I attended Council on 5/14 and here's what I saw:
Coyotes. There are multiple animals living somewhere south of Miami Bluff. If coyotes are indeed dangerous to small children and pets, then they need to be removed, and the most likely method is to kill them. I'm an animal lover, and it pains me to take this position, but safety has to take priority. Again, though I would like to see real data/evidence from experts first.
Roof Permit Fee. After hearing from the Building Commissioner, I think a permit is ok. I would like to see us charge less if possible. Since other communities don't have this permit on the books, a lower price won't put us below the 'Average'.
Sidewalks Code of Ordinances clarification. I feel our Code of Ordinances (resident responsible for all repairs) is out sync with how we operate as a Village (resident sometimes pays, sometimes does not), still different than the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling (Village must repair damage to sidewalks caused by Village property ie trees). We ought to scratch the paragraph completely and use the Court's ruling. But I'm not a legal expert, and I'm not on the Rules and Law Committee. My reco will probably go nowhere, and we'll miss a great oppty to simplify and standardize our Code.
Line item detail required for "All Other" type expenses. After some really good debate, I agree with Dennis, huge effort for oversight is probably unnecesary. I support breakouts of expenses for "All Other" >$1000 only. This won't be a huge burden administratively, and yet it provides some transparency to Council.
ODOT Letter. I am disappointed the Mayor hasn't written the letter he committed to writing within "1 - 2 weeks" after our last Council meeting. I think we should move forward as was decided by the Planning Commission. I will continue to push for engagement.
Liaison. I think Carl Stich would do a fine job, however I think this is a big job. Not sure appointing someone from the Planning Commission is the right choice. I would prefer an impartial, content expert like Chris Ertel, Village Engineer.
I voted in the affirmative on everything as all were procedural in nature except for Waste Fee exception by Emery Park which is reasonable considering they're a condo association.
Cortney
ICRCTV.COM
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Council Meeting 4/23
I attended Council on 4/23, and here's what I saw. It was a very short meeting....
Mayor's Letter Roundabout letter. I would like to see this letter go out in a timely fashion, confirming out interest in preliminary engineering. As was unanimously supported Dan & the Planning Commission, I'm looking fwd to learning more during step 2.
Liaison Role. I encouraged the Mayor and Council to consider a Liaison role to act as go-between between all of the interested parties. I think Carl Stich would do a fine job, but I think a Chris Ertel or potentially a Joe Miller would do a great job (and have relevant experience)
I voted in the affirmative on everything, as all were procedural in nature except:
-pay raises for pool employees - we need to adhere to Ohio Constitution
-Liquor approval for Adult Pool Parties. I don't like Emergency as it pertains to Alcohol, but I like the social opportunities for residents to stay in the Village.
-Murray Ave one way. I don't love this idea but it's reasonable ahead of a slow ish roundabout process
-Pickup Truck for the Maint Dept - new truck is reasonable considering the old equip it's replacing.
Cortney
ICRCTV.COM
Mayor's Letter Roundabout letter. I would like to see this letter go out in a timely fashion, confirming out interest in preliminary engineering. As was unanimously supported Dan & the Planning Commission, I'm looking fwd to learning more during step 2.
Liaison Role. I encouraged the Mayor and Council to consider a Liaison role to act as go-between between all of the interested parties. I think Carl Stich would do a fine job, but I think a Chris Ertel or potentially a Joe Miller would do a great job (and have relevant experience)
I voted in the affirmative on everything, as all were procedural in nature except:
-pay raises for pool employees - we need to adhere to Ohio Constitution
-Liquor approval for Adult Pool Parties. I don't like Emergency as it pertains to Alcohol, but I like the social opportunities for residents to stay in the Village.
-Murray Ave one way. I don't love this idea but it's reasonable ahead of a slow ish roundabout process
-Pickup Truck for the Maint Dept - new truck is reasonable considering the old equip it's replacing.
Cortney
ICRCTV.COM
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Albert Pl Sidewalks correspondence with the Mayor
I'm sharing an exchange with the Mayor on a contentious sidewalk project in the Village. My original email is in an earlier posting this month.
Cortney
----------------------------------------
Cortney
----------------------------------------
Dan,
Thx for your reply. You make some valid points, and I'll make some adjustments going forward. Please see my detailed responses below in CAPS.
Thanks,
Cortney
Mariemont Village Council
513-271-4513
scheeser.blogspot.com
Cortney,
When you sent your original e-mail to Joanee and Sue and asked them to print out the documents for the Public Works and Services Committee meeting on March 19th, they naturally gave me a copy. THIS IS OK.
As you know, once the office receives any document, it becomes an item of public record, and must be made available to anyone who asks to see that particular document or any document related to a specific topic. THIS IS OK.
That is exactly what happened in this case. After finding out that the Public Works committee was meeting to discuss the sidewalks on Albert Place, a property-owner on that street came into the office and asked for any details I might have on the issue. It was then that I showed your letter to this Albert Place citizen. By law, that is what I was required to do. I asked her if she received a copy of your memo and she said she had not, so we gave her a copy, unaware that it was supposed to be a secret of any kind. THERE WAS NO SECRET, AND THIS KIND OF RHETORIC PROVES MY POINT THAT WE'RE ROWING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
If you only meant that letter to be a “talking point” at the meeting, you should have identified it as a draft. The letter appeared to be ready to be distributed to Albert Place residents. I was surprised by that, because, if you will recall, when you first suggested pulling up the bricks and replacing them with concrete, AS STATED IN LAST WEEK'S MEETING, WE NEVER DISCUSSED PULLING UP SIDEWALKS, ONLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE TO US FROM A BUDGET PERSPECTIVE. THIS CHARACTERIZATION IS AN EXAMPLE OF NOT ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
Mariemont Village Council
513-271-4513
scheeser.blogspot.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Dan Policastro <mayordan1@gmail.com>
To: Cortney Scheeser <cscheeser@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jeff Andrews; Denise ; Andy Black ; Dennis Wolter ; Joe Miller ; Chris Ertel ; "joanee@mariemont.org" ; Sue Singleton <ssingleton@mariemont.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: docs for tonights meeting - can you print out?
From: Dan Policastro <mayordan1@gmail.com>
To: Cortney Scheeser <cscheeser@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jeff Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: docs for tonights meeting - can you print out?
Cortney,
When you sent your original e-mail to Joanee and Sue and asked them to print out the documents for the Public Works and Services Committee meeting on March 19th, they naturally gave me a copy. THIS IS OK.
As you know, once the office receives any document, it becomes an item of public record, and must be made available to anyone who asks to see that particular document or any document related to a specific topic. THIS IS OK.
That is exactly what happened in this case. After finding out that the Public Works committee was meeting to discuss the sidewalks on Albert Place, a property-owner on that street came into the office and asked for any details I might have on the issue. It was then that I showed your letter to this Albert Place citizen. By law, that is what I was required to do. I asked her if she received a copy of your memo and she said she had not, so we gave her a copy, unaware that it was supposed to be a secret of any kind. THERE WAS NO SECRET, AND THIS KIND OF RHETORIC PROVES MY POINT THAT WE'RE ROWING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
If you only meant that letter to be a “talking point” at the meeting, you should have identified it as a draft. The letter appeared to be ready to be distributed to Albert Place residents. I was surprised by that, because, if you will recall, when you first suggested pulling up the bricks and replacing them with concrete, AS STATED IN LAST WEEK'S MEETING, WE NEVER DISCUSSED PULLING UP SIDEWALKS, ONLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE TO US FROM A BUDGET PERSPECTIVE. THIS CHARACTERIZATION IS AN EXAMPLE OF NOT ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
I told you the Public Works and Services Committee did not have the authority to make that decision. WHEN WAS THIS COMMUNICATED? UNLESS YOU'RE REFERRING TO LAST WEEK'S MEETING, WE HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN ABOUT THIS PROJECT. AGAIN, ROWING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
That kind of drastic change in an historic district can only be approved by ARB. DOES ARB WEIGH IN ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT? DO WE NEED THEIR APPROVAL TO REPLACE TREES? TO REPAVE STREETS? TO RESET CURBS? THIS IS A QUESTION FOR ME.
Not only is Albert Place part of our historic district, it is a street named after Mary Emery’s son and any changes to it must honor our founder’s design. AGAIN WE HAVE/HAD NO INTENTION OF CONCRETE REPLACEMENT. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND OUR MEETINGS TO HEAR FIRST HAND WHAT IS DISCUSSED, AS WELL AS THE TENOR OF THE DISCUSSION.
The copy of Ed McTigue’s letter that all of Council received spelled out very clearly that it is the responsibility of the Village to repair or replace sidewalks damaged by the roots of trees the Village has planted. Furthermore, the current condition of the sidewalks creates a tripping hazard and the safety of our citizens should always be our first priority. That is one point on which I will not
compromise or delay taking action. No elected official should. SAFETY IS VERY IMPORTANT AND STREETS/SIDEWALKS NEEDING REPAIR MUST BE ADDRESSED. ON THIS WE AGREE. HOWEVER, I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MIXED MESSAGES ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPKEEP, AND I THINK IT'S WORTH ASKING QUESTIONS WHEN THE VILLAGE HAPPILY SPENDS MONEY ON SIDEWALKS THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN SAVED FOR MORE ROAD & CURB IMPROVEMENTS. FURTHER, THE VILLAGE OPERATED VERY DIFFERENTLY AS RECENTLY AS 10ISH YEARS AGO, YET WE HAVEN'T CHANGED THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS INCONSISTENCY IS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.
To conclude, I do not see us as “rowing” in opposite directions. DON KEYES, WHO I SHOULD HAVE THANKED PUBLICLY LAST WEEK, CAME UP TO ME PRIOR TO THE MEETING PULLED ME ASIDE AND SAID THERE WERE RESIDENTS VERY CONCERNED. THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. FROM YOUR VANTAGE POINT, SEEING AN ESCALATING ISSUE, YOU COULD HAVE REACHED OUT TO AN INEXPERIENCED COMMITTEE, YET YOU DID NOT.
The copy of Ed McTigue’s letter that all of Council received spelled out very clearly that it is the responsibility of the Village to repair or replace sidewalks damaged by the roots of trees the Village has planted. Furthermore, the current condition of the sidewalks creates a tripping hazard and the safety of our citizens should always be our first priority. That is one point on which I will not
compromise or delay taking action. No elected official should. SAFETY IS VERY IMPORTANT AND STREETS/SIDEWALKS NEEDING REPAIR MUST BE ADDRESSED. ON THIS WE AGREE. HOWEVER, I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MIXED MESSAGES ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPKEEP, AND I THINK IT'S WORTH ASKING QUESTIONS WHEN THE VILLAGE HAPPILY SPENDS MONEY ON SIDEWALKS THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN SAVED FOR MORE ROAD & CURB IMPROVEMENTS. FURTHER, THE VILLAGE OPERATED VERY DIFFERENTLY AS RECENTLY AS 10ISH YEARS AGO, YET WE HAVEN'T CHANGED THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS INCONSISTENCY IS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.
To conclude, I do not see us as “rowing” in opposite directions. DON KEYES, WHO I SHOULD HAVE THANKED PUBLICLY LAST WEEK, CAME UP TO ME PRIOR TO THE MEETING PULLED ME ASIDE AND SAID THERE WERE RESIDENTS VERY CONCERNED. THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. FROM YOUR VANTAGE POINT, SEEING AN ESCALATING ISSUE, YOU COULD HAVE REACHED OUT TO AN INEXPERIENCED COMMITTEE, YET YOU DID NOT.
What I do see is the need to remind Council members how issues become agenda topics for committee meetings and how items become a part of the Village’s public records. AS WE REMINDED YOU LAST WEEK, COMMITTEES MAY MEET ON ANY TOPIC THEY WISH AS LONG AS THEY POST NOTICE. WE WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN THIS MANNER UNLESS WE ARE LEGALLY PROHIBITED.
I think this would alleviate any such problems in the future.
Sincerely,
Dan Policastro
Mayor
Sincerely,
Dan Policastro
Mayor
Monday, May 7, 2012
Public Works 5/1/2012 - Minutes
This is the minutes of the Public Works Committee Meeting on 5/1. My commentary (either unsaid or after the fact) is in brackets []. Here's how it came to pass
1st meeting list was presented to us, Albert Pl brick sidewalks were discussed
After 1st meeting I drafted a letter to residents to get their input
2nd meeting was held to figure out how to communicate w residents. And to discuss Chris followups
3rd meeting was this one
While I can always do better, I stand by the slow process described above. We had no intention of making any decisions at any of the 1st two meetings, only asking questions and learning.
Cortney
------------------------
1st meeting list was presented to us, Albert Pl brick sidewalks were discussed
After 1st meeting I drafted a letter to residents to get their input
2nd meeting was held to figure out how to communicate w residents. And to discuss Chris followups
3rd meeting was this one
While I can always do better, I stand by the slow process described above. We had no intention of making any decisions at any of the 1st two meetings, only asking questions and learning.
Cortney
------------------------
Cortney called meeting to order 5:15. 2 agenda topics to discuss: Albert Pl sidewalks final reco, 2nd
assessment process. Dan said to hold on
- 2nd topic was not approved.
You have to go back to Council.
Cortney said he was checking to see if on agenda. If not then we wouldn’t talk about it. Dan said it may be on the agenda but he didn’t
put it in the Committee. Jeff said the
Committee can take up any topic it wants.
Dan said it can’t. Cortney and Jeff
disagreed. Dan said we’ll get a ruling
on this. Cortney reiterated that we will
talk about 2 topics today. Jeff wanted
to know why so much friction over assigning.
Dan said it was because it was not put into committee by council. Cortney said we’ll talk about both and wait
on an opinion from Ed. First up is
Albert Pl sidewalks to respect attendees’ time. [This was an unfortunate way to
start the meeting. I’ll wait on Ed’s
interpretation, but I do know that other municipalities governed by the same
laws talk about whatever they want, whenever they want. Command and control is anti-democratic and is
troubling. Further, homoegenous thinking that happens when one person makes all the decisions sub-optimizes the outcome]
Previously committee talked about replace option, repair
option, most recently repair will minimize damage to trees vs replace, less
expensive, repair implies great brick sidewalks can stay. The committee landed on repair. We know from a resident’s research the
sidewalks are 85 yrs old. And they are
due for TLC. Cortney suggested we see
what the 3 numbers are. Chris provided: Base concrete which hasn’t been considered,
rather an accounting number, $8000. That’s
a bare minimum cost. Other streets like
Indianview, or maybe East, lost their sidewalks in the 1980’s in favor of concrete. Once we found they were historic, it made
sense to consider keeping them. 70%
pulled, remove errant tree roots, leveling sand = $22K. 50% $16K.
40% $12K. We agreed only a couple
bad spots on Albert Pl. Without an
accurate estimate, Cortney assumes we’re in the $12K-$16K range to restore bad
portions of Albert Pl. Cheaper vs $22K
full redo, more expensive than the $8000 minimum “accounting” estimate. Committee felt good about repair as a good
option as long as we could get some amount of longevity. Denise asked Chris if saving the bricks is
possible. And where necessary work in
color matched bricks? Chris said
contractor will provide choices for color match. Dan asked if we need new bricks. Chris said he didn’t think we needed
more. Jeff asked if some are broken. Cortney said independent of HOW we pay for
it, reco we converge on the WHAT to address the safety issue brought forth by
the Engineer. [What is agenda topic 1
& how is agenda topic 2.] Cortney
opened up the floor to the residents attending.
A resident asked if the bricks have been repaired in the
past. Cortney said he didn’t have the
tenure in the Village to know for sure.
The resident asked if the root problem would happen again. Cortney said he assumed the problem would
happen again but the trees appear pretty mature so they shouldn’t get a lot
bigger. Cortney said he guesses the majority
of the damage the trees will do has been done.
He said he’s not an arborist, but he thinks a professional cutting
strategically would slow down the problem from reappearing. A resident asked if it would kill the
tree. Chris said it’s possible, but if
done properly it should live nearly its full life. Dan said trees in that area have roots that
go deep. Dan said a resident replaced
her section of sidewalk, and if that tree needs replaced a different variety
would be chosen. Denise asked what the
Village does when tree roots need cut.
Chris said the Village arborist or John will supervise it. Dan said the maples are pretty hearty. Chris confirmed he believes everything will
survive.
A resident said she wanted to complain. She referenced a letter addressed to
Residents of Albert Pl. Residents never
received it. [This letter was drafted by me after our 1st meeting. We
wanted to be proactive with residents.
We discussed the wording of this letter at the 2nd meeting,
but we decided to NOT to send because we were informed the issue had become
very controversial and a letter would only aggravate. This was good thinking considering what we
saw on this night. The committee instead
decided to meet directly w residents during April. That meeting was this one albeit later than I
had hoped]. We would like to get the
information. Cortney said the letter was
never sent. [My guess is Dan took our
draft letter not meant to be sent and shared with one or more residents on
Albert Pl who in turn shared with others]
The resident asked to finish. She
took the letter around to each of the residents. She said Cortney wrote in his blog that Dan
had taken it to residents. Dan didn’t,
she did. She wants is made clear. If anything involves our street, we should be
notified. Letter dated Feb13, she got it
in April. There’s a problem
somewhere. Jeff said Council has a
fundamental issue (communication). He’s
sensitive to Residents’ issues. We met 2
months ago in Feb and reviewed a list of repairs. Cortney added we didn’t know what we were
going to see. Chris presents his list in
February and we didn’t know that Albert Pl was on the list. Jeff said during that meeting we asked Chris
what are the options. We discussed all
the options. [I think we should more
publicly advertise this meeting to better communicate what sidewalk and street
priorities are up for repair]. Jeff believes
the residents on Albert Pl believe we want to remove the bricks. Another resident said he felt the letter was
very clear. Cortney said he tooled
around with a draft of the letter. A
resident suggested we reread the blog.
She read Jeff Andrews asked if Albert Place was historic. The residents were concerned by this. Jeff said he did not ask if Albert Place was
historic [historic designation is different than old, and I may not have
captured the wording appropriately]
A resident said it was what
they had heard. Jeff said his question was
if the bricks were historic. A resident
said they have so much information right here (among residents). Residents should have been asked, that should
have been the basis. Then it would have
been easier for everyone. Cortney said
the committee brainstormed and Dennis Malone and MPF were good resources. A resident said obviously neither were
(experts). A resident said MPF came to
the residents. Jeff said when process
was begun it was never the intention or comment during the meeting to get rid
of bricks. We need to understand all our
options. And the understanding we had at
that time and still have questions on, which is why the second agenda topic,
Council was under the impression that the Code of Ordinances doesn’t allow us
in many cases to do what we want to do with these bricks, which is to repair
them. So we were trying to understand
that code. There are a lot of
things that cause anxiety in this Village is one, and we take some blame for
that. But, misinformation is
another. The feedback he got concerned details
of his personal life which got brought in re Albert Place and he doesn’t
understand how that happened, if it did happen as he got it second hand. A resident read from previous minutes, Jeff asked
if Albert Pl was in the Historic District.
These comments were in the Minutes.
Cortney said he wrote the minutes.
He records his meetings for Minutes, which are required for Sunshine
Laws. He remembered the conversation. While not a huge deal tonight, here’s his
understanding. We know the Historic District
has regulations, so where in other places in the Village are there Historic
requirements. And the question came up
in regards to some of these older cloisters like Denny, Albert. A resident offered Sheldon. Cortney continued saying do these have
historical requirements, and the committee came to the conclusion yes they do. These Committee meetings aren’t terribly
organized and orchestrated, we’re all learning and figuring. Again, if we were going to do something drastic,
we would owe you communication and engagement and advice. Cortney said he was slow. We weren’t even 1/3 of the way there. Cortney received an email from a Resident,
and it was very helpful. She did the
research that contradicted what some on MPF suggested, that there probably weren’t
sidewalks there originally, so the sidewalks wouldn’t be original. She showed Cortney a great picture from Architectural
Digest, and this changed the conversation.
We should have reached out the experts. We didn’t know who they were. A resident challenged our quote experts. She didn’t know who they were but they certainly
weren’t experts. Cortney said one was
an expert resident [I'll withold the name for privacy sake]. Dan said the resident said he
didn’t know. A resident said this is a
mess. Cortney said he doesn’t think it’s
a mess. Jeff said we’re all on the same
team here. We all live here. We just need to work together on this, and
realize we’re going to ask a lot of questions.
A resident said the working together has to start here. This animosity from you towards the rest of the people is totally out of place. [I disagree and don’t believe it’s a fair criticism of Jeff. I don’t see any evidence of unique post election issues. These concerns predate the election and continue. It’s only to be expected they’ll continue to be brought up] The resident said he was referring to Jeff and the Committee. He said Minutes stated Jeff said Dan went from house to house. Actually a Resident went door to door. Maybe the Committee should have. Again from the Minutes, the resident said it said the Committee should do something to counter this. [countering misinformation and personal attacks is fair and appropriate] A resident said what is going on. Cortney said we’re here to solve the problem today. A resident agreed saying lets move on. A resident said this part of the problem and shouldn’t be ignored. The resident said he expected the Council to work together. Instead there’s competition with Cincinnati. The resident said this Roundabout into our Streetcar fiasco. He said you embarrass the whole Village in front of the County Commissioner. Council was totally unprepared. No study had been done, no resident input had been done, and all that came out of the meeting was let’s postpone this and asked for a study. Which should have been done previously. With the roundabout there’s one feature, tax dollars are being used, to help this developer buy what he wants. Cortney said he would love to focus on Albert Place. The resident said the attitude runs throughout Council. Jeff lost the election. Jeff agreed. The resident said Dan won the election, it wasn’t even close, 200 votes. Dan won the election before by only 70 votes. The resident told Jeff to put it in perspective and said you’re new to Mariemont. Jeff said he’s not new to Mariemont. Jeff said he does think we should move on. Jeff said the election is over and he’s not sure why it keeps coming up. He was elected to serve and will always serve based on the principles he believes are important and that’s what he’s done. Jeff said he’s happy to talk afterwards.
A resident said the working together has to start here. This animosity from you towards the rest of the people is totally out of place. [I disagree and don’t believe it’s a fair criticism of Jeff. I don’t see any evidence of unique post election issues. These concerns predate the election and continue. It’s only to be expected they’ll continue to be brought up] The resident said he was referring to Jeff and the Committee. He said Minutes stated Jeff said Dan went from house to house. Actually a Resident went door to door. Maybe the Committee should have. Again from the Minutes, the resident said it said the Committee should do something to counter this. [countering misinformation and personal attacks is fair and appropriate] A resident said what is going on. Cortney said we’re here to solve the problem today. A resident agreed saying lets move on. A resident said this part of the problem and shouldn’t be ignored. The resident said he expected the Council to work together. Instead there’s competition with Cincinnati. The resident said this Roundabout into our Streetcar fiasco. He said you embarrass the whole Village in front of the County Commissioner. Council was totally unprepared. No study had been done, no resident input had been done, and all that came out of the meeting was let’s postpone this and asked for a study. Which should have been done previously. With the roundabout there’s one feature, tax dollars are being used, to help this developer buy what he wants. Cortney said he would love to focus on Albert Place. The resident said the attitude runs throughout Council. Jeff lost the election. Jeff agreed. The resident said Dan won the election, it wasn’t even close, 200 votes. Dan won the election before by only 70 votes. The resident told Jeff to put it in perspective and said you’re new to Mariemont. Jeff said he’s not new to Mariemont. Jeff said he does think we should move on. Jeff said the election is over and he’s not sure why it keeps coming up. He was elected to serve and will always serve based on the principles he believes are important and that’s what he’s done. Jeff said he’s happy to talk afterwards.
A resident said our brick
walks and Albert Pl are an asset to Mariemont, a memorial to Mary Emery’s son
Albert and an asset to Cincinnati and Hamilton County as evidenced by this photo
taken in 1995 as part of Cincinnati’s winning America’s Most Livable City”
award, uneven brick walks and all. Denise
said she’d like to review the photo. Cortney
reviewed the photo and suggested they may be of the old trees before
replacement. The resident said the uneven brick walks added to the charm of
America, Albert Place, Mariemont, Ohio, where life fills you up instead of
passed you by. The way it used to be, is
it necessary to do anything. She has
fallen on the walks on Miami Rd, but to her knowledge, no one has ever fallen
on the bricks, because pedestrians see they’re uneven in spots and they take care. They choose to walk on Albert Place, it’s not
a road to anywhere. It’s the way life
used to be, and the architecture is amazing, like an English Village. And they stroll. And they admire. If you must restore the uneven spots, let it
be on the Village’s dime, not the owners of property on Albert Pl. It's part of the Village infrastructure,
caused by Village owned tree roots. Everyone
pays to maintain infrastructure like we do the schools. No owners on Albert Pl have kids in
school but we all pay because good schools are an asset to the Village, just
like Albert Place is an asset to the Village.
You should be rewarding us for keeping up your asset of historical
property, not assessing us. Cortney said
he thought the do-nothing option is an interesting one. He asked Chris as the expert to talk about
the list he generates each year. Albert
Pl made both lists this year for the Alley and the sidewalks. Chris has a very involved process for grading
streets and brings the Committee a list of recos for the coming year. And he also brings a list of sidewalks, some
new, some repair. Albert Place was on
the list. Cortney asked Chris if we need
to act on Albert Place. Is it a
liability, is it a hazard. Is it something
we could wait on? Or is it appropriate
to do something this year? Chris said it
made the list because he heard complaints from the Building Commissioner to
take a look. It is the Village
option. If anyone trips on any sidewalk,
it is a liability for the Village. He
said he sees no more liability on Albert Pl than on any other Village sidewalk. Chris said do-nothing is an acceptable
option. Dan said he spoke to Ed McTigue
and Dan said the advice I received from a resident is wrong [advice was the
Village should stay out of sidewalk repairs and have residents pay for them via
directly paying their licensed contractor, and on their dime regardless of
cause. This is how the Village used to
do it]. Whoever creates the condition is
negligent. Dan said we are creating the
condition – our trees, our roots. We
have people look at it, like the Building Commissioner has looked at it. He’s told us of the hazard. Now we know of the hazard – we’ve been
warned. If someone trips - I tripped the other day on it, looking at
the stuff. We have a responsibility to
maintain our sidewalks and our trees. That’s
it in a nutshell, and you’ll be getting the response tomorrow Cortney asked Dan if he recommended action
this year. Dan suggested we pace
ourselves – we start on the North side, work our way down to Miami. Next year do the other side. Cortney said ½ in 2012, ½ in 2013? Dan said North side is the most dangerous
area. Jeff asked Chris why not do all at
once. Would having a crew out there give
us savings by doing all at once. Dan
said we could that. The bids came in a
$145K and he thought the Committee reserved $160K. Chris confirmed this, part of which goes to
Miami. $15K then to stay in budget. Could possibly do both. Or you could separate and do 2 separate bids
at prevailing wage. So you’ll get it cheaper
if you go out for a 2nd bid. Dan
said he has 3 bids: one for $22K, one
for $17K, one for $125/lineal foot. Jeff
asked Chris if these were his quotes.
Chris said he only has the one.
Dan said he got 1 with Dennis Malone who Spinneweber uses on the Square. One from the big contractor, Evans. Joe Miller and Dan went to a 3rd @
125/lin foot.
Jeff asked if the Committee if the budget and the desire is to repair. He reco’d doing it once and fix it. Cortney said the first decision is can we agree on repair. If yes then the next step is the “how”. How do we, when do we queue up the work. The final bit is how do we finance it. Cortney opened up the floor to comments and questions. A resident asked if this is something the City (Village) will pay for? Dan said according to the Solicitor, the resident is correct. Cortney said before the mid 1990’s, the process was flipped. There was an assessment done by the Building Commissioner. Mr. Teeman would go around and do his assessment and say this needs to be repaired. There would be a process to get bids, but the Resident would pay for the work to be done. And the Code of Ordinances and the rules on sidewalks, say that’s the way it’s supposed to be. And since the mid 1990’s, we’ve fallen out of that habit. So to answer the residents question, Cortney said he’s not sure how to do it. The code of ordinances has never changed, yet we’ve changed how we’ve operated, and this is agenda topic 2: do we recommend to Council and Rules and Law changing the Ordinance to reflect what Dan just shared re Ed. Cortney said Dan’s information was helpful. Dan said the Code hasn’t changed because if your sidewalk deteriorates not because of trees, the property owner pays for it. But case law has it according to our Solicitor, if we (Village) cause the problem, we have to pay for it. It’s that simple. It’s Ohio law. Denise asked if it applies to curbs? Dan said no, the Village takes care of curbs. Cortney said Code of Ordinances considers Curbs part of Sidewalks.
A resident asked about the Minutes and what the definition of “Denise and Jeff were in alignment” was. Cortney said it meant they support it [my mistake here, this is a P&G type word that I use outside of work]. 29:49 Cortney said we used to do it one way, and now we do it a different way. And we had a quick conversation during the final minutes of a Council meeting a couple months ago where we talked about this (Ed’s recommendation). Then I spoke with a resident with some experience with that who said here are some things you need to worry about. Cortney said he thinks that as a Committee, we previously agreed that we reco’d to not Assess, not manage that assessment process. Cortney wants to confirm if the Committee was ok and that our Code of Ordinances is ok. We’d hate for them to be saying 2 diff things. A resident asked about Communcation and that it caused a lot of stress among residents. Is there a way to inform those residents. The residents have all been agonizing over this. Denise said 1) the committee didn’t know we were talking about Albert Pl in that original meeting. We don’t get the list ahead of time. And this is where all the questions came up. And the fact that albert Pl is different than every other street in the Village. So we didn’t know we were talking about Albert Pl. And that’s why Cortney sent out an email to everyone for today. The resident said notice would be helpful. Denise said if we know we do. Cortney said it’s a fair request, Denise agreed. She said we’ll work on doing a better job. Cortney asked for consensus on the “What”: the repair option, the concrete option, replacement option? The Committee is in agreement. A resident asked why even mention Concrete. Cortney said to close the loop. Denise said it was to mention all the options that had come up and to close the loop. The Committee agreed on repair/restore. Cortney said "restore" is the spirit of what we're trying to do. How many more decades can we get out of those great bricks. Jeff said we need language like: we want to restore these areas at an expense not to exceed, and then recommend to Council for a vote. And let's not phase it rather do it all at once.
Cortney asked if the residents had a preference of do it all at once or over a couple years. A resident asked that the sidewalks and alley not be done at same time. Dan confirmed they preferred contractors in at different times. Denise said stagger the two. Chris said it was possible. Cortney said it's a fair request. Chris agreed and said neither sound like long projects. Cortney asked Chris if the alley portion was ready to go. Chris said he's taken bids, and the Committee will need to meet again for the reco to Council. Council at the next meeting can then award the contract. Dan asked if Albert Pl sidewalks could be accomplished by mini bids through the office. Chris said it was ok and his bids included prevailing wage because of cost. Dan confirmed a mini bid process would be used. Denise asked if the residents preferred sidewalks done once or in two parts. A resident said everyone would prefer to just get it done. Dan said it was a no brainer. Denise reminded Dan he earlier suggested sidewalk portions done separately. Dan said if a concern can do half and half. Cortney said the committee will recommend do it and if Council has concerns about cost, then plan B will be do in parts. Committee will reco to Council Restore not to exceed $15,000. Jeff asked what original bid was. Cortney said Chris' estimate was $12000-$16000. Dan said a portion won't need to be completed since a resident already repaired. Chris said about 30%. Chris confirmed he took the 30% out for his bid. Chris confirmed this reduced area cas $21000, a high side bid. Dan said to target some smaller companies that are hungry. Cortney said if work exceeds $15000 then it becomes a 2 yr project. The committee agreed.
2nd topic: who pays and how do you do it: the assessment process. Cortney said the Code of Ordinances says all repairs are to be taken care of by the homeowner. It doesn't dictate by who caused failure. Feels like we (Council) were consistent through the mid 1990s w enforcement and assessment. Now we're out of sorts. We'll wait on Ed's official ruling on liability. The logic I heard today was if Village begins to take care of sidewalks, the Village is liable. If the resident takes care, the resident is liable. So you don't want to add liability to the Village. Dan said the logic is incorrect. Cortney said he's looking for Ed's forthcoming opinion on this. Jeff asked if the Code was accurate. The committee previously said no to resurrecting an assessment process due to complexity. The idea shared with me today was have the Contractor work directly with the Resident. This is a new way of thinking about it. First question: do we want to be in the business of having Resident financially responsible like we used to do? Or do we nibble from Road fund that comes every year to do both sidewalks and streets [We are welcoming additional expenses when we could avoid them. This seems backwards to me] Jeff asked if 52.68 is the main question. Jeff read this section. Cortney agreed. Jeff confirmed there are not exceptions. Jeff asked Cortney if he wanted to modify the Code for future Councils. Cortney said he found it confusing. Dick Adams (former Mayor) said it didn't matter who's fault it was, responsibility was the Homeowners. Cortney said his intent to was to make sure of consistency. Cortney asked the Committee if it's ok to not assess and the Village to pay for all repairs. Jeff said a Village caused problem is the responsibility of the Village. Jeff asked about a scenario where during construction a resident or a contractor damages a sidewalk or a neighbor. Jeff said the Code says the Homeowner is responsible and the resident would need to sue the homeowner causing the damage. Village shouldn't be responsible. Dan said it was, it's a Civil Action. Whoever causes the damage is responsible. Jeff asked Dan since it's State law, we don't have to worry about our Code. Dan said State Law wins. Leave the Code as is. Denise said we weren't considering taking it out. Cortney said we might add more to it. Dan said we don't have to. We have a problem on Chestnut where trees have caused damage. Denise confirmed it's on the list. Dan said we could put in Rules and Law Committee. Jeff asked Dan if the Code is really a protection clause for the Village. Dan said process is Village sends a letter to Contractor and they pay for it. He's done it 10 times over the past few years. Cortney said he doesn't have the answer. Committee can say it met on the subject and say we have nothing to add (to the Code) But it feels out of consistency. Dennis said we could add a clause if normal wear and tear or resident caused, they're responsible. If Village caused, then Village pays. Cortney said Dennis' idea might be a nice addition to the Code. Cortney came into this meeting thinking maybe we need to tighten up the Code. Cortney agreed with Dennis. Dennis said Case Law has occurred and precedent is set. Maybe we need to change the Code. Denise asked if we recommend further study. Cortney said he wants to suggest to Council and if Council agrees, Rules & Law could craft it. Dennis said the Mayor should refer to Rules & Law. Dan said if the Supreme Court makes a decision, we're wasting out time. Dennis said you could include the Supreme Court ruling in the Code. Jeff said there are some areas in our Code that are in conflict with current practice, some perhaps, state code. We ought to update the Code when we come across them. Cortney asked if the reco of the Committee is Mayor and Council look into enforcement sections. Committee agreed.
Dennis said residents pay a lot for houses (on Albert Pl) and are caretakers. Absurd to consider or mention replacing sidewalks. [I disagree. Every dollar spent needs to be scrutinized. We would be remiss to write checks without any research. There are no sacred cows, especially considering the huge budget hit the reduced state subsidies will cause starting in 2013. Further, no one every mentioned concrete as an option, only an accounting cost estimate on which to base more premium improvement options] If Village trees caused the problem, then Village is responsible. Denise said when we start discussing, the Committee brainstorms ideas. At no point did we say yes lets replace with concrete. The question was, are they historic and in the current environment trying to save money, do spend 2x the amount of money to work on the bricks or do we put the concrete in as a less costly option. [I disagree slightly with her recollection. No one had any intention of Concrete, but we did consider using concrete cost as a basis on which the Village would spend. Again, it was accounting only.] It was never decided that this was what we would do. As elected officials, we have the responsibility to brainstorm and ask questions. It's asking questions. Should we have said right away, let's pull in the residents, probably, we should have. We missed an opportunity there. What we heard, and I apologize to Dan, we heard that Dan was going door to door saying what we had decided was to get rid of the brick. This was not the case. Denise said it was a miscommunication. Dan said this is an historic Village. To even discuss it. Cortney said we never did. We never discussed (replacement with concrete). [This is a fundamental difference Dan and I have. I believe the craziest idea has the right to be uttered and discussed. Dan believes only vetted ideas should be discussed. Vetted then implies that a few select folks get to hear about it and figure it out before the majority ever hear of it. My method will cause friction and tension at times, but it will yield better solutions every time]
Cortney adjorned the meeting 6:10pm
Jeff asked if the Committee if the budget and the desire is to repair. He reco’d doing it once and fix it. Cortney said the first decision is can we agree on repair. If yes then the next step is the “how”. How do we, when do we queue up the work. The final bit is how do we finance it. Cortney opened up the floor to comments and questions. A resident asked if this is something the City (Village) will pay for? Dan said according to the Solicitor, the resident is correct. Cortney said before the mid 1990’s, the process was flipped. There was an assessment done by the Building Commissioner. Mr. Teeman would go around and do his assessment and say this needs to be repaired. There would be a process to get bids, but the Resident would pay for the work to be done. And the Code of Ordinances and the rules on sidewalks, say that’s the way it’s supposed to be. And since the mid 1990’s, we’ve fallen out of that habit. So to answer the residents question, Cortney said he’s not sure how to do it. The code of ordinances has never changed, yet we’ve changed how we’ve operated, and this is agenda topic 2: do we recommend to Council and Rules and Law changing the Ordinance to reflect what Dan just shared re Ed. Cortney said Dan’s information was helpful. Dan said the Code hasn’t changed because if your sidewalk deteriorates not because of trees, the property owner pays for it. But case law has it according to our Solicitor, if we (Village) cause the problem, we have to pay for it. It’s that simple. It’s Ohio law. Denise asked if it applies to curbs? Dan said no, the Village takes care of curbs. Cortney said Code of Ordinances considers Curbs part of Sidewalks.
A resident asked about the Minutes and what the definition of “Denise and Jeff were in alignment” was. Cortney said it meant they support it [my mistake here, this is a P&G type word that I use outside of work]. 29:49 Cortney said we used to do it one way, and now we do it a different way. And we had a quick conversation during the final minutes of a Council meeting a couple months ago where we talked about this (Ed’s recommendation). Then I spoke with a resident with some experience with that who said here are some things you need to worry about. Cortney said he thinks that as a Committee, we previously agreed that we reco’d to not Assess, not manage that assessment process. Cortney wants to confirm if the Committee was ok and that our Code of Ordinances is ok. We’d hate for them to be saying 2 diff things. A resident asked about Communcation and that it caused a lot of stress among residents. Is there a way to inform those residents. The residents have all been agonizing over this. Denise said 1) the committee didn’t know we were talking about Albert Pl in that original meeting. We don’t get the list ahead of time. And this is where all the questions came up. And the fact that albert Pl is different than every other street in the Village. So we didn’t know we were talking about Albert Pl. And that’s why Cortney sent out an email to everyone for today. The resident said notice would be helpful. Denise said if we know we do. Cortney said it’s a fair request, Denise agreed. She said we’ll work on doing a better job. Cortney asked for consensus on the “What”: the repair option, the concrete option, replacement option? The Committee is in agreement. A resident asked why even mention Concrete. Cortney said to close the loop. Denise said it was to mention all the options that had come up and to close the loop. The Committee agreed on repair/restore. Cortney said "restore" is the spirit of what we're trying to do. How many more decades can we get out of those great bricks. Jeff said we need language like: we want to restore these areas at an expense not to exceed, and then recommend to Council for a vote. And let's not phase it rather do it all at once.
Cortney asked if the residents had a preference of do it all at once or over a couple years. A resident asked that the sidewalks and alley not be done at same time. Dan confirmed they preferred contractors in at different times. Denise said stagger the two. Chris said it was possible. Cortney said it's a fair request. Chris agreed and said neither sound like long projects. Cortney asked Chris if the alley portion was ready to go. Chris said he's taken bids, and the Committee will need to meet again for the reco to Council. Council at the next meeting can then award the contract. Dan asked if Albert Pl sidewalks could be accomplished by mini bids through the office. Chris said it was ok and his bids included prevailing wage because of cost. Dan confirmed a mini bid process would be used. Denise asked if the residents preferred sidewalks done once or in two parts. A resident said everyone would prefer to just get it done. Dan said it was a no brainer. Denise reminded Dan he earlier suggested sidewalk portions done separately. Dan said if a concern can do half and half. Cortney said the committee will recommend do it and if Council has concerns about cost, then plan B will be do in parts. Committee will reco to Council Restore not to exceed $15,000. Jeff asked what original bid was. Cortney said Chris' estimate was $12000-$16000. Dan said a portion won't need to be completed since a resident already repaired. Chris said about 30%. Chris confirmed he took the 30% out for his bid. Chris confirmed this reduced area cas $21000, a high side bid. Dan said to target some smaller companies that are hungry. Cortney said if work exceeds $15000 then it becomes a 2 yr project. The committee agreed.
2nd topic: who pays and how do you do it: the assessment process. Cortney said the Code of Ordinances says all repairs are to be taken care of by the homeowner. It doesn't dictate by who caused failure. Feels like we (Council) were consistent through the mid 1990s w enforcement and assessment. Now we're out of sorts. We'll wait on Ed's official ruling on liability. The logic I heard today was if Village begins to take care of sidewalks, the Village is liable. If the resident takes care, the resident is liable. So you don't want to add liability to the Village. Dan said the logic is incorrect. Cortney said he's looking for Ed's forthcoming opinion on this. Jeff asked if the Code was accurate. The committee previously said no to resurrecting an assessment process due to complexity. The idea shared with me today was have the Contractor work directly with the Resident. This is a new way of thinking about it. First question: do we want to be in the business of having Resident financially responsible like we used to do? Or do we nibble from Road fund that comes every year to do both sidewalks and streets [We are welcoming additional expenses when we could avoid them. This seems backwards to me] Jeff asked if 52.68 is the main question. Jeff read this section. Cortney agreed. Jeff confirmed there are not exceptions. Jeff asked Cortney if he wanted to modify the Code for future Councils. Cortney said he found it confusing. Dick Adams (former Mayor) said it didn't matter who's fault it was, responsibility was the Homeowners. Cortney said his intent to was to make sure of consistency. Cortney asked the Committee if it's ok to not assess and the Village to pay for all repairs. Jeff said a Village caused problem is the responsibility of the Village. Jeff asked about a scenario where during construction a resident or a contractor damages a sidewalk or a neighbor. Jeff said the Code says the Homeowner is responsible and the resident would need to sue the homeowner causing the damage. Village shouldn't be responsible. Dan said it was, it's a Civil Action. Whoever causes the damage is responsible. Jeff asked Dan since it's State law, we don't have to worry about our Code. Dan said State Law wins. Leave the Code as is. Denise said we weren't considering taking it out. Cortney said we might add more to it. Dan said we don't have to. We have a problem on Chestnut where trees have caused damage. Denise confirmed it's on the list. Dan said we could put in Rules and Law Committee. Jeff asked Dan if the Code is really a protection clause for the Village. Dan said process is Village sends a letter to Contractor and they pay for it. He's done it 10 times over the past few years. Cortney said he doesn't have the answer. Committee can say it met on the subject and say we have nothing to add (to the Code) But it feels out of consistency. Dennis said we could add a clause if normal wear and tear or resident caused, they're responsible. If Village caused, then Village pays. Cortney said Dennis' idea might be a nice addition to the Code. Cortney came into this meeting thinking maybe we need to tighten up the Code. Cortney agreed with Dennis. Dennis said Case Law has occurred and precedent is set. Maybe we need to change the Code. Denise asked if we recommend further study. Cortney said he wants to suggest to Council and if Council agrees, Rules & Law could craft it. Dennis said the Mayor should refer to Rules & Law. Dan said if the Supreme Court makes a decision, we're wasting out time. Dennis said you could include the Supreme Court ruling in the Code. Jeff said there are some areas in our Code that are in conflict with current practice, some perhaps, state code. We ought to update the Code when we come across them. Cortney asked if the reco of the Committee is Mayor and Council look into enforcement sections. Committee agreed.
Dennis said residents pay a lot for houses (on Albert Pl) and are caretakers. Absurd to consider or mention replacing sidewalks. [I disagree. Every dollar spent needs to be scrutinized. We would be remiss to write checks without any research. There are no sacred cows, especially considering the huge budget hit the reduced state subsidies will cause starting in 2013. Further, no one every mentioned concrete as an option, only an accounting cost estimate on which to base more premium improvement options] If Village trees caused the problem, then Village is responsible. Denise said when we start discussing, the Committee brainstorms ideas. At no point did we say yes lets replace with concrete. The question was, are they historic and in the current environment trying to save money, do spend 2x the amount of money to work on the bricks or do we put the concrete in as a less costly option. [I disagree slightly with her recollection. No one had any intention of Concrete, but we did consider using concrete cost as a basis on which the Village would spend. Again, it was accounting only.] It was never decided that this was what we would do. As elected officials, we have the responsibility to brainstorm and ask questions. It's asking questions. Should we have said right away, let's pull in the residents, probably, we should have. We missed an opportunity there. What we heard, and I apologize to Dan, we heard that Dan was going door to door saying what we had decided was to get rid of the brick. This was not the case. Denise said it was a miscommunication. Dan said this is an historic Village. To even discuss it. Cortney said we never did. We never discussed (replacement with concrete). [This is a fundamental difference Dan and I have. I believe the craziest idea has the right to be uttered and discussed. Dan believes only vetted ideas should be discussed. Vetted then implies that a few select folks get to hear about it and figure it out before the majority ever hear of it. My method will cause friction and tension at times, but it will yield better solutions every time]
Cortney adjorned the meeting 6:10pm
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Email to the Mayor requesting notice when sharing drafts with Residents
Below is a note to the Mayor kindly asking him to provide context and notice when sending rough draft content our Committee is working on. This lack of context caused folks' blood pressure to rise all the higher unnecessarily. A little context and a little warning would be a help.
Cortney
-------
Hi Dan, At the Committee meeting tonight, Albert Place residents brought a preliminary/rough draft of a letter our Committee ultimately decided not to send to Residents. This letter was attached to the 3/19 email below as a doc for discussion so to be printed ahead of time (Joanee and Sue kindly did this). As you witnessed, it being shared broadly without context caused a lot of undue stress and angst among the Residents, and it only escalated the tension in the room. This is ironic, as everybody was in full agreement on the course of action. I'm assuming you saw a copy of this note & shared it with residents. This is ok. Anything you see is fair game to mention & share broadly - I like the transparency. In the future, we would appreciate it if you are going to distribute our content, you would: 1)pls give us a heads up to whom it's shared and when it's shared 2)use a marker and write "DRAFT" across the top. Pls add my name and phone number as well 271-4513 3)come to us with concerns so we might come to some understanding and hopefully agreement. This is better for everyone vs what transpired tonight. We are all in this together, and we can all be more effective when rowing in the same direction. Pls call with questions. Thanks, Cortney
Cortney
-------
Hi Dan, At the Committee meeting tonight, Albert Place residents brought a preliminary/rough draft of a letter our Committee ultimately decided not to send to Residents. This letter was attached to the 3/19 email below as a doc for discussion so to be printed ahead of time (Joanee and Sue kindly did this). As you witnessed, it being shared broadly without context caused a lot of undue stress and angst among the Residents, and it only escalated the tension in the room. This is ironic, as everybody was in full agreement on the course of action. I'm assuming you saw a copy of this note & shared it with residents. This is ok. Anything you see is fair game to mention & share broadly - I like the transparency. In the future, we would appreciate it if you are going to distribute our content, you would: 1)pls give us a heads up to whom it's shared and when it's shared 2)use a marker and write "DRAFT" across the top. Pls add my name and phone number as well 271-4513 3)come to us with concerns so we might come to some understanding and hopefully agreement. This is better for everyone vs what transpired tonight. We are all in this together, and we can all be more effective when rowing in the same direction. Pls call with questions. Thanks, Cortney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
