Council’s Recess Meeting

Council President Scott Mills scheduled a Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting on August 17th to review and discuss the bid specifications for demolishing the decrepit, substandard Old Church Building (OCB) that sits on the city hall property.

According to the city engineer’s office, Mayor Coleman’s earlier foot-dragging with regard to a necessary asbestos study of the building delayed development of the bid specs before council adjourned for its normal August recess.

While council usually tries to avoid meeting during the recess, the issue of what to do with the Old Church Building has dragged on for more than two years already. In scheduling a mid-recess COW, Council President Mills was clearly hoping to move the process along. Council needs this last piece of information---how much it would actually cost to take the building down—in order to make a final decision about the OCB.

Mayor Coleman apparently decided to take advantage of situation by scheduling a special meeting for the same night (council can't take any official action during COW meetings, but it can take action during special meetings).

After I arrived and collected the agendas for both meetings I was informed that the special meeting had just been cancelled. It turned out that two council members (Councilman Ed Hargate and Councilwoman Lisa Stickan) weren't able to attend the August 17th meeting.

I was left wondering: Why did the mayor schedule the special meeting in the first place? Was he hoping to get council to take some action during the recess---when few people would be watching? Or did Mayor Coleman simply not bother to consult with Council President Mills to find out about attendance at the COW meeting, before he scheduled the special meeting?

The Bid Specs for Demolishing the OCB

Brian Mader, a representative from the city engineer’s office, seemed startled when Council President Mills asked him to present the bid specifications (which presumably Mader had developed) to council. While he was present to answer questions, Mader apparently assumed that the specifications (consisting of a schematic drawing and a description of the work to be performed) spoke for themselves.

Mader finally spoke up after several promptings from council. He stated:

1. that the advertising for bids could take place next week and that the bids would be opened on September 10th;
2. that he is still trying to confirm that the OCB is connected to a private septic system rather than the municipal sanitary sewer;
3. that the septic system did not have to be removed, but could be sealed off instead;
4. that it was not necessary to put an explicit provision awarding salvage rights to the contractor (there is copper piping and other salvageable material in the building) as the bidders would know that “anything the city doesn’t want salvaged would become the property of the contractor” and that the “contractors can reflect that in their bids”;
5. that the city might claim the removable concrete curbing that lines the west drive for reuse by the Service Department; and
6. that the building (which has only 7,500 feet of useable space) would probably be demolished in a day.

While Mader said, based on the 2008 structural engineer’s report, that he thought the bids might come in at the $120,000 range, City Engineer Steve Hovancsek disagreed. Hovancsek told council that the bids would probably be much less: “Things are slow. There is not that much work out there.”

The one issue that Mader asked for direction from council about was the OCB’s east drive and parking lot. Although he had included their removal in the bid specs, Mader told council that the drive and parking lot were in “decent shape” and “in fairly good condition” and that it was his personal opinion that they could continue to “serve a purpose” as an overflow parking area for city hall and the community center right now and that they would be needed if a new building was erected on the property in the future.

All council members in attendance--except for Councilman Frank Legan, who is dead set against taking the building down--agreed with Mader’s assessment and recommendation to leave removal of the east driveway and parking lot out of the bid specifications.

I got the impression that Councilman Legan would have liked to sit there with his hands over his ears--if he could have gotten away with it.
 
When asked whether he agreed that the east driveway and parking lot were worth saving, and should be removed from the demolition specs, Councilman Frank Legan replied:

"Without identifying a use for the property, I think the entire conversation is premature. I am not sure what we are preparing for. I am not sure what it’s going to be. Until we identify a use for the building, I’m not sure whether we should keep the parking lot or not.”

In other words:

If I don’t get my way, I don’t want to play.

Off-duty Police Shooting

Several weeks ago, an off-duty Highland Heights police officer used his gun, attempting to protect himself and a friend from an early morning robbery attempt in Cleveland’s Tremont area.

Police Chief Cook presented a “morals” claim from a woman whose property was damaged by the officer’s bullets---one of the bullets went through the woman’s second floor window and into an interior second floor wall.

Chief Cook explained that the officer is allowed to carry a gun and bullets while off-duty and that department policy requires police officers to take action when certain crimes are committed, in this case an attempted aggravated robbery.

Although the city is not legally obligated to pay for repairing the woman’s property, Mayor Coleman and council’s Risk Management Committee agreed to pay the very modest ($350) cost of repairing the woman’s property.

I could think of only one thing during the discussion:

How very fortunate we all are that the only consequence of the officer’s decision to fire his handgun that night is that some property got damaged. The consequences could have been far, far worse.

The end.

Follow-up: My Postings About the July 27th Council Meeting

I’ve gotten a lot of response, from various quarters, to my two postings about the last council meeting. Here’s some of what I have heard:


Pay Raises

There seems to be some question regarding the administrators' pay raise ordinance that Finance Director Anthony Ianiro prepared and presented for council’s approval on July 27th. That ordinance listed the new salaries (reflecting raises) for city administrators and non-union administrative employees over the next three years.


I am hearing that council members were shocked and surprised when they realized that Tony Ianiro listed the Building Commissioner's 2010 salary as $79,560. After all, council approved a $ 72,000 salary for the position when Dale Grabfelder was hired as the city’s new Building Commissioner in February 2010.


It remains to be seen whether Tony Ianiro simply made a mistake when preparing the pay ordinance (a pretty important piece of financial legislation) or whether the ordinance simply reflects Mayor Coleman’s wishes regarding the Building Commissioner’s salary.


Why do I say that? Think back to Mayor Coleman’s failed attempt last January to avoid publicly posting the position and to quickly hire the University Heights building commissioner instead. (Read my January 7, 2010 blog posting for details on that). At that time, the mayor proposed setting the building commissioner’s starting salary at $ 78,000, with a pay increase to $80,000 on July 1st, 2010.  It's possible that Tony Ianiro prepared the pay ordinance with the mayor's $ 80,000 building commissioner salary figure in mind.


Mistake or no mistake, Dale Grabfelder certainly would be within his legal rights to claim that he is entitled to be paid $79,560 this year, given that the Tony Ianiro-prepared pay ordinance became law once council passed it on July 27th as an emergency measure.

It will be interesting to see if/how council follows up on this latest finance department mess. Regardless, it certainly appears to be another case of:
Your tax dollars at work...


Mayor Coleman’s July 21st Letter to Residents

I previously reported that Mayor Coleman admitted using Service Department employees to stuff his letter (about a recent rash of roofing contractor solicitations) into plastic bags and to distribute it, door-to-door, to residents. I also reported that the mayor did not provide council with any detailed information about the total work hours (or total cost) associated with using service department employees for that job, nor did the mayor explain why he chose to use service department workers rather than having the city hall secretarial staff prepare a letter for bulk mailing or using the city’s already paid-for reverse 911 calling system to communicate with residents.


Since my last blog posting, several different sources have contacted me to discuss how much time service department workers spent stuffing and distributing Mayor Coleman’s letter. I have not verified that information, but based on what I was told it appears reasonable to conclude that at least 60 hours of total service worker time was spent on the entire enterprise---12 worker hours for stuffing the letter into plastic bags and 48 worker hours for distributing it door-to-door. That’s just a minimum figure, which does not include the cost of gas, etc.  

I'm guessing that the total cost of using the service department staff easily equals the "several thousands of dollars" that Mayor Coleman claimed he saved by not having the city's independant contractor/newsletter provider print and distribute his letter.
Once again, your tax dollars at work...


Awards

On a much brighter note, this week’s Sun Messenger reported on a recognitions award that the Highland Heights Police Department received in May from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement.

 Congratulations to Chief Cook and his staff!
 The end.