March, 24, 2023
What happened at the last meeting?
When it came time to vote on approval of the minutes from the February 13, 2023 commission meeting, I pointed out that they were incorrect in that they reflected a payment of $1600.00 for a contractor to perform work around city hall. Click here to review that newsletter. The actual cost was $2,000.00. I also pointed out that the description of a vote and then a formal vote was not an actual reflection of what transpired at the February 13, 2023 commission meeting. First, state law does not provide a distinction between “a vote” and a “formal vote.” I guess the purpose of the first, apparently an “informal vote,” was to pole the commission to learn in advance how they would vote at the formal proceeding. This is inconsistent with state law and certainly not a reflection of the spirit or intent of our legislators when they adopted the sunshine law to regulate public meetings.
The mayor asserted that there was no sunshine violation by conducting a vote by email because he could co-mingle his $1000.00 discretionary funds with those of the city clerk (another $1000.00) to come up with the $2000.00. This fails for a couple of reasons: 1st, obviously the contract was for $2200.00 and 2nd, our city ordinance, Sec. 2-324-Open Market Procedures, requires that “all purchases in excess of $1000.00 shall be approved in advance by the city commission. This barrier to validating the mayor’s explanation was amply explained to him by our city attorney Scott Simpson at the February 27th commission meeting. To view this exchange click here.
At the very same meeting our city administrator attempted to explain the voting indiscretion to the public by claiming that “The reason why I needed this done prior (I guess she means prior to the vote), is the community garden is also part of our Brownfield grant assessment and they wanted to be able to do a second testing and they wanted to do that testing under the concrete.” Once the Mayor’s explanation of co-mingling funds got shot down by the city attorney, he changed his explanation. At the March 13, 2023 he made the claim that the reason for the email vote to approve funds was because the slab removal was of such importance that it rose to the level of a public emergency as it presented a danger to the public. He cited the Brownsfield organization’s request during his account.
On March 16, 2023 I sent and email to Shawn Lasseter, Senior Project Manager for Stantec, a contractor for the Brownfield organization, asking if they (Stantec) had requested that the city remove the concrete slab as a condition for completing a phase II assessment of the Flamingo road property. Mr. Lasseter’s response was to say “Stantec did not request removal of the concrete.” This response flies in the face of the description provided by our Mayor and city administrator and should concern all citizens of Oak Hill.
Sec. 14-103. – Terminology and standards, describes what emergency work is. The ordinance states that “Emergency work means any work performed for the purposes of preventing or alleviating physical trauma or property damage threatened or caused by an existing or imminent peril.” When you think about this definition, keep in mind that the report from Stantec describing their findings from their Phase I assessment of the property found no indication that the property was contaminated but “out of an abundance of caution,” because the property was slated to be used as a community garden, they recommended the Phase II assessment be completed. The mayor’s declaration of an emergency at the March 13th meeting fails to meet the definition of emergency work. The idea that he would invoke his emergency powers as a convenience to avoid accountability is disturbing.
What’s Coming up
Workshop
Monday March 27,2023 5:00 PM – for adoption of:
1) Quasi-Judicial Procedures.
If you remember from my very first newsletter back on November 12, 2022, a quasi-judicial hearing typically deals with zoning code, variances, special exceptions, subdivision plats and rezoning to RPUD. As written, this document will limit the rights of citizens to organize and speak out in opposition of a proposed development and strengthen the power of the city and developer. The document further seeks to take authority away from the commission and turn it over to the mayor by designating that certain actions be taken, “subject to the mayor’s approval,” where it should say subject to the approval of the commission by vote. If this resolution is adopted as currently outlined, it would take an important right away from the public by not allowing them to be a party in a quasi- judicial proceeding. Click here to view the Quasi-Judicial Procedures as currently proposed.
A citizen who is affected by a proposed development or zoning change more so than other citizens of the community should be a party to a quasi-judicial proceeding. For instance, if a citizen’s home is 300 ft from a proposed development or the citizen is required by ordinance to receive notice of the development. They are clearly party to the proceeding and should be considered so by the city. Our city should be happy to provide affected citizens with the rights afforded a party to the proceeding.
Procedures that follow state laws that apply in quasi-judicial hearings, are good, in that they provide protection to the city from lawsuits and appeals. Adoption of this resolution will leave the city open to even more legal challenges. Any party who has standing, the city, developer (applicant), or the public, should be given equal time to speak at a hearing and equal time for rebuttal.
2) Amending the purchasing procedures for our city.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
At the February 27, 2023 commission meeting, the agenda included a proposal that would increase the city administrator’s spending limit by amending the Oak Hill City ordinance for purchasing procedure. Like I said in my March 10 newsletter, there are upsides and downsides to this; the proposal would raise the city administrator’s discretionary spending from $500.00 to $5000.00.
By amending the city’s ordinance that regulate its purchasing procedure as proposed would take power away from the commission and give power to the city administrator. This would happen because the administrator would be required to notify the commission and the public after the money was spent. In other words, the city administrator would be deciding how money of $5000.00 or less would be spent and the commission and citizens would have no say in the decision-making process. Currently the commission, in advance of the expenditure, approves all purchases of 1001.00 or more.
I would say that the notice in newspaper for bidding needs to be updated. Sec. 2-317. – Formal contract procedure (b) should include other sources for providing notice that the city is accepting bids for a service.
The decision to grant these changes being discussed at Monday’s workshop would ultimately come down to how a citizen of our city feels about our city administrator’s ability to adequately serve the public and act in its best interest; and how they feel about the commission’s ability to flawlessly execute its judgment in the best interest of the community. If you believe this to be the case then our city is functioning in a way that is satisfactory to you. If not, I urge you to come to the workshop and especially the city meeting. I will be working hard at both meetings to see to it that your interests are protected.
The next Oak Hill City Commissioner’s meeting is March 27, 2023 at city hall. The time is 6:00 PM. Please come and let your voice be heard. Your presence and participation are how we hold our commission to account.
It’s my pleasure to serve you, I appreciate your support.
Joe Catigano
Oak Hill City Commissioner
Seat 3
