Thanks alot Murphy, Instead of getting royalties and more energy for the area, you are wasting my tax dollars. Understand my street was to be repaved this year, meaning Miner Rd will not be repaved as it should. Where is the money coming from? Certainly not from the council and mayor.

While it's certainly valid to question the best use of money, I just thought I'd remind that many people came forward to tell city officials to spend what it takes to settle the lawsuit as long as there were no wells in the park. And I only remember John Graves speaking out against spending money to settle.

Hooray for the council members. They listened to the residents and they have done a good job over the last few years building up a cushion in the budget. Time to put this mistake behind us.

Mr. Times, lest I remind you that this is not Mrs. Murphy's fault!! Had the mayor NOT signed a contract that he had NO authority to sign, we wouldn't have been in this mess. You should be directing your frustration at Mr. Coleman and ask him when we are FINALLY going to fix Miner Road that should have done 3 years ago!!!

Clearly Mr. Times is not one of the 73% of Highland Heights residents who voted to keep gas wells out of our community park.
What is unclear is why Mr. Times singled out Council President Cathy Murphy for blame.
This legal fiasco has always been a group effort.
Bass Energy's breach of contract lawsuit is based on a drilling lease that Mayor Coleman signed in March 2007---a lease that Judge Eileen Gallagher later concluded the mayor had "no power" to sign. Without that lease, there would be no lawsuit---and no need for a financial settlement.
The 2008 Charter amendment took drilling in the park off the table.
Therefore the city was left with 2 choices for resolving the Bass Energy lawsuit: a cash settlement or arbitration. Of those two choices, a financial settlement is by far the less risky bet.
$600,000, while not peanuts, is 8.5% of the $7 million in damages that Bass originally demanded from the city. From that perspective it appears that Council President Cathy Murphy has done well in negotiating on residents' behalf.
As far as infrastructure needs, replacing the Highland Road water main is the city's most critical priority---and since that will require digging up the Highland/Miner Road intersection, it makes sense to postpone renovating Miner Road until after the water main is replaced. Otherwise taxpayers will end up paying to repair two newly reconstructed intersections instead of just one---the Highland/Bishop intersection.

In the eyes of Bass, they got what they wanted....a SIGNED contract. Mickey Mouse could have,signed the contract. A signed contract is a signed contract, is a signed contract.

Rob, the judge's ruling came a year after the suit was filed.
For whatever reason (maybe because the mayor has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any drilling deal missteps) the city's outside council never asked the judge to declare the drilling lease void. Since litigants are masters of their suits, the judge didn't make that ruling. Instead she sent the parties to arbitration.
Litigation,whether in a court or before an arbitration panel, is always a crap shoot to some extent, regardless of the strength of your case.
A financial settlement, however bitter a pill to swallow, is the less risky option for both parties.
No doubt the city considered: its past legal expenses; the cost of going to arbitration (including the arbitrators', lawyers' and expert witnesses' fees); and its potential damages exposure.
Likewise Bass had to assess its past and future litigation/arbitration costs, the strength of its legal claim, and the economics of drilling in the park.
In the end, the parties came up with a proposed settlement that is a fraction of what Bass Energy originally claimed as damages.
The public will have an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed settlement at the May 8th council meeting, if they want to do so.

I can clarify the question as to why the City and Bass ended up in arbitration. Judge Eileen T. Gallagher, in her opinion found that the parties, meaning Bass and the City, acted as if a valid contract existed by their actions outside of Court and by their arguments in Court. For example, both parties argued their cases based on rights and conditions found within the terms of the lease. Because the parties acted like there was a valid contract the Judge found that there was a contract, although she observed that in fact the mayor did not have the power to enter into the lease until after the drilling sites were located and approved by council. In other words, despite the inconsistency, the Judge decided that on balance the city acted as if a contractual relationship did exist. Once Judge Gallagher decided that the lease contract existed, she upheld the contract rejecting the City Council's attempt to rescind it, and she granted Bass's request to pursue arbitration as a matter of public policy. That is how the case ended up in arbitration.

When is Scott Coleman up for re-election? Or should I say, when can I vote for the person running against him?