Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Litigation And Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise concerns about freeway lights; law director says city limited in commenting on pending Shurghi Towers lawsuit, council moves to executive season
Summary
Public commenters urged the council to press the county about nonworking freeway lights and raised the Shurghi Towers litigation. Law director Andy Wirtz said the city cannot discuss details of a pending federal lawsuit; council voted to adjourn into executive session to discuss pending civil litigation with legal and public-safety staff.
Several members of the public urged Willowick officials on Feb. 4 to press county authorities about intermittent freeway lighting and asked for updates on a pending lawsuit tied to Shurghi Towers.
Jean Brolin, a resident, said she had seen a television report about lights out on the freeway and asked what the city had done to contact the county. The mayor responded that the city and its representatives have been working on the lighting issue for more than a year, that the lights were repaired after an August 2024 storm that damaged transformers and that some sections remain sporadic in other jurisdictions. "I will check on it," the mayor said.
The public also asked about litigation connected to Shurghi Towers. Law Director Andy Wirtz told the council the city could provide only limited comment because litigation is pending in federal court. "We're obviously very limited in what we can say because there is a pending lawsuit in federal court," Wirtz said. He added that the city has insurance coverage for representation and confirmed the litigation relates to prosecution of building-code violations, but he declined to discuss specifics to avoid prejudicing the case.
Following public comment, Council approved a motion to adjourn to executive session to discuss pending civil litigation; Law Director Wirtz and public-safety chiefs were to attend. The roll call on the motion recorded affirmative votes from several council members and the meeting moved into executive session.
Council did not discuss litigation substance in open session and provided no further details beyond confirming the city’s limited ability to comment on an active federal case.
