Happy New Year!

I don't know about you, but I am more than ready to say goodbye to 2009.

Let's hope 2010 brings a return to economic vitality, plentiful jobs, and a well managed city administration.

Upcoming events

The new council get sworn in on January 5, 2010.

I haven't seen the agenda for that meeting yet, but I know that a number of city administrative and paid city committee positions are up for appointment/reappointment.

The buck stops with Mayor Coleman with regard to the appointments, as council's role is limited to giving either a thumbs up or thumbs down on the candidates that the mayor selects.

It will be interesting to see which individuals Mayor Coleman gives his personal stamp of approval to, by including them on his appointment/reappointment list.

end

The Last Hurrah: Dec. 15th Committee of the Whole Meeting

Forget Noah. Let’s Fix The Problem

Council devoted most of the Dec. 15th meeting discussing Highland Road sanitary sewer backup/flooding problems with two engineers from the Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer’s Office (CCSEO).

Apparently residents along Highland Road, between Pinehurst and Bishop Roads, are being impacted by excess storm water, which has been infiltrating the upstream sanitary sewer line, causing their downstream basements to flood.

After conducting extensive testing (council was shown cool video of that testing, taken from inside the sewer line), CCSEO engineers determined that a major cause of the problem is deteriorating clay lateral piping coming from houses on Jefferson Drive. Apparently water has been leaking from those lateral pipes into the underground trench that holds both the storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines, and that water has been getting into the sanitary sewer line, causing the flooding farther down the line.

The good news is that Highland Heights homeowners pay fees, as part of their taxes, which are set aside by the county for purposes of maintaining the sanitary sewer lines in our city. So some of the necessary repair work, at least, will be paid for by the county.

In fact, the CCSEO engineers are pursuing a plan to pick up the entire projected $ 700,000 cost to reline not just the county-owned portion of the Jefferson Drive lateral piping, but also the portion that homeowners are legally responsible for as well—to make sure that the entire problem is corrected. (The engineers said that they believe the extra cost of relining the homeowners’ portion of the piping would be minimal, if it is done as part of their repair job). So excellent news for Jefferson Drive homeowners---they may have a hole dug in their lawns (the county has the right to do that, to access the sewer line), but in exchange the county may reline the private portion of the lateral piping for them.

This project (which has been ably spearheaded by Councilwoman Cathy Murphy and the other members of council’s Drainage Committee) is still in the early stages, but homeowners can expect to hear more about it in early 2010. A public meeting will be held to answer questions and provide residents with additional information.

While there will be some mess and inconvenience involved, it sounded to me like both a necessary and worthwhile project—one which I am sure the impacted Highland Road residents feel is long overdue.

How About You Tell Us the Whole Story?

In the latest edition of the Highland Heights newsletter, both Mayor Coleman and Councilman Frank Legan beat the drum for spending (a very significant amount of) taxpayer money to fix up the old church building on the city hall property. This unified drum-beating certainly confirms Coleman’s and Legan’s very public, post-election alliance. I expect to see more marching-in-step by the two of them in 2010.

The mayor’s comments, in particular, caught my attention.

Last August, Mayor Coleman was quoted in the Sun Messenger saying,

"I have a feeling it (the church building) will likely be torn down…I am very happy that we have it, if we keep it standing, or decide to use the property for something else.”

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_council_consi.html

It appears the mayor is now singing a slightly different tune.

In the December newsletter he declares that he is:

“pleased to report…that the (old church) building is structurally sound” and
that he is “reluctant to tear the building down until we exhaust all ideas for
potential uses of the structure.”

While Mayor Coleman admits that the building needs “new roofing, new heating and cooling systems and many cosmetic enhancements to the interior,” he doesn’t mention other items such as the probable asbestos tile, the obsolete septic and electrical systems, the substandard doors, windows and insulation, or the mold infestation (the roof was leaking even before the city bought the building in 2008).

Do you suppose the mayor considers safe electrical systems, properly connected toilets, and mold and asbestos abatement to be mere “cosmetic enhancements”? Hmmm.

In the newsletter, Councilman Legan and Mayor Coleman have encouraged speculation in a vacuum---they have asked residents to come up with ideas for using the building, while neglecting to disclose one very pertinent piece of information---the 2008 structural engineer’s report on the building, which includes cost estimates for repairing the building to make it useable again.

While Mayor Coleman and Councilman Legan state in the newsletter that they have arranged to have pictures of the old church building posted on the city’s website for residents to view, they apparently did not make any attempt to post the 2008 structural engineer’s report---which would provide good perspective for residents when viewing those pictures.

Why withhold the report? Well, possibly because it might have a negative impact on residents’ enthusiasm for renovating the building. According to the engineer’s report, it would cost more than $ 773,000 (in 2008 dollars) just to make the building usable again—a figure that does not include reconfiguring any of the existing rooms or space for non-church use.

It is very disappointing to see Mayor Coleman and Councilmen Legan attempting to whip up residents’ enthusiasm for renovating the church building without disclosing or discussing the price tag involved.

It reminds me of the last time I went car shopping. The salesman spent all his time talking about exterior colors and fancy wheels—hoping I’d fall in love with a car before discussing how much it was actually going to cost me.

I didn’t fall for that sales tactic then, and I can only hope that residents don’t fall for it now.

My Oct 2nd blog (in the archives) provides specific details from the structural engineer’s report on the old church building---including the project cost of renovating versus razing the building. Check it out.

Swan Song

As the Committee of the Whole was wrapping up, soon-to-be former Councilman Ted Anderson returned to his pet project one last time: the proposed $ 300,000 old pool house renovation project.

Anderson stated that the project was the “Park & Recreation Committee’s # 1 priority for 2010 and that renovating that building was “definitely something that we need for our park. He also asked the next council to “allocate a couple of $ 100,000 so the project can happen.”

The way he said it, it sounded like he thought $ 300,000 was just some spare change the city had lying around.

While he talked up the pool house renovation project, Anderson studiously avoided mentioning the one thing that he knows will cost the city far more than spare change to fix next year: the worsening leak at the city pool.

I have to say this about Anderson, he was persistent and consistent to the end.

end

More on the Recreation Department’s Financial Woes

Qualifications, Anyone?

In Highland Heights, the mayor is pretty much given free rein in choosing city administrators. In fact, the city Charter and ordinances do not impose any specific licensing or credentialing requirements for several positions, including the Finance Director, the Service Director, the Acting Building Commissioner or the Recreation Director.

Similarly, the city does not have an anti-nepotism policy, which bars related individuals from being appointed to city administrative positions. The reason businesses have such policies is because of the inherent conflicts of interest and conflicts of loyalty that can arise when related individuals work for the same employer.

The nepotism issue was an unspoken elephant in the room during last night’s Legislative & Finance Committee meeting.

At that meeting, Finance Director Tony Ianiro was faced with the difficult task of explaining the significant deficit-spending engaged in by his brother, Dave Ianiro, the city’s Recreation Director, this year.

As I have previously reported, the recreation department is the only city department that has its own exclusive source of funding (it receives 1 mil of the property taxes paid by residents each year). It also keeps, as revenue, the fees paid for pool passes, swim lessons, and other city recreation programs. According to a recent financial report, the rec dept. took in $ 615,000 in revenue this year, but it had $ 733, 513 in expenditures (including about $ 20,000 in carryover encumbrances from 2008).

Prior to this year, no city Recreation Director had ever submitted a budget that anticipated deficit-spending by the city’s rec. dept. Recreation Director Dave Ianiro broke that record; he submitted the city's first deficit-spending rec dept budget in 2009.

At the Legislative & Finance Committee meeting, Finance Director Tony Ianiro had to explain why he was asking council to allow him to adjust the rec dept’s budget, to reflect additional deficit-spending (beyond the budgeted amount) by his brother, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro.

The Finance Director sounded quite defensive at times during the meeting, and he certainly tried to put a good face on things on his brother’s behalf (the baseball program was “wildly successful” he declared, even though the 2009 revenue projections for that program were not met).

At the same time, while wearing his Finance Director hat, Tony Ianiro acknowledged that council had good grounds to be concerned over the rec dept’s financial performance this year.

Meanwhile, the person at issue, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro, was nowhere to be seen. As occurred during the budgeting process last spring, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro appeared content to let his brother, Finance Director Tony Ianiro, do the talking for him.

Here are some highlights from the meeting:

1. Finance Director Tony Ianiro emphasized that although the rec dept overspent its revenue by over $ 98,000 this year, general funds were not used to cover the deficit. Instead, the deficit-spending was covered by drawing down the rec dept’s (emergency) reserve fund.

That was a big hit to the reserve fund. As currently projected (and if it is lucky), the rec dept may end the year with $ 146,00 in its emergency reserve fund rather than the $244,000 it would have had if no deficit spending had occurred. Another year of similar deficit-spending will deplete the reserve fund—a fund that is needed to cover things like emergency pool repairs (the rec. dept is already on notice already that the pool may need potentially expensive repairs in 2010 to address an ongoing leak that recaulking and repainting failed to fix this year).

Unless the rec. dept. changes its way of operating, the reserve fund (built up over many years by prior Recreation Directors) will be depleted by 2011---which will leave taxpayers (through the general fund) picking up the tab for current Recreation Director Dave Ianiro’s deficit-spending.

So while the rec dept may have dodged a bullet this year, by dipping into its reserve fund, it won’t be able to do that much longer.

2. Finance Director Tony Ianiro reported that the city’s---and the rec. dept’s---property tax revenues are likely to decrease by 8 % next year, due to the downward property reappraisals adopted by the county auditor’s office this year.

Conservatively, that could mean at least a $ 28,000 drop in revenue for the rec dept. next year--- a new additional financial reality that the rec. dept. will have to face when coming up with its 2010 budget.

3. Finance Director Tony Ianiro highlighted a couple of the major contributors to the rec dept’s deficit-spending. These are by no means comprehensive.

-- The 8 week summer camp program operated at a $ 27,500 loss. This program has been a significant money-loser for the rec. dept. over the last several years, but the rec. dept has not taken any steps to address those financial losses. Instead, Recreation Director Dave Ianiro (along with Councilman Ted Anderson and the Park & Rec Committee) have asked the city to spend $ 300,000 in taxpayer money to renovate the old pool house for use by the money-losing camp program.

- -Recreation Director Dave Ianiro hired 15 additional pool employees (beyond the 2008 staffing level)---costing $ 28,689.55 --even though the Recreation Director had not included money in his budget for those additional hires (and even though the cold weather last summer significantly cut down on pool attendance). That piece of information came as a real shock to council members.

Councilman Leo Lombardo asked at the Committee of the Whole meeting, “How could the Recreation Director hire more employees when he was blowing his budget by 20 % ?”. He and other council members wanted to know who was aware of the extra hiring and/or who authorized it.

Mayor Coleman (who appointed Recreation Director Dave Ianiro and is his boss) did not directly answer Councilman Lombardo's question. Instead he stated that, “the hiring of employees is directly related to the number of participants in programs.” ---a statement that makes sense in the abstract, but not in reality.

In fact, they don’t station more lifeguards around the pool just because 20 more kids are swimming (the lifeguard chairs are fixed in place around the pool, which determines the number of guards on duty during each shift). Plus, the revenue figures don’t show a significant increase in pool-related participation for 2009.

Since Recreation Director Dave Ianiro did not attend the Committee of the Whole meeting either, the circumstances surrounding his decision to hire those 15 additional, unbudgeted-for pool employees remains a mystery.

--Finance Director Tony Ianiro mentioned, without explanation, that the rec. dept. spent $ 4,820 more in umpire fees than the budgeted amount. The city spent more than $ 16,000 on umpires for the 2009 baseball program.

What were Council members’ comments about Recreation Director Dave Ianiro’s financial performance this year?

• “The rec dept went 18 % over its (already deficit-spending) budget.”
• “The rec. dept. is out of control. All of the (city’s) other departments did a good job of staying within their budgets. This is out of sight."
• “Park & Rec went $ 98,000 over their budget. It stood out like mad.”
• “We have to look at tighter controls.”
• “The rec. dept. met its revenue projections. A decrease in revenue does not explain their deficit spending.”
• “We have got to have some accountability here.”

I say "amen" to that.

The person tasked with straightening out this financial mess is, of course, Mayor Coleman because:

• The Recreation Director is the mayor’s appointee.
  
• Recreation Director Dave Ianiro rep reports to Mayor Coleman (and not council) .
  
• Mayor Coleman is ultimately responsible for the rec dept's portion of the budget because he submits it as part of his own budget for the city.
  
• Mayor Coleman prides himself on being a financial guy, and he's been in office for 6 years, so he should be able to mentor the Recreation Director and the rec. dept through this financial challenge.

Mayor Coleman was very quiet during council's discussion of the recreation department's deficit-spending and financial situation. Let's hope he was paying close attention and taking good notes.

end