09/19/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 9/19/2000 Gareau, McKay, Limpert and O'Grady; directors of Finance, Service, Human Resources; ''~' the Assistant Director of Law; residents and guests. Discussion items were as follows: • Ordinance 2000-107, which is an ordinance authorizing and directing Don Copeland, Director of the Department of Human Resources, to apply on the behalf of the City of North Olmsted for community block grant funds for three projects: one, entitled sidewalk curb cuts for disabled persons and older persons; second, Americans with Disabilities Act improvements at the Recreation complex; third, water main improvements for Summerland, Virginia, MacBeth and Esther avenues. Thanks to the hard work of the committee and Mr. Copeland as their leader, a very detailed and interesting report that narrowed it down to these three projects was presented to the committee earlier and to the rest of Council. This committee does an awful lot of hard work, and Mr. Copeland is an excellent leader in that effort. He will be submitting an application based on this legislation. In Mr. Copeland's detailed report, he referred to another street, Tree Lane, that has significant repair needs. When Mr. Miller reviewed that report, he brought to the committee's attention that Tree Lane might be something that would be a subject for Issue 2 money and that street is now being added to that list for the city. Thank you to Mr. Copeland and Mr. Miller for noticing the needs of that street. Ordinance 2000-107 was unanimously recommended for approval by the committee. • Ordinance 2000-117, presented by Councilman Nashar, is an ordinance creating new Section 331.42 of the Traffic Code entitled "Use of Mobile Telephones While Operating a Motor Vehicle" in order to regulate the use of mobile cell phones while operating motor vehicles on roads and streets within the City of North Olmsted. Mr. Nashar represented that he presented the ordinance as a public awareness issue. The Assistant Law Director reported that there had been no successful challenges to a similar law that exists in Brooklyn, Ohio, and has existed for the past year. In fact, they were watching that particular law to see whether or not there would be challenges to it. Similar laws have been enacted in only five communities across the nation. Questions were raised by Mrs. Kasler and other committee members with regard to the enforceability of this ordinance and can the law be readily enforced .and is it the focus that we want for our Police Department. Further, there was an issue brought up about whether improper use of cell phones might be enforceable under an existing ordinance. Mrs. Saringer brought to the committee's attention that there is an existing ordinance which does in fact address inattention and there is a state statue that addresses undivided attention. This issue was discussed in detail amongst the committee and the rest of Council. Councilman O'Grady questioned this ordinance as a possible city government intrusion on the private decision of citizens and their actions. Another question was raised as to whether the ordinance is unjustly singling out one activity. A resident, Mr. Bibbs, presented his concern about the ordinance since his business depends on his employees' use of cell phones. Much of his business is on the road and cell phones are used to dispatch his employees. He is in favor of addressing the issue under the undivided attention statute or laws. Mr. Ellis, representing AT&T, also spoke out against the ordinance, defending his position by stating that his company along with other wireless communication companies emphasize and provide safety education programs with regard to cell phone use. Councilman Miller stated that, although Mr. Ellis' representation stated several other 4 uu~~~~etyN^wnv~v~.. .. ... :......~'iettM$:'M'll~ ?Aw .,. _ ...... .. .. ..:. ~ - ...