City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to call to order the City of Green Council meeting for Tuesday, August 11, 2026. Would you please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance? Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll of council members?

Sure. Mr. DeVitas.

Here.

Mr. Neugebauer.

Here.

Mr. Noble.

Here.

Mr. Humphrey.

Here.

Mr. Spate.

Here.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Here.

And Mr. Mager.

Here.

Okay.

Thank you, ma'am. For council study sessions, we have one item, which is TMP 5450, approval of the July 28, 2026 council meeting minutes.

I move to approve.

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

Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. Mr. Magar.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Noble. Yes. Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg. Yes. Okay, motion carries.

Okay, and also in council study sessions, we have a presentation from Sue Arnold, the Director of Development and Education for the Oak Clinic. Thank you for coming in this evening, ma'am.

Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to share the story of the Oak Clinic with you. The Oak Clinic is located about two blocks from here, across from the Acme Market in the Summa Health Plaza at the south end. And the Oak Clinic only treats multiple sclerosis patients, so if you're not familiar with the Oak Clinic, you might not be familiar with multiple sclerosis, or MS for short. MS is a neurological disease that is crippling because it involves the central nervous system. Our autoimmune system destroys the myelin in the body. Myelin is what takes the messages from our brain into our body to tell it what to do. So when you destroy the myelin, You destroy our abilities to walk, you experience fatigue, vision changes, numbness or pain, cognitive issues, and it affects the total body. Most patients are diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 40. There are three times more women that have MS than men. The disease impacts all racial groups, and Northern Ohio has an extremely high incidence of MS. No one's sure why, but we are second to Sweden in the number of MS incidence in Northern Ohio. Symptoms include fatigue, weakness, mobility, vision changes, numbness, and above all, MS is unpredictable. Some MS patients live their whole lives and people don't know they have MS. Other MS patients go two years from the day of diagnosis into a wheelchair. So it's very unpredictable, and worst of all, there is no cure. So once you become a patient of the Oak Clinic, you're a lifetimer. And so we are now raising children of parents who came in years ago, and they have children and grandchildren that are coming The National MS Society guesses that there are 1 million people in the United States with MS. The Oak Clinic treats 2,000 of them. We have to provide not only medical care, but also health, wellness, diet. It all goes together to keep the patient strong. And so specialized care changes the journey. It's important that you understand the founding of the Oak Clinic. Jim Oshlager, shown in the top picture, was diagnosed with MS at the age of 31. He received a degree in economics in 1964 and a law degree in 1967, and he began work managing Firestone's pension fund. In 1985, he left that role and opened Oak Associates in Akron and he garnered many accolades and national recognition for his investment success. Jim spent most of his life in a wheelchair and while he could afford the care that he needed, he was very much aware of the expense of MS and he knew that there were a lot of people that could not afford it. Happenchance in 1999, during a hospital visit, he met a doctor named Dr. Timothy Carabine, who is shown in the lower picture. Jim and his wife, Vanita, envisioned a clinic where people living with MS would receive exceptional care and feel like family. So they convinced Dr. Carabine to leave his internal medicine practice and open the Oak Clinic. Dr. Carabine solicited a nurse from Akron General named Patty Blake, who also had MS, and together they leased space from Summa Health and opened the Oak Clinic. Jim and Vanita fully funded the building of the clinic. And they continued to fund the Oak Clinic for 15 years until we became independent and able to support ourselves. Patty has since retired, but Dr. Carabine is there every day continuing to treat patients. The Oak Clinic staff works hard with insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and grant organizations to get funding for patients. But at the end of the day, no one is refused care for lack of ability to pay. Understand what I'm saying. No one is refused care for the old clinic because they cannot pay. The old clinic is the only nonprofit MS clinic left in the United States. And we are extremely, extremely different as we operate than other healthcare systems. The clinic was built for the whole patient. We treat and provide support for families in medical care, infusion, pharmacy, exercise and wellness, education, and social services. We are not affiliated with any other healthcare system. I like to say we make our mistakes in the morning and we fix them after lunch. There are 25 of us that compromises staff of Oak Clinic, three neurologists, two nurse practitioners, nine nurses, two pharmacists, two development and education individuals, three medical secretaries, and four support staff. We're governed by a board of directors of five individuals, and we work hard and are very proud of what we do. So let's talk about the growth. In 2000, we opened the clinic. In 2001, we recognized there was going to be an immediate need. In 2017, we rented more space from SUMA, and we moved across the hall with our infusion clinic. In 2018, we added our on-site pharmacy, which is important because most of these MS patients are treated not just by our doctors, but by primary care physicians who deal with other symptoms that they have. It's important that we know if their drugs are interacting or not. In 2020, we had a second expansion when we hired a third doctor. In 2025, there was no more room at SUMA. And our staff began the dream of designing and building our own home. The infusion space was crowded and we were struggling to meet daily demands. Most MS patients receive infusions, some of them monthly, for their whole lives. Many of them come in every six months, so we infuse about 600 patients a month. Education programs had to be held at Akron General Cleveland Clinic because we didn't have any space at SUMA to meet our growing demand for classes. Our pharmacy only served walk-in patients, so it wasn't unusual for those in the wheelchair to pull up outside the big window in the pharmacy door at the back of the lot and honk their horn. Pharmacists would look out and run the drugs out to the car. Exercise area's restrictive, the carpet's dirty, there's junk in the room, and we need a more welcoming environment. And we have many offices that are shared by staff members, making dictation, phone conversations, and private patient visits difficult. And we're simply out of storage space. We need to have the ability to keep medical equipment that's donated from patients on site for those patients who need it. This is not about a building project. It's about access, safety, dignity, and continuity of care. The pattern is clear. Patients, more services, more complexity, and now a need for a purpose-built facility. Finally, in May 2026, the Oak Clinic Board of Directors voted to build a new clinic and purchase property in Greene at 1928 Burgess Drive, We will build a 30,000 square foot facility with a medical clinic and infusion clinic, a full pharmacy with a drive-through, a gym with equipment for MS patients, an education and community room, and support space. This clinic is designed to keep care, medications, education, wellness, and support services connected in an accessible location. We are in the midst of a $22 million capital campaign to fund this site. We will not incur any debt to build it. So why Green, Ohio?

Why not?

Green's not just a location. It is where the old clinic mission lives. The Oak Clinic has been located in Green for over 20 years and it's served us well. Our community connections run deep. Staying in Green reduces travel burden for patients who feel real comfortable coming to Green and their first question when we say we're building a new clinic is where? They don't want to have to learn a new location. We believe in the growth and government of the City of Green and will continue to support local businesses and remain a trusted source. We bring six to 700 patients a month into the City of Green for infusion and care. The City of Green is growing and we are proud to support that growth. But the Oak Clinic is also growing and we need the support of the City of Green to assist with several requests. First of all, we ask that the boulevard at Massillon Road and Burgess be removed. You will note that the incoming lane from Burgess Drive is very narrow. Many of our patients come in transport vans from care facilities or ride services, and the removal of this boulevard will allow safer accessibility for these as well as green emergency vehicles. Next, we are asking that an access road be created between Burgess Drive and Town Park Boulevard. The Oak Clinic and Parfait Properties have worked together to share access between Massillon Road and Burgess Drive. After completion, customers and patients will be able to access the Dairy Queen from Massillon Road and the Oak Clinic from Massillon Road and Burgess Drive. However, egress is the problem. Egress for both locations will be from the access lane onto Massillon Road or onto Burgess Drive. However, when you use the Burgess Drive lanes, it is difficult to turn left because of traffic and because of the slight curve in Massillon Road that inhibits a clear view. We are concerned that elderly patients might have difficulty here. In addition, there will only be one access to the old clinic Greensburg Manor and 192 apartments at the Boulevard at Green. This is concerning for emergency vehicles. we hope that an access road between burgess drive and town park boulevard will be constructed as soon as possible this will allow patrons and emergency vehicles to use the traffic light at town park boulevard and massillon with ease we hope to align the city clinic, design, construction, and utility teams so that infrastructure is ready when the building is ready. Together, we can build more than a building. We can build the next generation of MS care in green. And with that, I close and say thank you for your attention. I also want to say thank you to Wayne and thank you to CJ for their interest in this project and for their continuation and support. I encourage you to share this Oak Clinic story. and welcome you to visit us anytime. I have given you a handout with additional information. I've laid some books in the back if you have more interest in MS. We wrote these books especially for families and children. And if I have touched your heart, and you are willing to support the project financially. I've also left some gift commitment forms. For more information, you can scan the QR code on the brochure or you can go to buildoakclinic.com. I will welcome you at the opening of the clinic in September of 2028. And I welcome any questions if you have anything.

Members of Council, any questions for Mrs. Arnold? Mr. Maker?

Thank you, Mr. President. Just a comment. Sue invited me to take a tour of the old clinic. It's been years since I went through it the first time. And even though they do a great job servicing their patients, it was crowded. Every single fusion chair was filled. Every storage closet was filled. Two people in every office. And you serve a lot of patients. And the biggest thing I want to emphasize with the people of Greene is their commitment to Greene. They could have went a lot of places. And they looked at other locations even within Greene. And this spot is great. But they're committing a $24 million project here, and they're bringing 600-plus patients into this community with their families, supporting our businesses, and more importantly, servicing these patients. So I want to applaud the Oak Clinic for everything they've done so far, and I appreciate you guys' continued commitment to the arc. our city if you get a chance sue's got some pictures and some stuff for the interior of the building there is a free library inside the old clinic and they're going to expand upon that the largest benefactor she is an author and a lot of the books that sue has given me comes from their free library so i want to go in there take a look around if sue can have them it's very busy so but thank you sue for being here and give us some more background new clinic

I just do want to also acknowledge that

The requests that were made before us today are things that we've discussed on this council previously. The connecting roadway in the back is something that I have been harping on for since they built the apartment buildings way back when. We have a partial right-of-way that's back there that exists today. And that connection, I think, is... a critical piece of the long-term development of this area and the things that you mentioned about safety and access are something that I think is spot on. So that's at the back. The second piece is the boulevard entry. And the boulevard entry that exists out there today has been a problem since the day it was constructed. We have a tight radius return there. The reason that tight radius return exists today is because lack of the ability to have a right-of-way when the development went in. And I know that it has been a problem for the service department related to snow plowing and some other things because of its narrowness over time. And I would just... Mr. Weethe, to you and your group, we do have a project occurring in this spot right now with the Dairy Queen parcel and whatnot. And I know none of this is part of the Dairy Queen, is part of that program right now. But improving that return and removing that thing is something that is also definitely a... definite benefit to burgess drive i understand how it got to where it got but it doesn't function right and so the requests that are here whether oak clinic would build back there or not or something that would be a vast improvement to everything that that could could develop in that area regardless so i just wanted to make those comments thank you

Mr. Neugebauer.

Yeah, I just want to thank you, Ms. Arnold, for being part of our community. And for those who don't know, there's a, in our race series, the Grade 8 race series, they've participated in that for a number of years. And so they have been active in our community in addition to serving patients, but they've been part of our community fabric. So thank you.

All right. Well, thank you very much, ma'am, for coming in. We appreciate your time. All right, moving on in our agenda, we were supposed to have a presentation from the county on the property tax valuations. However, there was an issue, and we are fortunate to have Mrs. Valerie Wolford, our communications manager, who's gonna come in and fill in for that. Thank you, Valerie.

Thank you very much. As President Spate said, I am not with the county, I'm with the City of Green, and I am not with the fiscal office. But I do want to share a little bit about the property re-evaluations that are going on because we are receiving quite a few calls here at the city and people trying to get information, and there's going to be an event tomorrow where they can actually talk with the appraisers informally and learn more about their properties. So if you... With that said, I wanted to let you know that Summit County recently completed the state-required six-year property reappraisal. So every six years they do a full reappraisal. Every three years they do the three-year term. So it seems like a lot. We get that. But that is set at the state. And these are the property values that reflect the current market conditions. So many green homeowners we know have received letters, and this is a sample of a letter. I'm sure they'll pull it up. If you receive one of these letters, then your property values have changed. If you did not receive a letter, your property values are not changing. So that's first and foremost. The other thing is if a higher property value does not automatically mean that your property taxes will increase at the same percentage, it is not a one-to-one. We will not go down that rabbit hole of how property taxes are all determined, because I am not the expert on that, believe me. The new appraisal values will not go into effect in 2027, and here's the kicker, actual tax amounts are not available yet because of the Ohio Department of Taxation is still, will determine the adjusted tax rates later this year. So there's a lot of things that make people lose their minds because it's confusing, it's very confusing. But here's what residents can do and what they should do. First of all, if you receive this letter, you should go on to the Summit County fiscal officer's website and look up your property and make sure the data is correct. The square footage, the bedrooms, the bathrooms. If you have a three-bedroom house, TWO BATH, AND IT SAYS FOUR BEDROOM, TWO BATH, AND YOU NEED TO CONTACT THE FISCAL OFFICE. THEY HAVE AT TIMES BEEN WRONG. SO JUST SOMETHING EASY TO DO. SECOND, IF YOU BELIEVE YOUR VALUE THAT THEY HAVE ASSIGNED YOU ON YOUR LETTER IS INCORRECT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE FISCAL OFFICE BEFORE AUGUST 27TH. and because that is the last day to make any changes informally that they have the right and the ability to do. But you can't just go and say, I think it's worth less than what you say it is. You have to have some information. So things that would be considered, if you just bought your house and it's significantly more than what you paid for, that counts. And then consider some of your home's uniqueness in the neighborhood. Sometimes, especially in green, we have homes that are next to each other that are built in different decades that may not be worth the same. So give it some thought. If any of these things come to mind, make sure that you contact the fiscal office. And if you want to see them in person, they will be in green tomorrow. uh... at central hall or central park community home sorry and uh... from it noon until eight p m it's walk-in you can go talk to somebody they will explain anything you don't understand and stable uh... listen to you any of the concerns people may have so we um yes it's tomorrow there's a bunch of meetings throughout the county and you can go to any of them you don't have to just go to the one in green if you're in green so any of them would work you can call and you can email so we ask that you take the time to contact them if you feel your evaluation is incorrect any questions valerie and maybe you can't answer this but um

So the valuation that is in the letter, it's somewhat of a black box, right, for residents. You get a letter. It says what it is. But there's no backup information as to how they determined the value. I mean, so they've done it. So if a resident comes in More on a fact-finding mission to figure out how they determine the value. Will the person that they're talking to be able to – I mean, do they have backups for every property that people can understand how they determined what the value is if you go into this as opposed to going in –

That's a really good question. I don't have the answer to it. I hope so, but I don't have the answer at this time, but I was going to wander over tomorrow and ask anyways, and just because we're getting questions, some things and want to make sure that we have answers other than send them there. Some of the questions that are being asked, we should have some quick answers too. So any other questions?

Just a quick comment. Take advantage of the informal process now, because if you don't, you've got to file what's called a Board of Revisions complaint before the end of March of next year, before the previous year, to fight it. And then you need an appraisal, assuming you didn't buy your house at an arm's length transaction. So just try to take advantage of this informal process now to avoid a bigger hearing later on. It's just more difficult. You need more information that you otherwise would need in this informal process.

You are correct. And it's from January 1st through that end of March date.

And if you lose your appeal, you're blocked out for three years. So don't just file thinking that I'm just going to make an argument that I have. You have to have a third-party independent appraisal or you have to have bought your house at an arm's length transaction, which means no share of sale, no bankruptcy. It has to be from an arm's length transaction.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mrs. Wolford. I appreciate that. All right, that concludes our council study sessions. The next item on the agenda is the public report. We did have some people signed in, but all of them have been addressed. The next item is our public hearing, and I will pass this over to Mr. Brandenburg.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'll call to order public hearing to discuss a utility service matter before the City of Green Council. The ordinance is 2026-19, an ordinance authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with Aqua Ohio Inc. So this Aqua Ohio operates as the regulated utility in the City of Green under the authority of the Public Utility Commission of Ohio. Go for short. Okay.

I think people are having a hard time hearing you. All right.

Got it. Thank you. All right, let me read that again. So ACWA Ohio operates as a regulated utility in the city of Green under the authority of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. However, our local rates are set through negotiation directly with ACWA Ohio and approved by ordinance. So this legislation establishes the water rates and service charges for Green residents for the next five years. The proposal is an increase of 5.5% for 2027. and 5.75% for 2028 through 2031. And as part of that agreement, Aqua Ohio will invest an additional $1.5 million in infrastructure in the City of Green. So we have with us today Mr. Sean Smith from Aqua Ohio, who has a presentation for us. So, Mr. Smith.

Thank you very much for having us here. As you mentioned, my name is Sean Smith. I'm the area manager for Aqua Ohio, and this is Chris Hostetler, our construction coordinator. We have a presentation that we'll go over. Starting with the history, just to give a little background, AquaOhio started as a private company in 1853 as a mass and water service. AquaOhio today, or mass and water service today, is currently a part of the essential utilities, one of the nation's largest publicly traded water, wastewater, and natural gas providers in the US, serving approximately five million people across 10 states under Aqua and People brands. The Stark Regional Division, which is what we're here to discuss, is the water provider for over 40,000 customers in Masslin and Green, the village of Hills and Dales, Jackson Township, Perry Township, Plain, Lake, and Tuscarora Townships, as well as the city of New Franklin. We continually invest in the water system to meet and exceed state and federal drinking water regulations and to improve system reliability. We're a committed community partner with local management, and we aim to have affordable rates with local partnerships. Little idea on why local rate negotiations work. So it's moderate annual rate increases to support ongoing capital investments plus prudent expense management. It equals regulatory compliance and high quality reliable service. What we aim to do is not have rate shock, not burden the community with rate case expenses, and it allows us flexibility of capital projects and local input. To speak a little bit more to that local input, As you mentioned, we do commit a million and a half dollars that the City of Green gets to steer towards community projects. A couple examples would be Rain Tree Country Club, Southwood, Phase Two, West Airport Drive, and we've recently started discussing a project with the city to get water to a park on Cottage Grove and East Turkey Foot. uh... over the last ten years uh... we have invested over ninety million dollars in the community uh... advantages of local rate setting uh... local rate setting since nineteen eighty two has saved uh... the customers approximately four to eight million in p u c a rate case expenses uh... we have direct accountability of aqua to the community we do work here live here uh... local governmental participation in capital project selection supports timely partnering to replace aging infrastructure at a measured pace. And good examples of that are what we do in some of the other communities where we work with the community to understand their paving projects and align our infrastructure projects to make sure we're not installing water mains in locations where roads have just been repaved or getting our aged water mains replaced prior to resurfacing projects. We have stabilized incremental rate increases versus larger filings, and this allows for flexibility in the rate structure and enhances community relations. Just to give a quick tutorial on the way rates are established in Ohio, there's two different methods, the PUCO method and the local method. Under the PUCO method, water rates are set by the Public Utility Commission of Ohio. The company files a rate case requesting an increase in water rates. This process normally takes nine months from the date of filing until the new rates are in effect. Estimated cost to the rate payers, anywhere between 500,000 to a million for each rate case. And then annually in between rate cases, the company can file for an infrastructure improvement surcharge, or a SIC, for up to four and a quarter percent to fund the replacement of critical infrastructure. Under the local method, which is what we're here to discuss, rates are established by the local communities, and that's us working with city councils and the county commissioners. The company and the communities agree on rates for a period going forward. And I want to note that the company is still regulated by the PUCO for rules and regulations. Just something to note, this is a statistic that they wanted in our Massillon presentation. Comparatively, from 2013 to 2026, the PUCO divisions had an increase that were twice the Stark divisions rate increases of 33%. This is just a recap of the current rate plan. So from 21 to 26, you'll see we had 3.25% rate increases and below what effect those had on the average monthly bill. And then I wanna note that capital investment commitment to the community was 47.6 million, and what we actually spent was 50.13 million. This is just a further recap on what those commitments were to the community. We invested approximately $30.5 million in water main projects. Those are both new and replacement relocation projects. We had $3.3 million in distribution system improvements. That's pump stations, hydrants, service lines, et cetera. $3.3 million in customer service. That's essentially meter replacements. Six and a half million in water treatment and residuals. Primarily high service upgrades, chemical pumps and equipments in the plant, just general maintenance and upkeep in the facility. And then two and a half in source water management. and a million and a half in essentially miscellaneous. Another thing to note, being that we are a private utility, we pay taxes on all the infrastructure that we have in the ground where a municipality does not. And so just an example of what we paid over the last five year contract, 15.145 million to Stark County and almost two million to Summit County. And I want to note that all those expenses come out of the O&M, operations and maintenance budget, and not capital. These are some highlights for the projects that we did. Mayfair and Wise Road, East Turkey Foot, Basswood, Meadowood, Stark Airways, Raintree Golf Course, Southwood Phase One, uh... this year we completed phase one of i seventy seven which was to get a redundant line underneath the i seventy seven over by sarah subaru that way if there were any issues on that side of the highway you know customers would not be impacted and then we started on southward phase two some projects we have planned you know for the next five years uh... green redundancy uh... it's a critical line uh... to provide a second water line from our pump station into the green pressure zone. That way, if we have issues on that line, the current line, we have a redundant one and we're not putting you guys out of water. I-77 phase two, again, a carry on project from I-77, just a continuation of that. Lake O Springs phase three is a redundant feed. Again, that booster station, we're really trying to make sure that if there are issues on that line that was installed in the 90s, we have a second source to be able to provide water. And then we have some work on Cottage Grove and Melanie Drive. Just some operational highlights. Coordinated main replacements with paving projects, like I mentioned before, prudent expense management. We are licensed, experienced operators and utility technicians. So all of our plant operators, field technicians, distribution technicians are licensed through the state. And we do provide a 24-7 response. And then we're pretty proud of our 100% compliance on drinking water. We continually meet and exceed the EPA standards. Some other things to note. We're a committed community partner. I won't mention all the things that were involved. They wouldn't fit on this page. But we try to really be involved in the community, not only financially, but allowing our employees to get out and really represent who we are. Moving on to the proposed capital improvement plan for 27 through 31. I'd like to note the water main projects, you know, 29.98 million. Pretty close to what we did the last period. Distribution service or system improvements, 8.5 million. Customer service metering a little lower than before. This next one, the water treatment and residuals management, is really the big driver of the increase that we see in our rates. So I'll get a little bit more into detail on the next few slides, but essentially, you know, through some studies over the last few years, hydraulic studies of our system, facility plans, you know, we've come to learn that we are going to run out of peak capacity by 2032. Any of you guys that are in construction, you know, deal with approvals of the EPA and whatnot, you know, understand that from the time that we go out to bid, to do an upgrade, until we get, you know, Proposals back EPA approvals. We have a fairly long window before we can get this thing in and built and so there's some urgency to a plant expansion Last two would be eight and a half million for source water and You know three point two seven for tools and equipment all which total you know about eighty eight eighty nine million dollars of capital investment into the community Um, this is just to go into a little bit more detail of the, uh, the needs that we have, um, and, you know, kind of support the need for the increased, uh, rates. So we need a new 5 million gallon per day solid contact unit, um, and supporting infrastructure. The plant is currently rated at 15 million gallons per day. Um, We're seeing right now peak days of 14.2, 14.3 million gallons. And so another five million gallons of capacity should buy us a lot of room for future expansion in the community. We're also looking at a 1 million gallon clear well, a high service pump station, additional filter capacity, chemical storage. And I want to say the majority of those are to get us to that 20 million gallons of capacity. There's a bunch of different infrastructure in the plant, all which have different approved capacities through the EPA. And so we're really looking at all of them individually and saying, what do we need to do to get these ultimately to a 20 million gallon capacity? Also want to note that we're kind of peaked out on our source water capacity with our current aquifers. So we're looking to put a water main to a new... WELLFIELD THAT WE ALREADY OWN, JUST NEED TO GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE TOO AND THAT'S THE BUTTERBRIDGE WELLFIELD. AND THEN MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AND ARE READY FOR ANY EMERGING CONTAMINANTS SO THAT WE HAVE THE CHEMICAL TREATMENT AVAILABLE IF SOMETHING WERE TO ARISE. AND LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THESE ARE ALL NOTED AND I HAVE HERE THAT I CAN SHARE IF YOU'D LIKE OUR 23 GROWTH PLANNING REPORT AND OUR 24 FACILITY PLANNING DOCUMENT. Here we have the proposed rate plan. As Mr. Brandenburg mentioned, year one, 5.5%, and then years two through five, 5.75%. If you look down through here, you'll see the monthly impact to the customer. So year one, average customer bill's gonna go up $2.68. Year two, $2.96. And if you guys are kind of paying attention to what's going on around, we're really in line with what a lot of the other utilities are doing in the area. City of North Canton just put out a proposal for 5% rate increases for the next five years. City of Canton just put out a 13.5% increase earlier this year, and they're currently looking for a feasibility study to make sure that their water rates are going to support their growth. And then ourselves, our PUCO divisions were just approved about a month and a half ago for... on average across our rate groups, an 11.5%, and we will be going back in for a 4.25% SIC filing. So again, just want to mention the impact to the monthly bill. Two more slides. So just to kind of put things in perspective, You know, all the water you need for essential life functions for less than a dollar, or less than a penny a gallon. And, you know, put that in perspective. A 16-ounce coffee is equivalent to $40 a gallon. You can tell I made this presentation a few months ago. Gas is not $2.80 a gallon, you know. But average cell phone bill, $141 a month. Average electric bill, $160 a month. And the average natural gas bill, $1. you know, of $112 a month. And last but not least, you know, I just want to say thank you for trusting us to protect and provide Earth's most essential resource. A couple other things to note. Mr. Brandenburg, you sent some questions, I believe. I have some responses. Hopefully, I think I covered a couple of them.

You did, yes. I was trying primarily to understand the difference in the PUCO recent increases over the last eight years versus green. We seem to be a little higher, but I think you touched on a lot of that with the new treatment facility and the capacity expansion.

Give me one moment. I think I have the email.

Sean, you could use my phone if you wish.

I think I remember most of them. Sorry, I must have left him at home as I was preparing for this evening. I think the biggest one you had asked was what the 6.88% approved PUCO rate was in comparison, or how that correlated to the... Perfect, thank you.

To the Stark division, right?

Yes. So the 6.88% PUCO approved is basically the approved minimum income for the PUCO rate divisions. It does not relate to the Aqua Ohio Stark regional division. So all of our PUCO rate negotiated divisions, that is kind of like... the minimum profit that they're allowed to make. And I'll say the ceiling would be 9.53%. So that's kind of our operating window for revenue. I will say that I got a good education from our accountant this afternoon trying to understand this. This next proposed rate increase almost aligns with that 6.88% in year one. We're actually gonna be at a 6.83%, but then because of the increased capital expenditures at the plant, we will actually be diluting that operating profit over the five-year contract. So I had them written down, but we'll still be in that 6% range, but we will be below the approved operating profit for the PUCO divisions. So to clarify we're we're coming in slightly below the PCO approved six point eight eight yes those units Yeah, six point eight three year one, and then you know couple Couple point you know six I think it was six point five nine percent year two I think the lowest was like a six point two percent, but we're we're in the ballpark And the reason we did that really was to try to get as much capital that we could while keeping the rates as reasonable as possible. I'll go back just real quick. We're not supposed to negotiate against ourselves, but I'll give you ballpark numbers. So there are several rate groups across the PUCO divisions, rate group two being our largest rate group. And I will say for similar usage today, their water bill is $66.95 a month. At the end of this five-year contract, we will still be below that, you know, where they currently are. Okay. So I think that really, you know, For us, kind of drives why this negotiation is so important to remain local. A couple of things that you might be asking, why wouldn't the company just put us into the PUCO, gain a little bit more profit like they have with the others? And I think the biggest reason is this division, out of all the divisions in Ohio, has grown and continues to grow faster than any other. Um, being locally negotiated, we have the flexibility to spend, uh, money on infrastructure into areas that we currently don't have customers. Um, we can expand, you know, for a future subdivision. We can expand for future, future industrial growth. If we were to go, you know, PUCO, um, we're not allowed to prospect. Essentially, that water main has to be paid for by customers before we can install it. So remaining locally negotiated really allows us to expand the system to meet the growth.

Appreciate that. That's very helpful. I think the only other question I had was on the customer impact fee. Yes. So in the last contract, it went from $1,200 to $1,400. Yes. And this one, in the contract itself, it says $1,400, but then the slide you have up, I thought there was a footnote that said it's going to $1,650.

I had removed that, the slide that, I think you guys had been given a presentation prior. What we decided to do, and there's language, you'll probably see the change in the ordinance, was we referred back to the PUCO tariff that we're regulated by, and we decided to basically calculate that increase every year, as opposed to locking it in for a five-year period. When we started to calculate the cost of what that impact fee was gonna be based on our rate base, we were either gonna have to earn more money in years one, two, and three, and then be behind in years four and five, or just be fair with the community and say every year, at the end of the year, we will recalculate it and then let the community know what it is.

So it'll go up by the 5.5%?

It will not go up by the 5.5%. It goes up by, and I apologize for not having the ordinance, it is a calculation based on 5-8's customer equivalents, you know, multiplied by 50% of the rate base. It's all spelled out in the tariff language. Currently, right now, it's a little bit less than the 1,400. What we have decided to do is, in year one, keep it at 1,400. And then next year it will likely be recalculated and be somewhere in the $1,600 to $1,700 per customer. It's all based on the amount of capital that we spend going into the system.

Understood. I appreciate that clarification. Yeah, because I didn't see it as a footnote on this slide where our materials had something.

It was something that we had taken out kind of in the 11th hour. But it is all in the ordinance language. It kind of spells out what we used to calculate that.

Appreciate that. All right. I'll just redirect to Ms. Wachtkar for a minute. Ms. Wachtkar, do you have any additional details on the negotiations, how it went, your thoughts on the rate increases?

I'm sorry.

I think the question was directed to the service director, but I will tell you that Mr. Weavey and I were the ones that were in the room.

Oh, you were? Yeah. Okay.

So, Mr. Weavey, did you hear the question?

No, I didn't. I'm sorry.

Can you speak a little more directly into the mic, please?

YEAH, SO I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, RIGHT, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, HOW THE NEGOTIATIONS PROGRESS, IF YOU FEEL LIKE WE'RE AT THE RIGHT PLACE WHERE WE SHOULD BE, AND, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL STEPS THAT WE NEED TO COMPLETE ON.

From past experience, basically, we've always tried to stay below the PCO amounts, and it seems like it works. We were trying to do this simultaneous with the other communities. Massillon has agreed to this as well. I don't know if you've been to the Hills and Dells, but they do ask that everybody in that block where they're serving, Stark Regional Division, has agreed. And I do think we're pretty much at that point that if you look at it, the 5.75 might sound a lot, but if you look at it by cost... it's not a lot of dollars going up if you if you think about it that way per month does that make sense i mean it does i mean i mean when i think about inflation right it's running about three four three five now so five five to five seven five does seem a little high it it does but i again if you look at the cost per the monthly user cost going up the value of the dollar if you will in those months My personal opinion is not that much, and you compare it to other costs of certain things, and you're looking at water, being there potable water that you use every day, it's not a huge cost. I mean, and Aqua has done a lot of different things. that have tried to help people. I wanna go out there and talk about watering lawns and things like that with a separate type of system. They're not trying to get your meter to spin to grab everything. It's talking about potable water, the water you use every day. And I think that's where the system tends to work with what they call a locally negotiated versus a PUCO negotiated.

I appreciate that. I do understand from Mr. Smith's discussion that increasing reliability of the system, increasing capacity, so helping existing customers, because I guess that would be the next thought, right? Well, this rate goes to existing customers with the service they have, but you're actually increasing the reliability of the current system.

Yeah, this is really just, you know, like I said, to expand. And that's the biggest driver of this rate increase is the plant expansion and, you know, trying to make sure we stay ahead of all the emerging contaminants, PFAS, microplastics, anything that, you know, might be coming down the pike. You know, as we do this next plant expansion, you know, we're tasking our engineers with making sure that to the best of their ability, we're going to be able to meet and exceed, you know, any of those regulatory requirements.

And I appreciate that. Yes.

You had mentioned in one of the emails a copy or I guess some insight into the rate increase history, which I have pulled up here. Essentially, we've averaged about 4% from 1982 to date. And the ones that I wanted to highlight We really do try to be conscious with affordability and what we're earning. In 2019 and 2020, we were under contract with the city for a 3.25% increase because of some tax law changes at the federal level. We actually came back to the community and renegotiated a 0% rate increase and a 2% rate increase, and then a 2% rate increase after that. We do try to follow within those guidelines to the best of our ability. You know, the PUCO sets. pretty much a strict ceiling on what we're allowed to earn, and they do audit all of our numbers. So when possible, we try to give those rates back. And the other thing I wanted to note was the last plan expansion that we went through was in the 90s. And just to show that it's not unseen, we were at 6.9% during that construction period, that three-year contract. Okay.

Makes sense. I appreciate that context.

Okay.

Well, I think you've answered all my questions very, very well. Anyone on council have questions?

Mr. Brandenburg, I have a few questions, comments, or just thoughts in general here on the topic. So in my ward, we still have a lot of areas that are well and septic oriented. So I'm in the northwest quadrant of the city. So you have Tamarack Estates and you have sort of the Tahiti, Bali, Samoa area. I know that at one point there was a project in that part of the city that was advancing, but it seems like it died a slow death, maybe because of lack of interest by the residents at that area. Generally, I think, as all of us, as we walk around and talk to residents through campaigning and stuff like that, you have groups of people that are like, I want, you know, especially where there's no water and sewer. It's like we want water and sewer. We want water and sewer. OK, but then you have the other group of people that they're like, we don't want water and sewer. They're very happy with their well and septic. Right. And so we have, you know, which is what I hear in my meetings. my section of the city, but we're also sitting in a zone where we have peoples whose wells and their septic system have reached the end of their useful life. Some people have invested already in the new infrastructure, and others don't. And so since you have the two groups of people, if you've already invested in a well and you've already invested in it, I don't have any interest, whatever. And so there's been policies that set forth for some of these things like we need like 60% of the people if we want to run in these directions or whatever it is. I don't know exactly what the numbers are, but I would say that I think it's important to the long-term health of the area of the city that I'm talking about that we get the water lines extended in those areas because we are going to be having problems into the future. And I'm sort of sitting here as you're looking at the rates and doing the numbers and whatever. And so I have two properties in Ward 4. They both happen to be well in septic properties. And as I look at the rates that are out there today, I spend as much money per month on my softening system and my salt as what it would cost me to have potable water. Salt is now like eight bucks a bag at Home Depot, and I got to go through five bags of salt. So eight and five is 40 bucks right there in salt, and then I have a softening system that you know, if you were to buy it new now, it's going to cost me $2,000, $3,000 or more. And then you drop the well on top of that. A new well for any of these people could be $5,000, $10,000, $12,000, right? When my well pump goes out and I got to call up Donna Mark to come out and they got to pull it and put a new pump in, that's $1,500 to $1,700, right? It's like, if you do the math... the services you're providing is very reasonable and very affordable, right? And so I try to promote to the citizens in this area, if they call or they ask questions, it's like, guys, they're like, oh, I don't have a water bill. I don't want this. I don't have a water bill. But if you really sat down and thought, think about it, it's just you're spending more money than you would if you had a public service. And so I would like to find a way where we can overcome that by getting to getting a system and get the system in place, at least on the main drags. It's like getting it downcast and you can connect over to New Franklin that you're serving as well. Get it up main, get it closer so that I think at some point the numbers work better for everybody and they can start, you know, the capital investment just, it, it, it, You can get more customers. Their wells are going to go bad. They're going to eventually see, as soon as they've got to replace their system, they're going to be like, oh my goodness. But without pushing that, this is all about policy. I'd like to see the policy of getting those extensions in place to be sort of a lower commitment number, if that makes sense.

I know there's a lot of challenges here. That has. Working with Aqua over the years, it has been. East Caston, Cottage Grove Road, putting the mains right at the entrance to the neighborhoods. But getting the neighborhood's interest tends to not be there, just like you said. these are the dollars that that aqua has kind of provided to the city to say let's get through the city and we one of the projects that we've asked them to do to lower the cost of southwood was to reimburse us for the cost of water lines along southwood so at the end of the day that will come back to the city once everything's done We're trying to run these and some of them are things they need to do like the redundancy under I-77 and they need their pressure. They've got a lot of other calculations going into this. We're looking at these as how do we get at the doorstep of a neighborhood? And just recently we had a discussion about another run and it was can you help us? And it gets real complicated to try to get people's interest there sure i want water and then how much is it going to cost me and that's kind of where everybody loses their interest okay it's like because again when it's it's no different than any startup you've got to make a tap you've got to run your your own line into your house and do those things and yet they're worried about the monthly bill but it's it's also that plumbing work that needs to get it to your house And I agree with you that it's still a good deal. However, getting through that when it seems to be free, and I'm not saying it is, but it's a hard one. But that's what we've been working with from a planning standpoint over the years. is how do we get this at everybody's doorstep? I mean, the doorstep of a neighborhood, not at their doorstep. So their position that if something is needed, they can go into a neighborhood and do what they need to do if something happens in that neighborhood. Or whatever may occur. So we've been working was been great to work with in that regard. South would West airport drive a lot of projects. That they've done for both economic development purposes, but also the East casting. I can't remember the street either that went up to Samoa. Okay. And things like that to try to get. further north, and Moore Road was another one to get all the way across the northeast section of Green. So they've been working with us. That capital helps us grow. It actually puts this at the doorstep of these neighborhoods, and that's what we've been trying to do. But we've got to have the interest to get into the neighborhood.

That's all. Thank you, Wayne. And so, I mean... The point I want to make for anybody that's listening is nobody wants rate increases. But the reality is it's still very affordable. The cost of doing business for everybody is going up. And so the cost of putting water lines in the ground is increasing. The cost of treating water is increasing. And everything that goes about it is whatever. So that is still very affordable. you know, then I guess the second point is the point of all of us that are unwell and septic is that if you really do the numbers, right, If you look at the long-term costs of having that system that you pay for and maintain, it's not less expensive than having public water. It just isn't. And so, as people approach me, I'll preach that because ultimately it'll be a slow burn to try to make this happen for the people that really want it because of everything that we've discussed. but we have to do a better job of making the case, right? And so that's my comments. Mr. Brandenburg, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Noble. Mr. Humphrey. Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg. Since I haven't been on council since 2019, it's been a while since I've been through one of these. So explain to me the negotiation process and what other options we have, if any, when we, when we come to a utility like providing water? Is it a single provider system and we negotiate with the single provider? I just want to understand what that process looks like.

Are you asking me, Mr. Humphrey? I thought I interpreted the gaze that way. So the reality is the city doesn't have a lot of options. These gentlemen and the company they represent are our provider, and we can either take the private rate that they offer, or we can go to PUCO, P-U-C-O, and P-U-C-O is higher. So of our two options, we're taking the lower rate, They have some burden to justify their rate, and they did that with us by explaining the level of infrastructure investment that they need to make the system work, to improve their output, to reach more people. And given our limited options, that's the rate we would take because it is the lesser rate available.

Okay, thank you. That answers my question.

Anyone else on council? Mr. Newt Bauer.

Mr. Brandenburg, I just wanted to point out the rates shown in our legislation don't match what they had on the screen because these rates are by cubic feet. A cubic foot is 7.5 gallons, and so they've made conversions. So even though the rates up there were 866, the rate they're showing in our table is 648. That's because that's in cubic feet, and that's the rate for 160. CUBIC FEET. So they did the conversions. And the other thing I wanted to point out that when they say the first 5,000 cubic feet are at the higher rate and the 3,900 gallon example they used was 10 times lower than, so you'd have to use 10 times more water to reach that lower tier of $5.06 per cubic feet. But I just wanted to point it out to council why those rates are different. And they've added in the... they've added in the monthly fee also into their calculation to arrive at the numbers you saw on the screen. I was doing math when you guys were having that discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Muge-Bauer.

Yep.

Are there any members of the public who would like to speak this evening on this ordinance? Okay. Hearing none, I'll move to close the public hearing. Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg. Appreciate that. Okay, moving on to our agenda is the reading of correspondence.

Okay, we have the Planning Department's July 2026 Financial Summary, Summit County Sheriff's July 2026 Activity Reports, the August 4th, 2026 Veterans Advisor Commission Meeting Agenda, and the August 12th, 2026 Civil Service Commission Meeting Agenda, and that is all.

Thank you, ma'am. Next is new legislation for the first time in a long time. There is nothing to be read in. So we will go on to our report of council committees, starting with finance chair by Mr. Humphrey.

Thank you, Mr. President. We just met briefly this evening. We didn't have any items of legislative business. I did provide a report that we received a memorandum from our director of finance, Director Goodrich. regarding the city's investment policy statement requiring a review. That review has been completed. Council will be provided with quarterly reports, and that annual review will be part of the finance process. Other than that, we had no items of older new business, and we adjourned at four minutes after the hour.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. Next committee to report is Environment and Parks, chaired by Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. President.

Again, all members are present in the Environment and Parks Committee. Although we had no legislation, we did not have any old or new business. There was a brief discussion on the 20% discount at Raintree on Sundays after 1 p.m. and also that our residents... 14 and under golf for free if accompanied by an adult. Other than that, no discussion in committee, and so officially we did not meet.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. Public Safety did meet tonight. It was myself, Mr. Humphreys, Vice Chair, and Mr. Neugebauer. We did have an item of legislation on the agenda. It is on its fifth reading. This is 2026-R26AAA. A resolution authorizing the City of Greene 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 to enhance services within the City of Greene and declaring an emergency. This was introduced back in May. Again, we're on our fifth reading of this. This is to continue our contract with Summit County Sheriff's Office regarding 14 flock cameras within our city limits. The service is $84,000 over two years. We've had extensive amount of discussion on this matter. Basically, at our last meeting, we had amendments to the contract. These amendments are as follows. Basically, the city requested a couple amendments. The county agreed to a few of them, and here they are. The first one is that data and footage may not be retained or released for revenue-generating purposes. Two, the county will comply with policy number 4.8.0, topic license plate reader. And three, any changes to the contract between the county and FLOC or changes in use as a result of technological developments must be timely reported by the county to the city. So we discussed these during our regular committee meeting earlier. There were some comments from members of council. I did propose some issues I had with updated terms and conditions that will be coming to flocks cameras in the near future. Throughout this whole process, we've been talking with the county with regards to certain changes we could make to this contract to better reflect the values of this council and the community we serve. There were some issues that I brought up pertaining to privacy, as well as issues with the actual contract language between the county. Mr. Mager, Spate, and others brought up other potential issues as well. That being said, there was plenty of good information about how they're useful tools to our sheriff's offices as well. With that, I'm trying to think if there's anything else to really add. Members of committee and council gave their two cents tonight and I THINK WE'RE AT A FINAL POINT WHERE WE FEEL LIKE IT'S RIPE FOR A VOTE, SO THE COMMITTEE DID CONCUR TO BRING IT TO A VOTE TONIGHT, AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT 2026-R26AA.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT 2026-R26AA. Is there any discussion?

Mr. President. Mr. Maker. Thank you. As I stated in committee, I think this is a valuable tool for our Sheriff's Department. I think our Sheriff's Department does a great job. I have no issue about the privacy or legality concerns regarding the use of fly cameras as long as they're in the right of way in these facing public streets and collecting the exact data of license plates and car characteristics as they come through and out the city. My issue is and continues to be the contract and the lack of input that the city has with that contract because it has to go through the county. For those of you listening, we subcontract the Summit County Sheriff's to provide our policing duties through the county, but their cars stay green on them, proudly serving the city of Green. um we made several suggestions i the two big ones for me i don't really necessarily agree with everything we asked for but the two one big things for me were one if there's any changes the contract that has to come back to the city for our approval that was rejected by the county the second is if flock wherever to be acquired change of control we have a right to terminate the contract the city of green are 82 000 over two years span that was rejected however the counties thought that was a good enough idea that they want to put that in their contract so they're asking for that exact thing in their contract I feel strongly that this contract is better apt to be between us, the City of Green, and Flock. I don't like the fact that we have to go through the county for changes, many of which I doubt they even presented to Flock on our behalf. And since we're paying for it, the contract should be between the City of Green and Flock. I know that presents a lot of other issues with respect to how that is managed, but I strongly feel that the contract we have is not good for the city. So for that reason, I'll be voting against this piece of legislation.

Mr. Mager, any other comments from members of council?

Mr. President?

Mr. Humphrey?

Yeah, the only thing I want to add is, first of all, I thought the debate was particularly good and helpful to outline kind of both sides of the issue. And I just want to say it's really refreshing to serve on a council that that can have principled disagreements in the way that we did and understand that people are on different sides of the issue and yet have the kind of collegial debate that we had. And so I just want to commend everyone for the nature of the debate and the way it proceeded. So that's all I had to say.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. Mr.

Spate.

Mr. Noble. Yeah, thank you as well. So I've thought long and hard about this piece of legislation, and I think to all the points that have been made here this evening. And for me, right, I believe it's a tool for law enforcement that is... It's a needed tool for law enforcement, right? You see all over the place how they're using it today and how useful it is, okay? So I don't have any concerns about... the tool itself, and I would echo some of the things that Mr. Humphrey said earlier today about privacy and things of that. I had a concern about the checks and balances of the officers and how they were using it in light of some of the things that have come out in the news. Some of the county sheriff's office has come out with a policy And I think the policy is a good policy that assuages my concerns about how we're using it here locally. However, the big thing for me is contractual. So the cost of entry for Summit County is through the City of Green's taxpayers almost exclusively. I think Mr. Spate said it earlier in a much more eloquent fashion. But the county, through the City of Green contract, is really getting the benefit of of the flock system all the way across the county. And the reality is that because of that, there should be a shared costing system that isn't just really sitting on the shoulders of the citizens of Greene for something that really is being used broader by law enforcement across this county. And because of these contractual natures and this notion of our budget and how we are, and how basically we're paying for it for the betterment of the county, I think we need a different, we just need a different system of payment, a different system of how this thing is being realized across the county. And so because of that, almost exclusively because of that issue, I'm not going to support this here tonight. If the sheriff came back, or if the county, I should say the county came back, with something where they said, hey, we will participate in this at a much higher level. I'm going to throw out 50-50. I don't know what it is, but if they came back and the county shared these costs, I would have a different opinion on it. But at this point, with us shouldering this full the full cost for something that's used across the county it really becomes a contractual stamp a contractual issue and that's where my concern lies and that's where my concern lies exclusively

Thank you, Mr. Noble. Any other comments or questions?

Mr. President.

Mr. DeVitas.

Thank you. I will say I will not be supporting this legislation either in its current state. To echo Mr. Mager's points as well as Mr. Noble's, I think there's a lot of issues with just how this contract is being dealt with how we have a Disjointed nature because we have to go through Not we don't work directly with the sheriff's office. We work with the county who's contracted with the Flock itself. We don't have that direct link to flock. I think that lends to a lot of Issues with managing how this contract plays out in our city I think Mr. Mager had a great point with, you know, in the event that the company is sold or shareholders change or whatever, that we should have a way out, being the ones footing the bill, taking the burden of this on our taxpayers. The county pretty much hijacked that idea, and I think it's a good one, so I understand why they did it. But to ask us to pay for it and not give us that right, it doesn't sit well with me. That being said, I mean, our city's trying to tighten its purse strings up, trim the fat where it can, and while $41,000 a year might not seem like a significant amount, every little bit counts right now. So I would like to, if we're going to ask our taxpayers to carry the burden of a cost for this project, which, as Mr. Noble said, is really a county-wide project, then this board... that represents those residents should have a significant say in the implementation of that tool within our city limits. So that's my two cents with regards to the contract itself. With regards to the actual technology, I know I might sit in a different on some of the other members on this board, but I do have significant reservations with that as well. I think we've seen, I had concerns in 2024 when this first came to us, but I did support it back then. I really believed we could balance public safety with the rights of the people we served. Unfortunately, I feel like as time goes on, I'm seeing less and less confidence in that from FLOC. It's not just a simple snapshot of a license plate. This is a semi-permanent searchable record of every vehicle that drives through the city. And the data, while it's retained by the customer, which is the sheriff's office, there's a lot of language that gives FLOC the rights to this data. Their newest terms and conditions have simply removed the statement that they that FLOC does not own and shall not sell customer data. The new statement says they have a perpetual irrevocable license to use customer data to support and improve its products and services, even after a city terminates its relationship and loses access itself. FLOC also retains the exclusive control on the method, timing, format, and medium of access to this data that's supposedly the customer's. Liability protections for the company have been expanded. That burden's been shifted onto the customer or us in this situation. And, you know, these are not minor contractual changes. These are not minor shifts in how the data is used. They've significantly changed the wording that gives us less and less protection. I feel like we've seen through numerous cases throughout the country of this technology being abused. I don't think that our sheriff's office would do that. But, you know, clearly there is a potential for that. I would like to avoid any potential risks like that until there's, you know, a higher power legislation such as from the state house that governs how this tool can be effectively used to the benefit of law enforcement within our communities. We've seen that their data has been used for the updating of their technological systems that are AI on the back end by sending data to the Philippines, even though they say that we retain it. This might be metadata. This might be some obscure form of the data. But either way, who truly owns it? So I don't see a positive trend in the language that Flock is using. I think that we're seeing this throughout the nation, as many cities reconsider where they stand on this issue. Um, I believe even streets borough as of last night canceled their contract for similar reasons. Um, so it's not a mistrust of our sheriff's office. It's, it's really just in my opinion, a downward spiral of the trust with flock themselves and how ALPRs are used, um, as a tool for law enforcement agencies. So, um, Ben Franklin warned us, those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither. So I think that kind of sums up where I'm at. I want to protect our residents' privacy and liberties, and I want to have a working relationship with the county where they actually respect our taxpayers and respect this board and the changes that we want to see. So I cannot support this at this time.

Thank you, Mr. DeVitas. Any other comments or questions from council?

Mr. Spade.

Mr. Brandenburg. It's a brief one here.

So it's been a very detailed discussion over the last several weeks, and there's been a lot of great facts presented. I've been compelled to do a lot of research on my own as well. I think what it really came down to for me, though, is the sheriff is our law enforcement in the City of Green. The cameras reside in the City of Green, and the sheriff, in their presentation initially, described a lot of examples where Green residents and others in the very close neighboring communities have been benefited by these cameras and their presence. And for that reason, I'm going to support this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Nujabara.

Yeah, I think our residents in green value safety and I don't think the cost, in fact, I can't find, I'm not looking for a reason to vote this down. I don't think the cost is prohibitive in a $43 million budget or $45 million budget for sure. I really value the service our sheriff provides. I trust our sheriff, and I will continue to support the initiatives they bring to make our city safe. And I support initiatives that make us and surrounding communities safe together. And sometimes we pay maybe a little more than our share, but I think it's, from the greater community standard, I think it's been valuable to our community, and I would continue to support it.

Mr. Neugebauer. Okay, nobody else? All right, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Okay, Mr. DeVitas. All right, Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. Mr. Noble.

No.

Mr. Spate.

No.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

And Mr. Maker.

No.

Okay, the motion fails, three to four.

Okay, thank you. That was all the items of legislative business before, I'm sorry, public safety tonight. There was no old or new business brought forth to the committee, and we adjourned.

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. The Planning Community Economic Development Committee did have a number of items of legislation this evening, and we did meet. The first of which is 2026-10AA, 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 Greene furtherance of Senate bill 264 Megan's way out okay so this is a it's a planning and planning a planning development change that's related to drive-through facilities in the city of green The impetus of this change is really to improve the safety of drive-throughs moving forward to allow bypass lanes. So if anybody is within a drive-through, they have the opportunity to get out of line at a moment's notice. The latest version of this has made some clarifications on two-lane drive-throughs where we're not having double bypass lanes but maximizing the opportunity for double drive-throughs through the design. Planning and Zoning did approve this 5-0. And so at this point, I'm going to make a motion to adopt 2026-10AA.

Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026-10AA. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas.

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer.

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

And Mr. Mager. Yes. Yes, OK, 2026 dash 10 is adopted as amended 70.

Thank you Mr Spade. I do want to interrupt my report right now. We do have some people here that want to speak related to the last piece of legislation, so I think we have the parents of Megan Kellerman here today that want to speak about the legislation that we just got through.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KELLY. MEGAN'S MOM. MEGAN WENT TO CSU AND SHE WROTE FOR THE ODYSSEY FOR CLEVELAND STATE. SHE WROTE ME AN ARRICLE AND IT WAS TITLED, WHEN YOU GIVE A GIRL A STRONG MOM, SHE WROTE, BECAUSE OF HER YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CAN CONQUER THE WORLD. Megan's conquering the world. We are doing what Megan didn't have that day. A way out. The picture of Megan here. I think it was her freshman year of college. And as you can see in the picture, she's got her Louis Vuitton shoes on. She told me she was going to buy these shoes. And I said, what? Are you crazy? I knew how expensive they were. And she said, Mom, she goes, I'm going to do it. I'm going to buy these shoes, and I'm going to walk across the stage when I graduate. I said, no, you're crazy. I said, you need to put your money in the bank and save it. You don't need those shoes. Megan was showing me her independence and her will and her drive. And we're going to turn this pain that we have into purpose. So thank you for being a part of it.

My name is Nick Caliban. I'm the father of a Megan Caliban. I just had a prepared statement I wanted to read really quick for you guys. We are humbled, grateful, and honored to the city of Greene for adopting Megan's way out. We truly appreciate communities like Greene who realize the importance of safety in public spaces and making it a priority to have safe drive-throughs. The drive-through with two lanes or a bypass lane is much safer than a constricted one-lane drive-through. The two-lane drive-through provides freedom and the ability to escape a hostile and threatening situation. The two-lane drive-through allows anyone at any time the ability to leave for a personal matter regardless of the importance. The two-lane drive-through provides adequate room for EMS and police to provide life-saving procedures. or offer any type of assistance based on any circumstance. We're grateful for all the council members, the mayor, and the community of Greene for passing Megan's Way Out. Our hope is to continue having you support us by working with us to have more communities know how to adopt the Megan's Way Out. With your support, we can reach the goal of hopefully one day making Megan's Way Out a state law. I mean, I want to appreciate for all you guys doing green and supporting our cause, protect and make people feel safe. I just want to add that Friday is going to be the two-year anniversary of Megan's loss, of us losing Megan. And to have something like this occur today... Our pain is insurmountable. It's never going to go away, but something like this with a group of people we don't know but are advocating for us truly makes it a little better, and we want to thank you, and God bless you. Megan thanks you as well. Thanks.

Thank you. All right. We have a couple of other items that were on second reading this evening, the first of which is 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 the improvements from real property taxation for 30 years and declaring an emergency. So this is a TIFF item of legislation related to the new Chick-fil-A that is being constructed on Arlington Road. And I think the value that we said was around $3 million. This item is on second reading. So at this point, I'm going to ask for time on 2026-20. Time will be granted. The next item is also on second reading. It's 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, be a public purpose, exempting 100% of the value of improvements from real property taxation for 30 years and declaring an emergency. So this is also a TIF adjacent to City Hall over here for a new commercial building that is being constructed over there. And again, it's a 30-year, 100% TIF associated with the TIF in this general area. This is also on second reading. And so at this point, I'm going to ask for time on 2026-21. Time is granted. That concludes our legislation. We didn't have any old or new business, and our committee adjourned at 5.40 p.m.

Thank you, Mr. Noble. Our next committee to meet this evening is Rules and Personnel, which I chair. Myself, Mr. Mager, and Mr. Brandenburg were all here. We did have legislation, so we met this evening. First item on third reading was 2026.16, an ordinance amending section 34.13, Veterans Advisory Commission of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Green. This legislation allows us to add two additional members to the Veterans Advisory Commission per their request. That'll bring them up to a total of seven members. And yeah, basically the mayor gets to appoint one of those positions, council will get to appoint the other, and they will serve various terms on that commission. At this time, this is third reading, so I would make a motion to pass 2026-16. Second. We have a motion and a second for 2026-16. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

Mr. Mager.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Nujabar.

Yes.

Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

And Mr. Brandenburg. Yes. Okay, 2026-16 is adopted 7-0.

Thank you, ma'am. The next item of legislation is 2026 17 and ordinance creating the position of accounts payable clerk in the finance department, establishing compensation and emergency. This is basically changing the job description for one of the positions in the finance department. We had some good conversation during committee about this. And at this time, I would make a motion to pass 2026-17. Second. We have a motion and a second for 2026-17. Is there any discussion? Mr. President. Mr. Humphrey.

Yeah, I want to just address this very quickly because I'm not going to be supporting the next piece of legislation, but I believe that there's a fairness issue here in the finance department that this piece of legislation is kind of solves because it creates a position that recognizes the duties that are actually being performed in the office, and that does merit a higher rate of pay as a result of that position, and so I'll be supporting this.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. Any other comments? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. Mager?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas?

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer?

Yes.

Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

And Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

Okay. 2026-17 is adopted 7-0.

Thank you, ma'am. Next item is 2026-18, an ordinance creating the position of member services clerk in the service department, establishing compensation, and declaring an emergency. This would be creating a position over at the core. It's sort of a hybrid position between the core and the finance department to help with day-to-day operations in both departments. We had some good discussion about this in committee, so at this time, I make a motion to adopt 2026-18. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026-18. Is there any discussion?

Mr. President.

Mr. Humphrey.

I'm going to be voting against this tonight, and the reason is, you know, we have a situation with the Corps. The Corps is new. Everybody's trying their best to make it work. There's a real question in my mind whether it made sense in the first place to build this facility. Currently, we have about $74,000 in revenues, and that's against about $1.7 million in expenses. It takes about $1 million a year to service just the debt on the core, and in addition to that is about $1 million a year that we're essentially paying toward the schools for the community learning centers. two million dollars out of a budget our size is pretty significant and the Operating loss that we're experiencing even though we're new I really don't think that we have a flight path to get anywhere near profitability and when I thought about an equivalent of this if if we were getting reports on rain tree that we purchased and we were losing $1.63 million a year, I think that we would immediately close it. We would find another use for it because it just wouldn't be economically feasible. Fortunately, Raintree is operating on a break-even basis, reinvesting into the property, and I think that that's good. But I don't think that we can... be fiscally responsible and add another position to this core facility and feel good about it. So for those reasons, I'm going to be voting no.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. Is there any other discussion from members of council?

Mr. President.

Mr. Brandon Burton.

Thank you, Mr. Pate. I'd just like to say, right, that when we signed the contract with the schools, it was clear in the contract that the schools are responsible for allocating the expenses. They bill us for utilities of all different kinds and security services and all the various things that go into the operation of the Corps. I know the argument's been made, right, that we need somebody to manage rentals and we need somebody to manage membership. We've already gone through a strong membership process DRIVE AND PERIOD. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF THOSE WILL CONTINUE AND THAT THE EXPRESSED DESIRES FOR THOSE TO INCREASE. I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT THIS PARTICULAR POSITION AS AN ACCOUNTING TYPE POSITION WOULD BE NECESSARY AT THE CORE AT THIS TIME, THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT PARK STAFF IN OTHER AREAS TO PROMOTE THE CORE AND TO, FOR THAT REASON AND THE EXPENSE THAT COMES ALONG WITH THIS, I'LL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT AS WELL.

Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Maker. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Brandenburg and Mr. Humphrey bring up good points. I'll be voting in favor of this piece for the main reason is the Corps is an asset to our community. I feel like this position, as expressed to us through administration, is a needed position. It frees up. people from accounting and clerical roles to do more programming, to help with the recruitment drive, especially for the silver sneakers. I fear that if we don't invest in this asset, that the asset will wither and die. And I think by creating this position, we continue to grow it. I think it's got strong numbers. It's still got a long way to go. But I think it's way too soon for us to start stymieing the growth of the Corps. So for that reason, I will be voting in favor of this.

Thank you, Mr. Mager. Any other comments from council? Okay, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Okay, Mr. Speight.

Yes.

Mr. Mager.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas.

Yes.

Mr. Nugent.

No.

Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey.

No.

And Mr. Brandberg.

No.

Okay. 2026-18 is adopted 4-3.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. That was all our legislation this evening. We did have an executive session to discuss collective bargaining matters, and our committee adjourned at 646. Next committee to report this evening is Transportation, Connectivity, and Stormwater, chaired by Mr. Mager.

Thank you, Mr. President. All members were present. We did meet as there was one piece of legislation before us, and that was 2026 R38, a resolution awarding a contract to Kunkel & Sons for the 2026 miscellaneous concrete REPAIRS PROJECT AND ACCORDING TO EMERGENCY. THIS PROJECT IS A MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIR THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR THIS PROJECT WAS $160,000. OF THE SEVERAL BIDS THAT WE RECEIVED, CONKLIN SONS WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS UNDER THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AT A BASE BID OF $126,716. Because they had the lowest base bid, the alternatives don't have to be the lowest, but they were as follows. Alternative number one was $4,700. Alternative number two was $2,300. Alternative number three was $3,125. Alternative number four was $4,932. And alternative number five was $9,612. Alternative number six was $754.80. I have spoken out publicly about the workmanship, craftsmanship of this particular contractor in the past. In my discussions with administration, as we discussed in committee, I was reassured that they would definitely have a pre-construction meeting to kind of go over expectations, quality, and follow-up. I was relieved to hear that this stuff was brought to attention before, and this is one of the few contractors, a contractor that was willing to listen and work with us to make sure that these issues don't continue to happen and address the community's concerns. So with that reassurance from this administration, I'm willing to give me personally, this contractor, one more shot at being approved as the lowest and best contractor for our construction or concrete repairs to the city. So for that, I'll be making a motion to adopt 2026-R38. Second.

We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026-R38. Is there any discussion? Adam Clark, please call the roll.

Mr. Mager?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas?

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer? Yes. Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

All right. 2026-R38 is adopted 7-0.

That concluded our items of legislation before us. We did receive a robust summary of upcoming... Traffic concerns are on the Arlington Road corridor, so if you'd like to hear the closures and some updates regarding some area construction projects, please go back and listen to committee. And with that, we are adjourned at 6.56 p.m.

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

Mr. President, Mr. Noble, Mr. Mager, and I met to read in legislation that we discussed at public hearing this evening. That legislation is 2026-19, an ordinance authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with Aqua Ohio Inc. At our public hearing, we discussed extensively, we received a presentation from Sean Smith of Aqua, Ohio. We had a number of questions answered during that discussion. We cannot vote on the legislation this evening, so I'll ask for time.

Time will be granted.

We had no other items of legislation, no items of old and new business, so we adjourned.

Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg. Our final committee to report this evening is the Committee of the Whole, chaired by Mr. Neugebauer.

Thank you, Mr. President. Committee of the Whole was assembled to go over the proposed charter changes that was brought forth by the Charter Review Commission. And at this point, I'd like to thank the Charter Review Commission for their work. They spent a lot of evenings in this building talking about every detail that's discussed in our charter, and I really appreciate their work. And these are the items they brought forward. The first item will not go on the ballot. This is a non-substantive changes to our charter. Basically, words or basically words that may not mean today what they were meant to mean or change of articles. And so I'm gonna read this in. This is Resolution 2026-R30A, 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 an Emergency. Again, these are just minor edits that was determined that didn't really affect the language of the charter, but just kind of brought it to a more modern language. At this time, I'd like to make a motion to adopt 2026 R30 as amended August 11th, 2026.

Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026 R30 as amended. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Neubauer?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas? Yes. Mr. Noble? Yes. Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

And Mr. Maker? Yes. All right. 2026-R30 is adopted as amended 7-0.

Thank you. Next is Resolution 2026-R31A. 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 to add strong to the form of government description and declaring an emergency. um we had a little discussion on this one um and i guess i'll give my opinion here uh as not as the fact or as representing of all council but uh my opinion was um you know generally council doesn't oppose uh changes by the recommended by the charter review commission however i have voted in the past not to approve one and i'll probably do so on this one I think maybe it might be a little misleading to attempt this the way our Charter Review Commission did. There could be some interpretation that our Form isn't strong mayor and adding the word may may be a bit misleading It certainly could cause confusion to those who who may not understand What the words in our charter mean? And other than adding a word really adding that word doesn't change anything about how our charter charter operates or or informs the city about our operations and So at this time, I'd like to make a motion to adopt Resolution 2026-R31 as amended today, August 11th, 2026.

Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026-R31A. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Okay. Mr. Neugebauer?

No.

Mr. Spate?

No.

Mr. DeVitas.

No.

Mr. Noble. No. Mr. Humphrey.

No.

And Mr. Brandenburg.

No.

And Mr. Rager.

No.

All right. Motion fails.

Okay, next on our agenda is Resolution 2026-R32, 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. Again, this is just coming to the modern age of communication. No longer do we send letters or tape something to your door, but we use this system called email to distribute meeting notices to council members. At this point, I'll make a motion to adopt Resolution 2026-R32.

Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026-R32. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Neugebauer?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas?

Yes.

Mr. Noble? Yes. Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

Mr. Mager?

Yes.

All right. 2026-R32 is adopted 7-0.

Thank you. Next is Resolution 2026-R33, 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 again this just brings us to the modern era of communication with our residents and at this time i'll make a motion to adopt resolution 2026-r33 second we have a motion in a second to adopt 2026 r33 any discussion

Please call the roll.

Mr. Neugebauer.

Yes.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

And Mr. Maker. Yes. 2026-R33 is adopted 7-0.

Thank you. Next is Resolution 2026-R34, a resolution submitting to the electors of the City of Green a proposal to amend Section 7.4 of the Charter of the City of Green to clarify the powers and duties of the Parks and Recreation Board and declaring an emergency. This item, the Charter Review Commission felt that the Parks Commission didn't really function the way that the Charter said, and I think it's because the Park Commission actually was formed before the Park Board, before our Parks Department. And so over the years, there's been kind of a change in the focus of the board and quite frankly, some of the language was a little misleading as to how it actually works in the city. And so they made this recommended change. At this time, I'll make a motion to adopt Resolution 2026-R34. Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026-R34.

Is there any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Neubauer. Yes. Mr. Spate.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

And Mr. Maker.

Yes.

2026-R34 is adopted 7-0.

Thank you. Next is Resolution 2026-R35, 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 allocation of the annual income tax revenue within the Parks and Recreation Income Tax Fund and declaring emergency. Just briefly, up until this time in our charter, well, I guess most recently, we've been allocating 7% of income tax revenues to park capital expenditures. There was a caveat that I think 15% of those could be used for special programming. And the Charter Review Commission felt that maybe it was time to start backing away from those high levels of investment and focusing a little bit more perhaps on programming and maintenance. And so they recommended this change to up to 40% of the revenues allocated to Parks and Rec. Still the same 7%, but 40% of it then could be used for programs operations and programming. And that's the main change. At this time, I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution 2026R35. Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026R35.

Is there any discussion?

It's a Mr. Brandenburg just want to make one comment about this one. I won't be supporting it. There have been some major changes in the parks budget in the last couple of years. Right with the construction of the core, the approximately $2 million budget has 750,000 earmarked for the core every year. So we've already cut down the amount that's going to be spent for our parks. As Mr. Neugebauer mentioned, 15% is already allocated to programming services, so that makes an additional 25% that's being asked for here of about $500,000. When I looked at the budget over the last many years, we've spent the park capital money every year. Right on baseball diamonds on Park improvements on restroom facilities on any number of things if we change the allocation so that now we have 750,000 going to the core. 500,000 going to expenses that leaves a very small number compared to what we've been in prior years or maintaining the parks in the rain or current condition as we enjoy them now for that reason I'll not be supporting this.

Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg, Mr. Nujaba. Yeah, I just, Mr. Brandenburg, I appreciate your comments and I think those are healthy, but the council's role here is to offer these recommendations of the Charter Review Commission to the voters and let the voters decide. And I think I know how you'll be voting, which is great, and perhaps you'll talk to your friends and get them too. But I think the question really that we're addressing here is should the voters be able to make this decision? And I'm not saying you should change your vote, but I'm just clarifying that that's our role. And it would take three-quarters of us to object to any of these to actually have them not go to the voters. Just for clarification.

I do understand exactly what you're saying, and my support is just that I think the direction of this is not the best way for us to go in changing the charter for all time going forward.

Appreciate that. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Mr. President, I will be supporting this, and I want to make the argument as to why this is a good idea, and it's interesting that it comes on a night where we're talking about the core I suspect if we didn't have this 7% in our charter and we could allocate 40% to maintenance and programming that the council who voted on this probably would have said we're not going to build the core for the very reasons that Mr. Brandenburg just outlined. because it hamstrings us moving forward with a significant amount of debt, a facility that I don't think that we're going to be able to be able to come close to breaking even on. And what happens is, I explained this back in 2012, it's like having a house and somebody says, every year you're going to have to spend 7% of your income to improve that house. And for the first five years, the homeowner's as happy as a clam. They do a new roof, new siding, new air conditioner, new furnace, new carpet, finish the basement. At about year six, they're like, man, it's costing me a lot of money for all of these additions that I'm adding on. It's costing me to maintain all of these things. And what's happened in our parks department over the years is as we have grown as a city, at the beginning, 7% was of a very small number. Now 7% is on a larger number of over $40 million. And so the number that is being expended on parks is much greater. Okay, so when you're a young city, you get a great park system. That's wonderful. But the more things that we build, the more things that we have to care for for the rest of our lives, for the rest of the life of the city. You build any building, any park, any structure, and you're going to have to maintain that. And the down payment is the cost of building that facility. The real expense is what that facility is going to cost you over time. And so we've gotten into a position as a city where we're hamstringing our future based upon the expenditures that we're requiring ourselves to make. And people always get concerned when you talk about this because they have the misimpression if we're not required to spend 7%, then our parks are just gonna evaporate and die. And I'm going to maintain that one of the things that we value in the City of Green is our park system, beautiful park system. Nobody will argue that. I think that it would be politically untenable not to maintain the parks that we have. The only thing that I'm advocating for, and I think that the Charter Commission is advocating for, is being more sensible so that if you want to build something in the parks, you have to consider every other project that is being requested in any given fiscal year. For example, you've got roads that need to be repaved. Well, if you're spending 7% of your income tax revenue on parks, by definition that 7%, none of it can go to maintaining any of your roads. Well, what about if you have a three or four year span where you're falling behind on maintaining the condition of your roads and you have 7% of that large budget that you can't even touch because it has to go to parks? I think under that scenario, we're hamstringing ourselves. And so I think this is a move in the right direction. I think the direction that the commission was going for was ultimately in five years to giving complete flexibility on these dollars And so that's why I'll be supporting it.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. Any other comments? I'll take a moment real quick. I've been pretty quiet about this subject. And I served as chair of the Environment and Parks Committee for four years, and I've seen what they've gone through with trying to work with the administration over helping allocate what needs done and so forth. And I think one thing that's overlooked though is our parks capital funds also goes to improve our parks. Um, the parking lot, parking lot pavings, uh, restroom facilities, any large project that helps to improve our current parks, um, comes out of parks capital and you could easily take that 7% and just improve upon our current park system every year without having to acquire new park lands. And I think there's a misconception that, by a lot of people in the community that feel that seven percent is used to acquire new parks we've done it before we used it to build the core we use it to purchase rain tree many other park systems in green and that's great but it doesn't mean that we have to continue to do that but as mr nuja bauer said we're here tonight to discuss whether we want to put this on the ballot or not as a councilman i'm going to support this and put it on the ballot and let the voters decide I also see the merit behind the administration's desire to have this. As a councilman, yes, we have a very large operating cost, and this additional revenue coming from the Parks Income Tax Fund would definitely help offset the operating costs of the city. As a resident, I probably won't vote in favor of it, but that's not what we're talking about tonight, so when it comes time to vote tonight, I will be supporting this. Any other questions? All right, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Neugebauer?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

No.

Oh, sorry. That should have been Mr. Spate, but thank you, Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Okay. Mr. DeVitas?

Yes.

Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

And Mr. Maker?

Yes.

Okay. 2026-R35 is adopted 6-1.

okay thank you next is resolution 2026 r36 this is a resolution admitting to the electors of the city green a proposal to amend section 9.2 of the charter of the city of green to allow electronic online equivalent as a method of publication for charter review commission recommendations and declaring an emergency and this is similar to the one we did earlier just coming into the current age in notification So at this time, I'll make a motion to adopt 2026-R36.

Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026-R36. Is there any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Neugebauer?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas? Yes. Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

And Mr. Maker? Yes. All right. 2026-R36 is adopted 7-0.

Thank you. And our final item in this committee this evening is Resolution 2026-R37. a resolution submitting to the electors of the City Green a proposal to amend Section 9.2 of the Charter of the City Green to require the City Charter be reviewed every five years and declaring an emergency. The Charter Review Commission felt that with changing times, it seems to be things are changing faster right now and perhaps seven years was too long. They had talked about maybe doing one every mayor term But they settled on five-year term, taking us from what was previously seven years to five years to be more reactive. I've seen cases we talked about earlier of communities that have 10-year. So it's really a local decision when you have a charter government. And this was the recommendation of the Charter Review Commission. So at this time, I'd like to make a motion to adopt Resolution 2026-R37. Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second to adopt 2026R37. Is there any discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Neugebauer? Yes. Mr. Speight?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas?

Yes.

Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

And Mr. Mager?

Yes.

All right. 2026-R37 is adopted 7-0.

Thank you. I want to thank you, President and Council, for selecting me to lead the Committee of the Whole. And I, again, want to commend the Charter Review Commission for their time in this task. It's a selfless job that they do to serve their community, and I really appreciate their efforts. So at this time, our committee was done, and that ends our legislation.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer, for chairing that committee of the whole. I know it was a lot of work. I appreciate you representing council at most of those Charter Review Commission meetings and just really gathering all that information and helping bring it back to us. Okay, we do have an executive session, but I think before we do that, can we get the mayor's report?

I'm sorry to interrupt, but Mr. President, can I make a suggestion? Yes, ma'am. I was the one who requested an executive session to go over a long list of pending and imminent litigation at this hour, and given the robust discussion that I expect that we need to have, I'd like to ask that... COUNCIL TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL SESSION. WE SHOULD HAVE A LOT MORE TIME. YOU GUYS PASSED A LOT OF STUFF TODAY. SO WE SHOULD HAVE A LOT OF TIME IN COMMITTEE THAT WE CAN SPEND THE TIME THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THOSE THINGS.

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS OUR ATTENTION OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS?

NOTHING THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.

OKAY. I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT. THAT MAKES SENSE. SO WE WILL PRESS ON TO THE MAYOR'S REPORT.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. NOPEC is sending refund checks to some accounts in green. I want to make residents aware of an issue involving NOPEC. We were recently informed that an unexpected utility issue caused some green accounts to experience a one-month delay in enrolling into our aggregation program. NOPEC has reviewed each account and is issuing refunds for losses that range from as low as a dollar to as high as $20. But they are establishing a floor. If you lost less than $5, they're sending you a check for $5. If you lost more than $5, you're getting the amount of your loss due to the delay. The checks are being mailed today. Residents do not need to apply or take any action. The letters from NOPEC will include a check issued from G-E-X-A, G-E-X-A, G-E-X-A. So I'm letting people know, we're making that announcement so you can spread the word. If you get a $5 check, it's legitimate. If you receive a letter and a check regarding this issue, go ahead and cash it. Residents may begin to receive letters this weekend or early next week. While the city did not cause this issue, our priority is making sure our residents are treated fairly. We appreciate NOPEC taking these steps to resolve their own issue. If residents have any questions, they can contact NOPEC directly at 855-667-3201. That's 855-667-3201. By way of a zip code update, at the last council meeting I shared that Senator Bernie Moreno joined as a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 4505, the legislation that would establish a unique zip code for green. His co-sponsorship is important because he's on the Homeland Security Committee where the bill currently resides. The update is that since his sponsorship, the legislation has been voted out of committee by a vote of ten to five and is right now for consideration by the whole United States Senate. So that's a mile marker, if you will, that a lot of folks didn't think we'd get to. If I could make the analogy to a football field starting in our end zone, we're about 75 yards down the field. I don't have a timeline yet for when the Senate will consider it, but we will be having a coalition-wide meeting by video conference, and we'll be finding out at that time what the next steps are. In the meantime, residents and businesses in Greene can assist by submitting letters of support of the legislation to our U.S. Senators. We've created an easy way for you to do that by submitting to our website at cityofgreene.org for your convenience. Reminder, voter registration for the November election is Monday, October 5, 2026. Visit the Summit County Board of Election website at summitcountyboe.gov to register. You can nominate a local veteran to be honored at Greens Veterans Day ceremony. It's hard to believe we're talking about that already, but the City of Green Veterans Advisory Commission is accepting nominations to recognize an outstanding local veteran during the city's Veterans Day ceremony on Wednesday, November 11, 2026 at 11 a.m. at Greens Veteran Memorial Park. To be eligible, nominees must be, one, currently a resident of the City of Green, two, have served in the United States Armed Forces, and three, be available to attend the Veterans Day ceremony on Wednesday, November 11th, 2026 at 11 a.m. For folks who haven't gone to our Memorial Day and Veterans Day ceremonies, I think they're some of the finest events that we put on as a city. They are top-notch and, you know, President Speight's ROTC group does an excellent job. It's a real quality community event honoring people who are deserving of honor. So I encourage you to come if you haven't before. Nominations will be accepted through October 30th using the online nomination form at cityofgreen.org slash veterans. Upcoming events, August 12th, that's tomorrow. We're having a night at the Carnival at the Corps. Tomorrow night is the Corps' night at the Carnival for members and guests from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. The evening will feature inflatables, carnival games, face painting, music, food, giveaways, and more. The event also marks the kickoff of the Corps' membership renewal campaign. August 15th, Artapalooza is coming up. Celebrate creativity at Artapalooza, our annual fine arts festival, this Saturday, August 15th, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Butler Park on August 20th. It's that time of year again. Green local schools resumes. We wish all our students and families a great school year. And then on August 24th, I know you'll all be excited to attend the Capital Improvement Plan public meeting. The Capital Improvement Program CIP Committee public meeting is Monday, August 24th at 9 a.m. It's here in these very city council chambers. It will also be live streamed and archived for later viewing on our website. Mr. President, that concludes my report.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right. Is there any unfinished business to come before council? 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. Neugebauer.

Yes.

Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Spate. Yes. Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Mr. Mayer.

Yes.

We are adjourned.