MINUTES
OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF
LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
12650 DETROIT AVENUE
SEPTEMBER 16, 2002
7:30 P.M.
Regular Meeting of the Lakewood City Council called to order at 7:30 P.M. by
President Seelie.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Moment of Silence
….
Present: Councilmembers Brian T. Corrigan, Denis P. Dunn, Edward FitzGerald,
Thomas J. George, Nancy J. Roth, Robert Mr. Seelie, Michael J. Skindell.
….
Also Present: Mayor Cain, Law Director Spellacy, Chief Malley, Finance Director
Blasko, Public Works Director Boag, Planning & Development Director Pietravoia,
Human Services Director Carey, Assistant Safety Director for the Division of
Building & Housing Gallagher.
….
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to approve the minutes of July
1, 2002.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
Without objection from Council items 10, 11,12, 8 and 9 (item 1), 13, 14 and 15 respectively are read first in the Agenda order.
Without objection from public comment is heard after item 15. Regular docket order is resumed.
****OLD BUSINESS****
1. Committee of the Whole Oral Report regarding Lakewood Association of Fire Fighters and Lakewood Paramedic Association Agreements.
Mr. Seelie reported the Committee of the Whole met that evening at 7:00 P.M. to discuss Ordinance 139-02 which he said was an agreement with the Lakewood Association of Firefighters, Local #382 and Ordinance 140-02, which was an agreement with the Lakewood Paramedic Association. He said that the Committee unanimously recommended adoption of both the ordinances.
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George to receive and file the oral report.
Motion Adopted. All Members of Council voting yea.
….
2. Public Safety Committee Oral Report regarding Community Notification System.
Mr. Dunn reported the Public Safety Committee met that night to discuss the Community Notification System. Mr. Dunn indicated that Councilman FitzGerald, Councilman Skindell Law Director Spellacy, and Chief Malley attended the meeting. He indicated that the Division of Police had received a grant of $23,820.00. He said that if approved, the money would go to emergency notification equipment. He said the new system would enable residents to be notified within minutes of an emergency, hazard event, or of an incident requiring evacuation. Mr. Dunn said that other applications included notification of construction in a neighborhood such as parking restrictions and regular safety checks for the elderly
Mr. Dunn said the City have the mechanism through a computer chip that would blast a voice mail message to all the residents of a circumstance that required immediate attention.
Mr. Dunn said there were several amendments to the ordinance that Law Director Spellacy would address. Mr. Corrigan asked if the equipment referred to was telephonic. Mr. Dunn replied it was.
Mr. Spellacy said one change was to insert the word “emergency” in the first section, and the second was to strike, “in order to start the police canine program” and insert, “in order to use the grant dollars before the end of the fiscal year” in the last “Whereas” clause.
Mr. Dunn indicated the members of the Public Safety Committee unanimously supported passage of the substitute ordinance.
Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive and file the oral report.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
3. ORDINANCE NO. 130-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE authorizing the Mayor,
as the Director of Public Safety, to enter into a contract with the lowest and
best bidder for an emergency community notification system in accordance with
the Administrative Code of the City of Lakewood. (PLEASE SUBSTITUTE FOR ORDINANCE
NO. 130-02 PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
7/15/02, PLACED ON 2ND READING 9/3/02).(Pg. 5)
Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. Seelie to adopt Ordinance No. 130-02 as substituted.
Yeas: Corrigan, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie, Skindell.
Nays: None
Ordinance No. 130–02 adopted as substituted.
....
4. ORDINANCE NO. 136-02 – AN ORDINANCE to amend section 303.99, Penalties,
of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood. (PLACED ON 1ST READING &
REFERRED TO THE RULES & ORDINANCES COMMITTEE & LAW DEPARTMENT 9/3/02)(Pg.
7)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 136-02 on Second Reading and refer it back to the Rules & Ordinances Committee and Law Department.
Mr. George indicated Ordinance No. 136-02 was what he and Mr. Seelie brought forward at the last meeting to double the fines for speeding on residential streets. Mr. George said he talked with Mr. Spellacy that day and learned the Law Department was reviewing the ordinance and that he looked forward to further review in the Rules & Ordinances Committee in the near future.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
5. ORDINANCE NO. 138-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE authorizing the Mayor or her designee to enter into an agreement with Virginia Marti Inc., d.b.a. Virginia Marti College for participation in the Lakewood Business Investment Program (BIP) of the Economic Development Fund (EDF) for a five (5) year forgivable loan in an amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for costs associated with the redevelopment and renovation of the property located at 11726-28 Detroit Avenue and 1385-87 Hird Avenue (PP# 312-33-017) Lakewood, Ohio. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 9/3/02)(Pg. 11)
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Skindell, to place Ordinance No. 138-02 on Second Reading and refer it to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
6. Report from the Planning Commission; July 30, 2002 Referral from City Council
Regarding the West End Community Development Plan. (Pg. 13)
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Dunn, to receive, file and refer this report to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. FitzGerald commented to Mr. Pietravoia that the communication indicated that it was different from a separate proposal which would be forthcoming from CenterPoint Properties. Mr. FitzGerald said that the communication reported that proposal would be an actual mixed-use commercial, residential development process and asked what the difference was between this communication and the eventual proposal that would come from them.
Mr. Peitravoia responded that the community development for the west end encompassed a larger area than the CenterPoint proposal. He said that the CenterPoint proposal primarily included the properties on the western most edge of the City. He said that the Community Development Plan entailed properties from Riverside including Detroit and areas toward the Rocky River Bridge. Mr. Peitravoia said that the CenterPoint proposal itself was a real development project. He said it was a plan document and that it proposed uses and action to accomplish those uses for the west end.
Mr. FitzGerald asked what would have to be passed by Council if eminent domain was used to further the project and if the document before them authorized that in any way.
Mr. Pietravoia said that the document before them would set the stage for a public purpose in order to take actions to accomplish the plan proposed in the document itself.
Mr. FitzGerald asked if that included eminent domain, if it was correct that the document would then set up a public purpose, which was a requirement to use eminent domain.
Mr. Pietravoia said the document accomplished several purposes, including proposals for zoning changes, financial tools to help accomplish revitalization and redevelopment, and that there could also be a need for the acquisition of land or the disposition of land contained in the document.
Mr. FitzGerald said if he was right in understanding the way eminent domain worked was the City had to declare a public purpose it could be used as a legal device.
Mr. Pietravoia said that that was correct.
Mr. FitzGerald said he understood document did more than provide for that but asked if it provided for eminent domain as a public purpose.
Mr. Pietravoia indicated that was one of the potential public purposes. He said that there would also need to be a series of separate actions and legislation by City Council. He said adoption of this plan alone would not be the only action necessary to pursue acquisition of land which he said was provided for in both the Code and the Charter.
Mr. FitzGerald asked if a cost to the City had been estimated for one year, five years and ten years.
Mr. Pietravoia responded that a financial, feasibility analysis was in progress for the CenterPoint proposal specifically. He said he wanted to make the distinction between the recommendations for the entire study that were in the plan versus the CenterPoint proposal. He said the analysis was planned to be brought to the public as soon as it was completed. He said he recognized the importance of demonstrating to Council and the citizenry the feasibility of the proposal and financing tools that would be used.
Mr. FitzGerald asked when City Council would receive an estimate of the cost to the City on just the CenterPoint portion of the west end development and Mr. Pietravoia replied over the course of the next two weeks. Mr. FitzGerald asked if there were ever conversations that Council should have the cost before it took a vote on it.
Mr. Pietravoia indicated that it was the intent that Council would have sufficient information before it took a vote on the document. He said he did want to emphasize that by voting on the present document Council was not voting on the specific project. He said they were clearly related but that they were not one and the same.
Mr. FitzGerald said the last time the City did something similar to the proposed project was the Lakewood City Center, Marcs Project. He said that it was his understanding that there were many in favor of the project and that now even those people have been disappointed with the way the project turned out. Mr. FitzGerald said he thought the project never fulfilled the promises that were made or met expectations. He asked if, during the review of the present project, and retaining a firm, the city went back to look at the City Center project to see what went wrong there. He asked if there was anything about how that project was done that could teach some lessons about the way this project was being pursued.
Mr. Pietravoia indicated he was aware of many complicated factors involved in the City Center project. He said there had not been a detailed review of that project but that it could be done as part of the process. He said that one of the items that would come before Council and on any project of this scale was a development agreement. He said a development agreement would spell out a variety of obligations on the part of the developer and the City. Mr. Pietravoia said that one of the obligations would be a reference to the retail mix expected as part of the project; the type of anchors and specific store types. He clarified that it would not be store names but store types. He said that the development agreement would be used to ensure that what is being proposed today as a concept is what would be seen in reality upon completion of the project.
Mr. FitzGerald said that he has indicated for a long time that that area of town was a good target for development. He said that he used to live in one of the high rises targeted for redevelopment and said he thinks he understands the neighborhood. He said that he lives now within a tenth of a mile of the footprint area. Mr. FitzGerald said that he thought what went wrong with the Lakewood Town Center Project was that all the benefits were given ahead of time and none of the downsides at the time. He said that the problem he had with the way the project is proceeding so far is that the benefits of the project, specifically the hoped for increase in property tax but not the cost to the City. He said that he thinks it has been a mistake to give one without the other. He said that he would not rule out supporting it in the future but said he did not like starting the discussion that way.
Mr. Skindell asked if the report had to be accompanied with legislation either ordinance or resolution, what is the process of adoption of that legislation – if it took three readings, what is required by ordinances, Charter or state law, federal law with regard to public hearing, how does that notice go out to the public.
Mr. Pietravoia responded that the process would entail an ordinance that would be introduced to Council in order to adopt the findings of the study officially it has to be done legislatively. He said that is through an ordinance that would require three full readings of Council. He said that during that full three reading process there would be a public hearing that is required by Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances to be held by city Council. Mr. Pietravoia said that the Code is very specific as to how that notice is put out to the public in general. He said that it requires two ads to be run in the local newspaper two consecutive weeks in a row seven days apart, notifying the time, place, purpose and details on what will be discussed that evening. He said those will take place as they work with Council President Seelie and the rest of the Members of Council to set a date. He said that the ads will be published two weeks in a row in advance of the meeting. He said that Council holding one public hearing would be a minimum requirement.
Mr. Skindell asked that besides the ads in the newspaper if there was a process to provide a written notice to each of the property owners in the footprint area.
Mr. Pietravoia said that at Council’s urging at the last meeting notify all the people who signed up at the community meetings received a written notice of the Planning Commission in hearing and that they would do the same for the Council hearing.
Mayor Cain said public statements had been made at meetings and in the newspaper relative to the financial impact the project would have on the City. She said as an example the question of tax abatement had arisen at every public meeting and that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) had been discussed. She said at public hearings they tried to make clear the goal was not to have taxpayers pay for costs associated with the TIF, public right of way improvements or legal costs for the West End Project.
She said that any costs incurred would be part of the “TIF” and that taxpayers of the City of Lakewood would not pay for anything in the project that benefited the project. She said that developers and owners of the project would pay taxes based on the increased value of the property after improvements and those dollars would pay for the improvements. She said the TIF was designed under state code specifically for communities not in a position to subsidize. She said that some communities in the Cleveland area had used millions of their General Fund dollars to purchase and land bank properties for development. She said Lakewood was not in a position to do that.
Mayor Cain said the TIF provided a community such as Lakewood with many development challenges the opportunity to develop and that the future and health of the community demanded redevelopment. She said that a TIF was the only way that a community like Lakewood could encourage significant reinvestment in the City and at the same time protect property owners in the City. She said the citizens were not going to pay for the project.
Mayor Cain said the anticipated growth in personal property tax was also talked about publicly. She said that was based on what was seen in other communities after similar types of development had been completed. She said the good thing about the property tax is that it was not impacted by 920 so schools would get money and see growth in those dollars year after year. She said that was contrary to what was experienced with real estate property. She addressed Mr. FitzGerald stating that public comments had been made to keep the public apprised of their thought process and that they wanted to reassure the public that they were not going to do anything to put at risk the current tax burden which she stated was significant enough. She said that they were trying to reduce that tax burden.
A resident spoke in favor of redevelopment stating that Lakewood’s size made redevelopment the only possibility because she said it could not expand. She said she was satisfied that thoughtful review was taking place, that tough questions were being asked by Council and that the Planning and Development Director and staff were proceeding in an able and competent fashion. She said historically large projects attracted a lot of attention and sited as examples the Lake Avenue high rises and Interstate 90. She said that people do not generally complain of these projects today. The resident said the West End project was an economically creative way to maintain Lakewood’s quality of life while maintaining a balance of economics. She said that problems with unemployment, Lakewood residents out of work from LTV Steel or Continental Airlines were reasons to seek what she stated was alternative revenue stream..
Another resident indicated that he talked with people from Shaker Square and found there was overwhelming support for their project. He said the only negative feedback he heard was that the price per square foot to rent space in the area had gone up. He said that that was not necessarily a bad thing. He said he took issue with what he termed as rumors that Shaker Square had failed because the store; Wild Oats had left. He said that an attorney was circulating misleading information to Lakewood residents for his own personal reasons. He read from a Supreme Court ruling suspending the attorney from practicing law in Ohio. He said that most of the negative remarks about CenterPoint Developers came from that one individual. He said that the balance of Shaker Square is 100% leased and its sales are above $350.00 per square foot.
An Arden Avenue resident indicated that he was a life-time resident and his parents were born and raised here. He said that in as much as he was emotionally tied his and his parents home and would hate to see a developer come and take it away, he supported redevelopment. He said he was concerned with the community as a whole and said that the City could not afford to pass up a good development opportunity. He said that some people don’t realize that this wasn’t s the only development that could come to that area. He said Lakewood could get something much worse three years from now such as big box stores. He said that this was a critical point in Lakewood’s future, that the redevelopment would create a more stable economic climate. He said Lakewood needed a greater balance between commercial and residential property as well as between a renter and owner ratio. He said the present ratio was unfavorable to the community. He said Lakewood does not gentrify the community and historically fights efforts to do that. He said the only way Lakewood can stay stable was to have a reasonable top end and a healthy middle end to support those who are moving up in the world. He said that staying the same was not an option.
He referred to a Professor Beyer from Cleveland State who he said was an objective, nationally renowned scholar on urban development. He said the professor said there was a need for inner ring suburbs to redevelop and him as saying, “If we don’t take redevelopment into our own hands somebody will do it for us and then it will simply be a steady, slow deterioration”.
The resident said he understood Council could not initiate a project but that it could block one or could push one forward. He said that in the short term Councilmembers would receive less criticism by defeating the project but said in the long run members would need to be held accountable to at least their own consciences as to the children’s future, and the long term stability of the Lakewood community. He said that he believed if Council looked far in the future or in the near future and not just to the next election cycle that it would conclude the project would be good for the community.
Another resident said she was from a second generation Lakewood. She said a recent visit in Cincinnati showed a similar project as the one proposed from CenterPoint. She said she spent an entire afternoon with three sets of parents and children and enjoyed shopping, getting ice cream and eating lunch. She said nobody was bored.
Another resident said he was still learning about the project but was in favor of Lakewood going in the direction of the proposal and urged Council to be open-minded and encouraged them to ask further questions.
Another resident opposed the plan stating that she had publicly stated her opposition many times during the past year and a half. She said that it was obvious that no matter what residents had expressed the plan continued to be pushed forward. She said she had questions regarding the Northeast Ohio First Suburbs Consortium that was prepared by the Main Street Construction back in January of 2001. She said there were ten communities involved; Bedford, Cleveland Heights, Euclid, Garfield Heights, Lakewood, Maple Heights, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, University Heights and Warrensville Heights. She asked if any of the ten communities had reached the stage Lakewood was at or if Lakewood was the pilot study.
Mayor Cain responded that Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights and to her knowledge Bedford were pursuing projects. The resident asked if any reached the level Lakewood reached. Mayor Cain responded she couldn’t speak to some of the cities but understood Shaker Heights was at least at the same level as Lakewood. She said there were at least two separate projects there.
The resident said there were five phases outlined in the study and said the first one was research, second strategic implication, third was education, fourth strategic planning and fifth – implementation. She said that the first two phases had already been completed but that the third phase had not. She said that in the third phase under education consensus building it said; “following completion and the presentation of the final report” which she said she believed was being done tonight, “the Mainstreet Connections has proposed a series of seminars to be conducted regionally or in each individual community as requested by the Consortium members. A wide range of seminar topics is available and has been suggested to assist retailers, property owners, community representatives and citizen groups in their efforts to revitalize their individual businesses, properties and commercial districts”. She said she didn’t see that being done.
Mayor Cain responded that this was done and that the section was in reference to the Mainstsreet Study. Mayor Cain said that what was before City Council that night was a separate study.
The resident continued reading from a section of a study that addressed efforts to revitalize individual businesses and properties through retailers, property owners, and community representatives and citizens groups. She said she has never been informed of that taking place.
Mayor Cain said there were meetings held throughout those suburban areas indicated in the Mainstreet Study and that included Lakewood. She said the consultant who did the Mainstreet Study for Lakewood was present for those meetings and in addition to that the Planning Commission held public hearings.
The resident asked if people were individually offered opportunities to improve their businesses and properties.
Mayor Cain said there was notification, and meetings were held in each of the areas targeted by the Mainstsreet Study. She said one meeting was held at the church at the Madison/Hilliard triangle.
The resident indicated she attended every meeting and didn’t see where anyone had been offered any opportunity to improve their property to avoid having this project.
Mayor Cain said the CPR program came out of the process and that two examples included the renovation of the front of Geigers and First Federal.
The resident referred to a section about the west end strengths in the summary that highlighted historic, distinctive buildings. She said the report also indicated there was a direct and accessible pedestrian walkway in place, although, heavy traffic hindered pedestrian activity. She asked how a pedestrian walkway would be achieved should the plan go into effect if here was going to be 265 condominium units just on Sloane alone.
Planning & Development Director Pietravoia responded that one of the steps being looked at was what CenterPoint was proposing to address traffic in general and how they would improve the public right of way for pedestrians. The resident asked how it would be done and Mr. Pietravoia said it would be accomplished through the actual redevelopment of the area. He said the project itself would entail public improvements, which he said included improving the pedestrian connections between the different areas in the study area.
The resident said that listed in the west end strengths was the area’s charming and successful mixed-use area. She asked if this was so, why the area needed to be leveled and re-built.
Mr. Pietravoia said if the resident read further the study also indicated a significant potential for revitalization and redevelopment in the area. He said that of all the areas studied by Mainstreet consultants that this one was considered to be the most significant potential for revitalization. He said doing this by fixing what was there, improving upon it, strengthening, redeveloping and in some areas starting over from scratch.
A Rio Drive resident referenced housing strategies in the downtown area which if successful she said could spread east in the City. She asked if renovating upper floors in downtown buildings to unique apartments marketed to empty-nesters, young professionals and the aging population was something the City would realize in the future?
She said that the City had painted itself into a corner stating if it backed down now it was political suicide. She asked where the light at the end of the tunnel was for those losing their homes. She said if the project proceeded as it had gone on so far and if it fails she and other would have lost their property for nothing. She said she disagreed with the mayor and believed the taxpayers would be baring the brunt of the responsibility. She said if the project moved forward she will be able to provide for that next community that she lives in a role model because she said Lakewood would be losing more than a whole lot of people but the heart of what a community is all about.
A Gridley Avenue resident mentioned her request for a feasibility study had not been forthcoming. She provided a packet of pictures and indicated bottlenecks just outside the footprint of the project. She asked how much more private property would be needed to improve traffic circulation. She asked how the congestion problems in Rocky River would be solved. She asked how people would be prevented from using Sloane Subway (area under railroad) – as a cut-through to avoid traffic congestion on Detroit. She asked about the stability of the cliff along the southern border of the proposed project and how demolition, construction and vegetation removal would affect the cliff. She asked how the public would be protected from falling to the river. She stated that the river was undercutting the entire southern border and asked how further erosion would be prevented. She asked how much money the taxpayers would be asked to spend to stabilize the cliff and to provide safety measures for the public.
She asked the cost to install a retaining wall she said would be needed after vegetation was removed - at the river’s edge - the west side of Sloane to stabilize the hillside. She asked about the general environmental consequences of building on the southern rim of the development and into the hillside on Sloane. She said that the Rocky River is quickly becoming an urban stream. She asked what Lakewood was doing to protect the River as a natural resource.
She said the feasibility study needed to be completed now. She said that the cost analysis and the traffic studies could not run parallel because they could prove that the project is not feasible. She asked if it may be the City’s intention to delay the studies until the City has no choice but to continue the project no matter the cost or its feasibility. She concluded that the Hartt Report indicated that a single entity owner would be best for the area. She said that meant the message was that private ownership of property causes blight and that many private owners in one area make it impossible to facilitate redevelopment. She said that concept is un-American.
A Rio Avenue resident indicated there was confusion surrounding the improvements to the City and the specific project from CenterPoint. She said the theory was that everyone would sell their properties to the private developer so that they could take over and build as opposed to what’s in the best interest of the City. She said her property was not for sale to CenterPoint Developers. She asked why there was no plan for West 117th. She said that her area was comprised of professional and retired persons who keep and maintain their property even when their status has been unclear. She said that there were businesses in the area and that help was needed in generating more businesses. She said that businesses toward 117th on Madison and Detroit needed to be improved. She asked if other areas were looked at for development and why the City wanted to develop an area that was already functioning well.
A Resident referred to two work sessions and asked when they were held. Mr. Pietravoia indicated one was August 27th the other held shortly after the City Council referred the item to the Planning Commission. The resident asked if all members were there and Mr. Pietravoia indicated he would have to check the minutes but that he believed a majority of the members were present. The resident asked if a work session was a public meeting and the Law Director responded that it was. The Resident said the work session was not noticed and the Law Director indicated that it was his understanding that work sessions were noticed to the media, the Council and all directors. He said the process for notification was the same that had predated him and members of Council and that it also complied with Ohio Revised Code Section 121. The resident asked if it was advertised and Law Director Spellacy responded that the section did not require it.
The resident said that he had asked for minutes of the meeting and was told there were none. Law Director Spellacy indicated Ohio Revised Code Section 121 and Codified Ordinances 107 and 109 related to the issue.
Another resident said that at one meeting a private meeting was mentioned. Mr. Pietravoia responded that the phrase was work session, not private session. And the resident asked if those were open to the public. Mr. Pietravoia responded that those meetings are always open to the public.
A Clifton Avenue resident said he agreed the area needed development and urged Council to do more than the minimum notification of meetings regarding meetings.
Mr. Seelie indicated that there was a motion on the floor to receive, file and refer the item to the Committee of the Whole. He indicated that a meeting on the issue could be held in two weeks. Mr. Skindell indicated the Planning Department was going to bring forward the piece of legislation that corresponded with the report and said it would be best for Council to meet after that was brought forward.
Mr. Seelie asked when the first opportunity would be for Planning to provide all the information in a presentation regarding the financial, legal, logistical aspects of the development. Mr. Pietravoia said that they were presently preparing the information and hoped to come to Council over the next few weeks. Mr. Pietravoia said that the issue Mr. Skindell brought up could be addressed separately from the referral from the Planning Commission, that it wasn’t necessary for Council to have that piece of legislation to hold the public hearings. He said it could happen before or after that legislation was introduced.
Mr. Seelie asked Mr. Pietravoia if the questions brought up by the residents and Council would be more than likely answered in the next two weeks. Mr. Pietravoia responded that the logistics involved with the time needed to run the ads that he expected three to four weeks would be necessary. Mr. Seelie indicated that Council would have a meeting for a more in-depth review of the project. He said tonight’s meeting was to receive and file and refer the item to the Committee of the Whole. He said a future meeting would include how the Development would look, the financial pieces involved and some legal questions. He said the Administration would have to sell to Council beyond a reasonable doubt that the project was a good one to pursue.
Mr. George indicated he had a lot of questions and that he had been asking Director Pietravoia for five or six months for financial information concerning the project. He indicated that he too was in favor of moving the City forward and supported development but said it was clear to him and others who mentioned it that the targeted area for improvement should be around 117th street. He said in future meetings there would be questions about finances, how commitments to this project could hinder the ability to fund future projects along West 117th, the tax revenues, etc.
Mr. George said he was present during the City Center Project and stated that the City got what it could afford. He said it may be called an unsuccessful project in many ways but he said there was Coral Development who owns it was pleased. He said the places are packed and they’re getting a good rent from them. He said that developers don’t always have the same interests as the City as far as aesthetics and development and what the spin off may be. He said there needed to be mindfulness that the interest of the City, the residents of the City would be served.
Mr. Dunn indicated he wanted to speak to the process. He said that tonight Council would refer the item to the Committee of the Whole. He said that that was the next logical step but did not mean that the project was inevitable. Mr. Dunn said there was a lot of work that needed to be done and voices that needed to be heard. He said that he had a lot of questions and after listening to some of the comments he had even more questions. He indicated that he anticipates Council would provide the strictest scrutiny to the project. He said that it is his opinion right now that the project was still conceptual. He said that he had the opportunity to walk the area and found that a lot of people agreed that Lakewood needed economic development, that they needed a vibrant commercial sectors, but indicated concern over details. He said that details needed to be forthcoming before Council could make any decision. Mr. Dunn said he was only going to support a good project.
Mr. Seelie called the motion to receive, file and refer to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
****NEW BUSINESS****
7. Communication from Councilmember FitzGerald regarding Recreation Commission. (Pg. 15)
Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Ms. Roth, to receive, file and refer this communication to the Health & Human Services Committee.
Mr. FitzGerald indicated he talked with Erin Fach from the Board of Education about the proposal and that he said he was open for discussion about it. He said he didn’t anticipate that the Commission could force any structure or new programs on any of the parties involved with recreation but that he did think the time has come to take a look at it. He said the situation with the soccer program where there was about 1,000 participants and the program was almost cancelled and is only being run by volunteers who are becoming exhausted. He said other situations in other sporting and recreational activities that deserve review. He said that he had talked with people involved in soccer who indicated interest in participating in meetings. Mr. FitzGerald said that he talked with Mr. Dunn and that when public hearings began on the issue that Members of Council and Members of the Administration were welcome to participate.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
8. Communication from Councilmember George regarding Cargill Deicing Technology Strikers. (Pg. 16)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Skindell, to receive and file this communication.
Mr. George acknowledged people in attendance who asked to speak to the issue of the Cargill Company’s practice during a strike. Mr. George indicated that Lakewood residents through family members or friends were affected by the situation facing Cargill employees. He indicated Cargill Salt as one of the world’s largest corporations. Mr. George referred to a 1980 book titled; The Merchants of Grain, by Dan Morgan which referenced Cargill. He said that the book relates how Cargill has monopolized grain production in the upper Midwest; North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and into Canada, Saskatchewan, Manitoba by ruthless practices at the grain elevator level. He said that this way the company could control the supply of grain to Pillsbury and General Mills and other large grain manufacturers. Mr. George said that the same type of practice has been used since the company came into control of the salt mines. He said Cargill has ruthlessly let go over 140 people. He said it was learned that the 26 the Company allowed to come back have been training replacement worker. He said that the Company had failed even when the strikers came back and offered terms that had been agreed to previously.
Mr. George said that he was contacted by Councilman Cintron’s office from Cleveland and said there was a rally last week in front of Cleveland City Hall, and Councilmen Matt Zone, Nelson Cintron, Martin Sweeney and other Cleveland City Councilmembers and passed a resolution in support of the employees. He said a letter was read by Congressman Kucinich who pledged support and took the issue further by challenging to investigate it fully at the federal love. State Senator Robert Hagan was there in support and he urged Governor Taft not to purchase road salt from Cargill until the matter was resolved. Mr. George said that Councilman DeGeeter from Parma is introducing a similar resolution. Mr. George indicated to the people present that the Council and the City of Lakewood had a strong record of support for workers everywhere. He said that he was pleased to have the issue on the agenda.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
9. RESOLUTION NO. 7691-02 – A RESOLUTION urging Cargill Deicing Technology
to restore former strikers to their rightful jobs, urging the mayor of the City
of Cleveland to refrain from purchasing salt from Cargill until the former strikers
are returned to their jobs, and urging the federal government to investigate
Cargill’s compliance with federal laws and regulations. (Pg. 17)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Skindell, to amend the Resolution to include the City of Lakewood and add to the recipients the name Governor Bob Taft
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. George, to adopt Resolution No. 7691-02 as amended.
Mr. Gary M. Tiboni, President of Teamsters Local #436 spoke stating that five years ago Cargill bought the mine from Axil Salt. He said the first action they did after purchasing the mine was fire all the miners that were employed there at the time. He said that because they hired back 51% of them that brought about the creation of automatically of Union Local #436. He the Local went in to negotiate a new labor agreement. Mr. Tiboni said the next thing Cargill did was cut the wages of all the salt miners by $3.00 an hour. He said that during the negotiation process which he said lasted four to five months, the hourly rates were renegotiated back into the bargaining agreement. He said that employees lost some benefits such as loss of complete seniority rights, sub-contracting issues, safety issues, the right to bid on specific jobs and scheduling issues. Mr. Tiboni said there normally was a work week scheduled from Monday through Friday and that Cargill had a flexible work week. He said employees tried to work with the company for five years and it didn’t work. He said miners had no way of determining when they would be off or on. He said employees are family people and would like to know when they could plan things with their families.
Mr. Tiboni said that after a number of meetings with Cargill a final proposal from them was provided in which he said did not address employee concerns. He said a strike occurred on May 6. He said the employees were out for fourteen weeks. He said during that time they met with the Company and had a federal mediator on numerous occasions. He said while the strike was going on the Company was continually bringing in closed vans under security guards. He said that when asked who the individuals were, they were told that they were temporary replacements and subcontractors to finish the job that was started by the miners when they struck. Mr. Tiboni said that was repeated to him on more than one occasion in front of the federal mediator. He said he was concerned that the Company was headed in the direction of replacing employees. He said he met with Cargill last on August 12 in front of the federal mediator again. He said at that time there was no movement made. He said that it became apparent to him that the parties would go back to work and talk with employees back at work. He said the miners voted unanimously to go back to work on August 13 unconditionally. He said that meant going back to work under the old agreement with no conditions. He said at first Cargill took the position that they were going to lock the employees out. He said that later that same evening he was notified that Cargill was allowing miners back to work but he said the Company wanted until Monday August 19 to reset the scheduling for the returning workers.
He said on the 14th the Union met the miners who were prepared to come back to work unconditionally, that the strike was over and that they would go back to work on the 19th. He said between the Friday 16th and the morning of Monday the 19th; the Company notified the Union as well as all of the miners here that they had replaced their job and were only going to bring back 26 of the striking miners and that they had permanently replaced 83 miners. He said at no time during the negotiation process did they indicate the replacement of 83 miners. He said the Company hid the fact from the miners and he indicated one way it did this was to advertise for miners in out of state or far western Ohio newspapers such as Kentucky, West Virginia, Sandusky.
He said that as early as that day the Union has offered to go back to work under the same proposal the Company offered 15 or 16 weeks ago. He said that offer was proposed to them at 1:30 that afternoon. He said the company told them at 4:00 PM it would not consider bringing the union employees back. He said they could have answered with that answer immediately after it had been asked.
Mr. Tiboni said that he understood the biggest users of salt were Cleveland, Lakewood and Parma and asked for Council’s support.
The motion was called.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
Mr. Skindell asked how much salt is purchased in the City and what cost. Mr. Boag indicated that the average is about 6,000 tons. Mr. Skindell said that he believed that cost to be approximately $250,000. Mr. Boag said that each year $220,000 plus is budgeted for salt. Mr. Boag said there was carry over at times depending on the winter. Mr. Skindell asked if most of that came from Cargill and Mr. Boag said that the City purchased under state contract. Mr. Boag said that he called the state in response to Mr. George’s letter and the state had not reached a contract yet and said it would not release any information on that at this time.
Mr. Skindell indicated he would urge the state to stop purchasing from Cargill.
….
10. Communication from Mayor Cain regarding Fire Prevention Week and Lakewood Firefighters Memorial Day. (Pg. 18)
Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. George, to receive and file this communication.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
11. RESOLUTION NO. 7692-02 – A RESOLUTION honoring America’s Firefighters
who have made the supreme sacrifice while carrying out their duties of our nation
and its communities. (Pg. 19)
Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. George, to adopt Resolution No. 7692-02.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
12. RESOLUTION NO. 7693-02 – A RESOLUTION calling upon the citizens of
Lakewood to participate in fire prevention activities at home, work and school,
and to heed the message: “Team Up for Fire Safety!” as the 2002
Fire Prevention Week theme suggests. (Pg. 20)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Skindell, to adopt Resolution No. 7693-02.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
13. Communication from Law Director Spellacy regarding Lakewood Association
of Fire Fighters and Lakewood Paramedic Association Agreements. (Pg. 21)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive and file this communication.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
14. ORDINANCE NO. 139-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE authorizing the Mayor of the City of Lakewood, Ohio, to enter into an Agreement with the Lakewood Association of Firefighters, Local #382 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO for a three year period commencing January 1, 2001. (Pg. 22)
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George, to suspend the rules requiring this ordinance be read on three separate days and placing Ordinance No. 139-02 on final reading.
Yeas: Corrigan, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie, Skindell.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Rules suspended.
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George, to adopt Ordinance No. 139-02.
Yeas: Corrigan, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie, Skindell.
Nays: None
Motion adopted.
….
15. ORDINANCE NO. 140-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE authorizing the Mayor of the City of Lakewood, Ohio, to enter into an Agreement with the Lakewood Paramedic Association for a three year period commencing January 1, 2001. (Pg. 23)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to suspend the rules requiring this ordinance be read on three separate days and placing Ordinance No. 140-02 on final reading.
Yeas: Corrigan, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie, Skindell.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Rules suspended.
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George, to adopt Ordinance No. 140-02.
Yeas: Corrigan, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie, Skindell.
Nays: None
Motion adopted.
….
16. Communication from Finance Director Blasko regarding 2003 Tax Budget. (Pg. 24)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive, file and refer this communication to the Finance Committee.
Mr. George indicated notice of a public hearing for the tax budget would need to be made.
Ms. Roth referred to a document item that night on page 39 which she said added approximately $800,000 to expenditures and also asked about the union contracts as to if they were included in the present tax budget.
Mayor Cain stated that it was not an appropriations but was contracting authority.
Finance Director Blasko said that item 25 on the docket indicated that all the items were appropriated and that they were not asking for an increase in appropriation.
Ms. Roth asked if that meant there were no additional dollars involved and Director Blasko indicated she was correct.
Ms. Roth asked if the contracts were accounted for and Director Blasko said the contracts were within the budget in 2003. Ms. Roth said that there the budget is showing decreases in fund balances and that she anticipated talking further on that in Committee. Director Blasko agreed.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
17. RESOLUTION NO. 7694-02 – AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION approving the Tax Budget of the City of Lakewood, State of Ohio for the year 2003, and authorizing the filing of same with the Auditor of Cuyahoga County. (Pg. 25)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Resolution No. 7694-02 on 1st Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.
Motion adopted. Six members voting yea.
Mr. Dunn absent from table
….
18. Communication from Public Works Director Boag regarding State Issue 2 Infrastructure
Bond Program – Belle Avenue Rehabilitation. (Pg. 26)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to receive, file and refer this communication to the Public Works Committee.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
19. RESOLUTION NO. 7695-02 – AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION authorizing the Mayor, for and on behalf of the City, to seek financial assistance from the State Issue Two Infrastructure Bond Program for funding of the 2003 Belle Avenue Rehabilitation Program. (Pg. 27)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Resolution No. 7695-02 on First Reading and refer it to the Public Works Committee.
Mr. George expressed appreciation to Public Works Director Boag and Planning & Development Director Pietravoia regarding Belle Avenue. He said the condition of Belle has been in severely poor shape for a long time. He also indicated he appreciated the innovation used in the approach for funding.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
20. Communication from Planning & Development Director Pietravoia regarding
Proposal to Amend the Improvement Target Area to Include Belle Avenue north
of Detroit Avenue. (Pg. 29)
Motion by George, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to receive, file and refer this communication to the Public Works Committee.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
21. RESOLUTION NO. 7696-02 – A RESOLUTION approving the Amended Improvement Target Area for the City of Lakewood, Ohio. (Pg. 31)
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George, to place Resolution No. 7696-02 on First Reading and refer it to the Public Works Committee.
Mr. Corrigan asked if there was any timeline regarding action needed on the Resolution. Mr. Pietravoia responded that unlike the Issue II legislation there was no deadline for the present legislation. He said that it would be advanced from the CAC to Council after their September 26th meeting. He said that both CAC and Council need to take action and that first Council would need the CAC report.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
22. Communication from Human Services Director Carey regarding Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Funds. (Pg. 34)
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George, to receive, file and refer this communication to the Health & Human Services Committee.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
23. RESOLUTION NO. 7697-02 – A RESOLUTION authorizing the Director of the Department of Human Services, on behalf of the City, to enter into an Agreement with the Cuyahoga County Office of Criminal Justice Services to accept and expend funds for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program (JAIBG). (Pg. 35)
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George, to refer Resolution No. 7697-02 to the Health & Human Services Committee.
What date of the deadline was asked of Director Carey and she responded that the sooner the legislation was passed the sooner the City could proceed with back charges for the amount of the $23,740 which she said would result in a savings to the General Fund
Mr. Seelie asked if the Resolution did not pass that night if the City would lose out on anything and Director Carey said it would not.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
24. ORDINANCE NO. 141-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE to increase appropriations
for current expenses and other expenditures of the City of Lakewood, State of
Ohio, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002. (Pg. 36)
Motion by Mr. Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 141-02 on First Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
25. Communication from Finance Director Blasko regarding Amendment to Ordinance
No: 59-01. (Pg. 37)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive, file and refer this communication to the Finance Committee.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
26. ORDINANCE NO. 59-01A – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 59-01, adopted December 17, 2001, to increase contracting authority for Lakewood Jail Medical Services, Hospitalization and Health Care Benefit Services, Financial Accounting Management Consulting, Tax Collection Service, Medical Claims Billing Service, Sentenced Prisoners Full Jail Service, Property and Liability Insurance Contracts and Financial Institutions Service Charges; to add contracting authority for Fixed Asset Valuation (GASB-34) and a Marketing Study for Winterhurst and authorizing the Mayor (Director of Public Safety), the Director of Public Works, the Director of Law, the Director of Finance, and/or the Procurement Officer to enter into contracts for professional services, and to advertise for bids and enter into contracts for the purchase or repair maintenance and operating supplies, services and equipment as authorized by the 2002 Appropriation Ordinance and the Administrative Code of the City of Lakewood with the lowest and best bidder or bidders or as otherwise provide by law. (Pg. 38)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 59-01A on First Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
27. Communication from Finance Director Blasko regarding Estimated Tax Filing
Threshold. (Pg. 43)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive, file and refer this communication to the Finance Committee.
Ms. Roth said that the sooner money is received the better it is for the organization and asked if anybody looked at that financially.
Director Blasko indicated that the proposal is a strategy to decrease the City’s RITA fee. She said that if someone owed $10.00 the RITA sends out a statement quarterly. She said they blend that rate when they determine what they will charge the City for their services. She said that blended rate on the transaction fee raises the City’s portion of RITA’s cost passed onto the City. She said it was a way to decrease charges passed onto the City.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
28. ORDINANCE NO. 142-02 – AN ORDINANCE to amend section 128.1303, Declarations of Income Not Collected at Source, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood for the purpose of increasing the threshold at which tax payers are required to file a declaration and to pay estimated taxes from ten dollars ($10.00) to one hundred dollars ($100.00) (Pg. 44)
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 142-02 on First Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
29. Liquor Permit Application for C1 and C2 transfers to MACS Convenience Stores LLC d/b/a Dairy Mart 5249, 15019 Madison Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio 44107 from Lawson Co 4703, same address. (Pg. 46)
Mr. Dunn indicated the investigation is ongoing and asked that the item be deferred.
Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to defer action on this item.
Ms. Roth indicated the deadline on the liquor permit was October 7th and asked if an extension had been requested. Mr. Spellacy indicated that extensions were requested for both liquor permit applications.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
30. Liquor Permit Application for C1 C2 transfers to MACX Convenience Stores LLC d/b/a Dairy Mart #5247 12500 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood Ohio 44107 from Lawson Co 4714 same address. (Pg. 48)
Mr. Dunn indicated the deadline for Council’s response had been extended.
Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to defer action on this item.
Mr. George indicated he understood that an outcome had been reached from a prior Council action with the State Liquor Board. Mr. Spellacy indicated that the City was not successful in the Subs and Suds. He stated that one of the shareholders had a criminal record and that shareholder was taken off of the corporate records indicating he would simply be an employee. He said the City maintained its objection.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
Mr. Seelie said that some sidewalks are being marked that are perfectly normal. Mr. Corrigan indicated he experienced the same thing. Mr. Seelie said he has never had so many complaints on sidewalks and he said he can’t believe there’s a dot on some of them. Mr. Seelie said he wanted to mention it now so that the Public Works Director and he can talk within the next week or two. He said some of the dots were ridiculous. Mr. Boag said that he would be glad to meet with Mr. Seelie, that he provided a packet of information, and explained the sidewalks are identified for inspection. He said that the identifications come through police complaint or resident complaint of either an accident or their perception of a tripping hazard or unsafe condition. He said that this action was in response to citizen complaining about a neighbor’s or business’s sidewalk or an actual police report.
Mr. Seelie indicated that what happened was one sidewalk appeared to have a minor problem and was tagged and a block a way there would be a completely deteriorated sidewalk with no dot. He said that there would have to be a review of the way sidewalks were being identified and that it could not be complaint driven.
Mr. Seelie addressed notification in the newspaper regarding the three charter amendments. He asked if notice could be in the in the Sun Post or in the Plain Dealer. He said he was referring to cost. Mr. Seelie referred to the requirement to place in a local paper.
Mr. Spellacy said that traditionally the City has done both and it says in Article XXIII, Section 6 which governs our amendments, it says it’s either mailed to the electors as provided by the Constitution or notice may be given by newspaper advertising. He said if Council wanted to do one that was fine, in the past two were done. He said that in the last Charter Amendment the entire Charter was mailed because of the numerous changes.
Mr. Seelie asked what the difference in the price might be.
Mr. Spellacy said he thought it was nominal.
Ms. Roth stated that if it was one she said she thought it should be based on the number of circulation.
Mr. Seelie indicated if Mr. Spellacy considered it nominal to take it out of the Law Department’s budget.
Mr. Spellacy said whatever he’s told to do.
Mr. Seelie said that he doesn’t know if there is enough in Council’s printing and reproduction budget line to cover this. He said he guessed it could be appropriate more money. Mr. Seelie indicated he didn’t mean the Law Department’s budget. Mayor Cain said that it had to be done and the money was all coming from the same budget. Mr. Seelie asked it then be taken from the Mayor’s budget. Mayor Cain indicated that there was not enough money there either. Mr. Seelie said that it was always the same source but that nobody wanted to take it out of their own budget.
Meeting adjourned 10:30 PM
Approved:____________________ ____________________________
President
____________________________
Clerk