Regular Meeting of the Lakewood City Council called to order at 7:34 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 Chief Mroz, Public Works Director Beno, Planning & Development Director Jordon, Project Administrator for New Lakewood Fitzgerald, Human Services Director Buckon, Mayor’s Executive Assistant Novak.
… .
Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council held November 1, 2004, without the necessity of a reading.

Without objection from Members of Council, Items 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 were read first; respectively in agenda order.

****OLD BUSINESS****

1. Communication from Council President Seelie regarding Whether to Apply to Place Birdtown on the National Register of Historic Places. (Pg. 6)

Rick Sicha provided a briefing on what the designation, background on what the designation mands and does not mean and examples in the Greater Cleveland Area. He stated the following:

The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of properties recognized by the federal government as worthy of preservation for their local, state, or national significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Although the National Register is a program of the National Park Service, it is administered at the state level by each respective state. In Ohio, that done through the Ohio Historic Preservation Office which is housed at the Ohio Historical Society.

The Program originated as part of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and over the last almost 40 years there are now 78,000 listings on the National Register that comprise over a million buildings nation-wide. For something generally to be listed on the register there are three evaluation standards. Generally the property needs to be at least 50 years of age. It needs to still have what’s call its historic integrity; the shorthand for that might be - if you’re supposed to be looking at an old building it still needs to be looking like an old building and not something that was completely refaced and remodeled in the 1980s. and it also needs to meet one of four established criteria. That is to be significant, part of the broad patterns of history, have association with the lives of significant persons, have architectural merit or be important in archeology.

What the National Register listing does – is it accords prestige and recognition to either an individual property or a neighborhood that might be nominated. And that’s something, for example, that the City of Cleveland has used in their approach with the significance to giving recognition to specific neighborhoods. If the property that you have is income producing which means depreciable according to the IRS Code then there is a 20 percent federal tax credit available for re-habing the structure to the Secretar of Interior’s guidelines. That’s a program that is difficult for property owners of say two family buildings to make use of within the building stock of Lakewood it would be much more commonly used for a larger commercial buildings or apartment buildings. It really does often take a somewhat larger building to make that work simply because of the amount of money that someone might be investing in it at any given point.

There are currently three programs operating in the City of Lakewood that use the secretary’s guidelines. One is the City’s Storefront Program, so projects like Geigers, Angelos, Winking Lizard – they met those guidelines. The City’s Housing Re-hab Program and the Heritage Home Loan Program which is a joint project of the Cleveland Restoration Society in the Cuyahoga County Treasurer’s Office. Through October of this year, there are 33 loans worth $ 1.2 million that have been made in the City of Lakewood on that program. And those all meet the guidelines as well.

And in addition, I should also mention having sort of sat in the back corner of the Architectural Board of Review meetings for almost the last ten years now – their decision-making process is also very similar to those guidelines.

What the National Register Listing does not do:

It does not obligate a property owner whatsoever. A property owner can still remodel, repair, alter, sell or even demolish the property that they have. If you were going to use federal funds to do that there would be a review process, this being a federal program that would kick in and what it would like at is whether there are no feasible alternatives to demolition. But you can basically do as you want. The Clifton Park Neighborhood has been on the National Register for 30 years; the northern part of it, north of Clifton. Within the last year and a half a project I can think of out there is the current owner of the Glidden House as in Glidden Paint. They demolished the original garage that was on one part of the house; re-built it, a new garage on another portion and they were able to do that even though they were in a National Register District. The example that I usually use about referencing people being able to use their own money and to do as they wish is that I’m sure many of you remember an October Sunday morning in 1982 down on Public Square when two buildings were imploded for the BP Building. Well those buildings were on the National Register. BP used their own money so there’s really not restrictions.

National Register List does not obligate a property owner to open their house to the public for a house tour. It does not obligate certain maintenance standards. It would really be no different from any other neighborhood where you’re subject to the Building Codes as well as the reviews of Architectural Board of Review and the Zoning Board of Appeals.

How Properties Are Chosen for the National Register. Anyone can fill out a nomination nominating a property to the National Registry. My experience over the years and throughout the country I’ve seen individual property owners, neighborhood associations, non-profit organizations; in-house through the local government – it’s very flexible on who can do that.

Once the nomination is in draft form it goes to the State Pres. Office in Columbus, they review it, normally they have questions, it comes back for further editing and once they’re satisfied down in Columbus with the narrative, it goes to a State review Board - 17 member panel appointed by the governor. They okay the nomination and then it gets forwarded to the National Park Service; they review it again and then it’s finally published in the federal register as being final.

Some properties in Greater Cleveland that are already on the National Register; as I mentioned Clifton Park, the Detroit/Warren Building is on the National Register. The Hackenburg House on Grace Avenue, the Day House on Hilliard – that’s the house at the southeast corner of Atkins and Hilliard as well as the Nicholson House and the Oldest Stone House for the properties owned by the Historical Society.

Within Cleveland, most of downtown Cleveland is on the National Register including the warehouse district – and that’s an example - warehouse district – virtually every building that’s been worked on has used that federal tax credit. The Archwood/Denison neighborhood; Ohio City, Shaker Square and its neighborhood, large sections of Tremont, Broadway Avenue, Franklin Boulevard, the area around W. 65th & Detroit, Lorain Avenue on both the 30s through 50s and again in the 90s and much of the University Circle Area. West Tech High School is also on the National Register and that school building being converted to housing at this point.

In the suburbs, the listings include downtown Bedford, almost all of the City of Shaker Heights, that now includes almost 7,200 buildings, the center of Olmsted Falls, the Center of Glenwillow, which is a small company town built by Austin Powder, Jate, which is where the National Park Headquarters are and the Ohio and Erie Canal. Which brings us to Birdtown.

Birdtown was originally known as the Pleasant Hill allotment. It was reported in the county records in 1893. The original subdivision originally extended from Magee on the east to Halstead on the west, the railroad tracks on the south and just the south side of Madison. Now certainly when one is thinking about National Register boundaries it’s hard to think about Birdtown without thinking about several properties on the north side of Madison; Sts. Cyril and Methodius, as well as Sts. Peter and Paul. There are also several old building still affiliated with National Carbon that are on the UCAR site but generally speaking it’s Magee to Halstead, Madison to the railroad tracks and that is as far as we can tell at the Heritage Board, the largest company town in the Greater Cleveland Area. The only other one is Jaite which is about a half a dozen buildings in Glenwillow which is about twenty buildings. This is about 400 properties total. Of course, not only its significance in the neighborhood as a company town but also the generations of immigrants and the ethnic neighborhood enclaves that have existed there and how that has been important is really unique to Lakewood and in some instances the Cleveland area as well. It’s certainly comparable to Tremont. So for those two reasons of significance, that’s really what makes it eligible for the Register and is certainly, no doubt that it is, that the State would consider it that way. It really is just a matter of doing the paper work to get this neighborhood listed on the National Register and hopefully the first of many within the City.

Councilmember Madigan indicated she wanted to be clear about the area and asked if the area did not include the churches on the north side of Madison.

Planning & Development Director responded that the Administration wanted to be clear also regarding the boundaries of the area. He referenced an aerial for the public. He stated that it marked out St. Gregory’s,. Sts. Cyril & Methodias are on the north side of Madison. He said the designation would be for the south side of Madison to the railroad tracks, Halstead, Magee. He stated that all the buildings encompassed in that area would fall under the designation. He further indicated that any commercial buildings (such as churches on the north side) under the City’s Code, would require an automatic referral anyway to the Lakewood Historic Advisory Board before major alterations or demolition permits would be allowed. He stated that this would have them under some level of review for historical value.

Councilmember Madigan wanted clarification to ensure the designation would not inhibit development or interfere with family home projects.

Planning & Development Director Jordon indicated the source of funds were mostly Community Development Block Grant Funds which already have requirements related to historic preservation. He indicated that there would not be additional requirements. Mr. Sicha added that there were no restrictions concerning alterations or changes made to a property. He stated that one question came up at the Schools Design and Heritage Committee Meeting was whether the designation would have an effect on the new school project which does the demolition of the existing school and building a new structure. Mr. Sicha stated the answer to that was no as well.

Fr. Timothy Sawchak, priest at Sts. Peter & Paul Orthodox Church, wanted to clarify if St. Gregory’s church or Hall was in the area for designation. He asked to be informed should their be meetings.

Mr. Sicha responded that as part of the nomination process, after the paper work has been completed, a standard procedure would be followed because it is a district of at least 50 property owners. He indicated the State Historic Preservation Office would publish a notice in the Lakewood Sun Post indicating the nomination has been proposed and that there will be a public meeting scheduled at that time, prior to the 17-member Board review in Columbus.

Dave Bueller, Cranford Avenue, asked if the Lake Erie Screw Building was considered for review as part of the historical package. He stated that one of the attributes of the building is that it was the original Templar Motor Company Building as well as the Templar Munitions Company Building. He stated that there are many historical documents available regarding the building.

Mr. Sicha stated that he had thought of this and that during the preparation of the paperwork. City staff with Planning & Development Director Jordon, the State Preservation Board and the Heritage Advisory Board should discuss this. He said the company was a major employer of the residents in the area and it does date back to the teens. He said that property as well as a couple of the churches on the north side of Madison need to be discussed.

March Stopiak, 4525 Orchard – Fairview stated that she did not believe it was all of Halstead. She asked if the west end of Halstead was part of the plat. Mr. Sicha clarified that the original allotment was 1893 and that three later there was an amendment and that added the west side of Halstead.

Mr. Seelie made the recommendation that the Planning & Development Department draw up a resolution required for the application process. He stated that could be on the next docket. Director Jordon indicated that this could be done.

Mr. Seelie asked what the time frame was. Mr. Sicha responded that beginning to end, counting preparation time, and various reviews would take 9-12 months.

Mr. Dunn asked if there was s distinction between the Resolution and the actual application. Mr. Jordon indicated it would show that the community was behind the designation. Mr. Dunn clarified that it would then be part of the process. Mr. Jordon agreed. Mr. Seelie indicated the application would be attempted in-hourse.

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, that the Planning Commission draw up a resolution for the required process.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

Mr. Seelie stated that the entire City was once considered eligible for a similar designation because of its streetcar history. He asked if that had been pursued. Mr. Sicha stated that it would be a much larger undertaking than the present 400 building neighborhood. He stated that there were approximately 14,000 structures built in 1955 or earlier in the City. Mr. Sicha continued that the Heritage Advisory Board was in the process of completing the inventory of approximately 750 buildings in the commercially and industrially zoned areas of the City. He stated those areas include 117th, Madison, Detroit, Sloane.

Mayor George stated that different neighborhoods were presently being explored to identify unique attributes. He stated that although there would be no real problem in designating the entire City, one of the real benefits of designation was to create unique and distinct neighborhoods. He said these could include the Gold Coast, Victorian Village area near Grace Avenue, Cohassett Avenue, the other part of Clifton Park and Clifton Park itself. He indicated that there could be advantages in designating the entire City but that it could mean lumping everything together.
… .

2. Finance Committee Verbal Report regarding Vacation of Cohassett Place, Rezoning of the Lakewood City Schools Real Property; Ordinances 94-04 and 95-04.

Mr. FitzGerald submitted the following report:

The Finance Committee met last Thursday. He indicated there would be more detailed information about the loss to the City in a short term with regard to the property taxes from the vacation of these. We were given a statistic, something like $17,000 or something of that nature or $27,000 – that’s offset by the increase of property values for the surrounding area once the new schools are built which is more an intangible item but it’s a fact none-the-less. We’re still going to get additional figures but on this particular item, the Committee unanimously recommended that we adopt this this evening.

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

3. ORDINANCE NO. 94-04 – AN ORDINANCE to vacate Cohassett Place in the City of Lakewood, Ohio. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 10/18/04, 2ND READING 11/1/04) (Pg. 8)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopt Ordinance No. 94-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

4. ORDINANCE NO. 95-04 – AN ORDINANCE to amend Section 1105.02 – Districts Established, Maps - of the Zoning Code of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood by changing and revising the Zoning Map of the City with respect to certain property as hereinafter set forth and described as 1341 W. Clifton Blvd., Horace Mann Middle School; 1201 Summit Avenue, Lincoln Elementary School; 13701 Lake Avenue, Taft Elementary School; 13439 Clifton Blvd., Emerson Jr. High School; 13027 Hazelwood Avenue, 13100 Detroit Avenue, 12914 Detroit Avenue, 1327 Cohassett Place, 1357 Cohassett Place, 1363 Cohassett Place, 1369 Cohassett Place, 1373 Cohassett Place, 1379 Cohassett Place, 1385 Cohassett Place, 1374 Cohassett Place, 1370 Cohassett Place, 1350 Cohassett Place, 1348 Cohassett Place, 1344 Cohassett Place, 1330 Cohassett Place, Garfield Elementary School; 16600 Hilliard Road, Harding Middle School/Madison Elementary School; 1460 Elmwood Avenue and 1470 Victoria Avenue, Grant Elementary School; 1470 Warren Road, Board of Education; 14100 Franklin Avenue, Lakewood High School; 1592 Coutant Avenue, Maintenance Garage; 2050 Quail St., 2054 Quail St., 2058 Quail St., 2062 Quail St., 2068 Quail St., 2070 Quail St., 2080 Quail St., 2071 Dowd Ave., 2065 Dowd Ave., 2059 Dowd Ave., 2053 Dowd Ave., 2051 Dowd Ave., 2081 Dowd Ave., Harrison Elementary School. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 10/18/04, 2nd READING 11/1/04) (Pg. 13)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-04.

Mr. Demro asked if the addresses were provided by the School Board or some other entity. He indicated that the schools use 1215 West Clifton Boulevard as their address for Horace Mann Middle School. He also stated that to his knowledge Lincoln Elementary has always used a Clifton Boulevard address, not the Summit Avenue address.

Planning & Development Director Jordon responded that he believed the addresses were provided by the School Board and that they may be more reflective of the tax duplicate address which he indicated the Zoning falls upon.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

5. Finance Committee Verbal Report regarding Property Tax Rate Resolution for 2005. (Pg. 50)

Mr. FitzGerald submitted the following report:

Your Finance Committee met last Thursday and then we also met again prior to the Council Meeting this evening and had further discussions about this. Basically, this is the County’s procedure where they authorize our returns from the property tax rates as they are. There was a change where they allocated an additional $185,000 I believe was the number from our usual allocation, the way that it’s divided up. There was a question in our meeting on Thursday as to why the County would have found us to be eligible for that additional allocation within the overall allocation and whether or not that would have any effect on the City’s bond rating or the City’s fiscal health. Those were the concerns of the Committee. I would summarize it by saying and we have a nice discussion with the Finance Director this evening that this action isn’t going to affect our financial health but the fact they saw fit to allocate that additional $185,000 to the City is a reflection of where the City is heading financially and I would direct the Councilmembers to the draft of the Budget that you received in your mail boxes this evening from the Finance Department which references a rating from Moody’s investment service dated back in July of this year for our financial outlook was changed from a Double A Two (AA2) rating to a Double A Two (AA2) rating with a negative outlook which isn’t an actual decrease in the bond rating but it is a harbinger of perhaps things to come. With that warning of things to come we recommended that we adopt this property tax rate this evening. The Committee voted unanimously for the whole Council to accept that.

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

6. RESOLUTION NO. 7932-04 – A RESOLUTION accepting the amounts and rates as determined by the Budget Commission and authorizing the necessary tax levies and certifying them to the County Auditor. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 11/1/04)(Pg.29)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopted Resolution No. 7932-04.

Mr. Seelie clarified with the Law Director that it being a resolution that suspension of the rules was not necessary.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

7. Finance Committee Verbal Report regarding Workers Compensation – Retrospective Rating Plan Participation.

Mr. FitzGerald submitted the following report:

We met on this last Thursday. This has to do with the retrospective rating plan which gets complicated but within the system of Worker’s Comp., there’s three different options you have basically. You can have the State’s standard program, you can be self-insured or you can opt into this retrospective rating program which the City has done for the last couple of years. We’ve gotten good results from it and there’s no reason not to continue with it. We did have a discussion about looking long-term to whether or not self-insurance would be an option for the City. The individual who was there, there there’s a new company that’s going to be taking over the City’s workers comp. Administration, we had an extended discussion with him about whether or not that was on the horizon at all, if it made sense for the City and it’s probably something that they should at least look at; nothing that we can do in the short term. For the short term, the Committee recommended the recommended unanimously that we adopt this Resolution this evening.

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

8. RESOLUTION NO. 7934-04 – AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION authorizing the Director of Finance to enter into an agreement to apply to The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to participate in a Retrospective Rating Plan for the City of Lakewood. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 11/1/04) (Pg. 33)

Mr. FitzGerald asked the Law Director if the Resolution required three readings. Law Director Corrigan indicated that it did not require three readings.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopt Resolution No. 7934-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

9. Finance Committee Verbal Report regarding Probation Officer Salary.

Mr. FitzGerald submitted the following report:

This is a request from Municipal Court Judge Carroll to adopt the compensation for the Probation Officer. The Committee recommended unanimously that we pass this Ordinance. (Mr. FitzGerald clarified that the Ordinance had had its two readings although it had not been noted the docket agenda).

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

10. ORDINANCE NO. 96-04 – AN ORDINANCE fixing the compensation of the Probation Officer of the Lakewood Municipal Court, and the time and method of payment. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 10/18/04, PLACED ON 2ND READING 11/1/04)(Pg. 34)

Mr. FitzGerald asked the second reading be recognized for the record.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .
11. Finance Committee Verbal Report regarding Contracting authority amendments and additional appropriation.

Mr. FitzGerald submitted the following report:

We met about this on Thursday, we also met on it again before the meeting this evening. As Council knows, we have a two step process that we go through in when money gets expended on contracts. Step number one is to appropriate the money during our Budget process and each department will come through and make an estimate of what they think they need for contracts that they’re going to let out during the year. And then there is the Contracting Ordinance which is supposed to mirror that which also asks City Council for the contracting authority for an amount which will cover those contracts. If it comes to a point during the year where the Administration has an amount which is in excess of what they thought they needed for contracting authority – even if they could make it up in the Budget the process has been that they come back to City Council and ask for an increase in the contracting authority and then we would pass that then they would expend the funds. This is separate, by the way, from the requirement to have expenditures over a certain dollar amount be approved by Council. That’s covered by a separate ordinance of Council. It’s also separate by the way, for instance when we have this situation recently where the Administration asked for contracting authority for the employee awards dinner. That was because that wasn’t included at all in the amount, it wasn’t because they had exceeded an amount. They had it budgeted but by an oversight they hadn’t asked for the amount to be included in the contracting authority. What happened, and we were informed of this on Thursday by personnel for the Finance Department was that on small items, apparently small items, mostly having to do with training and seminars particularly in Police and Fire there were areas that were contracted for when they are taken in their aggregate, when they’re added all up for the year were in excess of the amount that City Council had approved, not in the Budget process, but with the Contracting Ordinance. Now, Nick Sullivan was our Purchase Director and after he left we had Kim Smith in the Finance Department started assuming some of his duties and what she discovered was that in 2003, if you took that contracting authority amount for 2003 in an aggregate, it exceeded the amount that City Council had actually approved for contracting authority by x numbers of dollars – now I’ll have to figure out off the top of my head. For 2004 there was also, again, mostly in the areas of training for Police officers and Fire and other personnel seminars there was again an excess amount that was needed to be contracted for than had been approved by City Council. So we got this information on Thurdsay. I sent a letter to the Law Department today and I asked them for their legal opinion and asked for three things. First, I wanted to know if any State or local ordinance had been violated because monies had been expended in previous years or previous during this year and had not been approved or contemplated by the contracting authority – ordinance –that’s one. Second, if that policy had been violated, if the City would likely be cited by the State Auditor for anything and if there’d be any penalty by the State Auditor. Third, I requested that the Administration set up an internal check and balance to make sure this didn’t happen again. Let me explain why I did that. Because when the Finance Department made their presentation to us on Thursday they stated that they believed this wouldn’t happen again because they were looking at the situation and they were monitoring it. Now I said, I appreciated that, but I wanted to make sure that we weren’t going to be incompliance or out of compliance just based on who happened to be sitting in that chair at that particular time and minding the books so to speak. I wanted to make sure that there was some kind of internal mechanism within the Finance Department, within the Administration so that one person’s oversight does not create this situation in the future. And there was an agreement, by the way, between, I think, Members of the Committee and the Administration that these particular items were not in dispute. This wasn’t something where there was contracting authority that was given for items that we don’t approve of or that were not proper City expenditures but we’re trying to make sure that that never happens in the future. Now those are the three questions I asked. Let me recite with the Administration told us they would do. Number one, they said it was apparently the practice of the Administration and Council but was not something that was actually required by Ordinance for small amounts such as this nor was it something that was required by State law. And they weren’t saying they had any problem complying with it as a practice but they were saying it wasn’t something they were required by law. That answered by second question which was - we’re not likely to be cited by the State Auditor – in their opinion, didn’t believe we would be. And third, as far as the check and balance, they agreed that there would be something that we would we would get more of an outline in Budget Hearings but their would be an outline of how this situation would be dealt with in the future. To make a long story, well, not short – to explain it just a little bit more. They’re trying to strike a balance between oversight and having needless number crunching where they’re trying to comply with something which isn’t really what the spirit of law is getting at. Because we’re really not interested in looking at if a seminar that somebody attended was $225 per day instead of $220 per day. We’re not trying to get to that level of oversight. What we’re trying to make sure that Council’s tradition of having a separate level of oversight when we look at the contracting authority is respected and is followed not just in theory but in practice. (Mr. FitzGerald asked Mr. Nogalo if there was anything that was left out. Mr. Nogalo asked the other items that contracting authority was being requested be addressed. )

Mr. FitzGerald continued:

Beside that aspect of it they were also asking for additional contracting authority to refurbish the semi-trailor. We heard from Mr. Crute about this, it has to do with the application of using the wastewater and trucking it out to the landfill. It’s called a land use application out in Medina I believe. Also, somewhat associated with that is an increase in lab analysis funds. Again this is to make sure our wastewater treatment plant is in compliance with Ohio EPA regulations. Janitorial services; there was also a request for an increase in that. I believe after all this was explored at length in Committee, the Committee eventually unanimously recommended that we adopt these this evening.

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

12. Finance Committee Verbal Report regarding Contracting Authority Amendments and Additional Appropriation – Ordinances 9-04C & 77-03D. (This item was duplicated from above and was not read at the Meeting)

13. ORDINANCE NO. 9-04C – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 9-04B, adopted October 4, 2004 for the purpose of adding contracting authority for a Semi Trailer for the Wastewater Treatment Plant 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 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 11/1/04)(Pg. 35)

Mr. FitzGerald indicated that because the semi-trailers are not manufactured anymore, Mr. Crute had asked to expedite the Ordinance because there are a limited number of the vehicles on the market. He stated that time was of the essence and asked for suspension of the rules.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to suspend the rules requiring this Ordinance be read on three separate days and placing Ordinance No. 9-04C on final reading.

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

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

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 9-04C.
… .

14. ORDINANCE NO. 77-03D – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 77-03C adopted October 4, 2004, to increase contracting authority for Supervisor/Manager/Employee Training, Government Agreements, Lab Analysis Services – WWTP and Janitorial 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 11/1/04) (Pg. 38)

Mr. FitzGerald indicated he had been apprised of items that were time sensitive. Finance Director Nogalo indicated that the lab analysis fees were needed because a full-time person retired earlier this year and that they were using contractual service and were running out of money. He stated the other items were holding a few registrations for seminars were being held up. He stated that the last payment to WEBB was being held back.

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. 77-03D on final reading.

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

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

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dever, Dunn, FitzGerald, Madigan, Seelie
Nays: None
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 77-03D.
… .

15. Rules & Ordinances Committee Verbal Report regarding Ordinance No. 85-04.

Mr. Dunn submitted the following report:

When I get to the next document item I’m going to move to substitute the ordinance that’s currently in the docket with one that was just passed out to each Member of Council. The only difference between the two is the specified fine for the various violations.

This Ordinance was proposed by Councilman Ryan Demro in September. And it focused on the placement of refuse in the right-of-way and having an appropriate penalty for people who put their refuse out too early. We’ve had four different meetings. We’ve included the Law Department, Larry Slavik from Refuse Department as well as Tony Beno; Public Works. Needless to say we did a lot of trash talking over the four meeting period and we came to a constructive recommendation regarding this proposal. First I should explain the purpose. It is currently a community standard that trash cannot be put out until 6:00 P.M. of the even of puck-up the following morning. Which has typically not been a problem in the community. However there are occasions when people put it out before and it’s particularly a problem when it comes to multi-family homes or apartments when leases expire days before the scheduled garbage pick-up. When those residents leave, they often times discard their trash, refuse and they put it out on the tree lawn days before pick-up and then because of the elements, particularly during the windy parts of the year have debris blowing all over the neighborhood. And it detracts from the quality of life in a lot of our neighborhoods. Currently those residents, those property owners could be cited either by one of two means. They could be cited by the Health Department, by being in violation of the litter ordinance which would be a $100.00 fine or they could be cited by the Building Department by being in violation of the Building Code for having debris on the property. Mr. Demro’s recommendation to have a fine attached to a current community standard I think is wise – one because it draws attention to the actual problem and it tailors the penalty to an ordinance. Whereas the standard now is a standard without a penalty. With that in mind we have recommended approval of this Ordinance.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Demro, to receive and file the verbal report.

Mr. Finucane: I’m a principal in GF Properties, we own a number of commercial properties in Lakewood, one of which is a 48 suite family in Newman Avenue – 1510 and also on Giel Avenue; 1389. I have a concern with this particular ordinance both philosophically and a very practical perspective. First and foremost, it’s quite ironic that it originated with a Republican who apparently doesn’t prescribe to the Republican beliefs that individuals are responsible for their own actions in society. When you have tenants in a building who will put trash out on a tree lawn and then you’re asking a landlord to take responsibility for their actions, unfortunately that may very well exacerbate the situation and make the whole problem worse. Very specifically in a very real world situation what I’m talking about is, if you’re in a landlord/tenant dispute what that very well may do by virtue of the legislation proposed is to encourage said tenant to put the garbage out on the tree lawn more frequently simply to harass the landlord and in the process do the City more harm. I have a problem with it from that perspective. Also what I would like to get an answer from the Administration if I could is – is the Administration prepared to actually enforce this legislation as it has been recommended to Council for adoption this evening. Specifically what I mean by that is, that Council person Corrigan made a very good point at the Committee meeting which I attended for the second reading of this legislation and that was that he reminded Members of Council that in a prior Administration where there was an issue I believe it was news stands for the Plain Dealer where it was left up to the City Administration itself to determine at their whim as to whether a news stand could be put in a particular location or not - that the City was dragged into for a particularly difficult lawsuit. This may very well be the same case if it is left at the discrimination or the discretion of the Administration as to who is going to be fined and who is not. So what I would like to know form the Administration this evening is are they in a position to assure Council before they vote on this that if Council passes this ordinance that they will uniformly and consistently apply the proposed the ordinance to all the residents of the City of Lakewood and not just commercial property owners. In other words, hypothetically speaking, if you would to call in on every neighbor down along your street that the garbage was out at four o’clock a given day as opposed to six o’clock – is the City going to send out the garbage truck and pick it up and assess a fine against that particular individual. I don’t know the particular form as to who might be in a position to answer that question.

Mr. Dunn indicated that it was well established that a property owner has the responsibility for the upkeep of his or her property.

Mr. Finucane asked if tree lawns were being ceded to the property owners.

Mr. Dunn indicated that the property owner was responsible for the upkeep of his/her tree lawn. Mr. Dunn asked to address Mr. Finucane’s second point.

Mr. Finucane restated: My second point is is this ordinance as proposed going to be enforced uniformly and consistently with all residents in the City of Lakewood and not simply at the discretion of the manager of the Sanitation Department on any given day.

Mr. Dunn responded that all laws were administered by people and that discretion played a part. He stated that there were standards and what would fall short of the law. He stated that laws were meant to protect and that it has been said they were often used to be shields and not swords; shields to protect the community and swords not to indiscriminately punish people.

Mr. Dunn gave as an example going 27 miles per hour on a street marked 25 miles per hour. He stated that there would be grounds to pull someone over but that an officer uses discretion as to the purpose of promoting public safety. He said that discretion is often applied in many situations. He said that the focus of the law came about to address the issue of people putting their garbage out days in advance which causes debris to blow around the neighborhood. HE said that this gives the City an opportunity to use the law as a shield to protect the community from people who don’t take into consideration their fellow neighbor.

Mr. Finicane indicated he wanted to ensure the law was applied fairly.

Councilmember Corrigan indicated that it appeared the ordinance was well written and that it was his feeling that there was some discretionary leverage given to those who would enforce the ordinance that might have been deemed unfair. He stated, that upon further discussion it became apparent that even in the event that a landlord particularly a multi-tenant unit landlord wanted to safeguard any financial loss that might be incurred as a result of the enforcement of this ordinance such a landlord could put into the lease terms that withheld the security deposit or portions of it for committing waste or allowing such waste to accumulate on the tree lawn. He stated this would be similar to buying new tires or get your oil change, that there was an environmental service fee - that could be put in the lease. He stated that there was nothing to stop a landlord from setting up remedies in the lease that would solve any of these problems.

Mr. FitzGerald indicated that having landlords draft language in their leases that the tenants were going to be responsible for this – defeats the purpose of what he thought the ordinance was – which he said was to make the landlords responsible. He said that it allows the landlord to opt out and puts it on the tenant. He said that it would be the rare tenant who would not sign a lease with that written. He said that it passes it back to the tenant and for some would be a difficult financial burden to have. He stated that withholding money from the security deposit presented enforcement issues, that disputes on withholding deposit money was already a lot of the litigation in Housing Court presently. He asked what the comments were of the Cleveland Tenants Organization or the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce or the Apartment Owners. He said that he was surprised that he had not heard from those entities.

Mr. Dunn indicated that there were not comments other than Mr. Finucane’s. He stated that they did not hear from the Chamber of Commerce or the Cleveland Tenants Organization.

Mr. FitzGerald stated that it concerned him that this was not done. He stated that the Director of the Northeast Ohio Apartment Owners Association Ralph McGreevey is most often in attendance with issues such as these. He stated that Mr. McGreevey has been at Council meetings for issues such as permit rate increases, and rent control debate and others and that this ordinance was not on the radar screen. He said that the Cleveland Tenants Organization is also very vigilant about this. He said that when more restrictive leases are being talked about that the Landlord/Tenants Organization would have an opinion on this. He said that he would like to hear from them. He said that maybe they would not comment or could suggest something to make it a better piece of legislation. He stated that he would make a motion to defer action on this ordinance until Council heard from the Organization.

Mr. Dunn responded that Mr. FitzGerald’s concern would be valid if it was in the Ordinance, that it was a phantom issue. He said that Mr. Corrigan made a suggestion regarding private parties contracting if they wanted to deal with the matter in the terms of the lease agreement. Mr. Dunn indicated that he would have no say on how a landlord and a tenant want to agree in terms of the security deposit. He said that what the ordinance does is reinforce that people do have responsibility to keep their neighborhood and street clean. He said that it also reinforces the fact that people do have options. He said that Councilman Corrigan selected one options and that others may choose a different option. He said it wasn’t governments role to make those options but government did have the dup open and provided opportunities for people to make alternative arrangements.

Mr. FitzGerald referenced a legislative summary re: 85-04. He stated that the concerns stated on the summary indicated that some feel it is unfair to hold landlords accountable for the activities of their tenants. There are several means by which a landlord could hold a tenant accountable for the creation of a nuisance condition. For example, a landlord could place a clause that if fined due to the creation of a nuisance condition the tenant would receive only a partial return or no return of the security deposit. Mr. FitzGerald said that it was not a phantom, that he did not create the document.

Mr. Dunn indicated that he did not create the document and that it was not part of the report of the Committee nor was it a part of the Ordinance. He said it was raised that way by the sponsor but was not incorporated in the proposed ordinance. He said the ordinance did not require the landlord have this deal with the tenant to ensure the security deposit. He stated that he thought that would be over-reaching government. He said he did not know why Mr. McGreevey, the Chamber or others didn’t’ attend Committee meetings – that there were four or five of them. He stated that maybe it did not rise to the level of concern to compel them to attend.

Mr. Dunn said the ordinance was simple. He said the standard in the community was – to not put the trash on the tree lawn prior to six o’clock prior to the pick-up the following morning. He said that one of the problems was adequate enforcement. He said there were two options – to cite people for litter or debris in the Building Code. He said that what Mr. Demro has done was create more awareness because not there is a targeted penalty associated with this regulation and that was the basis the Committee unanimously recommended approval to Council.

Mr. Demro stated that he made the legislative summary on the suggestion of Councilmember Madigan to be helpful. He stated that he was encapsulating concerns that came up during Committee meetings to make sure nothing was hidden from councilmembers. He said that he was sure if Council looked back on the minutes of the meetings, that all the concerns would be reflected in the minutes. He said that he did the summary to clarify for Councilmembers what took place from beginning to end. He said the ordinance, was, in fact, made in response to requests from the Administration - in his experience working for the Health Department years ago – in terms of to enforce the law. He said that this was attempting to Codify existing Administrative regulations that have no teeth because this has become such a rampant problem not only in our neighborhoods but also in our commercial districts.

Mr. FitzGerald asked for clarification that the request was not to have the ordinance take immediate effect.

Mr. Dunn responded that the ordinance was not an emergency ordinance. He stated that it would not take effect until 40 days after passage.

Mr. FitzGerald stated that he would be open to having another Council Meeting to see if the other stakeholders; Landlord/tenants Organization, Apartment Owners Association and the Chamber of Commerce want to have input. He stated if something better could be worked out then it could be adopted at that time.

Mr. Seelie said he problems with the ordinance. He gave as an example anyone coming home from work at 5:00 and puts their garbage out, they would be in violation of this. He said that because nobody’s working after 5:00 they would not be cited, however. He said that people would be lucky on Monday morning because on Sunday nobody was working and they would not be cited. He asked what would happen if somebody took trash and threw it on his lawn and five days later he gets a bill for $100.00. He asked what the recourse would be.

Mr. Demro responded that there was an existing ordinance 521.08, Section B. He indicated this already prohibits someone from throwing trash on your property. He said that whoever violates the section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor on a first offense and on each subsequent offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the 4th degree.

Mr. Seelie asked what recourse he would have.

Mr. Demro stated that in a Court of Law Mr. Seelie could make the case that he did not throw trash on his lawn, that someone else did.

Mr. Seelie said that he took issue with the $100.00 fine. He said he understood the reasoning behind the ordinance but that he would like to see a pilot project where notices were sent out to people who did this for six months to see how many people would be in violation and how possible it is to enforce. He said that he saw it as being very selective enforcement.

Mr. Dever stated that he tended to agree with what Mr. FitzGerald and Mr. Finucane. He said that he understood the Committee did its best to get notification out to the public but hearing the Chamber of Commerce and Tenant’s Association didn’t attend the meetings he would also like to defer action on the ordinance until the next Council Meeting so that they can have some input.

Mr. Corrigan stated that he live near McKinley and Madison. He stated that every day he drives down Madison Avenue and everyday he sees worn out chairs and couches on the street. He stated that these were low life tenants who dumped their trash on the main avenue of this City and that needed to be held accountable. He stated that since the landlords were not voluntarily doing this, that this was an excellent tool to wake up the landlords to clean up this City. He stated he was sick and tired of seeing trash. He said that he did not want the Cleveland Tenants Organization which he described as wild eyed, radical lawyers, coming in and telling this City how we’re going to clean up our sidewalks. He said that anyone who is a property owner in the City, a multi-unit facility, has probably run across the Cleveland Tenants Organization. He said that the City, for some reason, funds the CTO through the Community Block Grants and that the organization takes a landlord who is doing a good job and sues them over minor technicalities, and that he objected to the organization coming in to tell the City it cannot police the garbage on its sidewalks. He said that this has to take place, that the City had to police its streets and if it did not start with this type of thing he asked where would it start. He said the City was starting to look like a trash heap and that we did not want that to happen.

Mr. Demro called the question.

Mr. Seelie indicated that the ordinance was not being voted on at that time.

Mr. Finucane stated that everyone was forgetting that he’s not so much a landlord as an investor. He said that he believed in the City of Lakewood and its future. He said that he wanted to see the City administered in a way that was best for property values. He asked why he would acquire property in the City of Lakewood only to see it go down in value. He said that this ordinance was not the way to go about it.

Mr. Dunn said that there was a level of reasonability that had to be applied to any ordinance. He said that some of the questions that were being raised, were in his experience, not reasonable. He referred to Mr. Seelie’s example of trash being placed in someone’s yard, or the person who comes home from work and puts trash out before six o’clock would not be a reasonable experience. He said that he thought the standard of reasonability would be applied on the person who would be issuing the citation. He said that he had full confidence that the people within the Administration, specifically the Health Department, use good judgment and high standards.

Mr. Seelie stated that it was not the Health Department, that the ordinance says it was the Division of Refuse. He asked if the designation is known to be the Health Department?

Mr. Dunn indicated whoever they designate. He said that it had to be applied reasonably and that the objections must be reasonable.

Mr. FitzGerald stated that everyone present knew that there were people who hadn’t been heard on the issue. He said that he did not understand the reluctance of letting them participate in the process. He said whenever there are stakeholders on an issue that it was not a good idea to impose something on them without hearing from them beforehand because they would certainly hear from them afterward. He said that it was not just the Tenant’s Organization, that it was also landlords, people investing in properties, those that have had problems with tenants that could possibly put something in the legislation. He asked what the harm would be in waiting two or three weeks.

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, to defer.

Mr. Seelie indicated that Council was on the communication presently and that a motion was already pending.

On the motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Demro to receive and file.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

16. ORDINANCE NO. 85-04 – AN ORDINANCE to create a new Chapter 1777 within Title Thirteen, Nuisances of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood for the purpose of regulating the placement of refuse in the public right-of-way for collection and setting fees for removal of refuse that is improperly placed within the City of Lakewood. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE RULES & ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 9/20/04, 2nd READING 10/4/04, DEFERRED 11/1/04).(Pg. 45)

Motion by Mr. FitzGerald, seconded by Mr. Dever, to defer action on this Ordinance.

Yeas: Dever, FitzGerald, Seelie
Nays: Corrigan, Demro, Dunn, Madigan
Motion fails.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Demro, to substitute the Ordinance to that which was handed out this evening.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Demro, to adopt the substitute Ordinance.

Mr. Demro indicated for the record that there was a finely written front page Sun Post Article on the ordinance. He said that he received five e-mails in that regard and that he would be happy to provide councilmembers with those. He stated they were all positive communications. He stated that Mr. Finucane did not provide any written communication but did come to the Committee meetings to express his dissent. He said he believed there was adequate public notice.

Yeas: Corrigan, Demro, Dunn, Madian
Nays: Dever, FitzGerald, Seelie
Motion adopted. Ordinance No. 85-04 adopted as substituted.
… .

17. Public Works Committee Verbal Report regarding Erosion Control measures for the properties located at 17612 Edgewater Drive and 17450 Edgewater Drive, Lakewood, Ohio.

Mr. Dever submitted the following report:

The Public Works Committee met this evening concerning these two properties down on Edgewater Driver. They are taking erosion control measures; two separate properties, about three houses down from Webb. We need to pass a resolution allowing for the permit process for the improving measure of their property. There was a couple of questions brought up about if this moves forward if the City Engineer gives approval to this about the possibility of having those properties – because Edgewater is about to be repaved next year in this section that we have the property owner videotape that section of Edgewater since heavy vehicles are going to be coming down that street. Actually videotape the road after the improvement after improvement because heavy trucks do come down through there if they do some damage to the road we can hold somebody accountable for the damage to the road because it isn’t a truck route down there. That was offered as a suggestion and the Law Director is going to look into it see that was included in the agreement with the property owner. Also another issue brought up by Councilman Corrigan was about the lease that this was a lease from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The City is in a lease with the property owners so that they can do this improvement to their properties and the duration of that lease was the thing in question. Even though we’ve done this in the past, just last year, the two properties on the east end of Lakewood Park where we gave approval also to the improvements. There is a question about the duration of the lease. If the lake tends to recede by two feet or what not what we have possibly is a substantial beach along the waterfront there and there was a question about the duration of the lease to these property owners. The Law Director was going to investigate and get back to us but we did not want to hold up the improvements so that they can move forward. The Body recommended to Council that we approve of these Resolutions this evening.

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

Motion adopted. All Members voting yea.
… .

18. RESOLUTION NO. 7937-04 – A RESOLUTION approving the use of submerged lands for property located at and abutting 17612 Edgewater Drive in the City of Lakewood, Ohio (a legal description of which is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”) so that the owner can undertake lakeshore protections measures. (PLEASE SUBSTITUTE FOR RESOLUTION NO. 7937-04 REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 11/1/04) (Pg. 47

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Seelie to amend to substitute.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt ResolutionNo. 7937-04. as amended.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea. Resolution No. 7938-04 adopted as substituted.

….

19. RESOLUTION NO. 7938-04 – A RESOLUTION approving the use of submerged lands for property located at and abutting 17450 Edgewater Drive in the City of Lakewood, Ohio (a legal description of which is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”) so that the owner can undertake lakeshore protection measures. (PLEASE SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION NO. 7938-04 REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 11/1/04)(Pg. 49)

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Demro to amend to substitute.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to adopt ResolutionNo. 7938-04. as amended.
Motion adopted. All members voting yea. Resolution No. 7938-04 adopted as substituted.
… .

20. Liquor Permit Application for D2, D2X, D3, D3A and D6 stocks to AA Priv Inc. 1st Floor & Storeroom, 12280 Madison Avenue. (DEFERRED 11/1/04) (Pg. 51)

Mr. Corrigan stated that based on the material produced by the Police Department he moved to object to the liquor permit.

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Dever, to file an objection to the liquor permit.

The Councilmember in the ward of the establishment, Ms. Madigan indicated she agreed with the objection.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

21. RESOLUTION NO. 7939-04 – A RESOLUTION to object to the application of liquor permits for A A Priv Inc. dba Doherty’s Pub for an establishment located at 12280 Madison Avenue, City of Lakewood, Ohio 44107. (Pg. 52)

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Ms. Madigan, to adopt Resolution No. 7939-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

****NEW BUSINESS****

22. Communication from All Members of Council regarding National Aids Day. (Pg. 54)

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

Mr. Dunn thanked the Executive Director of the Greater Cleveland AIDS Task Force; Earl Pike and Amy Hochadel. He indicated that at a meeting last week they were apprised of the importance of Lakewood to reach out and be empathetic to members of the community with HIV/AIDS.

Ms. Madigan added that it was also important to recognize that the face of AIDS is changing.

Mr. Pike provided that there is an estimated 800 to 1000 people living with AIDS in the City of Lakewood. He stated this means a far greater number of people are impacted by the disease because they have a family member or a friend with the disease. He restated that AIDS is now the worst epidemic in human history. He stated that on behalf of the AIDS Task Force and the 2300 clients they serve, he thanked Council for their willingness to declare December 1, 2004 as World AIDS Day.

On the motion to receive and file. Motion adopted.
All members voting yea.
… .

23. RESOLUTION NO. 7940-04 – A RESOLUTION declaring December 1, 2004, World AIDS Day in the City of Lakewood. (Pg. 55)

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Demro, to adopt Resolution No. 7940-04.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

24. Communication from Councilmember Madigan regarding Block Watch. (Pg. 56)
Motion by Ms. Madigan, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to receive and file the communication.

Mr. Corrigan indicated the matter remained in the Public Safety Committee pending a meeting with Mr. Galvin with respect to the Community Emergency Response Team. He said this was a matted that needed to be addressed before further steps are formalized.

Mr. Seelie asked if it should be referred to the Public Safety Committee to follow through on the recommendations.

Motion by Mr. Corrigan to refer to the Public Safety Committee. (Mr. Seelie referred to Ms. Madigan).

Ms. Madigan indicated that the recommendations could be revisited as long as Council wanted but that the four things needed to be done to get moving. She indicated Council had talked about the Block Watch in the Spring. She said that there had been back and forth with staff on how to make it better and more accessible to people who wanted it started on their streets to give them a brochure and a poster. She said there was talk about not calling it a Block Watch because that was negative connotation. She stated that Council could keep talking about it or not.

Mr. Dunn indicated the point was raised whether the term Block Watch would be considered a pejorative and possibly dissuade prospective residents from buying homes in the community or a particular neighborhood. There was a concern that the block watch was a reaction to high crime in that neighborhood. He asked what the disposition of that discussion. He asked if the term was not thought to be a concern.

Ms. Madigan indicated this was right. She stated that she had a discussion with at least one other person and they agreed it was not a big problem.

Mr. Dunn asked if there is a motion to refer it back to Public Safety. Mr. Seelie indicated the original motion was to receive and file the communication but that Mr. Corrigan indicated the issue was in the Public Safety Committee.

Mr. Seelie indicated there were expenditures and that there was a motion to also refer the communication and recommendations to the Public Safety Committee.

Mr. Demro indicated confusion as to the Legislative Body creating a program and having the Administration make it happen however they need to do that. He said whether it’s the four steps or twelve other ones. He stated that because of the expenditure that there was a line item somewhere in the Budget for it that it would have to go back to Committee.

Mr. Seelie indicated this would be his suggest as well.

Mr. FitzGerald asked if there was already someone in the Police who would be administering the program. He asked if it was the Crime Prevention Officer.

Police Chief Malley responded that in charge would be Sergeant Wilkins, Special Operations, and that he would decide who would detail that to for particular block watch requests whether it be any of the officers assigned to Special Operations.

Mr. FitzGerald asked if the only funds needed there would be for the printed material and if the Police Department would need additional appropriations or if there was money already in the Crime Prevention budget.

Chief Malley indicated that he believed from the start of the discussion and the Block Watch Program it was going to be directed and worked by Council, there was never a request that we would pay for any part of it. He said they could find money to pay for printing as needed but it has always been driven by Council who was going to run it.

Mr. FitzGerald indicated that he would suggest if it goes back to Committee that it comes back to Council with an appropriations ordinance with whatever funds were needed. He said that he anticipated a cost estimate could be made and something could be put on the docket.

Ms. Madigan indicated that Mary Coleman estimated that copies of the materials at $300.00 including the folders.

Mr. Seelie indicated the suggestion is to meet on this and get back to Council and move ahead in two weeks.

Mr. Dunn stated that he heard the Police Chief state that there was an expectation that City Council administer the operation of this program. He indicated that he would also like reported from the Committee how this is going to be administered.

Mr. Seelie indicated that this was why the item needed to go back to Committee to clarify. He indicated that City Council doesn’t necessarily drive a police car. He stated that he thought it was best run from the Administration and that he was sure the Mayor agreed with that. He said the $300 for the printed material could come out of the General Fund. He said that important part was the follow up to ensure that the program was successful where people would want to be a part of it.

Mayor George indicated that he appreciated the input and looked forward to working with/in a very valuable program. He said there were Block Watches in the past in the City of Lakewood and that he thought it was this would be the third time. He said that they would get this one up and going as well and that they had experience in that area and there was a Budget before Council that prepares for some contingencies like this. He said that the $300.00 and maybe other expenditures that may be incurred from different programs during the course of the year would be incorporated in what is presented to Council.

Mr. Seelie repated the motion:

Motion by Mr. Corrigan, seconded by Mr. Seelie, to refer the recommendations to the Public Safety Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

25. Communication from Mayor George regarding Lakewood High School Boys Soccer Team, Girls Volleyball Team, and Boys Cross Country Team. (Pg. 57)

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

Mayor George indicated that three teams were present that night and that they have made the City of Lakewood proud by their outstanding athletic performances.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

26. RESOLUTION NO. 7941-04 – A RESOLUTION to congratulate the Lakewood High School Boys Soccer Team on winning the Lake Erie League Championship and the Sectional Championship. (Pg. 58)

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to adopt Resolution No. 7941-04.

Mr. Demro recognized the various team members’ talents and urged them to continue to in their efforts toward positive goals.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

Coach Jacobs spoke on the support of the parents and thanked others from Lakewood High School for their help that contributed to the Lake Erie League Championship.
… .

27. RESOLUTION NO. 7942-04 – A RESOLUTION to congratulate the Lakewood High School Girls Volleyball Team on winning the Lake Erie League Championship and the Sectional Championship. (Pg. 60)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Ms. Madigan, to adopt Resolution No. 7942-04.

Mayor George indicated that Coach Arbeznik was not present and congratulated representatives of the team in her stead.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

28. RESOLUTION NO. 7943-04 – A RESOLUTION to congratulate the Lakewood High School Boys Cross Country Team on winning the Lake Erie League Championship and finishing third in the District Cross Country Championship. (Pg. 62)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Dever, to adopt Resolution No. 7943-04.

Mayor George congratulated Coach Ventura. Coach Ventura spoke about the season and future seasons and thanked Council for the recognition.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

29. Communication from Public Works Director Beno regarding Lake Road Maintenance. (Pg. 64)

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

30. ORDINANCE NO. 98-04 – AN ORDINANCE to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners for the improvement of Lake Road (US-6) Bridge No. 204 over Rocky River in the Cities of Rocky River and Lakewood, Ohio. (Pg. 65)

Mr. Dever indicated clarification would be needed on where the Ordinance would be forwarded.

Motion by Mr. Dever, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to place Ordinance No. 98-04 on 1st Reading and refer it the Public Works Committee.

Mr. Seelie noted for the record anticipated amendments.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

31. Communication from Finance Director Nogalo regarding Purchasing and Contracting Ordinance FY2005. (Pg. 69)

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

32. ORDINANCE NO. 99-04 – AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Mayor (Director of Public Safety), the Director of Public Works, the Director of Law, the Director of Finance, and/or the Procurement Officer to enter into contracts for professional services, and to advertise for bids and enter into contracts for the purchase of repair maintenance and operating supplies, services and equipment as authorized by the 2005 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. (Pg. 70)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to place Ordinance No. 99-04 on 1st Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

33. Communication from Finance Director Nogalo regarding Amendment to the FY2004 Appropriations and Fund Transfers. (Pg. 74)

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

34. ORDINANCE NO. 100-04- AN 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. (Pg. 75)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to place Ordinance No. 100-04 on 1st Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

35. ORDINANCE NO. 14-04A – AN ORDINANCE to amend Ordinance 14-04, adopted March 1, 2004 for the purpose of adjusting transfers initially established in the fiscal year appropriations. (Pg. 77)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to place Ordinance No. 101-04 on 1st Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

36. Communication from Finance Director Nogalo regarding Temporary Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005. (Pg. 80)

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

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

37. ORDINANCE NO. 101-04 – AN ORDINANCE to establish temporary appropriations for current expenses and other expenditures of the City of Lakewood, State of Ohio, for three months, January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2005 as provided by Ohio Revised Code Section 5705.38. (Pg. 81)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. Corrigan, to place Ordinance No. 101-04 on 1st Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

38. Communication from Finance Director Nogalo regarding Memberships for 2005. (Pg. 84)

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

Ms. Madigan asked to have a total cost of the memberships and Mr. Nogalo responded that this would be available at the Finance Committee Meeting.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.
… .

39. RESOLUTION NO. 7944-04 – A RESOLUTION 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 2005 and declaring such memberships to be in the public interest. (Pg. 86)

Motion by Mr. Seelie, seconded by Mr. FitzGerald, to place Resolution No. 7944-04 on 1st Reading and refer it to the Finance Committee.

Motion adopted. All members voting yea.

….

40. Communication from Planning Commission Chairman Ott regarding Lakewood Planning Commission working in a Cooperative effort with the City of Cleveland Planning Commission for the enhancement and scenic preservation of Clifton Boulevard. (Pg. 89)

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

Ms. Madigan asked if at this time the Lakewood Planning Commission and the Cleveland Planning Commission to discuss development on W. 117th from Edgewater up to Franklin. She indicated that there they talked in the summer about calling a special meeting between the two planning commission to try and come up with a plan or a timeline for ideas of development. She stated with the Clifton issue her question what be what is going to be done.

Planning & Development Director Jordon indicated that in order to attract further money on an Ohio Department of Transportation project the two cities had to be very clear about the types of enhancements they’d like to fund. He said the two planning commissions at this point needed to find a common designer and fund it. He said that was the purpose of what the particular resolution is moving towards. He said they were months away from having a joint planning commission where they present a design to those respective commissions and they approve it. He said on W. 117th redevelopment effort the Administration is not opposed to having a joint Committee with the Lakewood Planning Commission and the Cleveland Planning Commission. He said, however, since there was not a common proposal to move forward or react to he thought it was a little preliminary to do so but that efforts are being currently made on W. 117th. He said that they do meet regularly with prospective investors with their respective plans along the 117th Street Corridor and they have met with Cleveland.

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 at 9:51M.

….

Approved:____________________________ ________________________
CLERK

________________________
PRESIDENT