Training, Trash and More Trash

Notes from the January 18th Committee of the Whole Meeting...
Trash One

I don’t know about you, but I loved the notices posted at well-traveled intersections last weekend, letting residents know that there were no trash collection delays due to the Martin Luther King federal holiday.


The neon bulletin boards near the park and city hall don’t really do much good given that they are so small and the red lighting is so hard to read from a moving car.


I assume the idea for the “no trash delay” signs originated in the Service Department, and you can be sure it was Service Department employees that installed them. Thanks for the heads up, guys!



Trash Two
Unslightly trash bins and trash dumpster was on the agenda for the January 18th Committee of the Whole meeting. The discussion was sparked by a citizen’s complaint after the church on Ford Road moved a trash bin to the front of its parking lot (it has since been moved to the rear of the parking lot).


The issue of trash screening on commercial properties is usually dealt with early on by the Planning & Zoning Commission when a property owner or tenant asks for site approval or a variance. As far as residential properties go, our ordinances restrict when trash can be set out for collection.


There was no clear consensus, at least at this point, that the problem required adoption of a formal trash screening ordinance.



Our Building Code
The discussion about trash screening shows that there is no easy answer about how much behavior the city should regulate or how specific those regulations should be.


Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder would like to beef up the city’s exterior maintenance ordinances by adopting something called the “International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC)”. Grabfelder explained that our current ordinances are a bit vague, which makes it very hard for him to nudge reluctant homeowners into repairing and/or maintaining their property. The IPMC sets out specific standards and requirements for exterior property maintenance. According to Grabfelder, Mayfield Village, Mayfield Heights aand Lyndhurst have already adopted the IPMC.


As always, the devil is in the details. Council needs to have a look at just what standards and requirements the IPMC imposes before acting on Grabfelder’s recommendation.



Firefighter Training
The State of Ohio has mandated continuing education for firefighters. Fire Chief Bill Turner came up with a great solution for providing that training. He successfully applied for a multi-community FEMA grant, which will provide computer-based training for firefighters in our city and 7 surrounding communities.


FEMA will pick up 80 % of the approximately $ 179,000 cost of the training computers, software and peripherals. The cost to Highland Heights and the participating communities? About $ 4,800.


Council was quite appreciative of Turner’s efforts. “It sounds like you are getting alot of bang for your buck,” Councilwoman Cathy Murphy commented, “Great job.”



Giant Eagle’s Get-Go Proposal
Councilman Bob Mastrangelo shared with Council details of Giant Eagle’s recent presentation to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mastrangelo asked, “Is the city interested? If not, it makes no sense to look at zoning requirements.”


Council continues to take a wait and see approach with regard to the proposal. It is unclear what the best way to rezone the property to allow for gas pumps would be (voters will have to approve any zoning change). Several Council members also expressed concern over the possibly piecemeal development of the property---with the retail building coming in after the Get-Go portion is installed.


“There is going to be a bit of a leap of faith,” said Mastrangelo, “like with Lance Osborne and the Shoppes of Alpha. A developer will come in with a concept, and restrictions can be put on it.”


Mayor Coleman told Council that it was possible that the city could enter into a development agreement with Giant Eagle, which would set timetables and impose restrictions to ensure that the retail portion of the Catalano’s property was developed in a timely and appropriate manner.


Councilman Ed Hargate suggested that the city hire a professional planner to review any proposed zoning change to make sure it was consistent with the city’s master plan. Hargate was concerned that the master plan remain effective and enforceable.


Everyone seemed to agree that the city would not rush to get the zoning issue placed on the May ballot---something that Giant Eagle has been optimistically hoping for.


You can be sure that there will be many more discussions held before—or perhaps if--- the project moves forward.

Comments to Council: Why Are You Willing To Throw Our Kids Under the Bus?

The Backstory
Last night the Gas Well Committee weighed in on the issue of drilling in the park. Three members (Council President Scott Mills, David Lees and Paul Berne) concluded that there were no suitable drilling sites in the park. The remaining four members recommended two sites each. Significantly, one of the sites recommended by Mayor Scott Coleman and Park & Recreation rep Tony Valentino is located in a county-identified wetlands.

My Comments to Council:

I asked residents attending the Gas Well Committee meeting last night what they wanted me to communicate to you tonight.

One thing the residents want to know is who in the city is going to be held accountable for the Bass Energy drilling fiasco?
It is clear by now that proper due diligence was never undertaken, that city ordinances were violated, and that the restrictions placed in the authorizing resolution were ignored. Major mistakes were made. You may settle with Bass, but what are you going to do to make things right with the residents, who trusted you to act properly and to follow our laws?

Aside from accountability, there’s the issue of the wetlands.
Last night, each Gas Well Committee member was asked to express an opinion about possible drilling sites in the park. Three of the 7 members flatly declared that there were no safe drilling sites.
Mayor Coleman and Tony Valentino, the park & rec representative, however, disagreed. They chose the same two drilling sites. One of those sites—the one just off the new park parking lot--is in a county-designated wetlands area.
That’s totally outrageous.
I don’t know if you saw the new map that the city engineer’s office gave to the gas well committee last week. It shows, for the first time, the numerous county-identified wetlands in the park. One of those wetlands runs north and east from Kennelwood drive.
In fact, the new map confirms what many residents have long suspected: that a large part of the new park parking lot was built on those wetlands.
While Mr. Mader didn’t want to personally vouch for the county-identified wetlands, a detailed study conducted by a Phd candidate several years ago confirms both their existence and location in the park.
The city is now on notice.
You can’t ignore the designated wetlands simply because they are inconvenient or in the way of where you want to let Bass Energy drill a gas well.
The city should have gotten a permit before it built the new park parking lot on the wetlands. Although that horse is out of the barn and that portion of the wetlands has already been destroyed, the horse isn’t out of the barn with regard to the remaining wetlands. Due diligence requires that you either disprove the county’s wetlands designation or get a permit before allowing any drilling on any wetland areas of the park.

Wetlands are important. But let me tell what really bothers the residents the most.
Residents really want to know why you are so willing to throw our safety and the safety of our children under the bus. They want to know why you aren’t willing to stand up and do all you can to fight to protect our kids.
From all appearances, council has decided to let Bass Energy drill frac gas wells in the park. As the former ODNR inspector told the Gas Well Committee last week, drilling is a very messy business, there are alot of spills, and there are not enough ODNR inspectors to ensure safety.
The fracking process involves pumping toxic chemicals into the ground to fracture rock. That process releases dangerous hydrogen sulphide and radon into the air; it has caused groundwater to become flammable, and it has led to countless fires and explosions around the country. Gas is still leaking underground in Bainbridge. Those people---most of whom never signed a drilling lease—will never be able to sell their homes.
The Gas Well Committee members who recommended drilling sites recommended placing the tank battery---the installation of tanks that holds oil and drilling-related toxic industrial waste--- right next to Gas Well Alley---the path that children from the west side of the city use all summer, to walk to and from the park. Talk about an attractive nuisance. I don’t care how high a fence you put around it, the kids will be able to get in. And if anything spills, they’ll be walking right through the mess.
The Committee was told that Bass intended to put a gas line along gas well alley. Gas lines can explode, as we all know.
The risk of toxic emissions, toxic spills, fires, and explosions. That’s what you are saying yes to, that’s what you are willing to expose our kids to, in rushing to settle with Bass.
As one of the insurance professionals on the Gas Well Committee said last night, “For 30 years, I’ve been dealing with the aftermath of catastrophic events. Very rarely do you get a chance to intervene to stop them before they happen.”
The residents want to know why you’d rather settle with Bass and allow drilling in our park. Why you prefer that, instead of going to arbitration and fighting as hard as you can to protect our kids from being exposed to all that.
Residents want to know: Why are you so willing to throw our kids under the bus?

Want to know more?
Read more about the Gas Well Committee and the decision facing Council on a new local online newspaper, www.patch.com.
http://hillcrest.patch.com/articles/no-clear-decision-about-gas-wells-at-highland-heights-park
http://hillcrest.patch.com/articles/highland-heights-residents-concerned-about-gas-wells-at-park

The Truth (Finally) Comes Out

Truth One: The New Parking Lot In the Community Park was built on a County-identified Wetlands

There were quite a few problems with the well sites in the city park that Former City Engineer Andy Blackley selected for Bass Energy in 2007.


One of the well sites was in the middle of unspoiled, mature forestland that is accessible only on foot. The second site was right next to the new park parking lot. The second site impinged on a constitutionally protected 10 acre parcel of green space, which was purchased using Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) grant money in the late 1980’s. Judging by the vegetation and topography, the second site also appeared to be smack dab in the middle of a wetland area---although there was much denying of that fact at the time.


The truth finally came out this week. An updated map supplied to the Gas Well Committee (GWC) by Brian Mader of Stephen Hovancsek & Associates shows that Blackley located the second gas well in a county-designated wetland.But the new map shows a lot more than just that.
It turns out that at least half of the new parking lot that Blackley designed for the community park was built on that same wetland.


Wetlands are protected by both state and federal law. Property owners are required to obtain permits before building on (or disturbing) wetlands. There is no record that either Andy Blackley or the city obtained a permit to build the new parking lot on a wetland. How did that happen? Why would our former city engineer put a parking lot on a wetlands?

I wish I could explain it. I will tell you this: Blackley and his firm (you guessed it, Stephen Hovancsek & Associates ) developed a site map for the park in connection with the park parking lot project. Blackley used that site map: 1) to design the new park parking lot; and 2) to choose well sites for Bass Energy in the park. In turn, Bass used that same site map to obtain drilling permits from the state in 2007.
Blakely’s site map does not show the location of the constitutionally-protected ODNR land or any of the county-identified wetlands in the park. If Blackley’s map had shown those things: 1) the city would have had to either move the new parking lot or postpone construction until it obtained a wetlands permit; and 2) Bass Energy’s permit application for the second well site might have been denied because that site impinges on both ODNR land and identified wetlands. It certainly smoothed the way--for both the city and Bass Energy-- to use a site map that omitted problematic areas, such as constitutionally protected green space and designated wetlands.
FYI, Mayor Scott Coleman reappointed Stephen Hovancsek & Associates as the city’s engineering firm in December.


Truth Two: Drilling In the Park Might Never Have Been Approved, If Even a Single Public Hearing Had Been Held
One undeniable and particularly upsetting fact is that Mayor Coleman and Council blatantly ignored Highland Heights ordinances in their rush to cut a drilling deal with Bass Energy. Not only was a public bidding process not used, but our elected officials ignored ordinances that ban drlling in the park ( § 733.20) and require that two public hearings be held on all drilling requests ( §§ 733.15, 733.16).


I thought of those ordinances while listening to the speakers who were invited to address the GWC this week. Based on the information and cautionary advice that the speakers shared, I am convinced that things would have turned out very differently, if only a single public hearing had been held.
The speakers included a former ODNR oil & gas inspector, a founding member of NEOGAP (Northeast Ohio Gas Accountability Project) and representatives from the Euclid Creek Watershed Council. Not only did the speakers touch on significant safety and liability issues, they brought up a number of very important legal issues that should have been considered and addressed---but were not---before a drilling lease was signed.
The bottom line message that the speakers imparted was that under state law--unless the lease imposes specific limits--Bass Energy will be able to do whatever it needs or wants to do to extract gas and oil from the park---including burying drilling-related material in the park. Unfortunately the lease that Law Director Tim Paluf approved of and that Mayor Coleman signed does not impose any limits on Bass. The only thing Bass is required to (eventually) do under the lease is restore the well site areas--as required by state regulations.

CWC member Paul Berne (an insurance professional) reacted to the things he heard by strongly urging the city to obtain a liability risk assessment. He also advised the city to require Bass Energy to carry enough insurance to cover a major catastrophic event in the park.
Both of Berne’s suggestions are very good ones, but unfortunately--due to the lack of a public hearing---they come too late. The horse is already out of the barn. Under the lease that Mayor Coleman signed, Bass is only required to maintain general commercial liability insurance in the sum of $ 5 million "for the life of the well." Not only is $ 5 million a puny sum should things go terribly wrong, Bass is not required to maintain that amount of insurance exclusively in connection with the Highland Heights park wells. The $ 5 million insurance coverage would apply to---and be shared by---all of the wells that Bass drills throughout the state.
Since members of the public were never given the opportunity to weigh in and share their thoughts and concerns, many issues that should have been discussed and addressed before a drilling lease was signed weren’t. The rush to drill has placed Highland Heights residents—and the park--- at significant risk, and according the speakers who addressed the GWC, we may not know the full impact of that risk for a decade or more.


Truth Three: The GWC Is Not Truly Independent. Its Members Feel Obligated to Come Up With Two Drilling Sites in the Park—No Matter What the Risk.
Although Council President Scott Mills told the GWC members that they were supposed to decide for themselves whether or not any suitable drilling sites could be found in the park, some GWC members clearly believe otherwise. They know that the sole reason the GWC was formed was to smooth the way for a settlement with Bass Energy, and no doubt they have heard from back channels that Bass won’t settle for anything less than drilling two gas wells in the park.


At the meeting this week, several GWC members made clear that they believe that their true (and only)  mission is to select two drilling sites in the park-----a statement that conflicts with their stated mission, and a statement that Mills unfortunately did not immediately correct or dispute.
Although I believe the GWC members would serve the community better by following their consciences (rather than worrying about covering for Council), they clearly understand what a very tight corner the city was placed in when Mayor Coleman rushed to sign a drilling lease with Bass before any well sites were discussed with or approved by Council--an act that Judge Gallagher found Coleman had "no power" to do, but he did anyway.