City Engineer Resigns Amid Possible Ethics Violations

(This series of articles about City Engineer Doug Green’s resignation and the subsequent investigation by the Ohio Ethics Commission appeared in the Upper Arlington News between June 2008 and December 2009.)

UA city engineer resigns from post

Officials won’t say what types of allegations are being investigated.

By DONAVON CAMPBELL, June 4, 2008

Upper Arlington City Engineer Doug Green has tendered his resignation as an investigation moves forward into his conduct in office.

Green signed a separation agreement last week essentially agreeing to the terms of his resignation, city officials said.

“It was agreed that it was in both parties’ best interest,” for Green to resign, said Assistant City Manager of Public Affairs Emma Speight.

Green had been with Upper Arlington since May 1990.

On Friday, May 30, City Manager Virginia Barney reportedly called City Council members to inform them that Green had tendered his resignation. His salary at the time of his departure was a little more than $79,000 a year.

“In light of a challenging work environment arising from some management issues, Mr. Green and the city have mutually agreed it was in both parties’ best interests to enter into a separation agreement,” said Barney.

The resignation took effect last week. The investigation is in-house at the moment, involving the UA Division of Police and the city’s human resources department.

“All I can tell you is that there is an investigation ongoing,” UA Police Lt. Ernie Ankrom said. He would offer no additional details.

City Councilman Wade Steen said there was no closed council session during which allegations being levied toward Green were discussed.

“We have had no meetings whatsoever go over something like that,” said Steen.

“I would expect that if there is an issue or problem related to one of our senior employees,” said Steen.

“I would expect the city manager to discuss that with us and if she didn’t, I’d be concerned.”

Councilman Frank Ciotola said he, too, learned of Green’s resignation Friday, but that he hadn’t heard anything else about the issue.

“If it turns out to be serious I want to know why we weren’t informed,” said Ciotola.

“If it is a serious issue then I have a serious problem not being informed until Friday.”

Green could not be reached for comment Tuesday morning.

While Barney confirmed that Green is facing allegations, she said she was unable to disclose the exact nature of the issues because it’s an ongoing investigation.

Barney did say, however, that it was possible that Green could face legal trouble should the allegations be found true.

“As a public entity we take very seriously our role as being stewards of the community’s investments,” said Speight.

“Anytime there is a hint or suggestion of impropriety, it is the city’s duty to investigate thoroughly.”

The role of a city engineer is described by Upper Arlington as follows:

* Oversees construction of infrastructure capital improvement projects, evaluating contract bids, making recommendations, conducting preconstruction and progress meetings with contractors;

* Conducts design and plan review, evaluating, selecting and recommending final design of projects;

* Selects and manages engineering design consultants, which includes technical writing requests for proposals, advertising for bids, evaluating and ranking engineering design proposals;

* Performs inspection, inventory and evaluation of infrastructure components;

* Administers Neighborhood Street Lighting Utility Board and storm water utility;

* Reviews plans, issues permits and oversee construction of inspection of private utility and development projects;

* Provides capital improvement planning and budgeting services; and

* Carries out supervisory responsibilities of the engineering staff.

Administration began Green investigation in April

By DONAVON CAMPBELL, June 11, 2008

UA City Engineer Doug Green’s recent resignation was the result of a nearly eight-week process.

During that time, City Manager Virginia Barney said, Green was investigated for improprieties in the way he reportedly treated staff and eventually for possible ethical transgressions in the way he was conducting city business.

The allegations leading to Green’s eventual resignation stemmed from a complaint in late March by a member of his staff who claimed Green was guilty of improper treatment of staff members in the Engineer Division, Barney said.

Barney said Green was put on paid administrative leave on April 17 so city officials could properly conduct an investigation into the charges.

After discussions with a number of other employees, Barney said, city investigators discovered that a number of them felt the same way — that Green’s management style was inappropriate.

Green officially resigned from his post May 22 after signing a separation agreement with the city.

“My decision (to ask Green to resign) was based solely on the management issues in the division,” said Barney.

Green issued a statement through his legal counsel that he did not wish to comment on the allegations, but that he harbored no animosity toward the city of Upper Arlington.

The attorney, Jeffrey Poth, confirmed that he and Green would have no comment.

Green had been with the city since May 1990 and had a salary at the time of his departure of $79,162.

During their investigations into the way Green managed his division, Barney said, allegations arose about the way Green was conducting city business.

“Out of conversations with employees, allegations were made,” said Barney.

“We felt like we needed to move forward … with an investigation by our police division.

“We notified (the Ohio Ethics Commission) of the possibility of allegations, which is what we do when there is any hint of misconduct,” said Barney.

Paul Nick, chief investigative attorney for the Ohio Ethics Commission, said he was unable to comment on any ongoing investigations.

Nick did explain, however, that the Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over cases where a conflict of interest has come into play or where a member of a government body is using their position for personal benefit. He said that many of the allegations they investigate can end up criminal in nature.

Barney said she was unable to give any further detail as to the allegations because of the ongoing investigation as well.

“I’m not in a position at this point to discuss what the allegations were because the investigation is still in progress,” said Barney.

“The results are not yet known and we must protect the due process rights of Mr. Green.”

Barney shared her appreciation for the Engineering Division for being patient and remaining productive during the process.

“I want to thank all the employees of the Engineering Division for their continued dedication to our community during the transition period,” said Barney.

“Because (the city) is a public entity, the steps you have to go through are a little more lengthy before you reach a separation agreement.”

Barney said city construction projects are expected to continue as planned throughout the summer and that the search is under way for a new city engineer.

UA reels in Komlanc to be its new city engineer

By DONAVON CAMPBELL, Sept. 10, 2008

Upper Arlington announced the hiring of new City Engineer Tom Komlanc on Monday, Sept. 8.

Komlanc fills a position left vacant by former Engineer Doug Green, who resigned from the post amid undisclosed allegations in May.

Deputy City Manager for Community Affairs Emma Speight said things have moved slowly in regard to Green’s investigation.

“There is nothing new to report on that,” said Speight. “Those investigations typically take quite a few months.”

In the meantime, Speight said the city has moved forward and made what they regard as an excellent selection to fill the post.

“I think (we’re) very, very excited about hiring (Komlanc),” said Speight.

“He was above and beyond everyone’s first choice, so we’re very excited to bring him on board.”

Komlanc graduated from Ohio State University in 1997 with a bachelor of science in Civil Engineering and later received a master’s in Business Administration from Ashland University in 2004.

Komlanc’s professional experience includes working for the city of Gahanna Engineer Department from 1996 to 2007, where he became the assistant city engineer and was involved with a variety of projects.

Komlanc then joined the staff of OSU as the senior project manager for facilities design and construction, where he remained for roughly a year and a half before coming to UA.

“I’m very excited,” said Komlanc. “As far as career growth goes, this is a great opportunity. I couldn’t ask for a better city to be working for.”

Even with his experiences, Komlanc faces a position that comes with many duties. The city engineer:

*Oversees construction of infrastructure capital improvement projects, evaluating contract bids, making recommendations, conducting preconstruction and progress meetings with contractors;

*Conducts design and plan review, evaluating, selecting and recommending final design of projects;

*Selects and manages engineering design consultants, which includes technical writing requests for proposals, advertising for bids, evaluating and ranking engineering design proposals;

*Performs inspection, inventory and evaluation of infrastructure components;

*Administers the Neighborhood Street Lighting Utility Board and storm water utility;

*Reviews plans, issues permits and oversee construction of inspection of private utility and development projects;

*Provides capital improvement planning and budgeting services; and

*Carries out supervisory responsibilities of the engineering staff.

Beyond those duties, Komlanc said, he hopes to bring new technologies to the city as well. Komlanc said he plans to work on developing a geographical information system, or GIS, for the engineering department.

A GIS is essentially a computer-based intelligent mapping that would give a user an instant breakdown of any particular site in the city including things such as the materials used at the site, the placement and types of utilities and other pertinent information.

Komlanc said he also would like to employ global positioning satellite technologies to make city functions such as snow plowing more efficient, as well as look into a fiber-optic infrastructure that would allow for quicker sharing of information between different city, public and possibly private institutions.

Komlanc said he also is interested in continuing the city’s movement toward greener alternatives.

“We have to be innovative in our approach,” said Komlanc.

“(We have to) try to utilize renewable resources in maintaining what we all ready have.”

He added that he intends to keep his eyes open for grants and other funding opportunities so as to relieve as much of the burden on tax payers as possible.

“I don’t want to just use the tax base to (fund) that,” said Komlanc.

“I want to do the due diligence to make sure we’re taking advantage of the various … state and federal (funds) that are available to us. I look forward to serving the residents.”

Police, Ethics Commission submit Green reports to prosecutor

Investigation into conduct by former city engineer is now in the hands of Franklin County prosecutor’s office.

By DONAVON CAMPBELL, June 24, 2009

The case of former Upper Arlington City Engineer Doug Green has been transferred to the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office after a nearly yearlong investigation by the Ohio Ethics Commission.

Green resigned in May 2008 after an investigation into reported mismanagement of his staff turned up possible ethics violations.

Paul Nick, chief investigative attorney for the Ohio Ethics Commission, confirmed that Green’s case has been investigated and is now in the hands of County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien’s office.

“I can’t comment on the particulars, but just the next step in the process has occurred,” Nick said.

Green’s attorney, Jeffrey Poth, said he had no comment about the case at this time.

The Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over cases where a conflict of interest has come into play or where a member of a government body is using his position for personal benefit, Nick explained previously, adding that many of the allegations they investigate can end up criminal in nature.

Green officially resigned from his post with Upper Arlington on May 22 of last year — he was making an annual salary of $79,162 at the time — after signing a separation agreement with the city, City Manager Virginia Barney said in June ’08.

But he was originally put on paid administrative leave April 17 , 2008, while the city conducted an in-house investigation into improprieties in the way he reportedly treated staff, Barney said.

Barney explained that allegations arose about the way Green was conducting city business during those investigations.

UA Police Lt. Ernie Ankrom said the UA Division of Police has been investigating Green in conjunction with the Ethics Commission and has submitted its own findings as part of the grand jury summary.

“At this point all of our investigation records are in the report that was filed by the Ethics Commission to the prosecutor’s office,” Ankrom said.

Ankrom explained that he was unable to comment on the police division’s findings. But it will be up to the prosecutor’s office to determine whether to use charges from the police division’s investigation, the Ethics Commission’s, both investigations or to determine if they won’t be filing any criminal charges at all, he said.

“I can’t specify what the final report outcome was,” Ankrom said.

“Basically they’ll determine if it goes to a grand jury, or back to us, or they could could say there isn’t enough to file any charges.”

Felony charges would be handled through the county prosecutor, but misdemeanor charges would come back under the city of Upper Arlington’s purview, he said.

Ankrom said he did not know what the timeline would be on a decision by the prosecutor’s office.

Deputy City Manager for Community Affairs Emma Speight said that, because of the legal process and the fact that Green’s case still was pending, the city was unable to comment on it at this time.

“We’re respecting that process,” Speight said.

Former UA city engineer pleads guilty to ethics-related charge

Doug Green was investigated for steering city work to a firm where his wife was employed

By: DONAVON CAMPBELL, Dec. 30, 2009

Former Upper Arlington City Engineer Doug Green has plead guilty to an ethics violation that occurred while he was employed by the city.

Green plead guilty to a conflict of interest charge, a first degree misdemeanor, during a Dec. 24 arraignment in Franklin County Municipal Court.

The charge, that Green used his position with the city to contract out work for road improvements to Floyd Brown Associates, a Marion-based engineering firm, because his wife worked for the company was filed by Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien following an investigation by the Ohio Ethics Commission.

“Basically what we charged him with was using his position as city engineer to award contracts to his spouse’s firm,” said Paul Nick, chief investigative attorney for the Ohio Ethics Commission.

“Floyd Brown had not previously done any work with the city (before Green) … and hasn’t done any work since (Green’s resignation),” Nick said.

A first degree misdemeanor can carry a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail. Green was ordered to pay a $500 fine because he plead guilty and had already paid restitution to the city of Upper Arlington, Nick said.

Upper Arlington Assistant City Attorney Tom Lindsey confirmed that Green had already paid the city $9,000 in restitution.

Nick explained that Green awarded Floyd Brown Associates some $120,000 in contracts to work on five city streets, but work was only completed on two of those streets and the city was left to finished the other three projects.

Nick said Floyd Brown Associates was not found guilty of any wrong doing.

“We’re not suggesting Floyd Brown did anything wrong, it was all Doug Green,” Nick said. “Green had said that that (unfinished work) was sufficient. Basically, he acted recklessly.”

Green officially resigned from his post with Upper Arlington on May 22, 2008 — he was making an annual salary of $79,162 at the time — after signing a separation agreement with the city, City Manager Virginia Barney said in June ’08.

He was originally put on paid administrative leave April 17 , 2008, while the city conducted an in-house investigation into improprieties in the way he reportedly treated staff, Barney said.

Barney explained that allegations arose about the way Green was conducting city business during those investigations.

Lindsey said he does not expect the city will pursue the matter any further.

“The city had determined that that was the appropriate restitution amount and as far as I know has no intention to pursue this matter any further,” Lindsey said. “This action by the ethics commission concludes this matter so I don’t anticipate anything further by the city.”

Jeffrey Poth, Green’s attorney, said he had no comment about the case.

Checks are in place to avoid ethics violations, UA city officials say

By DONAVON CAMPBELL, January 6, 2010

The recent guilty plea in Franklin County Municipal Court by former Upper Arlington City Engineer Doug Green on an ethics violation has raised some questions as to the effectiveness of the city’s internal checks and balances.

Green, 54, pleaded guilty to a conflict-of-interest charge, a first degree misdemeanor, during a Dec. 24 arraignment in Franklin County Municipal Court.

The charge was related to Green using his position with the city to recommend contract work for road improvements to Floyd Brown Associates, a Marion-based engineering firm where his wife worked, in late 2003 and 2004.

The charge was filed by Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien following an investigation by the Ohio Ethics Commission.

According to Chief Investigative Attorney for the Ohio Ethics Commission Paul Nick, Floyd Brown Associates eventually was awarded some $120,000 in engineering contracts to work on five city streets.

Green called the violation one of miscommunication, stating that he felt he informed the proper individuals of the fact his wife was employed by Floyd Brown Associates.

“What I pleaded guilty to was the fact that … I should have gone one level higher,” Green said.

“I should have gone to the ethics commission and I didn’t do that.”

City Attorney Jeanine Hummer said Green neither informed the City Manager’s office or the City Attorney’s office of his wife’s position in the firm.

“Not going to the ethics commission is one part,” of the problem, Hummer said.

“But frankly if he even asked a question to the City Attorney’s office … it could have been avoided.”

Green, who was with the city for 18 years before resigning in spring 2008, said he wasn’t sure if he felt the city’s policies failed him. But he did feel the Ethics Commission treated him unfairly, he said.

“I didn’t hire my wife’s firm in secret, that was done openly and above board,” Green said.

“My unhappiness rests with the way the Ohio Ethics Commission did business. I don’t think it sought the truth and I don’t think it found the truth.”

Green was ordered by the judge to pay a $500 fine plus $82 in court costs. He also paid $9,000 in restitution to the city.

Recently re-elected City Council member Wade Steen said he would like to revisit the city’s contracting policies.

“We really need to take a look at our internal control system in terms of contracting,” Steen said.

“That’s the best way to try to stop this from happening.”

“We need to ask, are the internal controls of our contracting process adequate?” said Steen, who added that it can be a fine line between too stringent and overly costly procedures and too loose or ineffective procedures.

“It’s an art form almost in that you want controls that will diminish, to almost a negligible opportunity, for something like this to happen,” Steen said.

“They can still break it, it just means that you can identify them and catch them sooner.”

Hummer said no system of controls is perfect and all employees of the city go through ethics training.

“There was a good process in place to avoid potential issues,” Hummer said.

“If someone wants to get around something to accomplish a certain goal, they’re going to find a way.

“You can have as many written policies as you can, if someone wants to try to commit an act that is irregular or wrong nothing is going to stop them,” she said.

The Tremont Road Rezoning

(The following is a series of articles about a controversial rezoning decision that was made by citateouncil and went to the ballot as a referendum. The pieces appeared in the Upper Arlington News between April and November of 2008.)

Residents react to Tremont rezoning proposal

By DONAVON CAMPBELL,  April 16, 2008

Upper Arlington CitatCouncil heard the first reading of a recommendation to rezone 0.92 acres — consisting of two parcels at 3371 and 3381 Tremont Road — at its regular meeting Monday, April 14.

Nearly 20 residents showed up to speak, while many more were in attendance at the meeting.

Plans call for the land to be rezoned from single-family residential to a commercial office designation, to allow for a two-story medical office.

Many of the residents from the Westwood Acres subdivision, which borders the parcels in question, and the surrounding neighborhoods voiced their reasons for opposing the rezoning.

John Dilenschneider, a 58-year resident of Upper Arlington, said an office building eould increase traffic cutting through his neighborhood. The 18,000-square-foot facilitatwould create 600-700 more vehicle trips to and from the area, officials said.

Dilenschneider focused on London Drive, a 30-foot wide thoroughfare through Westwood Acres without sidewalks, which eould become a regular cut-through for motorists heading toward the building.

It is a road, Dilenschneider said, on which 43 houses sit — many of which are homes of children.

“(It is) a unique pedestrian community,” said Dilenschneider.

“We’re going to endanger our children, ruin the integritatof our neighborhood … all for a few dollars.”

Forty-year resident Shirley Green questioned the motives behind the rezoning.

“I don’t like to see my neighborhood destroyed by the greed of a developer and his henchmen,” said Green.

Julia Biard, another Westwood Acres resident, asked council why the attempt to take up additional green space from a residential area, instead of looking to redevelop an area that is alreadateommercial.

“Why would you knock down a building on green space instead of a building alreadaton asphalt?” said Biard.

Pemberton Drive resident Fort Merullo, whose back yard directly abuts the two parcels, said the rezoning is not supported by the citatMaster Plan and is a clear example of eommercial creeping and spot rezoning.

“This is potentially life-changing for my wife and I,” said Merullo. “Had my neighborhood been targeted for rezoning (in the Master Plan), I would have put my house up for sale.”

Residents opposing the rezoning were not the only ones to speak.

Sandy Keller, a lifelong Upper Arlington resident, said she had lived by a commercial building before and that it was not “the end of the world.”

“It was very pleasant living next to a eommercial building,” said Keller.

John Conroy, a 35-year resident, said he felt the rezoning for a possible medical office building might be the best possible option for the 0.92 acres.

“We all use doctors, we have to go them, we want them close by,” said Conroy.

“I think you have to look at all the alternatives, and looking at the alternatives I think this is a good one. I think it is a win-win.”

According to Matthew Shad, deputateitatmanager for economic development, the plan for a new medical office building fills a substantial need in Upper Arlington. Of 87 office buildings in the eita, Shad said only six were considered to be class A, meaning they meet the requirements of a medical office.

Sam Nemer, an Upper Arlington resident and local business owner, also backed the rezoning.

“I support the rezoning,” Nemer said. “I think it’s a good use of the land.”

Dennis Carroll, another UA resident and a physical therapist who owns his own business, eoncurred as well.

“I think this would be a great asset to this eita,” said Carroll.

After the discussion, CitatCouncil member Frank Ciotola assured residents that council will not take this issue lightly.

“I know this is a very passionate issue,” said Ciotola. “And it is not an easy decision one way or the other.”

The second reading of the Tremont rezoning recommendation will be at the CitatCouncil meeting on Monday, April 28, at 7:30 in Council Chambers at the CitatMunicipal Building at 3600 Tremont Road.

The third reading, and subsequent vote from CitatCouncil, is scheduled for Monday, May 12.

Council approves Tremont rezoning

By DONAVON CAMPBELL,tMay 14, 2008

Upper Arlington CitatCouncil listened to hours of public testimona, then voted 5-2 early Tuesday, May 13, to approve a controversial rezoning along Tremont Road.

In a meeting that lasted until nearly 12:30 a.m., eouncil approved the proposal to rezone two parcels, 3371 and 3381 Tremont Road, just north of the Five Points intersection.

Bob Long, of Long and Wilcox LLC — the development eompany proposing to build a medical office building on the site — offered a compromise before the vote. He proposed reducing the size of the building from a two-story, 18,000-square-foot structure to a one-story, 12,000-square-foot facilita.

He also said a request would be made for a variance for an 8-foot fence that would increase abutting resident’s ability to retain their privacy.

With the new proposal in mind, eouncil listened as nearly 40 speakers — a majoritatof whom opposed the rezoning — laid out a varietatof arguments for and against the rezoning.

Those opposed continued to cite that rezoning the two parcels from residential to eommercial space would result in an amplification of traffic issues throughout the neighboring Westwood Acres subdivision — particularly on London Drive.

The rezoning also would create a parking overflow into residential streets from individuals visiting the new building, reduce property values, reduce green space and set a precedence for future eommercial creeping into UA’s residential areas and going away from the city’s Master Plan.

Those for the rezoning; however, cited a need for qualitatmedical office space as well as the tax revenues a new business at the location would bring into the city’s coffers.

Others cited a need to eompete with neighboring cities such as Dublin and Hilliard in providing viable office spaces for eompanies looking to relocate and the overall need for UA to eontinue to be open to ehance as a landlocked eommunity.

In the end, it all added up to a hard decision for CitatCouncil members.

Councilmen Wade Steen and Frank Ciotola voted against the rezoning. Both of them cited an inability to justify forcing such a eontroversial change on the residents of the surrounding neighborhood against their will.

“I don’t think it’s a pro-business or anti-business issue,” said Ciotola.

“Finally I had to ask, ‘Would I want this done to me?’ And the answer is ‘No.’ ”

However, CitatCouncil members Don Leach,tMay Ann Krauss, Eric Yassenoff, Ed Seidel and LindatMauger decided that, when all is said and done, the rezoning does more good than harm for the city as whole.

For Seidel, the decision did not necessarily go against the city’s Master Plan.

“The Master Plan is not an end all,” said Seidel.

“It’s a guide post. There is a lot in the Master Plan that goes both ways.”

Mauger said UA is a landlocked eommunity and, if the city wishes to continue its prosperita, officials will need to make some tough decisions regarding rezoning.

“There is no such thing as a development project in our community,” said Mauger. “Every one is a redevelopment project.

“Everything we do eauses something else to be torn down and rebuilt.”

Leach said he felt the rezoning fell in line with what the Master Plan calls for in terms of redevelopment. He did not feel that this particular rezoning was going to lead to further eommercial creeping, he said.

“I believe the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Master Plan,” said Leach.

“I don’t see this as a spot rezoning. I don’t think this is an indication that rezoning will eontinue northeast on Tremont.”

Some eouncil members admitted the proposal for a smaller building had an affect on their decision.

Nevertheless, a group of residents alreadathave retained legal eounsel in attorney Jim Becker for the referendum process and say they will be pursuing that option.

“There is a plan for a referendum,” said Fort Merullo, whose house on Pemberton Drive abuts the rezoned properties.

“I still believe the whole thing was a sham. The city, more or less, did it for themselves.”

Long said he hopes that once neighbors see that Long and Wilcox are sticking to their word by building a tasteful, one-story medical office building, everything will calm down.

“I think that what we need to do now is honor our commitment to the neighbors,” said Long.

“When you get through all the emotion I think what we’ve proposed is very reasonable.”

UA residents file petitions to fight Tremont vote

By DONAVON CAMPBELL,tJune 18, 2008

Residents opposing the decision to rezone two parcels at 3371 and 3381 Tremont Road submitted petitions with 2,100 signatures seeking a referendum of the decision Wednesday, June 11.

On May 12 CitatCouncil voted 5-2 to allow the two parcels owned by Centro Inc. to be rezoned from single-family residential to eommercial.

Council made the decision to rezone despite the pleas of residents near the site. Theateited loss of property value, increased traffic, eommercial creeping along Tremont Road and a loss of green space in the eommunity among other reasons not to allow the rezoning.

Those in favor of the rezoning, including many city staff members, cited their own reasons to support the decision. Reasons include: a need for class-A medical office space in the eity, a need to develop mixed uses around Kingsdale in order to entice businesses to the area, ineome tax revenues for the city and the idea that the building eould serve as a buffer between the surrounding neighborhoods and the eommercial area around the Five Points Intersection.

While City Council President Don Leach said he did not believe this was a sign of further eommercial rezoning on Tremont Road, Pemberton Road resident Fort Merullo said he has lost faith in what his City Council does or says.

“A majoritatof people we run into (while collecting signatures) seem to be fairly disenchanted with City Council,” said Merullo.

“The bottom line is this is about the eity not protecting its residents.”

Charles Dilenschneider, a Westwood Acres resident and one of the organizers of the signature drive, said he found it eye-opening collecting people’s opinions as well as their signatures.

“It was interesting,” said Dilenschneider.

“A lot of people are pretty upset with City Council.”

Dilenschneider said he is enjoying being part of the democratic process and he excited and hopeful that most UA residents will agree with the rezoning opponents.

“This is the right thing to do,” said Dilenschneider. “This is democracy.

“We just have got to get people involved and let them make the choice.”

With the signatures turned in on time, they now must be verified by the Franklin County Board of Elections. Once verified, the issue will be added to the November ballot and it will be up to residents such as Dilenschneider and Merullo to spread their message throughout the eommunity.

“I’m excited about our numbers,” said Merullo. “My general feeling from the public (is that) people are ready for change.

“We just have to let people know it’s not just our back yards, it’s everybody’s back yard that lives close to a commercial area.”

City Council members said the referendum is all part of the process.

“This is just democracy in action,” said Councilman Wade Steen, one of the two “No” votes on the rezoning issue. “They have a right to do that and they got active.

“Frankly, I was impressed with their level of organization. Theatwere very, very well-organized.”

Councilman Eric Yassenoff, who voted for the rezoning, said he looks forward to the process playing out.

“They are using all the options at their disposal and I look forward to the debate and discussion on the referendum this fall,” said Yassenoff.

UA on verge of citywide vote for neighborhood issue

Both sides of Issue 51 say everyone should care about proposed rezoning

By DONAVON CAMPBELL,tOct. 22, 2008

For those directly involved with Issue 51 — concerning the rezoning of two residential properties at 3371 and 3381 Tremont Road — the past six to seven months have been filled with constant effort to make a solid case either for or against the rezoning.

But what does it mean to voters in Upper Arlington who do not live or work in the immediate area?

The two properties are located just north of Upper Arlington’s bustling “Five Points” intersection. While most residents will drive past the lots, now vacant, many might never step into the medical offices proposed there nor have any dealings with the neighbors in the vicinity.

Rezoning foes: Whose neighborhood is next?

“Specifically, what we want (voters) to be aware of is this has the potential to open up the floodgates to spot zoning throughout Upper Arlington,” said Fort Merullo, whose home backs up to the properties in question.

“That’s the No. 1 concern.”

Merullo is one of the leaders of a group of residents who filed the referendum in the spring that put City Council’s May rezoning vote on the ballot.

Martin Cordero, another resident who has played a large role in the opposition to the rezoning, gave a longer list of concerns he felt residents should consider before casting their votes.

“I think the first thing is that the focus should be on those areas that need redeveloped before striking out into residential areas,” said Cordero.

It was recently announced that a local eommercial developer, Continental Real Estate, has plans to purchase the much maligned Kingsdale Shopping Center and would like to begin redevelopment as early as spring 2009.

Cordero also voiced a concern about the apparent urgency to ereate new office spaces in a city that is on strong financial footing.

“Is there an overwhelming need to ereate and generate this revenue stream in a community that is operating in the black?” he asked.

The city is expected to be working with an unencumbered general fund balance of nearly $15 million in 2009, according to Finance Director Cathe Armstrong. However, the conversation heading into budget talks among city officials is whether they are going to have to dip into those savings for $500,000 to balance the budget next year in the face of the unstable economy.

Cordero reminded voters to eonsider that the area in which the properties are located falls outside the areas marked for redevelopment in both the Unified Development Ordinance and the Master Plan. Those two documents were ereated in recent years to help guide redevelopment in the eommunity.

“It’s not just going to be the Kingsdale area,” said Cordero.

“You may say it’s only a Kingsdale problem today, but it’s a Guilford (Road) problem tomorrow, it’s going to be a Cambridge (Boulevard) problem.”

Cordero said he chose those examples beeause of one of the major factors developers use in deciding where to purchase land — traffic.

“There are a lot of streets in Upper Arlington that have a lot of traffic and would be prime for a developer to eome in and purchase land for eommercial use,” said Cordero.

Cordero ended with a warning to voters from other parts of Upper Arlington.

“Don’t feel as if this is not eoming to,” your neighborhood, said Cordero.

“The realitatis that every piece of property is up for grabs.”

Rezoning supporters: City’s tax base will grow

Of course those on the other side of the argument do not go so far as to predict doom and gloom for the residential character of the city.

Jeff Bibbo, a partner in Centro Inc. — the development eompany that owns 3371 and 3381 Tremont Road — believes the “North Kingsdale Medial Offices” will do nothing but benefit the area.

Bibbo said voters should consider the many positives of the commercial project such as the ereation of new jobs, meaning income tax revenues for the city as whole.

“We think that we can add a lot to the Upper Arlington economy to support schools and, most importantly, we can ereate jobs,” said Bibbo.

“We believe a project like this will give people an opportunity to live in Upper Arlington and and work in Upper Arlington and it will provide high-paying jobs.”

Those against the rezoning argue that the new income tax revenues will be offset by the loss of property taxes when the homes nearby the development have their values deerease due to their new proximity to a commercial development.

City staff: Voters should weigh benefits vs. harm

Chad Gibson, senior planning officer for the city, reminded voters the project was studied in depth by his staff, the Board of Zoning and Planning and City Council. All three supported the rezoning.

“It’s going to do nothing but positive things for the eity,” said Gibson.

He added that nearby residents were not forgotten during the process. The size of the building was reduced during the issue’s time before City Council from a 20,000-square-foot, two-story structure to its current size.

BZAP and City Council, “did take all reasonable preeaution to protect the limited amount of residential properties nearby,” said Gibson.

Gibson wanted to make it clear as well that the city itself does not propose redevelopment or have a hand in what projects developers decide to pursue.

“We did our due diligence and reviewed the project from an unbiased standpoint,” said Gibson.

“They determined that this did meet the standards of our rezoning code.”

Gibson also eautioned voters that just beeause Kingsdale may begin to be redeveloped soon that does not necessarily guarantee there will be a great deal of medical office space in those plans.

DeputatCity Manager for Eeonomic Developer Matt Shad said there is one essential question before voters in regards to Issue 51.

“Does it make sense?” said Shad. “Is the land use appropriate or not?

“And is the benefit justifiable vs. the harm?”

Money flows into campaign to get Tremont plots rezoned

By DONAVON CAMPBELL, Oct. 20, 2008

Pemberton Drive resident Fort Merullo says the process of fighting the rezoning of two plots at 3371 and 3381 Tremont Road from residential to commercial as been time-consuming, exhausting and more than a little expensive.

A look at pre-election campaign finance reports from the two sides of the issue shows just how uphill the battle has been.

Citizens Against Rezoning Tremont, the group of residents fighting the rezoning, has raised $4,095 through donations from 18 different residents, according to reports filed with the Franklin County Board of Elections by last week’s deadline.

Merullo and fellow organizer Martin Cordero each gave $1,000 contributions to the cause while the rest of the money came in chunks of anywhere from $25 to $500.

“We collected from residents and kind of did the best we could with what we have,” said Merullo, whose wife, Renee, served as treasurer of the committee.

“We had to get out and talk to people one on one.”

The difference in financing for the two sides of this campaign is substantial. Centro Inc. is the local commercial real estate company that owns the two plots and intends to install a one-story, 12,000-square-foot medical office building at the 0.92 acre site.

It has used, by way of the UA Homeowners for New Jobs PAC, some $43,663 to pay for mailers, yard signs and newspaper ads.

The committee’s report lists two primary sources of income: Centro contributed $38,064 and Barristers Inc. donated $5,600.

Centro also has had the endorsement of the UA Area Chamber of Commerce, which has raised another $13,650 in support of Issue 51 under its political action committee UA Citizens for Responsible Economic Development.

“It was obscene, their number,” said Merullo. “Who would spend ($57,313) on a campaign unless there was big money in it?”

Merullo said it appeared to him simply as a case of a business spending money to make money.

“We didn’t stand to gain half a million dollars,” said Merullo.

“The only thing we are trying to do is maintain status quo and protect our property values. We don’t stand to make money off (Issue 51), that’s the difference.”

Becky Hajost, president of the Upper Arlington Area Chamber of Commerce, said that because of the emotions wrapped up in Issue 51, it was a tough choice to make to back the rezoning.

But in the end she said the process the chamber went through to come to their decision to endorse the rezoning was done responsibly and the chamber is now doing what any good chamber of commerce around the country would do.

“This is the mission of chambers across the country, to be an advocate for business,” Hajost said.

City Councilman Eric Yassenoff, also a member of the UA Area Chamber of Commerce, said he gave $250 from his own campaign fund to UA Citizens for Responsible Economic Development on Oct. 7.

“I ran on an economic development platform (in 2007),” said Yassenoff, who was one of five City Council members to vote in favor of the rezoning in May.

“I feel by giving a contribution to the effort it’s supporting my position, my vote and my beliefs in economic development. I got to put my money where my mouth is.”

Jeff Bibbo, of Centro Inc., said his company invested so heavily in the campaign for a number of reasons.

“We have expended this money for several reasons,” said Bibbo in a statement sent via e-mail to the UA News.

“The most important of which is that we all live in Upper Arlington, it is our home, it is our children’s home and probably will be our grandchildren’s home.

“We feel that it is of paramount importance,” wrote Bibbo. “To develop the few pieces of property in Upper Arlington that can be reasonably … developed to aid in establishing a more sound financial basis for the city of Upper Arlington to continue to operate and provide services at the level that our residents have become accustomed to having.”

Arlington residents turn back referendum, uphold rezoning

Developer says rezoning on Tremont Road parcels will lead to a high-quality project that benefits the city.

By DONAVON CAMPBELL, Nov. 5, 2008

With the city’s support now official, it’s time to get to work on redeveloping two parcels on Tremont Road.

Issue 51, the resident-driven referendum on Upper Arlington’s ballot, easily passed Tuesday, Nov. 4. The issue passed 53 percent to 47 percent, with 9,401 voters in favor and 8,318 opposed.

Jeff Bibbo, of Centro Inc., said he knows how hard-fought this issue was and that his company plans on creating a project that will make UA residents happy with the decision.

“I think this is a victory for all of Upper Arlington,” said Bibbo.

“I’m going to work hard to make sure this is a project Upper Arlington can be proud of.”

Looking forward, Bibbo reiterated that Centro Inc. is dedicated to a quality building.

“We’ll stick to whatever the (Board of Zoning and Planning) requires we do,” said Bibbo.

“We’re certainly going to make (the building) a high aesthetic quality … and make sure it fits with the corridor and the properties that surround us.”

A group of 16 or so residents filled Mickie Lockwood’s home beginning at about 7:30 p.m. Tuesday night.

Pockets formed in the kitchen, the living room and a bedroom where a computer ticked off the poll results from the Franklin County Board of Elections Web site.

At first, topics stayed general, but slowly but surely the one thing on everybody’s mind at the gathering, whether Issue 51 would pass or fail began to dominate the conversation.

As of 10:30 p.m., with all 34 precincts accounted for as well as absentee ballots, the news was not good for them.

“We are disappointed,” said Fort Merullo, one of the residents who had organized and led the referendum to overturn City Council’s decision to rezone two plots at 3371 and 3381 Tremont Road from residential to commercial.

“Our people worked hard to protect U.A. from a precedent setting, non-compliant, spot rezoning,” said Merullo.

“I believe this is going to lead to a flood of spot zoning … forever changing the face of Upper Arlington.”

The vote ends a process that began in April when the Upper Arlington Board of Zoning and Planning voted 4-3 to recommend the rezoning to City Council.

On May 13, after three heavily attended meetings during which many residents came forth to speak, council voted 5-2 to approve the rezoning as well.

Shortly thereafter the residents opposed to the rezoning, lead by Merullo and Cordero, had collected enough signatures for a referendum and Issue 51 was headed to the ballot.

“I’m disappointed in the outcome,” said Martin Cordero, another referendum organizer.

“It means that the financial losses will be shoulder by neighboring homeowners at the sole profit of a commercial developer.”

The two parcels, owned by local developer Centro Inc. and located just north of the “Five Points” intersection, are expected to become a one-story, 12,000-square-foot Class-A medical office building.

While those against argued that the structure would greatly reduce property values for its neighbors, push increased traffic and overflow parking into the nearby neighborhoods, hurt the character of the community and possibly lead to more “commercial creeping” in the future.

Proponents of the rezoning included city planning staff as well as Deputy City Manager for Economic Development Matt Shad. They recommended the rezoning at the time of the council vote and the Upper Arlington Area Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the rezoning.

Supporters cited a need in the city for quality, up-to-date medical space, the constant need for a “land-locked” city to increase its income tax base as well as the fact that the structure is abutted in the south by another office building and faces an adjacent office building across the street.