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.
"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.
