Regular Meeting of the Lakewood City Council called to order at 7:37 P.M. by Council President Seelie.

Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Moment of Silence
….
Present: Councilmembers Brian T. Corrigan, Michael W. Dever, Denis P. Dunn, Edward FitzGerald, Thomas J. George, Nancy J. Roth, Robert M. Seelie.
….
Also Present: Mayor Cain, Law Director Spellacy, Public Works Director Boag, Finance Director Blasko, Police Chief Malley, Assistant Fire Chief Davalla, Planning & Development Director Pietravoia, Assistant Safety Director for the Division of Building & Housing Gallagher, Acting Human Services Director Buckon, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Benjamin, Executive Assistant to the Mayor for Community Relations Antonio.

Pledge of Allegiance
Moment of Silence
Roll Call

Reading and Disposal of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council held 5/5/03.

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to approve the Minutes of 4/21/03. without the necessity of a reading.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
Without objection from Members of Council - Items 18 and 19 were brought forward.

****OLD BUSINESS****

1. Committee of the Whole Verbal Report regarding Agreement with School District relating to the West End Development - Ordinance No. 37-03.

Mr. Seelie submitted the following report:

The Committee of the Whole met on Wednesday, May 14, 2003, for discussion of the proposed West End Development Project and related legislation. In addition to Councilmembers in attendance, we were joined by the Mayor and representatives of the Administration, City Financial, Legal, Environmental and Traffic Consultants, the Lakewood Public School Superintendent and Mr. Buddy Bell, Chairman and CEO of Bonne Bell as well as the Developers, CenterPoint Properties, Jeffrey R. Anderson and Hartland Developers. At the Committee of the Whole Meeting, City Council was presented with and discussed the following issues. 1) Bonne Belle retention/expansion. Buddy Bell, chairman and CEO of Bonne Bell, the fifth largest City income taxpayer discussed his companies impending decision making process related to building an improved and more functional, international office headquarter building and the importance of the West End Development Project and the decision to remain in Lakewood. 2) Lakewood City Public School District TIF Agreement. That's the Ordinance 37-03 which is item 2. Superintendent Dr. Madak reported to City Council the adoption of the agreement and related legislation. In addition a letter of support from the School Board President Mike Summers was submitted to Council. As such, City Council unanimously recommended to place Ordinance 37-03 for possible vote this evening. The West End Development Agreement. There was discussion involving the Development Agreement started with the Administration addressing the following issues from City Council that resulted in proposed amendments, and changes to the agreement for Ordinance 38-03 which is Item 4 on your agenda. Next, the Developers orally responded to - during that discussion we had changes where the buildings would meet some green building provisions, we changed it to have competitive bidding requirements, and we changed the residential component of condominium to increase the size 12,000 square feet or more and maintain its owner-occupancy. Since the Developers orally responded to City Council, City Councilmembers then asked additional questions that resulted in two additional proposed amendments to the Development Agreement. Services to the apartment residents and mediators/negotiator for single-family homeowners. And also the establishment of a public improvement fund for such items as additional traffic improvements. Then a letter from Council's West End Consultant from Prism Inc. was read into the record report that the Development Agreement, as currently structured, does adequately address the issues outlined in their previous report. In addition, a letter of support for the West End from Natures Bin was also read into the record. As such, City Council unanimously recommended to place the amended Ordinance 38-03 on third reading for possible vote this evening. There was also discussion and hand-out of Development Agreement Exhibits and Phase 1 Environmental Property Assessment. Scott Smith, Project Manager, for Hull and Associates orally presented the results of the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment to City Council. The Study resulted in no findings in identified areas of concern and therefore did not warrant any further study.

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….

2. ORDINANCE NO. 37-03 - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE authorizing the Mayor or her designee to enter into an agreement with the Lakewood City School District regarding sharing with the School District of tax revenue and service payments received by the City under a proposed Development Agreement relating to the West End Redevelopment Area and waiving the School District's right to a forty-five (45) business day notice of such agreement. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 4/21/03, 2Nd READING 5/5/03). (Pg. 5)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to amend Ordinance No. 37-03, to insert the date of May 12, 2003 in the second to the last "Whereas". He said the reason that date was being inserted was because that was the date the School Board passed their agreement.
Yeas: Corrigan, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 37-03 amended.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Ordinance No. 37-03 as amended.

Yeas: Corrigan, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 37-03 adopted as amended.
….
3. Committee of the Whole Verbal Report regarding Development Agreement relating to the West End Redevelopment Area - Ordinance 38-03.

Mr. Seelie submitted the following report.

We are going to go over a number of amendments and changes that have been made to the original agreement that was put together several months ago. I think it should take about twenty minutes or so, so listen carefully, we'll be going over these and your questions will follow any comments. Director Pietravoia.

Mr. Pietravoia referred to two hand-outs he said were distributed just before the meeting started. He said they summarized the amendments that were made to the Development Agreement since the last Committee of the Whole Meeting on May 14th. He said there were two categories of revisions - the highlights were on the hand-outs. He said one was titled West End Summary of Development Agreement Revisions May 19, 2003. Two categories were those requested by Members of Council either prior to or at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on May 14th and the second category are those related to items that will further protect the City or language that came out of the further negotiations after May 14th. We distributed a copy of the revised Agreement with the red lines indicated to Council over the weekend so, if you have those copies with you, I'm going to actually refer to the page as I walk through the major revisions with you.

Starting on the front side of your hand-out with the request that were made by Council. The first item is on page 7. As shown on your bulleted list there, this is the language that was discussed in the Committee of the Whole that was related to strengthening the provisions in the Agreement regarding the Green Building Policies that were adopted by Council this past April seeking that the Developer meet the minimum certification as a Green Building there are National Certification Standards and this language now asks that they meet the minimum in that certification process and also encouraging the individual commercial tenants to follow the same guidelines in their construction for their portion of the project. Since we discussed that at length at the Committee of the Whole I'm not going to go into any more length at this point.

The second item, is on page 9. This was one of the request brought forward by Councilman George. The language that was added at the top of the page you see in your copy as a blue line relates to hiring an independent negotiator that will help property owners to ensure that they will get fair compensation paid for their properties that have not yet or will not have signed or reached agreements at the time that the Development Agreement that we're discussing tonight is actually executed or signed by the City. So that language provides for the process in which that would happen and calls out for the City to hire and pay the expense of a independent negotiator that would assist with that process.

The third major revision is on page 10 and it's a related item dealing with providing assistance to the residents, particularly those residents in the apartment buildings that are looking to move to another location in the City of Lakewood. And the major elements of that new text that was added include the provision by the Developers of a $300.00 credit against rent for their current apartment. Secondly, a $300.00 voucher to help defray the costs of any of the following, either future rent, utility charges or moving expenses. And then thirdly, and just as importantly and information service program as we've discussed in the past during the course of this project in which a contact person here at the City would provide information to residents on other housing options in the community and assist them in any other related questions or concerns as they look at the need to make a move from the west end apartments. And again, that was part of the request that was brought forward by Councilman George.

On page 17 is the next major item and actually the second hand-out that we provided this evening has the details of that langue, the agreement that we distributed over the weekend had a note on page 17 saying that that text would be provided this evening and it is at the bottom of the second hand-out. The language there indicates two major items. This was brought forward by Councilman Dever - a request that we look at the ability to set aside some funds that would allow us, if necessary, to make other traffic related improvements either within the vicinity or off-site of the development project. We've structured a proposal here that would take a percentage of the excess non-TIF revenues that are generated by the project. We've identified in the draft language that we're proposing to you tonight 30% of those non-TIF revenues, that those funds each year would be put into our Debt Service Fund that pays for capital Improvements and they would be able to be used to essentially pay for capital improvements, pay the debt service to our bonds that could be issued for additional capital improvements either near the project or add structure here anywhere else in the community. We'd provide a revenue stream that would allow us to do additional Capital Improvements including potentially other street improvements throughout the community. At the end of the first part of that section you'll see that there's a very important provision there that - the Non-excess TIF Revenues would be identified after we've met our obligations to make our payments to the schools in any given year. And then the second paragraph in that provision just as important to identifying the funds again at the urging of Councilman Dever we've structured language here that would call for within the first six months of full construction and operation of the commercial component of the Project that we would set aside funds in the amount of $20,000 again coming out of the excess Non-TIF revenues in that particular year when we reach that point in time that would be used to conduct a second traffic analysis that would look in the vicinity of the Project at any possible traffic mitigation improvements that might be needed as a result of the Project being open and up and running. Once we have an opportunity to see what the real impacts of the traffic generated by the Project are.

Those were the fourth and fifth bullet point of the front page of the first hand-out. The last item on the front side of that page is on page 24 in the Draft Agreement that you received over the weekend and that includes two provisions that were brought forward by Councilman Dever. Both of which Councilman Seelie mentioned in his opening remarks. That same paragraph - paragraph B on page 24 - includes now a provision that identifies the minimum size of the residential units at 1200 square feet. There had been some discuss earlier that that minimum would be 900 and it was requested that we look at increasing that size to ensure that these would be quality and sizeable units as part of the Development. The second part of that is language that was drafted to ensure that the units are owner occupied and to restrict the ability to lease those units since the intent all along has been to provide additional owner-occupied new construction opportunities for folks that are looking for that type of housing. Council President, with that completed, I'd now like to turn to the back side of the hand-out that I provided and just briefly go through the additional language changes that were made to the Agreement based on the negotiations we had after last Wednesday's Committee of the Whole Meeting. As I mentioned earlier, both additional provisions to further protect the City as well as language to clarify in those areas where we felt it was necessary in a final review of the document.

The first item - On page 1 (the language there was clarified) - related to the definition of what the properties are that are included within the Project footprint and those being the same as the parcels that will comprise the proposed tax increment financing district. That language was simply to clarify what that definition was and what is included in those parcels. The next item is on page 3. This is an item that we've discussed all along from the very beginning of the project and particularly last November when we reviewed the financials. And this was additional language just to make it clear that the City has the ability to terminate the agreement if a circumstance existed where the County wasn't able to provide the guarantee on the Series E Bonds we're seeking. The language was already in there that covered that but it wasn't as direct as this additional text that we added at the bottom of page 3. Again, that was just a clarification of a concept that was already included from the beginning.

The next item is on Page 9 of the Draft and it's Section D. This is at the top of the second hand-out. You'll see essentially there was one additional sentence added there. And simply put this is a provision to clarify again, this has always been the intent but wasn't spelled out as directly as this new language does that the Developer would be responsible and would front the money to pay the costs of land acquisition that occurred prior to the availability of bond proceeds. Adds further protections for the City and makes it clear who will be putting up those dollars if any properties are purchased prior to the bond proceeds.

The next two items are related to the provisions in the Development Agreement on Pages 20 and 21. Any Agreement of this type would include provisions to define what might be events of default on the part of the Developer. There were a number of items already included - I believe we had 7 total - we added one additional item - on Page 21 and that language is to clarify and again this is common type of language that would be in a Development Agreement of this type - that if the Developer, for any reason, as an entity went into bankruptcy or experienced other similar financial problems that are spelled out in that language that that would be an event of default on the part of the Developer.

The second item was a simple language addition on page 20 at the bottom and it just clarifies again that not only is the residential developer obligated to build a certain number of units but to build them per the phasing that we've agreed to as part of the development and if that didn't occur, if the phasing didn't occur in a timely fashion that could also be an event of default on the part of the Developer.

Second to the last item is on page 22, this is an additional safeguard, for any reason, since there are multiple development entities forming a cooperative arrangement here, that for any reason the residential developer didn't perform according to all their obligations in this agreement it would give the right for the Developer to replace that residential Developer with the advanced written consent of the City again, if they failed to meet any of their obligations under this agreement. A further protection, and it identifies a process if there's any problem with the residential component.

Finally, on Page 27 - as we discussed at some length at the very end of the meeting, the Committee of the Whole Meeting last week, and Mara Cushwa from Calfee explained that in an agreement of this type, it's not uncommon for the exhibits either to be incomplete or possibly need amending or revisions after the Agreement is accepted by the City so some language was added here to make that clear what the process would be for the completion revision or amendments and spelling out very clearly that that could only happen with the mutual, written consent of both parties - the City and all of the Developers that are part of the team related to the Agreement. That, in essence, summarizes the major changes, there were a number of other very minor typos and filling in blanks with dates and things of that nature that I won't go into detail on but they were in the copy that was distributed to you over the weekend. Thank you.

Mr. Seelie asked for questions on the amendments.

Councilmember Roth said she wanted to make sure that the exhibits were indeed part of the Agreement and accepted as part of the Agreement and will not change after.

Mr. Pietravoia said that the Exhibits will be and are part of the Agreement submitted today to the Council Clerk the full Agreement as outlined with the revisions that he said he described tonight along with all of the Exhibits attached. He said the language that he just described however, to Ms. Roth's last question, indicated that either those that are incomplete or may need amending as a result of refining of the Project the City goes along will occur after the Development Agreement is executed by the City according to the process that's outlined in the new language.

Ms. Roth said she would like to make sure that Exhibit F is not changed which involves the City's bidding process.

Mr. Corrigan indicated he had talked with Mr. Pietravoia regarding parking issues and the necessity for adequate, free parking in the garages. He said Mr. Pietravoia directed him to page 15 of the Agreement - and asked that Mr. Pietravoia elaborate on that issue.

Mr. Pietravoia said that the language Mr. Corrigan was referring to was at the bottom of the draft; Page 15, Section A. He said it indicates that the City shall enter into a separate agreement with the Developer. He said they would bring that to Council as a separate item. providing for the use of garages free of charge for retail and office users of the project, as members of the general public. He said the details would be brought forward in a separate parking agreement that will be brought to Council in the near future. Mr. Corrigan asked about surface lots compared to parking garage spaces - the total number of lots. Mr. Pietravoia responded that the two garages combined were approximately 2000 spaces and approximately 400-500 surface spaces in the larger surface lots.

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

Mr. Seelie addressed Mr. And Mrs. Saleet, Mr. and Mrs. Wiltse, Julie, Susan, Don, Lynn, neighbors and family by stating they had his deepest respect. He said that they and others like them were what makes the City great. He said that it was his belief that government ultimately would not be judged by how efficient and effective it delivers its services but on the care, compassion and understanding it shows people. He said that that was one of the reasons the deliberations took as long as they did and why they were as difficult as they were. He said Council spent hundreds of hours as a body and individually reviewing and gathering information from legal and financial consultants, experts in urban development and from those they represent. He said that he weighed the pros and cons, listened to the people he represents and made a judgment call. He said that it should come as no surprise to people present that in his judgment he believed that the Development was in the best interest of the City of Lakewood. He said he would be voting to adopt the ordinance.

Mr. Seelie said that he was receiving and filing the report, but that the next item would require a vote and that this was the time to comment or ask additional questions.

More than 200 members of the public were in attendance. Approximately 30 people spoke.

Comments included the following:
Location was wrong, could not compete with developments in other suburbs, parking garages and lack of direct access deter people from shopping. The Project monopolized City's resources at expense of developing other areas including filling empty storefronts - Thirty year fiscal commitment was too long and endangered d future of present businesses.

Comments were made opposing the use of eminent domain for a private development. Residents in the area of the proposed development stated they wanted to preserve their neighborhood and deserved to live their lives like everyone else. Comments were made that there were still questions left unanswered and problems left un-addressed. Comments were made that there would be a legal fight to keep homes and businesses, that the original claim of blight would not withstand legal scrutiny. Others said that the project would fail and the City would be in deep debt.

Comments were made that approval of the Plan was pre-determined and that this caused Council to overlook errors in studies and other data. It was stated that the Community Development Plan was adopted without a traffic study, a satisfactory financial report, an environmental assessment or without knowing true feasibility. It was stated that Council was voting without knowing the number of homes to be taken.

Others mentioned that the area was not a commodity that could be bought and sold, that it was a neighborhood of individuals with rights.

Comments were made indicating that approval of the ordinance would make anyone's home in Lakewood vulnerable to be taken for a private developer's profit.

Comment was made on the process indicating a Committee meeting prohibiting public comment allowed a select group of people to speak, prohibiting others.

Comments were made stating that taking property was unconstitutional and that the label of blight would be proved illegal.

Comment was made that there were development examples in the City that benefited the City while respecting the rights of all.

Comments were made stating that recommendations from the Financial Consultant were not followed such as securing guarantee from the Developer for a portion of the debt in the form of an irrevocable line of credit from ten to eleven million(indicating the proposal being asked for was six million ), that the City should not proceed with the project until the three million dollar funding gap was closed and a firm commitment of non-tax revenues from Cuyahoga County was secured.

Comments were made referencing the Prism Report, that the City was not responsible for or in control of the timeline of the Development,
The City was relying on financial projections supplied by that Developer, comparisons between present income tax and new income tax revenues were not considered, there was not a lot of room to cover cost over-runs.

Comments were made of the risk as too high indicating if the schedule isn't met, the number of condominiums didn't materialize, the economy continued weaken, retailers didn't materialize, or businesses pulled out or downsized like in Shaker Square, there would be financial problems.

Concern was expressed that the agreement was changed to put the Developers in default if the condos didn't sell indicating it would be impossible to force people to buy condominiums to avoid default.

Comment was made stating the financials were too optimistic because the profit was estimated at only five percent of the total project over a 30 year period and that equated for most years to be about $250,000, and would mean any problem would result in a deficit.

Comment was made that that project will only bring money to Developers in the first 30 years and asked if the expectation was that it will raise the tax base after that - while homes that are well taken care of in the area would continue to appreciate. Further comments regarding costs suggested that renovation costs were not figured into the plan.

Comment was made to forego monetary considerations of this West End Development idea and vote on the consider the ordinance on moral grounds, if it was fair to uproot fellow human beings from their homes that represented their dreams and their inalienable right to property.

Comments favoring approval of the ordinance included the following:

The process provided for a thorough and public debate, the project would be a catalyst for others businesses, that it was necessary for Lakewood's economic vitality and sustainability.

Councilman FitzGerald said that at the beginning of Council's review process it hired a consultant to look at various aspects of the process in particular the financing plan. He said Brad Sprague from Prism Financial Inc. was hired and that he came back with a report that was referenced stating that in his opinion he was uncomfortable with the percentage of risk falling on the City as proposed to that of the Developer. He said a number of areas were recommended to take a hard line on in negotiations in order to push more of the risk on the Developers. He said that's what he, the City and all the Councilmembers consistently tried to do. He said he didn't want Mr. Sprague's views to be misrepresented. He said that although Mr. Sprague wasn't one of the City's negotiators, indicating the negotiation process was ongoing, he said Mr. Sprague was comfortable at this point with what had progressed. Mr. FitzGerald said he would describe Mr. Sprague as somebody who was fiscally conservative. He quoted from part of the letter from Mr. Sprague quoting, "As currently structured, this does adequately address the issues outlined in thee report". Mr. FitzGerald referenced the statement about the line of credit stating that the line of credit was originally 10 million, that at that point they brought it down to six million, agreed to cover the three million dollars gap and to cover bond issue "E" which was 1.4 million. He said adding that all up it came to over 10 million dollars, including other concessions and that Mr. Sprague felt previous issues were adequately addressed with the types of changes that were made.

Comment was made questioning the reason for the project indicating the Mayor identified the issue as a quality of life issue. Suggestion was made that the Mayor was choosing the development of bars, upscale shops, and upscale people over quality people already living there.

Question was raised referencing the emergency language in the ordinance if it failed to receive more than 2/3 majority then the ordinance could be passed as a regular ordinance. Mr. Seelie responded yes it would - Question was asked if the ordinance passed as a regular ordinance if people could then have 30 days to put the issue on a ballot. Mr. Seelie deferred to the Law Director and Mr. Spellacy responded 40 days. Council was asked by the questioner to allow the public to determine the fate of the West End Project and asking three councilmembers abstain from voting. Mr. Dunn asked the Law Director to direct Council on the different scenarios regarding Referendum - whether it's passed by a mere majority of four votes or a unanimous vote. Mr. Spellacy responded that under either scenario it does not preclude a referendum.

Mr. Seelie clarified that Referendum could be done if all seven voted yes, that a referendum could be done with five Council votes.

A question was asked - how many signatures were needed - Mr. Spellacy responded 15% of the last Mayoral race which would be 1999.

Comment was made that the Phase I Environmental study amounted to nothing but documents looked up in books, that there was no soil testing that there was a film industry once there that was burned down, (warranting soil testing). Questions were raised as to where money would come from should the City incur penalty fines from EPA, where money would come from for legal battles.

Resident expressed concern about excitement expressed over Bonne Bell statements, suggesting no commitments were actually made. The comment was made that it was the City's fault t Bonne Bell left the City in the first place because it wanted to expand and Lakewood refused, that it was unfair to try and correct the mistake by taking homes away.

Resident indicated a count of 132 empty storefronts in Lakewood that required attention.

A resident said the Hartt Study was an advocate study and that Council had an obligation to remember all the errors of the Study brought forward by the West End residents before casting a vote.

A resident said the State took their home years ago and that they survived, acknowledging it was a very difficult process. The resident referenced a previous statement about parking indicating he talked with Councilman Corrigan and that Mr. Corrigan talked with the Planning Department - that Mr. Pietravoia made comments about free parking. He said he heard there would be a separate agreement regarding spaces in the garage - approximately 2050 - and said it was extremely important this be free parking and the free parking for the surface lots of approximately 450 spaces. He said her understood there would be about 90 metered spaces - curb-side - but urged as much public access as possible. He said it should not just be a project for rich people who want to shop at fancy shops, but should be for the general public. He said that the Developer should have connected to lease agreements with storeowners - that parking lots behind and in front of the stores should be free.

A person commented that she was looking to move into Lakewood and was now doubting if she should make a home here because eminent domain was as broadly defined by the Administration. She said there had to be a more creative solutions than the Development and asked Council to set up committees to do the research.

Comment was made questioning how garages for 2,000 cars at west end would beautify the area. Also the question was asked where money would come from to giving renters in the area $300.00 to move, $300.00 to help with rent - which meant times 1,000 families amounted to $300,000. Comment questioning the logic of providing $20,000 for a traffic analysis, that it should be done before a document is signed. Comment was made asking why copies of the ordinance were not provided.

A resident asked if Council and the Administration were comprised of the Democratic Party and if they weren't supposed to look out for the little guy.

A resident said the project only benefited the rich, that $300 to $600 to relocate was not enough, that the tenants at Shaker Square received a minimum of $2000 to $3000.

President of Cleveland Building Trades said he represented approximately 27 locals, 20,000 members in the Greater Cleveland area - that Lakewood had many members. He said he was pleased to learn Lakewood was working with CenterPoint Properties because his experience with them was that they've always treated people who worked on their projects with great respect and paid them properly . He said he knew both residents and people in the trades - and acknowledge the difficulty but thought this would be for the betterment of Lakewood and urged approval.

A resident questioned how the new project would effect Lakewood, what would happen to present businesses if project is successful. Resident stated improvements at First Federal Building block was a real solution to a real problem. He said marquis, retail establishments are not automatic successes indicating Westgate Mall was facing troubles and didn't have parking problems.

Resident if West end shops were given free parking why others had to have parking meters in City. He asked the Law Director if the Meeting held Wednesday was a legal meeting.

Mr. Spellacy responded that the meeting was legal - that Sections 109.01 and 121.08 allow for meetings to be held without public comment.

Resident asked how many lawyers the City used to address West End issues and the cost.

Mr. Spellacy said there were two lawyers along with himself and the School Board had one lawyer. The duration of the negotiations was asked and Mr. Spellacy responded that the majority of the work was approximately 30 days, that there was other discussion long before that.

A resident indicated that teens would congregate at the construction site.

Resident did not accept his tax dollars going to appropriate land from his neighbors to give to a developer.

Resident said it appeared there was mismanagement - there was confusion surrounding the project, numbers kept changing, at times he area was up to Riverside, at times it didn't include Graber, sometimes it was at the northwest corner of Sloane and Detroit and other times back in where high rise apartment buildings were.

A resident commented that the West End was working, that vacancies were not there, that unlike East End homes and businesses were occupied, suggesting there had to other alternatives to rejuvenating the City. Resident suggested looking some small towns instead of looking at major undertakings - working toward quaint instead of projects similar to other suburbs. Resident said to have low-cost loans for people to fix up storefronts - to create a different atmosphere - than a lifestyle center.

A Resident said he created a grass roots Committee called Citizens for Lakewood's Future - For economic development . He said the small time charm would not be eliminated by the Development. He referred to comments made by others about not getting information, stating he attended several meetings, where Council probed for more and more information. He said an agreement should be reached by now after the several meetings on the subject.

A resident said there was a direct link between the tax base of the City and the services it provided. He said the structure of the federal government is forcing Lakewood and other inner-ring suburbs to meet more and more demands and withstand more and more pressures. He said cities are having more of the responsibility for providing services to the poor, responsible for education, training, care for the elderly, picking up the burden for schools that he said the State was avoiding. He said all of these are falling on the property tax base. He said in previous meetings it was stated the State's definition of public purpose may be unconstitutional . He said that although he was an economist, and not a lawyer that it was the people of Ohio, through referendum that changed the State Constitution to make economic development a public purpose. He said that economic development as a public purpose was usually interpreted as tax base and strengthening tax base. He said this recognized the fact that cities themselves had responsibilities to take care of the citizens and to maintain an active and adequate fiscal base to pay for those services. He said the City of East Cleveland can't do that at this time, that other inner ring suburbs throughout the state are being stressed. He said if turns out that economic development is not a public purpose and it is not constitutional, that the economic activities of most of what the State of Ohio's engaged in would be in great jeopardy. He said the ordinance was important to the City of Lakewood and important to the people in the State of Ohio. He said this was an act of State's rights and said he found it ironic to have a public policy, Libertarian think-tank from out of town acting against state's rights. He said that people were talking about the state of the streets and said he agreed there was a problem, and that twenty percent of those roads have been re-built due to the actions of Council and the Administration but that there wasn't any money to have a capital budget. . He said roads aren't fixed because the State doesn't allow gas taxes paid for and generated by drivers in Lakewood to come back to Lakewood. He said this resulted in the City asking for Issue 2 money, that the City has done a good job bringing that money home but that's the only way the City has fix the streets. He said there were two sets of rights that need to be addressed. He said they are tragic and difficult but that they are choices. He said they were the right of the City to maintain itself in a fiscally stable fashion and maintain its services to its citizens and the rights of people to their property.

He said the City was not in any danger of pricing the low end of the income distribution out of the City. He said that was a false argument - that the poverty rate remained constant over ten years in Lakewood where it went down with the other cities, the City of Cleveland and the County as a whole. He said Lakewood was an affordable City and that part of the reason people came here was because of choice in services. He said the challenge to maintain those services now and in the next two decades was going to be monumental, he said worrying about tax base is a public purpose.

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

4. ORDINANCE 38-03 - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE authorizing the Mayor or her designee to enter into a Development Agreement relating to the West End Redevelopment Area and declaring improvements to certain parcels of real property to be a public purpose as outlined in section 725.02 of the Ohio Revised Code; requiring the owners of those parcels to make urban renewal service payments in lieu of taxes; establishing a tax incentive review council; and authorizing the execution of various contracts, certifications and other documents related thereto. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 4/21/03, 2nd READING 5/5/03). (Pg. 7)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to substitute Ordinance No. 38-03, the substitute inserts a new section requiring competitive bidding.

Yeas: Corrigan, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 38-03. substituted.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to amend substitute Ordinance 38-03, to insert the date, May 12, 2003 in the second to last Whereas clause. (Mr. Seelie stated that May 12, 2003 is the date the School Board passed the Agreement).

Yeas: Corrigan, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 38-03 substituted.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to adopt the substitute Ordinance as amended.

Ms. Roth said she attended several hearings over the past year and that Council was about to vote on something that people are very concerned about on both sides. She said there were no neighborhoods like Lakewood's and said she had no doubt that an upscale population does live in Scenic Park. She said she has listened to information that has been presented by persons opposed to Development and people in favor of it. She said it has always been her hope that people not wanting to sell would be satisfied in some way - either by a smaller foot print or higher building or a smaller project. She said even though that would be her desire and even though the design has not been fully approved she said realistically she did not think there would be much change in the footprint. She then considered the risks on both sides, the risks to going forward and the risks for not going forward in the community. She refer to a comment by Professor Hill agreeing this was a difficult decision. She said some of the risks brought out she disagreed with. She said that by not going forward with the project it would not guarantee that the storefronts would be occupied. She said that the Project could help improve storefronts, encourage people to see Lakewood as place that looks positively toward development. She said there would be money for other projects, that that was one of the concerns upfront and that the financials that were received indicate that this would not be the only project. She said Lakewood's infrastructure continues to be a problem but refraining from going forward doesn't' help with that. She said if they went forward, the biggest thing that would happen is that there would be help for the City's tax base. She said since she has sat on Council for nearly 14 years, the most consistent thing that has been said is that taxes in Lakewood are too high. She said there was a definite possibility that the tax base would be improved which would also result in increased infrastructure repairs and overall better impact on the City. She said she had a heavy heart in the decision and would be voting for the Ordinance.

Mr. FitzGerald said that he like other elected officials loved the community the way it is. He said the question was whether keeping the city the way it is was an option. He said if there wasn't a willingness to change, everything that people loved about the City would be lost. He stated that the present makeup of the City was a result of change, from the Gold Coast that replaced beautiful mansions that many people thought should never be replaced. He said the tax base then was out of balance. He asked why Lakewood's taxes are highest in the west shore. He said easy, political answers would be that spending should be cut, that there's money being wasted. He said the truth is that the community is out of balance. He said the City was the most densely populated community between Chicago and New York, the City had tremendous human needs, tremendous infrastructure needs and no tax base to pay for it. He said Westlake's taxes aren't lower than Lakewood's because they're so frugal and they're so efficient it's because they have a stronger tax base than Lakewood. He said the City could either have a long-term strategy of increasing our tax base or we could keep going back over and over to the homeowners until the City runs out of money and it will. He said to people who talk about the morality of the situation, he asked what tax money goes to pay for. He said it goes to pay for senior services; Lakewood has a tremendous senior population, many young people and some children are in poverty and the City pays for that too. He said there was a crime problem in the City and that as a prosecutor he said the City was not too far off than high crime areas in Cleveland. He said Lakewood has to have an extremely aggressive public safety program. He said there were all kinds of services that are provided, recreational services the City was trying to provide, and because the population is so dense, so much traffic - the infrastructure is falling apart. He said every year Council tries to put more money into streets and there isn't enough money to fund it all. He said the morality of the situation was that in 20-25 years if there was no strategy to increase the tax base, there would be another set of choices and that those choices wouldn't be particularly moral. He said the City would be saying "no" to people over and over again. He said seniors would be coming to Council asking why services were being cut, someone would ask why services for pre-kindergarten children were being cut. He said that a person would be saying why has my street that's been crumbling for 50 years not been dealt with, why no recreation, why is the City losing families , businesses - and there will not be any answers if the City passes the buck today. He said it doesn't make it easy, that it may not be in a particular person's short term best interest but that he thought it was in the City's long-term best interest.

He addressed comments made stating that empty storefronts on Detroit Avenue and that provided proof that the project shouldn't proceed, by stating that there was a free enterprise system indicating they're open, there are programs to encourage them, tax breaks and assistance. He said they're not moving in. He said the Developer or any other developer could not be forced to move into placed they don't' want to move into. He said that any process of economic development, private economic development - is going to be a compromise where the City tries to drive a heard bargain with private industry. He said the Council and the Administration drew up the best bargain that it could.

He said he wanted to address comments about developing elsewhere in Lakewood. He said there was no development in Lakewood where development would be an easy process. He said people ask - why not move over to the east end - and said people on the east end have reasons development not to be there. He said there are people on Madison Avenue, who live close to development and don't like the development there either. He said whether people want to believe it or not, Council and every elected official has agonized over the decision. He said they knew a lot of the people in the neighborhoods and that he has struggled with the decision and concluded it was in the City's long-term best interest. He said he would be voting for it.

Councilmember Dever said he had prepared statements:

I rise to speak to you tonight as the newest of Lakewood's Councilmembers. I do so with pride and with the privilege of serving my fellow citizens. Lakewood is my City. I grew up here on Matthews Avenue, right in the heart of the development. I live with my wife and our children near one of the jewels of our City, Lakewood Park. From that background and my position on Council, I speak for Lakewood citizens, their rich history and a promising future. Let me say at the outset, I am in favor of what is best for our community. I am in favor of redevelopment only if it is in the best interest of our citizens, the people I speak for. This is a time for leadership. Leadership is defined by one's ability to do not only what is demanded or what is best for those you lead. As I followed the comments of all of you this evening, I am reminded of some of the same concerns and hopes I have about this project. I've had numerous conversations with my colleagues on Council, Mayor Cain and others regarding questions concerning the project. I have a concern about the impact of increased traffic both during construction and upon completion. I've been concerned about the prospects of new housing adding absentee owner rental property to the City. I've been concerned about those few of our fellow citizens who will be displaced by this project. I raise these concerns while appreciating that no development in our City can come without sacrifice from some of our citizens to the benefit of all. Throughout the past weeks and months I've reading and reviewing modifications of the City's development agreement to address these concerns. In response to my concerns and questions and those of others Members of Council, some significant changes have been made to the City's agreement. To highlight a few; the Agreement now reflects the need to review traffic impacts outside of the Development area and to address some of those with resources generated from this Development. It also includes significant assistance to our displaced citizens with financial incentives to encourage them to remain in our City. Finally, it requires that all new housing be owner occupied. In the days leading up to this vote another concern has arisen that merits some serious consideration. Bonne Bell is one of Lakewood's longest standing corporations. Its commitment to this City includes jobs, tax revenue and has benefited all of us for years. This development represents a significant incentive to Bonne Bell to not only maintain their world-wide headquarters here in Lakewood but to seek out opportunities to expand their facility, grow more jobs and become one of the newest adjuncts to this project. Development anywhere in Lakewood necessarily means a balance between the challenges and the rewards it can provide. Leadership means a consideration of both the vocal minority among us, the needs of the majority and the needs of future generations. I do not expect the decision we make tonight to be warmly accepted by all our citizens. This is the essence of Democracy. Competing views compel us all to examine our position thoroughly. I respect the genuineness of the views held by those who feel that competing interests of this project weighing against it, going forward. My oath to this project and to serve all the citizens of Lakewood. On balance, this project represents the best hope for redevelopment in Lakewood. Based upon the assurances I've been provided by other Members, the Mayor and the Developers of this Project I am persuaded that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Lakewood to move forward. Leadership is at best an exalting the best that is in people and exercising judgment and a commitment to the office that I hold and the people I represent. I support the current plan for redevelopment of Lakewood and I urge each of you to reflect on our City's rich history and join me and working to ensure its future.

Mr. George indicated he has been on Council sixteen years and that this may be one of the most difficult decisions Council had to make. He said he's spent countless hours talking with individual councilmembers on the issue. He said he argued from the onset of the project that the project ought to be smaller. He said he has concerns and has had concerns throughout his tenure on the encroachment of development in neighborhood areas. He said he worked with Community Vision in 1993 and included language to restrict the ability to encroach on neighborhoods because a person's home is sacred and it shouldn't be taken lightly to encroach even for economic development reasons into the neighborhoods. He said that many would attest that he has argued vociferously for a smaller project that will protect the residential areas. He said - it's been clear, however, in the last week after heated discussions with the Developers that some significant concessions were made. He said too, in the last week Lakewood Public Schools, and Organized Labor have made clear statements about the project. He said he fought for significant concessions - a $300.00 credit for residents of the apartments to remain in Lakewood - it could be a credit against rent or a deduction. There would also be an additional $300.00 voucher to those residents who re-locate within the City of Lakewood. He said that $600 total times approximately 500 people was a $300,000 concession through the Developer. He said he thought that was a sign of good faith. He said he's also been in contact with the Cleveland Tenants Organization and received data. He said contrary to talk about less than desirable people living in the footprint area 71 residents in the effected area - in the apartments between the ages of 55 and 64. There are 43 between the ages of 65 and 74 and there's another 36 between the ages 75 and 84 - which he said were hardly people that would be considered undesirable. He said that he has stressed and included in the document the need for the City to establish a contact person to ensure the implementation of these provisions and also to provide counseling service with people who may be disoriented or having trouble during the process. He said for the home owners and business owners there is a mediation program which he said was a tremendous step forward. He said there was a great deal of distrust between the Developer and the homeowners and the mediation program is to outline the process where people can try to reach an agreement. He said that as a member of the Board of the Ohio Municipal League, a study was commissioned - Curt Steiner and Associates - to gauge the kind of impact a bill prohibiting the payment of non-residents paying income tax within a City. He said when Mr. Steiner studied focus groups he reported back that over 80% of Ohio voters do not understand the basics of Ohio tax structure. He referred to comment that the project would grow the tax base in the City of Lakewood. He said that Lakewood's tax rate is 1.5 % and was about in the middle of others for Cuyahoga County, and hasn't been changed since 1980 and said there was no immediate threat to change it in the near future. He said most people refer to Lakewood's property tax, when talking about Lakewood's high taxes. He said in 2001 and 2002 it was 129.2 mils. He said of that 17.23 mils came back to the City of Lakewood. He said 93.45 of those mils are dedicated to the Lakewood City School District. He said when there is talk about high taxes that in many respects it's the failure of Columbus to address the fact that Lakewood is an inner-ring suburb designed intentionally to be low in industry. He said the concern he has is that there is little risk for the schools and more risk for the City. He said Cleveland Tomorrow estimated the net gain to the City of Lakewood at $4.5 million after the TIF is paid off. He said that wasn't a large amount of money. He said he had to think over the small potential return and the risk involved for the City, and the recognition strong schools have on the City has a whole. He said he also thought if the City's at risk and the possibility lay-offs for essential services. He said last week the City was able to get a commitment from the Developer and that he was appreciative of it. He said the Developer publicly stated that there will be an east end project un-veiled in the next few weeks. He said this would provide more of an income tax base for the City of Lakewood. He said from the beginning he would rather develop the east end instead of the west end but said that with both of the developments, he said he thought it would generate enough tax revenue to cover everything. He said this was a close decisions but thought the plusses in the end with the late developments out-weighed the minuses. He said he would support it.

Mr. Corrigan said that many people have said that Council was only hearing from a vocal minority, those in the effected area and that Council should not pay as great attention to those residents as they were a minority. He said there is concern about this project from people in and outside the effected area, - support for the project in and outside the effected area. He said there were good people on both sides of the issues. He said in our best efforts, Council has tried to deal with the merits of the project as it would effect Lakewood as a whole.

He read prepared comments:

There are no easy, clear-cut solutions to complex problems and issues that face us as us as we go through life. As I attempted to prepare my remarks for tonight 's meeting I kept searching for a clear-cut answer to the issues that bring us here today. Some people might say, the only issue is the issue of eminent domain and that the taking for just compensation of property of people at a time in their lives when they are not ready or willing to sell. Others would say that the issue is the City's ability to protect its viability, it's ability to compete as an aging, inner-ring suburb in competition with newer suburb's attractions and new and more modern amenities. What both these viewpoints have in common is that of reasonable expectation - the homeowners who have paid their mortgages, paid their property taxes, kept their houses up, kept their properties up over the years, do, in my opinion, have a reasonable expectation that they should be able to come and go, sell or buy when and if they please. Approximately 40 people have signed contracts while the remaining 16 people have chosen not to sell and I think they know I respect their right to have this opinion. The City, on the other hand, has reasonable expectations as well. The City has a reasonable expectation, if not a duty to nurture and grow its tax base and maintain and improve upon its financial standing as the taxpayers of this City as a whole has bestowed this duty upon us, its elected officials. Over the past years there are numerous, small success stories that the City has been able to achieve - Virginia Marti, the future YMCA Project, the Madison Avenue District, to name but a few. These success stories, along with the sound, financial management by Council and the Administration has caused the Moody's Financial Institution to upgrade the City's bond rating from a Double A 3 to a Double A 2 - only matched by eight other cities throughout the State of Ohio. I questioned whether the risk being taken by the City was, in fact, a reasonable one, in regards to this project. To that end, NatCity Investment and the Administration has worked hard seeing that any risk taken by the City was minimal. Further, Council has hired its own consultant to further tighten security of the overall project and ensure that the financial risks taken by the City was minimal and that the risk taken by the Developer was indeed more of a reality. The TIF Financing and the bonds that will be issued are the collaborative effort of many teams of experts both by the Administration and Council that have been fine-tuned to protect the interests of the citizen. The other consideration is whether or not it's reasonable to expect that this project will be beneficial to the City's tax base and to help the City to grow and to attract both corporate and regular citizens. The best indicator of this growth and excitement this project has generated which has been mentioned tonight is Bonne Bell, the proposed new east end development and one that has not been mentioned tonight. Approximately fiver or six months ago, there were two rather large brownstone apartment buildings that were by the property owners put up for auction and in the auction they were advertised as being within the shadow of the multi-million dollar proposed West End Development. These properties - I had the occasion to go over and attend that auction and these properties sold at the auction - well - well over market value. I believe almost approaching 40 or 50 percent over market value. This type of spin-off development and investment to our existing business and property values will have a more immediate, economic, civic, beneficial effect that we strive for on a daily basis. I thoroughly respect the property owners who feel they should not have to sell if they do not want to. The Saleets and the other effected homeowners that have spoken here tonight are representative of the quality - quality people that Lakewood is known for. Governing, unfortunately, is choosing and prioritizing. It is with a heavy heart that I will cast a vote in favor. A vote that will in fact substantially effect the lives of these people I have called my friends but I do believe that the viability, excitement, investment this project is generating throughout the City will benefit the City of Lakewood for generations to come.

Mr. Dunn said that economic development is extremely important for the viability to Lakewood and said that it was second only to community development. He said that this was what made the decision difficult. He said there has been hundreds of hours of testimony, worked tirelessly -that the Council has done due diligence to make sure this is a good project. He said there were examples of extremes in the testimony that show what Council has been dealing with. He said some people have come up and said - they were 100 percent for the project - without caring about the consequences. He said - that was heartless - because the person didn't have the capacity to understand the 1000 people who would be displaced - he added that those who were 100% opposed to the project were not considering all factors. He identified his relatives' personal experience with homes in Lakewood including his grandmother who he said lived in her Lakewood home for 70 years and indicated his aunt still lived there. He said he realized his grandmother's home was more than a transaction of 10% value on a house. He said there was an identity there and that it makes the decision difficult. He said he also understood that Lakewood needs investment and said the project promises two hundred million in gross retail sales each year, property tax revenues to support City services as well as schools. He said that what made him decide to support the project was his basic understanding of politics. He said there were two forms, the most common - transactional politics which is making deals. He said when there is a 37 page Agreement with hundreds of pages of exhibits - there's a lot of transactional politics that comes into place. He said most of the comments heard have been criticisms and that they were all fair criticisms because he acknowledged the risk involved. He said he's voting for the Project because of the other type of politics - transformational politics. He said Lakewood has suffered from urban sprawl. He stated that resources and population have left the community and that this was an opportunity to create a successful project in Lakewood. He said the Project will have a transformational effect. He said if the Project was successful it will be a catalyst for future investment in other inner-ring suburban communities as well as the central City.
He said that the vote was not the end of the process. He said he believed there would be a Referendum on this, possible legal challenges but that he would cast his vote with a heavy heart but with a commitment to ensure the Project is sustainable. He said he would be voting yes.

Motion to adopt the substitute ordinance as amended.

Yeas: Corrigan, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie.
Nays: None.
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 38-03 adopted as amended.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. George, to recess for fifteen minutes.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan to go back into session. (10:55 PM) Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
5. Finance Committee Verbal Report regarding Administrative Salary Ordinance - Ordinance No. 42-03.

Mr. George submitted the following report:

Finance Committee met prior to tonight's meeting to discuss Ordinance 42-03, Salary Band Ordinance. The request from the Administration was to provide a two percent for non-bargaining employees. I had asked for some information and they submitted some information of the particular employees that would be effected and the different grades of increase. After discussion, and I'll leave a chance for Councilwoman Roth to make additional comments, the Committee voted unanimously to approve Ordinance 42-03 as substituted.

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

Ms. Roth said that there were a couple of positions, particularly a Home Health Aid that, according to present discussions are not being paid a living wage. She said that there was general agreement of the people in the room that there is a living wage ordinance being considered in the Human Services Committee. She said if it did not pass within six months or so she said she would like to be able to revisit at least that position. She said she was aware that there were some recreational, part-time high school positions, that may be dealt with differently but said the Home Health Aid position warranted follow-up.

All members voting yea.
….

6. ORINANCE NO. 42-03 - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE creating positions and rates of pay for full-time and certain part-time annual salaried employees and hourly rate employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement in the several departments, divisions and offices of the City of Lakewood, effective April 1, 2003, and for the Chief of Fire, Chief of Police and Civil Service Commissioners, effective January 1, 2003. (PLEASE SUBSTITUTE FOR ORDINANCE NO. 42-03 PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 4/21/03, 2nd READING 5/5/03)(Pg. 10)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to substitute Ordinance No. 42-03.

Yeas: Corrigan, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 42-03 substituted.

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopt as substituted.
Yeas: Corrigan, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 42-03 adopted as substituted.

….

7. Public Works Committee Verbal Report regarding Ordinances Nos. 31-03, and 32-03 - Street Construction Maintenance and Repair - $150,000.

Mr. Corrigan submitted the following report.

Your Public Works Committee met this evening to discuss amongst other things Items No. 31-03 and 32-03 - in attendance were Bill May, Bill Boag and John Kilgore. As many of you on Council remember and in the Administration remember, during Budget Hearings this year, the Streets Program was widely talked about and was a topic that much time was devoted to and the need to increase our streets and our street repair program and especially those streets that are not slated on the next five yeas but are in bad need of repair. Towards that end, Bill May's Street Repair and Maintenance Fund has been increased from its original budget of $75,000 up to $225,000 so Bill May has an additional $150,000 for street repair and maintenance. Presented tonight at the Committee Meeting was a list of streets that they are proposing to do and these streets are in critical need of total repair but this will be a temporary repair, this will be an overlay project that will either be a complete overlay or the drive lane overlay and some of the streets will just have large spots to be done. I will quickly go over this, the first street is Norton from Granger to Webb it will be a complete overlay, Arthur, (Athens to Lakewood Heights), that will be a complete overlay as well and those streets will include the new ADA compliant brick domars on the handicapped accessible ramps. The streets that will involve doing the drive lane and when we say doing the drive lane and when we say doing the drive lane and we're really talking about doing about 2/3 of the road and leaving the portion of the road where cars park. Of the streets that include the drive lane are Atkins which is badly in need - that will be the drive lane from Hilliard to Delaware, Chesterland from Franklin to Madison, Cove from Lake to Edgewater, Cove from Lake to Clifton - both those sections being located in Ward 4 and were a subject of much discussion earlier. And Belle from Franklin to Madison. Those streets that include large spot repair will include Edwards from Clifton to Lake, Orchard Grove from Detroit to Madison, Brown from Madison to Lakewood Heights, Clarence from Madison to Athens. This Council has pushed for expansion of the street repair program and I think this is a responsible, exciting expansion of our street repair program which we will use and I've encouraged the Administration, John Kilgore and Bill Boag to use this as a template for future projects on future streets in future years so that we can try to catch up to these streets that are in bad need of repair but are yet on anybody's radar screen. It was moved and seconded and it was unanimous vote by the Public Works Committee that both these Ordinances be recommended for approval.

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Dever, to receive and file the verbal report.

Ms. Roth indicated the complete overlays were not deep grind and overlays and asked the expected life on those.

Mr. Boag responded that the repair was a grind, overlay and not a deep grind overlay of the Capital Program - that this was a simpler process. Ms. Roth asked if that would be five years…Mr. Boag said they were hoping for about six to seven to eight possibly. Ms. Roth asked if that was with the partial streets - also about the same length of time? Mr. Boag said that Bill May and John Kilgore and Bill May has spent an extensive amount of time going down the streets really looking at where the bad spots are and trying to stretch the budget and do as many as streets as possible. He said sections on some streets were terrible. He said one on Atkins there was not an overlay machine that would do it in one section, it was done in three sections. He said there was no crown so the street was totally destroy, one piece was pretty good and that the City would do virtually 2/3. He said that by doing this, it will not return the street to brand new but would certainly improve conditions.

Mr. Dunn - he said this was a wise use of money to get some of the most deteriorated, to do them over and make them more presentable/drivable.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

8. ORDINANCE NO. 31-03 - 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, 2003. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 4/7/03, PLACED ON 2ND READING 4/21/03) (Pg. 15)

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. George, to adopt Ordinance No. 31-03.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

9. ORDINANCE NO. 32-03 - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the Director of Public Works to engage architectural and/or engineering firms to provide professional services in the design and preparation of specifications and contract administration and to advertise for bids and enter into a contract with the lowest and best bidder for additional street repair projects in accordance with the Administrative Code of the City of Lakewood, contracts not to exceed the specified amounts shown without separate resolution of Council. (PLACED ON 1ST READING AND REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 4/7/03, PLACED ON 2ND READING 4/21/03)(Pg. 16)

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopt Ordinance No. 32-03

Mr. Corrigan said that questions about architectural services were asked that night and that the architectural renderings had been done in-house by John Kilgore and there were no more anticipated to be done.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

10. Public Works Committee Verbal Report regarding Lakewood Heights Boulevard Improvement - $116,219 - Ordinance 40-03.

Mr. Corrigan submitted the following report:

Met tonight regarding Ordinance No. 40-03 - regarding the Lakewood Heights Blvd. Improvement. As you know the Lakewood Heights Blvd. Project has been completed. It has been completed and the total cost is in excess of what was originally anticipated and bid out for. This cost of $116,219 represents 20% the City has committed to the County for the pavement of this street. In total the City has paid just over $400,000 towards this project.

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Dever, to receive and file the Verbal Report.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
11. ORDINANCE NO. 40-03 - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the Director of Public Works to engage architectural and/or engineering firms to provide professional services in the design and preparation of specifications and contract administration and to advertise for bids and enter into a contract with the lowest and best bidder for Infrastructure Improvements in accordance with the Administrative Code of the City of Lakewood, contracts not to exceed the specified amounts shown without separate resolution of Council. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 4/21/02, PLACED ON 2ND READING 5/5/03(Pg. 18)

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Ordinance No. 40-03.

Ms. Roth asked that in terms of contracting with the County - if the original ordinance did have a cap on it. If this exceed that cap. Mr. Corrigan stated if was unaware if it did.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
12. Liquor Permit for a D3A permit class to Patrick M. Sullivan, d/b/a Inne Irish Pub & Restaurant, 13368 Madison Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio 44107. (Deferred 5/5/03)(Pg. 20)

Mr. Dunn read from a correspondence from Law Director Spellacy: Dear Committee members I've attached for your review a report from Police Chief Tim Malley detailing an investigation for the application for a new D3A liquor permit for the above referenced applicant which is Patrick M. Sullivan doing business as Inne Irish Pub and Restaurant. The D3A permit will allow the establishment to serve beer and liquor after 1:00 a.m. When approving the accessory use parking that is located at the lot directly behind the establishment the Planning Commission conditioned the use of the property for accessory parking on the lot being closed and chained at 1:30 a.m. Friday, Saturday and Sunday mornings in an effort to protect the abutting residential neighborhood. Therefore, I am recommending that an objection be made to the issuance of the additional permit as the establishment will not have adequate parking to serve the establishment being open after 1:30 a.m. very truly yours, Kevin M. Spellacy.

Mr. Dunn said he had an opportunity to review the report and said this was an opportunity where reasonable people of good people could disagree. He said this is a relationship between a residential neighborhood and a successful business. He said that the report indicated that to-date and since the business has been open there have been no complaints, no adverse problems with the business whatsoever from the neighbors. He said that being the case he said he understood where the Administration and Mr. Spellacy were coming from and respected it but said that absent any complaint he thought Council should not accept the recommendation from the Administration and said his position was to approve the permit application.

Mr. FitzGerald said there was a resident there to speak. She said she lives two houses from the parking lot. She said that the things that she fought and the reasons they fought them are now coming true. The resident said the extension of the time is appalling. She said noise wakes her from sleep. She said she hoped that Council advocated for the residents. She said the impact is great, noise increase, glass, liquor bottles, garbage. She said she hoped Council would deny the request.

Mr. Seelie indicated she had mentioned other concerns. She responded that there was no gate or chain, no security person there, no left hand turn. She said someone suggested a no parking sign, there's a lot of congestion across the street - a no-parking. She said landscaping was atrocious.

Mr. Seelie asked that those concerns be followed up and that the resident be informed. Mr. Seelie asked if there were any reports from Sullivans, Chief Malley responded that they were not directly from Sullivans.

The resident said that if the parking logs were looked at - on the cars that are not supposed to be parked there, there will be reports. She said she has not made any calls but will be.

Mr. Dunn said that in the absence of a police report detailing that there are any problems whatsoever he asked that the benefit of the doubt would be given to the successful business because it would be consistent with Council's obligation to promote economic development in the community.

The resident said this was denigrating to the street. Mr. Dunn asked if this is occasional - the resident responded from Thursday - residents cannot park on their street - there would be no room for visitors. She asked if there weren't any traffic or parking - noise issue calls. Mr. Dunn referred to Chief Malley's response of "direct" complaints and asked if there were any indirect complaints. Police Chief said that complaints would have to be run on those streets. Mr. Dunn said that the types of complaints would not necessarily show up on a police report on Sullivans. The resident said the ambience of the community has already been taken away and that the extended time would be second affront to the residents.

Mr. Corrigan clarified parking on both sides, and asked if parking tickets are given and there was no towing. Police Chief Malley responded that towing depended on what traffic hazard the car presented - should emergency vehicles not be able to get through - the car would be towed.

Mr. FitzGerald indicated the balance between economic development and the effect of the quality of life. The resident responded that there was an opportunity to limit that effect now. Mr. FitzGerald said that his understanding was that at the time of the liquor license was originally applied for the 2:30 license was not available. He applied for a 1:00 license. Mr. Sullivan invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the facility, the facility is an asset to the City. He said that although he understood it was a pain for the people who live in close proximity to the establishment the volume of business is also an asset to the City. He said the understand of the operators of the business was that when the 2:30 license became available they were going to apply for it. He said that was no secret to the City, that they have done a lot of work with the City and were coordinating with Planning and Development. He said when they got their permission from the Planning Commission which he said was his understanding was the basis for the Law Department's objection - the Planning Commission's variance was a 1:00 variance, not a 2:30 a.m. variance. He said that the operators thought that the granting of the 2:30 a.m. liquor license that it was implicit in getting the 2:30a.m. variance. He said that they were then presented with the City objecting to their license for 2:30, causing them to go before the Planning Commission to extend to 2:30 and then re-apply. Mr. FitzGerald said that that didn't make sense, that he spoke to Mr. Sullivan about the issue and that he was willing to go back to the Planning Commission and ask for a 2:30 extension - he said that at that time it's appropriate to take into account - any problems, if there's enforcement issues, to increase level of enforcement. He said he would recommend to Council, with all due respect, to disagree with the recommendation to object. He said to do this with the understanding that it is going before the Planning Commission.

Ms. Roth asked if the D3A only entailed serving alcohol until 2:30. Ms. Roth said she would vote against the motion to approve. She said she didn't understand that the owner has applied for the 2:30 and then said he doesn't anticipate he'll be open until 2:30- would still be closing at 1:00. He asked why not keep the one he's got. He said - also that this was granted July 2nd and was not a year old. She said that she was not at the meeting and was not familiar with the testimony but said the Planning Commission was clear about hours and how things were supposed to be working. He said she understood he's a good person and invested a lot of money but asked if there was an alternative to this.

Mr. FitzGerald said that approving the liquor license wouldn't allow the owner to be using a parking lot in contravention to what the Planning Commission told him he had to do. He's still going to have to go back to the Planning Commission to use the facility like he wants to use it. He said it doesn't matter if the guys' a good guy or not - that he's just stating that the City keeps using Sullivan's as an example of being friendly and encouraging to business, encouraging investment - how the City would want people to invest in older properties and rehab them - and turn them into business successes. He said this isn't a way to send that particular message. He said the owner was not avoiding any level of scrutiny - he goes in front of the Planning Commission - and they turn him down - then he would be stuck.

Mr. Corrigan said he didn't understand how he would be stuck. He said would this mean taking everybody's car out of the parking lot at 1:00 a.m.

Mr. FitzGerald said that if he's keeping it open and operating it - that would be in contravention of the law. He wouldn't be able to do one without the other.

Mr. Corrigan said that this was all too familiar with correlations to the West End. He said there are a few restaurants and bars open up with no parking and then complain of no parking. He said Sullivan's has been only operating for four months and problems - during summer - will increase. He said he was not in favor (he said that Mr. Sullivan knew he had a 1:00 liquor permit, knew he had a conditional use parking lot to be chained at 1:30- allows a half hour for the cars to leave). He said let Mr. Sullivan return to the Planning Commission where he said due process was served and concerns of the residents were heard and let him lobby for that. He said as it stood, he would not vote for it.

Mr. Dever said that there was not a D3A available originally and now one is available- Chief Malley said this must have been a business that went out of business. Mr. Dever asked if there was any intention he would go for a D3A at the Planning Commission. Mr. Pietravoia said he didn't recall but said he ultimately he hoped that when one came available he would go after it. He said that unfortunately, Mr. Sullivan should have come to the Planning Commission first. He said when applications are made to the State, there is no idea how quickly it will be processed at the Liquor Board. Mr. Dever asked about the time frame.

Law Direct Spellacy said he believed one continuance was already asked regarding the application and that traditionally the grant one as a matter of course. He said he couldn't say with certainty that he would be able to secure another one. Mr. Spellacy said that as far as a recommendation - when reviewing the Ohio Revised Code - 4303.292 on grounds for refusal - it says - grounds - to not allow when it does not conform to the building, safety, health requirements of the governing body. He said there's also an exception that states that those requirements don't include local zoning ordinance. He said that in essence, because he has a conditional use there, that problems about the parking are not grounds to object. Mr. Spellacy said that if they went down to Court - he would be unsuccessful based on that alone. He said there was another section after that - 4303.292 - Section C - is located with respect to neighborhoods substantial interference public decency , sobriety, peace or good order. Mr. Spellacy said that in good conscience, based on what was done with the conditional use permit, and the 1:30 at a bare minimum, he said he felt he had to bring this to Council's attention. He said the only way to bring it to Council's attention would be by way of a resolution of objection because without it there would be no grounds to object if Council chose.

Mr. Dever asked that the Assistant Building Director looks into the complaints that were lodged.

Mr. Dunn asked Mr. Spellacy, that based on his experience, that the report that was provided, with no documented complaints that this objection would be upheld at a Board meeting. Mr. Spellacy stated that his experience was that the City would more than likely lose. Mr. Dunn said he was prepared to make a motion - and agreed with Mr. FitzGerald - said the business owner is making a successful business. He said part of the criticism of Lakewood is that business owners are required to go through too many restrictions. He said that to encourage and create a vibrant business district there - that the business owner be given the benefit of the doubt while the City does what it can to ensure the tranquility of the neighborhood. He said there are less restrictive means than denying him a D3A. He said to address each problem as they occur.

Mr. Spellacy that as a point of order, Council would probably want to defeat the Resolution that was on the docket. He said there's a resolution so there could be a motion to file no objection.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, to file no objection, seconded by Mr. FitzGerald.

Mr. FitzGerald said that it was a little ironic. He said that Mad Anthony's was an example - that didn't attempt to purchase a parking lot - went more to try and cushion the effect on the neighborhood.

The resident said that she objected to the term "cushioning" - because a parking lot devalued her home. He said there was no other choice but to do that - because the per-person requirements. The resident said she was sure there was tax abatement.

Mr. FitzGerald asked Mr. Pietravoia if there were any tax abatements on this, Mr. Pietravoia responded that there were none.

Mr. Seelie said he was familiar with the establishment - that he did do a survey in the area and that it came back 90% did not want to have parking permits. He said that was six years ago. He said he was going to vote no on the liquor permit.

Ms. Roth said she did not like basing decisions on whether or not the Law Director thinks the case could be won. She said there would not be too much money brought in between 1:00 and 2:30 a.m. She said there would not be a significant increase in the tax base.

On the motion to file no objection. Mr. Seelie said there was a recommendation to file no objection. Mr. Dunn clarified - that it's the Safety Committee's recommendation to file no objection.

Yeas: Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald,
Nays: Corrigan, George, Roth, Seelie
Motion fails.

Mr. FitzGerald said he would like to defer the Resolution from Mr. Spellacy - to try and expedite the issue and try to get the matter on the Planning Commission's docket.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dever, to defer the Resolution - to work through the Planning Commission.

Ms. Roth asked what would happened if a deferral from Liquor Board was not granted and when the date of next Planning Commission.

Mr. Spellacy said he would be granted a continuance. Mr. Pietravoia said that the next Planning Commission Meeting was June 3.

To defer:

Yeas: Corrigan, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, George, Roth, Seelie
Nays: none
Motion adopted.
…..
13. RESOLUTION NO. 7763-03 - AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION to object to the issuance of a new D3A liquor permit to Patrick M. Sullivan dba Inne Irish Pub & Restaurant for an establishment located at 13368 Madison Avenue, City of Lakewood, Ohio 44107. (Pg. 21)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to defer Resolution No. 7763-03.

Motion adopted. Six members voting yea.
Nay: Mr. George.
….

14. Liquor Permit for a new D1 permit class to Carlyle Concierge LTD d/b/a Carlyle Concierge 12900 Lake Avenue #0030, Lakewood, Ohio 44107. (Deferred 5/5/03) (Pg. 23)

Mr. Dunn asked Police Chief Malley for a summary of the report. Chief Malley responded there would be no reason for the City to object, the Carlyle was increasing size of their deli to include a sit-down. He said that they have liquor license, this allows for it to be consumed on the premises. He said he had heard no complaints about the permit.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. FitzGerald to file no objection.

Mr. Dever asked if was going to become a bar - Chief Malley responded it was a deli - they have an apartment.

Ms. Roth stated as the ward councilmember in that area, she has heard no complaints and asked if the Condominium Association has commented on the license Police Chief Malley said he did not believe the Association was contacted about it.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

15. ORDINANCE NO. 43-03 - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE adjusting appropriations for expenditures in the General Fund for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 for the purposes of accepting payment from the Virginia Marti College of Fashion and Design per the Development Agreement dated October 18, 2001, which in turn shall be applied by the City toward payment of the outstanding loan balance due on the related Cuyahoga County Brownfield Redevelopment Loan. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 5/5/03). (Pg. 24)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 43-03 on 2nd Reading and refer to Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

16. ORDINANCE NO. 8-03A - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE to amend Ordinance No. 8-03, adopted February 3, 2003, for the purpose of granting additional contracting authority for the purchase of telephone equipment and authorizing and directing the Mayor (Director of Public Safety), the Director of Public Works, and the Director of Finance to advertise for bids and enter into a contract with the lowest and best bidder in accordance with the Administrative Code of the City of Lakewood, for the purchase of the listed vehicles and equipment, contracts not to exceed the specified amounts shown without separate Resolution of Council. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 5/5/03). (Pg. 26)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 8-03A on 2nd Reading and refer to Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

****NEW BUSINESS****
17. Communication from Councilmember George regarding Prohibiting Use and Sale of Inhumane Animal Leash Collars in Lakewood. (Pg. 29)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Dever, to receive, file and refer the communication to the Rules and Ordinances Committee and the Law Department for drafting of an ordinance.

Mr. George indicated the use of a shock collar for City's Police dogs - for possible exemption.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
18. Communication from Mayor Cain regarding Emergency Medical Services Week - May 18-24th 2003. (Pg. 30)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to receive and file the Communication.
….

19. RESOLUTION NO. 7764-03 - A RESOLUTION proclaiming the week of May 18-24 2003 as Emergency Medical Services Week. (Pg. 31)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Resolution No. 7764-03.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
20. Communication from Public Works Director Boag regarding Ordinance 7-03A, Park Improvements; Increase Contract Authority For Lakewood Park Improvements. (Pg. 32)

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

Ms. Roth said there was sixty days to meet application deadline - and that suspension of the ruled didn't seem warranted at this time. Mr. Boag responded - yes it was sixty days. Ms. Roth asked what would addressing the issue in two weeks mean. Mr. Boag responded that there would not be all three readings. Ms.
Mr. Dever asked if there was time for two readings. Mr. Boag said there was time for the next Council Meeting.

To refer to Finance Committee.
All members voting yea.
….

21. ORDINANCE NO. 7-03A - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 7-03, adopted February 3, 2003 for the purpose of increasing contracting authority and authorizing and directing the Director of Public Works to advertise for bids and enter into a contract with the lowest and best bidder for Park Improvements 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. 33)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to place Ordinance No. 7-03A on 1st Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
22. Communication from Public Works Director Boag regarding Resurfacing of West Clifton Boulevard Between Riverside Drive and Clifton Boulevard. (Pg.35)

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to receive, file and refer the communication to the Public Works Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
23. RESOLUTION NO. 7765-03 - AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the City of Lakewood, to enter into agreements with the Ohio Department of Transportation providing for the resurfacing of West Clifton Boulevard (SR-237/US-20) (Pg. 36).

Motion by Mr. George, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to receive, file and refer Resolution No. 7765-03 to the Public Works Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
24. Communication from Acting Human Services Director Buckon regarding Cuyahoga Options for Elders Program (OPTIONS) (Pg. 38)

Motion by Ms. Roth, seconded by Mr. Dever, to receive, file and refer the communication to the Health and Human Services Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….
25. RESOLUTION NO. 7766-03 - AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION authorizing the Mayor or her designee, on behalf of the City, to enter into an Agreement with the Cuyahoga County Department of Senior and Adult Services to accept and expend funds awarded for the purpose of providing service through the OPTIONS Program. (Pg.39)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Ms. Roth, to receive, file and refer Resolution No. 7766-03 to the Health and Human Services Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
….

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to adjourn the meeting.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
Meeting adjourned 12:03 A.M.