MINUTES
OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF
LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
12650 DETROIT AVENUE
NOVEMBER 18, 2002
7:30 P.M.

Regular Meeting of the Lakewood City Council called to order at 7:35 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: Law Director Spellacy, Police Chief Malley, Public Works Director Boag, Finance Director Blasko, Planning & Development Director Pietravoia, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Benjamin, Assistant Safety Director for the Division of Building & Housing Gallagher, Health and Human Services Director Carey.
….
Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to approve the minutes of November 4, 2002 without the necessity of a reading..
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
Without objection from Council, items 24 & 25 are brought to the beginning of the agenda.
…
Without objection from Council Public Comment is heard after items 24 & 25 and before the regular agenda.
….
1. Committee of the Whole Oral Report regarding Resolution 7704-02 – 2003 One-Year Action Plan.

Mr. Seelie provided the following oral report:

The Committee met that evening to discuss legislation relating to the allocation of federal funds anticipated to be received in the Year 2003. In addition to Councilmembers in attendance were representatives from the Administration and Citizens Advisory Committee. The Committee reviewed the CAC’s recommendations for the distribution of approximately three million dollars of Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Shelter Grant, and HOME Program funds. The recommendation incorporated input from citizens, City Council, and the Administration received during the annual participation process. As in years past, the recommendation funding allocations will result in the continued financial support of ongoing programs operated by both the City and other outside agencies. For example, the CAC recommended the maximum funding allowed (15%) for our public service including programs for youth, elderly daycare scholarships, health care and prescriptions. The largest, single allocation of 1.14 million dollars was recommended for street reconstruction program, representing a continued commitment of the City’s CDBG funding Infrastructure Program. Also, the CAC recommended ongoing funding for the homeless prevention and related services as required by federal law as well as continued funding for the First Time Home Buyers Down payment Assistance Program through the allocation of HOME funds. The Committee recommended approval of Resolution 7704-02 which authorizes the Mayor to submit the City’s application to HUD, 2003 Federal funds, encompassing the CAC’s recommendations that were discussed this evening.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George, to receive and file the report.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

2. RESOLUTION NO. 7704-02 – A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the Mayor to submit the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2003 One-Year Action Plan of the Consolidated Plan, which includes dollar allocations and activities for federal Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) funds, and incorporates the City’s application for CDBG funds, HOME Investment Partnership funds, Emergency Shelter Grant (“ESG”) funds, and all amendments thereto and all understandings and assurances contained therein, to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 10/21/02).(Pg. 6)

Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. George, to adopt Resolution No. 7704-02.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….
3. Committee of the Whole Oral Report regarding Utilizing Outside Consultant for West End Development Project – Law Director Spellacy’s Communication. (Pg. 10)

Mr. Seelie provided the following Report:

The Committee met briefly that night to discuss a recommendation from members of Council to allow for Council to obtain its own, outside expertise regarding the West End Project. Mr. Seelie said he agreed with Ms. Roth’s suggestion to first attain the financial and legal information before securing a consultant. He said that Council could then make the determination of what type of consultant was needed and what areas needed outside expertise. He said that there was a discussion to allocate $10,000, to send out request for proposals, come up with a company or an organization to help Council. Upon further discussion, however, it was decided to wait and put the ordinance on 1st reading and discuss it over the next two weeks to decide how to go about hiring outside counsel.

Mr. Skindell asked that Councilembers and the public present be updated on the status of the project.

Mr. Pietravoia responded that continued work was being done on the financial package. He said they were very close to having that completed that preliminary information was available. He said he is working with Council President Seelie to schedule a session with all of Council for a presentation. He indicated that the Community Development Plan which was introduced to Council and has had a first reading that there was an understanding that once financial information and other issues were brought forward and discussed, the ordinance would move forward to second and third reading. He said the expectation was that within the next week, with concurrence on a date to meet, financial information would be presented. He said he would proceed from there if Council’s prepared with second and third reading related to the Community Development Plan.

Mr. Skindell asked about the time frame regarding the obligations of Council to hold major public meetings regarding the Development Plan.

Mr. Pietravoia said the date for the meetings would depend on Council’s comfort level with the information brought forward in response to Council’s requests. He said the proposal would be that they would be prepared to schedule the meetings in the month of December. He said most likely – the second week of December. He said part of the challenge was that the Code required advance advertising two weeks in a row, seven days apart for the public hearing. He said two and a half to three weeks advance notice prior to pinning down a date would be needed. He said the date would be quickly approaching if the second week of December was being considered. He said that it would be his recommendation to try the second week of December.

Mr. Seelie said that Monday, at 7:00 PM. At McKinley School – there was a joint City Council/Board of Education meeting planned. He said there would be a presentation from the Board on their facilities program over the next several years and which schools they might eliminate or refurbish. He said the Developers would then give a presentation on the West End Development.

Mr. Seelie indicated Tuesday a tentative Committee of the Whole Meeting was scheduled on the fiscal part of the West End project. He said a few councilmembers would be out of town for the first week of December. He said if the Committee felt there was enough information to pursue the West End Project, the first public meeting would be Monday, December 9th and the second meeting on the Community Development Plan would be Thursday, December 12th as a tentative schedule.

Mr. FitzGerald said that the very first time this project came up in any kind of public discussion at a City Council Meeting, financial information was requested by him and others. He said that was months ago. He said he has heard of a December 31 deadline to move forward. He asked who created that deadline, what the deadline meant, and who agreed to it because he said he did not agree to it. He said that it was November 18th, and he had yet to receive numbers. He said he didn’t know how much time he was going to get to see the numbers but said the deadline was putting Council in a box. He said the holidays added more to the equation. He said that after Council reviewed the numbers there would be time needed to communicate the information to constituents, public input, and have a consultant get back with us. He said if everybody in the Administration was committed to a December 31st, date as a drop dead date, he said it was unwise.

Mr. George said he shared the concerns of Mr. FitzGerald. He said that Council had asked for about five or six months for the financial data of the proposal. He said he was in one of the meetings with the Developers and was shown numbers but wasn’t allowed to bring the information out of the room. He said he understood the confidentiality requirements during a negotiation process but said members of Council and members of the public had a right to review and analyze those figures. He said he anticipated the agreement itself would be several pages long and would require time to review. He said that his public comments to the Developer and to the Administration was that he didn’t see how they would meet a December 31st deadline and still have the public the participation they deserve to have – scrutinizing and making comments on the proposal.

Mr. Seelie indicated that he did not think there was ever the intention of a December 31st Agreement indicating that would be impossible.

Mr. Pietravoia commented that the deadline that was being referred to was related to the purchase agreements the Developer ha entered into with the private property owners in the foot print area. He said those were written to expire to December 31st. He said that meant that the developer at that point would have to make a commitment to definitely buy the property or not. He said, in part, that related to everything the Administration was doing and what Council does in order for the them to have a level of comfort to execute those agreements. He said that he wanted to remind Council that originally, as the Administration started getting feedback from residents in that area, the initial agreements put out by the Developer had several option extensions allowed that would have continued – not sure – but may have been eighteen months and then at the urging of Council as well as the Administration they went back to the Developer and said basically that they needed to be offering something that’s a more reasonable time period. It ended up being approximately six months and they made it December 31st as a date that most of the people they negotiated with were comfortable with. He said that’s where that date came from and that it was not a drop dead date as far as Council taking action on the project but it would be a decision point for the Developer as far as their level of comfort to go forward with purchasing those properties.

Mr. FitzGerald responded that if Council ever asked for less time to consider it – he didn’t recall. He said that wasn’t his sense of what Council had said – to have it resolved by December 31st. He said if a Councilmember did – it was probably predicated on the fact that they would have received information sooner. He said he got part of the information from the newspaper. He said the newspaper said that whoever the new council person was – wouldn’t have to consider this.

Mr. Seelie said there was a communication problem that resulted in wrong information in the paper. He said Monday night – the City and School would have a presentation - and Tuesday night the Committee of the Whole would go over the financial information. He said because of negotiations there was a request to the Law Director regarding Executive Session. He said there would be no decision-making and that there could be no decision making in that meeting. He said he asked if there could be an Executive Session so that all members of Council could see the financial situation. The Law Department came back and said Council could meet in Executive Session. Mr. Seelie said that before Council did anything they would have to see the numbers and the numbers would have to be made public. He said that would happen next Tuesday. He said should Council decide to move forward there would be a public hearing Monday – the December 9th and Thursday, December 12th. He said it was still undetermined as to the final meeting on Monday, December 16th. He said, certainly, the agreement would not and could not be signed by the end of the year.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George to receive, file and refer the report to the Committee of the Whole.

A Resident addressed Council. She said before displacing over 1000 people, taking homes, businesses, and committing the citizens of Lakewood to a multi-million dollar project it was important to satisfy feasibility, cost analysis, traffic, the Hardtt Report, etc. She said this review would reflect a true and accurate picture of what this project would and would not do. She said she would urge an outside consultant be sought – and urged council not let the Developer or the Administration force a quick decision.

A resident said it has been disconcerting for residents of the West End in reading some of the editorials which she said had misinformation. She said some editorials made it sound like the project would start tomorrow. She said she understood Council didn’t have the numbers and said she wished the editorials would wait until the numbers were provided. She said she appreciated Council looking into seeking outside consultant.

Discussion was had regarding editorials. A Councilmember said there was an editorial from the newspaper in support of the project.

A resident thanked Mr. Corrigan and George for their proposal to use an outside consultant stating they were being logical. She asked Council to look at the numbers, and see whether the Administration was trying to push things through or if there has been wrong information provided. She said she would encourage seeking a consultant for legal and financial issues. She said it had to be determined if this could even be done.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, to receive, file and refer the communication to the Committee of the Whole.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….

4. ORDINANCE NO. 149-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE authorizing the Council President to engage firms to provide professional services relating to the West End Development Project in the City of Lakewood, in accordance with the Administrative Code of the City of Lakewood, contracts not to exceed the specified amounts shown without separate resolution of Council. (Pg.11)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to Place Ordinance No. 149-02 on 1st Reading and refer it to the Committee of the Whole.

Ms. Roth said the amendment agreed to in Committee would add “with concurrence of the majority of Council” in place of the Council President.

Mr. Seelie said that was one amendment and there may be more.
Motion was called.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
5. Finance Committee Oral Report regarding City of Lakewood, Ohio Water System Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Series 2002.

Mr. George provided the Finance Committee Report as follows:

The Finance Committee met that night to discuss several proposed ordinances including Ordinance No. 148-02 – which would be the refinancing of the 1991 Water System Mortgage Revenue Bond, 1995 Water System Mortgage Revenue Bonds and Hilliard Road Improvement Bond Anticipation Notes Series 2002. The advance refunding of the 1991 and 1995 Series are anticipated to save approximately $30,000 a year which over eight and half years is about $261,000. The ordinance has been amended to reflect a change from Fifth Third Bank to A.G. Edwards on page 3 of the substituted Ordinance. In addition to that, on page 8 there have been changes as originally proposed and those are underlined concerning the surety bond for the 1995 series and several other changes there. After review, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend suspension of the rules and adoption of Ordinance 148-02 as substituted.

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive and file the oral report.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

6. ORDINANCE NO. 148-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $7,000,000 WATER SYSTEM MORTGAGE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002, OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, OHIO UNDER SECTION 12, ARTICLE XVIII OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF (1) REFUNDING THE CITY’S OUTTANDING WATER SYSTEM MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991; (2) ADVANCE REFUNDING THE PORTION OF THE CITY’S OUTSTANDING HILLIARD ROAD IMPROVEMENT BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES, SERIES 2002, USED TO PAY THE COSTS OF IMPROVING HILLIARD ROAD BY REPLACING WATER MAINS AND NECESSARY APPURTENANCES THERETO; (3) SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH HEREIN, PAYING THE PURCHASE PRICE AND OTHER RELATED COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH SOLICITING AND PURCHASING FROM THE HOLDERS THEREOF BY MEANS OF A TENDER OFFER ALL OR A PORTION OF THE CITY’S OUTSTANDING WATER SYSTEM MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1995; (4) SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH HEREIN, PAYING (A) THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH OBTAINING THE CONSENT OF THE MAJORITY OF HOLDERS OF THE CITY’S OUTSTANDING WATER SYSTEM MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1995 TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF A SURETY BOND IN LIEU OF CASH ON DEPOSIT IN THE BOND RESERVE FUND AND (B) THE PREMIUM FOR SUCH SURETY BOND; AND (5) PAYING FINANCING COSTS RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE SERIES 2002 REFUNDING BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF MORTGAGE TO SECURE THE SERIES 2002 REFUNDING BONDS AND OF A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE FINANCING; AUTHORIZNG THE PREPARATION, USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND THE PREPRATION, USE, DISTRIBUTION AND EXECUTION OF A FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUANCE OF THE SERIES 2002 REFUNDING BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION OF THE SERIES 1991 BOND LEGISLATION TO THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE SERIES 2002 REFUNDING BONDS AUTHORIZED HEREIN AND AUTHORIZING RELATED MATTERS. (PLEASE SUBSTITUTE FOR ORDINANCE NO. 148-02 - PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 11/4/02)(Pg. 12)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to substitute Ordinance No. 148-02.

Yeas: Corrigan, George, Roth, Seelie, Skindell.
Nays: None
Mr. Dunn and FitzGerald absent from table
Motion adopted. Rules suspended.

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. 148-02 on final reading.

Mr. Skindell indicated that he believed at the last Council Meeting the Administration asked for suspension of the rules on this item. He asked the reasons for suspension be restated.

Finance Director Blasko responded that suspension of the rules would allow the City to issue the POS this week.

Mr. Seelie asked for “POS” to be explained. Ms. Blasko responded that it was the official statement - to the bond to the prospective buyers of the bonds. She said that the City would be able to price the bonds on the 4th and close on the 5th, give a 30 day notice to the 1995 holders to switch out the bond reserve for a surety bond which would allow by December 31, to be moved from restricted cash or unrestricted cash $791,000. The suspension was needed to stay on that time schedule, put the POS out and price the bonds before the next Council meeting.

Mr. Skindell asked what the detriment would be if the time schedule was not followed.

Director Blasko responded that the City could not price the bonds during the week of Christmas - a 30 day notice was required which would put the City back to the beginning of February.

Mr. George added that the anticipated savings would be 8 percent and it was usually between 3-5 percent was a cause to refinance. He said this will save the City about $260,000 over the next eight years and free up some of the money in the Water Fund accordingly. The urgency was to take advantage of the low interest rates that existed currently on Wall Street.

Mr. Skindell indicated he appreciated the explanation and referenced for the public that the Charter required three readings. He said the Administration requested suspension of the rules and that the Ordinance had had one reading, that tonight had been its second reading and normally it would go onto a third. He said given the time constraints and that the measure would save the City dollars he said he would vote in favor of suspension of the rules.

Yeas: Corrigan, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie, Skindell.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Rules suspended.

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie to adopt Ordinance No. 148-02.

Yeas: Corrigan, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie, Skindell.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 148-02 adopted as substituted.
….
7. Finance Committee Oral Report regarding Property Tax Rate Resolution for 2003.

Mr. George reported the following:

The Finance Committee met that night to discuss Resolution No. 7706-02- regarding the property tax rate Resolution. Property values are reviewed every three years and that a Board of Revision handled appeals. Due to a large number of successful appeals not only in Lakewood but County-wide, the County Auditor had to scale back Lakewood’s allocation for property tax. He said an adjustment had to made accordingly in the Police and Fire Pension Funds which were mandated by the City’s Charter and had to be funded by the City’s property tax. Due to the reduction the City needs to reallocate funds from within the City’s property tax allocation to meet Charter obligations to both the Police and Fire Pension Funds. The Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Property Rate Resolution for 2003.

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie to receive and file the oral report.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

8. RESOLUTION NO. 7706-02 – RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE AMOUNTS AND RATES AS DETERMINED BY THE BUDGET COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY TAX LEVIES AND CERTIFYING THEM TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR. (REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 11/4/02)(Pg. 19).

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Resolution No. 7706-02.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

9. Finance Committee Oral Report regarding 2003 Tax Advances.

Mr. George reported the Finance Committee met that night to discuss Resolution No. 7707-02 – an emergency resolution that requests the County Auditor to draw and pay an advance of the tax collections to the City of Lakewood. Mr. George said the Resolution had to be filed by December 1, 2002. If the City could draw down in advance the tax collections that are due to the City it would be able to invest those dollars and collect interest on them. The Committee recommended unanimously to adopt Resolution 7707-02 that evening.

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie to receive and file the oral report.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

10. RESOLUTION NO. 7707-02 – AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION requesting the Cuyahoga County Auditor to draw and the Cuyahoga County Treasurer to pay to the City of Lakewood Director of Finance an advance of all real; personal property; estate taxes and special assessments collected in the year 2003 in such amounts as may be requested and available. (REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 11/4/02)(Pg. 23)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Resolution No. 7707-02.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
11. Finance Committee Oral Report regarding Workers Compensation – Retrospective Rated Plan Participation.

Mr. George reported the following:

The Finance Committee met that evening to discuss Resolution 7708-02 which authorizes the Finance Director to enter into an agreement with the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation to participate in a retrospective rating plan for the City. The City has been self-insured for the most part, taking advantage of the Program offered by the Bureau of Workers Compensation since the early 90s. Many members of Council were present when Council initiated the program. Since its inception the City has saved over 5.3 million dollars in premium payments and cash flow and 3.6 million dollars in total savings from the plan. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend adoption of Resolution No. 7708-02. Also noted is the City will receive a rebate of $175,000 thanks to the Mayor, Director Blasko and Human Resources Director Reynolds participation at the public employer summit. There was a credit for attendance but this was countered by the fact that the City learned that the Ohio Workers Compensation will have an increase in premiums of 12.1 percent throughout the state. Cities will have an increase of 10.69 percent and has been incorporated into the 2003 budget. The Finance Committee recommended unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 7708-02 that evening.

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to receive and file the oral report.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….
12. RESOLUTION NO. 7708-02 – AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION authorizing the Director of Finance to enter into an agreement with the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to participate in a Retrospective Rating Plan for the City of Lakewood. (REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 11/4/02)(Pg. 25)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Resolution No. 7708-02.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….

13. Housing Committee Report regarding Expansion of Lakewood’s Housing Reinvestment Program. (Pg. 26)

Motion by Ms. Roth, seconded by Mr. Skindell to receive, file and refer this report to the Housing Committee.

Ms. Roth reported the following:

The Housing Committee would meet again to discuss the proposed ordinance in more detail. Council has made a commitment in the past that people who lived in condominiums should have the same rights and privileges as people living in regular, free standing houses. The ordinance is an effort to make sure the same tax abatement program that was made available to citizens owning houses was made available to condominium owners.

Mr. Skindell added that in 1974 or 1975, the City was the first City in the State of Ohio to take advantage of a program offered by the State which called the Housing Reinvestment Program. He said that in the program – if improvement were made to a house and resulted in an increase in the tax value, an application could be made to reduce the taxes for a period of five years on the increased value. He said the proposal does not impact today’s taxes as it would be based on the increased value of those taxes. The program was designed to encourage reinvestment in people’s homes and in 1984 or 1985, Council amended that to include non-owner occupied homes. He said the goal now was to expand the program to all the condominium units as well as the common areas of the condominium to make sure that buildings are preserved.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….

14. RESOLUTION NO. 7710-02 – A RESOLUTION to amend Resolution No. 5304 adopted May 1, 1978, as amended by Resolution No. 5955-85, adopted June 4, 1985 for the purpose of expanding the Community Reinvestment Area to include condominium units in the tax abatement program. (Pg. 27)

Motion by Ms. Roth, seconded by Mr. Skindell to place Resolution No. 7710-02 on First Reading and refer it to the Housing Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

15. Rules & Ordinances Committee Oral Report regarding Zoning Code proposed Regulations for Outdoor Dining Facilities in the C1 Office, C2 Retail, or C3 General Business Districts.

Mr. Skindell reported the following:

The Rules & Ordinances Committee met Monday, November 11, 2002 to discuss proposed Ordinance 143-02, 144-02 and 145-02. The ordinances amend the Zoning Code to regulate outdoor dining facilities. There has been concern that some of the outdoor dinging facilities negatively impacted surrounding residential properties. The ordinances were brought forward by the Planning & Development Department and reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended Council approve the ordinances.

The were items to note – 1) the current businesses would be grand-fathered in. If there was a change of owner with a particular business, the new owner would have to comply with the new regulations. 2) The outdoor seating capacity could not exceed 25 percent of the indoor seating capacity. Councilman George and the Rules & Ordinances Chair had knew of some coffee shops in the summer time that had about 100 percent seating capacity outside. The Planning & Development Department was asked to monitor that so other businesses were not infringed upon. 3) It was noted that the outdoor dining ordinances did not include roof-top dining and that the proposed ordinance would actually prohibit roof-top dining. At first the Committee recommended unanimously that Council pass the ordinance, however, the Planning & Development Department was asked to report back to Council in a six month period to address the roof-top dining issue as well as to report on the 25 percent capacity issue.

The Rules and Ordinances Committee voted to recommend adoption of the current ordinance tonight. There was a number of criteria in granting this conditional use permit. What is positive – is that all the criteria does not have to be complied with, in that it acts as a guideline of items that the Commission is to look at when reviewing a conditional use permit. He said it provides flexibility and at the same time protects the residents.

Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. George, to receive and file the oral report.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

16. ORDINANCE NO. 143-02 – AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 1103 – Definitions – of the Zoning Code of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood to include outdoor Dining Facilities. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE RULES & ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 10/7/02, 2ND READING 10/21/02)(Pg. 29)

Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. George to adopt Ordinance No. 143-02.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….

17. ORDINANCE NO. 144-02 – AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 1129 – Commercial Districts – of the Zoning Code of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood to include Outdoor Dining Facilities. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE RULES & ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 10/7/02, 2ND READING 10/21/02) (Pg. 31)

Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. George to adopt Ordinance No. 144-02.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

18. ORDINANCE NO. 145-02 – AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 1161 – Conditional uses – of the Zoning Code of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood to include Outdoor Dining Facilities. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE RULES & ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 10/7/02, 2nd READING 10/21/02)(Pg. 33)

Motion by Mr. Skindell, seconded by Mr. George to adopt Ordinance No. 145-02.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

19. Public Safety Committee Oral Report regarding Enacting Victim Notification. (Pg.)

Mr. Dunn reported the following:

The Public Safety Committee met last week Monday to discuss victim notification. It was decided then that the Law Director make revisions. The Law Director indicate the revisions as follows:

In subsection “d” on page 35 of the docket, “the failure of a public official, public agency to comply with requirements of this chapter does not give rise to a claim for damages against a public official or public agency”. . The other addition was in subsection “c” which and considered more significant - in the event of a traffic fatality, and no charge is filed, the City would still obligate itself to notify the victim’s family of a ruling whether it was no charges or charges.

Mr. FitzGerald indicated the Ordinance was inspired by an incident that occurred in the year 2000. He said there was a traffic accident on Waterbury which resulted in the death of a 3 year old boy. He said the family at that time contacted him to see how the City had handled it. He said the family was troubled there hadn’t been any contact between agencies of the City or personnel with the family after the fatality. He said, in particular, the individual responsible for the accident was not charged with anything of a felony nature, was charged with the improper backing - a traffic ticket. Mr. FitzGerald said the victim’s family only learned that through a third party who happened to be in traffic court the day the person plead to a traffic ticket.

Mr. FitzGerald said the family at that time asked if there was something that could be done to require the City to provide notification to a family. He said currently state law mandates both felony prosecutors office and then local prosecutors office to notify victims in a wide range of crimes that included crimes of violence. He said part of this ordinance restated State Code. He said the proposed ordinance was unique in that in the event of a fatality, the City also has a duty to notify a victim’s family. He said it wasn’t the intention to second guess any of the decisions made in previous cases but to ensure that if something happened like this again the City was mandated notify. He said in most cases, victims are notified. He said that often when there’s a fatality - victims families are not only notified by the police but by the Prosecutors office, the Human Services – and the proposed ordinance mandates this.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. FitzGerald to receive and file the oral report.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

20. ORDINANCE NO. 150-02 – AN ORDINANCE to enact a new section 501.13, VICTIM NOTIFICATION, set forth in Chapter 501, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PENALTY, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood for the purpose of requiring victim notification in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2930, and, in addition, requiring victim notification in the additional circumstance wherein a fatality results arising out of a misdemeanor traffic charge. (Pg.35)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 150-02 on First Reading.

Ms. Roth said that in not going back to Committee with the Ordinance – she’d like clarification about section “c” - “…if a death occurs and results in a person charged and prosecuted with a traffic offense, the Law Department shall notify the family representative of the charge or charges and of the court date. She asked if there was no charge – no traffic offence, if there was still notification?

Law Director Spellacy responded that the intent was to notify regardless of the ruling was to charge or not.

Ms. Roth asked if this meant with a traffic violation.

Mr. Spellacy responded if it resulted in a death. He said that there may be a potential case that needed a ruling whether or not a traffic offense occurred and may result in no charges being issued – still requirement to notify.

Mr. FitzGerald – said that his and Mr. Dunn’s experience as municipal prosecutor and as a county prosecutor identified scenarios where there was a decision to charge at all. He said they didn’t want to have a situation where this was a fatality and the decision was made not to charge and notification was not made. He said they were trying to cover possible circumstance.

Mr. Seelie repeated the motion to place on first reading.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

21. Health & Human Services Committee Report regarding Living Wage Ordinance. (Pg.36)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Ms. Roth, to receive and file the report to the Health & Human Services Committee.

Mr. FitzGerald said anticipated there would be two major parts of the deliberation process on the living wage issue – 1) how to handle seasonal labor, temporary workers. He said that part had its own set of issues and moral and economic imperatives. He mentioned there may be an opportunity to do something creative for Lakewood residents. 2) how to bind entities that we’re giving some assistance - either a tax break or contract. He said the ordinance would have to be carefully drafted. He said the goal was to try and get this on first reading and then begin the legislative review process. He said the present ordinance intentionally left sparse to allow for input from the community including labor and business entities. He said he wanted to recognize the individuals present from the Jobs With Justice Organization present in the audience.

Mr. Dunn said he strongly supported the living wage ordinances stating the expenditure of public funds had a moral element to it and that it should only be used to promote the public good. He said he believed there was a distinction to be made between a minimum wage and a living wage. He said he received comments from citizens who asked if it wasn’t also important for the City to get work done at a minimum cost. He said a living wage encouraged investment in the City. He said that a minimum wage or a lower wage was a subsistence existence. He said it meant people were not given an opportunity to actually build a future. He said if you offer a living wage it offered sustainability and allowed people to plan for a future. He said this would enable someone to build a family and invest more in a community. He said that there were over eighty cities throughout the country that had adopted living wage ordinances – that people who do work and earn a living wage were less apt to need welfare assistance. He said that if there was not an argument to be made to support the living wage on a moral basis, there was an economic argument to be made to support it.

Bob Strohman from Jobs With Justice and resident of Lakewood spoke to Council. he said that since the ordinance passed by Council regarding City employees he had learned there were people making less than a living wage working for the City. He said he learned that some were making $5.15 and hour which he said was not enough for anyone to sustain a family or even an individual on a living basis. He said it was important that an ordinance be passed to bring people out of poverty.

Mr. Stroman said it was important to review how the ordinance would be written and phased in. He said care should be taken not disrupt the plans that are already underway. He said this would be setting an example for the area mad that the City of Cleveland had adopted an ordinance for a living wage. He said that there should be discussion on having some inflation rider in the ordinance indicating anticipated changes - where a living wage today may not be the same as a living wage ten years from now.

A resident spoke in support of the ordinance. He said that everyone knew that $5.15 an hour was not a decent wage – that it made people live below human decency. He said that the number of communities that have passed a living wage ordinance had now reached 95. He said there were 77 communities that are presently in living wage campaigns across the country. He said he has visited about twelve communities that have passed a living wage ordinance and despite the criticism of some, in every instance he reviewed, the results had been positive to the community at large as well as to the workers and their families too. He said studies come to the same conclusion including those from Los Angeles and Baltimore. He said studies indicate workers are far more productive, the workforce more stable, and there is a reduced reliance on social services expenses. There is also increased spending by families earning the living wage. He said that communities that have passed living wage ordinances out of ethical and business considerations have had positive results.

Jack Filak, representative from AFSCME said that AFSCME workers work with the temporary workers mentioned. He said he urged support of the ordinance because it was the right thing to do but and that it would also mean a there would be a higher quality of employee. He said there have been a number of temporary workers over the who have had criminal backgrounds and others who were unable to properly operate equipment, endangering themselves and others. He said if the wage was raised, it would attract an employee that would do a better job for the residents. He said he credits the work the City has done in working with AFSCME to secure quality workers but added the screening has not corrected the problem entirely.

Mr. FitzGerald stated that the quality of workers was an issue that was discussed in Committee and that the City was asked to review its policy. He said the Administration responded today. He said there were two temporary agencies used, Ameritemps and Minutemen. He said Minutemen’s standard was that they would not send a worker to the City that had a violent felony conviction. He said that would not include theft offenses, breaking and entering and some other offenses. He said that Ameritemps had a policy that they would not send workers that had any type of felony conviction. He said Council would have to deliberate on what the standard should be.

Mr. Seelie asked Mr. Filak as a representative of AFSCME if he thought anyone with a felony should be able to work under this ordinance. Mr. Filak responded that he didn’t think he would be able to respond as a representative of AFSCME but personally speaking he thought that someone who had been rehabilitated deserved a chance to work.

Mr. Dunn recognized the input from Jobs With Justice at this time and Mr. FitzGerald indicated the support from councilmembers on similar issues.

Mr. George indicated Mr. Filak’s input was critical, stating he was convinced the ordinance could work.. Mr. George said it was disturbing that there were full time employees at City Hall making $18,000 or $20,000 and said that it would be hard to believe that someone could sustain a family on that. He said that the vast majority of those are female and stated there was a disparity that needed to be addressed on a continual basis.

Ms. Roth said she understood great care must be taken when hiring people for jobs that require them to be in back yards but hoped Council would not consider an out right ban on hiring rehabilitated persons.

Mr. FitzGerald responded that that issue was not the focus of the effort. He said individuals who were temporary workers, transients and might have a felony background, to deny them any kind of a decent wage would make them more transient, harder to organize, and would make it more difficult to rehabilitate. He said that one of the things that would happen if a decent wage was provided, would maybe to avoid the temporary worker system all together. He said then the individuals employed would start taking more of an ownership in the job and supervisors would know them better. He said that when you had someone coming in for a week, and paid minimum wage, with a criminal background that person could go from community to community, increasing the chance for something to go wrong. He said he understood Ms. Roth’s comments because he recognized there were millions of people in the country who had felony records and said you couldn’t dismiss all of them.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

22. ORDINANCE NO. 151-02 – AN ORDINANCE to create a new section within the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood for the purpose of establishing a living wage requiring every municipal employee to be paid an hourly rate of not less than $9.20 and to require any company, firm or agency doing business with the City to pay its employees an hourly rate of not less than $9.20. (Pg. 37)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to place Ordinance No. 151-02 on 1st Reading and refer it back to the Health & Human Services Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

****NEW BUSINESS****

23. Communication from Councilmembers Dunn and FitzGerald regarding Environmental Quality of Life in Lakewood. (Pg.38)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to receive and file the communication.

Mr. FitzGerald indicated that the present communication and following communication were rather duplicative but said he wanted a separate communication specifically addressing the grant issue. He said that he understood from people who dealt with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources that this particular grant was under utilized for Ohio cities. He said it should not be confused with a brown fields grant where a piece of property is cleaned up. He said this would be taking an actual environmental assessment that tells what the problems are like ground contaminations, air quality, effluents in Rocky River.

He said that he wanted Council to be on record requesting the Administration apply for that specific grant.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
23A. Communication from Councilmembers Dunn and FitzGerald regarding Green Communities. (Pg. 38A)

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. FitzGerald, to receive and file the communication.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….

24. Communication from Councilmember George regarding Resolution Honoring LHS Boys Cross-Country Team. (Pg. 39)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Skindell, to receive and file the communication.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

25. RESOLUTION NO. 7711-02 - A RESOLUTION to honor the Lakewood High School Boys’ Cross Country team for their outstanding performance during the 2002 Cross Country season. (Pg. 40)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie to adopt Resolution No. 7711-02.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

26. Communication from Law Director Spellacy regarding Authorizing the Mayor to enter into an Amended Agreement; Westshore Council of Governments. (Pg. 41)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive, file and refer this communication to the Public Safety Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….

27. ORDINANCE NO. 152-02- AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE to amend the agreement with Bay Village, Fairview Park, North Olmsted, Rocky River and Westlake, establishing the Westshore Council of Governments and authorizing the Mayor to enter into the Amended Agreement. (Pg.42)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance 152-02 on 1st Reading & Refer it to the Public Safety Committee.

Ms. Roth said she consistently questions organizations that are set up under public guise but were not under public scrutiny to a great extent. She asked who the Fiscal Officer was for WEB. Law Director Spellacy responded that it was Finance Director Steve Presley from the City of Bay Village. Ms. Roth requested a copy of their last financial report. She asked if they were a 990 or a loose affiliation. Mr. Spellacy said he would get that answer. Ms. Roth asked Mr. Spellacy to summarize the specific powers that were being given in the ordinance.

Mr. Spellacy responded that currently there is a WEB agent who is the City’s former police officer, and he has police powers in all six municipalities – meaning he can carry a gun for his own protection and safety. He said there are currently one or two other agents that are employed full time in WEB that do not have that same ability because they are not law enforcement agents within all six communities. He said that they are sometimes put at risk because they cannot carry a weapon or they cannot effect an arrest in some cities. He said they go out and assist the Officer but don’t have the same powers to defend themselves or defend him.

Ms. Roth asked if these are people who are not police officers that would now have the authority to carry a gun in six cities to protect.

Mr. Spellacy responded that all were police officers. He said they were either retired police officers or have as he understood it been through the academy. He said the one person he was aware of for certain was a retired deputy sheriff who worked in the narcotics unit of the Sherriff’s office for a number of years.

Ms. Roth asked if her friend who was a police officer was breaking the law as she understood he had the ability now to stop people breaking the law wherever he was .

Mr. Spellacy responded that he was stating that he hasn’t been able to carry a gun. He said, he can perform as a confidential informant, a confidential liable informant, he can go out and make transactions on behalf of police officers and WEB, work with Lakewood Department, Westlake, North Olmsted Department.. He said there would be different ways to utilize these people.

Ms. Roth asked if this then would just apply to people who were not sworn police officers.

Mr. Spellacy said that it is currently permitted for one officer there to carry a weapon and have full police powers. The request was to amend the agreement to allow additional people who work in that division the additional police powers.

Mr. Corrigan said he understood there was one police dog for the Westshore Enforcement Bureau but asked if Lakewood’s acquisition of a new police dog had anything to do with the issue – in allowing those dogs to be utilized by the other communities.

Chief Malley responded that WEB did not have a dog of their own, that it has relied on member communities to support them.

Mr. Corrigan asked if that dog and the person with that dog would have to have all the arresting authority that today only one officer is possessed with.

Chief Malley responded that if Lakewood’s canine unit went to Westlake, they would still have arrest power for any felonies that would be committed in their presence. The new powers given to the new agents would permit them to make arrests in their presence which they can’t currently do as well as allowing them to carry a weapon.

Ms. Roth asked if this meant WEB would be able to appoint people as peace officers. She asked if there should be something in the contract that talks about training. She said she was concerned about who was being permitted to carry guns in the contract and asked if those persons were appropriately trained.

Mr. Spellacy responded that they would have to be appropriately trained to be a peace officer by definition of Ohio Revised Code. He said they had to go to OPATA or a private academy.

Ms. Roth said that this gives WEB the right to appoint police officers when normally cities appointed police officers. She asked if Mr. Spellacy was saying the Ohio Revised Code allows WEB to have their own police officers.

Mr. Spellacy responded that that was correct. He said the current agreement allows for one officer or agent and that they were asking to expand that for additional persons.

Ms. Roth indicated that the one agent at the present time is a retired police officer, but said that you wouldn’t have to be a police officer to be appointed as a Peace Officer by WEB.

Mr. FitzGerald said that you would have to have a Peace Officer’s certificate.

Mr. Spellacy said you’d have to have a Peace Officer’s certificate that was from graduating from private academy or OPATA.

Mr. FitzGerald said that you would have to keep it current. He said you would have to complete six or eight weeks to get the peace officer’s certificate and you could not be an officer twenty yeas ago without continuing to fulfill a peace officers certificate.

Mr. Seelie indicated there was good reason to review the ordinance in Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

28. Communication from Finance Director Blasko regarding 2002 Fund Transfers & Resulting Appropriations. (Pg.50)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive, file and refer the communication to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

29. ORDINANCE NO. 153-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE to establish additional appropriations for current expenses and other expenditures of the City of Lakewood, State of Ohio, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002. (Pg. 51)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 153-02 on 1st Reading & Refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All Members voting yea.
….

30. ORDINANCE NO. 154-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE to authorizing the transfer of certain funds. (Pg.53)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 154-02 on 1st Reading & Refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All Members voting yea.
….

31. Communication from Finance Director Blasko regarding Temporary Appropriations for Fiscal year 2003. (Pg.55)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive, file and refer the communication to Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All Members voting yea.
….

32. ORDINANCE NO. 155-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE to establish temporary appropriations for current expenses and other expenditures of the City of Lakewood, State of Ohio, for three months, January 1, 2003 to March 31, 2003 as provided by Ohio Revised Code Section 5705.38. (Pg. 56)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place on Ordinance No. 155-02 1st Reading and Refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

33. Communication from Finance Director Blasko regarding Purchasing and Contracting Ordinance FY2003. (Pg.59)

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.
….

34. ORDINANCE NO. 156-02 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 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 of repair maintenance and operating supplies, services and equipment as authorized by the 2003 Appropriations Ordinance and the administrative Code of the City of Lakewood with the lowest and best bidder or bidders or as otherwise provided by law. (Pg.60)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 156-02 on first reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

35. Communication from Finance Director Blasko regarding Memberships for 2003. (Pg.63)

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.
….

36. RESOLUTION NO. 7712-02 – A RESOUTION authorizing the Director of Finance to pay the cost of memberships of municipal employees and/or Departments and Divisions in certain associations for the year 2003 and declaring such memberships to be in the public interest. (Pg.65)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive, file and refer Resolution No. 7712-02 to the Finance Committee.

Request made from Council President Seelie for those interested in being appointed to the un-expired Council seat of Councilman Seelie to provide a resume to the Clerk.

Mr. Seelie announced a joint School Board/City Council meeting Monday at 7:00 PM at McKinley School. He also mentioned that there was a tentatively scheduled Committee of the Whole Meeting 7:00 or 7:30 on the West End Development Project, Tuesday, the 26th.

Mr. George indicated as Council’s representative to the School Facilities.
Meeting adjourned at 9:44 PM.

Approved:________________________ _________________________
PRESIDENT

_________________________
CLERK