For those of you who have missed my regular updates on Highland Heights happenings, I wanted to let you know that I was called away on a family emergency, but I will be returning to hearth and home soon.
Meanwhile, make sure you catch former city engineer Andy Blackley's letter to the editor contained in the May 14th edition of the Sun Messenger
http://www.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/opinion/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1242239870270740.xml&coll=4
You can also read my response, which fully explains why I believe the fact that Blackley and his firm worked simultaneously for the city and for Bass Energy on the Bass Energy drilling deal should be a matter of significant public concern:
http://www.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/opinion/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1242925645152330.xml&coll=4
Both are available online, at the Sun Messenger website.
See you soon!
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
I'm going to stomp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue
It was a remarkable performance that Councilman Ted Anderson gave at the Highland Heights Council meeting on April 28th.
Anderson is the council representative to the Parks & Rec Committee (P&R), and he has been tireless in his campaign to get the city to rebuild the old pool house at the park, even though the cost would have to come out of the general fund, no money has been budgeted for the project, and there have only been fuzzy numbers thrown out about how much it would really cost.
P&R originally claimed it would cost only $ 75,000, but already it is looking like it will cost at least $ 175,000---to support a 8 week summer camp progarm attended by 100 kids.
I finally saw the drawings rendered by Mr. Wallis, a member of the city's Architectural Review Committee (see my earlier post about that conflict of interest issue). He envisioned a building with an occupancy of approximately 190 people, with several large and small meeting rooms.
To be honest, what I saw looked like a second community center.
Several councilmembers raised valid questions and concerns about whether the old pool building was structurally sound, about the budget, and about the apparent rush to get the project through---as evidenced by Mayor Coleman's announced plan (which he later had to abandon) to make council simultaneously approve hiring an architect to render drawings and specs and authorize putting the project out to bid (drawings and specs, sight unseen).
Councilman Anderson's response reminded me of my kids when they were about three years old and I refused to give them a cookie before dinner.
He immediately threw a temper fit and went on the attack.
He claimed that the project was "not rushed" because P& R had come in to council a couple months earlier, in December, and told council that they wanted this project and that it was their top priority.
Apparently, in Anderson's mind, that is the extent of the planning and discussion needed in order to spend city money: a group comes in, tells council what it wants, and "voila," council is immediately suppose to provide funding.
Anderson said that P&R members were very angry with "certain council members"--namely the Legislative and Finance Committe--who Anderson is working hard to blame for the fact that the project has been, at least in his mind, delayed.
Clearly Anderson has no use for things like deliberate and careful planning processes---when it comes to his pet projects, anyway.
Anderson had to be reminded again, for the umteeumpth time, that although Mayor Coleman publicly said that he supported the project, he did not put any money in the budget (which he formulates and then gives to council) for it.
The mayor finally, and somewhat reluctantly, owned up to the fact that he did not put money in the budget for the project. But for a guy with a financial background, he gave a pretty bizarre excuse for that decision: he claimed that with regard to the capital improvements fund, "the city budgets a number, not specific projects."
Of course that raised an immediate question in my mind.
If the number used isn't connected with any projects, how does Mayor Coleman come up with the number he puts in the budget for capital improvements projects?
Do you suppose, when it comes budget time, he simply throws a dart at a dartboard to decide how much money goes in the capital improvements fund that year?
Or do you think he decides the amount based on how he feels that day---"Let's see, I feel good about $ 400,000, let's make it $ 400,000 this year"
Absurd, absolutely absurd.
One of my favorite Millridge teachers, Cathy Gould, who is a former director of the camp, gave an impassioned plea for the project and gave some perspective on why P&R chose that as the next project for the park. As I told her later, I wished she had spearheaded the presentation to council. It would have helped alot.
Despite all of Councilman Anderson's theatrics, there is no getting around the one underlying problem with the whole discussion: P&R wants the city to spend a goodly sum of taxpayer money investing in a physical structure for a camp that is a significant money loser, as it is currently configured.
I have to wonder why P&R is focusing on a building, without first coming up with a new vision/plan for the camp. It seems to me that any physical facility they might need should reflect that vision. Not the reverse.
Which brings me, once again, to the same question I posed previously: are they putting the cart (or old pool house building) before the horse?
# # #
Anderson is the council representative to the Parks & Rec Committee (P&R), and he has been tireless in his campaign to get the city to rebuild the old pool house at the park, even though the cost would have to come out of the general fund, no money has been budgeted for the project, and there have only been fuzzy numbers thrown out about how much it would really cost.
P&R originally claimed it would cost only $ 75,000, but already it is looking like it will cost at least $ 175,000---to support a 8 week summer camp progarm attended by 100 kids.
I finally saw the drawings rendered by Mr. Wallis, a member of the city's Architectural Review Committee (see my earlier post about that conflict of interest issue). He envisioned a building with an occupancy of approximately 190 people, with several large and small meeting rooms.
To be honest, what I saw looked like a second community center.
Several councilmembers raised valid questions and concerns about whether the old pool building was structurally sound, about the budget, and about the apparent rush to get the project through---as evidenced by Mayor Coleman's announced plan (which he later had to abandon) to make council simultaneously approve hiring an architect to render drawings and specs and authorize putting the project out to bid (drawings and specs, sight unseen).
Councilman Anderson's response reminded me of my kids when they were about three years old and I refused to give them a cookie before dinner.
He immediately threw a temper fit and went on the attack.
He claimed that the project was "not rushed" because P& R had come in to council a couple months earlier, in December, and told council that they wanted this project and that it was their top priority.
Apparently, in Anderson's mind, that is the extent of the planning and discussion needed in order to spend city money: a group comes in, tells council what it wants, and "voila," council is immediately suppose to provide funding.
Anderson said that P&R members were very angry with "certain council members"--namely the Legislative and Finance Committe--who Anderson is working hard to blame for the fact that the project has been, at least in his mind, delayed.
Clearly Anderson has no use for things like deliberate and careful planning processes---when it comes to his pet projects, anyway.
Anderson had to be reminded again, for the umteeumpth time, that although Mayor Coleman publicly said that he supported the project, he did not put any money in the budget (which he formulates and then gives to council) for it.
The mayor finally, and somewhat reluctantly, owned up to the fact that he did not put money in the budget for the project. But for a guy with a financial background, he gave a pretty bizarre excuse for that decision: he claimed that with regard to the capital improvements fund, "the city budgets a number, not specific projects."
Of course that raised an immediate question in my mind.
If the number used isn't connected with any projects, how does Mayor Coleman come up with the number he puts in the budget for capital improvements projects?
Do you suppose, when it comes budget time, he simply throws a dart at a dartboard to decide how much money goes in the capital improvements fund that year?
Or do you think he decides the amount based on how he feels that day---"Let's see, I feel good about $ 400,000, let's make it $ 400,000 this year"
Absurd, absolutely absurd.
One of my favorite Millridge teachers, Cathy Gould, who is a former director of the camp, gave an impassioned plea for the project and gave some perspective on why P&R chose that as the next project for the park. As I told her later, I wished she had spearheaded the presentation to council. It would have helped alot.
Despite all of Councilman Anderson's theatrics, there is no getting around the one underlying problem with the whole discussion: P&R wants the city to spend a goodly sum of taxpayer money investing in a physical structure for a camp that is a significant money loser, as it is currently configured.
I have to wonder why P&R is focusing on a building, without first coming up with a new vision/plan for the camp. It seems to me that any physical facility they might need should reflect that vision. Not the reverse.
Which brings me, once again, to the same question I posed previously: are they putting the cart (or old pool house building) before the horse?
# # #
What I said----Say what?
These were my remarks to council on Tuesday, April 28th.
They address two issues: saying no to residential gas drilling and the rehiring of Andy Blackley's firm, Stephen Hovancsek & Associates to provide engineering services to the city.
JUST SAY NO
Hiring Hovancsek & Associates
Postscript
1. Council agreed to put the JUST SAY NO campaign on its agenda at the May 5th Committee of the Whole Meeting. City Hall. 7 pm.
2. Council approved Mayor Coleman's request to hire Stephen Hovancsek & Associates as the city engineer. The vote was 4-3.
Voting to hire Andy Blackley's firm were: Ed Hargate, Jamie Pilla, Ted Anderson, and Frank Legan.
Voting no were: Cathy Murphy, Scott Mills, and Leo Lombardo.
# # $
They address two issues: saying no to residential gas drilling and the rehiring of Andy Blackley's firm, Stephen Hovancsek & Associates to provide engineering services to the city.
JUST SAY NO
I am here tonight to request that council put a discussion item on its agenda for the next Committee of the Whole meeting.
The item I'd like to see discussed is having the city launch a JUST SAY NO campaign, aimed at informing residents about the financial, health, and safety issues associated with urban gas drilling and encouraging them to JUST SAY NO to residential gas drilling leases.
This is an urgent issue in our community.
I received a call earlier today from a resident on Ridgebury, who was approached by someone from Grubb & Ellis, who was pitching hard to get him to sign a drilling lease with Ohio Valley Energy Company (OVE). OVE is the company that drilled the well in Bainbridge that caused a house to exploed and has polluted acquifers in that community. After speaking with the resident, I am convinced that the Grubb & Ellis agent communicated alot of misinformation, in his effort to get the resident to sign a drilling lease with OVE.
We have heard alot of talk about how the State of Ohio has removed all local control over gas drilling.
That is not exactly the truth.
Our community does have local control.
If people say no to drilling companies, and say no to signing gas well leases, then drilling companies won't be able to pur gas wells in the middle of our residential neighborhoods. It's that simple.
You guys are responsible for protecting our neighborhoods and preserving the quality of life in our community. You must do all you can to keep Highland Heights from becoming another Bainbridge.
I'm hoping you will be willing to put this on the agenda, so we can discuss this further at a future Committee of the Whole meeting.
Hiring Hovancsek & Associates
I am shocked and appalled to hear that you intend to hire Andy Blackley's firm, Stephen Hovancsek & Associates, as the city engineer.
Let me explain a couple of things to you.
According to the Ohio Ethics Commission, it doesn't matter whether you hire Andy Blackley or Stephen Hovancsek & Associates, to do the engineering work for the city. They are both covered by the conflict of interest statutes.
The grim reality is this: the sole reason Bass Energy has a leg to stand on, in its $ 7 million lawsuit against the city, is because Andy Blackley and his firm, Stephen Hovancsek & Associates, chose to work both sides of the street with regard to the Bass Energy drilling deal.
The drilling plat map that Andy Blackley and his firm, Stephen Hovancsek & Associates, produced for Bass Energy is what Bass is claiming constitutes the written consent required under the lease contract.
Mr. Blackley and his firm, Stephen Hovancsek & Associates, have compromised not just themselves, but the city as well, by accepting and performing that work for Bass Energy at the same time Mr. Blackley was working as the city engineer on the Bass Energy drilling deal.
I hope you understand that in hiring Andy Blackley's firm, Stephen Hovancsek & Associates, tonight, you will be perceived as endorsing the conduct of Andy Blackley and his firm, Stephen Hovancsek & Associates.
You will be sending the message that you think that it's perfectly okay to continue employing individuals, and their companies, who have needlessly, and perhaps illegally, exposed the city to millions of dollars in potential liability.
You will be telling the public that this is the best that Highland Heights deserves.
You might think so, but I do not.
Postscript
1. Council agreed to put the JUST SAY NO campaign on its agenda at the May 5th Committee of the Whole Meeting. City Hall. 7 pm.
2. Council approved Mayor Coleman's request to hire Stephen Hovancsek & Associates as the city engineer. The vote was 4-3.
Voting to hire Andy Blackley's firm were: Ed Hargate, Jamie Pilla, Ted Anderson, and Frank Legan.
Voting no were: Cathy Murphy, Scott Mills, and Leo Lombardo.
# # $
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)