As reported by the Sun Messenger, only Councilman Frank Legan expressed any interest in Team Energetic's proposal. He was quoted as saying:
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."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."
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:
- The city's garbage hauling contract specifically anticipated that there might be a governmental fee increase imposed on our garbage contractor, J&J Refuse;
- 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;
- Mayfield Village, which is also a party to the contract, has agreed to pay for the increased governmental fees; and
- 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:
- 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);
- 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
- 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:
- Mayor Coleman is legally charged (under Ohio law) with executing contracts for the city.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
