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.