Solon Zoning Ordinance Section 1288.02 Item 2 T

Recently, McDonald’s Corporation approached City of Solon Planning Commission with a proposed project at the intersection of SOM Center Road and Aurora Road and requested a number of zoning variances.  The project features included a $2 million investment,  a 4,000-square-foot building and . . . → Read More: Solon Planning Commission Inconsistent With Granting Zoning Variances]]>  

Solon Zoning Ordinance Section 1288.02 Item 2 T

Recently, McDonald’s Corporation approached City of Solon Planning Commission with a proposed project at the intersection of SOM Center Road and Aurora Road and requested a number of zoning variances.  The project features included a $2 million investment,  a 4,000-square-foot building and a 20-year commitment.  Solon’s Zoning Ordinance, required that at least 81 parking spaces be provided to serve the proposed restaurant use.  As only 36 parking spaces were provided on the proposal, a 45 space parking variance was requested .

The owner of the property, Visconsi Solon Land Company Limited was agreeable to dedicating 13 feet of their property for a potential future right turn land which would have improved the the congested, high traffic volume intersection.  The high traffic volume is considered more profitable to businesses and makes this location desirable.  This request was approved by a 3-2 vote after an interesting discussion that involved among others, Kevin Westbrooks of URS and Michael Hobbs of GPD Group.  Here is an extract from the minutes of November 9th meeting of the Solon Planning Commission 

- – -

Question 7:   Explain how the number of parking spaces on the site is adequate for McDonald’s operation and why the parking variance should be approved.

Mike Hobbs of GPD Group:  He explained the approach used for this issue was to review the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) manuals that address the generation of parking requirements as well as the trip generation manual. In accordance with the parking generation manual, 31 spaces are estimated to be occupied during the peak hours based on the proposed 75 seats for the restaurant. Mr. Hobbs said the existing McDonald’s has seating to accommodate 110 patrons and, using the same calculation methods, equates to 55 parking spaces.  He said based on observations from the existing site during a busy lunch hour, there were approximately 40 patrons inside the restaurant. The majority of the patrons ordered items for carry out.  Therefore, it is believed that with the addition of a drive-through for the new restaurant, the majority of patrons would be using the drive-through.

Mr. Mike Hobbs said it is also believed, based on 65 to 75 percent of transactions occurring at the drive-through window and the ITE trip generation computations, that during the busiest hours, the proposed amount of parking spaces should satisfy the projected demand.

Kevin Westbrooks of URS:  He said the calculations used were taken from standard traffic engineering manuals and he agreed with Mr. Hobbs.  Mr. Westbrooks believes, in general, parking requirements are excessive and he feels that future requirements will call for a reduction in parking.  However, the request is for a significant parking variance which is for approximately 40 percent of what is required.

Mr. Westbrooks said the computations indicate there should be just enough parking. He believes the design should not be only for the capacity but a little extra as well.  He reviewed similar McDonald’s sites on Route 18 in the Akron/Bath area which also have double drive-thru lanes.  Mr. Westbrooks said it was important to review McDonald’s with the double drive-through lanes because it is believed that the focus for the future is to encourage drive-through traffic.  He said one of the sites had 48 parking spaces available.  He viewed it during the lunch rush and the most parking spaces utilized was 26.  Mr. Westbrooks said there was much activity in the drive-through lanes.

Mr. Westbrooks said the second McDonald’s he reviewed was in Bath and it had 58 parking spaces available and 36 were occupied. The dual drive-through lanes were very busy.  In addition, this facility had an indoor playground and there were many children using it.  He believes if there was no playground at this location, the number of occupied parking spaces would drop significantly.

Mr. Westbrooks said the calculations Mr. Hobbs provided indicates there will be enough parking spaces at the proposed location.  Mr. Westbrooks believes his research indicates the parking should be adequate.

Mr. Westbrooks addressed a previous request for a parking space variance in a strip mall area located on Aurora Road that he did not recommend for approval.  Although this was a smaller variance, he made the determination based on the calculations for capacity for that location.  The decision to grant the parking space variance would have negatively impacted the other businesses in that strip.  Whereas, the decision to grant the parking space variance for the proposed McDonald’s will only directly affect McDonald’s.

Mr. Mazur said an email with the recommended space and parking requirements for McDonald’s restaurants from McDonald’s Corporation was forwarded to the Commission.  He said the Corporation plan recommended approximately 70 parking spaces, which is much less than the proposed plan.

Councilwoman Richmond said at the previous meeting, employees using parking spaces was discussed. It was determined that many of the employees walk to work or carpool and many take the bus.  However, this could change in the future.

Mr. Westbrooks said the statistics they use to determine the numbers are based on national averages and include the employees.

Ms. Meloney Karas, McDonald’s franchisee, was present and said historically for the last 13 years, her employees have been local residents or take the bus to work.

In response to Councilwoman Richmond’s question regarding snow removal, Ms. Melony Karas said the current site lacks storage area and she has the snow hauled away. If necessary, she will have the same arrangement made for the new site.

- – -

Thomas Jewell‘s article in the Sun News, titled Proposed New McDonald’s placed on hold in Solon, refers to the inconsistency in City of Solon’s dealings:

Robert Paulson, former Solon Mayor, pointed to “inconsistency” in the city’s dealings with different people and entities.  He cited a previous requirement for Carquest to provide

• 6 parking spaces when it wanted to add a mezzanine for storage, and
• the denial of a 12-space parking variance for a Chinese carry-out — next to Solon’s existing McDonald’s.

According to Richard Zimmerman of ZZ Design Inc in Solon:

Recently a 14 parking space variance was denied to an Asian restaurant proposed for a location on Aurora Road within only 1/4 mile of this site.  How can a 14 parking space variance be disapproved there, yet a 45 parking space variance granted here, where the acknowledged consumer activity, parking demand and traffic will be far greater?  Granting this 45 parking space variance suggests not only inconsistency and favoritism, but also sets a disastrous precedent for all variance requests of the future.  How much credibility will our own zoning code regulations be left with?

By Richard Zimmerman of ZZ Design Inc.

The people of Solon Ohio spoke; according to one letter/email count survey presented by a Solon resident at the City Council meeting, 67 Solon residents indicated their disapproval for the proposed project and 5 Solon residents were for it.  This issue of inconsistency was also raised by one of the Solon Council member.

I don’t think anyone sets out to be inconsistent.  What’s a municipal government supposed to do when the choice is between providing consistency in the public process and the desire to advance an attractive (depending on the definition of attractive) project to fruition?  Should a good project be sacrificed at the altar of consistency?  Should pragmatism be placed on the back burner to provide consistency in the public process?  Providing consistency in decision making at government bodies, where each case is unique, without a formal mechanism, is complex but is probably doable.  It is conceivable that a brief and informal or a detailed and formal precedent study is usually conducted by city staff persons, on a case by case basis.  Members of local government bodies are appointed by the Mayor and they may be, consciously or unconsciously, obligated to support the Mayor’s line of thinking.  Establishing a mechanism for providing consistency in decision making at Planning Commissions and Zoning Boards may be desirable but it could also pan out to be a double edged sword.

Director of Solon Planning Department Robert Frankland stated that Solon’s Master Plan is not law and Solon’s zoning code is important.  The proposed site plan received a clear thumbs down (one Solon Councilman voted Yes!) from the Solon City Council despite the thoroughly excellent presentation by Bruce Rinker and the opinion letter referring to the Duncan v Middlefield case (this will be a future post).  The parking space variance was shot down 4-2.  This was, arguably, the most interesting project deliberated upon by Solon Planning Commission and Solon City Council.  The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

This incredible sight of home backyards adjacent to high voltage . . . → Read More: High Voltage Transmission Lines in Solon Ohio]]> According to Norman Becker, author of Home Inspection Checklists, a study concluded that children exposed to an electromagnetic field were more likely to develop leukemia.   High voltage transmission lines near a house cause electromagnetic fields of concern as do local power distribution lines.

This incredible sight of home backyards adjacent to high voltage transmission lines may be observed in Preserve subdivision located in Solon Ohio.

High Voltage Transmission Lines-Click to enlarge

Preserve Subdivision of Solon Ohio-Click to enlarge

Brice Banctel, Kyle Mooney, Leila Sanii, Shuyi Wang of Case Western Reserve University, documented the pros and cons of a Rental Occupancy Permit Program in their study titled, Chagrin Falls, Ohio-A Study on the Impact of High Percentage of Rental Units . . . → Read More: Solon Ohio Rental Real Estate Properties Occupancy Permit Discussed]]> Example of a Rental Property Occupancy Permit

A Rental Property Occupancy Permit

Brice Banctel, Kyle Mooney, Leila Sanii, Shuyi Wang of Case Western Reserve University, documented the pros and cons of a Rental Occupancy Permit Program in their study titled, Chagrin Falls, Ohio-A Study on the Impact of High Percentage of Rental Units on the Community.

Pros of Rental Property Occupancy Permit

Having a database of rental units within the community would give the city a snapshot at any point in time of the renters who have to this date not been tracked.  The city will know how many renters exist, where they are living, and how they can be contacted.  If the city wants to contact the renters for any reason, they have the ability to do so.

Cons of Rental Property Occupancy Permit

There will likely be some resistant property owners who reject the idea of an additional fee per unit and may increase rental rates to cover the fee.  In addition renters themselves might object to having to submit their information to the local government, citing privacy concerns.

Cleveland State University’s Dennis Keating is reported as indicating that Solon has recorded about 500 foreclosure in the past four years.  Perturbed by the possibility of decline in home values due to foreclosures, single family home owners from Solon’s well heeled subdivisions (Signature of Solon, Thornbury, Chagrin Highlands) took the shortest route to the Solon City Council and Planning Commission.  A rental occupancy permit ordinance was placed taken off the back burner and placed on the front.

It is difficult to determine if a single family home is owner occupied or renter occupied by looking at it.  So, how did the City of Solon identify single family homes that are renter occupied?  The City’s Planning Department identified rental properties in Solon by examining the water bill records; if the billing address for the water and/or sewer bill was different than the physical address, that property was designated as a rental property.  This method provides an underestimates but it considered accurate enough.

Planning Director Rob Frankland presented a rental properties map authored by Solon’s Geographical Information Systems coordinator, Tim Howard, to the Solon City Council.  The Planning Director indicated that as the housing stock ages, the rental properties in Solon are likely to increase.  If the number of rental properties are predicted to increase, will they have a negative influence on property values?  Authors Brice Banctel, Kyle Mooney, Leila Sanii, Shuyi Wang’s study concluded that in Chagrin Falls, there was no impact of a large number of affordable rental apartments and condo properties on property values.  However, in the real world, there is a negative perception associated with renters and rental properties.  Whether this perception is verifiable with quantitative data is not known.

Statistics of Rental Real Estate Properties in Solon Ohio

Number of rental real estate properties in Solon Ohio = 1,228
Number of single family rental real estate properties in Solon Ohio = 266 (21%)
Number of two family rental real estate properties in Solon Ohio = 52 (4%) and
Number of multifamily homes or apartments in Solon Ohio = 910 (74 %)
Number of landlords who own rental properties in Solon Ohio = 302

Map of Rental Real Estate Properties in North Solon, Ohio

Map of Rental Real Estate Properties in North Solon Ohio-Click to enlarge

Map of Rental Real Estate Properties in South Solon, Ohio

Map of Rental Real Estate Properties in South Solon Ohio-Click to enlarge

Statistics of Rental Real Estate Properties by Ward in Solon Ohio

Solon Ohio Ward 1 – 46 Units
Solon Ohio Ward 2 – 416 Units
Solon Ohio Ward 3 – 35 Units
Solon Ohio Ward 4 – 18 Units
Solon Ohio Ward 5 – 48 Units
Solon Ohio Ward 6 – 538 Units
Solon Ohio Ward 7 – 127 Units

Solon’s Ward 2 and Ward 6 have the largest number of rental units because of the apartment properties in these wards.  Ward 7 has the largest number of single family rental homes because the the homes on ABC streets (Arbordale Avenue, Brookdale Avenue, Copley Avenue) are priced below $200,000 and are attractive to real estate investors.  Since these streets are located close to the reputed Solon Schools, the homes make a good fit for renters with school bound children.  With rents for these homes ranging from $1,000 to $1,800 its reasonable to assume that the landlord is able to pay the monthly mortgage and the maintenance costs with the rental income.  In my opinion, a home purchase on the ABC Streets of Solon is likely to have minimal degradation in property values even under reality based macro economic conditions.  Most complaints regarding exterior maintenance to the City of Solon are from Ward 1, 2, 3 and 7.

Federal stimus money at work on Bainbridge Road in Solon Ohio

Kevin Westbrooks, Traffic Engineer, Solon, Ohio wrote about the temporary road on Bainbridge Road:

Changing the traffic operations from two-way . . . → Read More: The Million Dollar Temporary Bainbridge Road in Solon Ohio]]>

Government waste or the nature of development or democracy at work

Federal stimus money at work on Bainbridge Road in Solon Ohio

Kevin Westbrooks, Traffic Engineer, Solon, Ohio wrote about the temporary road on Bainbridge Road:

Changing the traffic operations from two-way to one-way will divert traffic through other congested intersections and cause cut-through traffic.  There are improvements that can be made to help with the flow of traffic but this traffic cannot be fully accommodated.

Wayne Godzich, Police Chief, Solon, Ohio wrote about the temporary road on Bainbridge Road:

Although we are sympathetic with the resident’s concerns, we should never jeopardize the Emergency and Medical Services times associated with transporting victims to a medical facility.  If one life was lost because it required a longer time to transport a victim to a medical facility knowing it could have been avoided, I personally would have a difficult time dealing with that loss of life.

William Shaw, Fire Chief, Solon Ohio wrote about the temporary road on Bainbridge Road:

It is my opinion that two way traffic on Bainbridge Road affects the least number of people while providing the maximum amount of safety benefit with the least cost to City of Solon

According to the grapevine, a number of secondary stakeholders in the Bainbridge Road reconstruction project, supported the construction of the million dollar two-way temporary road because they did not wish to deal with the cut through identified by the Traffic Engineer Kevin Westbrooks.  Further, the number of these secondary stakeholders were many more than the primary stakeholders who are understandably riled up about the temporary road cutting through their lot and the impacts of construction.  In my opinion, the majority decision by the Solon City Council to vote in favor of the construction of the two-way temporary road for Bainbridge Road project was an appropriate one because it was in the best interest of the City.

Financial difficulties lead to uninhabitable conditions

Parents and children lived in these conditions in Carriage Park subdivision of Solon, Ohio

Ohio State Auditor, Mary Taylor, conducted a special audit of the City of Solon to determine if City of Solon received the quantity and quality of material billed by the contractor for the contracts entered into with Midwest Paving, Chaney Cement Contractors, Inc. (for the . . . → Read More: 11 engineering recommendations for City of Solon, Ohio]]>

Credit: Sue Reid, The Solon Times

Ohio State Auditor, Mary Taylor, conducted a special audit of the City of Solon to determine if City of Solon received the quantity and quality of material billed by the contractor for the contracts entered into with Midwest Paving, Chaney Cement Contractors, Inc. (for the extended period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2007), and MGL Enterprises, Inc.  This engagement was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections established by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (January 2005).  The results of the special (cost to the Solon taxpayer $ 165,000) audit were provided to City of Solon Mayor, Susan Drucker.  An extract from Ohio State Auditor’s special audit report follows:

GENERAL CONTRACT NON COMPLIANCE TO OHIO REVISED CODE AND INTERNAL CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY OF SOLON

1. Destruction of Public Records

Ohio Rev. Code Section 149.351 states in pertinent part that “all records are the property of the public office and shall not be removed, destroyed, mutilated, transferred, or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part, except as provided by law or under rules adopted by the records commissions provided for under sections 149.38 to 149.42 of the Revised Code…” 1 During the Period, there were construction reports, concrete delivery logs, itemized sheets and drop slips which the City of Solon was unable to provide.  Additionally, the City Council approved an amount to be spent on road improvements for the year and a general list of streets needing repair. The City’s engineering department was unable to provide documents to identify areas designated for replacement or repair, and to support estimates used in bidding documents. Without maintaining complete documentation of work performed, the City of Solon is unable to monitor whether the contractor’s invoices accurately reflect the work completed. Additionally, failure to maintain the annual list of needed street repairs reduces the City’s ability to ensure the required work was completed. We recommend that all documents related to the contracts be maintained. These documents should be used to verify the amounts invoiced by the contractors prior to the City’s payment. Additionally, maintaining the documents will provide a historical timeline of prior projects for the City’s review and evaluation.

2. Bid specifications should include the actual specifications

As part of the audit we reviewed numerous contracts containing bid specifications for eight and ten inch concrete which required mesh reinforcement; however, beginning in 2004, Chaney and MGL used fiber mesh reinforcement instead of the required wire mesh. According to the City’s engineer, John Busch, Chaney and MGL were given verbal permission to use fiber mesh, which is less expensive to install than wire mesh. Mr. Busch stated the City of Solon had been allowing fiber mesh instead of wire mesh on concrete projects for the last three or four years, without updating the contracts or bid sheets, and without notifying all bidders of the change. Mr. Busch further stated that Chaney and MGL were the only two contractors that knew they could use fiber mesh instead of wire mesh. Competitive bidding only works when all competitors have the same specifications for the scope of work. To effectively competitively bid City projects all competitors should have the same specifications for the scope of work. Otherwise, the bids which are received cannot truly be compared to each other in determining the “lowest and most responsible” bidder. Chaney and MGL’s knowledge that fiber mesh could be used instead of wire mesh put other bidders at a disadvantage. This helped Chaney and MGL to submit bids which were lower than their competitors. We recommend the City of Solon update the bid documents to include the actual specifications for the job, and ensure that each bidder has received the same information from the City of Solon regarding the prospective project. The construction reports, concrete delivery logs and itemized sheets were prepared by an on-site inspector either employed by the City or contracted through a private company. Construction reports documented each day’s work. The concrete delivery logs were used on days when concrete was poured to document the amount of concrete delivered. The itemized sheets identified a running total for each bid item. The drop slips were completed by the concrete supplier and documented the location, amount and type of concrete delivered.

3. Monthly invoicing means an estimate once each month

The contract documents state, “The contractor shall submit to the City once each month a certified estimate approved by the engineer for the work performed. Not later than 30 days after the submission, the City of Solon shall make partial payment to the contractor.” In eleven of the contracts reviewed, the contractor failed to submit a certified estimate once each month as required. For one contract, the contractor failed to submit an estimate or invoice for ten months. The failure to submit estimates or invoices in a timely manner increases the risk of billing errors not being detected in a timely manner or difficulty in determining that work billed was actually completed. We recommend the City’s engineer monitor contract invoicing to confirm certified estimates and/or invoices are submitted in accordance with contract requirements.

4. Change orders must be in writing

The City’s Codified Ordinance 234.04 requires all contract amendments to be in writing and also states, “Such amendment shall have the written approval signatures of the Mayor or the authorized head of the department involved, the contractor, and the Director of Finance, and shall be approved as to form by the Director of Law.” Additionally, the standard contract language states, “If changes in the design of any portion of the work or in the requirements of the specifications are deemed necessary by the engineer, he may, in writing, order alterations to or changes in the work.” It further states, “Should the contractor desire to make any alterations in the drawings or specifications, the same shall be submitted in writing to the engineer.” For 16 of the contracts reviewed, the City of Solon either did not complete a change order when required, or failed to thoroughly complete change orders with all required information and signatures. Some of the changes not documented in a formal change order included contractors billing for items which were not part of the original contract specifications. For these items, the lack of a written change order prohibited us from determining whether changes to the contracts were paid in accordance with an agreed upon, established price. The failure to document contract changes and amendments in writing and to obtain the required signatures increases the risk of inadvertently exceeding budgetary restraints and overpayment. We recommend the finance director monitor contract payments and confirm amendments are properly completed prior to payment.

5. Project deadlines have a meaning

Each project included an established completion date. The City’s contracts contain standard language which states, “To secure any extension of time, the contractor must submit a written request to the engineer, citing specific reasons, explanations, and dates.” Additional language states the contractor agrees that the City shall deduct and retain liquidated damages for the non-completion of the work within the times established. The contracts we reviewed identified a completion date and also imposed damages for each calendar day the project was not completed past the designated date. The final day of work performed for 14 of the 28 contracts exceeded the agreed upon completion date. There was no documentation provided by the City of Solon which extended the completion date, nor were liquidated damages assessed against the contractor. The failure to enforce the completion date subjects the City’s residents to longer than necessary inconvenience and gives the contractor an advantage over other bidders for the project as those bidders may calculate their bids based on the completion date established by the City of Solon. The City should monitor contractors so they do not exceed the completion dates. If, through no fault of the contractor, the completion date cannot be attained, the City should document the cause for the delay and identify the new date. However, if the contractor repeatedly exceeds the completion date, the City should consider whether the contractor should be allowed to bid on future contracts. Additionally, we recommend the City either begin enforcing the contract language which provides for liquidated damages for not meeting the completion date, or consider removing that language from the contract documents.

MANAGEMENT COMMENTS TO CITY OF SOLON

1. Contract estimates ($4 concrete) versus Contract billings ($6 concrete)

Midwest, Chaney, and MGL’s bids for the concrete repair programs included two different classes of concrete to be used in varying amounts. Each contract documented the quantity of each type of concrete and its cost. For example, the 2007 contract with Midwest projected Midwest would use 120,000 square feet of concrete priced at $4 per square foot and 2,000 square feet of a different class of concrete priced at $6 per square foot. However, Midwest did not bill the City for any of the $4 concrete, but billed the City of Solon for 104,846 square feet of $6 concrete. Although the quantities of concrete provided in the contract were estimates, the variances between the two classes of concrete which were billed resulted in significant increased cost to the City. In the 2007 contract, the difference between the price estimate and the actual charges for concrete was $137,076. Also, the ability to charge in excess of the engineer’s estimate on certain items, without charging other items, was one of the factors which resulted in the contractor overcharging the City as indicated in the Findings for Recovery identified later in this report. We recommend the City include a more accurate estimate of quantities needed. If, for any reason, the specifications need to be changed, the city engineer should document the required change, the reason for the change, as well as the increase or decrease in estimated cost. These procedures would help ensure all bidders have the same information to submit a well informed bid and also reduce the risk of overcharges to the City.

2. Contract documents must be complete

Contract and bid documents were not entirely completed. Construction reports, concrete delivery logs and itemized sheets were not always accurately and fully completed for the 28 contracts reviewed. These documents did not always identify specific work, depth, measurements and/or square feet of concrete poured. Construction reports, concrete delivery logs and itemized sheets should be completed in their entirety, for use by the City of Solon in verifying prescribed work was completed. Failure to adequately document work being performed and comparing those reports to amounts invoiced resulted in overpayments to the contractor. We recommend all documents related to the contract be complete and accurate with all required information and signatures. This will allow the documents to be compared to the invoices and reduce the risk of paying for work that was not completed.

3. Contract start dates are real

The contractors routinely began performing work on contracts as soon as they became aware of the acceptance of their bid, prior to the contract being signed or the “notice to proceed” order being issued. For projects started prior to the contract or “notice to proceed” date, we discovered drop slips indicating work had begun; yet, inspector reports were not provided. This may indicate that an inspector was not on site, resulting in work being performed which was not documented in a formal construction report. We recommend contractors not begin work until either the contract is signed or the “notice to proceed” is issued by the City of Solon. An inspector should always be present to review the contractor’s work for adherence to contract specifications. The City of Solon should require the contractor to notify the City of the dates it intends to be working, to allow for an inspector to be on site.

4. Invoices must be checked and rechecked

Invoices contained numerous calculation errors and per unit pricing errors. This resulted in overbilling by the contractors and subsequent overpayments by the City. Invoices should be reviewed for correct unit pricing and recalculated to ascertain correct billing. Items which are “lump sum” pricing should be tracked to determine the payment does not exceed the contract approved amount. Contract items which have “allowances” requiring supporting receipts should have a copy of the receipt attached prior to payment. These procedures would enhance control over disbursements and reduce the risk of overpayments to contractors.

5. Emergency repair prices should not be without limits

During the Period, emergency repairs were not bid. According to John Busch, it was the City’s practice to use the contractor that was in the City doing the annual concrete program to do emergency repairs. Domonic Bisesi would identify the emergencies and then have the contractor perform the work. Mr. Busch also stated that the cost of repairs was not discussed or approved prior to the contractor performing the work. During an interview with Marco Leone, he indicated that if the work was an emergency, he had full discretion to charge any fees which he established. For example, during the performance of the 2006 Concrete Repair Program, one street received emergency repair work which was charged to the City for $45,000. Had this repair been paid according to the established prices in the 2006 Concrete Repair Program contract, it would have cost $9,500. However, since the emergency repairs were not bid and the contractor could establish his own price, the City paid $35,500 more than they would have been charged, had the emergency been paid from the annual contract price. In 2008 the City accepted bids for an annual contract for emergency repair work. By doing so, the emergency work will no longer automatically default to the contractor performing the City’s annual concrete program. We recommend the City ensure that emergency work includes only true emergencies, and that prices for emergency work are agreed upon in writing and in advance of the performance of work.

6. Unbalanced bids

The City received five bids for the 2002 Concrete Repair Program. Chaney was originally the second lowest bidder on this contract. The lowest bidder included two items on its bid sheet that were bid well below the cost of materials to complete the work. These same two items were also bid below cost in the prior year’s contract, which was awarded to Chaney. According to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Office of Program Administration, “A mathematically unbalanced bid is one containing lump sum or unit bid items which do not reflect reasonable actual costs plus a reasonable proportionate share of the bidder’s anticipated profit, overhead costs, and other indirect costs, which he/she anticipates for the performance of the items in question.” In an interview, Sally Reemsnyder, former director of engineering, said the unbalanced bid for the 2002 Concrete Repair Program was brought to her attention by Domonic Bisesi. She stated that Mr. Bisesi did not identify Chaney’s 2001 bid as being unbalanced, which is why the 2001 contract was approved for Chaney. As a result of Mr. Bisesi notifying Ms. Reemsnyder of the 2002 lowest bidder’s unbalanced bid, Ms. Reemsnyder rejected the original bids and held a second bid opening. This time, Chaney was the lowest bidder and was awarded the contract. The 2001 Concrete Repair Program contract was awarded to Chaney with an unbalanced bid. Because no one at the City identified the bid as unbalanced, Chaney received the contract at an unfair advantage over the other bidders. We recommend the City perform a detailed review of all bid documents to ensure the lowest bidder is not submitting an unbalanced bid. USDOT recommends that bids be analyzed by considering whether the bid is mathematically unbalanced and the effect the unbalanced bid items have on the total contract amount. Bids should also be evaluated for reasonable conformance with the engineer’s estimate.

Download the report from Ohio State Auditor Mary Taylor  Solon_City_of_01-07_Special_Cuyahoga

One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel

Signature of Solon Golf Community Subdivision

A Signature of Solon resident approached City of Solon Planning Commission and stated that she believes there have been builders in the Signature . . . → Read More: Signature of Solon rental properties cause concern]]> The City of Solon Planning Commission is discussing an ordinance proposal which will require that owners or agents obtain Occupancy Permit for rental units.

Signature of Solon Golf Community Subdivision

A Signature of Solon resident approached City of Solon Planning Commission and stated that she believes there have been builders in the Signature of Solon neighborhood who have built homes and rented them prior to obtaining an occupancy permit.  Additionally, many Signature of Solon model homes were built but not sold and have become rental properties.  Many of these Signature of Solon rental homes are neglected and improperly maintained which is damaging to the Signature of Solon community. This resident was concerned that the appearance of some of the homes will affect overall resale in the Signature of Solon neighborhood.

It appears that due to  the economic downturn, builders and homeowners associated with some  Signature of Solon properties are renting homes out of necessity rather than facing foreclosure.  There have been some foreclosure filings on properties located on Royal Portrush Drive, Capilano Drive, Vahalla Drive, Bellerive Drive, Merion Court, Prairie Dunes Court, Sotograde Court in Signature of Solon.

Foreclosure decreases the property value by 28% (Campbell, John Y., Stefano Giglio, and Parag Pathak. 2009. “Forced Sales and House Prices.” NBER Working Paper 14866).  Some builders are facing property foreclosures because lenders have become conservative by cutting their line of credit.  Common sense lending standards mean that lenders expect builders to have their own skin in the game.

Home-equity loans and lines of credit are second mortgages.  Second mortgages are made after a primary mortgage is in place.  If a homeowner defaults, the proceeds of the home’s sale go first to the lender that holds the primary mortgage.  The second-mortgage holder gets whatever is left after the primary mortgage is satisfied.  Lenders are rightly shying away from secondary mortgages and rental occupancy permits will not loosen the line of credit leash.

Signature of Solon does allow home rentals, however,  a deed restriction stipulates that home must be owner-occupied for the first year to ensure that landscape work and proper maintenance is completed.  However, Signature of Solon does not request the tenant’s name.  Chagrin Highlands subdivision in northeast Solon also has a deed restriction similar to Signature of Solon.

A deed is the legal document that transfers ownership of real estate.  It contains the names of the old and new owners and a legal description of the property etc.  The deed is signed by the property owner.  Deed restrictions place limitations on the use of the property by the property developer.  It is my belief that some property owners may use a bypass  to get around a deed restriction.

Road sense is the offspring of courtesy and the parent of safety.  On the eve of Memorial Day, officers of Solon Police Department were observed handing out educational materials related to NHTSA . . . → Read More: The Three E’s of Traffic Safety]]>

Click It Or Ticket campaign near Solon Recreation Center

The Three E’s of Traffic Safety

1. Public Education
2. Law Enforcement
3. Traffic Engineering

Road sense is the offspring of courtesy and the parent of safety.  On the eve of Memorial Day, officers of Solon Police Department were observed handing out educational materials related to NHTSA funded Click It or Ticket campaign at the three way stop intersection near Solon Recreation Center.   Officers were approaching passing motorists ahead of stop signs and reminding them that law enforcement officers will be out enforcing the seat belt laws during the long weekend.  It was emphasized in the flier that wearing a seat belt cuts the chances of death or serious injury in half  in a traffic crash.  This is an intersection where visibility is excellent and its not uncommon to see motorists failing to come to a complete stop at the stop signs; traffic enforcement is occasionally done by Solon Police Department here.

In 2007, there were over 600 fatalities in Ohio in which the driver or passengers were not wearing their seat belt.