New Records Retention Laws

Dec 17. 2015

The Records Commission is comprised of the Mayor or her designee as chairman, the Director of Finance, the Director of Law and a citizen named by the Mayor. A secretary “shall” be appointed who does not have to be a member of the commission and will serve at the pleasure of the commission. The commission “may” employ an archivist. (One thing I learned from attending meetings is there is a difference when using the words “shall” versus “may” – still not sure what the difference is but it has been the topic of much discussion) + ("Shall" means the requirement is mandatory. 

"May" means it can be done, but isn't mandatory."

The Records Commission will have two scheduled meetings per year “which will allow the City to dispose of obsolete and unimportant records according to retention schedules.” On November 2, 2015 Mayor Sutherland stated that the change of Codified Ordinance Section 148 Records Commission originated with a change in state law. Further she stated that the City needs to be consistent with what is required by the state.

A new records retention ordinance was adopted 11-23-15.

A meeting of the Records Commission will be held on Friday, December 18, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. at the Bay Village City Hall, Conference Room. Agenda: Review of RC-2 Retention Schedules – Various Departments Review of Records Disposal Schedules.

The ordinance and the new amended ordinance can be found here: 

http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/280648/records_commission_148.pdf 

The regulations provided in the Ohio Revised Code are here:  http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.381

Miscellaneous Updates

Dec 12

Where have I been? At meetings, working, whipping my house into shape as I get ready for a busy holiday. So, get your drink of choice, go sit outside and bask in the unseasonable weather and let's get back to business.

Still waiting for the Service Department to come out because you had flooding issues in June? Apparently there was a misunderstanding. As summarized in the meeting minutes: “Director Thomas stated that they have responded to every house that has asked them to do it. Not everybody wanted the department to respond; they just wanted to provide information to the department. Those are actually recorded in their Work Management System. They have responded to all that asked for a response.” In other words, if you did not specifically request the service department to come out, they did not. If you thought by calling to report flooding you would get a visit, they thought you were calling just to let them know.

“Mr. Koomar stated that the expectation when that came out was that there was an understanding the Service Department was going to respond to all of them. There might be a miss in communication, but people are reporting that the Service Department hasn’t called them and the City said they were going to come out and look at all the houses. Mr. Tadych stated he gets the same reports. Mr. Thomas stated that they had actually responded to the majority, but will make sure they respond to the rest.”

Deer culling dates in Walker Road Park – nothing has been finalized. I know many that attended the meeting held by Tom Henderson on Dec 7th. They felt that Henderson and Chief Spaetzle were able to put minds at ease over the culling procedure. The process that will take place was thoroughly explained. If you live near the park and haven’t heard about this please contact your Council Tom Henderson. To quell recent questions, no, the City is not permitting the shooting of deer in anyone’s back yard.

Planning, Zoning, Public Grounds And Buildings Committee members are Councilwoman Karen Lieske who serves as Chairman, Councilman Steve Lee and Councilman Paul Vincent. Do not confuse this group with the Planning Commission. While both groups have had meetings recently to discuss 1158, and I could wax on with the details, the end result is, this coming Monday an ordinance to extend the moratorium on 1158 will be on first read. This will make for an interesting new year in terms of 1158. In 2016, the Committee members will change. Also, Steve Lee will leave his Council seat and Marty Mace will join as Council at Large.

Results from the Master Plan Survey sent in November should be available in January. Many feel the survey was inadequate. Questions like “Would you like to see a new green space constructed next to City Hall?” were, well, weird. And as someone here pointed out, “I am not sure a "survey" of the opinions of the citizenry is the right way to go. We're often wrong. Surveys are often limited in the information they can convey, and thus the citizen opinion they can solicit.” And yes, responses are only going to be as good as the questions, so while these things are true, isn’t this survey better than nothing in terms of input? This too will be interesting to follow in the new year.

Bob Greytak, Consulting Engineer along with Scott Thomas Director of Public Safety/Service presented a Five Year Plan for the City of Bay Village Sewer System. Short version: to create a calibrated model for both the sanitary sewer and for the drainage areas within the City. Cities have been fixing sewer problems where they pop up without any knowledge of how the systems work and how the fix affects the pipes further down the road. Among other things, a citywide model can help assure that a fix in one location will not create another problem in the pipe at another location. It will take a lot of time and money to create the models: time and money that does not include the actual work. It was a lengthy presentation and I dare not try and summarize. 6 pages of this discussion are in meeting minutes:
http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/285450/2015_committee_agenda_and_packet_12-14.pdf

The Green Parking Lot

Green Parking Lot Project, City Hall. "As of today, the parking lot is substantially complete and is ready to be re-opened for the winter. The parking spaces have been striped and the lot is now open. Parking is available on both sides as before. The new asphalt work is being saved until spring due to the low temperatures, and to assure we get a better product. The lot is temporarily striped and in Spring of 2016, we will resurface the asphalt and re-stripe the spaces." Mayor Sutherland.

December 2, 2015

The Kennel - or lack thereof...

The City can have a matter on the agenda; when no action is taken, it is considered pending. If there continues to be no action or discussion, eventually the pending matters will be removed. The matter can languish, as in the case of a new Bay Village Kennel, for years. During Committee Session Monday night (11/16) Council-at-Large Steve Lee asked Council to remove the kennel as a pending matter. A resident asked to understand why, in all this time, the city would not take an anonymous resident’s offer of money to build a new kennel. She felt this was a wonderful opportunity for the city to show compassion. Steve Lee responded that he didn’t know, he just knew that through the years there has never been any discussion about it. The resident has to ask again, “But why was that?” She did not get an answer. Thing is – Lee should know the background – almost everyone else in the city knows the background. And if, as a Council member he did not know, maybe he should not have asked for it to be removed until he did know. Let’s say for the sake of discussion Lee really did not know, there were those present that most assuredly did know the answers to this resident’s questions; the Mayor, Law Director and President of Council, and they offered nothing in terms of an honest response. As for Lee’s comment about a lack of discussion on this matter for years, that falls squarely on the City and Council. Friends of the Kennel have repeatedly requested to discuss in a public forum.

During the Council Meeting, Nancy Brown, a resident and a very active member of the community when it comes to animals, and someone the police and the city rely heavily upon when an animal needs help, asked Council President Paul Koomar to state for the record why the kennel was being removed from city matters.

Koomar began his answer by saying Mr. Lee sent a request that there hadn’t been any action on this over the years. Koomar said he has had a number of conversations with the residents and Chief Spaetzel and they continue to make good progress and things are working well with the existing kennel. Nancy Brown stated from an operational standpoint they are. However, the existing kennel he refers to was built over 25 years ago and was built as a cable building. The 2011 offer (and you thought the microphone project took a long time) of $50,000 or more, from a Bay family to build a new kennel is still on the table. Ms. Brown said how fortunate we are to have this offer as other cities are frothing at the mouth knowing this is there for us. Council was asked not to remove the kennel matter from the agenda and give it due diligence.

Koomar wants to have a discussion next week to get some comments from the Police Chief and see if he feels we need a new kennel. Loosely translated: Let’s keep moving around the responsibility for decision making on this one. Hey – $50,000+ = a new kennel, it is a gift. Did we ask anyone if we needed the gift of a wood sculpture? Does that sculpture serve to care for and help anyone or anything? No, but the City accepted that donation anyway.

Another resident spoke and said the Friends of the Bay Village Kennel work hard and they work hard in ways that they shouldn’t really have to. She felt this should be a responsibility of the city. “When it comes to the animals here you just turn your heads and hope it goes away.”

If it weren’t for Nancy Brown and the Friends of the Bay Village Kennel, the operations and maintenance of City ‘kennel’ would not be doing so well. Taking advantage of the compassion of the residents that tend to the kennel is not a way a city should treat taxpaying citizens who simply cannot stand idly by when there is a need. Many always believed the standoff over the new kennel was with the Mayor, now it looks like Council is not “being a good shepherd of the needs of the community” in this case either. Taking the time to bestow a thank you from Council to those that work with the police, the animals and at the kennel falls short of what the responsibility of the City should be in this case. To keep taking the goodwill and not even offer the floor to accept a donation is poor form and petty. Is the City not embarrassed to keep using these people and not even let them be heard? The City will bemoan the lack of funds for this that and the other, but refuse a more than generous gesture of a Bay family for something that speaks to the heart of many many residents. It is hard to make sense of this one.

(November 18, 2015)

Not In My Backyard

The chant: Not In My Backyard. While some people are fluent in Chapter 1158 Attached Residences and the history, others take pains to understand what was and what is being attempted. Trying to help visualize the impact, at last night’s meeting, a resident brought a Lego “development” and cookies. See what you missed?

We can talk particulars for years, as we apparently have with 1158, but if you cut to the heart of the matter – it is fair to say many residents want attached housing in Bay. These very residents do not want attached housing in their backyard or even their neighborhood. You cannot have it both ways. You want your neighborhood to remain single family homes. Most residents feel this way about their neighborhoods. All these neighborhoods make up a community that wants single family homes. Maybe this has always been the struggle and why 1158 cannot move forward, no one really wants it to.

Paul Koomar pointed out based on past votes, the city as a whole is pro attached housing. Again, those voters wanted it in our backyards not theirs. That is the bottom line. It’s always going to be the bottom line. But it does not mean pains shouldn’t be taken to revise 1158. Some members of council wanted to vote on this before the end of the year. There will be another meeting on Dec. 2 to discuss 1158. It seems right now we are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. But, some council minds are changing as they learn more and hear more from the residents.

Residents don’t like the idea of a one size fits all 1158. Karen Lieske has suggested we start with the logical location in the business corridor, Dover Center, so there is an opportunity for residents to see and get familiar with the idea plus it fits into the character of the area and what we are trying to achieve.

An area of town longing for development is by Reese Park. A developer recently looked at the property with an interest to build a $10 million dollar nursing home. As of last night, it sounded like that is not happening.

It was suggested we have a developer come in and talk about what they might be interested in creating here in Bay. Council wants to bring Paul LeBlanc in again. He created the ordinance as an employee of LSL Planning.

Our quaint village is shifting anyway with the style of the newer homes being built. We will never be what we once were, but we do not have to be anything other than what we want to be. Keep the conversations going.

(November 24, 2015)

Master Plan Musings

Early morning musings. Assuming I have done some math correctly: There are approximately 6,500 households in Bay Village. 1,200 or roughly 18.5% received the random Master Plan survey. The expectation is 30% of those 1,200 will return the surveys. This estimate means 360 opinions will be tallied. If that projection is accurate, then only 5.5 % of 6,500 households will have input. I believe there will be a better response than 30%. Residents are eager to participate. Nonetheless…

Imagine if 6,500 houses could have received the survey – with an expected 30% return, then 1,950 households would have had a voice. Even on the low end of expectations with typical survey responses of 14% - that could have been 910 opinions versus 360. For the 1999 survey 50% of the recipients responded. Imagine 50% of 6,500 households giving input.

I asked the county planner if it wouldn’t be better to use an online survey as some residents had suggested so the city and county could have received greater feedback. The response: “We worked with the City of Bay Village to devise a survey method that would be both useful and cost-effective--and that method was a random sample of printed surveys. We have undertaken online surveys in the past; however, the price of designing and distributing both an online and in-print survey precluded it in this case. This is in addition to inherent problems of an online survey which include that we cannot ensure that online survey-takers are Bay Village residents, we cannot ensure that people will not take the survey multiple times, and many people do not have access to the internet. In past surveys, we have found that residents prefer paper to electronic surveys 2 to 1. Due to the scope and budget of the project, we can only send out surveys to the random sample of population.”

(November 10, 2015)

Cahoon Park East Barriers

Mayor Sutherland presented an idea for making sure the shoreline at Cahoon Memorial Park East was “a little bit safer”. Safety Director Scott Thomas came up with what Sutherland said “will be a great and attractive idea” with treated wood posts that act as bollards and “big thick rope” which would be able to stop forward action of a vehicle.

This barrier will extend 220 feet across. Thomas stated the posts will be placed about 10-12 feet apart, three feet into the ground with gravel instead of concrete so there will be a little bit of give and it won’t snap. Council President Koomar questioned if the rope was of a particular strength. Thomas replied it is two inches in diameter. It has been strength tested, but he did not know the PSI on it though he felt sure it was very high. Koomar would like information on the strength. While this is being placed the temporary cement barriers would be removed. They have already ordered the rope and would like to install later this fall.

As an example, one section is up at the park.

(November 4, 2015)