Making an In-Person Public Comment at An Upcoming Council Meeting
Council welcomes public comments at each regularly scheduled Monday evening Council meeting.
If you are interested in speaking at a Cleveland City Council, please read the revised rules and procedures for public comments and fill out the online form below.
Submitting a Registration to Speak
Anyone who is interested in addressing Cleveland City Council at a public meeting must register with City Council prior to that meeting.
Registrations may be submitted:
- By using the online form below
- In person at Cleveland City Hall, Room 220, 601 Lakeside Avenue NE. Paper forms are available to register.
- By downloading this form, filling it out, and emailing it to publiccomment@clevelandcitycouncil.gov or dropping it off at Council offices.
Registration Periods
Registrations will ONLY be accepted between Noon on Wednesday and 2:00 pm on the same day as a regularly scheduled Monday evening Council Meeting.
Council allows no more than 10 people to comment at its regularly scheduled Monday night meetings. Registration will close as soon as the first 10 people sign up. Each registrant will be allotted 3 minutes to speak.
Registrations will only be accepted for making comments at the next regular meeting; registrations for any future meeting will not be accepted until the Wednesday before the meeting. Early, incomplete, or false registrations will be rejected.
Notice of Registration
If your registration is successful, you will be notified by email or phone.
Accommodations
If you need assistance due to a language barrier or disability, please let us know at least three (3) days in advance by going here to make a request.
Attending Council Meetings
Cleveland City Council meetings are held in the Council Chamber on the second floor of Cleveland City Hall, 601 Lakeside Avenue, East.
Visitors may park for free at the upper lot behind City Hall after 5:00 pm on days when Council is meeting.
Public Record
Please remember that all registration information and public comments are public records and can be subject to public record requests.
Decorum
Cleveland City Council must maintain orderly, efficient, and productive meetings to ensure the important business of city government is completed. Council has developed a set of rules and procedures that allow the public to be heard in a fair and orderly manner. These rules and procedures apply to all speakers, and Council does not discriminate based on the speaker's identity or viewpoint or the content of the speech. Please read Council's revised rules and procedures for public comments before you register and before you appear before City Council.
Please note: Anyone attending a Cleveland City Council meeting is prohibited from engaging in any action or behavior that substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the due conduct of the proceedings of the Council; such conduct includes but is not limited to: handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making other loud noises, yelling, or similar demonstrations. Any person who violates any of the above may be immediately removed from the Council Chamber.
Rules for Speakers
- Speakers may not yield their time to other speakers.
- Speakers shall only address the topic they registered to speak about.
- Speakers' comments shall not be frivolous or repetitive.
- Speakers shall not use language that is obscene or likely to produce imminent unlawful action.
- Speakers shall address all comments to the presiding officer.
Prohibited Items
- Signs, posters, banners, placards, or similar items
- Food and drink
Make a Comment In Person at a Council Meeting
To sign up to speak during the registration period (Noon Wednesday through 2:00 pm Monday before Council Meetings) click this button.
You will be notified by email or phone if you are one of the ten people who will speak.
Make a Comment Online
If you would rather submit your comments in writing, please fill out the form below.
Written public comments will be published on this page and delivered to all Councilmembers before the next full Council Meeting after they have been submitted.
Public Comments
Filter By
Concerns Regarding Market Saturation and Economic Impact of the Proposed Riverfront Amphitheater
I am writing today as a concerned resident regarding the recently announced plans for a 6,200-seat outdoor amphitheater on the downtown riverfront, to be operated by Live Nation.
While I support the broader goal of revitalizing Cleveland’s waterfront, I am deeply concerned about the long-term economic implications of this specific project. Cleveland’s music venue market is already robust. The introduction of an additional, large-scale venue risks creating market saturation, which threatens to cannibalize revenue from established, locally-invested venues like Jacobs Pavilion.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the potential for further monopolization of our local entertainment market. Live Nation’s vertical integration often leaves independent venues at a competitive disadvantage. I respectfully urge your office to commission or require an independent, third-party economic impact study. This study should specifically evaluate whether this new venue will displace existing businesses and whether it promotes a healthy, competitive ecosystem for local music, or merely deepens a corporate monopoly.
Thank you for your time and for your commitment to the long-term economic health of our city.
While I support the broader goal of revitalizing Cleveland’s waterfront, I am deeply concerned about the long-term economic implications of this specific project. Cleveland’s music venue market is already robust. The introduction of an additional, large-scale venue risks creating market saturation, which threatens to cannibalize revenue from established, locally-invested venues like Jacobs Pavilion.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the potential for further monopolization of our local entertainment market. Live Nation’s vertical integration often leaves independent venues at a competitive disadvantage. I respectfully urge your office to commission or require an independent, third-party economic impact study. This study should specifically evaluate whether this new venue will displace existing businesses and whether it promotes a healthy, competitive ecosystem for local music, or merely deepens a corporate monopoly.
Thank you for your time and for your commitment to the long-term economic health of our city.
Brian Kaczmarski
Request for Economic Impact Review: Proposed Riverfront Amphitheater
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed 6,200-seat amphitheater project on the downtown riverfront, operated by Live Nation.
As this project moves through the planning and approval phases, I request that the City Council exercise careful oversight regarding its impact on the existing local music economy. Cleveland’s current venue landscape is already well-served; adding capacity of this scale creates a significant risk of oversaturating the market. This could jeopardize the stability of existing venues that have served our community for years and are vital to our local culture and economy.
I ask that the Council require a comprehensive, independent economic impact study before any further public subsidies, tax incentives, or zoning variances are granted. Specifically, I would like to see an analysis that addresses:
The risk of revenue displacement for existing, independently operated music venues.
The long-term impact of increased market concentration on local competition.
The potential for a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) to ensure that this project supports, rather than suppresses, the local music ecosystem.
The goal of our development policy should be to cultivate a diverse and competitive marketplace. I trust the Council will prioritize the health of our local small businesses as you evaluate this proposal.
Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Ward/Neighborhood]
As this project moves through the planning and approval phases, I request that the City Council exercise careful oversight regarding its impact on the existing local music economy. Cleveland’s current venue landscape is already well-served; adding capacity of this scale creates a significant risk of oversaturating the market. This could jeopardize the stability of existing venues that have served our community for years and are vital to our local culture and economy.
I ask that the Council require a comprehensive, independent economic impact study before any further public subsidies, tax incentives, or zoning variances are granted. Specifically, I would like to see an analysis that addresses:
The risk of revenue displacement for existing, independently operated music venues.
The long-term impact of increased market concentration on local competition.
The potential for a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) to ensure that this project supports, rather than suppresses, the local music ecosystem.
The goal of our development policy should be to cultivate a diverse and competitive marketplace. I trust the Council will prioritize the health of our local small businesses as you evaluate this proposal.
Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Ward/Neighborhood]
Brian Kaczmarski
Food System Stability
I encourage the council to consider utilizing space to develop greater food stability in Cleveland. There are always recommendations for corporate and business development, I argue that we also need to stabilize the local food system. In addition to the prevalence of food deserts, especially on the near East side, the federal budget cuts have led to devastating consequences for local farmers and the food bank. There is a lot of undeveloped land in the greater Cleveland area and I'd like to see some of that land used for cooperative food growth. There is an opportunity to involve existing local farm cooperatives in addition to the Food Bank, the Metroparks, local grocers/retailers, and even an opportunity for education partnerships within the CMSD system. Creating resilient food systems will be paramount to adapting to climate change but also helps insulate the city from policy choices at the federal and state level that have contributed to rising grocery costs that have harmed residents throughout the city. Being able to connect members of this local ecosystem through a city-wide program will help close some of the gaps in our food system and ensure that all Clevelanders can access healthy, locally produced food. It would be good for the economy (job- creation, small business prioritization) an individual well-being. This project would involve a lot of moving parts and would require collaboration, helping to build a Cleveland that empowers citizens to take pride in their neighborhoods and work alongside their neighbors to create lasting, positive change for themselves and their families. It would be no small undertaking, but if we can position ourselves as a climate-resilient city that serves its citizens first we could draw in new residents and create more eco-tourism opportunities, too.
Kat Cade
Traffic Lights Failing Downtown
I live in Rocky River but work downtown. The lights on 9th Street are continuously failing, blinking red or yellow. In the past month this has happened 3 times during rush hour. This is extremely dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. I have called 311 multiple times, and they have had claims already submitted. Whoever is in charge of downtown intersections and traffic lights needs to 1) ensure they are performing preventative maintence to reduce traffic light downtime 2) have a better solution in place than just blinking lights to maintain traffic 3) reduce response time when downtime happens
If these lights keep failing, design a roundabout or something. Its essential to keep pedestrians in mind when deciding on a solution.
If these lights keep failing, design a roundabout or something. Its essential to keep pedestrians in mind when deciding on a solution.
Carolyn Rose McEvoy
Flock Safety Cameras
I would like to take this opportunity to have you guys read the following letter by United States Senator Ron Wyden to Garrett Langley, the CEO of Flock Group. Cleveland City Council Members could learn a thing or two.
Mr. Garrett Langley
Chief Executive Officer
Flock Group, Inc.
1170 Howell Mill Road NW, Suite 210
Atlanta, GA, 30318
Dear Mr. Langley
On July 25, 2025, I announced that Flock had agreed to implement additional privacy protections
for Oregonians to prevent abuses by federal and out-of-state agencies related to abortion and
immigration enforcement. At the urging of concerned constituents, I conducted further oversight
and have determined that Flock cannot live up to its commitment to protect the privacy and security
of Oregonians. Abuse of Flock cameras is inevitable, and Flock has made it clear it takes no
responsibility to prevent or detect that. For that reason, I must now recommend that communities
that have installed Flock cameras reevaluate that decision.
Flock operates the largest network of surveillance cameras in the United States, reportedly
contracting with more than 5,000 police departments, 1,000 businesses, and numerous homeowners
associations across 49 states. When a vehicle passes by a Flock camera, Flock records license plate
information, vehicle characteristics, and when and where the vehicle was spotted. Flock’s network
of surveillance cameras generate and store billions of vehicle scans each month. Flock reportedly
then enables law enforcement to search not just by plate number, but also by make, model, or even
bumper stickers.
Flock has been the subject of significant press attention, community activism and oversight by
federal and state officials, because of a number of incidents in which law enforcement agencies
accessed Flock-collected data in connection with immigration enforcement and to enforce state laws
criminalizing abortion. Flock has not taken responsibility for the harms it has enabled, and has
instead attempted to spin the facts and shift the blame to others.
My office questioned Flock about these incidents, and sought detailed information about how, why
and with whom sensitive data is shared. Based on that research, it is my view that Flock has built a
dangerous platform in which abuse of surveillance data is almost certain. In particular, the company
has adopted a see-no-evil approach of not proactively auditing the searches done by its law
enforcement customers because, as the company’s Chief Communications Officer told the press, “it
is not Flock’s job to police the police.”
By default, data generated by Flock cameras can only be accessed by the customer that paid for the
cameras. But most Flock customers do not stay with this default. In August, Flock informed my
office that 75% of its law enforcement customers have enrolled in the “National Lookup Tool,”
which permits any other enrolled customer to search data collected through their cameras. There are
two likely reasons for the high enrollment rate for such data sharing. First, Flock only permits
agencies to access this search tool if those agencies also share data from their own cameras. Second,
to address concerns that license plate data might be abused by federal immigration authorities,
Flock has assured its state and local law enforcement customers that the company does not provide
access to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
With this representation about DHS access to Flock data, Flock deceived its law enforcement
customers. In August, 9 News in Denver revealed that Flock granted U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) access to its systems, enabling the agency to search data collected by Flock’s
cameras, including using the National Lookup Tool. Officials from Flock subsequently confirmed
to my office in September that the company provided access to CBP, Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI), the Secret Service, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service as part of a
pilot earlier this year. Flock told my office that during the pilot, which has now ended, CBP and
HSI conducted approximately 200 and 175 searches respectively. Flock also confirmed that it
misled its state and local law enforcement customers, telling my office that “due to internal
miscommunication, customers were inaccurately informed that Flock did not have any relationship
with DHS, while pilot programs with sub-agencies of DHS were briefly active.”
In addition to the direct access that Flock intentionally granted to federal agencies, activists and the
press have documented numerous instances of Flock searches run by or for federal agencies on
other customers’ accounts. In several cases, local law enforcement personnel shared their Flock
passwords with federal agents, who then used their access to conduct searches for immigration related purposes. In several other cases, local law enforcement ran searches at the request of federal
agents, again, for immigration-related purposes.
In response to these troubling press reports this summer, my office began conducting oversight into
Flock. After the first meeting with my staff, Flock committed to providing additional privacy
protections for Oregonians’ data. Specifically, Flock agreed to apply software filters to data
collected by cameras in Oregon that it had already enabled for data collected in Illinois, California,
Colorado, and Washington, which are supposed to prevent out-of-state police searches related to
abortion or immigration. However, subsequent oversight by my office revealed that these filters are
easy to circumvent and do not meaningfully protect the privacy of Oregonians.
Flock requires its law enforcement customers to provide a reason for a search, which by default,
they are prompted to enter into a text box into which any text can be entered. Flock has confirmed
to my office that it does not require its law enforcement users to enter a case-specific reason, nor
does Flock prohibit law enforcement customers from entering meaningless, generic reasons such as
“investigation” or “crime.” Data recently provided to my office by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation — from a dataset of 11.4 million Flock nationwide searches for a six-month period
obtained through a public records request — reveals that more than 14% of the search reasons
contained just the word “investigation” without a case number.
Flock customers can change their default settings to require that their own employees be presented
with a drop-down menu of predefined reasons; but importantly, Flock customers cannot control the
reasons provided for searches of their data by other law enforcement customers. Additionally, until
recently, Flock customers could enable a different opt-in setting to require a case number for
searches; if enabled, employees of those agencies would not be required to document any reason at
all when submitting searches of other agencies’ data. Flock confirmed to my office on August 19,
that it removed this option the day before, on August 18, shortly after receiving questions about it
from my office.
The privacy protection that Flock promised to Oregonians — that Flock software will automatically
examine the reason provided by law enforcement officers for terms indicating an abortion- or
immigration-related search — is meaningless when law enforcement officials provide generic
reasons like “investigation” or “crime.” Likewise, Flock’s filters are meaningless if no reason for a
search is provided in the first place. While the search reasons collected by Flock, obtained by press
and activists through open records requests, have occasionally revealed searches for immigration
and abortion enforcement, these are likely just the tip of the iceberg. Presumably, most officers
using Flock to hunt down immigrants and women who have received abortions are not going to type
that in as the reason for their search. And, regardless, given that Flock has washed its hands of any
obligation to audit its customers, Flock customers have no reason to trust a search reason provided
by another agency.
I now believe that abuses of your product are not only likely but inevitable, and that Flock is unable
and uninterested in preventing them. Cities around the country, including in Oregon, are currently
reevaluating their decision to install Flock cameras. I commend and support this reexamination. In
my view, local elected officials can best protect their constituents from the inevitable abuses of
Flock cameras by removing Flock from their communities.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions about this letter,
please contact Chris Soghoian in my office."
Mr. Garrett Langley
Chief Executive Officer
Flock Group, Inc.
1170 Howell Mill Road NW, Suite 210
Atlanta, GA, 30318
Dear Mr. Langley
On July 25, 2025, I announced that Flock had agreed to implement additional privacy protections
for Oregonians to prevent abuses by federal and out-of-state agencies related to abortion and
immigration enforcement. At the urging of concerned constituents, I conducted further oversight
and have determined that Flock cannot live up to its commitment to protect the privacy and security
of Oregonians. Abuse of Flock cameras is inevitable, and Flock has made it clear it takes no
responsibility to prevent or detect that. For that reason, I must now recommend that communities
that have installed Flock cameras reevaluate that decision.
Flock operates the largest network of surveillance cameras in the United States, reportedly
contracting with more than 5,000 police departments, 1,000 businesses, and numerous homeowners
associations across 49 states. When a vehicle passes by a Flock camera, Flock records license plate
information, vehicle characteristics, and when and where the vehicle was spotted. Flock’s network
of surveillance cameras generate and store billions of vehicle scans each month. Flock reportedly
then enables law enforcement to search not just by plate number, but also by make, model, or even
bumper stickers.
Flock has been the subject of significant press attention, community activism and oversight by
federal and state officials, because of a number of incidents in which law enforcement agencies
accessed Flock-collected data in connection with immigration enforcement and to enforce state laws
criminalizing abortion. Flock has not taken responsibility for the harms it has enabled, and has
instead attempted to spin the facts and shift the blame to others.
My office questioned Flock about these incidents, and sought detailed information about how, why
and with whom sensitive data is shared. Based on that research, it is my view that Flock has built a
dangerous platform in which abuse of surveillance data is almost certain. In particular, the company
has adopted a see-no-evil approach of not proactively auditing the searches done by its law
enforcement customers because, as the company’s Chief Communications Officer told the press, “it
is not Flock’s job to police the police.”
By default, data generated by Flock cameras can only be accessed by the customer that paid for the
cameras. But most Flock customers do not stay with this default. In August, Flock informed my
office that 75% of its law enforcement customers have enrolled in the “National Lookup Tool,”
which permits any other enrolled customer to search data collected through their cameras. There are
two likely reasons for the high enrollment rate for such data sharing. First, Flock only permits
agencies to access this search tool if those agencies also share data from their own cameras. Second,
to address concerns that license plate data might be abused by federal immigration authorities,
Flock has assured its state and local law enforcement customers that the company does not provide
access to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
With this representation about DHS access to Flock data, Flock deceived its law enforcement
customers. In August, 9 News in Denver revealed that Flock granted U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) access to its systems, enabling the agency to search data collected by Flock’s
cameras, including using the National Lookup Tool. Officials from Flock subsequently confirmed
to my office in September that the company provided access to CBP, Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI), the Secret Service, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service as part of a
pilot earlier this year. Flock told my office that during the pilot, which has now ended, CBP and
HSI conducted approximately 200 and 175 searches respectively. Flock also confirmed that it
misled its state and local law enforcement customers, telling my office that “due to internal
miscommunication, customers were inaccurately informed that Flock did not have any relationship
with DHS, while pilot programs with sub-agencies of DHS were briefly active.”
In addition to the direct access that Flock intentionally granted to federal agencies, activists and the
press have documented numerous instances of Flock searches run by or for federal agencies on
other customers’ accounts. In several cases, local law enforcement personnel shared their Flock
passwords with federal agents, who then used their access to conduct searches for immigration related purposes. In several other cases, local law enforcement ran searches at the request of federal
agents, again, for immigration-related purposes.
In response to these troubling press reports this summer, my office began conducting oversight into
Flock. After the first meeting with my staff, Flock committed to providing additional privacy
protections for Oregonians’ data. Specifically, Flock agreed to apply software filters to data
collected by cameras in Oregon that it had already enabled for data collected in Illinois, California,
Colorado, and Washington, which are supposed to prevent out-of-state police searches related to
abortion or immigration. However, subsequent oversight by my office revealed that these filters are
easy to circumvent and do not meaningfully protect the privacy of Oregonians.
Flock requires its law enforcement customers to provide a reason for a search, which by default,
they are prompted to enter into a text box into which any text can be entered. Flock has confirmed
to my office that it does not require its law enforcement users to enter a case-specific reason, nor
does Flock prohibit law enforcement customers from entering meaningless, generic reasons such as
“investigation” or “crime.” Data recently provided to my office by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation — from a dataset of 11.4 million Flock nationwide searches for a six-month period
obtained through a public records request — reveals that more than 14% of the search reasons
contained just the word “investigation” without a case number.
Flock customers can change their default settings to require that their own employees be presented
with a drop-down menu of predefined reasons; but importantly, Flock customers cannot control the
reasons provided for searches of their data by other law enforcement customers. Additionally, until
recently, Flock customers could enable a different opt-in setting to require a case number for
searches; if enabled, employees of those agencies would not be required to document any reason at
all when submitting searches of other agencies’ data. Flock confirmed to my office on August 19,
that it removed this option the day before, on August 18, shortly after receiving questions about it
from my office.
The privacy protection that Flock promised to Oregonians — that Flock software will automatically
examine the reason provided by law enforcement officers for terms indicating an abortion- or
immigration-related search — is meaningless when law enforcement officials provide generic
reasons like “investigation” or “crime.” Likewise, Flock’s filters are meaningless if no reason for a
search is provided in the first place. While the search reasons collected by Flock, obtained by press
and activists through open records requests, have occasionally revealed searches for immigration
and abortion enforcement, these are likely just the tip of the iceberg. Presumably, most officers
using Flock to hunt down immigrants and women who have received abortions are not going to type
that in as the reason for their search. And, regardless, given that Flock has washed its hands of any
obligation to audit its customers, Flock customers have no reason to trust a search reason provided
by another agency.
I now believe that abuses of your product are not only likely but inevitable, and that Flock is unable
and uninterested in preventing them. Cities around the country, including in Oregon, are currently
reevaluating their decision to install Flock cameras. I commend and support this reexamination. In
my view, local elected officials can best protect their constituents from the inevitable abuses of
Flock cameras by removing Flock from their communities.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions about this letter,
please contact Chris Soghoian in my office."
Brett Gilday
Traffic engineering
I think the intersection at Cedar Rd and W Murray Hill Rd/Ambleside Rd needs a turn lane and turn arrow on the stoplight. View of oncoming traffic when turning from either directions on Cedar is obstructed by oncoming turning cars and through traffic gets backed up behind the turning cars. Adding a stoplight with a turn signal would prevent dangerous maneuvers across the wide road.
Collin McCabe
Road conditions on 217th
117th is getting dangerous. The surface condition of that road, with the gaps, cracks, and full potholes is getting serious. It is a highly trafficked street, and needs to be maintained. I understand that because of that resufacing will be a challenge but the majority of that road is terrible. Especially from Bellaire through Triskett.
Joanna Sephakis
Indycar Race
Let’s all bring an Indycar race to Cleveland in 2028!!!!
Jim
Indycar race
Let’s bring Indycar to Cleveland!!! This race will bring millions to our city. Indycar 2028
Jim
Tanisha’s Law
I am writing in strong support of a strong care response legislation. It is critical that citizens of Cleveland know what number to call to receive a non-police response when they themselves or loved ones are in crisis. Mental health workers and substance-abuse professionals are significantly more adept at responding to such needs than police. I know you understand the escalation risk that police bring to persons in crisis or a family in crisis. In order to meet this it’s important that Care Response is in a separate department with a unique phone number for emergency calls.
I am concerned that the legislation being considered now is to be within the EMS department, which is already underfunded and staffed. It is also critical that peer support is are and that other non police provider programs are pulled into this single legislation for ease of use and effectiveness of response.
I am concerned that the legislation being considered now is to be within the EMS department, which is already underfunded and staffed. It is also critical that peer support is are and that other non police provider programs are pulled into this single legislation for ease of use and effectiveness of response.
Jennifer Blakeney
Submissions are accepted up to 5 hours before a hearing if time slots are available