RIDICULOUS EXCUSE…..SAID WITH A STRAIGHT FACE

The Highland Heights neighbors’ challenge to the towering, over-sized Rutland Drive deck is slowly moving forward in the 8^th District appeals court.

The neighbors filed their appellate brief on time, on February 12^th.
The ball is now in the City’s and the deck owners’ court.
http://cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us/COA_CaseInformation_Docket.aspx?q=csinH68bJGxVyN-u8RyKvw2

The City is a party to the dispute because the decision on appeal was rendered by the Highland Heights Building & Zoning Appeals Board, which affirmed the Planning & Zoning Commission's earlier rejection of the neighbors' challenge to the massive deck.
Both zoning bodies gave their stamp of approval to the massive deck despite the fact that---

• The deck does not comply with the City’s 40 foot rear property line setback requirement for residential decks
  
• The owners didn't get a permit before building the deck
• The City never performed mandatory safety inspections because the deck was substantially completed when the owners finally applied for a building permit
  
• The as-built deck is actually much (74%)  larger than the one the owners told the city (in their permit application) that they were going to build, and
• The  deck is subject to a never administratively-appealed Tear Down Order issued by the Building Commissioner.

Doesn’t that make your head spin?

Zoning laws and permitting processes are designed to protect and benefit property, and property owners, in the City.
To work, they need to be applied, as written, in an even--handed manner to everybody.
What happens when the administrative bodies responsible for enforcing the city’s zoning laws and permitting processes render decisions that run counter to those laws and processes? 
Just ask the neighbors.  

They have lots of opinions on the matter.

But back to the lawsuit…
Rather than filing their responsive briefs on time, the City and the deck owners have filed motions asking the appeals court to give them more time.
For his part, Highland Heights Law Director Tim Paluf told the appeals court that he needs more time because:

“….due to his schedule he has been unable to thoroughly research and review the unique issues relevant to this case.

Say what?
Excuse my French, but (in my opinion):

What a pant load

Paluf’s excuse is both alarming and absolutely hilarious.
This dispute started in May 2014.
The facts are pretty straightforward, and the legal issues have been pretty clear and consistent from the beginning.

Paluf even weighed in on the issue several months after the massive Rutland Drive deck became a political hot potato in the City.
He researched the issue and wrote a memorandum, in which he purportedly opined that the deck was ok to stay.

I say “purportedly” because despite repeated requests from the neighbors, the City steadfastly refused to share Paluf’s memorandum with them.

It seems to me that since it was never publicly disclosed, was not included in the administrative record and was never presented as evidence at the hearings, the zoning boards shouldn't have considered Paluf's memorandum when making their decisions.

But they did.

Several Planning & Zoning Commission members specifically cited Paluf’s secret  legal memorandum as a basis for rejecting the neighbors’ challenge to the massive Rutland Drive deck.
Is that fair? Is that right?

Don’t get me started.

So back to the appeals court and Paluf’s motion…
First Paluf researches the issues and writes a secret memorandum that proves highly persuasive to several zoning commission members.
Then he turns around and tells the appeals court that he can’t file his brief on time because he hasn’t had enough time to “thoroughly research and review the unique” issues in the case.

It kind of makes you wonder.

Do you suppose Paluf crossed his fingers behind his back when he told the appeals court that he hadn’t had enough time to “thorough(ly) research”  the issues yet?
Or do you suppose he was telling the truth?
If that’s the case, then maybe, despite his taxpayer-paid six figure income, the opinion he expressed in his secret 2014 legal memorandum wasn’t “thoroughly” researched  to begin with.
Which leads to another question:

Do you suppose Paluf led the zoning board members astray?

The appellate court gave the City and the deck owners until April 7^th to file the briefs.
It also warned:

“No further extension (will be granted) absent exigent circumstances.”

Guess Paluf needs to get cracking on that legal research....

HOW LUCKY WE ARE

There was an article in last week’s Sun Messenger ---a sad ghost of the weekly it used to be---about the financial woes of neighboring Richmond Heights.

Freelance writer Jeff Piorkowski reported that Mayor David Roche has been playing receptionist, answering the telephone and performing other clerical tasks, because his city hall is so short-staffed. http://www.cleveland.com/hillcrest/index.ssf/2016/02/richmond_heights_6.html
Roche’s proposal to use temp agency workers to address staffing issues was met with resistance from several council members.
Roche explained his rationale:

“...hiring a temporary worker is less expensive” for the city, which “has faced budget challenges the last few years.” 

That’s putting it mildly.

According to that city's finance director, Richmond Heights began 2016 with a 5% decrease in income tax receipts.
There is no telling, at this point, whether that trend will continue.

What a different tale---and how lucky we are---in Highland Heights.

Council discussed the city’s 2016 budget at a March 1^st Committee of the Whole meeting.

Highland Heights Finance Director Joe Filippo announced that the city took in more revenue, and spent less money, than projected in the 2015 budget, resulting in an actual $370,000 increase in the general fund between 2014 and 2015.

For 2016, Filippo projected a slight decrease in property tax collections (a relatively small part of the city’s revenue stream) and a 1% increase in income tax collections (a very large revenue source).

The proposed 2016 budget shows the city operating in the black, with a general operating expenses surplus of $275,000.

MANY ROADS. LIMITED DOLLARS

Council spent quite a bit of time talking about some of the city’s infrastructure needs, specifically road repairs.

According to Mayor Scott Coleman, $805,000 has been set aside in the budget for drainage issues and road repairs in 2016.

While not a tiny sum it’s not enough to fix everything that needs fixing.

As engineer Brian Mader explained:

“We have a large segment of roads that are of the same age.
Tons of roads (in the city) were built in the late 80’s and 90’s.
They are all approaching 25-30 years old.”

Of particular concern to Mader: Brainard Road and Avion Park Drive.
Mader said that in his estimation those roads had reached the point where spending money on concrete repairs might amount to:

 “Throwing away good money over bad.”

Mader’s recommendation: grind down both streets to a solid concrete base and then top them with a new asphalt overlay.
Doing that would extend the roads’ street life for another 10-15 years.

The cost?

Between $400,000 to $450,000----approximately half of the city’s 2016 road budget. 

Councilman Chuck Brunello proposed an even more extreme solution: entirely replacing the old surface and building new concrete roads.
Brunello argued that doing that would “double the shelf life” of those two streets to maybe 30 years.
He did not discuss the significant downside of that approach.
Brunello's plan would cost $900,000---more than the city's entire 2016 road work budget.

 No other concrete repairs or road work would be done this year.

Although Service Director Thom Evans seemed receptive, I didn't hear anyone else jump on Brunello’s bandwagon.

Council President Cathy Murphy said that she was “disappointed” at the thought that the entire 2016 road budget would be spent on 2 streets:

“…because we’ve been going into neighborhoods each year and now you are saying 'don’t do it'.”

Mayor Scott Coleman echoed that sentiment:

“The Issue is that if we spend all that money there, it’s at what expense in terms of what other projects get delayed or what money needs to be put in the capital (improvement) fund to get there...

It looks like we could knock out a lot of streets (needing concrete repairs) for that money...
I agree we shouldn’t ignore the neighborhoods.”

Finance Director Joe Filippo floated one possibility for coming up with more money for roadwork and other infrastructure needs.
He pointed out that the city’s debt service “will go down dramatically” in 2017 and will drop even more in 2012.

“We have room for more debt.
If we borrow more this year at a (current) low rate, we may have some additional funding.”

No agreement on a definitive approach was reached.

Residents can expect the discussion---and arm-wresting---to continue once the budget is passed.

BUDGET UPDATE/CORRECTION

In my last posting I stated that city employees would receive 2.5% salary increases this year.

I must have been in a stingy mood when I wrote that.

A city insider told me my figure was incorrect.
City employees are getting 2.75% raises this year.

WANT TO BUY A USED FIRE TRUCK LIGHT BAR?

Fire Chief Bill Turner wants to get in on the city’s online auction action.

He presented a list of excess and/or unneeded items to Council, looking for their permission to auction them off on www.govdeals.com.

Among the items on Turner’s list: 

• a recently replaced Fire Truck light bar
• an expensive 2013 treadmill that never functioned well (it was under warranty, so the city got a replacement for free)
• 12 sets of 2001-2002 vintage firefighter turn-out gear
• a 2004 Ford Explorer that has some transmission and rust issues

Turner wasn’t sure what would sell, or for how much, but he told Council “there is a third world market” for some of the items.

Turner thinks the city's trash might be some underworld country's treasure

HURRY UP AND WAIT

The recent 60 degree weather was such a tease…and not just for us.

My daffodils aren't the only ones anxious for spring to arrive!