Updates

Update # 1: Steamrollers and the Park Barn Pavillion: The Architect


A fuller story emerged at the May 17th Council committee meeting regarding the architect that Park & Recreation Director Dave Ianiro was rushing to hire to do design work for his proposed new “Park Barn Pavillion” (PBP) in the Community Park.

Service Director Thom Evans told Council that he learned during contract negotiations that Ianiro’s preferred architect did not carry professional liability insurance. That was a significant stumbling block because it meant that the city would have little recourse if the design plans were faulty.

Evans said that, in an attempt to keep moving forward with the project, he contacted three other area architectural firms, but he actually talked to only one. Evans recommended hiring Robert Fiala---a Willoughby Councilman and managing partner of Then Design Architecture—to do the design work.

The contract will be capped at $2,100----which is $600 above what Ianiro thought the design services would cost.

Update # 2: Steamrollers and the Park Barn Pavillion: The Park Roads

Councilman Bob Mastrangelo’s questioning about priorities---specifically whether building a third pavilion or fixing the park roads should come first when spending the extra $175,000 earmarked by Mayor Scott Coleman for park use this year----seems to have gained some traction in the last week.

Last night, Council agreed to move forward with the road work. A motion authorizing pre-bid work will be on the agenda at next week’s Council meeting.

According to Brian Mader from the city engineer’s office, the city has three options for reconditioning the park roads. all of which are pretty pricey:

1. The cheapest and least durable option (estimated 5-6 year lifespan) is to double “chip seal” the roads, which entails scraping the roads, filling in the potholes, and (twice) putting down a layer of asphalt and compressing stone into the asphalt. Estimated cost: $ 140,000 ($45,000 for the Woodside access road and $95,000 for the entrance area). Mader called this a “short term fix”.
2. A more durable approach would be to scrape the roads and put down 4” of asphalt—a “driveway” layer essentially. Estimated cost: $175,000 to $200,000 for both roads. Mader said that doing this would last longer than the double “chip seal,” but “it isn’t going to last a long time for that kind of money”.
3. The third and most durable option (estimated minimum 12 to 15 year lifespan) is to do what the city does with other roads: scrape and rebuild them using 7” of asphalt. Estimated cost: between $250,000 and $300,000.

Mastrangelo’s preference for the third options should not have surprised his peers. He consistently takes a big picture, long distance view when evaluating financial options. He said, “If we’re going to do it, let’s do it right. Otherwise it will cost more in the long run.”

That’s a logical approach for sure. But as we all know, politics sometimes gets in the way of reason---or at least muddies the waters.

The consensus of Council was to go with the cheaper “short term” chip seal fix, which would leave $57.900 leftover for Dave Ianiro's proposed PBP.

Since Ianiro estimated the PBP structure alone would cost $ 40,000, that leaves him $17,9000 for the rest of the work, which includes: installing a very large cement pad under and around the PBP; running electrical and water lines to the PBP; and renovating the Old Pool House bathrooms.

 Update # 3: Paying For the New Rescue Squad Vehicle

A business savvy reader took issue with the interest cost calculations that I used when discussing Mayor Coleman’s proposal to buy the new rescue squad vehicle (RSV) using a five year, rent-to-own arrangement.
The reader figured that my calculations didn’t take into account that the principal (on which interest would be assessed) would be reduced over time. The reader also pointed out that I didn’t take into account the lost discount that the city would give up by failing to pay outright for the new RSV. The reader wrote:

Agree with your article about wondering what the actual cost of the vehicle will be to the city. A couple of notes though. Using a financial calculator and a rounded sale price of $210K, a rate of 3%, the annual payment would be $45,854.46 with the 5 year total being $229,272.30. Using http://www.efunda.com/formulae/finance/lease_payment_u.cfm website gives the same results.

Another thing to take into account is the 4% the manufacturer would pay for a payment of the unit up front. This amounts to $3,452, assuming a 150 day delivery date.

Using both of these factors the additional amount paid for the unit is $3,452 + 19,272 = $22,724.

That (the total cost of buying the RSV this way) would more than cover the "projected cost" for the pavilion proposed by P&R for the park.

Thanks to my reader for that feedback.
I hadn’t thought about the last point. Here’s another way to look at it.

The $175,000 of 2011 capital improvement money earmarked by Mayor Coleman for the PBP, combined with the $45,000 he set aside to pay for the RSV using a rent-to-own arrangement, totals $220,000----more than enough to cover the $209,773.04 actual purchase price of the RSV.

Let's face it. Money is all about priorities.
As I see it, these figures provide very interesting insight about the mayor’s priorities. What do you think?

Should We Go Into Debt?

Council gave Fire Chief Bill Turner the go-ahead to buy a new rescue squad vehicle (RSV) this week.


The contracted purchase price: $209,773.04.

The total cost to city taxpayers: ??

The Backstory

 There is no doubt that the city’s rescue squad vehicles are a worthwhile and well-used investment of taxpayer dollars. It is important to provide emergency rescue services to residents, and the service that the Highland Heights fire department provides is top notch. Last May 19th, the department was named “2010 State of Ohio Emergency Medical Service Provider of the Year” by the EMS Division of the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/05/highland_heights_fire_departme_1.html

What many residents probably don’t know is that the rescue squad vehicles are also money-makers for the city. Residents’ private insurance companies are billed (and pay) for emergency medical transportation provided by the fire department. In 2010, the city recouped $179,003 in revenue in connection with fire department’s rescue squad runs.

Fire Chief Bill Turner put replacing the oldest of the city’s two RSVs on the radar several years ago. He has been waiting patiently since then for his request to move to the top of the capital improvement fund priority list. It finally reached that position this year.

The Brewing Controversy: How to Pay For the New RSV


The city started 2011 with over $5 million in its general reserve fund and over $800,000 in its capital improvement fund---more than enough to cover the $209,773.04 purchase price of the new RSV.
Yet Mayor Scott Coleman earmarked only $45,000 in the budget for the RSV.

What gives, you might ask?

A parenthetical note attached to the $45,000 appropriation reads: “5 yr. Lease @ $45,000 per year”. It appears that the mayor’s plan is not to pay for the RSV outright, but to buy it using a five year lease-to-own arrangement instead. Such an arrangement naturally involves paying interest and taking on new city debt.

Finance Director Anthony Ianiro has played coy so far when discussing the proposed lease-to-own deal; he has yet to provide any hard numbers showing what the total projected cost of buying the RSV this way would be. He did tell Council, however, that interest rates are currently running in the 3 to 3.1 % range.

I did the calculations using an online compound interest calculator. Based on what Ianiro said, it would cost city taxpayers an additional $33,405.04 to $34,587.61 to buy the RSV using a five year rent-to-own arrangement, rather than buying it outright.

http://math.about.com/library/blcompoundinterest.htm

Why would Mayor Scott Coleman want to go into debt and burden city taxpayers with interest costs when the city has a healthy $5 million sitting in its reserve fund? I have two words for you:
Election Year.

Despite the rosy picture that the starting fund balances project, the reality is that Mayor Scott Coleman’s overall 2011 budget is--on paper at least--a deficit-spending budget. We’re not talking about a slight deficit spending situation here; the budget projects almost ¾ of a million dollars ($772,283) in deficit spending by the city.

By including only $45,000 of the new RSV’s cost in this year’s budget, the mayor managed to keep the projected deficit-spending under $1 million---an important psychological barrier for many voters.

Of course doing that comes at a price: (1) The city will take on new debt; (2) future budgets will be encumbered to cover the remaining cost of the new RSV; and (3) city taxpayers will be saddled with significant interest expenses.

The question becomes: did the mayor choose to go the $45,000 per year rent-to-own route for sound financial reasons or for political ones?

Deficit spending is a real problem for any mayor seeking re-election. It’s a particular problem for Mayor Scott Coleman, who has made financial stewardship a keystone in both his campaigns and in his formal communications with residents.

In the Fall 2010 edition of Highland Highlights, Mayor Coleman wrote:

“ I am pleased to report that as of August 31, the City finds itself in a very stable financial position.…The General Fund expenses are running about even with our annual estimate of $10.5 million while the total of all expenses for all funds is projected to be below our annual budget of $15.1million. In other words we are spending less than what we originally planned at the beginning of the year…

In addition, since I’ve been Mayor over the past seven years, the city has not incurred any additional interest bearing debt. In these trying economic times, we are proud to be able to make that claim…"

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/newsletter/2010_Fall_Highland_Heights_newsletter.pdf


That was last year.
Looking at the 2011 budget, Mayor Coleman might just have to swallow his words.

Council gave Fire Chief Turner the green light to order the new RSV without deciding whether or not to go along with Mayor Coleman’s rent-to-own plan. The arm-wrestling over that financial decision should begin in a few months, when the new RSV is built and ready for delivery.

Update: Steamrollers and the Park Barn Pavillion

If you’re trying to steamroll someone, it’s always a good idea to make sure that all your ducks are lined up neatly in a row before firing up the engine.

Although Park & Recreation Director Dave Ianiro’s request to spend $1,500 to hire Richard A. Beck & Associates of Willoughby Hills to prepare drawings and specifications for a park “Barn Pavillion” appeared as Item # 1 on the agenda of the May 10th Council meeting, Service Director Thom Evans ended up asking Council to pull that item.
According to Evans there were “outstanding issues” with regard to Mr. Beck, including bonding and insurance issues. Evans also stated that Mr. Beck was “very senior” and thus no longer had a current resume that he could provide to Council.

Is It Time to Ditch Day Camp?

Déjà vu. Here we go again.

The Park & Recreation (P&R) steamroller reappeared at the May 3rd Council committee meeting.
We’ve seen the P&R steamroller before: it’s the steamroller to erect a new park pavilion and to do it--hurry, hurry--right now, immediately, as in it should have been done yesterday.

 The park already has two pavilions. P&R Director David Ianiro pitched his latest concept for pavilion # 3 on Tuesday night, and---get this—he asked Council to immediately: (1) approve the hiring of an architect of Ianiro’s choosing (someone who hasn’t worked for the city before); and (2) authorize the city engineer to do the site work and put the project out to bid as soon as the architectural drawings come in.

Service Director Thom Evans, who told Council that Mayor Scott Coleman asked him to help “spearhead” the project, actively supported Ianiro’s plan to rush the project to completion.

We saw the same behavior before, in connection with the previous concept for the new pavilion (which involved renovating and expanding the Old Pool House building in the park). Then, as now, Ianiro asked Council to dispense with further discussion and give him carte blanche, rubber stamp approval to proceed at will.

 Ianiro might have the right to ask for that if P&R was using its own money to pay for the project.... But it’s not.

In addition to the activity fees it collects, P&R receives 1 mill of the property taxes that Highland Heights residents pay each year. As you can imagine, that translates into a pretty nice taxpayer-paid revenue stream (it is estimated that P&R will receive $332,500 in property taxes this year).
While P&R plans to use $25,000 from its 2011 deficit-spending budget towards the project, most of the money to pay for pavilion concept #3 (which P&R Director Dave Ianiro calls a “Park Barn Pavillion” (PBP)), would come from the city’s capital improvement fund.

The capital improvement fund (CIF) is used to pay for durable city necessities, like road, sewer and infrastructure work, vehicle and equipment replacement, and major building repairs.
Mayor Coleman earmarked $175,000 in the 2011 CIF budget to pay for the PBP project. Meanwhile, he plans to spend only $ 252,000 on street repairs this year—a paltry sum that will allow for some patching of a few main streets, but nothing more.

How’s that for fiscal priorities?
From the very beginning, P&R has said that the new pavilion will be used to provide a home base and rain shelter for the city’s day camp program. The camp runs from 9 am- 4 pm for 8 weeks, beginning in mid June. The Highland Heights day camp was a perpetual money-loser until last year, when P&R finally raised camp fees to more realistic levels.
Ianiro told Council that the camp averaged “about 70 campers” a week last year, but the budget numbers don’t seem to back that up. 2010 camp revenue totalled $ 71,755—or an average of about $ 8,970 per week. Dividing that number by the cheapest child (Highland Heights resident, early bird registration) and by the most expensive child (non-resident, regular registration), that translates into an average of between 48 and 66 campers a week. Since many kids attend day camp for more than one week, the total number of campers served by the camp is unclear, and if recent trends held true, many of those campers were not from Highland Heights.

Up until now, the camp has used Millridge School when the weather turned bad, for “minimal” cost according to the city’s Finance Director. Millridge offers a large gym and accessory rooms for campers to use on rainy days, and most importantly, it has something that none of the park pavilions --not even Dave Ianiro’s proposed PBP--has:
a tornado shelter.

 With all the focus on building a new pavilion for the day camp, P&R has given scant attention to several significant infrastructure and safety issues that affect a far greater number of people who use the park.

For many years P&R ignored the fact that the pool was leaking. I don’t mean a little wetness; we’re talking about daily, substantial drops in water level. Although some fixes were made last year, that problem has yet to be completely resolved.

Some of the park roads are in terrible shape. The access road to Woodside is pretty near un-driveable. City Engineer Steve Hovancsek said he thought that it’s been 40 years since that drive was reconditioned. And get ready to shake, rattle and roll when you enter the park. The park entrance road isn’t in much better shape.

The park also has one very serious safety issue that Mayor Coleman, Council, and P&R Director Dave Ianiro have all acknowledged: the park entrance.
Because of the angle of the road and the placement of the traffic lights, residents take their lives into their own hands each and every time they turn left to go into the park from Wilson Mills Road.
 
You’d think safety would be P&R’s top priority, but you’d be wrong. P&R’s “top priority” according to P&R Director Dave Ianiro---the single thing P&R has been pushing and steamrolling for, nonstop, for over three years---is a new park pavilion for the day camp.

That got me thinking.

Since there is only so much money to go around and since the park has so many infrastructure/safety issues that need to be addressed and since the day camp is the primary justification for building a 3rd pavilion in the park, why not just ditch the day camp? That would eliminate the need for a new pavilion, and P&R would have money to spend on other, more essential things---like finally fixing the pool leak, resurfacing the park roads and improving the safety of the park entrance.

A radical concept, but think about it.

Sentimentality aside, the Highland Heights day camp program is an anachronism—an outdated throwback to a different era. When the day camp program started years and years ago, most moms were stay-at-home moms. Day camp offered summertime relief to those moms by getting their kids out of the house and keeping them occupied and amused for part of the summer.

But times have changed---and the current camp numbers reflect that. The Highland Heights day camp doesn’t provide what working parents need today, i.e., fulltime summer day care, from early morning to dinner time, from the day school lets out until the day it resumes. Today’s working parents don’t enroll their kids in the Highland Heights day camp, they send them to sports and/or other fulltime camps or day care facilities that are designed to provide fulltime supervision and child care in the summer.


Bottom line, there is one question that Council should ask itself before succumbing to the P&R steamroller:

Does it make sense to spend $175,000 (or even $100,000, which is what Ianiro claimed his PBP project would cost) of the city’s precious capital improvement money to build a 3rd pavilion in the park to support an outdated, 8-week summer day camp program that serves a relatively small number of Highland Heights residents? Does it make sense to do that, when the city has so many other needs—both inside and outside the park---waiting to be addressed?

I know what my answer to that question would be.

Mayor Scott Coleman has already given his answer---you don’t have to look any farther than his $175,000 appropriation from the 2011 capital improvements budget to build a day camp pavilion in the park.


Who Said That?

These are quotes from the May 3rd Committee of the Whole meeting.
Can you guess the speaker?


1. “Roads are a big priority right now.”


2. “We had sticker shock.”


3. “I have the number, I know how much it (the building itself ) will cost. I don’t know exactly how much everything is.”


4. “If it’s not acceptable for residents, why is it acceptable for us?”


5. “If we can get (the project pieces) under the (public) bidding limit, we could authorize them as separate projects.”


6.”Aren’t we putting the cart before the horse? We need to fix the drive and then if there’s money left over, we can do the building.”


7. “It will be the most sought-after rental pavilion.”

Answer:

1. Mayor Scott Coleman, who ironically earmarked just $252,000 for city road repair in his 2011 budget.


2. Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, describing the reaction of P&R and Council to the bids for implementing P&R’s prior pavilion concept, which involved renovating and expanding the Old Pool House in the park. The lowest acceptable bid for that work was $299,000, or about 75% above what P&R had originally estimated it would cost ($75,000).


3.P&R Director Dave Ianiro. Ianiro was responding to a question that asked him if he was confident that the total cost for his latest pavilion concept (which he called a “Park Barn Pavillion” (PBP)) would come in under $100,000. Ianiro said, “Yes,” and then responded as detailed above. Ianiro later said that the PBP building itself would cost $40,000. When asked, based on his $100,000 estimate, what the cost per square foot for the entire PBP project was, Ianiro responded, “I couldn’t tell you that sir.” The answer: about $20 a square foot. To put that figure in perspective, the much smaller plain, open air gazebo being discussed for the new city hall greenspace costs about $50 a square foot.


4. Councilman Bob Mastrangelo. In response to the suggestion that the city could use a cheap (and not particularly durable) “chip and seal” refinishing process on the park roads, Mastrangelo asked if residents would be allowed to use that same process on their driveways. The answer was, “No”.


5. Service Director Thom Evans. Evans suggested that the PBP project possibly could be broken into smaller pieces, which would allow him to avoid using a public bidding process for at least part of the work. Although dispensing with a public bidding process could mean that city taxpayers end up paying more for the entire project, it would allow Evans to fast-track the project by soliciting informal bids from a just a few companies that Evans pre-selected.


6. Councilman Bob Mastrangelo. He was responding to the suggestion that Council approve the PBP project with the understanding that leftover capital improvement money, if any, would be spent on improving/repairing the park roads.


7. P&R Director David Ianiro. Pavillion rentals are just a tiny fraction of P&R’s revenue stream. P&R’s total 2010 revenue was $662,276---$3,720 of that was from park pavilion rentals.

The Backstory

The P&R steamroller began in mid-2007.

Mayor Scott Coleman stated at the July 10, 2007 Council meeting that the new greenspace where the old park drive used to be would be a:
“...fabulous place to put a gazebo attached to a pavilion or even a larger pavilion with sides that come down so the day camp could use it during inclement weather…”
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2007/07-10-07_city_council_minutes.htm

At the February 12, 2008 Council meeting, Mayor Coleman reported that former P&R Commissioner Tony Valentino’s vision was to install:
“...a mini Blossom with fire pits and grills and a large cement area for concerts.. (with) an area that is practical for the day camp to use ...”
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2008/02-12-08_city_council_minutes.htm

A month later, at the March 11, 2008 Council meeting, Council’s P&R rep, Ted Anderson, described what P&R wanted:
… a pavilion, amphitheatre, about 2000 SF., concrete, with a fireplace, rustic looking.”
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2008/03-11-08_city_council_minutes.htm

P&R changed tacks when it became clear to that it didn’t have the money or support to build the 2,000 square feet “mini Blossom” pavilion with fireplace that it had envisioned. P&R decided to renovate and expand the Old Pool House (OPH) in the park instead. P&R member Cathy Gould told Council at an April 28, 2009 Council meeting that:
“.. Park & Recreation has been working hard on the renovation of the former pool building so it could be used for camp.” The projected cost, according to P&R, was $75,000.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2009/04-28-09_council_minutes.htm

Councilwoman Cathy Murphy recently described the “sticker shock” when the bids for P&R’s proposed OPH renovation project came in. The lowest acceptable bid was $299,000---75% higher than P&R’s estimated cost.
In 2011, P&R Director Dave Ianiro went back to the drawing board and came up with pavilion concept #3, something he calls a “Park Barn Pavillion.” He told Council on May 3, 2011 that he estimated that the entire project---which includes, among other things, renovating the bathrooms in the OPH---would cost $100,000 or less. Ianiro claimed that the bathroom renovation could be done “for very low cost,” but his plan includes only minor cosmetic work, not bringing the OPH bathrooms up to current code (including meeting ADA handicap accessibility requirements). Also consider this: P&R paid almost $15,000 this year to install two small bleacher pads in the park---a small fraction of the concrete work required for the PBP.

If Ianiro---with Service Director Thom Evans squarely behind him---succeeds in steamrolling Council, the PBP project---or at least a portion of it--will go out to bid within a month.

Celebrations, Answers and Disrespect

The Highland Heights Council Chamber was packed on Tuesday night.

I briefly wondered if the crowd signalled the eruption of a city-wide battle over deer culling. It did not.


Most of the people present were there to celebrate two police appointments/promotions and to honor the Highland Heights Garden Club, which received a Resolution of Commendation from Mayor Coleman and Highland Heights Council.


Congratulations to Police Sargent Joseph Stella and Patrolman Andrew Lessick on their promotions/appointments, and congratulations to the Highland Heights Garden Club on its 2010 awards for Best Flower Show and Best Garden Club in Ohio.

 

Question Answered


At the end of my last blog, I wondered how much Park & Recreation Director Dave Ianiro’s change in policy regarding poolside dining had cost the city, in terms of lost revenue.

We now have the answer:  The city took a 33 1/3 % revenue hit.

Some background:

• The city gives a concessionaire the exclusive right to sell snacks in the park. It’s a good deal for the city. The city get a guaranteed amount of revenue each year, while the concessionaire takes all of the financial risk and has the headache of staffing and running the snack bars.

• When the new pool opened, the city implemented a policy that banned eating in the pool area. Basically the policy meant that if you wanted to snack, you had to do it outside the fenced-in pool area. The policy promoted good sanitation by keeping food out of the pool and by keeping bugs and pests away from the grassy areas where pool visitors sit and lounge.

• Last year, however, P&R Director Dave Ianiro began looking the other way as pool staff and others began bringing in food from outside vendors and dining poolside. That change in policy not only had sanitary implications, it also undercut the concessionaire’s business and increased the concessionaire's cleaning costs.

On Tuesday night, Council approved the 2011 concessionaire contract negotiated by Mayor Scott Coleman. The city will receive $2,000 from Snacks and Stuff, Inc. this year---a $1,000 drop in revenue from last year.


By the way, you don’t have to take my word that Dave Ianiro’s decision to permit poolside pizza parties is directly and causally related to this revenue loss. This is from the April 12th Council minutes (as usual, the postings to the city’s website are woefully behind, so these minutes have yet to be posted online. This is reproduced from the print version of the minutes, which Council approved on Tuesday):

"Law Director Paluf advised last year Snacks & Stuff paid the City around $3,000. She (the company’s small business owner) is asking for a reduction to about $1,700. The main reason is people bringing food to the pool has cut into her business; also the season is shorter....Mr. Paluf stated he thought the main reason is people bringing food to the pool. He suggested some type of reduction would be in order."

So let's recap. The city used to require pool-goers to leave the pool area when they wanted to snack---a good sanitation practice that also help protect the interests of the city's exclusive snack bar concessionaire.
Last year, however, the P&R Director David Ianiro began looking the other way when pool staffers and others began holding poolside pizza parties. His decision to ignore the city's long-standing sanitation policy not only increased poolside trash and debris, but resulted in a significant decrease in revenue from the concessionaire contract. 

Way to go, Dave Ianiro. 

Disrespect


The nine members of the Charter Review Commission (CRC) have taken their task very seriously. Over the past several months they have very slowly and very methodically discussed every section of the city Charter---sometimes more than once.


The Charter, being a legislative/legal document, is not easy reading---even for an attorney. Since eight of the nine CRC members are not attorneys, you can imagine how perplexing some of the language can be at times.


Unfortunately, the CRC has not received the kind of support from Mayor Coleman’s office that it needs and deserves to do its job. For instance, while the mayor provided the CRC members with copies of the city Charter, he did not give them copies of the relevant state statutes and local ordinances. The CRC has been left to read the Charter in a vacuum.


It is almost impossible to comprehend the Charter and how it works by reading it in a vacuum. Some Charter provisions closely track state law---they contain a ton of statutory legalese. Other sections are best understood when read with the local ordinances adopted to implement the legal directives laid out in the Charter. Bottom line, the applicable state statutes, the Charter, and local ordinances really need to be read together, in order to fully understand how the Charter works and why it reads the way it does.  The CRC members haven't been able to do that because the mayor hasn't provided them with all the necessary information and materials.


In addition, while the mayor promised that the CRC members that Law Director Tim Paluf would provide them with whatever legal help they wanted or needed, the reality is that Paluf has met with the CRC only once, for about half an hour—and he appeared to be unprepared for that meeting.
For example the one time he met with them Paluf told the CRC that according to § 5.05 of the Charter, the finance director appointment does not require Council’s approval. In making that statement, Paluf completely ignored § 6.03, a more recently adopted Charter provision, which explicitly states that the Finance Director is “subject to..confirmation by four (4) members (i.e., a majority) of Council.”


My sense at the time was that Paluf didn’t mention the conflict between those two Charter sections (which still has the CRC puzzled) because Paluf wasn’t aware of it. He hadn’t bothered to take the time to read through the Charter and become familiar with it before attending the CRC meeting.


I bring this up because two weeks ago the CRC members decided that they had gone as far as they could on their own. They needed some legal questions answered before deciding whether to recommend possible amendments to the city Charter.


Relying on Mayor Coleman’s promise to make the Law Director available to them whenever his help and advice was needed, the CRC Chair, Dan Dombeck, set the agenda of the April 27th CRC meeting to focus on getting the members’ legal questions resolved. Dombeck told the CRC members that he would ask the mayor to have Tim Paluf attend that meeting.


Dombeck seemed a bit flustered when the April 27th meeting rolled around.

 Law Director Tim Paluf was a no-show.

Dombeck told the CRC members that he learned for the first time the day before (April 26th) that Paluf wasn’t going to attend the CRC meeting.

I found out later that Paluf was not called away on some sudden, unanticipated emergency. He was off on a planned vacation in Florida.


It strikes me that Mayor Coleman and/or Law Director Tim Paluf showed an utter lack of respect for the CRC members and their time by failing to let Dan Dombeck know about Paluf’s absence sufficiently in advance, so the April 27th CRC meeting could be rescheduled. As it was, the meeting went forward, but little was accomplished given Paluf’s absence.


What a nice way (not) to treat these residents, who have already given up so much of their time to serve the city.



Get Well Soon
It’s getting around the city that Mayor Coleman is recovering from a bout of pneumonia. Get well soon, Mr. Mayor.