Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lima council passes a package of ordinances; security-camera contract deferred to clarify funding
Summary
Council approved multiple ordinances on first readings and budget amendments, authorized HUD consolidated-plan submissions, and defeated an ordinance to award a security-camera contract so the administration can clarify the source of funds.
The Lima City Council approved a package of ordinances during the meeting, including budget amendments, contract authorizations and consolidated-plan submissions to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Key actions: Ordinance 135-25 (contract with Coleman Professional Services for Lima Municipal Court) passed on third reading after a councilor disclosed an employment relationship with the vendor; Ordinance 149-25 (pretrial services funding) passed on second reading; Ordinance 163-25 (2025 budget amendment), Ordinance 164-25 (code amendment), Ordinance 165-25 (emergency contract for lime removal at Twin Lakes Reservoir), Ordinance 166-25 and 167-25 (adoption and annual update of the Lima consolidated plan authorizing HUD submission), Ordinance 168-25 (second amendment to a contract with Brent Stettler Carol Inc.) and Ordinance 169-25 (apply for ODNR Conservation Club grant) were each passed on first reading with recorded favorable votes.
A notable exception was Ordinance 170-25, which would have authorized the mayor to contract with Northwestern Ohio Security Systems Inc. for security cameras at the parking garage and the Square. Alfred Thompson moved to defeat the ordinance; the mayor told the council the administration requested defeat to allow the item to return with a clarified source of funds. The motion to defeat carried 8-0.
Mayor (administration) said the proposal will return to council with revised funding details; the council took no further action on that contract at the meeting.
Votes at a glance: several ordinances passed with unanimous (8-0) votes on first readings; Ordinance 135-25 passed with recorded support and one noted extension during roll call; Ordinance 170-25 was defeated 8-0 on the motion to defeat so funding can be clarified.
Council members acknowledged disclosures where appropriate and thanked staff for preparation of ordinance language.
