June 22nd City Updates

Neither Mayor Coleman nor I attended the June 22nd council meeting, but I can give you some updates based on reports from several people who were there. But first....


City Watch

Item One: Asbestos Investigation Contract.
Status: Week 4. Finally executed

Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder announced at the council meeting that Earth Consulting, Ltd. would perform an asbestos study of the Old Church Building next week. That means that although it took him a month to do his duty, Mayor Coleman finally signed that contract.

Item Two: Online posting of 2008 Structural Engineer’s report on the Old Church Building
Status: Still unposted

Mayor Coleman is the “gatekeeper” for the city’s website. During the June 15th Committee of the Whole meeting , the mayor agreed that the 2008 structural engineer’s report on the Old Church Building could be posted online, so that residents and other interested parties could read for themselves what the engineer said about the decrepit, substandard building.

I checked the city’s website today. The report still has not been posted online.

Item Three: Private social club’s proposal to use the Old Church Building as a nighttime clubhouse.
Status: Negotiations continue. Legality? Still up in the air.

Rumor has it that city administrators met this week with representatives from the private social club that proposed bartering materials and physical labor in exchange for a long term $ 0 lease that would allow them exclusive night-time use of the Old Church Building and would relieve them of liability and financial responsibility for heating and maintaining the building.


Law Director Tim Paluf acknowledged last week that there are many unsettled legal questions about the proposed barter/lease arrangement. And, of course, there is also the problem of no-bid deal-making—which we’ve seen before. Example: the Bass Energy contract. There, like here, Mayor Coleman preselected one company to cut a deal with. Might there be other groups interested in turning the Old Church Building into a private clubhouse? Will we ever know?

I have not had time to do an extensive amount of legal research, but one thing is abundantly clear: under Ohio law, public property cannot be leased or sold unless it is no longer needed for any public purpose. This means two things.

1. In order to lease the Old Church Building to the private social club, council would first have to pass a resolution declaring that the city has no need or use for building. That would be a hard pill for Councilman Frank Legan to swallow, even though he has been unable to come up with a fiscally sound plan for publicly using the building.
2. Despite Mayor Coleman’s wishful thinking that the building can be used simultaneously for both public and private purposes, because of the “no public use” precondition for leasing public property, it would appear that the city cannot lease the Old Church Building for use as a private social clubhouse if it intends to use the building for public purposes during the day---which, according to Mayor Coleman is the reason for pursuing the private club’s proposal in the first place.

I have a hard time understanding why Mayor Coleman would push forward with negotiations with the private social club without first finding out from Law Director Tim Paluf whether the proposal is even legal, but that seems to the way the mayor likes to do business. 
Item Four: Investigation into business dealings between the city and two appointed public officials
Status: Three and a half months. Action still pending.

Council learned in early March about business dealings between the city and then-Park & Recreation Commissioner Tony Valentino. Later, it was revealed that current P&R Commissioner Rocco Dolciato also conducted business with the city. None of these arrangements were authorized or approved by council, as required by Highland Heights law.
http://highlandheightsohiohappenings.blogspot.com/2010/05/matter-of-very-serious-concern.html


On May 11th, Council President Scott Mills presented a motion to council to refer the matter to the State Auditor’s Office and the State Ethics Commission for investigation. That motion passed unanimously.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2010/05-11-10_council_minutes.htm


The State Auditor’s Office recently accepted and approved the city’s regular biennial audit report, but that report did not address the Valentino/Dolciato business dealings. Meanwhile, Mills reported at the June 22nd council meeting that he intended to file papers with the State Ethics Commission by the end of this week.

Item Five: Written City Policy addressing the Marking and Use of City Vehicles
Status: 10 Weeks. Action still pending.

The issue of unmarked city cars has been on council’s mind for more than a year. Quite a few city administrators use city cars and most take them home at night (the exception is new Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder, who agreed when he was hired to leave his city car parked next to city hall at night). Council has heard a lot of residents grumbling about apparent excessive personal use of city-owned vehicles.


When Council President Scott Mills brought the topic up again at the April 6th Committee of the Whole meeting, Mayor Coleman admitted that he had never issued a written policy governing the marking or personal use of city-owned vehicles—even though the IRS apparently requires such a written policy.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2010/04-06-10_council_committee_minutes.htm


Mayor Coleman finally agreed that he needed to develop a written vehicle marking and use policy for the city. As of the June 15th council meeting, however, the mayor still hadn't put a written policy into place.

Tidbits from the June 22 Council Meeting

• Whoops. Apparently the contractor doing the Millridge Road repaving has already exceeded the scope of the project, by grinding down more road than was specified in the contract. Where was the inspector from the city engineer’s office? Did the contractor not read the contract? The finger-pointing is just beginning....
• Grab my scuba gear. Let’s go swimming. Scuba divers were scheduled to dive in and examine the city swimming pool on Thursday, to see if they could pinpoint why the pool is leaking so profusely. Meanwhile, P&R decided to try to recapture as much of the leaking water as it can and is recycling it through the filter system back into the pool.
• It’s almost official: the city is deficit spending this year. The labor contracts have not been inked yet, but it seems pretty clear that once they are signed the city could officially be deficit-spending this year. The expense figures in Mayor Coleman’s 2010 city budget were based on the assumption that city workers’ salary would be frozen this year. That assumption turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking on Mayor Colemnan’s part. The real question is whether the mayor will readjust his spending, now that reality has hit.
• Say a prayer and vote--- where? In the last year, council has discussed at least twice--and rejected---moving one of the city's polling places from a public building (Millridge School) to a Christian church (the church next to the Catalono's parking lot.). Councilwoman Cathy Murphy reported to council that she had heard a rumor that, despite council's position on the issue, the polling place had been changed from Millridge School to the church. This news apparently caught the rest of council by surprise.
  The elections board doesn't make such changes on their own, without consulting the impacted community.
  So, let's see----if council was kept in the dark (once again).... that can only mean that this must be another one of Mayor Coleman's secret deals.
  Perhaps the mayor is praying that residents will forget that he is personally responsible for the Bass Energy drilling fiasco, by moving the voting place for half the city to a house of worship... 

The end.

Unveiling City Watch: New Community Monitoring Tool

It struck me recently that I often hear council discussing the same issues over and over again—even after a vote has been taken---and that it seems to take a long time for council’s decisions to be implemented---especially when it’s a decision Mayor Coleman didn’t ask for or doesn’t support.

I decided it is time to keep track of this stuff.

Welcome to City Watch, a weekly scorecard to track pending items in the city.

City Watch

• Item One: Asbestos Investigation Contract.
  
  Status: Week 3. Contract still unsigned.

On May 25th council approved hiring Earth Consulting, Ltd. to determine if there is asbestos or any other hazardous or toxic materials in the Old Church Building—something they need to know, whether the building is demolished or renovated.

According to the Highland Heights Charter, Mayor Coleman is legally obligated to sign and execute that contract.

It came to light at the June 8th council meeting, however, that the contract was still sitting, unsigned, on Mayor Coleman's desk. He did not voluntarily disclose that fact to council prior to the meeting, nor did he offer any explanation for his failure to sign the contract.

What is the status of the contract? Mayor Coleman admitted last night that he still has not performed his legal duty. He has yet to sign the contract.

• Item Two: Posting of 2008 Structural Engineer’s report on City’s WebsiteStatus: Six Months. Still unposted

Mayor Coleman is the “gatekeeper” to the city’s website. Nothing gets posted on the website without his permission.

Last December Mayor Coleman used the city's quarterly newsletter and the city's website to solicit residents’ suggestions for the Old Church Building (the decrepit, substandard building sitting on the city hall property). http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/newsletter/2009_Winter_Highland_Heights_newsletter.pdf

While the mayor allowed pictures of the Old Church Building to be posted on the city’s website, he chose not to post the 2008 structural engineer’s report and evaluation of the building (a public document)---even though that report would have provided a fuller and more realistic picture for residents of the building’s true condition. (In fact, to a person, no one who has approached council about using or renovating the Old Church Building has seen that report.)

In fact, council members have repeatedly asked Mayor Coleman to post the structural engineer’s report on the city’s website for public view---to no avail. Council President Scott Mills followed up last night and again asked Mayor Coleman about posting a copy of the report on the website. The mayor said he could do that.

I checked today. It’s still not posted.

• Item Three: The Old Church BuildingStatus: Ongoing, for more than a year.

After discussing the issue for more than a year, council finally appropriated funds in the budget and voted on April 13th to solicit bids for tearing down the decrepit, substandard Old Church Building.

Despite the fact that council voted on the issue---or perhaps because of it--- Mayor Coleman responded by producing a spokesperson, who expressed interest in using the building to operate a private social club. The mayor keeps trying to steamroll that proposal along, as detailed below.

Report from the June 15th Committee of the Whole Meeting

1. Sidewalk Repair Contract.

The contractor who did sidewalk repair in 2005 won the 2010 sidewalk repair contract with a $ 119,645 bid. 15% of the residents who received notices decided to make the sidewalk repairs on their own.

One possible area of concern, brought to light by Councilman Bob Mastrangelo: there is only $ 8,000 separating the winning bid from the next highest bid, in part explained by the differences in tree root removal costs in the two contract. The winning bid only includes $2,000 for tree root removal (if roots are pushing up or cracking sidewalks, the roots have to be removed before new sidewalks are poured).

City Engineer Steve Hovancsek confirmed that the $2,000 figure in the winning bid was a random figure and was not based on any hard data. That means that the actual cost of the contract could end up being much more than the bid amount---and might even exceed the next highest bid--- if an extensive amount of tree root removal is required.

    2.   Jefferson Drive Sewer Work

For several years, council’s Drainage Committee has been working to address infiltration of storm water into the city’s sanitary sewers. The problem area is Jefferson Drive, but the impact is felt farther down the line---by residents along Highland Road.

Service Director Thom Evans reported that the county has obtained an EPA loan to reline both the main storm sewer and the lines connecting homes along Jefferson Drive. The project is still in the early stages, but it’s possible that it might not cost residents anything (other than having to put up with a temporary 6’x6’ excavation on their property).

Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, who chairs the Drainage Committee, called it a “very worthy project”.

    3.   The Old Church Building—Yes Again

Although it was not listed on the agenda, Mayor Coleman brought up the proposal, put forth by a private social club on June 1st, to use the Old Church Building. (Read my June 2nd blog for details).

I was highly amused by the mayor’s spin on the project. His description of the sketchy specifics of what the club proposed didn’t exactly jib with my notes from the June 1st COW meeting---or with several council members’ recollection of that discussion.  I guess it’s no surprise that he would try to give it a more glowing spin, given that Mayor Coleman has declared that he is “very supportive” of the proposal and thinks “it’s a great idea”.

Councilman Frank Legan was equally enthusiastic. He claimed that the “concept is what I talked about from the outset. We identify a use for the building and then find a creative way to do it”. Apparently it does not matter to Legan that the “we” involved is not the city—which has never identified a needed use for the building---but is, instead, a group of 40 individuals who want to use it for a men’s only, private social club.

That would be right up Councilman Legan’s alley I guess. After all, last fall he advocated using taxpayer money to support a private enterprise--the (now closed) Team Energetics athletic club.

Legan and Councilman Ed Hargate agreed with the mayor that getting a proposal in writing from the club was a good next step.

Meanwhile Law Director Tim Paluf acknowledged that the proposal raised a number of significant legal problems---perhaps deal-breaking ones. Paluf should know. The same club expressed interest in the then-vacant church building at the corner of Ridgebury and Ford Roads last year. That property, like the city hall property, is zoned for residential use only. According to Councilman Bob Mastrangelo, a Planning & Zoning Commission member, Paluf issued a legal opinion at that time stating that residential property in the city can not be used for commercial purposes, including operating a private social club.

   4.  City Labor Negotiations

Mayor Coleman’s 2010 city budget contains a small projected surplus. That surplus exists, however, only because the budget assumes that city employees will accept a pay freeze this year.

Labor negotiations have been going on since January. I think an agreement is near---but I suspect it will be one that wipes out the 2010 budget surplus. I say that because Councilman Leo Lombardo, head of council’s Legislative & Finance Committee, asked to meet next week, “to discuss the budget effects of settlement with the (city’s) labor unions.”

If there was a pay freeze there would be no “budget effects”. I should have more on this next week.End

Games People Play ...and the Pool Continues to Leak (Mightily)

The agenda for the June 8th council meeting was pretty sparse. In fact, council’s executive session lasted longer than the council meeting itself.

Still, the meetings never disappoint, as far as providing a few surprises. And they provide information that you won’t hear otherwise.

Games People Play

Fact One.

Highland Heights Charter § 5.05, “Executive Powers,” reads in part:

The Mayor shall execute on behalf of the Municipality all contracts…to which the Municipality is a party…(and) shall make certain that all terms and conditions imposed in favor of the Municipality or its residents in any … contract…are faithfully kept and performed

The word “shall” is a very important legal term. It means “required” or “has to”.

Executing contracts on the city’s behalf---and making sure that they are faithfully and fully performed---are duties that Mayor Coleman is legally required to perform. He can’t choose which contracts he signs (but he is supposed to follow the conditions and limits imposed by council---which is something he apparently failed to do when he signed the Bass Energy drilling contract).

Fact Two.

In 2008, the city-hired structural engineer noted in his report that there might be some asbestos or asbestos-containing materials in the Old Church Building, which would have to be removed or remediated whether the building was renovated or demolished.
On April 13th, council passed a motion:

“authorizing the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for demolition of the former church building (on city hall property), authorizing the Clerk (of council) to advertise for bids (for that work) and authorizing the City to obtain certification of the asbestos in the structure."

The motion passed 5-2, with Councilman Frank Legan and Councilman Ed Hargate voting no.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2010/04-13-10_council_minutes.htm


The city engineer solicited bids and selected a contractor qualified to do the asbestos assessment. Council accepted the engineer’s recommendation on May 25th and passed a motion to pay Earth Consulting, Ltd. no more than $ 1,698 to determine whether there was, in fact, any asbestos or other hazardous or toxic materials in the Old Church Building.  Councilman Hargate cast the only "no" vote.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2010/05-25-10_council_minutes.htm
Fact Three

Last night Councilwoman Cathy Murphy asked for a status report on the asbestos investigation. That prompted this exchange:

Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder: “The bid (for the asbestos assessment contract) was forwarded to the mayor’s office for his signature.

Mayor Coleman: “It’s on my desk.”

City Engineer Steve Hovanscek: “The contract has not been formalized yet.”

Councilwoman Cathy Murphy: “Will it be signed soon?”

Mayor Coleman: “Uh-huh.

So let’s see. Council passes a motion on May 25th hiring a contractor to conduct an asbestos assessment of the Old Church Building and two weeks later, the contract is still sitting on Mayor Coleman’s desk, unsigned.

Do you suppose Mayor Coleman can’t find a pen?

Or could Mayor Coleman be playing games with council?


I ask that question because just last week, Mayor Coleman declared that he was “very supportive” of giving a 40 member, men-only, private social club the exclusive right to use the Old Church Building at night, in exchange for the club’s making at least part of the structure  “habitable” and “useable” (whatever that means). Oh yes, the deal also involves having the city accept all of the liability risk associated with the club’s use of the building and paying the exorbitant cost of heating and maintaining the substandard building.


Do you suppose Mayor Coleman was afraid that his deal with the private club might be squelched if he actually did his duty and executed the contract for the asbestos evaluation---that reality might intrude on the club’s lowball $ 100,000 renovation estimate?


For whatever reason, council learned for the first time last night that Mayor Coleman has been ignoring the asbestos investigation contract that has been sitting on his desk, waiting for his signature. 
Maybe Mayor Coleman is just trying to show council that he is boss of the city and that they can’t make him do anything that he doesn’t want to do.

But if Mayor Coleman is not going to do his job as the law requires---and do it promptly and well---then I think taxpayers should get a discount on the $2,000 monthly stipend that they pay him.
You know, partial pay for partial work. Seems fair to me...

The Pool Leak Saga---it Continues

It was frustrating to learn last fall that the Park & Recreation Commission was ignoring a major leak at the city pool---and keeping council in the dark about that leak---while at the same time demanding that taxpayers come across with an additional $300,000 (to add to P&R's regular $ 700,000 annual budget ) to turn the old pool house into a second community center in the park.


The whole situation made me wonder about P&R’s priorities. Why would investing in a perpetually money losing, 8 week day camp program (their justification for the pool house renovation) be more important than fixing and maintaining a $ 1 million+ capital investment---the city pool?


How bad is the the leak? As council heard last night, it is bad---very bad.


P&R paid to have the pool caulked and repainted (by city service department workers) last year---an expenditure that they claimed was nothing more than routine maintenance. The pool continued to leak.


P&R spent $4,000 this year to have the pool entirely re-caulked, hoping that would fix the leak. It didn’t.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2010/04-27-10_council_minutes.htm


Service Director Thom Evans told council last night that the pool lost 6” of water within 3 days of being filled this spring, and that while they have attempted to fix one leak near the pool filtration system, the pool lost 1” of water over last weekend---a weekend in which we experienced heavy rain.


Thepool leak situation is a serious (and potentially very costly) one.


Evans told council during an April 20th Committee of the Whole meeting: “Caulking is our only viable avenue. Otherwise we have to cut out concrete...”


I guess we will have to wait and see whether P&R finally reorders its financial priorities, in light of the fact that none of the “easy fixes” for repairing the pool leak have worked.


I do believe in miracles, but I can't say I’m holding my breath on that one.
end

Mayor Coleman’s Plan For The Old Church Building

The Old Church Building was on the agenda for the June 1st Committee of the Whole meeting----again. 

The timing is a bit confusing.

The 2010 city budget that Mayor Coleman presented for council’s approval on March 23rd includes money for demolishing the decrepit, substandard Old Church Building. Last month the city hired a company to determine if there was any asbestos in the building, which would require special handling to remove.

Yet last night, Mayor Coleman was talking about finding “a whole host of uses” for the building.

I was shaking my head at the ping pong. Coleman has done a major flip-flop on this issue. After earlier agreeing that the building probably needed to be torn down, Mayor Coleman is suddenly pushing to find some use----any use---for the building. It appears he and Councilman Frank Legan have decided to play tag-team and take turns at bat on this issue.

Last night, Mayor Coleman introduced representatives from a 40-member, men’s-only, private social club and informed council that he was “very supportive” of their idea to use the Old Church Building for the club’s social and recreational activities.

No specific details were offered---in fact the actual details were quite fuzzy—but a club member outlined the following deal to council:

Members of the club would pitch in to make at least a part of the Old Church Building “habitable” and “useable” in exchange for a long-term lease allowing for the club’s exclusive night-time use of the building and provided that the city agreed to pick up all of the insurance and/or liability costs and paid all of the building’s maintenance and operating costs.

Most interesting (and telling) was the club representative’s estimate for renovating the building----which he described as a real mess"---“maybe $ 100,000”.

Although the general public has been kept out due to safety concerns, the mayor apparently allowed club members to tour the Old Church Building---but he didn’t give them a copy of the 2008 structural engineer’s report---which puts the cost of properly renovating the property (and bringing it up to current code) at $ 773,000.

Why such important and relevant information about the building would be withheld from the club members is beyond me, but it clearly explains why the club representative’s renovation figure was so completely out of sync with the professional structural engineer’s cost estimate.

According to the engineer’s report, in addition to other significant problems (including inoperable heating and plumbing systems, mold infestation and the fact that it is not connected to a sanitary sewer), the Old Church Building is not at all energy efficient. It has minimal insulation, substandard doors and single pane windows.

 In other words, the building leaks like a sieve.

That means that, even if club members were able to renovate at least part of the Old Church Building  to make it minimally “habitable” and “useable,” the cost to city taxpayers to actually operate and heat/cool the building would be astronomical.

Finances aside, zoning is also a major stumbling block to the club’s proposal. The city hall property is zoned for residential use---which means that the Old Church Building cannot be used for any commercial purpose---including operating a private social club.

It will be interesting to see if residents---who would have to approve both a zoning change and the leasing of the property—are as enthused as Mayor Coleman about allowing a private single-sex social club to move into the publicly owned building.


Other Topics of Discussion at the COW Meeting
Council got price estimates on several items.

• The estimated cost to buy a special sidewalk plow machine: $ 125,000. Council balked at the cost two years ago and instead approved Service Director Thom Evans’ recommendation to purchase a less expensive, multi-purpose machine for the city. Although that machine doesn’t remove snow quite as well as a dedicated sidewalk plow would, it is more versatile and can be used year-round.
• The estimated minimum cost for replacing the Highland Road water main: $ 2.8 million (not including approximately $ 400,000 to $ 500,000 to resurface the road once the project was completed). City Engineer Steven Hovanscek told council that the project was “very expensive but very important” and that the city “can’t ignore” the deteriorating condition of the water main and “had to do something” about it. According to Hovancsek, the time has come for Mayor Coleman and council to begin planning—including figuring out how to pay for that project.

City Economic Development Committee

Council President Scott Mills asked for ideas for energizing the city’s Economic Development Committee. Although in the past the Committee included members of the business community, its membership changed under Mayor Coleman.

Now, in addition to the council president, the Committee is composed only of the mayor and the city's police chief, fire chief, and finance director.

When asked whether he thought the Committee "was working" as currently configured, Mayor Coleman replied, “I’m not going to give you a yes or no on that.”

Councilman Bob Mastrangelo, who has served as a member of the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission for many years, stated that he thought that business leaders should be brought back and made part of the Economic Development Committee again. As he explained, “The fire chief knows how to put out fires; business leaders know something about business.”

Not surprisingly, Mastrangelo’s commonsense comments drew support from several other council members.
end