O’Neill is facing a challenge from Richard Spangler and Ebony Speakes on the May 3 primary ballot.
Billy Cline, a volunteer on Spangler’s campaign, expressed concern about the city paying for O’Neill’s home Internet service and by a 2005 audit that stated a development agreement between him and the city may have violated its charter.
Cline stresses he isn’t raising the issues as a campaign volunteer, but as a concerned citizen.
O’Neill denies any wrongdoing and calls the claims politically motivated.
The city provides commissioners with money to reimburse expenses such as for tickets to attend events. O’Neill uses the money to reimburse his home Internet access, which totaled about $490 last year. He says the city wants to communicate with commissioners and send their agendas electronically, so it is a legitimate business expense for him to stay informed and make decisions.
City Manager Jim Bodenmiller agrees, saying it is reasonable because the city required commissioners to go paperless.
Cline responds O’Neill could access the Internet at City Hall or should at least itemize the bill to account for how much he uses it for city business and how much is for personal use.
O’Neill said he hasn’t tracked his Internet access, but the vast majority of it is for research and communication with city staff members.
He adds other commissioners have the reimbursement at their disposal and he doesn’t seek payment for other expenses such as events.
Spangler argues the city tried to save money by going paperless and O’Neill’s reimbursement is counterproductive to that.
Speakes declined to comment on either the Internet payments or the 2005 audit.
An audit found that a development agreement between the city and O’Neill appeared to violate a section of the city charter that prohibits commissioners from receiving city contracts. It also states there is no indication O’Neill used his position to obtain preferential treatment and he abstained from voting on the agreement.
Cline agreed the development itself doesn’t appear inappropriate, but claims O’Neill should have known that it violated the charter.
The contract called for the city to pay O’Neill about $156,000 for its share of the cost for him to construct Lindeman Avenue as part of the North Point development. The bids initially received by the city for it to build the road exceeded its estimates, so O’Neill agreed to construct it instead, which saved the city about $11,000.
O’Neill added he didn’t want the road but agreed to it because the city wanted it. He stresses he didn’t know the contract would violate the charter and he didn’t gain from the agreement, rather that the road has hurt the development.
About the Author