Policies? We Don’t Need No Stinking Policies...

The first council meeting in April was a Committee of the Whole meeting, a discussion session during which no official action was taken.
There were five items on the agenda: 1) the city’s 2010 street crack sealing program; 2) sidewalk snow removal; 3) the city’s website; 4) the old church building; and 5) the use and identification-marking of city-owned vehicles. There was a lot of frank talk during the evening, but it remains to be seen, at least as to a couple of items, whether any action will result from the discussion.

The Crack Sealing Program
The city is 5 square miles in size and has approximately 92 miles of roadway. Each year, the city service department applies crack sealer to 8-10 miles’ worth of streets, which helps prolong the paved road surfaces.
Service Director Thom Evans asked council to put an item on the agenda for the April 13th council meeting authorizing him to spend $ 12,000 to obtain the necessary kettle and ODOT-approved product for use in crack sealing this year. The money will be paid out of the city’s street maintenance supplies fund.

Sidewalk Snow Removal

Several years ago, Evans reported to council that the specialized vehicle that the service department used to clear sidewalks along the city’s main thoroughfares and the streets adjacent to St. Paschal and Millridge Schools was on its last legs. The replacement cost for that machine: $ 125,000. Evans suggested buying a less expensive, multiple purpose vehicle instead, at approximately 1/3rd of the cost ($ 47,000). He reported last night that although the service department has found many uses for the new vehicle, it does not do as good or as quick a job clearing sidewalks as the old machine.

The city is not legally obligated to clear sidewalks; it is an extra service that the city provides to school children and residents. And while some residents have asked council to expand the sidewalk plowing program, others residents who live on plowed streets complain about the snow that gets deposited on their driveways by the sidewalk plow. For council, it’s a “can’t win” dilemma.

For Evans, it’s a matter of manpower and resources. Depending on how bad a storm is and how quickly the snow falls, it can take service department workers anywhere from 4 to 80 hours to clear the sidewalks on the streets that are already on the plowing list. Evans’ priority, obviously, is keeping the streets adequately plowed and salted.

I have to tell you that I am continually impressed by the common sense that Councilman Bob Mastrangelo brings to the council table.
In response to Evans’ manpower concerns, Mastrangelo asked a simple question: “Does the service department plow both sides of the streets in the neighbourhoods next to the schools?” When Evans answered, “Yes,” Mastrangelo asked: “Do you think that is necessary?” Mastrangelo then suggested that perhaps the sidewalk on only one side of those near-school streets needed to be plowed, which would cut down on labor while still providing safe and good passage to children who do not ride a bus to school.
It was such a sensible suggestion that I think everyone else in the room wondered why they hadn’t thought of it first.

The City’s Website

Council President Scott Mills said he placed this item on the agenda in response to comments and complaints he has received regarding the accuracy and the timeliness of information posted on the city's website.

Councilman Bob Mastrangelo noted that the way information is organized on the website is also problematic. As an example, he pointed out that the minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meetings are not posted on the P&Z page, but instead are accessed through the Building Department's webpage. “The information is there,” he said, “but you have to search to find it.”

When asked how information gets posted on the website, Mayor Coleman responded that it is done through his office. Several years ago he hired a local resident (Pat Divoki) to work part-time on the website. His office acts as the website’s gatekeeper.
The conversation stalled at that point. By claiming that it fell within his purview, Mayor Coleman essentially cut council out---meaning, I guess, that he is solely responsible for the city's website and its contents.

The website has the potential to be a powerful communication tool, but to achieve that end material needs to organized and located more logically, the site needs to be easier to navigate, and it needs to contain more information. It would be nice to see interactive tools added. And wouldn’t it be great if residents could log on and report potholes or other problems needing repair? And how about using it as a way to communicate with, and get answers back, from city administrators?
Okay, I’ll stop dreaming...

The Old Church Building

After discussing the issue for over a year, it appears that council may finally be willing to put the issue of demolishing the old church building to a vote. Ct Consultants estimated in 2008 that it would cost $ 37,000 to demolish the building. A little bit more than that was put in the 2010 budget for that purpose.
According to Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder, the septic tank does not need to be removed. The city merely needs to pump the tank out, fracture it, and fill it with dirt. Councilman Leo Lombardo suggested the building slab be preserved for future use.

Councilman Ed Hargate did not join in the conversation, although previously he indicated that he would rather leave the building neglected and standing than demolish it for safety reasons and create green space next to the Highland Road pedestrian path, in front of city hall.

True to form, Councilman Frank Legan persisted in the same verbal hand-ringing that he has engaged in for over a year---with a twist. After stating that council needed to either “tear it (the building) down or have a conversation about making it bigger and better than what we have now,” Legan went on to claim that mediocrity results “anytime you gravitate to considering costs without being creative.” In other words, realistic, financially-based decisions are bad, whereas decisions based on pie-in-the sky dreaming are good.

Legan is certainly a master of quotable quotes. But, in reality, all he has brought to the table on this issue is jaw music. Council held off making a decision about the building a year ago, in deference to Legan’s request for more time to come up with a good use for the building. So what has he done with his time? Has he come up with a concrete plan for using the building and a realistic way to pay to renovate and operate it? Nope. Other than verbal hand-wringing and lofty language, Legan has brought nothing forward. Zip. Nadda.

It’s past time for council to make a decision and move on.

The Use and Marking of City-Owned Vehicles or We Don’t Need No Stinking Policy.

Right now, eight city employees are provided with cars to use in connection with their city jobs: Police Chief Cook, Fire Chief Turner, and Service Director Evans, their seconds-in-command; Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder; and the Building Inspector.

Few, if any, of the cars were marked prior to last year. Undercover police cars of course should remain unmarked, but council has been discussing whether other city owned vehicles shouldn’t be marked, to identify them as city-owned vehicles. Council also wanted to discuss the issue of allowing employees to drive city-owned vehicles home---which is current practice for all but the city’s newest administrator, Building Commissioner Grabfelder.

Fire Chief Turner was adamantly opposed to having his vehicle marked. In fact, he told council that he felt he was being “picked on” and that, if city-owned vehicles are marked, “we (the employees who drove them) will be justifying everywhere we go.”

I think that’s the point. Public officials are supposed to be held accountable to the public. After all, taxpayers pay their salaries--and pay for the cars too.

I like Chief Turner. I really do. But as for the “picked on” part, I think Grabfelder has the most right to feel picked upon, since he's the only administrator who is not allowed to take his city car home (he apparently agreed to that when he was hired).

To kick off the discussion, Council President Scott Mills asked the mayor whether he had a policy on the use and marking of city-owned vehicles and what that policy was.

Mayor Coleman replied: “I do not have a written policy in place.”

Apparently developing and following written policies doesnt’t fit in with the mayor’s management style. No doubt it helps ensure loyalty from administrators and employees, to keep them dependant on the mayor’s personal serendipity and good will.

But is that any way to run a city?
end