Point-Counterpoint

Upcoming Events

• Senior Citizens’ Holiday Party. Tuesday, Dec. 8th. HHts. Community Center. 12:30-3:30 pm.
• H1N1 Flu Shots. Fire Chief Turner announced that an HINI flu shot clinic is being planned for early December. Details TBA.
• Rain Barrel Clinic. Service Director Thom Evans reported that the Cuyahoga County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Friends of Euclid Creek will be co-sponsoring a Rain Barrel Clinic on Feb. 23rd at the HHts. Community Center. Rain barrels can be attached to residential gutter systems, to catch run-off from roofs. The collected water can then be used to water lawns, gardens, etc.

Heads Up—New Fees Assessed

Service Director Thom Evans also reported that the N.E. Ohio Regional Sewer District is planning to assess additional monthly fees on all residential and commercial property owners to cover the cost of a new regional storm water management program. Owners of smaller homes will have to pay about $ 50 additional each year.

Heads Up---Neighborhoods with Water Detention/Retention Basins

Last night, the Council Drainage Committee discussed a report that detailed the condition of the many water detention/retention basins scattered throughout the city. Committee chair, Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, stated that she hoped to use the report to develop appropriate maintenance standards for the basins.

Several challenges exist with regard to that plan. First, the basins are not uniform in design or construction (some are even underground). Second, the identity of the individuals or entities who own and/or are responsible for some of the basins (such as the one next to Hawthorne Drive) is unclear. Still, the report is a place to start, to insure the proper functioning of the city's storm water management system.

Red Flags Abound

It is Mayor Coleman's responsibility to keep council informed about city business and upcoming agenda items prior to council meetings. In fact, council members receive “packets’ of information from the mayor every Friday.

I get very suspicious when important information is withheld and/or not provided to council members in a timely manner and is, instead, delivered to them as a meeting begins.

Such was the case last night.

There were 3 different financial resolutions listed on the Nov. 24th agenda, for action by council. Council, apparently, did not receive any information, prior to the council meeting, about any of them. Red Flag.

The resolutions asked council to approve appropriations of money: 1) to tide the city over between January 1st until the 2010 budget is passed; to transfer money from the general tax fund to the city’s capital improvement fund; and 3) to cover additional, unbudgeted expenses for 2009---i.e., to cover overspending by the administration during this past year.

Finance Director Tony Ianiro distributed information pertaining to the third resolution only (the one pertaining to 2009 overspending) just before the council meeting began. He did not provide council with any information about the other two items that were listed on the agenda for council action.

Call me paranoid, but I always think that the withholding of information until just prior to a council meeting does not bode well. Such behavior makes me wonder whether the administration is trying to slip something by council or is trying to minimize bad news by preventing council members from having enough time to see, digest and analyze pertinent information before making a decision or voting on an agenda item.

Either could have been the case last night. Council President Scott Mills allowed for a first reading of all three resolutions (rather than calling for an immediate vote) and then immediately referred them to the Legislative & Finance Committee for review---which will slow down the process and bring about full and appropriate discussion between council and the administration before any final action is taken on them.

This morning, I asked Finance Director Ianiro for a copy of the information sheet that he passed out at last night’s council meeting and for some other financial information as well. He promptly complied with my request. Thank you, Mr. Ianiro.

It appears the administration overspent its budget by over $ 92,000. That may look like a drop in the bucket compared to the city’s $ 17 million+ budget, but it is worth a good discussion nonetheless----particularly as almost half of the deficit spending is attributable to the city’s increasingly problematic recreation department.

Point—Counterpoint (From Last Night’s Council Meeting)

• Point. Current projections are that the city will spend spend a total of $17,178,848 in 2009.
• Counterpoint. Highland Heights has approximately 8,800 residents. That means the city spent $ 1,952.14 per resident in 2009. I'll have to do some more research to find out how that compares with other cities' spending.
  
• Point. The city overspent its budget (across the board) by $92,475, or .054 % of its entire budget.
• Counterpoint. The original budget projection was that the city would spend all but $283,000 of its 2009 revenue. That figure now is smaller, due to the $92,475 in over-spending. The final figure could be even smaller if (as it likely) the budget’s revenue projections were inflated.
  
• Point. Finance Director Tony Ianiro is asking council to approve an additional transfer of $ 41,675 from the general fund to cover expenditures by the city’s recreation department.
• Counterpoint. The recreation department already received an infusion of additional taxpayer money in the beginning of the year (in addition to the automatic 1 mil that they get from property taxes), so this transfer is in addition to that. Significantly, this is the first year—ever---that the Recreation Department projected in its budget that it would spend more than it took in as revenue.
  
  The current actual year-to-date numbers show the true extent of the Recreation Department's deficit spending.
  
  According to detail reports provided by the city’s finance director, the city Recreation Department had $ 615,000 in revenue in 2009 but spent $ 733,512—that’s a difference of $ 118,512 (or approximately 19 % of its income). That's how much it actually deficit-spent this year.
  
• Point. Councilman Ted Anderson announced last night that he again wanted to discuss his pet project, the proposed $ 300,000+ old pool renovation project, during the Dec. 15th Council Meeting. That meeting is Mr. Anderson’s last meeting as a councilmember, and it is also the last council meeting for 2009.
  
• Counterpoint One. Although he was anxious to continue his attempt to steamroll over the old pool house renovation project, Councilman Anderson was reluctant to discuss a more urgent financial matter pertaining to the park.
  
  When giving his report about the Park & Recreation Commission’s November meeting, Councilman Anderson entirely neglected to mention one very significant (and potentially very costly) item: the city’s swimming pool is leaking and has been leaking for quite some time.
  
  It was only after the subject was brought up by several sharp-eyed council members (who took the time to actually read the cryptic minutes from that meeting) that Mr. Anderson acknowledged that the problem existed---and then he immediately (but unsuccessfully) attempted to downplay its significance.
  
  Apparently the city’s swimming pool has been leaking since 2008, the leak got worse in 2009, efforts to stop the leak (by re-caulking and re-painting the pool this year) have failed, a significantly large sum of capital improvement money may need to be spent in 2010 to get the leak fixed (tearing up the part of the pool itself may be required), and council probably won't know the true cost of that repair until spring.
  
• Counterpoint Two. As readers of this blog are aware, Councilman Ted Anderson has regularly and uniformly pointed to the city’s 8 week summer day camp program as the justification for spending $ 300,000+ to renovate the old pool house building.
  
  The stats about that program are in. According to Finance Director Tony Ianiro, 108 families/households paid to have children participate in at least one week of the 8 week camp program this year. (I had previously heard that 1/3 of those households were nonresidents, so that means that we are talking about maybe 80 HHts family who participated in that program in 2009).
  
  According to the 2009 financial numbers, the camp program was a significant money loser for the city. $ 89,282.00 was spent on the camp, but only $ 61,475.50 in fees were collected. That’s a $ 27,806 deficit. That is not a new trend. The 8 week summer day camp has experienced similar financial losses over the last few years.
  

I have to admit that I have yet to fully understand why Councilman Ted Anderson thinks that it makes good sense to spend a huge amount of additional taxpayer money to renovate a building for a summer camp program that not only loses a lot of money every year, but also is a significant contributor to the recreation department’s overall deficit-spending.

The Bottom Line

1. There is only so much money to go around.
   
2. I wonder about the priorities of Councilman Anderson, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro and the Parks & Recreation Committee. Why is renovating the old pool house their top priority, when the park presents other, more pressing safety and/or repair issues? And why would they keep pursing the old pool house renovation project now that they know that the city is likely facing a big repair bill for the pool? Isn't getting the pool fixed more important?
   
3. I wonder whether residents and council shouldn’t expect Recreation Director Dave Ianiro to get his own (financial) house in order before entertaining any more requests for additional investments of taxpayer money for the programs and facilities that he oversees.
   
4. I also wonder: does Recreation Director Dave Ianiro really not understand that he will be a lot more credible, in asking for money, if he first shows that he can wisely spend the approximately $ 615,000 in revenue that the recreation department already receives---and does he not realize that he has yet to make that showing?

The discussion on December 15th should be interesting. I'm looking forward to being there. As always, I promise to keep you posted.

End.

Deja Vue & About Face

Deja Vue

This morning’s Plain Dealer had a story describing the condition of downtown’s Public Auditorium---conditions which have led the proposed Medical Mart developer to abandon plans to use that facility.

At first glance, I thought I was reading the report on the old church building that sits on the city hall property.

It turns out that both buildings have many of the same significant problems—problems that are a barrier to cost-effective renovation---including water leakage and outdated electrical and heating systems.

But according to a 2008 structural engineer’s report, the old church building is in even worse shape than Public Auditorium because it:

• has an unusable septic system and is not connected to the sanitary sewer system;
• is riddled with mold due to years of leaking roofs;
• most likely contains asbestos tile;
• has minimal insulation and substandard doors and windows that have to be replaced;
• lacks air conditioning; and
• has non-operational, substandard and/or non-repairable plumbing, electrical and heating systems

My October 2nd blog contains a detailed discussion of the structural engineer’s report and his cost estimates (based on 2008 dollars) for razing vs. renovating the building.

It is hard to read the engineer's report and not conclude that the tipping point has passed, as far as renovating the old church building.

The issue that council must decide is whether to spend a minimum of $ 775,000 in public tax dollars to restore a decrepit and substandard building—a building that the city has no current use for and which was purchased for a now-obsolete purpose (so Bass Energy could drill a gas well on city hall property).

Council's vote on the old church building will be very revealing. Residents will be able to see for themselves which council reps are practical, fiscally conservative decisionmakers and which ones are big spenders, who treat tax money like monopoly dollars.

About Face!

It was an unusually lively Committee of the Whole meeting last night---and an amusing one, as far as the about-faces pulled by Councilman Ted Anderson and Councilman Frank Legan.

Suffice it to say that I now have two names on my list, for the next time Old Navy has its annual sale on flip flops.

Councilman Anderson

In attempting to lessen the cost of his pet $ 300,000+ old pool house renovation project, Councilman Anderson has, in the past, suggested that some of the additional work resulting from the proposed construction plan--including the need to provide new electrical service for use during Home Days--should be dropped. At the Sept. 1st Committee of the Whole meeting he went so far as to say, “You take away Home Days and it all disappears.”

My, how things have changed.

Two months ago Councilman Anderson was willing to get rid of Home Days to save money on the old pool house renovation project. Last night, however, he was suddenly all about Home Days.

Although I have rarely seen him initiate ideas during council meetings, Councilman Anderson quite actively put forth several different suggestions for improving the Home Days festivities.

Flip flop

Was Councilman Anderson merely angling to stay in the public eye after he loses his council seat in January? I can’t say for sure, but regardless, Mayor Coleman promptly appointed him to a spot on the Home Days committee.

(Post-script: Anderson is quoted in the Nov. 26th edition of the Sun Messenger as saying, "I will be back running (for council) in two years..." so I guess that explains his sudden burst of interest in Home Days-- and Mayor Coleman's quick action in appointing Anderson to the Home Days committee.

In the same story Ted Anderson also---quite amusingly---blames party politics for getting in the way of his reelection on November 3rd. That makes me wonder. Do you suppose Ted he didn't realize that the election was, like, a political election (maybe because last time he simply walked into the Ward 4 council chair)? And do you suppose Anderson realized the irony of his statement---given that he himself included, in the only piece of campaign literature that he distributed, an endorsement from a locally prominent Republican party member?

Well, after attending council meetings for two years, all I can say is that with Ted Anderson, what you see (and hear) is what you get. )

Councilman Legan

There was discussion last night about both the Catalano’s property (it is still in litigation about the Marc’s lease) and the vacant Ron’s Shell gas station property (at the corner of Wilson Mills and Bishop).

In the past, several council members (including Councilmen Legan, Anderson, and Pilla) spoke on behalf of the current owner of the gas station property, who hoped to cash in on his speculative investment by getting approval to use the property for a drive-through food business.

The sticking point for that plan was that such businesses are not currently allowed in Highland Heights (under our zoning laws) and a traffic study indicated that it would not be advisable to put a drive-through business on that lot in any case.

Last July, during the July 7th Committee of the Whole meeting, Councilwoman Murphy suggested that members of the city’s economic development committee should sit down with both the gas station property owner and the owner of the adjoining little business strip, to see whether a deal could be brokered, allowing the strip business owner to buy the property.

According to my notes from the July 7th meeting, Councilman Legan was totally dismissive of Councilwoman Murphy’s idea. In fact, he went so far as to declare that it would be “antagonistic” to have the economic development committee get involved and that following such a course would “antagonize” the owner of the gas station property.

What a difference a few months make.

The discussion last night again turned to the gas station property. As before, council seemed to recognize (although perhaps the owner does not) that the gas station property has very limited commercial marketability, given its small size and location, and that a good solution might be to have one of the adjoining commercial business owners buy the lot to add to their properties.

Councilman Anderson, who favors having the city buy the gas station property (although with what money, he didn't say), asserted that the business strip owner was not interested in purchasing the property.

Councilwoman Murphy reported to council that she had talked to the business strip owner several times and that she was interested in buying the gas station property, but not for the purported $ 450,000 asking price demanded by the property's owner.

Councilwoman Murphy again brought up her idea of having the city’s economic development committee sit down with both property owners, to see if a deal could be worked out.

Now here's the amusing part.

When Councilwoman Murphy mentioned that this approach had previously been dismissed as “antagonistic”, Councilman Legan quickly replied, “Absolutely not.” He was now all for the idea.

Flip flop

To his credit, Councilman Legan and the rest of council now seem to be on board with having the economic development committee take a more proactive approach towards finding zoning-compliant solutions to economic development challenges in the city.

Councilwoman Murphy's suggestion was a sensible one. It's great that Councilman Legan has flipped positions and finally come to realize that.

end

Councilman Legan: Spending $$ on City Services: Aerobics? Yes. Garbage Collection? No.

In my Oct. 8th blog, I discussed the offer by Team Energetics, a privately owned fitness facility, to provide free and/or discounted memberships to Highland Heights residents in exchange for an initial public subsidy of $ 32,400 per year. I also provided details of the proposed contract, which had no termination date and which contained (to my reading) some very problematic terms and conditions.

As reported by the Sun Messenger, only Councilman Frank Legan expressed any interest in Team Energetic's proposal. He was quoted 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."

The true nature of Concilman Legan's position on spending money for city services was made clear last night, at the November 10th council meeting.

Although Councilman Legan was willing to entertain the idea of spending over $ 32,000 in tax dollars to provide discount fitness classes to residents, he voted NO (and was the only council member to do so) on a motion at last night, which approved the city picking up the $ 7,200 cost of new governmental fees that have been imposed on the city's garbage hauler, J&J Refuse.

Councilman Legan's definition of city services---and which services he is willing to spend public tax dollars on--- surely seems to be different than mine. The answer from him seems to be:

Aerobics? Yes. Garbage collection? No.

Why would Councilman Legan vote NO on paying the increased garbage fees? He didn't bother sharing his thoughts with, or explaining his position to, his fellow council members or the public. But to this outside observer, Councilman Legan seemed to take his cue from Mayor Coleman, who has insisted since the topic first came up in early September that the city shouldn't pay the increased government-imposed garbage hauling fees, but should split the costs with J&J instead.

Mayor Coleman has steadfastly stuck to this position, even though:

1. The city's garbage hauling contract specifically anticipated that there might be a governmental fee increase imposed on our garbage contractor, J&J Refuse;
   
2. Service Director Thom Evans has repeatedly reported to council and Mayor Coleman that the city agreed, in the contract, not to unreasonably refuse to pay for the increased fees, provided J&J Refuse adequately justified/documented them;
   
3. Mayfield Village, which is also a party to the contract, has agreed to pay for the increased governmental fees; and
   
4. Law Director Tim Paluf stated that state law and regulations allow such fees to be assessed and passed along to the cities that generate the garbage, that it was his legal opinion that the city should pay the full amount of the legally allowable governmental fee increases imposed on J&J Refuse (which amount to $1.50 per ton of garbage or $ 7,200 per year), and that the cost of attempting to negotiate a lower reimbursement amount (the course of conduct Mayor Coleman preferred) would be a lot more expensive in the long run, given the law and the language in the contract.

It was interesting to see Mayor Coleman sitting on opposite sides from the city's law director, service director, and most of council. That rarely occurs---in public anyway.

I understand Mayor Coleman's disappointment at having to pay more fees, given that the garbage contract is already $240,000 more expensive than the last one. But, Thom Evans reported from the start that the contract contained several different additional pass-along provisions, which could increase the city's garbage hauling costs.

I can speculate and provide a couple of different possible explanations for what was going on last night with regard to Mayor Coleman, Councilman Legan, and the garbage contract:

1. Mayor Coleman never really understood the provisions of the city's garbage hauling contract or Thom Evans' explanation of the contract (and neither did Councilman Legan);
   
2. The contract did not contain the provisions that Mayor Coleman wanted---in which case, the mayor needs to have a serious discussion with Law Director Tim Paluf and/or Service Director Thom Evans (and both he and Councilman Legan need to understand that the city can not hold J&J Refuse responsible for the city's contract drafting errors); or
   
3. Mayor Coleman's protestations of surprise and opposition (and Councilman Legan's "me too" NO vote) were nothing more than play-acting and political positioning, for purposes of claiming, on future campaign literature, "We tried to hold the line on city spending!"
   While the 2011 mayorial election seems an age away to most of us, it is just around to the corner to the possible contenders for that job.

Post-script. # 3 Wins!

In the November 19th edition of the Sun Messenger, Mayor Coleman is quoted as saying, "It was council's decision. I didn't want to have to spend $ 7,000 unless we have to."

So, play-acting and political posturing win!

Why do I say that? This is the reality:

1. Mayor Coleman is legally charged (under Ohio law) with executing contracts for the city.
2. His appointees (Thom Evans and/or Tim Paluf) were the ones who drafted and/or negotiated the contract terms and later explained them to both to the mayor and council.
3. The law director, Tim Paluf, told the mayor and council that it was his legal opinion that the city was contractually obligated to pay the increased governmental fees and that it would not be cost-effective for the city to challenge payment of them.
4. Council followed the advice of the mayor-appointed law director when it approved paying the fees.

But....... according to the mayor, it's all council's fault.

Yeah, We Certainly Buy That One, Mr. Mayor !

If you want to read more about the governmental fees, the garbage contract, and the discussions with council, follow the links below:

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2009/03-03-09_council_committee_minutes.htm (garbage contract and bids)

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2009/09-01-09_council_committee_minutes.htm (contract and increased fees)

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2009/09-22-09_council_minutes.htm (contract and increased fees)

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2009/10-06-09_council_committee_minutes.htm (contract and increased fees)

end

Updated Election Quiz Challenge

Some Quiz Questions From the Election

1. Not everyone is into posting yard signs, but many candidates go that route. Which candidate displayed the most yard signs during this election?

2. Generally Highland Heights council candidates take the high road when campaigning. But this time around there was one notable exception. Which candidate dropped a last minute, pre-election day literature piece attacking his rival?

3. Which candidate described Highland Heights as "Mayberry" (as in the old Andy Griffith TV show, "Mayberry, R.F.D.") ?

4. In what subtle way does it appear that Mayor Coleman acted to counter Chuck Brunello's campaign theme, which centered on improving city services? A hint: they fall once a year.

5. Which candidates will represent the Highland Heights community on council for the next two years?

ANSWERS

1. Churck Brunello Jr., a challenger for an at-large council seat, won the yard sign posting contest. He had over 200 yard signs distributed throughout the area. He came in 4th in that race.

2. Rocco Dolciato, who was appointed by Mayor Coleman to the Ward 2 council seat several years ago, was defeated by Councilman Leo Lombardo in the 2007 election, and was defeated again in his second attempt to get elected to that seat.

3. Incumbent Ted Anderson, who was soundly defeated by challenger Lisa Stickan in the Ward 4 council race.

4. The city provided 7 day a week leaf pickup during the week before the election---including on the Saturday and Sunday before the election. Since then? Well, my post-election leaf pile is still sitting on the tree lawn, awaiting collection by the leaf truck.

5. Congratulations and our best wishes go to:

Cathy Murphy, Incumbent, Ward 1
Leo Lombardo, Incumbent, Ward 2
Bob Mastrangelo, Ward 3
Lisa Stickan, Ward 4
Scott Mills, Ed Hargate, Frank Legan, Incumbents, Council-at-large

A very big thank you to the over 1,100 voters who believed in me and voted Yes for Amy Feran. I will continue to provide Highland Heights residents with information about city happenings and city issues through this blog.
end