HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!
It’s been five years since I first began Highland Heights Happenings.
The “gas wells in the park” controversy transformed me from
a complacent taxpayer into a blogger/lobbyist for residents.
You remember that controversy don’t you?
You remember that controversy don’t you?
Neither Council nor Mayor Coleman bothered to reach out to residents
to let them know that they were even thinking
about allowing gas wells to be drilled in the park.
They didn’t hold public hearings as required by city law.
And they ignored an ordinance banning gas wells from the park.
They didn’t hold public hearings as required by city law.
And they ignored an ordinance banning gas wells from the park.
Residents didn’t hear about the drilling plan until the very
last minute, right before Bass Energy planned to begin clear-cutting mature
park woodland….work that, coincidentally, was scheduled to begin while the
mayor was away on business.
It took five years, a charter amendment, a huge turnout by angry residents and a big fat $600,000 payment to Bass to undo that whopper of a mistake.
For me, the whole incident illuminated one reality: residents
had little idea of what their elected officials were up to because those
officials chose what information to share…or not…. with residents.
I figured that a blog might help fill in the information gap.
I figured that a blog might help fill in the information gap.
Residents deserve not to be kept in the dark.
Hence Highland Heights Happenings was
born.
I posted my first blog five years ago, on March 8th 2009.
I posted my first blog five years ago, on March 8th 2009.
I wish I could say that lessons have been learned and that our elected officials have gotten substantially better at providing information to, dialoguing with, and truly listening to residents before making important decisions.
I wish I could say that.
But frankly it doesn’t appear that has happened.
But frankly it doesn’t appear that has happened.
You don’t have to look any further than how the pricey
$800,000 development deal with developer Lance Osborne was handled to see what
I mean.
The few residents who attended Council meetings in the spring of 2013 heard mention of a possible deal, but details and specifics about what the deal might entail were publicly withheld.
The few residents who attended Council meetings in the spring of 2013 heard mention of a possible deal, but details and specifics about what the deal might entail were publicly withheld.
Turns out residents weren’t the only ones kept in the dark.
Councilman Bob Mastrangelo objected on the record to the fact that Council members weren’t provided copies of the final development agreement until they walked into Council chambers on voting day.
Councilman Bob Mastrangelo objected on the record to the fact that Council members weren’t provided copies of the final development agreement until they walked into Council chambers on voting day.
By handling it that way the powers that be prevented the public from getting access to the final agreement prior to the meeting as well.
As with the gas drilling controversy, there was no real, substantive dialogue
with residents before Council approved the deal.
Oh, a dog-and-pony show public hearing was held, complete with active coaching by Council President Cathy Murphy directed at the hearing’s sole witness, developer Osborne.
Although he initially indicated that immediate approval of the deal wasn’t necessary, Osborne changed his tune in response to Murphy’s pointed questions and comments.
He eventually came forward with what Murphy appeared to be fishing for, declaring that his redevelopment project would be jeopardized if Council didn’t vote on the development deal that night.
Minutes after opening the meeting up to public comments----the first and only time residents were given an opportunity to ask questions and weigh in on the matter---- Council suspended legislative rules and rush-approved the $800,000 economic development deal.
Oh, a dog-and-pony show public hearing was held, complete with active coaching by Council President Cathy Murphy directed at the hearing’s sole witness, developer Osborne.
Although he initially indicated that immediate approval of the deal wasn’t necessary, Osborne changed his tune in response to Murphy’s pointed questions and comments.
He eventually came forward with what Murphy appeared to be fishing for, declaring that his redevelopment project would be jeopardized if Council didn’t vote on the development deal that night.
Minutes after opening the meeting up to public comments----the first and only time residents were given an opportunity to ask questions and weigh in on the matter---- Council suspended legislative rules and rush-approved the $800,000 economic development deal.
Which makes me wonder:
Why has nothing really changed in the last five years?
Maybe it’s because the city’s top leaders haven’t changed.
The people at the top five years ago, when the drilling lease was signed, are the city’s top leaders now.
One thing’s for sure.
The lack of change means that I’ll remain in the blogging business…at least for awhile yet.
The people at the top five years ago, when the drilling lease was signed, are the city’s top leaders now.
One thing’s for sure.
The lack of change means that I’ll remain in the blogging business…at least for awhile yet.
Happy 5th Anniversary Highland Heights Happenings!
COUNCIL QUESTIONS MUNI BUILDING CONTRACT RECOMMENDATION
At the February 18th Committee of the Whole meeting Service Director Thom Evans discussed the bids received for the proposed reconstruction work at the police/fire building and the replacement of the City Hall HVAC system.
Two separate contracts were bid out, along with 3 alternatives for additional work (not included in the base contracts).
Evans recommended to Council that they award all the work to one bidder, a bidder he identified by name.
Evans made that recommendation even though, as Councilwoman Ann D’Amico pointed out, that bidder did not submit the lowest bid for all of the work involved.
At the February 18th Committee of the Whole meeting Service Director Thom Evans discussed the bids received for the proposed reconstruction work at the police/fire building and the replacement of the City Hall HVAC system.
Two separate contracts were bid out, along with 3 alternatives for additional work (not included in the base contracts).
Evans recommended to Council that they award all the work to one bidder, a bidder he identified by name.
Evans made that recommendation even though, as Councilwoman Ann D’Amico pointed out, that bidder did not submit the lowest bid for all of the work involved.
The total price tag mentioned by Evans: $321,400.
D’Amico also expressed concern about that bidder’s price for the police/fire
station work, suggesting that the bid might be unrealistic.
Referencing pre-bid estimates provided to Council, D’Amico remarked:
Referencing pre-bid estimates provided to Council, D’Amico remarked:
“…I remember that tuck pointing (of the police/fire building) was around $98,000. I see a $172,000 bid (by Evan’s recommended bidder) for the entire contract…How, for $74,000, are they going to do everything else? (work that includes trenching, waterproofing, rebuilding a retaining wall, gondola repairs and window replacement)….If they get substantially over are we compelled to pay that? There is a big number difference here.”
The architectural consultant that Evans engaged responded:
“They (Evans’ recommended bidder) are the contractor that asked the most questions, meaning to me that they paid attention to what they are required to do. As far as going over, they aren’t supposed to.”
I found that less than a comforting and persuasive response.
Apparently Council had a similar reaction.
Council decided to take some time to consider Evans’ recommendation.
Councilwoman Lisa Stickan scheduled a Safety Service Committee meeting on Feb 25th to go over the plans and contract bids.
Every Council member attended.
Council decided to take some time to consider Evans’ recommendation.
Councilwoman Lisa Stickan scheduled a Safety Service Committee meeting on Feb 25th to go over the plans and contract bids.
Every Council member attended.
There’s pressure on Council to approve bids for the
contracts, so that the needed work can begin.
I expect the contracts to be listed as action items on the March 11th Council meeting agenda.
I expect the contracts to be listed as action items on the March 11th Council meeting agenda.
