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.
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
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.
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
- Sidewalk Repair Contract.
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
