Update: The Budget and The Pool Construction Bond

The 2010 City Budget
The Legislative & Finance Committee (L&F) held its final budget hearing on Feb. 28th, in advance of the March 2nd Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting.

Councilman Leo Lombardo, a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative who is smart and also possesses a great deal of common sense, declared that it was a “pretty lean budget” and that there was “not much else you can honestly cut” from it.

As far as I was concerned, that was a top notch endorsement from the head of L&F.

The budget assumes that city salaries will be frozen in 2010—a concept that is disconcerting to many but is actually a much less drastic approach than that taken by other cities in the area. Pepper Pike, for example, is laying off workers, cutting remaining workers’ salaries by 10 % and also requiring those workers to take an additional 15 % pay cut through the use of mandatory, unpaid furlough days. The pay freeze is not a sure thing at this point; labor negotiations are continuing in the city.

Based on the no-raise assumption, the 2010 budget has a $150,000 surplus (projected revenue over projected spending). In a city the size of ours, that’s not much of a cushion. But as I’ve said before, at least it’s something.

Here are a few details from the L&F meeting:

1. Lombardo and Councilwoman Cathy Murphy showed that you can’t get much by them. They both noticed that Finance Director Tony Ianiro had shortchanged the city’s permanent improvement fund by $ 50,000.
2. L&F made clear that putting money in the budget and spending it are two different things. Murphy repeatedly talked about waiting to see how much revenue the city actually takes in before “pulling the trigger” on some spending.
3. $ 50,000 was included in the permanent improvement budget for dealing with the old church building. That topic is up for discussion again at this week’s COW meeting.
4. The L&F members (Lombardo, Murphy and Councilwoman Lisa Stickan) did what they could to help out the Parks & Recreation Commission (P&R) with regard to their deficit-spending budget (the second in two years). L&F suggested that $ 26,000 that P&R has decided it wants to spend on 2 “Funbrella” pool shades ( $ 11,000) and for either a tennis court shade area or baseball fencing ($ 15,000) could be taken from the park improvement fund rather than from P&R’s operating fund. That reduced P&R’s projected deficit spending from over $ 46,000 to $20,338. Of course, that also significantly reduces the amount of money left in the park improvement fund, and P&R's emergency reserve fund will also continue to shrink.

The budget will be discussed at the COW meeting. It is scheduled to be adopted on March 23rd.
More Details About the Bond for Constructing the City’s New Swimming Pool

When he met with L&F earlier in the week, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro indicated that P&R wants council to rescind the ordinance that requires P&R to contribute $ 50,000 a year to reduce the bond debt that the city took on in 1997 for constructing the new pool and pool house.

That subject was a topic for discussion at the Feb. 28th L&F meeting. Here are some additional facts about that bond and the pool construction:

• Council placed an issue on the ballot in the mid 1990’s asking voters to approve spending money to replace the city’s swimming pool. The voters said no---twice.
• The 1997 Council (Mayor Scott Coleman and Councilman Ed Hargate were members), came up with a plan to bypass the voters and to get the pool constructed anyway. Council planned to obtain bonds to pay for a number of city projects. It agreed to include constructing a new pool and pool house as a bond-funded project in exchange for P&R’s agreement to use $ 50,000 from its budget (P&R gets 1 mil of property taxes each year for its exclusive use) to help pay down the bond debt.
• Council passed an ordinance in 1998 memorializing that agreement. It requires P&R to pay $ 50,000 a year for 18 years. P&R has six payments left under the ordinance.
• A 27 year bond was used to get money to pay for the pool construction. P&R's payment obligation ends after 18 years. At that time, P&R will have paid $ 900,000 of the original $ 3,140,000 bond debt (not including interest).
• When asked whether P&R would end up paying the full cost of the new pool and pool house, Mayor Coleman answered with an emphatic “No.” The arrangement always anticipated that taxpayers would pay for part of the construction cost--even though they had voted the pool construction issue down.
• If council rescinds the pool funding ordinance (it has yet to discuss the issue), taxpayers would end up picking up the tab for the last $ 300,000 that P&R owes to the city and P&R would end up with a $ 300,000 windfall.

Don’t get me wrong. While I have reservations about how it was achieved (going behind voters’ backs is never a good idea in my book) I’m very happy that the city has the new pool. Both the old pool and old pool house were undersized and obsolete. They needed to be replaced.

Having chartered a course to achieve that goal without voter approval, however, it is very troubling that P&R now wants to reneg on its part of the bargain--especially when its reason for doing so is so that it can continue on a path of oblivious, unbridled spending.

We are in a severe economic recession. The city is projected to experience a significant decrease in revenue this year. City workers are being asked to accept pay freezes. Yet P&R, not content with its $ 630,000 in revenue, is actively angling to get even more money to spend--at taxpayer expense.

I guess that shouldn't be a surprise. As Dave Ianiro indicated at the last L&F meeting (and as P&R's 2010 deficit-spending budget makes clear), P&R has no intention of changing what it's been doing. Its big problem--as P&R sees it--is that its revenue isn't keeping up with its spending. It thinks it can fix that problem, at least in the short term, by having council rescind the pool bond ordinance.

P&R has shown that it doesn't really care about finances--its own, the city's or taxpayers'. But they are not entirely to blame. Mayor Coleman keeps reappointing the same individuals to P&R---giving his unbridled support and stamp of approval to their free-spending ways.
end

Feb. 23rd Budget Meeting. What A Difference A Year Makes---Or Not

Feb. 23rd council meeting. MIA: Mayor Coleman (#2 in 2010)

A Year Makes A Big Difference
Recreation Director Dave Ianiro presented quite a different appearance at the Feb. 23rd Legislative & Finance Committee (L&F) meeting than he did a year ago.

A year ago, it took several attempts to get Dave Ianiro to show up at the meeting to discuss the Park & Rec budget, and when he finally appeared, he brought a great deal of “attitude” with him. The discussion proceeded with difficulty because Ianiro seemed unfamiliar with the details of his budget. In fact, Finance Director Tony Ianiro, his brother, had to answer many of the questions posed by L&F.

It was quite a different story when Dave Ianiro met with L&F this week. He came prepared to discuss and explain the Park & Rec budget, and did so in a suitably calm and respectful manner. The discussion was quite congenial and productive. It went quite smoothly.

A Year Makes No Difference

It seems pretty clear that Dave Ianiro has paid attention to the criticism leveled at the Parks & Recreation Commission (P&R) over the past few months and is making a concerted effort to address those concerns.

I have yet to see any signs that P&R has reacted in a similar fashion.

While P&R did recommend fee increases for summer programs this year (the first fee increase in six years), it did so reluctantly, bowing to reality only after it learned that Highland Heights ordinances require council to approve city recreation fees.

Dave Ianiro repeatedly emphasized, when talking about the 2010 P&R budget, that P&R “wants to maintain its programs the way they are;” and that it “wants to progress” further with spending on park. Indeed, nothing had changed--P&R submitted a deficit-spending budget similar to its 2009 budget.

Basically P&R seems to saying: “If you don’t want us to deficit spend, then give us more money to cover our deficit-spending.”

Cut back? Retool? Do something different? Those strategies clearly still aren’t a part of P&R’s playbook.

P&R’s latest financial plan apparently includes trying to reneg on its obligation to help pay off the bond used to finance the construction of the new swimming pool in 1997. The backstory is this: Apparently P&R was very anxious to get a new pool, but the city didn’t have the money to pay for it. So P&R cut a deal with council (Scott Coleman and Ed Hargate were members of that council): If the city obtained the financing, P&R would contribute $ 50,000 a year for 20 years (out of the 1 mil in property taxes that it receives each year) to retire the bond debt. The amount that P&R contributes is only a portion of the total bond debt; city taxpayers pick up the rest. Dave Ianiro told L&F that P&R wants council to rescind the ordinance memorializing the arrangement. P&R's rationale is twofold: 1) its revenue has decreased due to the elimination of the personal inventory tax (the city lost that extra tax money too);  and 2) “there’s more money in the (city’s) general fund that in ours (the P&R fund)”.

In other words, P&R's position is: “The city has more money than we do, and we want some of it.”

Here are some P&R budget facts to consider:

• In 2009, P&R received over $ 645,000 in revenue (mostly from its 1 mil in property taxes) and spent over $ 733,000. This year, P&R is again planning to spend more than the $ 630,000 in revenue it is projected to receive--- further depleting their shrinking emergency reserve fund..
• The city and P&R are in the same boat with regard to decreasing tax revenues—the difference is that the city has to stretch its shrinking revenue to service the needs of an entire city, whereas P&R spends all of its money on just two things: the park and recreation programs. Even though it is the only group in the city with its own income source, P&R seems to believe that is being shortchanged because its revenues are not keeping up with its spending.
• One service department employee is assigned to work in the park fulltime during the summer to cut grass and help maintain the park’s physical environment. A couple of years ago P&R decided to hire students as additional groundskeepers and maintenance workers. According to Tony Ianiro, P&R spent $ 40,000 in 2009 for 8 fulltime seasonal maintenance workers in the park (wage: $ 11 an hour). The 2010 budget again includes $ 40,000 to pay for 8 fulltime seasonal workers to work along with the service department employee cutting grass, cleaning the bathrooms, and emptying garbage cans in the park.
• The 2010 P&R budget includes $10,000 for pool repairs. P&R has known about a worsening pool leak for several years, but despite all of its deficit spending on other items, P&R did not allocate the resources necessary to fix the problem. Nor did P&R bring the situation to council’s attention (it came to light only after an eagle-eyed council member noticed a vague reference to a pool leak in P&R minutes last fall). This year the P&R budget does include some repair money, but as Dave Ianiro acknowledged, the budgeted amount likely won’t be enough to fix the pool. (“If I had to bet, $10,000 will not be enough.”) P&R has no current plan in place for fixing the pool or for paying for any excess repair cost. One strategy they have suggested is to get through another swim season by capturing the leaking water and recycling it back into the pool through the pool filter system.
• Dave Ianiro told L&F that next year P&R hopes to replace the dirt on the park’s ballfields with expensive, specialized dirt (because apparently regular dirt is, well, too dirty).

Despite all of their outrage at being publicly criticized for their deficit spending last year, P&R clearly has no interest in changing its ways. It continues to be almost defiantly out of touch with current financial realities (it’s called a severe economic recession folks), P&R also seems to have lost perspective about its mission---which is simply to offer safe and fun summer activities for kids and to create a park that residents of all ages can enjoy. For example, while P&R is keen to spend lots of money on things like fancy new pavilions, special infield dirt and Progressive Field-type baseball lighting, it has yet to install a biking trail or walking path in the park.

Why not? I'm not a betting person, but if I was I bet P&R would tell you it’s because, with $ 600,000+ a year in revenue, they simply don’t have enough money to work with.
L&F is hoping to finalize the budget this weekend and discuss it at the March 2nd Committee of the Whole meeting.
end

A Very Troubling Evening—Part Three

There were several discussions that left me troubled as I left the Feb. 16th Committee of the Whole Meeting.


Troubling Discussion # 3—The Old Church Building Near City Hall
Council returned to the topic of the old church building in anticipation of L&F’s upcoming discussion of the city’s 2010 capital improvements budget. The conversation about what to do with the building has been going on for a year now. It was nice to hear the newly elected council members weigh in on the topic for the first time.

Some background. The city bought the church property in 2007 after the head of Bass Energy told Mayor Coleman that the property was needed in order to put a gas well on the city hall property (that plan was later abandoned). The building has a leaking roof and is mold-ridden, unsafe, and uninhabitable. Mayor Coleman has repeatedly acknowledged, the city did not have any intended use for the building when the property was purchased. And, as several council members have put it: “We bought the property for the land, not the building.”

What was troubling about the discussion on Feb. 16th was the continuing, obdurate refusal by Councilman Frank Legan and Councilman Ed Hargate to embrace reality regarding the building--and that Mayor Coleman supported them, despite having stated last April that the building was “becoming an eyesore” and that he leaned “toward taking the building down.”

Councilman Hargate returned to his theme from a year ago, which basically came down to his preferring to allow the decrepit, unsafe building to continue standing rather than take it down and create what he called a “lawn”. Hargate dismissed suggestions that the property, by itself, had intrinsic value for the city and that the community might benefit from having green space in front of city hall, next to the new Highland Road pedestrian pathway.

Legan, too, returned to old territory. A year ago he began beating the drum about “exploring all options” before making a decision to tear the building down. It’s been a year now and Legan has yet to come up with a realistic, concrete plan for using the building or, more importantly, for funding its renovation and continued operation. At the Feb. 16th meeting, he finally conceded that the city couldn’t afford to restore the building (at an estimated $ 773,000 cost, not including interior renovations), but instead of embracing that financial reality, Legan engaged in pie-in-the sky speculation, arguing that the building should be allowed to stand because grant money might be available---from somewhere--for renovating it.

All I can say is that when he finds that illusive money tree, Legan should let the Park & Recreation Committee know about it; they surely could use some extra dough too.

A 2008 structural engineer’s report, which the city commissioned, lays out in blunt detail the substandard and decrepit condition of the building--- and the huge amount of money that it would take to merely bring the building up to code. (My October 2, 2009 blog contains a detailed discussion of that report.)

Significantly, although Legan was given permission during a September 1, 2009 Committee of the Whole meeting to use the city’s website to solicit suggestions from residents regarding possible uses for the old church building, only pictures of the building---and not the structural engineer’s report---were posted online. It was utterly misleading (and very disappointing) that Legan withheld that very relevant structural and financial information from residents.

Meanwhile, Legan and Hargate's stall and delay tactics mean that the unsafe, uninhabitable and mold-ridden building has spent another year deteriorating even further (it was sitting unheated, with a leaking roof, even before the city bought it in 2007).

As Councilwoman Lisa Stickan pointed out: “If this was a privately owned building, it would’ve been condemned and torn down a long time ago. The only reason it has not is because we (the city) owns it.”

This discussion has dragged on long enough. Enough with all the hand-ringing, the wearing of rose colored glasses and the speculating about money falling from the sky. It’s time for council to do what it was elected to do---make a decision and move on.
To read past discussions on the building:
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2009/04-21-09_council_committee_minutes.htm
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2009/04-21-09_council_committee_minutes.htm
end

A Very Troubling Evening—Part Two

Troubling Discussion # 2: The Budget and Financial Matters
The Legislative & Finance Committee (L&F) has begun meeting with Mayor Coleman, the department heads and city Finance Director Tony Ianiro to discuss the mayor’s proposed 2010 city budget. It’s still too early in the process to come to any firm conclusions about the budget, but three interesting things (two of them troubling) came to light during the most recent L&F meeting:

1. Ianiro reported that the city’s payments to Mayfield Heights’ Building Commissioner Tom Jamieson terminated on January 31, 2010. That brings an official end to the dual-employment arrangement implemented by Mayor Coleman in the Building Department beginning in January 2008.
2. Troubling item # 1. The current proposed budget reflects a surplus of approximately $138,000 (revenue over expenses) in the general fund. That's not much, but at least it's something. Unfortunately, however, this “surplus” exists on paper only---it exists only because Ianiro reused the employee salary figures from 2009 for the 2010 budget.
   
   It is very possible that Ianiro took that approach because the city is currently in the midst of labor negotiations and Mayor Coleman didn’t want to tip his hand or do anything to indicate what salary increases he might accept (if any) for 2010. Bottom line, however, no one should get too comfortable with, or too confident about, the “surplus” figure that currently appears in the budget. That includes Mayor Coleman, who mentioned it during the council meeting as if it was a done deal. Once the post-negotiation salary figures are plugged in, the 2010 “surplus” budget could quickly turn into a deficit-spending one.
3. Troubling item # 2. L&F began discussing Home Days (or, this year, Home Day). I was stunned to hear Ianiro report that the Home Days Committee has been allowed to operate outside of the city’s financial and accounting system. Apparently it has been using a private bank account to deposit funds and to pay bills. Ianiro seemed defensive and a bit uncomfortable when asked by L&F about this arrangement. As well he should be.
   
   Ohio Revised Code § 733.46 states:
   

   The treasurer of a municipal corporation shall receive and disburse all funds of the municipal corporation and such other funds as arise in or belong to any department or part of the municipal corporation.

   According to my reading of this law, the Home Days Committee's funds are supposed to be “received and disbursed” just like all other city funds--i.e. handled through the city’s general fund and accounting system. Why do I say that? Because rather than being an outside, community organization, the Home Days Committee is actually a creature of (and subject to the limits imposed by) Highland Heights ordinances, and it receives the overwhelming majority of its funding from the general fund, i.e., taxpayer money.
   
   Highland Heights Ordinances §§ 145.01-145.07 establish and set the legal parameters for the Home Days Committee. For example, § 145.02 gives the mayor the authority to appoint the Committee Chair, who can be a city employee; § 145.05(f) authorizes the Committee to spend the money appropriated to it by council; § 145.05(g) prohibits the Committee from obligating itself or the city to pay any sums beyond the amount appropriated by council; § 145.06 lists the Chairman’s powers (which do not include the power to open or use private bank accounts); and § 145.07 requires the Committee to provide to council a “complete (post-festivities) accounting” of all the funds it has received and disbursed..
   
   Given Ohio law, and given the fact that the Home Days Committee is an ordinance-created “part” of the city, the fact that the Committee has been allowed to operate outside of the city’s financial and accounting system—apparently with Ianiro’s knowledge and tacit approval—is troubling.

Very troubling indeed.
end

A Very Troubling Evening—Part One

There were several discussions that left me troubled as I left the Feb. 16th Committee of the Whole Meeting

Troubling discussion # 1. Plan by Richmond Heights School DIstrict (RHSD) to Operate Conversion Schools inside the Mayfield City School District.

Dori Mittinger, the RHSD business manager, was not on the agenda, but she was allowed to address council at the request of Mayor Coleman.

 Mittinger informed council that the RHSD was planning to open up three “conversion” schools. She was at the COW meeting, she said, because she was hoping to use the old church building on the city hall property for one of those schools.

What is a conversion school? Basically it’s a charter school that is created by, and from, a public school system.
According to Ohio Administrative Regulation § 3301-102-02(F): "Conversion school" means a community (aka charter) school created by converting all or a portion of an existing traditional public school to a community school.”

RHSD wants to open 3 conversion schools----a gifted and talented school (grades 2-8), a college prep school, and an all-male "alternative" school. All of the schools will be application based----which will allow the school operators to handpick the students for each school. While RHSD kids will have "first preference" in applying, Mittinger made no promises as to how many RHSD students would attend each school.

In fact, Mittinger was  unclear about many details---except for financial ones. Bottom line, RHSD stands to get a lot more funding by operating conversion schools because:

1. The state has educational grants available to establish charter/conversion schools. RHSD is planning to apply for a $ 450,000 startup grant from the state (March 15th deadline).
2. Right now the state gives RHSD around $1,300 per pupil for each student that attends the public school. In contrast, the state will pay RHSD at least $ 5,718 per pupil in 2010 for each charter/conversion school student.

In my estimation, the plan represents a direct threat to the well-being of the Mayfield Schools (and that of other surrounding school districts) both in terms of loss of talent and loss of revenue.

Mittinger was frank in acknowledging that RHSD hopes to draw students from other school districts to attend the conversion schools (hence, I suppose, the interest in locating at least one of the schools in Highland Heights). Significantly, the $ 5,718 per pupil payment that RHSD would receive for each nonresident student would be deducted from the funds that the students’ home school districts receive from the state.

That means a loss of $ 5,718 in revenue for every Mayfield student that attends one of the proposed RHSD conversion schools.

In fact, the RHSD School Board President confirmed that the conversion school plan is being driven by financial concerns rather than curriculum needs. He told the Sun Messenger this week that, "We have been discussing ways to receive additional funding... Every journey starts with a first step and this is the first step."

From where I sit it certainly looks like RHSD's financial plan depends entirely on using the conversion schools to poach students and revenue from surrounding school districts.

Very troubling indeed.

To read more about “community” and “conversion” schools, go to: http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=662
end part one

My Hero of the Week: Highland Heights Council

Kudos to Council
Council deserves a pat on the back for pressing Mayor Coleman to rethink his staffing of the Building Department and for insisting that the Building Commissioner position be publicly advertised.

In taking that stance, they were looking out for you and me and for the city’s best interests.

My Jan. 7th blog posting describes the brouhaha that resulted when Mayor Coleman attempted to get his proposed 2010 city appointments rubber-stamp approved immediately following council’s January 5th swearing-in ceremony. One of the proposed appointees was a building commissioner candidate, whom the mayor had privately tapped while council was out on its winter break.
Although the mayor put heavy pressure on council to rubber-stamp approve his proposed Building Commissioner appointment, council stuck to its guns and insisted that the job be publicly posted and that regular procedures be followed in filling the position.

The result? Well, here is a timeline and some numbers to consider. See if you agree with me that council deserves “Hero of the Week” status.

2008-2009. Mayor Coleman adopts a dual-appointment approach to staffing the building department. He appoints an uncertified “Acting Building Commissioner” (ABC) and a certified, part-time “Interim Building Commissioner” (IBC). Total cost to taxpayers in 2009 for this dual employment arrangement = $76,500 ($62,000 for the ABC and $ 14,500 for IBC).
January 5, 2010. Two of the items on Mayor Coleman’s agenda for the special meeting are approval of his privately-tapped Building Commissioner candidate and adoption of a pay ordinance. The salary that Mayor Coleman wanted council to approve= $78,000 a year to begin with, going up to $ 80,000 on July 1st..
February 9, 2010. Mayor Coleman reports to council that he received applications from around the country in response to the city’s ad for the Building Commissioner position, that he interviewed several good candidates, and that he wanted to hire an individual who was familiar with the city and was certified not only as a Chief Building Official, but also as a residential housing and electrical inspector. The final salary approved for the position: $ 72,000.

Public advertising = good candidates at a cost savings to taxpayers. Way to go, council!

Read more on this topic: http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/02/highland_heights_names_grabfel.html

Just in time for St. Paddy’s Day
Service Department Director Thom Evans announced to council that the city will be using a new product on the city streets this winter, which contains salt, magnesium and a rust inhibitor. Oh yes, and it has green dye in it too.
The dye will allow the service department to monitor the effectiveness of the product compared to regular road salt. Evans said that to do the comparison, he will put salt on one side of some city streets and the new product on the other side.
Although the new product is 25 % more expensive than regular road salt, it may be worth the cost because it works in much colder temperatures (due to the magnesium content) and it has a longer-lasting effect. Evans thinks it might save the city money because less of the product will have to be used and the streets won’t need to be re-treated as often---which will reduce the number of man hours required to keep the city’s streets safe and dry in the winter.
Green streets, just in time for St. Patrick’s Day! How festive!
Read more http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/02/green_salt_to_be_tested_on_hig.html

Water, Water everywhere
Service Department Director Thom Evans also reported on the water line leak underneath the stamped concrete plaza in front of city hall (not to be confused with the leaking water main along Highland Road).
It is unclear at this point why the city hall water line has failed (usually water lines last between 40-50 years according to Evans; this one is only 25 years old). The estimate for replacing the water line is $ 25,000—provided that they don’t have to go through the city hall foundation in order to connect the new line up. If they have to do that, said Evans, “the money (cost) will grow.”
Meanwhile, council directed the representative from the city’s engineering firm to apply for an EPA grant to replace the stamped concrete plaza with porous pavers. That took quite a bit of nudging on council’s part. The representative told council: "I don’t want to go through the motions to put in a grant that I don’t feel will be successful.” Apparently he thought it was his decision to make. Council directed him to apply for two grants on the city's behalf: the plaza replacement project and the parking lot project favored by Evans.

Welcome Baby!
Fire Chief Turner and Police Chief Cook regularly provide council with statistics regarding the number of calls their departments responded to during the prior month. Chief Turner had a new statistic to add for January: during one of their runs last month, members of the fire department assisted in the delivery of a healthy baby boy. Congratulations to the parents and to the delivery crew!

Coming Up
There are currently 3 items on the agenda for the Feb 16 COW meeting: the old church building, the city’s sidewalk replacement program and Home Day.
Yes, Home Day.
Councilwoman Lisa Stickan (the council rep to the Committee) reported last week that Mayor Coleman is looking to shrink Home Days to a single day this year and that he has asked Recreation Director Dave Ianiro to head the Home Day Committee.
Post-script: Mayor Coleman has yet to officially appoint the head of the Committee. It could be that he will come up with a different choice for that appointment.
end

Bits and Pieces From the Feb 2nd Committee of the Whole Meeting

MIA: Mayor Coleman. He called a special meeting for Feb. 2nd, but failed to show up for either the COW meeting or the special meeting.
Property For Sale

The “For Sale” sign on the Glen Eden water detention basin (“1.2 wooded acres with a ravine”) prompted the Vice President of the Glen Eden homeowners’ association to appear before council with the following proposal: If the city buys the land (which the current owner purchased for $ 400 at a tax foreclosure sale), razes the obsolete pump station building and cleans out the basin (which the developer was obligated, but failed, to do), then the association will agree to maintain the property after that.
Law Director Tim Paluf, who agreed to discuss the ad with the listing realtor, seemed reluctant to have the city take on the responsibility of owning the basin. But according to the representative from the city’s engineering firm, the city already owns several similar water detention basins in Highland Heights.

Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, who is the President of the Glen Eden homeowners’ association, recused herself from participating in the discussion and stated that she will not cast any votes on the issue.
The Sun Messenger posted a story on the discussion. You can read it at: http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/02/homeowners_association_wants_h.html

Does this add up?

In 2007, the building department had $152,000 in receipts and was staffed by a fulltime, certified building commissioner, a fulltime inspector, and a fulltime office support person.

In 2009, the building department had $ 85,000 in receipts and was staffed by an interim, part-time building commissioner (who works fulltime for the City of Mayfield Heights), a fulltime, uncertified acting building commissioner, a fulltime inspector, a part-time inspector (who works fulltime for the City of Cleveland) and a fulltime office support person.

In 2010, the building department is projected to have $ 80,000 in receipts. In addition to a fulltime certified building commissioner (who should be hired within the next two weeks), the department will be staffed by the fulltime inspector, the part-time inspector, and the fulltime office support person---and CT Consultants.

Mayor Coleman called the special meeting so that council could approve a contract that authorizes CT Consultants to provide up to 4 hours of weekly services to the building department. The cost? Between $ 40 to $ 130 an hour, depending on the services provided.
Although Law Director Tim Paluf assured council that he understood that CT Consultants would be used only on an “as needed” basis, the contract, apparently, does not explicitly state that. That prompted concern on the part of Councilwoman Lisa Stickan. As a lawyer, she understands that judges enforce contracts as they are written and that, therefore, it is extremely important that contracts clearly explain what the contracting parties intend.
Paluf, however, did not find it necessary to include the “as needed” language in the contract, nor did he recommend adding the language via an amendment before council approved the contract.
A Failure of Communication

The EPA announced in early December that it was offering grants (up to $ 300,000 per project), to be used to address water runoff and water quality issues in Cuyahoga County.
Without notifying or discussing the grant opportunity with council, Mayor Coleman apparently went ahead and authorized the city engineer to work up a grant proposal for repaving the municipal complex parking lot----an idea that City Service Director Thom Evans admitted that he pitched and that, as it turned out, clearly did not fit the requirements for the EPA grant.
Unfortunately, council was not brought into the discussion until the Feb 2nd meeting---barely a week before the grant applications were due. It was particularly unfortunate because several council members had interesting grant ideas---including Councilman Bob Mastrangelo who suggested using porous pavers to replace the nonporous, stamped concrete plaza in front of the city hall building, which would allow water to be absorbed in the ground rather than running off to the storm sewers
It turns out that Mastrangelo’s suggestion was a timely one because there is a significant leak in a water line located underneath the stamped concrete (it is leaking 4 gallons a minute according to Thom Evans). That means the concrete will likely have to be opened----and result in a potentially expensive repair job for the city.
The city engineer was encouraged to explore Mastrangelo’s idea for grant purposes. City Service Director Thom Evans, meanwhile, apparently had a hard time giving up his idea of repaving the parking lot. He pushed a twist on his original idea: applying for a grant to replace a small portion of the municipal center parking lot with porous pavers.
It is unclear whether the city engineer will pursue one or both of those proposals on the city's behalf. Tick. Tick. Tick.

Post-script
Team Energetics---the local fitness club that tried to obtain public money from Highland Heights and several other cities to keep its business operation afloat recently called it quit and closed its doors. A new club has opened on Beta Drive.
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/02/team_energetics_health_club_cl.html

Here are several other Sun Messenger items pertaining to stuff I’ve blogged about:
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/02/highland_heights_council_presi.html
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/01/sun_messenger_editorial_cartoo_4.html
end