Anderson, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro and the Parks & Recreation Committee. Why is renovating the old pool house their top priority, when the park presents other, more pressing safety and/or repair issues? And why would they keep pursing the old pool house renovation project now that they know that the city is likely facing a big repair bill for the pool? Isn't getting the pool fixed more important?
   
3. I wonder whether residents and council shouldn’t expect Recreation Director Dave Ianiro to get his own (financial) house in order before entertaining any more requests for additional investments of taxpayer money for the programs and facilities that he oversees.
   
4. I also wonder: does Recreation Director Dave Ianiro really not understand that he will be a lot more credible, in asking for money, if he first shows that he can wisely spend the approximately $ 615,000 in revenue that the recreation department already receives---and does he not realize that he has yet to make that showing?

The discussion on December 15th should be interesting. I'm looking forward to being there. As always, I promise to keep you posted.

End.

Deja Vue & About Face

Deja Vue

This morning’s Plain Dealer had a story describing the condition of downtown’s Public Auditorium---conditions which have led the proposed Medical Mart developer to abandon plans to use that facility.

At first glance, I thought I was reading the report on the old church building that sits on the city hall property.

It turns out that both buildings have many of the same significant problems—problems that are a barrier to cost-effective renovation---including water leakage and outdated electrical and heating systems.

But according to a 2008 structural engineer’s report, the old church building is in even worse shape than Public Auditorium because it:

• has an unusable septic system and is not connected to the sanitary sewer system;
• is riddled with mold due to years of leaking roofs;
• most likely contains asbestos tile;
• has minimal insulation and substandard doors and windows that have to be replaced;
• lacks air conditioning; and
• has non-operational, substandard and/or non-repairable plumbing, electrical and heating systems

My October 2nd blog contains a detailed discussion of the structural engineer’s report and his cost estimates (based on 2008 dollars) for razing vs. renovating the building.

It is hard to read the engineer's report and not conclude that the tipping point has passed, as far as renovating the old church building.

The issue that council must decide is whether to spend a minimum of $ 775,000 in public tax dollars to restore a decrepit and substandard building—a building that the city has no current use for and which was purchased for a now-obsolete purpose (so Bass Energy could drill a gas well on city hall property).

Council's vote on the old church building will be very revealing. Residents will be able to see for themselves which council reps are practical, fiscally conservative decisionmakers and which ones are big spenders, who treat tax money like monopoly dollars.

About Face!

It was an unusually lively Committee of the Whole meeting last night---and an amusing one, as far as the about-faces pulled by Councilman Ted Anderson and Councilman Frank Legan.

Suffice it to say that I now have two names on my list, for the next time Old Navy has its annual sale on flip flops.

Councilman Anderson

In attempting to lessen the cost of his pet $ 300,000+ old pool house renovation project, Councilman Anderson has, in the past, suggested that some of the additional work resulting from the proposed construction plan--including the need to provide new electrical service for use during Home Days--should be dropped. At the Sept. 1st Committee of the Whole meeting he went so far as to say, “You take away Home Days and it all disappears.”

My, how things have changed.

Two months ago Councilman Anderson was willing to get rid of Home Days to save money on the old pool house renovation project. Last night, however, he was suddenly all about Home Days.

Although I have rarely seen him initiate ideas during council meetings, Councilman Anderson quite actively put forth several different suggestions for improving the Home Days festivities.

Flip flop

Was Councilman Anderson merely angling to stay in the public eye after he loses his council seat in January? I can’t say for sure, but regardless, Mayor Coleman promptly appointed him to a spot on the Home Days committee.

(Post-script: Anderson is quoted in the Nov. 26th edition of the Sun Messenger as saying, "I will be back running (for council) in two years..." so I guess that explains his sudden burst of interest in Home Days-- and Mayor Coleman's quick action in appointing Anderson to the Home Days committee.

In the same story Ted Anderson also---quite amusingly---blames party politics for getting in the way of his reelection on November 3rd. That makes me wonder. Do you suppose Ted he didn't realize that the election was, like, a political election (maybe because last time he simply walked into the Ward 4 council chair)? And do you suppose Anderson realized the irony of his statement---given that he himself included, in the only piece of campaign literature that he distributed, an endorsement from a locally prominent Republican party member?

Well, after attending council meetings for two years, all I can say is that with Ted Anderson, what you see (and hear) is what you get. )

Councilman Legan

There was discussion last night about both the Catalano’s property (it is still in litigation about the Marc’s lease) and the vacant Ron’s Shell gas station property (at the corner of Wilson Mills and Bishop).

In the past, several council members (including Councilmen Legan, Anderson, and Pilla) spoke on behalf of the current owner of the gas station property, who hoped to cash in on his speculative investment by getting approval to use the property for a drive-through food business.

The sticking point for that plan was that such businesses are not currently allowed in Highland Heights (under our zoning laws) and a traffic study indicated that it would not be advisable to put a drive-through business on that lot in any case.

Last July, during the July 7th Committee of the Whole meeting, Councilwoman Murphy suggested that members of the city’s economic development committee should sit down with both the gas station property owner and the owner of the adjoining little business strip, to see whether a deal could be brokered, allowing the strip business owner to buy the property.

According to my notes from the July 7th meeting, Councilman Legan was totally dismissive of Councilwoman Murphy’s idea. In fact, he went so far as to declare that it would be “antagonistic” to have the economic development committee get involved and that following such a course would “antagonize” the owner of the gas station property.

What a difference a few months make.

The discussion last night again turned to the gas station property. As before, council seemed to recognize (although perhaps the owner does not) that the gas station property has very limited commercial marketability, given its small size and location, and that a good solution might be to have one of the adjoining commercial business owners buy the lot to add to their properties.

Councilman Anderson, who favors having the city buy the gas station property (although with what money, he didn't say), asserted that the business strip owner was not interested in purchasing the property.

Councilwoman Murphy reported to council that she had talked to the business strip owner several times and that she was interested in buying the gas station property, but not for the purported $ 450,000 asking price demanded by the property's owner.

Councilwoman Murphy again brought up her idea of having the city’s economic development committee sit down with both property owners, to see if a deal could be worked out.

Now here's the amusing part.

When Councilwoman Murphy mentioned that this approach had previously been dismissed as “antagonistic”, Councilman Legan quickly replied, “Absolutely not.” He was now all for the idea.

Flip flop

To his credit, Councilman Legan and the rest of council now seem to be on board with having the economic development committee take a more proactive approach towards finding zoning-compliant solutions to economic development challenges in the city.

Councilwoman Murphy's suggestion was a sensible one. It's great that Councilman Legan has flipped positions and finally come to realize that.

end

Councilman Legan: Spending $$ on City Services: Aerobics? Yes. Garbage Collection? No.

In my Oct. 8th blog, I discussed the offer by Team Energetics, a privately owned fitness facility, to provide free and/or discounted memberships to Highland Heights residents in exchange for an initial public subsidy of $ 32,400 per year. I also provided details of the proposed contract, which had no termination date and which contained (to my reading) some very problematic terms and conditions.

As reported by the Sun Messenger, only Councilman Frank Legan expressed any interest in Team Energetic's proposal. He was quoted as saying:

"I'm open to continuing the dialogue on both sides. Any time you have an opportunity to create a partnership between the city and the private sector, a nonprofit, or any other public entity to provide additional city services at a reasonable cost, we need to consider that."

The true nature of Concilman Legan's position on spending money for city services was made clear last night, at the November 10th council meeting.

Although Councilman Legan was willing to entertain the idea of spending over $ 32,000 in tax dollars to provide discount fitness classes to residents, he voted NO (and was the only council member to do so) on a motion at last night, which approved the city picking up the $ 7,200 cost of new governmental fees that have been imposed on the city's garbage hauler, J&J Refuse.

Councilman Legan's definition of city services---and which services he is willing to spend public tax dollars on--- surely seems to be different than mine. The answer from him seems to be:

Aerobics? Yes. Garbage collection? No.

Why would Councilman Legan vote NO on paying the increased garbage fees? He didn't bother sharing his thoughts with, or explaining his position to, his fellow council members or the public. But to this outside observer, Councilman Legan seemed to take his cue from Mayor Coleman, who has insisted since the topic first came up in early September that the city shouldn't pay the increased government-imposed garbage hauling fees, but should split the costs with J&J instead.

Mayor Coleman has steadfastly stuck to this position, even though:

1. The city's garbage hauling contract specifically anticipated that there might be a governmental fee increase imposed on our garbage contractor, J&J Refuse;
   
2. Service Director Thom Evans has repeatedly reported to council and Mayor Coleman that the city agreed, in the contract, not to unreasonably refuse to pay for the increased fees, provided J&J Refuse adequately justified/documented them;
   
3. Mayfield Village, which is also a party to the contract, has agreed to pay for the increased governmental fees; and
   
4. Law Director Tim Paluf stated that state law and regulations allow such fees to be assessed and passed along to the cities that generate the garbage, that it was his legal opinion that the city should pay the full amount of the legally allowable governmental fee increases imposed on J&J Refuse (which amount to $1.50 per ton of garbage or $ 7,200 per year), and that the cost of attempting to negotiate a lower reimbursement amount (the course of conduct Mayor Coleman preferred) would be a lot more expensive in the long run, given the law and the language in the contract.

It was interesting to see Mayor Coleman sitting on opposite sides from the city's law director, service director, and most of council. That rarely occurs---in public anyway.

I understand Mayor Coleman's disappointment at having to pay more fees, given that the garbage contract is already $240,000 more expensive than the last one. But, Thom Evans reported from the start that the contract contained several different additional pass-along provisions, which could increase the city's garbage hauling costs.

I can speculate and provide a couple of different possible explanations for what was going on last night with regard to Mayor Coleman, Councilman Legan, and the garbage contract:

1. Mayor Coleman never really understood the provisions of the city's garbage hauling contract or Thom Evans' explanation of the contract (and neither did Councilman Legan);
   
2. The contract did not contain the provisions that Mayor Coleman wanted---in which case, the mayor needs to have a serious discussion with Law Director Tim Paluf and/or Service Director Thom Evans (and both he and Councilman Legan need to understand that the city can not hold J&J Refuse responsible for the city's contract drafting errors); or
   
3. Mayor Coleman's protestations of surprise and opposition (and Councilman Legan's "me too" NO vote) were nothing more than play-acting and political positioning, for purposes of claiming, on future campaign literature, "We tried to hold the line on city spending!"
   While the 2011 mayorial election seems an age away to most of us, it is just around to the corner to the possible contenders for that job.

Post-script. # 3 Wins!

In the November 19th edition of the Sun Messenger, Mayor Coleman is quoted as saying, "It was council's decision. I didn't want to have to spend $ 7,000 unless we have to."

So, play-acting and political posturing win!

Why do I say that? This is the reality:

1. Mayor Coleman is legally charged (under Ohio law) with executing contracts for the city.
2. His appointees (Thom Evans and/or Tim Paluf) were the ones who drafted and/or negotiated the contract terms and later explained them to both to the mayor and council.
3. The law director, Tim Paluf, told the mayor and council that it was his legal opinion that the city was contractually obligated to pay the increased governmental fees and that it would not be cost-effective for the city to challenge payment of them.
4. Council followed the advice of the mayor-appointed law director when it approved paying the fees.

But....... according to the mayor, it's all council's fault.

Yeah, We Certainly Buy That One, Mr. Mayor !

If you want to read more about the governmental fees, the garbage contract, and the discussions with council, follow the links below:

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2009/03-03-09_council_committee_minutes.htm (garbage contract and bids)

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2009/09-01-09_council_committee_minutes.htm (contract and increased fees)

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2009/09-22-09_council_minutes.htm (contract and increased fees)

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2009/10-06-09_council_committee_minutes.htm (contract and increased fees)

end

Updated Election Quiz Challenge

Some Quiz Questions From the Election

1. Not everyone is into posting yard signs, but many candidates go that route. Which candidate displayed the most yard signs during this election?

2. Generally Highland Heights council candidates take the high road when campaigning. But this time around there was one notable exception. Which candidate dropped a last minute, pre-election day literature piece attacking his rival?

3. Which candidate described Highland Heights as "Mayberry" (as in the old Andy Griffith TV show, "Mayberry, R.F.D.") ?

4. In what subtle way does it appear that Mayor Coleman acted to counter Chuck Brunello's campaign theme, which centered on improving city services? A hint: they fall once a year.

5. Which candidates will represent the Highland Heights community on council for the next two years?

ANSWERS

1. Churck Brunello Jr., a challenger for an at-large council seat, won the yard sign posting contest. He had over 200 yard signs distributed throughout the area. He came in 4th in that race.

2. Rocco Dolciato, who was appointed by Mayor Coleman to the Ward 2 council seat several years ago, was defeated by Councilman Leo Lombardo in the 2007 election, and was defeated again in his second attempt to get elected to that seat.

3. Incumbent Ted Anderson, who was soundly defeated by challenger Lisa Stickan in the Ward 4 council race.

4. The city provided 7 day a week leaf pickup during the week before the election---including on the Saturday and Sunday before the election. Since then? Well, my post-election leaf pile is still sitting on the tree lawn, awaiting collection by the leaf truck.

5. Congratulations and our best wishes go to:

Cathy Murphy, Incumbent, Ward 1
Leo Lombardo, Incumbent, Ward 2
Bob Mastrangelo, Ward 3
Lisa Stickan, Ward 4
Scott Mills, Ed Hargate, Frank Legan, Incumbents, Council-at-large

A very big thank you to the over 1,100 voters who believed in me and voted Yes for Amy Feran. I will continue to provide Highland Heights residents with information about city happenings and city issues through this blog.
end

State Gas Drilling Laws--Real Reform Or Smoke and Mirrors?

First, A Public Service Announcement From Service Director Thom Evans

At Tuesday night's completely uneventful council meeting, Mr. Evans reported on leaf pickup in the city and reminded the handful of residents in attendance that leaves should be left on tree lawns, not the street, for pickup.

The city service department vaccums up leave piles in neighborhoods on a rotating basis--they hit neighborhoods and streets in order and then start again once they've hit the entire city. Right now they should be returning to your neighborhood every 4-5 days, although the return will get a bit longer once the leaves start coming down more heavily.

Although residents hate the idea of hurting their lawn, by having piles of leaves sitting on their tree lawns, Mr. Evans reported that leaf piles left in the streets can block drains, cause slick and unsafe road conditions, and make it much harder for the crews and the machines to vacuum up the leaves quickly and efficiently.

Mr. Evans asks Highland Heights residents to please cooperate by piling leaves on tree lawns, not in the street.

The Competing Gas Drilling "Reform" Bills

Council, on Tuesday night, passed a resolution asking the state to impose a moratorium on issuing new residential neighborhood gas drilling permits until the state laws are reformed.

This resolution was in addition to a prior one, in which council expressed its support for a reform bill sponsored by Sen. Tim Grendell, who proposes to restore local zoning control over gas wells and eliminate "mandatory pooling," the state law that allows drilling companies to force private property owners to give up their mineral rights so they can drill in residential neighborhoods.

There was a hearing held in Columbus on Wednesday Oct 28th on a rival bill introduced by Sen. Neihaus, which is claimed to be reform but actually further enables residential drilling and loosens control and oversight over drilling companies even more than under the current law.

I had informed council and the mayor about that hearing last week.

At Tuesday's council meeting, I inquired whether an official representative of the city would be willing to attend the hearing and to personally present the resolutions passed by council to the legislative committee considering the competing drilling law reform bills. My query was met with silence.

No city official volunteered to go to Columbus to speak up for Highland Heights residents.

I attended that hearing, and spoke in opposition to the Neihaus bill.

I was not alone in attending. There were two mayors in attendance, along with Gates Mills Fire Chief Robinson, officials from five different NE Ohio communities, and residents from Broadview Heights, Concord Township, Mayfield Village, Stow, Olmstead Falls, Auburn Township, and Chesterland.

There was a phalanx of drilling company representatives standing in the back throughout the hearing---taking notes and visually reminding the legislators of their significant financial and political clout in Columbus.

An hour and a half after the hearing began, the chairman of the committee abruptly announced a two hour recess. Suddenly a morning hearing was turned into a day-long affair. I have no idea if the hope was to get some of the plain folk opposing the Neihaus bill to leave, but it sure felt like that to me. While some people did have to depart, most stayed and waited patiently for the hearing to reconvene.

To give you an idea of numbers, the committee imposed a five minute time limit on speakers. Despite that limit, the hearing went on until just after 6 pm.

It is up in the air, at this point, whether the legislators really heard or considered the plea from NE Ohio residents, to change the law to protect us from forcible drilling in the middle of our lovely, established, suburban residential neighborhoods.

Two senators, Sen. Neihaus and Sen. Stewart, who have alot of clout in Columbus, are clear pro-drilling company advocates and supporters. But there were some thoughtful questions asked by other legislators, which gave me some hope.

I looked in the mirror on Thursday morning and saw a very tired face looking back, but I knew that traveling to Columbus was very important. It was important that the legislators deciding our fates should hear, perhaps for the first time, stories told by someone other than the drilling companies.

And they heard lots, if they chose to listen, about what the drilling laws and regulations are doing to our residential neighborhoods.

It may not be much, but at least I tried.

The fourth hearing on the Neihaus bill is in Columbus on Weds. Nov 3rd. It is open to the public. Anyone can attend and speak.

end

Signs--Going and Coming?

News from the Oct. 20 Committee of the Whole Meeting

Sign Going?

Several weeks ago, council asked Law Director Tim Paluf to research whether or not the city could donate the outdoor sign for the former church building (which sits on the city hall property) to St. Paschal Baylon Church, which has expressed an interest in it.

Mr. Paluf reported that the city had no use for the sign, that none of the city administrators he spoke with believed that the sign had any significant monetary value, and that he thought it would be okay for the city to give the sign to St. Paschal's, provided the church paid the cost of having city workers remove the sign and paid to have it transported to the church's property on Wilson Mills Road.

There was no discussion as to whether any other Highland Heights business or church might have interest in the sign, or whether it should be advertised for sale to the highest bidder.

Sign Coming?

Last week Councilman Ted Anderson, a former Parks & Rec Commission (P&R) member and currently P&R council rep, provided Tim Paluf with a list of rules that P&R had developed for Whiteford Park, a small community park that is located in the Highland Woods neighborhood.

While Highland Woods residents are apparently opposed to adding even an additional street light in the area of the park, to discourage after-hours use and inappropriate behavior in the park, Councilman Anderson said that P&R wanted the rules enacted "to give the police some backbone" when dealing with issues in the park.

He did not explain what those issues are, nor had he previously provided his fellow council members with a copy of the proposed rules, thereby preventing them from asking questions or providing input on the issue.

Mr. Paluf reported at the meeting that he believed the current ordinance on the books, pertaining to the Community Park, applied to Whiteford Park. He suggested that the existing ordinance could be amended, to state that fact more clearly, and that it was unnecessary to adopt an ordinance specifying rules just for Whiteford Park.

Mr. Anderson then stated that P&R wanted a sign of park rules posted at the park. It's obviously something he's thought alot about; he even described the exact location where the sign should be posted.

Unfortunately, P&R is well into a deficit-spending situation with regard to the 1 mil of property tax money that it receives for its own exclusive use each year (more on that below). Therefore, money to pay for a sign would have to come from the general fund, but no money has been allocated in the 2009 budget for that use.

Therefore, Council agreed that the matter should be referred to the Legislative & Finance Committee, which is tasked with providing fiscal oversight with regard to the spending of public taxpayer money.

Community Center Repair and Renovation

Council set aside money in 2008 to renovate the interior of the Community Center. Unfortunately, the contractor doing that work uncovered a serious problem. The wood beams that provide vertical support for the building were sitting below grade and developed wet rot, threatening the structural integrity of the building.

The interior work had to be halted so that structural repair work could be performed---which meant that the contractor was prevented from timely completing its work.

It is typical for contractors to seek delay payments in such situations. And the community center contractor apparently made a demand for such payment.

Although Mr. Paluf negotiated a reduced payment to the contractor, council held off approving the deal after Councilman Anderson expressed dissatisfaction with some of the seaming work inside the building and Councilman Hargate expressed unhappiness that no final report had been issued with regard to the project.

Steamrolling the $ 300,000 Old Pool House Renovation Project

The last we heard, council rejected the bids for the Old Pool House Renovation Project, a project which Councilman Anderson, Council Candidate Valentino, and P&R have ardently and insistently pushed since last November. The bids were rejected because the qualifying ones came in much higher than the original $ 75,000 price tag put on the project by P&R (try 4 times as high).

Councilman Anderson returned to his steamrolling mode at the COW meeting, announcing to council that "we (i.e., Anderson and P&R) want the project to move forward," "We want to get the paperwork done so it is ready to go" and that "plenty of interior work can get done in the winter."

Councilman Anderson's solution to the pricey bids? He offered several:

1. Throw out the requirement that the contractor perform at least 51 % of the work with its own employees.
   This is a standard provision in public contracts. It is a requirement for most performance bonds. It provides protection to union workers and helps ensure quality, by keeping the contractor on the hook for a majority of the work performed and by restricting the amount of work that can be subcontracted out to others. It also ensures that the company performing the work is an actual, active building contractor.
   Councilman Anderson dismissed that requirement as unnecessary "boilerplate".
   
2. The Old Pool House Building currently supplies the power for Home Days. The proposed renovation of that building means that new electrical service would have to be provided for use during Home Days and during other exterior activities at the park.
   According to Councilman Anderson, the new electrical work "has nothing to do with the pool house." He wants that work removed from the bid package.
   
3. Councilman Anderson's last suggestion was to replace most of the windows in the renovated building with glass block.
   Can you imagine, on a rainy day, just how depressing that would be for the camp kids? Oh my.

Although Councilman Anderson did his best to impart a sense of urgency about the matter, the rest of council clearly did not swallow the bait.

In fact, there was a sense that a more global look at P&R and its finances might be in order.

In 2009, for the first time ever in Highland Heights history, P&R presented a deficit-spending budget to council. P&R receives 1 mil of property taxes each year, for its exclusive use. But this year, it asked for additional tax money from the general fund, to subsidize its operations.

Councilman Leo Lombardo, the head of council's Legislative & Finance Committee, reported that P&R had already overspent its revenue by $ 43,000---and there is still one financial quater left to go in 2009.

P&R has also been using money from its emergency reserve fund to cover regular operating costs. With that money factored in, Councilwoman Cathy Murphy projected that P&R will have deficit-spent to the tune of about $90,000 this year.

The recreation director, Dave Ianiro, is Mayor Coleman's appointee. Mr. Inaniro presents the P&R budget to Mayor Coleman each year. The mayor, in turn, decides whether to include the figures presented by P&R in the budget that he submits to council .

I guess we will have to wait and see whether Mayor Coleman allows the deficit spending by that part of his administration to continue, or whether he will take a more active hand and work with Mr. Ianiro to come up with a balanced P&R budget for 2010.

end

Should We Be (Team) Energetic?

The Team Energetics Brouhaha

Today the Sun Messenger ran yet another story focusing on Bill Conti's plan to obtain public subsidies for Team Energetics, the private Highland Heights fitness facility that Conti owns with partner Bob Kaleal.

The Sun Messenger coverage of Conti's plan has been quite remarkable for a number of reasons, including the amount of coverage it has received (the number of stories and the amount of newspaper space given to Ed Wittenberg's stories) and the fact that--at least up until this week--the stories primarily quoted Conti and no one else. None of the municipal players involved were quoted---save for Mayfield Heights Mayor Greg Costabile, a public supporter of the plan.

Today's (October 8th) edition of the Sun Messenger reported for the first time that at a September 1st Committee of the Whole Meeting, Mayor Coleman and Highland Heights council (except for Frank Legan, councilman-at-large) expressed no interest in Conti's contract.

The paper also reported that Conti and Kaleal were present at that meeting. I was there too. Although Councilman Frank Legan later stated that he was "disappointed" that they were "not given an opportunity... to make a presentation" to council, the fact of the matter is that neither Conti nor Kaleal asked to speak that night, and they quickly left the room once the public discussion about the contract ended.

I have to admit, I have found Conti's tactics fascinating.

Rather than do what most people would do-- approach the communities first, to see if they were even interested in the concept and, if so, on what terms---Conti bypassed the preliminary negotiation step entirely.

Instead, he used the media (in this case, the Sun Messenger ) to announce that he intended to obtain public tax dollars for his private business and that he expected five cities (Lyndhurst, Mayfield Heights, Mayfield Village, Gates Mills, and Highland Heights) to sign a contract (with terms that he alone selected) giving him those tax dollars---as it turns out, for an indeterminate number of years.

When the cities failed to jump on his bandwagon, Conti followed up by announcing, again through the media, that he would offer discount classes for senior citizens--a quick way to try to build up demand for his facility (and perhaps a way to pressure local officials into reconsidering their rejection of his contract. Whether that strategy has worked remains to be seen; so far only 13 senior citizens from the 5 cities have signed up.)

Conti has also hinted at some political maneuvers. After noting that all 7 Highland Heights council members are seeking reelection in November (actually only six are), Conti was quoted as saying: "After the election is over, my feeling is it (the Team Energetics contract) will be put back on the table. "

I just don't get all the public high-pressure tactics.

If this is such a good deal-- a true "win-win" situation for both public taxpayers and privately owned Team Energetics--then why didn't Conti simply sit down with each community beforehand---before the public announcement in the Sun Messenger--to see if he and the five cities could come to some understanding of what might work?

Of course, if Conti had bothered to talk to the cities first, before publicly announcing his plan, he might have run up against what, for him, might be an unpleasant reality.

I dont know how it works in other cities, but in Highland Heights, contracts over $ 25,000 are supposed to be put out to competitive public bid. So, even if it had liked the deal, Highland Heights would not have been free to accept Conti's no-bid contract.

Despite that fact, Councilman Frank Legan was quoted this week as saying:

"I'm open to continuing the dialogue on both sides.
Any time you have an opportunity to create a partnership between the city and the private sector, a nonprofit, or any other public entity to provide additional city services at a reasonable cost, we need to consider that."

Aerobics a "city service"? That's a new one to me.

FYI, here are some of the terms of the contract Conti asked the five cities to sign:

• Although Conti has made a big pitch to senior citizens and to city workers (and their families)--who would be given free passes---Team Energetics is described in the contract as a facility giving "special attention to sports and children programs..."
  
• The contract has no specified length and no set ending date. It states that it "shall continue in existence until terminated, liquidated, or dissolved by law or mutual agreement of the parties..." The cities do not have the right to unilaterally end their involvement with Team Energetics.
  
• The contract requires the cities to pay Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness $2,700 a month for the first five years, $ 3,700 a month for the second five years, and to discuss a contract extension and increased compensation for the years after that.
  
• The contract requires the cities, "at their individual cost and expense," to: 1. "advertise and promote the use" of the facility "in a timely manner"; 2. to "properly display...events within their city/community limits"; and 3. to cooperate in "informing residents of delays and interference with the use of the facility" "due to the construction of a new facility." The contract does not suspend the cities' monthly payments when such interruption or "interference with use" occurs.
  
• The contract does not specify when or where any new facility would be built, nor is Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness obligated to locate any new facility in Highland Heights--or even in the Hillcrest area.
  
• The cities are required to obtain liability insurance covering Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness and to "indemnify" Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness (i.e. reimburse them) for any "losses, judgments, liabilities, expenses and amounts paid in settlement of any claims sustained" by Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness in connection with running the facility. So if someone gets hurt while using the facility, the cities are legally liable to pick up the tab arising from that injury or claim.
  
• The cities have no say over how the facility is run and can not hold Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness liable for any action it takes or any decision it makes unless the action/decision is negligent or a result of "misconduct." The cities are legally bound, however, by all of the decisions/actions taken by Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness.
  
• The cities have no financial interest in the facility. Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness keeps all the profits and makes all the decisions.
  
• The "operating calendar" attached to the contract states that the "Community Fitness Center" hours of operation are, M-F, 8:30 am to 3:30 pm and 8:30 pm to 6:30 am. On Sat & Sun: 8:30 am-3 pm. The contract notes that some areas of the facility have specific schedules indicating when they are available for open use, "subject to additional chargeable classes, camps, personal training, etc." The contract makes clear that all of the operation/availability schedules are subject to change.

end

Renovating the Old Church Building on City Hall Property: Reality or Fantasy?

Some Background

The city bought the property in front of city hall in 2008. Since that time, council has disussed what to do with the property--including the old church building, which as Mayor Coleman recently acknowledged, the city has no current use for.

Sun Messenger reporter Jeff Piorkowski recently wrote a story about the building ( it was subsequently posted online by Robert Nozar) :

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_looks_to_resu.html

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_council_consi.html

Here are some facts and a couple of excerpts from that story:

• The church building was built in 1961. It has 117,000-square feet.
• The city paid $300,000 to acquire the building in January 2008.
• Money was allocated in the city's 2009 budget to demolish the building.
• "The building, by all accounts, is in bad shape."

Here are what several council members were quoted as saying about the building:

• "There is severe water damage on the roof, insulation is minimal and the ceiling has developed mold," said Ward 1 Councilwoman Cathy Murphy.
  
• It's in very, very poor condition," said Council President Scott Mills. "There's no power or heat in it. It will probably have to come down. It's a mess."
  
• Councilman at-large Frank Legan: "I'm in favor of having a day where the residents come out and use their imaginations as to what they might want to make of it...Either that, or we can make a video to show people what it looks like inside. We owe it to our residents, before we pass judgment, to let them have a look at the building. It could be very useful for all residents... the building could be used for recreational or meeting purposes, or it could be utilized as a business incubator, in which small, start-up businesses can have use of offices."

Confused by the totally different assessments of the condition of the building, as expressed by the comments above? I was.

Depending on who you listen to, the building is either in bad shape (an attractive nuisance) and needs to be torn down or it's in decent shape and worth salvaging.

I do know that when council toured the building in mid-June, 2008, members of the public attending that council meeting (myself included) were forbidden from accompanying council members because, as stated by Council President Mills, the church building was not safe.

The city paid a local engineering firm to conduct a structural analysis of the building in 2008. That firm, CT Consultants, reported on the building's condition and provided estimates both for the cost of renovating the building (to bring it up to current building standards) and the cost of razing (demolishing) the building.

Here are some pertinent findings from that report:

• Projected total cost to renovate the building (as of May 2008): $ 773,262.
  
  This figure takes into account "creating a usable space in the existing building configuration", but does not include the cost of: kitchen equipment, interior room alterations, partitioning to create different spaces, cosmetic changes (not specified in the report), and use of the church attic area.
  

Projected probable cost to demolish the building, remove the pavement (driveway and parking area) and septic system, cap the utilitities and landscape the property (as of May 2008): $ 138, 000.

The cost of just demolishing the building and capping the utilities: $ 38,000.

Some details from the report:

• The building exterior is in good condition overall for a 40+ year old building, but the roof and windows are substandard and/or past their expected useful life expectancy. The windows are single pane glazing type.
  
• The building has a septic system (it is not connected to public sanitary sewer system). "Current regulatory requirements will prohibit use of this system."
  
• At least part of the storm sewer was not operational and the condition of the rest of the storm sewer could not be determined.
  
• All of the exterior and interior doors are non-compliant and must be replaced. The sidewalks also must be replaced.
  
• There are pin-hole size failures in the roof shingles thoughout the building. "Water on roof has entered building causing severe damage."
  
• There is "extensive water damage" in the kitchen, east church and lobby areas, which "will require all materials to be replaced". "Ceiling batt insulation, drywall, etc. has developed mold. All materials must be completely removed."
  
• The building and its existing bathrooms are not ADA-compliant. The entire building and the bathrooms must be made ADA-compliant (they must meet legally prescribed standards to allow for full use and access by individuals with disabilities) as this is a publicly-owned building. This is a non-waivable requirement.
  
• "The mechanical and electrical systems are original and difficult to find replacement parts."
  
• The heating system is "non-working."
  
• Service size for the electrical system is inadequate, and at least two electric panels are original. "Complete replacement is needed".
  
• The building is not air-conditioned. "Cooling/ventilation is provided by an operable center window."
  
• The building envelope insulation is minimal. Insulation is 1" thick foil faced insulation. The radiant heating system/hot water system piping is not insulated.
  
• The resilient tile observed under the carpeting (and throughout the building) "is characteristic of materials containing asbestos. Abatement may be required" (cost not included in the estimates).

There are a couple of other truisms at play here:

1. Not every old building has historical or cultural value to a community.
2. Needs should drive buildings, buildings should not drive needs.
3. Experts usually consider a building's projected future operating costs as a factor when making demolition vs. renovation decisions. That is because the future cost of operating an older, poorly insulated, pre-energy crisis building will be substantially higher than the cost of operating a newly constructed, energy-efficient building. The engineer's report does not include the projected operating costs for a renovated building.
4. The city does not have grant money to spend on the building. Public tax dollars will be used, either to raze or to renovate it.

The engineer's report is a public document (your tax dollars paid for it). If you'd like to read it yourself, you can request a copy from city hall.

It seems clear to me, after reading the structural engineering report and re-reading the quoted comments above, that some council members have embraced the engineer's realistic assessment of the true condition of the building and are using a rational cost-benefit analysis to make their decision on how to best spend our tax dollars.

As for the rest?

Well, read the report and decide for yourself.

end