If you are a Beachwood resident and didn't know that the Mayor wants to borrow $8m to relocate Fire Station #2 to a less central location in Chagrin Highlands, this is probably not an accident.
Most municipalities would view an issue that will require the City to add $8m in debt while decreasing safety and response times as one that should be discussed, debated and questioned in a very open, transparent and public format. Despite the importance of this issue, the City gave only 27 hours notice for a public meeting about this issue and set the meeting for 5:15pm which is a time very few people can attend.
When you hear some of the reasons provided by the city, you will understand why the Mayor called for this shotgun public meeting and wants this project rammed through without too many people asking tough questions. I created this blog to shine a spotlight on this process to make the residents and public aware of this project and to ask the hard and important questions that City Council should be asking.
I don't know about you but when the City of Beachwood gives the public 27 hours notice of a public council meeting to discuss a $6m-$8m project I get nervous. To ensure that almost no one would show up, they set the start time for the meeting at 5:15pm. This is what happened on June 24, 2014.
A transparent city would give weeks of notice for a public meeting where a project like this was being discussed. Not in Beachwood. 27 hours and setting the meeting at a time few could attend is how they do business.
I also get nervous when you catch the city and the Mayor in a clear lie about this project. At the June 24, 2014 shotgun council meeting, the Fire Chief stated that the location of the proposed new Fire Station has not been chosen and in a April 10, 2014 article in Cleveland.com (Click here to see article) the Mayor echoed the claim that the location has not been chosen yet.
Mr. Mayor, how can this April 10th article quote you as saying that the City hasn't chosen a location for Fire Station #2 when less than three weeks earlier, according to the minutes of the March 24, 2014 Building and Grounds Committee Meeting minutes, you said, "the new Fire Station will be built at Hotel Drive and Richmond Road next to the cemetery"? That sure sounds like a pretty certain statement (click here to view the meeting minutes).
Why are you and the city being untruthful and claiming a location hasn't been chosen. In fact, the City has already spent $250k for wetland mitigation credits on this location (What they didn't tell you is that the only reason this location is considered a wetlands is they neglected to cut the grass for years after they purchased this property). Why doesn't the City want the public knowing too much about this issue? Why would the City only give 27 hours notice for a public meeting discussing a project that will have implications on public safety and cause the City to add $8m to their existing debt?
The Mayor only wants the public to have the information he provides them and doesn't want anyone asking too many questions. This says a lot about the way he operates and even more about the way City Council allows him to operate. This blog will ask some hard questions and provide information the Mayor doesn't want the public to have.
When the public sees this information they will be scratching their head wondering why the City wants to borrow $8m to relocate a Fire Station #2 to an area that will increase response times to 95% of its call area when better and cheaper alternatives exist.
I have heard many reasons floated by representatives of Beachwood to explain why we need to relocate Fire Station #2. Some of reason are absurd but have gone unchallenged by City Council. The one I want to focus on is, "Moving Fire Station #2 to the proposed location will decrease response times and is needed to provide better service to the growing Chagrin Highlands area".
If you look at a this map, the current location of Fire Station #2 is centrally located allowing for fast response times to the western part of Beachwood near Shaker, fast and easy access into the Commerce Park area and is less than a mile from the Chagrin Highlands area they claim needs better service. There is even a road built right next to the current location of Fire Station #2 that has a gate which only emergency personnel can open that provides them fast access to the Halburton/ Bryden neighborhood east of Green Road and gives them options to avoid Chagrin Road if traffic is too congested.
The current location of Fire Station #2 provides response times to the Chagrin Highlands area that are already faster than response times to the far western side of Beachwood. While the proposed relocation site will decrease response times to approximately 5% of the City, the Mayor neglects to tell you that relocating this Fire Station will increase response times to 95% of its call area and position it even further from the western side of the suburb.
Whatever small benefit or better response times are realized in the Chagrin Highlands area come at the expense of residents in the western part of Beachwood. What about their response times?
Chagrin Highlands is all new commercial construction with building codes that require sprinklers. In new construction like this, there are very few fires that cause severe damage to life or property compared to older construction. The western part of Beachwood has the oldest buildings in the city. Due to the age of the houses, this part of the city has a much higher risk of a damaging fire than the new construction at Chagrin Highlands. As for EMS calls, the Chagrin Highlands area is still only a mile away from the current location of Fire Station #2 and is right across the street from the hospital that a victim would be transported to.
The only part of the City that will realize faster response times is the 5% of the city that needs it the least. Damage to people and property from fires is much more likely to happen at 60 year old houses than brand new construction with sprinklers. The 5% that will get faster response times for EMS calls are already within 500 yards of the hospital they would be transported to. Response times for EMS calls to the remaining 95% of the suburb is more crucial because they have a longer transport time to get them to a hospital.
If you consider safety the main priority, the site the Mayor is proposing for the relocation of Fire Station #2 makes no sense.
I am reluctant to believe anything the Mayor says without verifying his claims independently. However, I have never been inside Fire Station #2 so for the sake of this discussion, I will take the Mayor and Fire Chief's word that this station is outdated and they have outgrown it.
Before borrowing and spending $6-$8m to move Fire Station #2 to a location that will increase response time to 95% of the call area, have they even looked seriously at how to improve Fire Station #2 at its current location?
The city will tell you that expanding and building additions to the current Fire Station #2 isn't possible because they are land locked.
Really? If the current parking area at Fire Station #2 is moved to the street side of the building it would free up space to build two additional full bays as well as extra room for storage. They could also build a second floor above this two bay addition to build a brand new bunk room /living sleeping quarters for the fireman on duty. That would free up square footage where the current living quarters are located and renovate that entire area of the building.
The City could accomplish this expansion and renovation of the current Fire Station #2 for under $2m and perhaps as little as a $1m. This would save the City approximately $5-$7m while keeping Fire Station #2 in a location that provides better response times to the vast majority of its coverage area.
What would be wrong with this? The Mayor and Fire Chief would tell you that the brand new station they want to build from scratch would be much more energy efficient. Perhaps they forget that the cost of debt service on an extra $5m-7m of bonds would easily trump the cost savings from efficiency.
It is hard to take the Mayor seriously when he attempts to claim the need for a more energy efficient building as one of the reasons this new fire station needs to be built. This is the Mayor that spent $13m to purchase a large building in Commerce Park to move the City's Service Department. This building is so massive that half of it is empty and the previous service building is also vacant. How can the Mayor pretend that efficiency is something he cares about?
Here are some tidbits I found interesting at the last council meeting when Fire Chief was talking about this new fire station project.
1. The Fire Chief talked about how the current Fire Station #2 doors face west which is one of the reasons the building is so energy inefficient. He claimed that the doors facing west is a major reason for the inefficiency of this building because prevailing wind patterns are constantly blowing in the cold air during winter.
The Fire Chief forgot to mention that the doors at Fire Station #1 also faces west and the proposed new Fire Station will also have their doors facing the exact same direction.
2. The Fire Chief and the Mayor are publicly saying that the location of the new fire station hasn't been chosen yet. However, the Mayor has stated in previous meeting minutes that "the new Fire Station will be built at Hotel Drive and Richmond Road next to the cemetery? In fact, the City has already spent $250k to purchase wetland mitigation credits for this location.
Why would the City spend so much money on a site they claim hasn't been determined yet? Many people have a very short memory. Council members Goodman, Wachter, Jacobs and Mintz were all members of Council eight years ago when the Mayor spent $500k on the design of a new Service Department Building on the Shaker Blvd median. Only after spending $500k on this project did the City decide against this location for the new Service Department building.
Didn't the Mayor and these Council Members learn from this experience a few years ago that you need to choose the location before you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars? Obviously not.
3. Why should we trust that this new fire station will only end up costing $6m-$8m? Mayor Gorden was the Mayor when the City floated just under $4m in bonds to build Fire Station #1. Since then, more than a million extra dollars have had to be spent to fix flaws in its construction.
Why should we trust the same people who are asking us to believe that their cost estimates for this new Fire Station are accurate?
This proposed new Fire Station will be almost as large as the main Fire Station. The Mayor overbuilt the main Fire Station to such a degree that it has so much extra space that they allow the University Hospital Ronald McDonald Mobile Care Unit to park in Fire Station #1 and take up a full bay.
This is the same Mayor that spent $13m to buy and renovate a building in Commerce Park that is so massive that half of it is empty and left the old service garage empty as well. This is also the same Mayor who rebuilt City Hall and ensured that his office had a private elevator, fire place and balcony. Perhaps it is time to start questioning the Mayor's judgment?
When the Mayor and Council have such a documented history of wasting millions of dollars overbuilding the main Fire Station, City Hall and the current Service Department Building, why should we trust them when they tell us this secondary Fire Station needs to be large and twice as expensive as the main Fire Station? It seems that when the Mayor is borrowing money and adding to the City's debt load to build City buildings, nothing is too fancy or expensive regardless of whether it is needed.
I understand the need for the main Fire Station to have the square footage to allow for administrative offices and conference rooms but why does a secondary Fire Station need these things?
Please find me another suburb that is 5 square miles with 12k residents that has a secondary Fire Station the size or cost of the one the Mayor and Fire Chief are proposing?
If the parking at the current Fire Station #2 is moved to the street side of the building, it would free up land to expand two full bays with the expanded area having a second level for a bunk room/ living/ sleeping quarters and renovate and update the entire existing building. They could easily accomplish this for $1m-$2m which would save $5-$7m and allow the building to remain in a more central location which will make response times to the vast majority of the City much lower than if they moved it to the proposed location.
Renovating and expanding Fire Station #2 would accomplish even more savings and benefits as they could sell the proposed relocation property to a developer who could build something that would generate additional income and property tax.
The millions of dollars that would be saved by renovating and expanding Fire Station #2 is important but the biggest benefit would be that the current location is more central and safer because it provides better response to 95% of its coverage area. Why isn't this option being considered?
While this new proposed building is very nice looking, how does this add to the safety of the suburb? It doesn't. In fact, it decreases safety because of the longer response time. What are the advantages of building this new Fire Station over expanding and renovating the current Fire Station that justify spending an additional $4m-$6m and increasing response times to the majority of this station's service area?
6. Has the Mayor or Fire Chief taken into consideration that the proposed site they want to relocated Fire Station #2 is right across from the Beacon/ Concord Neighborhood? Do they care that the people who live in this neighborhood are going to have to hear sirens at all hours of the night?
I don't have any confidence that City Council will challenge the Mayor or the Fire Chief on this issue. The past has shown that it isn't polite or acceptable to publicly question the Mayor. This is unfortunate and they are doing a major disservice to the residents. Since City Council won't ask these questions publicly and allow for an issue this important to be discussed at a shotgun public meeting where 27 hours notice was given, this blog will ask the hard questions they should be asking.