06/05/2001 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 6/5/2001 Ordinance No. 2001-63 introduced by Mayor Musial was given its third reading. An ordinance authorizing the Mayor of the City of North Olmsted to enter into an agreement with JAT Associates to provide design services for ADA improvements at the North Olmsted Recreation Center and declaring an emergency. Mr. Limpert moved for adoption; second by Mr. McKay; motion passed unanimously. Ordinance No. 2001-63 adopted. Ordinance No. 2001-66 introduced by Mayor Musial was given its third reading. An ordinance authorizing the Mayor of the City of North Olmsted to enter into an agreement with Wade-Trim/Ohio, Inc. to provide design services for the rehabilitation of a portion of South Canterbury Road and declaring an emergency. Mr. McKay moved for adoption; second by Mr. Limpert; motion passed unanimously. Ordinance No. 2001-66 adopted. Ordinance No. 2001-55 introduced by Councilwoman Kesler was given its second reading. An ordinance amending the Traffic Control File of the City of North Olmsted by relocating, and modifying the language upon, the two `moo Parking, Stopping or Standing" signs on the south side of Sweetbrier Drive, at 26821 and 26893 Sweetbrier Drive to read "No Stopping, Standmg or Parking 7:30 a.m to 9:30 a.m, 2:30 p.m to 4 p.m School Days" and declaring an emergency as amended. Mrs. Kesler moved for suspension of the rule requiring three readings; second by Mr. Miller. Roll call: Kesler, yes; Miller, yes; McKay, yes; Dailey, yes; Limpert, no; O'Grady, no; Nashar, yes. The motion passed with five yeas and two nays. Resident Judy Fox came forward to speak and said that the Pine School student handbook provides that a student could sign out at the office with the parent's written prior permission. Mrs. Kesler moved for adoption; second by Mr. Miller. Roll call: Kesler, yes; Miller, yes; McKay, yes; Dailey, no; Limpert, no, with comment. "'The defeat of 2001-55, I believe, is a matter of safety. This is a crosswalk area that has been a subject of discussion over the past number of months because people were concerned about children's safety. And that's people on both sides of the issue-and that is key, children's safety. To date there have been three ordinances, and I believe the current one in effect promotes the greatest safety. There have been so many statements modified during this process, and I choose not to go into that on the floor. I want to be fair to those who are in support of 2001-55. I must admit we went through years without having a problem there. But this year it has come to our attention, and I believe it would be negligence after this has come to our attention if we were to ignore this issue. And with 2001-55, I believe potentially the crosswalk area could become the most dangerous place on the street. It has been stated that many children don't use crosswalks. Well, if that is true, perhaps jaywalking skills should be taught in safety town. With what is currently in effect, we have created a safety zone to create a clear field of vision at all times. That, according to this ordinance, is only necessary while we have an adult crossing guard on duty. I am concerned about the other hours on school days. I am concerned about holidays. I am concerned about weekends. And, I am concerned about during the summers. That's why I am voting no. Thank you very much for your indulgence on that." Roll call continued: Nashar, yes; O'Grady, no, with comment. `Before you make a change to anything that deals with safety, it has to be an absolute no-brainer. It has to be absolutely certain that what you are doing is making something safer, and that is not the case with this ordinance. The only time those children would be protected around that crosswalk is the same hours we have an adult crossing 9