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)

1999 Master Plan Survey Questions

During the Nov. 2^nd committee session, Mayor Sutherland said the Master Plan surveys were mailed from the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission around Oct. 23rd. Council, administration and residents totaled around 20 in the room and no one could say they had received one. Sutherland said they probably weren’t mailed first class and there was a lot of election material coming through the mail too. She said they are hoping to have the surveys returned by Nov. 30th and expect 30% to be returned.

Everyone is curious about the questions in the current survey for the Master Plan. Alas, I do not have those but I have listed the questions from the 1999 quality of life survey that was mailed to 500 residents. Approximately half of those surveys were returned. I have looked at recent (2014) surveys for other cities, and the questions, although tailored to individual cities, are similar to the questions from 16 years ago. I would have loved to tell you the answers but it was too much for me to write/copy/paste. I encourage you to go to the 1999 Master Plan and read the answers. You have to scroll down to Appendices A.3 – about 200 pages. It is worth a read.

1. How would you rate the following services? EMS, police, fire, leaf pick up, garbage, snow removal, library services, public transportation, street lighting, sidewalk, roads.

2. What types of improvements or programs would you like to see instituted to make your neighborhood more desirable?

3. Please rate the following issues based on your home and neighborhood: Access to highway, safety, fire and police, convenience of shopping, rating of neighbors and appearance of neighborhoods.

4. Rate recreation services

5. Recreation options

6. Where do you purchase the following goods or services?

7. For those items purchased outside of Bay Village, in which communities do you shop?

8. What additional retail and service establishments would you like to see in Bay Village?

9. What improvements to the Bay Village Commercial Districts could be made to make them more attractive for shopping?

10. In which city do you work?

11. How often do you use RTA buses or rapid transit?

12. If you use RTA buses or rapid transit, what type of trips do you use RTA service for?

13. Please indicate which of the following would encourage you to use RTA’s services more frequently.

14. Please rate how important you feel it is for the City of Bay Village to provide the following services with respect to tree lawn trees.

15. Are you, or anyone you know, interested in elderly housing within Bay Village? If so, what types of housing would be of interest?

16. 17. 18. 19. How many years have you lived in Bay, how many people in your household, why did you move to Bay? Are you considering moving within the next 5 years? If so, why?

20. Would you support the development of alternative types of housing such as cluster homes, condominiums or townhouses, in Bay Village?

21. What do you consider Bay Village’s strengths and weaknesses?

http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/documents/pdf/masterplans/bayvillage.pdf

Master Plan Survey

It is of utmost importance that you respond to the survey regarding the Master Plan - if you were one of the lucky random residents to receive one in the mail. As a wise man said “The Master Plan needs to reflect what the residents want their community to be. Other than the Charter, there is no more important document for a city.”

Anyone here receive a survey? I did not or I could tell you all about it.

On 10/23 this was part of the Mayor’s email: “In preparation for updating our Master Plan, Cuyahoga County Planning will be conducting an opinion poll to get your input. They will be mailing 1,200 surveys to a random sampling of residents. The surveys should be in the mail today and will reach homes next week. If you receive a survey, please fill it out and mail it back to County Planning in the enclosed, postage-paid envelope. Your input is important to us as we begin this very important community planning process.”

A master plan is a document that shows recommendations for how a city should go forward concerning areas such as housing, economic development, and community services, to name a few areas. Based on demographics, geography and other factors, the results of the opinion survey created by Cuyahoga County Planning, are used as input and help in developing the goals for a new master plan.

The last Master Plan for the City of Bay Village was done in 1999. You can view it here:

http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/documents/pdf/masterplans/bayvillage.pdf

Miscellaneous

During a budget discussion at the 10/19 meeting it was acknowledged that major problems and priorities in the coming year will continue to be the sewers along with street construction, maintenance and repair.

Taken from Meeting Minutes: “Mayor Sutherland stated that sewer flow testing will be done in 2017. Because it is the third year, the City can go back to the committee to see if it can be done a year early. There is a meeting in November and they may approach them at that time. Mr. Koomar stated that he thought the agreement was to come up with a new idea on the way in which we flow test. Mayor Sutherland stated that is all part of this. If we wait for the third year, it is paid for by the Rocky River Wastewater Treatment Plant rather than having the City spend $100,000 for a flow study.”

And just for fun: Motion by Tom Henderson to approve the request for approval of 2016 Bay Days. Set up - Tuesday June 28, and Wednesday June 29. The event beginning Thursday June 30, and extending through Friday July 1, Saturday July 2, and Monday July 4, with fireworks on July 4, 2016. Rain date for fireworks on Tuesday July 5, 2016. Motion carried 7 Yeas-1 Nay (Mayor Sutherland). The mayor is not opposed to Bay Days, just having a rain date, because of the difficulty of scheduling and overtime.

Amy Mihaljevic

I can remember 26 years ago when Amy Mihaljevic was taken from Bay Village never to return. It was not for lack of prayers or wanting or genuine efforts put forth by our community, police and FBI. It was because she innocently walked away with a killer.

In 2013 retired FBI Agent Phil Tornsey was hired by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor McGinty to work part time on Amy’s case. I have never kidded myself that just because I live in Bay these things couldn’t happen, yet this was shocking to the core, it was personal. I am all for my tax dollars going to solve this.

26 years later where are we with this case? Two years of Tornsey, who has impressive work under his belt, where is he with this case? We do not hear much. Anyone living here in 1989 has never forgotten.

If you think you have any information and as law enforcement will always tell you – even if you think it is nothing, please call Bay Village Police Department at 440-871-1234 or the FBI at 216-522-1400.

Crossing Guard Recognition and Cahoon Park Fitness Track Recognition

The Council Meeting of October 19 paid special recognition to the Bay Village School Crossing Guards.

Bay Village School Crossing Guards:

Rose Quarick (34 yrs.); Joe King (25 yrs.); Audrey Weil (24 yrs.); Nicki Hazeldine (15 yrs.); Mike O’Boyle (14 yrs.); Bob Specker (11 yrs.); Dick Ormsby (6 yrs.); Robin Scobee (6 yrs.); Dianne Mueller (4 yrs.); Bonnie Wilson (4 yrs.); Laura Berry (2 yrs.); Ronald Lorenz (1 yr.); Leah Seitz (1 yr.); Frederick Steele, Jr. (1 yr.); Mary Frances Steiner (1 yr.)

The Council Meeting of October 5 recognized Sponsors for the Cahoon Park Fitness Track.

Mandy Singh and David Price - Perfect Fit Health Club; Jeff and Rosie Johnson - Arthur’s Shoe Tree; Kelly O’Hara - Highland Consulting Associates; Russ Bauknecht -Bay Village Kiwanis; O’Neill Healthcare; Al Paulus - Bay Village Foundation. The Bay Village Foundation also served as the financial intermediary for the project. Barry Tyo and Clete Miller brought the idea forward and saw the project through. “The Cahoon Memorial Park Trustees were also recognized for their good insight for selecting specific locations and making sure the details were aligned with the desires of the park on a long-term basis.”

School No Turn on Red Signs to be Updated

Bay Village will begin changing the existing all-day no turn on red signs to signage with designated before and after school hours. The plan will also add 6 signs at new intersections. The ordinance was on first read 10/19. Thirty-six signs will cost $1,800. “There is no money in the sign budget, so council will have to find the funds somewhere else, Safety-Service Director Scott Thomas said.”

Until the ordinance has passed and new signage appears, you should still follow the existing ordinance of 7:30 to 4:30 where signs are posted. New intersections to include: Bassett and Wolf; Bradley and Wolf; Douglas Drive and Wolf; Dover Center Road and Donald Drive; Dover Center and West Oviatt; and Bassett and Ashton Lane.

Fire Department Mutual Aid

Mutual aid response statistics were discussed 10/12. Bay Village Fire Chief Lyons reviewed the assistance given and received by the Bay Village Fire Department to our immediate neighboring cities from 1/1/15 through 8/31/15. While Bay Village runs at a deficit, Lyons believes the benefits we receive in return are fair. Council President Koomar expressed concerns that the numbers tend to “creep up”. “As other cities around us continue to grow and/or age, will this trend continue? When does this imbalance become a public safety issue? As Chief, how do you monitor this, and are there ways to make sure that mutual aid is still mutual?” Chief Lyons stated that the dispatch center will not call upon Bay Village if they are otherwise occupied. He iterated Bay Village is his first priority and they can and will decline so as not to put our residents at risk. Lyons stated this has been the trend for the last 5 to 7 years.

The aid Bay Village provided for surrounding communities was mostly emergency squad medic runs. Bay Village received mutual aid 28 times. Westlake obtained assistance from Bay Village 34 times, Avon Lake 13 times and Rocky River 12. 

The largest deficit is with city of Westlake. Our mutual aid relationship with them includes the Westlake service garage as the designated emergency operations center. None of our city buildings fit the requirements for an emergency operations center, required by the county as a place set up for administrative headquarters in the event of a disaster. Bay Village and Westlake are registered as the two cities for that center. Our pumps are sent to Westlake for an annual certification testing, a process which takes all day and involves a pit that would cost Bay “tens of thousands of dollars” to install. Westlake has a pit for this purpose and there is no charge for Bay Village to use it. The Bay Village fire fighters use their recreation center, off duty, for rescue swimmer training six to seven months of the year. Chief Lyons values their partnership as a mutual aid city.

Review of Emergency Communication Plan

After a June council meeting when many had issues with basement flooding, I wrote this: During last week’s storm people needed help and wanted answers. Because of Superstorm Sandy in 2012 residents prompted the mayor to work on an Emergency Communications Plan and to create a Task Force. Today we are almost 3 years past that superstorm and I asked, in June, what happened to the plan. The short answer Sutherland gave me and the nearly 50 other residents in attendance was that she “is still working on it”.

On October 12th the Environment Safety and Community Services Committee met to review the recommendations of this Emergency Communication Plan.

One piece of information no longer valid is Nixle. The city and residents now utilize Ready Notify. Ready Notify is a mass notification system used by municipalities in Cuyahoga County. “Its primary use is for emergency notifications, when rapid and accurate information is essential for your immediate safety.” You can read about and sign up for Ready Notify here:

http://ready.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/ReadyNotify.aspx

Of course there are other safety measures in place that the police and fire department must review and keep up with, but it was Sandy, the flooding and a recent gas leak that had frustrated residents pointing out there are some key missing actions when an emergency occurs.

The basic steps outlined in this plan during an emergency event:

Mayor’s email blasts

Ready Notify

Activate social media through the Police Department as they have a Facebook page and the department is staffed 24/7

Activate messaging team

Pop-ups on city website

Communicate using sign boards at City Hall and Board of Education. The Recreation Department sign will be replaced with electronic signage.

There was discussion of a neighborhood ambassador program. This relied solely on volunteers. There is no formal program as the feeling was this unfolds naturally when an emergency arises.

The discussion and the plan can be viewed here:  http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/277850/2015_environment_committee_minutes_10-12.pdf

Behind the Times

How long would it take the city to implement video, televised, and live stream council meetings? Every time I see something like the linked article, I get inspired anew and then I shake my head. Who knows if it is just election talk in Beachwood, but that council wants to move forward with televising and live stream council meetings to include call in or mail in questions.

Bay hopes to have their new recording equipment in place by the end of the year. Every time a concern pops up it seems to go back to the drawing board for weeks. This has been discussed and planned for nearly two years now – and this is just microphones and audio. 

There were several good points in this article. My favorite: "If we're going to effectively communicate, I guess the way to do it is streaming and having meetings available (on video)."

http://www.cleveland.com/beachwood/index.ssf/2015/10/beachwood_will_explore_live-st.html#incart_river_home

MashUp from Recent Meetings

(10/17 FB post) I, like so many of you, have this thing called a day job. I do not always have the time to share my ponderings about the meetings I attend. We live in an era where there is this thing called a mashup – defined as “a mixture or fusion of disparate elements”. From various meetings beginning September 14th through October 12th, in no particular order, enjoy my mashup.

Microphone Project: (10/12) A review of the equipment fact sheet proposal by JAVS.

The entire system is controlled by a tablet or pc. The League of Women Voters is willing to add the cost of the tablet to the current equipment estimate of $17,957. If the city approves the proposal, the LOWV will meet to revise their budget and change the amount of the donation to include the tablet. Bravo!

The system can be extended to include video without a lot of additional equipment; it would require a software upgrade.

The Mayor stated (9/21) that the project would include wiring the conference room and having 2 microphones that would come in and out with the Clerk of Council. This proposal showed microphones would be mounted. Because of the privacy concerns of Mayor Sutherland, Paul Vincent is seeking more information. You can review the entire proposal here: http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/277853/2015_-_services__utilities_committee_minutes_10-12.pdf

Tale of Two Ordinances: Ordinance regarding Unsolicited Publications and an Ordinance regarding sidewalks to be cleared of snow and ice.

The Unsolicited Publications Ordinance came about as a result of a couple of complaints about snow blowers hitting phone books that had been tossed in the snow or covered by snow and the residents not knowing they were there. Westlake created a similar ordinance that was defeated.

Ordinance to have the sidewalks cleared if a resident failed to do so and the cost of such had been the topic of much discussion. A resident raised the concern that the current draft of this ordinance did not address corner lots. Once a resident shovels and the service snow plow truck piles back on, what is the fairness of requiring a resident to remove it? The fees, if the city had to remove snow after a resident had been warned were heavily debated.

The mayor, the law director and some members of council sited residential snow removal as a safety issue for children around the schools. It may be a safety issue for dog walkers and joggers, but I can tell you – living where I live, I know that when a flake falls, children are driven to school save for very few, if any walkers.

Both ordinances were removed at this time. Steve Lee stated he believed it beneficial to learn from our neighboring communities about programs that work rather than go forward with something people are not comfortable with.

Online Ordinance Codification: The Walter Drane Company has updated the city’s ordinances for 2015. Paul Vincent had proposed the city change to Municode. Mr. Ebert stated the city has used Walter Drane for a long time and would like them to have an opportunity to make a presentation.

Erosion of Glen Park Culverts: A resident spoke at two meetings about this concern on his property.

Service Department: Due to General Foreman Gordon Evans retirement, the new supervisor will be David Banjoff. Also, the sewer maintenance supervisor will receive an increase because he will be placed on call. Scott Thomas feels it is important to have 3 supervisors on call instead of 2. Tom Henderson thanked Mr. Thomas for the job descriptions included with ordinance.

The city is required by the state to begin taxing gaming winnings even though Bay Village is a charter city.

The Green Parking Lot Project began October 6th with hopes to be done in 4 to 6 weeks depending on weather.

Bay Days fireworks and rain date approval: The mayor has long been opposed to a rain date due to the coordination of staffing issues and overtime. If there is no rain date and the fireworks are cancelled due to weather, the fireworks company retains half the cost and the other half of the money goes to the fireworks fund for the next year.

Tis the season for budget and finance discussions…

In the Dark, Not Always a Bad Thing

As Dwight Clark once said, “Time for our favorite part of the meeting – audience questions.” It is a time during council or committee sessions for residents to voice concerns or ask questions in a forum where it becomes public record. Last night, a young couple, along with their school aged children addressed an issue that continues to affect their family. They attended to state “complete and total dissatisfaction with the way the ordinance complaint was handled”. They wanted the city and council to understand what went wrong and why. They still have concerns and looked for assurance that expectations going forward would be met.

This family of four has resided for 15 years near a school building that recently underwent a renovation. As an abutting property they should have received notice of a public hearing regarding construction. They did not receive notices of any kind from the city. “We clearly would have attended because we have had this issue in the past.” The issue and the ordinance they refer to is 1176.08 LIGHTING. “Sources of light for illumination of structures, off-street parking areas, off-street loading areas or any other light sources shall be shielded so as not to be objectionable or hazardous to occupants of adjacent property or users of the public streets.”

Observing the construction progress this summer the residents knew that the lighting being installed would cause a problem. They had experienced the same issue a few years ago when improvements were made to the school lot and after getting nowhere then, the city stepped in. There was an inspection and it was found to be in violation.

This July as soon as they realized they were adding two more light poles – going from one to three, and already familiar with the impact of one, they reached out during the construction phase to John Cheatham of the building department; who in turn contacted Daryl Stumph, Assistant Superintendent of Operations for the schools. The residents were told if there was a problem after installation to let the city know. Mr.Cheatham conveyed that Mr. Stumph stated they would not be adversely affected. After installation, he stated that the lights are LED and shine down (as opposed to being broadcast). Mr. Stumph and the architect looked after dark and said the street lighting is more aggressive on the house than the parking lot lights. The mayor contacted Clint Keener, School Superintendent to resolve the issue because it is on school property. After the residents had an exchange with the building official, and asked that he review the complaint in person, he decided –without looking at it, there was no violation of code - and refused inspection. It was their council representative that eventually got the ball rolling to get the fabrication for the lights.

This brings us to the point where shields will be installed for the lighting facing their property. They are grateful for this but remain unsure the issue will be resolved. They are concerned over the specs of the work order and whether they have researched and studied the angles and lengths of the shields. They are concerned their property value has been compromised. They feel if the process had gone the way it should have this could have all been avoided.

They requested to be made aware when the inspection will take place so they can be present.

They appreciate those that put forth an effort to assist.

A complaint was submitted to Safebuilt and never acknowledged.

This is another issue that – pardon me – sheds light on several problem areas and attitudes in our systems. This time it is not just the City, but the Board of Education as well. It is frustrating when, as a resident, you do what is expected of you to be a good neighbor but do not get the same respect in return.

More Sewer Notes

A compilation of notes from the 9/24 sewer meeting and 9/28 committee meeting re: Bruce Douglas Russell.

Service Director Scott Thomas and CT Consultant Bob Greytak explained the testing, project and plans for the area. Recent tests show how each house’s private drain is connected to the sewer system. The results of computer models show existing sewer infrastructure does not have the capacity to drain water at a rate that meets the homeowners’ expectations. Also, people’s expectations of the dryness of their basements have changed over time given there are more finished basements now. The amount of rainfall is changing. For every 50 linear feet of publicly owned sewer, there are as much as 300 feet of privately owned drains feeding into that.

Mr. Thomas discussed the next steps, timing, costs and financing, he noted the guidance was preliminary and subject to change. It may take multiple years because of budget cycles. Mr. Thomas suggested a group of 5 people to serve as neighborhood representatives, but not all audience members liked the idea.

Other areas face the same difficulties.

Audience feedback: Belief that the selection of their area for improvements is unfair. Belief the engineer’s recommendations will not create results. Belief that homeowners should not be responsible for paying for improvement but the cost should be paid by the city and shared among all taxpayers.

At Monday’s meeting a resident from the area and in attendance on the 24th commented: A lot of people were upset and want this project to move quicker. He understands not everyone will be satisfied and they need to find a happy medium. It is cost prohibitive to design a system to collect rains for a hundred year storm. The frustration level is that it has been so long and nothing has moved forward.

Also on Monday, Paul Koomar asked when engineering might be wrapped up on this and wants a time frame from CT Consultants. CT Consultants has not put together an RFP (Request for Proposal).

Thank you to everyone that contributed to these notes.

The Downspout Ordinances

From 9/28, Monday’s Public Improvements Street/Sewers/Drainage Committee and Committee Meeting of Council regarding Amending Ordinance 913.08 Downspouts, Roofs and Yard Drains and 913.11 Corrective Order and Expenses. Several other issues were covered – I’m writing as fast as I can.

Council at Large Steve Lee spoke to a point that has been discussed before. Many of us have said this and it was good to hear it again from a council member. In regards to amending the ordinances concerning downspouts, etc., he would like to encourage the mayor to consider the idea of a committee of homeowners. "We are trying to creatively manage storm water and the idea is to be involved in this process with different options and not just for council to do this. We have a lot of great experts in this town and I’ve been approached by 2 people, both engineers, who expressed an interest in being involved in this and looking at creative ideas in different methods in managing storm water. Not a short term thing but a long term thing and I would like to encourage use of some of these experts.” He felt this important since the discussion is about managing storm water on the homeowner’s property. He said it is not a committee that is going to help develop a master storm system.

913.08 The ordinance reads: Downspouts, roof and yard drains shall not be connected to any sanitary sewer.

The proposed amendment would add: The disconnection of downspouts for splash boxes, rain gardens, rain barrels or other devices may be permanent provided that no discharge flows onto adjoining properties or public sidewalks. Splashing of downspouts requires a minimum distance of five feet from the house, five feet from the adjoining property and shall be located on ground level.

Discussion included questions of whether an inspection fee or permit will be involved. To just disconnect the downspout – no; If the project became more complex as in a cross connection and you have to dig, etc. a permit is required.

Tom Henderson suggested implementing an incentive for people to disconnect.

There was discussion on how to avoid rain runoff and buffering of property so as not to cause problems for neighbors. Steve Lee: “We do not want to create new problems for our neighbors when we are taking steps on our own property.”

Why a 5 foot distance from structures? It is an engineering recommendation. Every property is different.

A resident questioned the placement of five feet, which is not a lot of space between some of the houses in Bay. If you run it 5 feet straight out, front or back it will go onto impervious areas creating the potential to flood. We already have an ordinance in place stating you cannot direct your spouts into your neighbor’s property.

An audience member expressed that the problem still comes back to the sewers not being large enough to handle storm water to begin with. So everybody disconnects and now it goes down into paved areas and streets and it will be the same problem with water coming back into the houses.

Steve Lee presented a resident’s suggestion that the city use its purchasing power to buy rain barrels, etc. so residents can obtain a discount. The mayor advised that rain barrels are currently available for purchase through the county. Others expressed that a discount was not the only reason for the city to purchase but also, for the effectiveness and continuity.