Open Containers and Me

Mayor Barb Crudo and other members of council made it clear last week in response to organizers of the Oil Heritage softball tournament that council would take a look at the open container ordinance. 

Tournament organizers and their backers claim the open container ordinance and its enforcement is threatening the future of the tournament, at least the future of it within the city and the money that brings to the community.  

Certainly Council should weigh the plus and minuses of the ordinance, but make no mistake about it, the very real problems with and related to alcohol consumption at the tournament in recent years is what led to the strict enforcement of the ordinance. I would argue that it was not city council or administrators that demanded its enforcement, but the actions of some of the players and fans over the past couple of years and the failure of those in charge to rein it in. 

It was similar problems at numerous city events and venues that led to adoption of the open container ordinance in 1981.  It generated some controversy at the time, but overwhelmingly residents supported it.  Frankly, people were tired of going to an event and having to deal with people making a public display of drinking, sliding into inebriation and being jerks.  

The open container ordinance was a tool, and it worked well.  It was able to nip potential problems in the bud and it has made events in the city much more family friendly, problem free and civil. 

Opponents argued in 1981 and argue now that there are adequate laws on the books, such as public intoxication, disorderly conduct, etc.  to deal with issues that arise. They claim it would be a better approach because it addresses the person causing the problems rather than a prohibition that affects the innocent.  

However, there is a fundamental weakness to that argument: by the time someone crosses the line others – the innocent -- have already been impacted by the boorish behavior. To me, this is a huge issue. Who wants their children exposed to such behaviour? 

There is also the cost of enforcement. If the open container law is repealed outright and control is to be maintained at events and public places it will require a significant law enforcement presence. We only have so many cops to spread around the city and the clock.

Having said all that, I do think we need to explore modifying or rewriting the ordinance to allow consumption as specific events/venues by permit. The requirements for a permit would have to be carefully crafted.

My desired requirements would at the minimum include specific and confined locations and hours, a law enforcement presence paid for by the sponsoring organization(s), insurance held by the organizer(s) that covers alcohol consumption,  a way to control who is drinking and how much, and a clean- up agreement. 

I’m not sure how any BYOB event would fit into my criteria. 

And, of course, whatever we might want to do has to be allowed under state law and Liquor Control Board regulations. 

I will admit to a certain frustration over the entire issue, especially as it relates to the softball tournament. It is supposed to be a sporting event, not a drinking event.  The fact teams or fans threaten to stay away because they can’t drink on-site does not sit well with me. 

What frustrates me even more is so many people can get worked up about the open container ordinance and make it a priority when there are far more serious and important issues we should be talking about.  On the Venango Voice Facebook page there were 397 comments on the open container ordinance in one post and 75 people signed a Facebook page petition to rescind the ordinance. 

Compare that to the fact there was virtually no comments on the call by Franklin School Board President Brian Spaid for the area school districts to at least talk about exploring consolidation. That is a subject of real consequence. 

Or if you want to stick solely to city issues, the lack of comment or interest in the emerging rewrite of the zoning ordinance, the Main Street program, and I could go on and on. What are our priorities?

That Sinking Feeling

That sinking feeling is what I had Thursday morning when City Manager Ryan Eggleston informed me that he had accepted a position as manager in South Fayette Township, Allegheny County.

I wasn’t beyond feeling it again when he publicly announced it at Thursday night’s city council meeting. And I’m not beyond feeling it now as I write this.

I think a great deal of Ryan personally and professionally.  He has served the city exceptionally well, and by both personality and skills perhaps the absolute best person that could possibly been found to succeed long-time manager Tom Rockovich when he left the city.

Ryan and his family were presented a fantastic opportunity. And I’m glad for him, despite my sadness at seeing him go and my concerns for Oil City and the difficulties we will face in the transition and selection of a new manager.  

Being a city manager is not a job I would want, especially in one of Pennsylvania’s core communities. The deck is stacked against you. I’ve had many long conversations about the job, its pressures and frustrations with a friend who is a city manager elsewhere in the region, and I’m left wondering why anyone would do it. We should be forever grateful there are talented  people like Ryan and my friend who desire to do it.

Council moved to contact Peter Marshall of Municipal Resources Inc. to see if he would meet with us and outline our options and ideas for a manager search and selection and possibly functioning in the interim. Peter Marshall assisted council in its previous manager search that resulted in the hiring of Ryan. I think everyone on council at the time was more than pleased with his work and the approach we took for selection of a new manager under his tutelage.

It is going to be a difficult search, and it can’t help but also present some operational difficulties for the city. Certainly some of the things those of us on council individually or collectively would have liked to see made a short-term priority will have to be put off.

I suspect this transition is going to be harder than the last, in part because we no longer have an assistant city manager to step in on a temporary basis.

I have to close this column by noting that I’m amazed, frustrated and bemused at some of the rumors circulating in the community that have reached my ears, and I suspect I only hear a fraction.  I know of no conspiracy, no “done deal” for a replacement or any of the other many things that are being said, or alluded.  I don't think anyone else on council does either.

Expectations

I’ve come to realize that one of the greatest hurdles
council and its members as individual face are the expectations.
And I think this is particularly true during the first few
months of a new council.
Backers of candidates who won election hope for something
different, even if they are not entirely sure what that should be, but that
does not decrease the expectation.
Supporters of losing candidates tend to say to the winners,”
OK, you won, now what are you going to do about this, this or this”, and expect,
perhaps demand, that the new council prove it can do better than the last.
And members of council face their own expectations. Every person who runs for council has a desire
to see things improve financially and socially, and wants to see that happen
quickly. If elected they soon learn the stark reality that there is no quick
when it comes to changing a community’s fortunes for the better, or often even
accomplishing one significant task, such as demolition of the Brody block or
tearing down blighted housing.
Oil City whether as a community or as Oil City government is
greatly constrained, as is every city in the Commonwealth. It is a matter of money, a matter of state
mandates and limitations on the options available to cities; the community’s
demographics, geography and even how government is designed to work.
So many expectations, or at least quick gratification, will
not be met. Progress is a process.
Add to this that whenever there is a new council (by that I
mean new members) there is a bit of a dance that occurs. The group dynamics
have changed and every member of council must come to understand how the others
think and how all will work together. And the one expectation everyone should
have and that should be met is that council always works cooperatively. That
does not mean always agreeing, or even avoiding spirited dissent or discussion,
but an understanding that we are all there for the same reason.
Fortunately, that has largely been the case for as long as I
have been on council.

The after election

Sometimes the after-election period is harder on a
community than the pre-election campaign frenzy.
After all, once the votes are counted there are going to
be some people that will fee, well, like
losers. And I don’t necessarily mean the candidates.
People support a candidate because they believe in the
candidate and at some level that means they invest themselves personally in the
candidate and all they think the candidate has done, will do and stands for. By extension, that means at best that the
other guy is not up to the standards of your guy and that the electorate
failed.
There has been some of that thinking exhibited in a
couple of recent letters to the editor in the local paper, a handful of
Facebook posts that I’ve come across and more than a few comments on the
street.
Losing is hard, but I can’t help but think the best way
to honor a losing candidate is to remain involved in the affairs of the city,
its numerous community groups and activities. An initiative identified with one
candidate or another is not dependent on the candidate, but with the people who
support it and want to see it succeed. An election might mean a change in
direction or a new way of achieving that success, but it does not have to mean
failure for one group or another.
I am speaking here very specifically of politics at the
local level.
The winners of the election and their backers need to be magnanimous
in victory. And just as vital to the community is for supporters of the
election losers to be magnanimous in defeat. Human nature being what it is,
that might be the much harder of the two.
However, Oil City needs it.
Our problems are huge and we must work together. That doesn’t
mean we won’t disagree and even argue, but it does mean we should wish all well
and each of us do what we can to save our community. It means you work for what
you believe in for the community, and not just to bring someone else down.

More on the Ramp

As nearly everyone knows, city council voted last week to not spend another $260,000 on repairs, stopping the work on the parking ramp and instead shuttering it until it can be demolished.

It was not a good choice, for there were no “good” choices. For me, and I suspect for other members of council as well, it was simply the best of the bad.

Without the ramp, I worry about trying to attract more northside businesses and downtown residents with greatly reduced parking options. I have much the same parking concern when it comes to our growing downtown events, such as the Indie music and film festivals, and of course Oil Heritage Week.

The fact we will have a building anchoring a downtown corner that will continue to deteriorate and look it until we can find the money to tear it down is both unappealing and frustrating.

But to some extent, having thought of those things we can at least search for solutions.

It is what we have not thought about that is most troubling, To be sure, there will be unintended consequences. There always are.

One of my greatest fears as a councilman has been that some decision council makes no matter how well meaning becomes what I call a cascade event, setting in motion a series of negative events that end up having major costs to the city, whether economic or social. You always hope it goes the other way, but you never know and it might well be the next generation that finds out.

So, you tread gingerly and try to make the best of bad options.

And I suspect there are going to be more and more situations where there are no good choices, just lesser of bad. Oil City and really all of Pennsylvania’s core communities are facing perhaps the greatest challenges since the Great Depression, maybe even more so.

Between the rock and the hard place

Thursday council will have to make a decision on whether to continue with the current repairs on the parking ramp, or close it and save the remaining money – about $300,000 -- borrowed through a bond offering to repair the ramp.

There is no good decision, just what will be the best for the community of a number of bad options. And no matter what decision is reached Thursday, that is not the end of it.

If repairs continue and the ramp reopened, the city must decide whether to undertake more extensive repairs and major maintenance in the future to extend its life and the huge financial commitment that requires, or if it is just going to buy some time. If closed, attention must turn to its demolition, estimated to cost at least $1.3 million.


Right now – Monday evening, Oct. 10 – I’m leaning towards completing the current repairs, to buy the time to sort out the many issues related to the ramp, our downtown and parking and to develop a long-term plan for whatever the eventual outcome, including the financing.

Unfortunately, I can not attend Thursday’s council meeting due to having to be away on business. It’s quite possible that my current view would be changed by those discussions, and of course whatever recommendations City Manager Ryan Eggleston makes.

Today in a brief discussion with me the City Manager did a good job of outlining the pros and cons of both continuing and stopping work and closing the ramp for me. There are still a number of questions outstanding that would impact the pros and cons.

Whatever decision is made Thursday, I personally believe this council must come up with a definitive resolution over the next few months. It would be unfair and irresponsible to “kick the can down the road” and leave the question and costs of either demolition or renovation to some future council.

There is no easy answer to the problems presented by the ramp. Every answer is costly and potentially financially devastating to the city and every answer carries with it its own set of problems for our downtown and community.

The city (council) is truly between the rock and the hard place on this one, or perhaps the phrase should be between the concrete and asphalt.

On Capital Needs and Reality

A few weeks ago City Council received a Capital Improvements Plan that outlines capital expenditure needs through 2016.

The plan was developed by the Community Development Office and reviewed and modified by the Planning Commission.

I’ve been a bit surprised there has not been more discussion about this, not by council, but by the local news media and community in general.

The problem is that despite being identified as “needs” – and many truly are – it is largely a wish list. There simply is not the money or the popular will to raise the money necessary to undertake even a tiny fraction of what is outlined in the plan.

Take street paving as one glaring example. The plan states the city should undertake $500,000 in paving in each of the next five years, for a total of $2.5 million. Looking at current funding levels using general fund, state liquid fuels and CDBG monies, the paving is under funded by $300,000 a year, for a total of $1.5 million by the end of 2016.

To raise an additional $300,000 a year would require approximately a 1.6 mill increase in real estate taxes.

And even spending $500,000 a year I have doubts if we would truly reach a state of paving equilibrium. The industry standard calls for repaving every 10 years.

When residents complain about why their street is not repaved the answer is simple: there is not the money. That has been the problem faced by every council for a generation.

Other infrastructure needs are equally as pressing and often even more costly. (As I write this, I received a call that the parking ramp might need a lot more in repairs than we planned) And the city’s facility and equipment needs are staggering.

And as any homeowner knows, putting off repairs and not replacing faulty equipment only leads to greater costs in the future.

Of course there is always borrowing, but that’s only spreading the costs out, often longer than whatever was paid for by borrowing.

Oil City is not alone in this predicament. Nearly every core community in the Commonwealth is in the same situation.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that all of us must take a realistic look at what is possible, what we expect and what we are willing to give or give up.

I also know that the state needs to provide some long-term solutions for core communities, including addressing the issue of the high-percentage of tax exempt properties, distributing the costs for regional assets and leveling the playing field for all classes of municipalities.

(I need to also mention that a number of comments to previous blog posts were inadvertently and permanently deleted. I apologize.)

Feeling like a hostage

The city and its workers, like many other employers and employees in western Pennsylvania are caught in the fight between UPMC and Highmark BC/BS.

I can’t help but feel UPMC is holding us hostage.

As most already know, UPMC refused to negotiate a new agreement with Highmark, one of the region’s largest health insurance providers, after Highmark agreed to buy into the troubled West Penn Allegheny Health Systems. The Allegheny system was in danger of financially collapsing without finding a partner. If that were to happen, hospitals would likely have been shuttered and a lot of people left without services or health care providers. In addition, it would have given UPMC a near monopoly in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area.

UPMC announced that since Highmark would be a provider, not just an insurer, it could not do business with it. As a result, there would be no new contract when the current contract with Highmark expires on June 30, 2012.

Those with Highmark BC/BS insurance would be “out of system” and have to pay much higher fees for using a UPMC hospital and the many doctors and others who are either employed directly by or are contractually within the UPMC system.

I find it ironic that UPMC does not want to do business with Highmark because it would be both a provider and an insurer, when that is exactly how UPMC operates.

The UPMC propaganda machine has been working overtime on putting its spin on things. City council has received two very pointed letters from UPMC officials, and UPMC has really been on the front-end of the media push, at least in northwestern Pennsylvania.

In the latest letter, Gregory Peaslee, UPMC senior vice president, noted that UPMC is very concerned that the city’s employees continue to have access to UPMC physicians and hospitals.

I bet not has concerned as I am. City employees do not have a lot of choice. UPMC is the local hospital and most of the local doctors are in the UPMC system. Sure, someone could go to Titusville or Clarion, but the truth is UPMC has a local monopoly and has just moved to strengthen that.

Bear in mind, the city and its employees selected Highmark BC/BS over competing plans, including UPMC Health Plan, because it was the best value.

To make its position more palatable, or at least sound that way, UPMC has announced it has gotten four other insurers to come on board. There is some argument that that will result in more competition than has existed in the past in western Pennsylvania and therefore lower comparable costs going forward.

Still, I can’t help by view what UPMC is doing as a squeeze play and yet another attempt to assert its hegemony in the region.

Face it, UPMC has not exactly been a gentle giant when it comes to dealings with the remaining independent local hospitals in the region, such as Titusville or Clarion. If you doubt that, talk to the people in the know at those facilities.

The merger of our local hospital(s) into UPMC brought us a beautiful, new hospital. I’m not sure what other benefits have accrued.

Many “back office” jobs have been shipped off to Pittsburgh. It strikes me that a lot of people are now sent to UPMC’s Pittsburgh centers for procedures that use to occur locally and we have not gained the promised increase in specialists, and in fact have fewer of some than we did before.

And now UPMC is saying it won’t play ball with the city’s current health care insurance provider.

I’m sure Highmark BC/BS is no business saint – I’ve had my share of disputes with them – but UPMC is really something else.

In response to the question

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The ORA, the County and Just What Do We Expect": Hi John. I miss your insight and additional source of information. Did you give up on your endeavor?

I guess the honest answer is I did give up for a while. The reasons are many.

First, I reached a point where I wasn’t sure I had much to say worthwhile and also began to question whether more than a handful of people cared in any case. I also feared I was in danger of becoming “snarky” about a couple of things that went on, and I don’t like that in others, let alone myself.

On a more personal level, I went through a bit of a mentally down period dealing with the continued frustration of unemployment and trying to hustle and complete some freelancing and consulting work. On the upbeat side, I’m once again gainfully employed, but have been awfully busy settling into the new job and we are also now grandparents (Samantha Audean Bartlett) and I have to say that has been the focus of a lot of my life.

And there is yet one other reason I hadn’t posted for the past two months: my computer ineptitude resulted in getting me locked out of the blog site after I changed a number of e-mail addresses and servers. Obviously, I’ve figured that out.

I do have a sense of not meeting a commitment I made, and for that I apologize.

As nearly everyone knows, I am running for re-election to city council. It was a difficult decision. I don’t really find serving on council fun, but I do believe I am an important voice and I do enjoy serving the city (There being quite a difference between fun and enjoy.) I do not want this blog to be a campaign tool, but I suppose to some extent that cannot be helped for better or worse.

So, time to comment on a couple of recent city issues.

First, council has taken some criticism – one individual in particular – about the purchase of a new aerial platform truck for the Fire Department. Believe me, no one on council spent $940,000 without a lot of thinking and soul searching.

Personally, I don’t think we had a choice. Our old snorkel truck would soon be unable to pass certification of the aerial devices. No responsible person would ask any firefighter or any other worker to use equipment that was dangerous and that could endanger lives if it failed.
Repairs to the snorkel would have run a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more with no guarantee of how long it would remain serviceable. Everyday parts for repair of the non-chassis equipment were also becoming increasingly difficult to find.

There are those who argue the city does not need a platform truck. I have to disagree, and I understand that insurance rating agencies do as well. Only a platform truck can reach the top floors for rescue and/or get water above four of the senior citizen high-rises, a number downtown buildings and our larger apartment complexes. In addition, even the lower buildings in our downtown by virtue of having joined walls, etc. require an aerial attack. Hitting them with streams of water from the ground is not sufficient. It becomes the difference between losing a building and losing a block. I’ve also been told by a number of firefighters, that given some of the slopes in residential areas, the aerial is important there as well.

(In the interest of full disclosure, my son is an Oil City firefighter.)

Our fire chief was able to secure a federal grant that covered more than a third of the cost of the truck. That money might not have been there if we waited out of hope for some better times, and the cost of the equipment would only increase.

And finally, a quick note on two other city items.

YESSS!, as you all know the city received Main Street Program designation. A Main Street manager should be aboard shortly. I firmly believe the future is looking increasingly bright for our downtown.

And, I’m deeply concerned about the 2012 budget, and we haven’t even started talking about it yet. Times remain tough, but you have to keep enough intact to be poised for a revival.

2011

Well it is 2011, a municipal election year.

I’m entering my fourth and final year of my term of office, along with that of Mayor Sonja Hawkins and Councilman Lee Mehlburger.

I will soon have to make a decision on whether to run for reelection, seek some other office or do neither and take life easy. I honestly don’t know what I’m going to do. I enjoy being on council and I like to think I’ve served the city well, but I would not call serving on council fun. I find there is a lot of agonizing and a lot of lying awake at night. As with everything, there are times it is more difficult, more frustrating than other times.

Time marches on and we can only guess what 2011 will bring for the city and what challenges for council.

I’m optimistic on several fronts, and concerned on many others.

I remain hopeful that the city will receive Main Street designation and Main Street program funding. I’m also convinced that whether or not we gain the designation, we are going to find a way to have a comparable downtown program.

I think the long dilemma of the Brody Block will come to an end this year. We need to credit the Oil Region Alliance and the Oil City Redevelopment Authority for their willingness to step up to the plate and assume some risk.

Our Waterways Study will soon be completed and it provides a good outline for better utilization of the river and Oil Creek to the economic, recreational and social benefit of the city. The difficulty will be in finding a way to fund some of the suggestions. Of course, much can be done with little or no money, and we will need to quickly implement those low-cost projects. I suspect we can also think a bit outside the box and look to more public/private partnerships to bring some of the other ideas to fruition.

On the concern side of things I’m really worried that the state will push a lot of its budget problems down onto municipalities, notably the state’s cities. I suspect this will come in many ways. Taxpayers need to understand that what they think of as savings at the state level could easily cost them a lot more at the local level.

The city’s long-term financial viability remains a great concern. We must continue to “right size”, but we also need to preserve core functions. I’m sure in coming years there will be never-ending debates as to what is a core function.

There is no shortage of things that council needs to think about.

On Approach & an assistant city manager's title

You probably read in Wednesday’s paper the move by some council members to eliminate the position of assistant city manager and that I voted against the motion.

First, I think the approach was deeply flawed. The issue was brought up at the last minute as addition to the published agenda; and not for general discussion, but for the purpose of voting on a motion “directing the city manager to draft a resolution eliminating the assistant manager’s position.”

I strongly believe that the appropriate way to raise such issues is to inform council and residents of the city at a public meeting that you would like discussion of a certain subject, etc. placed on the agenda for a future meeting. That way, everyone knows what will be coming up and there will be no surprises, no one will feel blindsided and the public has the opportunity to respond proactively and not after the fact.

Furthermore, I strongly believe there should be general discussion prior to development of a specific directive to the city manager, ordinance, or other item. The idea should be to allow for as broad as input as possible early rather than later.

At the council meeting I asked the maker of the motion to amend it to simply place discussion of the position on the agenda for the following meeting. I would have supported that and been willing to argue the merits for the position at the appropriate time. My request was refused.

The approach taken offends me, which I let my fellow members of council know on Monday, just as did the approach taken calling a special meeting on the Administrative Code, which came in the form of a letter rather than at a public meeting.

Frankly, doing things that way strikes me as bully tactics and it makes hard for me to trust some fellow members of council. I don’t think that is good for the city.

As for the call to eliminate the position, which is only eliminating the title, I don’t get.

The assistant city manager’s position is just one of many hats worn by Janet Gatesman, who among other things is also the director of Community Development. It costs the city nothing and is a cheap way to ensure continuity in the event of illness or any other absence of the city manager. Perhaps more importantly, I think it allows for better coordination at the highest administrative levels of the city.

Those who oppose the title claim it takes focus away from community and economic development. I don’t believe it, and I find that argument somewhat specious. I can’t help but wonder if there is not something else all together behind it.

And finally, the city faces huge issues such as the parking garage, long-overdue capital improvements and purchases, blight, declining tax base, etc. etc. Why are we creating controversies where there is no need? Sometimes, even if you don’t like something or want to change something, the best thing to do is to let it go and get on with more important things.

Frustrating absurdities and links with seeds

There is a cut-stone culvert probably better than a century old that carries a small stream and storm sewer collection beneath West First Street, a state highway. It is in danger of collapsing, a problem discovered quite by chance. The City of Oil City is responsible for its repair or replacement.

If that culvert was a mile further west where West First Street turns into Deep Hollow Road at the Cranberry Township line, the responsibility for its repair or replacement would fall on the state.

For some inexplicable reason, the state requires cities to pick up more costs for under-road infrastructure than it does of townships. That is an incredible additional burden for taxpayers in Pennsylvania’s cities, and means that in effect they are subsidizing their suburban neighbors.

I just learned of this and verified it with PennDOT officials.

The playing field needs to be leveled if our cities are going to be able to compete and thrive, but I have no expectation that the state legislature will anytime soon do anything to address such inequities.

My other big frustrating absurdity in recent weeks is best summed up by quoting Dickens – although a bit out of context: “the law is an ass.”

A couple of years ago in response to growing concerns, the city adopted an ordinance placing a number of restrictions on the operation of outdoor woodburners.

A city resident, unhappy with the restrictions, built a shed around his outdoor woodburner, claiming it was no longer an “outdoor” woodburner. District Judge Doug Dinberg ruled in favor of that interpretation.

Understand, the woodburner was installed as an outdoor woodburner, sold as an outdoor woodburner, advertised by the manufacturer as an outdoor woodburner and many outdoor woodburners now come with a metal, shed-like covering.

I’m no judge or lawyer, but ruling that by putting a shed up around an outdoor woodburner makes it something else entirely flies in the face of reason.

I suspect council will quickly amend the ordinance to prevent such sidestepping of its intent.

A person who commented on my previous blog post put up a link to an interesting article I thought worth sharing, along with a couple of others I’ve come across in recent weeks.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/09/05/how_to_shrink_a_city/?page=full

http://shareable.net/blog/what-so-called-slums-can-teach-american-cities

http://web.mit.edu/dusp/dusp_extension_unsec/people/faculty/lhoyt/Hoyt_Leroux_FC.pdf

I think all three might contain at least seeds for thought that can be helpful to Oil City.

Zoning Discussions

Council has blocked off a half-hour at tonight’s meeting (7-26) to begin some serious discussion on a totally revamped zoning ordinance for the city.

This is a critical issue and of great importance to all residents, whether they know it or not. I personally believe zoning can be a tool to help prevent deterioration of neighborhoods, spur development and ensure the best and highest use of available land and in general create a more viable and pleasant community.

I know not everyone thinks like that.

The re-do of the zoning ordinance has been planned and is being done in conjunction with the multiple-municipal comprehensive plan, although it is a separate project. As such, there has already been some limited public discussion about changes, notably to “up-zoning” several residential areas.

Currently we only have two residential categories: R-1 and R-2.

The R-1 district represents generally the area with the largest lots and newest developments. It is limited to single-family homes. The R-2 district is generally areas with smaller lots and allows for multi-family units.

I for one favor and I think there is consensus to creating additional R-1 districts (A-B etc. based on lot size) to bring several of the current R-2 neighborhoods into the single-family residence category. I believe this will tend to preserve several neighborhoods by making fewer rental units available and in a round-about way support home ownership. It is important to remember that the exhaustive study of county housing said strongly that additional lower-cost rental units are not needed in Oil City and in fact can be detrimental to the overall market.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to me why under our existing zoning categories we encourage transformation of single-family homes into two or more family rental units where the lots are the smallest and the parking issues often the greatest.

Currently we only have one industrial category and do not differentiate between heavy and light industry. The Industrial zones are located in a wide sweep along the river on the West End, East End, Siverly and downstream from Relief Street along Route 8. There is also an industrial zone along Oil Creek and extending along parts of Seneca Street and “inland” to Duncomb.

Much of what is zoned industrial on the southside has great potential for other uses and little industrial development potential. That needs to be changed. Furthermore, I think it would make sense to make the industrial zone in the West End light industrial to better reflect the adjoining property uses and what is actually there now.

I would like to see creation of a special “Waterfront” zoning category that would encourage residential development and recreational businesses, such as restaurants, etc. to best make use of the waterfronts. There needs to be a lot of thought given to what would be appropriate and how to use zoning to preserve viewscapes, etc.

The areas I would place in that “waterfront” zoning category include:
1) Between Route 62 and the river from Pumphouse Road to Veteran’s Bridge.
2) Everything on the river side of Front Street (perhaps North Street) from Petroleum Street to at least Blair Street and then extending on the river side of the old railroad right-of-way to the city line.
3. Colbert Avenue to the river out to the Industrial Park and then upstream of the Industrial Park to the end of Colbert and then all the remaining upstream property within the city.

Perhaps a “waterfront” area overlay for our downtown commercial districts would also be beneficial.

Obviously we need to take a look at the former hospital property, now zoned as residential office to see if the uses prescribed in that zoning category still fit.

Oil City does not have a lot of remaining undeveloped land, but for what we do have I think it would behoove us to explore zoning rules that provide for single-residence and townhouse condominium developments that are of growing popularity.

Council will have a lot to think about and the staff a lot of work as we develop a comprehensive zoning ordinance update. Our residents need to speak up and express their desires and concerns as well, and sooner rather than later.

The State and Oil City

Make no mistake about it, the budget crisis facing the state is going to have a direct impact on Oil City and the region, and it is not likely to be good.

The question is how bad will it get?

We need to be prepared and we need to fight for those programs we think critical to our future.

Among the state programs high on my priority list are the Main Street Program and Weed and Seed.

In the budget proposals now floating around Harrisburg both are slated for significant cuts, in some proposals to virtual elimination. Both programs have had real success in local communities, revitalizing many of the state’s older cities. Oil City is poised to be a beneficiary, but will largely lose that opportunity if deep cuts are made to those programs, flushing countless hours of local work down the tubes.

The Oil City Weed and Seed program was just approved and funded by the state after months of local efforts to make it a reality. It makes no sense to me for the state to initiate the program and then cut it just as it begins to make a difference.

Main Street is much the same story. The community really came together to develop a Main Street Program application, including detailed five-year plans and raising more than $100,000 in local money to match and leverage state funding. We – the community – did our part in good faith. The state legislature needs to follow through.

I recognize the financial problems facing the state and nation. We are in an era of tough choices and we must get our fiscal house in order. But if we don’t save our communities what do we have?

I also recognize that I am like most and somewhat hypocritical when it comes to state and federal government programs. What benefits me and my community I view as essential, what benefits someone else’s community (especially if it is Philadelphia or Pittsburgh) is pork and waste.

We are all going to have to make compromises and that means a willingness to look at the needs of others.

And that comes back to prioritizing based on real needs and real value.

I wonder if our legislature is up to that or if this year will be like past years; simply Pennsylvania politics as usual – posturing for political gain, acting on personal animosities and a concern for “what can I get” rather than what will benefit the Commonwealth.

On Being Back and On Not being Snide

It’s been way too long since I’ve blogged – 11 weeks to be exact since I put up a new blog and seven since the last post on the subject.

A regular reader/commenter made that clear with the following note:

“John,Time for a new blog buddy.”

He’s absolutely right. And I need to make a commitment to blog more regularly. To do so you might see a slight change in format on occasion where I will put up more of random thoughts on a variety of topics, rather than focus on one basic subject. I might even veer off of government and local issues on occasion. But more than anything, I hope that all of you will participate, but remember the basic ground rules and understand that when the end of a subject is reached I reserve the right to call a halt so that we don’t simply continue going round and round.

So to get back in the saddle I thought I would write a bit about the writing exercise that runs in the Derrick on Fridays called the Spray.

Simply put, I don’t like it. I’m not sure what it is supposed to be or what purpose it is supposed to serve, but so often I find its comments snide.

Among the primary definitions of snide are: derogatory in a malicious, superior way; contemptuous; disdainful; supercilious. The secondary definitions include: counterfeit; sham.

(I might add that if I spoke or acted in any of those ways growing up it would have resulted in pretty serious lecture from my mum, if not also a crack on the rear. They are not admirable traits.)

I think both the primary and secondary definitions pretty much describe what is too often found in the Spray. Certainly, at least from my point of view, that was the case last Friday with a remark regarding the Main Street Program.

Main Street volunteers interviewed in a recent article said one way to brighten up the downtown would be to put up window displays in vacant buildings. They were not suggesting that as the ultimate idea or a long-term solution to our downtown’s ills, but simply a quick stop-gap measure that could clean things up a bit. It makes sense to me, both as a resident and a member of the Main Street Steering Committee.

But apparently the anonymous staff writer at the Derrick who commented in the Spray, which is always anonymous, did not think much of it, and did not put it in context. If you read the comment, you understand. I’m not going to bother repeating it because it isn’t worthy of repeating. I will say it was derogatory in a malicious, superior way contemptuous, disdainful, supercilious and counterfeit and sham -- in a word, SNIDE.

Positive and effective criticism is not snide. It is important and beneficial. It is how ideas and concepts are fully vetted and lead to the best outcome possible. I strongly wish the Derrick/News would do more of that with real editorials, a willingness to take a stand, more local columnists with signed commentary and by supporting in-depth reporting.

I’m not bashing the Derrick/News Herald. There is a strong tendency to do that, and it’s unfair. Actually, there is a long tradition in this country of loving to hate your local paper wherever you happen to be.

We are blessed to have a local daily newspaper. It is important to the community. It remains the best way to stay informed on local issues and its reporting is pretty good.

It would be a better paper if it dropped the snide comments in the Spray and stepped up to the plate and put some thought and effort into developing real editorials and adding some thoughtful local commentary and we would be a better community for it.

The ORA, the County and Just What Do We Expect

This morning (Feb. 25) I attended the annual meeting of the Oil Region Alliance as a representative of the city.

(I think I was the only Democrat there, which is not unusual for Venango County.)

Of course, the ORA was also in this morning’s paper with the announcement that the county intended to close this morning on the purchase of the West Unit from the Alliance. The deal has come under a great deal of criticism, as does the ORA on a somewhat regular basis.

Frankly, most of the criticism is not constructive and much of it unwarranted if not simply specious. My personal opinion is that more of the non-constructive criticism has to do with personalities and politics than the work of the economic development agency and that is not good for the county and our future.

I was not privy to the details when ORA purchased the West Unit and in turn leased it to the county, nor am I privy to all the background and details of the current deal selling the West Unit to the county.

My understanding is that the previous board of commissioners asked the ORA to structure a package to obtain the West Unit so that the county could centralize all its human service agencies. The county thought it would be able to cover the lease costs through state reimbursements, avoid the burden of owning the building and in turn the ORA would have an income stream.

However, circumstances changed with the decrease in state reimbursements and the county found the state funds would no longer cover the lease costs. It then determined it would be better to own the building. The ORA struck a deal to sell the West Unit to the county. The deal gives the ORA $1 million for the buy out of the county’s lease. A lot is being made of that, claiming it is a bad deal for county taxpayers.

But is it? As I understand it, the county still saves money in the long term, and just as importantly the ORA is left with some money to undertake economic development.

How exactly are we to do economic development if we are unwilling to pay for it? To me, the county deals, both the original one and this one, sound like a win-win – maybe not perfect, but better than anything else I’ve heard.

I understand there can be differing views of the deal between the county and the ORA, and of the agency itself.

Still, I’ve not heard the critics suggest a better way of funding economic development or any specifics of how to do a better job. I have heard a lot of potshots claiming the ORA is a failure. That’s not constructive criticism, but rather meaningless chatter.

The absolute most BS criticism I’ve heard was from a local businessman who said – and I paraphrase – “our unemployment has gone up under the ORA’s watch.” We are in the midst of the worst economic times since the Great Depression; just what would one expect?

ORA officials can point and did this morning to a number of very specific successes over the past year. Among them: Conair and WS Packaging (formerly Seneca Printing). Both companies could have been lost, but were kept here and are growing. They need to be given some credit for what they have done and continue to do.

I’m not beyond criticizing the ORA. I believe the leadership has too often been tone deaf and unable to grasp how some things they do individually or as an agency will be perceived and what the implications of that will be. High on my list of examples is ORA executives making personal political contributions to local candidates. That is bound to create political enemies. More importantly, the agency must strive to be absolutely politically neutral and perceptions play a huge role in that.

I have a real fear that the critics of the ORA/County deal will never let it go, that they won’t be able to say we lost, but let’s move on. That does not seem to be the way things are done in Venango County and we pay a price for that. (Think of the never ending threats of lawsuits whenever a decision is reached that some people don’t like)

The ORA is not perfect, but it is the economic development agency we have. Let’s work to strengthen it, not destroy it. If we criticize, let’s have workable suggestions for improvement in hand. We need everyone’s help.

Two Down

Well, here we are in 2010. I have completed my first two years on council.

I think everyone would agree that 2009 was a daunting year. We dealt with the retirement of long-time city manager Tom Rockovich and found Ryan Egleston to replace him. I think we did well.

Council faced a huge budget deficit largely as a result of a 30 percent increase in health insurance costs as it began development of the 2010 budget, and Ryan was thrown into it on his first day on the job. Cuts were made – some only delaying the inevitable such as paving – and taxes were raised to balance the budget. It was something no one wanted to do, but it was what had to be done – at least that’s my take.

Obviously the state of the economy impacts our community just as it does elsewhere. That no doubt will make 2010 equally as troubling from an economic perspective.

We must try to find additional operating efficiencies and perhaps all new ways of delivering services and doing business. Success in that endeavor is not guaranteed. There are no magic wands or pixie dust, nor a pot of gold to be found. I’ve said only half in jest that perhaps the best thing would be to put a line item in the budget of $104 dedicated to the purchase of a Powerball tickets every Wednesday and Saturday.

Still, I firmly believe the city is moving forward. The Main Street Program is advancing rapidly. The Waterways study will be wrapping up. The Arts Revitalization has succeeded in bringing people to Oil City and promises to have much more success. There are many other examples.

It will be an interesting, difficult and exciting time for our two new councilmen, Bill Moon and Venice Lewis, as it will for all of us on council.

The 2010 Budget -- Take 2

After council’s budget directives to City Manager Ryan Eggleston on Monday, I’m not sure where we are going with the 2010 budget.

The city manager came to the Monday meeting with a pared down budget/tax proposal as requested by city council at its Nov 23 meeting.

Largely as a result of a 34 percent increase in health insurance costs, the city’s 2010 expenses were greatly inflated even as some revenues dropped. To maintain the status quo required a 1.5-mill hike in real estate taxes. On first reading council approved the budget and accompanying tax hike on a 4-to-1vote. However, council also directed the manager to try to cut costs and pare down the tax increase.

By negotiating some savings in health and other insurance costs Ryan got the tax hike down to 1.25 mills and then gave council two additional options. Cut the money for paving in half, bringing the tax hike needed to balance the budget down to 1 mill and the second option was to do that and not fill a vacancy in the police ranks, which would bring the tax increase to .8 mills.

The majority of council held out for a no-tax-hike budget. So Monday night council on second reading approved a no-tax-hike budget by decreasing the budget’s bottom line. How to achieve that was left up to the city manager.

I went along and voted for it to keep the budget process on schedule. I voiced my concerns, but not as forcefully as I should have. (A long-time friend made the latter comment to me after the meeting and I’ve been reflecting on it ever since).

I know that every member of council is troubled and sincere in believing the position they have taken is best for the city.

I think there are worst things than a tax increase. Among them the further decline of the services and conditions of the city. I fear that will be the outcome if we insist on a no-tax-increase budget –we just dig a deeper hole. Certainly I hope someone finds a magic wand and brings about an easy way to cut costs the necessary additional $232,000, but that is not my expectation.

To me, the mandated no-tax-hike approach we are using is reactionary. We don’t know what the real consequences are since the cuts are not fully vetted, nor can they be over the next three weeks. There is no strategic planning to the process. The lack of strategic planning has long been a weakness of city government.

Any cuts that force a fundamental restructuring, and it is likely some would, are also unfair to the new city manager. We need to give him the opportunity to see how the city operates and make his own recommendations for the long-term. Four weeks on the job does not allow for that.

Councilman Neil McElwee has a good point about our real estate tax rate putting us at a competitive disadvantage, especially against the neighboring townships. Raising our taxes will only make that worse.

Still, if our core services and the conditions of the city continue to decline are we not also becoming less competitive?

I don’t know what I will or will not accept at next Monday’s council meeting either in terms of cuts or tax increase. Right now, I’m favoring a tax increase over further cuts. Right now, that is the minority opinion on council, but things change.

The 2010 Budget -- Take 1

I suspect everyone is acquainted with the budget/tax issue facing the city.

On first reading, the 2010 budget required a 1.5-mill increase in property taxes, which was approved on a 4-1 vote. That amounts to an increase of $72 a year for the owner of the average residential property in the city.

(The median residential property value in the city is $48,000. Each mill is one-tenth of a cent. To find how much a 1.5- mill real estate tax increase would come to on any specific property, multiply the assessed value by .0015.)

The 2010 budget-buster is an increase of about 34 percent, or roughly $250,000, in health insurance premiums. The city is also seeing a slight drop in revenues from both real estate taxes due to a decline is assessment value and from the Local Services Tax, the $52 charged everyone who works in the city.

The proposed 2010 budget as given initial approval does nothing more than marginally maintain the current level of city services and activities. The 1.5-increase in real estate taxes balanced it on first reading as is required by law.

Everyone on council found the budget and tax increase troubling. And I can tell you with certainty that no one on council relishes the prospect of a tax increase. First of all it affects each of us just as it does every other property owner and to a person we have a deep understanding of the financial difficulties faced by many of our citizens. Secondly, I’m reasonably sure no one on council looks forward to the anger and criticism that will be directed at them if there is a tax increase.

I suspect each of us has different thoughts and approaches to dealing with the budget challenge. We will need to find a consensus, or at least a majority will.

It is easy to say “cut costs,” but it is much harder laying out a reasoned and successful way to do that.

My best guess is we might have some success in doing a bit of paring here and there and with the help of the city’s workforce be able to reduce our expenditures a bit and the amount of any tax increase, but unless we significantly reduce services there is no option but a tax increase. Already many of the long-term needs of the city are not being met, with street paving high on that list.

People live in the city for the services and amenities we offer – certainly I do. But as Councilman Neil McElwee pointed out our real estate tax rates can make us less competitive in attracting new residents and businesses. It is the space between the rock and the hard place.

Furthermore, I think we owe it to our new city manager to provide him a “status quo” budget and operations so that he can fully evaluate how we are doing things and come up with his own long-term strategic recommendations. Moving rashly now to cut costs would now fully allow him that opportunity.

Although I’m personally committed to maintaining our services and amenities, that does not mean I’m opposed to finding ways to do that more efficiently and less expensively.

Unfortunately, our financial inability to undertake major capital investments makes it that much harder. If we had a lot of capital money, there are quite a few things that could be done to improve efficiencies and lower long-term operating costs.

Beneath all our local budget woes, which are identical to cities across the state, are structural issues that can only be addressed by the state legislature. I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon.

The Election

What a low-key election cycle this is and yet we have an important three-way race for the two available seats on Oil City Council.

I know and like all three of the candidates: Charles T. “Chad” Rosen; Venice Lewis and William P. “Bill” Moon.

I consider all three friends. Bill is my neighbor, and you couldn’t ask for a better neighbor. I’ve known Chad most of his life, coached him in high school and of course I serve with him on council where he is filling an unexpired term. I’ve often enjoyed Venice’s company. He personifies energetic.

Oil City couldn’t go wrong with any of them.

Still, I’m sure each has some very different views on issues facing the city and differences in approach. I’m not sure if anyone knows exactly what they might be.

It is unfortunate that there has not been a candidates forum and media profiles to help draw out the differences so that voters have more to go on.

Personally, I believe moderated candidate forums with appropriate media coverage are one of the best approaches.

Each of the candidates is working hard. Voters will have to do some work as well to ensure that the ballots they cast reflect their personal beliefs in the future of the city.