YEAR IN REVIEW 2009

Traffic Camera Public Hearing: Take 2

Ordinance: 34-09; 35-09; 36-09; 37-09

Please click on article to view full size.

• Please see previous post, Inadequately Advertised “Public Hearing”

Stalled

Please click on image to view full size.

Please see related SEO posts:

Making It Up As They Go Along

Failure To Communicate

"Public" Hearing - December 21, 2009

Please click below to view full size document.

Please click on the following link to view previous SEO posts and video regarding TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS.

SEO UPDATE: Stanhope Road aka Cedar Center

After further review of the previous SEO post, Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project, it became necessary to take a second look at some of the details surrounding the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application as submitted by the City of South Euclid. 

The application below is a request from the City of South Euclid for $100,000.00 from Cuyahoga County in competitive municipal grant funding. The CDBG application requires specific information from the applicant as shown in the following documents: 

“Date of Newspaper Advertisement” - “Public Notice: June 19, 2009.” - Simple research confirmed the Sun Messenger publish date for that week was June 18, not June 19. The June 18, 2009 Sun Messenger did not contain a public notice regarding CDBG funds. The City of South Euclid did not place an advertisement in the Plain Dealer "legal notices" on June 19, 2009.

“Public Hearing Date”- "June 22, 2009.” - There was a "Public Hearing" held on June 22, 2009, but NOT concerning CDBG funding.  The "Public Hearing" held that date was for Ordinance: 08-09, an unrelated matter.

Please click on each image below to view full size.

PARTIAL INSTRUCTIONS - <>view entire document<>

To view more of the 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, COMPETITIVE MUNICIPAL GRANT APPLICATION submitted to the Cuyahoga County Department of Development by the City of South Euclid, please see the previous SEO post, Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project.

Here is a link to the Cuyahoga County Department of Development and the COMPETITIVE MUNICIPAL GRANT PROGRAM.

The Notice of Public Hearing (below) was published in the Sun Messenger classified advertising section under "LEGALS, PUBLIC NOTICES" on May 21 and 28, 2009. The "Public Hearing" held on June 22, 2009 was NOT about CDBG funds, Stanhope Road or anything related to Cedar Center.

The notice shown below was posted on the City website. 

Minutes - South Euclid City Council Meeting - June 22,2009.  Resolution: 30-09 is passed. This ordinance IS related to CDBG funding.  The "Public Hearing" at the Committee Meeting that same evening did NOT have anything to do with Resolution: 30-09 or CDBG funding.

Director of Community Services provides information regarding the Cuyahoga County CDBG program. (2 min. 55 sec.)

The aerial photograph below indicates the locations of Stanhope Road and 14483 Cedar Road. The cover page for the CDBG funding application indicates the intent of the project. Ordinance: 08-09 is an unrelated matter as stated in the ordinance. (excerpt below)

A LETTER TO THE COUNTY + ORDINANCE: 30-09

RESOLUTION 59-09

November 9, 2009 - Director of Community Services explains the need to pass a yearly Ordinance to enable the City to apply for CDBG funding.  In this case, it is Resolution: 59-09.  The deadline for submitting the CDBG application was November 6, 2009. (1 min. 54 sec.)

MAYOR GEORGINE WELO - JULY 28, 2008 (0 min. 37 sec.) 

RELATED SOUTH EUCLID OVERSIGHT POSTS:

• Stanhope Road Infrustructure Project
• Citizen Participation Not Encouraged 
• More Questions Go Unanswered

Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project

Please click on aerial photograph to view full size.

FY 2010 Community Development Block Grant Application - Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project - November 6, 2009:
 

2010 CDBG Application (excerpt) Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project -

The following pages have been excerpted from the original CDBG application shown above to enable viewing in landscape format:

Please note some blatant oddities found in portions of the grant application:

Section- “Project Description”: The location of Cedar Center is presented incorrectly. Stanhope Road is SOUTH of Colony Road and NORTH of Cedar Road. The opposite was described in the grant application.

 Section- “Citizen Participation”:  This portion of the grant application is so riddled with misrepresentation and untruths they must be addressed item by item. Please excuse any over analysis and excruciatingly tedious details, but it is necessary to illuminate the trail of deception.

Please reference previous SEO post, Citizen Participation Not Encouraged.

The City of South Euclid makes the following statement in the grant application: “The City of South Euclid makes extensive efforts to involve the citizens of the Municipal Grant Process in addition to the required public hearing. The following is a detailed description of the numerous activities conducted which facilitate the high level of citizen participation. A general public hearing is conducted to explain the Municipal Grant Program Process and receive citizen input and suggestions through questions and discussion. This public hearing is announced and advertised through a public notice in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the meeting.”

   <>  <>  <> <> <> <>

“The City of South Euclid makes extensive efforts to involve the citizens of the Municipal Grant Process in addition to the required public hearing.”

1. As previously noted by SEO, simply because city officials say something is so does not make it true. Will someone please give the precise details, including the date, time and attendance record of the “extensive efforts” that have been made by anyone to involve the citizens in the Municipal Grant process? It is absurd for this highly fictitious statement to be made on a County grant application. Further, the portion that states: “in addition to the required public hearing” is misleading as it indicates that a “public hearing” was indeed held. What is the definition of “public hearing?”  That is the term which is being manipulated here.  There is no mention of the other activities held "in addition to the required public hearing."

“The following is a detailed description of the numerous activities conducted which facilitate the high level of citizen participation.”


2. nu•mer•ous (nōō'mər-əs, nyōō'-)
adj. Amounting to a large number; many.
very many; being or existing in great quantity. consisting of or comprising a great number of units or individuals.


3. “the high level of citizen participation” = a complete fabrication.


“This public hearing is announced and advertised through a public notice in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the meeting.”


4. SEO has done a thorough search through the Sun Messenger public notice section for the two consecutive weeks prior to the meeting which was used as documentation to support claims of proper protocol. There was NO public notice referencing a “public hearing” in those papers.


5. Perhaps the most outrageous and blatant misrepresentation is the submission of copies of meeting notices as requirement fulfillment while applying for competitively sought County grant money – because:

• The online “article” posted by the Sun Messenger at 11:55 a.m. on the day of the meeting does not qualify as “public notice.” There was NO notification in the Sun Messenger as claimed regarding the example provided by the City in the grant application.
  
•  The very documentation that was used to support claims of “citizen participation” on the application for 2010 grant money submitted on November 6, 2009 – is total baloney! Please examine the dates. (link provided above) They are from a meeting held November 10, 2008.