War over plant sale rages on

By WILLIAM K. ALCORN
and KANTELE FRANKO
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITERS
CAMPBELL -- The Campbell water treatment plant sale wars are not over yet.
Mayor Jack Dill thought that the issue was resolved last week when Finance Director John J. Leskovyansky Jr. declared the referendum petition -- circulated to force a vote on the sale of the water plant -- invalid.
Dill expressed "tremendous relief" Wednesday morning that the referendum was dead and that he was able to rescind most of the 14 city employee layoffs -- including six full-time positions -- slated to take effect Sunday.
"You never want to lay anybody off. Unfortunately, two full-time firefighters will still be laid off" to partly offset a projected $400,000 deficit in the general fund next year, even with the water treatment plant deal in place, Dill said Wednesday. Those two layoffs will save about $130,000, he said.
Lawsuit planned
However, Atty. Mark Hanni, representing the referendum committee, said later Wednesday he plans to file a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the legislation approving the sale of the plant, probably in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court.
That potential action was the topic of an emergency resolution, considered Wednesday night by city council, that requires the city to set aside nearly $1.6 million of the $3 million anticipated payment from Aqua Ohio for use only after any referendums or legal proceedings are completed.
In the absence of President William Vansuch, council passed that resolution, as well as a temporary, 90-day budget for 2006, by consecutive 4-0 votes.
However, several audience members objected after the meeting because President pro tem Lewis Jackson failed to call for a time of audience participation.
Not in compliance
Thus, council's actions were not in compliance with requirements of the city charter, meaning the legislation passed Wednesday would have no legal effect and must be rescinded and reconsidered at a proper meeting, scheduled for 6 p.m. Friday, city Law Director Brian Macala said.
Meanwhile, Hanni said his lawsuit is being prompted by Macala's refusal to file a taxpayers suit against the city, on behalf of the referendum committee members, for rejecting their petition.
Atty. Macala said it would have been a conflict of interest for him to represent the referendum committee because he wrote legal opinions supporting Leskovyansky's action and the validity of council's ordinance approving the sale of the plant.
Dill refused to comment on the threatened suit because he said he knew nothing about it.
However, his disappointment showed. "I can't believe that those people can't just leave it alone," he said.
Several issues
Hanni said there are several issues driving the referendum committee.
First, it believes that in order to sell the water plant, the city needs a charter amendment passed by the voters, as it did when it gave its waste treatment system to Mahoning County several years ago.
Macala rebutted that argument, saying that in 1996 charter language was eased to allow the city to sell city property under certain conditions without a charter amendment.
Hanni also noted that the city advertised the proposed sale of the plant only in The Journal, which circulates in Campbell, Struthers and Lowellville. The city should have advertised in The Wall Street Journal or at least The Vindicator, a paper of general circulation in the area, to seek the best bid for the plant, he said.
Macala said Campbell, as well as Struthers and Lowellville, use The Journal to advertise legal documents, including during the time when Juanita Rich and Denise Sarigianopoulos, members of the referendum committee, were on city council. The other referendum committee member is Flora Hodge.
Laws are strict
Macala said the reason that Leskovyansky rejected the referendum petition -- that a copy of the proposed sale contract with Aqua Water was not attached as it was to the legislation passed by council -- was upheld in an almost identical case by the Ohio Supreme Court.
He said it may seem trivial, but the state's top court has ruled that referendum efforts must follow state law to the letter.
alcorn@vindy.com