County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to Lurien County Board of Commissioners Tuesday, August 25th, 2026, 3.30 meeting. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Moore.

Here.

Mr. Gallagher. Here. Mr. Riddell. Here. We have a quorum. Under resolutions number one, investments.

Move to approve. Second.

Discussion. Mr. Gallagher.

Aye.

Mr. Riddell.

Aye. Mr. Moore.

Aye. Number two, appropriations.

Move to approve.

Second discussion. Mr. Moore, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Riddell.

Number three, transfers.

Move to approve.

Second discussion. Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Moore. Mr. Riddell. Number four, advances, repayments, and number five, acquisitions.

We only have one page today.

Move to approve second discussion.

Yes, item number 777 professional legal services. That's our defense in a federal lawsuit from a vendor that knew they weren't going to get the contract, but signed it anyway and they got rescinded in January 21. And they decided to chase our former administrator who passed away and going after his widow. So that defense money, if you take a look at the requisition, has the details of the legal fees that we continue to take from us making the right decision. So I just wanted that to be pointed out that those legal fees continue from CCI. Thank you.

Anything further? Mr. Gallagher. Aye. Mr. Riddell.

Aye.

Mr. Moore. Aye. Number six, travel.

Move to approve.

Second. Discussion. Mr. Moore. Aye. Mr. Gallagher. Aye. Mr. Riddell. Aye. Number seven, bills.

We have four pages today. This is page one of four. Page two, please. Page three. And page four. Move to approve pages one through four. Second discussion.

Mr. Moore. Aye. Mr. Riddell. Aye. Mr. Gallagher. Aye. Number eight, we have nothing. No. B, public comment on agenda items.

Oh, we have one. Gerald Phillips on item number 10. Wow.

Okay. Is there any? Any old business? Old business? No? Board of Business 9, approve and wait the reading of the County Commissioner's meeting minutes of August 14th.

Move to approve. Second.

Discussion? Mr. Moore? Aye. Mr. Gallagher? Aye. Mr. Riddell?

Aye.

Number 10, decision on an expedite to annexation approximately 65.2559 acres from Amherst Township to the City of Elyria. Attorney John D. Clark is agent for Petitioner Builders and Developers Company, Inc. by Richard Barron, President.

So moved.

Second. Discussion?

Yeah, so I want to have a there's some township trustees here and their attorney here and wanted they reached out wanted to speak in regards to this. Neil Lynch, would you like to speak?

We want to start with the petitioner.

I don't know. I'm just I need to fill anything out so I don't have my record. This is not a hearing. This is a just a public discussion at this time. So.

ask neil would you rather have them speak first now would you like to go ahead and okay state your name address and john clark uh five south main street suite 100 in uh oberlin i rip i'm the agent for the petitioner uh this is a petition under type 2 expedited for 65.2559 acres from Amherst Township to the city of Elyria. You are correct. This is not a hearing. Just one thing to note is that the township is not a party to a Type 2 annexation. They can object to it, certainly, but they're not a party to this proceeding. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Is there anything else you want to add, or that was it?

That's all I have to state. Any questions?

At this point, you're... You're stating that you've correctly fulfilled the obligations of the petitioner?

I believe that we have. I've been through the statute. I've been through the petition. All the elements that you're required to consider have been met. OK.

Thank you. Thank you. Neil? I don't know if Dave would like, Dave and, I don't know if you guys wanna speak yet or not,

Yes, good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Neil Lynch, Amherst Township trustee. I live at 8132 Oberlin Road, Lyria. I'm also here with my fellow trustees, David Urich and Jeremy Watson. And we have Barbara Tamas here representing us on this particular type two annexation. Mr. Clark believes that they've met all of the conditions. We believe they have not. And that's why we filed our objection on a timely basis to this particular annexation. And we appreciate the board's time in allowing us to come up and present where we feel that there are discrepancies here and why we believe that this annexation obviously isn't accurate and should probably be turned down. So with that, Barbara, I don't know if you want to take over from here.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Good afternoon. Barbara Tamos, Lorain County Prosecutor's Office. So when we received our petition, I looked up the acreage based on the permanent parcel numbers. And I realized that there was a bit of a discrepancy, because according to my simple math, it should have been 65.39 acres. And I didn't understand why it wasn't. And I was flipping through it. And I will tell you, I don't know if any of you can read a legal description. I cannot. I do not have the ability. Cannot read it. And so I called Neil, who has experience and education in engineering. And I said, Neil, what's happening here? I don't understand this. And he went through it, and he said, well, it's got to do with, and we'd like to make you aware of what you're being asked to vote on today. So when we go back to the map, the survey map, if you will look at the access points, the two access points, one on Albrecht and one on Bechtel, At the road right of way, there's a carve out. There's a carve out so that the annexation point doesn't go up to the middle of the road. As we're all aware, likely you're aware, in Lorain County, the parcels go to the middle of the road. This is pulled back so that it doesn't go to the middle of the road. It doesn't segment the road. Therefore, the responsibility for Albrecht, which is a county road, would remain with the county. responsibility for bechtel road which is a township road would remain with the township and that's problematic because as i'm not going to tell you hearsay here today i will let trustee lynch talk to you about his meeting with the city of illyria and what they conveyed to him about what will be occurring

Can I ask you one quick question? No. So is there any road that is in the annex parcel that connects to Elyria?

Not that I'm aware of. Not that's projected on the map.

That's all I wanted to find out.

Yes. All right.

Yes, commissioners. Prior to this meeting, I did meet with the city of Elyria, specifically Mayor Kevin Brubaker and Don Calvert. There was also, I was surprised, Mark Craig was there. I didn't learn until afterwards that he's actually legal counsel representing the mayor, but that was not disclosed to me at the time. I've met Mark before, I just assumed he happened to be there. But in any case, during that discussion, the city of Elyria made it clear that they intend on tiffing this land at 100% for 30 years. They would make Elyria City Schools whole, since this happened to be an Elyria City Schools district, And I realize that's not one of the items that you have to consider. But still, I think it's corroborating information you should be aware of that the city of Elyria intends on taking all of the funding from this. Elyria did let me know, well, the township will maintain the property taxes that they're receiving today for that particular property, that's 65 acres. And I let them know, which I'm sure they were already aware, that it's actually CAUV. It gives us a grand total of $95.38 a year is what the township receives. And it just happened to be a coincidence as I was driving up to this meeting, our road crew's over there doing roadside mowing today. So it's probably not even going to cover their costs, realize one guy pulls a van up, the other guy rides the mower over there, and all just to mow the areas that don't have homes in front of them today to keep that down, as we're required by statute to do. So here we're going to have a situation where we're going to have all this additional traffic coming out, which means our EMS, our fire providing the services, If they don't segment the road, even though they pass the resolution as if they take care of the road, we will have to take care of the road all at $95.38. So in any case, this is what the city of Elyria said they plan on doing. I think that in this particular case that you're going to find the discrepancies in the maps themselves, particularly since if, you know, whether the cover letter is correct, whether the legal description's correct or whether the graphical map's correct, although there are three different items that don't agree, so I don't even know if you know what you're deciding on, then we get a decision, is a road segmented or isn't it? And if the road is not segmented, and as Commissioner Gallagher pointed out, there's no other Elyria Road here, Elyria doesn't even have the authority to grant access to either one of those roads. So that's going to be another difficulty here. Are you going to annex land that you don't have the authority to gain access to the only two roadways that lead to it?

Another question, well, maybe one of you can answer it. In the event that they annex it, are they creating a road in from Elyria? Or are they going to, they're intending on using a township road? You answer yes or no on that.

Right now, there's no direct access that Elyria has title to or any property owner that's agreed to allow any type of access to Elyria Road. And it would almost have to be an additional road heading to the north to pick up the section of foul road that's in the city of Elyria. But right now, that property owner has not applied for any type of development.

So because of the property in question would have to access the city or the township road, they would, they do not have, they're up to the right of way. They're not in the right of way. So eventually they would have to take the township road and access it.

Correct.

Now, okay. Question I have is if they can't, and maybe Prosecutor Tamas could tell us,

if the township if they granted the annexation and they didn't grant them access to the road because it's in the township versus in the city would they be able to build it's the opinion of the of the amherst township trustees that they would not they would be rather landlocked wouldn't they they'd have one mode of ingress and egress and that's your county road which is albret So they'd have one method, unless there are plans for down the road, but we're not aware of that.

And furthermore, would they meet the, you know, I haven't seen any plans or anything like that, but would they meet the criteria of the 1,000 foot off of an egress or, you know, an entrance or exit of a property? So they're supposed to have two means of it. So there's a lot of questions out there. I mean, hopefully these can get answered. But it sounds like we're not getting those answers right now.

all right it's a difficult situation it's a difficult situation I will tell you neither here nor there right not part of your consideration today um is the is the fact that we were hopeful when Trustee Lynch was having the meeting with the City of Elyria we were hopeful that they would come to the table or they would allow the township to come to the table and broker something so that if, in fact, this Bechtel Road needed to be maintained and paved and plowed and the weeds cut and the grass cut, there would be dollars for that. But that didn't happen at all. And it's not lost on us. I'm just going to throw this out there. I probably shouldn't. I'm sorry. What is it? The United States Proclamation on Kindness that Mayor Brubaker just signed? What about consideration for your fellow communities? Just because a township is not a city,

Well, I did meet with the mayor in the past, and I toured different areas of development that they were talking about, and the mayor told me in the past that he would prefer to do an annexation with, or not an annexation, a JED, and that's with commercial, where this is residential, but some type of arrangement. He doesn't want to annex land was the actual terminology used with me. The question is, has he met with you guys in regards to this at all? No. Or somebody from the city of Elyria.

Met with us in terms of a JED?

Well, any type of, well, annexation was the term he used with me. He's not a favor of annexation. He would rather do a JED when it came to the commercial stuff, but residential stuff, that would be, you know, since he's not in favor of that, he would be in favor of working out a deal with you guys.

Yeah, the only meeting that we've had with the mayor is when I met with the mayor the first week in August. And at that meeting, I provided two proposals. The one proposal was no annexation and agreed to a sanitary flow agreement where Elyria would just charge their typical, they charge a premium. Right now their premium rate is 40%. of what an in-city resident pays for outside. Now, I would certainly hope that could be negotiated lower if an entity such as Lorain County or Lorain County Rural Wastewater District took on the responsibility for all the infrastructure. Now, the developer's gonna put all the infrastructure in. There's no cost to the city of Elyria, but there would be ongoing operation, maintenance, repair costs. So that was the first option. Elyria wasn't gonna consider that. the next option as i went through okay if it's annexation let's reach down with agreement who's providing what services and who's taking care of which roadway and what the term and i are for those roadway in addition to all the other items you have to consider well that's a solid waste pickup your license plate registration fees, your cable TV fees that are in there. I just listed everything down that we deal with, the zoning, building fees, but there was no discussion. It's just, we're annexing this, we can, and we're tiffing it 100% for 30 years. So it was really, there was no give and take. It was just explained, this is what we're going to do and we can do it.

Okay, I have no more questions.

I think essentially the issue, we have seven items that must be complied with that we are expected to review and either we're in compliance or we're not. Is there an issue with, you know, we have kind of a broad resolution from the township that said we don't believe they've met their obligation, but it didn't define which of the seven. Are the other six issues, do you believe that they're in compliance? I'm just trying to hone in on the issue.

Right. Right. Commissioner Riddell, number two, the persons who signed the petition are the owners of the land. Yes. The territory proposed for annexation does not exceed 500 acres. The territory proposed for annexation shares a contiguous boundary with the municipal corporation. That's met. The annexation will not create an unincorporated area of the township that creates an island surrounded by the annexed territory. That's fulfilled. The municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed has agreed to provide the territory with the services the necessary services the question that we had when we received their codified ordinances that they had recently adopted pursuant to you know oha revised code 709.023 is that they listed fire sanitation and police and they didn't list ambulance and ems which is a significant cost once again for a township And then if a street or highway will be segmented by the boundary line, well, they did enact, Codified Ordinance 2026-104 speaks to segmentation of a roadway, but we see there is no segmentation. and and it just is it was confusing when we read it and i wondered if others would be similarly confused and need an engineer in order to plow through all of this and the accuracy of the map so is amber's township in the same ambulance district as the city of elyria

No. The Amherst township, the city of Amherst, and the village of South Amherst have formed a sandstone joint ambulance district. And so we pay for that service as that district as a whole with each of us paying our proportionate share based on usage.

Based on calls or based on residents?

It's based on calls. And what we do is we have a three-year contract. So every three years, that apportionment can be readjusted.

Okay.

Is there a separate levy for that service? There is. There's a separate levy that we have for ambulance service, but that's up for each partner within the district passes their own levy to provide the service. But the township does have a levy specifically for ambulance service. And then our fire levy is actually a combination levy that can pay for both EMS and fire.

Okay. Would those levies remain in effect after the annexation if it went through?

They would, if the annexation went through, they would remain in effect for the existing township residents, but there'd be no revenue coming through from this annexation if the city of Elyria enacts the TIF they're talking about. So that's where we would end up losing a good amount of the money. And it does create some other difficulty. I know our representative has mentioned that, well, this annexation doesn't create the island by completely surrounding the area, but it does segment off a portion of the township. Depending upon whether we believe the map or we believe the legal description, we've got a corner there that is now bounded by Carlisle Township and the city of Elyria and the New Russia Township. So, we've got a little island out there and you can just see the confusion that's going to create. for fire and ems because those are township residents that have no connection back to the township unless we consider that they are not going to annex this road right away you know so again it's very confusing to me the the specific item you ask about the items you have to consider here the one that did not meet was number one, the petition meets all the requirements set forth and was, uh, filed in the manner provided for in section 7 0 9.0 2 1 of the revised code. It does not. And this is where, thank God you have lawyers to read through this, but they do read just like specifications that engineers have to deal with. You go back to 7 0 9.0 2 1, And it says, application for annexation shall be made by a petition filed with a clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the county in which the territory is located, and the procedures contained in Division C, D, and E of 709.02 of the revised code shall be followed. Okay, so then you got to go back to 709.02. 709.02, Division C2 says, an accurate legal description of the perimeter and the conjunction and, this is for all those English majors out there, an accurate map or plat of the territory proposed for annexation. Well, we're not sure which one's right. because the cover letter that tells us they're going to an exit, the legal description, and the map are not all the same. Now I can tell you from the standpoint of engineering, if you've got a particular feature that is so important for safety, for the long-term function of a product, that we usually term that a critical characteristic. We make sure there's additional attention drawn to the drawing for anybody that's manufacturing that component or trying to make a decision so that they're aware of that characteristic. If you look at the map that was presented to you, I guarantee you not one of you knew that they're not annexing the uh... road right away sections in there that they didn't include intend include at least i'm assuming they didn't and include them but they want to segment the road but then you run in the problem if you don't include on you have no authority to gain access to the road which one's correct the map or the legal description. But as far as your consideration, they meet those seven items. They didn't meet number one because you do not have an accurate legal description and map. One of them has got to be right. We just don't know which one.

But it also seems like there's an egress issue to accessing those roads. There is a problem. There's confusion there, and that would be the segmented thing with the segmented roadway. So there could be a possibility there. My personal opinion is that this, hopefully, I would like to not see this move forward myself, but I think that there's more talks that have to be with the city of Elyria to discuss this. the annexation, providing that's what you guys want as a township. Correct. And working through those details, because there's no reason why the township should have to bear the burden of another community's access to roadway. And, you know, obviously if there's county roads and so on and so forth and state routes, it's a different story, but a township road is a big issue, because the townships pay for that. So there should not be a burden in that regard. And I would like to see you guys go back to the drawing board, myself personally, before we run a vote on this. But I'm finished.

Well, the thing is, it's like they're not even in the drawing board. It's really the petitioner, not the city of Elyria. But what happened is behind the scenes that civil era was approaching there in discussions with Neil and. I think there's a lot of unanswered questions and I know there's other people that wish wish to speak. I don't know if trustee Erig or Watkins want to add something. Come on up to the microphone please.

State your name.

Just add at this point that I, speaking for myself, I'm in solidarity with Neil on this issue, on these points.

I would assume that we looked like we had a unanimous resolution, didn't we? From the township?

You didn't. Now you have us in person.

Prosecutor Lee.

Yes. where are we in the timeline because we have a rule on this within 30 days of the request but no later than 45 days that's correct this petition was filed on july 20th and i actually just did the math now um in order to reach your 45th day that is let me just make certain here so 7 14 21 28 35 42 43 40 the 45th day is september 3rd do have one more meeting you can also possibly call a special meeting if you think it would benefit the board uh to table this issue at this time it's really entirely up to you um i would also and i realize this isn't a hearing and it's not intended to be a hearing um but it also might benefit you if you'd like to hear anything more from mr club correct well that's what i was going to say is that we we've got mr clark made a statement

They are opposed and I would like to have an opportunity for Mr. Clark to answer a few questions and then we do have a timeline we have to adhere to and while we're not, we don't have the ability to adjudicate this one way or the other based on what we'd like to see happen. Our job is strictly to determine if the factual seven things have been met for the type two expedited annexation. And if there are facts that we're not clear of, then that's an issue for us to consider. It's not that we're trying to steer the project one way or another, but we need to be clear about the facts in order to make the appropriate ruling.

So can I add something, Commissioner Riddell?

You've got the mic.

Let's be very clear, and I want everyone to understand this. Long gone are the days when a board of county commissioners considered the common good of the people. You don't have that discretion, and I think that you know that. You don't have the discretion to do that. You're looking at those seven factors, and that's the correct thing to do. I will mention this once again, neither here nor there. It's not as if the township is against development or is against an annexation. It's just this type two annexation is rather brutal. And please keep in mind that the residents will have dual residency. They will be residents of both the city of Elyria and Amherst Township if an annexation goes through. OK.

Thank you. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. So there's a lot of time to spend talking about a number of things, none of which are relevant. The only issue that they've raised without any evidence of any kind is the accuracy of the map and the legal description that's been reviewed by the county engineer, and it's been approved as being accurate. So I think all of the matters that you need to consider have been satisfied. And your decision is based solely on those factors.

Yes, question. At the heart of the one issue is the fact that the one statement says that the entirety of the two parcels is being annexed. But in fact, the legal description in the map indicate that what's not being annexed is that portion of property between the right-of-way and the center line, which is owned by the same property owners. Correct. And I'm kind of curious because if there's a reason why that last small piece was not annexed, simply because as we prepared for today, if it went to the center line, then you would have a shared responsibility between the township and the city. And it seems like it was a cognizant decision to stay back at the,

at the line uh the uh the the uh well i think part of the reason for that is that um if it goes to the center line then you're dealing with two different jurisdiction when you're talking about access permits so the city of valeria did not want to annex to the to the center line because it creates problems it creates two different jurisdictions in terms of traffic enforcement police and things like that so it was intentional um the statute talks about territory not parcels so it is not improper to annex a portion of the parcel as being the territory to be annexed but to echo the the spirit of of people getting along it seems to me that those those deals that that

if we went to the center line that it would drive the two parties to sit to the table and work these things out along with the commensurate revenue to ensure that that happens because the people were really trying to serve here those future homeowners and residents and you know i believe that you know the annexation i don't think it's objected in to in in spirit But there has to be a question why anybody would want to leave the township road for their residents, the city of Elyria, to use, but not provide that the township has the revenue to maintain it.

Well, I guess to speak to that, there's nothing, if this annexation is approved today, there's nothing that would prevent that from being worked out by agreement of the township and the city going forward.

So do you think it would be more appropriate then that we should table this and give you a chance to negotiate? Because I have a feeling afterwards there is no...

I think negotiation can occur going forward certainly, but I would not suggest tabling this. As your counsel has indicated, there's only a few days left.

Yeah. We've got another meeting Friday. I don't think $98 a year is enough money for the township to cover all the added expense that this annexation is giving them.

Well, the township will receive tax revenue through the development.

No. No, they won't. It's 100% TIF. Now, had they made a deal ahead of time saying, hey, we'll give 30% with the township or whatever deal they come up with. And I don't know. I'm not going to get into that. I'm just saying it sounds like to me that there was no good faith in negotiating with the townships. That's what I'm hearing from several conversations prior to today's meeting. I was trying to keep an open mind. I appreciate that.

I can't speak to the TIF because it has nothing to do with the petitioner. I know.

Correct. Yeah, I know.

That's where there's gray areas here.

I'll confer with my client if you're proposing that there be a special meeting on Friday.

We have a regular meeting Friday at 930.

All right. Give me just a minute.

Sure. I'm sure Neil could talk for another couple more minutes. Is there anything you would like to add, Neil, or no? OK. I figured. Yeah, I'm not big on this. This should be really done by the judicial arm, not the commissioners. I said it on May 17th in 2021. This should be all done in front of a judge, you know. But statutes are statutes, right?

Here you go.

Okay.

While they're deliberating, though, for our benefit, I am firmly convinced that if we meet those seven conditions, that it's our job to approve this and send it on its way. 100%. And the TIF doesn't have any standing here.

Correct.

But in the interest of two communities getting along, you know, we have Amherst Township here and we have the city of Elyria. And unfortunately, the TIF hasn't balanced the two checkbooks so that the problems can be taken care of. And I do think that My reason for postponing it if we vote to do that is that this was intentionally drawn to avoid the idea of a segmented road to avoid the financial obligation of sharing. So we've gone to the legs to do that and then the ancillary story has no relevance but it's consistent when they say they're gonna take 100% TIF. If the property be annexed went all the way to the center line, we would not have this discussion because Elyria has already passed a resolution that says if there is, according to law, they're required to. If there's a segmented road, they have to sit down and work out a maintenance agreement with the township.

My biggest issue is, number one, did they meet the criteria of the segmented on the road? Number two, is there a burden on the, is annexation dictate the burden be put on another community over another community's acquirement? That's a big issue with me. If they're only paying $100 and it's costing them thousands of dollars a year, why should that be imposed on the other community they're annexing from when they're not generating tax revenue from it?

Unfortunately, that's not one of the seven. No.

No. Those are two issues that I have. Number one, the right-of-way and all that.

But they'll have the ability, depending on how we vote as a board, to appeal it if it doesn't go through. And so my position is pretty simple. I don't think number seven qualifies. And that's how simple I'm going to take it. That's exactly what I think. Even six, I think, qualifies as not completing the...

Which also means number one.

Yeah.

16, I think that's what. Neil is trying to say so correct. Um? So really, it's probably disgusting. It's a cost issue right now so.

No, we can't.

We have a motion and we have a second. And you're in discussion. We're in discussion mode. That's why I was giving the townships. If you guys had anything else more to add. You guys are good?

I would just like to reiterate that some of this information that we shared is not part of those seven factors it was background information and it was not shared in a way to delude you or trick you or make you empathetic with the cause but you know that TIF will be for 30 years it will be $95 and change for 30 years for the township if this is approved and I believe I mentioned it before if I didn't I apologize The township isn't objecting to annexation. The builder should be able to build, the property should be able to be annexed, but if it's a type one annexation, the parties come to the table. The Board of County Commissioners is not a part of that. I know you feel bad because you would be excluded.

No, not really. We could pray for that. Enough on our plate.

Absolutely. But, you know, we don't stand here today and say this can't be annexed. This absolutely can't be annexed. It's this type of this 709.023 expedited annex.

So if you have a type 1, you'd lose. It would not be a shared Amherst Township and Elyria. It would be 100% Elyria.

Correct. Correct. Okay. All right.

so given the mechanics of trying to work something out with the township before the timeline expires it's not possible because any agreement would have to be approved by illyria city council what i can tell you is that my client will sit down with the township with the city and work through these issues and try to come up with a solution either by agreement maybe a subsequent annexation maybe even a type one expedited if there can be an agreement reached as to this 30 foot to the center line So I can represent that my client will participate in those discussions. There have already been some discussions between my client and the township, and those will continue. But we can't agree to a continuance of this because there's no time to get that done.

All right. Okay. Any more discussion? No. Lee, would you like to add anything else or?

i am certainly capable of describing some more of the legal description of the property if you would like i could start from no i guess not i mean i could at least explain i there's a there's been a lot of discussion in my opinion having to do with the the discrepancy between the map and the legal description uh this has been specifically stated as 65.2559 acres of property I don't see anything in here and I don't mean any disrespect to you at all, Commissioner Riddell, with regard to the entirety of the parcels, but that wasn't actually represented in the cover letter and it wasn't represented in the notice and it wasn't represented in the petition. It looks to me like there has been an intention by the developer to request an annexation of this area of 65.2559 acres and that's it.

My question was not that it was different. My question was what are the consequences of leaving those 100 or 200 feet wide by those two little pieces left in the township like that?

Right. Well, at this point, if Mr. Clark is to be believed, and I certainly don't think that he would stand up in front of the podium and sort of misrepresent the truth here, but if he's willing to work out some sort of an agreement with the city of Elyria and the township to maybe go through some sort of annexation of those parcels, then that issue might actually resolve itself.

We have a motion and a second on the floor, right?

Correct. Any more discussion? No. Commissioner? Any more discussion?

No. I believe that we have a commitment, and I would hope that we have a commitment from Elyria, who's not here, that they would want their new residents to be served well by seeing to it that the township has the funding to take care of the road.

Anything further? No.

I think we've beaten it pretty good.

Call through.

Okay. Mr. Gallagher.

No.

Mr. Riddell.

Yes.

Mr. Moore.

I said the president's job is to break ties, so I'm a no. Thank you all for coming in in regard to this annexation. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Under Job and Family Services 11, amendment resolution 25655, adopted September 26 of 25, authorizing a subgranted agreement between JFS and the United Way of Greater Lorain County Lorain for providing financial support to TANF eligible household. Amendment is to reflect an increase the contract by $100,000 for total contract amount not to exceed $415,000 will be paid from the TANF account.

Move to approve. Second.

Discussion?

Mr. Moore?

Aye. Mr. Gallagher? Aye. Mr. Riddell?

Aye.

Number 12, Amendment Resolution 25710, adopted October 24th at 25, authorizing AmeriCab Transportation, Inc., provide non-emergency medical transportation. Amendment is to extend the contract for the period of October 1st, 26, through September 30th at 27, for a total contract amount not to exceed $750,000 and will be paid from the Medicaid net account.

So moved. Second.

Discussion? Commissioner Gallagher? Aye. Commissioner Moore?

Aye. Commissioner Riddell? Aye.

Number 13, amend Resolution 25-711, adopted October 24th to 25, authorizing Marquesas for Jane M.D. and Associates Inc. to Barch Charik Center for Health and Wellness to provide non-emergency medical transportation Amendment is to extend the contract period of October 1st 26 through September 30th 27 for a total contract amount not to exceed 450,000 this will be paid from the Medicaid net account So moved second discussion Mr. Gallagher.

Hi. Mr. Moore. Hi. Mr. Riddell.

All right sanitary engineer 14 a proven entering consulting service agreement with chagrin Valley engineering limited and the amount of eight hundred eight thousand five hundred dollars for the limited access right away state route to baumhart road odot district 3 permit assistance this part of the baumhart road sanitary sewer project sanitary sewer pump station will be required in the vicinity of state route 2 and baumhart road and this will be paid from the consulting services account move to approve second discussion

Mr. Moore. Aye. Mr. Gallagher. Aye. Mr. Riddell. Aye.

15 authorized county sanitary engineer to prepare, sign, and submit a funding application to OPWC and execute any agreements as necessary for the following OPWC round 41 project. And that's fairway drive. Abandonment estimated project cost is $673,900. OPWC funding request is $336,900, a 0% loan. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District grant, $336,950, and no local funding required during construction. Move to approve. Second. Discussion? Mr Gallagher?

Aye. Mr Moore? Aye. Mr Riddell? Aye.

Engineer 16, except on behalf of Eaton Township Trustees, the improvement to woods at Eaton Subdivision 2 off Cooley Road, Eaton Township, completed by Wood of Eaton LLC Subdivider. These roads need to be dedicated to the public and the plat of the subdivision as recorded in Volume 119, page 46, Lorain County Records of Plats, as follows. Ellis Avenue Township T420, 0.110 miles in length from Cooley Road to the South Termini. Mercy Drive Township T421, 0.317 miles in length from Ellis Avenue to the West Termini. Bannard Street Township T422, 0.034 miles in length from Mercy Avenue to the South Termini. And Forsyth Drive Township Road T423, 0.074 miles in length from Cooley Road to Mercy Drive.

Move to approve. Second.

Discussion? Mr. Gallagher?

Aye. Mr. Moore? Aye. Mr. Riddell? Aye.

17, except on behalf of Eaton Township Trustees, the improvements at Eaton Crossing Subdivision Number 5 off Holly Lane Eaton Township, completed by FLG Eaton Crossings LLC Subdivider. These roads need to be dedicated to the public and the plot of the subdivision is recorded in Volume 119, page 66, Lorain County Record of Plots, as follows. Holly Lane Township Road, T367.061 miles in length. From Holly Lane to the South Termini, Geordie Place, Township Road T400, .058 mile in length. Geordie Place to the cul-de-sac of Sperry Drive, Township Road T418, .219 miles in length. Geordie Place to the West Termini with Simon Court Township, T419, .05 miles in length. Sperry Drive to the cul-de-sac.

Move to approve.

Second. Discussion?

I don't know if Bob would like to add anything to this or just standard.

These are standard subdivisions. We have to actually, it's a dedication process.

Well, you came in, I thought, you know, thanks. Thanks.

Mr. Gallagher.

Aye. Mr. Riddell. Aye.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Sheriff 18 approved and in agreement with Lorain County Sheriff and the Mental Health Addiction Recovery Services Board of Lorain County in the amount of $184,371.32 for the purpose of providing funding for the medication assistant treatment for the eligible jail inmates affected for attractive to September 30th to 25 through September 29th to 26. This fiscal year 26 state opiate and stimulant response is a reimbursable grant.

Move to approve.

Second. Discussion? Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Gallagher?

Aye. Mr. Riddell? Aye.

19, approve an agreement with Lorain County Sheriff and Mental Health. Addiction Recovery Services, Board of Loring County, and the amount of $102,707.49 for the purpose of providing funding for medication-assistant treatment for eligible jail inmates effective retroactive to September 30, 2025 through September 29, 2026. This supersedes the previous agreed amount of $95,000 from November 18, 2025, and this fiscal year 26 state opiate and stimulant response is a reimbursable grant.

Move to approve. Second. Discussion?

Mr. Gallagher?

Aye. Mr. Moore? Aye. Mr. Rendell? Aye.

20, entering a subgrant agreement with Ohio Department of Public Safety, Ohio 2025 Edward Bryan Grant in the amount of $57,352.13 for Lorain County Drug Task Force. This grant will be applied towards the salaries and be paid from the criminal justice salaries account.

So moved. Second. Discussion? Mr. Gallagher? Aye. Mr. Moore? Aye. Mr. Riddell? Aye. Ms. Perkins?

I have no update this afternoon.

I have nothing. Board correspondence?

Move to waive the reading of the board correspondence. guys want to stop reading and give me a second second okay thank you discussion i thought i said it no mr moore all right mr riddell all right mr galliard a second you guys are sitting there reading so i'm like hey i'm sitting here hanging out a new business um Yeah, I talked a lot about budgets here coming up, and we have about four departments, selecteds, whatever you want to call it, that are over budget currently, if you take a look at the numbers on a monthly basis. So this Friday, we'll be having one of those discussions with one of the elected officials. The sheriff's office will come in, and we're going to go over all the numbers and the budget, and hopefully have a very constructive conversation on Friday. It's just the beginning. of trying to be proactive instead of waiting until December when there is no money at least see what we can do now between now and hopefully the next 60 days to resolve it so that's coming up this Friday and that should be on the agenda for discussion under new business so stay tuned public comment Otis Otis Lovejoy Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Otis.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. Otis Lovejoy, Elyria. I'm here, same as always, to talk about the Lorain County GFS workers and strike. I've been pretty quiet, haven't been up here for a while. I don't mean I'm not listening. I hear a lot of the times you guys talk about different things when different groups come in here. You guys are quick to talk about how people should negotiate and come to the table and to find agreement, find common ground. I want you guys to actually think about that and think about if there is any common ground that can be had with the JFS workers. We got a one and done offer. I don't think that's fair negotiating. You can't find common ground when no one's willing to budge at all. And I'd like you guys to come back to the table and negotiate with us. And also, it's been six months since we've been out on strike. um no one at the jfs can afford to be uh you know that long away from their jobs especially a lot of the people they they rely on the little bit over time they get in order to pay their bills other people in the building don't get any overtime at all so they're scraping and they're working two two and three jobs So with that being said, something that was just in the news, Mr. Moore, I don't know if it was misquoted or not, but you made a statement about how you feel like it's a political attack about us being out on strike. I don't know about you guys, but there's not enough spite in the world for me to put myself and my family at risk over something political. This is our livelihood. We're out here because we can't afford to live in this economy. We're out here because we're public servants. We're part of this community. And these people that give you shirts off their back. There's been times when I've been having troubles in my own life. And my brothers and sisters at the agency, you know, I'll get, you know... a simple note, you know, maybe a Bible verse, or just, hey, hang in there, and a couple of bucks because they knew I was going through something. That's the type of people they are. That's the character that they have. And when they do things like that, when they can't even afford it on their own, that really shows that they want to serve the community. They got a heart for people. And I just want you guys to come to the table and negotiate with us. Thank you.

Thanks for this. Mr. Green? David Green?

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Commissioner. Thank you for your time. I stand today and rise in front of you obviously under the same. This is the longest strike in Ohio's history from the public sector. And during negotiations, you spent seven days over seven months sitting with the bargaining unit, which is not a sufficient amount of time to bargain a contract. I sat in negotiations that last day and was told after we had passed over an offer that a counter would be there on Friday. We never received a counter on Friday or Saturday as the strike deadline came to a close. You rejected the independent fact finders report. So I'm hopeful that moving forward, We could put our personal feelings aside here and start to focus on the needs of the community. The workers at JFS aren't getting rich by doing their work. They do their work because they love their community, because they love to serve. And just talking to these workers, they miss helping people in the public. That's almost the hardest part of this strike is them not being able to do the work to serve the people in the public because they truly do love it. And they're serving the least privileged in the community, right? Let's not forget that fact. Our members deserve it. The community deserves it. Nothing is stopping us from getting back to the table. We have been ready since February to sit down and have a conversation. Language directly from CERB states, quote, while pursuant to CERB case law, there is no duty requirement to bargain following a lawful declaration of impasse. There is no legal prohibition against it either. And if the parties mutually agree to engage in voluntary post-impasse bargaining or mediation. So I stand before you today to say we are ready to bargain with the commissioners and implore you to sit back down for these workers, for our community. In two days, if we lock ourselves in a room, we can get a deal. I'm sure of that. Thank you.