[0:03] Good evening everyone. This is a meeting of the Shekarite City Council on Monday, June 22nd, 2026 at 7 p.m. with clerk, please call the roll.

[0:24] Mrs.

[0:26] Moore?

[0:27] Here.

[0:28] This is Carmella Williams.

[0:30] Mr. Alvarez.

[0:32] President.

[0:33] Ms. Bixenstein.

[0:35] Here.

[0:36] Mrs. Couse.

[0:37] Here.

[0:38] Mr. Malone.

[0:40] Thank you.

[0:41] Great. Thank you.

[0:44] As we have been going to make a tradition over the last year or so.

[0:49] We'll start the meetings with a couple of interesting things that occurred over the last week or two.

[0:58] Tonight I just want to give a couple of shoutouts to a number of a couple different departments.

[1:04] As I think we all know that the storm that came through on June 14th,

[1:10] we could go Sunday was significant causing rapid and significant damage.

[1:18] When we get firms like this in an older community with trees that are getting up and age,

[1:25] they sometimes come down, blocking streets, damaging power lines.

[1:30] And so it really calls to work all of our, particularly our first responders.

[1:36] So oftentimes our fire department is the one to get the first call, which they did.

[1:43] And I think over 80 of them within a very, very short period of time, of course the police department

[1:49] then also have helped out addressing issues like block streets and other potential traffic

[1:56] issues, as well as power line outages.

[2:01] And then finally public works, of course, also receives calls from the moment the storm began.

[2:07] I'm told that the crews collected 20 tons of material that evening, it's a tremendous amount of debris.

[2:20] They worked, all of the first responders worked till late into the evening, and it was truly a team effort to get us back and running again.

[2:34] So we thank those three departments in particular for their help.

[2:42] And then the second item I was just going to mention briefly is city recently received

[2:49] notice that it was awarded a $945,000 grant from the innovative finance and asset concession

[2:57] grant program or iFAC, which is part of the build America program, not only is this a significant

[3:03] amount of funds, but there's also no city match, which means we can put more directly into

[3:10] the project.

[3:13] The grant is made to explore transit-oriented development all within one quarter

[3:19] of a mile of fixed rail, so it's very specific about who is eligible. But we do meet, did

[3:28] And the two sites that we will be focused on is the Stephanie Tudge Jones community building in

[3:35] Collinade area, as well as in the Van Ackon district, the corner of Shigran and Warrensville.

[3:43] To give you a sense of how competitive this program was, there were 100 applicants for the federal program,

[3:49] 45 or funded, and we were only one of two funded in Ohio.

[3:54] So hats off to our team,

[4:02] both planning and economic development.

[4:06] So these will help us continue our economic development and projects at the Van Ackon District

[4:11] and on the west end of town as well.

[4:14] So great work by a number of different departments.

[4:18] And so I just wanted to get that out there.

[4:21] We, it's nice to get good news from time to time.

[4:26] So with that, may you, in view of your announcement

[4:33] about trees and the storm effort to clean up significant amounts

[4:39] of debris, I just wanted to mention that there was a huge tree that

[4:44] came down near Lover's Lane Bridge at Lower Lake and less anybody have any confusion.

[4:52] It will be being removed by the NPRSD contractor Naronan Suns for the next two days, beginning

[5:00] tomorrow, two or three days.

[5:03] But it does not involve any action with the dam.

[5:08] This is just a tree removal.

[5:09] Thank you.

[5:10] Thank you for that clarification.

[5:17] With that, we will go to the first item, which is approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 26,

[5:25] 2026.

[5:27] You have that in your packet.

[5:32] Are there any corrections changes?

[5:37] If not, entertain a motion.

[5:40] I'm over approval.

[5:41] I'll second that move a Mr. Malone seconded by Mrs. Moore. I'm with the clerk. Please call the roll

[5:48] Mrs. Moore. I Ms. Carmella Williams. I Mr. Alvarez. I is fixed in Stein. I

[5:56] This is Couse. Hi. Mr. Malone. Hi

[6:00] Great. Thank you

[6:02] the next item

[6:05] is a public hearing

[6:06] for the 2027 tax budget.

[6:12] This is a proposed resolution adopting the 2027 tax budget for the City of Shaker Heights Ohio

[6:19] for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2027 and submitting the same to the Kayaoga County

[6:25] budget commission to the Kayaoga County fiscal office.

[6:31] But that will begin with the staff report from Dr. Pots.

[6:36] Thank you Mayor Good evening council, this time every year during the summer we come to you with the tax budget for the following year.

[6:45] As you know, the Ohio Vice Code requires that all Ohio City Council adopt a tax budget for their next fiscal year by a certain time period.

[6:54] The tax budget represents our first estimate of anticipated financial resources and needs for the coming fiscal year.

[7:01] It's meant to demonstrate our need to levee those property taxes for the coming fiscal year in our case 2027.

[7:09] So we prepare the tax budgets and it has been in finance and prepared in the prescribed format as required by the budget commission and it's also attached to the memo.

[7:19] The tax budget has been in finance available for public inspection for the past month.

[7:24] We have advertised in the paper ahead of this meeting on June 12th and June 19th.

[7:29] You

[7:30] And any given budget year funding needs will always exceed current revenue. Additional need is demonstrated

[7:36] by showing a shortfall between expected revenues and expenditures. If the need demonstrated was less

[7:42] than the estimated revenue than the budget commission, I would certainly elect to certify a decrease

[7:47] in the city's inside real estate tax millage, hence the purpose of the tax budget. On page 2

[7:53] of the memo at the top is Finance's estimate for the 2027 tax budget.

[7:59] We estimate revenue of 68.4 million.

[8:02] We estimate expenditures of 70.8 million showing a short fall of 2.3 million, very consistent

[8:08] with the prior year.

[8:10] The proposed 2027 tax budget assumes a continuation of the current property tax rates

[8:15] remilages.

[8:16] There is no change.

[8:18] The tax budget was primarily based upon the 2026 operating budget.

[8:21] In the middle of page two is a summary of the property taxes that will be levied, we will come back to you this fall with the request to actually levied those taxes.

[8:31] So the total millage levied, including the shaker historical society amount is 11.4 million.

[8:38] The item was presented approved by the Finance Committee on June 15th and so this evening, we're requesting that city council adopt the resolution for the 2027 tax budget on first reading, so that we can submit it to the Kaio County Budget Commission.

[8:50] And I'm happy to answer any questions.

[8:53] Great.

[8:53] Thank you, Director Pots.

[8:57] Before that, there's Williams.

[9:00] We have for the Finance Committee.

[9:02] Anything to add?

[9:04] Nothing to add.

[9:05] It'll pass unanimously.

[9:08] Other comments at the moment from council?

[9:13] Seeing none.

[9:14] Why don't we now go into a public hearing as required by law for the passing of the tax budget?

[9:21] So, if there are those of you who wish to make a comment on the tax budget, please feel free to step forward and you can speak at the podium.

[9:35] Right?

[9:36] Seeing none.

[9:40] Chair Carroll, no, no, no.

[9:43] No, no.

[9:44] Okay.

[9:45] We will go ahead and close the public hearing and go back to Council.

[9:53] So,

[9:57] what is your pleasure, Council?

[10:02] Is there a motion?

[10:03] I will.

[10:05] I'll move to approve, Mayor.

[10:07] That's second.

[10:08] Move by Ms. Cous,

[10:09] Sanging it by Ms. Williams.

[10:11] With the clerk, please call the roll.

[10:16] Ms. Moore?

[10:17] Aye.

[10:18] Ms. Carmella Williams?

[10:20] Mr. Alvarez?

[10:21] Aye.

[10:22] Ms. Vixenstein?

[10:23] Aye.

[10:24] Mrs. Cous?

[10:25] Aye.

[10:26] Mr. Malone?

[10:26] Aye.

[10:28] and unenekment.

[10:29] This is more.

[10:31] Ms. Carmel Williams.

[10:32] Hi.

[10:32] Mr. Alvarez.

[10:34] Hi.

[10:34] Ms. Bixenstein.

[10:37] Hi.

[10:37] Mrs. Cows.

[10:38] Hi.

[10:39] Mr. Malone.

[10:42] Great.

[10:42] Thank you very much, Council.

[10:45] The next item is an opportunity for public comment on any agenda items.

[10:51] For those of you who may or may not have joined us prior meetings,

[10:55] We take public comment on the agenda items only at the beginning of the meeting, and then towards the end of the meeting there's a second opportunity to provide comments, public comment on any item that the residents may choose.

[11:12] But for this part we start with public comment, only on the agenda items.

[11:18] I try to run through a list of guidelines that we use for public comment that I'd like to indicate that.

[11:28] If you do like to do prepare to speak, you need to come up to the podium where when recognized by the chair,

[11:37] you need to speak clearly and directly into the microphone so that we can record the comments for those that are unable to attend the meeting and maybe listening at a later date.

[11:46] We ask everyone to provide their name in the city and street of their residents.

[11:54] When making a comment or asking a question, please try to be brief, so we have an opportunity

[11:59] to have others speak as well.

[12:04] Please direct your comments or questions to the chair, rather than to the staff or other persons.

[12:09] And depending on the question, answers may not be given tonight on certain items that

[12:15] may take longer to address, but will provide me answers to questions as soon as practical

[12:22] after the meeting.

[12:26] In order to accommodate all those who wish to speak, we do have a time limit for each comment

[12:33] from an individual, and that has historically been in the two to three minute range, and we

[12:40] do ask that you keep within that time period.

[12:47] We request that each person speak only once until

[12:51] all members of the public had an opportunity to make an initial comment or question.

[12:58] Generally,

[12:58] we begin with the comments from those in chambers and then secondarily from those remote.

[13:06] With that, the only other item, which is always the case, Shakers, that we ask everyone

[13:12] to be respective, respectful or rather in your substance and tone of your comments.

[13:21] So, with that, we'll go ahead and open up the public comment section.

[13:29] If you'd like to make a comment, just raise your hand and then we'll have you come up.

[13:35] Please,

[13:41] sir.

[13:41] Good evening.

[13:42] I'm Lou Hadrick.

[13:42] I work for Sona Construction.

[13:44] I work for these fine gentlemen over here.

[13:47] I'll keep this short.

[13:49] We were informed and we see it in your agenda that the city is going to accept.

[13:57] The bid from infinity construction, even though they were not the low bidder for this job.

[14:04] And I want to talk specifically about the low bid process.

[14:07] And the low bid process provides for the public and open people who want open bids to get

[14:15] the construction contractors and its community of construction contractors to put together

[14:21] these prices. Every company and there were seven of them that bid on theirs. I'm sorry,

[14:27] six of them that bid on this job. Had their whole office get bids from their subs, estimate

[14:35] the cost of this thing, and the cost of this process to all these bidders is roughly around

[14:43] $4,000. And that's just for the general contractor. So if you had those guys, that's $24,000

[14:49] that was spent on your project already, that you don't have to pay for.

[14:56] All the subcontractors that put together prices, they also spent...

[15:04] So,

[15:06] you got all this for free. So, in the future, if you accept infinity's price, the contractors that will bid you will slowly but surely understand that you were only interested in what you're interested in. And I don't blame you for that. You want to get the best value for your price, and you see infinity there. But eventually, the best value will be thrown out.

[15:30] And the people who bid you will not all not get you the low price because they know

[15:36] That you're just gonna give the job to who you want to. So what they're gonna do is they're gonna take a look at who's bidding the job

[15:44] And they're gonna say I'm putting my cards on that guy and I'm gonna give him a price

[15:50] It's just a little bit more than I would normally price price this for because they're gonna get the job

[15:56] Anyways, and I'll be able to make a little more profit on the job.

[15:59] So slowly, it's surely the fact that you say you wanted the low bid, but you actually

[16:08] wanted who you wanted, will cost you more in the end.

[16:14] And my trade was heating and air conditioning.

[16:16] I walk into this beautiful room that's an old room and I'm sure it didn't have air conditioning

[16:22] when you built this city all.

[16:24] This is really a nice room and I appreciate that you provide us the opportunity to do this and I really hope that I can change your mind on what you're going to do about this bid and award it to

[16:37] in a construction because they put just as much work into their bid as all the other five

[16:44] bidders did.

[16:46] We have a history of doing jobs like this and we're successful bidder on many jobs of

[16:53] this size and kind and we are equally qualified just because we're the smallest or one

[17:01] the smallest bitters certified minority and small business enterprise doesn't mean we

[17:09] can't do the same job as the big guy.

[17:12] Thank you.

[17:13] Thank you very much.

[17:19] Other comments?

[17:22] No, you're permitted to speak.

[17:24] Which you need to come up to.

[17:25] That's the microphone.

[17:30] I'm sorry.

[17:31] I'm sorry.

[17:32] Yeah, we can't.

[17:32] And I meant to say, I'll just talk more about the technical terms.

[17:36] So you name and I'm sorry.

[17:38] My name is Hareesh, H-A-R-I-S-H. Last time is Patel, P-A-T-E-L.

[17:43] I'm the senior project manager for some construction.

[17:46] And city, oh, Cleveland, Ohio, before Formula 5 is our address.

[17:50] Okay, okay.

[17:52] So just a couple of points that I had that I'd like to read off.

[17:56] Usually when there's two bits, there are clothes or two or three bits,

[18:01] there's an opportunity for a scope review meeting where they bring us in the ask us question

[18:06] and ask us different things, including durations.

[18:11] We were not provided that opportunity this time around.

[18:16] Had there been a scope of view meeting,

[18:18] and they were asked about the duration,

[18:21] we might have been able to provide us a bit of aggressive schedule,

[18:24] because keep in mind that the same subcontractors

[18:27] did different joint contractors.

[18:31] So if Mason A is meeting me and Mason A is meeting the other contractors,

[18:35] the duration is not really going to change.

[18:38] It's going to be the same duration.

[18:43] And I believe that the subcontras I take to do,

[18:46] put the windows up.

[18:47] It's not being anymore for a contract

[18:49] than a B contractor.

[18:50] If especially if I'm going to use the same guys.

[18:56] In the bit documents and the pre-construction agenda,

[19:02] it's said contract is for 15 months.

[19:05] So, that's what we figured, and we did put, I think, 365 days, because we thought that we

[19:12] could do it better than the 15 months.

[19:15] So, that's what our bids had said, if a ward was going to be based on given it to somebody

[19:22] because they have a shorter duration, we feel that it should have been spelled out of a better

[19:27] the contract documents that said, hey, here's an ad or a deduct in your price if we want

[19:35] to bring this job in at eight months, or six months, traditionally, typically that's what

[19:40] they do on other jobs that we've had.

[19:45] In fully fill out the bid for incorrectly as well, the amount that was read at the bid opening

[19:53] was $1,841,000

[19:59] and everybody at the bid opening knows that it's the number that they put

[20:03] in a bit firm that the number that was right out loud.

[20:07] We feel that the job should be ordered, it's on a construction, because we did the right

[20:13] thing, the proper thing for you now, the bit firm as far as how it was present, how the numbers

[20:20] sort of in the field on contract documents.

[20:23] And again, as Lewis said, we're an MBA contractor and we can do the work just as bad as

[20:27] anybody else does, because we have to go to our table as plus, our employees table, that's

[20:32] all I have.

[20:34] They can, they will have to abide by what you say, but just want an opportunity to say that,

[20:39] and we had also provided a letter, I believe, one Friday, on this matter.

[20:43] Thank you.

[20:44] Thank you,

[20:46] sir.

[20:46] Other comments,

[20:52] seeing no further public comments, anyone online, Mr. Carol?

[20:58] No, hands raised.

[20:59] No, I do have a hand raised to the last moment.

[21:08] Spencer, did you have a public comment?

[21:12] Hi, I guess.

[21:13] Thank you.

[21:14] Can you hear me okay?

[21:16] Yes.

[21:17] Great.

[21:17] Thank you.

[21:18] Hi, everyone.

[21:18] My name is Garrison Spencer.

[21:20] I am located at 331-1 lead road in Shaker Heights.

[21:25] And I had a comment about the vacant lot,

[21:30] a joining our property.

[21:31] That's 3305 lead road.

[21:34] Mr. Spencer, say the route.

[21:36] The this part of the public comment is for agenda items. If this is not related to an agenda item, it comes after the other items.

[21:47] Okay, my apologies. I missed that. I will wait until the end.

[21:50] Sure. Thank you.

[21:51] Thank you.

[21:53] Any other comments online?

[21:56] No, ma'am.

[21:58] Then we'll go ahead and close the public comments section and move into the balance of the items.

[22:05] and we will start with item number three.

[22:09] I propose ordinance authorizing the execution of them

[22:11] and now certificates by the director of finance and the payment

[22:16] of amounts to various purchase orders and declaring in emergency director pots.

[22:23] Thank you, Mayor. Finance has one then and now to bring the council this month.

[22:28] It's an employee reimbursement.

[22:30] A normal expenditure, the issue was that the purchase order was not set up at the beginning of the year. The fire department was paying these as they came in. So the finance department, the fire department spent some time together so that this won't happen again. They will have a purchase order set up for these education reimbursements at the beginning of the year.

[22:47] This item was presented and approved by Finance Committee on June 15, so I'm requesting that

[22:52] then a now certificate presented, be authorized on first reading and it is an emergency

[22:56] so that the checks can be cut to the firemen.

[23:00] Happy to answer any questions.

[23:02] Thank you, Director Pots.

[23:03] I'll come in to the questions from Council.

[23:07] Ms. Woodlings, the item was supported unanimously by the Finance Committee.

[23:14] Thank you.

[23:15] Any other comments from council members?

[23:19] I'm with approval.

[23:20] At second.

[23:21] Move by Mrs. Moore,

[23:22] segregated by Ms. Williams.

[23:25] With a clerk, please call the roll.

[23:27] Unsuspension.

[23:28] Mrs. Moore.

[23:29] Hi.

[23:29] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[23:31] Hi.

[23:31] Mr. Alvarez.

[23:33] Hi.

[23:33] Ms. Vickson Stein.

[23:35] Hi.

[23:36] Mrs. Couse.

[23:37] Mr. Malone.

[23:40] And an amendment.

[23:42] Ms. Moore.

[23:43] Hi.

[23:43] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[23:44] Mr. Alvarez, I, Ms. Speksonsign.

[23:50] Mrs. Cows, Mr. Malone.

[23:54] Great, thank you.

[23:55] Motion is approved.

[23:58] The next item is item number four.

[24:02] It's proposed ordinance acknowledging administrative acceptance of the approval of the city planning commission and

[24:10] confirming of the granting of a conditional use permit to neighbor's art shop and studio

[24:16] applicant for a specialized instructional school located at 3431 Lee Road,

[24:23] a presumed to section 1213.05 of the city's zoning code, Director Breatherman.

[24:30] Thank you, as the mayor mentioned, a planning commission approved a conditional use permit for a

[24:40] at their June 2nd meeting. Specialized instructional schools do require a conditionally used

[24:47] permit from City Planning Commission and Council confirmation. The applicant proposes to

[24:53] establish an art studio business offering classes for up to 12 students be their children or adults

[25:01] to staff members will operate the business. This is not before you, but just so you know the

[25:10] a 10 space parking variance for this use.

[25:14] This is a mixed use building with each other businesses

[25:17] and 15 residential uses.

[25:20] So council confirmation is required

[25:22] for the conditional use permit.

[25:24] And it is requested that this ordinance

[25:26] will be passed on first reading in order

[25:27] for the arts space and classes to finalize their lease.

[25:31] Great.

[25:32] Thank you, Director.

[25:34] Ms. William on behalf of the Planning Commission.

[25:36] This item was supported unanimously as well by the Planning Commission and the overall view was that this was an exciting use for this space and we're looking forward to adding this business to the community.

[25:56] Great, thank you. Other commons from Council,

[26:03] if not, is there a motion?

[26:06] At mobile, mobile. Move by Ms. Williams.

[26:10] I'll second. Seconded by Mr. Malone.

[26:14] Would the clerk please call the rule on suspension?

[26:17] This is more.

[26:17] Aye.

[26:18] Is Carmella Williams? Aye.

[26:20] Mr. Alvarez?

[26:22] Aye.

[26:23] Is Vixestine?

[26:24] Aye.

[26:25] Mrs. Scouts?

[26:26] Aye.

[26:26] Mr. Malone.

[26:29] And an amendment.

[26:30] Mrs. Moore.

[26:32] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[26:33] Aye.

[26:34] Mr. Alvarez.

[26:36] Aye.

[26:36] Ms. Bixenstein.

[26:38] Mrs. Cows.

[26:40] Mr. Malone.

[26:42] Great.

[26:42] Thank you.

[26:43] Motion carries.

[26:45] Next item is item number five.

[26:47] A proposed ordinance authorizing the application for an acceptance of a grant of community development

[26:53] block grant or CDBG funds in the amount of $150,000 from the Kayao County Department of

[27:01] Development. There are 2027 competitive and municipal grant program for Winslow Road traffic

[27:08] calming and declaring an emergency. Director Braden, thank you. So this is a request to authorize

[27:15] a grant application to and to accept a grant from the Kayao Huggock County Department of Development

[27:21] for the 2027 CDBG program. This is for Winslow traffic calming. The project areas located

[27:29] in Winslow Road between Adelaan Road and Norwood Road. And again, we will apply for grant

[27:36] for $150,000, which is the maximum and no local match.

[27:49] So the all grants must be an eligible

[27:53] activity under the federal block grant program regulations and must be located in a low moderate

[28:00] income area. LMI is determined by Kiod County or in an improvement target area, ITA, to be eligible.

[28:09] The proposed project areas located both in LMI and the ITA area. A public hearing or a public

[28:15] meeting was held on April 9 for residents to learn about this grant opportunity and share their

[28:20] project ideas proposed projects from the back both at the meeting and through emails were

[28:28] included in your packet if you want to read all the ideas.

[28:32] After the public meeting planning staff city administration took the recommended projects

[28:37] as well as city projects into consideration and evaluated their eligibility based on the

[28:48] that we would pursue funding for the Whizzelow Road Traffic Comming Project.

[28:52] This neighborhood has expressed concerns about traffic speed and volume for more than 30 years.

[28:59] The city did conduct traffic study, speed studies and traffic counts to confirm the issue

[29:06] and we found that 25% of drivers going eastbound were violating the speed limit and those

[29:12] going westbound 48% were violated the speed limit with many drivers going over 40 miles an

[29:21] hour.

[29:22] This is a unique neighborhood because it is a designated local historic district as a rare

[29:27] two family district, over a mile of all two family homes, which causes more pedestrians

[29:33] and more cars in that neighborhood than other neighborhoods.

[29:36] The 150,000 grant will fund the construction of traffic calming improvements to slow the

[29:43] vehicles and reduce cut-through traffic.

[29:46] This grant also will be paired with the Kio County CD SG program that we will talk about

[29:52] on the next item.

[29:53] So several treads that coming techniques will be considered and those are listed in your.

[30:00] Now, when we will have, of course, public meetings, when we consider those. This grant has been used several times before for many projects in our city, gridley Park, the Lee Road, storefront, and exterior improvement program held Dana Park this last year.

[30:17] Engineering will need to be completed before the grant award and those costs are estimated

[30:23] $22,000 that will be funded from the Planning Department budget.

[30:29] June 4th, the Safety and Public Works Committee recommended approval, and June 15th also

[30:35] finance committee recommended approval of this application.

[30:39] So we ask that Council authorize the grant application exception, accepting this grant for $150,000

[30:47] And we request that this item be passed on first reading anandism urgency to allow us to meet the July 13th deadline for the grant.

[30:57] Great, thank you.

[30:59] Ms. Ravenman, this is more on behalf of safety and public works.

[31:05] Safety and public works unanimously supported this application.

[31:10] Excuse me.

[31:11] But I wanted to note that many residents are confused about how of their good ideas from neighborhoods and from a variety of residents are evaluated in terms of prioritizing which project will be selected for the application.

[31:28] And so it was that Dr. Braveman just explained the criteria and how it's evaluated according to the scoring and we've been very successful in receiving these grants because we're rather calculated about which of the projects may score the best and not that all of the projects aren't deserving.

[31:50] And so, just wanted to add that as Dr. Bravam and said, the historic, the Winslow Road

[32:00] is our very first historic district, basically approved in Shaker Heights, per se, and the

[32:09] traffic calming on the street, which is used as a cut-through from now from Vanic and District

[32:15] and from the major intersection will be very appreciated by all residents.

[32:19] If it's successful, but we appreciate that.

[32:23] Okay, thank you, Mrs. Moore.

[32:28] Ms. Williams, I'm the answer for the finance.

[32:30] Thank you. This item was also unanimously approved by the finance committee.

[32:36] There was some discussion or a request for a consolidated list of traffic and safety.

[32:44] coming efforts already underway by the city so that we can publicize that information and

[32:54] share with residents and they can easily access it.

[32:58] There was also mentioned that the police, you know, and follow-and-up Council Member Moore's

[33:04] comment in how police respond and basically the staff responded that police typically review

[33:14] the or apply enforcement activity based on the necessity of that activity and the administration

[33:25] is also working on ways to improve that data collection and organization going forward.

[33:33] But again, it was unanimously approved by the committee.

[33:37] Great. Thank you. Additional comments from council?

[33:40] I move the approval.

[33:42] Second.

[33:43] Move by.

[33:44] This is more or seconded by Ms. Williams.

[33:47] With the clerk, please call the roll on suspension.

[33:50] This is more.

[33:51] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[33:53] Hi.

[33:53] Mr. Alvarez.

[33:54] Hi.

[33:55] Ms. Bixenstein.

[33:57] Hi.

[33:57] Mrs. Couse.

[33:58] Hi.

[33:59] Mr. Malone.

[34:01] And I enactment.

[34:02] This is more.

[34:03] Hi.

[34:03] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[34:05] Hi. Mr. Alvarez.

[34:07] Hi.

[34:07] Ms. Bixenstein.

[34:09] Hi.

[34:10] This is Scouts.

[34:11] Hi.

[34:11] Mr. Mulan.

[34:14] You're great.

[34:15] Thank you.

[34:16] Next item is Item 6.

[34:19] An order ordinance authorizing the application for an acceptance of a grant from the

[34:24] Kaihara County Department of Development, 2027 Community Development Supplemental

[34:30] Grant, or CDSG program in the amount of $50,000 for Winslow, road traffic calming, and declaring

[34:37] an emergency.

[34:40] Thank you again. This is the same project that I just described. So again, this is from CDSG, and it's a grant of $50,000, and we're asking Council to authorize the grant application and exception of the grant.

[34:54] This again is from the 2027 supplemental grant program for traffic calming on Winsal Road and we request that this item also be passed on first reading and it's emergency

[35:05] So that we're able to make the July 13 deadline

[35:09] Great. Thank you

[35:11] Mrs. Moore

[35:13] Again, what was unanimous

[35:16] Okay, and Ms. Williams

[35:18] Dido for finance

[35:20] Okay

[35:21] Any further comments from council

[35:25] If not, I'd move approval.

[35:27] Move by Miss Williams.

[35:29] I'll second.

[35:29] Seconded by Mrs. Moore.

[35:32] With the clerk, please call the rule on suspension.

[35:35] Mrs. Moore.

[35:36] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[35:38] Mr. Alvarez.

[35:39] Aye.

[35:40] Ms. Bixesside.

[35:42] Aye.

[35:43] Mrs. Scouts.

[35:44] Mr. Malone.

[35:47] And an enactment.

[35:48] Mrs. Moore.

[35:49] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[35:51] Mr. Alvarez.

[35:54] Ms. Vixestine?

[35:56] Ms. Cows?

[35:58] Mr. Malar.

[36:01] Okay, thank you, motion carries.

[36:05] Next item is item number seven, a proposed ordinance authorizing the city to apply for

[36:11] an acceptance in North East Ohio Regional Surred District or NURST grant in the approximate

[36:18] amount of 171,575,000 from the NEORSD member community infrastructure program or MCIP for the

[36:32] Winslow Road and Avalon Road, sewer improvement, improvements, phase one project, and to enter

[36:39] into any needed agreements with NEORSD to receive such funds and declaring an emergency.

[36:47] This is Louie Farrell, Florida's yours.

[36:51] All right, good evening and thank you.

[36:53] And 2022, the North East Ohio Region of Suer District,

[36:56] notified public works of two illicit discharges coming

[37:00] from the apartment buildings located at 17200 Vanic and Boulevard

[37:05] as well as 3440 Avalon Road and conjunction

[37:09] with the Suer District, our consultant and public works

[37:14] perform additional investigations that include a private property

[37:18] diet testing and inspection of both the sanitary and stormings.

[37:23] Further investigations determine that the sanitary flow from

[37:26] when slow road is being conveyed to a combat.

[37:30] Signs, solar overflow. Over the years, the district has performed various modifications and improvements to minimize the number of activations each year to keep in compliance with the EPA's consent decree.

[37:45] On May 17th of 2024, public works submitted the member community infrastructure program.

[37:52] grant application for the study and design to eliminate the connection to the CSO.

[38:01] The general scope of work included expanding the area of study beyond the Evalon Winslow

[38:07] and our section and to apartment buildings to determine if there are other illicit discharge

[38:14] connections and sources of inflow and infiltration.

[38:17] City Council was supportive of pursuing the MCIP grant for this project and provide an

[38:25] authorization to enter to an agreement with the district. The project's total cost was

[38:30] 477,500 with the city contributed in 238,750 to study and design the project.

[38:41] After distributing requests for proposals for engineering services, the city entered into an agreement which she grand valley engineering and 2025 and throughout 2025 CVE performed the necessary field work completed the hydraulic modeling and submitted the basis of design report.

[39:05] The general scope of work includes removing illicit connections,

[39:11] installation of new sanitary and store mains and road resurfacing.

[39:16] Due to the size of the sewer shed,

[39:19] it was determined to divide the project into at least two phases,

[39:23] and that can be shown in the map below.

[39:26] Phase one of the project is approximately 60% complete.

[39:30] And estimated cost of construction is $2.1 million.

[39:36] Our intention is to complete the design before the end of 2026 and advertised for the first quarter of 2027.

[39:45] And made April the sewer district distributed request for the 2027 MCIP grant funding, public works, and CV met with the district to review the project and overall the district was supportive of the project.

[40:01] Previously, when applying for MCIP grants, the city's match is 50% as a four-mentioned,

[40:08] but with this meeting we inquired on a 75-25% split, which the district is bound to be favorable.

[40:17] Phase one of the project and the district was agreeable with this application, and if

[40:23] successful, the city contribution would be 525,000.

[40:27] Our request was unanimously supported by the Safety and Public Works Committee on June 4,

[40:34] following responses to the below, which is pretty lengthy.

[40:38] So I want to not read all of them.

[40:40] It's very detailed lined out in the memo.

[40:44] We also receive support from the Finance Committee as well.

[40:50] And those responses are also spelled out pretty much in length.

[40:54] We are requesting city council authorization to assess the sewer districts, MCIP program for phase one of the

[41:05] Winslow and Avalon Road sewer replacement project with the city's contribution being 525,000.

[41:13] We are requesting the legislation be passed as an emergency and under suspension of the rules so that we can proceed with this much

[41:20] need a project. Thank you.

[41:24] Great. Thank you.

[41:27] Thank you.

[41:29] Mrs. Moore, on behalf of Safety and Public Works.

[41:33] As director Ferrell indicated, we had a very full discussion in public works, which is indicated in the memo very correctly.

[41:41] And I would like to add that it also mentions in the memo that many of these illicit connections that are here to for unknown

[41:50] will be discovered in the future, unfortunately, and all we can do as a conscientious

[41:56] community that is absolutely committed to eliminating them, is to tackle them one by one through

[42:04] design and construction. And fortunately, we have assistance through such funding as the

[42:10] sort of district provides through the emceph grant fund. And I just want to commend the city of

[42:18] hikes many of our neighboring cities are under federal consent to

[42:21] crease to eliminate their SSOs or sanitary sewer overflows and in the

[42:27] system where historically we've had CSOs combined sewer overflows it's

[42:33] very daunting to correct these conditions and expensive so I'd like to

[42:38] commend public works for its action on phase one here hoping that phase two

[42:43] will also be funded.

[42:44] Thank you.

[42:46] Thank you.

[42:46] This is Laura.

[42:48] Ms. Williams.

[42:49] I'm going to have to finance.

[42:51] I'm going to comment.

[42:52] Our questions that were asked at finance were reflected in the memo and it was unanimously

[42:57] approved.

[43:00] Further questions or comments from Council?

[43:03] If not, I'd move approval.

[43:05] And move by Ms. Williams.

[43:08] A second.

[43:08] That motion?

[43:09] Seconded by Mrs. Moore.

[43:12] Would the clerk please call the roll on suspension?

[43:14] And this is more Ms. Carmella Williams.

[43:17] Hi, Mr. Alvarez.

[43:19] Hi. Ms. Vixenstein.

[43:23] Hi.

[43:24] Mrs. Cows.

[43:25] Hi. Mr. Malone.

[43:28] And I'm Neckon.

[43:29] Mrs. Moore.

[43:30] Hi.

[43:31] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[43:32] Hi. Mr. Alvarez.

[43:34] Hi.

[43:35] Ms. Vixenstein.

[43:38] Hi.

[43:38] Mrs. Cows.

[43:39] Hi.

[43:40] Mr. Malone.

[43:42] Great. Thank you.

[43:44] on motion carries. The next item is item eight. It is a proposed ordinance authorizing a

[43:52] second amendment to the contract between the city, between the city and Greenman, Peterson,

[44:01] Peterson, Ink, GPI for additional construction administration and inspection services for the

[44:11] cost not to exceed $15,000, which will bring the total contract amount to $79,000, $345

[44:21] and 32 cents into clearing any emergency.

[44:27] Ms. Herald, you before remains with you.

[44:30] Okay, thank you again.

[44:31] The City of Shaker received funding from the Ohio Department of Transportation and Federal

[44:36] highway for the vanic in pedestrian improvement project in 2023. The general scope of work includes

[44:44] landscaping, lighting, bike racks, sidewalk improvements and enhancements. Per our agreement

[44:52] with ODOT, they will contribute up to one and a half million for construction and construction

[44:58] administration and

[45:00] Inespection services. On August 28, 2023, the city of Shaker posted letters of interest for construction management and construction inspection services on ODOT's local government

[45:14] Posting's website for the project as required by the LPA Minister of Projects by firms submitted letters of interest September 22nd of 2023 and based on the scoring of the consultants public works and planning interviewed GPI and negotiated the fee and the amount of 170,000, 814 given the percentage of work that is Oda eligible.

[45:43] The cost of construction administration for Shaker Heights was 38,923, and 32 cents.

[45:52] Outs participation for construction administration was over 131,000.

[45:59] Our recommendation was approved by the Safety and Public Works Committee, February 6, 2024,

[46:07] as well as the Finance Committee, March 18, 2024, and City Council authorized the City to

[46:14] enter into contract with GPI. Due to the different site conditions, the level of coordination

[46:20] needed between the designers and contractor and additional inspection services required after

[46:26] a water main break, City Council approved contract amendment and the amount of $25,442,

[46:34] They're by making the revised contract amount $196,236.

[46:42] Shaker's total contribution for construction management services was approximately $44,716.

[46:50] And 22 cents.

[46:52] Construction of the Van Dyke and pedestrian improvements began in May of 2024 and was completed in Spring of 2025.

[47:01] GPI is currently requesting a contract modification in the amount of 15,000 for the reasons

[47:09] below an anticipated maintenance and replacement were needed by the landscape and contractor.

[47:16] Additional work was added late in the project to protect vulnerable electric

[47:21] baller installations and additional construction

[47:25] administration services were required for negotiating costs

[47:29] with the contract and project closed out with ODOT.

[47:33] Public Works has reviewed GPI's request and find it fair reason

[47:38] for the table below summarizes the original contract value.

[47:43] The contract modification as well as the revised total

[47:47] for construction management and inspection services.

[47:52] Our recommendation was, you know,

[47:54] to approve by the Saving and Public Works Committee

[47:56] on June 4th following the questions below,

[48:01] as well as support by the Finance Committee on June 15th.

[48:05] That's when it's 26th.

[48:07] For a reason stated above public works

[48:09] is requesting authorization from City Council

[48:12] to modify GPIs contract in the amount of 15,000

[48:16] for additional construction, administration, and inspection on Van A. Competition Improvements Project.

[48:24] And we request that legislation is passed as an emergency under suspension of the rules.

[48:30] Thank you.

[48:32] Thank you, Ms. Harrell. Mrs. Warner, on behalf of Safety and Public Works.

[48:38] The memo accurately represents our discussion and you've support with unanimous.

[48:44] And Ms. Williams, I'm going to have a finance.

[48:47] I'm the memo also, Accurate Labor Flex Art Discussion in that there was very little in the item past unanimously.

[48:57] Other comments from Council?

[48:58] Move approval.

[48:59] There's that second.

[49:01] Move by Mrs. Moore, seconded by Ms. Williams.

[49:04] Would the clerk please call the roll on suspension?

[49:07] Ms. Moore?

[49:08] Ms. Carmella Williams?

[49:09] Aye.

[49:10] Mr. Alvarez?

[49:11] Aye.

[49:12] Ms. Vixenstein?

[49:14] Hi.

[49:15] Mrs. Cows.

[49:16] Hi.

[49:16] Mr. Malone.

[49:17] Hi.

[49:20] And I'm an actin.

[49:21] Mrs. Moore.

[49:22] Hi.

[49:23] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[49:24] Hi. Mr. Alvarez.

[49:26] Hi.

[49:27] Ms. Vixenstein.

[49:29] Hi.

[49:30] Mrs. Cows.

[49:31] Hi.

[49:31] Mr. Malone.

[49:34] Great. Thank you, motion carries.

[49:37] Next item is item number nine.

[49:41] a proposed ordinance accepting the lowest and best bid and authorizing a contract with infinity

[49:47] construction in the total amount of $2 million, $25,100 for city hall addition and renovation

[49:57] project and declaring an emergency director Farrell, floor remains with you.

[50:03] Thank you and sprinkle 2025, the city of Shaker Heights began the process to design and addition

[50:10] and renovate select areas of City Hall.

[50:14] The city desire to move off a staff out of the basement

[50:17] to improve their working environment,

[50:19] while also improving the public's experience

[50:21] and the main lobby, and provide space improvements

[50:25] that will benefit City Hall employees.

[50:28] The project has been fast-tracked to provide these improvements

[50:31] as soon as possible, since some City Hall staff

[50:34] have been temporarily relocated to other city buildings.

[50:37] The project was publicly bid.

[50:40] Bids were opened on June 12th with six bids received.

[50:45] And two of those bids were under the estimated construction

[50:47] of the $2,052,000.

[50:51] As shown in the table below, each bidter was required

[50:55] to provide the construction duration on the bid form.

[51:00] And the difference in construction duration is five months

[51:04] for the low-bid sauna and the second low-infinity construction.

[51:10] Also, as stated, is shown in the table.

[51:13] The bid results and construction duration,

[51:17] also shown in the table,

[51:18] below includes the 10% contingency as well.

[51:22] The cost difference between the two beds is 27,500.

[51:27] And to keep the project moving in a timely manner,

[51:31] public works will like to award the City Hall additional renovation project to

[51:37] infinity construction as the lowest and best better due to the reduced construction

[51:44] duration of five months. We are requesting that city council provide authorization to

[51:50] contract with infinity construction for the construction of city hall addition and

[51:56] innovation project in the amount of $2,25,000 and $100, we request the legislation be

[52:04] passed as an emergency and under suspension of the rules so that we can proceed with the

[52:10] much need of project.

[52:11] Thank you.

[52:13] Thank you, Dr. Farrell.

[52:18] I want to begin with the questions or comments from Council.

[52:21] I just wondered if in light of the questions that were raised tonight, if a law director

[52:27] group or could maybe get...

[52:30] I say a word or two about the cities requirement for the lowest and the best bidder. It's a very indefinite subjective term, lowest and best.

[52:40] I just wondered, I know it's different from the county, which has a requirement that it take the lowest bid. So we're different in a way. But could you give the history of that?

[52:51] Sure, their under state law, those entities that are subject to state law such as the county and non charter cities and state government are allowed to award bids to the lowest and most responsible bidder, and that is a different standard than in the city's charter, which is lowest and best bidder, which is not uncommon among cities at all, it's a very common standard.

[53:21] And as Council understands that in the bid process, Council does not award bids, typically,

[53:28] the only time the administration chooses to bring bids, because that's not required

[53:34] by that codified ordinances, but the time that times that the administration does bring

[53:39] them to Council is when they're being awarded to other than the lowest priced bid.

[53:46] And that's what comes to Council.

[53:48] as I'm sure you understand council use hardly ever see these. This is a very rare

[53:52] thing for council to see because it doesn't happen that often. So typically the city does

[53:58] award to the lowest priced bidder but there are circumstances when there are other considerations

[54:04] and in this case the bids are less than 2% different on a very large bid so they are virtually identical.

[54:12] I understand they're not identical that the other company son of did have a slightly lower

[54:21] financial bid.

[54:23] But this department has determined that its recommendation is that we go with the lowest

[54:28] and best bid in best meeting that time is an important aspect in this case and that that's

[54:36] why they're going with the second lowest bidder and it's not at all disparaging.

[54:42] or in criticism of the low bidder in any way, and hopefully the low financial bidder

[54:51] this time, if they don't get the award, depending on how council votes, in the future

[54:58] they can bid, and we'll try in the future.

[55:03] Thank you very much.

[55:06] this house. Thank you mayor and thank you director, Laurie Farrow.

[55:13] Question because the days to complete project did come up in public comment earlier and it's quite a significant difference.

[55:22] And I'm looking everywhere from 210 days to 420 days.

[55:27] So someone's days is literally double the days that the lowest amount of days has.

[55:33] Like, what makes the variance so vast on those?

[55:39] Thank you for the question.

[55:41] I really got a son to say that they're self.

[55:42] They're a smaller organization.

[55:44] And when you're larger, you just have the ability to put more resources to which is the case here.

[55:54] Thank you.

[55:55] For the comments.

[55:57] One of the other comments that was made was the difference in the time frame that was listed in the RFP.

[56:09] I believe it was 15 months and some of the bidders here came in under that time frame.

[56:20] And since we cite that infinity, one of the things that gave them that we liked with them was that it was a shorter turnaround time or completion time.

[56:32] Can we speak to how we arrived at the 15-month in the RFP and was the goal to bring the staff workspace back to normal.

[56:51] trigger later or after the RFP if that makes sense. So we said 15 months and we decided

[57:00] that an accelerated timeframe was more appealing which anyone would love in a renovation.

[57:06] So I'll try to start off by answering the question. It's the same way that whenever we do any

[57:11] project we have our own in-house estimate or in this case we work with the consultant and they're able

[57:18] provide their best estimate or how long the services will take. And when we receive the

[57:25] bids and saw that, like I said, to Neil Kalsman's council's question, that because of the size

[57:33] of this firm construction company that put in, there's a shorter duration, which has been

[57:39] official. So it's better for us if we can say five months time for the projects to get completed.

[57:46] And so the 15 months was based on the number that we had from, was that Webber Murphy Fox

[57:53] was here. If you need, like, more in the weeds than that, but it's always

[57:58] right. It's an outside date. But that's why the in the on the bid form it says how many days to complete.

[58:07] If we just thought, you know, oh, we don't care 15 months is fine. Then we wouldn't even bother to

[58:15] to say or need to or just say, will you do it in 15 months? So that's why the request is there to put how long and as you can see it would be about 450 days outside the 15 months and all of them came well within that. So it was really, I think,

[58:36] set as an outside project end date.

[58:40] And another factor that was very important is when can you start?

[58:44] You know, so that was why that question was as well as someone who says, hey, I can start.

[58:49] And that depends on how many other projects they may have.

[58:52] You know, going on where they can move resources kind of to your question as well.

[58:56] And so that was also very important for us to be able to start as soon as possible.

[59:01] And I have the resources available to do so in a timely manner.

[59:07] And we have a couple of members of Councilor joining remotely.

[59:14] Ms. Pixestine?

[59:16] Yes, thank you.

[59:18] Director Farrah, my recollection is that when Council approved this project and the initial design phase that the construction estimates were much lower.

[59:33] And I appreciate that there have been many factors that have led to increase supply costs.

[59:41] But I was wondering if you could speak to the cost of the project and why it is greater than significantly more than originally estimated.

[1:00:01] So I'm probably going to call David or Shannon. But I know part of it was just some of the scope changes as we went. Then we had multiple meetings. If you're speaking to a prior agenda item, but today it's under, let me go back.

[1:00:23] I'm trying to find because the estimate at this time was 2 million.

[1:00:33] Right, that's what I read it in there, that's what I, that's what I, that's what I, so as Pop said, that's what I'll be referencing something prior, but we're in budget now, is it stated on here it, it says that we were in two million of fifty two thousand dollars, so it's in budget.

[1:00:48] I'm thinking about, um, I must have been when we were doing a long time ago, I perhaps

[1:00:58] I misremember. I thought that, um, when we talked about the project originally and the

[1:01:06] health issues, some people were having in the basement and what the different options were in

[1:01:13] are renovating the annex or doing an addition, and so on. I thought we had gotten an estimate

[1:01:21] that was significantly lower, but perhaps I'm this remembered. But I hear you say that

[1:01:28] that's within budget. So thank you. Yeah, we had two that were under the projected budget,

[1:01:33] two of the beds, received. I think Vice Mayor Bixenstein is referring to when this went before

[1:01:41] landmark commission originally, and then we put the target estimate of $1 million on a renovation

[1:01:52] of this part of the city hall. We talked about that as a ballpark figure. It was a very

[1:01:58] rude estimate. I was just discussing the difference between $1 million and $2 million and how

[1:02:05] we got there and I think that's what Vice Mayor Bixen Stein is asking about.

[1:02:12] Okay.

[1:02:13] So I don't know.

[1:02:17] It's really not a bidding question.

[1:02:24] Mr. Alvarez.

[1:02:26] Yeah.

[1:02:27] I can see that the timeline is appealing and the ability to be able to begin the project.

[1:02:35] and end it is is also appealing with this particular bit.

[1:02:39] I guess my question is, is what assurances do we have

[1:02:43] and what contractual ability do we have,

[1:02:46] or what recourse do we have if they don't hit those dates?

[1:02:51] The contract is we typically have will have penalties

[1:02:56] in it if it is delayed.

[1:03:00] So they will be paying, I forgot what the amount is per day.

[1:03:06] $750 a day for delays.

[1:03:11] Doesn't seem like a lot of money.

[1:03:18] Other contract on a contract this size.

[1:03:21] I just, you know, just I just am very concerned that

[1:03:27] the differential in the time with the different bids is so significant.

[1:03:33] I mean, I guess I want to hear from from the staff like what assurances and what due diligence did they go through that gives them a sense of confidence

[1:03:41] that they're going to be able to deliver in the time period.

[1:03:49] We looked at what actually we looked at all

[1:03:53] as we always do at all the visits that came in

[1:03:56] and looked at the references, prior jobs, prior experience,

[1:04:00] size of firms, and as director Gruber said,

[1:04:04] there's also assurances in there if they're unable

[1:04:08] to meet those targets where they will be penalized

[1:04:10] so that tends to motivate as well.

[1:04:13] They don't want to lose money.

[1:04:17] How do we ever use this group before?

[1:04:23] Director?

[1:04:23] This constructs.

[1:04:23] Wait.

[1:04:24] This city does not have a lot of vertical construction.

[1:04:27] So, no, we have not had the opportunity to use this company in the past.

[1:04:32] Okay.

[1:04:33] Thank you.

[1:04:35] So, infinity construction has done significant work at the vanake industry.

[1:04:42] My for us, no, for the developer.

[1:04:47] Further comments or questions?

[1:04:51] Can I add one thing, we have had the practice of employing or hiring a construction manager for such projects and one of the functions of a construction manager is to bring that project home on time.

[1:05:07] Is that correct?

[1:05:11] Yes.

[1:05:11] So, Mayor, the only thing I would like to add, because I am supportive of this measure for

[1:05:18] the reasons that the administration has outlined, the only thing I would ask to ask us

[1:05:25] to consider is whenever possible if there is a minority women own veteran own business that

[1:05:37] happen to be smaller if they are capable of doing the work and they happen to meet the lowest

[1:05:44] and best criteria that we consider them. Because it's challenging enough due to historical

[1:05:51] reasons for those types of businesses to receive contracts such as this. So I would just encourage

[1:06:00] as to consider them in the future if and when the situation makes it a program.

[1:06:08] So I could come in a little, just a part of that, one of the comments made by the low bid

[1:06:14] contractor tonight here was about the idea of meeting after the bid's, now that can be

[1:06:19] done through an RFP process, which is a much more informal process, but at this one of the reasons

[1:06:24] I walked around to check with the director and with her staff, we're not aware of any

[1:06:30] time when the city or any other public entity meets with bidders after the award after

[1:06:38] the bidding process until it is awarded in a contract is entered into.

[1:06:44] In fact, we have pretty strict rules about not doing that here, because at the

[1:06:49] point is to have no chances for there to be any taint of it or influence over the bidding process.

[1:07:01] But it can happen before the bidding, and I've suggested this in other situations.

[1:07:08] If we are going out for bid and we think we might get a mix of small and large businesses

[1:07:13] is to make a real effort to meet because we can meet with potential bidders in advance

[1:07:18] and make sure they have everybody understands what our concerns are and what we find

[1:07:24] most important in this particular job is a time, is it, is it, is it?

[1:07:30] Traffic control is at, you know, the price, what's the most important things? And so that's one way

[1:07:35] of, I think, assisting smaller businesses to do that all before the bidding process is done.

[1:07:42] And I know we do that, we do have pre-bit meetings. I think it's just a matter of tweaking that to make it more helpful for smaller businesses.

[1:07:51] I appreciate that. Like I said, I don't have any problem with this situation. I could understand

[1:07:59] wanting to have the work completed as soon as possible from an operational standpoint and

[1:08:06] for the quality of work environment for our staff. So I appreciate that. And I think that would be helpful.

[1:08:14] So I don't know if, in this example, if the contractor would have applied or did something differently if they knew that the timeline was important, you know, if they had the capacity to do that or if they would have withdrawn.

[1:08:35] So I appreciate that.

[1:08:39] Mr. Alvarez your hands still is is it yeah, I raised it again. I just want to make a point. So

[1:08:46] If the $150 a day

[1:08:52] 750 dollars it is okay. Okay, okay, then I withdraw my question

[1:09:00] Okay, I think you say withdraws is question. I think I think that's what the council said

[1:09:10] Any other comments from council

[1:09:12] I have to move for approval.

[1:09:15] Ms. Williams, is there a second?

[1:09:19] Second?

[1:09:20] Seconded by Ms. Couse.

[1:09:22] Would the clerk please call the roll on suspension?

[1:09:25] Ms. Moore.

[1:09:25] Aye.

[1:09:26] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[1:09:27] Aye. Mr. Alvarez.

[1:09:29] Aye.

[1:09:30] Ms. Bixenstein.

[1:09:32] Aye.

[1:09:32] Mrs. Couse.

[1:09:33] Aye.

[1:09:34] Mr. Malone.

[1:09:36] Hand on an act.

[1:09:37] Ms. Moore.

[1:09:39] Ms. Carmella Williams.

[1:09:40] Mr. Alvarez, I, Ms. Vixenstein,

[1:09:45] I, Mrs. Scouts, I, Mr. Malau.

[1:09:50] I, motion, motion carries.

[1:09:55] That ends our formal agenda items for the meeting.

[1:10:00] But as we mentioned at the beginning of the meeting,

[1:10:03] there is an opportunity at the end at this point

[1:10:07] for there to be public comment on any other items residents, which wish to make or raise

[1:10:16] with City Council.

[1:10:19] Since I know a number of people came in after the start of the meeting when we announced

[1:10:26] the public comments guidelines, I'll just touch on a couple of them very quickly, they're

[1:10:31] in the back table if you'd like to see all of them, but we ask that everyone come to the podium

[1:10:39] when they're recognized and that everyone's be clearly and directly into the microphone

[1:10:44] if not, then it doesn't record it. It doesn't pick it up and people listening after

[1:10:50] tonight, we'll not be able to hear. So we ask everyone to provide their name and their city

[1:10:58] street of their residents.

[1:11:06] Depending on the question, answers may not be provided tonight, depending on variety of

[1:11:12] factors.

[1:11:13] But if not, though, provide it as soon as practical after the meeting.

[1:11:20] In order to accommodate everyone who wishes to speak, the chair may limit the time for each

[1:11:26] member of the public.

[1:11:27] We traditionally have limited that to two to three minutes, and we would request the same

[1:11:34] this evening.

[1:11:37] We also asked that each member of the public speak only once until everyone has had an

[1:11:42] opportunity to make a comment or ask a question.

[1:11:50] And lastly, in this abbreviated form, we ask, as is our tradition in Shaker that everyone

[1:11:57] as respectful as to differences of opinion, and with that, we will go ahead and open up the

[1:12:06] public comment section on any items that members may choose to comment on, please serve

[1:12:13] feel free.

[1:12:23] Good evening.

[1:12:24] Is that good?

[1:12:25] Yes.

[1:12:26] Okay.

[1:12:26] My name is David Low.

[1:12:27] I live on Lomond Boulevard here in Shaker, and I was at the meeting on Thursday discussing

[1:12:34] legacy trees that are being removed so the sewer project can move forward. We were told

[1:12:42] at that meeting that City Council had voted on this that this decision has already been made

[1:12:50] that you voted and that is water under the bridge at this point. If you could tell me what date

[1:12:56] that meeting was because I would like to find it and watch it and I couldn't find it on the website

[1:13:03] And maybe I don't know how to find it, but if, if you could let me know what, when that vote took place, I would like to, I'd like to watch it.

[1:13:11] Mayor, can I please?

[1:13:13] Thank you.

[1:13:14] So we, there was no, I think I'm a spoke at that meeting.

[1:13:18] I was there and I made a comment.

[1:13:20] I think I'm a spoke.

[1:13:21] We heard presentation.

[1:13:23] I believe it's made fifth from public works.

[1:13:26] However, there was no action for counsel to vote on.

[1:13:29] Council votes on and Bill please correct me.

[1:13:31] Council votes on legislation and Council votes on funding at that time we didn't have any legislation

[1:13:38] before us or any funding matters before us.

[1:13:40] So we did not take a vote but we received an update from public works.

[1:13:45] Do you?

[1:13:45] Okay.

[1:13:46] Because we looked and we saw nothing but talking about how much money we're going to try to

[1:13:52] save.

[1:13:52] So, is there going to be a vote or who makes a decision to do this?

[1:13:57] because we were left that it was the decision to remove those trees had been made.

[1:14:02] And yes, that was, I wasn't going to call you out because I didn't want to do that.

[1:14:07] But who makes that final decision?

[1:14:09] Is it Christian?

[1:14:11] Is there, who makes the final decision on that?

[1:14:15] Is it City Council?

[1:14:16] Do that?

[1:14:17] It's not, it's nothing to come before Council.

[1:14:22] because the Council proved the contract and so now the administration is administering the contract

[1:14:27] and working with the contractors to get the project completed and the best way possible.

[1:14:33] And so that's an decision of the administration.

[1:14:36] Who's the administration?

[1:14:37] The administration is the mayor, CIO, and the department director that you heard from and her staff.

[1:14:45] So we can continue this with them.

[1:14:47] Yes.

[1:14:47] Okay.

[1:14:48] Thank you.

[1:14:48] Thank you. And if I can pause, I think that is a good point for just a good education piece, but

[1:14:57] Council makes decisions on life.

[1:15:00] And on financial issues and that the administration makes decisions on other matters before the city.

[1:15:11] Correct.

[1:15:12] Right. So you'll see amendments to contracts like you did tonight when we have to add funds to a contract that you didn't approve already.

[1:15:20] So that you do get to be for you. And sometimes there's a word of a contract like you also sought tonight.

[1:15:31] I was present at the meeting and understandably the residents felt that they did not have

[1:15:40] full facts that we were shared with us at the May 5th special meeting, and that became

[1:15:46] very clear and we're very sensitive to that fact.

[1:15:50] But what I wanted to underline is that the contract that was originally approved by city

[1:15:58] Council, well, in the beginning, we were so excited because it did not involve tree removal.

[1:16:08] They were going to do auger boring, which is the technical term, and that auger boring

[1:16:14] was going to be possible to not interfere with utilities and to obviously bring the project

[1:16:22] home on time. But unfortunately, what was discovered, and this was prior to this, our meeting

[1:16:30] when this option, alternative option was discussed, was that the soil conditions in the

[1:16:37] last three blocks or so of this project were such that the soil saturation with water did not

[1:16:45] allow the augur boring to be successful.

[1:16:49] So the redesign was necessitated because the soil saturation

[1:16:55] and the augur boring that we're not possible

[1:16:59] and we needed to find another way to complete the projects

[1:17:03] engineering to lay the pipe.

[1:17:05] And so the four options that were presented to city council

[1:17:09] for discussion and questions on May 5th included

[1:17:14] the one, which was ultimately the favored option, which was to create a less steep trench

[1:17:24] in the area of the tree lawn and sidewalk.

[1:17:30] And that's what was such a surprise to residents who live on the south side of Shagrin, excuse

[1:17:39] me, of Lomond.

[1:17:40] And personally, I feel very sorry that that surprise came to you, and so we've discussed

[1:17:49] communications going forward and how we could better handle information shared with residents

[1:17:57] in a timely way so that you don't perceive there to be a decision made before you were informed.

[1:18:05] And again, I'm apologize if that was the perception it was not the intent.

[1:18:15] Other comments?

[1:18:29] Yes.

[1:18:29] Questions or comments?

[1:18:31] I'm bad or anything else?

[1:18:39] No, no, no.

[1:18:40] Yes.

[1:18:42] Mrs. Moore was adding.

[1:18:43] I didn't mean to be confused.

[1:18:45] No, and I didn't mean to confuse you.

[1:18:47] My name is Lisa Behey, and I live on Oxford Road and Shaker Heights.

[1:18:51] I'm asking you may or vice to cancel our contract with Flock.

[1:18:56] In past public comment, I shared how the federal government is using data to go after

[1:19:00] demonstrators.

[1:19:01] So I just want to share an updated context in which we are operating and in which you

[1:19:06] are leading.

[1:19:08] Less than two weeks ago, over 60 employees, contractors and board members with Ohio organizing

[1:19:13] collaborative were part of an FBI raid, seemingly targeted because of OOC's effort

[1:19:18] around voter registration in our state.

[1:19:22] To connect the dots and increase in federal rates here in Ohio, targeting an organization and

[1:19:29] employees that volunteers and supports voting rights should have us concerned.

[1:19:34] The federal government is keeping its promise that I spoke about before in front of all of

[1:19:39] you to track activists and ensure they feel the threat of surveillance, of harm and the

[1:19:46] silencing of their efforts, energy and activities like registering voters, protecting their

[1:19:51] and using their right to protest.

[1:19:53] The other actions we should embrace

[1:19:55] is part of a healthy act of democracy.

[1:19:58] So you've made some changes to flock

[1:19:59] and shared those out via a press release on June 19th.

[1:20:03] I've got questions and concerns and see your work

[1:20:06] in that contract is tinkering at the edges

[1:20:08] rather than hearing the concerns

[1:20:10] that flock is an untrustworthy company

[1:20:12] that Shaker should not do business with.

[1:20:15] So in May, 2026 we got the data today.

[1:20:18] You allowed Shaker cameras to be search 159,000

[1:20:21] 156 times, there were 361 searching entities across Ohio, so that is only the non-shaker searches.

[1:20:31] I'd like to know how many of them currently have either formal agreements or regular informal collaboration with ICE.

[1:20:39] I know you're really thinking about the 287Gs, but also the regular informal collaboration with ICE.

[1:20:45] It seems like this would be key data you're now tracking.

[1:20:48] So is there a staff member who's monitoring when the new agency enters into a 287G, what about the agencies that cooperate with federal agencies that don't have a 287G?

[1:21:00] What about agencies that don't have 287G that cooperate with those that do?

[1:21:05] You've heard us talk so much about the side doors and back doors that create easy access to the data.

[1:21:10] And unless someone is now going to monitor the users and the search terms on the front end,

[1:21:14] And we're not going to be able to hit the intention in this new contract.

[1:21:19] I'm also hoping you'll look at the thousands of search terms used.

[1:21:22] In that same may data, 5,700 and six unique terms by my count, including ones we've

[1:21:30] warned you about other and variations on the word investigation and suspicious, which are

[1:21:36] used dozens of times.

[1:21:38] Once you look at these, I hope you'll find that there is not a way to keep our data safe

[1:21:43] from unintended uses.

[1:21:44] As we've spoken about in front of you

[1:21:46] from the past four months,

[1:21:48] because block as a company wants our data

[1:21:50] as a money-making tool for their use.

[1:21:54] The only way to ensure safety

[1:21:55] is to cancel our contract with block.

[1:21:57] And I'm asking you,

[1:21:58] Mayor Wife's, to please take action,

[1:22:00] please cancel Shaker's contract.

[1:22:04] Thank you.

[1:22:11] Other comments or questions?

[1:22:18] Oh, there was,

[1:22:20] we'll get you next.

[1:22:31] My name is Cindy Maxi, I live on Redam Road in Shaker Heights. I agree with everything that Lisa Vay, he said. I'm also concerned about the use of lock cameras to track intimate partners of police officers.

[1:22:47] There have been at least 18 cases in the last few years where someone was actually convicted.

[1:22:54] And if you think how rare a conviction is in a domestic violence situation, officers who

[1:23:01] were convicted of using flock cameras to track an ex spouse or an intimate partner.

[1:23:13] That and the danger to our immigrant neighbors.

[1:23:18] I understand the desire to have a safe community.

[1:23:22] I understand the desire of the police chief and the police department

[1:23:25] to do everything they can to keep the community safe.

[1:23:29] We can't do that by throwing under the bus

[1:23:31] are most vulnerable neighbors.

[1:23:34] Thank you.

[1:23:44] Please,

[1:23:47] Mary.

[1:23:47] My name is Mary Boyle.

[1:23:49] I live at 1 3 4 2 0 large mirror square.

[1:23:52] It's been a busy week in this town

[1:23:54] thinking about the trees and the storms. And since the Councilwoman more raised the issue

[1:24:03] at the beginning of the meeting, I thought I would use the opportunity for you to go on

[1:24:08] the record about the tree that you mentioned that now the sewer district is taking responsibility

[1:24:17] for, I guess, clearing up after.

[1:24:21] I'm curious about how a city like this actually handles all the trees that have been

[1:24:27] issues, particularly like in the last week.

[1:24:30] I'm assuming the sewer district is doing the same throughout the city,

[1:24:35] or is there another way the tree that your department's take care of that

[1:24:41] and is that different in what is happening in the one that

[1:24:44] more described and if so, why?

[1:24:50] Thank you.

[1:24:55] Some of these questions we said at the beginning, I'll take a little longer to explain,

[1:24:59] but essentially we have an irrest and staff and the work.

[1:25:03] I'm not exactly sure which tree you're referring to, but...

[1:25:07] There

[1:25:11] was a Facebook post from the City of Shaker Heights that it was a large tree, a mature tree that had

[1:25:24] of what's euphemistically called Lovers Lane Bridge, and fortunately didn't fall on the bridge.

[1:25:31] And so we were charged with figuring out a way of removing the fall and tree at that point.

[1:25:40] Okay, Mr. Mayor.

[1:25:45] Several trees.

[1:25:47] So it was speaking about the right one.

[1:25:49] The one that the sewer district, that's what we were discussing, because it's a conveyance

[1:25:53] of flow.

[1:25:54] And so, if it's the one you're referencing that we're thinking, that's why that tree is being removed by the sewer district.

[1:26:04] Flo, if say a water has to, like, would lower lay down all of that.

[1:26:10] If it obstructs the dome-brook, then this, that is the reason why.

[1:26:14] That is the reason why, yes.

[1:26:16] And that's typical. And they often do that around it. They do that up and down the dome

[1:26:22] brook from time to time. If there's something obstructing flow within the dome brook

[1:26:30] watershed.

[1:26:37] Typically yes. Right? Yeah. Typically. Yeah.

[1:26:45] Other questions or comments from the

[1:26:48] public. Yeah.

[1:26:54] Those of you that have raised your hands on online, we will

[1:26:58] We will get to you as well.

[1:27:05] My name is Jennifer Carter, I live on Van Ake and Boulevard in Cleveland.

[1:27:11] Good evening.

[1:27:12] The restrictions made to how flock is used seem like a step in the correct direction.

[1:27:16] However, I still oppose the use of flock cameras and check our heights and urge you to cancel the contract

[1:27:21] because of the risk of privacy, civil liberties and community trust outweigh the claim benefits.

[1:27:28] We cannot ensure these changes will be guaranteed.

[1:27:30] Also, I do not think it wise to negotiate with the company that has proven it cannot be trusted.

[1:27:36] That has been used by officers towards a protective service to stock innocent people.

[1:27:41] It has also been used unjustly against immigrants.

[1:27:44] But cameras do not simply require crimes and progress.

[1:27:48] They create a detailed tracking system.

[1:27:51] Even if the attend is public safety, we must ask whether constant surveillance is the kind of community

[1:27:57] checker heights wants to build. In addition, there is limited evidence that these systems

[1:28:03] significantly reduce crime. There is no evidence that the contract will be amended to the

[1:28:09] restrictions suggested. We should not do business with the company that has been grossly,

[1:28:13] compliance, and violating people's rights. It is understood, cameras may help investigate

[1:28:18] some incidents after they occur. But they do not address the root causes of crime,

[1:28:24] investment in community, investment in community policing, youth programs, mental health services,

[1:28:32] neighborhood engagement, and economic development can provide safety benefits without

[1:28:36] sacrificing privacy. Transparency and accountability are tantamount to build trust with law enforcement.

[1:28:44] However, it is difficult to attain when public records request take months to receive.

[1:28:52] I know that

[1:28:54] Obviously, Shaker has long struggled with disproportionately ticketing black people.

[1:28:59] How can we trust Shaker has to be these to ensure they use black, flat, fairly?

[1:29:04] How can we sure that black people, people of color, and immigrants, will not be targeted using

[1:29:08] Flock? How can we expect transparency on a larger level when it can't even be maintained on a smaller level?

[1:29:16] How can we maintain open communication when body camp, camera footage for Shaker

[1:29:20] height is now $750 for anyone requesting that information.

[1:29:25] This policy is intended to be a barrier to people, which makes it easier for the Shaker High

[1:29:30] Police Department to engage with little community oversight.

[1:29:35] Also, residents cannot access flood video locally.

[1:29:37] They will have to submit a federal public record request.

[1:29:41] What will that cost be?

[1:29:42] Our Earth City leaders to cancel the contract with flood, which are reactive, which are a reactive

[1:29:48] to approach crime and instead invest in pro-actor solutions that strengthen public safety while preserving the privacy

[1:29:56] freedoms of everyone in our community.

[1:30:04] Law Director Greber, can I ask a few clarifying questions? Are we? Is the city subject a poya at all? Freedom of information act on the federal level?

[1:30:15] No, no, the city is subject to the state public records act, which is pretty similar to the federal act. It has some different provisions. I don't know the foya log that well.

[1:30:25] Okay. Thank you. And then my other question is has flock in the city. My understanding from the

[1:30:36] memo we receive the, I guess the press release that we received as well, flock in the city

[1:30:41] have come to terms. Both sides are in agreement and that contract will be executed. It has been

[1:30:49] executed. Thank you.

[1:31:01] Dave Thomas van Akin and on a way. So with the recent decision to claim

[1:31:05] on to flock. I just have a couple questions that I hope you all can answer. Are you standing

[1:31:09] up a flock transparency portal and allowing all possible data to be published there? Did you

[1:31:14] even know that feature exists? If you're still adamant that this tool is 100% without a doubt

[1:31:18] and overall net positive for community and such a great tool, why aren't you taking advantage

[1:31:22] of this feature offered by flock? After all, I'm sure you've got nothing to hide in the data.

[1:31:27] Does flock allow you to bring your own encryption key and certificates for data transmission

[1:31:31] in the S3 bucket where our raw data is stored.

[1:31:35] Basically, if you don't own the encryption keys

[1:31:36] and anyone at flock with access to those encryption keys

[1:31:39] can decrypt our data and read it.

[1:31:41] If we own the key, then even if a bad act

[1:31:43] are gained access to the raw data,

[1:31:45] they would not be able to view and read it.

[1:31:47] If this isn't a possibility, then can you negotiate,

[1:31:49] then you can negotiate contracts until you're

[1:31:51] full in the face, but they can still ultimately

[1:31:53] pull and read our data and use it for whatever they want,

[1:31:56] which can be done outside of their portal that they have

[1:31:59] by going directly to the cloud provider, which goes around those audit logs that we pull.

[1:32:05] And the audit logs that I've seen appear to come from inside the Foxoff report or not AWS itself,

[1:32:10] so will they allow us to set our own encryption key to truly add an additional technical measure to

[1:32:14] prevent backdoor access to our data. Speaking of which, do you know if our data's process

[1:32:19] in stored in its own dedicated AWS account or is it multi-tinent? If the latter, how many other

[1:32:24] agencies do we share resources with? If a warrants obtain for the data of one of the other tenants

[1:32:28] that are shared in our account, how do we know that our information wouldn't get caught up in that net even if it goes against our policy in our contract?

[1:32:35] That a trusted technical expert, whether within the city or through a third, a trusted third party auditor, and contract with the city, verify any of this.

[1:32:43] Given that this isn't just processing information on suspected criminals, but every single person who passes by one of those cameras, innocent or otherwise, it's very important to understand how this all works in sure that our privacy isn't being unlawfully violated.

[1:32:56] Of the audit logs that we do have access to, how often is a city coming through them and ensure compliance with our policy?

[1:33:02] What's the documented procedure on this? Are you keeping up with a new agency signing to 87G agreements and proactively blocking them?

[1:33:09] What about agencies who aren't 287G signed, who still work with ICE anyway? Are we spot checking legitimate looking requests to follow up on the case?

[1:33:17] Both internally and externally to ensure that they actually are what they say they are.

[1:33:21] Have we considered other ways we can deal with crime besides continuing to participate in the federal government's

[1:33:26] violation of our first and fourth amendment rights?

[1:33:28] There must be some other ways since multiple other police departments across the nation, including

[1:33:33] right here in Ohio, solve fit to find another way without flock.

[1:33:38] By the way, thank you for blocking the immigration drop down, and as a search reason, and for

[1:33:42] blocking those 287G agencies, both are small steps in the right direction.

[1:33:46] So what are we going to ensure our data isn't being used for other morally wrong situations?

[1:33:51] With the recent rate on the local voters rights organization and the rest of members

[1:33:55] of a neighborhood watch group in Minnesota, I'd appreciate knowing that the city isn't

[1:33:59] just targeting a single-bad use of information, since you don't need a 287G for those situations.

[1:34:05] Are we proactively monitoring for when not if the AI makes mistakes as it scans the

[1:34:10] plates of every single vehicle, not just those attached to crimes?

[1:34:12] Do we know if and how often it's happening who's responsible and liable in that situation is it shake our heights

[1:34:18] Shake our police department flock the flying spaghetti monster in the sky by the way all of these issues are more not only apply to flock

[1:34:25] But they're competitors as well for example signal phrase two times you down the three minutes

[1:34:30] So yeah, I get please so signal traces similar company

[1:34:34] That's the point a power ALPR's that have the same flaws that we've told you about over last six months

[1:34:39] They're planning to collect even more data such as passing phones, watches, and electronics from within the cars themselves,

[1:34:45] which makes it a more lucrative gold mine for bad actors who may, for instance, decide that up posing or protesting fascism as a criminal offense.

[1:34:52] So at the end of the day, this private company, backed by a man who's publicly stated where a view of polls is not just the values that shake a residence, but the freedom of rights of every human in this country and on earth,

[1:35:01] This private company who sought after government

[1:35:04] constant entitlement basic security measures and features to prevent

[1:35:07] unauthorized access until after a media storm cannot be trusted no matter what

[1:35:12] they say.

[1:35:13] So there should do better and must find a way to tackle crime and safety without

[1:35:17] contributing to people who would view many in the city as terrorists just for

[1:35:21] existing.

[1:35:22] I'm once again calling on the city of Shaker Heights to end it, not amend it.

[1:35:31] I have to ask that you please abide by the guidelines.

[1:35:35] are a number of people who would like to speak, and essentially you're delaying the ability

[1:35:41] for them to provide their comment as well. So please, we would appreciate compliance with

[1:35:49] those guidelines. Sir, I thought you were next.

[1:36:00] Hello, my name is David Windrick. I've been a resident of Shaker Heights for the last over

[1:36:04] 20 years currently residing on Parkland Drive. I'm here tonight. I wanted to express my

[1:36:11] appointment to hear the news on Friday that the mayor had amended the contract with

[1:36:18] lock safety. In an interview with News Channel 5, Mayor Weiss explained that, quote,

[1:36:25] we have to have the ability to have all the tools in our toolbox that we might need under

[1:36:32] any circumstances. That explanation does not give me confidence that the city fully understands

[1:36:39] what a powerfully dangerous tool we've deployed and is therefore ill-equipped to manage it safely.

[1:36:47] Mass surveillance is an incredibly powerful general purpose tool.

[1:36:51] Deploying a permanent tracking network to solve localized municipal crimes like stolen vehicles is a radical overreaction.

[1:37:02] Chica PD doesn't walk around with assault rifles sung over their shoulders.

[1:37:07] They don't patrol our neighborhoods in armored battle tanks.

[1:37:13] Why is that?

[1:37:14] Because those tools are overkill.

[1:37:17] They're too powerful from the job that we've done.

[1:37:21] Dragnet surveillance of the citizens residents of

[1:37:30] A couple of a tool to have lying around in the toolbox just in case you need it. When you build a system with far more technical capability than your stated purpose requires, it will eventually be used for unintended purposes.

[1:37:48] This is not a hypothetical. We've already had plenty of examples of this system being abused and weaponized in ways that this community never anticipated.

[1:38:00] and never voted for.

[1:38:03] Restricting specific search terms of or blocking certain agencies is a temporary

[1:38:08] band-aid. This time it was ice. Maybe the contract amendments will adequately

[1:38:15] address that threat. Personally, I doubt it. Lupos will always exist forcing our

[1:38:23] community into a state of exhausting, permanent vigilance.

[1:38:29] Even if that's the last we hear of ICE and PLAC, what's next?

[1:38:35] We've been given many examples of what's coming,

[1:38:39] what's already happened.

[1:38:42] When municipal infrastructure can be used to track political descent

[1:38:45] like correlating the movements of peace, peaceful protestors,

[1:38:48] journalists or whistleblowers, it directly threatens civil liberties.

[1:38:53] Shaker Heights has a history of leading up progressive social issues, falling in line with a corporate surveillance

[1:39:02] stagnant is a failure to uphold our communities, core ethos, and values.

[1:39:09] I'll say again, a mass surveillance system is a powerful and dangerous tool.

[1:39:14] The residents of Shaker Heights deserve an explanation of the specific uses that justify it.

[1:39:21] It needs to be better than just in case.

[1:39:25] Thank you.

[1:39:32] I'm going to switch over to some people online just because they've been very patient.

[1:39:37] Mr. Spencer was.

[1:39:38] I think.

[1:39:39] Oh, he was before.

[1:39:40] Yeah, that's all right.

[1:39:42] So hold on here.

[1:39:48] Mr. Spencer, could you unmute?

[1:39:51] Are you ready to go?

[1:39:52] Yes.

[1:39:53] Thank you.

[1:39:54] Good evening.

[1:39:55] Like I said, my name is Garrison Spencer,

[1:39:57] and I live at 3311 lead road.

[1:40:00] I joined late and missed the instruction to hold all other agenda items to the end so I apologize for jumping the gun earlier.

[1:40:08] I did a question and comment about the vacant lot located at 3305 Lee Road.

[1:40:15] And I had just an email to come to members on this topic, but just wanted to make a brief comment on the record as well.

[1:40:22] And my question is what is the status of the development agreement with key state homes for that property?

[1:40:30] Including whether the agreement remains active and whether it is coming up for renewal as I believe it might be.

[1:40:36] And if the agreement is coming up for renewal, I just wanted to respectfully ask that council consider not renewing it and instead re opening the process that allows neighboring property owners to acquire vacant lots.

[1:40:49] The joining property owners, 433-05, we wrote, are different from those that were present

[1:40:57] when the original agreement was made, and neither neighboring owners, including us,

[1:41:04] once a house built on that lot, and we believe the current joining owners should have the same

[1:41:10] opportunity, that previous joining owners were given before that lot was committed to future development.

[1:41:16] So, like I said, I sent an email as well, so that is my comment and question, thanks so much for your time and consideration.

[1:41:26] Mr. Spencer, do you send the email?

[1:41:30] To the Council members using the email addresses listed on the Shaker Heights website.

[1:41:37] It's in our inbox.

[1:41:38] Oh, just Saturday.

[1:41:39] Thank you.

[1:41:41] Yeah.

[1:41:47] Okay, go.

[1:41:48] Mr. Spencer, email.

[1:41:50] At least it's in my email box at 704 p.m. tonight.

[1:41:53] So I will thank you.

[1:41:54] Thank you, director.

[1:41:55] Thank you.

[1:41:56] Thank you.

[1:41:58] Continue on liner.

[1:42:00] Param's three contests.

[1:42:02] Next, I believe.

[1:42:06] Would you hear me, sir?

[1:42:07] Yes.

[1:42:08] We can.

[1:42:08] Thank you so much.

[1:42:09] I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

[1:42:11] I'll be brief.

[1:42:12] I don't want to sound like a stuck record.

[1:42:14] But I want to reflect the widespread sense of dissatisfaction,

[1:42:18] bordering on outrage that continues to persist in the houses and the community.

[1:42:23] around the cutting down of the nine trees.

[1:42:26] Like for example, residents feel that

[1:42:28] it hasn't been clearly explained to them why.

[1:42:30] The tree lawn has to be dug up instead of the street

[1:42:33] or, for example, after cutting down the trees,

[1:42:37] flooding might cause damage to the residential basements

[1:42:40] and people have not received enough clarification about it.

[1:42:44] I just wanted to make you aware that I know that you feel

[1:42:48] you all feel that you move ahead with the decision

[1:42:50] but that has left behind, not just a trail of environmental damage, but a trail of dissatisfaction and despair.

[1:42:57] Thank you.

[1:42:59] Thank you.

[1:43:01] Please.

[1:43:03] And then, Jackie Green.

[1:43:07] If you are ready?

[1:43:11] Yes, hi.

[1:43:12] Can you hear me?

[1:43:13] Yes.

[1:43:14] Okay.

[1:43:15] A little bit.

[1:43:16] I sent some questions earlier.

[1:43:18] And a little bit of the topics that I had questions on regarding the nine legacy oak trees on Lomondrive have been topics have been slightly addressed.

[1:43:30] My questions are to please advise the method and dates that the residents of the Lomond neighborhood were advised specifically that a discussion regarding cutting down nine legacy oak trees would take place.

[1:43:43] I'm not asking for information that gives general notice about the project update, but rather what advanced notice was distributed to the residents of the Loma neighborhood that the removal of nine legacy trees would be discussed.

[1:43:58] What environmental impact studies were performed before the start of the project?

[1:44:03] What was done before the decision to remove nine legacy oak trees?

[1:44:07] Please make available all environmental impact studies,

[1:44:13] statements, studies to the residents of the Luma neighborhood.

[1:44:18] In addition to the environmental impact,

[1:44:20] what social and economic studies were performed in advance

[1:44:23] of the decision to remove nine legacy oak trees.

[1:44:27] I'd like to include any materials regarding community health

[1:44:30] of cleaner air, economic cost of increased tea due to the loss

[1:44:35] significant shade and the economic cost of decreased home values and I would like to ask

[1:44:43] what everybody has learned from this project that could influence new projects. I saw that on

[1:44:49] the agenda today there was discussion about Winslow Road both traffic calming and about.

[1:45:00] It is a big topic. Hopefully you have learned from what's happening right now with the community and Mola neighborhood that direct communication and frequent communication to the residents of a neighborhood might actually be needed when you're disrupting their ability to, for example, drive down their road or access their driveways.

[1:45:23] And then I'd like to know this is an interesting thing.

[1:45:27] One measures we put into place so that future projects do still have to adhere to the city's

[1:45:33] implemented five year tree plan.

[1:45:36] I see that every item on the agenda is listed as emergency and that when you have emergency

[1:45:44] you have a suspension of rules, but the city created a five year tree plan with rules about

[1:45:50] how to handle trees and how to do construction around trees.

[1:45:55] Clearly, if something's been declared an emergency,

[1:45:59] you don't have to adhere to those rules.

[1:46:02] I'd like to consider, in the future,

[1:46:05] discussing how do we ensure that these important decisions

[1:46:11] that have been implemented don't get overridden by the...

[1:46:16] is green. I'm sorry to interrupt. Are you about to wrap up? Yes. Okay.

[1:46:24] Have I done over three minutes? I was watching my timer.

[1:46:27] A little bit. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I do have other questions, but you guys all know

[1:46:32] a lot of you know me. I always have a lot of questions, and I don't want to take up

[1:46:37] time for other people. So thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[1:46:42] We have your email of course, and we'll respond.

[1:46:44] Yeah, okay. Thank you.

[1:46:59] I would like to start by saying hello neighbors.

[1:47:02] We are all neighbors after all.

[1:47:05] We all live here.

[1:47:07] I voted for you guys.

[1:47:10] I think by now you know me.

[1:47:12] I'm Sarah Megan Hart.

[1:47:14] I have lived in Chaker for 25 years.

[1:47:19] And I am here with all due respect,

[1:47:23] but also to direct my comments to you, Mayor Weiss.

[1:47:28] There seems to be a misunderstanding about ALPR's

[1:47:33] and their ability to prevent crimes or solve crimes.

[1:47:38] I'm wondering if you can tell me how many

[1:47:40] flock cameras were in Tucson, Arizona,

[1:47:44] the day Nancy Guthrie was abducted.

[1:47:47] Do you know?

[1:47:48] Over 200.

[1:47:49] block cameras, ALPRs, as it prevented, as it solved, just the answer is no.

[1:48:03] We know, as many people have mentioned, that the cameras have been used for nefarious

[1:48:09] purposes by violent partners to track their exes.

[1:48:14] We know that the guardrails are, I heard, I don't know, do we have a full-time person tracking those audits?

[1:48:26] Can we say for sure that they aren't being used for immigration to track ex-partners for unlawful immigration searches?

[1:48:35] The answer is, I mean, maybe we have a full-time person I haven't heard of that.

[1:48:41] Can we guarantee the veracity of a search like sus or invest?

[1:48:47] I don't know what that means.

[1:48:50] That can mean anything.

[1:48:51] Just because a person can't say it's for immigration.

[1:48:56] I don't know that that really solves the problem.

[1:48:59] I appreciate the effort.

[1:49:00] I do see the effort.

[1:49:02] But the fact of the matter is that these cameras do not make us safer.

[1:49:05] We are all of the data points to that, crime is not reduced, crimes are not solved.

[1:49:13] There is some sort of dystopian fever dream that is taking over this idea of surveillance as helping us.

[1:49:20] I will end simply by saying, Mayor, you have the power to cancel the contract.

[1:49:28] I ask that you cancel the contract today. Thank you.

[1:49:40] Mayer, we do have another email that was submitted today from Ms. Sheila Doss, DAS, on Loma

[1:49:48] and Boulevard.

[1:49:49] What's the summarize?

[1:49:50] It'll be added to the minutes later.

[1:49:52] As DAS asks about environmental studies conducted before work began on the SSO projects in

[1:49:59] Linfield, Loma and Area, where the study shared discusses the email discusses of our

[1:50:04] mental costs, questions about impact, climate impacts, housing impacts, and then there are

[1:50:13] other general questions about the work that's been done in the current process.

[1:50:20] Ms. Dr. Describes that she's been a resident for over 20 years of that area, and has other

[1:50:26] related comments, but we'll provide a response as well.

[1:50:30] But that's, and the email in full will be added to the minutes.

[1:50:35] Thank you. Any other comments this evening?

[1:50:44] Anyone online? I think that's it.

[1:50:47] I'll see you at our hands, Mayor. Okay. Then we're going to go ahead and end the public comment section.

[1:50:55] But before we do move on, I guess I just wanted to say that

[1:51:05] We have heard very clearly the concerns and comments that many of the people in these chambers

[1:51:14] have asked.

[1:51:18] I would just ask that you consider that there are certain circumstances when this technology

[1:51:29] can be helpful.

[1:51:30] I can point to a number of them in Shaker itself and what we have attempted to do and spent

[1:51:40] a good deal of time is trying to address issues of either ambiguity or to limit the use

[1:51:49] of the technology where no one is comfortable or maybe comfortable with it.

[1:51:55] We have made significant progress on it.

[1:52:02] I know that that's not enough for many of you.

[1:52:09] We will continue to work to make sure we have the best contract that we have can have.

[1:52:18] But it's difficult for me.

[1:52:19] and I think it's difficult for my colleagues on council.

[1:52:30] ology, can be significant. And so it's hard for me to, and I think for council, when asked

[1:52:43] by someone whose child has been abducted or someone who has mental health issues that has

[1:52:54] lost and they're trying to find. When you hear about those situations, it's hard to

[1:53:02] to ignore that there isn't more to the story and more that needs to be considered.

[1:53:10] So I hear the comments made. I do want to clarify that we do have a contract that goes

[1:53:16] two years. So we are bound by that contract. But we will continue to explore to make sure

[1:53:29] we're limiting and prohibiting the activities that many of you are mentioning.

[1:53:38] But so

[1:53:39] that's where we are at, but I wanted to make sure that you were clear about the efforts

[1:53:46] have been taken by the administration and by City Council and so we'll continue the conversation

[1:53:56] I'm sure but I did want to make that general statement.

[1:54:04] All right, that ends our items, formal items, and we will go ahead and adjourn, and then

[1:54:16] wait a moment, and then we will work through our calendar.

[1:54:20] We really can't adjourn.

[1:54:22] We're going to talk about it.

[1:54:23] We should.

[1:54:24] We still under sunshine.

[1:54:27] Okay.

[1:54:29] Just don't talk about your vacation dates.

[1:54:31] Yeah, she won't talk about our vacation dates on the vacation dates are off the record right but everything else we just want.

[1:54:38] Yeah, okay.

[1:54:42] All right.

[1:54:44] Well, then you need to guide me.

[1:54:46] I love the director.

[1:54:47] Then what are we?

[1:54:49] I think the point was that if there's a concern about anyone not wanting to reveal publicly something about here.

[1:55:03] We're talking about tonight as meeting when you're available for meetings and when you're nodding, what we should have certain meetings.

[1:55:11] You have to give the reason.

[1:55:14] Okay.

[1:55:15] Just saying that available.

[1:55:17] So, outside of the, alive meeting.

[1:55:21] No, I'm saying that's the discussion we're having now.

[1:55:24] And then if there's more detail that the council member

[1:55:28] was to get to that as to where they're going to be or why

[1:55:34] they can talk about that.

[1:55:36] Exactly.

[1:55:37] Just for a sake, we were talking about just for safety reasons.

[1:55:42] And I don't think it's required that the council members

[1:55:45] pronounce here their schedules or if they're not available.

[1:55:49] If they're not available, they can share that.

[1:55:50] Mr. Melon says, I'm not available one half a second.

[1:55:52] He's not available one half a second.

[1:55:54] He could choose to say that to me separately.

[1:55:58] Right.

[1:56:07] All right.

[1:56:08] If you've comfortable getting dates,

[1:56:10] or if any,

[1:56:11] or not,

[1:56:12] feel free to do that now.

[1:56:13] And if you're not,

[1:56:14] then you can talk to Matt after we adjourned.

[1:56:17] I'm sorry.

[1:56:18] I was talking without my microphone on Mr.

[1:56:21] Was the calendar email, was the calendar email?

[1:56:24] Say again, come with us.

[1:56:26] No, was the calendar email to us?

[1:56:29] Oh, the calendar.

[1:56:29] I haven't seen it.

[1:56:32] We don't.

[1:56:33] We don't.

[1:56:34] We can email it.

[1:56:35] We can email it.

[1:56:39] Well,

[1:56:41] we'll email the draft.

[1:56:46] Sunshine calendar to you and you can let us know.

[1:56:52] Thank you.

[1:56:53] All right anything else for this evening we do have a board of appeals case, so that we'll go forward

[1:57:01] As far as we know right now

[1:57:04] And yes, and we will need you

[1:57:09] All right, and if there's nothing else we stand adjourned. Thank you all

Jun 22, 2026 City Council

Agenda

Transcript