Could it be that the State Auditor's office is confirming what some of us have known for a long time? That nepotism runs amok here in Clermont County? Take a look at this clip from Channel 12. Seems that Mary Walker is being questioned about her approval of County expenditures of approximately $600,000, that benefited her husband (Union Township Administrator Doug Walker) and son (Mark Walker). Croswell on the other hand has questionable expenditures of +/-$2000 to Croswell Bus Lines in which he has ownership. See Sprawl Central's blog posting from June 2007 on this subject.
After viewing the video clip it is interesting that Croswell tries to plead innocence by stating that the Auditor and Administration gave him the forms to sign. Hello!?!?!? This just confirms that everyone in this county has grown sloppy, of course they are going to have him sign it, they don't care if there is a perceived conflict of interest or not, that is just how Clermont County is run. Also, how much time does Croswell dedicate to being a Commissioner if he runs a bus business and also has his full-time legal practice? How many hours does he put in at the Commissioner's office?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Ah, to have friends in high places
It appears that the Miami Township* Trustees seriously erred in approving TIF (tax increment financing agreements) at the end of the year in 2005. They approved the agreements near the very end of December with an effective date 30 days later. You have to know that the state legislation cut some serious meat out of this this development welfare subsidy effective 1/1/2006. But never fear, you get your buddy Joe Uecker (former Miami Township Trustee) to co-sponsor legislation (HB 119) to change the ORC to allow the effective date of December 2005 to still stand.
Is it constitutional to change the Code** to allow defective legislation to be approved nearly two years after the fact - due to the negligence of the township trustees?
If the mental giants at the township aren't capable of effectively planning their TIF agreement adoption process, how are we to know that approving them is in the best interest of the public? Indeed, they are cash cows to the township, but what is good for the township is not necessarily good for the taxpayer, citizen, library, senior citizen, police, fire and other levies. Regardless of what the mis-trustees tell us.
Here is the portion of House Bill 119 that pertains to Miami Township. SECTION 757.08. Resolutions adopted by a board of township trustees of a limited home rule township pursuant to Chapter 504. and section 5709.73 of the Revised Code in December 2005 are hereby deemed to have had an immediate effective date if the board unanimously adopts a resolution so declaring. This section applies to applications for exemption under section 5709.73 of the Revised Code pending before the Tax Commissioner on the effective date of this section and to such applications filed or refiled within 90 days after that effective date.
*My guess is this applies to other townships in Clermont County as well.
**ORC 5709.73 talks about when TIF legislation is effective.
Is it constitutional to change the Code** to allow defective legislation to be approved nearly two years after the fact - due to the negligence of the township trustees?
If the mental giants at the township aren't capable of effectively planning their TIF agreement adoption process, how are we to know that approving them is in the best interest of the public? Indeed, they are cash cows to the township, but what is good for the township is not necessarily good for the taxpayer, citizen, library, senior citizen, police, fire and other levies. Regardless of what the mis-trustees tell us.
Here is the portion of House Bill 119 that pertains to Miami Township. SECTION 757.08. Resolutions adopted by a board of township trustees of a limited home rule township pursuant to Chapter 504. and section 5709.73 of the Revised Code in December 2005 are hereby deemed to have had an immediate effective date if the board unanimously adopts a resolution so declaring. This section applies to applications for exemption under section 5709.73 of the Revised Code pending before the Tax Commissioner on the effective date of this section and to such applications filed or refiled within 90 days after that effective date.
*My guess is this applies to other townships in Clermont County as well.
**ORC 5709.73 talks about when TIF legislation is effective.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Commitment to Open and Transparent Government? My Arse!
I was recently purusing the County's website when I stumbled upon the following on the Commissioner's page: "Your Commissioners are committed to maintaining an open and transparent government." I nearly choked. They are as open and transparent as a lead wall.
In an earlier post (May 28, 2007) I mentioned the full assault the Commissioners, by their lack of action, engaged in on an adjoining property owner who lives next to the Mills of Miami in Miami Township. I believe their behavior is best described as malfeasance.
If the Commissioners were commited to maintaining an open and transparent government they would follow their own rules and regulations, those of the state and of the U.S. Constitution. Due process apparently doesn't apply here in Clermont County.
The process for approving subdivision plans works like this: the County Planning Commission approves it (or not) and then once the construction is nearly complete, the plan goes before the County Commissioners for the record plat. The record plat essentially subdivides the land so the developer can sell individual parcels to builders.
Imagine incurring thousands of dollars in legal fees combatting a corrupt county government, and a developer who sits comfortably in their pocket. The three stooges were ready to approve the final stage of the development when the project did not go through the proper channels. The commissioners did not allow adequate public notice via agenda to let anyone know what they were doing. Central to this nightmare was the fact that in order to appeal a decision of the Commissioners (or any governmental body) you must have standing. Generally, to have standing you must have particpated in prior meetings and or hearings about the development. What the county does is pit the ordinary citizen against the deep pocketed developer who can write off his legal fees. The county massively screws up, gets sued by citizens and then slithers out so that the developer can pound the ordinary Joe's head into the ground.
Imagine, attending the planning commission meeting where the Clermont County Planning Commission approves the subdivision plan and then the very next day by 1pm the Crooked County Commissioners lug out their rubberstamp and approve the record plat. The neighbor attended the Planning Commission hearing but was never advised of when it would be heard by the County Commissioners. The neighbor checked the County Commissioner's agenda the next morning and the agenda item for the approval of the Mills of Miami was not on the agenda, yet the was a case heard by the Commissioners. The developers attorneys argue that the neighbor does not have standing because he did not attend the County Commissioners meeting. Duh! Do the Commissioners send out public notices telepathically?
Meanwhile, Dan, Dan (Rolfes) the Red Tag man runs an ordinary citizen in to the ground, or should I say, floods him out. Although, it lists his daughter Carolyn as head of Potterhill Homes. They certainly must be proud of themselves being upstanding community members and all.
All that I can say is that it must be a mighty big bed over there in Batavia in order to fit the Commissioners and all the developers they whore themselves out to.
This is a specific example, but there are more general examples. So called public hearings were held on the stormwater management fee proposal, yet they were never taped or televised. Honestly, I think the County Commissioners received way more resistance than they ever imagined. It was relayed to me that one Commissioner bemoaned the fact that there was actual opposition and that they wished they had never gone throught the public hearing process. The commissioners later decided to not act on the fee proposal. My guess is that it will mysteriously reappear unbeknowst to the public until it appears on their tax bill.
The next item that really did not see the light of day is that of the revisions to the County Subdivision Regulations. There was a public hearing or was it not a public hearing - there was some debate on that - at a Planning Commission meeting. This quitely went away, just like the stormwater issue, I read where the commissioners decided not to act on this item either.
I am sure that one County Commissioner would just love to show you, the Clermont County taxpayer, the payments the county has made to her husband's engineering firm for work the firm did preparing plans for the County's projects. The total over the past one to two years ranges from $500K to $700K+. Now, ain't that just butterin' yer own bread?
In an earlier post (May 28, 2007) I mentioned the full assault the Commissioners, by their lack of action, engaged in on an adjoining property owner who lives next to the Mills of Miami in Miami Township. I believe their behavior is best described as malfeasance.
If the Commissioners were commited to maintaining an open and transparent government they would follow their own rules and regulations, those of the state and of the U.S. Constitution. Due process apparently doesn't apply here in Clermont County.
The process for approving subdivision plans works like this: the County Planning Commission approves it (or not) and then once the construction is nearly complete, the plan goes before the County Commissioners for the record plat. The record plat essentially subdivides the land so the developer can sell individual parcels to builders.
Imagine incurring thousands of dollars in legal fees combatting a corrupt county government, and a developer who sits comfortably in their pocket. The three stooges were ready to approve the final stage of the development when the project did not go through the proper channels. The commissioners did not allow adequate public notice via agenda to let anyone know what they were doing. Central to this nightmare was the fact that in order to appeal a decision of the Commissioners (or any governmental body) you must have standing. Generally, to have standing you must have particpated in prior meetings and or hearings about the development. What the county does is pit the ordinary citizen against the deep pocketed developer who can write off his legal fees. The county massively screws up, gets sued by citizens and then slithers out so that the developer can pound the ordinary Joe's head into the ground.
Imagine, attending the planning commission meeting where the Clermont County Planning Commission approves the subdivision plan and then the very next day by 1pm the Crooked County Commissioners lug out their rubberstamp and approve the record plat. The neighbor attended the Planning Commission hearing but was never advised of when it would be heard by the County Commissioners. The neighbor checked the County Commissioner's agenda the next morning and the agenda item for the approval of the Mills of Miami was not on the agenda, yet the was a case heard by the Commissioners. The developers attorneys argue that the neighbor does not have standing because he did not attend the County Commissioners meeting. Duh! Do the Commissioners send out public notices telepathically?
Meanwhile, Dan, Dan (Rolfes) the Red Tag man runs an ordinary citizen in to the ground, or should I say, floods him out. Although, it lists his daughter Carolyn as head of Potterhill Homes. They certainly must be proud of themselves being upstanding community members and all.
All that I can say is that it must be a mighty big bed over there in Batavia in order to fit the Commissioners and all the developers they whore themselves out to.
This is a specific example, but there are more general examples. So called public hearings were held on the stormwater management fee proposal, yet they were never taped or televised. Honestly, I think the County Commissioners received way more resistance than they ever imagined. It was relayed to me that one Commissioner bemoaned the fact that there was actual opposition and that they wished they had never gone throught the public hearing process. The commissioners later decided to not act on the fee proposal. My guess is that it will mysteriously reappear unbeknowst to the public until it appears on their tax bill.
The next item that really did not see the light of day is that of the revisions to the County Subdivision Regulations. There was a public hearing or was it not a public hearing - there was some debate on that - at a Planning Commission meeting. This quitely went away, just like the stormwater issue, I read where the commissioners decided not to act on this item either.
I am sure that one County Commissioner would just love to show you, the Clermont County taxpayer, the payments the county has made to her husband's engineering firm for work the firm did preparing plans for the County's projects. The total over the past one to two years ranges from $500K to $700K+. Now, ain't that just butterin' yer own bread?
Monday, May 28, 2007
Help thy Neighbor!
I would like to share a story about my neighbor. He lives in Miami Township next to a subdivision that is currently under construction (Mills of Miami). Before the first chunk of dirt was turned, he had concerns about stormwater runoff and the potential for flooding of his home.
He took his concerns to the Chief Building Official, Ray Sebastian, and the Clermont County Commissioners. Numerous letters were sent and many calls were made. He even hired an attorney and a geotechnical consultant. The geotech consultant determined that the detention basin for the proposed subdivision was too small. These concerns and others were conveyed to the county officials. Over the course of nearly a year he received absolutely no response (nothing, nada, zero) from the county apparatus. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) found violations on this site.
Meanwhile, the plans for this subdivision were not properly approved and the development hungry County Commissioners were ready to approve the record plat of the subdivision even though the proper procedures had not been followed. The Planning Commission rubberstamped it knowing that there were violations at the state level. It should be no surprise that the procedures were not followed, we are in Clermont County after all. Meanwhile, my neighbor gets flooded out several times. His worst fears were realized. He conveyed his concerns and they fell on deaf ears. What is interesting is that the County Planning Commission approved the plan at a 5pm meeting, the next day at 1pm the Commissioners approved it. Is this adequate public notice? NO.
The county did not follow the proper subdivision regulations nor their own stormwater regulations as it related to this new development (and many others, I might add). They did not respond to the concerns of this resident and taxpayer. He filed suit against the Commissioners and Planning Commission. The suits are now pending.
The question is: Why in the hell does the County machine force the little guy into litigation when the issues presented could have been addressed at the onset? I can think of no other reason than the Commissioners (Mary Walker, Bob Proud, Scott Croswell), the Chief Building Official (Ray Sebastian) and others are getting kickbacks or some other payment, cash or otherwise from these developers. People, this is corruption, plain and simple. It must stop! If there is some other reason, perhaps the Commissioners can enlighten me.
This type of situation breeds well (much like mold in a damp environment) in a culture of corruption -- a culture which is facilitated by the one party domination of the County elected officials.
He took his concerns to the Chief Building Official, Ray Sebastian, and the Clermont County Commissioners. Numerous letters were sent and many calls were made. He even hired an attorney and a geotechnical consultant. The geotech consultant determined that the detention basin for the proposed subdivision was too small. These concerns and others were conveyed to the county officials. Over the course of nearly a year he received absolutely no response (nothing, nada, zero) from the county apparatus. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) found violations on this site.
Meanwhile, the plans for this subdivision were not properly approved and the development hungry County Commissioners were ready to approve the record plat of the subdivision even though the proper procedures had not been followed. The Planning Commission rubberstamped it knowing that there were violations at the state level. It should be no surprise that the procedures were not followed, we are in Clermont County after all. Meanwhile, my neighbor gets flooded out several times. His worst fears were realized. He conveyed his concerns and they fell on deaf ears. What is interesting is that the County Planning Commission approved the plan at a 5pm meeting, the next day at 1pm the Commissioners approved it. Is this adequate public notice? NO.
The county did not follow the proper subdivision regulations nor their own stormwater regulations as it related to this new development (and many others, I might add). They did not respond to the concerns of this resident and taxpayer. He filed suit against the Commissioners and Planning Commission. The suits are now pending.
The question is: Why in the hell does the County machine force the little guy into litigation when the issues presented could have been addressed at the onset? I can think of no other reason than the Commissioners (Mary Walker, Bob Proud, Scott Croswell), the Chief Building Official (Ray Sebastian) and others are getting kickbacks or some other payment, cash or otherwise from these developers. People, this is corruption, plain and simple. It must stop! If there is some other reason, perhaps the Commissioners can enlighten me.
This type of situation breeds well (much like mold in a damp environment) in a culture of corruption -- a culture which is facilitated by the one party domination of the County elected officials.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Coming Soon: Republican Authors Only at the Clermont County Library
It should be no surprise since well-read, intellectual geniuses such as Phil Burress and Jean Schmidt once served as members of the Clermont County Library Board of Trustees that the Clermont County Board of County Commissioners appointed their very own Clerk as a new member. The next thing you know only books written by Republican's will be allowed at the Clermont County Libraries. This is probably already the case as I tend to go to the Hamilton County Libraries to protest the historical small mindedness of the Clermont system.
(Judith is the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners plus Republican Party Executive Committee and Party Vice Chairman):
from 05/23/07 BCC Meeting Minutes
(Judith is the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners plus Republican Party Executive Committee and Party Vice Chairman):
from 05/23/07 BCC Meeting Minutes
IN RE: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS...DESIGNATION OFAPPOINTMENT TO THE CLERMONT COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES...07-0522-001…APPROVED Moved by Mrs.
Walker, seconded by Mr. Croswell, that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following recommendation:Recommendation to appoint Judith Kocica, 6689
Nancard Drive, Loveland, Ohio 45140, to serve onthe Clermont County Library
Board of Trustees for the term of 05/23/07 through 12/31/14, filling the unexpired term of Joseph Braun and subsequent appointment of a full seven year term, pursuant to Section 3375.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.Upon roll call on the foregoing motion, the vote was as follows:Mrs. Walker, Yes; Mr. Croswell, Yes; Mr. Proud, Yea.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Hello, May I Speak to the Township Finance Director?
"What!?!? You mean there is no such person or position?"
Ok, this is really dry and mundane, but it has to do with your wallet and mine, so pay attention!
The State recently released the latest audit for Miami Township (2004 and 2005) with some interesting findings. It seems, yet again, that there are some serious issues with internal control and accounting for funds. Similar reportable conditions have been issued in past years, still uncorrected. Some of the non-compliance citations identified by the audit include:
*Deficit cash balance in fund. A deficit cash balance indicates money from another fund(s) has been used to pay the obligations of the aforementioned funds. Uh, maybe robbing Peter to pay Paul?
*Expenditures exceeding appropriations (negative balance) in the following funds in 2004: Motor vehicle license, FEMA reimbursement grant, EMS Computer Grant, Byrne Memorial, TIF #1 Construction - which equals nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
The best part, not really, because the taxpayers of the township are on the hook due to shoddy accounting practices and leadership of the township:
The fact is, it is 2007 and Miami Township DOES NOT have a finance director. There also was no line item in the 2007 budget for the hiring of such a person. Is this a case of "liar, liar, pants on fire?" Did the Township tell the State they had hired a finance director to get the State Auditor off their back?
Did you know that the Township has an elected 'Fiscal Officer' named Eric Ferry who is up for re-election in 2007. What is this man being paid for? He has served in this position since 1992. This is also the man who, it has been reported, told citizens that the Township budget was not public until AFTER it was approved by the Trustees. This, after details were published in the Cincinnati Enquirer. Hello!?!
Rest assured citizens of Miami Township: the Trustees apparently have no intention to hire someone to ensure that their fiduciary duty is upheld, however, they are hiring a facilities manager to manage their new Civic Center. Priorities!
For more information to to the actual audit:
Auditor of State of Ohio - Online Audit Search - Report Detail
Ok, this is really dry and mundane, but it has to do with your wallet and mine, so pay attention!
The State recently released the latest audit for Miami Township (2004 and 2005) with some interesting findings. It seems, yet again, that there are some serious issues with internal control and accounting for funds. Similar reportable conditions have been issued in past years, still uncorrected. Some of the non-compliance citations identified by the audit include:
*Deficit cash balance in fund. A deficit cash balance indicates money from another fund(s) has been used to pay the obligations of the aforementioned funds. Uh, maybe robbing Peter to pay Paul?
*Expenditures exceeding appropriations (negative balance) in the following funds in 2004: Motor vehicle license, FEMA reimbursement grant, EMS Computer Grant, Byrne Memorial, TIF #1 Construction - which equals nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
The best part, not really, because the taxpayers of the township are on the hook due to shoddy accounting practices and leadership of the township:
[Text from audit] We believe the above conditions limit the ability of the Township’s accounting system to provide correct and timely data to management and other users. The condition of the accounting records has resulted in errors in the preparation of the Township’s annual financial statement filing with the State of Ohio and has required additional efforts to identify and make necessary corrections for the preparation of the audited statements" (p. 16).
Township’s Response
The Township is aware of the condition of the accounting system and is in the process of making steps to correct recording issues. Beginning in 2006, a full time finance director with applicable experience has been hired. Additional reviews and interim reporting to the Board of Trustees is being performed.
The fact is, it is 2007 and Miami Township DOES NOT have a finance director. There also was no line item in the 2007 budget for the hiring of such a person. Is this a case of "liar, liar, pants on fire?" Did the Township tell the State they had hired a finance director to get the State Auditor off their back?
Did you know that the Township has an elected 'Fiscal Officer' named Eric Ferry who is up for re-election in 2007. What is this man being paid for? He has served in this position since 1992. This is also the man who, it has been reported, told citizens that the Township budget was not public until AFTER it was approved by the Trustees. This, after details were published in the Cincinnati Enquirer. Hello!?!
Rest assured citizens of Miami Township: the Trustees apparently have no intention to hire someone to ensure that their fiduciary duty is upheld, however, they are hiring a facilities manager to manage their new Civic Center. Priorities!
For more information to to the actual audit:
Auditor of State of Ohio - Online Audit Search - Report Detail
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Honey, let me appoint you to the Planning Commission
Here it is! A crystal clear example of nepotism in the County. Not only does Mary Walker second the motion to appoint her hubby to Planning Commission, she also votes for him. Shame on you, Mary. What a disgrace. If this is an acceptable practice that is actually documented in the public record, imagine what goes on that we don't know about.
The following was copied from the Clermont Co. Commissioners meeting minutes of 12/14/04:
The following was copied from the Clermont Co. Commissioners meeting minutes of 12/14/04:
COMMISSIONERS= JOURNAL #295 CLERMONT COUNTY REGULAR SESSION 12/14/04
IN
RE: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS...DESIGNATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO SERVE
ON THE CLERMONT COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION...APPROVED
Moved by
Mr. Croswell, seconded by Mrs. Walker, that the Board of County
Commissioners
approve the following recommendation:
Recommendation to
designate the following individuals to serve on the Clermont County
Planning
Commission pursuant to Section 713.22 of the Ohio Revised Code as outlined
below:
Appointee Effective Date Township
Doug Walker
5076
Palermo Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45244
DC #04-0603-007
03/25/03 to
03/25/06
(No change in term)
Union Township
Approve designation as the
Limited Home Rule
Government Township
Karl Schultz
5752
Elmcris Drive
Milford, Ohio 45150
DC #04-0603-008
06/08/04 to
03/25/06
(Filling the unexpired
term of Ken Tracy)
Miami
Township
Upon roll call on the foregoing motion, the vote was as
follows:
Mr. Croswell, Yes; Mrs. Walker, Yes; Mr. Proud, Absent.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Public Handouts in Miami Township
Here is an exceptional example of how generously developers are treated by Miami Township Trustees:
The Greycliff subdivision (currently under construction on State Route 131) requires the installation of a turn lane; the cost of which is no less than $300,000. This cost would normally be paid for by the developer. However, our trustees are so generous with our tax dollars that they (we) are paying half of that expense ($150,000) with no repayment required from the developer (a gift). The trustees are also financing the additional $150,000 through a bond issue and will let the developer pay back the amount to them over time. It should be noted that the township received much more favorable terms than the developer ever could. Do you think the Trustees would finance loans for residents? Absolutely not!
Widening of this section of St. Rt. 131 is not even mentioned in the County’s Thoroughfare Plan except as a “project or concepts that are part of a visionary plan.” What was the impetus for the township to fund this project?
Do you want to know how much time was spent on discussing this issue by the trustees at their meeting? Zero. In case you missed it it was listed something like "$300,000 issuance of debt." The trustees did not discuss it - just rubberstamped it. That's all folks!
This is just one example where the Trustees appear to be scratching the back of a developer. I just wonder in how many other situations this is occurring? If Miami Township was such a desirable place to live, it would not be handing out public subsidies for residential development or any other development for that matter. People would be beating the doors down to build and operate here without handouts.
Just as a side note, during the approval process the developer stated that the homes in this development were going to be priced at $400,000 to $600,000, however, the sign out front says ‘from $270,000.’ There goes the neighborhood!
Pop Quiz: Can you identify all three Miami Township Trustees?
The Greycliff subdivision (currently under construction on State Route 131) requires the installation of a turn lane; the cost of which is no less than $300,000. This cost would normally be paid for by the developer. However, our trustees are so generous with our tax dollars that they (we) are paying half of that expense ($150,000) with no repayment required from the developer (a gift). The trustees are also financing the additional $150,000 through a bond issue and will let the developer pay back the amount to them over time. It should be noted that the township received much more favorable terms than the developer ever could. Do you think the Trustees would finance loans for residents? Absolutely not!
Widening of this section of St. Rt. 131 is not even mentioned in the County’s Thoroughfare Plan except as a “project or concepts that are part of a visionary plan.” What was the impetus for the township to fund this project?
Do you want to know how much time was spent on discussing this issue by the trustees at their meeting? Zero. In case you missed it it was listed something like "$300,000 issuance of debt." The trustees did not discuss it - just rubberstamped it. That's all folks!
This is just one example where the Trustees appear to be scratching the back of a developer. I just wonder in how many other situations this is occurring? If Miami Township was such a desirable place to live, it would not be handing out public subsidies for residential development or any other development for that matter. People would be beating the doors down to build and operate here without handouts.
Just as a side note, during the approval process the developer stated that the homes in this development were going to be priced at $400,000 to $600,000, however, the sign out front says ‘from $270,000.’ There goes the neighborhood!
Pop Quiz: Can you identify all three Miami Township Trustees?
Monday, April 2, 2007
A picture is worth a thousand words
Here is a perfect example of how the “machine” apparatus works in Clermont County. The following diagram is from the Clermont County Water Management and Sediment Control (WMSC) Regulations. It illustrates Storm Drain Inlet Protection -- how an inlet is supposed to be protected by bales of hay which filter out sediment so that it does not run off into the stormwater system. Note that (a) the bales of hay are touching as to create a barrier and (b) there are two stakes per bale.
STRAW BALE DROP INLET SEDIMENT FILTER
This method of inlet protection is applicable where the inlet drains a relatively flat area (slopes no greater than five (5) percent) where sheet or overland flows (not exceeding 0.5 cfs) are typical.
The photograph below is of the “sediment filter” on a site currently under construction in Miami Township, Clermont Co. Notice how the bales are not even touching and there is only one stake (which probably doesn’t even pierce the ground)! Nice work! UPDATE: As of Saturday, there are only two bales of hay left!
Is it any surprise that the developer of this project sits on the County’s Stormwater Technical Advisory Committee?
STRAW BALE DROP INLET SEDIMENT FILTER
This method of inlet protection is applicable where the inlet drains a relatively flat area (slopes no greater than five (5) percent) where sheet or overland flows (not exceeding 0.5 cfs) are typical.
The photograph below is of the “sediment filter” on a site currently under construction in Miami Township, Clermont Co. Notice how the bales are not even touching and there is only one stake (which probably doesn’t even pierce the ground)! Nice work! UPDATE: As of Saturday, there are only two bales of hay left!
The County was notified and Chief Building Official, Ray Sebastian, has identified areas as not being in compliance with the County’s WMSC regulations. But rest assured the inspector will continue to monitor the situation and seek compliance! How about some hefty fines? Yeah, right!
Is it any surprise that the developer of this project sits on the County’s Stormwater Technical Advisory Committee?
I don't know about anyone else, but I would feel much more comfortable if the Chief Building Official (CBO) of my county had some kind of professional credentials, perhaps in engineering (P.E.) or architecture (A.I.A.). DNA (or marriage) that may link him to one of the three clowns that RUN the county is not considered, in my book, a credential.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Bark Park - Miami Township -- Spending for the dogs
On April 21st Miami Township will be celebrating the opening of their Bark Park in Miami Meadows Park. Does Miami Township really need a "park" for dogs? Don't people have yards in which to let Rover roam? More importantly what was the justification for this expenditure of public funds?
Dave Duckworth, Township Administrator, is quoted as saying "Over the past five to seven years, we've had numerous people call,” said township administrator David Duckworth. “I've probably fielded over 100 calls wanting to know if we were going to do something for dogs, specifically a dog park.” Ok, then let's break that down:
100 calls over five years = less than two per month (1.67)
100 calls over seven years = just over one per month (1.19)
The justification for spending over $65K* for the bark park centers on receiving less than two calls per month? How does he know it wasn't the same person calling each and every month? Were these calls even documented? Sure doesn't sound like a reliable way to justify spending public dollars. Now that the park is built, how much will the Township pay workers for pooper scooper duty?
I distinctly remember being induced to vote for the Park Levy (which is funding this facility) based on the dangling of "spray parks" for children. What happened to that priority?? Furthermore, there is a private entity (off of the Bypass) which provides a dog park. Why is the Township duplicating services that are offered in the private sector?
*2005 Park Levy Fund $35,000 allocated to Dog Park
2006 Park Levy Fund $30,000 allocated to Dog Park
Dave Duckworth, Township Administrator, is quoted as saying "Over the past five to seven years, we've had numerous people call,” said township administrator David Duckworth. “I've probably fielded over 100 calls wanting to know if we were going to do something for dogs, specifically a dog park.” Ok, then let's break that down:
100 calls over five years = less than two per month (1.67)
100 calls over seven years = just over one per month (1.19)
The justification for spending over $65K* for the bark park centers on receiving less than two calls per month? How does he know it wasn't the same person calling each and every month? Were these calls even documented? Sure doesn't sound like a reliable way to justify spending public dollars. Now that the park is built, how much will the Township pay workers for pooper scooper duty?
I distinctly remember being induced to vote for the Park Levy (which is funding this facility) based on the dangling of "spray parks" for children. What happened to that priority?? Furthermore, there is a private entity (off of the Bypass) which provides a dog park. Why is the Township duplicating services that are offered in the private sector?
*2005 Park Levy Fund $35,000 allocated to Dog Park
2006 Park Levy Fund $30,000 allocated to Dog Park
Censorship in Miami Township - MTTV
It is interesting that Miami Township has its own television station facilities (Miami Township TeleVision - MTTV) and the ability to record whatever it chooses, however, public comment at the end of Trustee meetings is recorded but not televised on MTTV programming. The cities of Loveland and Milford (and many other jurisdictions) televise their public comments. Perhaps it is that the leadership in other jurisdictions are more transparent than their Miami Township counterparts. Perhaps the Miami Township Trustees are afraid of the people finding out what is really going on. In fact, I would urge each and every citizen in the Township to attend one of these meetings - held the 3rd Monday of the month at the Civic Center @ 7pm -- to see their local government officials in action. Two thoughts may rise to the surface:
1. The agendas published in advanced of the meeting for residents are vague (and that is putting it nicely). Generally there is no discussion and is rarely ever any dissent in the discussions or votes.
2. If you attend you may find a pattern of issues that the public brings to the public forum. Issues that will never see the light of day. There is strong evidence that there are systemic abuses in the township as it relates to zoning issues. I should also mention that the trustees do not act very favorably if you question any of their decisions or actions. One trustee will get very red in the face like he is going to explode!
The following information was forwarded to me. The first two justifications cite national level research (I'd like to see the citations). That's just wonderful, but locally, other jurisdictions are televising public comments. What is it that these Trustees have to hide??? The third justification gets at the heart of the matter: DO NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND DECISION MAKING CAPABILITIES OF YOUR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS. GOT THAT????
1. The agendas published in advanced of the meeting for residents are vague (and that is putting it nicely). Generally there is no discussion and is rarely ever any dissent in the discussions or votes.
2. If you attend you may find a pattern of issues that the public brings to the public forum. Issues that will never see the light of day. There is strong evidence that there are systemic abuses in the township as it relates to zoning issues. I should also mention that the trustees do not act very favorably if you question any of their decisions or actions. One trustee will get very red in the face like he is going to explode!
****
The following information was forwarded to me. The first two justifications cite national level research (I'd like to see the citations). That's just wonderful, but locally, other jurisdictions are televising public comments. What is it that these Trustees have to hide??? The third justification gets at the heart of the matter: DO NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND DECISION MAKING CAPABILITIES OF YOUR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS. GOT THAT????
Question: Why isn’t the public comment section of the Trustee Meeting televised? I would be interested in hearing the “official” justification.
Answer: Response as received by Tim Pennington, Miami Township, Community Relations Director:
As you are aware, we began cablecasting the Miami Township Board of Trustees meetings in December. We will also air the monthly zoning commission and zoning appeals meetings, too, starting in February. As part of my responsibilities in overseeing the government access channel (Miami Township Television) for the township, I made the decision to air just the business portion of the monthly meetings for several reasons:
1. I do not want to impede any resident who wants to speak during the comment section because they do not want their comments aired on the channel. Some of what the residents say are often personal in nature, sometimes involving neighborly disputes or similar issues. While their comments are certainly part of the official record, there has been much discussion among various other government access channels in the U.S. about this issue, and many channels have decided to only air the business portion of the meeting to which I feel the public is most interested.
2. What I have heard and read from other government access channels across the country [BUT NOT LOCALLY] is that viewer surveys are strong that residents are truly interested in watching the business portion of their local government meetings, and not in resident comments that often have subject matter that does not affect the entire township. [IF THERE IS NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE IN THE BUSINESS PORTION DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION WHERE'S THE HOOK?]
3. As well, some speakers both in Miami Township, other places locally in Greater Cincinnati and across the country have utilized the microphone at these meetings to make false and potentially slanderous statements against other residents and township employees. While these comments, once uttered, certainly become part of an audio tape of the meeting, I do not feel it is appropriate to provide a platform for personal attacks against other residents and township employees and to replay it onto the government access channel airwaves.
It should also be noted that in the instance of a public hearing during a Trustee meeting, such as with zoning cases or other required hearings, where public comment is required by statute, those speakers will be included as part of the cablecast as part of the business portion of the meeting.
Rest assured, any resident may come to a Board of Trustee meeting and watch and listen to the business portion as well as the public comment section. In all circumstances, those speakers’ names and the topic of their comments are recorded into the official public record, which we publish on our website for anyone to read. In addition, if residents who do not attend meetings wish to hear a speaker’s comments in its entirety, an audiotape of the entire meeting is available for any resident to listen, if they wish.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Business as Usual - One Party Rule in Clermont County
A poll recently cited in the Cincinnati Enquirer (“Poll: 2-party rule best for Ohio: Residents favor Strickland for solving state's problems.”) March 1, 2007 stated:
The three Commissioners are of the same party in Clermont -- who is overseeing what these three bobbleheads are doing? I say “bobbleheads” because I have this image of them all shaking their heads in unison on whatever it is they are voting on. Check out the votes in their minutes. I can’t recall when I have ever seen dissention among the votes: "Yes, Yes, Yea." I for one think that it is high time for there to be divided party control in this county. Where is the accountability? Where is the responsibility to the citizens?
At the township level, Township Trustees are elected on a non-partisan basis, but let’s face it: they’re all cut from the same cloth – at least in Miami Township. Voters in this county need to get a clue and find out what is going on because the resources of the county are being squandered in the existing culture of corruption that runs from the County leadership down to the townships.
Unfortunately, this is very unlikely because there is blind allegiance to the GOP. Sadly, at least for the Clermont Commissioner’s races, the only letter most Clermont Countians can read is (R). I suppose it is only a matter of time before something like ‘Coingate’ brings these insulated leaders down. We can only hope.
"... 73 percent of Ohioans said they prefer "divided partyWould a similar finding apply to local and county politics if the question were posed? Ponder this: while Heimlich and Pepper were duking it out, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Hamilton County Commissioner’s race, Scott Croswell (incumbent Clermont County Commissioner) "ran" unopposed in Clermont County.
control," while 20.5 percent want "one-party control."
The three Commissioners are of the same party in Clermont -- who is overseeing what these three bobbleheads are doing? I say “bobbleheads” because I have this image of them all shaking their heads in unison on whatever it is they are voting on. Check out the votes in their minutes. I can’t recall when I have ever seen dissention among the votes: "Yes, Yes, Yea." I for one think that it is high time for there to be divided party control in this county. Where is the accountability? Where is the responsibility to the citizens?
At the township level, Township Trustees are elected on a non-partisan basis, but let’s face it: they’re all cut from the same cloth – at least in Miami Township. Voters in this county need to get a clue and find out what is going on because the resources of the county are being squandered in the existing culture of corruption that runs from the County leadership down to the townships.
Unfortunately, this is very unlikely because there is blind allegiance to the GOP. Sadly, at least for the Clermont Commissioner’s races, the only letter most Clermont Countians can read is (R). I suppose it is only a matter of time before something like ‘Coingate’ brings these insulated leaders down. We can only hope.
Nepotism and Patronage is Alive & Well in Clermont Co.
I would like to bring to your attention several matters as they relate to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission is the body appointed by the revered Clermont County Board of County Commissioners. It is the body responsible for upholding the County's subdivision regulations (among other things) in the unincorporated areas of Clermont County; in reality it means they APPROVE a whole lotta subdivisions. With all of the growth in the county this body has enormous power that affects our day to day lives (read congestion, taxes, sprawl). Somewhere in the bowels of a building in Batavia lives the gigantic rubberstamp they pull out to approve nearly every plan that comes before them. Here are some questions every citizen of the county should be asking their beloved Commissioners:
Is it legal for a County employee (Roger Maham) to be on the Planning Commission, let alone to be the Chairperson? Even if it is not prohibited, does this portray to the citizens that the County has any impartiality as it relates to development approvals? Of course not! Secondly, in addition to being a county employee, the chairperson is the brother-in-law of a County commissioner (Scott Croswell) – this is nepotism. Additionally, patronage is so clearly exhibited by the fact that nearly all have made generous contributions to the Commissioner's campaigns.
A Planning Commission member (former member C. Doug Walker - now Union Township Administator - ain't that cozy?) who is a spouse of a County Commissioner (Mary Walker) does not give the impression of impartiality either. Nor does having the son (Mark Walker) of a County Commissioner as a member on any subcommittee or Committee give the impression of impartiality. Again, another example of nepotism. Surely there are qualified people that are not family members of the County Commissioners who are able to fulfill these committees. No?
Members of the Clermont County Planning Commission have voted in favor of approval for subdivision plans for which their employers are responsible for the design and engineering. Clearly a egregious example of conflict of interest. But, hey, it's ok, it's Clermont County and we treat our developers good out here.
Planning Commission members regularly add ad hoc provisions to recommendations with no rational nexus to anything provided in staff reports or testimony. It seems that these additions are made to help out a buddy - who isn't even present - most always these last minute insertions diluted the recommendations of Planning staff.
The Planning Commission should not be an arm of the political machine granting approvals for political contributors or to further the agenda of the Commissioners. It should be a body that upholds the rules and regulations (i.e. subdivision regulations) that were created to protect the community. I, for one, as a resident of the County am outraged by the nepotism and patronage that the County Commissioners so flamboyantly endorse. The people of Clermont County so much deserve better.
Is it legal for a County employee (Roger Maham) to be on the Planning Commission, let alone to be the Chairperson? Even if it is not prohibited, does this portray to the citizens that the County has any impartiality as it relates to development approvals? Of course not! Secondly, in addition to being a county employee, the chairperson is the brother-in-law of a County commissioner (Scott Croswell) – this is nepotism. Additionally, patronage is so clearly exhibited by the fact that nearly all have made generous contributions to the Commissioner's campaigns.
A Planning Commission member (former member C. Doug Walker - now Union Township Administator - ain't that cozy?) who is a spouse of a County Commissioner (Mary Walker) does not give the impression of impartiality either. Nor does having the son (Mark Walker) of a County Commissioner as a member on any subcommittee or Committee give the impression of impartiality. Again, another example of nepotism. Surely there are qualified people that are not family members of the County Commissioners who are able to fulfill these committees. No?
Members of the Clermont County Planning Commission have voted in favor of approval for subdivision plans for which their employers are responsible for the design and engineering. Clearly a egregious example of conflict of interest. But, hey, it's ok, it's Clermont County and we treat our developers good out here.
Planning Commission members regularly add ad hoc provisions to recommendations with no rational nexus to anything provided in staff reports or testimony. It seems that these additions are made to help out a buddy - who isn't even present - most always these last minute insertions diluted the recommendations of Planning staff.
The Planning Commission should not be an arm of the political machine granting approvals for political contributors or to further the agenda of the Commissioners. It should be a body that upholds the rules and regulations (i.e. subdivision regulations) that were created to protect the community. I, for one, as a resident of the County am outraged by the nepotism and patronage that the County Commissioners so flamboyantly endorse. The people of Clermont County so much deserve better.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Correcting "Factual Errors"
Isn't it refreshing that the Miami Township Trustees trawl the local newspaper editorials just salivating to squash any "incorrect" information that is put forth. For example, take the editorials appearing in the 2/7/07 edition of the Milford Miami Advertiser. Apparently some citizens had the audacity to question the prohibitive amount in the Township budget allocated to salaries and benefits for Township politicians and employees.
Quoted from the 2/14/07 Viewpoints column of the Advertiser as written by Miami Township Trustee, Ken Tracy:
Quoted from the 2/14/07 Viewpoints column of the Advertiser as written by Miami Township Trustee, Ken Tracy:
A recent letter about the Miami Township operating budget contained factual
errors.
I want to inform residents about the true cost of the services they receive from the outstanding departments at Miami Township.
In the 2007 Miami Township budget, only 48 percent of our costs cover payroll and benefits for the police, fire, medical services, road maintenance, parks and recreation and administration, not the 55 percent that was in a couple of recent publications. Miami Township has been successful at keeping costs down, despite not controlling workers' compensation and retirement expenses, which are set by the state.
One of the articles said the cost to every resident in Miami Township to fund the services provided at $6,875. That is not true.
The investment to homeowners to receive police and fire protection, medical services from
our trained paramedics, road maintenance and a recreation program with beautiful parks is $464 annually for a $100,000 home. Your tax bill is broken out this way: 64 percent goes to your schools, and 24 percent comes to Miami Township. The remaining funds go to the county, public libraries and the vocational school district. These numbers can be verified by
the Clermont County Auditor's Office.***
Ken, just because people's views don't comport with your own doesn't mean that others are "factually incorrect," it is a matter of interpretation. You give an apples to oranges comparison and I doubt anyone even noticed. You are entitled to your opinion and so is everyone else. The Township should stop trying to spin the information they don't agree with as being factually incorrect. Get on with governing, not damage control.
Stormwater Management Utility
Just back from the "open public meeting" discussing the proposed stormwater utility district and fee. Boy, were there a lot of hacked off people! Seems as though many people are frustrated by the lack of responsiveness of the departments that are now in charge of dealing with stormwater issues. People with cisterns and others are not happy at the prospect of paying $3.81 per month for the new utility. Many concerns centered around the fact that the county seemingly rubberstamps development plans without enforcing provisions of existing stormwater regulations.
Many residents blamed other parts of government for allowing the current problems to occur. Dissenters of the proposal frequently blamed the county's rapid growth for negatively altering the environment. Most agreed with McManus that problems with standing water and creek and ditch overflows are a problem, but were displeased that the burden of funding a solution might fall on the residents who lived here long before most developments.
County leaders were blamed on more than one occasion for allowing the problems to occur without offering accountability. Commissioners Bob Proud and Mary Walker attended the meeting along with County Administrator David Spinney, who twice stepped in front of the podium to clarify speakers' concerns or defend the county's actions.See the article quoted above in its entirety at: http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/NEWS01/702240321
Speaking of "defending"... the mighty eloquent Mary Walker in a burst of defensiveness stood up and squarely put a resident in her place after the resident stated that during her experience she had difficulty in having County staff and elected officials return her calls and correspondence. Apparently, even though the comment by the resident was vague and addressed the entire county apparatus, Walker took it as a personal insult. Poor Mary.
The proposed stormwater utility will have the authority to inspect and maintain the system, but not to ENFORCE. Unfortunately, that duty falls on the shoulders of the current structure -- the structure which was so clearly identified as being INEPT! Can anyone tell me how the Chief Building Offical got his job? Which commissioner is he related to?? I am dying to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
