Ward 3 Town Hall

Issues, notes and quotes from the April 14^th Town Hall held by Ward 3 Council Karen Lieske:

There are major efforts underway to focus on maintaining our housing stock. Learn more this Monday April 20^th at the Home Improvement Workshop at The Dwyer Center.  Speakers will be kept to a minimum allowing time for a Q & A session.

Dave Greenspan (Cuyahoga County Council) was in attendance and talked about the steps that could occur with properties that have been targeted for improvement. His reference to the Cuyahoga Land Bank brought concern from the audience. He stated it is just one resource. There was audience concern on the timing of the push to fix homes and increase taxes.

Did you know there is a county GIS system? Once a year there is a fly over of the entire county. The Geographic Information System will capture improvements to your home. (I hope you applied for a building permit when you built that deck, shed or addition.)

A longtime resident expressed concern about the usage of Cahoon Park on Sunday. He questioned the “organized” volleyball that takes place on Sunday nights. He was told by our law director that this was a different situation than what the Cahoon Will specified. The resident stressed the Council and the Mayor are the Trustees of the Will – not the law director. If an issue arises and goes to court, it is the law director that will defend the city and make money doing so - the city’s money. When the police are called, they say call the rec center. When the rec center is called, they say call the law director.

More trains are coming through Bay Village. This is due to an expired agreement with the railroads that limited the train traffic. The agreement was negotiated by Dennis Kucinich 10 years ago.  The Law Director is to meet and review this issue.

The trains apparently are not frightening the deer. They are still with us in abundance. On Tuesday, April 21^st The Walker Road Park Ad Hoc Committee will hold a meeting at City Hall at 6p.m. to update on the Avon Lake Deer Culling Program. There is an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of deer in Bay.

In the future we will have a system in place to text 911. Also, in our future, meetings will be recorded and on the website.

Traffic concerns: Will the American Greetings facility going into Crocker affect the Bassett and Lake Rd. intersection? A traffic light study was conducted in the past and showed it did not warrant a light.

Why are we the only community that continues to have school traffic signs that prohibit right turns on red all day? Surrounding cities have all changed their signage to prohibit turns from 7 to 9 a.m. and 2 to 4 p.m. Audience members would like to see this happen in Bay.

Westerly traffic was monitored to see if the flow could be improved and it was decided there is no good alternative in trying to change the pattern. Like everyone that lives around a school, we must just deal with it during drop off and pick up.

Concerns about the trees planted along Bassett. The arborist looked at them and feels the trees are healthy.

It was requested again that the subject of an Animal Control Officer – even a part time one be placed on the agenda for public discussion. Karen has brought it to the attention of Council twice recently.  A comment was made “We can afford an arborist and we have as many animals running amok as we do trees”

Karen Lieske was attentive and took notes and I trust she will follow through. I thank her for this opportunity to be heard.

Gas Aggregation - Vote May 5, 2015

A question was posed on the https://www.facebook.com/groups/538603919551392/: What are the pros and cons of gas aggregation?

Here is a sampling of the things I have heard.

A few of the cons, pros, questions and feedback: “We have too many people telling us what to do”. 

Some are distressed that the Utica Shale Program is involved. As Charles Ramer from NOPEC stated “We don’t really have a policy on fracking.” – Being in the energy business I would have hoped for a better statement than that. But then that may be a conflict where $$ is concerned.

“What advantage is there for a city to partner with NOPEC? The city doesn’t do anything without a perk.”

“How much does the local government understand the energy market to determine for us if this is a good deal or not?”

The choice of joining is still up to the property owner. You are automatically enrolled but you will be given the opportunity to opt out. It doesn’t cost the city money. Some are adverse to everyone being automatically enrolled (switched) and then they have to opt out.   

2 public meetings are required on the issue but only if and after it passes in May.

Feedback from other communities that have participated: “You still need to watch the rates – Nopec does not always provide the lowest and you may be able to negotiate lower rates on your own”

Comments taken from that Facebook thread:

“Pros (in theory) - the costs are lower and predictable. Cons - they may not be lower than market prices especially given fracking is uncovering larger supplies. That said, I think cable and telecom companies are completely raking us with their 2 year contracts, so I am skeptical...just need to learn more.”

“The electrical aggregation has worked out great.”

“Seems like electricity prices are stable and gas prices are volatile but going down. Where will the price line be drawn?” This comment linked this article: http://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/news-release/averageenergyprices_cleveland.htm?hc_location=ufi

Improvement Target Areas

Much ado at Monday April 13th's  meeting. The Mayor presented findings from a County assessment that occurs every 10 years. The presentation focus was “Improvement Target Area”. The County assessed each and every property in Bay, and ‘targeted’ apx. 350 homes and a few businesses to comply with improvements. The majority of homes are on the east side of Bay. 

A resident living on one of the streets that was targeted took “umbrage” with this issue. The way it was being presented stung. With statements that so many more homes were run down in this area and the city wants to “contain the deterioration”. The resident found it personal and insulting. The Mayor said that they don’t want to use the term blighted but…. Alluding to this area as being hit by the recession with low and middle income residents was also a sticking point. How dare there be any labels to an area of town when the residents just may or may not have the desired income in Bay. I asked if these assessments were based on dangerous problems or aesthetics, the response was “both”.  It was also stated that these standards of improvement are ordinance based.

Not to worry – the City has plans in place to help you improve your property – low cost home improvement loans etc. Our Property Maintenance Inspector will focus on working with the people that received notice and need to complete repairs and upkeep. The presentation included moves to help - right down to land acquisition if necessary.   One could not help but get the feeling the City would just as soon see that side of town, which is rife with little cottages and older homes - gone. These small and apparently unkempt homes do not generate the tax dollars the City would like to spend.

Of course many properties need work here and there, clean up – what have you; and of course there is a bigger picture to this for the City. The message being sent was a little over the top and derisive. This has been a cry of many residents in Bay for years. The attitude in which this was presented surely smacked of elitism.  

If you are on Facebook you can read others opinions and comments here:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/538603919551392/

2014 in Review

I offer you a few highlights from 2014. Scroll through the Facebook page and find the original posts, articles and the discussions with much more detail on these and other subjects. Still relevant topics, I encourage you to continue to comment and get involved.

January - Two Plain Dealer articles focus on Councils from several communities suspending the 3 reading rule. Bay is guilty of this practice. As one example, in 2013 between April and June, Bay passed 20 different ordinances on the first read under suspension of the rules. This year Council has a better response to the public’s concerns. I often hear Councilwoman Karen Lieske remind Council that the public wants the 3 readings. Also, when Council does elect to suspend the rule, they now take time to explain the reasons.

February – Discussions continued regarding a Regional Fire Department. New bicycle laws were brought forward. To date, further implementation of the bicycle laws seemed to have been dropped.

March – Town Hall Meeting with the focus being the sewer bill increase.

April – The State of the City address was presented by Mayor Sutherland in Westlake with a $20 fee to attend on a weekday in the middle of the day.

May – Joan Kemper won the raffle organized by the Fireworks Fundraisers.

June – Bay Village got a new Safety Director. The process was questioned because it had not been discussed publicly and was not noted on Council's agenda.

July – Discussion among residents regarding the proposed equipment at Cahoon Park walking trail. Residents also spend time discussing the deer population.

August – Fire regionalization committee met, discussions put on hold. Ward Meeting with Ward 4 Tom Henderson and Ward 1 Dave Tadych.

September – Questions regarding the Simple Recycling project and the misinformation presented by the City. Coincidentally, clothing donation bins disappear around town. Signup for Ready Notify; an emergency notification system. Wards 2, Paul Vincent and 3 Karen Lieske hold a Ward Meeting.

October – Discussions on hiring a Property Maintenance Manager. No clarity on whether the position was posted or not or had to be or not. NOPEC gas aggregation program introduced.

November – Celebration for the 100th anniversary of City Hall and the first meeting Council held in the building. Discussions on creating a part-time Human Resource position. Geoff Westerfield of the ODNR speaks to residents and Council regarding deer problems. The Mayor wants to ban smoking on City property including parks. The City holds a poorly advertised and poorly attended Town Hall Meeting. The motion to install exercise equipment at Cahoon Memorial Park passes – even though the project should have gone before the Planning Commission, it was not referred. The Mayor announced that along with City Directors they have streamlined the Planning Commission process.

December – Proposal for Civilian Dispatch. The removal of long time public servant Dick Majewski from his seat on the Planning Commission. This occurred coincidentally, or not, after he questions how the process for approval for Bradley Bay extension and Crestview Development got messed up. The question remains - who is responsible for that screw up?

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.