Regular Meeting of the Lakewood City Council called to order at 7:35 P.M. by President Seelie.
….

Present: Councilmembers Patrick S. Corrigan, Ryan Patrick Demro, Michael W. Dever, Denis P. Dunn, Edward FitzGerald, Mary Louise Madigan, Robert M. Seelie.
….

Also Present: Mayor George, Law Director Corrigan, Finance Director Nogalo, Police Chief Malley, Fire Rep. Davalla, Public Works Director Beno, Acting Planning & Development Director Murphy, Building Representative Fitzgerald, Human Services Director Buckon, Mayor’s Executive Assistant Novak.

….
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Dever, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council held July 6, 2004, without the necessity of a reading.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.….

Without objection from Members of Council, Items 25, 26, 27, 28. 31, 32, 35, 36, 33 and 34 were read in that order before Item 1 resumed the regular agenda order. Without objection from Council, Item 16 was read after Item 34. Without objection from Council, Item 3 was read after Item 16. Without objection from Council, Items 14 and 15 were read after Item 10 in docket agenda order. Without objection, Items 11, 12, and 13 were then read after Item 15, and regular docket order resumed. (After Item 13, Item 12 was revisited). Without objection from Council Item 29 was read after Item 12 was revisited). Regular docket order resumes beginning with Item 18.

****OLD BUSINESS****
1. Committee of the Whole Verbal Report regarding Resolution No. 7895-04. (pg.8)

Mr. Seelie submitted the following report:

The Committee of the Whole met last Monday, July 12th to discuss the Lakewood Park Master Plan amendment. All members of Council were present, members of the Administration and the public.

The Lakewood Park Plan, described by the Law Director and others is a wish list of a number of things that we’d like to see down there. The Committee indicated that it had several factors that they felt needed to be addressed; several concerns. Recently we secured a million dollar federal grant which allows for lakefront development and we’d like to see a pier at the lakefront and possibly a boardwalk and potentially even a beach. With the addition of this, and that was what the amendment was, Members of Council felt that they would like to further discuss that. There was also some concern from Members over use of the park caused by the number of things that we have in here.

Finally, the other concern was the focus on Lakewood Park and how we have so many new things going in there and possibly of not thinking of other parks. In the end we made a recommendation, it was voted for six to one. The recommendation was to accept the Amended Master Plan but delete the skate park and to send it back to the Planning Commission and recommend that it go to Madison Park. There was another recommendation that a group called the Lakewood Grow Committee do a interim report on the financial situation of the City. However, that’s somewhat indirectly related. I want to clarify this because I think there’s been some news reports that have been a little bit misleading. Last year, the Mayor, Law Director were on Council. Councilman Demro, Councilman Corrigan, and Councilwoman Madigan weren’t even here. We voted for bond anticipation notes. That’s where you borrow money and you use that for capital projects. So there is a commitment right there.

There was never a doubt that the park had to be built. As a matter of fact, by law, the park had to be built, because you have to use that money, because it specified a skate park. Council made the commitment to build the skate park. What they were questioning and what they had concerns about was the location and when there are new Members on Council, it’s appropriate. I think everyone in the Administration, everyone on Council, and particularly everyone in the public should expect Council, when they have questions and concerns about legislation that they’re passing, to discuss it and try to get as much information as possible. You should expect nothing less and that is what we did. And that was the recommendation we came up with. I ran into one councilmember at a fantastic ground-breaking ceremony who had some concerns and felt that maybe we could take another look at that recommendation. I, myself, talked with members of the Planning Commission, people from Finance and Legal; also discussed some of the security situations. I have reconsidered and believe the Lakewood Park Amended Plan hopefully can work down there and we probably should pursue that. Let me be clear that it was never the intention, and the way this snowballed, it was never the intention to stop this, because we, by law, could not, because we borrowed the money and the money was specifically for that purpose. Also, it’s a newer Council, they had questions and concerns. Again, I think those questions and concerns are answered. I want to make those points perfectly clear.

I, myself, will not be following the recommendation and I’ll be voting in favor of the Master Plan with the skate park. I don’t want to speak for other Councilmembers. If they would like to speak now, please do so, and then I’ll move to receive and file that communication. Anyone who has changed their mind from the six people who voted that they wanted to refer it back to the Planning Commission?

Mr. Corrigan stated the following:

I had the opportunity to meet with Vince Frantz, at least have a one hour telephone conversation and discuss this with a lot of folks in my ward including our eleven year old who told me he’s very upset to hear that the skate park may not be built. I went out to my car and saw my kid’s skateboard out in the back yard and I thought, I got to get this out of my driveway, so let’s get this in Lakewood Park. There was a lot of sentiment in favor of Lakewood Park but I have to be honest with you that I received the majority of the phone calls were in favor of moving it to Madison Park. However, the Planning Commission spent years working on this. There were a great team of volunteers from the City, Mr. Frantz and maybe 16 – 20 people who worked for years to put this together. I think it’s a great idea to have a skate park. Our Engineer is in support of the location. It provides access for safety and one of the strongest arguments I’ve heard in favor of it - was those of us who have little children who play at Kid’s Cove can also have our teen children at the skate park at the same time. That really works for parents and families in this City unlike the Madison facility - that doesn’t have Kid’s Cove. I think ultimately this puts a challenge on those who back the skateboard park that I want you to know that Kid’s Cove was built with volunteer money and volunteer hours almost exclusively. I’d like to see the skateboard community step up to the plate and raise some dough to help pay for this and donate to the City of Lakewood to pay down the debt on this. We’re floating bonds, and it’s responsible citizenship issue, so take the challenge, let’s see it all work.

Councilmember Dever:

I’d like to also say that I have four young children at home and two of them are currently using roller blades and have skateboards. I’m sure they’re going to be utilizing this park wherever it is built. One of my primary concerns arose from the inclusion of the waterfront amenities that are now part of the Master Plan. This is relatively new and this was inside the last six months to a year from now they’ve included a beachfront, that’s going to be included on the waterfront and that’s stated by the Planning Commission this is going to be a major expansion to Lakewood Park. The first thing that came to my concern is we’re going to have a huge usage of this park and that concern was even brought up at the Committee of the Whole meeting. We asked the designer of this, what his feelings were and he said that we are approaching over-usage prior to the beach being included in this Master Plan. Now that the beach is included, he would even state that we’re over using the park now, we’re putting too much into it. We’re taking away from the passive nature of that park.

This additional amenity will be the only public beach between Edgewater and Huntington which is sure to drastically increase the usage of the park, taking away from the passive nature. If we’re adding something this large and this expansive, as the public beach, then when should look to removing or curtailing some other amenity. Now I’m not looking to take away this skateboard park from Lakewood Park but I offer the opinion that we should look at other locations. The decision to place the skateboard park at Lakewood Park was not based on any sort of analysis either. It did not look at the other parks and see if it’s going to go there. The decision to place it there was based on the assumption it was the least obtrusive place in the City, so that’s why it was placed there. I’ve been informed that the Administration is proceeding forward even though this Council has brought forward these and other reservations. I do not intend to be an obstructionist on this issue and in the spirit of cooperation I will be supporting the skate park at Lakewood Park. I suggest in the future when we are appropriating additional monies for Lakewood Park that we revisit this issue of over- usage.

Councilmember FitzGerald:

I want to talk about some of the history of this because it explains why we are where we are, why different councilmembers I think have made the comments that they have and it’s important for people to know, maybe nobody will listen, but I think it’s important to set the record straight. When I got on Council a good friend of mine, Joe Gibbons who used to be a City Councilman told me that I would not enjoy being on City Council because you’ll say something and there will be people who right to your face say, “I know what you’re saying but I don’t think you mean what you say.”. That is a frustration but let me tell you why I’ve had the position I’ve had.

I was appointed to City Council and elected then later that year in 1999. That’s the first year that I remember there being a discussion about Lakewood Park. At that time, the Mayor at the time, Mayor Cain brought a proposal forward to appropriate about $50,000 to study at the time the parking situation in Lakewood Park. And the comments made at the time by myself and other Councilpersons were get the focus off Lakewood Park. We want to see improvements in the whole City because there was a feeling by people that lived around Lakewood Park and also by people that lived around the other parks that their neighborhoods were playing second fiddle to the area around Lakewood Park. They came back with a proposal and they said, “okay, it’s not just going to be a study of the parking situation in Lakewood Park, we’re going to look at the recreation as a whole at Lakewood Park and we said again, we want you to look at Madison Park and Webb Park, and Kaufmann Park and Edwards Park – we want you to look at all these other parks. Then it went off to the Planning Commission.

Now, I went back and looked, because somebody raised the point last time, well how come when this plan came before City Council in the past, how come nobody said anything at the time about the skate park being located in Lakewood Park. So I went back and actually our Council Clerk helped and pulled the minutes form the previous meetings. Here’s what I found:

In 2001, this plan came in front of us, a Master Plan with Lakewood Park with a skateboard park located in it. The comments that are right there in the record are that Members of Council, myself included, were expressing concern about whether or not Madison Park was being slighted and that too much focus was being put on Lakewood Park and whether or not the skateboard park could be put at other locations. And we were told at the time - well it could go to the Planning Commission and if the Planning Commission keeps it there, you’ll have an opportunity, if your want, if Council wants, to send it back to the Planning Commission. That’s the way it works, the Planning Commission is a consultative body and they make their respected judgment on things and 99.9% of the time we agree with it. Sometimes in the past, we’ve sent things back to the Planning Commission and said, well we don’t agree with this portion of it and so forth – 2002 it comes back again in front of City Council and the exact same questions are raised and we have comments, there’s a dialogue, it’s in the record between Mayor Cain and myself and she says - well if you want to change the location, after the Planning Commission is done with it, it’s going to be your option to send it back to the Planning Commission, if you do.

Now, 2003, what changes? In 2003, we have this incredible project, thanks really to citizen participation in Lakewood where we get $777,000 of State money to improve the lakefront. It’s not going to be a beach in year one, it may never be a beach, by the way but it’s going to be lakefront improvements; fishing pier, a walkway down there, it’s going to be a great thing for families and kids, and everybody’s excited about the project. But one of the things it’s going to do is it’s going to increase traffic into Lakewood Park. That’s undisputed by the way. Because even the consultant that the City hired to design the Master Plan for Lakewood Park has said that over-crowding is an issue and every time you put a new use into Lakewood Park you’re getting to the point where you’re kind of reaching critical mass as far as how many people you’re brining in the park. Eventually you’ll get to the point where you’re going to effect people’s enjoyment of what we have there.

So then we’re here this year. This year the Master Plan comes back and basically to boil it all down - what we’re being told is, that even if we send it back to the Planning Commission, because funds have already been appropriated, because apparently the Administration is going to proceed with it in any event, that it’s getting to the point where it’s becoming impractical to consider other locations and I think that’s unfortunate. Now, we may have, after a period of discussion and analysis by City Council, we might have eventually ended up with Lakewood Park as a location anyway.

The first time this came up for a discussion I said - from what I’ve seen, just preliminarily, there’s only two placed it could go, either Madison Park or Lakewood Park. But I want to go through my own study. I respect what the Planning Commission has done but I also get elected to do a job and I also have my own responsibilities and I don’t just take everything for granted. I want to go through my own process.

I did have the pleasure as Mr. Corrigan did, I spoke with Vince Frantz from the Lakewood Skaters Association. He came down to my office downtown. I respect his intellect, respected his integrity and I just wanted to explain to him where we were coming from and I think he understood that. One of the things that didn’t work in the process, that he was never told and I don’t think the people from the Skaters Association were ever told that Council was still supposed to have an added layer of oversight in this whole thing and so they, I think, were rightfully, kind of blindsided by this whole thing. I think we can all learn something from that.

The last thing I want to say, it has to do with oversight. This is a project that’s going to cost about $300,000. That’s a lot of money and we’re going to be going into a budget year where we’re going to be scrambling for every single penny. We’re going to start having to say no to people who deserve things from their government. No to people who want their streets paved, no to people that want certain services. We’re going to have to start saying no because we’re going to be running out of money. That’s what we’re hearing over and over again in the Finance Committee hearings that I chair. The City is running out of money and we’re looking at the possibility of either a proposed tax increase or cuts in services or cuts in employees. Now that we’ve added that to the mix, there is going to be another layer of Council oversight that people haven’t seen before. It does mean that things are going to be delayed, even things that have promised to people or planned by people for a number of years. It’s not going to be a popular time to be a Councilperson but we have to do that. That’s what we get elected for.

I want to make one more point. I don’t know that much positive has come out of this. I would like to find something that is positive. I’ve been talking about, and other Councilmembers have been talking about it since 1999, getting the focus strictly off Lakewood Park and trying to do some things for the other neighborhoods and their recreation areas. If we can come out of this and if other Councilmembers agree, if we can start developing a master plan or going through the process of meeting with the community so we can do something for Madison Park and some of those other areas so that we can improve those areas and make them more of a focal point instead of something that we’re dumping something off, if we really can improve that, then this will have served some purpose. I spoke briefly with Councilwoman Madigan before the Council meeting and I hope maybe we can start a process that way so that we can recognize there is an overcrowding problem at Lakewood Park and we’ve got to start focusing on some other areas of the City.

Mr. Seelie added:

Keep in mind, when Mr. FitzGerald says 1999, this actually goes back even further to a number of things and there’s only two people up here since 1999, everyone else is newer than that.

Councilmember Madigan:

After last week’s Committee of the Whole Meeting I spent and I know that my colleagues spent a lot of time researching the history of the skate park, the Lakewood Park Master Plan, talking to my constituents, as well as a lot of City employees who spent time educating me, thank you, by the way, to try to get a clear picture of what happened, when it happened and why it wasn’t happening now related to the skate park. I have to consider Madison Park, it’s in my ward and it’s my duty to consider anything in my ward. I met with Vince, I talked with him on the phone, I got educated, it was evident to me that Madison Park wasn’t a good fit for Lakewood’s first skate park. But what we did here as a team, as a Council, is what we’re suppose to do, to consider the best sites and to consider what’s best for the recreation of Lakewood’s children and families and we did that, and the Planning Commission has done that and done that for years and has done a great job and they’re volunteers and we get paid for it.

I just want to say to all of the young people and the not so young people and some of the middle aged people who are in here tonight to talk about the skateboard park. I hope you take this experience to heart and remain involved in the process. It was great for a lot of us up here because there was so much involvement. It’s what we need, we need the people who care and we need the people who have passion for the issues and people who are organized and you did a great job of getting your point across and working for years on this skate park and on all of the parks, really. I agree with Ed, we need to look clearly at the park system as a whole in Lakewood. Stay involved, it may not always be this exciting as a skateboard park but it’s equally important and thank you all.

Councilmember Dunn:

It’s great to see such a high level of participation tonight. In some respects I feel that, I don’t want to say misled, but people have been put on edge that this skate park would not go forward and that is a false premise. That is not true. Every single member of City Council has said repeatedly that they strongly support a skate park. What we’re doing is honoring the process and working through the plan and the plan that was adopted by an expert that the City hired and reaffirmed by the Planning Commission is the Master Plan for Lakewood Park. And what makes a plan work is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. And to make it easy, if Tom George and I had plans on Saturday to have a picnic at the park and it rained on Saturday, we would be fools to go forward and still plan to have our picnic because the circumstances have changed. We wouldn’t be able to enjoy our food, we’d get all wet, Tom would probably get a cold and miss a Council Meeting so we would do something else. We would adapt to the circumstances. And that’s what this process, the governing process allows. And that’s why it seems to be so elongated. Because we’re making land use decisions and once you make a land use decision, once you’ve built it, I mean, God help me, if you said, “oh, I made a mistake”, now it’s time to tear it down and do it over.

That, hopefully, might afford some insight as to why this has been going on. But City Council plays an important, pivotal role in making sure that we vet the decisions and recommendations of the Planning Commission and everyone else. Some of the things mentioned tonight, I don’t think it’s wrong to reiterate. Some of the things that flagged interest which created questions in my mind; The expert which did the study, in our Committee meeting a week ago Tuesday, explained to Council, I mean there was a line of questioning from Mr. FitzGerald; absent the proposed development of the lakefront, without any consideration to that, with the skate park at Lakewood Park, is it a concern of yours, that it will create overcrowding. The answer was, “yes, it was a concern of mine”. The next question, now with the proposal to develop the lakefront what is your opinion? “I think it’s going to create overcrowding”. That’s the expert. These aren’t just Council people being concerned, doing their job, this is part of our process. That concern, that expert’s opinion, that does not negate the park being at Lakewood Park. But that’s a signal. You have to pay attention to the signal.

The other thing that was mentioned here is that I’m on the Finance Committee as is Councilman Dever, as is our chair, Councilman FitzGerald. We were apprised recently that over the next six to nine months the City of Lakewood is going to undergo some significant, financial hardships. We’re going to have to make some tough choices. I received a lot of calls to support the skate park, but this a broad and big community. I also received a lot of calls; one quite memorable where someone said, “how dare City Council consider building a $300,000 skate park when you can’t even fix the pot holes in my street”. That is a resident, his voice needs to be heard. I want to work with that man, but I want to get the skateboard park built. It’s not just what you want, what I want, what he wants, we have to be aware of everybody else’s concerns. But we are facing a financial crunch and we will be justified on our actions so today we’re going to go forward with a skateboard, it would be very difficult to justify that if six, nine months from now we’re asking residents to raise their taxes, have lay-offs at City Hall, to discontinue certain Divisions which people have relied on generation upon generation. This is a time of tough governance.

Finally, there has been the analogy that this project is similar to the dog park as well as the Kid’s Cove project. In many respects it is, and those were phenomenal projects, and I was happy to participate and even lead one of them. But there are distinct differences now when you’ve compared the skate park to those two projects. For instance, the Budget. Under the current Budget I would be hard pressed to believe that either of those projects; the dog park or Kid’s Cove would have gone forward. Second, the overall expense, For the $300,000 that you’d use to build the skate park, you could build 15-20 dog parks and possibly six Kid Cove projects.

Finally the contribution in both the dog park and the Kid’s Cove project; citizens groups raised at least half of the overall contribution. That’s something to think about. Councilman Corrigan suggested a possible partnership. I would like to reinforce that proposal. That a partnership with advocates that want this built is the most successful way which has been proven with Kid’s Cove and the dog park. But all these different things are signals, all these different things create data that we need to discuss and it’s important to pay attention them. Because, just as you’re driving a car, if you don’t’ pay attention to the signals if you see a stop sign and drive right through it. You know what? You may get lucky a couple of times, you may be able to clear the intersection unscathed but sooner or later it could end in tragedy.

So with this data, we’re just doing our job and we’re trying to ask the right questions. But it seems that it’s the word of Council, even though we did that recommendation of six to one that it be referred back to the Planning Commission to consider additional options, that that is no longer the will of this Council. That being said, I certainly don’t want to drag my feet and even if I did it wouldn’t come to any good. I think we do need, on balance, to move forward. It has received a lot of scrutiny, it could receive more to make sure that in many respects it could be improved. The only thing worse than not building a skateboard park in my opinion is building a skateboard park that causes a problem or building a skateboard park that’s going to fail. That would be worse than no skateboard park at all. We have a limited economy in terms of governing agenda, as I said, based on our finances, we have major challenges to pursue and I think it’s wise and prudent that we move beyond this issue so we can deal with some of the more important work that faces our City.

Councilmember Demro:

I’m glad that my fellow Members of Council have come on board with this. I want to especially commend Councilwoman Madigan. She had a great opportunity to get a nice amenity in Madison Park and I know that she’s done her homework and put some great time into this. I think that some of the claims that have been made up here, if I didn’t give my opinion on them, if I didn’t give my side of the argument it would be disingenuous of me to just vote in favor and let it go.

The inclusion of the lakefront amenities, which we talked very little about, which was the reason we were amending this plan in the first place was really never addressed. And it was talked about by Councilman Dever that we’re removing the passive nature of this park by adding a skate park. That was brought up in the Committee of the Whole and I suggested that we remove the tennis courts which provided an obstruction to the lake view and that we move them elsewhere. When the consultant that this City paid $50,000 nodded in agreement that there were other things that we could move and still maintain the passive nature of the park and meet the needs of everyone in our community.

I have a question to the City Engineer. There was a claim that was made that there was no analysis of other parks. Is that in fact true? Was there an analysis of city-wide recreation needs and locations at other parks?

Engineer Kilgore: Yes, there’s a Master Plan for recreation usage here in the City of Lakewood. I wasn’t party to the original decision to propose at Lakewood Park to have the skate park there, however, as part of the Planning Commission we did take a lot of public comment about it. We talked about that in Committee exactly what that comment was. That led towards the decision to put it at Lakewood Park. One of the things that was looked at was the usage at Madison Park. If you look at Madison Park, first of all, it’s less than half the size of Lakewood Park Second item is, really, every square foot that’s not already taken up by a structured usage there is really lawn area between the structured usages. Our opinion was that perhaps that there might have been another factor that would influence going to more open areas such as Lakewood Park. Lakewood Park, the proposed area, already is hard surfaced, it’s really reorganizing what’s already there and everything that’s going to be taken away is in the Master Plan to be replaced at some point in the future.

Mr. Demro:
Mr. Chairman, I think that’s an important part for people to know, people who said we’re taking away green space; people who said we’re going to overuse the park. The Parks’ already being used. There are tennis courts that are already there so we’re not removing green space and we’re not putting in another use. We’re replacing one use for another.

It was mentioned that we had incredible participation, the citizens in the lakefront process and I don’t want anyone in this room to go un-thanked for the incredible participation that you have put in to this process. I disagree with Councilman FitzGerald. Something great is going to come of this. There’s going to be a skate park. Our kids are going to get off the street. Some people are aware here, their families have been closely affected from kids who have been injured or killed as a result of not having a safe, constructive place to do what they do best and skate. I think something good is coming out of this. There’s also talk about our financial position. And this would bring forth a question to the Finance Director.

I was told in the Committee meeting that there’s this financial crisis. And apparently I didn’t get the memo as a Member of Council. I would like to know, did I not receive some type of communication. Has there been a substantial change in the City’s financial position from the time that we budgeted this park to this very day?

Finance Director Nogalo:

Councilman, there has been no substantial changes as far as a negative impact. We’ve had some positive impacts since we passed the Budget. We’ve had some revenue increases, building permits, parking fines, the Winterhurst increase will lessen the General Fund subsidy and several decreases of full-time employees within the General Fund. We’ve only had positive variance since the Budget has been past.

Councilmember Demro:

Mr. Chairman, I think that points out; yes, we’re facing tough times. It simply means we need to work harder and smarter and do more with less but the fact of the matter is there was no earthquake, there was no terrorist attack, somebody didn’t rob the City bank. Nothing substantial has changed since we budgeted for this in February when the snow was on the ground.

Finally, it was claimed by Councilman Dunn that people have been put on the edge about the park and I’m sure that refers to me calling people and Vince Frantz calling to make them aware.

I think there’s every reason for people to be on the edge. When this argument started as some of the people in this audience know, I was in first grade at Hayes Elementary School and here I am now, x number of years, if my math was better, might need Finance Director for this, still no skate park. To me, I’m on edge. It’s not even my issue, I don’t even skate but to the people in this audience, it matters to them. I’m glad that this Council has taken the time to see that this is the right thing to do.

Finally, I want to thank the Mayor for standing up for this from day one from before he campaigned many years ago to during the campaign and to now to say I’m going to proceed. That’s true leadership, when you’re voted against 6 to 1, that is truly leadership. So Mayor I thank you for staying strong and with that I will wrap up my comments at the pleasure of the chair and I will be voting in favor of the skate park.

Councilmember FitzGerald:

I guess, Councilman Demro, I guess I’ll send you a memo because the City is in financial trouble. If you didn’t perceive that from going through the Budget Hearings, we’ve been having Finance Committee meetings that are open to all Members of Council and you’ll hear a report this evening about it later but I can tell you that when the City prepares six months in advance its tax estimate, kind of a proposed budget for the next year, in order to make the numbers balance, our Finance Department’s had to assume that our City employees were working 35 hours per week. Just in case you didn’t get the message, I hope it’s loud and clear to you and to anybody else in the City that the writing has been on the wall for anybody that bothered to look that we are headed, and we’ve heard it from our Finance Director over and over again, we’re headed for very, very tough times. That isn’t a dodge, it’s not rhetoric, it’ reality. Come to the next Finance Committee Meeting and ask questions ‘till your heart’s content but that’s reality. A lot of your other points were well taken but nobody is being well-served in this audience if they don’t know that because it’s going to be a big surprise. One of the things that has been kind of a disconnect is most of the people anyway in City Hall know that but what I’ve found is going around the City
most people in the City don’t know that. You tell people in the City that we’re looking at a possible tax increase next year or possible cuts in City services and employees and they look at like ‘ – well I never heard anything about. Another purpose that this whole debate might serve is, and nobody ever thought that the skate park would be the means that would get out in front of the public but we need to get that message out to people because it’s going to be our reality next year.

Councilmember Seelie: I think that’s an important point. Now, I’m not here to defend Councilman Demro, he’s only been on Council for six months but clearly every City is in a bad financial situation when you have reduced federal, state, you’re paying more for commodities, you have a 27th paycheck, on and on and on. We’re looking at about two million or more deficit, potentially, but I hope we can work through that. My whole point is, when it comes to situation like this, you have to weigh what people want against what the information is. It’s about 50/50 and then you simply make a judgment call. So, tonight, six people worked together, one apparently doesn’t talk to anyone else and six people worked together and now there’s seven votes for this.

I’m going to move to receive and file this communication at this moment and I’ve got something else to say.

Councilmember Corrigan:

I received a lot of communications from the Lakewood Soccer Association. My children play soccer. There are over 850 resident children in this City who play soccer. They were very concerned about the condition of the field at Madison Park and the potential loss of that field in the event the skate park went up there. I just want you to know that some very generous presentations were made by the Lakewood Soccer Association to work with the City to upgrade the fields and give us travel quality fields so we can host some tournaments and give our kids a chance to have a safe field to play on. I was up there during the soccer camp this week and there are sprinkler heads sticking out of that soccer field, there are holes in that field and that is, and for a small percentage that we’re spending on the skateboard park we could have dedicated it to soccer fields in the City. That’s a concern the Administration and this Council need to take to heart. Also, many residents are in full support of fishing access at Lakewood Park and nobody wants to abandon the plan to upgrade that park and give not only pedestrian access but wheelchair access to the lakefront. It’s the one asset that this City has that most other cities in northeast Ohio don’t have. So I say let’s move forward.

Finally, Councilman Demro was in diapers the last time Fischer Road had any service from this City. There are a lot of residents in this City who wish their streets were repaved and I’m hoping that that becomes the priority.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, second by Mr. Demro, to receive and file the verbal report.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

2. RESOLUTION NO. 7895-04 – A RESOLUTION to concur with the Lakewood Planning Commission in the adoption of the Master Plan for Lakewood Park, as amended November 26, 2001, revised January 2, 2002, and amended May 4, 2004. (REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 5/17/04, PLACED ON 2ND READING & REFERRED BACK TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 7/6/04) (pg. 7)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Demro to adopt Resolution No. 7895-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
{five minute recess was called}
… .

3. Finance Committee Verbal Report regarding Various Finance Legislation, Resolution No. 7906-04, Ordinances Nos. 66-04, 8-03B, 9-04A, 77-03B, Resolution No. 7908-04, Ordinances Nos. 72-04, 75-04, 76-04, 77-04, 78-04, 79-04.

Mr. FitzGerald submitted the following report:

Your Finance Committee met on July 14th, we also met prior to this City Council Meeting and we have a number of things to go through. Some of them have been referred to previous meetings, some of the were new, having the first hearing in front of the Finance Committee. There’s quite a number of them. I’ll go through them as quickly as I can.

The first and I guess the one that we spent the most time talking about and I referenced it earlier this evening has to do with the proposed resolution 7906-04; it’s the 2005 Tax Budget. There was a lengthy discussion about this actually at the last two Finance Committee Meetings. Suffice it to say that for anyone who doesn’t know, the Tax Budget, which is passed, roughly six months before the end of the calendar year is the City’s estimate of income and expenditures. At the first meeting, and I’m going to try and be careful the way I phrase this, at the first meeting there was concern among Committee members as to whether or not the cost estimates which we were told were underlying this estimate were actual estimates or what connection they had with the reality or probability of the Budget that we would end up being presented to us. We actually asked for the Law Department for a legal opinion as to how accurate that estimate needs to be with the actual finances of the City. Members of the Committee were satisfied that what we’re passing here tonight is an accurate estimate and complies with the Ohio Revised Code.

Members of Council should know that we were told that in order to have the Budget balance and entitle us to the property taxes that we need from our millage that in order to make a balanced budget the numbers were computed in such a way as to have non-safety force employees working a 35 hour work week in order for revenues to match expenditures. It was also pointed out that this had been done in the past, although I’m not sure that Council was aware those numbers were used in the past. We had quite a discussion about the fact that we need to expedite and very seriously consider what our options are as far as revenues and services and how we’re going to make these lines intercept because as they are currently, our revenues are not going to match our expenditures. The Committee voted unanimously to approve that after receiving those assurances from the Law Department and the Finance Department.

Proposed Ordinances 66-04 is the Wastewater Collection Fund. There’s actually going to be a substitute amendment which has to do with appropriations for the Federal Forfeiture Fund, Capital Improvement Fund, Wastewater Collection Fund and Workers Compensation Fund. The Committed voted in favor of that.

Ordinance 8-03B has to do with the Cushman funding and basically it just is a change in the term that’s used because the Cushmans are no longer able to be used so it will enable those funds to be used for the purchase of other vehicles other than Cushmans since we’re not going to be able to continue to purchase Cushmans. That also covers by the way Ordinance 9-04A.

Members of Council should know that we’re not done and the Administrations isn’t done looking at this Cushman issue. We’d asked Tom Corrigan, and talked about whether or not the City would have legal recourse against the manufacturers of the Cushmans because we’re not able to use them in the manner in which we anticipated when we purchased them. We went back and forth about that. Has the Law Department reached a conclusion on that as of today? (response was no). We’re still looking at that Council asks for the Administration to continue to examine that issue.

Proposed Ordinance 77-03B – has to do with temporary services change in Refuse. This has to do with the costs of temporary workers increasing from last year.

Proposed Resolution 7908-04 is having to do with adding a American Payroll Association. The only thing noteworthy of this is we talked about in Finance Committee, the Budget Hearings next January, we’re going to be looking at all the organizations that the City belongs to and we may be trimming those down as you that there’s quite a number of them. Some of them are probably duplicative.

Ordinance No. 75-04 is a Tax on Shareholder of S Corporation which has to be submitted to the electors and I believe we have to suspend the rules in order to get this done in time for the Budget, if my memory serves correctly. Because of changes in State Law, we have to specifically designate that shareholders of S Corporations will be charged taxes on their profits and each City has to individually pass those before they can tax those.

Ordinance 76-04 has to do with just the day basically, the month, that income is collected by the City. It’s a technical change, it improves our cash flow, we get the money quicker. We agreed to place that on second reading.

77-04 has to do with taxing lottery winnings, gambling and gaming winnings. The Committee also recommended that also be adopted so that people that win here would pay taxes. It’s kind of like, what’s won in Lakewood stays in Lakewood.

78-04 and 79-04 has to deal with the TIF funds, the Retirement Fund new sections and also the Improvement Fund sections; placing those on second reading and those were also recommended to be passed by the Committee.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Ms. Madigan, to receive and file the verbal report.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

4. RESOLUTION NO. 7906-04 – AN EMERGENCY RESOULTION approving the Tax Budget of the City of Lakewood, State of Ohio for the year 2005, and authorizing the filing of same with the Auditor of Cuyahoga County. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 6/7/04, 2ND READING 6/21/04, DEFERRED 7/6/04)(Pg. 8)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Resolution No. 7906-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

5. ORDINANCE NO. 66-04 A – 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, 2004. (PLEASE SUBSTITUTE FOR ORDINANCE NO. 66-04 PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 6/7/04, 2ND READING 6/21/04, DEFERRED 7/6/04). (Pg. 9)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Ordinance No. 66-04A.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Mr. Dunn absent for vote.
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 66-04A substituted.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. FitzGerald, to adopt as substituted.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Mr. Dunn absent for vote.
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 66-04A adopted as substituted.
… .

6. ORDINANCE NO. 8-03 B – AN ORDINANCE to amend Ordinance No. 8-03A, adopted July 21, 2003, for the purpose of changing the description of vehicles within the Refuse Department 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 6/7/04, 2ND READING 6/21/04, DEFERRED 7/6/04)(Pg. 11)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Ordinance No. 8-03B.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

7. ORDINANCE NO. 9-04 A – AN ORDINANCE to amend Ordinance 9-04, adopted March 1, 2004, for the purpose of changing the description of vehicles within the Refuse Department 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 6/7/04, 2ND READING 6/21/04, DEFERRED 7/6/04). (Pg. 14)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Ordinance No. 9-04A.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

8. ORDINANCE NO. 77-03B – AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 77-03A adopted April 19, 2004, to accommodate changes in the temporary services in Refuse Collection, and other services, and thus authorizing the Mayor (Director of Public Safety), the Director of Public Works, the Director of Law, the Director of Finance, and/or the Procurement Officer to enter into contracts for professional services, and to advertise for bids and enter into contracts for the purchase of repair maintenance and operating supplies, services and equipment as authorized by the 2004 Appropriation Ordinance and the Administrative Code of the City of Lakewood with the lowest and best bidder or bidders or as otherwise provided by law. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 6/7/04, 2ND READING 6/21/04, DEFERRED 7/6/04). (Pg. 17)

Mr. FitzGerald indicated there was also discussion on this item that he omitted previously. He indicated that Council has expressed opinion before that it wants the City to move away from using companies that provide temporary workers as much as possible. He said during the review in Committee it looked as if temporary workers in previous Administrations may not have even been making minimum wage because the contract amount with the company was for minimum wage and because the companies typically take one or two dollars. He said they would follow up on that issue. He pointed out that this Administration was not using that same temporary agency.

He said that also when the minimum wage ordinance was passed last year there were discussion with the AFL-CIO and some other labor unions with trying to bring workers into the City that were not going through temporary agencies. He said that it was his understanding that those plans to create an alternative to the temporary workers companies are not complete. He indicated the issue would continue to be explored.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Ordinance No. 77-03B.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

9. RESOLUTION NO. 7908-04 - A RESOLUTION to amend Resolution No. 7825-04, adopted December 15, 2003, for the purpose of adding the American Payroll Association to the prior list authorizing the Director of Finance to pay the cost of memberships of municipal employees and/or Departments and Divisions in certain associations for the year 2004 and declaring such memberships to be in the public interest. (REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 6/21/04. DEFERRED 7/6/04)(Pg. 24)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Dever, to adopt Resolution No. 7908-04.

Motion adopted. Six members voting yea.
Mr. Demro abstains.
Motion adopted. Resolution No. 7908-04 adopted.
… .

10. ORDINANCE NO. 72-04 – AN ORDNIANCE authorizing the Mayor or his designee to enter into an agreement with The Martindale Electric Company located at 1365 Hird Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio 44107, for participation in the Lakewood Business Investment Program (BIP) of the Economic Development Fund (EDF) for a five (5) year forgivable loan in an amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars (15,000.00). (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 6/21/04, 2ND READING 7/6/04) (Pg. 31)

Mr. FitzGerald indicated that the Committee asked Councilmembers receive from the Finance Department and/or the Planning Department, a report as to how much funds remain available to expend so that when these decisions are made it knows how much of the total funds is being depleted. He said that would include both funds such as the Economic Development Fund or maximum capacity figures for considering TIF funds. He said that the information has been previously provided in other forms but wanted it to be provided in a more compact form.

Mayor George indicated that Mr. Harold Babbitt, or Mr. Mike Sudsina, could meet for an hour or however long it takes to answer some general questions about debt capacity and Mr. FitzGerald indicated this was a great idea.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to adopt Ordinance No. 72-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

11. ORDINANCE NO. 75-04 – An emergency ordinance declaring the necessity of submitting to the electors of the City of Lakewood the question of preserving the municipality’s right to impose a municipal income tax on the shareholders Ohio source distributive share of the net profits of S corporations. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 7/6/04)(Pg. 33)

Mr. FitzGerald indicated that in order for the ordinance to be placed in front of the electors the rules would have to be suspended to meet the Board deadline. He asked Finance Director Nogalo to explain the history as to why this issue is coming before a lot of municipalities.

Finance Director Nogalo indicated that S Corps have always been taxed. He said that S Corps unlike corporations have a net profit that doesn’t get taxed like corporations. He said tax money is derived from wages and the dividends distributed to the owners of the company. He said that unlike corporations, dividends aren’t taxed at the corporate; because the corporate net profits are taxed then the dividends aren’t supposed to be taxed. He said with S corps their net profit is not taxed and that the City wants to continue taxing the distributions or dividends to its shareholders. He said nothing was changing, that the City wanted to keep taxing the S corps as it had previously.

Mr. FitzGerald, indicated that rules would have to be suspended and asked if any Councilmembers had questions to ask the questions now.

Mayor George indicated the request from the Administration was to suspend the rules. He indicated RITA suggested that City Councils put the issue before the voters due to a change in State Law. He indicated that the Administration did not receive the memo until about June.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to suspend the rules requiring this be read on three separate days and placing Ordinance No. 75-04.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Rules suspended.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Dever to adopt Ordinance No. 75-04.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 75-04 adopted.
… .

12. ORDINANCE 76-04 – An ordinance to amend section 128.1302, Collection at Source, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood for the purpose of amending the due date of which an employer is required to make a return and pay to the Administrator the amount of taxes so deducted during the previous month. (PLACED ON 2ND READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 7/6/04)(Pg. 35)

Mr. FitzGerald asked Finance Director Nogalo to provide more detailed information on the item.

Finance Director Nogalo indicated that this was for all employers within Lakewood. He indicated that presently the Law states that any payrolls paid out in a month, that a company has until the last day of the following month. He indicated that the change would make the payroll due on the following month on the 15th.(Corrected later to be the 20th of the month) He indicated as an example that June’s payrolls from an employer within Lakewood would have to pay by July 15th. He said this was much more lenient than Federal and State, which require after a payroll withholding amounts for tax to be submitted within three days. He indicated that by moving it up it would help the cash flow.

Mr. Nogalo further indicated that most employers use payroll agencies like Paychecks; ADB and that it meant those agencies were holding the City’s money and investing it for the “x” amount of days until it’s due.

Mr. FitzGerald indicated that the City gets more money because it earns the interest off of the money longer by receiving money sooner for a longer period of time. Finance Director Nogalo indicated that it could help on a cash flow. He said as an example, money the City would receive for a November payroll this year could possibly come in December rather than in the normal January. He indicated there is a two-month lag and that the City will work with RITA because the amounts will be payable to RITA by the 15th day of the following month and by changing from the last day of the following month that would prevent the two month lag.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Ordinance No. 76-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea. (Motion was rescinded)

(After Item 13 – Item 12 was revisited)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to rescind the previous motion on Ordinance No. 76-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea. Original Motion rescinded.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to suspend the rules requiring this ordinances be read on three separate days and placing Ordinance No. 76-04 on final reading.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Rules suspended.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopt Ordinance No. 76-04.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 76-04 adopted.
… .

13. ORDINANCE 77-04 – An ordinance to amend sections 128.0502 and 128.1102(a) relating to the Imposition of Income Tax-Rate and Income Taxable of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood to include lottery winnings, gambling and gaming winnings. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 7/6/04) (Pg. 36)

Mr. FitzGerald asked about timeliness in the adoption. Finance Director Nogalo responded that earlier in the year Council passed a lottery winnings legislation but that there were several other sections in the Code that language has to be changed to be consistent throughout the Codified Ordinances on the Income tax. He indicated that the sooner Council passes the Ordinance the less argument someone would have on taxing lottery winnings.

Mr. FitzGerald indicated that Councilmembers try to be careful that they don’t suspend the rules unless there’s something time sensitive and that there could be a situation where someone wins mega millions and the City doesn’t get anything from it. He asked if the Administration was making a formal request to suspend the rules and they indicated they were.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to suspend the rules requiring this Ordinance be read on three separate days and placing Ordinance No. 77-04 on final reading.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Rules suspend.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopt Ordinance No. 77-04.
Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 77-04 adopted.
… .
[DIALOGUE REFERENCING ITEM 12 WAS DURING THIS SECTION OF THE AGENDA]
Law Director Corrigan indicated Item 12 would need to be revisited for proper suspension of the rules. Mr. FitzGerald asked how quickly the law could be put into place administratively. Finance Director Nogalo indicated that the City would inform RITA and they then would have to inform all the employers. He indicted if it was passed that night, beginning for the payroll of July that they would be due August 20th. He said they would inform the employers as soon as possible and probably give them leeway of even one month and then formally establish it perhaps in September.

Mr. FitzGerald asked then if it were placed on a reading that night that Council would not be able to reconsider it until September. He asked if the Administration was requesting the rules be suspended to get the money in quicker and the response was yes.
… .

14. ORDINANCE 78-04 – An emergency ordinance to enact a new section of Chapter 129 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood establishing the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bond Retirement Fund, for the purpose of receiving revenues specifically earmarked for TIF debt service and retiring the debt for projects financed under Tax Increment Financing. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 7/6/04) (Pg. 38)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to place Ordinance No. 78-04 on Second Reading.

Motion adopted. Six Members voting yea.
Mr. Demro absent for vote
Ordinance No. 78-04 adopted.
… .

15. ORDINANCE 79-04 – An emergency ordinance to enact a new section of Chapter 129 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood establishing the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Capital Improvement Fund, for the purpose of accounting for monies whose projects are financed under Tax Increment Financing. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 7/6/04)(Pg. 40)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Ms. Madigan, to place Ordinance No. 79-04 on Second Reading.

Motion adopted. Six Members voting yea.
Mr. Demro abstains.
Ordinance 79-04 adopted.
{Item 11 is read after Item 15)
… .

16. Public Works Committee Verbal Report regarding Ordinance 24-04,

Mr. Dever submitted the following report.

Public Works Committee met this evening with three issues on the agenda. We’re just going to address one of the issues right now and get to the other two later on in the meeting. The one issue is the ordinance that I had brought forward back in February concerning some capital improvements for Clifton Boulevard. In 2006, Clifton Boulevard is scheduled to be milled, the asphalt milled off and replaced from West 117th Street all the way to West Clifton. That was scheduled in 2006 and that was just going to include the asphalt surface curb to curb, the length of the entire corridor. I’m a member of the Public Works Committee and when I found out that this was about to take place I approached the previous Administration and the current Administration about trying to do something more to Clifton Boulevard. It’s our main thoroughfare; approximately 16,000 vehicles travel it per day; it’s 70 feet wide. Back in 1993 there was a plan to put a traffic island down the center of Clifton Boulevard. That didn’t fly. The reason why something like that didn’t fly because I think there wasn’t any public transportation in this. I’m not proposing that a traffic island go down the center of Clifton Boulevard. What I’m trying to do is, we can do something better to Clifton now; we can make enhancements along the curbing, the sidewalks, traffic structures, RTA bus shelters along Clifton Boulevard, make it more appealing. In turn, if the street is more appealing then the residents feel more inclined to put money into their own homes to make it more appealing also. This is our major corridor.

Now I’m glad to announce that we’re finally brining this ordinance out of Committee after numerous discussion. The Law Director has made sure to include language in this ordinance so that when we make an application to NOACA, which is the planning organization for northeastern Ohio here, that we have appropriate language instilled this so that we can go after some federal dollars to help pay for these improvements which could be as high as 80% of the cost. The biggest issue of this is the public participation and inside the next month, two months, I hope to reach out, along with the Administration to those residents that live typically on that street and off that street; get their input on what they’d like to see happen to Clifton Boulevard. I’ve been fortunate enough to have some people that have volunteered already to help in this endeavor, to come up with the public meetings and the form of forum. I’m hoping to have these public meetings, one over at Emerson School, the other over at Lincoln School. Those dates are not set yet, but we’re going to work on those.

I’m fortunate enough, Rick Sicha, from the Heritage Board is here with us also tonight and I’m sure Rick would like to say a few words on the issue also. Mr. Chairman, I think the Mayor would like to say something also.

Mayor George:

We are excited about this project. You make a number of good points. One point that I would like to make and I guess I hope it would be obvious but I still believe it needs reiterating is that is that the beautification of which you discuss calls for no increase of traffic on Clifton Boulevard. As a matter of fact it’s a way to calm traffic and make it more pedestrian-friendly. That’s the general direction we’re headed in the City. I had Howard Mayer in my office the other day, the Executive Director of NOACA and this is one of the topics I brought up. I brought up Clifton and I brought up Detroit and he’s very excited. We’ve actually taken the next step. We’re going to have Assistant Law Director Tom Corrigan and Acting Planning Director Gerry Murphy meet with Howard Mayer within the next several weeks to start the discussion on federal assistant for this project. We’re very excited about
That. I also would say, that Howard was eagerly waiting for us to participate. He said that other communities, particularly Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights have a NOACA project in their hopper virtually every year. This year we’re doing traffic signal upgrades with assistant though NOACA but he admonished us somewhat and said, you know what, you should be doing more there, there’s money available and they’re very receptive and NOACA for the kinds of projects we have and concerns we have in inner ring suburbs.

Rick Sicha: Chairman of the City’s Heritage Advisory Board. For my comments I’d also like to thank the input I got from Heather Rudge who’s a current member of the Heritage Board and Marcia Moll who’s a past member of the Board.

Clifton Boulevard is many things to different people. There are thousands of drivers who use it every day, public transit riders, there are several thousand residents who live along that boulevard. There are also pedestrians and bicyclists. Anything that we can do, I think, to help polish and freshen up Clifton Boulevard as the main corridor through town can only be positive for the community. Many people are Lakewood residents who use that road but many are not. People who ride the busses for example and that’s the only example they may have of Lakewood itself. If we’re looking through in conjunction with the repaving project, these other items in the normal course of business or soliciting outside funds as well anything from tree lawns to lighting, signage, pedestrian crossings, facilitating bike usage, bus stops, landscaping; these are the kinds of things that should be out and on a menu now.

The mayor is absolutely right, in one of my other hats, in one of my assignments in the County Planning Commission I serve on the enhancements working group of NOACA. I’m part of a four person committee that has actually reviewed these transportation enhancement proposals every year when they come to NOACA, when they have a funding run. Projects in Shaker Heights along Chagrin Boulevard as well as Coventry in Cleveland Heights and Broadway in downtown Bedford are exactly the types of projects and the menus of types of enhancements that this project would look toward. Definitely the first step is to see what everybody likes and doesn’t like about Clifton, all the user groups and to see what we can develop from that and the Heritage Board is certainly ready and willing to participate in that and anything that we may do let us know and I appreciate Council taking this first step tonight to be able to set a little planning money aside to get organized for the City at large.

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

17. ORDINANCE NO. 24-04 – 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. (PLEASE SUBSTITUTE FOR ORDINANCE NO. 24-04 PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 3/1/04, 2ND READING 3/15/04, DEFERRED 6/21/04) (Pg. 42)

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to amend Ordinance 24-04.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance adopted as substituted.

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Seelie to adopt Ordinance No. 24-04 as amended.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Ordinances No. 24-04 adopted as amended.
… .

18. Public Works Committee Verbal Report regarding various Public Works Ordinances.

Mr. Dever submitted the following report:

Public Works Committee met earlier this evening and I had mentioned two additional that were on our agenda this evening. The first item was Ordinance No. 53-04A which was an amendment to the original ordinance which included Manor Park sewer repair; additional appropriations for the Manor Park sewer repair which after they got started on the work, there was some additional work that needed to be done. This is included in that, the $17,500 in additional repairs on that sewer. Also included are the six major repairs that precipitated the fifty cent increase on sewer rates. These six items are; the Edgewater interceptor cleaning and inspection which has been valued at three million dollars, the Detroit sanitary sewer replacement which runs between Blossom Park and Giel that’s been valued at a million dollars, Warren Road sanitary and storm sewer replacement, Victoria Lane to Madison, we already have the plans made up for that that project is ready to go and should start some time this year; Hathaway Avenue sanitary and storm sewer replacement, Merle to Clifton, that’s $1.4 million, Detroit lateral replacement Nicholson to Giel $700,000 and the Bunts Road storm sewer replacement - this is a continuation of that emergency repair that we had started on Bunts in February. It’s a continuation of that going from Detroit to Franklin. I think we only replaced about 20, possibly 30 feet of it there. This is a continuation of the remainder of that. Those are the major emergencies, those are the emergencies that were facing us and if we didn’t have the fifty cents that this Council saw to approve the fifty cent increase we could have had substantial damages that could have been twice the amount of what we have before us this evening.

These are the first of the six major problems that we have facing us and I would figure sometime by the end of next year that these six problems should be alleviated.

Also on the docket we have Ordinance No. 5-04A which is included for Manor Park resurfacing an additional $7,500 for curbing and driveway aprons. That took place over on Manor Park. This is an additional appropriations for that.

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

Mr. Dever referenced the $3 million item for cleaning and inspection of the Edgewater inceptor commenting that that interceptor carries 75% of the sewage that travels through this City, ninety feet below ground. He indicated that access has been curtailed because it is in such great disrepair.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

19. ORDINANCE NO. 53-04A – AN ORDINANCE to amend Ordinance 53-04, adopted May 3, 2004, for the purpose of adding additional Wastewater Improvements and 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 Wastewater 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 FINANCE COMMITTEE 6/7/04, PLACED ON 2ND READING & REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 6/21/04, DEFERRED 7/6/04). (Pg. 44)

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Seelie, amend to substitute.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance is substituted.

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Ordinance No. 53-04A as substituted.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 53-04A adopted as substituted.

….

20. ORDINANCE NO. 5-04A – AN ORDINANCE to amend Ordinance 5-04, adopted March 1, 2004, for the purpose of granting additional contracting authority for the Manor Park Project and 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 6/7/04, 2ND READING 6/21/04, DEFERRED 7/6/04). (Pg. 46)

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to amend to substitute.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie.
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance is substituted.

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Ordinance
No. 5-04A as substituted.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 53-04A adopted as substituted.
… .

21. Public Safety Committee Verbal Report regarding Prohibiting Right on Red for various streets; Ordinance 73-04.

Mr. Corrigan submitted the following report:

The Public Safety Committee met this evening receiving a communication from Councilmember Madigan regarding the Block Watch Program. Essentially, there’s an initiative set forth to initiate the Block Watch Program. What was discussed was the inclusion of the Federal Emergency Management Action Plan group that Mr. Galvin and consulted with him to see if there could be some dovetailing efforts when we receive and file the communication with the intention of future efforts of meeting with Mr. Galvin.

The second item on the agenda was a communication from Public Works Director Beno regarding no turn on red at intersections in Proposed Ordinance 73-04. Not Turn on Red at Detroit and St. Charles, Detroit and Arthur, Detroit and Lakeland intersections. The first reading was June 21, 04, the second reading 7/6/04, there being no objections to this and based on the safety issues that were raised the communication they would improve it.

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

Mr. Dunn asked that consideration be given to changing the name of a Block Watch Program. He indicated that by association, the origins of block watch programs have been in urban, high crime neighborhoods. He said they served a valuable purpose there but that prospective residents upon seeing a block watch program may make a wrong conclusion and could even be deterred from buying a home. He suggested that the same result could be achieved with a different name which would reinforce what the program was about. He referenced Lakewood Neighbors and were a welcoming group.

Mr. Corrigan, FitzGerald and Seelie indicated agreement. Mr. FitzGerald indicated that first meetings talked about having the program more of a block club. Mr. FitzGerald indicated that if the block club decided they would want a block watch, or what they would call it, that could be a way to do it. He indicated that this would make it not just focused on security, but a block party, or other community meetings.

Councilmember Madigan indicated that she had no problem calling the program a different name. She wanted a commitment from councilmember to be able to afford to get the posters done and the packets put together.

Mayor George suggested a City contest for a name.

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. FitzGerald, to refer the block watch item back to the Public Safety Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

22. ORDINANCE NO. 73-04 – AN ORDINANCE to amend the Traffic Code of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood by amending Section 313.10 regarding Prohibited Turns on Red Signals, to create 24-hours seven days a week “No Turn On Red” designations for the intersections at Detroit and St. Charles Avenues, Detroit and Arthur Avenues, and Detroit and Lakeland Avenues, as part of the streetscape and downtown crosswalk upgrades to create a safer and more pedestrian-friendly downtown. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE 6/21/04, 2ND READING 7/6/04) (Pg. 48)

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt Ordinance No. 73-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

23. Public Safety Committee Verbal Report regarding Communication from Councilmember Madigan; Block Watch Program.

{Was addressed in item 21}
… .

24. ORDINANCE 80-04 – An ordinance establishing rates for the Ohio Department of Transportation Driver Training Course and Driver Training Refresher Course provided by the Lakewood Department of Human Services/Division of Aging, effective October 1, 2004. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE 7/6/04) (Pg. 52)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to place Ordinance No. 80-04 on 2nd Reading.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

****NEW BUSINESS****

25. Communication from Councilmember Madigan regarding Resolution in Honor of Paul Krawczyk, Eagle Scout. (Pg. 54)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Ms. Madigan, to receive and file the communication.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

26. RESOLUTION NO. 7912-04 – A RESOUTION to honor Paul Krawczyk on his achievement in attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. (Pg. 55)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Demro, to adopt Resolution No. 7912-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

27. Verbal Communication from Councilmember Demro regarding Resolution of Appreciation for the Lakewood Project.

Mr. Demro submitted the following verbal communication:

It has now been two concerts ago since I first saw the Lakewood Project in the Civic Auditorium. A friend told me that it was something very unique and something I really needed to get a glance at in person. And when I saw this concert I really thought that it needed a wider audience in the City to be able to share what tremendous artists we have at our High School, what a wonderful music program we have and what our taxpayer dollars really go to work for. And therefore, I worked with the Director, the City Administration to help pull this concert together on July 4th. All of our City employees, the School employees did a tremendous job but the people who really deserve the highest thanks and the highest appreciation are the students who performed and the directors for the job that they did, for the wonderful concert that they made happen on the Fourth of July. With that, I put forward this resolution to thank them for providing a free concert on July Fourth.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Demro, to receive and file the communication.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .
28. RESOLUTION NO. 7913-04 – A RESOLUTION extending most gracious thanks to the Lakewood Project for giving an incredible public performance on Independence Day in Lakewood Park. (Pg. 56)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Resolution No. 7913-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .
29. Report from the Charter Review Commission regarding Charter Amendments. (Attachments to be provided). (Pg. 57)

The two separate drafts were discussed. The Charter Review Chair Patton indicated they were provided as equal in importance. It was discussed that the Charter Review Commission was now disbanded and that Council had the authority to consider whether or not the recommendations would go to the ballot.

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

30. Communication from Mayor George regarding Report from Lakewood Civil Service Commission regarding Recommendations for Council Members and Mayor Salaries.(Pg. 59)
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to receive and file the communication.
Motion adopted. Six members voting yea.
Mr. Demro absent for vote.
… .

31. Communication from Mayor George regarding Recognition of the 2004 Grand Marshal of the July 4th parade and the Parade Award Winners. (Pg. 62)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Demro, to receive and file the communication.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

32. RESOLUTION NO. 7914-04 – A RESOULTION to thank Father Jerome Duke and the members of the Saints Cyril & Methodius Catholic Church for participating in the City of Lakewood 4th of July Parade as the Grand Marshal. (Pg. 63)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Resolution No. 7914-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

33. Communication from Mayor George regarding Speed Awareness Safety Month “Brake 4 Kids” Campaign. (Pg. 64)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to receive and file the communication.

Ms. Jody Kutolowski spoke on behalf of Speed Awareness Safety Month.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

34. RESOLUTION NO. 7915-04 – A RESOLUTION to proclaim the month of September 2004 to be Speed Awareness Safety Month in the City of Lakewood. (Pg. 65)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Resolution No. 7915-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

35. Communication from Mayor George regarding Greater Cleveland Veterans memorial July 23, 2004 Day of Tribute. (Pg. 66)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to receive and file the communication.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

36. RESOLUTION NO. 7916-04 – A RESOLUTION declaring July 23, 2004 as a “Day of Tribute” in the City of Lakewood in honor of those men and women who served and died while in military service. (Pg. 67)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Resolution No. 7916-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

37. Liquor Permit Application for D2, D2X, D3, D6 permit transfers to SMK, d/b/a White Door Saloon, 14718 Detroit Avenue, from White Door, same Address. (Pg. 68)

Mr. Corrigan indicated he wanted Council to be aware that liquor license renewal procedure was taking place as scheduled for October 1st.

Mr. FitzGerald indicated that Council gets a letter every year from the Liquor Board to ask for any objections of all liquor permit renewals. Law Director Corrigan clarified the deadline date for which Council can object as September 1st.

Mr. Corrigan indicated he was arranging a public hearing for Ward 1 for certain establishments. He asked for a special meeting sometime in the third week of August so that Council could file a timely objection to the State.

Mr. Dunn asked the Law Director asked if a resolution passed by Council was absolutely necessary and Law Director Corrigan responded that it required legislation.

Whether this would require suspension of the rules was asked and the response was yes.

Mr. Seelie asked about schedule, and indicated he would sent out some possible dates for a meeting after Mr. Corrigan’s public hearing.

Mr. FitzGerald suggested a reminder be put forward well before the deadline in future years to avoid having the deadline so close to the notice.

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Dever, to suspend the rules in order to conduct a special hearing for legislative activity to address the renewal of liquor licenses in Ward 1 specifically.

Mr. Corrigan indicated that it was his understanding that the renewal of the liquor licenses is conducted unless there is legislative activity presented to the Ohio Liquor Control Commission before September 1st. He indicated that the objection is in the form of a communication resolution with evidence backing up objections to certain licenses. He said the objections will not be heard if they’re not correct. He said to send a pro forma objection without evidence and without legislative activity is a nullity to the Ohio Liquor Control Commission. He said there have been substantial complaints specifically about the bar scenes in specific areas. He said that he has had residents that have had riots in their yards, and other issues that need to be addressed.

Mr. Dunn asked to amend that motion with, “the ward councilperson that collects that data, that evidence, I’m not asking that ward person to co-oberate with the Police Chief or the Law Director but if the ward councilperson did have an opportunity to validate whether that evidence would serve as a valid ground of objection before we call a meeting”. He said there’s a lot of times when there’s a problem but not grounds for an objection to deny somebody a liquor license. He said he asks that Council does not unnecessarily call a meeting.

That that Ward Councilperson, after collecting the data, after collecting the evidence, not to cooberate the evidence but to discuss whether if it is true, whether that serves as a valid ground to hold a meeting for us to take legislative action and go on record.

Mr. Corrigan indicated he would be conducting a meeting for the residents oft his ward on that issue and he would take statements from people and obtain police records of certain establishments in order to submit some findings for legislative recommendations on the licenses.

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to defer (item 37).
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

38. Liquor Permit Application for a new D1 permit class to Lake Avenue Industries, 13321 Madison Avenue. (Pg. 69)

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to defer action on this item.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

39. Liquor Permit Application for C2, C2X and D6 permit transfers to Ghanshyam Maharaj, d/b/a Ross Deli, 15524 Detroit Avenue, from Radeshyam, same address. (Pg. 70)

Law Director Corrigan read from his letter indicating the police report on the liquor permit application showed no statutory grounds to object.

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to file no objection to the liquor permit.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

Meeting adjourned 10:37 PM.
… .

Approved:____________________________ ________________________
CLERK

________________________
PRESIDENT