[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6215709,"mediaKeyId","3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e","parentId",3656560,"title","Council signals interest in hiring outside legal counsel for ad‑hoc representation and agrees to return proposal June 16","audioSeconds",303,"startMs",5067000,"endMs",5370000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e&start=5067&end=5370","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e/thumbnail_5067000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6215709/Cleveland-Heights/Cuyahoga-County/Ohio/Council-signals-interest-in-hiring-outside-legal-counsel-for-adhoc-representation-and-agrees-to-return-proposal-June-16","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215709-710579be1dbc0dce6f04b560e95e3649/orig.mp4?Expires=1771207673&Signature=HaxSWEmEkZBEX7bTNSJfEvn6HuvMW9Xjfra7fmNPrbBA4YxmouAD~zViMpKtOhN4CrF3PFSZVR1g5u0bgcadE8P5FpF5WXHnGbJAPL2HAYeMtu4ElIm1u92s~L5oAhpkS5XseV3iB85QPkxtELuZsR8eZ4hlJMixYpe0qCCxwWBBuu198jQ-W-9SRumItiULK0H8fpB1Bf1Y1TPgT2WnlTR6zOBee7YQMM3tvJWh2TgLl5An4NUKMx~rEk0jnuV23XhPFz4zKAgr0dv5ry-Hepr6zzhm0ZZRvwZDK7hRJIA3vadfN6IIwnB5wJwI-n5~mUVjobdnRnAgoj5tZUCW-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Cleveland Heights, OH","date","2025-06-03T03:11:56Z","article","Cleveland Heights council members discussed contracting outside legal counsel to provide council‑level representation on an ad‑hoc basis and asked the item be developed into a proposed scope and fee arrangement to return at the June 16 meeting.

Council members said situations can arise where the city law department faces competing duties—representing the mayor, city administration and council—and observed that limited exceptions or conflicts can make separate council counsel appropriate. Several council members said they supported a retainer or hourly arrangement for targeted matters; the law director said this concept is feasible and that the law department did not object to council seeking outside counsel for specific purposes.

Councilman Cobb, who is a lawyer, urged caution but agreed a narrowly scoped, case‑by‑case arrangement could be useful. Council discussed standard options such as an hourly retainer for discrete legal matters and asked that a proposed scope and contract terms be prepared. One council member reported having previously discussed potential counsel with the law director and an outside lawyer, and asked permission to pursue that contact as a basis for a proposal.

Council agreed to ask proponents to return with a short proposal and proposed scope for council review at the June 16 meeting. No contract was executed or authorized at this meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Cleveland Heights Council Committee of the Whole June 2, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council members discussed retaining outside legal counsel to represent council on matters potentially in conflict with the city law department’s representation of the mayor and city; members asked for a scoped proposal to return at the next meeting.","taxTitle","Cleveland Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio","taxId",54271,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6215713,"Council revisits road‑resurfacing funding amid discussion of capacity, equipment and a $6 million target",414,4333000,4747000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e&start=4333&end=4747","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e/thumbnail_4333000.jpg","/articles/6215713/Cleveland-Heights/Cuyahoga-County/Ohio/Council-revisits-roadresurfacing-funding-amid-discussion-of-capacity-equipment-and-a-6-million-target","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215713-d199bd0ac0904bd9258b92c9be7f4354/orig.mp4?Expires=1771207673&Signature=k929-92FdoED61VauvJVZ2qKsE3CSTybDN-29sSWoVC7dhgtdmP8ukSvN8jxpI09nJkVcEg7Ko-ZwNw0ZkqX9zcsCFN7T2aqQwIjd5vutGefnww5A8w42tz3LOSY0ZgpW-vSe5kxj2om7Cf96jpSCEZwkQDCM6BGC66YfChsYJI2Azuo7quyW4wye9BGZD4J-XswSX8NxFWI4Z1OlEvWn-a9v-HxnQQW~AiHelgkWqGUUO7IW3lxjZFY1PLluqLw34fCU5Ns8YAQ817a2LAiroTjn9rnY~sncHbt-tQ6GzOeHc0kaRtWYMHjtKQR7~Q-dDsXgPg54~yL23DcnHL-Rg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cleveland Heights council members discussed proposals to increase funding for road resurfacing, weigh equipment purchases and build staffing capacity to expand the program beyond the current plan.

Several council members referenced an engineering recommendation of roughly $6 million annually to keep up with local road needs and proposed interim increases to the current program, which had been bid this year at about $2.3 million. One councilor proposed adding $2 million to the program; council and staff discussed whether additional funds should be used for immediate projects, new equipment, or staffing to increase capacity in future years.

Public‑works staff said bidding and construction timing limit how much additional work can be completed this season. Staff also identified the option of purchasing heavy equipment now to avoid anticipated tariff‑driven price increases and to be ready for the 2026 season. Council discussed developing a multiyear capital plan and possibly forming a task force or committee with public‑works staff to set targets and coordinate procurement and scheduling.

Finance staff provided a projected Fund 201 ending balance (as of 09/30/2025 projection discussed in the meeting) of roughly $3.7 million in the model discussed, which could support additional investment; staff said they are open to council direction on priorities. Council asked staff to prepare cost estimates for additional crews and equipment so the council can consider a phased plan to reach longer‑term targets.

No appropriation or reallocation was approved at the meeting. Council agreed to follow up with staff, consider a five‑year capital budget approach, and present specific equipment and staffing cost estimates for further council deliberation.","Councilors debated increasing the annual road resurfacing program and whether to allocate additional Fund 201 resources now or plan a five‑year capital program; staff said timing and contractor capacity could limit what can be done this year.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6215719,"Council pauses third reading on South Overlook property sale amid resident alternate proposal and staff review",119,2844000,2963000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e&start=2844&end=2963","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e/thumbnail_2844000.jpg","/articles/6215719/Cleveland-Heights/Cuyahoga-County/Ohio/Council-pauses-third-reading-on-South-Overlook-property-sale-amid-resident-alternate-proposal-and-staff-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215719-93768ca87b0f1a99859c939e625bc5c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771207673&Signature=Evfn~SaD95tpem9nGqh5tTY4d5jYkHGgSzGixc1EKTtd3MKUSWafGuagLRFstJihRcWsCK3s6DxPobdn71W7dPkCroAf3EqpZhDcrMO3dMpmafY1YlDoBdx4uUuOL7fM6TH0D3uEtFZrByYghCbihsBOhcFn~psgmthKmPCsKSdBY3Yxs0JP9tX0nITpCNthq4axbFeUSAZIYENRQBBSS9ggkNiIi5BT1qL0amcARjTRvlaqUn5HgXZY3xwQMmGO52nr8KUy7QBdKVxFVMuPDp4I-MdMPyieeU-TFnHsYtbUH4nWDuFKdJksxmj-OF1nV6oq5TCfNesAYwFaQAunkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cleveland Heights councilors read for third reading an ordinance authorizing the sale of a 0.54‑acre South Overlook parcel for a three‑condo project on June 2, but declined to vote and asked staff to review an alternate proposal submitted by residents.

The law department reported that a title report found no legal impediments to sale, that any title restrictions had expired, and that an existing easement would not prevent the transaction. Council members said residents had circulated an alternative plan to the council the day before and asked planning and other departments to evaluate the residents’ proposal and provide staff analysis.

Council members and the law department discussed the process implications of soliciting alternate proposals while an administration‑backed negotiation is still underway. The law director cautioned that while reviewing alternative ideas is not illegal, the city must be mindful of potential legal and reputational consequences if government actions appear to advantage one proposer over another or to alter expectations after lengthy negotiations. The mayor and several members said they were open to staff review of the residents’ submission but urged caution about creating the appearance of the city “putting a thumb on the scale” against an existing developer who had invested time and resources.

Planning staff explained that the Park Synagogue S2 planned development and other projects require specific development phases and that any S2 plan returns to the planning commission for conditional‑use review before construction. Council members requested the planning department present their analysis to the council and said they expect staff to advise whether the residents’ proposal changes the administration’s recommendation.

No vote was taken at third reading. Council members instructed planning and other departments to evaluate the alternate submission and report back before any final council action; they also noted the administration’s current sale proposal remains the active item before council.","At third reading the council did not vote on a proposed sale of a 0.54-acre South Overlook parcel; members asked staff and planning to review an alternate proposal submitted by residents and cautioned about process, competition and developer confidence.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6215724,"Council questions funding and certification for forestry aerial truck and other vehicle purchases",272,762000,1034000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e&start=762&end=1034","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e/thumbnail_762000.jpg","/articles/6215724/Cleveland-Heights/Cuyahoga-County/Ohio/Council-questions-funding-and-certification-for-forestry-aerial-truck-and-other-vehicle-purchases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215724-8939ab1b681e5cc2013f5cf6822656e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771207673&Signature=A-Brwo-PbZEz8BRRmVHYlApyBONeGYWkWe6e8kkA0fZieO8T3pRd4DA4-9~UKmVuWzHssujnvdrwaZcSZqHr2FQezXEbaB3-KNNQKwV1NO9ElHSs~pB~Z3bxBEE7HWMY~ClsO2bY9t3g-RxSvcnjnoMwHoxphd7UCPrn0BOGiejqtKNkNe5WUFum29AeDFDYSYq-Dx7KjO~UiTsNPRq7CXNdoqZeaqH5qGMd~bhbcHKJDwNS8jV59ZbWXrJIdqX0XTzZ8i-04-7RAYttN6l8u1RqnM2inJ3PQv4TnQeWN2RiIhWhyD1r-R56Y9H7Ih~dJTfBE16KGgdGixtchC9oHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cleveland Heights council members took first readings on three vehicle purchase ordinances on June 2 and sought clearer fiscal certification before advancing any contracts.

The legislation includes a proposed purchase agreement with Altec Industries for an articulating aerial truck for the forestry division and a replacement work truck for streets, among other equipment. Council members noted cover sheets marked the purchases as not budgeted and asked whether the city could use funds already appropriated in Fund 201 so the contracts could proceed without a formal budget amendment.

Director Klinkscale (public works) and council members discussed the timing and the possibility that funds already appropriated could be used. Council members asked Calvin (referenced in the meeting as the finance director/fiscal officer) to certify whether funds were available; the fiscal‑officer certificate must accompany contracts. The law department explained that if the finance director can certify funds are available in the appropriate account, no additional County Budget Commission authorization is necessary; if a new appropriation is required, county approval could be involved.

Council also raised procurement timing: vendors warned of price increases due to tariffs, and one staff member said that ordering earlier could avoid higher costs. Council agreed to keep the purchases at first reading only and to return with firm certification from finance, reliable account numbers, and updated schedules. One item (a streets vehicle tied to a hot‑box operation) was described as able to wait until the council’s next meeting; others may be advanced if the finance director certifies funds are available.

No purchases were approved at the meeting. Council directed staff to provide a fiscal‑officer certificate and clearer documentation of funding sources and to consult with the county if an appropriation or transfer is required.","Council reviewed three purchase ordinances for city vehicles, including an Altec articulating aerial truck for forestry, and pressed administration staff for finance certification before final approval; the items were set for first reading only.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6215728,"Cleveland Heights council debates, but does not yet vote on, resolution expressing loss of confidence in mayor",421,281000,702000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e&start=281&end=702","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3656560-b4b112257d95405422fd0f76aac56e5e/thumbnail_281000.jpg","/articles/6215728/Cleveland-Heights/Cuyahoga-County/Ohio/Cleveland-Heights-council-debates-but-does-not-yet-vote-on-resolution-expressing-loss-of-confidence-in-mayor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215728-74f76bb5babc3a49c4bbe17202324553/orig.mp4?Expires=1771207673&Signature=CuyU5i0qOl0~pLoPcNKanc5WzLsmtH4Qv1L9i~AKb4vjvsEd-7-TBayJCBTNTYAO0VwhRpOebPuZlqu6Ucbtoi75yJcu1N4Q-eaaHU7TEz4DO0RxMhku~Id8xz1cXjhdwQNMA4LL9LZ32Lpbu9oanGtNP0mn0JSZwCiKx0G00qxT5fyKoYD47m~4mDJu7kBdCuq6SmDAgz7vT1uJmVSWcRFd~dYpcY~RMitWPPAELpVhMsiZ8JCXQmFYmElYp-IxFqMB83~GbvrWyNonvZUFMTAZjSo2qljfxWL2iI8FLZXReFi8uHttXx-nkkI91BxKyU7yVNFTsbcjuax88Z-~mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cleveland Heights council members reviewed a resolution expressing a loss of confidence in the mayor during the Committee of the Whole meeting on June 2, but did not vote on it.

The resolution, described by a council member as challenging leaders to personify the city’s stated values, remained in a general form after the law department recommended a shorter draft. Council members debated whether to adopt a more detailed version that had been circulated privately, and agreed that councilmembers could add details in their remarks before any vote and could sign on as co-sponsors later.

The exchange focused on process rather than substance. One council member said she updated a draft after the last meeting and shared that version with the clerk and law department; the law department preferred returning to the earlier, broader draft the council had discussed at the table. Council members discussed timing and whether outside counsel should review a more detailed version before it was considered.

Several members said they supported moving the general resolution forward so the council could “get this behind us,” while others preferred more detail. Councilman Posh said he was prepared to support the resolution as presented; another member emphasized that colleagues could add information during discussion and indicate whether they wanted their names added as sponsors.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on the resolution at this meeting. Council members agreed to continue discussion and to indicate before a future meeting whether they wished to be listed as co-sponsors. The law department advised caution about drafts that mix opinion and fact, saying more specific language could prompt closer legal review.

If the council moves to a formal vote at a later meeting, members said they expect both the law department and any outside counsel the council requests to review the final language. For now, the resolution remains a pending legislative item to be returned to the council’s agenda for further consideration.","Council members reviewed a pared-down resolution expressing a loss of confidence in the mayor, debated whether to use a detailed or general draft, and agreed members could add details during public comment and decide whether to add their names before a future vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council signals interest in hiring outside legal counsel for ad‑hoc representation and agrees to return proposal June 16

Council revisits road‑resurfacing funding amid discussion of capacity, equipment and a $6 million target

Council pauses third reading on South Overlook property sale amid resident alternate proposal and staff review

Council questions funding and certification for forestry aerial truck and other vehicle purchases

Cleveland Heights council debates, but does not yet vote on, resolution expressing loss of confidence in mayor