Item One: Online posting of 2008 Structural Engineer’s report on the Old Church Building
Status: Report Partially Posted. The game-playing continues.
During the June 15th Committee of the Whole meeting , Mayor Coleman 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---WELL AT LEAST SOME OF IT---has been posted online. http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/pdf%20files/CT_Report.pdf
So what's the deal with that? Why did Mayor Coleman --the "gatekeeper" of the website---selectively choose to post only part of the report online?
And why doesn’t the city's website inform readers that they are reading an edited version of the report? The website says: “Read the Church Property Evaluation report by CT Consultants”. This clearly misleads readers into believing that they are seeing the full, unedited report.
I don’t know the answers, but I certainly hope council asks the mayor those questions.
So which part of the report was left out? Can you can guess? Here's a hint: although council voted to solicit bids for tearing down the building---and there is money in the 2010 city budget to do just that---Mayor Coleman and his council buddies (Councilman Ed Hargate and Councilman Frank Legan) oppose tearing down the building.
Okay. I won't leave you hanging. Mayor Coleman withheld the part of the report in which the engineer provides a detailed estimate of the cost of tearing down the Old Church Building.
The full, unedited version of the 2008 structural engineer's report states that the projected cost for demolishing the Old Church Building and capping the utilities is $ 38,000.
Apparently the mayor doesn't want the public to find out just how minimal the projected cost for demolishing the building is---or let them directly compare that cost with the $773,262 estimated base cost for renovating the building (which does not include the cost of reconfiguring any interior building spaces).
The engineer projected that additional optional work--such as tearing up the driveway and parking area, removing (rather than sealing off) the septic system, and completely re-landscaping the property--would cost $ 100, 000 more, but it is unlikely the city would ever spend that much. To date, no one in the city has expressed any interest in removing the driveway or parking area (which serves as a community center overflow lot), and there is a great deal of support for the Highland Heights Garden Club’s suggestion of installing a community garden on the site, which would significantly cut down on landscapping costs.
My October 2, 2009 blog contains a detailed description and discussion of the full and complete engineer’s report. http://highlandheightsohiohappenings.blogspot.com/2009/10/renovating-old-church-building-on-city.html
Item Two: Private social club’s proposal to use the Old Church Building as a nighttime clubhouse.
Status: Negotiations continue. Legality? Still very much up in the air.
Today's (June 1st) Sun Messenger contains a story about the private social club’s barter/lease proposal to turn the Old Church Building into a private night-time clubhouse. http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/06/highland_heights_city_council_5.html
As usual, the reporter constructed his story based on quotes obtained from interested parties. The reporter apparently did not talk to City Law Director Tim Paluf because the story does not mention or discuss the significant legal issues that the club’s proposal raises. Here are a couple of additional legal issues:
- A club board member is quoted as saying that the club is looking for a "permanent location" for its activities. The club owns a liquor license for its current Kirkland clubhouse. Might that license be transferred to the Old Church Building? Might the club be planning to use the building (which is surrounded by residential neighborhoods) as a private clubhouse AND a private bar? http://www.com.ohio.gov/liqr/rpts/lake.txt
- State law requires a public bidding process to be used for all public contracts worth more than $25,000. There is no exemption for bartering arrangements. Although the private social club's representative significantly underestimated the cost for renovating the Old Church Building when he appeared before council, even his low-ball $100,000 estimate would put the construction work within the scope of the state public bidding law.
http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/portal/PORTAL_BS.BS_QRY_BUS_FILING_DET.SHOW?p_arg_names=charter_num&p_arg_values=1578323
Anonymous Tips and Concerns
I receive a good number of anonymous tips and communications from readers of this blog. (If ever you want to get in touch with me, just use the email link in the Feedback section.)
Below is a list of some of the concerns that have been shared with me anonymously over the last several months. I make no representations about these anonymously-shared concerns. But I think it is important to let everyone know what is out there. The list of concerns includes:
- Concern about the way student summer recreation workers are treated by supervisors and/or recreation officials. I have heard from a number of sources that it is not uncommon for summer workers to be subjected to abusive, threatening and/or disrespectful language.
- Concern about personal use of city-owned cars. Although city administrators are allowed incidental personal use of city-owned vehicles, I have received reports that some city cars have routinely been used to provide school transportation and to run personal errands during the workday.
- Concern about whether city-owned equipment has been used to plow private driveways.
- Concern about whether some city workers are napping while on the job and/or are taking excessive time away from work during the work day.
Again, I have no personal knowledge as to the basis for any of these concerns. I certainly hope that the incidents prompting them, if true, are the exception rather than the rule. But the concerns are out there. Now you know about them too.The end.
