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?

# # #