Telecommunications Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the City of Green Committee meeting for Tuesday, 05/12/2026. I'd like to call these meetings to order. First item on our agenda is the approval of minutes. We have TMP five three four two approval of the 04/28/2026 committee meeting minutes. I move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the

roll. Mister Nujibar? Yes. Mister Noble?

Yes. Mister DeVitus? Yes. Mister Spate? Yes. Mister Humphrey? Yes. Mister Brandenburg? Yes. And mister Maker? Yes. Okay. Motion carries.

Thank you, ma'am. And now we will have the meeting of or the the committee meetings starting with the finance committee chaired by mister Humphrey.

Thank you, mister president. We will meet this evening. We have several items of legislative business. Myself, mister Niederbauer, mister Spate are present. The first item of business is twenty twenty six r 21. This is a resolution to enter into an investment advisory agreement with US Bank for investment of public funds as required by resolution 2,019 r 37 adopted 06/11/2019 and declaring an emergency. And for this, I'll recognize our finance director, director Goodrich. Hello. Hello.

So we have an investment account with an investor, Michael McCullough. He is an expert investor. He does school districts and governments solely. He was using UBS as his back office, and he is making the switch to U. S.

Bank. And through my research, I realized that because of the resolution that was passed in 2019, I needed to bring this piece to get counsel's approval for us to move our investment portfolio from UBS to US Bank. We will be using the same investment advisor who has done a very good job for the city. He's very responsive. Any questions I have, he's always looking for the best investments for us and for us to make the most interest on the money that we have invested.

With this move from UBS to US Bank, we're actually going to be saving a little bit of money, which is great. He is able to reduce our annual investment fee. It used to be at 20 basis points. He's able to reduce it to 18 basis points. So that will save us around $4,300 a year. We will not really notice much difference, but asking for counsel's blessing for us to go ahead and move our investment portfolio from UBS over to U. S. Bank.

All right. And all of

those assets are going to transfer over in kind there'll no buying or selling that needs to happen as a result Okay. Of Open it up to committee if you have any questions or comments on this.

Anyone on council? Mr. Humphrey, Mr. Brandenburg one question. So talking about the legislation the twenty nineteen r thirty seven but it was an inadvertent conflict created back in that day. When I did a search just to see if Ameriprise was affiliated with U. S. Bancorp, Mr. Humphrey I know you work for Ameriprise and that was the issue back then too. The answer I got was they're affiliated to a strategic alliance. U. S. Bancorp is a major bank holding company that owns U. S. Bank has significant shares in Ameriprise Financial.

The partnership allows U. S. Bank Corp to leverage Ameriprise's wealth management and financial services. So just based on that response I just wanted to ask the question what work was done what thoughts was put into just confirming that there won't be any lead over if you will or conflict of interest created?

Well, I can tell you we are using the same investment advisor. He's using US Bank as his bank as his back office. So essentially, they're doing they're holding our investments for us, and they're providing the backing to him. We don't have any dealings with Councilman Humphrey and his his dealings with Ameriprise. So, we're keeping our investments with the same person. We're just moving them from UBS to U. S. Bank and we're saving some money while doing that.

Okay. And it's my understanding the only reason there's a change is because he's leaving UBS and going to U. S. Bank. He's moving his practice.

He's moving his practice and he is the only person for UBS in Ohio that did public entity investing. So we actually got assigned a new investment advisor in Michigan who does not have any experience with public entities. So I think it would be in the best interest of the city to actually move our investments, follow our investment advisor, who his sole practice is helping public entities in Ohio invest their funds in compliance with the regulations that we have to follow.

Okay. Thank you.

And I think that the ethics question is whether mister Humphreys is anyway benefits from the relationship. If he personally benefited or his family or benefited of any way financially or otherwise benefited personally then that would be the issue. Right. As long as you're stating that because this is my first time hearing about this so.

No, I don't benefit in any way that the issue before was the advisor worked at UBS, I was also at UBS in a totally separate practice, didn't even know the guy and someone on counsel was trying to imply that I had some kind of conflict of interest. I received no compensation, didn't even know that there was a relationship with the City of Green. I'm the one that initiated the legislation so that if this issue ever came up again it would be revealed so that there was no behind the back dealing.

Okay, I appreciate that extra. Read through the minutes of that last meeting and it didn't clearly say right UBS UBS versus U. S. Bank And I understand in this arrangement right it's where the funds are parked when they're not actively invested. Correct. So right how much of a relationship could there be? But I thought it was asking the question right? Absolutely. Did we look? Did we bet? Just to make sure.

We are following again, this investor has done very well for us. He's decided to, you know, reduce his fee for us based off of The Us having to go through this switch. But ultimately, he said we're going have better reporting with U. S. Bank and we want to maintain our relationship with him.

Understood. I appreciate it. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on this piece of legislation? Any thoughts on going ahead and doing second reading passage on this to get this off the docket?

I'm good with that Mr. Humphrey. Not that I have a

problem with with it. I just think it might be good to wait a or wait to the next meeting just to make sure that there is, I mean, no conflict whatsoever. I guess you would know better than anybody. Is there any potential conflict? We're saying there's none. There's no potential conflict. And law director, we should be good and no issues as far as we know?

No, that's why I asked him the questions so that he could answer that for the public. Okay.

Then, yes, there's no conflict and no issues then I'm good with second reading. Okay. So, Mr. Humphrey, can I clarify? You have

a practice, a financial practice? Correct. That is related to USB? No. Now, I used to be at UBS, went to Ameriprise. And is Ameriprise related to U. S. Bank in

any way? Well, apparently

Richard is saying that they are an investor of some kind or have I don't even know

if U. S. Bank is an investor in Ameriprise. In Ameriprise. Yeah. They're both publicly traded companies. Okay.

So, from my quick Google search it looks like U. S. Bank is one of the partner banks in the Ameriprise insured money market account. So it's yeah. And I just to

be quite honest, I I said for the benefit of the public hearing it, but it's actually also because I'm counsel for the council legal counsel for the council. So that's just a natural question that I would need to ask any council member for their sake as well.

No, I appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. So at the appropriate time we'll move on that piece of legislation. The next piece of legislation we have this evening is a second reading of twenty twenty six r 23. This is a resolution authorizing the funds to enable the mayor to grant salary adjustments to the city of Green non bargaining non bargaining non bargaining employees and I'll recognize director Goodrich again.

Hello. So this is an annual piece that we normally bring. We are bringing it a little earlier than normal. I do have a new payroll clerk and we want to not have to do a retro pay, so that's why you're seeing it a little earlier than you normally would. But this is to award 3.25% increases across the board to our non bargaining employees.

This nearest the AFSCME contract that was negotiated and signed last year. So nonbargaining will be receiving the same amount that our AFSCME employees received on April 1. We are asking for a $113,100. And if you have any questions, myself or the mayor will be willing to answer those.

Okay. Open it up to committee if there's any questions or comments on this.

Mr. Humphrey, if I may. Yes. The spreadsheet that was given to us, there was 3.25% across the board. That's what you intend to do with the dollars that we give you Correct. Last Okay. I know in some years an amount that you could distribute through some merit, but you're doing it all straight.

Mayor, do you want to speak on

that? Well,

Councilman Mujibar might recall about a year ago, I remember you kind of gave this helpful information at the end of this discussion and said that this is across the board's raise, but there are limited circumstances in which a director may exercise judgment to have some fluctuation. So it may differ slightly, but so the spreadsheet we received with the 3.25% raise lifted by employee isn't necessarily what you intend to give. Was just used to establish the amount that you have in your pool. Yes, but it's very close. There would be limited.

Limited. Yeah, was just curious. Yeah. Thank you.

Anyone else have any questions or comments on this? Okay. So, at the appropriate time well, this is second reading so and you're not requesting second reading passage on this? Is that correct?

I'm sorry?

You're not requesting second Okay. Reading We get back to the agenda. Is there any items of the old or new business for finance this evening? Alright, then we'll adjourn at 05:13.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. Our next committee to meet this evening is Environment and Parks chaired by Mr. Niedgebauer. Thank you, Mr. President. All members

are present this evening, myself as chair, President Spade as Vice Chair and Clerk DeVitus. We have no items of legislation. Just briefly, Director Carr, there's a project going on at Betler Park. Looks like maybe doing some trail work to make it a little safer there around the basketball court areas or anything you wanna

They actually finished today. So they did do a connector trail near the basketball hoop actually across the the street road. We put in a sidewalk by the basketball hoop last year and then this one connects basically the trail to go towards out front so that you don't

have to walk on

the road.

Yeah. There's a little area there where you. Yeah. You had to jump on the the driveway. Correct?

And then, yes. Yeah. And then way in the back, our regular Butler Trail, we widen those trails to 10 feet. So, all of those trail, that trail in the back has been widened.

The one over by Southgate?

Yeah, going that direction and that that was all finished today. So you'll see the signs coming down and

Was that in house work all or was it

No, that was through vascular and it was budgeted through a capital budget.

Okay. Thank you for the update. Is there any old or new business to come before council? I guess before that, is there any other questions that anybody would have for Director Carr related to Parks? Okay. Any old or new business? Okay. Since there is none, officially we're not meeting. But thank you for the update.

All right, Eric. Thank you, Mr. Nuejebauer. Our next committee to meet this evening is Public Safety chaired by Mr. De Beas. Thank you, Mr. President. Myself, Mr.

Humphrey, and Mr. Nuejebauer are all present today. Public safety has one item on the agenda, so we will meet. The item today is a license item. This is TMP500344, the Beckley Group LLC, DBA Dopside Grill, d 5 liquor license transfer, 3717 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44232.

So this piece of or this license item that's before us is basically a simple transfer of this d five liquor license from the former Ramp Restaurant LLC, which is on Main Street, just south of the bridge at Portage Lakes there where it becomes Coventry, I believe, on the other side. The Ramp restaurant has been closed for a little over a year now, I think. And this license is going to be transferred to this Bickley Group LLC doing business as Dockside Grill. I think they're anticipated to open pretty soon. Being that this business has been closed for a little while now, I don't think there's anything that we received from the Sheriff's Office regarding any issues with this license.

Basically, these items come before counsel because while the state liquor control board issues licenses and transfers, we have the ability to request a hearing if the counsel determines that it's of the best interest before issuing any new licenses or transfers. So that pretty much sums it up. Again, it's just transferring D5 from the ramp to Bickley Group. So at this time, I'll open it up to the public safety committee for any questions or comments.

Anybody on the council? Mr. DeVitus? Mr. Noble. So I just wanted to say

that this is sits in my ward and as Mr. DeVees indicated, this is the former location of the Ramp Restaurant and he also stated it's been closed for some time. So I think me personally, I'm very pleased to see that we have a new owner in this a new owner taking over the business here and rebranding it. There's a pair of gentlemen that the owners, they're both green residents. So these are the restaurant is owned by or the business, I should say, is owned by two green residents.

Their soft opening is like now. So they're doing soft openings this week by reservation only, invitation. And we expect that they'll be open to the public full time probably next week. I don't know the exact dates. But it's big asset to Ward 4. It's a big asset to the greater Portage Lakes who have been missing dining on the water on our side of the lake. And so with this restaurant getting back open, think it'll be a major benefit to everybody who sits on sort of the green side of the lake. I'm very excited

to see this move forward. Thank you, Mr.

Noble. Any other comments? Okay. Given the lack of concern with this item, I would assume committee would concur. We can move to not hold a hearing. Yes. Okay. So with the concurrence of the committee, we will make a motion to not hold a hearing on this item or request a hearing, I

should say,

during our regular council meeting. So that's all the items that were before us. Before we close committee, is

there any old or new business for safety? Okay. Hearing none, we're adjourned. Thank you, Mr. DeVivis. Our next committee to meet this evening is Planning, Community, and Economic Development chaired by Mr. Noble.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Planning, Community, Economic Development committee does have a number of items to edge list legislation. So, we will meet. Myself, mister Davidis, mister Humphreys are all present.

The first item is on third reading. It's item twenty twenty six dash r 16, a resolution approving the dedication plat for Southwood Drive Phase 2 and declaring an emergency. Again, this is on third reading. So this dedication plat is for what we're going to refer to as the final piece of the Southwood Drive extension. And with the completion of the plat and then the forthcoming roadway improvements, the Southward Drive will be a completed roadway between Tabs Drive and all the way over to Arlington Road.

This picks up at the backside of Jacobs Ridge where the new roundabout sits today and will go to the east. So that is it. Mr. Wethia, is there anything else would you like

to add to this? No, you pretty much covered it. Okay. Anybody on planning have any comments, questions? Council as a whole? Okay. Mr. Noble? Nietzsche. Just wanted

to comment that it's good to see this connector being made. I know when we first started talking about this development that it would alleviate some traffic on Betler Road. And so it's nice it will be nice to have this provide access in a number of ways. First of all, all the businesses with the CAK Business Park will now have the ability to go west and north instead of being exclusively going east. Also, the residents down in that area will have the opportunity then to go shopping and those things to the east without getting on Vetler Road.

But I did want to ask the administration. I did get an email from Tony Zeiler today and he was commenting that it looks like an excavator was put to block the roundabout since our last meeting when we determined it was open and was noting that perhaps during construction that being a bypass that it would be opened by then. I haven't responded but I would assume that our goal would be to open that before we impact Arlington Road. Is that correct?

I don't see why it couldn't. As you know, prior to last meeting, people were using it anyway. I mean, is a paving that needs to be complete on the roundabout section. But I think once some impacts to Arlington Road, I think it'd be wise for us to precaution bumps, whatever, and let the people use it. That's my opinion. But we gotta also watch as most of this construction for this phase is going to be to the east of the roundabout at at Southwood.

Yeah. But they do have

to come back and pave and do some final work at that roundabout.

I think it's the Arlington work more so than the Southwood work.

Right. Well, that's what I

mean that this would be an outlet. Yeah. We just need to coordinate that with Kavanaugh if

they get Yeah. That I think the other concern, I think, when we did Masson Road, the north segment that what was it, Mayfair Lakes, was concerned about cars cutting through from 619 to Raber. And so, there are balancing objectives here. And like you said, maybe some temporary speed humps would be in order to minimize the impacts of that? I was thinking more of

the Jacobs Ridge going out the back instead of Butler, but that's who we think is using it right now because that's the only point and maybe some of the park view coming in. But we can probably work something out to coordinate that with Arlington Road.

But I think Jacobs Ridge is there that roundabout and that road were put into service that subdivision. What I'm worried about is people from maybe Meadowood jumping across and then putting a little more stress on that street.

We'll need to look at some opportunities to coordinate that so that Arlington's not impacting Arlington and Southwood work together, I think is what you're looking for is that use it so there's little coordination

Well, some control. And to try to stop the traffic from flowing down Meadowood between Southwood and Bettler.

We'll take a look at some options. Okay.

I know that there has been some concerns expressed by people in the adjoining neighborhoods for all of this and there's going to be a meeting with residents and an informational meeting I believe over at Regan Chiropractic office and also with homeowners. So, I know that those issues are being addressed because they are concerned that you're going to have people cutting through the neighborhoods to get around the problems that are gonna be created on Arlington. So, hopefully, those can be addressed and certainly a good communication program to let people know what's what they should be doing, shouldn't be doing. If they're able to go through a neighborhood, something to control the speed, putting in some kind of speed control device, having extra patrols by the sheriff's department, whatever it takes to make sure that the people in those neighborhoods are safe because if people are are late to work and they can't use Arlington Road and they're speeding through a neighborhood, I'd be very concerned if I lived in that neighborhood that I would have cars going through there. So I know that there's work being done to address those and just encourage the continuation of that work to make sure we're taking care of all of those concerns.

Maybe another message and Paul, you can jump in if you want. Arlington itself, if I understand, of course contractors have a little bit of leeway here on how they're doing things. But Arlington itself, as it exists today, will exist. And the other lanes will be constructed northbound. I shouldn't say northbound, but in the farm field.

And there's going to be some delays, but hopefully you won't see that completely long it won't like be shut down for three months just because Arlington Road is shut down. I'm not saying anything about the roundabouts, but you're right. We need to coordinate the neighborhoods. But we also have to I think that helps alleviate a little bit of the it's not going to always be a complete shutdown on Arlington as it exists today. Is that my friends? Thank you.

There was a calm reason as opposed

to Well, was starting to get twitchy back there. So, I thought it'd come up. So, I just want to let

you know we do

have a communications plan for obviously Arlington Road. It's two season project. Significant it's going to impact some of the residents we're aware of the concerns that Spring Hill brought forth and appreciate that they did. But we're with the communications relating on a few things. First of all, for the next step which you guys are taking tonight of passing and accepting the contract and then that gets the ball rolling on dates and things.

So we have a plan. We have things moving forward. We have, to your point, we have a couple of meetings coming up. Some, the one for the public that anyone is invited to, and we've sent out letters to those that are in kind of an immediate area, is the June 4 at 06:00 at Regan Chiropractic. And anyone's welcome, that's an open house style of meeting.

And then we have one specifically for Spring Hill that they requested, which works out wonderfully. We are happy to meet with residents where they choose to meet, and we can address kind of some of their concerns specifically. The one key point I want everyone to remember, and I think Blaine was going there, was Arlington Road is not going be closed down through this. There will be closure at Butler for a short window of time, but Arlington Road will continue to flow the entire time that we're doing this project. And then we'll close Southwood on the East Side after Butler opens up.

So and what's nice there is those neighbor the neighborhoods that can move back through there will have Fortuna Drive as well. So there's there's been a plan for how traffic will move, but we'll you'll begin to see all this communication come out here in the next early June.

I expect that during council meeting here in early June as well, we'll get a full full presentation from the administration on expectation of mains of traffic, I guess. Once we get from the contractor what that is officially. Yes.

Okay. Does

anybody have anything on the Southwood Drive? Plat. The plot looks really good. 80 feet of right

of ways appropriate for the Nice job, Wayne. Okay. Okay. So it's on this is on third reading. And, during our regular scheduled council meeting, I'll make a motion to adopt twenty twenty six R16.

Alright. Next on the agenda is twenty twenty six dash zero seven, an ordinance declaring a portion of improvements to a certain parcel of real property owned by Halasa Properties LLC doing business as Akron's Finest Mulch to be a public purpose, exempting 100% of the value of the improvements from real property taxation for thirty years. So this is a TIF agreement for a piece of property on the West Side Of Massland Road for Akron's Finest Mulch. As we talked about at the last meeting, this piece of property sits between Greensburg and, I guess, Steece, about halfway down. And again, this is going to be a mulch operation.

We're going have trucks and mulch there. It's more of their sort of trucking base where they will store material and move material around and whatnot. Anybody from the administration want to give any more information on this? It's more of

a supply yard. They're established in Akron. That's why its name is there. They've got other supply yards. They just want to try to capture South Summit Market from this location. And we're just we're literally just trying to capture a little bit of the fifth revenues to help pay

for Mass Monroe Corridor. Yes. Okay. Does anybody on planning have any comments on this?

Council as a whole?

Okay. This is also on third reading. And so during a regular scheduled meeting, I'll make a motion to adopt twenty twenty six dash zero seven. We have one more piece of legislation. It is on second reading.

It is twenty twenty six dash zero eight, an ordinance changing the zoning classification of approximately 31 acres of land located at the Northeast Corner Of Greensburg Road in Winning Way from R one single family residential to PD plan development and accept the amended conceptual site plan for the proposed Greensburg Meadow plan development. So this zoning change, there's a public meeting scheduled in these chambers on Tuesday, 05/26/2026 at 7PM. Normally, we talk about these things at the planning meeting. I do want to give a little bit of background for everyone's knowledge. So again, I think a lot of us would refer to this property as the horse farm along I-seventy 7.

They came before us with a plan, I'm going to say six months ago. Is that about six, eight months ago?

Probably closer to it.

Closer to year? A year. So, last year, they came in front of us with a plan and they pulled the plan before we had a chance to vote and they went back and they've made a number of revisions to the plan. The site is 31 acres. The current proposal calls for 101 single family lots, which is a density of about 3.3 units per acre.

So there's a variety of changes from the original proposal related to access. They've created emergency access to the adjacent roadway to the north on the end of it and made a variety of other changes. And so I think we'll have a presentation at that meeting so we can get into the presentation. Or we can get into more detail at the presentation. I just want to make a couple of general notes here for everybody.

So, again, right now it's zoned at R1. Generally, in an R1 zoning, we would get a density between like about 1.5 to 1.75 units per acre is kind of sort of what we would end up with. And so we would expect if this was a single family standard R1 development, we would have between like forty five and fifty five lots. And so they're proposing again a proposed development with a density of 101, which is about 3.3. So for reference, Jacobs Ridge, our latest planned development, had a density of a rate around 2.1.

The New Seasons development that is that's probably complete. I don't know that there's any outstanding lots in New seasons. But New Seasons development, the density there is right around three and is right around the same. So it's right around so if you think about the densities that they're proposing, it's probably very similar from a density standpoint to what the New Seasons development is. They're proposing lot sizes between like 6,009 square foot.

So, yeah, I think I'll let anybody on council that wants to speak. We'll start with committee today. Go ahead and comment. But I think we'll get our presentation and we can get into more of the details once we have the applicants in front of us. So does anybody on planning have anything they want to make note of?

Council as a whole? Mr. Chair? Mr. Mankin? Thank you, Mr. Noble. So this is in my ward and I think to Mr. Weathie's point, this has been over a year, but I think they've come before us in years past with different plans. And I've been present at several meetings with this developer, trying to elicit as much feedback from the residents on Byron, which is the neighborhood to the North, as much as possible, as well as the one lady to the East.

And I do appreciate this developer soliciting as much information as possible and revising the plans as much as possible. Mr. Weeke, have you received any feedback from the residents regarding this latest plan here or?

No, we haven't. Joint Planning Commissioner, a

couple of them spoke.

They were proposing without the developers asked about being here tonight. They had a commitment. I said, really, it's the public hearing that's most important to be here. However, some wanted fences, some wanted different types of buffer zones. That seemed to be the bulk of discussion was what type of buffer will you give me or why not?

So I don't want a fence in my backyard, so don't do anything. It was those kind of discussions. And it was probably I'm just estimating three, maybe four comments through the whole planning commission process. We also had a neighborhood meeting in January with the residents. Again, probably about six of them showed up. So, and where we're at at this point. That's what I can tell you. I mean, that was the concerns that I was hearing was, I don't want to fence. I want to fence.

So I think I was at the January. Was the night of that big snowstorm. It was the time. The reason why I ask is I know hopefully people come and express their opinion either way at the public hearing. But I think this has come before so many times. My fear is they kind of get like, oh, happen again. It's gonna get resolved or whatever. So I don't know. I I'm happy to reach out to the folks in Byron. I don't know if we're sending out another letter, or if you guys have a list that you put together from all those meetings we had, if we can send out a a blast to say, hey. This come up again. We'd love to hear from you at this public hearing. I'm happy to reach out to them, but I figure for the fear of counsel not being able to hear their perspectives, it's one thing for me to tell them

what I've heard versus people coming in. I would think though the same group of five

or six would probably make some comments.

Nicole, I believe most likely notified them of the public

Yes, correct.

They have all received the letter.

So all those same property owners, I've already sent them. Okay.

And the best I know the developer is still reaching out to them trying to finalize what do you want.

Yeah. And I got that sense from a developer. It seems like they're trying to keep I mean, I'm not a big fan of the density, but I understand. I mean, if you guys been over there, it's pretty rough property with a lot of animals and stuff. It's not been taken care of. There's a couple properties right there in Greensboro that's lapidated, like not good. So I think neighbors are like, okay, if this has to come here, want to have buffers and make something that looks nice. Not enthralled with the density, I understand the developer, but what they have here is what they're putting forth to make their profit. I just want to make sure that there's not that fatigue for the neighbors because I think we've at least four times a project on this property has come forth. I just want people not to come and voice their opinion either way. So I'm happy to reach out Nicole,

but if you give me do have an email list for them?

I do not. I just have

a list of

I might knock on some doors and just tell people to come. I think this is getting to the point where we really need to hear their final opinions on this because I don't think it's going to change much more.

I would imagine they'll be here just because they were planning commission. Okay. Right. Same list. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

Megger. Anybody else? There is a big sign out there too that's been out there for a long time right along Greensburg Road. So, it's not a surprise to people.

My only fear is because we've done it. It's at least four times. Much surprised. They might just get fatigued. Say, it keeps getting kicked down the road. It's not gonna happen. And my fear is once after that meeting, we're gonna go to the next meeting, I'm assuming. I want everyone to understand, like, this isn't gonna change much more. I have a feeling that this does not pass or if it does not get approval, I feel like this developer is probably not gonna move forward rightfully or wrongfully, but I just wanna make sure people know, come and voice your opinion. So if you're listening at home, I'll knock on some doors just to tell people to come, but I want to hear from him and it's not good enough for me to tell you. I'd rather have them here to tell you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. I mean,

I mean, two weeks from now, we'll have our public hearing. We won't vote that night, of course, anyway. So, there's this will take shape over the course of the next, you know, month to six weeks and once we get that presentation, we'll see we'll get a better feel for how the council as a whole feels about some of the issues. I think a lot of us have known what some of the concerns have been based on the previous submittals. And so I know they've tried to address some of that. And so we'll give them the opportunity and we'll go from there. Mr. Noble, one last question, sorry. Mr. Wieke, has there

been discussions with the developer regarding like a RID or like a residential improvement district that can be used? I know TIFs require a residential or commercial component for a residential TIF. Has there been any discussion with the developer with the RID? Because I think if this goes in, there needs to be a lot of infrastructure improvements on the Greensburg Mayfair Corridor there.

There was a brief discussion but it didn't go any further. Okay. Just because of status. Okay. There would be time most likely to implement if in fact they've got to go through a whole planning process, improvement plans, etcetera, etcetera. So, nothing would happen in 2026 anyway. So, you could create the residential, whichever residential district you wanted to do.

So it wouldn't be part of the approval of this

is because we have

limited funds as is, as we all know, and to put that burden on the city to improve at least the left turn lane on the Mayfair from Greensburg would be. I I drive that way every time and it backs up almost to the general RV place. We can look at that. Okay.

At the same time if it goes forward.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Noble.

Okay. So, again, public meetings on the twenty sixth. And so, because of that, at our regular scheduled council meeting, they'll be asking for time on twenty twenty six-eight. That is all of the items of legislation that the Planning Community Economic Development Committee has. Is there any old or new business?

Committee?

You want to come forward? Yes, please come forward. Tell us your name and address.

Hello, everybody. Des Wertheimer, 130 East Turkey Foot Lake Road. As you know, thankfully, the zoning board of appeal finally blocked the storage units on South Main Street, and we finally defeated this. And I received a call today from a friend of mine in New Franklin that

the owner of

the property is working on a plan to come back to planning and zoning to resubmit this somehow. Now, I've talked to several members of this council asking for a moratorium on storage units. Where are we? Coventry's had a rule on the books for six years. No storage units with an amount of half another one which basically states because of where the curtain ones are in green and the two that are in Coventry, you can't build a storage unit in Coventry Township, period.

New Franklin and just past third year in a row, they passed a moratorium. She can't build any storage units in New Franklin. We just passed it the same night, coincidentally, that the zoning the original planning and zoning commission approved the plan. But no movement by this body. There are nine storage units facility in this city.

Nine. And currently, they have 580 units within them. We've talked to all the owners of storage units in the city of Green. Four of them are owned by conglomerates. The other five have all been approached by conglomerates or private equity companies trying to purchase them. And so where are we? I mean, is Green to be known? I mean, we're obviously known about roundabouts, which I am a fan of and support. But are we going be known for storage units too? Are not going to do anything to stop this continue building in our city?

I mean, 500 empty units, the ones that have been bought by conglomerates, the price of the units have gone up over 25% within a year of them being opened or purchased. And also while we're talking about this, what is being done to have that corner cleaned up, that mad one in in South Main? Man's owned property seven years. We couldn't even get him mow the lawn. And, yeah, I know he's coming for the planning and zoning 19 times, and, yes, he he lost his own board of appeals, which was probably a shock to him.

Was a shock to me, quite frankly. But where are we? What are what are we doing about this? What is the problem with with with with asking just for a one year moratorium so the city can come up with a plan that is reasonable for the city. I mean, I think nine units is enough.

If this temple would have gone in, when it opened, when that would have been it's just mind boggling that the city of Green is being led by the nose by two other townships that are behind us economically, development wise, and they're leading us and we're and and we're just going to sit by and just wait. You know, the residents are frustrated. They're tired. This is for the third time we had to fight this this this deal. We had no support from the city.

I mean, you're all elected officials. I would think after the third time when the residents had come out in force, fifty, sixty, 70 people saying, hey, we don't want this. Can you help us out? Nothing. Silence. You have to fight the player and I'm like, oh yeah, I know. Well, we don't get involved in store in in in zoning issues. Well, you know what? Maybe it's time somebody does. I think it's only decent that somebody step up and say, you know what?

We've had enough of this. You know? And and and the outpouring on Facebook and in social media against storage units has been overwhelming. On one post line, african.com, over 150 posts speaking against this. On another site, over a 100 speaking out against this.

It's the worst units in all. So I'd like this committee, this council, to put together a moratorium for one year to study this, come up with an idea, think about it, say, hey. Wait a minute. Maybe maybe we ought to have some rules on the books because this would have been far within a mile if it had gone through. So, yeah, I mean, I am frustrated and because the residents are frustrated and there is a fear after comments that were in article several called me saying, can you actually come back and do it again?

And I'm like, yes. We can. And people are like, they're they're just one motor lady's flabbergasted. And she was like, you know, we fought, we fought, we won, defeated this. So I'd like this body to to to step up, do something just to to support the residents, and, you know, I'm not asking to ban them. I'm not asking to say, can't rebuild the city. I'm just asking for a one year moratorium, which, hey, that's what New Franklin's had for three years, going on three years. Thank you. Thank you, guys. I do wanna I'll speak briefly.

Can I say something really quick before you do? About an hour before this hearing, we got a note before this meeting, we got a notice that that the property owner appealed our BCA decision. So this that's there's pending litigation. And I just want to caution the counsel before you say anything about that particular property. Okay. Sorry. Okay. So hearing what the

law director said, we have a pending litigation on the propertyproposal at hand. I will say that, you know, I spoke at the Planning and Zoning Commission about procedure and policy within the city and how we go about things related to, you know, policy I guess it's just conditional use as a whole. Been There conversations behind the scenes about what the approach is. And I'll just say that I have reached out to the administration and made some inquiries about what I'm going to use as the meaningfulness of storage units to to our to our city. Now, there's there's a couple different sides to to this issue.

The first, the first side is is that this this city, we we and I said this at planning and zoning, we have we have laws and regulations that encourage people not to store things outside on their site or on their properties whether it's cars or boats or other things, right? We have a property maintenance codes and we have restrictions on what you can do and so, in some ways, we encourage the use of storage units, right? We encourage it within the city and so, that's one piece of the puzzle is that is that we don't want people, right? I'm going to I'm to just use the word hoarding, hoarding on their properties because the neighbors are not happy when people are hoarding on their properties and we have rules against it. So, so we we don't, you know, we have restrictions on boats, we have restrictions on RVs, we have restrictions on all this that make it desirable to have places for people to store on that are not on their residential properties.

So that's one side of the coin with the topic. On the other side, we have pieces of property that are zoned for various things that ultimately can bring value to the city, right? And that value is in generated revenues via income tax and property tax for all the different entities that get property tax, although much of that doesn't come to the city, most of it doesn't. But it has a market improvement on schools and other things and whatnot. And what we really know is that the storage units from a income tax standpoint bring no real value to the city.

Know, they use good properties up that ultimately generate no revenue for us from from income tax, right? So, you know, something that maybe has, I'm going to I'm just going use a fast food as example but don't think that's what it could be a a doctor's office or business office. The income tax that that brings to the city far surpasses what would be taken up by a large swath of land that has nothing but garages on it and has one employee or two employees, right? So the dilemma of of storage units from city revenue standpoint is not is not good. You know, we also know that we have we have had concerns about placement of storage units, right?

It's like how do they fit into the community, right? People would be less apt to be concerned about and if they were in an industrial area where they don't have residents next to them but then, they they're probably less convenient for the people that want to use them, right? So, so there's a lot there. There, you know, there's, I'm just going to say preliminary conversations trying to gather thoughts about the topic and what shook out at least from my standpoint.

I don't know exactly where I'm going

to go with this but we're beginning or at least I am beginning the process of trying to gather an understanding about what I feel about and whether there's some tweaks we can make to the code to help control them better, to place them better, and that's where I stand with it right now. So, I'll leave it at that. More to come. We've got outstanding litigation that we're going to be dealing with and we'll see what happens with that. So, anybody else?

If you're brief.

Yeah. I do appreciate that. And like I said, I had heard that there was a plan. And obviously, law director was kind to let us know that they're going to fight. And it's my hope that you'll fight to defend him. And I feel that the PGT ruling was outrageous. I felt one of the commissioners was out of bounds. Sixty years a gentleman in his sixties, real quick, sorry, took it upon himself, never been involved in the process, never been to the county, same meeting. We even got copies of police reports, Made copies for all the commissioners and everybody. Brought it to the meeting and then asked everybody to look at it and one commissioner of Maniston said, you know what?

I don't read things. He didn't sign it. And the guy at Maniston went on for several minutes about why he doesn't read things that aren't signed and rant and disrespected the man and it was terrible and so now, and again, Jeff, I,

you know, look, you know what?

It needs to be said and I expect this city to fight this guy. If, you know, he he lost it and you know, we had the zoning board of appeal. He lost. Now, he's gotta sue us and I expect the city to fight this and the residents sure as a world expect it too. We don't want him. It doesn't belong there. It it it, you know, put I don't understand the wisdom of planning a zoning but and, again, I understand getting information. Not much information you gathered, fellas. You got nine. You know, by the way, you know, the criminal activity.

But, you know, I guess I I I hope well, I'm not sure you understand my frustration and the resident's frustration and, you know, then if he if he wants to appeal, which is his right, he's going have to go to court. And there better not be and I'll I'll tell you straight out. Any attempt to sell this city and I am suing this city. You can guarantee it. Does your life on it, your bottom dollar that I'll soon block it.

There's no doubt that's going to happen. So, maybe this is going to get dragged on for years and at the same time, if you don't want to act, we're going to be taking petition signatures anyway and if you don't act, we'll act and we'll put it before the voters in November and I guarantee you, we won't lose and my plan, my plan, to seek petitions, signatures, no storage within four miles to another one. So done. No more being dealt with green. So act quickly. And I don't care if you're styling suit. Bring it on. Thank you. Thank you, Des. Okay. Anybody else on council?

Okay. Includes our new and old business. We'll go ahead into germ planning community economic development at 05:56PM. Thank you, Mr. Noble.

Our next committee to meet this evening is rules and personnel which I chair. Myself, Mr.

Meager, and Mr. Brandenburg are here.

We have no legislation. Is there any reason

to meet? Alright. Hearing none,

we will not meet. Moving on to transportation, connectivity, and stormwater chaired by mister Maker. Thank you,

mister president. All members are present, myself, mister Brandenburg, mister Noble. We do have lines before us, so we will meet. The first being on third reading, it's 2026 R17. It's a resolution of winning a contract to Extreme Elements LLC for Arlington Road Corridor Improvements Project, sum 15 dash 3.55 and declared an emergency.

So we talked about this at length at our last meeting. This is the Arlington Road expansion project. Engineer estimate of this project was $13,000,006,800,050.67. This bid came in just under the engineer's estimate. It was the lowest and best bid from Extreme Elements of $13,543,261.7 Mr. Pick, I know the last time we talked about if there's any contingency requirements on this, you're going to look into that. Do we determine whether there needs to be any contingency since it is

a federal funded project? It's not required. Okay.

So the full amount being asked here for approval is the amount of bid, which was $13,543,261.7 So with that, I'll open up to the committee. Any questions, comments, concerns regarding 2026 R17? Mr. Pick, anything you want to add? I don't believe so. Okay. Thank you. I know there were some questions last time regarding extreme elements, relatively new to our bidding contractors, but I think you confirmed that you know some of the people who've left other contractors to come here and feel confident they can deliver on budget, on time, everything else.

Correct. And they're approved to bid on federal projects. They have the capabilities. Okay. Thank you very much.

This is on third reading Mr. President. So, the appropriate time I'm making a motion to approve twenty twenty six R17. Did you open discussion to committee? I did. Well, outside of committee. Outside of committee.

Yeah. Anybody else have any? Could I make? Mr. Nischbach. So, Mr. Pickett, if there's an overage on the contract, you'd have to come back to counsel for any additional funds? I mean, have a discretion of 10% above contract legally, but you don't have more funds authorized by counsel. So, that's where the contingency Yeah. What's in the budget? Limitation. Right. So, if it exceeds this amount you have to come before us for additional funding.

Well, I think Shelly, you know what

was in the budget?

My understanding has always been we have the authority to increase a contract up to 10% without council's approval.

Do under contracting law. Right. But I don't know if you have the funds available since we're authorizing this amount. Well then we yeah right then we don't. So if

we had to increase it we would be we would have to come back to appropriate more funds and get the approval to go more than 10

That's percent what I'm asking. That's what it appears. So the contingency just allows you to use that buffer that you have under contracting law if you need it, but

now you'll have to come back

to us.

Unless it was already in the budget that you passed. Did you guys pass a budget that authorized a certain amount? Because what this is doing is just saying, we agree this is the lowest and best bidder and we're authorizing this. So I don't know what

was in the budget. I think you're right about

I mean, I don't know

what the amount in the budget was, but this isn't appropriating the funds. It's basically moving it because it was already passed in the previous budget.

It's just approving the lowest bid. Correct.

So, then that answers the question. He doesn't need the contingency because he has 10% authority Assuming it's in the budget. And you think you have budget for that leeway?

I'm not certain about that.

Well, I'm assuming the budget was based upon your engineer estimate, gives us a little bit, not 10%, but there is some room there, roughly $300,000 That's right.

I'm trying to find it. For Arlington, we budgeted 12.5 in the federal grant fund. And then in the TIF fund, we budgeted 5.5. So for a total project of 17, but that included right away. So,

well. And we don't have a really a final tally on the right or so.

And this is a multiyear project. So, again, that's something that we can adjust.

I think

Mr. Humphrey probably clarified it the most that we aren't authorizing funds with this legislation. We're just authorizing the contract. Under contracting law, they have 10%. You have a 10% buffer. You. Okay. Anybody else

on counsel? Mr. Humphrey? And this may be asking the same question in a different way and if so, I'm not trying to be repetitive. But the difference between the bids were pretty significant. Now it's pretty close to the engineer's estimate which is interesting but 700,000 between our bid and the next bid and then wow, there was a really positive juices flowing at the third bidder, I guess, for what the market was, because there's almost $3,000,000 difference. Does that raise any level of concern about whether or not this project can be done for what the bid was?

No, but only because there's too many possibilities as to why they bid that high. Maybe they've got plenty of work lined up. Maybe they don't want the job for anything less than that. It doesn't strike I mean it is a lot more but if you look at the Carvo bid it's not you know, it's much closer. Not that that means anything Carver's done projects for us before but again there's really no there's we never ask them are you happy with that? What did you get that high? So, don't really don't ever get to the bottom of that. Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Humphrey, I do agree with Director Pickett. You don't always know the motivation of contractors. Sometimes they're busy. They're like, well, if I can get it for 16, that would be great. But they may not have sharpened their pencil because of that. So there can be a lot of motivations. Looking at the spread, this is about what is it, about a 20%, difference? It's in my view fairly typical type of bid. We saw I think one of the bids earlier this year, they're really close and tight and that was unusual I thought.

And this is more like what you would see on this magnitude of projects. Okay. I'm comfortable with that. And Mr. Pickett do you I mean in my history I've done these types of projects and you bring the contractor in and just you ask them the question, are there any do you have any concerns on your price? And you allow them to say, no, I'm good. And it's just one more step of verification. So if that's not your practice, ask them post bid, know, is there any issues that would make the job not go well?

We didn't hear we've done that in

the past but it's more than we've been concerned about the number. You know if it was a lot lower than all the other bidders we tend to have a conversation with them and say are you sure we don't want to award this and then have the thing have somebody else finish the job because you can't. But I can only think of twice when that's happened or somebody's bid it low enough that we were concerned. This seems kind of typical unexpected and doesn't concern me.

We've done a lot of major projects in the city and I trust that your judgment on this. Thank you.

Yeah. And we're only about

$300,000 lower than your estimate. So, think this is more in line than the other

two bids frankly. Mr. Offering? Yeah. And so, how does this work with the bid amount along with the because this is an eightytwenty project with federal funding right? Right. So, we're entering into the contract and we get reimbursed once the work's done through the federal government?

Actually they make a direct payment for 80% of each progress payment that we submit and

then we review. Okay. But we can spend up to that full amount. Okay, this is part of 80% of this that's spent will be reimbursed by

the Yes, federal Thank

you. Appreciate it. Okay. Anybody else on council?

Anybody else from administration? I know this is on third reading, I'll

make sure we're all good. Okay. So, mister Perez, I'll make the appropriate motions our motion on 2026 dash r 17. Next up is on second reading is twenty twenty six dash r twenty. It's a resolution awarding a contract to Kavanaugh Building Corporation for the Southwood Drive Phase 2 in the current emergency.

So this is a companion piece that we heard about in planning. This is the gonna finish up the Southwood extension, allow for access from Tabs Road all the way to Fortuna and also to Arlington Road. So the original engineer's estimate for this project was $1,729,507.76 Kavanaugh was the lowest and best bid at $1,227,596 So we asked to accept this bid or this proposal. Again, no contingency here. Total amount of the contract asking to be approved is $1,227,596 Anybody from administration want to add anything to that?

I guess I should add, a second reading passage has been requested. Speak now forever, hold your peace. Anyone from administration wants to talk about it? Welcome to council as

a whole. Any questions, comments? Just looking at these bids, it's probably about 20% from lowest to highest. It's very typical to the other bid, just about one tenth the cost. And I made some comments earlier in Planning, Community and Economic Development Committee regarding this project. So, I won't make them again. If you want to go listen to that under Resolution twenty twenty six R16. Mr. Schneeberger, anybody else?

Mr. Magruder, Schneeberger. I guess, Mr. Pickett, the second reading passage here allows them to get moving on this. It's one year, right? Do we believe

this is a one year deal?

It should be done, I would guess, somewhere around November. Okay.

All right thank you. And that kind of piggybacked what I was going to ask is this going to really help with the traffic flow alleviation from Arlington Road corridor expansion? I mean not the first half of the first phase but definitely better than waiting on this. Right. Thank you. And I guess

the question

is the Arlington Road, in case people were just listening to this one, about two years on that project, correct?

Yes. Thank you. Anybody else on council?

Yeah, I'm just going to piggyback on that. So the contractor is going to tell you how they want to do the work, right? And we have to adjust somewhat. So when they is the time period that they're closing Butler defined or do they just have a defined period that they get the schedule?

Yeah, it's not defined. And unfortunately in all likelihood it's going to overlap with school. So that's going to be challenging.

So we don't really know we can't Valerie Wilford came forward earlier and said we'll bring information as we know it. That's an example of information we don't know yet.

Right.

That when they tell us when they intend to do that, then the communication plan can fill in those gaps for people. Right. I was just thinking it would be nice if the southward closure would be coordinated with the other southward work. But to the degree that you can do that, I'm sure it will make that a priority.

Yes. It's at all possible. Some variables are beyond our ability to predict or control so. That's all Mr. Baker, thank you.

Okay so with that committee I guess Mr. Bramberg are you okay with second reading passage on 2026 R20? Yes. Mr. Noble? Yes. Okay. Seeing how this is definitely a needed piece for the Arlington Road corridor expansion project, I think it's definitely worthwhile to have second reading passage on 2026 R20. So Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I'll make the appropriate motions and twenty twenty six r 20. That concludes all the items legislation before us. Any older new business come forth committee? Mister Pickett, besides Arlington Road corridor? Any other, projects that need to be updated

for the community? No, our resurfacing program will be happening in the summer too but doesn't really have an effect on any

of these other projects. Okay. Thank you. And with that Mr. President, we'll adjourn the committee at 06:09. Thank you Mr.

Mayger. Our final committee to meet this evening is Intergovernmental and Utilities chaired by Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you Mr. President. Mr. Noble, Mr. Mayger and

I are all present. We have one item of legislation to discuss, so we will meet this evening. So that item is twenty twenty six dash r 22, a resolution authorizing the mayor to accept the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council 2026 early access new member grant fund in declaring emergency. As the title implies this legislation will allow the mayor to accept an electricity program grant of $20,000 from NOPEC for energy efficiency or energy infrastructure improvements. We've gotten several of these types of grants in the past related to our natural gas aggregation program. I guess miss White Carr is there any difference between this grant?

This one is just

a little different because we are a new customer to the electric side. So, this is really kind of like a bonus grant that we get and we will get it as soon as the legislation is passed. Not that you guys have to rush it through. We have plenty of time to receive the money. So, we're looking at things that we might be applying.

One of our first grants that we had with NOPEC was for the EV charging stations. Our contract is up for renewal for ChargePoint, which is the company, the software company that we use. It's a five year program with them, and that's gonna be about 10 to $12,000 to continue that program. So, we'll probably, that's one thing we'll probably apply this money to. So, anyway, we'll be looking at some other ideas as well but we're excited to get this additional money. I do want to emphasize this is not a money that is tacked on to the consumer that is in the program this is separate funds that they use for grant money so I just want to sometimes that's out there and that's that's not the case this is separate pool of money that they use.

Appreciate that So, this one says early access grant is it one that we requested early or is it?

They just called that because you get it you don't have to other grants you have to wait until you have your enrollment because they do a calculation of the number of people that you have. This is simply because we're a new customer to the electric aggregation side.

Okay. So, we can expect to receive another grant next

year? Yes. Based on the number of people that sign

up in the program. Great. That's good news. Okay,

I think you answered all my questions very thorough. Anyone on committee have questions? Anyone on council? Okay then at the appropriate time of our regular meeting I'll ask for time on twenty twenty six R22. Any items involved in the business? Hearing none we will adjourn.

Thank you Mr. Brandenburg. And before we end this evening, we did have a request for an executive session to discuss pending litigation. In that executive session, we'd like to invite the mayor, the law director, planning director, engineer, clerk of counsel, and all of counsel. Can I please get a motion to break to executive session to discuss pending litigation?

So move the request for counsel of the whole and the list that Mr. Spade.

Second. Alright. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Anjibar?

Yes. Mr. Noble? Yeah. Mr. DeVitas? Yes. Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey? Yes. Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

And Mr. Mager? Yes. Okay. Motion carries.

Okay. Welcome back. And at this time, I would like to make a motion to adjourn executive session and resume our regular committee meetings. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mister Spade? Yes. Mister Neugebauer? Yes. Mister DeVitas? Yes. Mister Nobel? Yes. Mister Humphrey?

Yes.

Mister Brandenburg?

Yes.

And mister Maker? Yes. Okay. Motion carries.

Thank you, ma'am. And at this time, we will adjourn our regular committee meetings and we will resume at 07:10 for our city council meeting. We are adjourned.