As city officials proceed with plans to update portions of Northam Park, an opposition group continues to call into question the long-term motives of those leaders.

As city officials proceed with plans to update portions of Northam Park, an opposition group continues to call into question the long-term motives of those leaders.

Among the concerns voiced by members of Save Northam Park -- who started a recall effort last August against most members of Upper Arlington City Council -- are language in the minutes from a Jan. 25 council meeting and the city's practice of disposing of recordings of council meetings after the minutes from the sessions are approved.

When the group will submit petition signatures to the Franklin County Board of Elections for the recalls has not been established.

In the meantime, SNP members continue to rail against actions by city leaders that the group says position Upper Arlington to move forward with an original plan for upwards of $14 million in renovations to Northam Park and to potentially relocate some park features.

That plan was on the table last August, but in January, council moved to "scale back" and to only reconstruct Tremont Pool, build a new playground and construct a reading garden near the Upper Arlington Library's main branch on Tremont Road.

There has been no contract signed yet for the revised Northam Park Phase II plan, but city officials expect it to cost about $6.9 million.

SNP members have increasingly grumbled that the original, more extensive renovation of Northam could still come after the city completes a "comprehensive review" of its parks.

"My personal fear is not only have they not ruled anything out, but that they're also relying on the same process that got their original plan that we didn't want in the first place," SNP member Steven Buser said last month.

He and other SNP members point to a motion council passed to move forward with Phase II that they say is evidence more, unwanted changes that were opposed by many residents during a four-hour meeting last August could be looming.

Minutes from council's Jan. 25 meeting state a motion was made "to direct the city manager to move forward with Northam Park Phase II as exhibited at the Jan. 19, 2016 meeting and consistent with the motion made on Aug. 24, 2015 and to also move forward with the city manager's recommendation of the comprehensive park review process."

The language in the minutes incorrectly included a reference to an August 2015 motion, according to the city.

City Attorney Jeanine Hummer said SNP members and other opponents of the Northam Park plan "do not understand the parliamentary procedures" that govern council actions and that the motion language placed in the Jan. 25 minutes was "done in error but had no legal effect."

"The actual motion made by (council) Vice President (Kip) Greenhill is correctly reflected in the minutes: Vice President Greenhill moved, seconded by Mr. (John) Adams, to direct the city manager to move forward with only the Northam Park Phase II, which includes capital improvements related to the swimming pool, playground and related infrastructure, as exhibited at the Jan. 19, 2016 meeting, and also to move forward with the city manager's recommendation of the comprehensive park review process presented to council on Jan. 19, 2016," Hummer said in an email to ThisWeek.

City resident Todd Jaquith, in a letter to ThisWeek Upper Arlington News, said even though the city says the Jan. 25 meeting minutes contain an error, "the added language is intended to change the scope and meaning of the original motion. The new, 'doctored' motion can be interpreted, in legal terms, to mean the opposite of the original and is not what council voted on and passed."

SNP members and others recently objected to council action May 9 that they said permits city officials to erase audio recordings of public meetings.

City Manager Ted Staton responded to opposition to the move by saying the change in city policy doesn't go against "Sunshine" laws that seek to provide access to public records and government transparency.

"We follow all state and local regulations to maintain the official records of council meetings," he said. "Nothing has changed with respect to City Council minutes in the nearly five years that I have been here."

Staton said no rules were changed with respect to recordings of council meetings.

"The tapes are used to aid in the creation of the minutes," he said. "After the minutes are reviewed and approved by City Council, the tapes are, at some point thereafter, used to record another meeting."