My Hero of the Day: Fire Chief Bill Turner

It was an interesting and alarming meeting that was held on Monday March 30 between Cutter Oil, representatives from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), and city officials.

Why is Highland Heights Fire Chief Turner my hero for the day?

Because he stuck up for Highland Heights residents, that's why. He went to bat to keep us safe, in the face of the ODNR reps' insistence that none of us---not Highland Heights residents, not the city, not the Fire Chief--really count. More on that below.

The topic: Cutter's plan to drill a gas well in the middle of a residential neighborhood in Highland Heights. The site will be completely surrounded by residential homes and backyards.

The sticking point: Because it is a residential neighborhood, there is currently no access road that allows Cutter to get back to the proposed drilling site. Cutter has proposed expanding a homeowner's driveway and using that as part of its access road---a road approximately 14 foot wide that passes right next to a residental home and encroaches on two other property owners' lot lines.

The local issues:

1. Cutter's proposed access road violates the city's setback zoning ordinance The city has a setback ordinance that prevent residents from placing driveways too close to lot lines.

The city's setback zoning ordinance is not incompatible with the state drilling laws. Cutter simply has to place its access road within the required setbacks, away from property lines. Cutter's proposed plan makes absolutely no attempt to comply with the city's setback ordinance.

The ODNR best practice manual expressly anticipates that local requirements have to be complied with--indicating that local requirements still matter:

Most local governments have restrictions and standards for access road entrances. Generally, requirements include culvert pipes and a stone roadbed for a specific distance. Producers should check with officials for local regulations.

2. Neither Cutter nor ODNR has any plans for keeping the expanded driveway portion of the access road free of vehicles, nor does the proposed access road contain a gate. When asked about this, city officials were told that it would be the city's job to keep the expanded portion of the driveway clear for Cutter.

3. Most critically, Cutter's proposed access road does not comply with the State Fire Chief's requirements for allowing fire/emergency access to the proposed drilling site.

According to my hero of the day, Chief Turner, the state fire code is not preempted by the drilling ordinances. Everyone--state agencies, municipalities, etc.-- have to comply with the State Fire Chief's regulations. And Chief Turner insists that Cutter and ODNR do that too.

The Ohio Fire regulations read: OAC Ann. 1301:7-7-01(6) (101.6) Minimum standard. This code shall constitute the minimum standards for safeguarding life and property from fire and explosion in this state. No political subdivision with the statutory authority to promulgate a fire code may enact a fire code, or parts thereof, that provide a lower threshold of such safeguards or violate accepted engineering practice involving public safety. Such political subdivision may promulgate fire code provisions that exceed the minimum safety requirements as set forth in this code.

The State Fire regulations require that access roads to oil and gas facilities:

be at least 20 ' wide (the ODNR best practices manual requires a "minimum" width of 14 feet for all access roads); be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus; be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities; and provide an adequate turning around area at the dead end of the access drive. OAC Ann. 1301:7-7-05(C)(2)(503.2)

Why this is an issue is beyond me. The ODNR regulations state:

1501:9-1-02(E)(1) . Permits. For wells permitted after September 15, 2004 in urbanized areas or where there is no reasonable emergency response access to the wellhead or tank battery at the ingress point to the access road, an apron of durable material shall be placed. .. (1) The access road shall be constructed and maintained in a manner to permit the ingress and egress for fire and emergency response.

Cutter's proposed access road does not meet state requirements, which are designed to allow fire and rescue equipment access to drilling sites.

At least one of the ODNR rep seemed to take exception to requiring Cutter to build an access road that would comply with state fire safety laws. His concern seemed mostly to be with getting the drilling started as soon as possible, as conveniently as possible for Cutter. Drill, baby, drill.

The more global issues:

There were two local ODNR inspectors in attendance at the meeting: Norburt Lowder and Jay Cheslock.

Lowder, who approved the Cutter drilling permit, was aggressive and exuded a great deal of hostility during the meeting. It seemed pretty clear to me that he believes that the city has no right to stick its nose in with regard to a well he has approved of.

Funny I thought that maybe his job was to look out for the citizens of Ohio. But he acted more like his main responsibility is to facilitate drilling---anywhere and everywhere. And particularly in suburban backyards.

These are some of issues that came up, during the meeting:

1. ODNR does not check to see if any drilling sites are on/impinge on wetlands before drilling permits are issued.

If the issue comes up (although how it would is anyone's guess since state law does not require notice to be given to impacted residents except in rare circumstances and few people even know that a permit has been applied for until after the drilling begins), then ODNR claims they require drilling companies to get required federal permits. But verifying wetlands is not a required part of the permitting process.

2. ODNR does not verify the location of old wells or require them to be plugged before a new well is drilled nearby.

There is an old well somewhere in the vicinity of the Cutter leasehold (it's called an "orphan well"). The well is still listed as active on the ODNR website., which means that new wells have to be at least 300 feet away from it.

ODNR issued the Cutter drilling permit, even though ODNR doesnt claim to know where the orphan well is actually located. Neither Norburt nor Cheslock seemed at all concerned that it was unplugged---which violates the state laws that they are supposed to be enforcing.

When asked about the danger this old, unplugged well could present, Norburt stated that the city didn't have to worry about it because he had written it into the Cutter permit that if the old well starts to leak or something, Cutter would be responsible for dealing with it.

Now that's reassuring. I guess ODNR has adopted its own version of the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy when it comes to unsafe, unplugged orphan wells.

3. ODNR claims that it alone is responsible for fires, leaks, environmental contamination, and other disasters occurring with gas wells and that, really, our city Fire Department does not have any jurisdiction over, or responsibility with regard to, such events.

In fact, Chief Turner was told that if the Cutter gas well caught fire, he should simply park his equipment far away from the well site and let it burn until ODNR arrived. Guess residents are supposed to fetch marshmallows while their neighborhood burns.

And as for environmental contamination ( releases of toxic chemicals into the air, the spilling of "brine" (which has nothing to do with salt water by the way and is really the liquid waste product of drilling, which the EPA considers to be toxic industrial waste), and contamination of ground water), it is ODNR's position that they alone have jurisdiction, that they will decide whether or not there is an issue, and if it decides that a situation is not related to drilling, then it will let the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and/or let local fire departments--who provide emergency response for all other environmental disasters--in.

4. Although they want to keep everyone else out, ODNR has not adequately addressed the environmental disasters that have already occurred. They are still evacuting houses in Bainbridge, near the one that exploded, and the contamination of groundwater caused by the gas well still has not been remediated. And that's just one situation involving a gas well gone bad occuring around here.

5. Although ODNR asserts that it has sole authority to control and regulate gas wells, the reality is that ODNR is not staffed to do anything other than issue permits for new wells.

According to Norburt and Cheslock, there are 10 ODNR inspectors for all of Northeast Ohio and over 3,000 active gas wells just in Cuyahoga County alone.

According to the ODRN website, there are only 3 ODNR inspectors responsible for those 3,000+ Cuyahoga County wells (Norburt, Cheslock, and Robert Worstall).

You do the math. Now, won't you sleep better at night, knowing that fact?

Existing wells are inspected maybe once every five to ten years. The ODNR reps, admited that, essentially, they wait for someone to call with a problem before returning to inspect existing wells. They just dont have time to do regular safety inspections of existing wells.

While it has regulations allowing oil wells to be drilled right in the middle of residential neighborhoods, ODNR does not have any regulations requiring regular, systematic checks of functioning wells once they are installed, to protect the neighbors who live near the wells.

ODNR.

I'm beginning to believe that, with regard to drilling companies, it stands for:

Oh, Do Not Regulate.

# # #

Budget Projections for 2009

Following a presentation by the Finance Director, City council passed the proposed 2009 budget without any signficant substantive discussion.

But first, a couple of informational tidbits from last night's council meeting:

1. The Fire Department will be conducting a CPR class on April 4th, from 9 to 2. It is open to the public. Contact them for more information.

2. A Senior Health and Wellness Fair will be held at the community center on May 13th, from 1 to 3 pm.

The Budget

As adopted, the budget projects a 3.6 % decline in revenue (with income and property tax collections staying the same as last year), $ 11 million in expenditures (which matches last year's projected expenditures, but is a 5.5 % increase over 2008 actual spending), a $ 283,000 surplus (revenue over expenditures). and a reserve of approximately $ 4 million for the general fund.

All of these figures are subject to change, and whether we actually end the fiscal year in the black will depend on things such as whether the Finance Director has correctly estimated how much revenue the city will take in, whether additional expense items are tacked onto the budget (the proposed expansion/renovation of the old pool house, for example), and whether any emergencies have to be addressed (for example, last year a major structural problem in the community center was discovered and had to be repaired).

The projected $ 283,000 surplus is not very large for a city with a $ 11 million budget, and it could disappear pretty quickly as the year unfolds, which would put the city into deficit spending.

Although it was stated by several contributors to the city's recent quaterly newsletter that the city has taken on no new debt in the last several years, that statement is incorrect.

The Finance Director reported that the city obtained a $ 700.000 zero interest loan to finance the reconstruction of the Highland and Bishop Road intersection. The city will have to pay $ 38,000 a year over the next 20 years on that loan, beginning in either July 2009 or January 2010.

Other items of interest discussed at the council meeting:

• The church at the corner of Ford and Ridgebury.

An area dentist appeared before Planning and Zoning (P&Z) to discuss whether the church property could be rezoned for business use. The rezoning would be necessary for the building to be used as a dental office.

I have also heard that another individual has inquired as to whether a funeral home could be placed on the property.

The discussion is merely preliminary at this point, but it raises a couple of issues.

Since the church is located in a residential area and is surrounded by homes, it would constitute spot rezoning for a single piece of property. And, of course, there is no going back once the rezoning occurs. It means that the property could be used for any sort of business activity from thereon out.

On the other hand, the property has always had a unique zoning designation, it has traditionally been used for nonresidential purposes, and it is accessible from a main through-street.

Interestingly, a pastor from the South Euclid Church of God in Christ appeared at the council meeting and stated that he wanted to talk to Mr. Pilla about the church building on the city hall property. He said he heard that building was in bad shape, but that he wanted to look at it.

I wonder if he will be encouraged to look at the church at Ford and Ridgebury instead since, unlike the church building on the city hall property, the Ridgebury church building is in good physical condition and is currently for sale.

Speaking of the church building on the city hall property, Mrs. Murphy asked that it be added as a discussion item for the next Committee of the Whole Meeting, 7 pm on April 7th.

• Cutter Oil and its permit to drill on property N of Wilson Mills/W of Miner Road

Cutter Oil obtained a drilling permit for a very irregularly shaped 20 acre parcel, which includes some Miner Road properties, some Wilson Mills Properties, and some Lander Road Extension properties.

Because the area is a residential area, there is no currently existing driveway/road accessing the designated drilling site. And there is also an old capped, but unplugged well somewhere in the area---its exact location is currently unknown.

Cutter Oil has proposed putting in a 10 foot wide gravel driveway that passes right next to the home at 756 Miner Road and whose width extends right up to and/or crosses the property line of the home next door. The proposed driveway travels west, to the back of 756 Miner, and then swings around south, crossing the property line for a home facing on Wilson Mills Road.

The state fire code requires 20 foot wide drives of substantial construction to allow fire trucks, police cars, and rescue vehicles to access the site.

I hear that Cutter Oil is claiming that they don't have to comply with Highland Heights zoning laws (property line set back and driveway requirements) or state law. They claim that the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (ODNR) has total control of everything pertaining to drilling and that they can put in anything they want, as long as ODNR approves it.

I dont believe that any court has said that, but that is how all of the drilling companies choose to interpret the state drilling laws.

There will be a meeting at City Hall at 9:30 am on Monday, March 30th to discuss the issue further. Mr. Austin, the city's acting Building Department Head, has asked Tim Paluf, the city's law director, to be present. That meeting is open to the public.

Shouldn't everyone be concerned about "urban" gas drilling in Highland Heights?

Since council agreed to Mayor Coleman's plan to conduct gas drilling in the Community Park and on city hall property, I have been working hard to educate myself and city officials about the safety and environmental issues that this kind of "urban" drilling presents to our community and Highland Heights residents.

Some council members have been very receptive to learning more, whereas others---including the Mayor and council members Mills, Pilla, Anderson, and Lombardo (who signed their names to the green misinformation sheet opposing the Charter Amendment, which bans drilling on city property and protects the park) have been less so. http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2008/11/highland_hts_issue_63_passes_r.html

Last night, a national news station broadcast a video clip recorded near Denver, Colorado, which showed a homeowner literally setting fire to his water as it came out of his kitchen sink tap.

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-firewater-032309,0,5726629.story
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090320/NEWS/903199938/1002/NONE&parentprofile=1001&title=VIDEO%20%20Flammable%20water%20fires%20up%20Fort%20Lupton%20homeowners


This is the deal.

The urban drilling that is going on here is not the old fashioned--drill a hole straight down to tap into a pocket of gas sitting underground--kind of drilling

It is call "fractional" or "frac" drilling. The drilling companies inject what they call drilling "mud," which is a combination of water, sand, and toxic chemicals, into the ground, with the intent of fracturing shale rock to release natural gas trapped in the shale. Drilling companies can drill diagonally for long distances, potentially creating a honeycomb of drilling shafts underground.

The reality of frac drilling is:

(1) not all the toxic chemicals used in the drilling "mud" returns to the surface--some stays in the ground;

(2) not all of the newly released gas is captured and transported up to the wellhead; and

(3) the gas can, along with the toxic drilling chemicals, travel long distances along rock formations and can contaminate the soil and seep into ground water.

The video shows gas that has been released by frac drilling, which has gotten into the local drinking supply. The homeowner is igniting the invisible, odorless gas that is entering his home with his drinking water.

That is probably what caused the house in Bainbridge to explode recently---and unfortunately the gas contaminatination there has not yet been contained. Another home had to be evacuated several months ago because of gas that had traveled from the Bainbridge well and seeped into the homeowner's basement. http://www.chagrinvalleytimes.com/NC/0/274.html

A couple of things that residents need to keep in mind, as drilling companies come knocking on our doors (making who knows what promises to us and to our local politicians):

1. All of the gas released from frac drilling does not necessarily get captured by the drilling company. The released gas, along with the toxic chemicals used in frac drilling mud, can easily travel beyond the drilling leasehold, contaminating soil and ground water throughout the city.

2. We get our drinking water from Lake Erie. Our city is loaded with streams that are headwaters for Euclid Creek, which runs into Lake Erie. The toxic chemicals used in drilling mud, and the natural gas released during frac drilling in Highland Heights and surrounding communities has the potential to contaminate our ground water and drinking supplies.

Don't believe me? Then watch the video again.

And if you think its not a problem in our area, check out what has happened to water supplies in Pennsylvania:

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BusinessofGreen/idUSTRE52C07920090313 http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52J6AP20090320

What's up with proposed pool house expansion?

I've been sitting in on many of the discussions about this year's budget.

The process works (or is supposed to work) like this:

The Mayor sits down with the Finance Director and his department heads (Service Department, Buidling Department, Finance Department, Recreation Department) and comes up with proposed expenditures (employee costs, equipment replacement, new capital improvements, etc.) for the city for 2009. The Finance Director then creates a proposed budget on the Mayor's behalf, which is submitted to council for its approval.

The council, through the 3 person Legislative & Finance Committee (L&F), then sits down and reviews the numbers with the Finance Director and the department heads, which results in a "tweaked" budget that is presented to council as a whole for its approval. The budget is being presented for approval this Tuesday, March 24th.

Council fulfills one of its most important roles---setting policy for the city---by prioritizing expenditures and approving a budget each year.

If used well, the budget review process allows the Mayor and the department heads to discuss the city's needs and priorities, and to discuss any new or pending financial issues, with the council at the most critical time: when taxpayer money is being allocated between the various city departments and city projects for the upcoming year.



This year's hot budget issue: The Old Church Building versus the Old Pool House

The back story on the Old Church Building:

The city purchased the old church building that sits in front of the Community Center on Highland Road several years ago for one purpose: for drilling a gas well on the City Hall property.

In its authorizing resolution (passed on January 23, 2007), Council gave the Mayor authority to sign drilling leases with Bass Energy for both the Community Park and the City Hall property. http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2007/01-23-07_city_council_minutes.htm

However, the City Hall property wasn't large enough and/or did not have enough space away from occupied buildings to allow for a gas well to be put there. So, the city immediately began negotiating to buy the church property.

Sworn deposition testimony given in connection with Bass Energy's suit against the city confirms that the church was purchased in connection with the plan to put gas wells on the city hall property. Bill Hlavin, the President and Owner of Bass, testified:

"They (the city) had two properties, the city hall property and the city park property, and we talked about..we proposed, the number of wells on each property and ...if it was feasible for them under the rules of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to place wells on those properties under the existing rules and regulations....There was no question that there was room for ...one well on the city hall complex.... they were going to have to add on, to comply with state laws, the chruch property to the west side of their driveway which if they---they thought there was a chance that they could acquire that property and if they did acquire it, then we would use that...it would then given them an ideal location to put a well just the the south of the city hall complex." Hlavin Deposition, Sept. 26, 2008, pps. 45-46.

The resolution authorizing that purchase of the church building in front of city hall (43-2007) was passed on October 23, 2007., 10 months after the Mayor was authorized to put a gas well on city hall property.

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2007/10-23-07_city_council_minutes.htm

The irony of that purchase is that, Bass did not believe that a gas well placed on city hall property would be very productive. They agreed to put one there as an accommodation, in order to get permission to drill in the Community Park, which is where they really wanted to drill.

The drilling plan was halted by council after the city bought the church property, but before the Mayor had the chance to sign a drilling lease with Bass for the city hall property.

So while it may be wonderful that the city now owns the church property, given its location right next to City Hall, the city's reason for acquiring it has evaporated, and there was never a "Plan B" for using that building.

As I understand it, the church building lacks heat and water, its roof is leaking, and it is in bad condition inside. In fact, it is in such bad shape that I and other members of the public were explicitly barred, "for safety reasons" we were told, from accompanying Council when it toured the building last fall.

It has become, what we in the legal world call "an attractive nuisance."

One thing to keep in mind is that, given the age of the building, its lack of energy efficiency, and the amount of work that it would take to bring the old church building up to current Americans with Disabilities Act accessability standards, the balance has probably tipped, such that it would be more cost effective for the city to raze the building and build a new energy-efficient, sustainable structure at the site, if there is a reason to do so, sometime in the future. As of right now, the Mayor has expressed no current need/use for the building.

Which brings me back to the budget.

The Mayor did not include any money in the capital improvements budget for dealing with the old church building---either doing necessary repairs to keep it standing or to demolish it.

After discussing the situation, Council's L&F Committee agreed that approximately $ 130,000 in capital improvement funds should be set aside, this year, for dealing with the old church building. They also discussed that the cost of demolition might be reduced in several ways, including by allowing the building to be used for a controlled burn--to give area fire fighters experience in fighting a controlled fire. Kind of a win-win for the city and the fire fighters who protect us.


The back story on the Old Pool House Building:

For any of you, like me, who remember using the facility, the Old Pool House building basically is comprised of two large changing rooms, separate male/female toilet/shower facilities, and office and storage areas. The building is currently used for mostly for storage. It is cement block construction.

Behind the pool house, where the old pool was located, there is still the cement pool deck and apparently some electrical boxes in the ground. The fencing, that used to surround the pool, has been removed. That area is used during home days for rides, exhibit tables, etc. and for recreational purposes (there was a volleyball net there last time I looked) the rest of the time.

The city's Parks and Recreation Committee (P&R) , which is composed of Councilman Anderson, Rec Director David Ianiro (not to be confused with his brother, Tony Ianiro, who is the city Finance Director), and several community members, was tasked last year with coming up with a new Five Year plan for the Community Park.

David Ianiro presented that plan to council during the Dec. 2, 2008, Committee of the Whole meeting. He stated that the P&R ranked all of the park capital improvement projects by safety, and that reenginerring the park entrance to improve safety is the # 1 priority and top safety project for 2009 according to the P&R Committee's current Five Year Plan.

Having reported that, David Ianiro immediately shifted gears and said that what he really wanted was to renovate the old pool house. The Five Year Plan listed this as costing $ 75,000.

The sole rationale presented by David Ianiro for doing that project immediately (rather than dealing with the park entrance) was to give the camp kids somewhere to go if it rained. At the March 3, 2009, Committee of the Whole meeting, Mr. Anderson explained the project's connection to safety by saying, "You know the camp kids, the wind begins to blow, it begins to rain, it's frightening to them."

Meanwhile, the issue of the park entrance and safety came up during the January 27, 2009, council meeting. Mr. Anderson expressed his concern about the inability to quickly evacuate the park. He reported, "One year there was a storm during Home Days when the traffic could not get out of the park fast enough." He asked Chief Cook if police officers are there to direct traffic out of the park. http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2009/01-27-09_council_minutes.htm

Here are some facts about the camp and the old pool house:

• 1 mil of taxpayer money is dedicated exclusively for use by the Highland Heights Parks and Recreation department each year. It is the only city department that has its own source of revenue to spend.
  
• The camp program runs for a total of 8 weeks. http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/Summer%202008/2008_sizzler.pdf

• The camp program ---which is a fee-based program--operated in the red last year, by approximately $ 30,000. Right now it is a money loser (rather than a break even) proposition. It is open to residents and nonresidents alike.

• When rain is forcast, the camp traditionally is relocated to Millridge School for the day. (Last year the community center was used because Millridge was being renovated.) According to David Ianiro, the children have access to both the school gym and a school classroom at Millridge on rain days. Millridge also provides a tornado shelter for the children. If the weather clears, Millridge also offers extensive outdoor playgrounds and playing fields for the campers to use.

• According to the Finance Director, Tony Ianiro, it cost less than $ 200, on average, to use Millridge during camp rain days over the last five years. When I asked him the cost, Tony Ianiro wrote:"The amount for the “rainy day costs” for day camp turns out to be minimal. In 2004 - $639.88; 2005 - $68.09; 2006 - $279.84; 2007 and 2008 - $0. The charges are for having a custodian on duty. We pay only the overtime charges.There are no transportation costs. If it is determined at the beginning of the day that camp cannot be held at the park, phone calls are made and parents are instructed to drop the children at Millridge. If there are campers already at the park, they get rides from the Rec. Dir. and/or counselors to Millridge. If day camp gets rained on once the campers are already at the park, they remain at the park, under one or both of the pavilions."

• The proposed total cost for renovating the old pool house and grounds--to give the campers a place to go in lieu of Millridge--currently stands at approximately $ 175,000. That is just a rough beginning estimate. It is $ 100,000 above the cost that the Park & Rec Committee had projected in their Five Year Plan.

• Although the Mayor has stated publicly that he supports spending taxpayer capital improvement money on renovating the old pool house this year (and that he is willing to postpone indefinitely working on the $ 300,000+ new park pavillion that he proposed last year), the Mayor did not include any money for the old pool building renovation project in the proposed 2009 budget that he submitted to council. There is no money in the current budget for this project, but that is subject to change.
  The final version of the budget will be presented to council on Tuesday March 24th.

March 10. Drive through issue heating up

The March 10 council meeting was relatively straightforward, except for one issue of concern to me.

First, here are a couple of informational highlights:

A local dentist expressed interest in the empty church at Ridgebury and Ford Road, but the parcel would probably have to be rezoned before it could be used for a professional office. The Muslim congregation who was interested in the church is looking elsewhere after learning that they would not be able to put a new exit/entrance driveway onto Ford Road.

Curbside Brush collection with begin on April 6th, and a computer recycling will take place in April as well. Old computers, monitors, and peripherals can be brought to the service garage b/w 8 am and 3:30 pm weekdays during April.

The matter of my concern:

The most active zoning issue right now is the proposal by Mr. Hersh, who owns the old Ron's Gas Shell station (corner of Wilson Mills and Bishop--across from Catalano's) to put an prefab, drive-through coffee hut on the property.

The Highland Heights zoning code does not allow drive-throughs.

Mr. Hersh went before Planning & Zoning (P&Z) on Monday March 9 to discuss his proposal. It is my understanding that he was hoping that P&Z would give him a variance to allow him to put a drive-through facility on his property.

It was reported to me that the P&Z Chairman, Bob Mastrangelo, stated that he had received a legal opinion from Tim Paluf, the city's attorney, that the issue would have to be placed on the ballot, as a zoning change issue, and that it could not be treated simply as a request by a property owner for a variance from the zoning code.

A separate, somewhat tangential concern that has been raised about Mr. Hersh's proposal is the fact that the coffee company involved, Bear Creek Coffee, is in financial trouble and may be about to file for bankruptcy protection. There are indications, based on information posted online, that the company may be in dispute with some of its franchisees as well.

Mr. Pilla, the councilman who sits on P&Z, usually gives a report about the P&Z meetings.

In giving his report about the Hirsh variance request, Mr. Pilla did not mention Mr. Paluf's legal opinion (that the issue had to go on the ballot), he reported that Bear Creek had a new president, and then he said, "I am arranging for a few of us to sit down" (with the new president of Bear Creek Coffee)." He also stated that he planned to bring the issue to the Committee of the Whole for discussion.

During the public portion of the meeting, I expressed my concern about the potential conflict of interest in having Mr. Pilla getting personally involved in the Hirsh zoning issue. I suggested, in connection with Mr. Mills' prior stated commitment to transparency, that maybe council should think about enacting its own set of conflict of interest rules to make sure that the public knew what hat or hats council members were wearing at all times.

Although Mr. Pilla stated, during my comments, that he was not an investor in the Bear Creek Coffee deal, when pressed further by Mrs. Murphy, Mr. Pilla repeated a disclosure that he apparently made to council several weeks ago (when I was out of town), namely that he does business with Mr. Hirsh. Mr. Pilla stated that he lists his property with Mr. Hirsh's firm.

I spoke with Council president, Scott Mills, after the meeting, and followed up with an e-mail the next day.

This is my concern: I am uncomfortable that Mr. Pilla, as a member of P&Z, has injected himself into, and is personally involved in, an unresolved matter that has been brought to, and is still pending before, P&Z.

The fact that Mr. Pilla has set up a meeting between himself and several others (who he did not name, but I was later told includes Mayor Coleman and Mr. Mills), indicates that Mr. Hirsh is still pursuing his drive-through plan.

While I understand that council members are quite naturally approached by residents looking for assistance in resolving matters with the city, in my mind it becomes problematic when a councilperson becomes personally and actively involved in an issue that he or she will be asked to decide, while acting as a designated city decisionmaker.

My own personal feeling is that it crosses the line of propriety, when a councilperson who is a P&Z member becomes personally involved on behalf of a property owner who is asking the P&Z to give him relief/dispensation from the zoning ordinances.

Lawyers are barred from acting in such a way that there may be a "mere appearance of impropriety." I think the same should hold true for council members.

What concerned me further, is that Mr. Mills indicated to me that he both knew of, and approved, of Mr. Pilla's involvement in the Hirsh zoning matter.

As I told Mr. Mills in my e-mail to him: I know that he is doing his best to be actively supportive of economic development in the city, which I applaud and know is a daunting task right now, but I don’t necessarily think that the city's processes and laws have to be compromised to reach that goal.

It's perfectly appropriate for Mr. Hersh to bring the coffee company's president before P&Z or council if he thinks that will help his case (although who the president is really has no impact on the zoning issue involved). But I think that is how the matter should be handled.

Having the council member who sits on P&Z state that he is putting together a behind closed doors meeting on the property owner's behalf (which apparently includes a short list of invitees, namely the mayor and the council president)?
No, I dont think so.

Budget News, Gas Wells, and the Community Park

It was a long evening on Tuesday night, March 3rd. Here are some of the highlights:

Legislative and Finance Committee: Park and Rec (P&R) budget

The good news: Tony Ianiro, the city's finance director showed up with his laptop and detail records, so he could give immediate answers when asked about expense items, and after being a no-show previously, his brother, David Ianiro, the city's Recreation Director, showed up to discuss the budget for his department. Both of those things helped moved the discussion along much more productively.

One nagging concern I have, after sitting in on a number of the budget meetings, is about how things are charged off. Money is allocated to a lot of different categories, but I came away with the impression that things are not always charged against the right category----which is a way of going over budget In one category but "hiding" it by charging it off to another category that still has money in it. For example: the mayor stated that the $ 500 MARC fee (the mayfield rec league that the communities and school belongs to) was charged to P&R travel, entertainment, and meals. Why does P&R have money allocated to entertainment and meals in the first place?

The P&R director, David Ianiro, is proposing to deficit spend by approximately $ 90,000. To put this in perspective, keep in mind that P&R is the only department that has it own independent source of funding-----1 mil of the property taxes that the city collects is dedicated to P&R. No one else can touch it. The other thing to keep in mind is that, in addition to this deficit spending, the P&R director is also asking the city (i.e., taxpayers out of the general fund) to spend at least $ 175,000 (as of right now) to renovate/expand the pool house. More on that below.

The deficit spending includes these proposed items: $ 15,000 to repaint the pool (required, regular maintenance); $15,000 for a special three wheeled vehicle to maintain the ball fields (MV has one and the current tractor they are using is on its last legs); $ 25,000 for permanent shading at the pool (currently they buy umbrellas and other shading as needed for $ 3,000-$ 5,000 per year); and $ 10,000 to furnish the pool house (no commitment has yet been made to fund that renovation). I have no idea what the other $25,000 was allocated to, it wasn’t discussed specifically. It may be spread through the rest of his budget.

The council members repeatedly expressed their concern about the downturn in the economy and the need to be sensitive to taxpayers. The P&R director was pushed to prioritize his list, with the thought of doing the pool painting and one other thing. There was also discussion of how the budget numbers could be scaled back to reflect actual last year's costs----apparently some of the categories are budgeted based on last year's costs +. So the focus was on reducing the total amount of deficit spending, but it was unclear that it would not occur to some extent.

The P&R director acknowledged that it was for council to make decisions about the budget and that he was simply bringing forward ideas/requests from the P&R committee. At one point during the discussion, David Ianiro stated that he didn’t know why he bothered to meet with the Park & Recreation committee ---the inference, as I heard it, being that it was useless to have a committee if they weren't given what they wanted. So that gives you some sense of the tenor of the discussion.

There was absolutely no discussion about how the five year plan that the Park committee developed was reflected in the P&R budget---the P&R director's budget certainly didn’t appear driven by that plan as the # 1 priority is supposed to be safety, and the # 1 safety item is the park entrance.

The P&R director and the finance director agreed to do some more work on the budget. No final decision has been made, but it certainly appears that the P&R director will go ahead with his plan to spend more money than he receives in income this coming year, thereby reducing the reserves for his department.



COMMITTEE of the WHOLE

1. Gas well in Alpha Park

Kerry Klotzman who owns Alpha Park announced that he was putting a gas well in on his property, but he did not want the tank battery required for the drilling on his property.

He stated that the best location for the tank battery (a collection of holding tanks and piping that is associated with drilling and is surrounded by a privacy fence/screen) would be at the back of his property, near 271. One of the items in the battery is the "brine tank" that holds the toxic industrial waste that comes up during fractional drilling.

Mr. Klotzman said he was concerned that it wouldn’t look nice to see his tank battery from the highway, so he wants the city to give him an easement or a license, which will allow him to legally connect his land to land owned by Kerrick Industries, on the other side of Alpha Drive, for drilling purposes. Rather than putting it on the edge of his own property, near the highway, Mr. Klotzman is proposing--with the city's help--to put his tank battery a good distance away from his own property---down and across Alpha Drive, which will place it in the middle of the Alpha Drive industrial development area.

I have to say that Mr. Klotzman struck me as being a bit less than forthcoming when speaking with council. I kept having the feeling that there was something more at issue than simply Mr. Klotzman's concern for highway drivers' panoramic vista. As the discussion progressed, he did admit that he has not yet applied for a permit from the state and that he intends to hire a subcontractor to drill the well----which raises a whole different set of issues.

Mr. Klotzman's request raises several questions for council:

1. Given the strong message sent by Highland Heights residents last fall in passing the Charter Amendment to protect public property from gas drilling, it is appropriate for the city to get involved by actively enabling drilling activity in the city--by doing as Mr. Klotzman asks-- or should it stay neutral on the issue?

2. Is it a good idea to open this kind of door, by giving private property owners licenses/easements in city streets?

3. And, more fundamentally, should property owners who decide to drill wells on their property be allowed to put the structures that contain the byproducts from drilling--some of which is deemed by the EPA to constitute toxic industrial waste-- on other peoples' property, or should they be expected to maintain them on their own property---shouldn’t that be part of the equation when they are making the decision to drill?

FYI, Osborne, who put a gas well in at the Shoppes of Alpha (the corner of 271, Wilson Mills, and Alpha Drive) has his tank battery in the back of his property, near 271.

2. Free paper shredding Service

On April 4th, a company is coming in with an industrial shredder to shred paper/documents for residents, for free. The shredding will take place in front of the service department, from 10 am to 4 pm. This provides good motivation to get our taxes done by April 4th, so we can shred those unneeded financial documents once we are done!


3. Expanding the pool house

The parks committee was asked to put together a five year plan. Mr. Anderson presented a plan last fall. According to that document, safety was supposed to be the primary consideration for prioritizing projects/work in the park. The top safety issue is the park entrance.

The discussion about the plan, however, fairly quickly began to focus on renovating the old pool house. Council was told that it is inconvenient to bring the camp kids down the street to Millridge School on rainy days, which is what they have been doing in the past. At Millridge they have access to the gym and to a classroom. The parks committee wants to renovate/expand the pool house instead.

The camp lasts a total of 8 weeks in the summer, and includes about 100 kids. Mr. Anderson did not present any specific information about how many rain days there were over the last few years during camp season or the cost of using Millridge during the last several years---so the financial discussion proceeded somewhat in a vacuum.

In attempting to sell the renovation as a safety issue, however, Mr. Anderson said on Tuesday night: "You know the camp kids, the wind begins to blow, it begins to rain, it's frightening to them."

Mr. Anderson said he didn’t know what the cost would be to renovate the pool house, but the proposed renovation would far exceed the capacity that they need for the camp kids (they are looking at a building with a capacity to hold 189 people).

The Mayor used his financial authority when this first came up to hire an architect to look at the project. He hired Mr. Wallace, who is a member of the city's architectural review board to do this.

When asked by Mrs. Murphy, Mr. Wallace admitted that his involvement presented a potential conflict of interest problem because the architectural review board, that he was a member of, would be responsible for reviewing the construction plans that he drafted.

Mr. Wallace stated that for the most basic plan----no airconditioning, no heat, no fireplace, plain flooring and walls---but with renovated bathrooms, moved walls, and a large covered porch area--- the city would be looking at a cost of b/w $ 125,000 to $ 150,000 with an additional $ 10,000-$11,000 for drawing fees, supervisors, etc.

Mr Valentino of the parks committee then stepped forward and announced that, as a necessary part of the renovation, the fence around the old pool area would be removed, the cement and outdoor outlets torn up, and the whole grass area would have to renovated. Having stated that, he admitted that the cost of the work was not included in Mr. Wallace's figures, that he did not know the cost, and that it had not been budgeted by anyone---by the P&R director or by the Mayor in his budget.

It's just a guess, but so far the estimates of the renovation would be b/w $ 145,000--$175,000. Those are extremely rough estimates at this point, and subject to change. The Parks & Rec Committee had listed this project as costing $ 75,000 in their five year plan.

The Mayor stated that he supported the old pool house renovation and that he was willing to put the $300,000+ new pavillion project that he had proposed last year on hold indefinitely.

After listening to the entire presentation, it struck me that this was really about adding a new pavillion to the park, but by renovating the old pool house (for $ 200,000) rather than by building one from scratch (for $300,000+).

To date, I have not heard any cogent discussion as to why doing that is a pressing priority, compared to doing things like making the park entrance safer, lighting the tennis courts, or adding walking trails so residents can enjoy some of the 40+ acres of natural woods and streams in the park.

In expressing his support for the plan to renovate the old pool house, the Mayor did not indicate whether he had included money for the project in the 2009 budget that he submitted to council--presumably this would be treated as a city-wide capital improvement item. (I found out later that he had not).


4. The airport expansion

Mr. Hargate stated he would bring forth a resolution opposing the airport expansion. He wanted to use the same resolution used by the Richmond Heights council.

The Mayor reported that according to Congressman LaTourette, no money discussions have been held in Congress about the project. Apparently the plan is heavily dependent on federal funds.