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.