This is the second go-round on this issue (see my March blog).
For those who need a reminder, here's the deal with the church building:
According to Bill Hlavin of Bass Energy, he told the city that they needed to buy the church building in order to put a gas well on the city hall property. There is a paper trail showing that the city actively pursued buying the church property after meeting with Hlavin, but the gas drilling deal fell apart before the mayor actually signed a lease to put a gas well there.
So the city bought the church property for the property, not the building.
Council president Scott Mills told residents last year that it was not safe for them to accompany the council members when they toured the building.
The city obtained an estimate from CT Consultants for the cost of removing the building. Based on that estimate, $138,000 was set aside in the budget for that work, with the hope/expectation that the cost could be reduced by selling material inside the building for salvage (i.e. copper piping) and by using the building for a controlled burn fire fighting exercise.
CT Consultant's estimate to renovate the church building? $ 773,000.
Some difference, huh?
I have been told by those who have seen it (remember, the public has been kept out because the building is unsafe) that the church building is not connected to the city sewer system (it has a septic tank), it is riddled with mold, it has remained unheated for the last two years and, given its age, it does not meet ADA accessibility standards and is not at all energy efficient.
In the legal business, it would be dubbed an attractive nuisance.
Council members appeared to agree that the building was in sorry shape and something needed to be done about it, but several council members are dead set against taking it down.
Why? Great question!
Those council members apparently want to use the money to renovate the old pool house instead.
For those who need a reminder, here's the deal with the old pool house building:
The Parks & Recreation Committee (P&R) were tasked last year to come up with a new five year plan. Councilman Pilla specifically asked them to come back with a 1 to 10 list, listing projects by priority.
P&R didnt do that. Instead they grouped things in different clusters, without coming up with a single priorities list to discuss with council.
While there was a good deal of discussion (and agreement) that the park entrance was the # 1 safety issue for the park, the Recreation Director David Ianiro announced that what P&Z really wanted was to renovate the old pool house instead--and they wanted to do it immediately.
The reason given for that decision: they wanted to do it "for the camp kids."
Ianiro said that when it rains, the campers go to Millridge, which is costly and inconvenient. Councilman Anderson later explained that it was a matter of safety. His explanation? " You know when it starts to rain, the kids get scared."
Some data about the camp:
The camp runs 8 weeks in the summer and involves approximately 100 kids a week.
The camp ran at an approximate $ 37,000 deficit last year. This deficit significantly contributed to the Ianiro's submission of a 2009 budget that operates in the red (expenses exceed revenue)--the first time ever in the city's history.
It cost less than $ 200 a year, on average, over the last five years to use Millridge on rainy camp days.
Millridge has a tornado shelter.
The proposed expansion would turn the old pool house into a large building that has a capacity to hold approximately 190 people.
Although P&R estimated, in their five year plan, that it would cost $ 75,000 to renovate the pool house, at this point that estimate looks to be way too low--it looks like the project will cost at least $ 175,000.
To get things started, Mayor Coleman stated that he would exercise his spending authority (he has a $3,000 spending limit) and would hire an architect to do some preliminary drawings, to give council a better idea of the cost/vision for renovating the old pool house. The mayor chose an architect who serves on the city's Architectural Review Board (the body that would have to approve the renovation plan before work could begin).
Mr. Wallis just submitted a bill for $ 3,100 to the city for that work. And it turns out, it appears that he should not have been asked to do that work because Ohio law (Ohio Revised Code 2921.42) and the parallel city ordinance (525.10) ban public employees from:
- Hav(ing) an interest in the profits or benefits of a public contract entered into by or for the use of the political subdivision ...with which the public official is connected.
- Having an interest in the profits or benefits of a public contract that is not let by competitive bidding if required by law and that involves more than one hundred fifty dollars.
Although Mayor Coleman said last December that he supported the plan to renovate the old pool house, he did not put any money in the 2009 budget (which he presented to council) for that work. The money for the renovation would have to come out of the city general (taxpayer provided) fund because the park and recreation budget is already operating in the red.
Apparently choosing to ignore that fact, Councilman Anderson attacked his fellow councilpersons on the Legislative and Finance Committee (Legan, Lombardo, Murphy) --suggesting that they were responsible for the fact that the Mayor did not ask for an allocation of money in the 2009 budget for the old pool house renovation project.
The reality is that Anderson, and the rest of council, approved the 2009 budget unanimously and no one, including Anderson, raised any question or issue with the fact that the budget did not include funding for the old pool house renovation.
Hearing Anderson speak, I was reminded of the scene from Casablanca, when Captain Rinaldi states (as he pockets his own gambling winnings) that he is "shocked, shocked" that gambling is going on at Humphrey Bogart's club (Rick's Place).
One final fact: when the budget was passed last month, revenue exceeded expenses by less than $ 300,000--a thin cushion indeed.
So where do things stand?
Those council members who suggested that other options should be explored, in lieu of demolishing the old church building, were tasked with coming up with some concrete ideas/suggested options before the next Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Fire Chief Turner agreed to gather information about whether the building could be used for a controlled burn.
And Mayor Coleman asked council to approve two items next week, with regard to the old pool house:
- He asked council to approve a contract for $ 6,900 to have a different architect to come up with more plans and specs for the project (that brings the preliminary drawing costs to a total of $ 10,000).
- He also wants council to authorize--next week---putting the renovation project out to bid.
Yep, they have no drawings or plans, they have no cost estimates, and there is no money allocated in the budget to renovate the pool house, but the Mayor wants council to authorize putting the project out to bid.
Isn't that putting the cart (or the old pool house) before the horse?
