Council Meeting - Regular Meeting

very good. But one company stood out and that was Shagrin Valley and we would request legislation be approved to ask the mayor to enter in contract so that we can get this project started on Graham Road putting in sidewalk and a shared use path across our park. Wow. Can we do it as fast as possible? I'm I'm I'm kidding. I know. Um, so shared use path will go across from it'll it'll be part of the Oregon Corners Park. Okay. So that whole So how far do we have a shared use path?

Um, it hasn't been determined how far we can make it, but we know we can make it in the area around the park. Okay. Other questions for Mr. McCclary? Seeing none, do I have a motion to move ordinance 2026 106 onto tonight's council agenda? So move second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying yes. Yes. Opposed. That will appear on tonight's council agenda. Item B, ordinance 2026 107. Mr. McCclary.

Thank you, Mr. Feldman. Uh this is the Fish Creek Stow Road roundabout project. Uh we've also received five different uh proposals for um this project and the company that was chosen was recommended by the city of green which is very experienced in roundabouts. It was also a company that previously has done work in Stow on Metobrook Lake studies and Holy Family storm sewer projects and in the past and we would like to have the mayor enter a contract with EMHT for the design of the city Stow's first roundabout.

Yay. Um so Mr. Clearary. So, we got a grant for this, correct? We received $3.6 million to build and inspect and manage a project going in at Fishkirk and Stow roundabout. So, I know I'm speaking to both engineers, Mr. Jones and you. This is our worst intersection in the city, correct? Fish Creek Stow Road. it. There's depends what you determine as work

safety, walkability, police calls, accidents. Am I correct or am I right? It's it's one it's one of the intersections that desperately needs pedestrian access and it desperately needs upgraded. So, it is one of the worst, but I can't say it's the worst unless you just Yeah,

understood. Um, so, uh, I was talking to a resident yesterday. We were talking about the agenda. And the idea behind a roundabout is, and I know we're late to the party on roundabouts, is there's only a right turn. Engineers, that's what makes it safe. Correct. A never turning left. Well, to turn left, you have to go right in a roundabout. Right. Correct. Right.

Mr. Jones, anything to add? Right. What do I say to a resident who says it was weird yesterday? I said, "Yeah, roundabouts are safer." I can say that. Correct. Correct. Yeah. We don't want when you're coming up to a roundabout, you want to keep your eyes to the left and in front of you obviously because there could be a car yielding, but you don't look straight through the intersection. You don't It's not You don't worry about the cars coming towards you. It's all cars coming from your left.

Will this be a single lane roundabout? It it will be it hasn't been designed yet, but it'll be a single lane with the possibility what we're looking at is a hybrid where if we have a high volume of traffic, which uh still has to be determined to justify any additional lanes, but it's called a hybrid if you add a a extra turn lane.

Great. Last question for me and I'll move along. Any any other council members have a question? timeline between I know we're ordinance for is for design so design implementation constru what are we looking at design would start immediately the uh rightaway would be started to be purchased in 28 and 29 and construction could start as early as fall of uh 29 and continue into the summer of 2030 elected officials or anyone else any questions for Mr. Jones or Mrs. Coffee.

Um, thank you. So, it is uh 8020 covered by CMAC. The 3.6 million is uh congestion mitigation air quality grant. Yes. Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, Mrs. Young.

Uh, thank you. I'm excited about the roundabout. I I actually like roundabouts and not only do I think they're safer, but they're more efficient for processing people cars through. Um, and yes, Green has many, but uh if you want to see lots go to Carmel, Indiana. I think they are the uh roundabout capital. But um I'm looking forward to it. I think uh I think it'll be a great move. And me too, Mrs. Young. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, do I have a motion to move ordinance 2026 107 onto tonight's council agenda? Second.

Moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying yes. Yes. Opposed. That will appear on tonight's council agenda. Item C, the discussion item, um, swimming pool requirements. Um, I was looking and I know I emailed you guys. Not my language. I used a little AI of course um put some guidelines in and I told you everybody that. So um I wanted you to look at it and wanted some feedback uh as was the suggestion from law um residents here. Um, but I I thought it was uh reasonable uh common sense like, but I certainly wanted to um uh hear from all of you before we move forward or potentially get this on the agenda of city council and move forward. So, I'm kind of opening up. Um, we know there was an article on May 8th uh about pool cover from Cleveland.com. um stocase test city zoning code. Um it was stated in the article. Across the country, building codes have begun evolving to acknowledge automatic safety covers that meet ASM standards, a nationally recognized safety benchmark requiring covers to support substantial weight and prevent unsupervised access. Um later on in that article it says industry groups say more municipalities nationwide are gradually moving in the same direction. Um so I I don't care who starts Mr. Cowan um law Mr. Huden I don't care elected officials I know I said it to you hoping

we could get a little bit of feedback. So anyone Mrs. Yeah.

Um just in the reading that I've done about it, um the the fences obviously have safety and privacy um as a key component. Um the pole covers um have uh safety and maintenance um efficiencies and and cost savings, which obviously benefits the homeowner. Uh versus um Is it savings and maintenance? I'm sorry, not safety. Um that there is the safety issue if the person is uh puts the pull cover on before they go. My only concern is um not remembering to put pull cover on. Um and again safety with uh people getting in animals or children. Um, so the fences I see more as a safety uh barrier and the pool covers uh more of a convenient a homeowner convenience, but um certainly open to hearing everybody else's discussions.

Thank you, Miss Young. Next, Mr. Fioa. I guess with the um discussion, I know um I had a or heard it through another resident, but there was a resident in W 2. I was just curious if it was the same one that may have reached out to you possibly. But um but no, I've done some, you know, preliminary looking at this and I see the um you know, the the benefits of, you know, the benefits of both and um yeah, not ready to make a, you know, I know this is just discussion, uh but a decision tonight on it, but I'm glad we're talking about it. So, thank you, Mr. Fila. Anybody else? Mrs. Coffee,

just question. So, um, before the zoning code rewrite, there was the same requirement with fences around pools, correct? Okay. So, nothing has changed. Has it always been in there? It's always been in there. Um, actually, House of Lavine looked at our pool regulations and they thought they were good regulations. So, we they're largely unchanged. Okay. I guess what are what are your recommendations and law? I'm interested to hear.

Uh, like Mrs. Young said, "My concern is safety. When you have a fence, there's there's always that barrier there. With just a cover, you know, you risk somebody forgetting or stepping in the house for 10 minutes and an accident happening. Uh I prefer to require a fence. I'm okay with also having reg regulations for pool cover in addition to it, but I think a fence is is the best safety defense for anyone for animals and kids from the pools

in cities that have this legislation with a pool cover. What happens if they go inside? Like do they h are they required to close it if they go inside for a few? Like what are the requirements? Do you know? I've seen where it says that they have to it has to be covered when not in use, but you know, it's just that's up to the property owner to to close it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Coffee. Um, I just know what I sent all of you, the language to me in the alternative for existing private swimming pools lawfully established prior to the effective date of this amendment. I think that language says we're just talking about grandfathers, not newly. So, I thought I thought the language, which I inspected pretty closely, um I thought was pretty good. But, you know, I I know that we're always talking about zoning code update, zoning code update until we don't like the update, right? But that's that's me. Other council members, Mr. Herman,

thank you, Mr. Feldman. Yeah, I just uh share the concern that's already been expressed is like yes, we may have some very responsible homeowners who know to cover up their pole even if they go into their house for for 10 minutes and stuff, but I worry about if this becomes normalized as people sell their homes, people inherit the pools and then just think, "Oh, I don't need a fence anymore." And it like I was just with my family at my brother's house over the weekend and I have nephews who are five and three years old and they kept wanting to go to his pool and we kept having to wrangle them in. And so I just uh it it scares me uh that like we we need to make sure that there are protections in place and and so I do see a fence as more effective and that's been consistent in in our code. And so I I appreciate, you know, the attempt to say, "Hey, we can have safety with alternatives, but just from my own experience, I would I would feel bad if something was, God forbid, to happen just because, you know, someone in the future was negligent." Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Herman. Other comments, Mr. Hen down there. Do you uh want to chime in? I'm hesitant to say too much because we are currently in the middle of this hearing with uh Mr. Dillinger out there.

So, it's not exactly uh what we want to be talking about openly when we're in the middle of uh deciding a case. Um, however, what I will say for the city, I don't see additional liability on the city for allowing this. The liability goes on the homeowner. Um, this is what's known as the attractive nuisance doctrine. If a homeowner has something that is considered an attractive nuisance like trampoline, pool, construction site, something like that, they are under additional liability if something happens. And even if that person, that child typically comes onto their property as a trespasser, they're still treated as an inviteee under law. So, personally, I don't believe it is a adequate replacement unless there are automatic open and close involved and there's guarantee that it's never going to be open when there's no one watching. I don't know if that's a possibility. Um but at least as it stands right now, you know, our code was reviewed by House of Lavine um over a long period of time. And if they determined that based on their expertise that the way our code is written now was sufficient and actually preferable, then it's our position that that sounds reasonable to the law department.

Yeah. I I I understand and I I just think suddenly we're enforcers from something that happened in 2011. I struggle with that a little bit, but Mrs. Young. Um yeah, I if it falls back to the homeowner that I mean that's good from eliminating the responsibility or liability to the city. Um, did you say that the it's written to grandfather in only people prior to correct? Okay. Well, that's good, too. And then how many other people in the city have this situation? I'm not sure. I wish I do. Yeah.

I don't know. I I think I asked the same thing, Mr. Cowan. We didn't know, did we? None that I know of. We've caught a couple in the last few years without a fence, and we've had them address it and fix it. But they didn't have the pool cover. No. that this this not that I'm aware of superior cover. Okay. So, it's really just one instance that we're probably talking about grandfathering.

Well, I don't know. I'm you know, we got 14,000 households. I'm sure it could be more than one. I just I thought it was reasonable common sense and um that's why I brought it forward and let you guys uh take a look at it and and chime in and we could have open public debate about um about this issue. Anything else? All right, I appreciate the input. Um next up on the agenda is the public comment period. Now comes the time where we ask for comments from the audience. Um, if you'd like to make a comment, please come up and raise your hand, be recognized, and provide your name and address for the clerk, and it'll become part of the permanent record.

Yes, my name is uh Terry Dillinger. Live at two, you hear me? You're good. You're good. 26 m.

Go ahead. I live at 2691 Progress Park Drive. I um have discussed this with the zoning department, uh the law department, and with Mr. Feldman. Um the pool cover, I don't know how much of the literature you have. It'll support Mr. Herman, you were concerned. I'm going to invite you to come to my house and you and I will lay on that pool cover. Okay? I'm not being smart about it. It'll support 485 pounds by the testing labs. Okay. You cannot have a child crawl into it. Could I be irresponsible not close the cover? Yes, I could. But I don't think everybody's going to close their gate either. So, I think my cover has to be done electronically. A kid can't I don't have a fence for him to jump, but a 12-year-old boy or 14-year-old boy wants to go swimming, they're going to jump a fence. So, I'm trying to be realistic. My pool's latched all the time. If I if we're outside, we it's unless we're in the water, it's closed. Behind my house is box then golf course. 250 ft from my house is an open body of water on the golf course. Kids ride their bikes back on the cart path. They uh take motorized boats electronically controlled and run them in the water. That's completely open. But yet my cover is closed all the time. I I would rather have my cover. It's approved in Strongsville, Manowway, Shagrin Falls, Gates Mills in this area. And I think it's I would much prefer to have this cover. It cost a lot of money to put it in more so than a fence that I could have and I think it's a much safer product. Um, you can have got photos if you want to see them. Six people standing on a cover. I've got documentation from manufacturer. Um, if any of you want to come out and look at how we do it, how it latches. We have a

key that goes in the house. After we open and close it, I swim when I'm healthy enough every day. I open it, I close it, I go back in if we have family gatherings, we're out there, or it's closed. So, I guess that's my I think it's a it's a very safe feature to have versus a fence in my opinion. Any questions for me by anybody? Thank you, Mr. Ginger, we uh we appreciate you being here. We hope you get better and uh I thought it was good feedback. We'll uh I'll continue to Thank you. update you and go from there.

Any uh anybody else public comment on roads and safety? Seeing none, do I have a motion to adjourn? Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying yes. Yes. opposed. We are ajourned. I call to order the Stow City Council Committee the whole for May 14th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role? Herman

here. Barack here. Bman here. Briel present. Coffee here. Here. Young here. We have before us the minutes from our April 23rd committee. The whole uh do we have any edits or a motion to approve? Move to approve. Second. All in favor? Yes. Those minutes are approved. Law director's report with our deputy law director today. Yes. Thank you, President Herman. Uh nothing to report. Happy to take any questions. Any questions for our deputy law director? Seeing none, we will move on to consideration of business items. Uh item A, Mr. Hootton.

Yes.

All right. Um so this is legislation to adopt uh what is known as Avery's law at the state level. Um, this legislation unfortunately was brought into uh effect after a very grievous injury to a young girl back in 2024. Um, this will allow us to adopt the state uh definitions and requirements of nuisance, dangerous, and vicious dog. Um, as it stands right now, we do have a nuisance dog, a vicious dog, and dangerous dog legisl statutes in our codifies. However, because this now exists and the nuisance dog is technically different than what ours is, we believed it made sense to just unify everything and make all three covered under Avery's law instead of having two separate processes. Um, There's quite a lot of words in here, so I'm not going to read them all out for you guys, but essentially, this will give um our community service officer um the authority to if a dog does the things that are listed under nuisance, dangerous, or vicious to be able to make a determination that that dog is that determination. That uh dog owner will have the ability to appeal that determination to the court. Uh currently our code allows the owner to appeal that to the mayor. Um which is not the the greatest system honestly because we don't have dangerous and vicious dog experts on staff here except for our community service officer. Um, otherwise these are fairly straightforward

changes that we believe will protect our residents and protect our good dog owners and put some requirements on those who are not following what they need to do with their potentially dangerous animals. Happy to take any questions. Any questions? Mrs. Coffee.

Um, yes, I spoke with Mr. Hootin about this. Um and and I think it's it's good to model after uh Avery's law. My question was regarding the nuisance dogs because we have a different definition. So in the legislation for Avery's law, there's nothing about urinating or defecating in there. Um in in ours there is in this in this version. Um, and so our nuisance definition is digging, urinating, or defecating by any dog on public or private property in the city is hereby declared to be a nuisance. Um, and there are leash requirements in there as well. Um, and then it does talk about, you know, if a dog does defecate on someone's property that the homeowner is responsible to pick it up. My concern with the verbiage, and I spoke with Mr. are hooting about this and we were trying to figure out how to we could strike urinating. My concern is just that if and I don't I literally don't have a dog in this fight. We don't have a dog, but lots not lots of my neighbors do and a lot of times they'll say, "Are you home? Can you go walk my dog?" And I gladly do. And it's just I can keep the dog on a leash on the sidewalk, but if the dog urinates on the sidewalk um or in public property, I I can't stop a dog from urinating on public property, right? So my concern is that um urinating on public property is or private property, but my concern is public property defines a dog as a nuisance. So I was wondering I wanted thoughts on striking urinating so that people don't have their dog defined as a nuisance dog if they are walking and they urinate on public property.

If I may, President Herman, um I did a little research into this Um the reasoning for the additional requirements, this has actually been in place in the city since 1986. Um I did take a look at the meeting minutes which did not really glean me too much information. So I'm not sure what led them to want to ban defecation and urination specifically. I mean I can imagine what. But we the reason this was left in as old language was simply because this was something additional that council had done at a time in the past. But as I told Miss Coffee, you know, it's nothing that anybody is married to. So we're certainly willing to make changes as needed depending on what council would like to see.

Thank you. And even even Bowwow Beach, you know, I'm like that's a that's our public park and dogs obviously urinate there. So my concern is just that that urinating. I don't I don't know if what your thoughts are on striking that or if you have a better solution, but just wanted thoughts on that. Uh any anyone I mean I agree that you if we have parks where dogs are allowed to like and it's natural then uh seems kind of like I understand the spirit of a lot of our laws are as council have said are enforced on a complaintbased basis but uh I and so I I understand that yes there may be situations where that may be merited, but when we know that these things regularly naturally happen, I think it is contradictory to include the urinating in in this instance.

Sure. And and and another I mean I I understand the concern about a dog urinating in someone's u plants or something, but I feel like the leash law would cover that because the owner has to have their dog controlled. Um, so I think that I feel like we're covering all bases if we just strike urinating. Um, so I guess I move to strike urinating from line 99. Is that the only place that it would need to

So I I was just checking and the word urinating uh well, it's variations of it. Oh. No, it's capturing the word during. Sorry. I Oh, 53 too. 53 999. I just see 53 and 99.

Yeah, 53 and 99. Uh, so is the motion to remove the word urinating from Hines 53 and 99? Yes, I think that's the best solution. If Mr. Hootin, if you think that makes sense, Mr. Hooton, um, just remove it from 99 because 53 is the old language. Okay. So, yeah, that would be what it is right now and 99 would be the change. Good catch.

Okay. So, we uh motion made by Kelly Coffee to remove the word urinating from line 99 and seconded by Mrs. Young. Um any discussion? Uh seeing none, all in favor? Yes. No. Okay. Uh any other nos or extensions? Okay. Uh the amendment does carry. Uh, any other further discussion on the legislation? Seeing none, do we have a motion to move this to tonight's council agenda? So, move. Second. Uh, all in favor? Yes.

Yes. Uh, this will be on tonight's agenda. Next uh item B on the electric bikes which we had a uh previous discussion as a council but uh Mr. Hooton would you like to give a summary?

Yes. Thank you Mr. Herman. Um there were a couple changes made based on the conversations of council last time. Um, the first most important one, at least in my opinion, is the helmets for persons under the age of 18 on class one and class 2 electric bicycles. Uh, currently our code requires that anybody on a class 3 electric bicycle require wears a helmet. So, we weren't need wasn't needed to add under 18s there. And based on the questions from Mr. Baron at the last council meeting um removing the ability of people to use electric bicycles on the sidewalks with the motor engaged. Um this does not remove their ability to use an electric bicycle on the sidewalk. They just can't turn the motor on. Um I know there were some discussions about licensing of electric bicycles. Uh based on my reading of our statutes because we adopt the state definition of a bicycle um state the state definition of a bicycle includes electric bicycles and as our code currently stands people are required to register and license bicycles in the state in the city of Stow. So ebikes are automatically uh included in that. Um then those are the only two changes. Um certainly uh open to anything else that anyone would like to see, but I think this should take care of the issues that were discussed at last month's council meeting and hopefully we can get it done before the summer starts to keep the kids safe. Happy to take questions.

Any questions or discussion? Mr. Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Hudin, for doing this. I appreciate it. Um, I just I want to point out line 51, item D. No person shall ride or lead a horse or ride or lead any other unlicensed animal. I just thought we're updating, but that was funny to me. So, not asking for removal. I'm just saying I thought it was funny. So, I appreciate your work on uh on this uh electric bicycle and all the work you did on this. Thank you, Mr. Herman. Thank you, Mr. Felman. And Mrs. Young,

um I I agree with it. I just want clarification on ebikes require registrations or or licensing of the bike or what what is the extent of that? Um yes. So, technically under our city code, all bicycles are required to be licensed. Um, there is a licensing program through the police department. I honestly couldn't tell you how many people have actually licensed their bicycles in the city of Stow. It's probably not that many. Um, but at least according to the letter of the law, it is required. Thank you. Uh, any other discussion? Seeing none, do we have a motion to move this on tonight's council agenda? So move. Second.

All in favor? Yes. Uh this will be on tonight's agenda. Uh item C, Mr. Hooton. Uh that one's actually Mr. Mr. Ren. Yeah.

Uh this is to update the um elected officials pay in the uh mayor's office law director and finance director. uh they last um received an increase in 2011 and we are certainly uh well behind other municipalities in the compensation for those elected officials. Uh in accordance with what was passed several years ago, this question has to go to the voters. Um, so it would be the uh desire of the administration that this goes to the voters so it can take place effective January 2nd, 2028 to increase all three elected officials to $100,000 and then building in a cola on top of that. Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions or discussion? Mrs. Coffee.

Um, I think it's it's reasonable to request this. It's been, you know, 15 years for the mayor and 13 years for the law and finance directors. Um, however, I looking at the Ohio Constitution, article 2, section 20 prohibits raising the salary of public office during the term it was set. Um, and so I mean, I think putting it out to the voters is also is also a good thing to do. These are elected officials. Um, and I think it it differs from um employees and and I have uh I would like to discuss appointing these these um positions as well, but I would like to do it uh if possible. Mr. Riley is here to get his insight also. I know he's not here tonight. Um but regarding their current status as elected officials in a service role, I think it's good to go to the ballot. um having an automatic increase I think that takes the power away from the voters and I think being elected officials I I think it should be at the voters's discretion. Um so I will support it if those if those parts are taking out taken out but I'll first see what everyone else's thoughts are.

Thank you Mrs. Coffee. This would go into effect uh January 2nd 2028. So it would be during the next correct term. Correct. Yes. But then um once they're in office then it would go up annually each year that they're in office. So if I if I may. Yeah. Mr.

Um so there is a Supreme Court case from 1983 that specifically says that if a increase plan is put in place for elected officials that particular uh constitutional section does not apply. Um, so we are covered under that aspect. Um, if you take a look at other communities, uh, West Lake, Kaoga Falls, you probably most communities in this area have built in some form of cost of living or other increase for their elected officials. And at least as of 1983, it's not been found to be unconstitutional. And fact that this is still good law to me. uh 43 later three years later is uh a good support for our potential plan here following the constitution.

Thank you Mr. Hooton. Yes coffee it's just my on it. I just think elected officials again council doesn't get an increase. I don't should get an I think it should be set at the same amount for elected officials just the way I looked at. So again I will support this if those changes go through. I I wouldn't. Thank you, Mrs. Coffee. Any other discussion, Mrs. Young?

Um, I would support this. I think it's long overdue if it has they haven't had an increase since 2011. Uh, certainly or most people get, you know, a 2% cost of living raise in in or more in the business world. Um, and what they're asking here doesn't even isn't even like one and a half percent. So, um, I think in order to keep quality people and even though they are elected um we want to keep people and this is is a very reasonable request and think it's overdue. Thank you Mrs. Young. I would support it. Thank you Mrs. Young. Mr. Beldman

absolutely we appreciate the work of those elected officials. Nothing for 15 years or 13 years and the charter requires it to go to the electorate. So, I mean, I appreciate the language and I think building it in as you did is a great idea so we don't get caught behind. So, I'm a yes. I think it's great as is. Thank you, Mr. Feldman. Uh, any other discussion? M Oh, sorry, Mr. Barack.

Yeah, I will uh support this legislation. Uh matter of fact, I was caught in the uh whole process here when I was finance director for STO. And uh basically what this does is it brings it up to where you're getting a person that wants to be in the position get paid the right the right amount for the position and they also get you want to call it rewarded on a cost of living basis with it. uh the elected officials that are here full-time are not they don't live in a bubble. Inflation goes up, prices go up, but stay the same salary. So, I'm in favor of it.

Thank you, Mr. Barneck. Any other discussion? Mrs. I will u move to strike lines 48, 57, and 66, which is just removing those parts of the legislation. Could you repeat the lines? Um 48, 57, and 66. And you're saying uh that you want to strike beginning with effective in in each of those lines um 48, 57, and 66. So, it still does the 80 to 100 increase. It just takes out automatic increases.

I would not support that because that's taking out the cost of living, a small cost of living increase. It's not a merit increase. It's just cost of living. Uh, hang on a second. Just and just a point of order on that. Um, when you are saying strike line 48, are you essentially saying strike everything after the word 2011? After 2011? Yes. Down through the word year before the mayor's salary shall be paid following the bi-weekly schedule. Yes. Because that would be the whole part including the increases.

Yes. Thank you for the clarity. So, it would be line 48 beginning with effective through line 53. Didn't you just say that would negate the whole increase as well? That is correct. Miss uh oh no. Um leave leaving the 80 to 100 in there. The base annual salary will be 100,000 representing a 24% increase beginning at line 48 where it says effective January 2nd 20 and each year after until line 53. So it'll just take out the increase part. Correct.

Not through line 53. That last sentence needs to be in there because otherwise the mayor would not be paid. Good point. Yes. So yes, correct. Thank you, Mr. Hooton. So line 48 beginning with effective through um line 51 ending with year.

Okay. Uh just yeah for clarification and summary the proposal is to remove the entire sentence a single sentence correct beginning with effective on line 48 remove a single sentence beginning with the word effective on line 57 and remove a single sentence beginning with the word effective on line 66. Yes. Okay. Uh the motion has been made. Does it have a second? I'll second it. Okay. Uh there's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Yeah, Mr. Real,

just for just for clarification sake, just for history sake how we got to this point. So, elected officials had traditionally had a 3% COLA cost of living adjustment um early 2000s. Um it was just automatic for organs. uh then the great financial crisis hit and we made the decision across the city of Stow as elected officials to pause that uh for a number of years which is how I think we got to the what 2012 2011. So it took that long for the elected officials to say hey we want to you know reinstitute this cola. Um, so I do have concerns about our ability to stop it, uh, should we get into another financial crisis and people across the city of Stow are losing their jobs or getting pay cuts or whatever. Um, whereas elected officials are getting an automatic increase. I also am don't want to get into a situation where elected officials are receiving a greater cola than city employees. that could either be used against us in labor negotiations or just from a point of public policy which is hey this police officer is getting a 2% color this year and these elected officials are getting two and a half or three. So those are just my concerns on it. Um you know we we have the council clerk is doing this all by hand tonight. So you know enacting amendments I think would be a challenge. So we may just want to you know if you know the body decides to hold it and propose written amendments or whatever but that's just what I have to say.

Yeah. Thank you Mr. Rio. Uh any other discussion? Um yeah I I understand the reasoning. I'm also concerned though of our city alternatively getting in another situation where it is another 15 years before it's revisited again. Um, yeah. Yeah. Nobody's saying to not put it on the ballot. You know, that was the whole point was to eventually put this in the voters's hands. I think the question here is the cola, right? No, I would say it was absolutely disingenuous to say, "Hey, it's up to the voters and then no, no, no, we're not going to ever put it to you for your consideration." I think the question here is the cola and fairness and and and how it relates to the residents and the employees.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh, Mrs. Yeah. Would an option be to write into it that it has to be reviewed every couple years so that if if if we didn't do the cola to review salaries as part of a requirement instead so it doesn't go another 15 years without an adjustment. It's still

the the only issue there is that my my argument against that would be that to put that language in there would require a charter change because the way the charter language was written did not have an uh a review period after so many years and I don't believe that adding that into this would make that effective. Um, obviously I don't believe it was the intention of the administration to have this pass tonight on the first reading. I my only caution is that as with anything that needs to go on the ballot, we have to have this to the board of elections by a certain amount of time. Um, so any modifications is if we can get those over to Drew and myself so we can work on them. But, uh, with there potentially only being three meetings basically this summer before the deadline for filing stuff with the board of elections, we just want to make sure that this stays on track and is not a pocket veto uh, by staying in the hands of council after that deadline. Thank you, Mr. Hootton. Any other discussion on this amendment?

Uh, see none. I think we should do a roll call vote uh for this amendment.

Okay, just to clarify again because I'm taking handwritten notes. This is a roll call vote for amendment per Mrs. Coffee to remove basically that one sentence out of each of those paragraphs. Herman, no. Felman, no. Real, yes. Coffee, yes. Young, no. Barc, no. Yes.

Okay. The amendment did not pass. Uh, so now we go back to discussing the legislation as a whole. Is there any further discussion? We can still with it on the agenda, it's still going to go through the readings, right? Correct. I make a motion to move ordinance 2026 100 onto tonight's council agenda. Second. Uh all in favor? Yes.

Yes. Any opposed? Uh this will be on tonight's council agenda. Uh next up uh well the next uh three uh I put them on uh the agenda. These are three charter amendments uh that when I realized that uh in order to get in time for the three readings before the do deadline to get them onto the ballot, I thought it would be appropriate for us to revisit some of the charter amendments that we were recommended by last year's charter review commission that uh came close uh to being put on the ballot last year but did not due to concerns involving uh ballot fatigue. Uh for example, uh these are the three amendments. Uh item D uh is for uh to clarify uh who the acting mayor is and their backup. Item E is for uh who the acting finance director is. Uh and and then uh item F is to clarify who the acting law director is. Uh but of of course we'll uh take them one at a time. Uh any discussion on uh D which uh clarifies the acting mayor? Mrs. Coffee,

I do appreciate the timing on these. I do agree that with ballot exhaustion that this it's better timing, but I still have the same concerns with this change. I dug up all of my old notes um and reread everything multiple times. Um, so my concern with this change is it automatically makes the president the acting mayor, but what if the president can't become the acting mayor, so they're working full-time or or if they can't, then I feel like the current verbiage, you know, says or any member of council designated by the majority of council. Um, I feel like that allows for more flexibility in that respect. Uh my understanding is that it all then goes through the process of the council choosing who the acting mayor should be if it if the president cannot do it for any reason. Uh and yeah.

Yeah. I don't I mean I see what you're saying like it says if the president while acting in the capacity of mayor temporarily absent from municipality, inaccessible, unable. Um, then it goes to council to choose by a majority vote. But I think the current language is more flexible right from the beginning for the president um that it can go to president or any member of council. I just think the current language is sufficient and I think it's better because I think it allows for flexibility.

Okay. Any other discussion? think maybe just a matter of personal preference made by the members of the the commission, but I I think the new language is clear. Uh seeing no other discussion, do we have a motion to add this to the agenda? I move to move ordinance 2026 102 onto tonight's council agenda. Second. Uh all in favor?

Yes. Yes. Uh this will be on tonight's council agenda. Uh next item E uh is to uh clarify the acting finance director. Uh any discussion on this item do Yes, Mrs. Coffee. Um I I do understand the need for this one with um you know with the temporary incapacitation like Mr. Tophin. Um so I I do understand that. Um my concern with it is that we don't have an assistant finance director. We have a deputy finance director.

So it doesn't it doesn't align with our current employees. if I could address it. We tried to have assistant finance director uh put back into the job and that was turned down by council. So the deputy finance director would be the next in line in the finance department. Okay. So why wouldn't we just put deputy in here?

Just to further uh explain for Mr. top. And if you go down a little further, it says, "In the event that the assistant director of the general division is vacant, then the mayor shall appoint an acting finance director." Um, while there is no current assistant director of the general division, it is something that's currently in our uh charter and our code. So, we would have to have that in here because there would be um issues between the two if we didn't list this way. But because we have it uh set up to where if it's vacant, it can be someone else appointed, that would cover not having them and then appointing the deputy.

Thank you, Mr. Hoot. Any other discussion? Mrs. Coffee. Okay. I I see the complication with that. Um another thought is I mean in the current language we have in the event of the death resignation recall or removal of the director of finance we could also add in the event of the temporary incapacitation death resignation recall or removal of the director of finance so that temporary incapacitation is included in the verbiage and then the same process would ensue the mayor would have the power to appoint a temporary replacement I just think that the the language is confusing saying assistant we don't have an assistant But that's my thoughts.

Thanks, Mrs. Coffee. I mean, we are supposed to, but there are also backups to the assistant as well. This just creates the chain of command because we have unfortunately had situations where the finance director has been incapacitated and was really hard on city staff to try to be able to uh when when you don't when the person when you only have one person with signing authority who can't you can't de that delegate a a backup it it creates a lot of problems like we we We need this to be able to function as a city. Mrs. Coffee,

just another question. What do we do when the finance director or the law director is on vacation? Like who signs? Someone like to answer.

So, there are certain things that not necessarily for the law department, but for the finance department that would not be able to be signed, such as bonds. I know with our departments, we have uh signatory authority for the deputies um just for normal things that would need to happen in I mean jury's on vacation right now. If there's something that needs signed, I can sign it. But for the finance department, there are certain things that cannot be delegated in that way.

Thank you, Mr. Hooton. Uh any other discussion? Do we have a motion to put this on tonight's council agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? Yes.

Yes. Uh this will be added to tonight's agenda. And uh next item F is the charter amendment for the acting law director uh namely the deputy. Uh as Mr. Hooton just explained. Do we have any discussion on this? Mrs. Coffman. Yeah, I I don't really have any issues with it. I think it should match the finance and the law should match. Um, where is where else I guess is assistant finance director in the charter? One second.

Thank you. uh the duties of the assistant finance director. Uh that is in section 13304 and section 1332 is the appointment and let's see if it's in the charter or if it's just in the conference. duties in general. One second. Okay. I believe it's just in the section 133 which is the department of finance section. in the charter or the codifi in

in the codifies in the codifies. Okay. Because I looked in the charter and I couldn't find it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Okay. So, it's not in the charter. That appears to be correct.

Okay. Sorry. So, legally, I mean, so we could essentially change that. And I'm speaking about that when we're talking about law because I just think they should match law and finance because I don't have a problem with the verbiage if if the titles are correct. I still think that if the assistant director of finance is actually in the codifies, it is a position that can exist. So, it should probably be listed when we're talking about a charter change since those are not just simple changes to the codifies because if we were to change it to just say the deputy and then say next year add back in the assistant, we would have to change that in the charter. Otherwise, if the finance director was incapacitated, the assistant would be skipped over and it would go to the deputy. So, I understand the concerns. However, I think removing assistant director of finance from this potential charter change is more problems than it could solve despite the fact that we don't have that position currently hired for because we could in the in the future.

Okay. And uh this is expected to go through three readings and so we would have time to discuss amendments in the meantimes. So any further discussion or a motion to add this to tonight's agenda. So moved. Ordinance 2026 104 onto tonight's council agenda. Second. Uh all in favor? This will appear on tonight's agenda. Uh item G is a motion to appoint Megie Dier uh to the city of Stow Arts Commission. Is there any discussion? Uh seeing none, uh would anyone like to make that motion? Move to confirm the appointment.

Second. All in favor? Yes. Uh congratulations to Mrs. Ms. Dier. Uh next, uh we have a motion to appoint Rick Charles to the environmental commission. Do we have any discussion? Mr. Va, is this due to resignation? My understanding there was a resation. Yes. Thank you. Any other discussion or would someone like to make this motion? Move to confirm the appointment. Second. All in favor? Yes.

Congratulations to Mr. Charles. Next, we have a motion to amend the city council meeting agenda. We had a request from the mayor to uh either cancel or move the May 28th meeting due to a conflict that would result in us not having a quorum. Uh do we have a preference on whether to cancel or to move the May 28th meeting? I have a question. No, no issues with business or anything if we cancel the last one uh for the month. I mean, I'm not sure how everybody else feels, but I was just curious. So, no business issues like we'll get everything done.

So, yes. Uh the expectation from the city is that our meetings have been going efficiently and that uh we'll be able to, you know, bills, listings, and everything. So, be able to

Yes. Mrs. Coffee. Yes. Uh so regarding the public hearing for the two uh planning uh sorry the zoning code amendments uh I was going to suggest that we table the amendments and set the hearing to uh the July 9th meeting in order to get more feedback from the community. Uh in particular uh with the Allameric City Award, the National Civic League is helping uh with a community survey where we can include uh some questions that would be relevant to those zoning amendments in order to get more feedback. And so my suggestion would be to uh allow that to happen during the month of June and return to it uh when we come back in July.

Yes, Mr. Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, I I think I think giving it more time is a great idea. I think getting community input. I do have concerns about a survey, just especially in that amount of time, just getting a statistically valid survey in that amount of time because I think council should be in on approving the the verbiage of the questions. Um, but I do want resident input. So, I think if we can get as much as we can, I mean, and I think the best way you can get resident input is putting it on the ballot. And I think, you know, that's way better than a survey. And if we want um feedback from everyone in the city, I would definitely um support that.

Thanks. And yeah, I'm open to discussing uh those options. Yeah. Thanks. Uh any other discussion? I make a motion to cancel the May 28th city council meetings and all committees assigned to that date. Second. Any discussion? Uh are all in favor? Yes. Yes. Uh so the May 28th meeting is cancelled and uh do we also now want to have a motion to move the public hearing to the July 9th meeting? Second. Second. All in favor?

Yes. Uh that motion is approved. Uh Mr. Herman, can I clarify? Yes. Okay. So, I want to clarify that we have tonight's meeting May 14th. We will not have a May 28th meeting. We've already cancelled June 11th and rescheduled that for June 18th. We canled the June 25th meeting. So, the next so then after the council meeting will be July 9th and going forward everything. Okay. So, I want to make sure I get this posted for the PO public and the public clearly understands that the next council meeting will be June 18th. Yes.

Thank you. Uh, next we have a motion that uh is related to a letter that uh we all received today from a uh resignation. Uh this uh requests us to uh approve a uh motion to fill the secretary 2 position in the street department. Do we have any discussion or would someone like to make that motion? Move to hire secretary too in the street department. Second.

Um all in favor? Yes. That motion is approved. Uh now uh we have a couple executive sess executive session items related to the appointment and compensation of an employee under 121.22G 1 uh-3. Uh do we have a motion uh to go into executive session? Second. Uh, will the clerk please call the role? Herman, yes. Feldman, yes. Real, yes. Coffee, yes. Young,

yes. Baronet, yes. Ya, yes. We are now in executive session.

- 110, an ordinance confirming the mayor's appointment of Charles Corkran as plans examiner 2. Do we have a motion to put uh ordinance 26109 on tonight's council agenda? Second. Uh all in favor? Yes. Uh that will be on tonight's council agenda. Do we have a motion to put ordinance uh 2026 1110 on tonight's council agenda? So second. All in favor? Yes.

That will be moved to tonight's council agenda. Now we've reached our public comment period. If anyone wishes to speak, will you please raise your hand? Uh seeing yes. Uh you uh try to keep Yeah. Uh does he have try to keep your comments uh to three minutes if possible and uh please state your name and address for the record and uh tell us uh if you pledge to tell the truth to your the best of your ability.

All right. Uh my name is Andrew Branch. I live at 3764 Elm Road, and I do uh swear to tell the truth. Um hope you're not tired of seeing me up here yet. Um uh I know the hearing on these zoning amendments is next meeting, but I thought it'd be really important to uh preface that with some info today um since it's a little more discretionary in terms of timing at committee of the whole. Um but I really do implore you to pass the amendments. uh reinstating the removed density cap and restoring the planned minor development overlay standards. So there were three uh concerns listed which were posted on Facebook uh after the last meeting. First one was a developer could come in and procure multiple properties and put in apartment buildings. Second one was it could still greatly affect my residents properties which is my concern. And number three was not having a density cap would create strain on our infrastructure and safety services. Now the main issue is that the conditional use criteria which is written in the code already accounts for these concerns. If there's any concern that any one of these six are going to be violated, you have the legal backing and protection to vote them down. So if there's any concern that you're not going to have adequate utilities or infrastructure or that traffic flow is going to be impacted, you can vote it down and this is in the code to protect you from that. Um let me see for the sake of time. Um yeah, there were some comparisons made with other cities uh West Lake with Crocker Park. Um the density calculation provided uh nine units per acre that it's actually higher than that because the density calculation provided was specifically stated as having the total land area, not the buildings themselves. So again, as Mr. Cowan has said many times, we would actually need a much higher density. Um Crocker Park is also functionally a different type of commercial because it's a regional destination. It's a lot bigger than what we would see in Stow, so you don't need as much density. Um, uh, with the modification standards for minor

developments, um, the only concern stated was that, um, you know, in the meeting we, uh, you know, affordable housing, um, the issue is that affordable housing and I have sources here, affordable housing, part of the issue of that is that that's caused by municipal governments. So that is a municipal level issue. So yes, it is your responsibility to, you know, address that issue. Um but the main thing is you know the issue is that it was said it allows developers to circumvent the code and it's like well why do we have variances then variances accomplish the same thing except the modification standards allow a better means of varying the standards. So, as per chapter 1112, section 19 of the code, all major developments are required to abide by at least one of the same four standards that were originally found in the minor plan development overlay. So, by removing these standards, you've effectively mandated an arbitrary inconsistency in development quality based on whether or not it's just 10 acres or not. Um, second, last meeting during discussion, Mr. Feldman mentioned you're not a page of getting you're not a fan of getting a 16page federal lawsuit, right? These standards help protect you. If a developer is trying to build something, it gives you more grounds to vote no against that development and say, "Hey, we don't like this. We want you to improve the quality there." Um, couple more things real quick. I know my time is up. Just real quick, uh, the Stow, you know, Brunswick was compared as a city that we should be following their example. It's funny that that was brought up because Brunswick also allows code circumvention with their special planning district. So if we want to copy other cities and do what other cities are doing, they allow that as well. So again, we can't, you know, pick and choose what other cities are doing. And then one last thing, uh Brunswick was mentioned as having mixed use. Uh they actually that's not really what they have. They have mixed uses within their

town center mixeduse development, but uh it's really just strip malls next to apartment buildings. It's not the, you know, apartments above the ground level retail that we're trying to do. It's a fundamentally different use. So we can't really uh you know copy that. Um so really uh you know this is very abbreviated you know with my notes but I just want to say you know this code was written specifically for our city with our conditions in mind our city's comprehensive plan and what our community wanted and was workshopped to the tune of over a hundred grand in two years of many people's time and effort. All I ask is that maybe we should recognize the nuance of a zoning code being specific for us, our city. Please vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Branch. Uh would anyone else like to give public comment? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Move to journ. Second. All in favor? Yes.

We are adjourned. I call to order the STO city council meeting for May 14th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role? Herman here. Felman here. Real present. Coffee here. Young here. Baron

here. here. Uh tonight I have the prayer. Uh so uh a wise woman recently reminded me that blessed are the peacemakers and also blessed are the problem solvers. So may God please bless us to make peace and solve problems and serve our community to the best of our abilities. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Next, uh we have a proclamation in honor of Lieutenant Bell. And so we'll ask uh him to come up here and uh we uh will uh present it together as a council. Okay, we'll just read the Yeah,

this is a resolution extending the official gratitude and commendation of the citizens of the city of Stow, Ohio, in recognition of the law enforcement contributions to the community of Police Lieutenant Theodore Bell on the occasion of his retirement from the city of Stowe. Whereas, it is appropriate that this city council honor those employees who have performed with uncommon devotion and enthusiasm during their careers in law enforcement. And whereas Lieutenant Bell diligently served the community as a law enforcement officer for over 27 years where he led by example, was trustworthy, was dependable, and demonstrated honor for the job. hand. Whereas Lieutenant Bell played an important role within the department during his career, which included 18 years as a K-9 officer, 10 years as the K-9 coordinator, and over seven years as supervisor. He was a subject matter expert for Ohio's law enforcement training needs analysis when it came to kines and was a field training officer for new employees. And whereas Lieutenant Bell heroically risked his own life to rescue a family from an armed intruder in the middle of the night and was subsequently received many honors including the American Red Cross Hero Award, the Ohio Attorney General Distinguished Law Enforcement Valor Award, two letters of recognition by members of Congress, and numerous other awards. Whereas Lieutenant Bell honorably served our country as a United States Marine. And whereas Lieutenant Bell dedicated his professional life to enforcing the laws of the state of Ohio and the city of Stowe, investigating cases and serving others, throughout his tenure, Lieutenant Bell demonstrated the utmost professionalism, ability, integrity, and earning the respect of everyone in the criminal justice system along with the grateful public. Now therefore, be it resolved by the council

of the city of Stowe, county of summit, state of Ohio, section one, that on behalf of the present council, the city administration and all of the city of Stow, Ohio, the official gratitude and appreciation of this city are hereby extended to Lieutenant Theodore Bell for his distinguished accomplishments while serving with integrity to uphold the prestige, honor, and values of the Stoke Police Department. Section two, that the clerk of council be and hereby is authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this enactment to be served upon Lieutenant Theodore Bell and to have the same spread upon the permanent records of the city of Stowe for all of those to follow and emulate. Section three of this council finds and determines that all formal actions of this council concerning and relating to the passage of this resolution were taken in an open meeting of this council and that all deliberations of this council and any committees or subcommittees resulted in these formal actions. And lastly, this is a resolution was adopted pursuant to section 4.11 of the city charter, and it's hereby declared to be an emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety for the reason that it is fitting and appropriate to immediately recognize the exemplary service of Lieutenant Theodore Bell and pursuant to section 4.13 of the charter shall take effect upon its adoption by council, the approval of mayor, and otherwise at the earliest uh portion of law. So, I'll just make a couple comments here. Uh over the years uh Theodore Bell III uh has been in these chambers multiple times uh winning uh many many awards for his outstanding service um to the citizens of Stowe. Uh he's a very humble man. He did not want a retirement party. So we're doing this tonight instead so he can actually hear uh the words of thankfulness and appreciation for his service. uh electrician, United States Marine, master's degree in psychology. Uh Ted Bell joined this department on

August 10th of 1998. Just two years later in 2000, he became a K-9 handler. Now, this was a role that if anybody has been around Ted Bell, this is something that he relished and he thrived upon throughout his time at the city of Stowe. For example, in 2001, so just one year after becoming the K-9 handler, there was a suspect with a warrant that uh Ted had been looking for very diligently. After diligent, excuse me, police work, Ted found him. Now, during the course of that arrest with his dog, Ted had the largest seizure uh drug seizure with a canine. That's two kilos of of cocaine and $64,000 in cash. There's countless other examples with that. Uh during his time as an officer, uh Lieutenant Bell was a DUI and drug hunter. If you were under the influence of law in the confines of the city of Stowe, uh you weren't going to get past this guy. Uh very very diligent, a subject matter expert for Ohio's law enforcement canine and needs analysis and he was a trainer for the K9 association. Um he gave up the dog to be promoted to sergeant in 2018. He was a strong mentor to the subordinates and the people that served under him and he was promoted into 2023. So, you know, you said you didn't want a retirement party. So, I asked some of your colleagues uh for comments about you. So, one was a a cops cop. Uh the best compliment that an officer can get from another officer is saying that he or she is the best person to join them on a very serious and dangerous call. Ted is that officer and that is who you hoped for that you were with when you went on a dangerous call. Ted is our quiet ambassador to police. He's trustworthy, dependable. He showed honor for the job. I remember one time on afternoon shift. I came into the police department and Ted was sitting there uh

at his desk with a soldering iron working on the electronics for a radio. So, you know, the electrician background. Who would do that? Well, only Ted would do that. And then uh this other one I recall a time that Ted figured out how to write a search warrant and how to take it to a judge. Now normally search warrants are written by detectives sometimes with the help of a prosecutor, but Ted figured that out and it was easy enough for him to do and not waste anybody's time. He's the only officer I ever saw do something like that. Uh but that's Ted. I do want to point out just a couple heroic actions. So, um, in the early or in the early morning hours of August 1st, a troubled young adult broke in, uh, to his ex-girlfriend's parents' house. Uh, she was living with her parents at the time. He was armed with a shotgun. Um, multiple calls went to dispatches. Uh, folks in the house went to different rooms. I believe three or four calls into dispatch about an armed intruder. Within moments, dispatch relays all that information uh to the officers. Now, this wasn't uh you know, GPS wasn't around then. So, Ted was dispatched to Ward 4. 4:00 a.m. up and down the street going to this house. He arrives, shotgun goes off. Okay. All by himself. Ted went around the house, maneuvered his way into the house. He sliced the pie going room to room in this unfamiliar environment. Um he came up across a young man and the the woman's father fighting over a shotgun. Um Ted did what he needed to do to save that family by neutralizing the suspect. He's our super cop that year. as well. There

was a uh a armed robbery at the BP right here on 59 and 91. The call goes out. Um as the as they were trying to take off, the clerk of that BP station went out in the parking lot and was shot by these robbers. a a high-speed pursuit uh took place through Stowe through Monroe Falls and ending up in Townage Circle. It Ted and his dog Nero along with brave officers from the city of Stow and other communities uh cornered those suspects. Um now you have to understand this wasn't meant to be a um you know felonious assault or a murder. It just happened, right? So, um, in these situations, you don't know what's going on in these in the suspect's mind. Um, suspect kept reaching into the car. Um, Ted made the decision to release Nero, and Nero neutralize the suspect, che him up pretty good. Uh, when the officers went to the car, they found out that he was reaching for a gun. So, uh, with Ted and his dog, uh, neutralizes situation and the situation that could have been much worse. So, for both the So, in that year, the Red Cross awarded TED uh, its bravery award for the shooting on Ward 4 and for the BP um, apprehension. Nero was the first animal and I believe the only animal to be recognized by the American Red Cross in our area for bravery um in the line of duty and apprehending a suspect. And uh can't say enough about this guy. He's been a a wonderful leader for the department. Um you inspire um myself and council and and the the officers that

served under you as well as the community. and uh we're sorry to see you go. You you earned us retirement. Uh but uh you did a hell of a job here with the city of Stone. We thank you for it.

Sure. Ted, thank you so much. We are grateful for everything you've done. You're one of the best. Um my personal note is that Ted sent me an email or called me. He was doing some training and I said, "Ted, where are you?" He goes, "I'm at this training. I've got to ask you some questions. I'm doing this paper or something." I was like, "Okay, go." He asked me and we go back and forth. That's not what He sends me a thank you note. And I get it. And it was the kindest thank you note ever. And alls I did was answer some questions that you had during a training. But you've worked many football games. We are grateful. your immeasurable impact on the department. Thank you for your service to this city. You're a great example and a great mentor. So, uh, congratulations on your retirement. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Uh, can we get the full council out front to get a Squishing like you like each other. Yes. This is all very very overwhelming. Um, I had a supervisor a long time ago tell me we're all replaceable and that humbled me and kind of guided me uh as I moved through my career. I was sworn in under Don Coughlin and Chief Tilton. So I've seen a lot of uh things happen. Um father time is um father time is um is here and he is undefeated. And so now here I am um in front of you all today. I want to say that I'm very grateful. It's been my privilege to be

at your service for all these years and thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Uh next on our agenda, we have the minutes from our April 23rd meeting. Do we have any motions to edit or a motion to approve? Second. All in favor? Yes. Those minutes are approved. Next, we have our public comment. Quick point. So, we just have to vote on it. It's a resolution of council. So, we'll just Oh, yes. The proclamation was a resolution as well. Yes. Thank you. Move to suspend the rules. Second. All in favor? Yes. Uh the rules are suspended. Move to adopt. Second. Uh, all in favor? Yes.

Uh, the proclamation has been formally, uh, adopted by council. Thank you, uh, Mr. Real.

Uh, now we have our public comment period. Anyone wishes to speak, please raise your hand. Seeing none, uh, mayor's report. Uh, but in lie of the mayor, uh, Mr. Ren or any other city officials have any updates? Uh just a mayor is at a scholarship dinner I think with the schools tonight. So um just to give council an update. We have uh our last two interviews this coming Monday for our parks and recreation director position or last two first round interviews I should say. And we also have our last interview for the amphitheater coordinator coming up. Uh that's also on Monday. So hopefully um by the June meeting we're ready to present some candidates to city council to fill those positions. Happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Ren? Uh thank you Mr. Ren. Uh next uh any old business to return to? Seeing none, uh for new business, we have our uh two ordinances that came out of executive session. The first is 2026-109. Uh well, will will the clerk please read it by its title?

2026 109, an ordinance confirming the finance director's appointment of Ashley Stanton as income tax assistant of the finance department of the city of Stow establishing compensation for set appointee and declaring emergency. I move to suspend the rules. Second. All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended. Second. Uh, any discussion? Uh, will the clerk please call the role? Herman, yes. Belman, yes. Real, yes. Coffee, yes. Young, yes. Barin, yes. Bioca,

yes. That ordinance is approved and will take effect in accordance with the rules. Next item B uh is 2026 uh-10. Will the clerk please read it by its title? 2026-110 an ordinance confirming the mayor's appointment of Charles Cororin as plans examiner 2 of the building department of the city of Stow establishing compensation for set appointee and declaring emergency. I move to suspend the rules. Second. All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended. Move to adopt. Second. Any discussion? Will the clerk please call the role? Herman, yes. Felman, yes.

Real? Yes. Coffee? Yes. Young? Yes. Baron? Yes. Yes.

That ordinance passes and will take effect in accordance with the rules. Next, we have our disposition of ordinances and resolutions. Uh first uh for its uh second reading uh will the clerk please read item A by its title 2026-095 an ordinance amending certain sections of chapter 10 11104 of the codified ordinances entitled use standards particularly section 1104.04A6 entitled dwelling multiple family including 5 to 12 units, 13 plus units, and multifamily complexes.

Any discussion? Mrs. Young,

I just appreciate Mr. Branch's presentation uh earlier at the council and wanted to thank him. Uh yes, I also appreciated uh the presentation and I thought it was an important point that because any increases uh in density would need conditional approval anyway. It's really about seeing what can be proposed on a case-byase basis and then council can decide uh whether we want uh developments that are proposed especially in the mixeduse overlay district rather than banning them outright. Um and I I do have uh question for the rest of council as we are considering this uh you know as we went through the code rewrite process. The intent was to align with our comprehensive plan and it's been in our comprehensive plans dating back to 1991 that we want a mixeduse uh downtown. Uh and so just looking back at the vision and goals that were adopted in the most recent 2017 comprehensive plan. It the vision is that Stow will be a city where quote a lively community gathering place is located in the center of town. A city center will be created around the Duro Graham intersection to create a pedestrian-friendly mixeduse downtown for the city and goals included to retain existing and attract new residents to increase the population base. uh to encourage walkable, pedestrian-friendly, mixeduse development in strategic locations such

as the Stow City Center and the Darrow Road and Kent Road area and to encourage, foster and facilitate the redevelopment and redesign of existing uh struggling retail centers. And so the code's intent was to allow these goals to be achieved. And so my question to the rest of council is does our city still have these goals or should we be looking at should we also be looking at creating a new comprehensive plan in the coming year now that we're coming up on a decade. And I think that as we went through the rewrite process, we tried to learn from previous attempts to help this vision become a reality that have gone over the decades. There was an attempt around 2005. There was another attempt around 2017 to 2018. And like my understanding is that yes, there are different ways to achieve the goal, but uh given the processes that we've been through, I would like to hear from the rest of council. Are we trying to work together to achieve these goals or should we be revisiting the comprehensive plan itself?

Mrs. Coffee,

I don't have much to say. I I said most of it at the last meeting, but um I I like I said previously, I'm not opposed to a mixeduse overlay district and increasing the dis density in that specific area. Um but I just have a question for Mr. Cowen. I told you previously that I had heard from residents that are in neighborhoods off of Fish Creek and lately I've been hearing from ne from residents that are in Bayside. Um so and and so I have the question same question for both developments. So, um, on Fish Creek or on Norton Road, could someone could a developer come in and procure multiple properties and put in a three-story apartment building meeting all the requirements on either of those main roads?

Those are a couple of the main corridors listed in the code, and that is always a possibility, you know, somebody coming in buying property. But there's also, let's not forget, all the other requirements for design and landscaping and open space conditional use criteria that they have to meet. Sure. Thank you. And thanks, Mr. Cowan. And also, wouldn't those also be conditional? They would still have to go even if they were proposed, they would still have to be on approved on a case-by case basis. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Any other discussion, Mr. Feldman?

Real quick, Mr. going. Um, I I've got a couple detractors and I'm I'm trying to understand this and continuing to do research and I haven't looked at the minutes and when you and I went back and forth. I I just hope I mean I want to make sure we just balance the flexibility the developers need, which I get it. They need it, right? But we also kind of pay attention to our vision on where we want long term. I wasn't being adversarial or argumentative. I just want to be able to make sure, can we target it? And I keep hearing detractors talk about low income, low income, low income. So, can you tell me what the criteria are so I can respond to the lowincome people that keep telling me, right, detractors?

Yeah, the affordable housing portion is from the minor plan development overlay. That's one of the modification standards. And again, there's four options. There's the lead certif certification u route. There's the affordable housing uh part. If they go with dwelling units, there's also an accessible number of units that they could meet. And then there's an other category where if they don't want to apply for any of those, they can do their own thing, bring it to plan commission and council if they want to go above and beyond design and landscaping standards or parking, you know, whatever it may be. if they don't want to go with those other three options. So the affordability aspect is just one option out of four. So affordability is one out of four.

Yes. Right. Only and it's only if they go with a minor plan development overlay. Okay. Um so 14,000 houses in Stow approximately 10,000 of them are owner occupied. There's 4,000 left that are not owner occupied. to their rentals or whatever it may be. With a 6% availability rate right now, that's about 240 units that are still available in STEM currently, right? Yeah. I don't know if I've seen that number, but that sounds about right. Okay.

Yeah. And as I showed at the last meeting, you know, when we factor in sight specifics and conditions and flood planes and wetlands and lot area, there's maybe 90 properties that could have some type of multif family development. And even out those 90, there's maybe a handful that are realistic, right? As Mr. Branch stated, I just get a little nervous about developers, but I'm with you. I mean, I think uh I get it. I just I know they take take and never give. Yeah. Right. So,

yeah, if I can um the these two amendments again, there are several that were made, you know, at the end of last year. These two are it created somewhat of a broken code and make may inconsistent with other requirements. So it's it's something that we need to address whether it's amendments to these you know during this process or what there is or but you know we need to come to some type of agreement to fix these. Yeah. I mean it makes no sense. We're at nine now and we amended it to six. We're not even following our own code when we amended it. So that was obviously an issue. So thank you. Thank you Mr.

Yep. Uh Mrs. Um I would suggest that affordability does not equate to low income. So that would be my response. We you hopefully um we have people graduating from college and hopefully getting jobs, but whether they're they're graduating from college or have a trade um can they afford to live in the city of Stow? We want Mr. branch to come back after he graduates and find a house here or find an apartment here or something. Um, as we do other people. So, I would question that affordability equals low income. It needs to be affordable for people to to be able to live here.

Thank you, Mrs. Young. And it's actually more appropriate to refer to it as workforce housing if you look at the way it's actually defined. In the code, it's uh we're looking at uh the def the definition is for like 25% of units to be priced at 30% of the income for people who make 80% of the median area income. So, we're talking about it's not this isn't welfare. This isn't low-income projects. This is about ensuring that when we have these really nice mixeduse condos that and it's just one option for council to be able to ask a developer to include a portion to be affordable for people who already live in want who already work in our city and just want to be able to live near where they work. Um yeah, Mrs. Coffee.

Yes. Um, another concern, um, and something that I've also heard from residents is the schools. You know, they're, um, they're currently in not a great financial situation and so they're trying to dig out of that. Um, and so just, um, that concern and then also the property that they own on Houseley. Um, because I saw when I looked at the map that that was one of the spots that was an option for multifamily. Yes. That's that's another concern that I have is is the schools. Thank you, Mrs. Coffee. And uh I've been talking with some school board members and uh some of us will actually be meeting with Mr. Ken next week uh to talk. Oh,

good. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Uh Mrs. young. Um, just to that point, I would think that a lot of these mixed use areas would not be families moving in, but more young single people um, starting their careers uh, or older retired people who want to live in a walkable area. So, I kind of um, question that that it would put a strain on it. And our school's population has declined se a lot over the years, has it not, Mr. Felman? Forever. Thank you, Mrs. Coffee.

Thank you. Um, just one last point, the the mixeduse overlay district that we're talking about, I'm not opposed to that, but just to clarify, we're talking about removing the density cap in the entire city, which I feel like those are two separate issues. And I feel like so the public understands um when we're talking about the downtown area, we're talking specifically about that. But right now, this legislation is not really about that. It's about the entire city. So the way that I I look at it is we have had opportunities for mixed use to revitalize some of our other commercial corridors and it's already targeted and strategic in where density is allowed. We're saying that it's only allowed on our main roads and commercial areas. And so if we only exempt the mixed use overlay district that takes away opportunities like the AMP for example, that would be like a dream home for me would be to like live in a condo facing the AMP. Like that would be the per that's the perfect type of walkable neighborhood that we're trying to encourage the like development in. And even looking back further, uh there have been previous there has been previous interest in uh allowing mixed use in other uh of our commercial areas like the Stoke area. There was a community survey in 2010 where 70some percent of residents said that they wanted mixed use there. And I I look at it from the long term of how Stow has developed the way it has in ways where it's not walkable, where it is car dependent. If instead of these giant empty parking lots that we have there, it it takes adding in a little bit of mixed use that can help revitalize and make those areas more walkable uh like we're trying to do at

the AMP. And so that's why I would be wary of because we have already targeted where it is allowed. Yeah.

Um another question just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Um so um you've said it's only allowed on main roads and I know what we change for duplex, triplex, quadplex in the code. Um we changed that from limited to conditional and that was on main roads Norton Darrow um 91 all of the main roads but when I looked in the code for the density it doesn't specify I didn't see where it specified main roads I mean I saw it was allowed on houseley like it's it's allowed on it's not just main roads is that correct

most of the uses would be main road I mean that is something we can make that more clear in the code or it is specific to main roads but the way we would review it is that be apply to those corridors, but it currently doesn't specify main roads for multif family. Correct. Only for triplex 2 plus quadplex, but apartment buildings, it's not only main roads. Right. Thank you.

Thanks. Uh any other discussion? Um I you know I know there was a very notable attempt to uh create a downtown in the 2017 2018 uh time period and I my you going through the the rewrite process. Uh it was there was a lot of learning from from that about you know fears of rapid uh development, fears of bars which we addressed by removing those as an un an allowed use. Instead they have to be like the types of restaurants that we want and things like that. And also uh you know there there was this big feasibility study and uh the city was looking for developers who would be interested in building mixed use and they said it wasn't feasible at the time. And so this way of achieving this goal that we've had for decades by just allowing it to be proposed as lots become available through uh readdaptation like the empty lots across the library like and now we are hearing that there is interest from developers potentially for mixed use there. I think that this gives us a more gradual uh and incremental way of allowing the city to achieve this goal that we've had at a sort of natural and organic pace. Um and I'm you really grateful and interested in everyone's like willingness and engage to allow this goal to finally happen. And I just uh hope that we can uh collaborate on this and we would appreciate everyone's input and and feedback. Um but unless there's

any other discussion uh uh may we have a motion to move this to our sorry to table this uh so that we can uh keep it until our uh July 9th meeting in accordance with uh the public hearing. Move to table item 2026 096. Second. Uh, any discussion? And all in favor? Wait, I thought we're not on We're on 095, not 096. Yes. Right. Okay. What What can we have a clarification on why we're tableing?

Uh, because we moved the public hearing to July 9th. We need 30 days, right, from public hearing back to what it is. We We do need 30 days, but you've had two readings right now. So, if you're not going to on June 8th. I got you. We're postponing it till the 9th. Okay. Yep. I apologize. Thank you for clarificating. Yeah. And thank you. Um so the motion is uh to table 2026. Yes. Okay. Uh and we had the second. Yes. Yes. Okay. And so all in favor? Yes.

Any oppose? Uh that ordinance is tabled. Uh next item B. Will the clerk uh please read uh it by its title?

202696 an ordinance amending certain sections of chapter 1103 of the codified ordinances of Stowe entitled overlay district standards particularly section 11304 entitled minor plan development overlay district standards. Uh any discussion on this? Any further discussion? Uh seeing none. Uh do we have a motion to table this? Move to table item 202696. Second. Uh all in favor? Yes.

Uh this ordinance is tabled. Now we'll move to our first readings. Will the clerk please read item C by it title

2026-098 an ordinance amending chapter 505 COS entitled animal and fowl particularly section 505.01 1 therefore entitled dogs and other animals running at large nuisance and repealing section 505.18 thereof entitled dangerous dogs and vicious dogs in its entire it entirey and replacing with section 505.18 entitled nuisance dogs dangerous dogs vicious dogs and declaring e emergency I move to suspend the rules second all in favor Yes. Yes. The rules are suspended.

Move to adopt. Second. Any discussion? Will the clerk please call the role? Herman? Yes. Felman? Yes. Real? Yes. Coffee? Yes. Young? Yes. Baron? Yes. Yes. That ordinance uh passes and will take effect in accordance with the law. The terms. Thank you. Uh will the clerk please read item D by its title?

202699 an ordinance amending certain sections of chapter 373 of the codified ordinances of Stow entitled pedestrians, bicycles, and motorcycles. Particularly section 373.11 entitled riding on sidewalks, skateboards, animals, and section 313.27 entitled electric bicycles. Move to suspend the rules. Second. All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended. Move to adopt. Second. Any discussion? Um, Mrs. Coffee, just to echo everyone. Thank you, Mr. Hoot. This this is much improved. So, thank you.

Okay. Uh will the clerk please call the role? Herman, yes. Belman, yes. Rio, yes. Coffee, yes. Young, yes. Barack, yes. Yoka, yes. That ordinance passes and will take effect in accordance with the terms. Will the clerk please read item E by its title? 2026 100 an ordinance establishing compensation for the mayor law director finance director of the city of Stow effected January 2nd 2028.

Uh and uh I believe that that will just uh conclude its first reading. Yeah. Okay. Uh next will the clerk please read item F by it title. 26 2026 101 a resolution amending 2024118 allowing modification of the site plane and granting certain variances of the property located at 3691 Hudson Drive extension in the city of Stow Ohio. I move to suspend the rules. Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. The rules are suspended. Move to adopt. Second.

Any discussion? Will the clerk please call the role? Herman, yes. Felman, yes. Rio, yes. Coffee, yes. Young, yes. Baron, yes. Yoka, yes. That resolution passes and will take effect in accordance with its terms. Will the clerk please read item G by its title? 2026 102 an ordinance providing a separate amendment to the charter of the city of Stow to be submitted to the electorate at the general election on November 3rd 2026 to amend section 3.06 to clarify the procedure of acting mayor and declaring emergency.

Uh that will constitute the first reading. Uh, will the clerk please read item H by its title 2026-103, an ordinance providing a separate amendment to the charter of the city of Stow to be submitted to the electorate at the general election on November 3rd, 2026 to add section 6.08 of the charter creating a provision for an acting finance director and declaring an emergency. That will constitute its first reading. Will the clerk please read item I by its title?

2026-104, an ordinance providing a separate amendment to the charter of the city of Stow to be submitted to the electorate at the general election on November 3rd, 2026 to add a se to add section 9.07 of the charter creating a provision for an acting law director in declaring an emergency. And that will constitute its first reading. Will the clerk please read item J by its title? 2026 105, an ordinance authorizing the mayor to make an entrance to a professional service contract with the utility service company for year five of a contract for themethane removal system without the necessity of public bids and declare an emergency.

I move to suspend the rules. Second. All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended. Move to adopt. Second. Any discussion? Will the clerk please uh call the role? Herman, yes. Bman, yes. Rio, yes. Coffee, yes. Young, I'm sorry. Yes. Baron, yes. Yoga, yes. That ordinance passes and will take effect in accordance with its terms.

Will the clerk please read item K by its title? 2026-106 an ordinance authorizing the mayor to make an entry into a profession professional service contract with Sugar Valley Engineering LT D for design of Graham Road connectivity project without the necessity of public bids and declare an emergency. I move to suspend the rules. Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. The rules are suspended. Move to adopt. Second. Any discussion? Mr. Barack.

Yes. Just want to make a little comment about uh Valley. I think uh if uh their past history continues, they will uh will definitely be very h pleased with what they're going to put out for us. Uh I deal with them at at my current full-time position. So, uh and they are very professional and do put out a nice product. Thank you. Uh any other discussion? Will the clerk please call the role? Herman, yes. Felman, yes. Rio, yes. Coffee, yes. Young, yes. Baron, yes. Fioa,

yes. That ordinance passes and will take effect in accordance with the terms. Will the clerk please read item L by its title? 2026-107 an ordinance authorizing the mayor to make an entry into a professional service contract with Evans Merch Humbleton Tilton Inc. for design of Fish Creek Road Stow Road Roundabout Project without the necessity of public bids and declaring emergency. I move to suspend the rules. Second. All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended. Move to adopt. Second. Uh, move the clerk, please call the role. Herman, yes. Yes. Rio, yes. Coffee, yes. Young, yes.

Baron, yes. Bioca, yes. Next, uh, we have our bill of listing approval. Uh, first, the approval of the May 14th. I make a motion to approve the May 14th bill. Second. All in favor? Yes. Uh that uh report is approved. Next uh we have uh a motion to sorry this version doesn't have the full I move to approve the president of council or the designate to sign the bill listing for May 28th 2026. Second. Uh all in favor? Yes.

Yes. That's approved. And then next, I make a motion to approve the president counselor designate to sign the bill listing for June 11th, 2026. All all in favor?

That is approved. Uh next, uh any updates for our upcoming committee meetings or any other announcements? Yes, Mr. Barick. I'd like to put on one of the committees some discussion of uh solicitation within the scope. Uh I've been getting some calls regarding uh time period and uh everything see overall general discussion see there's a way to limit you know maybe the times of day that we have solicitors especially the registered solicitors come by and I'll have to complain too because I was out at after dusk and almost got run over by one of those two people yeah coming around in that so I know that other other people in the area have had those issues

Mrs. coffee. I have heard similarly and it's we do have hours I know and we have um a list where people can submit to be on the non-solicitation list. It seems like they're not following the rules seems to be the problem. I don't know. I'm not quite sure. Yes, we do. For commercial solicitation, they are supposed to stop at 6 p.m.

Okay. Uh we are definitely aware of the uh fact that they are not stopping at 6 p.m. I've had many calls this week with residents concerning this. Um one company in particular seems to be the biggest offender of this. Um, so we are hoping to ask residents that if you have someone there soliciting after hours, even if they are a licensed registered solicitor with the city, please call the non-emergency line. It really will help us in potentially either being able to remove their solicitation authority or potentially uh move forward with criminal charges for violating that statute. Um, I did personally call the supervisor for this company and informed him of the fact that they've only had their approval for two weeks and we were already getting tons of complaints about their guys. Hopefully things will change, but I'm not I don't have much faith because the day after I called him, there were also more complaints about them being still out at 8:00. So, I don't know how much it really went through his head, but yes, please tell residents and anybody listening, call the non-emergency line if you have any issues with solicitors, especially if they're getting aggressive or they won't leave your property, no matter what time it is. But if they're soliciting after 6:00 p.m., call the non-emergency line. Our officers are absolutely willing to go out there and do it. They already have done several stops so far this week on these guys. So,

thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh I wanted to flag some uh events that are coming up. Uh this next Wednesday, May 20th at 6 PM, we are having the city the all-americ city rally on the green. And so, uh we're all going to to be there inviting as many people as we can. uh get some videos about why we love Stow, why we're an all-American city. Uh also uh we have Stow's Memorial Day ceremony uh on Memorial Day, Monday, May 25th at 10 a.m. at the Stow Cemetery. And then looking farther ahead, uh the AMP has been named as the grand marshall for our Fourth of July parade as an example of our uh patriotic uh community building. And uh I wanted to ask the rest of councils since uh it's not an election year if we all wanted to walk in the parade together instead of walking separately this year to show unity in community. Um okay. And then uh one other item uh that I just want to uh consider or whether we should put on a committee agenda in the future is whether to it's been proposed uh well Sonia has been talking with our uh IT director too about whether to update the AV system in the chambers because uh there have been some really good videos from the owls of our commissions but uh the cameras here are kind of outdated and zoomed up and you can't really see much. And so the idea was to add a few more cameras in order to be able to zoom in, especially like when someone is speaking. And uh but uh I before we w we went ahead with getting bids for that, I just wanted to ask if there was interest in considering the bids.

Um yeah, I'll I'll go ahead and and ask I mean, just it sounds like a good idea. I would think anybody that's watching it remotely would would appreciate that. Um, yeah. So, yes. Okay. Thanks. Well, we'll we'll go forward with asking for the bids. I just didn't want to ask for them before we talked about it. So, thanks. Uh, any other anything else for the good of the cause? I just want to thank Mr. Real for that was very, very, very, very well done. So, thank you for initiating that. Uh so uh is there a motion to adjurnn? Move to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? Yes.