MINER ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PUSHED BACK TO 2015

After consulting with engineer Brian Mader and Service Director Thom Evans, Mayor Scott Coleman and Council agreed at last week’s Committee of the Whole meeting to put off the start date of the Miner Road reconstruction project until next spring.

Initially city officials hoped to begin work on the project this summer, but drainage issues and street closings tied to other 2014 city road work convinced them to wait.
Mader explained that:

“..everyone north of Highland (Road) is going to have swales (shallow grass covered ditches with piping and gravel) because between Highland and Diana Court the grade of the road falls less than a foot.
Trying to get water to flow is tough.”

Swales, rather than an enclosed storm water piping system, will be used because of the significant cost difference and because the location of a water main prevents digging to the depth necessary to install an enclosed system.
In discussing the project’s timeline Mader said,

“Traffic is one of my biggest concerns, with the road projects we have out and going out, if Miner Road is started this year.”

Everyone agreed that all of the preliminary work, including bidding the project, should be in place by this fall, so that the Miner Road construction work can begin in earnest first thing next spring.
Meanwhile any individual pieces of the project that can possibly be performed this year----such as installing new traffic signals at the Miner Road/Highland Road intersection---will be.

NEW LADDER TRUCK
The city acquired its first ladder fire truck, second-hand, from Mayfield Village, I believe in the 1980’s.

Having a ladder truck is a mark of prestige for any fire department, but with mutual aid available from surrounding cities (that have both high rises and ladder trucks) and given Highland Heights zoning laws that restrict buildings to two stories or less, the “need” to own and/or replace the ladder truck has never been readily apparent to many tax-paying residents.

No matter.

Mayor Scott Coleman’s Capital Improvement budget for 2014 included $860,000 to buy a new ladder truck for the Highland Heights Fire Department.
Last Tuesday Council held a special meeting and heard the second reading of Resolution 11-2014, which authorizes

“…the Mayor to execute a contract…for the purchase of a 2015 Stuphen SP-70 Platform Fire Truck…..in an amount not to exceed…$885,000.00, excluding any trade-in allowance…”

Delivery of the new ladder truck should take place next year.

IT’S A GOOD TIME TO BORROW MONEY
SO THE CITY IS DOING JUST THAT
Interest rates continue to remain at all-time lows, but that could all change once the economic recovery really takes hold.

Low interest rates provide an opportunity to borrow money at low cost, allowing the city to perform much more capital improvement work (such as road work) than it could otherwise afford to do if it had to pay the entire cost, out of pocket, this year.

By borrowing money and issuing bonds, the city will be able to amortize the cost of the expensive work over time, preserving cash in the general fund.
It all makes a great deal of sense from financial and budgetary perspectives.
Council has agreed with the mayor to do just that.

At the special meeting last Tuesday Council heard the second reading of Ordinance 9-2014,

“..providing for the issuance and sale of $3,650,000.00 of notes, in anticipation of the issuance of bonds, for the purpose of widening and reconstruction Miner Road, resurfacing and otherwise improving Ford Road and other City streets, improving Culver No. 15 in Highland Road, replacing segments of concrete in City streets, and all drainage and other related improvements thereto…”

Having explained this sensible decision, I can’t help but point out one irony.
During his first mayoral race, supporters of Mayor Scott Coleman slammed former Mayor Fran Hogg for borrowing money and taking on debt to finance city infrastructure work, including building the new city swimming pool.
According to them, the city's borrowing money was a capital crime.

I wonder if it’s more palatable to them now, now that it’s their mayoral choice doing the borrowing?

MAYOR FINALLY ADDRESSES THE CITY WEBSITE

After years and years of criticisms and complaints, Mayor Scott Coleman finally appears ready to address the city’s less-than-spectacular website.

Perhaps it’s serendipity, but the mayor’s action coincides with the vacation, by the city’s prior website designer (Brown Flynn), of its former Highland Heights headquarters this month.

The mayor’s choice to update, redesign and rejuvenate the city’s website?
A company called CivicPlus, which advertises itself as:

“..the nation’s leading expert in local government eGovernment applications and websites…”

The cost for the service for the next three years (which includes design, training and hosting services) is projected to be just $300 more than what the city paid last year ($4800) to have someone post updates, on a part-time, after-hours basis, to the city website.

Mayor Coleman told Council that CivicPlus, which is located in Kansas, specializes in government websites.
They caught his eye because they have designed websites for several area cities, websites that the mayor found attractive and appealing.
In making a recommendation to hire CivicPlus Mayor Coleman said:

“I looked at the websites they design and the dynamic setup that they would give us.
One thing I found most telling, regardless of the device used to look at the website, it will appear appropriately. Ours doesn’t do that.

….Marlene (Kohl, the mayor’s wonderfully competent administrative assistant) and others could be trained so we have realtime updates for the website….
It (the new website) will allow residents to sign up for “notify me” and have notifications sent directly to their device or tablet.”

Sounds like the mayor’s finally on board with addressing the deficits of the city's current website.

It’s about time, too.

MAYFIELD HEIGHTS’ SERVICE DEPT. SCANDAL: IMPLICATIONS FOR HHTS POL?

MAYFIELD HEIGHTS’ SERVICE DEPT. SCANDAL: IMPLICATIONS FOR HHTS POL?

Highland Heights is home to at least one member of the Mayfield Heights Service Department (MHSD).

I'm referring, of course, to the extremely personable, politically ambitious Chuck Brunello, who moved up from ward rep to city-wide Councilman-at-Large this year.

Brunello started working for the Mayfield Heights Service Department right out of high school.

He’s grown up working there.

Brunello was foremost in my mind after reading a story published in this week’s (woefully diminished) Sun Messenger.

A story by Sara Dorn details the huge ($890,352) amount of overtime paid to MHSD employees last year.

To put that figure in perspective, according to the 2014 Highland Heights budget, our Service Department---albeit a smaller operation---paid out less than $90,000 in OT wages last year.

A document attached to the online version of Dorn’s story shows that Brunello was 7^th in the MHSD OT payment rankings last year. 
The largest individual OT payout was over $64,00o.
The smallest (excluding the presumably exempt Service Director) was: $14.72.

  Brunello alone received $43,724.80, almost 5% of the total OT payments attributed to the MHSD last year.

http://www.cleveland.com/hillcrest/index.ssf/2014/05/mayfield_heights_service_depar_1.html

Dorn’s story raises questions about possible nepotism (pertaining to a Fornaro family).
She also reports that former Mayfield Heights Law Director Leonard Carr suspected MHSD time clock improprieties, i.e. that“employees were clocking in and out for each other.”

 Dorn quotes Mayfield Heights Mayor Anthony DiCicco saying that he didn’t

 “think the overtime spending ‘should be characterized as an issue’”

 and that, with the very recent departure of retire/rehire Service Director Andrew Fornaro,

 “potential ethics violations are no longer a problem”

Remaining on-staff at the MHSD are Andrew Fornaro’s:

• brother (Ronald ***);
• son (Joseph); and
• grandson (Bobby)

 ***mea culpa. Earlier I inadvertently---and quite mistakenly---confused and misidentified MHSD employee Ronald Fornaro as a Highland Heights resident and Mayfield School Board member.
The names are the same, but MHSD Ronald Fornaro and Mayfield School Board member Ronald Fornaro are two different individuals.
My apologies to School Board member Ronald Fornaro and his family.
Accuracy is important to me....so thanks for letting me know so that I could promptly correct my error.

DiCicco has already appointed Joseph Fornaro to replace his dad as Service Director.
According to Mayfield Heights Councilman Nino Monaco, the job was not advertised and no outside candidates were interviewed.

The appointment means that, like his dad before him, Joseph will be responsible for supervising and approving OT work for his relatives, Ronald and Bobby.

”Potential ethics violations are no longer a problem”

Really? You’ve got to be kidding me.

MORE THAN OVERTIME IS AT ISSUE 

There’s really a lot more than OT payments at issue.
In addition to overseeing departments with large budgets, city Service Directors also wield a tremendous amount of contracting power.

One thing I’ve mentioned before---that has both amazed and disconcerted me--- is the great deal of “informal bidding” that goes on under the direction of Service Directors.

Highland Heights Service Director Thom Evans frequently reports to Council that he has pre-selected contractors and informally solicited them to submit bids for work that needs to be done in the city.

Although good justification is always provided, I’ve questioned the practice in the past---especially when it appears that projects are being broken into smaller pieces, seemingly to avoid state mandatory bidding requirements.

Bottom line, fidelity to the residents they serve, integrity and honesty are key requirements for any Service Director job.

The brewing scandal at the Mayfield Heights Service Department could have far-reaching implications…implications that reach beyond that city’s boundaries.

Residents everywhere have good cause to be concerned.

LEONARD CARR’S COMMENTS ON THE SCANDAL

 I found former Mayfield Heights Law Director Leonard Carr’s recent Letter to the Editor, which responds to Dorn’s online story, fascinating reading.

http://www.cleveland.com/hillcrest/index.ssf/2014/05/former_mayfield_heights_law_di_1.html
 

I have attached a copy of it here.

DON'T FEED THE DEER and THE CITY'S NEW WOODLAND PRESERVE

WESTERN ADVENTURES

I just got back from a trip out west.

My elderly (but still quite spry) dad wanted to visit his 97 year old brother in Tucson.

It didn’t take much convincing to get me to say yes---not after the winter we’ve had.

We met up in Phoenix.

My dad, a WWII navigator, got out his maps and plotted our route for the week.He’s not a highway guy---especially when he’s got a chauffeur and there are so many scenic routes to choose from.

I have to admit I like traveling off the beaten path too.
You never know what surprising things you’ll stumble across.

For instance….

Just outside of Miami Arizona we came across a steep, multi-story high grass-covered earthen dam that was formed by the rocky discharge from a local mountaintop copper mining operation.

Here’s what caught my eye:

Can’t make it out?

Here’s a close-up view.

Yep, someone had driven cattle up and fenced them in for grazing---at quite an angle no less---in a small pen near the top of the dam.

Hope the cattle enjoyed the view…!

NEW WOODLAND PRESERVE: LOOKS LIKE A GO!
I have received confirmation from several different sources that the Ohio Public Works Commission has approved a grant to buy (and preserve) 12 acres of land off  Bishop Road, south of Hawthorne Drive, adjacent to city-owned parkland.

The property contains several significant wetlands and streams that hold, cleanse and carry storm water runoff from quite a few communities to our south.
The streams are part of the Euclid Creek water system, which empties into Lake Erie…where we get our drinking water from.

Papers have yet to be signed, and final details are still pending, but it looks like there will be a new woodland preserve established in Highland Heights by summer’s end.

The property will be deeded to the non-profit West Creek Conservancy group.
Importantly, it will be subject to a conservation easement, guaranteeing that the woodlands will remain undeveloped and in their natural state for all time.

One caveat of concern.
I understand that there may be some sort of grant-matching requirement that has to be met in order for the deal to close.

I’ve asked before and I’ll ask it again:

Will Council---which so quickly, and without any meaningful public discussion, forked over $800,000 of taxpayer money to assist in a commercial redevelopment project---be willing to invest a much smaller sum to secure a new woodland preserve, for Highland Heights residents to enjoy for generations to come?

I can only hope that the answer to that question will be a resounding YES!

DON’T FEED THE DEER---OR ELSE

In March 2013, after receiving repeated complaints from Aberdeen neighborhood residents, Council began discussing the idea of enacting an ordinance that would ban the feeding of deer and other “nuisance” animals in the city.

The topic was discussed by Council’s Safety Service Committee several times in May and June 2013.
Thereafter the Committee presented a proposed feeding ban ordinance to Council.
Residents spoke out for and against the proposed ban at the July 23^rd Council meeting.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2013/07-23-13_council_minutes.htm

It proved to be a hot button issue

So hot that, with Council elections looming, Council voted to table the discussion rather than take action on the proposed ordinance.

The matter lay dormant until earlier this month.

I can’t say I blame Council for being cautious.
Deer feeding is, apparently, a hot button issue everywhere.

Take, for example, this May 7^th Associated Press story, which reported:

A suburban Minneapolis man who had a long-running dispute with two
neighbors over feeding deer opened fire on the couple and killed one of them, hours after his son was arrested on suspicion of threatening to burn down their house, according to criminal charges filed Wednesday….
http://nyti.ms/1kZDq4N

Council removed the “no deer feeding” ordinance from the table last Tuesday.

Quite a few residents spoke during the public portion section of the Council meeting.

As before, the discussion was quite lively.

Sean Milroy, who unsuccessfully ran for a Council-at-large seat last November, suggested that rather than banning feeding, the city should allow residents with large lots to engage in bow hunting of deer on their property.

Another resident was less than enthusiastic about Milroy’s proposal:

“I am a firearms owner. I don’t know if it’s the best idea to have residents walk outdoors and start shooting at deer….
Whether it’s right that people are feeding deer, I don’t know…
Is it correct to make a sweeping law because of an obvious dispute between neighbors?  For the police department it will be a burden to enforce…”

Edie Nelson was distressed that the ordinance would prevent her from feeding squirrels:

"I feed birds and squirrels…It’s my hobby.
To my knowledge I have not created a nuisance.
I don’t want you to tell me who I can feed in my backyard..
If it (the feeding ordinance) is passed, all residents will be punished.
It’s not necessary, at least as currently written.”

In my mind, the most compelling argument was one offered by Bari Pinto, who is directly impacted by her Aberdeen neighbor’s deer feeding, as it regularly attracts huge collections of deer in Pinto's backyard.

Instead of fighting over whether feeding deer constituted a “property right” as her deer-feeding neighbor previously claimed, Pinto focused on a different concept: neighborliness.

“The reason I’m sad is that good neighbors now need to be ordinanced.”

 After giving several dictionary definitions of neighborliness, Pinto summed the concept up:

“Do unto others as you would have done unto you. 
If I was told that something I was doing disrupted my neighbors, I would stop out of courtesy and respect…
I would stop feeding deer out of concern and courtesy for my neighbors.
 If I knew that a neighbor had chased a deer with his lawn mower because the deer was hissing at him I would stop…

Some neighbors think that it’s only their rights and desires that matter.

It’s unfortunate that we need this ordinance…

I choose not to escalate hostility because I’m a good neighbor.”

Council passed a slightly amended version of the deer feeding ordinance, Ordinance 15-2013, at the May 13^th Council meeting.

The vote wasn’t unanimous.
Councilman Leo Lombardo voted no, explaining that he did not believe it was a serious enough city-wide issue to warrant legal intervention.
The amended version of Ordinance 15-2013 allows bird feeding and removed references to domestic pets...which means that:

Pets can legally dine al fresco this summer

 DEER FEEDING ORDINANCE:

A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSENSUS

Amy Francis, the Aberdeen resident whose deer-feeding apparently ignited the controversy, also addressed Council.
She identified herself as:

“..the evil deer feeder that everyone is talking to”

Francis said she:

“…was brought into this ugly, nasty dispute.
On the one hand you have the squeaky wheels.
On the other hand you have people who enjoy feeding the animals. We have a petition signed by over 100 people…
You (Council) are acting as judge and jury. It’s not your responsibility to do that…
You allow people to feed birds. Guess who likes bird food? Deer do. “

Francis then went on to make an interesting suggestion:

“The statute (proposed deer feeding ordinance) will only create more problems.
There are two more options.
You can allow your constituents to speak about this. Allow them to vote.
Or you can rewrite this.
Not create a blanket law taking away property rights.
Instead adopt an addendum to the existing nuisance law so you can deal with it on a case by case basis.”

The last suggestion was the road map to consensus.

It’s too bad that the Council majority who passed the deer feeding ordinance chose not to take that route.

It would have been a much more graceful political solution.

And, importantly, I believe it would have garnered every Council member's unanimous support.

Let's face it.
The real issue here----the one that the city definitely has both an interest in and the power to address---is nuisance.
The reality is:

The feeding of wildlife can---but does not always---create a nuisance

 And let's face it.Taking a nuisance approach wouldn’t have gotten Amy Francis off the hook.
 Far from it.

It’s pretty clear that her deer feeding has created a nuisance in her tightly developed neighborhood.

Focusing on nuisance, rather than adopting an outright feeding ban, would leave residents whose activities don’t cause an actual nuisance…residents like Edie Nelson and her squirrels---unmolested and in peace.

It was an approach advocated by Councilman Ed Hargate who, nevertheless, voted for the deer feeding ban.

It would have addressed the concerns of Councilman Leo Lombardo, who wasn't convinced that the Aberdeen deer feeding dispute represented a widespread city problem that needed to be addressed via a broadly drafted animal feeding ban.
It also would have addressed governmental overreaching, an issue of concern expressed by many of the residents in attendance at last week's Council meeting.

The nuisance animal feeding ordinance.
A missed opportunity for consensus.

What a shame.

The animal feeding ordinance passed by Council on Tuesday