City Council

Council Minutes November 18, 2025 Via Zoom Pursuant to Chapters 113 and 115 of the Codified Ordinances, and Resolution No. 22-29, enacted March 22, 2022. The Shaker Heights City Council met in a joint work session with Cleveland Heights at 12:02 p.m., Mayor David E. Weiss presiding. Council members present: Mr. Malone Mrs. Moore Ms. Anne Williams Ms. Carmella Williams Ms. Bixenstine Mr. Claytor Ms. Kaus Council Members Absent: None * * * * In attendance from Cleveland Heights: Council President Gail Larson Council Member Jim Petras Council Member James Posch Council Member Craig Cobb Council Member Anthony Mattox Council Member Zenobia Sheets * * * * Video of this meeting may be found here through November 18, 2028. * * * * Mayor Weiss stated that this joint work session with the Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights City Councils is an opportunity for Council members and the public to learn about dam regulations and the current state of Lower Lake dam directly from representatives of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). In July, the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) announced its revised recommendation that the dam that created Shaker Lower Lake be removed and the Doan Brook which feeds the lake be restored. Following that announcement of their recommendation, residents of both cities as well as members of Council posed a variety of questions regarding the classification of Lower Lake dam. Many of those questions were very specific and required specified knowledge and experience dealing with dams. We set up this work session as a presentation on dam safety presented by ODNR. The goal of the presentation is to educate, particularly City Council members as well as residents, regarding dams and dam regulation. ODNR Project Manager Keith Banachowski, and ODNR Program Manager Mia Kannik gave a presentation on the Lower Lake Dam. * * * * Public comments were received via email from the following individuals in advance of the meeting which are attached: • Erin Flanagan • Marian Patterson • Elaine Bayless Additional comments and questions were received through the Zoom Q&A feature which are also attached. There being no further business before Council, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. _________________________________________ DAVID E. WEISS, Mayor _________________________________________ WILLIAM ONDREY GRUBER, Clerk of Council Pro Tem Council Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 2 Public Comments Emailed for Council Work Session 20251118 Erin Flanagan erin@erinflanaganlaw.com November 14, 2025 Dear Attorney Gruber, Thank you for publishing the agenda and participation details for the November 18, 2025 Joint Shaker Heights/Cleveland Heights City Council Work Session with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources regarding the Lower Lake dam. Pursuant to the public comment opportunity described on the agenda, I respectfully submit the following questions for inclusion in the meeting record and for response by the Cities and ODNR to the extent time permits. 1. Meeting Origin and Purpose Could the Cities clarify when this joint work session was first proposed, and what the originally contemplated topic was at that time? Public-facing information over the past several weeks has described the meeting in different ways, and it would be helpful for residents—and for the administrative record—to understand the original purpose and how the meeting evolved into the current “Lower Lake Dam Presentation.” 2. Notice and Posting Discrepancies Between the Cities Could the Cities explain how public notice for this joint meeting was coordinated between Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights? For example: • Shaker Heights issued a detailed News Flash on November 12 describing the Lower Lake dam briefing, • While Cleveland Heights posted only a bare calendar entry with no subject matter, agenda, meeting documents, or instructions, • And Shaker Heights did not list the meeting in its Calendar or Agenda Center until very recently. Because both cities are co-hosting this work session, it would be helpful to understand the reason for these differences. 3. Scope of the Presentation and Any Topic Shift For clarity in the record, can the Cities and ODNR confirm whether any topics relating to Horseshoe Lake, proposed engineered-wetland concepts, or the Attleboro–Shelburne Trail were originally contemplated for this meeting before the scope was set to focus on Lower Lake dam conditions? If so, when and why was the decision made to limit this meeting to Lower Lake only? 4. Public Participation and Meeting Materials Will ODNR’s presentation materials—including slides, memoranda, inspection findings, recommendations, or required actions—be made publicly available before or shortly after the meeting? And will a complete list of public questions/comments be preserved and made available as part of the meeting record? Given that this work session occurs during an ongoing federal review process, clarity regarding documentation and public participation would assist residents greatly. Thank you for ensuring that these questions are included in the record of the November 18 work session. Sincerely, Erin R. Flanagan Cleveland Heights Resident Board Member, Friends of Horseshoe Lake (FOHL) Marian Patterson patterson.marian@gmail.com November 17, 2025 Dear Attorney Gruber, The values of lower Shaker Lake, Doan Brook and their parklands to the community have been stated in numerous forums, and are multi-faceted. Important concerns - such as flood prevention, restoration of a healthy Doan Brook, responsible allocation of public tax dollars, enhancement of quality of life of the users of these resources, maintaining the quality of the natural habitat, and preservation of the extensive existing conservation, education, and accessibility features of the park - require a multifaceted solution. I would like to pose the following question to the council members: "What moves are being made to create a coalition of stakeholders from public, private and philanthropic sectors that can bring a solution to the multifaceted question of what to do about lower Shaker Lake." Marian Patterson Elaine Bayless elainebayless@gmail.com November 17, 2025 Good afternoon. During tomorrow’s City Council meeting with ODNR, please ask ODNR to discuss: 1) reducing the size of Lower Lake to require a smaller dam that could be reclassified as Class II; 2) creating a detached lake or redirecting Doan Brook so that they are not connected, similar to Garfield Park. Please ask the Council whether they would consider a resident advisory committee to discuss the future of Lower Lake going forward. Council Work Session Q&A 20251118 Cleveland Heights Clerk of Council Addie Balester Comment sent to CH Clerk of Council: Part 1: I'm a Cleveland Heights resident who has lived in the city for 11 years. My wife and I bought a house about a mile away from Lower Shaker Lake last year. I've loved the lake since I first started going there as a Case student 20-some years ago and I think it's a major reason the area around it is a nice and desirable place to live. Losing it would lose an important piece of our history and would also lose an important resource that benefits people's physical and mental health by having such a beautiful natural setting so easily accessible to so many people who live in the area. Replacing it with a park with a brook would not remotely make up for this - we already have a beautiful brook setting just downstream of the lake in the Doan Brook ravine. The lake is unique. Part 2: Let's be realistic and acknowledge the fact that losing the lake would make the area around it a less desirable place to live and that this would have long term negative effects on both Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights. The documents on the classification of the Lower Lake Dam from 2014 show that it was classified as class 1 not because of its height or the volume of water retained, but because of "probable loss of human life" in University Circle if the dam failed. But a 2016 AECOM flood model suggests it's very questionable that the dam failing would cause any major flooding in University Circle, and that was before NEORSD added additional flood mitigation infrastructure in the University Circle area. Part 3: We need to answer the question, what can be done to get the dam classification changed to a class 2, which could dramatically change what is required of a restored dam? We need to thoroughly investigate this idea before moving forward with any plan rather than casually accepting the class 1 status as an unchangeable fact of life. The lake is too valuable to the community to accept its loss without fully exploring all options to preserve it. Comment sent to CH Clerk of Council: Part 1: Preservation of Comment Rights / Process Clarification For clarity, the City’s reference to a “6-hour” advance deadline for public comment does not appear in the Cleveland Heights Codified Ordinances, the Rules of Council, or any published public-participation policy. As a result, residents reasonably understand that written comments may be submitted up to and during the meeting. I offer this clarification to ensure transparency and consistency in the public process and to preserve all comment rights associated with today’s session. Part 2: Request to Forward to ODNR Representatives Because ODNR representatives will be providing technical and regulatory information today, I respectfully request that Council forward this comment to: • Mr. Keith Banachowski, ODNR Project Manager • Ms. Mia Kannik, P.E., ODNR Dam Safety Program Manager • Ms. Cynthia Frazzini, ODNR Legal Counsel and request that they provide written clarification, as appropriate, on the questions raised below. Part 3: Key Questions for Clarification (for Council, ODNR, NEORSD, and the Public) These questions are intended to assist residents in understanding the regulatory and historic framework governing the entire Shaker Lakes system, including the dam, embankments, and engineered waterways of Lower Shaker Lake: Part 4: 1. Federal Protection of the Shaker Lakes as a Historic System The Shaker Lakes—including Horseshoe Lake, Lower Shaker Lake, their engineered channels, dams, and associated structures—are contributing features of the Shaker Village Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP Ref. 80002970) on May 2, 1980. Could ODNR or the Cities clarify how today’s discussion fits within the Section 106 federal review process, which applies before any alteration to contributing features of a listed historic district? Part 5: 2. Coordination Between ODNR’s State Authority and Federal Environmental Law ODNR’s dam-safety responsibilities under R.C. Chapter 1521 operate alongside, not instead of, federal requirements including: • Clean Water Act §§404/401, • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), • Endangered Species Act (ESA) §§7 and 9, • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and • NHPA §106 (noted above). Could ODNR explain how these federal protections will be coordinated with any structural assessments or recommendations made today? Part 6: 3. NEORSD’s Role and Statutory Limits Has Cleveland Heights received any: • MOU, • MOA, • intergovernmental agreement, or • written authorization defining NEORSD’s role with respect to the Shaker Lakes system or Lower Shaker Lake specifically? If so, could these documents be made available to the public? Part 7: 4. Relationship to USACE Permit LRB-2016-01374 (Horseshoe Lake) Given that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is evaluating NEORSD’s proposal affecting Horseshoe Lake, could the City or ODNR clarify whether any statements or materials presented today will be incorporated into, rely upon, or inform that ongoing federal review? Because the Shaker Lakes function as a single engineered hydrologic system, clarity on cross-effects is essential. Part 8: 5. Availability of Written Materials Underlying Today’s Presentation Will ODNR or City staff provide the public with copies of any documents, analyses, emails, or correspondence relied upon in preparing for today’s meeting? Advance access to materials is necessary for meaningful participation regarding a federally protected landscape. Part 9: Information Request (Integrated into this Comment) To support public understanding, I respectfully request copies of any materials in Cleveland Heights’ possession from January 2023 to present relating to the Shaker Lakes system and the Lower Shaker Lake Dam, including: 1. Communications with ODNR (Banachowski, Kannik, Frazzini); 2. Communications with NEORSD; 3. Communications with the City of Shaker Heights; 4. Any draft or final MOU/MOA or intergovernmental agreements referencing the Shaker Lakes; 5. Preparatory materials for today’s meeting; 6. Documents, assessments, or correspondence concerning the Shaker Lakes as contributing features of the National Register–listed historic district. Electronic copies are preferred if available. This request does not waive my right to seek earlier records, including those dating back to the 2020 Horseshoe Lake dam breach and the resulting sedimentation impacts at Lower Shaker Lake Part 10: Requested Next Steps I respectfully request that Cleveland Heights: • Attach this comment to the official meeting record, • Forward it to ODNR’s representatives, • Provide the requested information, and • Consider scheduling a future session with full two-way public participation and advance release of materials, so residents may meaningfully engage on issues affecting the entire Shaker Lakes system. Thank you for your time and for ensuring a transparent, inclusive process for all residents. Sincerely, Erin R. Flanagan Cleveland Heights Resident Friends of Horseshoe Lake, Board of Directors P. White No simulation of the $145 million Doan Brook Tunnel to mitigate flooding just below dam? Why were the dams rated as Dam II in the Doan Brook literature? The only time there has been a problem is when Doan Brook Watershed used the wrong grade of stone which clogged the drains during a storm -in DBWP newsletter By height and volume - it is a Class III The distances are wrong. There is no danger to University Circle. He is not mentioning the $150M to mitigate flooding by Doan Brook Tunnel His arguments are the same used to build the Class I dam in Lakeview Cemetery. Having a neutral engineering review will show that ODNR material is wrong. None of these examples address that the Shaker Lakes are a historically protected community treasure Richard Margolius For the speaker, what is the storage volume? (in acre-feet) From the ODNR website:Class I — probable loss of life Class II — health hazard, flood water damage to homes, businesses, industrial structures (no loss of life envisioned), damage to state and interstate highways, loss of public utilities, railroads, downstream dams, only access to residential areas Class III — damage to low value non-residential structures and local roads NEORSD says that the culvert has been cleaned and no longer has limited capacity. That was the whole point of NEORSD presentation. You are getting two different sets of facts. How does removal of the dam reduce flooding in a storm event? NEORSD stated they used a 25 inch storm event. Without retention, isn't there still flooding? That much rain would overwhelm Doan Brook imo and still flood Elaine Bayless No mention was made of the new culvert being built by University Circle. If we reduce the size of the lake, is there an advantage to taking it “offline”? Couldn’t it overflow without a dam as well? Ben Monreal I know FEMA guidelines allow dam classification to ask about the DIFFERENCE between the "storm event flood" and the "storm event flood including a dam breach" and judge the risk due to the excess only. This was not done in the EAP analysis---the inundation maps shown there represent storm inputs, which actually peak long after the (fairly harmless, easily conveyed) modeled dam breach. Do ODNR guidelines allow us to target the differential-risk, rather than the full-storm risk? Barbara Shockey How many watersheds, in addition to Doan Brook, run through University Circle? Is there a way to reduce the size of the Lower Lake such that it exists only at the eastern end (towards the Nature Center) and does not touch the existing historic dam? Patty So, if the dam is removed, there's still water coming through the flood basin. With the inadequate culverts downstream, do they need attention? I'm thinking they're in the ravine. Peter Below the lower lake are embankments for, Coventry Road and Fairhill Road, plus a deep ravine, before water can reach University Circle. Would those affect flooding in the neighborhood? Christine Heggie To clarify, ODNR does not state dam must be removed, but reinforced/remedied, etc. correct? How much volume needs to be removed to make Lower Lake out of ODNR’s designated oversight? Also, is Green Lake in Shaker Heights a Class ll dam, and why Class ll, if it has potential downstream potential impacts? When was the most deterioration noted at Lower Lake dam - since what year, particularly after NEORSD stated it would fix the dam, approximately since 2018? Please provide current definitions of unsafe dam, small flood, large flood. Thank you. Garfield Park Lake - please compare the water volume to Lower Shaker Lake. Cook What is role of Roy Rogers damn? Does volume of silt factor in to volume? I understand LL is inky 2-3’ deep due to silt. Korbi Robert if a tier 3 wasn't done then how can you say lower lake is class 1. also the inundated report doesn't take into account the new DVT storage tunnel. Anonymous Attendee • Height of dam = 17.3 ft = Class IV • To clarify, ODNR does not state dam must be removed, but reinforced/remedied, etc. correct? How much volume needs to be removed to make Lower Lake out of ODNR’s designated oversight? Also, is Green Lake in Shaker Heights a Class ll dam, and why Class ll, if it has potential downstream potential impacts? When was the most deterioration noted at Lower Lake dam - since what year, particularly after NEORSD stated it would fix the dam, approximately since 2018? • Lower Shaker Lake (a Shaker mill pond) is part of a federally designated National Historic Place. Without the lake in its current footprint is the major historic artifact on this site and must be preserved, so an impoundment on the site would pose damage to the historic site that can't be mitigated. Moreover, an impoundment (with no flow in and out) would be prone to severe eutrophication. • Garfield Park Lake - please compare the water volume to Lower Shaker Lake. • Note that there was what could be called an emergency spillway on the north end of the dam. The construction of the bicycle station seems to have blocked it. This may have potential to be restored and used. • Please provide current definitions of unsafe dam, small flood, large flood. Thank you. • (Originally created by the Shakers) • Sheve Lake has an earthen dam, and ODNR did invest in this lake recently. Was the earthen dam there remediated, and if so, how? • Who is the owner of dam • What has been done to address the dam failure since 1979 when this issue was first brought up? • What will happen to the fish, rodents, and birds if the lake is drained? When will the draining take place? • You mentioned it would be expensive to meet the remediation requirements. Expensive is a relative term, the decision to remove the dam, repair the dam or modify it to exempt is a decision that the community should be allowed to decide. A large constituent of the community wants to retain the lake, its incumbent upon the cites to provide a proper analysis of the cost to make these changes. Why isn’t this brought to a vote?