Council devoted most of the Dec. 15th meeting discussing Highland Road sanitary sewer backup/flooding problems with two engineers from the Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer’s Office (CCSEO).
Apparently residents along Highland Road, between Pinehurst and Bishop Roads, are being impacted by excess storm water, which has been infiltrating the upstream sanitary sewer line, causing their downstream basements to flood.
After conducting extensive testing (council was shown cool video of that testing, taken from inside the sewer line), CCSEO engineers determined that a major cause of the problem is deteriorating clay lateral piping coming from houses on Jefferson Drive. Apparently water has been leaking from those lateral pipes into the underground trench that holds both the storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines, and that water has been getting into the sanitary sewer line, causing the flooding farther down the line.
The good news is that Highland Heights homeowners pay fees, as part of their taxes, which are set aside by the county for purposes of maintaining the sanitary sewer lines in our city. So some of the necessary repair work, at least, will be paid for by the county.
In fact, the CCSEO engineers are pursuing a plan to pick up the entire projected $ 700,000 cost to reline not just the county-owned portion of the Jefferson Drive lateral piping, but also the portion that homeowners are legally responsible for as well—to make sure that the entire problem is corrected. (The engineers said that they believe the extra cost of relining the homeowners’ portion of the piping would be minimal, if it is done as part of their repair job). So excellent news for Jefferson Drive homeowners---they may have a hole dug in their lawns (the county has the right to do that, to access the sewer line), but in exchange the county may reline the private portion of the lateral piping for them.
This project (which has been ably spearheaded by Councilwoman Cathy Murphy and the other members of council’s Drainage Committee) is still in the early stages, but homeowners can expect to hear more about it in early 2010. A public meeting will be held to answer questions and provide residents with additional information.
While there will be some mess and inconvenience involved, it sounded to me like both a necessary and worthwhile project—one which I am sure the impacted Highland Road residents feel is long overdue.
How About You Tell Us the Whole Story?
In the latest edition of the Highland Heights newsletter, both Mayor Coleman and Councilman Frank Legan beat the drum for spending (a very significant amount of) taxpayer money to fix up the old church building on the city hall property. This unified drum-beating certainly confirms Coleman’s and Legan’s very public, post-election alliance. I expect to see more marching-in-step by the two of them in 2010.
The mayor’s comments, in particular, caught my attention.
Last August, Mayor Coleman was quoted in the Sun Messenger saying,
"I have a feeling it (the church building) will likely be torn down…I am very happy that we have it, if we keep it standing, or decide to use the property for something else.”
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_council_consi.html
It appears the mayor is now singing a slightly different tune.
In the December newsletter he declares that he is:
“pleased to report…that the (old church) building is structurally sound” andWhile Mayor Coleman admits that the building needs “new roofing, new heating and cooling systems and many cosmetic enhancements to the interior,” he doesn’t mention other items such as the probable asbestos tile, the obsolete septic and electrical systems, the substandard doors, windows and insulation, or the mold infestation (the roof was leaking even before the city bought the building in 2008).
that he is “reluctant to tear the building down until we exhaust all ideas for
potential uses of the structure.”
Do you suppose the mayor considers safe electrical systems, properly connected toilets, and mold and asbestos abatement to be mere “cosmetic enhancements”? Hmmm.
In the newsletter, Councilman Legan and Mayor Coleman have encouraged speculation in a vacuum---they have asked residents to come up with ideas for using the building, while neglecting to disclose one very pertinent piece of information---the 2008 structural engineer’s report on the building, which includes cost estimates for repairing the building to make it useable again.
While Mayor Coleman and Councilman Legan state in the newsletter that they have arranged to have pictures of the old church building posted on the city’s website for residents to view, they apparently did not make any attempt to post the 2008 structural engineer’s report---which would provide good perspective for residents when viewing those pictures.
Why withhold the report? Well, possibly because it might have a negative impact on residents’ enthusiasm for renovating the building. According to the engineer’s report, it would cost more than $ 773,000 (in 2008 dollars) just to make the building usable again—a figure that does not include reconfiguring any of the existing rooms or space for non-church use.
It is very disappointing to see Mayor Coleman and Councilmen Legan attempting to whip up residents’ enthusiasm for renovating the church building without disclosing or discussing the price tag involved.
It reminds me of the last time I went car shopping. The salesman spent all his time talking about exterior colors and fancy wheels—hoping I’d fall in love with a car before discussing how much it was actually going to cost me.
I didn’t fall for that sales tactic then, and I can only hope that residents don’t fall for it now.
My Oct 2nd blog (in the archives) provides specific details from the structural engineer’s report on the old church building---including the project cost of renovating versus razing the building. Check it out.
Swan Song
As the Committee of the Whole was wrapping up, soon-to-be former Councilman Ted Anderson returned to his pet project one last time: the proposed $ 300,000 old pool house renovation project.
Anderson stated that the project was the “Park & Recreation Committee’s # 1 priority for 2010 and that renovating that building was “definitely something that we need for our park. He also asked the next council to “allocate a couple of $ 100,000 so the project can happen.”
The way he said it, it sounded like he thought $ 300,000 was just some spare change the city had lying around.
While he talked up the pool house renovation project, Anderson studiously avoided mentioning the one thing that he knows will cost the city far more than spare change to fix next year: the worsening leak at the city pool.
I have to say this about Anderson, he was persistent and consistent to the end.
end
