YOUNGSTOWN Former mayor, others question proposal to repeal arena board

The pressure of making a high-profile decision is the only thing that might change council's mind, the former mayor said.
By ROGER G. SMITH
CITY HALL REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- City council would turn the proposed civic center project over to the administration if it eliminates the arena board.
Legislation on tonight's special city council meeting agenda calls for authorizing the board of control to do feasibility studies and seek proposals for the building.
Legislation also would authorize the board -- the mayor, finance director and law director -- to buy property between the Market Street and South Avenue bridges and do more environmental studies.
To choose site: The city already has established that it would pick and buy the site and has been working toward that for months.
Most important, however, are a couple of pieces of legislation repealing creation of the arena board and the outline of its duties.
Six of seven votes are needed to approve the legislation immediately, but that isn't expected to happen today.
Ron Sefcik, D-4th, said he won't be there to vote and wouldn't support the moves if he was. John R. Swierz, D-7th, also said he won't support the legislation.
Without the six votes, the legislation would move to the second of three readings.
A special meeting for Monday then is expected. If six votes don't materialize then, a third reading would be at Wednesday's regular meeting.
Only four votes then are needed to pass or defeat the items, which would take effect in 30 days.
It's unclear how the other council members will vote.
James E. Fortune Sr., D-6th, council's finance committee chairman, is the lone sponsor of all the civic center legislation. He declined to comment, citing a possible lawsuit by the board.
Sefcik has asked that at least six arena board members, the three each appointed by council and the mayor, meet with him 90 minutes before Wednesday's meeting.
Most of council and the arena board have been at odds for a year.
The issue: At issue is final decision-making authority over the project and the $26.8 million secured so far. Contract talks in recent months have only become more polarized.
Meanwhile, the arena board's regular weekly meeting Thursday took on some urgency.
Board members will explore ways to reverse council's direction, said Chairman Robert VanSickle. Nonetheless, the board took one step in case council eliminates the panel.
It voted to create a severance package of 90 days' pay and health insurance coverage for its lone employee, office manager Kim Henshaw. She was hired less than four months ago.
"These are certainly uncertain times for her," said member William Binning. "It's only fair that the board and the city treat her fairly."
Pressure that comes with making such a high-profile decision, which he called "the power of the issue," is the only thing that might change council's direction, said Patrick J. Ungaro, who did battle with councils as mayor for 14 years.
He finds it curious that council members would eliminate a board on which the city -- council and the mayor -- has six of the 13 appointments.
"They're undoing their own influence," said Ungaro, who was appointed to the board by Mayor George M. McKelvey.
A city-operated project is bound to scare away potential private investment in the project, said Ungaro and the board's vice chairman, Gil Peterson.
More reaction: JoAnn Blunt, a board member appointed by council, said she hoped city lawmakers heard the outcry about their planned moves on talk radio.
Member Paul A. Lyden said he hopes the mess doesn't add to the area's image problems.
William Weimer, a lawyer for potential arena investor Bruce Zoldan, said one council member, whom he wouldn't name, told him residents care about jobs and crime, not the project.
"We found that astounding," he said. The project is a quality-of-life issue that can affect all the city's other problems, Weimer said.
rgsmith@vindy.com