For at least the third year in a row, the annual financial disclosure statements submitted to the Ohio Ethics Commission by the city’s mayor and council members show they were not the recipients of any significant gifts.

The mandatory statements are intended to allow citizens to become aware of potential conflicts of interest and increase confidence in government integrity and openness.

The OEC has not yet received a report, which was due April 15th, from either former Ward 1 Councilperson and current Law Director Kevin Butler or At-Large Councilperson Monique Smith.

Overall, the statements contain data that’s generally consistent with what was disclosed in 2008 and 2009. The recently appointed council representatives each had a typical number of investments, income sources and creditors.

Aside from his primary residence, interim Councilperson David Anderson (Ward 1) disclosed ownership of three other Lakewood properties at 17723 and 17800 Franklin Blvd., and 2077 Morrison Ave.

Councilperson Brian Powers (At-Large) listed the greatest number of employment income sources. He worked at Beachwood-based League Park Advisors, consulted for four different entities, and was an adjunct lecturer at Baldwin-Wallace College.

Interim Mayor Michael Summers disclosed the greatest number of investment sources, with involvement in 40 different mutual and equity funds and six 401k funds. He had no credit card debt of over $1,000, and most of his creditors were related to his business, Summers Rubber.

Incidentally, former Mayor Edward O. FitzGerald, who could be a little thin-skinned on the topic of financial disclosure, once again disclosed that he did some legal work for Collins and Scanlon. Between being a parent, running for a higher office, and moonlighting at a law practice, one wonders how much time he was actually able to spend at 12650 Detroit Ave. working for the people.

Check out the disclosure statements below in .PDF format:

Interim Mayor Michael Summers

Former Mayor Edward O. FitzGerald

Mary Louise Madigan (Ward 4)

Shawn Juris (Ward 3)

Thomas Bullock (Ward 2)

David Anderson (Ward 1)

Kevin Butler (Ward 1) – Update: Filed June 15th

Brian Powers (At-Large)

Ryan Nowlin (At-Large)

Nickie Antonio (At-Large)

Monique Smith (At-Large) – Update: Filed July 29th

Council hopes proposed changes to the housing license application process will encourage property owners like Grace Ave.'s Jalal Inghneim to recognize and fix problems before they get out-of-hand. Inghneim, who infrequently visited his Grace Ave. rental property, above, learned a hard lesson about neglect when he had to replace the front porch.

Sometime after 2001 when he bought the duplex at 1647 Grace Ave., North Ridgeville resident Jalal Ighneim lost track of the property and became a self-acknowledged absentee landlord.

When he checked up on the rental last summer, he was “frightened” and “disgusted” by the unsafe condition of its front porch and tore it down. He was caught rebuilding it without a building permit and had to redo a good portion of his work before earning approval from the Division of Building and Housing and the Architectural Board of Review.

Ighneim’s absentee landlordism is a mild example of a more severe problem that threatens the integrity of the city’s aging housing stock. For all the tough talk about the importance of protecting and preserving this significant asset, comparatively little hard action has taken place to firmly address to two housing scourges: vacant structures and absentee landlords

The City Council met in committee on Monday to reexamine a stalled piece of former Mayor Edward O. FitzGerald’s housing initiative that has been under discussion since last March. The proposed ordinance is not particularly bold, although it would be an improvement over the existing situation.

Original goal: encourage more active landlords

The original intent of the proposed legislation, as explained last year by Assistant Law Director Saleh Awadallah, was to revise the rental housing license application process in ways to motivate owners to become more “action-oriented” and involved with their properties.

One significant change would require anyone applying for a housing license to provide time and date stamped photographs of the front, side, and rear of the exterior of the structure, including yards, patios, driveways, garages, and parking areas.

In addition, the applicant would have to answer a laundry list of new questions about items ranging from the number of smoke detectors in the unit to what year the property was built. The applicant would also have to sign a statement certifying the structure is free of obvious health and safety threats.

Further, the license applicant would need to do two of the three following items: use a reputable tenant screening agency to do criminal and eviction background checks, attend a landlord-tenant information seminar, or use a written rental agreement as defined by the state.

The ordinance’s other notable feature is the creation of a vacant property license. It would cost $200 and follow the same application process as a housing license.

License fee structure would change for some

The ordinance proposal would keep the cost of a housing licenses for non-owner occupied one and two-family dwelling units at $75. Most owners of the city’s three-dozen or so rooming house units would see a per unit increase from $45 to $60.

At a June 2010 housing committee meeting, Councilperson Mary Louise Madigan (Ward 4) said she had no problem with the increase, and made known her disapproval of rooming houses. “They’re not ideal housing structures for the neighborhood,” she said. “They’re less neighborhood-friendly than what I’m going for in the East End.”

Councilperson Monique Smith (At-Large) concurred, “I totally agree with you.” Jeff Ashby, director of housing, added: “I’m not a fan of the buildings.”

Then-Councilperson Michael Summers (Ward 3) said there had to be a solid rational behind raising the license fee for rooming houses. He recalled a story about how former Lakewood resident Dick Jacobs lived in a YMCA rooming house as a young adult and later made a large contribution to the organization out of gratitude for the experience.

Madigan said she was “not trying to make a social statement” and keep people out of the area, but wondered what place rooming houses had within the vision the city had laid out for itself.

New rates included in draft ordinance (subject to revision)

Owner-occupied  duplexes and single family homes do not require a housing license.

Distracted mayor, unfocused city council cause housing proposal to stall

In late October of last year, seven months after the ordinance was first discussed in committee and three months after it had been placed on the council’s docket, Councilperson Brian Powers (At-Large) and then-Councilperson Kevin Butler (Ward 1) essentially tabled it.

Butler said at a committee meeting that the proposed ordinance’s language was unclear and vague in terms of defining what entity was responsible for securing a vacant property license. Powers was concerned the ordinance was trying to do too much and should be divided into two separate ordinances.

Under better circumstances, strong leaders might have emerged to quickly address the councilmen’s concerns and shepherd the ordinance proposal to final passage after a vote.

Instead, the council decided to put it on hold, and then lost focus of the legislation while dealing with the departure of a few of its members, and transitioning to a different mayoral administration.

Some council members absent from full discussion

When the council assembled on Monday to discuss the issue,  three members weren’t present. Councilperson Thomas Bullock (Ward 3), who is customarily late, missed about half the meeting. Councilperson Ryan Nowlin (At-Large) missed two-thirds of the conversation, and declined to take part in the discussion. Council President Madigan was altogether absent from the proceedings.

Law Director Kevin Butler made some minor changes to the proposed ordinance and clarified its language. He pointed out that the new rules would give the city the ability to void all of the housing licenses of any owner who is twice convicted of a building code violation in court.

Housing chief ‘not a big fan’ of property photo requirement

The proposed requirement that property owners submit photographs of their rental properties as part of the housing license application process could generate a glut of data the building department is not equipped to utilize.

“I’m not a big fan of all these checklists and photos, personally,” remarked housing chief Jeff Ashby, who otherwise supported the legislation. He said the sheer volume of pictures – potentially up to 16,000 by his rough estimate – would likely limit their usefulness.

Similarly, the multitude of different digital image file formats could snarl the process and result in numerous incomplete applications. “Personally, I just don’t want to deal with it. It’s just too much,” he said.

Councilperson Powers shared Ashby’s concern about the photographs. “That’s always been a troubling aspect for me,” he said.

“We have absentee landlords who give new meaning to the word ‘absent’,” countered Councilperson Smith. “I’m would still argue in favor of collecting all this stuff.”

Ultimately, the consensus in the room was to remove the photo requirement from the ordinance, and revisit the issue later on.

The council will meet again in committee on Monday, May 2nd at 6:45 p.m. to discuss the changes. A final vote could be taken afterward during the council’s regular meeting. Housing license applications are set to be mailed out June 1st.

GrafTech's emission stacks, above, will be busier. The EPA has approved a 43% increase in the annual amount of carbon monoxide (CO) the corporation can emit from its Lakewood facility.

GrafTech International is increasing production of its heat-dissipating graphite material to meet increased demand from high-tech electronics manufacturers of televisions, computers, and cell phones.

The move will add 25 to 30 new positions this year to the Parma-based corporation’s production facility at the corner of Madison Ave. and W. 117th St., where 110 people are now employed, according to Betsy Keck, GrafTech’s global communications manager. A Plain Dealer article from last July suggested the jobs would pay at least $20 an hour.

GrafTech plans on installing four graphite rolling lines and 12 natural gas-powered graphite induction furnaces. It will also restart its west acid treatment system.

Keck, in a simplified explanation of the production process, said raw graphite flake – basically pure carbon – is put through a series of process steps that ultimately produces graphite material in very thin continuous rolls.

While the creation of good-paying jobs is obviously a welcome development, there is a catch. The production expansion has the potential to increase air pollution emissions from the factory to levels not seen in more than 20 years.

Aggregate Releases of TRI Chemicals to the Air: This bar chart summarizes the reported annual releases of a toxic chemical from the facility through air emissions. Please note that all release amounts are reported in pounds. The releases are estimated as a range, and the mid-point of the range is used in these calculations. Source: Ohio EPA

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s toxic emission and inspection records, air pollution emissions from the plant in 2009 were at least 1,431 pounds, near a 20-year low. Pollution from the plant dropped off sharply in the mid-1990s. It emitted at least 75,454 pounds of pollution in 1987.

A public meeting to discuss the pollution situation was held April 14th in the basement of the Madison Branch of the Lakewood Public Library.

Present were 10 members of the EPA, two representatives from GrafTech, and a single member of the public. Absent were all Ward 4 residents, where the facility is located, including Ward 4 Councilperson Mary Louis Madigan, who was also a no-show at a concurrently held public meeting at city hall regarding the nuisance appeal of a building in her ward.

EPA officials explained the permit-to-pollute, which has received staff approval, would boost GrafTech’s ability to emit certain air pollutants by 33% overall, including a 43% increase in carbon monoxide emissions.

(There are 2,000 pounds in one ton)

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced when fossil fuels are burned. The majority of CO pollution comes from automobile emissions.

CO is the frequent cause of illnesses and accidental deaths when poorly ventilated fuel burning devices like kerosene heaters and cooking units emit gases into enclosed living spaces.

It is far less dangerous when released in an uncloistered outdoor environment. However, it does contribute to the creation of smog and low levels of CO can be harmful to certain people with cardiovascular problems, according to an EPA report on the pollutant.

GrafTech’s tentative new pollution emission limits will comply with all state and federal regulations. In addition, the equipment will be tested to ensure it conforms to projections.

The economics of carbon monoxide pollution control

Pollution control technology exists that would considerably lessen the amount of CO emitted by GrafTech. Unfortunately, research conducted as part of the permit process by GrafTech’s consultant using EPA parameters found the devices to be cost prohibitive

To control emissions in the absence of stringent pollution removal devices, the EPA has prohibited GrafTech from producing more than 529 batches of material annually. The company does not expect to run at that batch rate during the first year of production, according to Keck.

The data provided within GrafTech’s pollution draft permit is a little tricky to interpret. The cost effectiveness of a pollution control device is determined by calculating how much it costs to eliminate a single ton of pollution. For purposes of calculation, the production schedule assumes the equipment will be in use every single hour over the course of an entire year.

In reality, GrafTech’s equipment will not function with such frequency. The Total Annual Cost column in the charts below isn’t relevant and can be ignored. The key item in measuring the financial feasibility of a pollution control device is the Cost/Ton of Pollutant Removed column.

Generally speaking, air pollution control devices that remove emissions at a cost of $10,000 or more per ton are considered too expensive to use.

Four New Graphite Rolling Lines

Without any pollution control device, each of the four graphite rolling lines has the capacity to generate almost 78 tons of CO emission per year. The addition of a pollution control device (recuperative thermal oxidizer, in this case) lessens CO emissions by 95% to about 5 tons per year.

Since it is estimated to cost only $4,235 to remove each ton of CO pollution, the control device is considered cost effective and must be used per the EPA.

12 New Graphite Furnaces

Each of the 12 graphite furnaces has the potential to emit about 29 tons of CO pollution per year. Two of the three different potential emission control devices would eliminate 95% of the CO pollution. The third device would eliminate 72% of emissions.

A regenerative thermal oxidizer, the most effective control device, would remove 27 of the 29 tons of emissions at $11,423 per ton per graphite furnace.

Due to its expense, the EPA did not consider the device to be cost effective, or mandate its use. To mitigate pollution emissions, the EPA instead limits the use of the furnaces to 529 yearly batches of production.

Each furnace will have a scrubber to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.

Restarted West Acid Treatment System

The restarted natural gas-powered west acid treatment system will have the capacity to emit about 85 tons of CO annually. The lowest cost and most efficient of the three possible pollution control devices would eliminate 95% of the CO emissions at a cost of $11,862 per ton. Again, due to the expense involved, the EPA did not believe the device was cost effective and did not mandate its use.

The system will have scrubbers to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.

Will GrafTech be a good corporate citizen?

The GrafTech facility has been a part of the city since its inception one hundred years ago. GrafTech, then known as the National Carbon Co. and later as Union Carbide, played a key role in the development of Birdtown and today remains a visible presence in the neighborhood.

It employs a good number of people, appears to take decent care of its property – and soon, will have the potential to be the city’s worst corporate air polluter at a level not seen in decades. That last fact puts it in a category of its own and means it has an obligation to go above and beyond a basic, minimal level of community support and involvement.

Certainly, there are much larger polluters in the county who emit pollutants more damaging than carbon monoxide. Nevertheless, a smart first step for GrafTech, which Keck said “endeavors to be a strong community partner,” would be to make a significant contribution to the city’s reforestation fund.

For a donation equal to the cost of reducing four tons of CO emission from one of its 12 new graphite furnaces, GrafTech could match the city’s $46,000 annual reforestation fund, off-set some of the environmental damage it causes, and begin the process of becoming a stronger community partner.

Where does income tax go and what's it used for? The chart above, provided by the finance department at a recent city council committee meeting, provides basic answers. Click on the image for a larger view.

Most people don’t enjoy paying income taxes, or quite appreciate what they receive in return for their money. With the passing of Monday’s deadline for municipal tax return submissions, it’s a good time to take a quick look at where the money is going and what it pays for.

All residents and people who are employed within the city must fork over 1.5% of their annual gross salary to the city. Residents who work outside of the city get a .5% credit for income tax withheld by the city they work in. Corporations and other business entities within the city are similarly taxed on their net income.

In the 2009 tax year, about 56% of the total income tax collected came from residents who worked outside of the city. 40% came from people who worked within the city, and 4% came from net business profits.

The same year, according to the most recent data available from the Ohio Department of Taxation, the 25,163 tax returns filed in Lakewood had an average federal adjusted gross income of $45,694.

If that was the salary of a Lakewood resident who worked in Cleveland, he or she would pay Cleveland $914 (its income tax rate is 2%), and would owe Lakewood, after a $229 tax credit, a total of $457.

Income tax payments made to the city go directly into its general fund, the primary bucket of money used to pay municipal operating expenses like employee salaries. Income tax revenue is the general fund’s largest funding source.

The revenue flow chart at the top of this page is a re-creation of a document provided by the city’s finance director to city council members at a recent committee meeting. It illustrates the fund’s other sources.

Notice that property taxes paid to the city are split into four different fund areas, one of which is the general fund. It should also be noted that the city directly receives only 18.5% of the total amount of property taxes collected by the county. The school system receives 60%.

Finance dept. officials are optimistic tax revenues will rebound.

The finance department projected that this year’s income tax collections will increase a couple of percentage points over last year. It won’t reach 2009′s level, when the city offered a tax amnesty program that resulted in the collection of $567,000 in delinquent taxes and 2,200 delinquent tax returns.

It’s a positive sign that income tax collections are expected to make a small rebound. Still, one must remember that the city’s general fund will receive around $2 million less than expected in funding from the state over the next year and a half. It’s too early to know how the city administration will cover the gap.

City paid $28.5 million in employee wages in 2010

Next to Lakewood Hospital and the Lakewood Board of Education, the city is the largest employer in Lakewood. At the start of the year, it had approximately 444 full-time employees – 83 fewer than in 2006 – and 85 part-timers. Unions represent 379 of the full-time employees.

In 2010, the city paid about $28.5 million in employee wages, mostly from its general fund.

The majority of the highest paid personnel are members of the police and fire departments. Captain Gary Stone, a member of the police force since 1984, was the city’s top wage earner at $116,761. Municipal Court Judge Patrick Carroll earned $114,100, but the city only had to cover $38,000. The rest was paid by other sources, including the state.

Nathan Kelly, the former director of planning and development, was the highest earning city worker who was not a part of either the police or fire departments. He was paid $89,116. Kelly, who was appointed in 2008 with underwhelming qualifications, quit in January to follow his patron to the county and took a $98,000 per-year position.

Former Mayor Edward O. FitzGerald, who quit on the city three years into his four-year term, was the 81st highest paid city employee at $75,652.

On his way out the door, he commented that the position didn’t pay enough. The City Council in February agreed with a recommendation from the Civil Service Commission and voted to boost the mayoral salary to $90,000 in 2012 and to $100,000 in 2016. The council acted out of a concern that the existing salary would not attract quality candidates to the position. Interim Mayor Summers said if elected, he would not accept the wage increase if the city was experiencing financial problems. A complete list of 2010 city salaries can be viewed here (.PDF).

The city last year paid Euclid resident Jill Ann Stewart $7,000 to withdraw a lawsuit she filed alleging it improperly issued an arrest warrant that caused her to be arrested and detained by the Mayfield Heights Police Department.

Stewart was arrested and handcuffed while in the process of picking up her daughter from daycare. Police held her for three hours until a friend posted her bond. The city dropped its case against Stewart five days later.

The city denied any wrongdoing, but paid Stewart “solely to terminate further controversy.” Stewart had been seeking compensatory damages in excess of $25,000.

Incidentally, it was good to see the Plain Dealer properly do a follow up story on the arrests of Patricia and Charles Geiger. Its initial story on the incident was poorly written, short on detail, and arguably not even newsworthy enough to appear in the pages of a major metropolitan newspaper.

A final note on the subject: here is a condensed audio clip of the Lakewood police dispatch communication from that night. It fits with the basic narrative provided in the news articles. Lakewood police located the car, found it undamaged, and waited for Cleveland police to arrive.

Hidden Village lawsuit update

Hidden Village’s lawsuit against the city has reached the final pretrial stage. Lawyers representing both sides will make oral arguments before Judge Benita Pearson at the Thomas D. Lambros United States Federal Building and Courthouse in Youngstown on Thursday. A jury trial date that was set for the end of the month has been scrubbed.

The arguments will address Hidden Village’s standing to bring the action and the city’s claim of immunity. Other topics of discussion will include a count-by-count clarification of the violations Hidden Village alleges, and a clarification of the law used to analyze alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act.

On a somewhat related note, two males were arrested on March 22nd for robbery after a man called police and said he was robbed at gunpoint of his wallet and cell phone near the Discount Drug Mart in the East End. A few days later, another male was arrested for shoplifting at the W. 117th and Detroit Ave. Walgreens. All three males were members of the youth re-entry program.