Boring Can Be Good

There was a lot of speculation, going into the Sept 28th regular council meeting..
The speculation centered on whether the losers in the Old Church Building debate---Mayor Coleman and Councilmen Frank Legan and Ed Hargate---would put on a show or otherwise try to pressure the remaining council members into changing their minds about demolishing the building.

That didn’t happen. In fact, it was a quick and sedate council meeting.

One fact did come to light: as of Tuesday night, the mayor still had not signed the demolition resolution—thereby (at least temporarily) preventing it from taking effect. That fact was revealed when City Engineer Steve Hovancsek reported that he was, “still waiting for authorization to send out the notice of award” (notifying all bidders that the contract had been awarded to Ace Demolition).

By law, Mayor Coleman has 10 days from the resolution’s enactment (on Spet. 21st) to either sign or veto it; if he does neither, the resolution will automatically take effect on Oct 2nd.

Tough Decisions Ahead

Two items caught my interest on Tuesday night.

Item One.
During a Safety Service Committee (SSC) meeting, Fire Chief Bill Turner brought up the subject of replacing the city’s ladder fire truck. Although it is still functioning, the truck is getting towards the end of its normal 20 year life span.
A 75 foot ladder truck currently costs about $700,000, and a 100 foot ladder truck costs a cool $1 million.
Chief Turner’s immediate top priority is replacing the city’s well-used but ageing ambulance/rescue squad vehicle, but he wanted to get the ladder truck “on the radar,” he said, so the SSC could start thinking about it.

Item Two.
Councilman Ed Hargate announced that the Hillcrest Council of Council--- a group that he heads, which serves elected and appointed officials from several local cities—would be discussing joint police/emergency dispatch centers and joint fire departments at its December meeting.

And there you have the rub.

Chief Turner, justifiably proud of his department, wants to keep it equipped at current levels. Cash-strapped cities, however, are increasingly thinking about joining together and sharing resources, as a way to maintain services, while stretching tax dollars.
Chief Turner may have opened the door to such a discussion in our city, now that he’s put replacing the city’s ladder truck on SSC’s “radar”.

Meanwhile, here are some miscellaneous pertinent facts to ponder:

• Highland Heights’ zoning and building codes limit buildings to two stories.
• The city hasn’t always had a ladder truck. The one it has now was purchased second-hand from Mayfield Village in 2006.
• In addition to the ladder truck, the city has two pumper trucks. The ladder truck is used as the first response vehicle. Usually four firefighters ride with the ladder truck.
• During the day, up to 7 firefighters and/or fire personnel may be on duty. After 5 pm, usually 4 are on duty.
• Mutual aid (i.e., assistance from surrounding communities) is called for, whenever smoke or fire is reported.
• The city receives additional points from its insurance rating agency because it owns a ladder truck.

City Report: Yes There Is Other Stuff Going On Besides The Debate about the OCB

It’s hard to believe, given the ferocity of the debate about what to do with the Old Church Building (OCB) sitting on the City Hall property, that council has had the time or energy to discuss anything else. Actually, there’s been alot of other stuff going on. But first...


CITY WATCH


Item One: Ethics/Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form
Status: Still Waiting To Hear From Finance Director Tony Ianiro
Last spring, the city’s auditor issued a “management letter” detailing several financial-related matters that needed further action and attention. Council’s Legislative and Finance Committee (L&F) discussed the letter at a July 13th meeting (for details, see my July 16th blog).
One of the auditor’s recommendation was to require all elected and appointed city officials to annually fill out and file an ethics/conflict of interest form, disclosing any business interests they might have. If you wonder why such disclosure is important think back to the Tony Valentino/W.F. Hann & Sons situation---where (without council’s knowledge or required prior approval) Mayor Scott Coleman approved payments to former Park Commissioner’s Tony Valentino’s company for work that it did for the city (including at the Community Park) over a three year period.
Finance Director Anthony Ianiro told L&F members that he was working on a disclosure form and that it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with something. It’s been two months. L&F is still waiting to receive a draft of an ethics/conflict of interest disclosure form from Ianiro.


Item Two: Property Taxes and Assessments Paid on Tax-Exempt Property
Status: Some Movement; Still To Be Resolved
Several months ago Councilwoman Cathy Murphy asked Finance Director Tony Ianiro why the city had paid, since 2005, more than $11,000 in property taxes and lighting/sewer assessments on what should be tax-exempt city-owned property (for details, see my July 27th, Part Two blog).
Ianiro’s response was typical---after attempting to dismiss Murphy’s question, he pointed his finger at Law Director Tim Paluf--even though, of course, it was Ianiro himself who received and paid the tax bills.
I am happy to report that there has been some movement to correct this unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money. Unfortunately by law the city can recoup at most only the last 3 years’ worth of property tax payments. However, the Law Director is now actively pursuing a refund and having the properties listed as exempt on the tax rolls, and the Finance Director is working to remove county sewer assessments charged to the properties.
Once again, kudos to Councilwoman Murphy. Without her, this situation never would have been brought to light--or corrected.

Item Three: “Miscellaneous Concrete” Repair Contract
Status: Unbid Contract Awarded
At the July 13 Council meeting, Service Director Thom Evans informed countil that he wanted to avoid using a public bidding process to award a contract for miscellaneous concrete work in the city. Since state law requires that all contracts over $25,000 be put out to bid, Evans proposed keeping the repair contract just under that amount. His rationale for avoiding the public bidding process---it would slow down the contracting process by “a couple of weeks.” (for details, see my July 18th “Kudos, Unbid Contracts” blog).
Two months later, on Sept. 14th, Evans returned to council with a recommendation to award a $24,651 contract to A.J. Cement---one of two bidders hand-selected by Evans (he contacted just 4 companies).
Yep, we totally see that shaving two weeks off the bidding process was critical here—and a totally valid excuse for avoiding state public bidding laws---NOT.
City Engineer Steve Hovancsek recently noted that because of the slow economy, contractors were submitting much lower bids for work than they had in the past. That certainly proved true with regard to the OCB demolition contract. You have to wonder whether, if Evans had used a public bidding process, the city wouldn't have gotten the same work done for less.

 Item Four: OCB Demolition Contract
Status: Day Five. Has Mayor Coleman Signed the Resolution and Contract Yet?
Council voted 5-2 on Sept. 21st to award Ace Demolition a $ 29,317.69 contract for demolishing the OCB and regrading and reseeding the OCB property. That resolution, like every other resolution passed by council in the last two years, was passed as an “emergency measure.”
While I have objected to that routine practice in the past (and still do), at least Council President Scott Mills offered the required explanation of the “emergency”—the OCB is in poor shape and it needs to be torn down ASAP, before winter sets in.
Normally, Mayor Coleman signs resolutions the night they are passed---after the Council meeting, before he heads for home. In fact, Council Clerk Jean Buchak usually sticks around, to make sure that everything is in order.
Apparently Mayor Coleman left City Hall on the 21st without signing the demolition-authorizing resolution. I guess we’ll have to wait until Tuesday night’s meeting to see whether he has decided to do his duty---or not.



Fiscal Responsibility?

• Park lighting repairs

The Park & Recreation Commission (P&R) is responsible for overseeing the Community Park and its maintenance. By law, Mayor Coleman and the P&R Chair (currently Rocco Dolciato) are required to sign vouchers authorizing the expenditure of P&R funds, and no money is to be spent until a voucher is signed.
At last Tuesday’s L&F meeting, Service Director Thom Evans reported that he had verbally authorized Monaco Lighting to do $1,800 worth of work maintaining the park lights, but that Monaco had actually billed the city $4,600 for its work. When asked, Mayor Coleman stated that he did not have a signed voucher to present to L&F covering the work. Nevertheless, Evans recommended that the bill should be paid in full.
According to Evans, the company indicated to him that the work was going to go over budget, but neither he, Mayor Coleman, Rocco Dolciato, nor Recreation Director Dave Ianiro ever got a firm figure as to what Monaco intended to actually charge the city, nor was a properly signed voucher authorizing the work issued before any of the work was performed.

• Millridge Contractor’s Paving Mistake

Specialized Construction made a big mistake when repaving Millridge Road. It was only supposed to grind down a portion of the concrete roadbed, but ground down the entire roadbed instead. That mistake is a serious one. Concrete road surfaces are much more durable than asphalt ones. The concrete road bed that was mistakenly removed was still in good shape and was likely to last another 10-20 years.
Last week, Brian Mader from the City Engineer’s Office presented the city with an additional invoice for $22,000+, to cover the contractor’s unauthorized grinding work and the labor and material costs for fixing the mistake. Although last week Mader seemed to be recommending that the city pay the invoice (he pointed out that the contractor had performed the extra work and that the project would still come in under budget), he altered his tune under council’s questioning this week. Mader admitted that the city did not necessarily benefit (to the tune of $22,400) from the mistake-related work that the contractor performed.
Law Director Tim Paluf opined that the city was not legally responsible to pay for the contractor’s mistake, and City Engineer Steve Hovancsek said that as far as he was concerned, “To set a precedent to pay for this would be dangerous.”
Neither Mayor Coleman nor any council member spoke in favor of paying the additional invoice.

• Correcting the Administrators’ Pay Ordinance

I previously reported (see my July 27th Part Two blog) that the administrator who gained most from the pay ordinance that council passed in late July was newly hired Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder. The ordinance increased his 2010 salary from $72,000 to $79,600.
Although Grabfelder could have insisted on keeping the raise because the ordinance was an emergency measure that took effect as soon as Mayor Coleman signed it, he clearly is a classy guy who wants to have an extended career working for the city.
On September 14th, council passed an amended pay ordinance---restoring Grabfelder’s $ 72,000 salary--the salary that he was given when he was hired in February. Like all city administrators, Grabfelder will receive a 2 ½% pay raise next year and a 3% raise the following year.



Wind Turbines--Yes, No or Maybe?

Drilling a gas well was the at the top of his list after Lance Osborne bought the property now known as the “Shoppes at Alpha”. The gas well sits next to I-271, behind the shopping center.
Apparently Osborne wants to expand his energy generation activities at the shopping center. He has put out feelers about installing a wind turbine (energy producing windmill) on the site too.
Next up: the city needs to start investigating safety and zoning issues.
Osborne may be the first, but he won’t be the last. Alternative energy is all the rage and here to stay---Personally, I’d take a wind turbine over a frac gas well any day.  But the placement of turbines in a developed, residential community is problematic. I suspect council will have to undertake alot of research and engage in alot of dialogue with residents before approving installation of any turbines in the city.

Community Calendar
Economic Development Committee meets Sept 30th.
Shredding Day is Saturday, Oct. 2nd.
Leaf Pickup begins Oct. 11th.

And The “Ayes” Have It

At a Sept. 21st special meeting, the vote was 5-2 in favor of accepting Ace Demolition’s $29, 317.69 bid to demolish the Old Church Building sitting on the City Hall Property.

Those voting “aye” were Council President Scott Mills, Councilmen Leo Lombardo and Bob Mastrangelo and Councilwomen Cathy Murphy and Lisa Stickan. Here are some of their comments, explaining their decision:

Council President Scott Mills:

• I forwarded to council some 20+ emails that I received from residents. None were in favor of keeping the church.
• The cost of upkeep would be great. It is not prudent at this time. We have infrastructure, sidewalks and a water main we need to take care of.
• I overwhelmingly heard from residents: “Take it down.”

Councilwoman Lisa Stickan

• I appreciate the (written legal) memorandum from the Law Director. My analysis of it is that it says that donations are permissible. But the club (Club Molisani), they want guaranteed usage. They said, “we fix it, we want to use it.”
• I don’t support (their proposal) based on the memo and my legal concerns.

Councilman Leo Lombardo

• We (the city) spend $80,000 a year on the Tri-City Consortium, which provides meals 5 times a week and offers afternoon events to seniors.
• We do not need to spend more money for another adult center when we already have a place where seniors can spend 5 days a week—the Community Center.

Councilman Bob Mastrangelo

• The club (Club Molisani) did not agree to renovate the entire building. If they were serious about doing that, they would have said what they were going to do (to the building) point by point.
• With 3 bocce courts, there would not be much room left in the building. I say that, and I’m Italian.

Councilwoman Cathy Murphy

• The Law Director said there can be no “quid pro quo.” That’s what they (Club Molisani) are looking for. To return to them for more discussion does not make sense. I can’t commit to an arrangement that is not lawful. I don’t believe a bocce hall is in the best interest of our residents.
• There would be maintenance costs. There would be operating costs. Look at what it costs to run the Community Center---tens of thousands of dollars a year.
•  For 2 ¾ years we have been trying to identify some use, some need for the building. We have found nothing. I want to head in a different direction. My idea, my vision, is to give the property new life as a green space and garden area--in a cost-effective manner, provide a benefit to all residents. It would be a very beneficial thing.
• Once this old dilapidated building is gone, the property will have a new future. We’ll breathe new life into it.

 As one very wise and thoughtful regular council watcher said:

Highland Heights is a city of 6,800 residents. We spent millions building a beautiful municipal complex and Community Center. Aberdeen has its own Community Center. Why do we need something else, another building, to service just 6,800 residents?

 Why indeed.

Decision Time

Hey, Hey-- Goodbye??

At last night’s special meeting council formally accepted Ace Demolition’s $ 29,317.69 bid for demolishing the decrepit, substandard Old Church Building (OCB) that sits on the City Hall property.
The vote was 5-2, with Councilman Ed Hargate and Councilman Frank Legan voting no.
The contract is in line with the structural engineer’s estimate for razing the building and is within the amount budgeted for that purpose in the city’s “401” capital improvements fund.
Apparently Mayor Coleman did not handle the vote with much grace. I heard from a source that following the vote. the mayor declared, off-microphone, that he would not sign the demolition contract.
Of course, the mayor is legally obligated to execute all council-approved contracts—even ones he doesn’t like. He can’t veto contracts or pick and choose which contracts to sign.


I’d dismiss the tip as mere rumor except for the fact that Mayor Coleman withheld his signature from another OCB-related contract earlier this year. Readers of this blog will recall that Mayor Coleman kept a contract for a needed asbestos study sitting on his desk, unsigned, for nearly a month (until council got wind of the situation)---which according to Steve Hovanscek prevented the City Engineer’s Office from getting the demolition bid specs to council before it adjourned for its annual August recess.


It is extremely disappointing to think that any mayor would openly declare their intention to flout their legal duties and responsibilities simply because they disagreed with a council decision.
Taxpayers have high expectations for their mayors---they expect them to act like chief executives, not four year olds...


I Ain’t Never Gonna Give Up.. Mayor Coleman and the Club Molisani “Partnership”


Before the vote, Mayor Coleman made a last-ditch attempt to keep council from approving the demolition contract. Citing a legal memo issued by Law Director Tim Paluf last week, Mayor Coleman asked for a delay, so he could meet with Club Molisani to see if they were still interested in trying to work out a deal for renovating the OCB.
The memo, however, apparently simply recapped what Paluf told council during a July 20th council committee meeting --- namely that the city could accept a donation of work and materials, but it couldn’t enter into the proposed “quid pro quo” “partnership” with the club.


The reality is this: Mayor Coleman knew as of July 20th that the city couldn’t accept the club’s “partnership” proposal. He had plenty of time after that to speak with the club, and he could have invited club representatives to come to last night’s committee meeting if he truly thought it would be fruitful to engage in further dialogue with them. But the mayor didn’t choose to do that.
Which leads to one conclusion: his request had nothing to do with working out a deal with the club and everything to do with stalling and delaying the vote on the demolition contract.

I have to say that I feel badly for Club Molisani. They offered their proposal in good faith. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the administration withheld the 2008 structural engineer’s report from the club when they were formulating their “partnership” proposal for presentation at the June 1st council committee meeting. It appears that the club then got painted in a corner by Mayor Coleman’s repeated public pronouncements (repeated again last night) that the club had agreed to pick up the whole tab for completely renovating and bringing the OCB up to current building standards. That is simply not the case.
Read the minutes from the June 1st meeting yourself. http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2010/06-01-10_council_committee_minutes.htm


What the club offered to do was to “restore the church part of the facility to build two (later 3) bocce courts” and to “be responsible, long term, for the roofing, plumbing, sewer, cement, furnace and AC” (if they had seen the engineer’s report, the club would have known that the OCB lacks air conditioning). The club also said that they would be “willing to undertake other restoration projects” over the “long term,” that they wanted “sole use of the bocce courts at night,” that they were “ thinking (in terms of) a ten year lease,” and they didn’t “want to pay rental again” for indoor bocce courts, as it had been doing elsewhere in the past.


As I have said before, what the club actually promised is much less than what Mayor Coleman claimed---and continued to claim last night.


Impossible Things Are Happening Every Day...


Councilman Frank Legan returned to his usual themes in speaking out against demolishing the OCB—and added a new claim as well.
Legan continued to assert that although council has spent the last 2 ½ years discussing what to do with the OCB, it was “being hasty,” it was making a decision “too quickly,” there “hadn’t been enough dialogue,” and that council shouldn’t act because it “still hadn’t come to a consensus on the ideal use for the building”---a consensus that in Legan’s mind could never include demolishing the building and creating a green public gathering space.


Councilman Legan also claimed---as he has done in the past—that once council settled on a need for the building, the city would be able to obtain awards and grants to pay for renovating it. The funny thing is, as long as he’s been saying it, Legan has never identified any financial sources for such alleged awards and grants, nor has he done any leg work to actually submit a grant application on the city’s behalf.


As a new twist, Frank Legan also argued that residents wouldn’t have to pay the operating costs, if the OCB was renovated and used as a senior or recreation center---He claimed,“It could be self sustaining.” Does he mean like the Community Center---which taxpayers already subsidize to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars each year?


Gosh, if we’re going to engage in wishful thinking along with Councilman Legan, why stop with grants and awards and self-sustaining fees? Why shouldn't we believe that maybe if council votes to renovate the OCB, the Tooth Fairy won't come down and leave 25 bucks for each of us, under our pillows? Wouldn’t that be neat?



I Won’t Tell You Why I Did What I Did, I’ll Just Tell You What I Don’t Want To Do...


Councilman Ed Hargate doesn’t seem to like to stick his neck out or go on the record. He doesn't talk much at council meetings, and the last time he voted no on a council resolution (against the recommendation of Law Director Tim Paluf), he did so without explaining his decision.
His logic has been extremely hard to follow given the brevity of his statements, but Hargate’s primary reason for opposing demolishing the OCB seems to be that he thinks it will be a waste of money if, after buying the church property, the city ends up with only a green space. “That’s not why I bought the property,” he said.


Ed Hargate has never explained why he wanted to buy the property in the first place. The OCB was already in very bad shape--with mold, a leaking roof and an inoperable heating system---when the city bought the property in January 2008. The 2007 council minutes do not indicate that council had any plans for using the OCB. Mayor Coleman, in fact, has acknowledged that he wanted the property for the city, not the building.


Sworn deposition testimony given in the Bass Energy lawsuit indicates that the city did not buy the church property with the intention of renovating and using the OCB. Rather, the city needed the property in order to drill a gas well near city hall---as Mayor Coleman planned to do. In fact, council eventually authorized the mayor to enter into two separate drilling leases with Bass Energy--one for the Community Park and one for the City Hall property. Bill Hlavin, the President and Owner of Bass Energy, testified:

"They (the city) had two properties, the city hall property and the city park property, and we talked about..we proposed, the number of wells on each property ... There was no question that there was room for ...one well on the city hall complex.... they were going to have to add on, to comply with state laws, the chruch property to the west side of their driveway which if they---they thought there was a chance that they could acquire that property and if they did acquire it, then we would use that...it would then given them an ideal location to put a well just the the south of the city hall complex." Hlavin Deposition, Sept. 26, 2008, pps. 45-46.

So there you have it. Apparently the city bought the church property in order to drill a gas well near City Hall. Now that the drilling deal has fallen through,Councilman Hargate is opposed to razing the OCB because he thinks it would be a waste of money to use the property as a public green space and community gathering place.

I don't know. You tell me...

In my next blog, I’ll let you know what the supporters of the demolition contract said, to justify their decision.

And The Winning Bid Is.....

How Low Did It Go? Try $29,317
 The lowest and best bid for demolishing the Old Church Building (OCB) on the city hall property was $29,317. The bidder: Ace Demolition.
The bid includes razing the building, removing the west and center circle drives, hauling the debris away, and grading, filling and reseeding the property. The east drive and parking lot will remain in place.

After researching the company, the City Engineer’s Office recommended accepting Ace Demolition’s bid. Council will act on that recommendation during a special meeting next week, after the Sept. 21st Committee of the Whole meeting (COW).

The proverbial $773,000 Question

Although council accepted the City Engineer’s recommendation to accept Ace Demolition’s demolition bid...
...and although Law Director Tim Paluf was directed to draft the necessary legislation for awarding that contract...
...and although Paluf previously declared at a July 20th COW meeting that the city could not enter into a proposed public/private “partnership” with the male-only, private social club...
Mayor Scott Coleman asked that Club Molisani’s "partnership" proposal to convert the OCB into an indoor bocce facility be placed on the agenda for discussion at next week’s COW.

What’s up with that? What's the mayor thinking?
Your guess is as good as mine. Feel free to choose one (or more) of the following:

• “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”
• “Blah, blah, blah. I can’t hear you.”
• “I've already cut a back door deal with this group. I can’t go back on my word. Maybe I can still push it through.”
• “Just wishing and hoping and dreaming that my wishes will come true....”
• “I’ve pledged my support to Councilman Frank Legan, and he wants to make this the centrepiece of his next (perhaps mayoral?) campaign. See how supportive I am? Are you watching me, Frank?”

Okay, I said it, But I Didn’t Really Mean It

 Service Director Thom Evans said in a July 12 Sun Messenger story that the contractor who goofed in removing too much concrete when working on the Millridge Road resurfacing project would pick up the tab for fixing the mistake. “It will be costly, but not to the city,” said Evans.

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/07/highland_heights_gets_a_little.html

 Oh really?

The contractor recently submitted a $22,000 “change order”, seeking reimbursement of its mistake-related material and labor costs.

A representative from the City Engineer’s Office, Brian Mader, pitched approving the change order---arguing that the project would still come in under budget if taxpayers picked up the repair tab.

You know...the tab that Thom Evans said the city wouldn’t have to pay.

Score One For The Good Guys

I previously wrote about a theft from a Hawthorne Drive storage shed. The shed was located near the city-owned walking path that connects Bishop Road and the Community Park---which raised some concern about the safety of the path.

I am pleased to report that the Highland Heights Police Department located the stolen item at a pawn shop and then followed the trail back to the perpetrator, who apparently confessed to the crime---which took place in the middle of the night.

Kudos to Chief Cook and our Highland Heights police officers. Another job well done.

Shredding Day Is Coming October 2nd.

 Time to clean out all those old tax files and other papers you hate to throw away in the garbage. The industrial shredding truck will return to the city on Oct. 2nd.

It couldn’t be any easier. Just drive over to the Service Department. Service Department employees and volunteers (including Council President Scott Mills, who hasn’t missed this event yet) will help you get rid of whatever you bring. You don’t even need to remove staples or binder covers or anything like that.

There is one restriction: NO PLASTIC BAGS.

My summer project was to clean out my basement. You know I’ll be there on October 2nd...!
end 

(Finally) Time To Decide?

The bids for demolishing the Old Church Building on the city hall property were opened last Friday (Sept 10th).

 I hear that the lowest demolition bid was well below the 2008 structural engineer's $38,000 estimate for tearing the building down and capping the utilities .

Will residents see more stonewalling and stall and delay tactics on the part of Mayor Coleman and Councilmen Frank Legan and Ed Hargate. Will they continue their campaign to prevent council from accepting a demolition bid? Tonight's council meeting should tell that tale.

Meanwhile, here's my Letter to the Editor on the issue, which the Sun Messenger printed last week.
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/09/sun_messenger_letter_to_the_ed_37.html

Highland Heights Council has spent more than two years debating what to do with the vacant church building on the City Hall property.

In all that time, no needed use for the building has been identified. Claims that council hasn’t explored possible uses and is rushing to judgment are way off base.

Residents can read for themselves what a professional structural engineer said about the building in 2008 (go to http://www.highlandhts.com/ and select “Read the Church Property Evaluation report by CT Consultants“). That report details the building’s poor condition, including long-standing roof leaks, interior mold, minimal insulation and single-pane windows, and obsolete and/or inoperable plumbing, heating and electrical systems. The engineer estimated it would cost $773,262 to bring the building up to code and $38,000 to demolish it and cap the utilities.

Recently a private social club proposed converting the building into an indoor bocce facility—pitching the deal as a public-private “partnership.” Although Law Director Tim Paluf flatly declared at a July 20 council committee meeting the city couldn’t enter into such a “partnership,” supporters continue to spread misinformation about the plan, hoping to convince residents it is a good deal.

For example, Mayor Scott Coleman wrote in the July 2010 Highland Highlights newsletter the club would “renovate the entire building at their cost,” and Councilman Frank Legan was quoted in an Aug. 26 Sun Messenger story (“Church moves closer to demolition”) as saying, “we (the city) wouldn’t have to pay for it.” Those statements are simply untrue.

In a June 30 written proposal, the club promises to do far less than “renovate the entire building at (its own) cost.” In addition to installing 3 bocce courts — which would take up most of the building’s interior space — the club agreed to: reroof and paint the building; repair some interior ceilings; remodel a kitchen and two small “meeting” rooms; update the bathrooms; and inspect the building’s HVAC, plumbing and sewer systems, with “possible” repairs. In exchange, the club expects to receive a “long-term, multi-year” lease and city-provided liability insurance coverage. The city would also have to pay all of the (energy inefficient) building’s ongoing operating and maintenance costs.

Renovate and restore the entire building at no cost to city taxpayers? Who are Coleman and Legan kidding? Club Molisani doesn’t have the money to do that — and neither does the city. Attempts to sell the arrangement as a “public-private partnership” are almost laughable. Examined realistically, the deal translates into little more than public subsidy of a private social club’s recreational activities — all in the name of saving a decrepit, substandard building that would have been condemned by the city, had it remained in private hands.

Given its location next to the municipal complex, the decision to buy the church property was a good one. But that decision will turn into a bad one if council saddles present and future taxpayers with the cost of renovating and operating the outdated building that sits on that property — as Mayor Coleman and Councilman Legan seem so keen to do.

Amy R. Feran
Highland Heights

end