December 4, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting

Update: December 4th meeting of the Planning Commission regarding Bradley Bay and Crestview Development. The reports necessary from Mr. Greytak (CT Consultants) and Scott Thomas were received. Preliminary was approved. Mr. O’Neill asked what the requirements were for approval of the preliminary. Commission stated that the biggest problems were procedural errors. Mr. O’Neill stated he wanted to be clear that he felt he was following directions given by the City.  The final approval is contingent on addressing the turning radius of the development and fire hydrants.

An audience member stated that it was critical to have the Planning Commission’s input in the revision of the process. She believes the Commission should be at the heart and the very beginning of the process. Mr. Ebert commented that the extensive process involved the input of all boards. They are trying to eliminate red tape and not avoid any type of independence. He wanted to assure that defining the new process had not been done in secret, that it had a lot of input from a lot of people, and there was no attempt to circumvent. Although many agree the entire Commission should have been involved, the Mayor’s Representative to the Commission Bela Persanyi, Chair, was the only member involved in the process. I do not know the extent of his involvement as he is no longer a member of the Commission.

Commission member Mark Barbour commented that speeding up the process is not necessarily better than what a protracted process encompasses and allows for. He doesn’t know that efficiency moves are for the best. He has concerns that the changes will eliminate the opportunity to be heard.

Planning Commission Termination

The Mayor terminated a well-respected and accomplished member of the Planning Commission. Dick Majewski received a letter citing "...it is necessary for the City to head in a different direction."  I surmise the truth may be closer to the fact that Dick supports following procedure and is not afraid to question the disregard of ordinances and codes. In the Dec. 5 post, the majority of the quotes to this nature can be attributed to Dick. You can see in the notes he was vocal and worked to ensure policy is followed.  As he stated, “The process is not the problem; it is how the process is being handled.” He made his point that things cannot be done behind closed doors. In return, the Mayor made her point.

Why cast aside someone that plays fair and was a dedicated public servant with vast amounts of knowledge and experience? Who is better suited to navigate a different direction? Few others will have the qualities that Dick possesses; especially the willingness to stand up for what is right.  What agenda could the City want pushed through that they are afraid he might scrutinize? Won’t it be interesting to see who the Mayor appoints now?

The other member that is no longer seated has served 30 years on the commission.

The Planning Commision

Who protects you and your surroundings? When you can’t attend a meeting who fights for what can be built in your neighborhood?  The Planning Commission does. A revision to the Planning Commission procedure may gut the building project approval process that this commission oversees. Projects on the table could be fast tracked and avoid public scrutiny, but at least campaign contributions would remain intact.

Two vacant seats after a noteworthy November Planning meeting could be coincidental.

I urge you to read the highlights below taken from the draft of the November meeting minutes. Bear with me, this is important and these notes accurate. In a couple of days I will follow up on tonight’s meeting.

We should all feel violated by unfair actions; in this case no one more so than the members of our Planning Commission. The City needs to rise to the level of accountability, compliance and integrity we deserve and pay dearly for and that this commission exhibited. Our public commissions and boards are trusted with, among other duties, upholding the process. We put our faith in the individuals that volunteer to sit on these commissions and the majority has earned that respect and takes their duty seriously. They must be able to enforce adherence to ordinances, policies and procedures without fear and without having to go out on a limb. It is necessary that they be insulated from the politics surrounding their appointment so they can enforce and advocate the standards in place for transparency, fairness and protection. Candor and loyalty to the residents, our ordinances and codes are genuine expectations from the public. Glory should be given to those members of the Planning Commission that had the decency to challenge administrative interference. 

                   

The Bradley Bay Nursing Home addition and Crestview Street development of 9 houses behind Bradley Bay is the largest project in the city.

                                                                                                                                                  The Planning Commission resumed on November 5, 2014 to hear “Bradley Center Limited Southern Extension of Crestview Drive and development of 9 lots containing 4.31 acres” This matter was last heard by the Planning Commission on June 4, 2014.

In June a request was made for a report from the Service Director and the City of Bay Village Consulting Engineer regarding this project. There were questions about the project that needed answers, plans that needed to be submitted.

At November’s meeting, the report, requested in June, was not submitted. July, August and October meetings were cancelled due to lack of an agenda. This was ample opportunity and more than enough time to get this on the agenda and follow the process. 

Mr. Greytak of CT Consultants stated that he has not done a report. He was prepared to give a verbal report. The ordinance requires written reports. 

Mr. O’Neill(the owner of the projects) is seeking final approval with a notation on the current application that the preliminary plats were approved in June. Members of the commission agree that not only was the preliminary not approved but have the meeting minutes to back this. The minutes reflect no such approval. (Where did the approval come from?)

To move forward, a preliminary plat must be approved and a written report with recommendations is a requirement. Upon receiving the report, the Planning Commission has 90 days to make a determination for approval before submission to council.

“Mr. Greytak stated that the way this project has developed has been rather unusual in that even before he was aware that there was a subdivision proposed, there were final plans being delivered to their office for review. To compound that, the sub lots were being piggy-backed on a previous development that had already been approved, and did not reflect the joint sharing of storm water utilities between the Bradley Health Care Facility and the Crestview Subdivision. It has been an unusual sequence of delivery of documents.”

(Blueprints were leaked for parts of this add-on in March of 2014. When the Mayor was questioned about this at the Town Hall in March, she claimed no knowledge of additional plans. I questioned City employees after that Town Hall – “The plans are out there so someone gave the go ahead, someone approved them, who?” The response I received was “no comment”.)

Between June and November, the developer’s engineer went on to rectify shortcomings without first taking it to the commission as is procedure. Mr. O’Neill also revised the easement language to bring it into conformance under Mr. Ebert’s instruction.

Comments from various members of the Planning Commission:

“For the sake of transparency in the process, which is spelled out in the codes, why weren’t these things on the agendas for the Planning Commission meetings?”

“Planning Commission is responsible for eventually sending this project to City Council. They are the representatives of the people of Bay Village. The Planning Commission has requirements in the code. If we are going to send something to the people of the City, it should be complete in accordance with the code. Not only are we required to have a report regarding the Preliminary Plat from the Director of Public Service, but also from the final plat as well. We do not have that report either. How do we go forward if we are lacking those essential items? Mr. O’Neill is here tonight to seek final approval, but without those items we are not prepared to send this on to Council.”

“…a lot of work going on behind the scenes that should have been done before the Planning Commission. The report requested for five months was never received. The process is not the problem; it is how the process is being handled.”

“The public deserves the opportunity to review and respond to the comments”

“There is a process in place and if you make changes for certain people and not others you open yourself to problems, unless there is a true emergency.”

“We are not giving residents an opportunity to be heard.”

There was a question as to whether the preliminary plat and the final plat could both be approved at December’s meeting. But the statute for the ordinance does not provide for that.

Mr. Cheatham noted that in Mr. O’Neill’s defense, he has been doing these things behind the scenes with the City thinking that was what was necessary.

As to this last statement, and all due respect to Mr. Cheatham –I am not convinced that Mr. O’Neill, his engineers and especially the City did not know they were doing things erroneously. Bypassing the commission in turn complicates issues for the other review boards, council and anyone that needs to go before these commissions and boards. As intimated, this smacks of preferential treatment. It is my opinion that this wasn’t lazy, it wasn’t sloppy, it wasn’t a misunderstanding - these were blatant and flagrant maneuvers to skirt the system – as it is for now.  

Civilian Dispatchers

Mayor Sutherland wanted to add $260,000 to the 2015 budget to allow for civilian dispatchers. This had been discussed with the Mayor, Police Chief and Finance Director but not Council. As President of Council, Paul Koomar pointed out “Council has not been a part of that. Council’s job is to appropriate the funds. Mr. Koomar stated he is not comfortable with increasing police costs by $260,000 in perpetuity.”

Mayor Sutherland commented that just because the money is there doesn’t mean it is going to be spent. Whereas Mr. Koomar advised that once the money is there, it must legally be spent. Surely administration knew this.

Data is not available, the move hasn’t been vetted, Council hasn’t been involved but that was all fine as the Mayor implied administration’s position should be enough.

http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/233872/2014_finance_minutes_11-17.pdf

LeanOhio

At the Nov. 10 committee Session the Mayor discusses how a team comprised of the City Directors and an outside third party spent the fall streamlining the Planning Commission application process. This was a result of their training with LeanOhio. “The mission of LeanOhio is to make government services in Ohio simpler, faster, better, and less costly. Using continuous improvement methods such as Lean and Six Sigma, Ohio's state agencies are cutting red tape, removing inefficiencies, improving customer service, and achieving measurable results.” 

Maybe now that the team has streamlined that process they can focus on the “improving customer service” aspects of the mission. 

Town Hall 11/24/2014

Best kept secret in town – it does not appear on the City web page, there are no signs sprinkled around town, it is not on the board outside of City Hall but you might want to know there is a Town Hall Meeting Monday, November 24. 7:30 Dwyer Center.

In essence a Town Hall is an informal meeting where the focus should be on the attendees and their questions and concerns with no specific guidelines or rules. It is in contrast to a council meeting with a set agenda, procedure and focus.

At the Nov. 3 committee meeting this was discussed.  Service Director Thomas would like to give updates on the sewer testing and have City Consulting Engineer Bob Greytak in attendance. With this particular agenda in mind, Karen Lieske asked if there could be a time limit set for Mr. Greytak so there is more opportunity for citizen participation.

Mr. Koomar commented that this technical information is needed to educate the residents. Mrs. Lieske noted “that Town Hall indicates a fair amount of participation by residents. They would like more opportunity to engage.”

Mr. Koomar stated that they would try to have a section for participation in the meeting. He further commented that “we will not have such in-depth issues on all Town Hall meeting agendas; we will try to balance it out.”

He said he said

The follow up to the ‘it was posted, it wasn’t posted, it didn’t have to be posted’ saga regarding the Property Maintenance Inspector position. 

Attached are the approved minutes from the Council meeting Oct. 20. Under Finance and Claims Committee - the job discussion.

At 5 pages into this discussion, Mr. Henderson asks the City policy for posting positions. Mr. Ebert states “that we have to post by labor contract for positions. This position was actually posted. The labor contract for the Service Department, the two unions, requires posting.”

When I emailed to get a copy of that posting and the locations it was posted, the response from Mr. Ebert was “I stand corrected when this was discussed it was the Assistant to the Community Services Director position that was posted and not the Property Maintenance Inspector which is not required to be posted.”  He also repeated this statement at the Nov. 3 Council meeting.

Sure – everyone makes mistakes, but which one is the mistake? Are we being confused accidentally or intentionally?

http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/230288/2014_council_agendas_for_11-3.pdf

LOWV presents ODNR Speaker Geoff Westerfield 11/5

Library 7 p.m. this evening, League of Women Voters presents Geoff Westerfield.  This is an important opportunity to learn from an expert on the white-tail deer. He will discuss what residents face when overpopulation begins. As always, I feel no matter where you stand on the issue and the state's methods of control, we attend to learn.  I look forward to an intelligent presentation and a respectful give and take with the audience.

Posting not required?

Yesterday I made a public records request for the posting of the Property Maintenance Inspector position.  I heard from the law director that it was not posted because it was not required to be posted.  So, it comes back to the question, why didn't Mr. Ebert or Mayor Sutherland simply state that when questioned about it? I am confounded by this.

Even though we trust that they know what they are doing – does that mean no questions should ever be asked? Could it be hubris on their part? When did elected public servants stop serving? It’s not like there are hundreds or even double digits of people at these meetings asking thousands of questions that they cannot possibly answer at the time.  Just give us an honest and understandable explanation. This manner of response, which happens frequently, is deplorable.

Property Maintenance Inspector Hiring

No matter whether you feel we need a Property Maintenance Inspector or not – something appears dubious with the hiring process.

Councilman Dave Tadych asked last night what the deadline was for applying for this position. He had received a call from someone asking that question and said he did not know the answer.

Mayor Sutherland “The position is filled.”  Mr. Tadych “It’s posted though isn’t it?” Mayor “It’s filled.” End. of. discussion.

You may recall a similar exchange took place last week between Mr. Henderson and Law Director Ebert, in Mayor Sutherland's absence.   "Was this position advertised?" asked Mr. Henderson. "Yes." When questioned further “You advertised before it was authorized [by Council]?” Mr. Ebert replied "No."

Fitness Trail

On tonight’s agenda is the fitness trail that has been proposed for Cahoon Park. I am passing along to you some resident’s comments regarding the trail. Bay resident Barry Tyo is one of 2 men that have developed this proposal. 

Mr. Tyo has presented Council with a letter stating his relationship/employment with the company Fitness Trails America. Mr. Tyo is forgoing commission for Cahoon Park.  It has been made mention that if Cahoon is successful, similar setups would be considered for Reese and Bradley Park. Some are hoping Council will consider these other parks for the initial installation. Concern is twofold. Some people just do not want anything in Cahoon Park no matter what pains may be taken to preserve the integrity of this lakeside jewel and view. The other concern is that this park will be used as a promotion tool.

There has been discussion for over a year to create a survey to determine what people would like in terms of fitness options for Bay. Since no survey has been yet created, if you want a voice in this call Karen Lieske with your thoughts on this topic.  440-871-3642. Please leave a message if she doesn't answer.You could also email your Council representative.  If you are unable to attend the meeting, you may also send an email to Joan Kemper, Clerk of Council, and ask her to read it into the record.

Mr. Tyo’s letter and Propsed Fitness Station drawings:

http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/229619/2014_council_agenda_for_10-27.pdf

NOPEC

Highlights of the Committee Meeting that begins Monday 10/27 at 730:

Further discussion of NOPEC Gas Aggregation Program. Gas aggregation allows a government to get a better price for its’ residents. This must go to a vote on the May 2015 Ballot. Oddly enough, 2 public hearings will be held after the vote, not prior to. It was stated that this is the way Ohio law works. Questions or concerns – now is the time to raise them. If the vote is passed, and there is confidence it will be, you will just be given answers and information and your concerns will not matter.

The Oct. 6 meeting, Charles Ramer was introduced to discuss NOPEC. An audience member had concerns about fracking. Q - You mentioned that one of the variables depends on the Marcellus Utica Shale Program. Can you comment further on that?

Mr. Ramer – That is such a tremendous resource. There is such a volume of gas that is going to be generated by that area of the state that the volume of gas is going to be much less expensive buying it from Mahoning County than buying it from Henry Hub Louisiana.

Q – And that is where there is fracking?

Mr. Ramer – We don’t really have a policy on fracking. All we have a policy on is the natural gas that we purchase is the least expensive. There are still some very competitive rates out of Henry Hub Louisiana. Wherever it is least expensive; that’s where we buy our gas.

Q – It’s just the idea that there whole area has been fracking.

Mr. Ramer – I’m not certain that by participating in this program you are not promoting any particular type of technology.

New Property Maintenance Manager Position

Monday, a vote passed to create the position of Property Maintenance Manager. At Monday's meeting when our law director was questioned 'was this position advertised?' his response was yes. When questioned further 'you advertised before it was authorized [by Council]?' The answer became no. And yet the job description, salary and individual are ready to go.

This was a position the city had prior to contracting with Safebuilt. When Safebuilt came along several city employees lost their jobs. They were to be given first consideration should a position open or be created within 18 months. It is my understanding that the day after the 18 month period is up; the Property Maintenance Manager begins his job. This would mean that during this 18 month period the job description and person hired had already been decided upon. The timing is obviously no coincidence.

When this was discussed previously it was stated that the money for this position came from other phased out positions. In actuality it appears more like the money is just being shifted as city crew duties were shifted.

The salary is $58,000 and the position will be dedicated to disputes and house to house maintenance issues. So - spruce up or get a letter, then a warning, then a fine...

More Truth in Recycling

This statement is taken from the Mayor's letter to residents in October's city newsletter. "Your donation is tax deductible if your items are of excellent or good quality and if you have a receipt." This is false. It was made crystal clear at the Sept. 8 meeting that all conditions of clothing, shoes and textiles have value.

Tasha's comment to the Mayor's statement: "This is not true.  Your donation IS tax deductible if your items have a resell value and if you have a receipt. Many donation venues (house pick-ups or donation bins) receive donations sight unseen. A blank receipt is given from the house pick-up and many bins have a qr code to receive a receipt. (Yes, Special Olympic bins have a qr code/website to receive a receipt. It is the responsibility of the donor to fill in the receipt amount. Also at the end of the newsletter, the left over donations that do not specifically "clothe the needy" are sold by most organizations collecting textile donations and the revenue from this unused clothing they received from the public is what also funds their cause. The important part of a donation being tax deductible is donating your items to a charitable center or donation bin that outlines the donations are tax deductible."

Truth in Recycling

Oct. 7 was the first day of curbside textile recycling.

During the Sept. 8 committee session, after Tasha Sherman addressed her concerns regarding misinformation given by the city about the Simple Recycling program, she was asked if she would submit a paragraph to be included in the city newsletter or recycling flyer that all residents would receive. She did. It never appeared, but, I have it here:

"Your textiles & shoes of all quality & condition are very valuable to the legitimate organizations that solicit these items to be donated via Donation Centers, Clothing Donation Bins, Missions, Churches, and Manned Donation Trailers, just to name a few. These organizations rely, in part, on the revenue generated from the sale of these recyclable materials to fund their cause, program or mission, locally or nationwide. Worn, torn, tattered & frayed - all of your textiles can be donated to your favorite organization collecting these items, in effect to be eventually recycled. If you have no preference or inclination of where to take your donations or discards, please help us keep these items out of our landfill and place them properly bagged on your curb on the designated waste removal day.

Tasha is a professional with years of experience in the textile recycling industry.

to be continued...

Town Hall Meeting 9/30/2014

Last night was the Town Hall Meeting with Wards 2 and 3, Karen Leiske and Paul Vincent.  The meeting began with discussion of finances. This is the same information shared at the Town Hall held by Tom Henderson and Dave Tadych.  For details on this information contact your council person.

Council would appreciate your input on attached housing as Chapter 1158 is still being worked on.

The deer population was discussed. This subject continues to come up which tells me it is time for Bay to do their research on this matter. This topic had the most comments for the night.  One audience member questioned if Bay has a plan should a deer shot with an arrow in Avon Lake wander into Bay and die.  They did not know of a particular plan.

An audience member questioned the need for storm sirens. Although a couple of council members are in favor of them, the cost is appx. $25,000 each and the city would need 4.

They are working toward having audio of the council meetings available online. Video is too costly. I questioned if there was anything to prohibit Joe or Jane Citizen from recording a meeting and putting it on youtube until such a time the city does so.  Outside of mentioning that the quality or sound may not be very good, they do not want it to be disruptive.

The city is hiring an inspector for $79,000 to bring back door to door and sidewalk inspections. This was stated as an effort to maintain and care for your homes and the community. This was also mentioned at Monday’s council meeting. The money is coming from other positions that have been reduced to part time.  Someone questioned me as to why this did not fall under Safe Built. I don’t know enough about those particulars to have that answer. Again, I defer to your council rep. I do know residents have mixed emotions on this type of home scrutiny.

In attendance was David Greenspan who is District 1 Cuyahoga County Council. He was questioned in regards to aiding the city in working on the Master Plan.  He stated the county does offer assistance and grants for this.  Our Master Plan was last done in 1999.

Gratitude was expressed for Dick Majewski and Conda Boyd. I agree – bravo and thank you! Dick puts in countless hours as a member of the Planning Commission and attending other meetings. His input and knowledge is critical to what keeps our town moving. Conda is also a constant attendee that scrutinizes and questions and offers valuable insights.

It was suggested Town Hall Meetings be held with Council every 3 months and the audience would like answers and follow up to concerns expressed at these meetings. Some said these meetings were better than Council meetings - which they felt can be intimidating. Others stated they are not intimidated nor did they care if they were told to sit down at a meeting :) 

And… the chocolate cake with chocolate frosting was really very good.

More on Deer

"Bay Village police recorded 33 deer-vehicle accidents over the past year." 
http://westlakebayvillageobserver.com/read/2014/09/30/bay-councilman-weighs-in-on-deer-decisions

More Deer

On Sept.2 I asked the question regarding our deer population “Why can't we start a sterilization program now to head this off at the pass?”  Since then I have learned more about deer than I ever thought I would.  According to the Mayor of Avon Lake, the State of Ohio does not permit birth control methods for deer. “Once a deer is immunized, or something is injected into a deer, they potentially can run off and be shot by a hunter and there is concern that people are going to consume that meat and be affected by whatever is in the deer. They have not allowed sterilization of this type in thirty years.”  “You are not allowed to capture deer and sterilize them, because the sterilize procedure is chemical in nature and the ODNR is concerned that if that deer was ever hunted and consumed by animals there could be contamination of meat.”  I am still looking into this information.

Additionally, I have read the cost of capturing and removing the ovaries to sterilize is expensive. Depending on the area you live in the cost can range from $500 to $3,000 per doe.

The Debate and The Deer

With due respect to the residents that are concerned enough with matters to question our city officials, an answer that is always appreciated is ‘I don’t know enough about it but I will find out’. I learned the information below when I was researching the white-tail deer. It was not, however, my intention to dilute the deer topic with questioning how the role of the ODNR could have been misinterpreted, it just happened that way.

  

The deer population was addressed during the Mayoral Candidate debate in October. Mayor Sutherland stated reasons why the city could not attempt to reduce the ever growing deer population. With controversial aspects of culling still being discussed, and in the event Bay should ever consider a deer management program, I wanted more information. Of the things I learned, some were in contrast to what was presented by the Mayor. My confusion led me to communicate with the Department of Wildlife Management Supervisor at the ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources) for clarification.  He was able to elaborate and his answers didn’t mirror my understanding from the debate. Furthermore, no one from the City of Bay Village has spoken to the ODNR Wildlife Manager to discuss the deer population in our town. The only Bay people he has spoken to have been a few residents.

   

Debate Question: Are you looking for a joint effort with our sister cities on deer, bird reduction?

Mayor Sutherland stated she had been talking to the City of Avon Lake, and to be very honest, regarding this issue, this is actually the jurisdiction of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. They are the ones who can permit a city or metro parks to cull the herd. Certain population parameters have to be met and “according to the ODNR unfortunately the City of Bay Village does not meet them”. She stated further, just to give us an idea, the number of accidents we may end up with in a year - 10 accidents max of vehicle versus deer compared to the City of Solon with 85 to 125. She summed it all up with “and that is how the ODNR judges the population.”

ODNR:  There is no population parameter or deer vehicle accident standard to be met to begin a deer management program. In fact, a city does not have to involve the ODNR to develop most programs. The decision to cull is left to the city. A deer management program, individual to each city, is brought into play and written by the city, not the ODNR. Each program is specific to the city and the problems it faces and the goals it wishes to attain. The ODNR provides the guidance and technical assistance to help make informed decisions and to help a city reach their goals.

If hunting is the culling method, the ODNR has the jurisdiction to enforce statewide hunting regulations and policies. The ODNR can deny a permit for programs outside statewide hunting regulations if they are not comfortable with the program. As best we can tell, Bay did not submit any program to be denied.

Regarding the program: Given the diversity and needs from one area to another, different criteria can be assigned that may vary from city to city. Criteria is established in direct relation to and dependent upon what a city defines as issues and goals. The city itself must first site reduction in traffic accidents as a goal, the ODNR in turn may require particular traffic statistics. ODNR will not simply say – X amount of accidents are not enough to consider a program for your town. Cities tend to want to lay the focus on deer vehicle accidents but the reality in most cases should be on resident issues.  If it is landowner complaints, ODNR will require citizen survey data. If it is for biodiversity issues, they look for vegetation monitoring. Cities are held to providing an amazing amount of work and will be under scrutiny once they involve the ODNR. 

According to the ODNR, there is no one answer or even a good answer when looking at optimum population or “population parameters”. The goal is not necessarily always population control, but goals are tied to the problems the population creates in each individual city, in which case the size of the herd may sometimes be inconsequential. Goal examples: a city can have as a goal of working toward a 30% reduction in resident complaints in area 1 or; no more than 5 vehicle accidents in area 2. Attaching the same numbers to a herd for every community in the state of Ohio does not work. Think of the different landscape throughout the entire state and you know that some areas can sustain 25 deer per square mile while other areas only 5 per square mile. As in the case of an airport area, a zero deer population is the goal. In fact the ODNR stated that a lot goes into determining appropriate levels. 

My understanding:  To say the ODNR looked at the deer population parameters and accident rates of Bay was simply an easy, incomplete and skewed answer. To say that Bay did not meet population parameters is untrue since there are no such parameters to meet. To say, in essence, we were denied permission to cull is in fact – not fact. Contrary to what was said at the debate, there is no basis for citing lack of population and accidents to create a management plan to control deer.

Should the city write a plan and contact the ODNR, yes, they will look at deer traffic accidents if lowering accidents is a part of said goals. Accidents will be looked at relative to your plan; not in comparison to any other city’s accidents or plans such as Solon. But since Solon was the example given, Solon’s herd, is assumedly bigger because the city of Solon has 20 square miles to Bay’s 7 square miles. It stands to reason Solon would have more deer related auto accidents. Still, there is no accident standard to be met unless and until the city outlines that in their goals. 

The ODNR will work, no fees involved, to discuss techniques to achieve identified goals on a case by case basis.  For a densely populated city like Bay Village where bow and arrow and sharpshooting would not work, there are options including trapping.

The link to the Mayoral Candidate debate is here http://vimeo.com/76088904 At 17:35 the question is asked.

Committee Meeting 9/9/14 Curbside Textile Recycling

Many topics were discussed last night at the Committee Meeting but none handled with the same clarity and fairness as Tasha Sherman made her points regarding the City plans to recycle textiles. Tasha works in the industry and has discussed this issue here and on other Facebook pages.

Fearing misinformation was spreading; she wanted to set the record straight and gave an excellent explanation on what happens when textiles are recycled. She also encouraged the City to look at other resources when the 3 year contract is up because we can do better than a penny a pound. Still, it is a start and many are thrilled the City is moving in this direction.

During Q & A it was asked if the company was thoroughly vetted and if it went before Council. It was answered that matters that do not cost us do not have to be presented to Council. The Mayor was then asked if the City was having charity bins around town removed. The Mayor answered no. When it was pointed out which ones were gone, it was stated these were all on private property (i.e. the bin by Walgreen’s, two on Clague by the strip center). Though the answer was no, and the implication was that the shopping center owners decided to remove them, some found this too much of a coincidence to be true. It was stressed that you can, of course, still give to your favorite charitable organization.

Thanks to Tasha the City will paint a clear and honest description regarding our new curbside textile recycling plan which begins Oct. 7.

Until details appear in a newsletter or on the City website you can read the discussions here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/538603919551392/

And a basic overview here:

http://www.cleveland.com/bayvillage/index.ssf/2014/08/bay_village_to_offer_curbside.html

LikeLike ·  · Share

Cleveland Metroparks Explains the Deer Issues

http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/Main/CurrentIssues.aspx#DeerManagement

Deer Culling

Let's talk deer culling. Culling and killing - a fine line. First it is my opinion that the bow hunting legislation recently passed in Avon Lake could never be an issue in Bay Village. Our lots do not have the acreage or farm land present as in Avon Lake.  Our Mayor says we do not meet the ODNR standards to implement culling measures. But one must wonder - what if we did meet the standards? We might someday if the population of white-tail deer continues to increase as it clearly is. Why can't we start a sterilization program now to head this off at the pass?

As for today, citizens of Bay are concerned for two reasons. Our city borders Avon Lake and our shared Walker Road Park where culling will be allowed. Tom Henderson Ward 4 Council has stated that he will work to assure that deer stands in Walker Road Park are positioned so they are facing west as opposed to any arrows being shot to the east potentially into the yards of those bordering the park. The second concern comes from animal lovers.

Avon Lake has determined that due to the negative impact the white-tail deer has on public safety issues; vehicular accidents, destruction of habitats, carrying disease and parasites, and damage to public and private property, that culling of the white-tail deer by bow hunting is a necessity. Helicopter surveys where deer were counted show apx. 220 deer in Avon Lake. Fifty would be the norm for a city that size.

In July Dave Tadych and Tom Henderson attended a 3 hour Council meeting in Avon Lake when this hot button legislation was approved. By all accounts, this was a much debated issue with passion siding against the legislation. The City of Avon Lake believes all concerns are outweighed by the need to do something.

Points of the new ordinance:

1.Individual must have an Ohio Hunting License.

2. Must apply for a permit to bow hunt in Avon Lake. Once the permit application is received, neighbors will be notified. The police dept. will visit properties and decide on a case-by-case basis if destruction warrants a permit.

3. Must have a deer stand (an elevation 10 feet off the ground).

4. The individual must have Ohio Hunter Education Course credentials.

5. Hunting could occur outside of the hunting season if the owner obtains a deer damage control permit through the Ohio Division of Wildlife and a municipal deer control permit thorough the city.

6. Hunting is not allowed with firearms or other weaponry.

7. Processes are in place for removal of the carcass.

However, from what I have read, it sounds like any of these amendments are at the discretion of the Police Chief.

Although some have stated speed is the problem with the deer car accidents, one can hit a deer going 25 mph and it can total a car.

At our Town Hall meeting concern was raised that deer may not fall immediately but run injured and die somewhere else. Avon Lake addresses this with the knowledge that this could happen and they will have to handle each scenario as it arises.

Last week an Avon Lake Council Member suggested that smaller lots need an effective way to minimize deer traffic and that paintballs may be the answer. Read the article re: "polka dot deer" http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2014/08/29/oh-deer%E2%80%88scare-paintballs/

Bay animal lovers have offered to council alternative measures to cull the deer. They do not want to see deer killed by what could be painful ugly deaths. http://www.wildliferescueinc.org/

Some people still believe Lyme disease is not in Ohio, but it is and is increasing and deer carry that tick.       http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/stay-informed/news-announcements/post/new-information-available-about-the-emergence-of-lyme-disease-in-ohio

I was searching for the meeting minutes of the July meeting Tom and Dave attended. They are not up yet on Avon Lake's City site. What I did learn though is that Avon Lake videos meetings. A meeting from June 30th is available to watch. It does address the deer culling. http://avonlake.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=fbd31b64d9c634811ff2f5fb3c70aced

I look forward to a recording or at least the transcript for the July meeting from Avon Lake soon. I also look forward to the day when we can watch Bay Village meetings online! Every other city is moving in that direction! Let's do this Bay!

Town Hall Meeting 8/26/2014

Here is a brief overview from last night’s Town Hall. First let me say if I have any of this wrong, please correct me! It was a lot of info and I took notes as best I could. Secondly and most importantly, your council WANTS AND NEEDS your input. Please talk to them on these very important issues.  They rely on you and sincerely want to represent your ideas and needs as a community.

Soon after Council resumes in September they will begin to look at the financial budget for 2015.  Major purchases this year, 2 new police vehicles and equipment. Equipment cost was $29,875.  A grant of $3,700 was given to purchase 9 vests. The Cahoon House will be painted at the cost of $30,000. A new senior van was purchased with a trade-in of $11,075: the cost of the van, $57,000.

The property tax rate increased to 2.7% this year. The main reasons are the November passing of Issue 1 and Issue 80. The city % rate has been the same since 1999. Our taxes rank 57^th out of 80 county cities with Fairview, Lakewood and N. Olmsted having higher taxes.

The income tax rate of 1.5% was set in 1983 and has not changed.

On Oct 24 the fall leaf pick up program begins. Rake to the tree lawn – not onto the street.

The Rec Dept. will send out a survey in the fall to see what people want in rec services. Rec center ideas were discussed along with the financial realities.  The pool debt will be repaid by 2022. The pool is operationally profitable but does not generate enough in sales to cover the pool debt. Rec centers in other cities are generally not profitable.

The walking trail at Cahoon is still looking to add 3 exercise stations. The funds will be raised and donated at no expense to the city. The plan is to add mid-level type of exercise stations; something between walking and a highly physical activity such as tennis. Considerations are given to maintaining the importance of the lake view. You can view the plans on a previous thread on this page.

There is constant pressure to centralize activities in Cahoon Memorial Park.  Whereas some would like to maintain those activities while increasing activities in Reese and Bradley parks.

Eyesore as it is, Bradley Bay construction will continue for appx. another year. Additionally there will be 9 new lots at Crestview.

Remember to support the fireworks fund.

The bicycle co-op is open. Information is available if you are a concerned motorist or bicyclist. Stop in and pick up a pamphlet or talk to a pro. It was suggested that the police ticket the cyclists that do not follow the laws. 

Attached resident housing is still to be reviewed.  Residents must let Council know their feelings on this. Those that are fine with it may want to consider a hypothetical scenario: A developer comes in and buys a row of houses next to yours to allow him the required acreage to build attached housing. You could end up with condos or townhouses and a complex type of living next to you. You thought this type of housing could only happen in Bay’s commercial district so you didn’t care and welcomed the idea, you didn’t get involved. Now, you are not so sure.  Please don’t consider this an issue that could never affect you. It could still work out beautifully but I would think you would want a say in what can happen in your back yard. No matter where you live, you should participate in the review of Chapter 1158 of the city code. It is a complex issue to be sure, which is why your input is valuable.

Dave Tadych will submit to Council to restore and rebuild the stairs to Columbia Park.

Dimepiece Fitness is moving to the old Ace Hardware/Kronheims.

Concerns regarding trucks and speeding on Clague Rd. were discussed.

Desire for Kiwanis to look at other contractors for the Bay Day rides.

Concerns with landscapers parking on busy streets: Landscapers have city permission to do this as long as they put cones up.  If you have hire a landscape company encourage them to come when traffic isn’t busy, or ask them to park in your drive. If they are not using cones or causing a real problem, you can call City Hall, or the non-emergency police dept. number.

The Do Not Knock registry is being worked on for clarifications so as not to exclude our local groups, teams, boosters.

Deer culling in Avon Lake was covered. More on that later. 

Sewer Rates: Flat Fee vs. Actual Usage

It is no longer in question that the sewer rates are going up. Single family homes will now pay $335 a year. This does not mean that the residents need to let the issue go. Tonight at the Council meeting, a question that has come up before was raised again. Why do we have a flat fee instead of a user based system given the gas, electric and water bills are user based? Who benefits from the flat fee system?

Mayor Sutherland responded that with a flat fee, there is equal interest in assuring a system that works correctly. I believe with any fee there is absolute interest that the system and this one in particular, work correctly. She further stated, to switch the system to user based will take months to gather data and evaluate. She cautioned that the City of Cleveland would have to bill us if our bills were based on usage and would pass that expense on to us. It did sound like she would look into it but why would we increase fees first, and evaluate later?

Talking with the audience after the meeting, there is a belief that Cleveland does not need to handle the billing. The belief is that Cleveland supply the information by individual address to Bay and Bay in turn would bill us accordingly, by usage. One little old lady in a 1,200 square foot bungalow would be paying equal to a family of four or more in a mansion on the lake complete with, well, you get the point. Without question, the owners of the largest homes in town benefit.

The City did drop the ball when there was an issue with a broken meter and the push to remedy this was not hard enough to be heard. We will not know for sure how this contributed to the increase. Speaking of the increase, the budget was tight in the audit of the RR WWTP. One has to wonder how long during the election the Mayor knew an increase would be in order. It all just seems convenient, again.

Sewer Rates

Bay Village sewer rates will go up a proposed $25 per quarter.  The subject has been discussed at several Council meetings.  It was clear there were problems missed by Bay Village.  I believe Bay will be diligent going forward with our flow issues.  Below is the flow study link.  Please attend the meeting on March 31 at the Dwyer Center with your questions and concerns.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23673878/RRWWTP%20Flow%20Study.pdf

Regionalization

A meeting will be held this morning at 11 in Westlake Mayor Clough’s office to discuss a  grant the four Westshore cities received to study a regional fire department.

The State of Ohio Local Government Innovation Fund (LGIF) rejected the first grant application in December 2012.  In June 2013, they approved a second request for $100,000 that was based on revised cost/benefit figures.

In November 2012 Bay Village voters rejected Charter amendments to make way for regional civil service. Mayor Clough and Mayor Sutherland have both stated it is possible to move forward without amending city charters.  

3 Reading Rule

A follow up article to the continual suspension of the 3 readings rule. I have spoken with many people that share the sentiment that Catherine Turcer of Common Cause Ohio sums up by saying "Suspending the rules should be the exception to the rule. When rules are suspended, it does suggest that public officials think less of the public."
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/01/city_councils_must_stop_the_co.html