Telecommunications Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening and welcome to the City of Green Council, I'm sorry, committee meetings for Tuesday, August 11, 2026. I'd like to call these meetings to order. First item on our agenda is the approval of minutes. We have TMP 5451, approval of the July 28, 2026 council meeting minutes. Move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Neugebauer?

Yes.

Mr. Noble?

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas?

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey?

Yes.

Mr. Spate? Yes. Mr. Brandenburg?

Yes.

And Mr. Mager?

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

And now we'll go into the meeting of our committees. First committee to meet this evening is the Finance Committee, chaired by Mr. Humphrey.

Thank you, Mr. President. All members of the committee are present, myself, Mr. Neugebauer, and Mr. Spate. We have no items of legislative business, and I think that's the first time this year that I've had any items of legislative business. We do have one item, though. that I want to discuss. We received as counsel a memo from Shelly Goodrich, our Director of Finance, July 22, 2026. The city has an investment policy statement and Section 33.005 Subsection P requires city council or their designee to do a review of the investment policy statement annually. Essentially, an investment policy statement is here are the types of things as a city, and this is governed statutorily, that we will invest in. These are the kinds of things that are permitted. These are the things that are not permitted. And you need to just re-look at that from time to time to make sure that your investments live within the confines of that investment policy statement. Our director of finance did do that review of our investment policy statement and our investments. That annual review has been completed. And the Director of Finance concluded that the policy remains in compliance with Ohio Revised Code Chapter 135 governing municipal investments. In other words, the investments that we hold as a city comply with that required policy. by the Ohio Revised Code. The Director of Finance will also provide quarterly reports to City Council and to the Finance Committee so that we can monitor those and then do the annual review. And so, as a matter of record, we just wanted to note for the record during the Finance Committee that this review has been conducted and an annual review will be ongoing, plus the quarterly statements to City Council. Any questions or comments from anyone on finance? All right, with no items of legislative business, we'll adjourn at 5.04.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. Our next committee to meet is Environment and Parks, chaired by Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. President.

All members are present this evening, myself as chair, Mr. Spada as vice chair, and Clark DeVitas. We have no items of old or new legislation to come before the committee this evening. Is there any old or new business? Anything, Director Carr, from Parks Department you would like to mention at this time?

I am happy, oh, the mayor's going to report on this, so I will not take this thunder.

Mayor, is this the appropriate time, or do you want to do it at the end?

No, it is, Mayor. The rain tree personnel informed us that 14 people took advantage of it at the last Sunday opportunity. So as that gets traction, we expect more people to take advantage and just want council to know that folks are noticing and appreciate it.

So that was reduced cost of golf on Sundays after... One o'clock. After one o'clock and 14... And you can bring a child for free. Any child under 14 for free? Or 14 and under?

Yeah.

Okay. Anything else?

That's it for now.

Okay. Anything else from you?

No.

Okay.

Then officially we will not meet. Excellent. All right. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. Our next committee to meet this evening is Public Safety, chaired by Mr. DeVitas.

Thank you, Mr. President. Public Safety will meet tonight. Myself, Mr. Humphreys, Vice Chair, and Mr. Neugebauer are all present. We have one item. This item, I believe, is on fifth reading tonight, 2026-R26AA. Okay. a resolution authorizing the City of Green to enter into a second amendment to the policing contract fiscal years 2024 to 2026 with the Summit County Sheriff to include flock safety cameras to enhance services within the City of Green and declaring an emergency. So this was introduced way back in May and we have had a few meetings with extended discussion on this matter, all sorts of different matters. We've been having correspondence between the county who is the one who actually contracts with FLOC for the services and with us in the county, because we're the ones paying for the service itself, addressing some changes that the council has potentially wanted in this legislation. Changes are reflected in the amended piece of legislation, and I'll just go through those. Basically, there was seven changes proposed. The county was on board with three of those changes, so the attached legislation reflects those three. So I believe it's the very end of the attached exhibit for the reimbursement agreement, Section G. It says, terms and conditions as to the county's agreement with flock as to green only. City council has authorized the mayor to enter into this agreement to reimburse the county for its costs respecting the use of flock cameras within the city limits of green, condition upon the following terms of use. One, the data and footage may not be retained or released for revenue generating purposes. Two, the county will comply with policy number 4.8.0, topic license plate reader. We have received that policy from the sheriff's office. And section three is any changes to the contract between the county and flock or changes in use as a result of technological developments must be timely reported by the county to the city. So that sums up the three points that they did agree upon. As I said, we've been dealing with this issue over the last couple of months. Council anonymously submitting proposals to our law director, who then, through discussion with the county, brought our proposals to them. One of the major ones that we discussed was the event that flock was sold that we would have the option to cancel the contract or opt out of it as the city the county rejected that proposal they did instead take the idea for themselves and gave themselves the option to opt out in that event but again we are the paying party and we have no say in that matter I will say that this is operating under the pretense of the original terms and conditions that FLOC had agreed to with Summit County back in 2024. And if we do pass this, the reimbursement agreement would be for flock services under the 2024 terms and conditions. However, whenever Summit County re-ups with flock, there are numerous new changes to their terms and conditions that would more than likely take place. So I just wanted to cover a few of those. And then we can open it up to committee discussion regarding the amendments, as well as potential issues with the upcoming terms and conditions. And any last comments before hopefully we bring it to a vote tonight. Okay, so FLOC has posted new terms and conditions as of February of 2026. Some of the major issues that I have with the language that will be changing is... Number one, there used to be explicit no-sale language in the terms and conditions for customer data. And so even as recent as December of 2025, there was, quote, FLOC does not own and shall not sell customer data. That language has been removed. It now gives FLOC, quote, a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual worldwide license. to use and disclose customer data to provide the services, and use customer data to support and improve FLOC's products and services. So I have an issue with the perpetual license that they get because it seems that that implies upon contract termination, the customer loses access after the retention period, but FLOC does retain ongoing rights to the licensure of that data. So... In December, we had a clear contractual prohibition on sales. That language has been gone. There's also, in December of 2025, there was a dedicated section that training data would be stripped of metadata and identifying information. The updated language removes that entire section. So that's significantly weaker protections against the use of the data and gives them the ability to use it for model training and improvement. Number three, FLOC's exclusive control over access to customer-owned data. The terms state now that FLOC retains the exclusive right to determine and control the method, timing, format, and medium of access and delivery of customer data. And there has been reports that sometimes customers receive degraded or low-resolution versions of the data, sometimes lacking full metadata such as location, timestamps, certain things like that rather than the actual raw footage with the fullness of the metadata. And another issue I had is that there will be stronger liability protections for flock and weaker remedies for customers. As we've already seen with us being the ones footing the bill in this reimbursement agreement, if at this point in time, at least as far as I understand, if these cameras are vandalized, we are the ones paying for it, so we would have to pay for the replacement. or repair of vandalized cameras or even just unwillingly damaged cameras. But aside from that, the prior terms capped liability at roughly 12 months of fees, but carved out exceptions for gross negligence, willful misconduct. So the big concern is that if there is a serious data breach, security failure, or other misconduct with the system, the burden of that, at least financially and liability-wise, is the language is shifting more to the actual customer who's paying for it rather than FLOC themselves. So again, that's just stuff with the upcoming terms and conditions, which at some point when the county renegotiates with FLOC, that will be the terms and conditions we operate under, unless they're slightly modified in negotiations by the county, but I'm not sure how much strength they have to do that with regards to FLOC. With regards to the actual amendments before us, I mean, I think they're good amendments, but I had issues with the retention periods. I was willing to negotiate with the sheriff's office on that a little bit, hopefully giving up to 24 hours for people who aren't flagged in some sort of database for stolen vehicle, Amber Alert or whatever, not retaining those people's data for 30 days. I understand if it's a criminal retaining their data for a longer period of time, but for just the standard everyday passerby, I would have preferred a smaller retention window in order to protect the privacy of that person's comings and goings. And then the other change that I already mentioned, which was, I believe, Mr. Mager's proposal about having the city having an opt-out in the event of a sell of the company. The fact that we don't have that is a major issue to me, especially since we're the ones footing the bill. So that kind of covers my current stance at this point in the legislation. I will open this up to committee for comments.

Yeah, I guess I'll comment, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I appreciate all the thought that you've put into this, and I think you have brought a lot of issues for us to think about. We've had folks show up and talk about this issue. And as I've thought about this issue, you know, when it comes down to safety and security, it's always a balancing act. I'll give you one example. I used to fly. I was in airports for a long, long time, four days a week, flying in and out of Akron, Canton, and Cleveland, going out of state, coming back in. And I flew before September 11, 2001. It was pretty easy. After September 11th, 2001, it became much more difficult. Like the rest of the flying public, I complained about the difficulty of flying after September 11th, but I was happy to be able to travel home to my family at night after one of those trips because the airport was safe and our system seemed to be safer. And I think the statistics have demonstrated that. So were there trade-offs with that? Of course there were trade-offs. There were longer lines, there were longer waits, there were inconveniences. Sometimes it got awkward at security with pat-downs or going through baggage or whatever they presented at the time. But it was a trade-off to keep people safe. You know, when you think about electronic surveillance, as we've talked about at our other meetings, you know, we all have cell phones, unless you're not operating with a cell phone, but I think most people have cell phones. Your car is tracking you. Your insurance company is tracking you. Your smart watch is tracking you. Everybody's Tesla in the world, if you bump into it, is tracking you. You can almost do nothing in this world without some kind of thing tracking you. And then within the device that can track you, you're using maps, and those maps are tracking you. You're doing web searches, and they're building up a database of things that you like and things that you don't like. We've probably all had the experience of talking about, wouldn't it be nice to go to the Bahamas this winter? And all of a sudden, you start getting ads for trips to the Bahamas for places that you could go in the winter. So there are definitely trade-offs with security. but the horse is kind of out of the barn. Does that mean that we totally throw up our hands and say we're not going to protect ourselves and everything is going to be fair game? I think the answer to that is no. But in this situation, if our data... for our license plates in the city of Greene is used for an improper purpose, we do have legal redress for that. There are constitutional rights that are associated with the use or misuse of that information. So I believe that there's still legal protections And this is a corporation in business to make money, and one of the things that I know about businesses that want to make money, they want to make sure that they also don't violate the law, because if they violate the law, there's going to be plenty of lawsuits and problems with regulators. And so I think that there's sufficient... checks and balances on the other side of that and then I look at what is the purpose of the flock camera and I guess at the end of the day when I look at what you give up in terms of one of those flock cameras saying this license plate just went through this roundabout or this license plate just went up the highway. What you trade off in that is the public safety value that our sheriff's department came and told us about. And I guess if I'm going to weigh those things, the risk of the misuse of information against the benefit that the protection that flock cameras can give our community, I'm going to side on the side of the safety of our community and law enforcement. So I realize there's honest disagreement with members of this council. I appreciate the excellent debate that we've had. I sympathize with the arguments that are being made, but at the end of the day, that's kind of where I've come to with this.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. I will say regarding the safety aspect, of course, I've always supported safety as much as I can to its utmost value in the city. I'm a firefighter and a paramedic myself. I value safety to the highest level. Always supported the Sheriff's Office with their collective bargaining agreements, their wage increases, adding staffing, canine units, always supporting everything they do. So it's nothing with the Sheriff's Office. It's more the implementation of this tool. With the safety thing, I would always stress, I don't know if we have causative data that it's actually solving crime or if it's correlated and part of it. We did get the sheriff's report from the sheriff's office for the last quarter or month or whatever. And it said, I think flock was used once in June and twice in July or vice versa. Either way, stretch that data out maybe 18 times in a year. And we don't know, would the crime have been solved without the flock cameras? We can't determine that. We don't know how instrumental it was. So is this potentially 18 times a year worth $42,000 to our taxpayers, especially when we can't fully govern it? So that's my stance on the safety matter. Mr. Neugebauer, did you have a comment?

As chair of the committee, I appreciate all the work you've done on this. Mr. DeVitas, you've made some really excellent points about privacy, and I think there's in the balance, those are all very important things for our community to understand, so thank you for your work. Mr. Humphrey, I appreciate your comments too about the trade-off of a little bit of freedom for safety, that there is that trade-off. I don't see, I don't really consider flock hammers as tracking me because generally there's really no interest in that. I don't live that exciting a life, and I think most of our residents, they're not being tracked because there's no reason to. And I think the key for me is that you're only tracked if there's a reason to track you, and it's usually because you're dangerous. And so in order of safety, I tend to support initiatives that improve the safety of our community.

Thank you, Mr. Neusebauer.

I'll open up this discussion to counsel. Mr. Spate. Thank you, Mr. DeVitas. I would also like to say thank you for all of your hard work on this piece of legislation. We've definitely talked a lot about it. I will go on the record and say personally, as Justin Spate, I don't mind the flock cameras. My cell phone is getting way more data than a snapshot of the back of my car, so I really have nothing to fear with the flock cameras. But as an elected official, I have to take a different stance on it because I believe there is a significant population out here in the city of Green who are opposed to these flock cameras. We've heard from a lot of them and a lot of them we haven't heard from. And they have a whole bunch of issues with them. I don't share those same viewpoints necessarily, but I know there are a lot of people out there who are opposed to them. I also look at this from the perspective of the contracts that we've looked at. The one change you brought up tonight about the language being removed from the new contract where basically enabling them to sell the information. Once again, it doesn't really affect me. It's not that big of a deal, but to me that's a red flag. Also, our inability to withdraw from this contract in the event that FLOC were to sell. That to me is another red flag that I do not like. If six months from now FLOC sells, we don't have the ability to cancel this. We're stuck in this contract for two years. And I'm not crazy about that. The other thing is from the financial aspect of this. Forty two thousand dollars is not that much for the safety that we potentially would receive from this. However, we are posturing towards saving money. We just passed legislation at our last meeting to join Rita to try to to. increase our savings in our income tax department for the city of Green. We're doing a lot to try to save money as a city. I look at this as a luxury, something that we necessarily don't need. We've been operating for years in a safe community without it. Adding $42,000 at a minimum to our budget every year, and that number's not going to decrease. Let's face it, it will go up. That's something that I feel we could probably do without at this time. I've said it before, last time we talked about this two years ago, that I feel somebody else should be paying for this. I feel that there needs to be bigger oversight from our county, our state, or even our federal government when it comes to flock, since this is a sensitive topic. And with that being said, I don't think it's the right time for us to re-engage in this contract. I think we should put our foot on the brakes, let a higher power of legislation put something out there to help govern us and protect our citizens. and possibly somebody come and help pay for this one day. Because countywide, we are the only customers of the Summit County Sheriff's Department that pays for flock, which gives the entire county access to the flock data. That's a heck of a benefit for the county, and we're only one customer in the entire county that the Sheriff's Department has access to. If the Sheriff's Department would like access, I feel that this is something that the Sheriff's Department could possibly pay for. Additionally, when it comes to the funds, like I said, 42,000 is our contract. We already have one camera down in the city of Greene, probably by vandalism. At the end of the day, we're going to have to pay to replace that camera. With 14 of those in the city, unfortunately, there's criminals out there that are vandalizing these cameras. If more of them go down, that's just going to increase our cost. And once we're in this contract, if we don't have a way out of it, our cost is going to continue to increase. That number could increase pretty significantly over the years to where I'd rather see us put that money into an additional deputy on the streets or let's bolster some of our other safety services in the city. And I just at this time don't feel it's a good fit for us. And maybe one day we'll come back and revisit it. And hopefully things have worked out better with Flock and we can have more control over our contract. But now doesn't seem like a good time. Thank you, Mr. Spate.

Any other members of council? Mr. Mager.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess I, for one, see the flock cameras as a valuable tool for our sheriff's department. I think it's good intended. My concern is the lack of nexus between who's paying for this and who's negotiating the contract. There's no incentive on the part of the county to help us negotiate a better contract because the contract is ultimately between the County and FLOC. That's been my issue the whole time. I believe that this contract is probably more apt to be between FLOC and the City of Green. I know we subcontract with the Summit County Sheriff. I think they do a phenomenal job. I'm not looking to take a tool away from them that I think have proven to at least help with not just crime, but finding people that are lost in the city for whatever reason. My issue with this comes down to the contract. I think my preference, and I've expressed this to the administration, is to find a way for us to directly contract with FLOC, allow us to negotiate the terms, negotiate the out that now the county has adopted as their own contract in the event that the FLOC company is sold to private equity or whatever. So for those reasons, I'm just not supportive of this legislation because of those reasons and the change in terms and conditions. I think there's a lack of nexus between who's paying for this contract versus who's negotiating the contract, and for those reasons, I'm not going to support it.

Thank you, Mr. Mager. Any other comments from counsel? Okay. I guess my last words regarding this, kind of piggybacking off what Mr. Mager had said, and even Mr. Spate, is that Well, I have a lot of issues with the privacy matter and the data storage and security of all that with regards to the safety of our residents in that capacity. But one of the big glaring issues that Summit County is the actual party to the flock contract, as Mr. Mager indicated. The cameras are their property. The data is theirs. The terms are theirs. But we're paying the bill, $82,000 for two more years. and we have almost no real control. So as Mr. Spate said, the city's been pretty adamant about trying to trim the fat with some expenditures, save where we can, so we can focus on some major needs within our city, whether it's safety, infrastructure, other things like that. When this council asked for stronger language with regards to data sharing, third-party access, and oversight, the county largely ignored us. They did take one of our ideas, Mr. Mager's idea, for their own use, but did not give us the ability to opt out. We're locked into a vendor agreement whose latest terms are going to give Flock a perpetual license to use customer data, even beyond the terms of a contract with the city. It removes clear shall not sell protections and limits our ability to protect our own residents. I just say this is not a partnership. Green is writing the check and Summit County and Flock are writing the rules. So at this time, I'll not vote to extend a system that trades our residents' liberty for a tool we cannot fully govern to the fullest capacity as this council. Okay, that being said, do we want to bring this to a vote tonight, committee?

Yes.

Mr. Neugebauer?

Here.

Okay. The committee has concurred. We will bring this item to a vote tonight at our regular council meeting. I'd just like to say thank you all for the discussion and great points on both sides. I thank the Sheriff's Office for giving us all the background and data regarding how they've used it and the administration for helping facilitate all this. Okay, we'll go on this tonight. I believe that's the only item of legislative matter for the safety committee tonight. Is there any older new business? Okay, hearing none, we are adjourned at 5.30.

Thank you, Mr. DeVitas. Our next committee to meet is Planning, Community, and Economic Development, chaired by Mr. Noble.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Planning, Community, and Economic Development Committee, all members are present, myself, Mr. DeVitas, and Mr. Humphreys. We do have a number of items of legislation this evening, so we will meet. The first item, I don't know if it's on fourth or fifth reading here, is item 2026-10, amended, I guess AA, an ordinance to amend section 157.134, subsection 5, subsection C, design and layout of chapter 157, planning and development code of the codified ordinance of the city of Greene, in furtherance of Senate Bill 264, Megan's Way Out. We did hold a public hearing on this at our last council meeting on July 28th, 2026. So this revision to our code is associated with drive-through facilities. There has been an amendment since our last meeting since the public hearing. Mr. Reith, you wanna go ahead and just give us a brief explanation of that amendment.

So basically, to go back, this is about providing a bypass lane at any drive-through type facility, meaning that you can be able to maneuver out, no curbing, anything that would stop you from being able to get out of that line. It won't protect you if you're right at that point, potentially, depending on where you're at. in the line, depending on the design. Anything that goes through a major reconstruction would have to meet this criteria for any new ones. But I want to make sure, and you heard from the family of Megan Kellerman at the last meeting, that they understand that this is not completely foolproof. You can't make it foolproof because there's items in a drive-thru that just have to be there to serve the public. However, the ability to do this and not have raised curbing or blockages that are there provides at least a better outlet potential. That said, the three amendments we have added at the request of council, the reference to Senate Bill 264, Megan's way out. This will go into place if you guys vote for it, irregardless of whether Senate Bill 264 passes or not. The second one was the Planning and Zoning Commission did vote 5-0 in support of this legislation, the modifications of development code, which is this legislation. And thirdly was the reference to clarifying that only one single bypass lane was required, even if you have a double lane type drive-through. The key is to be able to still maneuver around that building. They did not want to see additional asphalt being added, so the clarification was simply there's only one bypass lane required at any new development. Those are the three amendments beyond any of the comments within the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Reithy. Okay. Is there anybody on committee that has any further comment on this?

I just have one question. So, Mr. Wheathey, when you say only one bypass lane, so like at the new Chick-fil-A, they typically now have two lanes of drive-through. The outer would be considered the bypass lane. They wouldn't need a third lane when they have two lanes. Correct, correct.

One clarification on Chick-fil-A, the outside lane, there's a roll curb around. It starts at the drive-through to the other side of where the target parking actually starts. So we modified that to go to a roll curb. case you really something drastic happened okay you can drive over it secondly the outside lane at chick-fil-a is what is their mobile app lane okay so it's pretty much moving consistently you should not be in that outside lane unless you're you've ordered your your whatever and you're going through and you're picking up so it's considered a they're using as a mobile app as well as a bypass line

Okay. And if a business owner comes in and they have a unique piece of property that's on the smaller side, they want to put in a drive-through, there's not enough room for a bypass lane. There is a procedure in place where they can apply for an exception to the development code.

This does not exclude the request for a variance. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. Anybody else? Okay. THIS ITEM OF LEGISLATION IS ELIGIBLE TO BE VOTED ON TODAY AND SO DURING OUR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, I'LL TAKE 2026-10AA AND BRING IT TO A VOTE. Okay, second, we have a couple items on second reading to go through. The first of the second reading ones is 2026-20, an ordinance declaring a portion of improvements to a certain parcel of real property owned by Arlington Ridge Marketplace LLC doing business as Chick-fil-A to be a public purpose, exempting 100% of the value of the improvements from real property taxation for 30 years and declaring an emergency. So this item is a standard TIF agreement that this council has seen many of over the years. And again, it's for 100% of the property value or of the value for 30 years. The expectation is this is about a $3 million improvement for the Chick-fil-A property at this location. And this will be associated with the Arlington Road TIF. So Mr. Reethy, anything else on that?

I think you covered it.

Okay. Okay, and just, I guess, speaking of Chick-fil-A here, it's come up twice, and I think anybody that's been out there sees that they're getting closer by the day. The zone is gone, and the signs are up. Their goal was October, first week in October. First week in October.

There was an ask, and I think Chick-fil-A recognizes that we will ask them to have special deputies on board routing traffic because we anticipate a little bit of chaos that first week, and I think they do as well. So be forewarned, but also we're trying to be proactive.

Just so everybody knows, there's other places to eat in that plaza, right?

There's some really good places to eat. Five Guys, you know, I've never had. Panera Bread. Mahi Mahi Place. Burger King. Panera. Yes, there's a lot of good places in there. So if you go to the other ones.

There's a rear exit and there's a side exit.

You can go out to Moore Road from the back side of Target Plaza.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wheatley. Okay. Does anybody have any questions on 2026-20, the TIF agreement? committee? From council? Okay, this is on second reading. We'll ask for time on 2026-20 at council. The next one is 2026-21, an ordinance declaring a portion of improvements to a certain parcel of real property owned by Bull Run Ventures LLC doing business as Brenneman Group to be a public purpose, exempting 100% of the value of of improvements from real property taxation for 30 years and declaring an emergency. So this is also a TIF agreement, value of around a million dollars.

This will be much more than a million dollars when it goes on to the... Much more than? Yeah, well, not much more, but relatively speaking, probably $1,800,000. I mean, you can't build a house for $1,000,000 of this caliber.

So this is for a parcel of land that's on Town Crossing just over here. It's 4228 Town Crossing, and it's a medical office building. Is that correct? Yes.

Primarily it's part financial and part meds, what they call med spa today. Med spa and financial. So there will be some doctors in there and estheticians, I guess is the word. That's a hard one to say for me. But the other side will be financial advisors as well. So they've been leasing for a long time in the community and they're now just decided to build some equity.

Okay, and again, this falls into the Massillon Road TIF?

It primarily is the Town Park TIF, which Akron General, Aldi's, and the dentist office on the corner, as well as the chiropractor all pay into Town Park, Town Crossing, and some other work around Town Park Boulevard. including Connector Road at Burgess, and we've always planned on a Burgess Town Park connector, and it's also in there listed. And that was a plug.

Thank you. Okay, anybody from council or committee have questions on this?

It's just impressive Mr. Wheathey knew about estheticians, and I thought his fingernails had been looking better.

Not me. I should probably go there, but I don't.

Okay. Again, this is also on second reading, and so ask for time at regular council on 2026-21. All right. That is all the items of legislation for planning, community economic development. Does anybody have any older new business?

We'll adjourn at 540. Thank you, Mr. Noble. Our next committee to meet is Rules and Personnel, which I chair. Myself, Mr. Magritte, and Mr. Brandenburg are all present this evening. We do have three items of legislation, so we'll meet. First one is on third reading, 2026-16, an ordinance amending section 34.13, Veterans Advisory Commission, the codified ordinance of the City of Green. This is adding two positions to the Veterans Advisory Commission per their request. With this change in ordinance, the mayor will get one additional appointee and so will city council. Like I said, this was a request per the Veterans Advisory Commission just to give them strength in numbers. They will have a total of seven members serving on that commission should we pass this legislation. Does anybody from the administration have anything to add with this? Good. And any questions or comments from council or committee? Okay, then at the appropriate time this evening, we'll make a motion on 2026-16. The next item on our agenda is for an executive session pursuant of Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22G4 to discuss collective bargaining matters. And at this time, I would make a motion that we adjourn into executive session to discuss collective bargaining matters, inviting the Mayor, Director Lisa Carey-Dean, Director Valerie Wax-Carr, Director Shelly Goodrich, Human Resources Manager Pam Serena, and Nicole Messner, our Clerk of Council and all of Council.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Speight.

Yes.

Mr. Mager. Yes. Mr. DeVitas.

Yes.

Mr. Nugebauer.

Yes.

Mr. Noble.

Yes.

Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

And Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

Okay, we'll be back shortly. All right, welcome back. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn executive session for matters to discuss collective bargaining matters. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mr. Spate.

Yes.

Mr. Manger.

Yes.

Mr. DeVitas. Yes. Mr. Neugebauer.

Yes.

Mr. Noble. Yes. Mr. Humphrey.

Yes.

Mr. Brandenburg.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay, we have two other items of legislation. I think both of these are on third reading. First is 2026-17, an ordinance creating the position of accounts payable clerk to the finance department, establishing compensation, and declaring an emergency. I would like to ask Director Waxcar for a brief summary of this legislation, please.

I'm going to focus on the position and kind of how that was developed and why we think there's a need for it. I'll really go back really from the beginning in terms of when the Corps was established. We had... Some decisions to be made about...

I'm sorry. Good catch. I'm sorry. Scratch that. Standby.

Director Goodrich. I was like, wait a minute. I'm so confused. Sorry about that.

Director Goodrich, this one falls under your purview there. If you could please give us a brief scenario of this. Thank you.

This is creating the accounts payable clerk position in the finance department. We have an incumbent that is currently doing this work as an account clerk. We looked at the job description and it was very outdated and it did not encompass fully all of the work that that person is doing. The accounting that they're doing, the stuff that they're preparing for the audit and many of the complex duties that have evolved in that position over time. We then did an analysis of other cities to determine, you know, whether they had this position. If so, what did it pay? And so we are asking for council to approve creating this position as its own separate classification similar to how we did with the payroll clerk classification a couple years ago establishing the compensation and declaring an emergency so that we can move this person into a job description that more aligns with what they're currently doing and can compensate them and in alignment with what, after doing a survey, we feel is reasonable for the work that they're doing. Okay.

Thank you, Director Goodrich. Are there any questions from committee? Any questions or comments from council? Okay. Thank you, and at the appropriate time this evening, we'll make a motion on 2026-17. Next item on the agenda is 2026-18, an ordinance creating the position of member services clerk in the service department, establishing compensation and declaring an emergency. Director Waxgar, this one is for you.

Okay. So when the Corps was established, one of the things that we had to decide was, how are we going to staff it? We knew we wanted to go in at a lower level to see, OK, we're still within our first year of operation. What's working? What's not working? One of the things that every single facility that we went to said is silver sneakers is going to be your most important revenue source. Do not give up your silver sneakers revenue. And you need to have someone focused on that. So, for example, one of the places that obviously I'm familiar with, Cuyahoga Falls, I worked there a long time, the natatorium has a member services manager. We thought that was a little bit too much. Like, we don't need a manager, but we need someone that can be focused on that, could work with our manager. So one of the things in this position is they will handle collecting the data, reporting the data, working with the silver sneaker insurance companies to make sure that the number of swipes are being counted correctly and that we're being paid the revenues correctly. That is like really essential to our operation. not to get too much in the weeds, but if you've been over there, we have a large senior population, which is exactly what we wanted to create. So we have to stay on top of that so we do not lose those people. I want to say, and I'm doing this off the top of my head because I didn't bring this paper in front of me, Of our charter members, 68% of our members are charter members. Forty-some percent of our members are silver sneakers members. So that is a very important population that we need to stay on track with. So that's one of the reasons we wanted to have this position created. The second is just the marketing, the outreach. Again, maybe this person goes to some of the senior centers and promotes silver sneakers. We even talked about... hey, can we have a bus go from one of the senior facilities and we bring them to the core on Wednesdays and they're silver sneakers members and they can work out and we help provide the transportation through their facility because we want those people attending. The other thing that we have found out very quickly is you really have to have a dedicated person at that front desk. So we're doing it with our part-time workers, which is fine. They've been great. They've been friendly. They've been helpful. Everyone knows them. But they're a little bit not consistent because of their scheduling. So there's a lot of stability that we could have with this person being positioned at the front desk. and it makes sense because they're taking in daily fees. They're doing rental agreements. They're selling memberships. So all of those things have the accounting element to it, but we can do it right at the front desk, and we can eliminate some part-time people not having to be at the front desk because this person will be at the front desk, if that makes sense. I mean, I don't want to be elementary and read through the job description. I know all of you guys can do that. I think we do have a very... hardy job description of things that they would be doing. So if you have any questions about any of those specific things, I'm happy to discuss that. You know, for a facility our size, I think having three full-time employees, we're doing a lot. We're doing a lot with two full-time employees. And I think we can even expand our services and our revenues. That's the most important thing. We can expand our revenues... Sometimes it takes a little money to make money. And we're not going to try to be the everything in the community. We have some special niches that we're trying to create for the senior community, for our youth sports community. And that was what our mission was supposed to be, is to serve those populations. And I think we're doing a good job at that.

Okay. Thank you very much, ma'am. Appreciate that. Is there any questions or comments from members of committee? Okay, we'll open up to council. All right, and then at the appropriate time this evening, we will make a motion on 2026-18. That concludes all of our legislation for the Rules and Personnel Committee. And we will adjourn at 6.46. Next committee to meet this evening is Transportation, Connectivity, and Stormwater, chaired by Mr. Maker.

Thank you, Mr. President. All members are present, myself, Mr. Brandenburg, and Mr. Noble. We will meet, as we do have items of legislation before us. The only piece I have is on third reading, and that is 2026-R38, a resolution awarding a contract to Conklin Sons for the 2026 Miscellaneous Conqueror Repairs Project in the current emergency. So this project is a miscellaneous concrete repair replacement project. It is going to happen throughout the city. The engineer's estimate on this particular project is $160,000. Kunkel & Sons came in at the lowest and best of the base bid at $126,716. Their alternate bids, which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the lowest, but since they are the lowest on the base bid, are as follows. The alternate number one is $4,700. Alt. No. 2 is $2,300. Alt. No. 3 is $3,125. Alt. No. 4 is $4,932. Alt. No. 5, $9,612. Alt. No. 6, $754.80. So at the last meeting, I had some pretty poignant words regarding this particular contractor. They did some work in my ward that, in my opinion, again, I'm not an engineer, was subpar. I had went to this particular neighborhood at least several times, reported the situation to the administration and the engineering department. They did send some people out there. They looked at it. They had to do some improvements or some fixes. I think, I don't want to speak for the administration, but I think they agree that it wasn't up to the city's standards. I did follow up the administration, I think the mayor for setting this up, a follow-up call regarding, you know, my question is, is this sufficient enough for us not to award this contract to Lois and Betts? Again, not to speak for the administration, I think to themselves, they feel like the past practice wasn't enough to be sufficient enough to not award this contract. In fact, they agreed to reach out, if we were to approve this tonight, to this contractor and lay a foundation for what we expect as a city. And to their credit, the administration, through the engineering department, did reach out to them before And this was a particular contractor that was willing to fix some of the mistakes and not push back. So with that, I got more comfortable with this contractor. It seems like they're willing to improve and deliver on this contract, despite the fact that they're significantly lower than the engineer's estimate and significantly lower than the second place bid, which was $161,945.50. So with that, I'll just turn it over to our city engineer, Paul Pickett. I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I know I appreciate all the work you guys have done behind the scenes to kind of educate me on what is and what is not acceptable for contractors in the city. Is there anything you want to add?

No, but I will just clarify that the two main issues were the saw cutting and the removal of the slabs that were broken. The saw cutting was just a matter of the... they weren't managing the paste very well. You know, when you saw with water, it cools the blade, but it also washes that very fine, you know, it's grinding the pavement into very fine particles. So if you don't clean it up while it's still wet, it's a mess. It was getting tracked into driveways. We've got all that straightened. We got all that straightened out with them after that job. Unfortunately, it was mostly done. But I think that, you know, saving 22% under the next bidder, I MEAN, WE'D BE SAVING 22%, $35,000 UNDER THE NEXT BID, I SHOULD HAVE SAID. I THINK THAT WE'D BE MISTAKEN TO NOT AWARD THIS TO THEM BECAUSE WE'VE DISCUSSED THE ISSUES WITH THEM, WE'LL LAY IT OUT AGAIN AT THE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING, AND I THINK WE WON'T HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS.

Yeah, and just to reiterate, the complaints I got from residents, one person just happened to work in the concrete industry, and they said some of the stuff they're doing with respect to the lines for the cutting to prevent cracking was not done properly. They were digging out behind the concrete, dumping it, and not replacing people's grass and stuff. He goes the quick. way and not the right way and then the biggest thing was the dust when they were doing the cutting they weren't there with water keeping the dust down or washing it to the sewers people were taking that dust into their driveways one mailbox beautiful brick mailbox was covered with this concrete silt and despite us complaining about several times the homeowner just said i'll just do it myself and clean it off so you know again i got This is the most complaints I got from any contractor, so I was pretty mad about the way they dealt with it. But it seems like ongoing communication, this particular contractor is willing to learn from those mistakes and do a better job. And I told the administration, and as long as I'm a City Council, if they don't do better this time, they will not get it. I will not vote for them on a future contract. This is their last chance, in my opinion, for my vote. With that, I'll open it up to anybody else on the committee. Any questions or comments? Mr. Ushabar?

Mr. Pickett, will there be inspection of this work? Yes. Okay. This isn't the same contractors you had last year, is that correct? It is. For the concrete repair?

Yes.

Okay. Because last year, at the end of my street, they were doing a slab, and they were doing it on a Saturday afternoon, and they weren't doing it under proper lane closure, protection, anything. So just make a note when you meet with them before the contract.

Yes. We have a lot of ground rules we'll lay out and reiterate at the beginning when we did the pre-construction meeting, but we'll have inspection. I'm sure we'll be able to greatly improve on what happened last year.

This was Saturday work. Are they permitted to work Saturdays?

We haven't prohibited it, no.

Okay, so if they work Saturday, it's kind of hard to get inspection, right?

No, not typically.

Okay, so you'll have it covered?

Fine, yeah.

Okay, good, thanks.

Okay, anybody else on committee? Anybody on council? Okay, this being on third reading at the appropriate time, I'll make a motion on 2026-R38. That concludes all the items of legislation before us. Any items of old or new business? Mr. Pickett, any construction updates? I know Arlington Road, they have the additional lanes, but it's not interfering with traffic at the moment. Anything that's worth noting for the community?

Yeah, the interference is coming. So currently, First Energy is relocating their facilities. That's kind of holding things up. We'll be putting temporary signals up at Bettler and Arlington because when they disconnect the other ones, we're not going to be able to have the signal operating for a while. So that'll solve that problem with the temporary signals. should really clarify they're really more movable like trailer mounted signals so um and then the closure of betler road eastbound is um slated for august 31st and this this is a initially was going to be a complete closure but now we're just going to be closing um So they can do part, so they can stay productive basically is what we're allowing them to do this. So it's not going to be a complete closure initially. And that's coming the end of the month. Switching gears to Southwood Drive, the construction's ongoing there, that extension to Tabs Drive, that should be completed by early to mid-September. So that'll help a lot with... When Bella Road is closed, there's another alternative for people to use. And Southwood should be done by mid-September. I said that. And then lastly, just we've got resurfacing going on in several neighborhoods. Spade Road off of Mayfair is done. Hoover Lake, which is up in the northeast corner of the city, Linden Drive, Henrietta Drive, that's done as well. Hyde Park is not done yet, and Sherrilyn Hills is also not done yet. And with the uncurbed streets, the driveway reconstruction happens after the paving of the roads done. So there's another step after the paving of the pavements themselves. But I make that too confusing. Any questions?

Yeah, not to make things worse, but I notice on 241 or Masson Road, I know it's not green, but shuffle looks like they're moving telephone points. Is there a roundabout going at the intersection?

Yeah.

And do we know the plan for that? Because that could affect traffic coming through the city of green.

Yeah. Oh, no, it's building a roundabout at Shufel and 241. Okay.

It looks at telephone poles as a right now, but I haven't seen any. Is there? Do you aware of any construction schedule on that? Maybe we can advertise that to community that might affect come people coming through city green.

Yeah, one of the one of the challenges is that it will. It will overlap somewhat with when we do the roundabout at Mount Pleasant in Arlington as well. So we're going to be working with ODOT to figure out the detour routing and so forth. But so that's the only challenge I can see. Related other projects.

I mean, most of it's going to be built in that berm, which is not going to be affected, but eventually they're going to have to fix the intersection. I just noticed the other day I wasn't aware of that. So, okay.

Anything else come forward as committee? I just have one question for Mr. Pickett. Spade Road that was recently finished, did the city do that or did we have contractors do that?

well those are roads the city paves okay i just want to say contractor comes in the mills and does repairs and so forth and then we pave yeah they did an excellent job it looks really good so commend them for that thank you and is there an eta on on graybill uh west of uh mayfair i know there was some soil conditions we got federal funding is that still slated for 2027 um yes okay Any other older new business come first committee? Hearing none, we'll adjourn at 6.56.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. Myself, Mr. Noble, and Mr. Mager are all available to meet. I have one item of legislation, so we will meet. That item of legislation is 2026-19, an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Aqua Ohio Inc. Aqua Ohio operates as a regulated utility in the City of Green. under the authority of the Public Utility Commission of Ohio, which, PUCO for short. Rates are set in green through negotiation directly with Ohio, ACWA Ohio, and approved by ordinance. So this legislation will establish the water rates and service charges for green resident customers for the next five years. Before this legislation, we have a public hearing scheduled at 7 p.m., maybe a little later than 7 this evening, at which we'll receive a presentation from ACWA Ohio, as well as additional information from the administration. Would committee be okay with not asking questions at this time, asking them in public hearing? Okay, then we'll do that. All right. That was the only item we have for this evening. So is there any items of old and new business for intergovernmental and utilities? Hearing none, we're adjourned.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. We have a number of items of legislation in this committee related to our charter review and subsequent putting these on the ballot for our community. So I'm going to go through these one at a time. The first one, however, is not going to be a ballot initiative. This is just for some non-substantive changes, and so I'm going to read it in. This is Resolution 2026-R33. as amended, a resolution to amend the appropriate articles and sections of the Charter of the City Green relating to the non-substantive changes throughout the Charter per Charter Section 12.10, Charter Corrections, and declaring an emergency. We did have a public hearing on this at our last meeting, and there were a few comments on this one. I see in the attachment, Exhibit A, that several changes were made. I appreciate that. I assume that came from law, working with our clerk. Well, the clerk first corrected it and then I approved it.

Yes.

Yes, we did. We asked Nicole to work with legal. So anyhow, I think, Mr. Brandenburg, you brought up some issues. Is everything that you had requested addressed in those changes?

They are, yes.

Okay. Does anybody else have any comments, questions related to 2026R30A? okay hearing none we will move on uh to uh the next one which will be a ballot initiative if council approves and this is resolution 2026-r31a a resolution submitting to the electors of the city green a proposal to amend section 2.4 of the charter of the city green to add strong to the form of government description declaring an emergency Okay. There was some discussion about this, and Ms. Deeney, you were here this week centering on whether that was a nonsubsidative change, and I noticed you didn't add it to the nonsubsidative changes. So I assume your opinion is that it would be appropriate to send to the voters. Would you like to comment on that?

Besides, twofold. One is that the procedure, according to the charter, is the Charter Review Commission, whatever recommendations they make to the council, simply vote on it. So they made this as a substantive change. the council doesn't get to decide that it's non-substantive. That's number one, you just vote yes or no. Number two is that I do believe it is substantive, and for reasons that I provided to the council in an email, the difference between a strong mayor, which the word strong goes with mayor, Council and Mayor Council form of government. There's a lot of differences, but the main one that would be pursuant to our charter is that this Council has the authority to approve or remove department directors. I think by two-thirds is the requirement. And actually, our charter actually says that the directors serve at the pleasure of the mayor and the council. It's very different from just a, with a strong mayor, council, the mayor would make all of those appointments and removals. So that's just one example.

Okay, very good. Well, I think your first answer was probably the one we needed to move forward with this. Are there any other, well, first of all, I'll open it up to the committee. Any comments, questions, and related to 2026R31A? Mr. Mager.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my only point here is, you know, It is somewhat of a strong mayor form of government we have here. I think adding this word strong doesn't change what the charter says as a whole. So to me, adding this word doesn't really change much. So I think this is something we should consider rejecting. I think it's just going to confuse voters. Just adding this word strong doesn't change the duties and responsibilities of the mayor. By adding strong, I guess it could be open for interpretation. that conflicts with other portions of the of the uh charter and that a strong mayor like director dean said there's certain responsibilities that are reserved for a strong mayor that are overridden by our charter i think adding this word doesn't add anything but could cause some ambiguity so for that reason i'm requesting that maybe the council consider rejecting this proposal so it doesn't become an issue.

Thank you for that. Anybody else want to carry a comment? Yeah, Mr. Humphrey.

I'm going to ask our law director, so if we vote no on any of these proposals, what happens?

They don't go to the Board of Elections.

Okay.

I bet you have to vote by, is it three-fourths? Three-fourths, thank you. I'm looking for my notes. Yeah, three-fourths.

I agree. I think if we had it to do over again, we would have this be a non-substantive change. We would ask the Charter Review Commission to do this because truly if you look at our founding documents, I think we are a strong mayor council form of government. If the voters voted no on this, then it doesn't matter because it doesn't change the other items in the charter. but if they voted no, there might be some confusion because things would continue on the same, so I tend to agree with you, Mr. Mager, that it's more confusing than not, could cause debates that aren't useful, not going to solve any problems with it, and the Charter Review has decided to make a recommendation that we extend this only five years, so if they want to do this in five years, they can do it, so I would agree with that.

Okay, any other comments? Okay, the appropriate time we'll make a motion to adopt 2026 R31A. Next on the agenda is resolution 2026-R32, a resolution submitting to the electors of the City of Green a proposal to amend section 4.8 of the Charter of the City of Green to add email with read receipt as a form of notification for special counsel meetings and declaring an emergency. Again, a public hearing was held at our last meeting on July 28th. I will open it up to the committee for comments. Last meeting, there was some question about the wording of the resolution. Mr. Maeger, are you satisfied now with what we have? Okay. Any other comments? okay it's appropriate time i will make a motion on resolution 2026-r32 The next resolution is 2026-R33, a resolution submitting to the electors of the City of Green a proposal to amend Section 4.11 of the Charter of the City of Green to add electronic online equivalent as a method of publication for ordinances, resolutions, and other public notices, and declaring emergency. Again, public hearing was held at our last meeting on this. Any comments from the committee? okay hearing none uh we'll move on at the appropriate time we'll make a motion to adopt 2026-r33 next is resolution 2026-r34 a resolution submitting to the electors of the city green proposal to amend section 7.4 of the charter of the city green to clarify the powers and duties of the parks and recreation board and declaring an emergency Again, a public hearing was held at our last meeting. Any comments from the committee on this one? Okay, hearing none, we will move on. I will make a motion to adopt at a regular meeting. Next is Resolution 2026R35, a resolution submitting to the electors of the City of Green a proposal to amend Section 8.2 of the Charter of the City of Green to modify the allocation of the annual income tax revenue within the Parks and Recreation Income Tax Fund and declaring an emergency. Again, a public hearing was held on this at our last council meeting on July 28th. Any comments? Questions from committees?

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Humphrey.

The only comment I want to make is, you know, I know there was a lot of debate. Perhaps this was the most debated charter amendment that was offered. I'm going to vote for it because I think the change needs to be made. I wish it had gone further because I think the administration needs more flexibility on how dollars are appropriated. And so to have a carve out that doesn't have to get justified every year, I think is a mistake. I think every single project in the City of Green, whether it's parks or outside of parks, ought to be able to justify it and compete with every other project. I know that the Charter Commission is going to put together a document to recommend to the next commission that they make that change. They go all the way. to be able to give the administration that flexibility. And I just want to make it part of the record that I think that's a good idea.

Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. And just a note, two resolutions later, we'll talk about the frequency of the charter amendments. And part of that discussion was in five years, they'd rather do it in five years than seven. So, okay, thank you for your comments. Anybody else on this resolution?

Mayor, would you like to speak on this one?

You're good.

I'm good.

Thanks for asking that.

I know this was something that was interesting to you, so I just wanted to give you an opportunity. Chairman, if I could just say one thing since you invited me. To Councilman Humphrey's point, this really represents a compromise. I know that having talked with council members about this subject over time, having talked with residents about it, members of the Charter Commission, people are all over the spectrum as to what they would do, right? You can... say we wouldn't want the 7% is all, let's just let it all go back into the general fund. And there are people who say, if we make an adjustment, let's make it very small. I think that was your recommendation. This is kind of an in the middle compromise to Chris's point, a step towards giving the administration more flexibility. And to me, You know, it's a no-brainer to support, and it can be looked at in five years, as Chris suggests. So that's my thought.

Yeah, very good. And I think the point I've made, and I didn't really weigh in on this through the process, the only point I made was that this... um has allowed the city to really develop a great park system and and probably i can say that and everybody can nod because yes but maybe it's time to move more towards um maintaining that system than continuing to grow it right so we can we can all share those those thoughts so it has been a very effective way to make green parks system i think probably the best in the area right okay um and if there's no other comments on 2026 R35. At the appropriate time, I'll make a motion to adopt. Next is resolution 2026-R36, a resolution submitting to the electors of the city of Greene a proposal to amend section 9.2 of the charter of the city of Greene to allow electronic online equivalent as a method of publication for charter review commission recommendations and declaring emergency. Again, a public hearing was held on Tuesday, July 28th to discuss this. Any other comments, questions from council on this resolution? Okay, just moving into the 21st century with our publication. Okay, at the appropriate time, I'll make a motion to adopt 2026-R36. And the last item for the committee is Resolution 2026-R37, a resolution submitting to the electors of the City of Green a proposal to amend Section 9.2 of the Charter of the City of Green to require the City Charter to be reviewed every five years and declaring an emergency. Again, a public hearing was held on Tuesday, July 28th regarding this legislation. Any comments, questions from committee? Okay. I think the comment was made from the committee that things are changing rapidly in the world and they just felt five years maybe was better reactive time than seven.

I don't know if they discuss, I'm sorry. No, please.

You guys are told 11 o'clock.

So I was not here at that last meeting, but we are kind of the weirdo one-offs with the seven years. Most communities do five years for a review.

Sure, and I was talking with the village administrator in Doylestown, and they're 10. And I was surprised that it was 10. So yeah, there can be any numbers, but I think five was the number they felt was appropriate for our community moving forward. Okay, hearing no other comments, questions, at the appropriate time, I will make a motion to adopt Resolution 2026-R37. And that's all we have before the committee. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. I appreciate that. Okay, that concludes our committee meetings for this evening.

We will... Are we doing executive session?

I think we're going to wait until regular council, if that's okay. So we will be back for regular council.