Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident seeks village letter to support annexation of four Shriber Hill properties
Summary
A resident who said he was introduced as Mr. Scidowski and who self‑identified as "Robertski" asked Valley View council for a letter of acceptance to support annexing four properties on Shriber Hill into the village, saying dispatch and school funding would be more appropriate if those homes were part of Valley View.
A resident who the mayor introduced as "Mr. Scidowski" and who identified himself at the microphone as "Robertski" urged the Valley View village council on Jan. 6 to issue a letter of acceptance to support annexation of four properties on the top of Shriber Hill into Valley View.
Robertski told the council the four properties are surrounded by Maple Heights or Valley View and that, because they are currently part of Garfield Heights, Valley View emergency services sometimes have to travel through another city to reach them. He cited two specific dispatch/response incidents — a house fire on Aug. 1, 2023, and a May 20, 2025 incident he described involving people checking cars — to argue that mutual‑aid or dispatch did not reliably direct Garfield Heights resources and that annexation would clarify which department responds.
"If we were annexed into Valley View, there would be no question who's going to come up there and take care of us," he said, urging the council to consider how tax revenue and school funding could benefit Valley View if the properties were annexed.
Robertski said the property owners have now signed with "100% of the signatures" required and asked only for a letter of acceptance from the village. He cited Ohio annexation statutes by number (709.022 and 709.122) when describing the legal pathway and said previous attempts stalled when one owner declined to sell. He told the council he had discussed the proposal with the local school superintendent and earlier mayors and provided a packet and prior correspondence.
Council members said they would "digest" the request, noted there are "moving parts," and said they would discuss the proposal with Garfield Heights officials and the relevant school system before issuing any recommendation. One council member warned that mutual consent from both municipalities and affected parties can affect the process, and the mayor said the council would perform due diligence and return an answer.
The council did not vote on the annexation request at the meeting. The resident spoke during the public‑comment portion and left written materials with the clerk for further review.
