Avoiding Hard Decisions And Taking the Easy Way Out

I left the Sept. 13^th Council meeting disappointed and disgusted.
City leaders decided to play Santa Claus, instead of prioritizing needs and making hard decisions about spending public money.

Council’s Cop-Out

As regular readers of this blog know, while Mayor Scott Coleman’s 2011 budget gave short-shrift to road repairs and ignored other significant city infastructure issues---like flooding problems and the failing Highland Road water main---he made sure to include a $175,000 appropriation to build a new Party Barn Pavilion (PBP) in the park.

By all appearances that appropriation fulfills a campaign pledge that Coleman made when first ran for mayor in 2003---a fact seemingly confirmed by City Recreation Director David Ianiro, who told Council at a Sept. 6^th Committee of the Whole meeting, “We’ve been trying to get the building for 8 years”.  

Significantly, the $ 175,000 appropriation was in addition to $629,850 in regular revenue designated for park and recreation use this year. 

Dave Ianiro, who woefully underestimated the cost of an earlier version of the PBP, confidently told Council that the latest PBP building would cost just $45,000 to erect---a real bargain.

Meanwhile, Council questioned whether the PBP was really a top priority park need. It focused its attention on something studiously ignored by Mayor Coleman, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro and the city’s Park & Recreation Commission (P&R)--- something that directly impacts almost every park visitor---the rutted and badly deteriorated park roads.

Council decided to solicit bids for both the PBP and for repaving a portion of the park roads, to get an idea of how much each project would cost.  In a prior meeting, residents were lead to believe that after looking at the bids, Council would decide which project or projects to pursue---while keeping within the mayor’s $175,000 appropriation.

The bids were opened at the end of August.

The repaving bid came in at $261,225. That cost includes (as recommended by the city engineer) repaving the heavily used park entrance road with full depth asphalt and using a cheaper, less durable “chip seal” process on the Woodside access road.

There was only one bid submitted for the PBP. That bid was 128.50%  more than the city engineer’s cost estimate.  The cost for the PBP building alone was $ 68,700 ---152.67% more than the $45,000 figure that Rec Director Dave Ianiro so confidently quoted to Council. With required “observation” fees factored in, the PBP project’s total cost ended up at $117,405.20—a figure that doesn’t include architect’s fees or renovating the Old Pool House bathrooms---work that Ianiro claims must also be done. 

Council acted on the bids at its Sept. 13^th meeting.

That’s where my disgust and disappointment come in.

Councilman Bob Mastrangelo was the only council member to balk at the PBP bid. He pointed out that Council,

“rejected the first greenspace gazebo bid for less of an overage. No one’s discussed that”. 

Mastrangelo was referring to the fact that Council decided to re-advertise the greenspace gazebo project after the only bid submitted exceeded the city engineer’s cost estimate---by a much lower amount than the PBP bid. That decision resulted in a significantly lower gazebo bid the second time around, one within the cost estimates.

Did Mastrangelo’s comments spur Council to re-advertise the PBP project due to the one, wildly overinflated bid it received? No, they did not.

Even worse, instead of considering and prioritizing all of the city’s infastracture needs before making a decision, Council simply took the easy way out----it approved both park projects, at a total cost of $384,000+---more than twice the mayor’s $175,000 appropriation.

Legislative & Finance Committee Chairman, Councilman Leo Lombardo, justified the decision by pointing out that the PBP bid came in under $175,000. He argued that the city could afford to pony up the additional cost to do both projects ($209,000) because the city was raking in income taxes at levels above projected amounts.

Basically the messages sent by Mayor Coleman and Council were these:

1. The city’s got plenty of money, so it’s okay to spend it.
2. It’s okay to spend capital improvement money without considering, discussing or deciding which of the city’s infrastructure needs are most important. 
3. It’s okay to let someone else (down the line) worry about more problematic things, like the city’s crumbling city streets, flooded basements, and the failing Highland Road water main.  
4. It’s definitely okay to be Santa Claus in an election year.

Merry Christmas, Dave Ianiro!

Not surprisingly, Councilman Bob Mastrangelo voted against accepting the bid for the PBP project. He said that he could,

 “not support (the PBP) because there are other capital projects in the city that need more attention.

For example, the new ambulance.  We talked of leasing it (using a five year, lease-to-own arrangement) because we didn’t have the finances to pay for it. We should just pay for it.

We’ve been talking about the park entrance.

We shouldn’t approve any money until P&R gives us a 5 year plan and not just a wish list. I’ve been asking for that for three years.”

Councilman Bob Mastrangelo was willing to prioritize and make hard choices.

 

It’s very disappointing that Mayor Coleman and the rest of Council weren’t willing to do that too.

Get-Go Update

Developer Lance Osborne appeared at the September 13^th Council meeting and asked Council to file his initiative petition with the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.…Well sort of. 

What Osborne actually did was draft an Ordinance for Council to pass. The Ordinance text was a boiled down version of his proposed zoning law changes---once again packaged together and presented as an all or nothing issue.

Osborne also asked Council to put his proposed zoning laws on the May 201 primary ballot---even though the Highland Heights Charter requires initiative issues to be voted on during general or regular municipal elections, elections that are likely to attract the maximum number of voters from all political parties.

Law Director Tim Paluf told Council that Osborne’s request complied with Charter requirements, but he has remained mum about what happens next.
Although the Charter seems to indicate that Council must file Osborne’s petition with the Board of Elections, Paluf could possibly rule the petition legally insufficient, thereby rendering it ineligible for filing downtown. At a minimum, the city can file a protest, challenging the petition due to its obvious substantive and procedural deficiencies.

Meanwhile, Osborne was the sole presenter at the September 15^th Highland Heights Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting, armed with drawings and a site plan for the Catalano’s lot.

Osborne told the EDC that his deal to buy the Catalano’s property is contingent on his getting the necessary zoning law changes and permits to operate the proposed mega “Get-Go” at the site.
He stands to make a ton of money from the deal, as it involves a lease-back arrangement with Giant Eagle for the “Get-Go” portion of the property.

Although Council has taken a “hands off” approach to Osborne’s project, Finance Director Anthony Ianiro---who heads the EDC---clearly wasn’t following their lead. He seems to be setting the stage to pit the EDC against Council---something which Osborne’s supporters would undoubtedly relish. Since the finance director is one of Mayor Scott Coleman’s right hand men, Tony Ianiro's actions may very well signal where Coleman stands on the proposed mega “Get-Go”.

The finance director told the EDC members (who normally meet just 4 times a year) that they could expect a follow-up meeting  “in a couple of weeks” to decide “what we want to do” and to “make a recommendation (to support the project) or not.”

Since the EDC is focused solely on development---and not on other things, such as supporting the city’s zoning laws or protecting residential neighborhoods---there is little doubt what will happen when the EDC votes on the Osborne/Giant Eagle mega “Get-Go” plan. 

Osborne told the EDC that he thought the project would generate about 100 jobs---part-time and some fulltime jobs. While at first blush that might seem to be a big deal, in reality it probably won’t mean a whole lot of new income for the city.  A bunch of minimum wage, part-time jobs simply don’t translate into a significant amount of new tax money for the city.

To put it in perspective, consider this.

Tony Ianiro told the EDC that Catalano’s--- which employed more than 100 people,

“wasn’t a huge picture (tax wise). They paid maybe $25,000 to $35,000 in payroll tax”.”

That’s $25,000 to $35,000 out of a $16 million budget.

Based on the city’s experience with Catalano’s, it’s more than likely that the 100 jobs touted by Osborne would similarly be “(not) huge picture” as far as additional payroll tax collections are concerned.

Meanwhile the Catalano’s property continues to generate revenue for the city---in the form of property taxes that Giant Eagle pays each year, based on the property’s $1.3 million appraised value.

As the finance director remarked,

“Property taxes are property taxes. The city always gets property tax whether there’s a business there or not.”

Quick Hits

Candidate No-shows

The Sun Messenger is holding interview sessions with Highland Heights candidates this week. Attending the sessions is important for any candidate who hopes to win a Sun Messenger endorsement.

Ted Anderson--who vehemently pledged to run again after he was soundly defeated by Councilwoman Lisa Stickan for the Ward One council seat two years ago---was a no-show.

It’s unclear whether Anderson lacked interest or was simply too busy to attend the endorsement interview.

Shred That Paper!

The next city paper shredding day is coming up soon.

 The service is free, and there will be helpers on hand to assist in unloading whatever you bring.

Bring your old files and other paper to the Service Center Garage (behind the police station/fire house) on Saturday October 1, from 9 am to 1 pm.

Absentee/Vote-by-Mail Ballots

The Ohio Secretary of State, Jon Husted, has barred the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (BOE) from sending out postcards inviting voters to vote by mail---something the BOE has done for the past several years.

That means if you want an absentee/vote-by-mail ballot for the November 2011 election, you have to spend your own time and money to get one.

You can call the Board of Elections (216 443-3298) and ask them to send you an absentee/vote-by-mail application or you can go online and download a customized application (http://www.boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/votebymailapplication.aspx).

Or you can ask Council President Scott Mills to deliver an application to you.  

Apparently Mills picked up a bunch of absentee/vote-by-mail applications the last time he was downtown.

He tells me he’s willing to share.

All you have to do is call him (440 477-5883) or e-mail him (smills@highlandhts.com) and he’ll bring one right to your door.

Whatever method you choose, you’ll have to fill out the application and either mail it back or drop it by the BOE office downtown for processing.  Only then will the BOE be allowed to send you an absentee/vote-by-mail ballot.

Any more hoops you want to make us jump through, Mr. Husted?

Waiting for Developer Lance Osborne’s Next Move

Developer Lance Osborne has two options after Council rejected his initiative petition : step back and reassess or continue his campaign to gut Highland Heights’ zoning laws.

A recap

In late June, developer Lance Osborne began spearheading Giant Eagle’s effort to erect a mega “Get-Go” gas station, car wash and convenience store/café on the Catalano’s grocery store property.

One big problem: Highland Heights’ zoning laws don’t allow the Catalano’s property to be used in that fashion.

Osborne seemed to think that his involvement would engender immediate political support for the project. Council, however, balked at putting a Get-Go related rezoning issue on the November 2011 ballot.
Osborne, therefore, came up with his own zoning-related initiative petition and recruited a battalion of non-resident minions, who scoured the city to collect the minimum required number of valid voter signatures (290).

Where Things Stand Now

In a prior blog I described the changes that Osborne wants to make to the Highland Heights' zoning code and explained how Osborne's proposal would operate to effectively gut a significant portion of the city's current zoning code.  

But that’s not the only problem with Osborne's initiative petition.

Ohio courts tend to look favorably on initiative petitions---as long as they comply with applicable procedural and legal requirements and as long as the proposed issues are clear and not confusing to voters.
Osborne’s petition fails on these points as well. For example:

1. To promote clarity and transparency, Ohio law provides that all proposed legislation must be limited to and address a “single subject”.
   Osborne’s petition appears to run afoul of this rule, as it proposes changes to two different city ordinances: Ordinance 1131.04 and Ordinance 1131.05.
   The fact that 1131.04 and 1131.05 both pertain to zoning doesn’t mean they can be lumped together as a “single subject”. Their different numbers is just one indication that the ordinances are, in fact, separate and distinct laws, dealing with separate subjects.  Ordinance 1131.04, entitled “Use Regulations,” details the city’s different non-residential zoning classifications, while Ordinance 1131.05, entitled “Performance Standards,” set out various safety and other standards applicable to all non-residential parcels in the city.
   
   By lumping all of his proposed zoning law changes together in a single petition Osborne is clearly trying to present an “all or nothing” choice to voters----because he needs all of his proposed zoning changes to be approved in order to put a mega “Get-Go” on the Catalano’s property.
   Under the “single subject” rule, however, Highland Heights residents are entitled to vote on each of Osborne’s proposed changes separately, choosing for themselves whether they want to change one, both or neither ordinance.
   
   
2. Petitions are supposed to clearly and fully inform voters what the proposed new law entails by setting out the existing law, with strikethroughs of language to be dropped and bolded text indicating language to be added.
   
   Osborne’s petition showed only what his versions of Ordinances 1131.04 and 1131.05 would look like. He didn’t include the current ordinances or show how his proposed language differs from what is currently there.
   Bottom line, residents were kept in the dark, unable to determine the meaning or significance of Osborne’s proposed zoning law changes.
   
   
3.  Osborne’s petition does not contain any “ballot ready” text.
   
   Instead, it sets out---in three long pages---full of versions of what Ordinance 1131.04 and 1131.05 would look like, if Highland Heights residents approve his proposed changes. 
   Clearly the Board of Elections can’t put the entire 3 page petition on the ballot; there’s no room for it. Unfortunately, because of the way he structured it, Osborne’s petition doesn’t clearly indicate to the Board of Elections---or to anyone else---what particular language the petition-signers agreed could be put on the ballot.

Several sources told me that Law Director Tim Paluf sent a legal memorandum to Council last week, advising them that Osborne’s petition was defective for some of the reasons discussed above.  Following Paluf’s advice, Council unanimously rejected the petition last Tuesday.

The ball is now in Osborne’s court. 

Highland Heights Charter section 8.01 reads:

“If Council fails to pass such proposed ordinance…the petitioners through the Committee named on such petition may at the next regular meeting of Council request in writing that it be submitted to a vote of the electors. Thereupon, Council shall provide for submitting the petitioned ordinance… to the electors at the next general or regular Municipal election occurring more than ninety (90) days after the filing of such petition..”

Even if Osborne’s petitioner committee makes such a request at the regular Council meeting this week, that might not be the end of it.  Law Director Tim Paluf told Council last Tuesday that he may

“determine that the petition is not proper to go to the Board of Elections to be voted on… I’m still determining what will happen, once action is taken tonight.”

Even if developer Lance Osborne exercises his rights under Charter section 8.01 and forces Council to put his initiative issue on the ballot, it is unlikely that the Board of Election will approve submitting his proposed zoning law changes to voters as an “all or nothing” package. It is equally unlikely that any vote will be held this November because less than 90 days remain before the November 2011 election and the petition has not yet been filed with the Board of Elections.

It will be interesting to see what Osborne decides to do tomorrow---press ahead or take a step back and reassess his approach. 

He may have the right to steamroll his petition to get it on the ballot, but if Osborne does that, he’ll be going it alone, without any support from Council.

Summer Wrap-up

Planning & Zoning Issues and Election Shenanigans fill the void while Council finishes up its August recess.

Change of Leadership: Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z)

 Although Council recessed for the entire month of August, P&Z did not.
One item listed on their August 22^nd agenda particularly piqued my interest:  “Election of P&Z Chair”.

Since P&Z usually elects a Chair in January, that agenda item was anything but business as usual.

  

Councilman Bob Mastrangelo has occupied the P&Z Chair for 15 years. He continued in that role after he was elected to Council (and appointed as Council’s rep to P&Z) two years ago.
At the August 22^nd meeting Mastrangelo disclosed that he had decided to give up his role as P&Z Chair. He explained that his decision,

 ”has nothing to do with this board, it has to do with the perception of people on council with me espousing certain positions. “

One of the “positions” that recently brought Mastrangelo into conflict with his fellow Council members was P&Z’s support of developer Lance Osborne’s request to change the city’s zoning code, to allow Giant Eagle to put a mega “Get-Go” gas station, car wash and convenience store/café on the Catalano’s grocery store property.

To give him credit, Mastrangelo also pointed out that all of the Council appointments would be up for grabs once a new Council was seated in January; someone else might be appointed as Council’s rep to P&Z the next  time around. With that possibility in mind Mastrangelo said, “I’d like to give someone else a chance to get experience” as P&Z Chair.

Vince Adamus, an economic development professional, was quickly (and unanimously) elected to replace Mastrangelo as P&Z Chair.

While the P&Z members were prepared for Mastrangelo’s announcement, they clearly weren’t happy about it. They blamed Council for Mastrangelo’s resignation. They seemed to believe that Council resented Mastrangelo’s “leadership” on zoning issues.

Adamus said, ”The issue is not here, it is city Council.”

Speaking for the record, P&Z member Bill Urban declared,

“The city won’t be as well served by not having you as chair. It is disappointing that, for whatever political reasons, you have to take a step back.”

Mastrangelo did his best to reassure his peers.

“I’ll still be on (P&Z)…It will be easier if someone else is doing the (chair) job. I’ll only be reporting to Council instead of leading P&Z. ..You’re still stuck with me.”

Although his P&Z peers may think otherwise, Mastrangelo’s decision was a good one. 

Mastrangelo is wearing a new hat these days: that of Councilman.  He sits on P&Z not in his own right but as Council’s rep.  There seemed to be some confusion on that point.

Giving up the Chair will make it much easier for Mastrangelo, residents, P&Z members and, most importantly, developers to keep his different roles straight.

OTHER P&Z TIDBITS

Getting an inch and taking 6 feet

One resident asked for, and received, a variance last spring, which allowed him to put a 6’ fence in his backyard. The resident was explicitly told at that time that the 6’ fencing had to stop at his home’s rear line and that all of the fencing next to his home, from the rear line forward,  could not exceed 3 feet---the maximum allowed under city zoning laws.

The resident was forced to return to P&Z on August 22^nd, after the city found out that he had installed a 6’ fence around his entire home.

The resident told P&Z that when he ordered supplies, he ordered only 6’ fence lengths, figuring that he would cut the fence down to 3’ where necessary after the fence was installed. He explained that after he installed a 6’ fence around his entire house,

 “We liked it and the neighbors liked it, so we decided to ask for variance to have the entire fence 6’.” 

During the discussion it came to light that the resident had not submitted an entirely accurate drawing of his home when he applied for his original variance; the drawing didn’t show a three-season sunroom that extended out the back. That omission was significant because the sunroom extended the home’s rear line further into the resident’s backyard. Bottom line, the resident had already received more of a variance than he would’ve received, had he accurately shown the rear line of his home last spring.

The resident wants an additional 37 foot variance, so he can keep the non-conforming 6’ fence that he intentionally and knowingly installed around his home---after being warned away from doing just that.

 The resident was told that pursuant to applicable zoning law he will have to show “hardship” to get the variance he seeks. And, as outgoing P&Z Chair Bob Mastrangelo explained,

         “the hardship can’t be because the fence is already up. “

Lobbying of P&Z members by developer Lance Osborne

P&Z member Don McFadden, a real estate attorney, revealed that developer Lance Osborne sent him a personal email after the last P&Z meeting, pitching changes to the proposed convenience store/café that Giant Eagle wants to put on the Catalano’s property.

 Osborne’s e-mail equates to something attorneys call “ex parte communication” with a decision-maker---something that is generally frowned upon in the legal world.

For McFadden (who stated that he did not respond to the communication), the Osborne e-mail raised

“the issue of whether it is appropriate for member of (P&Z) to receive emails outside of commission meetings. …I don’t know if you were concerned about this,” said McFadden,” I thought it was odd.  I just wondered whether it was appropriate and what we should do.”

Newly-elected P&Z chair, Vince Adamus replied:

“I’m not sure it’s an issue unless someone’s committing to something. As long as its informal discussion, I don’t know.”

I was disquieted by Adamus’s reaction.

 
I hate to think that, as P&Z Chair, he will encourage and/or condone backroom lobbying by developers and others seeking zoning approval from the city. 

Off-the-record discussion (that should be on the record).

I was astounded when P&Z members formally adjourned their August 22nd meeting and then launched into discussion of agenda items.

P&Z meetings are supposed to be public, on-the-record meetings--- all of the discussion about public business and agenda items is supposed to take place during the meeting---and be reflected in the meeting minutes.

Apparently that wasn’t the first time that P&Z members held an off-the-record meeting after adjourning their official meeting. Doing that violates both the intent and spirit of the public meeting laws.

P&Z has a lot of new members who have never served on a public commission before. It might be helpful, and certainly not inappropriate, for Law Director Tim Paluf to meet with them and bring them up to speed on applicable ethics and public meeting laws.

ELECTION SHENANIGANS

City employees sometimes feel the heat when their boss is facing a contested reelection battle. Perhaps that explains the recent behavior of the Highland Heights pool manager Sarah Tufts.

According to a recent email sent by Council President Scott Mills to Mayor Scott Coleman (and copied to Council), during a late July staff meeting Tufts told pool employees:

“’that they would lose their jobs if Scott Mills was elected mayor’ and that they should ‘tell their parents to vote for Mayor Coleman.’

While… being paid by the city, (Tufts) voiced support for your re-election in an obvious attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming mayoral election…I personally investigated (the) matter and spoke to several… pool employees, who… confirmed the truth surrounding (the) inappropriate meeting. I also spoke with Sarah and she admitted that she discussed the election and suggested what would happen if I was elected, although she denied expressly telling the pool employees that they would lose their jobs…I then contacted Recreational Director David Ianiro…Ironically, instead of appropriately addressing this matter, Mr. Ianiro also (stated that) he understood he would lose his job if I was elected mayor.”

While it is easy to chalk the incident up to politics, Mills was right to take issue with Tuft’s alleged conduct.
State law frowns on public employees politicking on the job. Ohio Revised Code § 9.03(C)(2) bars

” (a) governing body of a political subdivision” from using public funds to compensate any employee …for time spent on any activity to influence the outcome of an election for the purpose of support(ing) …the election of a candidate for public office.”

Bottom line, city employees are supposed to spend their work hours focusing on doing their jobs---the jobs taxpayers are paying them to do. It is particularly inappropriate for supervisors to use scare tactics on their subordinates, in an attempt to round up votes for their public boss.

Isn’t that the type of behavior that led to the Cuyahoga County scandal?

OTHER POOL WOES

Highland Heights Pool Manager Sarah Tufts may have good cause to worry about retaining her job---for reasons that have nothing to do with politics.

At the July 26^th Council meeting, resident and regular pool user Paulette Hughes expressed her concern about an ongoing issue at the pool: the state of cleanliness (or lack thereof) of the women’s bathroom. Hughes told Council,

“The ladies’ bathroom at the pool is way below standard… I got so upset with the lack of cleaning that I took a scrub brush and Tilex with me and scrubbed one shower and bench. There is so much scum in the cinderblock it’s yellow….where the floor and ceiling meet, there is a dark brown scum line. No one has taken any care of the bathroom... Whoever the cleaning people are…if they think they are cleaning, it’s not correct. “

While Hughes was assured by Mayor Scott Coleman at the Council meeting that her concerns would be investigated and addressed, apparently they were not.  Hughes sent a followup email to the mayor and Council several weeks later, stating:

“Some of the rust has been removed from the two soap dispensers.  Some of the scum has been removed from the base of the bench and the floor in the middle of the bathroom.
What remains undone: scuff marks on the walls, mold/missing paint in at least two of the showers, soap scum in crevices in cinder block in shower areas, brown scum remains at union between walls and floor.  Two hooks still broken with internal sharp metal mounting brackets still exposed–one in a shower stall and one on the far wall in the bathroom, brownish smear still on wall above soap dispenser on right by sinks, yellowish stain on wall under soap dispenser to right of sink of left.  

I am quite disappointed. …I really don’t understand the failure of those responsible for solving these issues when the burned out and missing fluorescent bulbs in one of the bathroom ceiling lights were replaced within a matter of hours.”

As pool manager, Tufts is responsible for the entire operation of the city’s million dollar pool facility----including making sure that the bathrooms are kept clean and in good repair.  In that respect it appears her performance—to use Hughes’ words---has been “disappointing”.

Others might (less charitably) call it something else.