EPD - Property Room Theft

The Cuyahoga County Sherrif's Dept report shows there is enough evidence that theft occurred from the Euclid Police Department Narcotics Property Room. All reported findings points to the late Detetvie. Sgt., Kevin Blakeley as the sole person responsible. The theft of funds appears to have occurred for better part of a decade.

Yet, there are several questions that remain outstanding that must be put to rest.

First, who did Det. Blakeley report too?

Second, why were audits of the property rooms not conducted. Indications are that inventories and audits were not done for years.

Third, who else besides Det. Blakeley had access to the accounts where the funds turned up missing?

Certainly, Det. Blakeley would have had to answer to serious charges. However, a review of EPD policies shows that enough safeguards were in place, and, enough warning were made that most, if not all of this should have been prevented.

EPD Internal Polices Titled "Internal Control of Forfeited and Seized Properties" dated 2/28/1991 spells out some of the requirement for all units of the department on how to handle

property and monies coming into the hands of the EPD.

In short, each and every pieces of property or money is to be tagged and cataloged: any and all funds cataloged;records coordinated with the City Finance Department to maintain accurate records. Finally, there is a section of the policy that describes how each year reports on any and all properties seized must be transmitted by the Chief of Police (or designee) to the Attorney Generals Office (this requirement as since been repealed by the State of Ohio).

In the cover letter to this policy, then Chief Wayne Baumgart stated "It is the policy of the Euclid Police Department to maintain stringent control over all confidential fund monies and property and monies seized and/or confiscated. We must maintain close supervision of our funds with a cooperative effort from the City of Euclid Finance Department."

Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. The EPD has two functioning property rooms:

the Narcotics section, and, then another one used by detectives and patrol officers.

Officers have brought up the lax conditions in the property rooms for years. Back in 2009, a detective brought up to command staff that an entire audit/inventory of the general property room was required, and that too many individuals had access to that room. The officer felt strongly enough that he stated that the integrity of that property room could very well be compromised.

Det Kevin Blakeley was assigned to the general property room on 10/21/2010. On March 30 of this year, he submitted a memo to superiors about the property room: he pointed out that log books were missing, door locks were broken and that no audits or inventories had been done."

Again, none of this excuses what was described in the Sherriff's Dept Report.

But, what it does reinforce are the findings of OAPC report: That in many ways, the EPD was

poorly run and adrift.

If polices were followed, updated and enhanced, the thefts described might have been caught or prevented years ago.

This is just another episode that calls into doubt the leadership of the Euclid Police Department under Chief Repicky, and Mayor Cervenik.

Good government demands that an entire administrative review of this matter be done.

On Jobs and Leadership

The election is about a week away now, folks. November 8th will determine the future direction of this City. It is in yours hands, as it should be.

I did want to touch base on a couple of items that have come to my attention.

First, being the latest mailer from Mayor Cervenik. He claims that he has helped retain or created about 3500 jobs in Euclid, and, then proceeds to list the various companies that have added jobs.

Jobs, growth, of course, are what this City desperately needs. Jobs, and, the tax revenue it brings are the very life blood of City Services all of you expect.

What the mailer does not tell, or explain is over what time period any of these retained or created jobs occurred: since he became Mayor in 2003? Or, was it in the last year? That is unknown.

If we do some math, the total new jobs listed come to 405. He also listed Bluestone Business Park (former Chase Brass site) as the home to 1000 jobs (when the economy recovers).

Folks, Bluestone Business Park is empty! Nothing is on it. The assumption that it will contain

1000 jobs is pure guess work by the Mayor. Certainly he has no idea when it will be filled, and/or how many jobs will come from it. But, the last check with the owner, Fogg indicated

that any interest so far comes from warehouse type firms, firms that will bring few jobs.

Also missing from the Mayor's piece is the loss of jobs Euclid has suffered over the years of his Administration. Topping that list is Park-Ohio which took about 400 jobs out of the City several years ago.

The point here is that under this Administration, Euclid is on a jobs tread mill: some businesses

have grown, or come to Euclid, others have shrunk or left the City. Too many times the small businesses interested in Euclid are ignored by the current Administration.

To move ahead, we must jump off this treadmill. To do that, not only must we work with our larger firms, which we do now, but, we must begin cultivating those interested in opening

up small businesses. To do that, we must better integrate the activities of the Chamber of Commerce with city efforts to attract and grow jobs.

As a mentioned in earlier blogs, a real strategy to "Buy Euclid" must be implemented for the retail sector, along with developing a "commercial/industrial" pool that encourages local industry

to purchase from Euclid or Northeast Ohio firms. This will truly create jobs and City tax revenue.

The OAPC Report

On October 17th, the Ohio Association of Police Chief issued their report on the conditions of

the Euclid Police Department. Broken down into 18 sections, it should be used as a blueprint to make sweeping changes in how the Department is run. Police Chief Steven Sarver of Newark, and, Police Chief Douglas Knight of Vandalia conducted the top to bottom review.

Any organization is a reflection of its core values and missions statement. In good organizations each employee understands and works toward the values of that statement. The Euclid Police Department current mission statement is confusing and too long, according to OACP. Even when a committee was appointed to review that statement, Chief Repicky ignored the new statement

Leadership communication flows from the core statement of values. Great communication is the hallmark of well functioning organizations. While policies and procedures of the Police Department show a willingness to communicate, it is not translating into real communication with staff. When asked by OACP if “critical information is communicated efficiently” only 4.08% respondents said yes. 57.1% said “no.” In another question, when asked if “your input is considered before important decisions are made” 0% said “yes” while 80.9% said “no.”

Lack of communication has done much to undermine the spirit and cohesiveness within the Euclid Police Department. This is clearly illustrated in the management-labor area. OACP states that “a healthy relationship between labor and management is non-existent at this time.” Part of the contract between the City and Fraternal Order of Police Local #18 calls for a Labor-Management Committee consisting of the Mayor (or designee) Police Chief, and members of the FOP. In well functioning organizations, such a committee should meet every three months or so. Frequent meetings creates open line of communication, and building mutual trust. Euclid’s last meeting was held over a year ago and amounted to little more than grip sessions. OACP recommends that for EPD to move forward, labor and management must be willing to sit face to face and discuss issues before they become problems.

Two cases in particular that has caused much friction within the department. First is the lack of performance reviews for 2010 to the present. Chief Repicky stated that given retirements and supervisory personnel, it would be unfair to give review. The second is the need for 4 police captains.

Chief Repicky (and the Mayor) believed that not filling the position was a budgetary matter. Members of the department believe that it a personal and vindictive move based on who would next be promoted. OACP believes that since no conversation about dropping to three captains occurred prior to the latest opening, there is some credibility to staff feelings. OAC feels until both of these matters are resolved, morale cannot be restored.

Lack of a clear vision, poor communication and labor management mistrust creates an atmosphere where most officers enjoying being out of the Police Station and out on the street. As OACP reports, command staff confirms that “neither the Administration nor the police department establish annual written goals or specific and measurable objective by which to assess Euclid police performance. Further, the police department has no formal mechanism or periodic survey of citizens satisfaction to assess the degree to which the police and service philosophies conform to expectations of the community and city administration. One command officer described the current state of the EPD goals and objectives as “surviving and maintaining.” Another patrol supervisor, in a separate interview said, “We don’t know what we’re going, or what is expected of us.”

In many ways, the department is adrift, its effectiveness more the result of individual officers, rather than organization excellence. An example cited by OACP is in crime prevention. Euclid only one officer is trained in crime prevention techniques, and that the commitment to crime prevention has fallen off, according to a police supervisor. OACP recommends that ALL members of the Department share in crime prevention responsibilities. A good program of crime prevention addresses the community’s perception and misperception of crime in Euclid. Every few years, such programs must be evaluated for effectiveness and adjusted accordingly.

The focal point of all of these issues appears to be Chief Jim Repicky. The OACP report makes no ultimate value judgment of his leadership. Yet OACP reports, that the effectiveness of the lines of communication among the captains and Chief Repicky was poor. In his 3 years as Chief the command staff met together only 3 times, the Chief ultimately ending them all together. This means that critical information was not share uniformly among the chief and the captains. This ties in with the answers received from FOP members as to the three most important issues facing the department. Answers included poor leadership, trust, favoritism, personal agendas morale, no input. While not all the fault of Chief Repicky, the rejection of his leadership by his own staff was clear and overwhelming. He had no real choice but to step down.

One individual the OACP does not mention is Chief Repicky’s supervisor, Mayor Bill Cervenik. As the city safety director, he is ultimately responsible for what happens within the department. What can be gathered from OACP Report is that Mayor Cervenik failed to provide adequate supervision for Mr. Repicky. In the area of labor management, he very well could have intervened and insisted on frequent meetings between Police Management and the FOP. At the same time, Mr. Cervenik allowed members of the Department to speak to him directly, rather than through the Labor Management Council. Thus, he undermined is own chain of command, without providing feed back to the Chief to improve his performance.

For a Mayor that prides himself on keeping the safety forces strong, the OACP provides a devastating critique of his own management of the Euclid Police Department. It appears that Mr. Cervenik placed more value on his friendship with Chief Repicky, than on the well being of the EPD.

An Editorial on the PD Editorial

The Plain Dealer Endorsement

It surprising that the Plain Dealer endorsed Bill Cervenik for another term

What is disappointing are the numerous errors in their reporting and, their blatant disregard for the two challengers, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Mancuso.

First on the PD's error list is that Mr. Cervenik asked Police Chief Jim Repicky to step down. As of today, Mr. Repicky is still on the job, earning his salary as Chief of Police.

Second, Mr. Cervenik did not settle the Department of Justice voting rights case against Euclid.

In fact the City went to court and lost, and, the City Council settled the case. And, what the Plain Dealer forgot was that Mr. Cervenik supported fighting the Justice Department, stating in Scene Magazine that the DOJ "should be ashamed of themselves." for their prosecution of Euclid.

Third, Ms. Mancuso did not lead the attempted recall of Bill Cervenik in 2005. In fact that was

Mr. John Conway. By the way, in the fall election of 2005, after the recall election, Mr. Conway was elected to City Council with 57% of the vote.

But what should insult every thinking Euclid voter is the dismissive way the Plain Dealer treats

Mr. Johnson and Ms. Mancuso.

Mr. Johnson, for example, served the City admirably for many decades as Administrative and

Finance Director. The Plain Dealer calls Mr. Johnson's ideas "small bore." You can almost hear the editorial writers snickering over how clever they were. Insulting is more like it.

Ms. Mancuso's long service at Metro Health probably has done more to save lives of ALL residents in Northeast Ohio, especially for the poor and less fortunate than few others. To insinuate that somehow her housing plan is discriminatory shows that the Plain Dealer's claim of "Editorial Excellence" should more appropriately called "Editorial Laziness.

The Plain Dealer says that Mr. Cervenik is not a showy, big-vision leader. I agree.

If he were, he would understand the very real challenges faced by the City:

Falling population (under 50 thousand)

Growing poverty (16% as of 2009 and climbing)

Empty commercial and retail space

Neighborhoods littered with empty homes

Declining Recreation programs

Decline in City Services

If he were a big vision leader, he would have realized decades ago the value of a lakefront marina, and Shore Cultural Centre for example instead of fighting tooth and nail against both.

The Plain Dealer fails to understand, that solid redevelopment plans will combat Euclid's clear decline.

Instead they talk about his sensible leadership, leadership that has brought to you:

City spending increases at roughly a million dollars each year during his 8 years in office, from roughly 32 million in 2002 to over a projected 40 million this year.

Borrowing 3 million dollars to balance the budget in 2004, and, imposing trash and lighting fees in 2009.

Mr. Cervenik did settle the court case with the Providence Baptist Church, informing City Council by e-mail. (BTW the Plain Dealer could not even name the church, just referring to it as "a black church),

As you might recall, the citizens of Euclid decided to put this rezoning on the ballot, and they rejected the plans of the church. That was in 2004. As of today, Providence Baptist Church

has built nothing at Hillandale. History proves that Euclid residents were right in questioning church plans.

In his role as Safety Director, he is responsible for the chaos that has engulfed the Euclid Police Department, as indicated by lawsuits, the FOP no confidence vote and the Sheriff' Department investigation.

But finally, it is curious that the in making their decision, the Plain Dealer ignored their own reporting on county corruption, and the connection to Bill Cervenik.

4/27/2008: The Plain Dealer ran an article on how politicians and their relatives filled dozens of

well paying jobs at the County Recorders office. Then county Recorder Pat O"Malley handled

the hiring for this agency, jobs were seldom posted and, O'Malley made the final decisions. The Plain Dealer profiled literally dozens of individuals that owed their jobs to political connections.

One of those jobs went to Tony Sustarsic, former Euclid Councilman at Large, son of former Council President Jerry Sustarsic. And, his reference was Mayor Bill Cervenik.

11/30/2008 The Plain Dealer investigation reveals how a well connected company,

1-888-Ohio Comp scooped up most of the Workers Compensation medical claims business in Cuyahoga County. This company's connections reached directly into (former) County Auditor

Farnk Russo's office. Mr. Russo and (former) County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora pressured

mayors to make the switch to 1-888-Ohio Comp. Mr. Russo's son Vince worked for the firm.

The owners of the firm were shown to have made substantial contributions to mayors and candidates for mayor throughout the county.

In Bill Cervenik's first campaign for Mayor in 2003, Tom Coyne, former Brook Park Mayor and

(then) consultant for Ohio Comp and the one of the principals owner of the firm, Sam Lucarelli, contributed $6000.00 to his tight campaign against Ed Gudenas. The following May, Cervenik switched the City to 1-888-Ohio Comp.

(For the full article, see the link below)

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/11/auditor_frank_russos_links_to.html

Mr. Cervenik seemed to be a willing part of the easy, sleazy way the county was formerly run.

The Plain Dealer chose to ignore all this, and chose to ignore the fact the Euclid voters have

clear and competent choices for Mayor, rather than 4 more years of the same old stuff.

The Endorsement Game

The Endorsement Game

President George Washington had a deep suspicion of what we call today political parties. He believed that political parties ("factions" as they were called then) injected themselves between

the citizen and government. This interfered with the direct connection between the citizen and the government. Each citizen had the intelligence to make up their own mind, Washington believed, without the prepackaged ideas produced by political parties. Washington believed parties created followers, not independent thinking citizens that democracy needs to thrive.

President Washington suspicions are spot on. How many times have we seen both political parties pedal a party line, and expect citizens to simply follow? And, how many times have

we seen endorsements based solely on inside party connections, rather than truly on the best candidate.

Above all, party loyalty to seems to trump over all. In party structures, incumbent office holders are the most valuable. Its power and influence for state and national races. Challengers from the same party are frowned upon because that creates upset and discord and wastes money. Parties believe they must save their resources to take on the other party.

In the Euclid Mayor's race, you have this familiar pattern developing. The incumbent is endorsed because they are the incumbent. He is "our guy." Or, "we have always backed him."

And, this is true. Mayor Cervenik always had County party support, and, the support of

certain federal representatives.

You, as the citizen must ask yourself, HOW HAS THIS HELPED EUCLID?

Is the City better off after 8 years of this Administration? Are our neighborhoods safer? Are our rec programs better? Have major projects been completed?

Political parties at all levels have some democratic process to formally endorse candidates. The candidates actually interview for the endorsement. The a vote is held. This is far fairer to all party candidates and, is far more transparent.

At the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party level, NO EUCLID MAYORAL ENDORSEMENT WAS MADE. The vote tally had Mr. Cervenik with 10 votes, Ms. Mancuso with 9 and, Mr. Johnson with none.

What is even more interesting is the vote tally by the local Euclid Democratic Club.

The Results were:

Charlene Mancuso 15

Bill Cervenik 10

Jack Johnson 8

Christopher Lit. 2

Mancuso was the clear winner. But, more importantly, at both the county and local level, the leadership of Mr. Cervenik is rejected BY HIS OWN PARTY

He knows this, of course, so, he has simply called in the party loyalty card, which does not take into account the true condition of the City.

Endorsements are nice, and all politicians seek them. But, I have found over 10 years on City Council and, 5 campaigns that they have little bearing on the caliber of the candidate, or the condition of the community. Make sure you do your home work before voting.

After all, the real power is in your hands.

On Leadership and Vision for Mayor of Euclid

As the fall campaign deepens, the qualities of each of the Mayoral candidates are revealed.

The next mayor of Euclid absolutely must show both vision and leadership on the issues facing the City.

Recently, each of the candidate discussed the Shore Cultural Centre in an edition of the Euclid Observer. Each were asked about the City's financial support of the Centre, and, continuing

of the Coral Management Contract of the Centre. (See post "Shore'd Up, by Coral for my thoughts on Shore)

Their answers reveal much about their general vision and leadership qualities they would bring to office.

Bill Cervenik

Bill Cervenik is now an enthusiastic supporter of both Shore, and the Coral management contract. As he freely acknowledged, for about 18 of his 20 year public service he could see no value of Shore. In fact he was involved with ideas and plans to end Shore as an Arts and Culture Center: The 1990's Tops Supermarket plan, various condo plans for Shore, and, Senior Housing.

Asset, or burden? Demolish it or invest in it? Mr. Cervenik could not really decide, being unable to demolish the building or commit funds to fix it. In other words, the Shore issue was

allowed to drift so long it almost became unsalvageable.

His recent support for Shore is welcomed, of course. But, for his point that backing Coral proves he listens to good ideas. Well, the Coral management idea was originally mine; I then took to Council President Holzheimer-Gail and to the Economic Development Director. I can tell you that Mr. Cervenik was hostile to the entire idea. In both news stories and internal City e-mails, it was entirely negative. Only by teaming up with the Council President, and the Shore supporters, did the private management idea have any chance to succeed.

This shows the fatal flaw in Mr. Cervenik's leadership style: He judges ideas not on the merits, but, on who proposes them. This "us vs them" attitude has set Euclid back decades now.

Jack Johnson:

While not saying it directly, clearly Mr. Johnson hints that Shore should be closed. He states

that he supports Arts and Culture, just not necessarily there. He is puzzled and confused as to what actually takes place at Shore. He also claims that the CEO of Coral Company stated that

in hiring a development director, the building would be self-sufficient. All of this shows a total

lack of understanding of the Coral Strategic plan, a plan that Mr. Johnson should know very well

having sat through practically all the debates before City Council adoption.

What is also disappointing is that his answers show that he has not followed the developments at

Shore closely at all. He seems totally unfamiliar with the mission statement as developed by the Coral Co. and, adopted by the City: "To provide dynamic and high quality arts, cultural and lifelong learning experiences that build community, enhance quality of life and strengthen Euclid." The fall catalog provides countless examples of new arts related classes.

Even if you believe that Shore has no value, and, should be closed, what Mr. Johnson proposes

really offers the community no solution at all. He wants to put it on the ballot.

Shore's projected loss this year is about 120K. The pools lose about 150K per year, and the Orr Arena about 50K per year. Are these items also to go on the ballot? If not, why not? After all,

the vast majority of residents have not been to the pools, or the ice arena for decades, if ever. Out of all of these, only Shore really has a chance to become virtually self sufficient, and, is the only one that consistently draws people into downtown Euclid.

For someone professing to bring fresh ideas, the ballot idea is way beyond old and stale. Is Euclid to hold a special election to decide this matter? That will potentially cost the City thousands of dollars. The bottom line is that if he wants to get rid of Shore, do it! Don't hide behind a ballot initiative.

Charlene Mancuso:

Charlene Mancuso has shown clear commitment to Shore as an arts and cultural centre from the very beginning of her time on Council. Her answers show none of the "mush" Mr. Cervenik or Mr. Johnson have shown over the years. She states that Shore is an asset of the City's and, should be managed as such. Coral has done that. Clear vision, decisive response, reasoned approach.

Christopher Litwinonwicz

I was unable to really tell what his plans are for Shore. This shows a chaotic approach that can not serve the community well.

To summarize, Mr. Cevenik took decades to see the value of Shore. That is time wasted. Mr. Johnson seems to want Shore closed, is not aware of the progress at Shore and, wants to hide behind the old idea of a ballot initiative. Mr. Litwinowicz is incoherent. Ms. Mancuso's stance on Shore shows vision and leadership.

Euclid is desperate for both in the Mayor's office.

Councilman Langman is Glad to be Back

Why that title? Two reasons: first, because I have neglected the blog for far to long. Most of the summer was spent on working on my campaign literature and, the Euclid Post. Second, because

as it turns out I am running unopposed so will be back on City Council for the next term.

I find myself with mixed emotions about this. Happy to continue working for the citizens of Euclid, sort of glad to see what it is like to run unopposed, but, troubled that there are so many races in Euclid that are unopposed.

This is now two election cycles in a row where only 2 out of 9 council races are actually competitive. This is a bad pattern developing. As the City Council moves into the four year staggered term era, you can very possibly have some elections years where no council race is contested. That means that in the future, someone may gain a seat on City council by simply filling out some paper work and turning that into the Board of Elections. This is a disaster for our democratic process. It is a disaster for Euclid. We face very serious problems, very serious challenges. We will need the very best in leadership and ideas to meet those. The only way to get that in your public officials is to have spirited and contested races where the candidate with the best package of ideas should win.

City Council Resumes:

Tues, Sept 6, saw the first meeting of City Council. A 5 hour marathon. After ten years, folks, I still don't know how a meeting can last that long. I will only touch on one matter here for now as it relates to Council elections. The Federal Department of Justice is again reviewing information

related to the set up of City Council. As you might recall, the Department of Justice began a long
investigation into the City of Euclid back in 2002. Specifically, they wanted to determine if the method of electing City Council members violated the Federal Voting Rights act. After a federal trial, it was found that our former system of 4 wards and 4 at large council seats violated that act. The City was then divided into 8 wards.

The City's Charter calls for the adjustment of ward boundaries after every ten year federal census. This is to ensure that each ward contains about the same amount of residents. City Council passed changes to the ward boundaries in June. In short, these changes require the shifting of several streets from one ward to another. Several wards, saw no changes at all.

Yet, the City has been informed that the Department of Justice wants to review the entire process. At best, the DOJ will review, and, do nothing. At worst, they could file a motion with the federal court to block the fall council elections. It seems as if the DOJ feels that it must monitor the City for years and years to come.

The Fall Mayoral Election.

The method of electing City Councils has drastically changed in the ten years I have served.

Back in 2001, the Euclid citizen could vote for 6 council candidates in any election (Council President, 4 at large council members, and your specific ward council person). Now you can only vote for two. Many of you have no choice at all in electing a council representative. After this election, you will no longer be able to throw all the "bums" out in any one election. The Council elections will now be staggered: only 4 slots open every two years.

The result of all of this will make City Council elections less important. At the same time, it elevates the importance of the Mayoral election. As the Mayor is the only full time elected official, leadership and vision in this position is absolutely vital if Euclid is to flourish.

During my ten years of service on the City Council, I have served with both Mayor Oyaski and

Mayor Cervenik. Very different individuals, but, the direction of the City has remained very much the same. In fact, the City has followed the same course for at the very least the past

16 years.

As you decide who should lead the City going forward, you must first decide if you think the City is on the right track.

I don't believe that the City is on the right track. This is why I ran for City Council to begin with. While Euclid has made some progress, we are simply not moving fast enough, or, pushing the right initiatives that can truly make Euclid the community we all want to see.

Keep this in mind as the fall campaign season unfolds. I will be updating the Blog at least once a week (more often, I hope) to explain why I believe real change at the top is needed and, who can really deliver.

The Summer Soltice Update

Finally summer has arrived, with Independence Day upon us. City Council is on recess for the summer. I wanted to take moment to update you on some of the past blog posts.
I hope you find these quick updates informative and helpful.

Trash and Lighting Fees

City Council chose to extend these fees for an additional year. My primary reason for voting "yes" on this matter are the cuts in State monies the City receives. The portion of the Local Government Fund, Estate Tax and Commercial Activities Tax Euclid receives will drastically decline in the just passed State of Ohio Budget. That means layoffs in Euclid without the fee extensions.

Finance Ad Hoc Committee

City Council and the Administration did take up my idea of forming an Independence Financial Review Committee. This Committee made up of business folks and citizens will review how the City raises money and, make recommendations on potential changes.

New Jail Postponed

Given several questions surrounding the organization of Euclid Police Department (more on this in an upcoming blog), the Ohio Police Chiefs Organization is currently reviewing all aspects of the Department. The operations of the current jail, and, the needs for a new one are again being reevaluated. With this project, it is now 6 years and counting.

Recycling

This program is simply not working. What we save on dumping fees, and, what we earn from the recyclables collected does not meet the City's costs of personnel and fuel. While the Federal Energy Efficiency Grant is covering the losses this year, if nothing changes, the City's General Fund is on the hook for these losses in 2012

Downtown Storefront Update

As was described in the Feb. 2011 post, the storefront projects at Lakeshore and Shore Center

in downtown Euclid had significant problems: poor workmanship, not following approved plans

violation of building codes. The Administration failed to catch these defects in a timely manner.

This placed your tax dollars (Federal Storefront Block Grants) at risk of being wasted.

After popular uproar over the quality of the project, the City did cite both plazas for numerous

code and building violations. As of today, the Shorecenter plaza has complied with most of the

issues raised by the City and, work has resumed. At Lakeshore Plaza, the issues are greater in number, and remain in dispute.

Meanwhile, City Council (Councilman Langman) passed tougher requirements for storefront

projects, including a better inspection process.

Great Lake Exposition Center

I'm sad to share with you that the Expo Center has closed. No real reason was given.

Our community is in the middle of some very challenging issues. More on those in the next week or so, but, in the meantime, enjoy the summer.

Dog Park Tales

What is a dog park? Its a fenced in public park where people and their dogs can play together. Dog parks are generally managed by City officials with the help of the park users. Perhaps the key element of a dog park is that it keeps dogs away from other park users such as joggers, and children and those afraid of dogs.

Sounds simple enough, but, this is Euclid, so it has turned into an almost 20 year project.

Here is the tale:

In the early 1990's then Councilman Ed Gudenas and, Councilwoman Fay Miller had several community meetings where the residents of the City expressed a desire for a community dog park. Nothing came of it as the research needed to move forward was never done.

Then, in 2002, the Dog Park idea was brought to City Council again, this time by Councilmen
McTighe and Gruber. A formal resolution passed by City Council on Nov 4, 2002 encouraged the Administration to develop such a park. In the followup news story in the Euclid Sun Journal (1/23/03), a resident from Upper Valley Drive that frequently visited the Eastlake Dog Park, stated, "Its not only socializing for the dogs, but it's socializing for the owners. Its the best thing in the world for the owners and their pets." The City Recreation Department did begin preliminary planning, and, Council members McTighe, Gruber and Miller did pledge to form a citizens planning committee. Again, nothing came of it.


Skip ahead to 2008. Several residents had asked me about building a dog park. While not wanting to step on Councilman's Gruber's project, I thought I would see if we could get this project finally done. At about the same time, our Recreation Department said that a set of tennis courts at Memorial Park would be torn down. I thought to myself, "lets convert the tennis courts into a dog park." Its something Cleveland did at Clark Fields in Tremont with great success. The Memorial Park idea offers the benefit of central location, and low cost (as the fencing for the tennis courts is perfect for a dog park.) Sounds simple, right? But, this is Euclid!

I proposed the idea to Kathy Will, Recreation Director. She then relayed the idea to Mayor Cervenik. In the mean time, I started a petition drive to gather signature to see how much support was out there. We gathered in about 200 signatures in about 3 weeks.

Now, 2008 turns into 2009. Its decided instead of moving ahead with the tennis court idea, that
a public committee be formed to explore the idea. The Recreation Department coordinates the
search for citizens to join the committee.

The Dog Park Committee is established. AnneMarie Finch of the Recreation Department is designated as the Administration's Representative.

Dog Park Committee History: Between 2009 and 2010, the Dog Park committee visits dog parks in South Euclid and Eastlake, holds numerous meetings on pros and cons for the park,
rules of such a park, City liability and, location. The Committee (of which I was a Council Representative) looked at several locations, including Hillandale Park, Hero Park, the police mini station area, Sportsman Park (on St. Clair) Sims Park and Memorial Park. The committee also had several discussions on raising money for the park, including forming a non profit organization for fundraising and care of the park. In fact, the Sun Journal Article of 2/19/2009 on the Dog Park, states that the City was seeking donations to build the park. Final recommendation of the Dog Park Committee was Memorial Park, at the site of the former putt-putt course. This would provide easy access for the dog owners, and, keep the dogs away from other park users.

But, hold on: City Council decides that it would be best for Memorial Park if a Master Planning Committee was formed to look at the entire park. Some of the goals of this committee included:
increasing usage of the park, create better signage and landscaping and, improve and add new facilities for the park. The Park Committee meets for the first time in Novemember of 2009.

The City Council is to vote on the final Master plan Monday, May 16,2011. The plan is a good one and, the committee should be congratulated on their work. The only question, of course, is,
how to fund this plan, but, that is for another post.

As for the Dog Park? It is not included in this final Master Plan document. No real reason was
given, only that "it did not fit" into "their" plan. So, after years of talk, resolutions, committees and ideas, we are at virtually the same sport as we were 20 years ago.

What lessons can we draw from this tale?

First, we should not value the input of one citizen group over another. The work of the Dog Park committee should have been incorporated into the Master Plan. At the very least, an alternative
location should have been presented. Instead, that work was thrown away.

Second, this is another example of Euclid being unable to move forward on any sort of project:
or almost 20 years, the citizens of Euclid have asked for a Dog Park with nothing to show for it.
This is similar to far more "important" issues like the Lakefront, or Shore, Euclid Ave, or new jail, etc: a failure to act and make decisions.

What a sad Euclid tale, indeed!

*******************************************************************************

E 200th Street Stroll

Saturday, June 4th 10am to 2 pm

Lots of Fun for Everyone

Need more info? Contact Sherrie @ 216-481-9044, or e-mail sherriezagorc@att.net

The Jail Lockup

The April 18th City Council debate on the future of the City's jail is a prime example of what ails our town. In the past, I have supported a renovated/new jail facility as a cost saving measure. The item before Council was to retain RCU Architects to develop plans and cost estimates for a new/renovated jail.

Designed, built and opened between 1986-89 the jail was already obsolete from its first design; its straight line design requires lots of staff to operate. The result is annual and chronic losses of about a million dollars per year. While crime should not pay for Euclid, other communities have facilities that are far cheaper to operate.

Euclid tax payers spent millions on the current jail, which is falling apart, but, now are being asked to invest 3.2 million more (estimated) for a renovated/new facility. This will allow the jail to operate with less personnel, reducing our annual operating cost, thus saving money.

This very solution has stared Euclid in the face since the early 1990's. The question is, if the current facility is such a dog, why is the City government only doing something about it now, 22 years after it had opened?

This past City Council meeting sheds much light on that. Unfortunately, because of the Passover holiday, I was not present. But after reviewing the meeting, here are some observations on the matter:

Incomplete Information: Police Chief Repicky states he has been working on "his" plan for 2 plus years. The complete story is that this Administration has been floating some sort of jail plan since 2006. Here is a rough time line:

*On May 22 & June 5, 2006 this Administration proposed hiring DLZ inc to develop
jail renovation plans. They were not retained.

*2007, RCU Architects hired to develop renovation plans. Plans received by Council
February 13, 2008. Study set aside,

*March 4, 2009: Horne Architects presents another plan for jail and POLICE
STATION construction. The site would be north of the current jail, in Memorial
Park. This plan required a bond issue vote of the people in November, 2009. Plans
scrapped

*Fall, 2009: RCU brought back on board: Different set of plans developed for jail;
finished December, 2009, first presented to Council April, 2010.

*January 19, 2011: Another committee meeting, a meeting that almost literally
repeated the April, 2010 meeting.

Missing Data: All the way back to 2006, some members of Council asked for information such as:
* Comparing estimated financial data with other jail facilities (such as Bedford Hts.)
* The cost per day of housing prisoners in our current jail
* Can a new facility be regionalised, shared among other communities and Cuyahoga County?
* Will the Cuyahoga County Sheriff guarantee the number of County prisoners held at our jail?

After 5 years, Council still has no answers, little real data, no actual agreements. I heard only promises of what would happen. No project should be done this way.

Euclid is Reactive: The Council President made the point that the jail only came up because recent City budget issues. She is correct: Euclid takes action only when the crisis is at our front door. Before that, and, what should have you all angry, the City made no moves that I am aware of to save your money operating the jail.

So, to summarize, our current jail was obsolete from the day it opened, losing the tax payers about 1 million dollars per year. Since 2006, the current Administration has consulted/retained three different firms, and, has come up with three different plans. In that 5 year time, many questions have not been answered.

And, perhaps worst of all, while the Administration has drifted, we continue to lose money at the jail. Why is that important? With a much earlier "fix" for the jail; by saving money on its operation, we may not have needed the trash and/or lighting fees.

Jail renovations to save tax payer money is still a great idea. But, the discussion I saw answered few of the questions that have existed since 2006! One of the rolls of any Administration is to answer Council's questions. That did not happen on Monday night. However, I still would have held my nose and voted for this. Its the only way to gather any semblance of impartial information on this project before giving final OK for construction.

***************

Please See the City Web Site concerning important information on the Natural Gas Aggregation Program: City Announces $5.28/MCF Rate for Natural Gas ~ effective May thru October

Taxing Euclid

City of Euclid 2010: trash and lighting fees passed to plug a hole in the City's budget. The promise made was that long term planning would start so that the City would not be caught short again.

2011: Again your City government proposes discussions on long term budget issues. Talk is fine, action is better. So, I have proposed a very old idea: An Ad Hoc Committee that can evaluate how Euclid raises money for City Services and make recommendations for changes. Such a committee should be made up of business people, our City Finance Director, and, a member of the public. Why an Ad Hoc Committee instead of say, the Administration or City Council? For independence and objectivity. In fact this committee should work much like our City Charter Review Commission. Every 8 years this committee examines our City government and offers recommendations that can then be put to a vote of the residents. The committee I have proposed should have similar authority.

Below are just some of the elements the committee should explore

City Income Tax: 2.85% levied on all income, and net business profits. Euclid shares .47% with the Euclid Public Schools. in the 2009-2010 school year, the schools received 5.2 million. Does this rate hurt the retention/attraction of business and residents?

Property Taxes: Better known for funding the Schools, property taxes are also collected by the City for general fund use. Estimated revenue for 20111: 1.6 million. Is our City Property tax burden to high?

Fines, Fees and Forfeitures: I have included in this category everything from housing inspection fees, ambulance charges, to criminal fines and forfeitures. The City has adjusted many of these categories in the past few years to better reflect the costs of police enforcement and inspection services.

Trash and Lighting fees: Under State Code, Euclid is allowed to impose a separate charge for street lighting and trash collection Both are set to expire after two years: should they?

Charter Provisions: The City of Euclid has two Charter provisions worth exploring:

(Property) Tax Reduction: This provision follows state law where levies are held forever to the dollars raised at the time of passage. For example, our Recreation Department is supposed to funded by the same levy that was passed in 1984. Because our Charter copies state law, our Recreation Department receives the same amount of money today, as in 1985. Because the levy money does not keep up with inflation, the City takes general fund money and transfers it to Recreation. (Charter, City of Euclid, Article II, Section 13)

Income tax credit: The City of Euclid give 100% credit for income taxes paid to other communities. So, if a resident works in Mentor, or Cleveland, and those communities pass an income tax increase, because of our credit provisions, Euclid would lose money based on the higher credit given. (Charter, City of Euclid, Article II, Section 12)

Taxation rates: How best to spread the burden to fund government while at the same time encouraging investment in Euclid.

State of Ohio: Changes by the State to the Estate Tax, and local government funds must be factored in as the committee explores changes.

The list above only touches the surface of what must be considered. But, the goal is pretty simple: evaluate and update how Euclid raises money for day to day operations. Make it so that the burden of taxation is shared fairly while also giving the City flexibility to handle any future economic downturns.

As always, let me know what you think

***************************************

Annual Spring Art Show

Presented by the Euclid Art Association, Euclid Public Library

April 9-16th - Public Reception Wed, April 13, 6:30-8:00 pm

*******************************

Mary Mavec Flower Sale

Bedding Flats and Hanging Baskets

Call for more information and orders before April 8th, 216-731-4666

Euclid, Buy Euclid

ABC World News Tonight recently aired a wonderful series titled "Made in America." The premise is that buying more American made goods creates more jobs for Americans. ABC News estimates that 1% more spent on American made goods, a mere 18 cents a day, would immediately create 200,000 more American jobs (See ABCNEWS.go.com for the full series)

Let's take that concept to Euclid, with a twist: Buy Euclid. If we all made a concerted effort to spend more of our money here in Euclid, we can certainly have a positive impact on our City economy. Food, clothing, furniture, home improvement, entertainment, its all right here in Euclid.

From the City's stand point, the more money spent in Euclid the more likely these businesses (especially those locally owned) will make more money. That directly impacts how much tax revenue the City receives.

Greater demand at local businesses means that those establishments will stay in Euclid. And, more likely, those businesses will need more help, meaning more jobs will be created here in Euclid.

We, as a City can not simply depend on one or two large industrial firms for the City's financial well being. A healthy retail and commercial base is critical. So, lets all boost the health of our
retail sector, Buy Euclid.

Needed - Trash and Lighting Taxes?

Its been almost one year since City Council (including me), approved the Trash and Street Lighting taxes. So, lets take stock of how our budget did in the past year.

Going into 2010, the City had a cash reserve of about 1.6 million dollars. Projected 2010 expenses would have drained that cash reserve, and, still been about 2.2 million in the red.

To meet this crisis, the Administration proposed the trash and lighting fee tax.

As you may recall, the Mayor's Administration stated the following layoffs would occur without the 2.2 million in additional taxes

Police: 10 officers, along with cutting all special details.

Fire: 6 firefighters, along with the elimination of 2 captain, and three 3 lieutenant positions

Recreation: 3 positions, along with the Ice arena and all pools closed.

Finance: 2 full time staff members.

As presented, this was certainly a grim picture, a picture of a more dangerous City, with fewer amenities to attract and keep families.

Now, we flip to the end of 2010: no such cuts occured, and the City ended the year with a 2.7 million dollar cash balance. That's 1.1 million more than when 2010 started.

Given the gloomy forecast Council and the residents were given, we should have seen the City ending 2010 at about the same cash balance level of 1.6 million, or, slightly lower.

So, what acutally happened:

1) The City spent about 1 million dollars less than budgeted (36 million vs 37 budgeted).

2) General fund revenues (from which we pay police, fire, utility bills, ect) were up about 655K.

Higher revenue and lower expenses are generally a good thing. However, in 2010, we took 2.2 million dollars from our citizens for a dire emergency that did not develop.

Putting money away for a rainy day is of benefit to the City. It helps our municipal bond rating and, will cushion our budget for the next downturn. But that has to be weighed against doing this during the very worst recession since the Great Depression; the very real pain caused to our elderly and less fortunate residents.

This is similar to what the Cervenik Administration did in 2004: then, it borrowed 2 million dollars to plug a budget deficit, but wound up putting a million of that money into cash reserves.
What was done in 2010 was far more serious though, as we directly took more money from you.

This is not simple "Monday morning quarterbacking." Budget forecasting is certainly not an exact science. But given the very real economic issues facing Euclid residents (collapsing property values, reduced work hours, unemployment), weighed against taking more revenue, we should have erred on the side of extra caution....asking for less.

That would have meant that for 2010, Euclid should have only gone with the Trash Tax, or the Lighting Tax, or, a far lower trash tax, and, other, less costly combinations.

While I did work to reduce the original Trash Tax proposal of $14.00 and $9.00 dollars, to the $9.00 and $7.00 and fought to let these fees expire in two years, I should have pushed even further to lesson the burden. For that, I do offer my apologies.

In March of 2010, when Council approved these new taxes, there was a promise made that the Administration and Council would take a very long and hard look at the City's methods of raising money (more specifics on an upcoming post). We did discuss a few ideas last spring, but, have really done nothing more.

So, where does that leave us for 2011? Very much where have been for the last several decades: In bad times we cut staffing, and talk about raising more money
1994 Shared City/School income tax passed.
2002 Mayor Oyaski proposed a 5 year tax issue.
2004 Mayor Cervenik borrowing of 2 million dollars
2004 Mayor Cervenik proposes trash and lighting fees
2010 Trash and Lighting fees passed

........................And, in good times, we bring on staff and give raises.

Complicating future budgets is what the State of Ohio might do to balance its budget: reducing government revenue sharing, eliminating the Estate Tax, etc.

Euclid must break out of this pattern by growing our economic base while finally taking a hard, comprehensive look at how the City of Euclid taxes its citizens and businesses. Expect more of your Administration and Council. You deserve it.

**********************************************************************************

59TH Annual Euclid High Scholarship Dinner Dance

Patrician Party Center, 33150 Lakeland Bvld, Eastlake

Call Barb Carney for your $50 ticket and further details

Let me know what you think, and, don't forget to check out my facebook page for quick takes
on your government.

Fumbling Downtown Storefront Renovations.

You can't miss the new look of downtown Euclid. New exterior brick work and stucco panels are being installed at both Shore Center, and the Lakeshore Plaza. Once completed, the new brick facades will certainly "freshen up" what are very old and tired looking properties.

The new look is critical in competing with the recently completed Shoregate renovations in neighboring Willowick.

Storefront renovations require quite a bit of money for planning, engineering and the actual construction. In many cases, owners, especially of older properties find it difficult to finance such project.

In recognition of this, the Federal Government establish a block grant program giving communities a grant of federal tax dollars to invest in just this type of project. For any project,
the block grant usually covers 20%-40% of the total project cost.

In short, the tax payer becomes a minority owner of the storefront improvements.

The City is the guardian of the tax payer investment in any storefront project.

The city has fumbled that role at Lakeshore Plaza.

Lakeshore Plaza renovations cost about 950K. The City invested 240K in block grant money.
On top of the direct tax payer investment, the City is also committed 200K in direct money
to back the owner's loan with Cuyahoga county.

For your investment, you, the tax payer should expect the highest quality project.

What has gone up so far is anything but.

So many complaints came in regarding the quality of the work that the City was forced to retain
Kulchytsky Architects to evaluate the Lakeshore Plaza Project. In their preliminary report, they confirmed issues under three categories:

Masonry: 7 issues, including deviations from approved plans, bricks falling off, violations of
Ohio Building Code.

Flashing and Moisture Control: 4 issues including lack of flashing and poor drainage.

Sheathing/Substrate: 2 issues including deviations from approved plans; not installed to manufactures recommendations.

There could be more issues, but, without tearing off much of the work it is impossible to tell if other defect exist. (for the full report, please contact me for a copy)

How did this happen?

For this type of project, each owner submits plans that must be approved by the City 's Architectural Review Board, and the Building Department. These become the plans of record and, can not be changed by the property owners without coming back to the City.

For decades, the City has followed the rules and standards of the Ohio Building Code. For the storefront program, we have relied on property owners to make sure work was installed per the City approved plans. This is done through the property owner hired Architect or project manager. But for both the Shore Center, and Lakeshore Plaza project, the respective ownership apparently did not hire either. This left the tax payer vulnerable to shoddy work.

Why didn't the City conduct the inspections? The City's inspections focus on items that require permits, like concrete and electrical, heating and cooling. The brick and stucco work going up in downtown Euclid requires no permit.

So, throughout the Autumn, as the brick work went up the City paid no attention to that installation which is now 85% complete. This makes little sense as the project is the brick and stucco work, and, we knew that the owners did not hire a project manager. This project is the exterior work; the City should have taken steps early on to make sure it was being installed up to code and, according to approved plans.

Instead, it took the complaints of several residents for the Administration to take action.

As the Administration admitted at the Jan 3, 2011 Council meeting, we simply have a hole in our inspection process. Under the rules of the Ohio Building Code, it is the property owner that decide how the remedy the problems found so far. Here are the three options:

1)Bring the project up to code, and comply with approved plans.

2)Submit revised drawings.

3)Accept the work as is and forward such list to the City Building officials.

The tax payer should only accept option number #1. By the City approving plans, that is the
project that you should expect to be done. That is the only way Euclid can recover fumbling the initial inspection process.

In the future, the City must have much stronger inspection role to make sure that your investment is protected.

To fix this, I have introduced to City Council a resolution so that inspections are required for any storefront project where public monies are spent.

City Council will take up this matter at the City Growth Committee meeting, March 9, 6:30pm, Euclid City Hall.

Euclid Schools seeks 6.9 Mill Operating Levy. Election - May 3rd

According to the Euclid Board of Education, without passage of the levy, millions of dollars in cuts will have to be made, across the board. The levy is in response to

a projected fall in state aid. If passed, the levy would generate 5.1 million annual for the district. If passed, this levy would replace an expiring 1.8 mill levy. For the average Euclid resident, the cost would come to under $10.00 per month. More information as it become available.

Finally, check out my new face book page for quick hits on City and general Euclid matters. The blog will continue to be for more in depth discussions on specific issues.

For any questions and comments just let me know.

The Mood of Moody's for Euclid

Last April, Moody's Investor Services rated the City Of Euclid's latest short term debt offering.

Cities typically issue debt for all sorts of government needs, such as road repair, buy equipment, etc.

The City's debt offering totaled about 11 million dollars.

Moody's gave the City's debt issue both an MIG 1, equivalent Aa2 Rating. By definition, this means the City has good credit for short term borrowing. The interest on the debt issued is low saving the City money on its borrowing costs. However, Aa2 rating also means that the longer term risks for the lenders are somewhat higher.

Before you all snooze off, let me recap. For short term borrowing, Euclid's credit is quite good. Our debt to capacity level is low and manageable.

Now, about that longer term risk..................................................
As pointed out by Moody's the City faces some adverse longer term challenges, that can impact the City's credit.

Population Loss: 71,522 in 1970 to an estimated 47,415 in 2008 (38.6% decline)

Per Capita Income (income per person) compared to state average: 127.4% in 1969 vs.
93.6% as of 2008

Median Family Income: (average income level per family: 114.8 % in 1969 vs. 90.3% in 2008.

Unemployment: 11% (Feb 2010)

These dry numbers are telling the story of a community that is losing population and wealth,
Meaning that the burden of providing services is falling on fewer and fewer citizens. Those citizens have less and less ability to pay. That drives the rationale for tax increases, as we saw with the lighting and garbage taxes. That creates tremendous dissatisfaction and drives more folks out of Euclid.

Moody's also underlines our short and long term problem.

For our short term problem, they point out that of our approx 37 million dollars of general fund revenue, 56% comes from the income tax. The income tax grows and contracts with the economy. As Moody sees it, "rebuilding adequate operating reserves from presently narrow levels (1.6 million cash carryover from 2009) is crucial to maintaining overall credit quality." Income taxes are too volatile to depend on, so, develop other sources of revenue is what Moody's is saying.

Longer term, they point out that given the population and income declines, the "need for prudent redevelopment and retention efforts to protect and ultimately grow the City income
and property tax bases."

What Moody's can't know is that various Administrations have failed to address the long term issues of growth and development. Euclid is then left with the short term crisis' that we try and fix with tax increases.

During the past 20 years, such long term development issues have not been resolved.

Lakefront Development: The signature project of redevelopment: The Administration still
is tepid about the marina which is the key to the entire plan.
Shore: The current Mayor still threatens its closure.
Industrial Zone: No plans to create tax incentive districts to bring in business and
create jobs.
Euclid Ave Corridor: No viable redevelopment plan currently exists. No plans to build on
Euclid Historical Society and other community assets along the Avenue.
Downtown Plan: Failed to move on creating a downtown "special improvement district."
to help redevelop the area.
1996 Master Plan: Called for more "upscale housing" No real planning to attract those type of
developers

The failure over theses many years really means a failure to retain and attract wealth. Moving on any of these project over the past 20 years would have likely eliminated the needs for higher income taxes, trash taxes and lighting taxes.

On the budget side, we have also failed resolve long term issues.

City Jail: The loss on jail operations comes to about 1 million dollars a year
since it opened in 1989. If this issue had been addressed 10 years ago, would trash and lighting taxes been proposed?
Alternative Energy: The Administration has rejected using alternative energy (solar &
wind) along with new lighting technologies to save the tax payer money.

Government tends to be reactive, slow to innovate and hostile to new ideas. Euclid is no different. No matter if its 1994 (income tax increase), 2002 (Mayor Oyaski's proposed tax increase) 2004 (Mayor Cervenik's proposal for lighting/trash fees) the fix is generally the same. The result being that our citizens and businesses are burdened with higher fees/taxes, and, projects to grow our City get endlessly bogged down. For Euclid to survive, this must change. We can no longer wait.

That's the real mood Moody's captures!

City Budget Meetings begin on Monday Jan 24 @ 6:30pm, City Hall. They Continue on Jan 26 at City Hall, same time.