Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
We have all, no doubt, witnessed the debate during the past several months over the fishing pier donated to the city by the Otter Street Fishing Club. That debate was prompted in large part because of the proposed location of the pier in Millers Bay. Neighbors of that portion of Menominee Park also have expressed deep concern over the fact that they were never notified about the proposal for the bay area.
As a result of the lingering debate and ill-feelings on the part of many park neighbors, city councilor Meredith Scheuermann asked to have a dialogue with parks director Tom Stephany about when neighbors are notified and when they’re not. Prior to the Sept. 27 Common Council meeting, Mr. Stephany presented councilors with a memo in which he tried to outline the criteria he uses. Based on comments made at that council meeting, it didn’t sound like his memo was very clear. And his presentation before the council was no better.
When asked to explain how he decides when neighbors are notified and when they’re not, Stephany used phrases like “It depends…” and “I suppose…” Part of the criteria he said he uses is the scope or magnitude of the project; the time involved in the project; and the amount of money the project costs; but that’s not always the case, he added. He also said it usually depends on whether the park is a neighborhood park or a community park, adding that neighbors of neighborhood parks would probably be notified, while neighbors of community parks might not be. But he said that’s not always the case either and even added that some of our community parks are also considered regional parks. He also said that not only could Menominee Park - the park at the center of this dispute - be considered a community and regional park, but a neighborhood park, as well.
What the council and citizens were left with after Mr. Stephany’s rather rambling, and what seemed to be an almost “made-up-as-he-went-along” presentation, is that there apparently is no rhyme or reason as to when his department notifies neighbors of proposed projects that have the potential to affect their neighborhood and when it doesn't. Mr. Stephany told the council that he believes his department has done a pretty good job in the past of notifying and working with and involving neighbors. That may be true, but one cannot rest on their laurels, especially in this day and age. Nor does having a pretty good track record guarantee that such a contentious issue like the fishing pier will never again happen. That should be clear to everyone by now. Even Mr. Stephany seems to recognize that he and his staff need to be more cognizant of issues that could affect neighbors and take the appropriate steps. There must be some consistency, but under Mr. Stephany’s current method of operation, there seems to be none.
In concluding his statements, Mr. Stephany said he did not know that things with the fishing pier would blow up as they did, but he also stated he did not believe the matter was “rammed” through the political process. He may not have known things would “blow up” as they did, but the matter certainly was rammed through. It was discussed at a parks board meeting on a Monday and some 25 hours later it was in front of the city council for its approval. If that’s not “ramming” something through, I don’t know what is.
But kudos must be given to Ms. Scheuermann and fellow councilor Paul Esslinger for suggesting during the Sept. 27th meeting that Mr. Stephany bring to the parks board for its consideration, and eventually to the city council, a policy or set of guidelines by which the neighbors of any city park where there is a new project proposed, with a specific total dollar amount involved in that project, would be notified. City staff is also going to see how other communities handle similar situations, but as Mrs. Scheuermann pointed out, simply because other communities may not have such policies does not mean Oshkosh cannot establish one and actually be a leader for a change. After all, it does not take someone with a Harvard law degree to tell you that having policies and procedures to follow are never a bad thing and, in fact, will help keep you out of litigation more often than not. I, for one, will be curious to see where this goes in the future and hope the city eventually does the right thing to reduce the likelihood of something like this happening again.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: DRR on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 06:27 AM MDT
What he said is they will send notices to neighbors when they see a need. There is not set policy and he does not plan to have one unless he is forced to.
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 07:18 AM MDT
I accurately recapped the presentation and Mr. Stephany's statements. You are correct in that Mr. Stephany has no set policy for notification, yet he tried explaining the "criteria" he uses and he stumbled all over the place in doing so. He also said they have done a pretty good job of notifying people in the past. Well that doesn't cut it, DRR, and this is a perfect example of why it doesn't. I'm sure the neighbors who were not notified would agree with me.
As a result of Mr. Stephany using his own determination process rather than having a set policy, problems ensued. And now, following some council member requests, they are looking at the possibility of a formal type of notification policy. What harm can come from that, except a little more work for a mostly already overworked staff? By notifying abutting properties (i.e., the neighbors) much like other city departments notify residents when projects are forthcoming, it takes the guesswork for Mr. Stephany out of the equation and people aren't left being un-notified because HE didn't see the need. Need, after all, varies from person to person.
- Cheryl
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: DRR on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 07:52 AM MDT
I agree neighbors should be notified in some instances. What those instances are is what has to be determined. That will not be easy. Paul mentioned $5000.00 and above as an example. What about a $500.00 light that could impact neighbors?
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 09:46 AM MDT
You make a good point. There was also discussion about whether or not bathrooms should be included in the notifications. Maybe the policy should be that all new projects and/or improvements to projects where changes are being made or more than 50-percent of it is being redone, regardless of the dollar amount, should be noticed to the surrounding properties. That way it seems it would be fair to all the neighbors and all-encompassing for any and all projects.
- Cheryl
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 04:26 PM MDT
Maybe the director does not really want a policy and likies the way things are right now. I suggest we either attend or watch the next Parks Advisory Committee meeting.
The member of the committee who is part of the Otter Street Fishing Club and spoke against the idea of notifying the neighborhood will probably try and get either watered down or struch down.
The Parks director does not consider Menominee Park neighborhood park but yet all were contacted concerning "Little Oshkosh".
---
Nate Josephson
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: admin on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 04:53 PM MDT
I want to provide an update to my original post. I wrote that at the Common Council meeting Tuesday night parks director Tom Stephany said he does not believe this fishing pier project was "rammed through." I also made the point that the item appeared on a parks board agenda on Monday and the very next day was in front of the council for its consideration. That lends credence to people's belief that the project was hurried along.
But Mr. Stephany's own words in a June 8, 2005 memo to the Advisory Parks Board, of which I obtained a copy earlier today, show that Stephany not only knew that this project was being rushed through, but that he helped rush it along.
In that memo Mr. Stephany wrote: "Terry Wohler will provide more information at the meeting. Terry has requested that the project be 'fast-tracked,' as Otter Street would like to start work on the project ASAP. I have added this proposal to the City Council agenda for Tuesday, June 14th. I believe this to be a worthy project and recommend that the Parks Board support and approve the proposal."
How can Mr. Stephany say, in good conscience, that this project was not rushed through when he helped set the stage for it?
One other interesting note: In a June 9, 2005 memo to city manager Richard Wollangk, Mr. Stephany wrote: "It was not too many years ago that the Parks Department provided a small, temporary fishing deck off of New York Avenue - that deck was eliminated because of safety, aesthetic appeal, and issues with installing and removing it on an annual basis."
Mr. Stephany's comment begs an answer to this question: If there were safety and aesthetic concerns before, what has changed to make this so much more safe and aesthetically appealing now?
Mr. Stephany also states in that memo that "there have been requests for a permanent fishing structure off of New York as there are people that enjoy fishing at that location." How many requests has he received for such a pier? I have never seen people fishing down there and I frequently drive by that location. Perhaps it's just not at the time of day people are there, but I would think if it was such a hotbed of fishing activity, I surely would have seen somebody at some time. Others have made similar comments to me.
Let me state for the record, that I personally don't care where the pier goes and its location doesn't affect me in any shape, form or fashion. But I have difficulty with things when a process is subverted in one way or another, even just a little, and things are presented in what appears to be a disingenuous way. But if this truly is the best place in town for a fishing pier, I would think we'd also see some of the Otter Street Fishing Club members out there fishing on days they aren't out on the lake.
- Cheryl
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: shors on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 04:49 AM MDT
Thank you for this piece of information Cheryl.
I don't see people fishing along this area either with the exception of
about 1 week in spring when fish are spawning and they tend ot be
anywhere along the shoreline of the lake. I was quite surprised that
there has been a demand (according to Mr. Stephany) for a fishing
pier. I live across from Ames Point and it does not get used that
much. Given it is stated to be a "children's fishing" pier, have
children been demanding it? Mr. Stephany should provide his record
of demands.
I can't help but think there is some silly issue underlying all of this
because it now appears to be more like an old neighborhood fued
trying to be reactivated. I am wondering if a loooooooong time ago,
someone on Menominee Drive irritated Mr. Wohler and this was his
way of making a statement back. I continue to hear "those folks on
Menominee Drive don't want the pier in their front yard" and that is
the only thing this is about. I've lived at the far end of the Park (I
won't see the pier from my home) for a short 3 years and I know
within the past 5 years, there has been at minimum a half a dozen
other homeowner changes. Neighborhoods change. The folks who
disagree with the pier location are simply trying to preserve the last
remaining open space left in the park--it is what makes Lake
Winnebago so beautiful when you drive down New York Avenue and
Menominee Drive. Visitors from all over drive to see it when they are
in Oshkosh. There have never been any plans to change this open
area and rightly so. It is the pride of Oshkosh. Why doesn't Mr.
Wohler appreciate this area?
I think Mr. Wohler is living in the past. This is very sad and
inappropriate behavorior for a Parks Board Advisory member.
Teri
Kudos to Scheuermann and Esslinger: Change is a step in a positive direction.
Authored by: shors on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 04:49 PM MDT
Cheryl,
Your perceptions of Mr. Stephany's presentation are right on. Kudos to
Council members Meredith Scheuermann and Paul Esslinger for trying
to get a better handle on whether or not the community have a voice
regarding changes in city parks etc. Setting a notification policy is a
step in a positive direction. Maybe the old boys network is coming to
a slow crawl?
As a result of the lingering debate and ill-feelings on the part of many park neighbors, city councilor Meredith Scheuermann asked to have a dialogue with parks director Tom Stephany about when neighbors are notified and when they’re not. Prior to the Sept. 27 Common Council meeting, Mr. Stephany presented councilors with a memo in which he tried to outline the criteria he uses. Based on comments made at that council meeting, it didn’t sound like his memo was very clear. And his presentation before the council was no better.
When asked to explain how he decides when neighbors are notified and when they’re not, Stephany used phrases like “It depends…” and “I suppose…” Part of the criteria he said he uses is the scope or magnitude of the project; the time involved in the project; and the amount of money the project costs; but that’s not always the case, he added. He also said it usually depends on whether the park is a neighborhood park or a community park, adding that neighbors of neighborhood parks would probably be notified, while neighbors of community parks might not be. But he said that’s not always the case either and even added that some of our community parks are also considered regional parks. He also said that not only could Menominee Park - the park at the center of this dispute - be considered a community and regional park, but a neighborhood park, as well.
What the council and citizens were left with after Mr. Stephany’s rather rambling, and what seemed to be an almost “made-up-as-he-went-along” presentation, is that there apparently is no rhyme or reason as to when his department notifies neighbors of proposed projects that have the potential to affect their neighborhood and when it doesn't. Mr. Stephany told the council that he believes his department has done a pretty good job in the past of notifying and working with and involving neighbors. That may be true, but one cannot rest on their laurels, especially in this day and age. Nor does having a pretty good track record guarantee that such a contentious issue like the fishing pier will never again happen. That should be clear to everyone by now. Even Mr. Stephany seems to recognize that he and his staff need to be more cognizant of issues that could affect neighbors and take the appropriate steps. There must be some consistency, but under Mr. Stephany’s current method of operation, there seems to be none.
In concluding his statements, Mr. Stephany said he did not know that things with the fishing pier would blow up as they did, but he also stated he did not believe the matter was “rammed” through the political process. He may not have known things would “blow up” as they did, but the matter certainly was rammed through. It was discussed at a parks board meeting on a Monday and some 25 hours later it was in front of the city council for its approval. If that’s not “ramming” something through, I don’t know what is.
But kudos must be given to Ms. Scheuermann and fellow councilor Paul Esslinger for suggesting during the Sept. 27th meeting that Mr. Stephany bring to the parks board for its consideration, and eventually to the city council, a policy or set of guidelines by which the neighbors of any city park where there is a new project proposed, with a specific total dollar amount involved in that project, would be notified. City staff is also going to see how other communities handle similar situations, but as Mrs. Scheuermann pointed out, simply because other communities may not have such policies does not mean Oshkosh cannot establish one and actually be a leader for a change. After all, it does not take someone with a Harvard law degree to tell you that having policies and procedures to follow are never a bad thing and, in fact, will help keep you out of litigation more often than not. I, for one, will be curious to see where this goes in the future and hope the city eventually does the right thing to reduce the likelihood of something like this happening again.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: DRR on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 06:27 AM MDT
What he said is they will send notices to neighbors when they see a need. There is not set policy and he does not plan to have one unless he is forced to.
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 07:18 AM MDT
I accurately recapped the presentation and Mr. Stephany's statements. You are correct in that Mr. Stephany has no set policy for notification, yet he tried explaining the "criteria" he uses and he stumbled all over the place in doing so. He also said they have done a pretty good job of notifying people in the past. Well that doesn't cut it, DRR, and this is a perfect example of why it doesn't. I'm sure the neighbors who were not notified would agree with me.
As a result of Mr. Stephany using his own determination process rather than having a set policy, problems ensued. And now, following some council member requests, they are looking at the possibility of a formal type of notification policy. What harm can come from that, except a little more work for a mostly already overworked staff? By notifying abutting properties (i.e., the neighbors) much like other city departments notify residents when projects are forthcoming, it takes the guesswork for Mr. Stephany out of the equation and people aren't left being un-notified because HE didn't see the need. Need, after all, varies from person to person.
- Cheryl
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: DRR on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 07:52 AM MDT
I agree neighbors should be notified in some instances. What those instances are is what has to be determined. That will not be easy. Paul mentioned $5000.00 and above as an example. What about a $500.00 light that could impact neighbors?
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 09:46 AM MDT
You make a good point. There was also discussion about whether or not bathrooms should be included in the notifications. Maybe the policy should be that all new projects and/or improvements to projects where changes are being made or more than 50-percent of it is being redone, regardless of the dollar amount, should be noticed to the surrounding properties. That way it seems it would be fair to all the neighbors and all-encompassing for any and all projects.
- Cheryl
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 04:26 PM MDT
Maybe the director does not really want a policy and likies the way things are right now. I suggest we either attend or watch the next Parks Advisory Committee meeting.
The member of the committee who is part of the Otter Street Fishing Club and spoke against the idea of notifying the neighborhood will probably try and get either watered down or struch down.
The Parks director does not consider Menominee Park neighborhood park but yet all were contacted concerning "Little Oshkosh".
---
Nate Josephson
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: admin on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 04:53 PM MDT
I want to provide an update to my original post. I wrote that at the Common Council meeting Tuesday night parks director Tom Stephany said he does not believe this fishing pier project was "rammed through." I also made the point that the item appeared on a parks board agenda on Monday and the very next day was in front of the council for its consideration. That lends credence to people's belief that the project was hurried along.
But Mr. Stephany's own words in a June 8, 2005 memo to the Advisory Parks Board, of which I obtained a copy earlier today, show that Stephany not only knew that this project was being rushed through, but that he helped rush it along.
In that memo Mr. Stephany wrote: "Terry Wohler will provide more information at the meeting. Terry has requested that the project be 'fast-tracked,' as Otter Street would like to start work on the project ASAP. I have added this proposal to the City Council agenda for Tuesday, June 14th. I believe this to be a worthy project and recommend that the Parks Board support and approve the proposal."
How can Mr. Stephany say, in good conscience, that this project was not rushed through when he helped set the stage for it?
One other interesting note: In a June 9, 2005 memo to city manager Richard Wollangk, Mr. Stephany wrote: "It was not too many years ago that the Parks Department provided a small, temporary fishing deck off of New York Avenue - that deck was eliminated because of safety, aesthetic appeal, and issues with installing and removing it on an annual basis."
Mr. Stephany's comment begs an answer to this question: If there were safety and aesthetic concerns before, what has changed to make this so much more safe and aesthetically appealing now?
Mr. Stephany also states in that memo that "there have been requests for a permanent fishing structure off of New York as there are people that enjoy fishing at that location." How many requests has he received for such a pier? I have never seen people fishing down there and I frequently drive by that location. Perhaps it's just not at the time of day people are there, but I would think if it was such a hotbed of fishing activity, I surely would have seen somebody at some time. Others have made similar comments to me.
Let me state for the record, that I personally don't care where the pier goes and its location doesn't affect me in any shape, form or fashion. But I have difficulty with things when a process is subverted in one way or another, even just a little, and things are presented in what appears to be a disingenuous way. But if this truly is the best place in town for a fishing pier, I would think we'd also see some of the Otter Street Fishing Club members out there fishing on days they aren't out on the lake.
- Cheryl
Parks director fails to give suitable answers on notification issues to city council
Authored by: shors on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 04:49 AM MDT
Thank you for this piece of information Cheryl.
I don't see people fishing along this area either with the exception of
about 1 week in spring when fish are spawning and they tend ot be
anywhere along the shoreline of the lake. I was quite surprised that
there has been a demand (according to Mr. Stephany) for a fishing
pier. I live across from Ames Point and it does not get used that
much. Given it is stated to be a "children's fishing" pier, have
children been demanding it? Mr. Stephany should provide his record
of demands.
I can't help but think there is some silly issue underlying all of this
because it now appears to be more like an old neighborhood fued
trying to be reactivated. I am wondering if a loooooooong time ago,
someone on Menominee Drive irritated Mr. Wohler and this was his
way of making a statement back. I continue to hear "those folks on
Menominee Drive don't want the pier in their front yard" and that is
the only thing this is about. I've lived at the far end of the Park (I
won't see the pier from my home) for a short 3 years and I know
within the past 5 years, there has been at minimum a half a dozen
other homeowner changes. Neighborhoods change. The folks who
disagree with the pier location are simply trying to preserve the last
remaining open space left in the park--it is what makes Lake
Winnebago so beautiful when you drive down New York Avenue and
Menominee Drive. Visitors from all over drive to see it when they are
in Oshkosh. There have never been any plans to change this open
area and rightly so. It is the pride of Oshkosh. Why doesn't Mr.
Wohler appreciate this area?
I think Mr. Wohler is living in the past. This is very sad and
inappropriate behavorior for a Parks Board Advisory member.
Teri
Kudos to Scheuermann and Esslinger: Change is a step in a positive direction.
Authored by: shors on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 04:49 PM MDT
Cheryl,
Your perceptions of Mr. Stephany's presentation are right on. Kudos to
Council members Meredith Scheuermann and Paul Esslinger for trying
to get a better handle on whether or not the community have a voice
regarding changes in city parks etc. Setting a notification policy is a
step in a positive direction. Maybe the old boys network is coming to
a slow crawl?
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 5:45 AM
<< Home