Updates and Concerns Shared Anonymously

City Watch Updates


Item One: Online posting of 2008 Structural Engineer’s report on the Old Church Building
Status: Report Partially Posted. The game-playing continues.
During the June 15th Committee of the Whole meeting , Mayor Coleman agreed that the 2008 structural engineer’s report on the Old Church Building could be posted online, so that residents and other interested parties could read for themselves what the engineer said about the decrepit, substandard building.

I checked the city’s website today. The report---WELL AT LEAST SOME OF IT---has been posted online.  http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/pdf%20files/CT_Report.pdf

So what's the deal with that? Why did Mayor Coleman --the "gatekeeper" of the website---selectively choose to post only part of the report online?
And why doesn’t the city's website inform readers that they are reading an edited version of the report? The website says: “Read the Church Property Evaluation report by CT Consultants”. This clearly misleads readers into believing that they are seeing the full, unedited report.

I don’t know the answers, but I certainly hope council asks the mayor those questions.

So which part of the report was left out? Can you can guess? Here's a hint: although council voted to solicit bids for tearing down the building---and there is money in the 2010 city budget to do just that---Mayor Coleman and his council buddies (Councilman Ed Hargate and Councilman Frank Legan) oppose tearing down the building.

Okay. I won't leave you hanging. Mayor Coleman withheld the part of the report in which the engineer provides a detailed estimate of the cost of tearing down the Old Church Building.
The full, unedited version of the 2008 structural engineer's report states that the projected cost for demolishing the Old Church Building and capping the utilities is $ 38,000.

Apparently the mayor doesn't want the public to find out just how minimal the projected cost for demolishing the building is---or let them directly compare that cost with the $773,262 estimated base cost for renovating the building (which does not include the cost of reconfiguring any interior building spaces).
The engineer projected that additional optional work--such as tearing up the driveway and parking area, removing (rather than sealing off) the septic system, and completely re-landscaping the property--would cost $ 100, 000 more, but it is unlikely the city would ever spend that much. To date, no one in the city has expressed any interest in removing the driveway or parking area (which serves as a community center overflow lot), and there is a great deal of support for the Highland Heights Garden Club’s suggestion of installing a community garden on the site, which would significantly cut down on landscapping costs.

My October 2, 2009 blog contains a detailed description and discussion of the full and complete engineer’s report. http://highlandheightsohiohappenings.blogspot.com/2009/10/renovating-old-church-building-on-city.html


Item Two: Private social club’s proposal to use the Old Church Building as a nighttime clubhouse.
Status: Negotiations continue. Legality? Still very much up in the air.
Today's (June 1st) Sun Messenger contains a story about the private social club’s barter/lease proposal to turn the Old Church Building into a private night-time clubhouse. http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/06/highland_heights_city_council_5.html

As usual, the reporter constructed his story based on quotes obtained from interested parties. The reporter apparently did not talk to City Law Director Tim Paluf because the story does not mention or discuss the significant legal issues that the club’s proposal raises. Here are a couple of additional legal issues:

1. A club board member is quoted as saying that the club is looking for a "permanent location" for its activities. The club owns a liquor license for its current Kirkland clubhouse. Might that license be transferred to the Old Church Building? Might the club be planning to use the building (which is surrounded by residential neighborhoods) as a private clubhouse AND a private bar?  http://www.com.ohio.gov/liqr/rpts/lake.txt
2. State law requires a public bidding process to be used for all public contracts worth more than $25,000. There is no exemption for bartering arrangements. Although the private social club's representative significantly underestimated the cost for renovating the Old Church Building when he appeared before council, even his low-ball $100,000 estimate would put the construction work within the scope of the state public bidding law.

One note about the Sun Messenger story. The reporter used the generic word "group" to refer to male-only, private social club that wants to use the Old Church Building as its private clubhouse. Why he didn't describe the organization more accurately in the story is unclear. The club representative who spoke to council acknowledged that his organization is a "social club." That is how members referred to their organization in a trade/service mark application filed with the Secretary of State (Document # 200722501936).
http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/portal/PORTAL_BS.BS_QRY_BUS_FILING_DET.SHOW?p_arg_names=charter_num&p_arg_values=1578323

Anonymous Tips and Concerns

I receive a good number of anonymous tips and communications from readers of this blog. (If ever you want to get in touch with me, just use the email link in the Feedback section.)

Below is a list of some of the concerns that have been shared with me anonymously over the last several months. I make no representations about these anonymously-shared concerns. But I think it is important to let everyone know what is out there. The list of concerns includes:

1. Concern about the way student summer recreation workers are treated by supervisors and/or recreation officials. I have heard from a number of sources that it is not uncommon for summer workers to be subjected to abusive, threatening and/or disrespectful language.
   
2. Concern about personal use of city-owned cars. Although city administrators are allowed incidental personal use of city-owned vehicles, I have received reports that some city cars have routinely been used to provide school transportation and to run personal errands during the workday.
3. Concern about whether city-owned equipment has been used to plow private driveways.
4. Concern about whether some city workers are napping while on the job and/or are taking excessive time away from work during the work day.
   
   Again, I have no personal knowledge as to the basis for any of these concerns. I certainly hope that the incidents prompting them, if true, are the exception rather than the rule. But the concerns are out there.  Now you know about them too.The end.

June 22nd City Updates

Neither Mayor Coleman nor I attended the June 22nd council meeting, but I can give you some updates based on reports from several people who were there. But first....


City Watch

Item One: Asbestos Investigation Contract.
Status: Week 4. Finally executed

Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder announced at the council meeting that Earth Consulting, Ltd. would perform an asbestos study of the Old Church Building next week. That means that although it took him a month to do his duty, Mayor Coleman finally signed that contract.

Item Two: Online posting of 2008 Structural Engineer’s report on the Old Church Building
Status: Still unposted

Mayor Coleman is the “gatekeeper” for the city’s website. During the June 15th Committee of the Whole meeting , the mayor agreed that the 2008 structural engineer’s report on the Old Church Building could be posted online, so that residents and other interested parties could read for themselves what the engineer said about the decrepit, substandard building.

I checked the city’s website today. The report still has not been posted online.

Item Three: Private social club’s proposal to use the Old Church Building as a nighttime clubhouse.
Status: Negotiations continue. Legality? Still up in the air.

Rumor has it that city administrators met this week with representatives from the private social club that proposed bartering materials and physical labor in exchange for a long term $ 0 lease that would allow them exclusive night-time use of the Old Church Building and would relieve them of liability and financial responsibility for heating and maintaining the building.


Law Director Tim Paluf acknowledged last week that there are many unsettled legal questions about the proposed barter/lease arrangement. And, of course, there is also the problem of no-bid deal-making—which we’ve seen before. Example: the Bass Energy contract. There, like here, Mayor Coleman preselected one company to cut a deal with. Might there be other groups interested in turning the Old Church Building into a private clubhouse? Will we ever know?

I have not had time to do an extensive amount of legal research, but one thing is abundantly clear: under Ohio law, public property cannot be leased or sold unless it is no longer needed for any public purpose. This means two things.

1. In order to lease the Old Church Building to the private social club, council would first have to pass a resolution declaring that the city has no need or use for building. That would be a hard pill for Councilman Frank Legan to swallow, even though he has been unable to come up with a fiscally sound plan for publicly using the building.
2. Despite Mayor Coleman’s wishful thinking that the building can be used simultaneously for both public and private purposes, because of the “no public use” precondition for leasing public property, it would appear that the city cannot lease the Old Church Building for use as a private social clubhouse if it intends to use the building for public purposes during the day---which, according to Mayor Coleman is the reason for pursuing the private club’s proposal in the first place.

I have a hard time understanding why Mayor Coleman would push forward with negotiations with the private social club without first finding out from Law Director Tim Paluf whether the proposal is even legal, but that seems to the way the mayor likes to do business. 
Item Four: Investigation into business dealings between the city and two appointed public officials
Status: Three and a half months. Action still pending.

Council learned in early March about business dealings between the city and then-Park & Recreation Commissioner Tony Valentino. Later, it was revealed that current P&R Commissioner Rocco Dolciato also conducted business with the city. None of these arrangements were authorized or approved by council, as required by Highland Heights law.
http://highlandheightsohiohappenings.blogspot.com/2010/05/matter-of-very-serious-concern.html


On May 11th, Council President Scott Mills presented a motion to council to refer the matter to the State Auditor’s Office and the State Ethics Commission for investigation. That motion passed unanimously.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2010/05-11-10_council_minutes.htm


The State Auditor’s Office recently accepted and approved the city’s regular biennial audit report, but that report did not address the Valentino/Dolciato business dealings. Meanwhile, Mills reported at the June 22nd council meeting that he intended to file papers with the State Ethics Commission by the end of this week.

Item Five: Written City Policy addressing the Marking and Use of City Vehicles
Status: 10 Weeks. Action still pending.

The issue of unmarked city cars has been on council’s mind for more than a year. Quite a few city administrators use city cars and most take them home at night (the exception is new Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder, who agreed when he was hired to leave his city car parked next to city hall at night). Council has heard a lot of residents grumbling about apparent excessive personal use of city-owned vehicles.


When Council President Scott Mills brought the topic up again at the April 6th Committee of the Whole meeting, Mayor Coleman admitted that he had never issued a written policy governing the marking or personal use of city-owned vehicles—even though the IRS apparently requires such a written policy.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2010/04-06-10_council_committee_minutes.htm


Mayor Coleman finally agreed that he needed to develop a written vehicle marking and use policy for the city. As of the June 15th council meeting, however, the mayor still hadn't put a written policy into place.

Tidbits from the June 22 Council Meeting

• Whoops. Apparently the contractor doing the Millridge Road repaving has already exceeded the scope of the project, by grinding down more road than was specified in the contract. Where was the inspector from the city engineer’s office? Did the contractor not read the contract? The finger-pointing is just beginning....
• Grab my scuba gear. Let’s go swimming. Scuba divers were scheduled to dive in and examine the city swimming pool on Thursday, to see if they could pinpoint why the pool is leaking so profusely. Meanwhile, P&R decided to try to recapture as much of the leaking water as it can and is recycling it through the filter system back into the pool.
• It’s almost official: the city is deficit spending this year. The labor contracts have not been inked yet, but it seems pretty clear that once they are signed the city could officially be deficit-spending this year. The expense figures in Mayor Coleman’s 2010 city budget were based on the assumption that city workers’ salary would be frozen this year. That assumption turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking on Mayor Colemnan’s part. The real question is whether the mayor will readjust his spending, now that reality has hit.
• Say a prayer and vote--- where? In the last year, council has discussed at least twice--and rejected---moving one of the city's polling places from a public building (Millridge School) to a Christian church (the church next to the Catalono's parking lot.). Councilwoman Cathy Murphy reported to council that she had heard a rumor that, despite council's position on the issue, the polling place had been changed from Millridge School to the church. This news apparently caught the rest of council by surprise.
  The elections board doesn't make such changes on their own, without consulting the impacted community.
  So, let's see----if council was kept in the dark (once again).... that can only mean that this must be another one of Mayor Coleman's secret deals.
  Perhaps the mayor is praying that residents will forget that he is personally responsible for the Bass Energy drilling fiasco, by moving the voting place for half the city to a house of worship... 

The end.

Unveiling City Watch: New Community Monitoring Tool

It struck me recently that I often hear council discussing the same issues over and over again—even after a vote has been taken---and that it seems to take a long time for council’s decisions to be implemented---especially when it’s a decision Mayor Coleman didn’t ask for or doesn’t support.

I decided it is time to keep track of this stuff.

Welcome to City Watch, a weekly scorecard to track pending items in the city.

City Watch

• Item One: Asbestos Investigation Contract.
  
  Status: Week 3. Contract still unsigned.

On May 25th council approved hiring Earth Consulting, Ltd. to determine if there is asbestos or any other hazardous or toxic materials in the Old Church Building—something they need to know, whether the building is demolished or renovated.

According to the Highland Heights Charter, Mayor Coleman is legally obligated to sign and execute that contract.

It came to light at the June 8th council meeting, however, that the contract was still sitting, unsigned, on Mayor Coleman's desk. He did not voluntarily disclose that fact to council prior to the meeting, nor did he offer any explanation for his failure to sign the contract.

What is the status of the contract? Mayor Coleman admitted last night that he still has not performed his legal duty. He has yet to sign the contract.

• Item Two: Posting of 2008 Structural Engineer’s report on City’s WebsiteStatus: Six Months. Still unposted

Mayor Coleman is the “gatekeeper” to the city’s website. Nothing gets posted on the website without his permission.

Last December Mayor Coleman used the city's quarterly newsletter and the city's website to solicit residents’ suggestions for the Old Church Building (the decrepit, substandard building sitting on the city hall property). http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/newsletter/2009_Winter_Highland_Heights_newsletter.pdf

While the mayor allowed pictures of the Old Church Building to be posted on the city’s website, he chose not to post the 2008 structural engineer’s report and evaluation of the building (a public document)---even though that report would have provided a fuller and more realistic picture for residents of the building’s true condition. (In fact, to a person, no one who has approached council about using or renovating the Old Church Building has seen that report.)

In fact, council members have repeatedly asked Mayor Coleman to post the structural engineer’s report on the city’s website for public view---to no avail. Council President Scott Mills followed up last night and again asked Mayor Coleman about posting a copy of the report on the website. The mayor said he could do that.

I checked today. It’s still not posted.

• Item Three: The Old Church BuildingStatus: Ongoing, for more than a year.

After discussing the issue for more than a year, council finally appropriated funds in the budget and voted on April 13th to solicit bids for tearing down the decrepit, substandard Old Church Building.

Despite the fact that council voted on the issue---or perhaps because of it--- Mayor Coleman responded by producing a spokesperson, who expressed interest in using the building to operate a private social club. The mayor keeps trying to steamroll that proposal along, as detailed below.

Report from the June 15th Committee of the Whole Meeting

1. Sidewalk Repair Contract.

The contractor who did sidewalk repair in 2005 won the 2010 sidewalk repair contract with a $ 119,645 bid. 15% of the residents who received notices decided to make the sidewalk repairs on their own.

One possible area of concern, brought to light by Councilman Bob Mastrangelo: there is only $ 8,000 separating the winning bid from the next highest bid, in part explained by the differences in tree root removal costs in the two contract. The winning bid only includes $2,000 for tree root removal (if roots are pushing up or cracking sidewalks, the roots have to be removed before new sidewalks are poured).

City Engineer Steve Hovancsek confirmed that the $2,000 figure in the winning bid was a random figure and was not based on any hard data. That means that the actual cost of the contract could end up being much more than the bid amount---and might even exceed the next highest bid--- if an extensive amount of tree root removal is required.

    2.   Jefferson Drive Sewer Work

For several years, council’s Drainage Committee has been working to address infiltration of storm water into the city’s sanitary sewers. The problem area is Jefferson Drive, but the impact is felt farther down the line---by residents along Highland Road.

Service Director Thom Evans reported that the county has obtained an EPA loan to reline both the main storm sewer and the lines connecting homes along Jefferson Drive. The project is still in the early stages, but it’s possible that it might not cost residents anything (other than having to put up with a temporary 6’x6’ excavation on their property).

Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, who chairs the Drainage Committee, called it a “very worthy project”.

    3.   The Old Church Building—Yes Again

Although it was not listed on the agenda, Mayor Coleman brought up the proposal, put forth by a private social club on June 1st, to use the Old Church Building. (Read my June 2nd blog for details).

I was highly amused by the mayor’s spin on the project. His description of the sketchy specifics of what the club proposed didn’t exactly jib with my notes from the June 1st COW meeting---or with several council members’ recollection of that discussion.  I guess it’s no surprise that he would try to give it a more glowing spin, given that Mayor Coleman has declared that he is “very supportive” of the proposal and thinks “it’s a great idea”.

Councilman Frank Legan was equally enthusiastic. He claimed that the “concept is what I talked about from the outset. We identify a use for the building and then find a creative way to do it”. Apparently it does not matter to Legan that the “we” involved is not the city—which has never identified a needed use for the building---but is, instead, a group of 40 individuals who want to use it for a men’s only, private social club.

That would be right up Councilman Legan’s alley I guess. After all, last fall he advocated using taxpayer money to support a private enterprise--the (now closed) Team Energetics athletic club.

Legan and Councilman Ed Hargate agreed with the mayor that getting a proposal in writing from the club was a good next step.

Meanwhile Law Director Tim Paluf acknowledged that the proposal raised a number of significant legal problems---perhaps deal-breaking ones. Paluf should know. The same club expressed interest in the then-vacant church building at the corner of Ridgebury and Ford Roads last year. That property, like the city hall property, is zoned for residential use only. According to Councilman Bob Mastrangelo, a Planning & Zoning Commission member, Paluf issued a legal opinion at that time stating that residential property in the city can not be used for commercial purposes, including operating a private social club.

   4.  City Labor Negotiations

Mayor Coleman’s 2010 city budget contains a small projected surplus. That surplus exists, however, only because the budget assumes that city employees will accept a pay freeze this year.

Labor negotiations have been going on since January. I think an agreement is near---but I suspect it will be one that wipes out the 2010 budget surplus. I say that because Councilman Leo Lombardo, head of council’s Legislative & Finance Committee, asked to meet next week, “to discuss the budget effects of settlement with the (city’s) labor unions.”

If there was a pay freeze there would be no “budget effects”. I should have more on this next week.End