Grants and Enticements

The Oct 5th Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting focused on infrastructure issues.

Jefferson Drive Relining Project

Storm water infiltration into Jefferson Drive sewer lines has caused significant flooding problems to residents who live further west along Highland Road. The county has finally decided to tackle the problem. It has solicited bids for relining piping along Jefferson Drive. The bid opening is scheduled for October 12th.

Law Director Tim Paluf, Service Director Thom Evans and representatives from the City Engineer’s office are working together to send out informational letters to impacted residents.
A public meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 10th to discuss the project.
Page 9 of the Fall 2010 Highland Highlights newsletter contains additional information. I’d provide the link to that article here, but as usual the city’s website is out of date and the Fall newsletter has yet to be posted online.

Energy Inefficiency
Service Director Thom Evans informed council of several energy-related grant opportunities available to the city, one of which is available because of federal government stimulus money and one of which is the result of the NOPEC energy consortium’s electricity deal with First Energy Corp.

The city has big energy bills. According to Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, the heating and electricity bills for the municipal complex topped $ 130,000 in 2009.

The federal government provided $ 5.7 million in stimulus money to Cuyahoga County this year. The County is willing to share some of that money with cities and towns within its borders. Evans recommended that the city apply for a stimulus money grant to pay for an energy audit of municipal center buildings. That audit would identify areas of energy inefficiency and recommend cost-effective projects that could save the city money over the long term.

With regard to the NOPEC grant, while some communities are seeking grants to pursue alternate energy solutions for their cities (for example, Mayfield Village has applied for a grant to install solar panels), Evans recommended applying for a grant to replace the municipal center’s outdoor lighting.

Highland Road Water Main

Right after the Bishop Road-Highland Road intersection reconstruction project was completed, Service Director Thom Evans notified council that the major water main under Highland Road---which the city owns—needed to be replaced. Yep, that water main runs under the newly reconstructed Bishop Road-Highland Road intersection.

The city engineer’s office has recommended reusing the existing trench, which would mean installing a temporary above-ground water line while a new water main is constructed. The existing trench sits on the north side of Highland Road, near the newly constructed pedestrian pathway.

Two weeks ago, Mayor Scott Coleman resurrected an old idea for getting the water main replaced---an idea which council considered and rejected several years ago. That idea: give the water main to the City of Cleveland Water Department (CWD).

The City of Cleveland would love to own all of the piping that connects to the CWD  water system.  That would give the CWD a complete monopoly (some say stranglehold) over all of the cities (and residents) that it serves.

Five CWD representatives came to the COW to pitch a new “Regional Water Service Agreement” to the city. Basically, the agreement has two parts. First, CWD would assume responsibility for fixing the Highland Road water main (at some undetermined time in the future)---provided the city agrees to give CWD title to all of its municipally owned water mains. Second, the city has to agree to share income tax (50/50) with the City of Cleveland if any company relocates from Cleveland to HHts.

If the offer sounds too good to be true, that may be the case. The “strings” attached to the deal have serious potential consequences for the city.

• Our water mains are counted as “assets” for purposes of determining the city’s net worth. The amount of assets that the city owns directly impacts the city’s ability to borrow money---how much money and at what (favorable or unfavorable) rate.
• The income tax sharing could be a significant loss of revenue for the city---and it would apply, even if the business involved made the decision to relocate on their own, without any involvement or enticement on the city’s part.
• There are other issues, of course. As a story in today’s Plain Dealer illustrates, there are significant problems with how CWD operates: its billing practices, its customer service, and its ability to take care of the capital assets that it already currently owns.
• It is also important to remember that all of CWD’s money comes directly from CWD customers. It is a matter of common sense that CWD will have to begin charging higher and higher rates and fees as it takes ownership of municipal water mains. The question is: will those higher fees be paid for by everyone, by every CWD customer, or just by the residents whose communities have turned over their water mains to CWD?

 The CWD representatives were mum on that point.

I hope council gets some kind of commitment from CWD on that issue, before it makes any decision on Mayor Coleman’s recommendation to give away city assets.

Update: Old Church Demolition Resolution

According to the Sun Messenger, Mayor Scott Coleman decided against vetoing the resolution accepting Ace Demolition's bid to take down the Old Church Building that sits on the city hall property. Instead, the mayor let the resolution take affect by operation of law. The story says:

“Coleman believed City Council should have considered other uses for the building, which would need extensive repairs. He also said council did not give residents the proper opportunity to comment on the demolition ordinance."
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/10/mayor_does_not_sign_highland_h.html

It’s ironic that Mayor Coleman would take pot shots at council for not considering “other uses” for the building, given that he publicly supported doing only one thing with the building--- allowing a private club to convert it into a bocce hall---in disregard of Law Director Tim Paluf’s oral declaration that the city could not enter into the proposed “private/public partnership” with the club.

As for not providing residents with a “proper opportunity to comment”?
What a bunch of whoee!

Council ‘s public discussions about what to do with the building went on for more than two years. The city newsletter and website were both used to solicit residents’ comments and ideas. Quite a few interested individuals came and spoke on the topic during council meetings. And the Sun Messenger published a number of stories detailing council’s discussions about the building, including the fact that council agreed to solicit demolition bids back on May 25th.

No “proper opportunity” for public comment? Mayor Coleman must be confused. He must be thinking about his decision to put gas wells in the park....

Boring Can Be Good

There was a lot of speculation, going into the Sept 28th regular council meeting..
The speculation centered on whether the losers in the Old Church Building debate---Mayor Coleman and Councilmen Frank Legan and Ed Hargate---would put on a show or otherwise try to pressure the remaining council members into changing their minds about demolishing the building.

That didn’t happen. In fact, it was a quick and sedate council meeting.

One fact did come to light: as of Tuesday night, the mayor still had not signed the demolition resolution—thereby (at least temporarily) preventing it from taking effect. That fact was revealed when City Engineer Steve Hovancsek reported that he was, “still waiting for authorization to send out the notice of award” (notifying all bidders that the contract had been awarded to Ace Demolition).

By law, Mayor Coleman has 10 days from the resolution’s enactment (on Spet. 21st) to either sign or veto it; if he does neither, the resolution will automatically take effect on Oct 2nd.

Tough Decisions Ahead

Two items caught my interest on Tuesday night.

Item One.
During a Safety Service Committee (SSC) meeting, Fire Chief Bill Turner brought up the subject of replacing the city’s ladder fire truck. Although it is still functioning, the truck is getting towards the end of its normal 20 year life span.
A 75 foot ladder truck currently costs about $700,000, and a 100 foot ladder truck costs a cool $1 million.
Chief Turner’s immediate top priority is replacing the city’s well-used but ageing ambulance/rescue squad vehicle, but he wanted to get the ladder truck “on the radar,” he said, so the SSC could start thinking about it.

Item Two.
Councilman Ed Hargate announced that the Hillcrest Council of Council--- a group that he heads, which serves elected and appointed officials from several local cities—would be discussing joint police/emergency dispatch centers and joint fire departments at its December meeting.

And there you have the rub.

Chief Turner, justifiably proud of his department, wants to keep it equipped at current levels. Cash-strapped cities, however, are increasingly thinking about joining together and sharing resources, as a way to maintain services, while stretching tax dollars.
Chief Turner may have opened the door to such a discussion in our city, now that he’s put replacing the city’s ladder truck on SSC’s “radar”.

Meanwhile, here are some miscellaneous pertinent facts to ponder:

• Highland Heights’ zoning and building codes limit buildings to two stories.
• The city hasn’t always had a ladder truck. The one it has now was purchased second-hand from Mayfield Village in 2006.
• In addition to the ladder truck, the city has two pumper trucks. The ladder truck is used as the first response vehicle. Usually four firefighters ride with the ladder truck.
• During the day, up to 7 firefighters and/or fire personnel may be on duty. After 5 pm, usually 4 are on duty.
• Mutual aid (i.e., assistance from surrounding communities) is called for, whenever smoke or fire is reported.
• The city receives additional points from its insurance rating agency because it owns a ladder truck.

City Report: Yes There Is Other Stuff Going On Besides The Debate about the OCB

It’s hard to believe, given the ferocity of the debate about what to do with the Old Church Building (OCB) sitting on the City Hall property, that council has had the time or energy to discuss anything else. Actually, there’s been alot of other stuff going on. But first...


CITY WATCH


Item One: Ethics/Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form
Status: Still Waiting To Hear From Finance Director Tony Ianiro
Last spring, the city’s auditor issued a “management letter” detailing several financial-related matters that needed further action and attention. Council’s Legislative and Finance Committee (L&F) discussed the letter at a July 13th meeting (for details, see my July 16th blog).
One of the auditor’s recommendation was to require all elected and appointed city officials to annually fill out and file an ethics/conflict of interest form, disclosing any business interests they might have. If you wonder why such disclosure is important think back to the Tony Valentino/W.F. Hann & Sons situation---where (without council’s knowledge or required prior approval) Mayor Scott Coleman approved payments to former Park Commissioner’s Tony Valentino’s company for work that it did for the city (including at the Community Park) over a three year period.
Finance Director Anthony Ianiro told L&F members that he was working on a disclosure form and that it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with something. It’s been two months. L&F is still waiting to receive a draft of an ethics/conflict of interest disclosure form from Ianiro.


Item Two: Property Taxes and Assessments Paid on Tax-Exempt Property
Status: Some Movement; Still To Be Resolved
Several months ago Councilwoman Cathy Murphy asked Finance Director Tony Ianiro why the city had paid, since 2005, more than $11,000 in property taxes and lighting/sewer assessments on what should be tax-exempt city-owned property (for details, see my July 27th, Part Two blog).
Ianiro’s response was typical---after attempting to dismiss Murphy’s question, he pointed his finger at Law Director Tim Paluf--even though, of course, it was Ianiro himself who received and paid the tax bills.
I am happy to report that there has been some movement to correct this unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money. Unfortunately by law the city can recoup at most only the last 3 years’ worth of property tax payments. However, the Law Director is now actively pursuing a refund and having the properties listed as exempt on the tax rolls, and the Finance Director is working to remove county sewer assessments charged to the properties.
Once again, kudos to Councilwoman Murphy. Without her, this situation never would have been brought to light--or corrected.

Item Three: “Miscellaneous Concrete” Repair Contract
Status: Unbid Contract Awarded
At the July 13 Council meeting, Service Director Thom Evans informed countil that he wanted to avoid using a public bidding process to award a contract for miscellaneous concrete work in the city. Since state law requires that all contracts over $25,000 be put out to bid, Evans proposed keeping the repair contract just under that amount. His rationale for avoiding the public bidding process---it would slow down the contracting process by “a couple of weeks.” (for details, see my July 18th “Kudos, Unbid Contracts” blog).
Two months later, on Sept. 14th, Evans returned to council with a recommendation to award a $24,651 contract to A.J. Cement---one of two bidders hand-selected by Evans (he contacted just 4 companies).
Yep, we totally see that shaving two weeks off the bidding process was critical here—and a totally valid excuse for avoiding state public bidding laws---NOT.
City Engineer Steve Hovancsek recently noted that because of the slow economy, contractors were submitting much lower bids for work than they had in the past. That certainly proved true with regard to the OCB demolition contract. You have to wonder whether, if Evans had used a public bidding process, the city wouldn't have gotten the same work done for less.

 Item Four: OCB Demolition Contract
Status: Day Five. Has Mayor Coleman Signed the Resolution and Contract Yet?
Council voted 5-2 on Sept. 21st to award Ace Demolition a $ 29,317.69 contract for demolishing the OCB and regrading and reseeding the OCB property. That resolution, like every other resolution passed by council in the last two years, was passed as an “emergency measure.”
While I have objected to that routine practice in the past (and still do), at least Council President Scott Mills offered the required explanation of the “emergency”—the OCB is in poor shape and it needs to be torn down ASAP, before winter sets in.
Normally, Mayor Coleman signs resolutions the night they are passed---after the Council meeting, before he heads for home. In fact, Council Clerk Jean Buchak usually sticks around, to make sure that everything is in order.
Apparently Mayor Coleman left City Hall on the 21st without signing the demolition-authorizing resolution. I guess we’ll have to wait until Tuesday night’s meeting to see whether he has decided to do his duty---or not.



Fiscal Responsibility?

• Park lighting repairs

The Park & Recreation Commission (P&R) is responsible for overseeing the Community Park and its maintenance. By law, Mayor Coleman and the P&R Chair (currently Rocco Dolciato) are required to sign vouchers authorizing the expenditure of P&R funds, and no money is to be spent until a voucher is signed.
At last Tuesday’s L&F meeting, Service Director Thom Evans reported that he had verbally authorized Monaco Lighting to do $1,800 worth of work maintaining the park lights, but that Monaco had actually billed the city $4,600 for its work. When asked, Mayor Coleman stated that he did not have a signed voucher to present to L&F covering the work. Nevertheless, Evans recommended that the bill should be paid in full.
According to Evans, the company indicated to him that the work was going to go over budget, but neither he, Mayor Coleman, Rocco Dolciato, nor Recreation Director Dave Ianiro ever got a firm figure as to what Monaco intended to actually charge the city, nor was a properly signed voucher authorizing the work issued before any of the work was performed.

• Millridge Contractor’s Paving Mistake

Specialized Construction made a big mistake when repaving Millridge Road. It was only supposed to grind down a portion of the concrete roadbed, but ground down the entire roadbed instead. That mistake is a serious one. Concrete road surfaces are much more durable than asphalt ones. The concrete road bed that was mistakenly removed was still in good shape and was likely to last another 10-20 years.
Last week, Brian Mader from the City Engineer’s Office presented the city with an additional invoice for $22,000+, to cover the contractor’s unauthorized grinding work and the labor and material costs for fixing the mistake. Although last week Mader seemed to be recommending that the city pay the invoice (he pointed out that the contractor had performed the extra work and that the project would still come in under budget), he altered his tune under council’s questioning this week. Mader admitted that the city did not necessarily benefit (to the tune of $22,400) from the mistake-related work that the contractor performed.
Law Director Tim Paluf opined that the city was not legally responsible to pay for the contractor’s mistake, and City Engineer Steve Hovancsek said that as far as he was concerned, “To set a precedent to pay for this would be dangerous.”
Neither Mayor Coleman nor any council member spoke in favor of paying the additional invoice.

• Correcting the Administrators’ Pay Ordinance

I previously reported (see my July 27th Part Two blog) that the administrator who gained most from the pay ordinance that council passed in late July was newly hired Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder. The ordinance increased his 2010 salary from $72,000 to $79,600.
Although Grabfelder could have insisted on keeping the raise because the ordinance was an emergency measure that took effect as soon as Mayor Coleman signed it, he clearly is a classy guy who wants to have an extended career working for the city.
On September 14th, council passed an amended pay ordinance---restoring Grabfelder’s $ 72,000 salary--the salary that he was given when he was hired in February. Like all city administrators, Grabfelder will receive a 2 ½% pay raise next year and a 3% raise the following year.



Wind Turbines--Yes, No or Maybe?

Drilling a gas well was the at the top of his list after Lance Osborne bought the property now known as the “Shoppes at Alpha”. The gas well sits next to I-271, behind the shopping center.
Apparently Osborne wants to expand his energy generation activities at the shopping center. He has put out feelers about installing a wind turbine (energy producing windmill) on the site too.
Next up: the city needs to start investigating safety and zoning issues.
Osborne may be the first, but he won’t be the last. Alternative energy is all the rage and here to stay---Personally, I’d take a wind turbine over a frac gas well any day.  But the placement of turbines in a developed, residential community is problematic. I suspect council will have to undertake alot of research and engage in alot of dialogue with residents before approving installation of any turbines in the city.

Community Calendar
Economic Development Committee meets Sept 30th.
Shredding Day is Saturday, Oct. 2nd.
Leaf Pickup begins Oct. 11th.