First, A Public Service Announcement From Service Director Thom Evans
At Tuesday night's completely uneventful council meeting, Mr. Evans reported on leaf pickup in the city and reminded the handful of residents in attendance that leaves should be left on tree lawns, not the street, for pickup.
The city service department vaccums up leave piles in neighborhoods on a rotating basis--they hit neighborhoods and streets in order and then start again once they've hit the entire city. Right now they should be returning to your neighborhood every 4-5 days, although the return will get a bit longer once the leaves start coming down more heavily.
Although residents hate the idea of hurting their lawn, by having piles of leaves sitting on their tree lawns, Mr. Evans reported that leaf piles left in the streets can block drains, cause slick and unsafe road conditions, and make it much harder for the crews and the machines to vacuum up the leaves quickly and efficiently.
Mr. Evans asks Highland Heights residents to please cooperate by piling leaves on tree lawns, not in the street.
The Competing Gas Drilling "Reform" Bills
Council, on Tuesday night, passed a resolution asking the state to impose a moratorium on issuing new residential neighborhood gas drilling permits until the state laws are reformed.
This resolution was in addition to a prior one, in which council expressed its support for a reform bill sponsored by Sen. Tim Grendell, who proposes to restore local zoning control over gas wells and eliminate "mandatory pooling," the state law that allows drilling companies to force private property owners to give up their mineral rights so they can drill in residential neighborhoods.
There was a hearing held in Columbus on Wednesday Oct 28th on a rival bill introduced by Sen. Neihaus, which is claimed to be reform but actually further enables residential drilling and loosens control and oversight over drilling companies even more than under the current law.
I had informed council and the mayor about that hearing last week.
At Tuesday's council meeting, I inquired whether an official representative of the city would be willing to attend the hearing and to personally present the resolutions passed by council to the legislative committee considering the competing drilling law reform bills. My query was met with silence.
No city official volunteered to go to Columbus to speak up for Highland Heights residents.
I attended that hearing, and spoke in opposition to the Neihaus bill.
I was not alone in attending. There were two mayors in attendance, along with Gates Mills Fire Chief Robinson, officials from five different NE Ohio communities, and residents from Broadview Heights, Concord Township, Mayfield Village, Stow, Olmstead Falls, Auburn Township, and Chesterland.
There was a phalanx of drilling company representatives standing in the back throughout the hearing---taking notes and visually reminding the legislators of their significant financial and political clout in Columbus.
An hour and a half after the hearing began, the chairman of the committee abruptly announced a two hour recess. Suddenly a morning hearing was turned into a day-long affair. I have no idea if the hope was to get some of the plain folk opposing the Neihaus bill to leave, but it sure felt like that to me. While some people did have to depart, most stayed and waited patiently for the hearing to reconvene.
To give you an idea of numbers, the committee imposed a five minute time limit on speakers. Despite that limit, the hearing went on until just after 6 pm.
It is up in the air, at this point, whether the legislators really heard or considered the plea from NE Ohio residents, to change the law to protect us from forcible drilling in the middle of our lovely, established, suburban residential neighborhoods.
Two senators, Sen. Neihaus and Sen. Stewart, who have alot of clout in Columbus, are clear pro-drilling company advocates and supporters. But there were some thoughtful questions asked by other legislators, which gave me some hope.
I looked in the mirror on Thursday morning and saw a very tired face looking back, but I knew that traveling to Columbus was very important. It was important that the legislators deciding our fates should hear, perhaps for the first time, stories told by someone other than the drilling companies.
And they heard lots, if they chose to listen, about what the drilling laws and regulations are doing to our residential neighborhoods.
It may not be much, but at least I tried.
The fourth hearing on the Neihaus bill is in Columbus on Weds. Nov 3rd. It is open to the public. Anyone can attend and speak.
end
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Signs--Going and Coming?
News from the Oct. 20 Committee of the Whole Meeting
Sign Going?
Several weeks ago, council asked Law Director Tim Paluf to research whether or not the city could donate the outdoor sign for the former church building (which sits on the city hall property) to St. Paschal Baylon Church, which has expressed an interest in it.
Mr. Paluf reported that the city had no use for the sign, that none of the city administrators he spoke with believed that the sign had any significant monetary value, and that he thought it would be okay for the city to give the sign to St. Paschal's, provided the church paid the cost of having city workers remove the sign and paid to have it transported to the church's property on Wilson Mills Road.
There was no discussion as to whether any other Highland Heights business or church might have interest in the sign, or whether it should be advertised for sale to the highest bidder.
Sign Coming?
Last week Councilman Ted Anderson, a former Parks & Rec Commission (P&R) member and currently P&R council rep, provided Tim Paluf with a list of rules that P&R had developed for Whiteford Park, a small community park that is located in the Highland Woods neighborhood.
While Highland Woods residents are apparently opposed to adding even an additional street light in the area of the park, to discourage after-hours use and inappropriate behavior in the park, Councilman Anderson said that P&R wanted the rules enacted "to give the police some backbone" when dealing with issues in the park.
He did not explain what those issues are, nor had he previously provided his fellow council members with a copy of the proposed rules, thereby preventing them from asking questions or providing input on the issue.
Mr. Paluf reported at the meeting that he believed the current ordinance on the books, pertaining to the Community Park, applied to Whiteford Park. He suggested that the existing ordinance could be amended, to state that fact more clearly, and that it was unnecessary to adopt an ordinance specifying rules just for Whiteford Park.
Mr. Anderson then stated that P&R wanted a sign of park rules posted at the park. It's obviously something he's thought alot about; he even described the exact location where the sign should be posted.
Unfortunately, P&R is well into a deficit-spending situation with regard to the 1 mil of property tax money that it receives for its own exclusive use each year (more on that below). Therefore, money to pay for a sign would have to come from the general fund, but no money has been allocated in the 2009 budget for that use.
Therefore, Council agreed that the matter should be referred to the Legislative & Finance Committee, which is tasked with providing fiscal oversight with regard to the spending of public taxpayer money.
Community Center Repair and Renovation
Council set aside money in 2008 to renovate the interior of the Community Center. Unfortunately, the contractor doing that work uncovered a serious problem. The wood beams that provide vertical support for the building were sitting below grade and developed wet rot, threatening the structural integrity of the building.
The interior work had to be halted so that structural repair work could be performed---which meant that the contractor was prevented from timely completing its work.
It is typical for contractors to seek delay payments in such situations. And the community center contractor apparently made a demand for such payment.
Although Mr. Paluf negotiated a reduced payment to the contractor, council held off approving the deal after Councilman Anderson expressed dissatisfaction with some of the seaming work inside the building and Councilman Hargate expressed unhappiness that no final report had been issued with regard to the project.
Steamrolling the $ 300,000 Old Pool House Renovation Project
The last we heard, council rejected the bids for the Old Pool House Renovation Project, a project which Councilman Anderson, Council Candidate Valentino, and P&R have ardently and insistently pushed since last November. The bids were rejected because the qualifying ones came in much higher than the original $ 75,000 price tag put on the project by P&R (try 4 times as high).
Councilman Anderson returned to his steamrolling mode at the COW meeting, announcing to council that "we (i.e., Anderson and P&R) want the project to move forward," "We want to get the paperwork done so it is ready to go" and that "plenty of interior work can get done in the winter."
Councilman Anderson's solution to the pricey bids? He offered several:
Sign Going?
Several weeks ago, council asked Law Director Tim Paluf to research whether or not the city could donate the outdoor sign for the former church building (which sits on the city hall property) to St. Paschal Baylon Church, which has expressed an interest in it.
Mr. Paluf reported that the city had no use for the sign, that none of the city administrators he spoke with believed that the sign had any significant monetary value, and that he thought it would be okay for the city to give the sign to St. Paschal's, provided the church paid the cost of having city workers remove the sign and paid to have it transported to the church's property on Wilson Mills Road.
There was no discussion as to whether any other Highland Heights business or church might have interest in the sign, or whether it should be advertised for sale to the highest bidder.
Sign Coming?
Last week Councilman Ted Anderson, a former Parks & Rec Commission (P&R) member and currently P&R council rep, provided Tim Paluf with a list of rules that P&R had developed for Whiteford Park, a small community park that is located in the Highland Woods neighborhood.
While Highland Woods residents are apparently opposed to adding even an additional street light in the area of the park, to discourage after-hours use and inappropriate behavior in the park, Councilman Anderson said that P&R wanted the rules enacted "to give the police some backbone" when dealing with issues in the park.
He did not explain what those issues are, nor had he previously provided his fellow council members with a copy of the proposed rules, thereby preventing them from asking questions or providing input on the issue.
Mr. Paluf reported at the meeting that he believed the current ordinance on the books, pertaining to the Community Park, applied to Whiteford Park. He suggested that the existing ordinance could be amended, to state that fact more clearly, and that it was unnecessary to adopt an ordinance specifying rules just for Whiteford Park.
Mr. Anderson then stated that P&R wanted a sign of park rules posted at the park. It's obviously something he's thought alot about; he even described the exact location where the sign should be posted.
Unfortunately, P&R is well into a deficit-spending situation with regard to the 1 mil of property tax money that it receives for its own exclusive use each year (more on that below). Therefore, money to pay for a sign would have to come from the general fund, but no money has been allocated in the 2009 budget for that use.
Therefore, Council agreed that the matter should be referred to the Legislative & Finance Committee, which is tasked with providing fiscal oversight with regard to the spending of public taxpayer money.
Community Center Repair and Renovation
Council set aside money in 2008 to renovate the interior of the Community Center. Unfortunately, the contractor doing that work uncovered a serious problem. The wood beams that provide vertical support for the building were sitting below grade and developed wet rot, threatening the structural integrity of the building.
The interior work had to be halted so that structural repair work could be performed---which meant that the contractor was prevented from timely completing its work.
It is typical for contractors to seek delay payments in such situations. And the community center contractor apparently made a demand for such payment.
Although Mr. Paluf negotiated a reduced payment to the contractor, council held off approving the deal after Councilman Anderson expressed dissatisfaction with some of the seaming work inside the building and Councilman Hargate expressed unhappiness that no final report had been issued with regard to the project.
Steamrolling the $ 300,000 Old Pool House Renovation Project
The last we heard, council rejected the bids for the Old Pool House Renovation Project, a project which Councilman Anderson, Council Candidate Valentino, and P&R have ardently and insistently pushed since last November. The bids were rejected because the qualifying ones came in much higher than the original $ 75,000 price tag put on the project by P&R (try 4 times as high).
Councilman Anderson returned to his steamrolling mode at the COW meeting, announcing to council that "we (i.e., Anderson and P&R) want the project to move forward," "We want to get the paperwork done so it is ready to go" and that "plenty of interior work can get done in the winter."
Councilman Anderson's solution to the pricey bids? He offered several:
- Throw out the requirement that the contractor perform at least 51 % of the work with its own employees.
This is a standard provision in public contracts. It is a requirement for most performance bonds. It provides protection to union workers and helps ensure quality, by keeping the contractor on the hook for a majority of the work performed and by restricting the amount of work that can be subcontracted out to others. It also ensures that the company performing the work is an actual, active building contractor.
Councilman Anderson dismissed that requirement as unnecessary "boilerplate". - The Old Pool House Building currently supplies the power for Home Days. The proposed renovation of that building means that new electrical service would have to be provided for use during Home Days and during other exterior activities at the park.
According to Councilman Anderson, the new electrical work "has nothing to do with the pool house." He wants that work removed from the bid package. - Councilman Anderson's last suggestion was to replace most of the windows in the renovated building with glass block.
Can you imagine, on a rainy day, just how depressing that would be for the camp kids? Oh my.
Although Councilman Anderson did his best to impart a sense of urgency about the matter, the rest of council clearly did not swallow the bait.
In fact, there was a sense that a more global look at P&R and its finances might be in order.
In 2009, for the first time ever in Highland Heights history, P&R presented a deficit-spending budget to council. P&R receives 1 mil of property taxes each year, for its exclusive use. But this year, it asked for additional tax money from the general fund, to subsidize its operations.
Councilman Leo Lombardo, the head of council's Legislative & Finance Committee, reported that P&R had already overspent its revenue by $ 43,000---and there is still one financial quater left to go in 2009.
P&R has also been using money from its emergency reserve fund to cover regular operating costs. With that money factored in, Councilwoman Cathy Murphy projected that P&R will have deficit-spent to the tune of about $90,000 this year.
The recreation director, Dave Ianiro, is Mayor Coleman's appointee. Mr. Inaniro presents the P&R budget to Mayor Coleman each year. The mayor, in turn, decides whether to include the figures presented by P&R in the budget that he submits to council .
I guess we will have to wait and see whether Mayor Coleman allows the deficit spending by that part of his administration to continue, or whether he will take a more active hand and work with Mr. Ianiro to come up with a balanced P&R budget for 2010.
end
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Should We Be (Team) Energetic?
The Team Energetics Brouhaha
Today the Sun Messenger ran yet another story focusing on Bill Conti's plan to obtain public subsidies for Team Energetics, the private Highland Heights fitness facility that Conti owns with partner Bob Kaleal.
The Sun Messenger coverage of Conti's plan has been quite remarkable for a number of reasons, including the amount of coverage it has received (the number of stories and the amount of newspaper space given to Ed Wittenberg's stories) and the fact that--at least up until this week--the stories primarily quoted Conti and no one else. None of the municipal players involved were quoted---save for Mayfield Heights Mayor Greg Costabile, a public supporter of the plan.
Today's (October 8th) edition of the Sun Messenger reported for the first time that at a September 1st Committee of the Whole Meeting, Mayor Coleman and Highland Heights council (except for Frank Legan, councilman-at-large) expressed no interest in Conti's contract.
The paper also reported that Conti and Kaleal were present at that meeting. I was there too. Although Councilman Frank Legan later stated that he was "disappointed" that they were "not given an opportunity... to make a presentation" to council, the fact of the matter is that neither Conti nor Kaleal asked to speak that night, and they quickly left the room once the public discussion about the contract ended.
I have to admit, I have found Conti's tactics fascinating.
Rather than do what most people would do-- approach the communities first, to see if they were even interested in the concept and, if so, on what terms---Conti bypassed the preliminary negotiation step entirely.
Instead, he used the media (in this case, the Sun Messenger ) to announce that he intended to obtain public tax dollars for his private business and that he expected five cities (Lyndhurst, Mayfield Heights, Mayfield Village, Gates Mills, and Highland Heights) to sign a contract (with terms that he alone selected) giving him those tax dollars---as it turns out, for an indeterminate number of years.
When the cities failed to jump on his bandwagon, Conti followed up by announcing, again through the media, that he would offer discount classes for senior citizens--a quick way to try to build up demand for his facility (and perhaps a way to pressure local officials into reconsidering their rejection of his contract. Whether that strategy has worked remains to be seen; so far only 13 senior citizens from the 5 cities have signed up.)
Conti has also hinted at some political maneuvers. After noting that all 7 Highland Heights council members are seeking reelection in November (actually only six are), Conti was quoted as saying: "After the election is over, my feeling is it (the Team Energetics contract) will be put back on the table. "
I just don't get all the public high-pressure tactics.
If this is such a good deal-- a true "win-win" situation for both public taxpayers and privately owned Team Energetics--then why didn't Conti simply sit down with each community beforehand---before the public announcement in the Sun Messenger--to see if he and the five cities could come to some understanding of what might work?
Of course, if Conti had bothered to talk to the cities first, before publicly announcing his plan, he might have run up against what, for him, might be an unpleasant reality.
I dont know how it works in other cities, but in Highland Heights, contracts over $ 25,000 are supposed to be put out to competitive public bid. So, even if it had liked the deal, Highland Heights would not have been free to accept Conti's no-bid contract.
Despite that fact, Councilman Frank Legan was quoted this week as saying:
Today the Sun Messenger ran yet another story focusing on Bill Conti's plan to obtain public subsidies for Team Energetics, the private Highland Heights fitness facility that Conti owns with partner Bob Kaleal.
The Sun Messenger coverage of Conti's plan has been quite remarkable for a number of reasons, including the amount of coverage it has received (the number of stories and the amount of newspaper space given to Ed Wittenberg's stories) and the fact that--at least up until this week--the stories primarily quoted Conti and no one else. None of the municipal players involved were quoted---save for Mayfield Heights Mayor Greg Costabile, a public supporter of the plan.
Today's (October 8th) edition of the Sun Messenger reported for the first time that at a September 1st Committee of the Whole Meeting, Mayor Coleman and Highland Heights council (except for Frank Legan, councilman-at-large) expressed no interest in Conti's contract.
The paper also reported that Conti and Kaleal were present at that meeting. I was there too. Although Councilman Frank Legan later stated that he was "disappointed" that they were "not given an opportunity... to make a presentation" to council, the fact of the matter is that neither Conti nor Kaleal asked to speak that night, and they quickly left the room once the public discussion about the contract ended.
I have to admit, I have found Conti's tactics fascinating.
Rather than do what most people would do-- approach the communities first, to see if they were even interested in the concept and, if so, on what terms---Conti bypassed the preliminary negotiation step entirely.
Instead, he used the media (in this case, the Sun Messenger ) to announce that he intended to obtain public tax dollars for his private business and that he expected five cities (Lyndhurst, Mayfield Heights, Mayfield Village, Gates Mills, and Highland Heights) to sign a contract (with terms that he alone selected) giving him those tax dollars---as it turns out, for an indeterminate number of years.
When the cities failed to jump on his bandwagon, Conti followed up by announcing, again through the media, that he would offer discount classes for senior citizens--a quick way to try to build up demand for his facility (and perhaps a way to pressure local officials into reconsidering their rejection of his contract. Whether that strategy has worked remains to be seen; so far only 13 senior citizens from the 5 cities have signed up.)
Conti has also hinted at some political maneuvers. After noting that all 7 Highland Heights council members are seeking reelection in November (actually only six are), Conti was quoted as saying: "After the election is over, my feeling is it (the Team Energetics contract) will be put back on the table. "
I just don't get all the public high-pressure tactics.
If this is such a good deal-- a true "win-win" situation for both public taxpayers and privately owned Team Energetics--then why didn't Conti simply sit down with each community beforehand---before the public announcement in the Sun Messenger--to see if he and the five cities could come to some understanding of what might work?
Of course, if Conti had bothered to talk to the cities first, before publicly announcing his plan, he might have run up against what, for him, might be an unpleasant reality.
I dont know how it works in other cities, but in Highland Heights, contracts over $ 25,000 are supposed to be put out to competitive public bid. So, even if it had liked the deal, Highland Heights would not have been free to accept Conti's no-bid contract.
Despite that fact, Councilman Frank Legan was quoted this week as saying:
"I'm open to continuing the dialogue on both sides.
Any time you have an opportunity to create a partnership between the city and the private sector, a nonprofit, or any other public entity to provide additional city services at a reasonable cost, we need to consider that."
Aerobics a "city service"? That's a new one to me.
FYI, here are some of the terms of the contract Conti asked the five cities to sign:
- Although Conti has made a big pitch to senior citizens and to city workers (and their families)--who would be given free passes---Team Energetics is described in the contract as a facility giving "special attention to sports and children programs..."
- The contract has no specified length and no set ending date. It states that it "shall continue in existence until terminated, liquidated, or dissolved by law or mutual agreement of the parties..." The cities do not have the right to unilaterally end their involvement with Team Energetics.
- The contract requires the cities to pay Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness $2,700 a month for the first five years, $ 3,700 a month for the second five years, and to discuss a contract extension and increased compensation for the years after that.
- The contract requires the cities, "at their individual cost and expense," to: 1. "advertise and promote the use" of the facility "in a timely manner"; 2. to "properly display...events within their city/community limits"; and 3. to cooperate in "informing residents of delays and interference with the use of the facility" "due to the construction of a new facility." The contract does not suspend the cities' monthly payments when such interruption or "interference with use" occurs.
- The contract does not specify when or where any new facility would be built, nor is Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness obligated to locate any new facility in Highland Heights--or even in the Hillcrest area.
- The cities are required to obtain liability insurance covering Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness and to "indemnify" Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness (i.e. reimburse them) for any "losses, judgments, liabilities, expenses and amounts paid in settlement of any claims sustained" by Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness in connection with running the facility. So if someone gets hurt while using the facility, the cities are legally liable to pick up the tab arising from that injury or claim.
- The cities have no say over how the facility is run and can not hold Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness liable for any action it takes or any decision it makes unless the action/decision is negligent or a result of "misconduct." The cities are legally bound, however, by all of the decisions/actions taken by Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness.
- The cities have no financial interest in the facility. Team Energetics/Hillcrest Community Fitness keeps all the profits and makes all the decisions.
- The "operating calendar" attached to the contract states that the "Community Fitness Center" hours of operation are, M-F, 8:30 am to 3:30 pm and 8:30 pm to 6:30 am. On Sat & Sun: 8:30 am-3 pm. The contract notes that some areas of the facility have specific schedules indicating when they are available for open use, "subject to additional chargeable classes, camps, personal training, etc." The contract makes clear that all of the operation/availability schedules are subject to change.
end
Friday, October 2, 2009
Renovating the Old Church Building on City Hall Property: Reality or Fantasy?
Some Background
The city bought the property in front of city hall in 2008. Since that time, council has disussed what to do with the property--including the old church building, which as Mayor Coleman recently acknowledged, the city has no current use for.
Sun Messenger reporter Jeff Piorkowski recently wrote a story about the building ( it was subsequently posted online by Robert Nozar) :
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_looks_to_resu.html
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_council_consi.html
Here are some facts and a couple of excerpts from that story:
Depending on who you listen to, the building is either in bad shape (an attractive nuisance) and needs to be torn down or it's in decent shape and worth salvaging.
I do know that when council toured the building in mid-June, 2008, members of the public attending that council meeting (myself included) were forbidden from accompanying council members because, as stated by Council President Mills, the church building was not safe.
The city paid a local engineering firm to conduct a structural analysis of the building in 2008. That firm, CT Consultants, reported on the building's condition and provided estimates both for the cost of renovating the building (to bring it up to current building standards) and the cost of razing (demolishing) the building.
Here are some pertinent findings from that report:
Projected probable cost to demolish the building, remove the pavement (driveway and parking area) and septic system, cap the utilitities and landscape the property (as of May 2008): $ 138, 000.
The cost of just demolishing the building and capping the utilities: $ 38,000.
The city bought the property in front of city hall in 2008. Since that time, council has disussed what to do with the property--including the old church building, which as Mayor Coleman recently acknowledged, the city has no current use for.
Sun Messenger reporter Jeff Piorkowski recently wrote a story about the building ( it was subsequently posted online by Robert Nozar) :
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_looks_to_resu.html
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_council_consi.html
Here are some facts and a couple of excerpts from that story:
- The church building was built in 1961. It has 117,000-square feet.
- The city paid $300,000 to acquire the building in January 2008.
- Money was allocated in the city's 2009 budget to demolish the building.
- "The building, by all accounts, is in bad shape."
Here are what several council members were quoted as saying about the building:
- "There is severe water damage on the roof, insulation is minimal and the ceiling has developed mold," said Ward 1 Councilwoman Cathy Murphy.
- It's in very, very poor condition," said Council President Scott Mills. "There's no power or heat in it. It will probably have to come down. It's a mess."
- Councilman at-large Frank Legan: "I'm in favor of having a day where the residents come out and use their imaginations as to what they might want to make of it...Either that, or we can make a video to show people what it looks like inside. We owe it to our residents, before we pass judgment, to let them have a look at the building. It could be very useful for all residents... the building could be used for recreational or meeting purposes, or it could be utilized as a business incubator, in which small, start-up businesses can have use of offices."
Depending on who you listen to, the building is either in bad shape (an attractive nuisance) and needs to be torn down or it's in decent shape and worth salvaging.
I do know that when council toured the building in mid-June, 2008, members of the public attending that council meeting (myself included) were forbidden from accompanying council members because, as stated by Council President Mills, the church building was not safe.
The city paid a local engineering firm to conduct a structural analysis of the building in 2008. That firm, CT Consultants, reported on the building's condition and provided estimates both for the cost of renovating the building (to bring it up to current building standards) and the cost of razing (demolishing) the building.
Here are some pertinent findings from that report:
- Projected total cost to renovate the building (as of May 2008): $ 773,262.
This figure takes into account "creating a usable space in the existing building configuration", but does not include the cost of: kitchen equipment, interior room alterations, partitioning to create different spaces, cosmetic changes (not specified in the report), and use of the church attic area.
The cost of just demolishing the building and capping the utilities: $ 38,000.
Some details from the report:
- The building exterior is in good condition overall for a 40+ year old building, but the roof and windows are substandard and/or past their expected useful life expectancy. The windows are single pane glazing type.
- The building has a septic system (it is not connected to public sanitary sewer system). "Current regulatory requirements will prohibit use of this system."
- At least part of the storm sewer was not operational and the condition of the rest of the storm sewer could not be determined.
- All of the exterior and interior doors are non-compliant and must be replaced. The sidewalks also must be replaced.
- There are pin-hole size failures in the roof shingles thoughout the building. "Water on roof has entered building causing severe damage."
- There is "extensive water damage" in the kitchen, east church and lobby areas, which "will require all materials to be replaced". "Ceiling batt insulation, drywall, etc. has developed mold. All materials must be completely removed."
- The building and its existing bathrooms are not ADA-compliant. The entire building and the bathrooms must be made ADA-compliant (they must meet legally prescribed standards to allow for full use and access by individuals with disabilities) as this is a publicly-owned building. This is a non-waivable requirement.
- "The mechanical and electrical systems are original and difficult to find replacement parts."
- The heating system is "non-working."
- Service size for the electrical system is inadequate, and at least two electric panels are original. "Complete replacement is needed".
- The building is not air-conditioned. "Cooling/ventilation is provided by an operable center window."
- The building envelope insulation is minimal. Insulation is 1" thick foil faced insulation. The radiant heating system/hot water system piping is not insulated.
- The resilient tile observed under the carpeting (and throughout the building) "is characteristic of materials containing asbestos. Abatement may be required" (cost not included in the estimates).
There are a couple of other truisms at play here:
- Not every old building has historical or cultural value to a community.
- Needs should drive buildings, buildings should not drive needs.
- Experts usually consider a building's projected future operating costs as a factor when making demolition vs. renovation decisions. That is because the future cost of operating an older, poorly insulated, pre-energy crisis building will be substantially higher than the cost of operating a newly constructed, energy-efficient building. The engineer's report does not include the projected operating costs for a renovated building.
- The city does not have grant money to spend on the building. Public tax dollars will be used, either to raze or to renovate it.
The engineer's report is a public document (your tax dollars paid for it). If you'd like to read it yourself, you can request a copy from city hall.
It seems clear to me, after reading the structural engineering report and re-reading the quoted comments above, that some council members have embraced the engineer's realistic assessment of the true condition of the building and are using a rational cost-benefit analysis to make their decision on how to best spend our tax dollars.
As for the rest?
Well, read the report and decide for yourself.
end
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Puzzlement
(D'ont) Let There Be (More) Light
There are a couple of things that puzzled me, arising from the Sept 22nd council meeting.
First, was the presentation by former Fire Chief Ed Bencin, of a petition signed by quite a few Highland Woods neighbors, asking that the city stop considering the idea of providing additional lighting for Whiteford Park.
Second, was a quote in the Sun Messenger, attributed to Ward 3 council canidate Frank Zanella, in which Mr. Zanella distanced himself from the recent Whiteford Park renovations and suggested that maybe people were confusing the Whiteford Park renovations with his efforts to get a bench installed in the Community Park.
I vividly remember Mr. Zanella's presentation to council about Whiteford Park, and I have a copy of a memo he sent to his neighbors at the time, detailing his efforts to improve the park.
So I asked myself: why the back-peddling? And what's with all the concern about the lighting?
"Mr. Frank Zanella, 474 Lassiter, advised he has two young children. He showed pictures of the apparatus in the park. He stated the park is not representative of the city; that it is a little neighborhood park to them; and, they want to maintain it. He passed out a flyer in the neighborhood and numerous residents have contacted him wanting to support the cause....
Mr. Zanella suggested they take the equipment out and replace it with something. He did talk with Miracle, the company who supplied the new equipment in the Community Park and did receive a few quotes. ...
So, Frank Zanella's significant involvement in the Whiteford Park renovation (he even procured quotes for equipment replacement ) is clear---and on the record--and is to be commended.
But what about the lighting? I got the feeling that Former Chief Bencin thought the city was planning to light up Whiteford Park like the ball fields in the Community Park--in the fashion of the old Jacob's Field/Progressive Park.
Where did the discussion about lighting start?
According to same Committee of the Whole minutes, Councilman-at-Large, Frank Legan was the first person to bring the subject up. He said the idea started with the city's recreation director, Dave Ianiro:
"Mr. Legan stated one of the things that Mr. Ianiro came up with that he thought was good was posting signs with rules, time the park closes, etc. and perhaps some lighting. He also stated he would hate to start this process and not finish it. He would not like to see the equipment pulled out and not replaced with anything. "
The discussion about Whiteford Park and lighting continued during the regular June 24, 2008 council meeting.
According to the minutes of that meeting, Ward 4 Councilman Ted Anderson reported that he met with Councilman Legan and (now Ward 3 council candidate) Tony Valentino after the June 17th COW meeting to discuss Whiteford Park. The minutes say that Anderson then provided some recommendations:
"An additional light was suggested. The pole at the far right needs to be serviced because the lens is out."
Mayor Coleman also weighed in on the issue of lighting:
"Mayor Coleman reported he had spoken with (Service Director) Mr. Evans about the condition of the light poles in the Highland Woods Area. A lot of them are in need of maintenance. CEI owns the poles. Mayor Coleman advised Mr. Evans will see if CEI can add a pole to that area. "
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2008/06-24-08_city_council_minutes.htm
So, according to the official records, the only lighting that the city discussed in connection with the Whiteford Park renovation was putting in an additional utility pole and a street light in the vicinity of the park.
Kind of anti-climatic, huh?
But hopefully this news will be reassuring to our Highland Woods neighbors, who thought, for whatever reason, that the city might be planning to light up Whiteford Park like a Christmas tree---and that somehow Frank Zanella was responsible for that.
end
There are a couple of things that puzzled me, arising from the Sept 22nd council meeting.
First, was the presentation by former Fire Chief Ed Bencin, of a petition signed by quite a few Highland Woods neighbors, asking that the city stop considering the idea of providing additional lighting for Whiteford Park.
Second, was a quote in the Sun Messenger, attributed to Ward 3 council canidate Frank Zanella, in which Mr. Zanella distanced himself from the recent Whiteford Park renovations and suggested that maybe people were confusing the Whiteford Park renovations with his efforts to get a bench installed in the Community Park.
I vividly remember Mr. Zanella's presentation to council about Whiteford Park, and I have a copy of a memo he sent to his neighbors at the time, detailing his efforts to improve the park.
So I asked myself: why the back-peddling? And what's with all the concern about the lighting?
In fact, public records show that Mr. Zanella was instrumental in getting the splintering and dangerous old playground equipment in Whiteford Park removed and replaced. Both he and his neighbor, Dan Greves, should be commended for their efforts. They did not achieve success quickly or easily.
According to the minutes, Mr. Zanella appeared at the June 17, 2008 Committee of the Whole Meeting, to discuss replacing the playground equipment at Whiteford Park with council."Mr. Frank Zanella, 474 Lassiter, advised he has two young children. He showed pictures of the apparatus in the park. He stated the park is not representative of the city; that it is a little neighborhood park to them; and, they want to maintain it. He passed out a flyer in the neighborhood and numerous residents have contacted him wanting to support the cause....
Mr. Zanella suggested they take the equipment out and replace it with something. He did talk with Miracle, the company who supplied the new equipment in the Community Park and did receive a few quotes. ...
So, Frank Zanella's significant involvement in the Whiteford Park renovation (he even procured quotes for equipment replacement ) is clear---and on the record--and is to be commended.
But what about the lighting? I got the feeling that Former Chief Bencin thought the city was planning to light up Whiteford Park like the ball fields in the Community Park--in the fashion of the old Jacob's Field/Progressive Park.
Where did the discussion about lighting start?
According to same Committee of the Whole minutes, Councilman-at-Large, Frank Legan was the first person to bring the subject up. He said the idea started with the city's recreation director, Dave Ianiro:
"Mr. Legan stated one of the things that Mr. Ianiro came up with that he thought was good was posting signs with rules, time the park closes, etc. and perhaps some lighting. He also stated he would hate to start this process and not finish it. He would not like to see the equipment pulled out and not replaced with anything. "
The discussion about Whiteford Park and lighting continued during the regular June 24, 2008 council meeting.
According to the minutes of that meeting, Ward 4 Councilman Ted Anderson reported that he met with Councilman Legan and (now Ward 3 council candidate) Tony Valentino after the June 17th COW meeting to discuss Whiteford Park. The minutes say that Anderson then provided some recommendations:
"An additional light was suggested. The pole at the far right needs to be serviced because the lens is out."
Mayor Coleman also weighed in on the issue of lighting:
"Mayor Coleman reported he had spoken with (Service Director) Mr. Evans about the condition of the light poles in the Highland Woods Area. A lot of them are in need of maintenance. CEI owns the poles. Mayor Coleman advised Mr. Evans will see if CEI can add a pole to that area. "
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2008/06-24-08_city_council_minutes.htm
So, according to the official records, the only lighting that the city discussed in connection with the Whiteford Park renovation was putting in an additional utility pole and a street light in the vicinity of the park.
Kind of anti-climatic, huh?
But hopefully this news will be reassuring to our Highland Woods neighbors, who thought, for whatever reason, that the city might be planning to light up Whiteford Park like a Christmas tree---and that somehow Frank Zanella was responsible for that.
end
News and Notes from Oct 13th Council Meeting
Annual Fire Department Open House
Chief Bill Turner and his firefighting crew have invited the public to tour the Highland Heights fire department on Saturday, Oct. 24th from 10:30 am to 1 pm.
Recycling Bins
There are still recycling bins available for purchase at the service department. Just throw your cans, bottles, and plastic items in the bin and bring it out to the curb on your regular trash day. It's convenient and it reduces the amount of garbage that gets hauled to a landfill.
It was reported to council that there was a downloadable bin order form on the city's website, but I sure as heck didn't see it a moment ago, when I looked for it.
Halloween
We can all breath easy and make our plans now because council passed, as an emergency measure, an ordinance declaring that Halloween would be celebrated on, well, Halloween, Saturday Oct. 31st.
Engineer's Report
Although the construction looks to be complete, there are still unresolved issues pertaining to the rebuilt Bishop/Highland Road intersection. The city has not yet signed off on the project, and the contractor is purportedly demanding more money.
Happier news is that the Ridgebury Blvd. project should be completed, with a final layer of ashalt added, by the end of the month.
New Laws
Council passed two significant pieces of legislation:
Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, who worked hard to bring both ordinances to the council floor, thanked the cities of South Euclid and Lyndhurst for their assistance with the foreclosed homes ordinance.
Speaking of Gas Wells...
The current rumor is that Cutter Oil (who drilled the well on Jim Dasher's property along Wilson Mills) is actively pursuing a second gas well to be placed behind residential property on the east side of Bishop Road, between Hawthorne Drive and Highland Road.
We can only hope it's just a rumor---and that the property owners along Bishop have done more than just listen to the golden financial promises made to them, but instead have actually researched the negative impact that giving up their mineral rights to a drilling company will have on their property value (and on their neighbors' property values too).
end
Chief Bill Turner and his firefighting crew have invited the public to tour the Highland Heights fire department on Saturday, Oct. 24th from 10:30 am to 1 pm.
Recycling Bins
There are still recycling bins available for purchase at the service department. Just throw your cans, bottles, and plastic items in the bin and bring it out to the curb on your regular trash day. It's convenient and it reduces the amount of garbage that gets hauled to a landfill.
It was reported to council that there was a downloadable bin order form on the city's website, but I sure as heck didn't see it a moment ago, when I looked for it.
Halloween
We can all breath easy and make our plans now because council passed, as an emergency measure, an ordinance declaring that Halloween would be celebrated on, well, Halloween, Saturday Oct. 31st.
Engineer's Report
Although the construction looks to be complete, there are still unresolved issues pertaining to the rebuilt Bishop/Highland Road intersection. The city has not yet signed off on the project, and the contractor is purportedly demanding more money.
Happier news is that the Ridgebury Blvd. project should be completed, with a final layer of ashalt added, by the end of the month.
New Laws
Council passed two significant pieces of legislation:
- An ordinance addressing empty homes under foreclosure; and
- An ordinance stating that gas royalty payments are included as reportable income, for city income tax purpoes.
Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, who worked hard to bring both ordinances to the council floor, thanked the cities of South Euclid and Lyndhurst for their assistance with the foreclosed homes ordinance.
Speaking of Gas Wells...
The current rumor is that Cutter Oil (who drilled the well on Jim Dasher's property along Wilson Mills) is actively pursuing a second gas well to be placed behind residential property on the east side of Bishop Road, between Hawthorne Drive and Highland Road.
We can only hope it's just a rumor---and that the property owners along Bishop have done more than just listen to the golden financial promises made to them, but instead have actually researched the negative impact that giving up their mineral rights to a drilling company will have on their property value (and on their neighbors' property values too).
end
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)