City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, I'd like to call the June 3rd Committee, Council Committee meeting to order.

The first item on the agenda is Boards and Commissions. Kathy?

Ash DeAngelo is here to discuss the Sustainability Committee.

Ash, come on up. Come on up and give us your name and address. and why you want to be a member of the Sustainability Committee.

Hello, my name is Ashley Angelo. I live on East School Street and I am a Kent native and I am in my last year of school at Kent State in the Environmental Studies program. And I would just love to be a part of this committee. I am currently working at Davy Tree. I am working in stream and wetland restoration and invasive species management. I think I could bring a lot to the committee and I love Kent. I am a Roosevelt grad, so I'm just really excited to finally be able to partake in the community.

Great questions for Ash. Anyone? I see.

What kind of car do you drive?

I currently drive a Kia. But I'm we're trying to get into a hybrid. Thank you. Heidi.

Yeah, It's great that you have a job with Davy Tree. Does that mean that you plan to stay in the Kent area?

Yeah, we actually just bought a home. We just bought our house on School Street. So I'm here for at least 30 years.

And I believe you might be my constituent.

Yes, I am. I was excited to see you. It felt like I was seeing a celebrity.

Okay, now I'm embarrassed.

Further questions for Ash? No? Thanks, Ash. We will be voting on this at the 17th, I believe, council meeting. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you for applying. Okay, the next item on the Committee of the Whole is staff updates.

Sorry, Ron is going to mention the audit forms in case you're wondering why you got an email from her.

2026 is due to be completed by the end of this month and you have all received, well, not all of you because the new people that just started 1-1-26 won't receive, but you received a related party questionnaire and that has to be completed for 2025. So all the old members of council have received that. All the new ones, you'll get one next year. And those are due as soon as you can. You should have received them in your email.

Thank you, Roy.

They can email it to you. They can email it to me. Yeah, that's absolutely fine.

Any questions for Rhonda, Tracy?

Yeah, when did you send that to us?

It would have been just last week, but you didn't get one because you weren't on council last year. Oh, okay.

Yeah, it's not a fillable form. So I would have to print it.

You can print it and sign it up and then scan it back in if you can or bring it the copy to me. Or you can, when you go to electronically sign it, you can put the X's where you need to and then sign electronically. Oh, you can sign it electronically. It's not a fillable form, but you can complete it as a fillable form almost. You can sign it electronically.

Rhonda, I filled my out and sent it to you, but I put mayor and I wasn't mayor in 2020, only for a very short time. Is that okay? That's okay. Right. Any other questions? Thanks, Rhonda.

Absolutely. I need to hide.

Anybody else? The only other thing I was hoping, no, no, you don't. I was hoping that the incident at the Akron water plant would be over and the fire captain who's on scene could come and report. I talked to him, I don't know, maybe an hour ago. He's like, no, I'm still here. We're mostly just there in a support mode for Akron HAZMAT team. Our HAZMAT folks are there, but it sounded like as I talked to Captain Tyler, for the most part, the Portage County Emergency Management Association Agency and the Akron HAZMAT were the lead. It was a chemical, I'm going to share information to the extent that I know it. I have not personally, I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, especially as an incident is still happening. I always hesitate to tell people too much because then it's like, well, you said this. I was proven wrong already. The email I sent you guys, I thought it didn't impact because Jeff initially said half mile from the property is where they're either stay in place or I guess if you could get out. And Jeff, I said to Jeff, so nobody in Kent is, and he said, no. Then later he's like, oh, Davy Tree Seed Campus is in Kent, and those folks in that building are still there. Jeff confirmed that they were still there. Akron Hazmat was hoping to get inside the building with their wands and whatever else they go in with to detect the levels. That was going to be, he said, probably between six and seven, depending if everything goes well. They're hoping that they can get it safe enough or have it be safe enough so that they can at least, I'm probably not saying the exact things, but get the pumps working again so that the water supply can be restored because right now they're running low on water. Melanie's doing to give me a signal so she might know more than me because she has been in communication with them because I called her and I'm like, hey, do we have an interconnect with Akron like we do with Ravenna? Can we share, help them out? She's like, yes, but it's not working. So anyways, what's the latest?

So what actually occurred was there was a leak from they use hypochloride. And that's how they do the disinfection of their water. There was a small leak from their one tank that actually combined with allium. And when it did that, it created a gas cloud. So there was never any contamination in the river or groundwater or anything of that nature. It was strictly airborne. But what they did was they actually turned the plant completely off and evacuated. While there were three people that were taken to the hospital, the truck driver and two of the employees, everybody else was able to get out safely and crews were able to get there. What they're just waiting for is making sure that they can make sure that the chemical cloud has been mitigated to allow for safe entry so that they can restart that plant and get it back up and running. They didn't want to leave it running with nobody able to get in there in case there was an emergency or something happened. We've since allowed them to go out and do some testing of water that was around the plant, specifically areas, you know, you have lines that go out with hydrants and test connectors on them. They brought that water to our plant. We've allowed them to come in and do their testing so that they can make sure that everything is still stable as it's exiting their area. But also they're bringing water from some of their tanks just to make sure that the chlorine residual is still in there. And they're trying, they're gauging because they don't have any of their equipment on yet as to how many hours of water they have left. They were gauging that they had until approximately midnight. So it sounds very positive if they can get back in there sometime between seven, eight, nine o'clock, they'll be able to get everything back up and running and get their processes going again. In that wake of doing that, we also took down our barricades for the road closures, as well as things to be able to hold that in place. And then we've also offered them, we have small, what we call totes of, uh, more diluted hypochloride should they need that because they can't use the existing tank that they have that could at least buy them a couple hours until they can get a delivery. They have not offered to come and get those at this point, but we have made that available to them so that they would be able to get that plant up and running and maybe gain a couple hours that they might not otherwise have. So that's kind of what we know at this point. And yes, unfortunately, our interconnect between Akron and Kent, we discovered actually at the mill fire that it was non-functioning. And at that time, we noticed that there were some other issues that made it impossible for us to open that back up. We've continued to look at that as an option, but Akron has a little bit of a dead spot there with water that they have a hard time keeping chlorinated. So the biggest fear is whether you open it to us or to Akron, there could be a dead slug of water that could be potentially not safe for people. So that's why we've left it closed and we keep working together as we have time to be able to look at that. So that's the situation that I know it based on the facts that's been shared to us by the plant operator from Akron.

Thanks. Any questions for Melanie? Thanks, Melanie.

Again, great work by everybody involved and just everybody wanting to reach out and assist and help too, from our fire department to the central maintenance to the water plant. So combinations with all of us helps us as neighboring communities to make sure we're surviving.

Thank you. That's it.

Might not be able to answer, but you can try.

So Dave and I texted. One of my neighbors who must be on the Portage County hazmat alert was the one that picked it up and they went back and forth. We called the police who gave us this much information. But because we're so close proximate to that, is this something that we might consider getting on the Portage County, getting on this Portage County alert system as well, since we, you know, share, or is there a Franklin County alert system? Sorry, you did? Some people did, most of us did not.

Do we, I think she's asking, do we, does Kent get alerts from this?

From Portage? Yeah. Yes. Staff, you mean? Yeah. And the city? Yeah.

The staff in the city did. Only one person I know got it from the county.

It wasn't a, like are you saying those, like the school system blast out? No, that was not what we got. I don't believe they do that. But Melanie, I'm looking.

Yeah, that must have been what he did.

Could be. Right. Heidi, Community Development.

OK, let's open Community Development and looks like it's the Bridget Sussel show. Yeah, well, so our first item On the agenda is the amendment to enterprise rental car CRA agreement.

Yes. So if you remember in December, we had a CRA agreement for the enterprise property 1225 West Main. That was routed for signature and there was a delay in the signature. So they were on my follow-up list and I kept checking. And it turned out when they were looking at operations, which included moving the 77 part-time positions from Hudson, which by the way, those are primarily retired workers that are drivers, moving cars. So there's only like one full-time or two full-time positions typically at that type of location. they realized that they weren't going to actually relocate everyone. So I told them, but they weren't sure what the numbers were. I said, well, we could go forward with this agreement, then we could amend it later, unless you can work out those numbers. And so they did work out the numbers. And so there was a prior, they were going to relocate one full-time, three, now it's down to one full-time. There will be 49 part-time that will be coming to this location versus 77. And the payroll commitment annually went from almost $1.4 million down to $825,000. I will say these numbers, however, are reflective of other CRA agreements we've granted on West Main Street. And it is in line with the 12-year 75%. Again, it's on the valuation assigned from the existing to the post valuation. And those are auditor valuations. And so because this is an existing building, I'm not saying it won't be significant, but it will be de minimis in a way. And I am just asking for approval of the, we will basically execute a new agreement. It was not filed with the state of Ohio yet because it had not been signed. So that would basically, we'd be destroying and getting rid of that other one. And this one will be the one that would be signed by the city and filed with the state.

All right. Anybody from council have any questions? Yes.

It says all new full-time and new part-time employees. So these are additional. New to us.

They're relocation. So we actually had to do a relocation notification to the city of Hudson. It's required under the Ohio Revised Code when a company is relocating and receiving a real property tax exemption under the CRA. So that notice went to Hudson based on they're basically relocating from a Hudson location to ours. So they're new employees to us.

So between all the technical side that she explained, the bottom line from our side really is it's less of a gain economically than we had originally hoped, but it's still a good gain. And it's, as she said, it's consistent with what's out there already. So it's a little like one of those bittersweet because it's still good news. It's just not as good as it was. As you know, the West side needs any investment and this is an investment and There was a point where she was like, I think we could lose them to Hudson. They're going to relocate to Hudson and not Kent. So we were, like, grateful that they chose to go the other way. So we hope we get your support. It's a very fair agreement.

I will tell you, too, those of you that have been here, that Longitano building has been vacant for a while and had been looked at and not repurposed. So the employment and the payroll, in my mind, is an incentive on top of the building being restored. That was a real eyesore. and problematic in terms of people breaking in in the rear. So I'm really happy. And if you've gone by, they're really making progress.

Anybody else from council? Anyone from the audience have any questions or comments? All right, back to council. Do I have a motion?

Second.

And any comments?

We need emergency. Yes, definitely. with emergency.

Second.

All right, so all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those against say nay. All right, it passes. Thank you. Second item, Amendment to Sustainability Commission Bylaws.

Yes, this has been, this was actually before Council late 2025. There was some discussion and a request to go back to the Sustainability Commission for some areas of wording. We didn't have a quorum as part of the issue, so it's been bumped out a little bit, but we did get a quorum on May 11th and they unanimously voted to do the bylaws. I could go through these, but I think the primary point that needs to be made is bylaws for boards and commissions are typically not done through council. It is not a council initiative. Bylaws are typically done within the confines of the boards and commissions. And these give them that ability now to amend them as they see fit. They also have three broad categories that the sustainability commission subcommittee had identified. that cover a range of virtually everything that would be done under the city with regards to sustainability, environment, natural resources. We did add, they asked if we could add in the yellow area of the words after the climate action plan, as well as any other environmental and sustainability issues, which we did. And then the other yellow area was just a clarification. It was quite honestly, it was a run on sentence. And so then when we were talking, I said, well, perhaps we just need to put a period here and shift this here. And so we wordsmith that. And that was just a change. And the board unanimously approved these. And I will tell you, too, the ability to have special meetings. We actually they just convened one. We actually did the agenda and everything. And I made sure they were able to get into the building. That was just on Monday. They shut up at 530 and they had a meeting and they took some summary minutes and send them to Julie. So it works when they want to have those special meetings and they're going to convene another special meeting on July 6th. So in other words, they're meeting even in between the quarterly meetings.

Do I have any questions from Council?

Chris. Yeah, one question in reviewing the second yellow highlighted page there, page two. Seems a little bit unclear where it says city staff will need to approve a commission member. I wonder if you might want to consider updating that to include a name or a title or a partner.

That would be me. Simply because we don't want it to be, it needs to be sustainability related. I don't want them going to a monster rally. You know what I mean? Like, so the board usually decides on their own, like, we want to go to this and They're nine out of 10 times. Also, we want to make sure that if it's something that's out of town, that they understand that we can't reimburse them for mileage. So that would just be it. I don't imagine that actually happening often, but we wanted to put it in there just in case, because we didn't want somebody going and then representing the commission without anybody knowing.

do you consider revising it to include your title rather than city staff? Certainly. Certainly.

That is fine. Yeah, we can do that. That's a minor, minor change.

I think it's important to say it's not the sustainability commissioner. It's you.

Correct. Right. Because there's just ramifications because they're representing the city. I understand the purpose. That is fine. Thank you.

Any other questions from council? Any questions or comments from the audience? Seeing none, let's take it back to council for a motion.

I would motion to approve with the addition of the community development director replacing city staff with emergency.

Second. Any comments? Yes.

I should ask this question before comment, but it was a bit unclear in the same section that it seemed like Anything that they were doing in the community needed to be approved, but that is. But the nuance that you actually said Bridget was that when representing the city or in the Sustainability Commission and that that was lost on me on first read. So hearing what you said was helpful, but it was lost on me just in the draft that we read.

I know your emotion, but I think if advocates can go to anything personally they would like to go to.

Anything else? All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any against, say nay. All right, it passes. On to amendment to Collegetown land lease.

And I first want to apologize for the very long memo, but I couldn't come in midstream. I think it was important to kind of give that context about the land lease. Actually, a lot of people, our chief building official actually just looked something up and he's like, do you know the city owns that? I said, we own the land. We don't own the building. So I gave a little explanation of the original land lease. But the primary reason we are here is this is the third amendment. The first amendment, again, was to add a fourth building to the downtown redevelopment. The second amendment was to change the parking lot time to be open to the public an hour earlier because the employees were leaving that lot. There's been no amendments basically since 2013. And College Town Kent has paid $30,000 a year for a maintenance fee for the South Water Street lot. So that's the lot that's nestled in between the buildings behind Davey, Amatek, and now Gigi's. So they were getting to the point where that 15-year period in that lease was expiring. So Tim Dean, who's the director for the facilities that I deal with over there, us to have a look at the actual costs. So we did take a year and look at that and then we looked at the portion of their time in it and they are have contributed a significant amount Over time, basically almost $450,000 has been paid. We did talk to the city engineer because parking lots do need resurfaced. And he said they're usually on a 30-year cycle. And he said even adjusting for that, that's about $180,000 every 30 years. So based on their percentage, that would be about a $55,000 contribution. So based on the fact that they have paid so much in, that has been met. So the question was, could they go to similar to what they do with their tenants basically is where they they bill for actuals after a year has been calculated. Dave and I have worked with College Town Kent. They are a partner. We have the downtown redevelopment because they were willing to step in and find those corporate tenants and they've been a good partner. Seemed like a reasonable request. And so we are requesting a third amendment to the land lease agreement to allow costs to go to actual. So working with Melanie and her team, we will have to keep invoices for snow plowing work that's done in terms of any painting in the parking lot. There's some shared uses. They sweep the parking lot at night. So there is a minor amendment to the draft that you got in that they, this was the attorney for College Town Kent and I were working on this, but the last version he sent me, he talks about invoices. I did also list other documentation because if we're going to, if they're going to pay 29.76% of the time, the overtime that we pay for night sweeping, that would be other documentation. He was fine with that. He also actually had, in very old school, he had in there that any notices needed to be sent through like FedEx. I'm like, maybe we have to do that. You know, kind of email now and stuff. And he laughed. He's like, fine. So the version that will be going to the law department when they craft the ordinance, if it's passed tonight, we'll have those minor changes. But I want to put other documentation because obviously payroll isn't an invoice. But I think this is fair and equitable. And I think, too, it helps us because it documents what we're investing in the lot as well as what our partner is.

Any questions from council? Yes, Ben.

So the 29.76%, how was that established? Because I'll preface it with daytime hours are just a higher use hour. And so I assume that we're calculating nighttime hours because they're only having the agreed set hours, which I'm forgetting what they are, but the daytime business hours.

We basically, the time that's committed to them, so seven to five, that's how we got that based on all the hours in a week. Those hours are the percentage. So we basically, the lot is actually during the day since COVID. Many of the companies there are still hybrid. We are actually maybe coming back with another amendment because I do think there's potential to possibly use some of those daytime hours spots for public parking. Originally it was not set up that way, but we end up using it mostly the evening is the heaviest time for that parking lot. So it's literally strict hours in the seven day week, what their hours of time in that lot are. And it was a straight set number.

Follow on. So since we may consider additional use to that parking lot and presumably that require another amendment, is there a rush to get this done before?

It would not change the maintenance fee. The maintenance fee would be based on this because the maintenance fee is based on the commitment of hours to Collegetown, Kent, and that commitment would stay. It would just be that perhaps some of the spaces that are in there, a small area, would be not. So that would be specific to parking spaces. So that would be a different different because right now the whole lot is dedicated to them. So the amendment, it would not affect the maintenance fee at all. That would stay the same if they are open and agree to potentially letting us use a row or two during the day for public parking.

Yeah, just generally, I recognize that the parking there and the nights and weekends is valuable to our community. So that is an additional realization.

Very, very valuable.

Anybody else? How awesome. I do, sorry. How long will this 29% and 6%?

It'll stay until there would, it would be basically like, and it would change, obviously, if they were to change the amount, if there was an amendment to the hours of time committed to their company. So right now they have it from 7 to 5 Monday through Friday, and then it also will change. If they reduce that time, then they could potentially, but again, that would be driven by them asking for an amendment. Even when we reduced it from, because it was originally 7 to 6 p.m., but then we were seeing it was underutilized. Basically, everybody left at 5. Yeah. Hey, we probably use it and get the public in there. And they agreed. We didn't adjust the maintenance fee then. So I will tell you, too, they're not, they don't nickel and dime us. And they actually, there's a lot of give and take. I work with them a lot on many of the things that happen downtown and they're a good partner. And so even if we were to do this, I doubt it would change that at all.

Thank you. Just to be clear, if I can too, for those that weren't, you know, a part of the redevelopment process, this, the issue of parking, it may seem like, wow, as you listen or describe it, it's like, it seems like you're giving a lot to the company and to the lease. That was a, it's a word, a non-starter to not have parking. We had to, in order to get Davy Tree, Smithers Oasis, and Amatek, those commitments, corporate folks downtown, they said parking has to be guaranteed. So we negotiated that to be the, you know, the daytime business hours. And they were fine with that too. But even Tim Dean has got contracts with those folks that guarantees that parking too. Now, the only thing that's, COVID changed a lot. And it changed a lot of remote work. And it literally drives me crazy when I look out the window and I can see empty spaces during the day. I'm like, man, we need to optimize that. She's like, well, it's a contractual thing. It's not like, so, but I think there is, as she said, as times change, even their partners over there are starting to come around to be more willing perhaps to have those discussions. So that's why it was so important to start with. We wouldn't have been able to get And it's like dominoes. Once we got Smithers Amatek and Davey, everything else happened because those other investors, the small investors were like, oh, you're going to have people with good salaries down there every day. I'm going to open a business down there. So that's why it was and continues to be important.

And it should be noted too that Collegetown, Kent, in addition to the parking lot was a partnership with the city, but they actually paid for permits in the deck. for additional employees. So all the employees are not just in that lot. There's a significant monthly buy of monthly parkers for hours in the parking deck. And so the leases that College Town Kent has with each of those corporate tenants includes pieces of this lot. We issue community development issues, hang tags for that parking lot. And it's specified like You know, they'll send me a list of 52, like you only get 48, you know, so they'll get a new administrative assistant and I have to like correct them. But they also have a set number of parking deck spots per those leases. So Collegetown can, bears the cost of that completely on their own as well.

Anyone else? Let's go to the audience. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this? Questions or comments?

All right. Let's come back to council. Move to approve with emergency.

Second. All right. Any comments? Thank you for being good partners. I guess that's important to say thank you. It sounds like they do a lot. They do. Good. Thank you. Anything else?

All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Against, say nay. It passes. Thank you. Committee is closed.

Okay, Finance Committee, Melissa.

Rhonda asked that same question. What am I to talk about? Truthfully, there isn't anything new to update you. So this is really more time for you If you've come to any conclusions or leanings or whatever in between that you feel might be appropriate, the only reason it matters if you want to try to be on a fall ballot is we are narrowing the window because we have to have our stuff basically all blessed and approved for the county by August. So it gives you this month and next month. If you're not ready, that's fine. We can do it next year. I just want to make sure you guys are comfortable understanding the schedule. We did have, I told you guys this last time too, we did meet with our sort of financial lawyers and they gave us some initial feedback, but they're still working on some of the language-y stuff. We don't want to get too far in front of this. If you're not interested in taking some of the ballot, I don't want to pay too much for an attorney to start drafting the ballot or giving us advice on how to go to them. We will have that. If that's something you are going to pursue, we can get that turned around pretty, you know, for the next meeting, so to speak. Again, if the timeline is November, if it's not, that gives you more time. So I don't, I'm trying my best not to like load the deck either way. I just want to make sure you understand your, if you want it this fall, we've got to get kind of get emotion out there and do something.

Or we go next year, then we got more time.

Yes. So if we go this fall and then it doesn't pass, is this something like a levy where we could just keep bringing up again and again? Or is there any sort of legal issue against doing that? And just say, well, let's do more community meetings. Let's listen to people. Let's try to communicate more clearly what this entails. but, you know, it could very well pass on the first attempt, you know, the whole thing, and we would have been kind of wasting a lot of time and effort without testing the waters, you know, or we could decide to have some kind of community forum and see what questions people come up with and whether there's sense, like, there is a sense in the community that they're open because people really do want services and they want improved services, and this is an opportunity to get them.

Yeah, as you recall, the only confusing thing is the sunsetting early of the jet portion for the police station. I mean, that's the good news because it's going early, And that means if the voters are willing and interested to support basically shifting that 0.25 that used to just be used for the police station now to sort of the 333 package. And then, you know, depending on how much what happens to income taxes, you know, the hope would be if they stay steady and increase a little bit more. With that, we can do the 333 and we can have some cash to begin investing in some of the what we talked about with Parks and Recreation, our projects in that downtown section that you guys have been workshopping. So it gives you that a little bit more flexibility, more liquidity to be able to support that stuff and not have to just like always be praying for the next grant funding to come through. We'll still do those things, but yeah, I think from our side, I think the straight up 0.25, 0.25 is the general consensus that we've heard both from you guys and even internally. I mean, I know Rhonda's always like, finance director wants to maximize the revenue, but I think the reimbursement option seems to just give us, makes the communication more challenging. And again, I mean, if you don't want to do this for three years, we have three years we could educate. and try to do something like that. Or if you want to just do the straight up, I think that is the more logical one for a quicker turnaround.

Any other, Tracy? Yeah, I support the straight replacement with the 2525. But in the fall, we don't have to pay as much for the Right, for the election, correct? Because it's going to be a national election. But also in the fall, it's also going to be a very contentious election this fall. So I think mixing in the tax with that is not a good idea. I don't know.

I mean, are we limited to just questions or are we able to make comments at this point? I'm asking the chair. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Well, you know, I would like to get a feel For the community, I don't know how else to do that. Other than, you know, yes, we would have to have forums and things like that. The following year, all the people that are running for ward elections would basically, this would become a single issue, I think. And I think that There's pros and cons to that, but it also kind of would preclude all the other issues that we might want to talk about. So, and then, yeah, I think that, and I think that that could be a downside to that. So, yeah. So that would be my, my, interest would be to let's see if we can't do some kind of communication campaign now. And if we're all on board with this, or at least want to support it in some ways, moving forward to let the voters decide. But we do have to be clear. We do have to communicate it. if we run on this, this would force us to, in some ways, make a public statement as to what we believe. And I guess I have mixed feelings about that, you know, because I really truly do want the people to decide based on what they would get from it and what they would not. they would be able to, I mean, it's a wonderful opportunity in my opinion, but I want people to say this would benefit the city and us through better services. And I'm willing to help communicate.

Here's your choices.

Thanks, Heidi. Ben.

Thank you.

I appreciate the comments and weighing in and ever since this was presented first, I've heard that the benefit to the community is services that are needed and that's why I've heard time and time again from community and staff alike that the services are needed and by delaying going to the voter, I feel like we're delaying the services actually benefiting the community. So that's just a comment on like the timing of things. But I, you know, I'm fully supportive of having further input and comment from the community. I am supportive of the 0.25 to 0.25, the no increase, or as we're saying, not a tax increase, just because the community has had some serious rumbles with the recent school levy and increasing at this time, even if it was for the non-residents is first confusing, unfortunately, but is reality. And secondarily, it is fundamentally an increase. And so it's just, that's a hardship right now. And if we think As as we have been presented by staff, if we think that the the not an increase with the switch will support the 333 staffing increases and actually addresses our roads and sidewalks, hopefully. That's not. But that seems like a good idea.

Thanks, Chris.

Yeah, I just want to echo Ben and I think it's. I think if this was funds for a pickleball court or a splash pad, we might be looking at a more at a bigger fight. But these are essential services. And we have good data showing that this is this has been needed for some time. I think people I think people resonate with police, fire and streets and sidewalks a lot, a lot more than other issues that cuts across issues. We know this is going to be a partisan election. But it feels like a moment, if we can get across the no tax increase message plainly, that feels like the most difficult thing. No tax increase. Put that in the biggest, you know, on the signs, the biggest letters you can. I did have a question about, since I'm new to this, is there a city role in campaigning for this? Or is it like the school district in that they sort of stay out of it? and leave it to outside groups.

Yeah, we need to stay out of it. Even any information that we print with city money has to be very, very neutral. It can't try to push people one way or the other.

But so we as council persons can be loud with it.

You're allowed to go door to door and tell people exactly how you feel about it.

To the highest point, I mean, I think it really behooves us to really back this up as loudly as we can. Get some communication materials out there that we can use and circulate and be united on it if we do approve it. Because I think people do look at us as leaders of this community to say that we back this. And we will stand for, some of us will stand for election, and we should be proud that we're standing for election on these issues, I think.

Thanks, Chris. Tracy?

First of all, it is a tax increase, so you can't say it's not a tax increase. You're just replacing one levy with another one, but it's actually a tax increase on income tax. But secondly, this new 0.25 will not go into effect until we've retired our bonds, correct?

So what's going to happen is if you go to the election in November and the voters pass it, it would start January 1, where the 2.25 will replace the 2.25. The old 2.25 for the police station will sunset at that point.

So next year, we will be done with it.

And 2026 would be the end of that quarter percent. And the new one would start January 1st, 2027.

Because I thought it was, you said three years, I thought. But no, that'll be done. Okay.

Any other comments from council?

Can I follow up? So with the confusing part about that, if you do decide to, we need more time, that means January 1, we still need to go to the ballot, I think in good faith, because we won't need the 0.25 for the police station anymore. So technically as of January 1, that 0.25 comes off. So then people's taxes will go down and then it becomes a little trickier then go back and get it to increase again. And it's from, I know this from a logistics point of view, it gets a little tricky on payroll pro systems. People switch it, they reduce, they change it. And then if we change it again, so that's why we were aiming to do these at the same time, but the same point we can separate them. They're not, They can be unbundled. They don't have to go together.

Technically, it's not a new tax until 2038. In 2039 is when it would be technically become a new tax because the current one is till 2038. Right.

Sarah, I think if you sorry, I've lost my voice. I think if you. If we don't put it on the ballot, it is going to be difficult to get someone to have a decrease and then turn right around and ask them, just kidding. Now we're going to ask you. So if one is sunsetting, you can sell it as a new tax. And I understand Tracy and what you're saying is it is a new tax. but not until 2038, 2039. You can't wait that long and then say, well, now it is. They'll already, you're really just replacing it. And I think that's the downside in some ways because it's confusing as we're sitting up here saying it. Now we need to go to the public and say, it's not a new tax, but it's written as new tax. So we need to come together, but quickly. Because November, we're going to put it on the ballot, which in my opinion, I think we should. We already passed the school levy. So, you know, there were, and it passed significantly. So I think now is the time to say also we did so well, we need to sunset this one and start another one. Because once you decrease someone's money, going back and asking for it again is going to be incredibly difficult to do. So I think we better get on this quickly.

Thanks, Sarah.

Well, now I'm confused. So the bond on the police station is sunsetting at the end of this year, correct?

No, it doesn't. The bond doesn't sunset until 2038. The income tax is not sunset until 2038. We are opting to sunset it early.

Yes, I understand. You're going to sunset it early. So you're going to sunset it at the end of this year.

Voters still have to vote on that, right? That was one thing we checked. We can't unilaterally sunset something early, voters. So we have to ask them to allow that. I can't imagine anyone will say no.

Sorry. But if we put the 0.25 additional tax on the ballot in January also, they won't be paying any more. They're paying the same amount. But then what do you mean by 2028 they're going to be paying more taxes?

Well, technically in 2038 is when that quarter percent would have come off originally. So in 2039, their tax would have been 2%. And if they replace this with the quarter percent, then it stays at 2.25% in 2038 instead of being reduced to 2.8%.

That's the original. What you've said is correct. We're doing that early. So she didn't mean to confuse you on that. She was just setting the parameters for what it was. And to be honest with you, I was going to say this before you said it. I'll just repeat. We landed on language, not calling it. It's not a new tax. We landed on your tax. The amount you pay in taxes will not change because that is true. Right. So I think you're correct.

OK, so the 2038 thing is that's the old. So if we put on the ballot in the fall and they decide to retire the bonds for the police station and then use the new tax increase, everything will just stay the same. Then nothing's happening in 2038. Okay.

But it's because we're financially responsible as a city that it's expiring early, right? So that's a good thing too.

Ben, did you have a comment?

A question? Can we combine those two issues on the ballot, like remove and then replace?

Our bond council is actually trying to write that currently.

Okay. Seeing that language would be very helpful, and I think that's what you were saying. Maybe even the next meeting we would see that language. Okay.

So in order to get this on to the November ballot coming in, July will be that ballot language, but you would almost have to pass it in July for us to get it to the Board of Elections by August 5th.

Any other comments from council? I want to temporarily cede my chair position to Ben so that I can make comment. Can I return to chair? So I agree with so much that's been said. I think it's the perfect time for this issue because you've done such a robust job of sunsetting and paying off the bond early. It provides a perfect opportunity. And while I'm concerned about the economic times that we're living in, because this really focuses on essential services, I think we really do need to move quickly. I think we need to do the replacement 2.5. I think we want to keep it as clean and is straightforward and is focused on messaging and for the council to be able to do the job that we're gonna need to do, communication. I think it would be great if we can actually do this tonight, make a motion tonight, approve it at the next council meeting and have some open opportunities for people to come and talk to us at the July meetings. Everyone gets an opportunity to vote in November. And they will tell us whether it moves forward or not. And so that's just my thought process. So I'm going to retake my chair position and move out to the audience to see if anybody has any questions or comments. Great. Back to council. Anybody willing to make a motion?

Erica.

I agree with you and I would think to take the politics out of it. Those that have to run or it's going to be a contentious election. I appreciate those comments, but I think what you said is important. All the voters that need to show up will show up, but we've seen what happens when the voters don't show up to the polls and what we're left with. That sort of thing. And as far as counsel, you know, it goes in running when I ran and people would ask my opinion on something. I didn't feel it was germane. what they were asking. I said I would reserve not wanting to influence you as a voter and let you use your own intelligence to do that as opposed to what do you think or who would you vote for who would do that sort of thing. I believe in the intelligence of the voter electorate and I also agree that it's time to move on this. It is time.

Thanks. Sarah.

I'll be bold and make the motion. Who's going to second me? I would second it.

So you have to be clear what's the motion that you're making. And you can ask Rhonda for clarification.

So I want to...

The 2.5 to the 2.5.

I'd like to make a motion to sunset the 2.5 police station bond.

The .25. .25.

And replace it with .25 for this... for this fall ballot, I guess I would say.

With emergency.

With emergency. So we can take it.

I think that other one should be a separate motion. We need a second. Okay. That would be a separate motion. Okay. And I seconded it with emergency. And I just want to make a comment.

Go ahead.

Yeah. I really liked what you had to say, Melissa. I think they're And also, we're going to have a lot of people come out to this election. I think it's going to really give us a much better sense than those elections that we have a poor turnout. I just think it really shows how the city is nimble and creative and takes advantage of opportunities, at least comes up with this idea to get the services that people have been wanting. you know, without additional cost to people. I think it's really outstanding. And I would like, I just hope that people can see that. But I would like to give people the opportunity to vote on that now so that we can institute this if it does pass. I think it's a really, you know, Yet another great example of how we, as a scrappy city without very much affluence, can do some pretty big things.

Any other comments, Sarah?

Would we lose essential services without doing this? Would you say we can't expand on essential services?

No, I mean, You are asking more than we're capable of sustaining. Okay. So you would see a continued erosion of our ability to attract staff, keep staff that deliver those services because we're so reliant on overtime and you're sort of in that vicious cycle of you can keep dialing on, but at some point it breaks the backs. And so it's not like tomorrow you're going to end your fire service. No, but it's going to be costing you more because you're not able to have adequate staffing levels. And that affects both response time. I mean, that's what's so important about police and fire. It's like response time matters. And being physically, mentally, emotionally not exhausted. And I'm not trying to overstate it, but you heard the chief, well, you guys didn't, but the chiefs made those statements last summer and talked about how And she'll tell you, she'll call you how much the dollars that we're spending in overtime. So we knew it made sense. We were just waiting for a way to do it that was also made sense. And I think that's why you made your comment was this is the right time. It's a right opportunity.

Do we have a motion? Take a motion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Did you want to make another one? To the second issue or budget appropriations amendment.

We have another motion to make for this. Because we only are talking about the sunsetting. 0.25%. No, she did. You did both.

Yes, and I seconded both.

I thought there was a second motion to have it in the council meeting because I was going to vote against it then because I feel the council meeting should be in July so the people can have a little bit of time to chew on it before we pass the. I'm going to say no then. Can I do that? Can I take my vote back? Because right now we're going to pass it in June council, right? And I would like to wait and pass it in July council so that people can have more time to chew on it. They can come to the council meetings and say if they want to speak on it or something.

And you would like to take your vote back and vote no?

Yeah.

Okay, she can do that.

Could we tell people Can we advertise it on our website? Like, please come and let's fill these chairs in June. And what if we get a lot of people, Tracy, then talking about it, would that be enough? Well, you don't know you're going to get a lot of people. But you don't know you'd get a lot of people in July either. I don't, but I'm giving them more time. I'm still saying no. When's the latest before we can put it on the ballot?

Pass it in July, by July 15th. get it to the balance.

So we could have, essentially, we could have two more meetings if we wait. Or can we still push advertising for two Wednesdays from now to get people to come?

I mean, yes, I will tell you, just an observation.

The public will react most when you make an approval motion. We've been having these meetings for a year. We've advertised them. We put all this information online. And this was true when the police levy passed. It wasn't until an actual motion and then people start asking questions. So my suggestion would be stay your course. You can pull, you can all vote in two months or next month and be like, I don't want to do this based on what I heard. You've done that before on us. So I would prefer to see you put it out there. You make it a statement. See what attention you get. Even on the police levy, we got very little. But the first time it failed. It came back the next time, and we still had very little involvement, but it just, whoever asked, it's an iterative process, and the education information gains knowledge over time. And so, some respects, the best test, whoever said it, is the ballot. But we're happy to hold information meetings, but I guess I would set your expectations, and it's great if tons of people show up, we can explain it, but we might.

Okay, so do we have everything that we need for that? Okay, everybody's okay with their vote. Tracy changed hers, everybody. Okay, we can move on to the next issue, which is, Rhonda, also the 2026 budget appropriations amendment.

Okay, so I sent a memo dated May 26 to the city manager and additional appropriation number four.

Just wanted to see if we could get this approved or if you have any questions.

Anybody on council with a question? I'll move to the audience. Anybody with a question about the budget appropriations? Coming back to council, you need us to approve, correct, Rhonda? Yes. With emergency.

I move to approve with emergency.

So, Ben, a second. Anybody? Sarah? Do we have a second? Any other comments or questions, thoughts? Okay. So, let's take a vote. So, all those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion passes. Thanks, Rhonda.

Thanks. Nothing for health and public safety. Land use, Mr. Kleiber is in here, so Mr. Hook.

To discuss the proposed zoning text update.

Yes, thank you. Basically, I'm going to preface this with this is broken into two groupings. As I mentioned in my memo. So I often come with zoning code amendments. Our zoning code was completely redone in June of 2021. But as often happens, once things are operationalized or we see how creatively people apply the code, I come back with text amendments. So we compile those and then we usually bring them in a grouping. In addition to that, some of you are aware, hopefully many of you are aware, that we actually have a pending court case at the Ohio Supreme Court level. It deals with a, I won't go into the details, but it deals with a BZA case for a pre-existing non-conforming use that was denied. The lower court basically reversed the BZA decision. The city appealed that. The appellate court unanimously has twice held up in the city's favor. The case did go to the Ohio Supreme Court. It was argued in February. Briefs were filed. There has not been a ruling. Now, depending on how that comes down, occupancy currently is based, it's like no more than two unrelated are allowed in a single-family rental. We're talking single-family rentals. These are your duplexes, your single-family homes that you see in some of our neighborhoods closer to campus. That occupancy, if it could be changed potentially on this ruling, we put some language in here that is actually specific to the structure. The assistant law director and I have done some checking and it seems that if you tie things limiting occupancy to certain aspects of a property, the physical aspects, you can limit occupancy. Does that mean that some that are limited to no more than two unrelated, maybe three unrelated potentially? Possibly. That is the case. I will tell you depending that we do have issues with the market that these properties aren't running up. So that works in our favor too. So the first grouping that I'm going to present, I won't go into the minute detail, but I'll go over are ones that I do need approved with emergency currently. The other ones I want committee approval because there is a public hearing requirement, planning commission recommendation requirements. So that way they're kind of turnkey ready so that if the Supreme Court ruling comes down, which then it has to go, the cases that we have pending have to still go, basically go through the lower court. We will have everything ready to put in place so that we have a method to still limit occupancy, but in a different way. So anyway, let's go. Kind of complicated, I know, but it actually, if we wait and turns out that the ruling comes against the city and we haven't vetted and gone through the process of looking at that language, it could take us two, three months, and we just didn't want to lose that kind of time. So the first grouping are ones that I'm asking for approval with emergency. They're definitions, and I'm going to kind of explain why some of them were added. One of them, the warehousing one, was actually brought by Councilperson Wallach. She requested because of the recent federal ICE basically looking for warehousing for using for temporary detention centers that we add language. So we basically updated our warehousing definition to basically say it's a non-residential use. So there is absolutely no way you can't. I will tell you all our warehousing is in industrial districts, which we don't allow residential uses, but that wording wasn't in there. So now it's explicitly added. The other question, so it's interesting because I know zoning is boring, but like to me, it's logical. It makes sense. So dwellings are nouns and uses are verbs. And I don't know, seems very common to me, but it is actually one of the issues that landlords have used as basically to challenge us in court. Basically, they're saying, well, your definition of a dwelling says this. It's like, no, that's just a dwelling. It's not talking about the use, what is allowed. There's permitted and conditionally permitted. So in order to address that, the assistant law director and I have now, we have definitions, nouns that are dwellings. We're adding a whole list of uses. So when you look at the uses, you will see that those uses actually mirror the definitions of the noun, the dwellings. It's just that now we're dealing with a verb. This will then allow when we move further down and look in some of the tables in Section 1103, it will allow us to then very quickly identify through a table that we had added prior what's permitted and conditionally permitted. It will remove that excuse. We actually created the table when we were in mediation. I created a matrix, and the landlords get it then, but we're like, okay, if we have to do this, we might as well just add these definitions and make it clear in the front. So that's what the definitions are. The driveway issue in Section 1107, unfortunately, we've had incidences where we prohibit front-year parking. We prohibit it actually in the parking code, but we also prohibit it in the zoning code. What we don't permit is you being able to throw a bunch of gravel down and say, we never park there. We just turn there. So we've actually amended this section to basically identify, because It has to be natural grass or landscaping. Gravel is considered part of a driveway. So we have three properties that have actually been able to skirt, and we'll see a vehicle parked there, but they're really just using it as backup parking, but still it looks horrible. So we added this to change it. We've also actually in our subdivisions had an issue with – basically bump outs. So bump outs, typically most of us consider that just that little extension off the driveway, maybe midpoint. In most communities, you cannot have it touch the right of way. It has to be basically up off the driveway and on the private side via bump out. People were starting at literally three inches away from the drive apron or the sidewalk and calling it a bump out and adding a third lane in their front yard for parking. So we are now specifying the size of a bump out. We did, I looked at more bump out sizes than I ever wanted to, but this seemed to be the average. So we're adding specifically what that bump out is. So that is something we would like passed right away because we are having issues with people putting gravel down. The next set of questions all now are dealing with depending upon the ruling of the Supreme Court. So as I mentioned to you, We are out creating a new definition, a noun and a verb for a single family rental. We define a single family. Welling, we identify a single family use already in our zoning code or will be with the use, but we have created a separate word adding rental because we need to differentiate this from a single family home, right? We don't want to put the same criteria. on the rent or on a owner occupied, then we do a rental. So everything you're going to see in this 1102 and beyond is for this new basically single family rental. So we are going to make it a permitted use and it's basically permitted in all the same areas that the single family is, but we do not allow it where it's conditionally permitted in the commercial areas because single family dwellings are typically single family structures. We also had to, one of the issues that has come up in the appellate case was that allowed the city to basically get that unanimous vote in favor of the city was that we had purpose statements for our zoning districts, our density, and certain aspects of public improvements. So the assistant law director and I worked on creating a purpose statement for the single-family rental, and it's basically to separate them and make them different from owner-occupied. Will that stand up in court? Hopefully we won't have to find out, but we know we have to at least have a purpose statement. So we came up with this to basically explain why we're putting different criteria on a rental than we are in an owner-occupied. Because in an owner-occupied, the next set of things aren't going to apply. But what we are going to be doing is we are basically a full bathroom, which we use a full bathroom definition in our rental licensing program. It's going to be linked to single-family rental. So basically, a full bathroom must have basically a commode, a shower, and a sink. And we are going to limit occupancy that you have two unrelated for every one full bath. Many of our single-family rentals are in houses that typically are three-bedroom, one-bath, three-bedroom, half-bath. So that's why I said some may allow for a three. They have a three now. It will be a pre-existing non-conforming. But if they want to put four kids in there because they've got four bedrooms and they only have one full bath, they have to add a full bath. So that's a significant investment for the landlord. In addition, they have to park it on site. So we now do not actually allow you to use on-street parking as any of the criteria for meeting parking in any of the districts that require you have to park on site, whether it's commercial or residential. So typically with a single family, we put no limit on your parking. In our original code, we had like basically it was NA. We had one. because it's like you have to have one. It just seemed like a logical question. But now that we are going to make a single family rental, we want you to basically have 1.5 parking space on site for every occupant because every one of those kids has guests. So we have that requirement in our rooming house so we're not coming making this any different than we deal with some of our other rentals because rooming houses are actually properties that were originally single-family that are now housing up to 3 to 15 unrelated persons. So we tried to make that similarity across it so we weren't seeming like we were singling it out to hopefully avoid any future litigation depending on what happens. So everything in blue in these subsections are ones that I'm going to ask for approval tonight. But again, we're not going to codify those until we get the court ruling. I know that's a lot, and I know it's confusing, so I'm more than happy to answer questions. But there is reasons for it. We spent weeks on this, by the way. A little dry. Thank you.

Any questions?

Yeah, Ben. The 1.5 parking spaces is the same as rooming houses. We have 1.5.

We have 1.25 rooming house, but it's we'd have a 1.5 because rooming houses typically have already an improved parking area in the rear. Second question, which this will not let you do, by the way, not allowed to basically no more than 30% of the backyard

And that's my second question. So I was thinking, just reflecting on if my neighbor that I know does not have a minimum of 70% of rear yard space existing, they would not be permitted to rent the house, or would that be pre-existing?

So there will be pre-existing non-confirming uses. So if they basically have no more than two basically no more than two unrelated currently, okay, and they don't have that parking, they still would be allowed to do that. What they can't do, though, because they can't go up in that number and call that a pre-existing nonconforming. So they can maintain their existing occupancy, even if they can't park both kids, you know, like one and a half per kid, like, you know, they can't have those three parking spaces. then they basically would still be allowed to have the two unrelated. What they can't do, though, is not have the parking and increase the number because that's no longer a pre-existing non-conforming. They're trying to do a substitution, and that's a more intrusive use, so it would be denied under a zoning code.

Well, a couple things. First, you're just

I'm looking for what has changed for a single family, the definition of a single family. It just looks like it's just been clarified.

Correct. For a single family, correct.

You are correct. Okay, because that's a big thing. People seem to know and understand this, but it probably needed to be more tightly defined.

Yes, and it was really – it was being – misinterpreted and misapplied in the rental situation, never in the owner-occupied situation. So that's why we differentiate it.

Okay. Second question I have is for the short-term rentals. Since you do have hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast, does that also include Airbnbs?

Airbnbs are actually not differentiated in our zoning code. They're treated just the same as a rental property. So if you have an Airbnb, it's still limited. The occupancy is no more than two unrelated depending on your zoning district. It can be more than that if you're in a zoning district that allows for that, but you still have to have a short-term lease. And then you are basically inspected either as a single-family rental through the city's rental licensing program, or if you're larger and have more than two unrelated, you are treated as a multi-unit rental and are inspected by the health department. So we don't differentiate it at all. You just basically, the occupancy is based on the zoning for that property, the zoning use certificate, not that. Because an Airbnb is a rental. It might only be a week, but it's still a rental. And they do, the ones that do have Airbnbs, they do keep track of those rentals or the leases.

So they have to get a license and be inspected. Correct. And- One of the things they can't do, though, is they can't supply the names of the residents to the city. We don't take the names of the residents.

No, we basically track everything by property owner. And if they have a designated property management group like Century 21 or Jack Cole's company, that kind of thing, we do that. The only time that tenant information or leases are provided is when there is a violation. And we find out that there's more than two unrelated in there. They have to basically usually provide a lease to say that, listen, I didn't know that I couldn't have two. I have three. My lease is through this. And then we basically enter into an agreement where we allow the kids to usually stay till the end of the lease period. If it's caught before January 1 and the first semester, they usually have till the end of the first semester to get into compliance. if we catch that you have through the rental licensing inspection process that you have an illegal rental basically after January 1, we usually let you stay to the term of lease. I have five. I'm waiting for landlords to get back to me where they have three unrelated with leases expiring June, July, and August.

Yeah, yeah. I guess with the short-term rentals, I guess it would just be difficult to really track whether they had You know, if they have three bedrooms, they can only have two, no more than two unrelated.

There's really, right, exactly. And so we, and they, but they can have a family. A lot of times with the Airbnb, it is a family. We don't, we are not a community that, you know, we're not like New York City where people go and rent them to have parties and things like that. So for us, they can have a family, no more than two unrelated. If we catch them with basically more than that we do, but we also, we are complaint driven on that. We are not looking, if we looked at trying to regulate Airbnbs, but it gets complicated. It's a rental. Let's just treat it as a rental. If it's zoned for no more than two unrelated or a family, then that is what you're limited to in your short-term lease. If you are an Airbnb in an area where you can have more than that, then you need to get the conditional permit. for it being with more than the two unrelated and get that through the planning commission process.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, Eric. Oh, sorry, Ben.

Bridget, it's just a little unclear which ones you need the emergency on section So on our forms, is it everything below the highlighted?

So if you look at the grouping, so the 1102.03 through the driveway section, through 1107.15, approved with emergency, and that's going to be codified. I still actually need the other approved with emergency, but I'll work with the law director, and that part will not go forward in the legislation to you, but it will be approved in committee with emergency. And then if we need it, We will bring it through in legislation once we get the ruling from the Supreme Court and then determine where we're heading. We may not need this. So if you look at the top headings, did you guys get yours in color by change?

Yeah, color, yeah.

Yeah, so this part here will be going forward in legislation if approved. This part starting with Section 11-0203, you can approve with emergency as well, but you will not see it in the ordinance two weeks from now. We'll hold it. Correct, Hope? Yeah.

Okay. Yeah, maybe you could help me understand what it's going to look like for the driveway bump out 12 by 20. Which side of it? I guess it'd be not going to put a rectangle 12 by 20. Usually they start to come in a little bit because you have to turn a car just like a driveway, right?

So each property, as you can imagine, is different. But what we want to do is make sure they understand they can't do that lane, right? So this is a not to exceed. Most of the bump outs, we just had one on Newcomer, and it was basically put on the east side because that's where he had more front yard. They still will have to meet the side setback requirements. So that kind of specifies where they're allowed to have it. So each bump out will be exactly, but this is a not to exceed. They can't go bigger than that because when you look at some of the ones where they've done the angle and then gone up, it's much larger than the square footage that we're maximum we're allowing. Some will be rectangle, some will be square, some might be longer.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out what the 20-foot length part of that is.

Typically, it's our parking spaces. Just so you know, most of the, well, downtown, they're a lot bigger. They're really generous. Nine by 18 is a normal parking space. So this is slightly bigger than that. So it would basically be the width that would go out. Usually, typically, they're wider into the front yard and then narrower. So You'd have it basically long and then the short tip of the lane, although the one on Newcomer is actually going to be the opposite way. So it's not a perfect, but at least gives us a limit and allows us to stop the third lane. Some people are going somewhere 10, because a typical driveway or lane usually is about 10 feet. So when you have a two-car garage, it's usually 24 feet. across what we didn't want is then another 10 feet next to that running all the way up okay so but that part of parking can then be 20 feet like i know i'm probably being so if you had it i drew it better yeah it's okay i'll show you what the one i'm using is going to be like i don't want to say this because of your driveway is here dealing with parking they're doing a bump out this way so the length is here and it's shorter this way okay that's how most of them are But what we've been seeing is, for example, they go like this and then they go all the way up. And this across, it's basically here is 10 feet. And then this is like 40.

So this would be the 20.

We wouldn't allow this. The 20 is this. Into the yard.

They can't go next to the driveway like that.

No more of this over and When I'm looking at my neighborhood, that's what they do. They come and they cut out a little bit and then they go up.

We have many of them. Those would exist. Those are not going to, it's for anybody new that's coming in. And we would look at the site and the plan and determine it based on that.

We can't do like a set template.

We do have a requirement, though, that the front yard itself be a certain size. So we did change that. We have... That is in, we limited the, we flipped it. So the front yard, oh yeah, okay. So if you look at page two, in the R1, R2, R3, and R3A and R4, which is your residential, front yard space is not classified, it must be maintained. It has to basically, now it's 30% cannot be driveway. So in a smaller yard, we were seeing people that were going 50% into their front yard You know, and of course we use an aerial and it's not exact and we're measuring it, but we shorten that numbers and then we put a limit on how big the bump out is, hoping that we actually are getting true bump outs and not dry vials. It may not work. I might be back. I might be fine, you know, but this is what we thought based on what we've seen come through our department. So. If you've got a better idea, share it with me. I'll be more than happy to bring it back.

No, it sounds like a good idea. I just want to make sure that people are going to be able to have a space to put the car in.

Yeah.

Because I look at some of them when they're doing that and I think, I could get a car in there.

Yeah.

But I don't know that some other people can. And the 20 foot limit is 12 by 20.

It's just supposed to be a bump out. It's not supposed to be an additional parking. We often call it a turnaround. It's like They should be able to park.

And we do allow, they have like a two and a half car garage.

This will hopefully stop them from coming just two inches from the sidewalk and making another lane.

Yeah, okay.

I don't know if it'll work. We'll see. They're all good. Trust me, we went round and round. None of us had a good eye, you know, because then Caitlin would be like, well, remember that case that we had over on Elm Street, especially when you're dealing with a small parcel. So that's why we shortened that amount too, that you have to have the front yard be natural and grass and made it 70% from 60 so that that way we could stop some people from putting them in that we don't think really should have them because of the nature of their property.

Yeah, so my neighborhood, that's exactly what, if I were, I wouldn't put one in because the ground slopes so much. I just want to get people out of the house, quite honestly. But I have two cars here. Park another one here so you can get in and out of the driveway without playing musical cars.

Yeah. Well, that is one thing we do tell people is this isn't so that people don't have to jockey cars. It's to basically to allow you to have like, like turn around an extra space But to basically think that you can park three across and never have to move a car isn't what this is for. So, yeah, it's not perfect. We're hoping this is, it's a little tighter than what we had. So we're hoping, because you don't want to go so restrictive either, because then people, we're going to have a million variances in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals. You know, everybody's going to be like, well, I need a variance because I have this. So we made sure the front yard had to be 10% bigger, so up to the 70% lawn area. And then we put a limit on that bump out. We'll see if it works. If not, I might be back in a year. So yeah, we're always adjusting. I will tell you that the zoning code, it's a constant, constant change. Those that have been on here long know how much I bore them with this stuff. Could they come back? Sorry.

No, thank you. Thanks Bridget.

Um, if anyone in the audience virtually or not wants a copy of this amazing illustration, Bridget, you can enter it into the records. Uh,

Chris, I'll just add, being on BZA for many, many years and having a lot of these variances, I think that this could be a good mix because it's more straightforward and I like the percentage evaluation because then it gives the BZA a clearer evaluation piece to really look at the yard space because there are a lot of these. And there were cases where we said, It was installed illegally without permit, and it was actually removed because it was so onerous. It was just a sea of concrete that was a bump out.

Yeah. We might have to make it even more restrictive. We'll see. But it's better than what we have. You've been through a lot of these. Great.

Any other questions?

Anyone from the audience? back to council for two motions if desired.

I move that section 1102.03 definitions be approved with emergency. Second.

Any comments? Comments?

I do. It's always good to clarify because the more clear that the zoning code is, then the More likely it can stand up in court. So yeah, I think this is good.

Just an additional comment. I appreciate the Planning Commission and also city staff really laying this out in more clarity. You know, again, being on BZA for so long, it was any further clarification is just helpful when applying. the council's expectations on our communities. So thank you. Thanks, Ben. All right, move to vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

We don't need a second motion, Bridget.

Oh, yeah.

Anyone want to make the?

I'll make it. The driveways, right? No.

No, the.

Yeah, I think Tracy just did the 1102. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

No, I did the other one you do. 1102 or 390 is 1102 or three and the next one is 1102. Did the definitions 1107 or five, right?

Yeah, 110715. That's what we need to do. OK, that's what I'm going to make a motion on. I moved that to approve section 1107.15. 05 with the emergency 0505. With the emergency. Keep going.

Is there a second?

Melissa, Melissa seconds. Any additional comments?

Comment. The no legislative authorization. What does that mean?

It was basically we're getting committee approval for the amendments, but this section 1102-03 and then the 1103 changes and 1107-05 will not be adopted legislatively until we get the ruling from the court. Because if the court finds and upholds the appellate level, we wouldn't need this because our language is so clear.

Yeah, OK, thank you. No further questions, OK? Great. We've got a motion on the table. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay. Thank you, Bridget.

Thanks.

And street sidewalks, Ms. Wallach.

Mr. Helmstetter, you're up.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. So I'm here tonight because the city has received a special event permit application from Kent State University for the Flashes First Friday event in which they're requesting a change in the road closure associated with the existing event. This has been going on for some years. The applicant has secured more than the 70% of required signatures from the businesses in the affected area and is requesting that East Erie Street between Haymaker Parkway and South Water Street closed for the event on Friday, August 21st from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. At this point, I would like to invite Joe Robinson. He's here on behalf of Kent State University, just to give you a little background on the event itself for the new folks.

Thank you all for having me tonight.

My name is Joe Robinson, like Eric said, and I'm with the Center for Student Involvement. And with our office, we oversee the Welcome Week experience for Kent State, and we call it KSU Kickoff. and flashes first friday which used to be downtown connections for many years is our preeminent welcome to the downtown community for our first year students and so we work with our first year experience course which has over 2 000 students where they have their first class on this friday and then we coordinate the walking down to downtown kent after that class so we got a lot of students to our storefronts downtown last year And we just had the road closure between Haymaker and DePuyster last year, and it was just it was too congested. And so we want to spread out. And we felt it was a safety concern as well. And so that is why we're looking for the extended road closure.

Questions from council?

Yeah. So but DePuyster won't be involved, but a lot of people might be crossing the street there. And that's already kind of like a scary street crossing for people.

So it will be closed at De Peister. The entire length of Erie from Haymaker to Water Street is what they're requesting.

Okay, so De Peister, you're going to come to, so basically you're going to come to De Peister and that's closed, or you're going to close it at Main Street?

De Peister on the north and south side will be closed right at Erie.

Right there, so that people can cross.

So the plan is from what Joe's told me and what they've indicated on their application is the students will start on the Esplanade and then we'll have crossing guards bring them across and then they'll have the entire stretch of Erie to have vendors set up. Vendor like informational type booths and other businesses that aren't within that event footprint will be permitted to have a booth because this is just a great way to acclimate those new students with the businesses and the businesses downtown.

And that'll be definitely something that automobiles and other motor vehicles will see that there's a street closed off there, but they'll have access to the parking deck.

Yeah, the parking deck will be open. And then we have an MOU that Captain Gaydosh does. The service department works on it with all the necessary barricades, closure signage and all that.

Okay. But I mean, I'm most concerned about the pedestrian experience, actually. And also the access to the parking deck. That's really important.

Yeah, the parking deck will still be open.

Anybody else on Council?

I'll just say thanks for planning this. This gets a lot of students introduced to our downtown.

That's a win for it seems like everyone. So thank you for planning this.

And it's just till 7 and it'll shut down right at 7.

So the event itself is 2.30 to 5.30. And so for setup time and tear down time. So when the road closure starts till 2.30 and then just allowing us time to tear down.

And then it'll open, the street will open at 7. Do you have advertising like businesses, you said they can do a booth?

Yeah, so we work closely with the Kent Area Chamber of Commerce in Main Street, Kent, and so they will be sending out registration in June, so shortly. And really, the premise is we try to get students in storefronts, but obviously for businesses that don't have a storefront around that East Erie downtown area, we still want them to participate. So for those businesses, we offer a table.

Are you charging for those tables? We are not. Oh, that's so nice. I think it's awesome.

Anybody else on council?

Anybody from the audience? Back to council.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Aye. Passes.

Thank you.

Done. I can I can do that. I got a text from guys. Wait one second. I got a text. I got a text from the mayor of Akron who said hi mayor. This is Shamas Malik in Akron just leaving the water plant. Want to say the Ken fire did an amazing job. Appreciate the teamwork. I responded. Thank you mayor for your kind words and recognition. We're proud of the dedication and professionalism. of our fire department and grateful for the strong partnership between our communities. Working together allows us to better serve and protect our residents and we look forward to continuing this spirit of cooperation for the benefit of both of our cities.