University Heights Parking Fine Controversy Deepens as Mayor, Council Spar Over Process and Policy

UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, Ohio — A debate over parking enforcement in University Heights has ignited a broader discussion on governance, infrastructure, and how city leaders communicate with residents. While the recent hike in parking fines has drawn strong reactions from both Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan and members of City Council, it is clear that all sides share a common goal: addressing the city’s ongoing parking problems. Where they differ is in their approach and interpretation of how best to serve residents.

At the center of the disagreement is Ordinance 2025-13, which passed City Council on May 5, 2025. The measure raised the base parking fine from $25 to $75 and introduced an escalation to $150 after 30 days, with additional collection costs added after 60 days. The ordinance became law without Mayor Brennan’s signature, which he has since emphasized as part of his broader opposition to the change.

“The idea of charging anyone $75 for a parking ticket is an imposition on people with limited means,” Brennan wrote in a Facebook post on September 5. “Most of the time, if not all the time, a $75 fine is disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation.” He described the fine as “regressive, and most unfair to those people who can least afford to pay.”

Council members have pushed back on that framing. Councilwoman Winifred Weizer, in an email to Cleveland 13 News, said Brennan is omitting context and mischaracterizing both the process and the intent behind the legislation. She pointed to the April 7, 2025, Safety Committee meeting as an example, where Brennan voiced conditional support for raising fines.

“At the Safety Committee meeting on April 7, 2025, the Mayor clearly stated his support of raising this fine as a first step that should be taken,” Weizer wrote. “He pointed out this might change the behavior that we were seeing but that we could review the impact after a couple of months of enforcement.”

Meeting transcripts confirm Brennan’s nuanced position. “It may be that the first and far easier thing to enforce to begin with is just increasing the fine and see where that gets us,” he said during the April 7 discussion. “And it may be that the step here is the fine, and then see where we are in a few months.” He also raised concerns about excessive penalties for those who have paid their prior tickets, saying, “I think it lacks proportionality to tow someone who’s paid tickets.”

Council members argue that the decision to raise fines was not made lightly, and that the increase was in direct response to growing frustration from residents, particularly in neighborhoods near John Carroll University. Chief Rogers told Council that enforcement had intensified but had not been effective in curbing illegal parking, especially after the construction of JCU’s new Fieldhouse removed approximately 300 on-campus parking spaces.

Residents, according to council members, had repeatedly complained about blocked driveways, fire hydrants, and streets lined with cars left for hours or even days. Council reviewed data from the police department showing that many violators racked up multiple $25 tickets, which often went unpaid. The belief among some council members was that a higher fine might deter repeat offenders more effectively.

The ordinance was introduced by Councilmember Threse Marshall and seconded by Councilmember Sheri Sax. During the April 7 meeting, the Safety Committee agreed to forward the proposal to Council with the new fine structure intact.

Brennan’s more recent objections to the ordinance have focused on its potential financial burden for lower-income residents and what he sees as misplaced priorities. In his Facebook post, he also criticized the city’s lack of progress in partnering with JCU to build a new parking garage, stating, “It also represents an abdication of the City's responsibility to work better with JCU to get a parking garage built for students, faculty and staff.”

According to Brennan, JCU initially proposed a parking garage as part of its Gateway North development, but that plan was scaled back after Council opposition, particularly from Councilmember John Rach. Brennan claims this left the city with only surface parking and no long-term solution to the parking shortage.

Council members dispute that narrative. “Councilman Rach did not argue against the garage,” Weizer wrote. “He asked John Carroll to consider rotating the garage by ninety degrees to move it away from the nearby houses.” She said she personally asked JCU representatives during Planning Committee meetings if they could include a garage in their revised site plan. “They said they were unable to at this time due to cost constraints. I do not believe that this qualifies as ‘opposing the parking garage.’”

The parking issue is not the only area where tensions have flared. Brennan also accused the Economic Development Committee, chaired by Rach and including Weizer and Council President Michele Weiss, of stalling work on the city’s zoning code overhaul. He stated that the committee met only four times in 16 months and failed to act on drafts provided in May 2024.

Weizer responded by claiming that the mayor never formally released the full 184-page zoning code draft to the committee and instead shared an outdated 48-page version in 2024. “We had to download it from the city website to finally begin to work on the final full draft from ZoneCo,” she wrote.

That code is now set to be reviewed during two upcoming public town halls, scheduled for September 30 and October 30 at John Carroll University’s Dolan Science Center.

Both the mayor and council members have taken to social media in recent months to communicate directly with the public. Brennan has used Facebook extensively to post policy positions, personal rebuttals, and meeting recaps. Councilmember John Rach has also engaged the public via social platforms, including in response to the zoning code debate. While this form of communication has brought more transparency to residents, it has also contributed to polarized narratives and confusion about the full scope of decisions being made inside City Hall.

The underlying disagreement appears to be less about whether there is a problem and more about how to fix it. Council has leaned on enforcement and financial penalties as a deterrent. The mayor has leaned on structural and equity-based critiques, calling for long-term planning and better coordination with institutional partners like JCU.

In the end, there is no dispute that University Heights is grappling with a real parking crisis. The city’s leaders appear to share the same overarching goal of resolving that crisis, but their interpretations of what is effective and fair differ sharply. As the zoning code review moves forward and parking enforcement ramps up, residents may have a chance to shape the path forward by engaging in upcoming public meetings and demanding clarity from all elected officials.

-------------------

At Cleveland 13 News, we strive to provide accurate, up-to-date, and reliable reporting. If you spot an error, omission, or have information that may need updating, please email us at tips@cleveland13news.com. As a community-driven news network, we appreciate the help of our readers in ensuring the integrity of our reporting.