City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to Green City Council. Today is Tuesday, July 28, 2026. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Would you please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Would you please call the roll?

Sure. Mr. Brandenburg.

Here.

Mr. DeVitas.

Here.

Mr. Noble.

Here.

Mr. Humphrey.

Here.

Mr. Spate. Here. Mr. Mager.

Here.

Mr. Neugebauer. Here.

All right.

Thank you, ma'am. All right, for council study sessions, we have two items. First is TMP 5422, approval of the June 23, 2026 council meeting minutes. Move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Neugebauer? Yes. Mr. Noble? Yes. Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas? Yes. Mr. Humphrey? Yes. Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. Mager? Yes. All right, motion carries.

Thank you. Next is TMP 5434, approval of the June 2026 electronic financial report subject to audit. Move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Mager?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas? Yes. Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

And Mr. Nujabar?

Yes.

All right, motion carries.

Next is public report. I don't believe we have anybody signed in this evening to speak, so we'll go down to public hearings, which we have a number of public hearings this evening, and I believe the first one is 2026-10A, which I will pass the gavel over to... Mr. Noble.

I call to order the public hearing for 2026-10A, an ordinance to amend section 157.134, subsection 5, subsection C, design and layout of chapter 157, planning and development code of the codified ordinances of the City of Green. All right, so we have a public hearing on this. These changes are related to the design of drive-through facilities within the City of Green. We'll start off with a comment by Director Weethy for starters, then I think I'll have some comments, and then we'll see if we have anybody from the public to speak. At that point, I do want to acknowledge at this time, before we get into this, that we did have Some people come and speak to this topic at our committee meetings. That was Mr. and Mrs. Kellerman, and we'll get into that in a bit. So, Mr. Weethy.

Yes, so Councilman Spate and Mayor Yergin asked the Department to take a look at some bypass lane legislation. And what we did, we put this together. We started with Council first, and just last month we took this through Planning Commission, which did support the document. I'm going to get to the point of where they did ask for one clarification. Okay. But basically, this is to regulate drive-through facilities, as Mr. Noble mentioned. It applies to all new drive-through facilities, and as mentioned by the one gentleman earlier, anything undergoing major renovation. So we can ask for potential modifications if the room allows for us to get this bypass lane in. We did set some design standards. Relatively simple, but the bypass lane width would be 10 feet. It would be paved and clearly delineated. The pavement markings, striping, signage, or parallel separation shall distinguish the bypass lane. from stocking lanes so that we're not blocking it. The intent of this is to be able to move through it, as well as free of parking, loading, or other obstructions. So, basically what this is, to allow the vehicle to exit the drive-through queue without reversing, or... or obstructing the internal circulation. So that's kind of very brief, but what we're trying to do is make this function, and it does add some additional asphalt if you think about it. Some already have this, some don't. Planning Commission asked for one modification, and that was simply that to put one more criteria in there that only one bypass lane is required for drive-through facilities with multiple stacking lanes. They did not want to see this kind of start building. Gentlemen, today I can tell you Chick-fil-A, what we're using is a roll curb to roll out if you need to exit that. For some odd reason, it's a roll curb. Gentlemen, tonight we probably wouldn't go with the grass, but it's still not a bad idea if you're getting there. The intent is that you can get out of this queue. and be able to get around. And I can tell you, some facilities in Green already lack that ability, and it may never be improved unless that building comes down and something new goes up. But we think it's a good start. It provides that ability to do it, and basically at this point, if you guys pass this, it's a requirement that we have to, it gives us the teeth to tell these drive-throughs, you have to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Wheathey. Is there anybody from the public that wants to speak on this topic? Okay. So, as I indicated, we did have some speakers come in during committee meeting. And Part of this legislation is really, it's up to design standard, but it's a direct result of an incident that happened in this area where a young lady was, she was killed in a, drive-through line. But I do want to build on that to say that that incident in Stowe a number of years ago is just one incident that has occurred. We, in fact, here in Greene in 2023, had a carjacking at Taco Bell. So at the Taco Bell on Arlington Road, we had a man at large run into the Taco Bell line jump into a minivan that had three kids in it and carjack that car. Now, it turned out okay in the sense that nobody was injured when it was all said and done. But it's an interesting comparison in the fact that the Taco Bell on Arlington Road suffers from the same design flaw that the one in Stowe happened, which is when you drive through the drive-through, there's curbs on both sides of you, so there's no place to go. So what this legislation is trying to accomplish is is again, where you have an outlet lane, right? And so if you sort of like look around that many of our drive-thrus in green, if you just compare on Arlington Road, the McDonald's to the Taco Bell, the McDonald's is a single lane drive-thru with a circulating lane next to it, and there's no obstruction. So anytime when you're in line, you could easily just turn your wheel to the right and get out of line and have no obstruction, right? And so safe egress for any number of things that could potentially happen. So that's what we're trying to accomplish here. I will say that with the advent of double-lane drive-throughs, it's becoming more and more complicated of an issue. And this issue was, in fact, discussed at Planning and Zoning. I think what we're reaching is a quasi-compromise in that situation where we're limiting... the obstruction for the inside lane. But ultimately, this body or the city could ultimately say, hey, we're not interested in two-lane drive-throughs at all regardless. I mean, the industry has been going to two-lane drive-throughs, but... We survived with single lane drive-throughs for many, many years, right? You know, that's what the standard was. They're trying to be more people are using their car to get food as opposed to going in. So the demand on the drive-through lanes have increased. So there's a balance there. I do want to acknowledge, and I spoke at Planning and Zoning about this because it was just like timely. I was on vacation and stopped and got gas. And against my wife's desires, I'm like, we're going to go get McDonald's, right? So we went to the McDonald's. It was adjacent to the gas station. It's what I'm going to consider the current McDonald's standard two-lane drive-through. And as I pulled up, I got into the outside lane, right? But it just so happened that the inside lane had two fewer cars in it, right? And as I'm sitting there, I'm like, oh, I can go... and get to the inside lane. So I turned. I had the opportunity. I turned to the left and got in the inside lane. And my wife said to me, she's unaware of this legislation. She's whatever. She's like, why did you do that? I've been preaching to my daughter, don't ever get into the inside lane. You never want to get into the inside lane, right? And I told her, I'm like, well, I know all about this as well, right? I mean, we're dealing with it right now. So it's a teaching moment for my daughter who's going to be getting her driver's license in a year. It's like, hey, situational awareness. things can and will happen. In the case of this McDonald's, the restriction is only the limited location where the island is at, but ultimately you're still restricted. There's people next to you. When you allow it to go to two lanes, you're always going to have people in the inside lane that have a restriction. And so I'm not here promoting that we go away from two lane drive-thrus. I just want to acknowledge that we are trying to balance the desires and needs of the fast food industry's ability to process food orders in a timely manner, but also be cognizant of the risks that are associated with that and whatnot. So it sounds as though we are going to be having some slight changes to this legislation. WE WILL JUST, I GUESS, AS WE START MOVING FORWARD WITH IT, REVIEWING THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS, I THINK ULTIMATELY, MR. WEATHY, THE GOAL SHOULD ALWAYS BE the smaller the restrictive islands at the ordering points, the better, right? It's the better. So we're not going to solve every situation.

As the family mentioned, you heard that a lot of them were, they actually locked you in with a six-inch curb. Six-inch curb, yep. And this way, it clearly states no obstructions. It's not perfect with the two lanes. However, the potential is still there to get out, provided you're not in a huge... You get blocked by the other cars, though, I think is what the point is. Absolutely, you will. But if there's someone next to you, perhaps that... incident that happened there would be less potential. I mean, the way I know that those Taco Bells were, here's her car, here's another car, and nobody's by you. If someone's right next to you, you might be a little bit less inclined to do something like that. That's all I'm saying because of that. And we're watching some of these other ones, even this coffee shop, you are double stacked going in, and then you kind of have a bypass lane getting out. So we're working through those and the site conditions, but again, the idea is that we have an area, we're designating it, don't block it, and hopefully if that incident would occur here in Green again, you would be able to move your car out of that area.

So I think we're moving to what the best practice is in the industry right now, and it's not what the existing Taco Bells are, I guess is what I'm going to say, right? And this change codifies that.

Mr. Noble, can I raise a point of order? Because I'm wondering if we're going to have to do this again. and our law director's not here, but if a change is being made and we're required to have a public hearing, are we required to have a public hearing after the change is made?

No, I don't believe so because that's just amended because you guys could throw something else out tonight or if somebody else was here, they could suggest it and you say, could you put that in the legislation? Kind of the purpose of the public hearing is to get that input. Okay. Okay. Is that fair? Correct. Okay.

Okay. Mr. Mayor. Are you finished? Because I have three points now. Okay, thank you. So I appreciate, and that's a tragic story, and I think there's more out there that we just don't know about. My concern is kind of threefold. One, are we revisiting our site requirements for fast food drive-throughs with this in mind, right? One, are they going to be so small that we might turn away business that has come here because of this restriction we're going to have? It might not be statewide ever, but just a city requirement. Two, on the renovation requirement, I don't want to see us take away green space to make this requirement. I would rather see them lose parking spots because that's the whole purpose of the drive-through is to do not have to people park and go in there. So I'd rather sacrifice parking spots than green space. third which is probably my bigger concern is that going to make drive-through places not want to meet the criteria because of the expense and the shrinking the footprint of their building so i just want to make sure we're looking at all three of these i think it's a good idea but those are my three points i think we should probably flush out is one are we revisiting the site plan requirements so that certain fast food places or drive-throughs won't come here because of this requirement that's not maybe doesn't happen in springfield doesn't happen somewhere else Two, certain places not want to do renovations, which a lot of these places need to be renovated because of this. And three, if they have to do it, I'd rather not sacrifice green space, which was proposed, and sacrifice parking spots. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Noble.

Thank you, Mr. Meagher. I will partially address this. I don't see it. The best practice, by the way, is what is being asked. Okay? So anybody that's not doing a bypass lane, right, they will be... the future. There is no doubt in my mind, right? It's just going to be the best practice.

Unless the site doesn't conduce it to that. There's people that want to be in green and say, okay, if I have to sacrifice not being here or having just one lane, they'll probably say I'd rather just have the one lane. Does that make sense? I want to revisit our whole site plan for these so that we don't exclude people from doing it.

I mean, I think what we would imply, like for a renovation, right, is if there's no space available, right, then we would take up green space, exactly what you're saying. That's inside, probably inside the setback requirements or whatever to accommodate it because the new code. That's And they would seek a variance. The variance would be based on the code, yada, yada, yada. That's the kind of thing that would occur.

Mr. McGregor, I can tell you that the companies that would want to do this, they're going to adhere to the code. They want this as much as anybody else. We see it going anyway, that direction. I can tell you the last three that we had was no qualms about making sure that there's a bypass lane, or whatever lane you want to call it, that you can circulate around the building outside of the drive-through. The last three drive-through facilities all work this way, even with a double serving. So I don't believe that it will inhibit somebody from coming here. We shouldn't be looking at something that the lot is so small that they can't function well anyway. I mean, we took a recent project through three times because they were trying to push too much into one site at one point. And then they fixed that plan. They were able to fix a plan to make it function better. That kind of works itself through the process and the site plan requirements. Yes, this is a site plan requirement, but there's a lot of other ones depending on what you're doing. So those are all played into every site that we look at. And when you tell somebody, I think most of these are going to be at least an acre minimum, and they can do that.

That was my question. Do we have to revisit our site requirements?

We do not have to revisit.

I didn't know if our site, we allow drivers in such small lots that only conducive, then they're like, okay.

They're an acre or more.

Okay. And then the idea, I don't want to see these concrete jungles. I'd rather lose parking spots than green spaces. Is that something we can do?

No, we could. I mean, I guess the question is the grass first. We would encourage the grass. We actually encourage land banking, which means put the grass in and don't pave it, but we know if you change your use or you overwhelmingly start becoming so popular, you can change that grass area to parking, just because you don't want conflict, okay? So we allow that to happen in our code currently, if that makes sense.

But not outside the setbacks. I'm talking about the minimum green space requirements, setbacks, and stuff like that. My concern is... It all works out, I can tell you. It's not going to be a problem.

Trust us. I mean... I mean, we don't have a plan in front of us right now for a specific thing, but almost every one of these sites now has a circulating pattern that goes around the building, okay? And because they have a circulating pattern that goes around the building, you by default end up with the lane that is required, right? What's somewhat... unique about the Taco Bells is they've made one-sided buildings. They've created one-sided buildings. That's what they've done. When I say that, the entrances and parking are all on one-sided buildings, but that's generally not what the standard is. That's generally not how they function. Almost all of them function more like if you look at the Dunkin' that's going in. You go around the building. All the McDonald's, you go around the building. When you go around the building, it offers

the solution that you need to do this so my concern is the reno right yeah in the legislation i'm reading says if you have a one lane and you and you the only way to add a new lane because you hit the renovation criteria you can actually lose some of the green space that was required as part of your project i'm saying i don't want that i'd rather have the parking be lost i'm not talking about new builds and that goes through that process there's variance process there's

design view board process, there's planning commission. So that can all be worked through. And if it's a complete renovation, that may be consideration that it's a tight site. Just using that, I think, is where you're going. If it's a tight site, then basically that's when you may very well get a variance. But I don't think you want a variance to the idea of a bypass lane. You want to work that some other way. That's where it comes in is work it so that you're not giving up this. We're doing this kind of for a safety purpose. You don't want to give it up for the safety purpose, but you look at how do we make this site work with a major modification. So that plays out during the whole site plan review process, and it works. That's all I can tell you. It works. I mean... We just did that with a, honestly, a gas station at an old Rite Aid facility. We worked with them and worked with them until we could get the functionality to work. Anything else, Mr. Mayor?

No, I just want this to be as like a back doorway to get something that outside of green space would not have otherwise gotten and using this as a reason for it, right? I want them to say take away parking, not green space. That's all I'm saying. It's getting late in the hour.

Is there anybody else in council that want to speak on this topic?

I do.

Yeah, Mr. Noble, I'm looking at the Huntington Bank facility, and I don't know, do you recall, does it have two tellers and two bypass lanes? Because I'm looking at the striping. There's four lanes that go under the canopy. And for banks, that most well, a lot of banks have multiple lanes, right?

You could pull into Huntington and you could go around without.

I understand that. There's a bypass lane around the four lanes. But if you're in the second lane, you're not going anywhere.

No.

Okay.

You're not.

And our code doesn't require that, just a bypass. Okay. And then the other thing I notice about the number for banks is it requires four stacking spaces. They don't have four stacking spaces. So that site wouldn't work under this new code. They would need more space. I'm just looking at the map, and there's no way.

That's right. If you had four, four, four, and four, you'd be almost to Butler Road.

That's what I'm saying. So even that site wouldn't work under this new code. And I don't know if we changed that number. I'm not sure we did. Did we change that?

We're finding more and more. Chase didn't even want to put a drive-thru in, but their customers asked for it. the banks want you to start walking into the bank.

But they have a bypass. They have a single teller and a bypass line.

Right, so they have that, but I'm just saying the banks, I would imagine, Huntington is a very, very busy bank in their system. Greens is one of their higher volume. However, if they did it, they'd probably back off on having three, two ATMs and three chutes is what they have. I'm just telling you that more and more banks, their philosophy is we want you to go into the bank.

Yeah, I understand. And Chase is one of those banks where I think that's the case. It's not as much retail, I don't think. So you're saying our code requires a bypass lane even if you have four stacked bays, which is what Huntington appears to have. And the other issue, you're saying it didn't change. The four, the minimum stacking spaces, that was the code originally. So that doesn't matter.

We didn't change any of the stacking requirements because they're based on different uses.

Okay. Very good.

Thank you. And to your point, Mr. Neutrebauer, when I was having the conversation about the two lanes that's called the McDonald's and the Delay's, the inside lane is still restricted. You still get restricted by the cars adjacent to you. Right? So how do you manage the totality of the concern? We're not going to just go in every circumstance to one, but we've got to give everybody the best opportunity. If you look at Huntington, there's four lanes, but there's no curbs anywhere. There's no whatevers, right? So you can kind of get restricted, but if you have the opportunity, the opportunity to get out, the opportunity is there pending opportunity. being surrounded by vehicles.

Well, you know, when I go there, I don't really want to commit to being fully in. So I stay back anyhow, just because I'm always looking for a way to get away from there, right? But if a lot of people came behind you, you'd feel compelled to move up and then you'd be really trapped. Anyhow, that's fine. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else? Okay, so we can't vote on this this evening. Mr. Wheaty indicated we're going to have a minor edit to this coming at the next council meeting. And so we will ask for time.

Mr. Noble. Sorry, real quick. Actually, if we are going to amend this, would it be possible to add the title Megan's Way Out somewhere in the legislation title? I'm more than happy to have that happen, yes, as well. Mr. Mayor? Yeah, it's good with me. Thanks.

Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Spate. Okay. And so with that, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing on this topic. Did I say anything or I may have jumped in?

Okay, I'm going to take over as the chair of the committee as a whole to cover the... With Charter Review Commission recommendations. So first of all, I would like to thank and recognize the Charter Review Commission. They spent a lot of time working on this. Bob Knapp was our chair. He's here this evening, as is Betty Conan, and also our vice chair, Kristen Yanko. All three are here. We had two other members who are not here this evening, Deb Corral and Rob Dufferin. So if you have a chance to meet those people in the community, we're here tonight. Just thank them for all the time they spent and we appreciate their service to the community. We're gonna go right into item resolution 2026R31. This is a resolution submitting to the electors of the city of Green a proposal to amend section 2.4 of the charter of the city of Green and to add strong to the form of government description and declaring emergency. This is a pretty easy one, but I'm going to let the chair, Bob Knapp, come up and talk about kind of the process they went through, how they decided to do certain things, and then maybe just real briefly mention what it is in this particular one that you wanted to make that recommendation.

Okay. So just to give you a little bit on background, what I come from business, corporate, public. And we try to figure out the best way to approach it. So we had some guiding principles in terms of transparency, modernization, if we had any legal issues or things. And we kind of looked through that lens. And then we also, realistically, what could we do through a charter amendment within a six-month window, making sure we didn't take on something too big that needed more research. And we actually will have a second document. Some of us are going to draft something. And some other recommendations that didn't meet hurdle for charter amendments, but would be helpful. And then even on the next charter review commission, some things of a transition that might get them up to speed sooner. So what I did was, trying to understand this from a business perspective, I went out and I looked at about 12 dimensions of green, from geography, demographics, size, council, wards. income, where it comes from, corporate versus individual, those things, and then went and looked across, first in Ohio, and the cities that look like green are very few. There was only about 10 comparables. So then they went out nationally, and there was about 100, and then used that to understand what other cities like green were doing, And if there's something we could learn from that best practice that we should consider as part of the charter amendment. So that was kind of, for me, my guidepost. I did not look at geography, didn't name the cities, don't care if they're red or blue. This was purely an analytical exercise just to look at the data. And it was interesting because most things that we discussed were, because Greene is actually a really high-performing city in Ohio. Its roots are different than a lot of cities in Ohio. And it was very similar in how it was structured, things that we felt were important. And so those are the things we use as guiding principles we'd always look back at. And so the first thing, for example, which you just talked about, was a strong mayor. As a charter city, we use mayor-council structure. Reality is, in charter cities, there's really two designations, typical, and it's not called out in the Ohio Revised Code. One would be strong mayor, and it designates the mayor as the executive with council as the legislative. And then if it's not strong mayor structure, it's a weak mayor council structure, the weak mayor would be more ceremonial and then council would be executive and legislative. In those cities that look like us, 90 plus plus percent use the designation strong mayor. And it just, in our mind, was meant to clarify that. And, you know, charter sees it do well. They really leverage the charter to home rule, to do things that are different, like in the state, although we look to the state code. Green is much different, and so the opportunity to leverage the charter for things that make more sense, amendments and stuff for green, is how you should look at it. So anyway, that's where the strong mayor designation came from.

Okay, any questions from council on this one? Mr. Brandenburg.

One question and one point of clarification. So the question, right, if this amendment makes it to the ballot and it fails, does that mean the residents want a weak mayor? form of government.

Well, again, I think by definition of how green operates, it's a strong mayor, right? The mayor actually is the executive, and that's the way we're structured. So we would not be considered a weak mayor council form. But by saying neither, we're silent on it. We really aren't clear on it. And so, again, just so we're clear and, again, aligning with other charter cities like us, that's where the designation came. Don't have to do it. but it's the right thing to do.

It's almost non-substantive in a way.

It is, but it's important because, again, looking at these other cities, a lot of times people refer to cities close by proximity, but they don't look anything like us, and it's a mistake to draw conclusions conclusions or recommendations from Chicago Falls is close or Stowe's close, they don't look like us. The population, growth, where the revenue comes from, they do not look like green. And so, again, we were trying to look to best practices. And, again, this group of 100 cities are amongst the highest performing within their individual states.

Mr. Brandenburg, sorry I cut you off. Go ahead.

Yeah, the reason I ask, right, so it seemed to me, if you keep reading the charter, right, the mayoral section is very clear what powers the mayor has, and then the council as well, right? So, for example, with council, we can't direct any of the administration, which implies executive mayor. So that was the sole reason I asked, and had we thought about what would happen if they voted down, and is it then weak?

Thank you. Uh, Ms. Conan, if you'd like to participate, we'd love it if you'd grab a mic. I don't want to participate, but I will. You are.

I'm staying in their council. Yeah. And the provisions in the charter say what they say about the roles of council and the mayor. So, you can argue that this is maybe... Bob, give her the mic. Maybe repetitive or redundant, but it's clearer. It's clearer.

Thank you.

Is what we thought. Okay. You can choose not to do it.

No, I agree. I was just asking the question, what would happen if it's . . .

Thank you, Mr. Rager. Actually, before I go to Mr. Rager, I think the part about Council not directing the staff was actually added. That wasn't original text. I think that was to help

council understand their role uh perhaps at a later date mr maeger i guess mr bramber's point is well taken can we just make this a non-substantive change because the chart is very clear i don't want people to get confused on this i think we can move this in my opinion to the non-substantive changes that we just talked about earlier that's not part of this public hearing in my opinion, because it's already covered under the text itself.

And by making this a non-substantive, all you're doing is adding clarifying language. I agree with you. We talked about that. We debated that.

It's not changing. It's not a substantive change in the sense it doesn't change anything the charter says. So I support what you're saying. If it's okay with Charter, because you guys worked very hard.

So the three of you all seem to be in concurrence. I don't know if our law director needs to weigh in, but as a group, do we want to make that recommendation that they move this a non-substantive and drop this particular one?

Yes, because the only point I would make is if the voters, if it's not non-substantive and the voters say no, the charter still provides for the structure. So it is non-substantive. By definition, it's non-substantive.

Okay, so any objection to that? Can I make a point, please?

So the point being, we say it's non-substantive, but it restricts a future charter review commission in ways from changing powers of the mayor, powers of council. If there's a desire to shift, now we've got to go change this language strong because it implies that there's executive power.

I agree. I still don't have a problem with it.

So I see what you're saying, but in that same vein, a charter can make that same change, removing that word strong from it. If it passes, both would have to pass the voter. These all go to the voters.

Right.

But now if we make it non-substantive, then the word strong never goes back to the voters. We just take it off.

No, but a subsequent charter review who wants to change the duties of the mayor to make it non-executive would then say that's a non-substantive change as well, and or make that change as part of the recommendation of the council to get removed when it goes in front of the voters. So I don't think it changes anything, in my opinion.

The way to prove that it's non-substantive is it's operating the way it's operating, and we haven't called it strong. So that's, I mean, it demonstrates it's not substantive.

I'm going to go to clarification from our clerk. Do you have a comment on this?

I do, thank you. So I don't think that you can move strong to non-substantive because the Charter Review Commission has already ended their review and they have already decided this in their mind is a substantive change. Yeah, but there is- However, if you want to take this off and we don't change it to strong and they move that to the next Charter Review Commission, that is certainly an option. but I don't feel like you can amend a document that they have already voted on and agreed upon and ended their review of, all five of them. I feel like that's probably not the appropriate thing to do, but I feel that you can take, I believe that it would be inappropriate.

I think you're right. I think I would keep it. Can you add the strong to the non-substantive changes and then just vote this down?

You can vote this down, but you cannot change the non-substantive changes. They voted on those as well. This is a full package. They voted on the non-substantive and they voted on every single one of these amendments. So if you don't want to take this to the ballot, we can either withdraw it or you can vote it down. Those are your options, but we cannot make a change to R30.

Who would withdraw it? Who's the authority? Is the mayor the authority?

I would say the mayor would be the authority to withdraw that piece of legislation in concurrence with the Charter Review Commission.

I wouldn't advocate for withdrawing it. I think if it gets voted out by the voters, it doesn't change anything. And then the next chart review, we ask them to make this part of the non-substantial.

I just hate to have people spend time in the ballot reading something that doesn't make much of a difference.

For all the work that they did, I don't want to... That's fine.

Okay. Don't we have changes to make to R30 anyways?

Yes. Those are like amendment to clerical. It's not changing the substance of the actual document. Okay. Does that make sense?

I think we have to accept it or reject it.

It's non-substantive changes to the non-substantive section.

Right, exactly. Perhaps

Ms. Messner, if you could just confirm that with the law director and make sure that she agrees with your, if she says no, that would be fine. Just let you know that this body appears to would want to make that change if it's within our rules. Yes. Okay. Any other comments on this item?

If we are going to vote on it, I just have one more comment about the ballot language. The ballot language just says Section 24 of the Charter of the City of Green be amended to add the word strong to the form of government description. It doesn't say before the word mayor or before the word council. I think to clarify, we need to say before the word mayor. I agree.

So then we need to decide if we're going to... Well, also, we can't change the legislation. It's a yay or nay.

What are we on, second reading?

Yes.

Okay. So we'll just get some clarification on this.

Did the law director review the legislation? Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

So I will say, because they did... We'll chat with the law director, but what I have to tell you is we have to pass this legislation on August 11th without fail.

I don't think there's an issue one way or the other. We just need to know the answer.

Yep, you got it.

And if the law director concurs that it can, well, I shouldn't say concur, if she states that it can be moved to non-substantive and that's okay and we can draft that in for our rules, then that's what we'll do. If that's not the case, then we will ask her if she can add the, when she adds the word strong for mayor, so it's clarified, if she can make that revision to this. Otherwise, it looks like we're probably gonna scrap it.

Gotcha.

I would make a note that if you read the full legislation under section 2.4, it says strong mayor, council, form of government. So it's kind of like written in the legislation.

So it's really the title of the legislation.

The title of the legislation. It's the ballot. The ballot language is wrong. And that's what people are going to read, though. So I'm curious, is that a non-substantive change to the legislation?

So the title of this, it's just for our use, right?

No, this is a ballot language. This proposed in Section 3 counts a request to following ballot language. If you look on page 2, this says add strong, not mayor. But I think that's a non-substantive change because it's already in the base of the documents. It's before mayor. I think that's a non-substantive change, but I'd also like this to be a non-substantive change.

Okay.

All right. I think Nicole's got it. Okay.

I think we've spent plenty of time on this one, which brings me to the next one.

That was an easy one.

You think? So next is Resolution 2026R32, if I'm in the right place.

I'm going to close and open the meeting here.

Yeah, so Nicole, guide me on this. Should I close the public hearing on that one and then open for the next one, or can I just keep reading?

It's all the same, yeah.

Okay, so we're still on the open. public hearing and we're now on Resolution 2026 R32. Thank you for all the input there. A resolution submitting to the electors of the City of Green a proposal to amend Section 4.8 of the Charter of the City of Green to add email with read receipt as a form of notification for special council meetings and declaring an emergency. Mr. Knapp.

Yeah, so again, under the thought of modernization, and actually this one and a couple other ones also, in terms of amount of effort on some of these things, it just, rather than having to get a copy as a residence of council members for that special meeting, you could just do an email with a confirmation red receipt, which would satisfy that requirement and would be easier to than having to get a copy to their usual place of residence and confirming that they have that because i think there was follow-up calls etc to confirm that they know about it here they would because they get a red receipt they would know that the council person had it okay so receipt isn't required as long as you send the email with

Or are you saying the receipt would be required also?

Yeah, so if it was sent to you, you opened it, looked at it, she would know that, in fact, you got it.

And if I didn't?

Then she'd have to take action to get a hold of you.

Make sure that that communication. Thank you for the clarification.

Any other questions from counsel on this one?

Mr. Medgar.

Not to get too much in the weeds, but the ballot language again says, you know, shall be amended and added, read, receive as a form of notification, but they did strike out leaving a copy thereof at their usual place of residence. So there's like two things that were done here, but the ballot only says one. Maybe talk to Lisa and see if we have to revise the ballot language. I don't have any issue with what they're proposing. I'm saying the ballot language doesn't really match what's being done in the how how is it again tell me so all the ballot language says that be amended to add email receipt as a form of notification for special council meetings but if you look up above on 4.8 by email with read receipt is added but they also took out by leaving a copy there of the usual place of residence so it does two things it's not covering the ballot i think it's not substantive i think we got to fix the ballot language i think what they're doing is right i'm saying that the language of the ballots so if you strike the other method then you would only have

email read receipt as an option?

Well, you'd have email receipt and you'd have the ability to leave it at their house. But what the charter review came to us saying is we want to remove by leaving a copy there of at the usual place of residence. That's been stricken, what I'm seeing in front of me.

So what you're saying is that you would want it to read, add read receipt and strike?

Well, that's what's being proposed by charter review. I think there's a disconnect between what charter review is saying and what the ballot language is saying.

So who came up with the ballot language?

Lisa and I did.

Okay. I think it's non-substantive. So I think that can be corrected because it's going to have to be. I mean, Summit County Board of Elections is going to throw it back.

Actually, they will also change it. There's a chance we give that to them and they will change it.

Correct. I have no problem with the change.

I'm just saying the ballot doesn't match. I'm using both because what we submitted and this are different, so I have to look back and forth. Unlike the placement of Strong, we did have that called out in front of Mayor, but it's not in the ballot language.

Okay.

I'm done.

Anybody else? Okay. Last call on 2026R32. And we move on. Resolution 2026R33, a resolution submitting to the electors of the City of Green a proposal to amend Section 4.11 of the Charter of the City of Green to add electronic online equivalent as a method of publication for ordinances, resolutions, and other public notices and declaring emergency. Mr. Knapp.

Same thing under modernization in terms of rather than newspaper electronic In in City Hall etc and again in the best practice I couldn't find too many other cities like us charter cities actually use newspapers since electronic form has Prevailed so this was just giving that us the ability to use online In versus having to do what was the original? Nicole newspaper

It was multiple places and no electronic whatsoever.

And the problem with newspapers, the actual readership is very low. And if I throw away my paper, I don't have it electronic and have it say, oh, they have access to it. Libraries have computer access. It just, in terms of modernization, the notification should be electronic.

Comments, questions from counsel?

I would just ask the law director to go back through and just try to match better the vowel language. Same issues here.

Any other comments on Resolution 2026R33? okay moving on resolution 2026 r34 resolution submitting to the electors of the city agreeing a proposal to amend section 7.4 of the charter of the city agreeing to clarify the powers and duties of the parks and recreation board and declaring emergency finally we get to some substance maybe

Yep. So Valentin walked us through this and we discussed it and this was really the changes are made around making it clear that this is an advisory committee and I think there was some I think there was actually some litigation related to it but this was just to clarify the role of the the Parks and Recreation Board in terms of its advisory capacity, it can make recommendations related to spending, but it has no authority. Those were the adjustments that were made.

Yeah, and I think that stemmed back to public meetings and advisory board. That was the basis of the lawsuit, but it just clarifies to how they're actually operating more so than what our original charter said. Is that correct, Ms. Carr?

Correct. I think this simplifies the language. Just so you know, the park board agreed to this language. This is what we're actually doing at the park board. Yeah, that's always... And I think Bob hit the nail on the head. It clarifies they are clearly an advisory board and they have no ability to spend money.

Okay. Any questions from committee? Mr. Brandenburg.

I'd just like to make a comment that in my four years as parks chair, I agree that this is exactly how it works as it's proposed, not how it was written in the charter.

It will clarify. Not to go into a big history lesson, but I think when the language was originally developed, there wasn't a parks department. So the board actually acted to make some of those decisions that now we have staff that bring those things to the board.

That's all I had, thank you.

No, thank you. That was 34 years ago, right? When people still read the paper front to back and not so much anymore. Okay.

Any other comments on... And I think that actually, the way it was written led to the public hearing portion because, again, the parks believe they had certain responsibilities that they didn't, and that's where that came from. So I think it just clarifies what the role is.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay, moving on to Resolution 2026R35, a resolution submitting to the electors of the City of Green a proposal to amend Section 8.2 of the Charter of the City of Green to modify the allocations of the annual income tax revenue within the Parks and Recreation Income Tax Fund and declaring emergency. Mr. Knapp.

So this became probably the largest item we wanted to work on. And we spent a lot of time, both with finance director, with Val, with the mayor, understanding it. And I had pulled some financial information working with Shelly. And I think the 7%, I think it was originally 10% well intended, but that restriction and based on our current spending really has caused some issues. And I think given the administration some flexibility on that 7%, not all going to capital, but some ability to allocated elsewhere. And the thing that for me, we went back to 15 and looked at revenue, which increased through 26 plan about 38%. the park operating expenses had risen to 216% significant. And then the amount of money coming out of the general fund to cover parks operating expense is up over 400%. And I think and there's multiple reasons, obviously, why, but I also think it's part of some of the constraints as it relates to funding for roads and other things. We're in an environment where expenses are going dramatically. We're pretty much in the flat income environment. And so I think given this Some flexibility is what we're recommending. However, I do want to articulate that the commission felt strongly that this should be step one, that you should come back at a later point and look at the remaining percentage. And again, using that database of 100 cities, none, not one, has a hard time. allocation for parks. You just don't see it. And there's a lot of discussion around it is that you allow parks like roads and everywhere else to compete annually for budget dollars based on prioritization versus just having a fixed allocation.

Thank you, Mr. Knapp. And I know there is opinions out there that maybe the whole thing should go away. Yeah. And so that was weighed in your discussion as well, I know.

We got to what we believe was the minimum threshold to give the flexibility. to the mayor and the administration to help with some of the other challenges but again the recommendation was it should look at this because it should consider some future point to lift that uh fixed allocation so to sort of put this in a little bit of perspective if our income tax collections this year would be 30 million which is about where we're at right

Yeah, we're projected to be 30.8.

Right, so I'm going to just, since I don't want to state a higher number, that's a no-no. Just say on 30 million, that represents 2.1 million. That would go under the 7% to park capital.

2,064,000.

Okay, then.

That's very precise. You're an engineer. I know you care about those things.

And up to today, currently, it's 15% can go to special events and programming, and that number, 15%, goes to 40. And I was thinking of you, Mr. Humphrey, thinking, had we made this change a couple years ago, maybe we wouldn't have that new indoor facility that you're so fond of. But it is what it is. I think that... My point exactly, Mr. Neugebauer. I hear you. I hear you. I think, though, that... talking to people who were here when we became a city in 1992, that we had one park facility and that it was John Torok Center, which you would probably leave off the list of parks if you stated all the parks today. It had the senior facility and it had a little gazebo out back or something, and maybe there was even a cannon on the side, as most communities did back then, right? But that was the extent of our parks. And I think where we've become as a community is that our parks are a highlight. And so there's no question that that was a pretty effective way at making a city with a great park system. But it could bleed you in the long run if you keep spending your $2 million, $2.5 million, $3 million on capital, and then you have to maintain it all, right?

Yes, that's where... part of the challenge is a good thing. The intentions were good, but again, the City of Green has a problem with 2x amount of parks versus, again, its peer cities. And because that investment, you know, some were opportunistic when it became available, but those parks need care and feeding and outbacks. And unfortunately, that's dry. And then we've got this escalating cost of things. It's starting to squeeze other things. And I just think At some point, again, using my corporate background, you've got to come every year and make a case in how you allocate money. This fixed thing, I think, is making it more difficult to address other citizens' priorities and roads and things because they're just not available funds. And if you look at how much goes to parks, and obviously CORE is a big part of that, but it's a big percentage of the revenue goes to parks. It's a lot. And nobody's even close to that. And parks are important. All of us advocate for parks. It's a calling card for the city. But I think, you know, I look at dollars. I do a lot in nonprofits, and every dollar comes from an individual. Here, it's taxpayers, and we've got to be good stewards of the money, and I just think we've just got to step back and make sure we're doing the right things fiscally because the world's changing, and our revenue is going to change over what it did the last 10 years. It's not going to be as robust.

So you can tell they had a lot of discussions on this. Ms. Goodrich? our biggest expense in the city is safety, right? Between fire and policing, probably about half of our income tax between the two. Somewhere around there.

Yeah, between fire and sheriff, yeah.

So then would you say parks is probably the next largest?

Our street construction maintenance fund, I mean- Similar. Yeah.

Yeah. So, I mean, it's a large number, but it's not the dominant number, which safety services is really the dominant number, correct?

Correct.

Yeah. Okay. Any other questions, comments?

Mr. Brandenburg. One quick comment. I noticed in the trial balance rate that we started the year with $1.5 million in cash. There's no requirement in the current code that says they have to spend it every year? So what that told me was we are spending it every year and we are doing improvements that are deemed to be necessary. So just to throw that out there to say it's not like this thing is built to $10 million and we suddenly figure out it could go somewhere else better. We're spending it.

we're making improvements and our park system is as good as it is because well and if you've ever been to a park board meeting you know that there's always things they want to do right they're they're constrained right they're they're constrained they want to do more and so there's a balance right they don't get to do everything they want just like the mayor doesn't get to pave as many streets as he wants, right? That's for sure. Yeah, that's for sure.

Okay. But they do spend it, and now we have $750,000, right, that's dedicated every year.

So they're already getting a bit of a haircut before this change goes in. Any other comments, questions?

Can I just make one comment to that? Yeah. I mean, coming from corporate, people spend their budgets, but if there's a need... Because your point is the parks have a need. Then it can compete in the budget process and demonstrate the need. It's just, I mean, you disadvantage roads and other departments that have to compete for precious dollars. That's the part.

And I don't know, have we done that? In your recollection, Ms. Carr, have they competed for capital money outside of their set-aside in your time here?

Well, when we grade the capital, it's all one list, but because we do have that separate source, we tend to be able to do more on our end.

But that wasn't the question. The question was, have they ever competed for dollars outside of their set-aside in the capital process, or are they always staying within their 7%?

Yeah, we've never gone outside of that.

And that's the point. So in the future, then, that would be more the norm to go outside of it to get funding.

Again, though, the 7% is not the issue. The issue is when you look at operating expense, you're pulling out the general fund. You went in 15, you were 500,000. Now you're pulling out 2.9%. And that's part of it. It's creating the compression that's causing the issue.

Yeah, Mr. Humphrey. This is something I was talking about back in 2012, saying that these operating expenses are going to snow us under because we keep building things, and then you have to keep maintaining the things that you're building. And then in an inflationary environment, the costs just get out of control. And as a result of that, other things don't get done that need to get done because the expenses are raising more. to pave roads and all of those things that we know need to be done and can't be done. And so I just hope in the document that the Charter Commission provides for the next charter commission to say, listen, we really believe that this has to be dealt with next time.

So we're going to recommend that we have some crossover transition with the next charter review commission to share what we know and the background, which gets them started faster, and hopefully they can tackle things.

And you're going to do it in five years instead of seven. So, Mr. Humphrey, we're making progress.

This change is happening fast. Moving at the speed of government, Mr. Nugent.

You'll still be on council then, so you get to participate one more time.

Okay, any other comments, questions?

Ms. Conan, welcome, welcome.

Please allow me.

Okay, for those of you who don't know, I was on council back in 1993 to 1999 when this 7% was going on at the time. And I had asked Sharon to dig out how much money we made, sorry about that, as a city from the CAFR from 1992, and it runs to 2024. And in 1992, our income tax was $2.274 million. So 7% of that was about 160 grand. So Parks was really lighting it up, okay? 160 grand. And, you know, you think, okay, so we started out 160 grand, and now we're at $2.1 million.

Well, whatever he said. Just on the 7%.

And so that gives you perspective of where we've gone as a city based on our collections. But to dovetail with that, I did a chat GPT search, and I looked at our census numbers from 1990 to now. And in 1990, we were about 19, why am I ringing?

Can I go over here?

Yeah, just put that one down.

Yeah, thanks.

In 1990, we were about 19,000 people. In 2000, we were about 23,000 people. In 2010, we're about 25,700 people. In 2020, we were 27,500. The 2024 estimate, 27.5-ish still, and in 2025 estimate, 27.5-ish still. So we're kind of flatlining a little bit.

Yeah, those numbers, they take the regional, so they're not very accurate.

That may be true, but what is our population now? About 27.

No, it was 27,500.

So it's probably inching up. 19,000 to 27,500 from 1990 to 2025. So that adjustment, I mean, there's a perception that we've grown exponentially.

Agreed.

And I don't think the numbers bear that out.

Agreed.

And by comparison, we are a six-by-six square mile city, the old township. six by six miles, similar to Jackson Township. And Jackson Township has about 47,000 people, and they have about 280 acres of parks. So while everybody here is pro-parks, we're just saying that time has come to make a little reconciliation with this 7% based on our population, based on our finances, and based on what we've committed to that we're now obligated to pay to run the parks. So I think this move is very needed. And personally, I would have voted to get rid of the 7% entirely.

You were the one I was referring to, yeah. Just not by name. I'll fess up. Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Conan.

Because of the historical nature of it. Sure. Yeah.

Thank you.

And we're drawing from the, not only that capital money, but you guys are using your general fund for operating expenses

supplement the capital to the tune of about how much close to five million dollars a year and what capital and operating combined yeah big number big number okay i'm done thank you very much for your time thank you any other thoughts on 2026 r35 resolution 2026 r36 the resolution submitting to the electors of the city of green a proposal to amend section 9.2 of the charter of the city green to allow electronic online equivalent as a method of publication Charter review, commission, recommendations, and declaring an emergency. Mr. Knapp.

Same issue, just trying to update to electronic.

Mr. Major, are you looking at the language? Any comments?

I'm opening it. It got knocked out. I'm sure everything's probably going to get revisited.

Well, that'll be our general comment then.

For some reason, the page has been removed from our thing electronically. I don't know.

Mr. Brandenburg, questions? Oh, thank you. Anybody else, questions? Thank you for being here. Oh, okay.

Oh, it just got really quiet in here.

Yeah.

Anybody else have an issue with that?

On what? Yeah, clickable. Just move on.

Well, so we're going to just invoke the same comment, review that, make sure the language matches. Yes. And finally, no other comments on R36. We'll go to 2026 R37, a resolution submitting to the electors of the City of Green a proposal to amend Section 9.2 of the Charter of the City of Green to require the City Charter be reviewed every five years and declaring emergency.

Same thing. I mean, seven years is a long time. Actually, there was consideration to go maybe four years. But with the rapid change and everything that's going on on a global and local basis, I think five years should be the minimum. And again, we will recommend in a separate document some ways that we can help the next Charter Review Commission. And actually, there's a couple things we just didn't feel comfortable, big ones that should be looked at, and we're gonna recommend some more research, and then that would inform the next Charter Review Commission. And so I'm gonna submit a separate document to this body, some other recommendations, outcome things that we saw that need to be looked at that would help, and some of the bigger things that really need a 360 review, not five of us, with some conversation. I can tell you the city people, administrative people I talked to, Shelly, Val, everybody was very helpful. Nicole, Sharon were very helpful. But some of those bigger things, I think, would benefit from having department heads everybody weighing in 360 to inform before you make some of those changes.

And when you said five years as a minimum, I think you meant five years as a maximum, right?

Oh, sorry. That would be the longest, right? Thank you, sir. Yeah, no, that's fine.

That's fine. That was what you meant, though. Yeah. That would be the longest span.

Because I think next five years, you've got so many things coming that it's going to need to be... I mean, I think you're going to want to change some of it. I just... In the research, two things stood out to me. One was Stowe. They came up multiple times because they don't do a lot with their charter. And then Green is like emerging. But I really think there's an opportunity to really use the charter and home rule to do what's best for Green and not just look to the state. Because, again, we don't fit well within how the state operates.

Okay. Comments, questions? Mr. Maker.

Just a global comment. Having served on the prior charter review, I know a lot of time and effort goes into this, so thank you all for what you do. I know sometimes you don't get what you want, but you've got to sacrifice the whole thing to get some really important things. I know you all had your own opinions. I try to stay out of it because I just served on it, so I didn't want to make it too personal because I know there's a lot of discussion about what the last charter review did, and you guys are going to provide input about the future ones. but you know you can't do everything. And this goes in front of voters and to avoid throwing all the baby out the bath water, you gotta be very careful. And I think you guys struck a perfect chord with everything. So just wanna thank you for all the work you put into this.

Okay, any other comments?

Yeah.

Okay, maybe Mr. McGregor, you'll serve on the next one. I don't know what your term, where you're at in your term. I think you're under four years, so you could serve on the next committee. I think that is it. Any comments from the remaining public? I am going to close the hearing on all these resolutions related to the City Charter. This is the second reading and we have some review between the Law Director and our Clerk to make language match and resolve a couple of comments about what is substantive and what is non-substantive. So I am going to close the public hearing and give the gavel back to our council president.

Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. Appreciate that. All right, moving on in the agenda. Next up is the reading of correspondence.

Okay, we have an email from Dave Plum regarding the outsourcing of income tax to Rita. We have an email from Jan Jacobson regarding the transition to Rita. We have Summit County Sheriff's June 2026 activity report. Yes. email from Chris West regarding his opposition to the RITA transition. And that is all.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Moving on, we have new legislation for items on first reading.

Okay, we have 2026-R40, a resolution modifying appropriations within certain funds in order to provide sufficient funding and declaring emergency.

That will be assigned to the Finance Committee.

Mr. President. Mr. Holmes. The administration has requested first reading passage on this. We discussed this in committee this evening and the committee agreed to move forward with first reading passage. The memorandum total for this piece of legislation is $200,000. It's for contracted services. The mayor set forth the due diligence that he and the administration have been through in order to make sure that the Fiber that is being laid in the City of Green is being done in as safe a manner as possible. This legislation will provide the funds on a pass-through basis to be able to have another contractor put a set of eyes on the project. The City of Green will be reimbursed for these expenses. So although we're creating a line item for $200,000, all of those expenses will be reimbursed. Because the committee agreed to first reading passage, at this time I would move to bypass committee deliberations on 2026R40.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas?

Yes.

Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Mager?

Yes.

And Mr. Neugebauer?

No.

All right, motion carries.

And I'll make a motion to bypass the three reading rule on 2026 R40. Second.

We have a motion and a second to bypass the three reading rule on 2026 R40. Any discussion? Let's call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Spate. Yes. Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Mager.

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer.

No.

All right. Motion carries.

And I make a motion to adopt 2026 R40. Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026 R40. Is there any discussion?

I just want to comment. I made some comments in committee about this. I do appreciate the administration seeking to improve the safety of contractors, all contractors in the city, although my objection with this is that it appears to single out a particular type of construction. albeit has had issues, but still is a factor related to all construction. I also oppose to it in the fact that it raises the cost to do business in the city and perhaps cuts back on investment in the city. I think the investment that's occurred in the city has been helpful to many of our residents at the tunes of millions of dollars in the fiber project alone. and I don't think those things should be discouraged. I also stated that I don't think that the service that is being recommended will be able to direct safety, and it adds, it puts us in the line of sights of liability and other issues that could come up through construction process, so I will be voting against this.

Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. Any other discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas.

Yes.

Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Mager.

Yes.

And Mr. Nijabar.

Nope.

Okay, 2026-R40 is adopted six to one. Okay, moving on, we have 2026-R41, a resolution authorizing the City of Green to enter into a building lease agreement with the Board of Education of the Green Local School District for a lease of a portion of the bus garage and storage facility on parcel 2817723 and declaring an emergency.

That will be referred to the Finance Committee.

Mr. President. Mr. Humphrey. The administration has requested first reading passage on 2026-R41 The committee has agreed. We discussed this in committee this evening. This is for a $1 lease agreement with Green City Schools. The next piece of legislation will be a $1 lease agreement with the Green City Schools. But for this particular piece of legislation, because the committee agreed, I move to bypass committee deliberations on 2026 R41. Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second to bypass committee deliberations on 2026 R41. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas.

Yes.

Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

And Mr. Maker.

Yes.

Motion carries.

I move to bypass the three reading rule on 2026 R41.

Second. We have a motion and a second to bypass the three reading rule on 2026 R41. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

And Mr. Maker.

Yes.

Motion carries.

And I move to adopt 2026 R41. Second.

We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026 R41. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Nujabar?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitis?

Yes.

Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

And Mr. Mager?

Yes.

Okay, 2026-R41 is adopted 7-0. All right, moving on. 2026-R42, a resolution authorizing the City of Green to enter into a ground lease agreement with the Board of Education of the Green Local School District for lease of a portion of the bus garage and storage facility on parcel 2817723 and declaring emergency.

That will be referred to the Finance Committee.

Mr. President.

Mr. Humphrey.

The administration has requested first reading passage. This is kind of the companion piece of legislation with what we just passed. 2026 R42, the committee agreed to move forward with first reading passage, and so I move to bypass committee deliberations on 2026 R42.

Second. We have a motion and a second to bypass committee deliberations on 2026 R42. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas?

Yes.

Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. Mager?

Yes.

The motion carries.

And I move to bypass the three reading rule on 2026 R42.

Second. We have a motion and a second to bypass the three reading rule on 2026 R42. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

Mr. Maker.

Yes.

Motion carries.

And I move to adopt 2026 R42. Second.

We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026 R42. Any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

And Mr. Maker. Yes. Okay, 2026-R42 is adopted 7-0. Moving on. 2026-19, an ordinance authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with Aqua Ohio, Inc.,

That will be referred to the Intergovernmental and Utilities Committee. There is a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 11th, 2026 at 7 p.m. in council chambers.

2026-20, an ordinance declaring a portion of improvements to a certain parcel of real property owned by Arlington Ridge Marketplace LLC doing business as Chick-fil-A via public purpose exempting 100% of the value of improvements from real property taxation for 30 years and declaring an emergency.

That is referred to the Planning and Economic Development Committee.

And finally, 2026-21, an ordinance declaring a portion of improvements to a certain parcel of real property owned by Bull Run Ventures LLC, doing business as Brenneman Group via public purpose, exempting 100% of the value of improvements for real property taxation for 30 years and declaring emergency.

That is also referred to the Planning and Economic Development Committee. That is all. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Moving on to a report of council committees. The first committee to report this evening is the Finance Committee, chaired by Mr. Humphreys.

Thank you, Mr. President. Finance did meet this evening. Myself, Mr. Dujabower, and Mr. Spate were present. First, we heard from our finance director on our second quarter income tax collections. Essentially, we're flat year over year in terms of our income tax collections, and it's something that we'll continue to monitor as the third quarter gets going here. We had a third reading of 2026-15, an ordinance authorizing the mayor to enter into a contract with the Regional Income Tax Agency, RETA, a regional council of governments organized pursuant to Chapter 167 of the Ohio Revised Code for the administration, collection, and enforcement of the municipal income tax of the City of Greene and declaring an emergency. We've talked about this for the last couple of meetings and I won't add anything to that discussion. This is the third reading, and so I move to adopt 2026-15.

Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026-15. Is there any discussion?

Mr. President?

Mr. Brandenburg.

I'd just like to make a few comments about Rita in general. I've been in Ohio for roughly 20 years. I work in corporate tax. I work with some individuals as well. Had numerous interactions with Rita over the years. I have not found those interactions to be positive by any stretch of the imagination. Last company I was with, a simple reconciliation took over two years and tied up half a million dollars of the company's money for no particular reason. Most of the residents in Green only file in Green. They don't have other cities. The big advantage to Rita is, for businesses, if you have multiple jurisdictions where you operate, you do one return instead of or 20 or 30 or however many. Right now, residents are able to come to the Income Tax Division, ask their questions directly. They can either call or come in person. If they call, the phone is answered. If they call Rita, they go into a queue where it tries to direct them to call centers, various areas that are not particularly helpful. We heard from reader representatives at our last meeting that those wait times can be anywhere from five minutes when there's absolutely nothing going on to 40 minutes in the busy season. So it's much better, I think, for residents now. Residents can also file a tax return right here on site. This was the first year that Green went to electronic filing and forced that filing. I heard from a lot of residents who were not very happy with that. The paper form had lasted for 35 years successfully with no real issues. The other things that we have talked about, we are going to lose a year or a month, I should say, of funding in the first year. I understand we can try to adjust the budget for that funding, but in reality it is a minimum of $3 million and possibly $4 million. That really hasn't been addressed. We have also had one employee leave the Department and our finance director has been filling in, who has experience as an income tax administrator. We still have five employees in that department who are presently with the city, and I don't feel that their employment positions have been adequately addressed at this point. We are not able to really go into detail on that. With all that said, I think it is better to stay with our income tax division. What we are doing now seems to work. Perhaps a clerk would be a better idea in the finance area so that we can administer the department with the existing employees. For those reasons, I will be voting no. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg. Is there any other discussion? Before we do cast a vote, I would like to just make a comment. This has been a tough one because there are people in the income tax department that I know will, their livelihoods will be affected. And the trust administration is working with them for the best suitable options. I understand I've heard some pros and cons about Rita. I know there will be some growing pains for our residents, and I trust that they're resilient enough to work through them. At the end of the day, though, I look at the potential savings that the city of Green is going to see from this. And as you've heard from pretty much almost every committee meeting this evening, there has been talk around money and ways that we can save it. And to me, this is a pretty good opportunity for the city of Green to save some money. potentially, hopefully provide a better service at the end of the day to our residents. But that is something that I definitely took into consideration as well as the employees of the Income Tax Department. And I will be supporting it, but this has been a tough one. Any other discussions? Mr. Spate? Mr. Maker? Thank you.

I guess, you know, no matter how this vote goes, if it does go in favor, I just ask the administration to definitely publicize that we're going to have a liaison that's going to help with the transition. I want to make sure the community knows that we're not just going to leave them high and dry. I've heard good things, not to discount what Mr. Brandenburg has encountered, but I reached out to people that I trust in the industry and they said they actually prefer working with Rita. So I'll be voting in favor of this, but I just hope the administration will take the additional step, get out in front of this, and say, hey, there will be a liaison. This is who you call during that transition. Thank you, Mr. President.

Any other discussion?

You know, real briefly, I heard a lot of concerns about income tax over the years and the ability of that staff, and I have to be blunt. With Director Goodrich here, I I really value her perspective and her leadership, and I think it's probably worse than we really want to talk about on the floor. But with the additional problem of really finding somebody who has the qualifications and desire to lead that department for the city. So, you know, it's kind of like it's the best option available. Having an excellent income tax department is an option, but I don't think it's something we've achieved. So I'll be supporting the switch to Rita as well.

Okay. There's no further discussion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Okay, Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Nujabar? Yes. Mr. Brandenburg?

No.

Mr. DeVitas?

Yes.

Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

And Mr. Maker?

Yes.

Okay, 2026-15 is adopted 6-1.

had first readings of the pieces of legislation, the three pieces of legislation that we've already addressed at the beginning of the meeting, and we adjourned at 6.21 p.m.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. Our next committee to report this evening is Environment and Parks, chaired by Mr. Nujaba.

Thank you, Mr. President. All members were present this evening. We had the opportunity to meet. We had no items of legislation. We had no old or new business, but Service Director Carr did I'll bring up a couple issues. One was a night at the carnival event August 12th at the Corps for Corps members and guests and a new discounted Sunday fun day, discounted golf on Sunday afternoons for green residents and free golf for their younger children, I think seven to 14. Anyhow, if you're interested in playing golf on Sundays, that'd be great for you. Other than that, we did not have any business. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. Next committee to report is Public Safety, chaired by Mr. DeVitas.

Thank you, Mr. President. Myself, Mr. Humphrey, and Mr. Neugebauer were present for Public Safety. We did have one item of discussion. It was 2026-R26AA, a resolution authorizing the City of Green to enter into a second amendment to the policing contract, fiscal years 2024 to 2026. with the Summit County Sheriff to include flock safety cameras and to enhance services within the City of Green in declaring an emergency. So this is a reimbursement contract or agreement with Summit County to reimburse $84,000 over the next two years to fund flock cameras within our city. There's about 14 of those, and the Sheriff's Office uses them They're license plate readers that the Sheriff's Office uses potentially for investigative purposes, servicing warrants, amber alerts, and other criminal activity lists alike. We did have another extensive discussion tonight with some public input as well as input from the Sheriff's Office and most of committee and counsel. Again, there were some issues brought up about privacy and security matters. We were given a lot of information about how the Sheriff's Office implements these tools and checks and balances that are in place there. On top of that, we did cover that since our last time meeting and discussing this, there has been discussion with the county with regards to some additional stipulations we would like to see with the contract, one of which Mr. Mager specifically brought forward pertaining to if the company flock was ever sold, that we would have a potential way out of the contract as a city, as the the entity that's funding it, if we deemed fit. The county did not wish to oblige on that matter, as well as a couple other things. But ultimately, we did receive feedback from the county as to which additional amendments they would agree with. We discussed that amongst our council, and at our next meeting we will have a final draft of this legislation that reflects what the county is willing to agree with pertaining to how FLOC operates within our city and within the sheriff's office jurisdiction. And hopefully we'll take a vote on it at our next meeting. That about sums up the discussion for that. and there was no older new business, so we requested time on that and concluded our committee.

Thank you, Mr. DeVitas. Our next committee to report this evening is Planning, Community, and Economic Development, chaired by Mr. Noble. Thank you, Mr. President. All committee members were present this evening.

We did have a number of items of legislation, so we did meet, the first of which is we had a public hearing on 2026-10A, an ordinance to amend Section 157.134 subsection five, subsection C, design and layout of chapter 157, planning and development code of the codified ordinances of the City of Green. This revision to the planning and development code is related to the requirement to create bypass lanes for drive-throughs. We did have a presentation by the Kellerman family this evening, whose daughter was unfortunately murdered in a drive-through where she couldn't get out. That's part of the comments this evening. Again, we can't vote on this tonight because we have a public hearing, and so I'm going to request time for 2026-10A. Time will be granted. Next, we have an item on third reading. It is 2026-R24, a resolution authorizing a municipal economic development grant agreement with Hoover Cation LLC in declaring an emergency. So this is an economic development grant for a local business bringing approximately seven employees to the city of Greene with around $400,000 in payroll. The grant is for three years. It's basically for 50% of the income tax for a total of $12,000. Since this is on third breeding at this time, I'm going to make a motion to adopt 2026-R24.

Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026-R24. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. Maker?

Yes.

And Mr. Nujabar? Yes. Okay, 2026-R24 is adopted 7-0.

That concludes our items of legislation. That concludes my report for the evening.

Thank you, Mr. Noble. Our next committee to report is Rules and Personnel, which I chair. Myself, Mr. Mager, and Mr. Brandenburg were all present this evening. We did have some legislation to discuss. The first was 2026.16, an ordinance amending section 34.13, Veterans Advisory Commission of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Green. This legislation would add two positions to our Veterans Advisory Commission off of their request. This is a second reading, and we will be asking time for that one. Next is 2026-17, an ordinance creating the position of accounts payable clerk in the finance department, establishing compensation and declaring an emergency. This is basically changing the job description for a position, adding a new job description for a position in the finance department. We did have a presentation from our HR director, and this is second reading, so we will be taking time on 2026-17. And lastly, we had 2026.18, an ordinance creating the position of member services clerk in the service department, establishing compensation, and declaring an emergency. Also had a presentation from Mrs. Serena about this. And second reading, we will be asking for time on 2026.18. Our committee adjourned at 8.20. Next committee to report is Transportation, Connectivity, and Stormwater, chaired by Mr. Mager.

Thank you, Mr. President. All members were present, me, Mr. Brandenburg, and Mr. Noble. We had one item before us. It was on second reading. It was 2026R38, a resolution awarding a contract to Conklin Sons for the 2026 Miscellaneous Concrete Repairs Project in current emergency. This is a miscellaneous concrete repair project. The engineer's estimate is $160,000. Conklin Sons came in at the lowest and the best at $126,716, their base bid. They were substantially the lowest. The next closest was NDS Outdoor Solutions at $161,945.50. Based upon that, Conklin Sons also put in bids for the alternate one through six. Number one was $4,700. Alternate number two was $2,300. Alternate number three was $3,125. Alternate number four is $4,932. Alternate number five is $9,612. Alternate number six is $754.80. There's some questions that I had regarding this particular contractor with some past performance. I'm going to work with our City Engineer Paul Pickett to verify whether or not that's the same contractor that had issues with some concrete repairs in my ward. And once I hear back from that, I'll make a public statement at our next committee regarding what I found on that. Since this is on second reading, I'll be asking for time on 2026-R38. And time will be granted. Thank you, Mr. President. The only other business that was discussed was Mr. Noble talking about some construction on the corridor on Arlington Road closer to Chick-fil-A. I know there's some curbing and some expansion on that entryway, and there's some issues. I drove through it today, experienced the same thing that Mr. Noble was talking about. So that was discussed during our committee. And with that, we adjourned at 8.26 p.m.

Thank you, Mr. Mager. Our next committee to report is Intergovernmental and Utilities, chaired by Mr. Brandenburg.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Noble, Mr. Mager, and I were all available to meet. However, no items of legislation, no items involved in the business that we did not meet.

Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg. Final committee to report this evening is the Committee of the Whole, chaired by Mr. Nugent.

Thank you, Mr. President. We did meet late in the evening. number of items that the Charter Review Commission brought before us, but we didn't discuss it in committee. However, we did have a public hearing as part of our regular meeting this afternoon, this evening, to cover all those items. Should I read them all in again if I did them at public hearing?

I don't think so. I don't think so either.

So we're in... I'm sorry? The first one...

just the first one, which was R30, a resolution. This is Resolution 226, R30, a resolution to amend the appropriate articles and sections of the Charter of the City of Green relating to the non-substantive changes throughout the Charter per Charter Section 12.10, Charter Corrections and Declaring Emergency. We had a brief discussion on this. There was a couple items that we felt probably should be edited out and removed from... those exhibit A in the changes, and the law department has been asked to revise that. Likewise, for the remaining items, there was some comments and direction, again, for the law department to review the language of those to match more clearly the title to the actual legislation. At the recommendation of the president and our Our clerk, I will not be reading on the rest of them, but they're all on second reading, and we will pick this up again in two weeks. All right. That's all I have.

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. And that wraps up our committee reports. Next on the agenda is the mayor's report.

Thank you, Mr. President. So the lightning-quick addition of the Mayor's report. Remember the zip code legislation. One good piece of information is we've picked up Senator Marino's co-sponsorship. So he will be helping move that legislation forward. I'll let you know as it snakes through Congress. um... the summit county property tax appraisal notices last week green property owners began receiving notices of their updated property values as part of the twenty twenty six six annual re appraisal required by state law summit county fiscal office is hosting a series of informal review meetings throughout the county in green residents may attend an in-person review session on wednesday august twelve at central park community hall from twelve to eight For additional information about the reappraisal process and the review schedule, please visit fiscaloffice.summitohio.net. There is good information on there that reminds people that the appraisal doesn't translate in the same proportion to your tax increase. I got an appraisal that was 30 percent higher than my last year. it will not translate to that. So unfortunately, we're not going to have the tax rates until December, but looking out for the Summit County website, reading that information, it's useful, and I encourage residents who are concerned about it to attend one of these meetings. By way of event, Saturday, August 1st, the final movie in the park is happening, at Central Park. That is Saturday, August 1. Friday, August 7, is our final summer celebration concert, sadly talking about the end of summer. August 12 is Night at the Carnival of the Corps, as mentioned, and August 15 is Artapalooza. Also, Mr. President, I want to thank our Charter Review Committee. I know that Council already thanked them. I attended several of the meetings. I saw how how hard you worked, how seriously you took your jobs, how technical you were at times and concerned about detail. We really appreciate the effort. And also thanks to Councilman Neugebauer who attended most of the meetings and helped answer questions about background and led tonight's discussion.

Thank you. Awesome. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is there any unfinished business to come before council? New business. And can I get a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Nujabar. Yes. Mr. Maker.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

Motion carries.

We are adjourned. Thank you. We have six seconds.