RAINY DAYS AND STEAMROLLERS

COMMUNITY DAY: WET WEATHER, HIGH SPIRITS

The incessant rain had some of the scattered crowd in attendance at the city's recent "Community Day" fondly recalling the city’s former 3 day Home Days celebration---which because of its duration had a better shot of residents enjoying at least one day of good weather.

Despite all of the very hard work put in by the organizing committee--reflected in this year’s nice variety of activities and exhibitors----the replacement 1 day Community Day proved a weather disappointment---again.
Last year it was unbearably hot.
This year it rained until dinnertime.

But the weather finally cleared, and the fireworks were great.

Here are a couple of snapshots from the day.

SPAN special response vehicles on display

The petting zoo animals were a bit lonely in the afternoon

Probably the only ones that didn't notice the rain: the Mayfield Swim Team

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: COMPARE AND CONTRAST

Background

Council meetings are held twice a month (every other week).
Council Committee of the Whole (discussion only) meetings are also held twice a month, alternating with the Council meetings.
Council, Committee of the Whole and other committee (i.e. Safety & Service Committee) meetings are public meetings, open to the public.
With rare exceptions, all city business is supposed to be discussed in public.

Council is supposed to hears 3 readings of every piece of legislation before voting.

The Issue

Here is the history of 2 pieces of legislation that Council recently considered.
Draw your own conclusions...

Compare

March 23, 2013 Council meeting.

Discussion of a resolution to regulate the feeding of wildlife begins…
after a resident shares his concern about a neighbor’s habit of feeding deer.

President Cathy Murphy refers the matter to Council’s Safety & Service Committee (SSC).

• The SSC discusses the resolution at a public meeting at least twice (May 14^th; June 11th).

• Council discusses the proposed resolution in detail--and in public--- at a May 21st Committee of the Whole meeting.

• Police Chief Cook reports about the resolution at a May 28^th Council meeting.  

• Council hears 3 readings of Ordinance 15-2013, a “Feeding of Nuisance Animals” ordinance, on June 25^th, July 9^th and July 23^rd in public, during 3 separate Council meetings.

• Residents express concerns about the Resolution during the "public speaking" portion of the July 23^th Council meeting.

Action taken:
After listening to residents, Council decides to table the wildlife feeding resolution for further discussion after it returns from its  August recess. No vote is taken.

CONTRAST

May 14, 2013 Council meeting
Law Director Tim Paluf tells Council that he is working with Lance Osborne “regarding the former Catalano’s property”…
Paluf provides no specific details, keeping the public in the dark as to what the discussions between the city and Osborne entail.

• Paluf provides a similarly uninformative report at the June 11^th Council meeting.
  He discloses that the city has sent Osborne “a proposal,” but once again he doesn't publicly disclose any details of the proposal.

• On July 9^th Council hears a first reading of a resolution authorizing Mayor Coleman to enter into a development agreement with Osborne.
  
  Council hears a first reading even though Council members hadn't been given copies of the proposed development agreement prior to the meeting and even though the development agreement itself had not yet been finalized. 
  President Cathy Murphy tells Council members that they will be asked to vote at the next Council meeting, without hearing 3 readings of the resolution.  
  
  The proposed agreement is not distributed publicly until after the Council meeting ends, thereby preventing any public comment on the agreement at the July 9th Council meeting.

• The scheduled July 16^th Committee of the Whole meeting---Council's first opportunity to publicly discuss the resolution and proposed development agreement---is cancelled.

• Council members are given copies of the final development agreement five minutes before the July 23rd Council meeting begins.
  
• After holding a brief Committee of the Whole meeting, Council hears a 2nd reading of the resolution.
  
•  Residents address Council during the "public speaking"portion of the Council meeting.
  
  While all of them express general support for the city's efforts to get the Catalano's property redeveloped, several express specific concerns regarding some of the provisions in the development agreement.

Action Taken:
Council votes to suspend the 3rd reading and unanimously votes to authorize the mayor to sign the development agreement "as is". The vote allows the mayor to spend $800,000 of public money as part of the development deal.

Two different pieces of legislation, two different treatments.

More than one resident---after watching the Council steamroller vote to approve the development agreement---said it reminded them of the Bass Energy drilling lease fiasco.

I have to admit, they have a point. The similarities are quite startling--- the rushing forward, the deliberate withholding of information, and the manipulation of scheduling to avoid having a meaningful discussion with residents prior to the vote.

You’d think Council would have learned something from the $600,000 Bass Energy mistake….but apparently not.

MEGA GETG0 MAY BE GONE, BUT NOT THE MEGA SIGNS

One particular point of contention in the Osborne development agreement is found in Section 1(c)(i) which reads:

No pole signs will be permitted on the Property, however, monument signs in accordance with the Signage Plan previously approved by the City and attached as Exhibit F to the (prior GetGo) Development Agreement dated September 4, 2012…will be permitted upon approval thereof of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.”

This is Exhibit F:

Exhibit F drawing shows a gigantic (18’ x 5'10") monument sign.
A sign of that dimension would dwarf the signs that the city has allowed surrounding commercial property owners to erect in the Bishop/Brainard/Wilson Mills intersection area.
The "Exhibit F" monument signs also exceed the size limits allowed by the city's sign ordinance.
But apparently Council and the mayor think the signs are okay.

Law Director Tim Paluf dismissed residents' concerns about the signs, telling Council:

“ It (the sign) still has to go before P&Z (the Planning & Zoning Commission). They still have to approve it.”

Of course, P&Z is the same group that approved this sign…remember?

Now doesn’t that make us all feel better?

THE CATALANO'S DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, CONTINUED

This week's Sun Messenger published 2 items relating to the city's proposed development agreement with developer Lance Osborne concerning the Catalano's grocery store property.

Before putting the GetGo rezoning issue on the ballot last year, Osborne split the Catalano's grocery store property into 2 separate real estate parcels---a back parcel where the grocery store building sits and a front  parcel, a large area parallel and adjacent to Wilson Mills Road.
While he will buy both parcels from Giant Eagle, Osborne's actual redevelopment commitment, as laid out in the development agreement, pertains only to the back parcel.

In his story reporter Jeff Piorkowski quotes several Council members who indicate that the redevelopment Project won't include a gas station.
Unfortunately the development agreement doesn't reflect those claims.
 
The development agreement doesn't  include any rezoning restrictions or otherwise explicitly limit Osborne's ability to put a rezoning issue on the ballot.
This is the full extent of Osborne's redevelopment commitment under the July 9th version of the development agreement:

"The Company (Osborne's Brainard Crossing Holdings LLC) agrees that the Project shall consist of rehabilitating the existing (grocery store) structure, including by constructing a new facade and a new roof, and by making tenant parking and landscaping improvements....The Project may also include construction of an additional freestanding commercial structure on the Property..."

That's it.
"May" does not mean "must" or "shall."
"Freestanding commercial structure" could mean anything---including a gas station and convenience store/cafe.

As the agreement stands now, Osborne could legally pocket $800,000 in public economic development assistance, renovate the grocery store building, and then turn around and put another issue on the ballot seeking to either expand the use or change the current zoning for the front parcel.

Council should know that. Shame on them if they don't.
http://www.cleveland.com/hillcrest/index.ssf/2013/07/vote_is_expected_july_23_on_ap.html#incart_river


As a counterpoint to Piokowski's story, here is a Letter to the Editor that I submitted, which was also published in the Sun Messenger this week.

On July 9^th Highland Heights Council heard a first reading of a resolution authorizing Mayor Scott Coleman to enter into a development agreement with Lance Osborne (dba Brainard Crossings Holdings LLC) involving the former Catalano’s grocery store property. While that’s generally good news for residents, I’m concerned about the city’s apparent rush to get the deal done.

Council received a copy of the proposed development agreement during Tuesday’s Council meeting and what they saw was only “95 to 98%” complete according to Law Director Tim Paluf.  Nevertheless, President Cathy Murphy indicated that Council would be asked to suspend the normally required third reading and vote on the resolution at the next (July 23^rd) Council meeting.

Why the hurry?  Council usually takes an August recess and developer Osborne is anxious to get started (although as of the 9^th he still hadn’t locked in the key tenant, reportedly a local non-retail business).

The mayor and Council did not discuss informing residents of the development plan. Given the significant amount of public money involved ($800,000 in economic development assistance) residents deserve to be told all of the pertinent details, and in a timely manner.

There’s a lot to discuss.
For example, the current development agreement doesn’t include any rezoning restrictions. Residents have no guarantee that, after pocketing all that public money, Osborne won’t turn around and renew his efforts to install a gas station on the property.  The agreement also allows Osborne to erect huge (18’ by 6’) non-conforming commercial monument signs---which could open the door to similar, over-sized commercial signs popping up all over the city. If you were an existing business you’d insist on equal treatment, right?

While residents are anxious to see the Catalano’s property redeveloped, they have a right to insist on a fair deal. Providing residents with their first (and only) opportunity to weigh in on the development agreement at the July 23^rd Council meeting and then, moments later, voting to approve it would render meaningless anything they have to say.  Council needs to take the time to listen—and act—on residents’ thoughts and concerns before inking the deal.

Amy R. Feran, Highland Heights

Portion of Development Agreement Laying Out Osborne's Actual Redevelopment Commitment

RUSHING AN $800,000 DEVELOPMENT DEAL?

City officials began to take a more active role in the redevelopment of the Catalano’s grocery store property after developer Lance Osborne’s mega Get-Go rezoning issue failed last November.

When Council members sat down at the Council table last Tuesday they got their first look at a proposed development agreement (DA) between the city and Osborne (doing business as Brainard Crossing Holdings LLC).
According to Law Director Tim Paluf, the document Council received was not a final version.

No matter.

Council forged ahead and held a first reading of Resolution 24-2013, which authorizes Mayor Scott Coleman to sign the DA---whatever the final DA ends up looking like.

The mayor suggested that Council hold a Committee meeting before the regular July 23^rd Council meeting to discuss the final version of the DA. He then added:

I would like to pass it (Resolution 24-2013) on that date.

Normally resolutions require 3 readings before being voted on.

Not this time.

The yet-to-be-completed DA is headed for supersonic fast-track approval.

Following the mayor’s lead, President Cathy Murphy told Council members they should expect to suspend the 3^rd reading and vote on Resolution 24-2013 on July 23^rd.

The city steamroller is back in action.

 Significantly, neither the mayor nor Council discussed informing residents about the DA, nor did they seem interested in providing residents with a meaningful opportunity to share their thoughts and concerns about the DA before it was finalized and Council voted on it.

The signals are pretty clear.
Despite intense public interest and involvement arising from the recent mega GetGo rezoning issue, Mayor Coleman and Council apparently think it’s perfectly okay to cut residents out of the equation and move forward without listening to them.

Shame on them.

Have they so quickly forgotten the lessons of the past?

 Residents have a right to not only know about and comment on the DA, they also have the right to have their thoughts and opinions taken into account before the DA is finalized.

After all, Highland Heights residents have a significant financial interest in the redevelopment of the Catalano’s property.
The city is providing $800,000 in economic development aid as part of the deal.

After reading the version of the DA that Council members received last week, I’d say that there are definitely some issues that need to be discussed with residents.

That DA doesn’t contain any rezoning restrictions and it allows Osborne to erect the same gigantic commercial monument signs that he planned to use for the mega GetGo gas station. Those signs eclipse anything that currently exists at the Bishop/Brainard/Wilson Mills intersection.

Council members need to ignore the mayor’s request to take a fast track vote on the 23^rd. 

They need to park the steamroller outside and talk to residents instead.

BANK ROBBERY

Last year, on July 3rd 2012, the U.S. Bank on Wilson Mills Road was robbed.

Some anniversaries you want to forget.

The bank celebrated the one year anniversary of that event by being robbed again..

No suspects have been identified.
The FBI is assisting the Highland Heights police department, which is investigating the crime.

FORFEITURE UPDATE




There was no further discussion about the foreign-make forfeiture car last week, but Police Chief Cook did let me know that I had gotten one thing wrong in my last blog posting.

Although a reliable source told me that the car was a premium color, Cook assured me that the car's color would not make the vehicle stand out among all the white, silver, black and bronze cars that currently populate our city streets.
 
Cook also acknowledged that undercover vehicles do have limited usefulness because they get "made" by criminals fairly quickly.
That's one reason why he thought of the SPAN narcotics unit. He figured they could use a fresh vehicle to assist them in their undercover work. 

 PLEASE DON’T FEED THE DEER (AND CUTE BUNNIES, ETC.)

On July 23^rd Council will hear a 3^rd reading of---and then vote on---Ordinance 15-2013, an ordinance“Pertaining to the Feeding of Nuisance Animals”.

While many of us have fond memories of Disney’s Bambi and Thumper, the reality is that feeding the city’s wildlife is actually inhumane and a bad idea.

The feeding ban does not apply to bird feeders--- unless, of course, the bird feeder is used as a ruse to feed “nuisance animals”.
The ordinance prohibits residents

“…with the intent to attract nuisance animals including, but not limited to, squirrels, raccoons, groundhogs, deer,  wild animals, domestic pets or vermin, (from placing) any edible item in any manner or position where such edible item shall be accessible to attract such animals and vermin.”

I have no idea why domestic pets are included in the list.
Apparently that means cats and dogs will no longer be allowed to regularly dine “al fresco” in the city. 

There will be no Bambi patrols.

Enforcement will be complaint driven, and residents who come to the city’s attention will have five business days to comply with the ordinance.

New Ordinance That Bans Feeding of Wildlife