Highland Heights Council’s Drilling Vote Rescheduled For March 27th

The over 200 residents who attended the March 13^th council meeting were quite perturbed when, instead of voting, council pulled its drilling resolution off the agenda.  It’s back on the agenda for the March 27^th council meeting.

Council President Cathy Murphy promised that council will vote on Resolution 6-2012 on March 27^th . That resolution would authorize Mayor Scott Coleman to sign a new lease with Bass Energy, resulting in 2 “frac” gas wells being drilled near the tennis courts and the pool in the Community Park. 

Anyone who cares about this issue should mark their calendar and plan to attend the March 27^th Council meeting.

 It will be held at 8 pm in Highland Heights City Hall (the building behind the police station, to the right of the community center). Judging by the turnout two weeks ago, you should come early if you want to get a good seat.

As the Love Our Green Space (LOGS) flyer said:

These are our representatives. Let’s get their attention!

BITS AND PIECES AND OTHER CITY NEWS

IS IT NOT OKAY TO HOLD ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE?

Today’s Sun Messenger has a lot of coverage about the March 13^th Council meeting and Council’s controversial drilling resolution.

They also printed several letters to the editor.

In one of those letters, a Lyndhurst councilman criticized me for allegedly “attack(ing) the mayor,” “cross(ing) the line from talking about the issue into making it personal,” violating “proper protocol,” and “name-call(ing)”.

Pardon me?

Since when are residents not allowed to challenge and question elected officials in public regarding their official actions and decisions---especially when those actions and decisions resulted in a lawsuit being filed against the city?

And since when does questioning elected officials in public regarding their official actions and decisions constitute “name calling,” personal “attacks,” and “(im)proper protocol”?

Boy am I glad I don’t live in Lyndhurst.

My March 13^th speech to Council is set out, in full, as a  separate blog entry immediately below this one (I know that it's a pain to scroll down, but it's there if you look for it).

On March 13^th I discussed not just Mayor Scott Coleman’s part in the Bass Energy disaster, but the role of the 2007 Council and a former city engineer too, and I did so to give context to my argument that Resolution 6-2012 is an improper attempt to validate and legitimize the prior ultra vires acts that resulted in the Bass Energy suit.

Read my speech.
Decide for yourself whether Mr. Gambatese properly characterized my speech as “name calling” and an improper “personal attack”.

I think the nonresident councilman is dead wrong.

I think all of the comments made by residents at the March 13^th  Council meeting were important, legitimate and fair public discussion of a very contentious local issue.

Bottom line, if Mayor Coleman--- or any elected official---can’t stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY

I posted my first blog entry ( http://highlandheightsohiohappenings.blogspot.com/)  on March 8, 2009.
The topics I reported on and discussed were:  the budget, gas wells, airport expansion and renovating the old pool house.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Three years and still going strong. Happy 3^rd anniversary!

NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T…OH WAIT, I SEE IT AGAIN

I noted in my June 11, 2011 blog that the Crostatas Pizzeria’s outdoor sign mysteriously disappeared a few months after it was installed last year.

The sign returned a few weeks ago.

Will it stay? The mystery continues.

UPDATE: PLANNING & ZONING’S APPROVAL OF A NON-CONFORMING LEASING SIGN FOR NON-EXISTENT COMMERCIAL SPACE

In my February 17, 2012 blog, I questioned the Planning & Zoning Commission’s  (P&Z) decision to approve a leasing sign that developer Lance Osborne wanted to install at the rear of the vacant Catalano’s grocery store property.

There were several problems with that decision: 1) only owners can apply for sign permits and Osborne doesn’t own the Catalano’s property; 2) Osborne hadn’t even applied for a sign permit; 3) it’s up to the Building Commissioner, not P&Z, to approve sign permits; 4) the sign advertised non-existent commercial space---space that might never exist, according to Osborne, if voters reject his plan to install a mega Get-Go gas station and café on the site; and 5) the sign P&Z approved doesn’t comply with city law.

Wow, that’s quite a list, isn’t it?

The P&Z minutes from that meeting have been posted online.

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/planning_and_zoning/meeting%20minutes/2012/02-13-12_P&Z_minutes.htm

They show one fact that I didn’t know:  the vote to approve the sign was not unanimous. After ascertaining that Osborne wasn’t the property owner, attorney Ann D’Amico voted no on approving the sign.  Too bad the boys on P&Z didn’t follow her lead.

The minutes state:

“The consensus of the Commission was that the proposed (4’ x 8’) sign meets the criteria defined in HHCO 1145.02(22):  “Definitions; real estate sign” and is subject to the requirements as outlined in HHCO 1145.06(j)…. The consensus of the Commission for approving the sign was that it conforms to City Code.”

Really?

Highland Heights Ordinance 1145.02 (22) defines “real estate sign” as:

 "…a sign pertaining to the rental, sale or lease of property on which the sign is displayed.”

Highland Heights Ordinance 1145.06(j)(4), pertaining to “Commercial for Lease and Rent Signs,” states:

“…any ground sign…shall not exceed eight (8) square feet in total area…”

Do you suppose P&Z really thought Osborne’s 32 square feet sign advertising non-existent commercial space “conform(ed) to City Code” ?

And if the guys who are supposed to safeguard and enforce our city zoning laws ignore those laws, where does that leave the rest of us---especially the rest of us who aren’t bigwig local developers?

CHANGES A’COMING AT CITY HALL?

Council adopted Mayor Scott  Coleman’s 2012 budget last week.

There were two intriguing expense items listed for the Finance Department: $11,797 in sick time payouts and $14,264 in vacation time buyouts. Last year’s expense for each of those items:  $0.

Buyouts are usually paid when someone leaves their city employment.

Could it be that one of the mayor’s nepotism issues is about to disappear?

Rumor has it that Finance Director Anthony Ianiro plans to retire this year.
 That certainly could explain those unusual expense items in the Finance Department budget.

WE DON’T WANT NO STINKING GARBAGE TOTER CARTS

Council was supposed to decide on a garbage contract on March 13^th, but the vote was postponed so they could discuss their options one more time at a March 20^th Committee of the Whole meeting.

A representative from the winning bidder (Kimble, formerly known as J&J Refuse) attended.

Council’s dilemma was whether to take the leap to automated garbage collection, which would require residents to use Kimble-supplied large garbage toter carts.

Although the final vote was 6-1 in favor of keeping our current, non-automated collection system, Council was actually quite split on the issue.

Councilmen Bob Mastrangelo, Chuck Brunello and Frank Legan, along with Mayor Coleman, favored going totally toter.

After doing a great deal of research, Mastrangelo concluded that going the toter route made most sense for the city in the long run:

“I’m not a tree hugger, it’s simply a matter of economics…If we are concerned about cost, the best way to save money in the future is to recycle.  Beachwood found that their solid waste went down because their garbage stayed dry (the toter carts have attached lids)..We can have free (toter) cans now, but that option may not be out there in the future…It may cost us more down the road..It will make us more competitive by having (automated pickup) capability.”

More persuasive to a majority of council members, however, were the many phone calls and emails they received from residents who were opposed to the idea of having toter carts thrust upon them.

Council President Cathy Murphy explained,

“I support keeping garbage collection the same. Residents are so pleased with the rubbish service as currently provided. I received an overwhelming response (from residents) not to change…I have driven around cities with large toter carts and I see them all sitting outside.  I also prefer a 3 year contract versus a 5 year ironclad contract (with toters). I think there is a lot of potential value to have the ability to revisit the rubbish contract. If you tie yourself up for 5 years, a lot could happen.”

The last point has some validity, especially given that the contract allows Kimble to bill more for its services each month, as the cost of fuel rises.

The contract uses the U.S. Energy Administration’s retail price for diesel as of January 2, 2012 as the base fuel price and allows Kimble to increase the amount it bills for its collection service each month by  .5% for each 10 cents that the actual retail price of diesel fuel exceeds the January 2^nd price that month.

Gas prices have increased significantly since January; no doubt diesel prices have followed.
The Kimble contract may prove to be far more expensive than the city anticipated---to the point that the city may not realize any anticipated savings after all.
If that’s the case, it will benefit the city to be able to rebid the garbage contract in 3 years.

In the meantime, I really wish I had a toter cart for my recyclables. It should would be swell to be able to simply toss everything---paper, bottles and plastic---into a single bin and roll it to the curb for pickup.

Maybe I’ll be able to do that---in 3 years.