[Call to Order: President Berry] [00:00:04] GROVE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW IN SESSION. WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND FOR A MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER AND THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? INSTEAD OF 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. CLARK, PLEASE READ THE ROLE. MR. SCHOTTKY PRESIDENT. MR. SIEGRIST. HERE. MR. BARRY HERE. MR. HOLT HERE. THIS IS HOW. HERE WE HAVE MINUTES FROM 222 TO 27 AND 307. [Approval of Minutes] I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THEM. SECOND. MR. SHARKEY. YES. MR. SIEGRIST. YES. BARRY YES, YES. YES. SO WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO TONIGHT'S COUNCIL MEETING. [Welcome & Reading of Agenda] I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE AGENDA REAL QUICK. AND THEN WE HAVE A SPECIAL PRESENTATION UNDER LANDS ORDINANCE 1819 RESOLUTION CR 11 RESOLUTION CR 12 RESOLUTION CR 13 RESOLUTION CR 14 RESOLUTION CR 15 RESOLUTION C, CR 16 AND RESOLUTION CR 17. THOSE ARE ALL UNDER LANDS UNDER SAFETY C 17 OR C 20 RESOLUTION CR 18 RESOLUTION CR 19 RESOLUTION CR 20 AND UNDER FINANCE ORDINANCE C 15 C 16 CR 21 TO ANY OF THE CHAIRS AND ANY CHANGES TO THEIR AGENDA ITEMS FOR TONIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE DO HAVE A SPECIAL [Presentation: Officer Darnell Retirement ] PRESENTATION. MAYOR. THANK YOU. PRESIDENT. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE OFFICER DARNELL AND HIS FAMILY WOULD BE SO KIND TO COME FORWARD. OFFICER DARNELL, BRING THAT LOVELY FAMILY OF YOURS. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOUR FATHER IN LAW, BUT YOU DID. IMMIGRATION. THIS IS OFFICER JOHN DARNELL. AND AFTER 20 PLUS YEARS WITH THE CITY GROW CITY, HE'S GOING TO BE RETIRING. BUT YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO BE COMING BACK, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY. WHAT DO YOU BE DOING? CRIME PREVENTION COORDINATOR CRIME PREVENTION. THAT'S LIKE WALKING YOUR WAY OUT OF THE JOB. THAT'S GOOD. WHY DON'T YOU INTRODUCE YOUR FAMILY? THIS IS MY LOVELY LIFE SAVING ANGEL, BECKY. WIFE. MY OLDEST, COLIN. AND MY YOUNGEST EVER. VERY GOOD. JOHN WAS EXTREMELY INSTRUMENTAL IN MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO EXECUTE THE GOLD STAR MEMORIAL, WHICH IS DOWN TO COLUMBUS STREET AND BROADWAY. I WORKED WITH A JOAN NAMED WOODY WILLIAMS MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT, I THINK THE LAST OF IWO JIMA. IS HE THE LAST OF WORLD WAR TWO OR JUST IWO JIMA? IWO JIMA. AND WE HAD THE HONOR OF HAVING JOHN AND SERGEANT WHITE WORK ON THIS FOR HOW MANY YEARS? TWO AND A HALF YEARS AND WE FINALLY GOT IT DONE. SO WE WANTED TO GIVE SPECIAL RECOGNITION TO JOHN AND HIS FAMILY FOR THIS DAY OF HIM RETIRING. AND I HAVE A PROCLAMATION. IT'S BEEN SIGNED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS IT'S ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE MAYOR TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR SIGNIFICANT OCCASION OUR COMMUNITY. AND. WHEREAS, THE OFFICER, JOHN DARNELL, IS RETIRING FROM THE CIGAR CITY, BEING AWARDED THIS RECOGNITION AS THE TESTIMONIAL OF HIS LOYAL AND DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF GROVE CITY OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS. WHEREAS, ON SEPTEMBER THE EIGHTH, 1996, JOHN BEGAN HIS PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER WITH THE CITY OF GROVE CITY. JOHN ALSO SERVED FOUR YEARS IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS WITH FIVE DIFFERENT MISSIONS, INCLUDING OPERATION DESERT STORM. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AS WELL. WHEREAS ALSO DARNELL IS STRONGEST CONTRIBUTIONS WHERE HIS COMMITMENT AND TIME SPENT WITH OUR FIELD TRAINING PROGRAM TRAINING MANY OF THE OFFICERS STILL SERVING THE CITY GROVE CITY TODAY. OFFICER DARNELL'S CROWNING ACHIEVEMENT WAS HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT, FUNDRAISING AND ULTIMATE INSTALLATION OF THE GOLD STAR MEMORIAL, WHICH WILL TOUCH LIVES AND THE PRIDE OF GROCERY COMMUNITY FOR DECADES TO COME. WE EXTEND OUR HEARTFELT CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST WISHES TO JOHN AND HIS FAMILY AND WITNESS WHEREOF WE HERE TODAY. SUBSCRIBE AND AFFIX THE CITY GROCERY SEAL. [00:05:01] JOHN, THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO THANK YOU AND THE COUNCIL BECAUSE IT TOOK ALL YOUR HARD WORK WITH OURS TO GET THE MONUMENT, ALL THE SUPPORT, THE SUPPORT OVER THE LAST FEW DECADES. THIS IS A GREAT TOWN, A GREAT COMMUNITY. SO I'M HONORED TO COME BACK AND TAKE A CIVILIAN JOB AND KEEP ON WORKING HERE. BUT I'LL NEVER FORGET ALL THE SUPPORT YOU ALL GAVE WITH THE GOLD STAR. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR GETTING IT IMPLEMENTED. I KNOW IT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO A LOT OF THE GOLD STAR FAMILIES. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WITH ONLY 15 YEARS OF SERVICE, YOU GOT TO RETIRE. YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T BE THAT OLD. 25. WELL, CONGRATULATIONS. WE? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL WE'LL BEGIN THE NORMAL COUNCIL AGENDA. WE WILL START WITH THE LANDS CHAIRMAN. MR. SHARKEY. THANK YOU, MR. [Ordinance C-18-22 Accept the Plat of Meadow Grove Estates, Section 9, located east of Buckeye Parkway and North of Silver lawn Dr. First reading. ] PRESIDENT. THIS EVENING WE START WITH ORDINANCE 1822. IN ORDER TO ACCEPT THE PLOT OF MEADOW GROVE ESTATES, SECTION NINE, LOCATED EAST OF BUCKEYE PARKWAY, NORTH OF SILVER LAWN DRIVE. MY GOODNESS, I HAVE OFFENDED ALL THOSE PEOPLE. THIS ORDINANCE HAD ITS FIRST READING. SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ON APRIL 4TH ON THEIR ORDINANCE C 1922, IN ORDER [Ordinance C-19-22 Accept the Plat of Farmstead, Subarea H, Phase 3, located west of S.R. 104. First reading. ] TO ACCEPT THE PLIGHT OF FARMSTEAD SECTION H PHASE THREE, LOCATED WEST OF STATE, ROUTE 104. THIS THIS ORDINANCE HAD ITS FIRST READING. SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ON APRIL 4TH. WE HAD SOMEONE SIGN UP FOR THIS ON HERE. IS IT THERE A PLUMBER? WOULD YOU LIKE TO. ARE YOU COMING BACK FOR THE HEARING ON THEIR FOURTH? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN. WE'LL JUST DO IT AT THE HEARING THEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. RESOLUTION CR 1122 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN [Resolution CR-11-22 Approve Amendments to the Development Plan for Chick-fil-A located at 1696 Stringtown Rd., as approved by Res. CR-74-04.] FOR CHICK FIL A, LOCATED AT 1695 ST TOWN ROAD, AS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION CR 7404 ON MARCH 18. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED OCTOBER 18, 2004. MR. RAUSCH, WOULD YOU COME FORTH IN AND EXPLAIN THE THE CHANGES TO THIS AND THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE? ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS A RESULT OF A NOTIFICATION FROM BUILDING DIVISION ABOUT A VIOLATION BECAUSE. CHICK-FIL-A HAD BEEN OPERATING THEIR DRIVE THRU OUTSIDE OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BACK IN 2006, I BELIEVE FOR 2007. IT'S REALLY BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THE SITE. THERE'S TWO POINTS OF ACCESS, BOTH OF A PRIVATE DRIVE. ONE IS DESIGNATE FOR INGRESS ONES THAT DOES FOR EGRESS. SO TO TO KIND OF MODIFY THEIR OPERATION TO TO MATCH THEIR THEIR CHANGING NEEDS. THEY'RE LOOKING TO FORMALLY ESTABLISH A SECOND DRIVE THRU LANE TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL STACKING. RIGHT NOW THEY CAN STACK 20 CARS BASED OFF THE ORIGINAL PLAN BY DOING THIS DOUBLE STACK AND KIND OF LOOPING AROUND THE BUILDING TWICE TO QUEUE UP. IT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL SIX OR SO SPACES. SO DURING PEAK PERIODS THE APPLICANT TALK MORE ABOUT THIS. BUT JUST THROUGH YOU'RE AWARE, DURING PEAK PERIODS, THERE STILL WILL BE PEOPLE, WORKERS FACILITATING ORDERS IN THE DRIVE LANE DURING THE PEAK HOURS. SO WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I BASICALLY HAVE ONE. I KNOW THAT THE WAY THEY'RE DOING IT NOW WITH THE IPADS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT IS REALLY HELPED SPEED UP THINGS ON THERE. BUT THERE'S OUTSIDE WAS INITIALLY PROVED ON THE ORIGINAL PRICE AND THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT. ON THE ANALOGY DURING THE PEAK PERIODS. DURING PEAK PERIODS, WHAT ABOUT THE TRAFFIC THAT BACKS UP INTO THE DRIVE OUT ON THE PARKING LOT THERE OF THE SHOPPING BY WRAPPING THE TRAFFIC AROUND THE SITE TWICE? THAT SHOULD HELP ALLEVIATE A LOT OF THOSE BACKING OUT ONTO THE ONTO THE PRIVATE DRIVE. THAT'S KIND OF THE CRUX OF THIS WHOLE ISSUE. THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET TRAFFIC OFF OF THAT PRIVATE DRIVE ONTO THEIR SITE. SO ANY CONGESTION THAT HAPPENS HAPPENS ON THEIR SITE. THEY ARE VERY EFFICIENT IN THEIR PROCESSING, BUT STILL THEY'RE TRYING TO ALLEVIATE THOSE [00:10:04] CONCERNS. ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE MR. VALLEY IS MR. VALLEY ON THERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ON HERE ABOUT THE PROJECT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I KNOW MORE OR LESS IT WAS ALREADY COVERED, BUT WE'LL BE ABLE TO ESSENTIALLY EVERYBODY WILL ENTER THE SITE AT THE NORTHWEST PORTION AND WE'LL COME WRAP AROUND THE BUILDING AS STATED, RATHER THAN RIGHT NOW, WHERE YOU SEE THE DOUBLE LANES, TRAFFIC LOADS DIRECTLY INTO THE DRIVE AISLE. SO THIS OR THE DRIVEWAY, PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. SO THIS WAY THEY'RE ACTUALLY ABLE TO WRAP AROUND THE BUILDING AND WE'RE ABLE TO GET A BACKUP DRIVE THRU LANE ESTABLISH NEXT TO THE CHECKOUT WINDOW. SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE AS CARS BUILD UP, THEY ALL STAY CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPERTY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL FOR EITHER MR. RAUSCH OR MR. VARLEY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? IS ANYONE ONLINE FOR QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. THIS RESOLUTION HAS HAD THE READING PUBLIC HERE AND I MOVE IT BE APPROVED. SECOND. MR. SIEGRIST. YES, MR. BARRY. YES, MR. HOLT. YES. THIS IS HANK. YES. MR. SCHOTTKY. YES. WE HOPE THAT THIS WILL HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC ON THAT DRIVE AISLE IN THE PARKING LOT. THANK YOU. YOU COULD SEE OUR CR 1222. [Resolution CR-12-22 Approve the Development Plan for Beautiful Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church Additions located at 2213 White Road. ] A RESOLUTION APPROVES A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BEAUTIFUL SAVIOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH EDITIONS LOCATED AT 2213 WHITE ROAD ON MARCH 8TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH ONE STIPULATION ON HERE IN THE STIPULATION IS ON THE SCREEN AND I BELIEVE IT'S. IS IT REVEREND HAPPY THOUGHT? NO. MY NAME IS TOM MACARTHUR AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE OC. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. ON THERE. DO YOU SEE THE THE AND ACCEPT THE STIPULATION THAT'S ON THE SCREEN. YES, WE DO ON THERE. DO YOU WANT TO JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT WHAT YOU'RE DOING? THE COUNCIL SAID THEY UNDERSTAND. SURE. AS I SAID, I'M PRESIDENT OF BEAUTIFUL SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH AT 2213 WHITE ROAD. AND I WANT TO THANK THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR PROJECT TONIGHT. THE LAST MAJOR PROJECTS WE DID OUR FACILITY WAS AN ACTIVITY CENTER GYMNASIUM BACK IN 2003, 2004 TIMEFRAME. AND THEN WE ALSO DID PUT IN A NEW PARKING LOT ON THE EAST SIDE OF OUR FACILITY IN 2012. SO THIS WILL BE THE THE FIRST MAJOR PROJECT WE'VE DONE IN IN TEN YEARS. THE NEW PROJECT INVOLVES THE EXPANSION OF OUR EXISTING NARTHEX TO INCREASE THE AREA WHERE PEOPLE GATHER AFTER CHURCH. THIS WOULD INCLUDE NEW PASTOR'S OFFICE AND RESTROOMS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS DUE TO THE INCREASED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT. THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OFFICES FOR THE PRINCIPAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE FACILITY, CREATING A MAIN ENTRYWAY FOR THE SCHOOL AND THEREBY INCREASING OUR SECURITY AND AN EXPANSION OF OUR PRESCHOOL AREA, ALONG WITH AN OUTSIDE PLAYGROUND SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PRESCHOOL CHILDREN. AND AGAIN, WE ARE AGREEABLE TO THE PLANNING OF 236 INCH HEDGES AS SPECIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION. SO I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? ALL RIGHT. SEA? NONE. THIS RESOLUTION HAS HAD ITS READING PUBLIC HERE AND I MOVE THAT IT BE APPROVED SECOND. MR. BERRY YES, THAT'S TRUE. HOLT YES, THIS IS. HOUCK YES. MR. SCHOTTKY YES. MR. SEGERS YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. [Resolution CR-13-22 Approve the Development Plan for Tosoh SMD Press Building Addition located at * 3600 Gantz Road. ] RESOLUTION. C.R. 13 A RESOLUTION APPROVES THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TOKYO SMD BUILDING ADDITIONS AT 3600 GRANT ROAD. MARCH EIGHT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS SUBMITTED ON HERE. MR. RAUSCH, COULD YOU US GIVE US A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE EXPANSION HERE? TOKYO THIS IS OUR FIFTH EXPANSION SINCE INITIALLY CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING BACK IN 1991. THE NEW EXPANSION IS 86,000 SQUARE FEET APPROXIMATELY, AND WILL RESULT IN 5050 NEW JOBS. THE UNIQUE THING ABOUT THIS, THIS PROJECT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE WILL BE 62 FEET IN HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE. SO THAT GOES BEYOND WHAT THE CODE PERMITS. BUT REALLY THE HEIGHT IS NEEDED BECAUSE OF THE PRESSES AND THE CRANES THAT WILL BE USED WITHIN THE BUILDING DURING THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. SO NOTING THAT THIS SITE IS KIND OF REMOVED FROM FROM GAINES ROAD AND SEEING THE TYPE OF OPERATION THEY ARE AND THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE MATCHED IN TERMS OF THE EXTERIOR FINISHINGS FOR THE EXPANSION AS WELL AS ON THE EXISTING BUILDING STAFF, FELT [00:15:02] PRETTY COMFORTABLE AND COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING HERE. SO WITH THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, SO DID STAFF. SO I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YOU MIGHT HAVE. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. WELL, THEY HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE FOR THE OR THE THEY WILL BE THE PLAZA FOR THE HEIGHT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO GET A VARIANCE. SO THAT PROCESS WILL BE GOING GOING ON RIGHT NOW. WE'VE ALSO SUPPLIED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THAT APPLICATION. QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? BUT. THIS RESOLUTION SAID READING PUBLIC HEARING I MOVE IT BE APPROVED. THE SECOND. MR. HOLT? YES. MRS. HELP. YES. MR. SCHOTTKY. YES. MR. SIEGRIST. YES. MR. BERRY. YES. [Resolution CR-14-22 Approve an Amendment to the Development Plan for The Village at Scioto Meadows located north of Scioto Meadows Blvd., as approved by Res. CR-22-99.] MOVING ON RESOLUTION CR 1422, A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT SODA MEADOWS, LOCATED NORTH OF SODA MEADOWS BOULEVARD. AS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION CR 2219. THE PETITIONERS ASK THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 18, 2022. COUNCIL MEETING AND I SO MOVE. I CAN. THIS IS HULK. YES, MR. SCHOTTKY? YES, MR. SEGERS. YES, BARRY. YES. YES. MR. KLIMA, DID YOU DID YOU WANT TO. IS MR. KRAMER OUT THERE? MISS KLIMA? DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING TONIGHT OR JUST WAIT TO THE 18TH? OKAY. THANK YOU. RESOLUTION C.R. [Resolution CR-15-22 Approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Sharp Home located at 3530 Sunshine Park Place. ] 1522, A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE SHARPE HOME, LOCATED AT 3530 SUNSHINE PARK PLACE ON MAY. ON MARCH 8TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH TWO STIPULATIONS. MR. RAUSCH, COULD YOU COME AND EXPLAIN THAT FOR US A LITTLE BIT ON HERE? WHY, WHAT IT IS AND WHY THE DENIAL? THIS IS A PROPOSED STRUCTURE ON SUNSHINE PLACE. IT'S WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER AREA, IF YOU WILL. SO THE LOTS HAVE BEEN CREATED A LONG TIME AGO. THEY'RE SMALLER, LOTS IN NATURE. SO IT'S GOOD THAT WE'RE HAVING THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS COMING FORWARD TO SHOW FURTHER INVESTMENT IN THE CITY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME FITTING THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS ON THE SMALLER PARCELS. SO WHAT WE TRY TO DO WAS WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO DEVISE A NEED TO GIVE SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY IN MEETING SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. BECAUSE IF YOU GO BY THE STREET ART TO ZONING REQUIREMENTS AS THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO UNDER THIS REGULATIONS, WILL MEET ANY OF THE SETBACKS. SO WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS TRY TO PREPARE A ZONING TEXT TO KIND OF PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT WE SEE FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA AND MATCH IT WITH THE PROPOSED INVESTMENT IN THE AREA AS WELL. SO WHAT WE THIS IS REALLY THE FIRST STEP IS OF THE PD IS A FORMER DEVELOP PLAN. SO THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT REZONE IT TO THE PD AND STAFF WILL WORK WITH WITH THE OWNER TO DEVELOP A ZONING TEXT FOR IT, ULTIMATELY COME BACK WITH A FINAL DEVELOPED PLAN. IT'S REALLY A CONVOLUTED WAY, BUT THAT'S THE ROUTE WE HAVE TO DO BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE VARIANCES REQUESTING TO DO SO. ALL THAT BEING SAID, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LOOKED AT THE DEVELOPED PLAN, WE LOOK TO SEE HOW WE CAN'T MATCH THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA. THIS IS A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH HIGH CEILINGS ON THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL. SO WE LOOK AT THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE SURROUNDING STRUCTURES OF THE AREA ARE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING AREA, YOU'RE LOOKING AT STORIES THREE AND A HALF UNITS, THERE'S ONE TWO STORY ACROSS THE STREET. BUT BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE, IT WAS DESIGNED AND THE MASS IS HARD TO BREAK UP. SO WHAT WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING HERE IS BALANCING THE NEED INVESTMENT IN THE TOWN CENTER. IMAGINE THE CONTEXT AND THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND APPLYING KIND OF THE REGULATORY STATUTES OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. SO WE LOVE TO WORK WITH IT FOR FURTHER. AND THIS IS STILL JUST A DEVELOPED PLAN. SO WE STILL PLAN ON CONTINUOUS CONVERSATIONS. BUT FROM WHAT WE SAW, STAFF DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH SUPPORTING IT AND NEITHER DID PLANNING COMMISSION. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. I WAS READING THE MINUTES. I WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BUT I WAS READING THE MINUTES AND IT AND MS.. SHIELDS WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT THE PLAN SHOULD SHOW SOME THINGS THAT THERE MIGHT BE A. PERMITTING TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY WAS THE. AND THEN FURTHER ON DOWN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE ROOMS OVER GARAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. COULD YOU GO INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT FOR ME BECAUSE I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THIS. THIS IS A BEING A TIDY SITE. PEOPLE ARE GETTING CREATIVE WITH HOW THEY CAN DESIGN THEIR HOMES. SO THIS FIRST FLOOR HAD A COMBINATION OF A GARAGE AND SOME LIVING SPACE. [00:20:01] SO IT'S NOT LIKE A TRUE. THE FIRST FLOOR IS ALL GARAGE WITH A PARK UNDERNEATH WITH THE LIVING ROOMS ABOVE. SO WE'RE USING SOME OF THE GROUND FLOOR FOR LIVING LIVABLE SPACE, STILL ALLOWING FOR 720 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE SPACE. AND THEN ALSO TO NOTE THE USE OR THE USES IN HIS MATERIALS AND APPLICANT MATERIALS. THEY DID ALLUDE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING TWO UNITS IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT WOULD REALLY SHAKE OUT ONCE WE GO ON TO THE NEXT STEP IN TERMS OF DEVISING THE ZONING TEXT AND GETTING THE REGULATIONS ON THE USES OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL. BUT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE LOOKING WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FORM OF THE STRUCTURE AND KIND OF OVERALL CONTEXT OF HOW IT'S TRYING TO FIT IN. LET'S GET MR. SHARP UP HERE. I KNOW. MR. SHARP, WOULD YOU GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? YEAH. MY NAME IS WILLIAM SHARPE. MY CURRENT ADDRESS IS 4016. ARBUTUS CUT IN BETWEEN PLACES RIGHT NOW BETWEEN THERE AND 3618 GRANT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET A HOME BUILT. I SENT IN SOME NEW PICTURES. THE BIGGEST THING THAT THEY SAID IN FRONT OF DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS THAT THEY WANTED THE FRONT OF THE HOME BROKE UP AND I SENT SOME HAD MY ARCHITECT GO BACK. LOOK AT THESE. THESE WERE ATTACHED TO OUR CONSOLE. SO THE TWO BIG THINGS THAT WAS THE ISSUE WAS ONE THAT AND YOU GUYS HAVE THE PICTURES NOW IS THEY SAID IT LOOKED LIKE A LIKE A WAREHOUSE. AND THEN THE SECOND ISSUE WHILE DRESS UP FIRST. SO THE FIRST ISSUE, THEY SAID IT LOOKED LIKE WAREHOUSE. I PUT YOU CAN SEE WHAT I PUT IN FRONT MY NEIGHBOR RIGHT BESIDE ME TOBIAS WHICH. IS PRETTY MUCH MY REALLY ONLY NEIGHBOR ON THE STREET ON SUNSHINE PLACE. I PUT KIND OF THE SAME STOOP THAT HE HAS ON HIS HOUSE BECAUSE HE'S RIGHT BESIDE ME. AND THEN THE GARAGE COMING OFF OF FRANKLIN. I JUST DECIDED TO DRESS IT UP AND PUT A ROOF OVER TOP OF IT. THEY MADE THE REMARK THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID THAT IT LOOKED LIKE A WAREHOUSE. BUT IF YOU GUYS HAVE EVER BEEN TO THAT LOT, THE EASIEST WAY TO SAY, TO BE COMPLETELY BLUNT, IS IF YOU LOOK OUT MY FRONT DOOR, I SEE A 200,000 SQUARE FOOT THREE M WAREHOUSE, I SEE MOBILE HOME PARK. I SEE A HOUSE THAT'S OWNED BY THE CHURCH THAT THEY RENT AND IT HAS LIKE NINE GRILLS IN FRONT OF IT. AND THEN IF I LOOK AT THE OTHER END OF THE STREET, THERE'S A QUADRUPLE X. SO TO FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IT'S KIND OF I MEAN, I'M JUST BEING BLUNT, KIND OF LAUGHABLE BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. I MEAN, YOU COULD PUT ANY HOME. I'M ON SUNSHINE PLACE. I'M NOT ON FRANKLIN. AND THE ONLY TWO STORY ON FRANKLIN IS RIGHT ACROSS FROM ME. SO. I WAS JUST CONFUSED, BUT I UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WANTED IT TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT NICER. AS YOU GUYS CAN SEE, THIS IS MODERN FARMHOUSE. AND AS FAR AS FITTING IN THE AREA, I THINK IT'S 35, 87. RV CONSTRUCTION JUST BUILT A NEW HOME ON PARK STREET, WHICH IS A STORAGE DISTRICT. I BELIEVE IT'S IN A STORAGE DISTRICT. PARK STREET. SOME OF IT IS. WELL, I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS. AND THEY BUILT ALMOST IDENTICAL. OH, I KNOW WHAT YOU TOOK. YEAH, IT'S WHITE WITH BLACK WINDOWS. IT'S MODERN FARMHOUSE, IT'S TIMELESS. SO, I MEAN, IF THAT COULD BE PUT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO BUILD MY HOME AND AND LIVE IN IT. AND THE WAY FOR THE UPSTAIRS AND DOWNSTAIRS TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT IS I GREW UP AS A FOSTER KID AND LIVED IN A FEW HOMES, EIGHT TO BE EXACT. AND I HAD ONE GOOD FAMILY AND THEY'RE STILL ALIVE, SO THEY CURRENTLY LIVE IN PORTSMOUTH. SO I MOVED UP HERE 12 YEARS AGO TO FINISH OUT MY CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND THEN NOW I'M TEACHING THERE IN THEIR SEVENTIES AND I WANT A PLACE THAT THEY CAN COME AND STAY AND LIVE. SO I LIKE BEING UP HIGH. I LIKE HAVING ACCESS. IF SOMEONE CAME UP MY STAIRS THAT I CAN GUARD MY HOME, THAT'S JUST WHO I AM. AND I LIKE HAVING A BEAUTIFUL SPACE FOR THEM TO LIVE BELOW. BUT IT, IT'S REDESIGNED WHERE IT'S CONNECTED, WHERE MY STAIRS COME DOWN, YOU GO THROUGH A HALLWAY AND YOU GO THROUGH A DOOR AND I CAN VISIT THEM ANY TIME THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE FIRST TIME THE BUILDING COMMISSION, HOW IT WAS TWO SEPARATE PLACES AND I KIND OF UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE'S LIKE, WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE A DUPLEX. AND I WAS LIKE, WELL. SO I'VE BEEN BACK TO MY ARCHITECT FOUR TIMES NOW. SO THERE'S NO INTENTION OF OF MAKING THIS A DUPLEX. [00:25:02] IT'S JUST SIMPLY HAVING A PLACE FOR YOUR SENIOR PARENTS TO FOSTER PARENTS TO HAVE AN AREA FOR THEM, JUST LIKE A LOT OF PLACES HAVE THEM KIND OF LIKE, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A BIG BUILDER OR IN-LAW SUITE, BUT THEY'RE NOT MY IN-LAWS. THEY'RE NOT MARRIED. SO. ABSOLUTELY. QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHARPE BEFORE I BEFORE WE MOVE ON HERE FOR A MINUTE. NO. MR.. MR.. SHARP, I'M GOING TO CALL MR. BURKETT. DID YOU HAVE WERE YOU INTERESTED IN THIS ONE OR DID I MISS THAT? I HAVE SOMEONE WHO I CAN'T QUITE READ THEIR WRITING ON HERE. SO LOOKS LIKE. WITH ROCKS OR. NO, IT LOOKS LIKE ROGER. DID YOU SIGN UP? ROGER? NO. IT SAYS OKAY. IT SAYS C 15, 15, 22. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS UNDER FINANCE. OH, IT'S. OH, IT'S UNDER FINANCE. OH, SORRY, ROGER. ALL RIGHT, I'LL PASS. THAT'S YOU GUYS DOWN THERE. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS? MR. RAUCH, WOULD THIS BE SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD POSTPONE FOR A MEETING SO WE COULD GET THE DETAILS WORKED OUT ON THERE TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING BECAUSE YOU YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT DRAWING NOW THAN WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAW AND THINGS LIKE THAT. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THIS IS A PLUMMER DEVELOPED PLAN. SO IF COUNCIL REJECTED THAT CAN STILL GO FORWARD WITH IT. IF COUNCIL APPROVES IT, THAT COULD STILL GO FORWARD. SO THIS IS REALLY A PRELIMINARY SKETCH. SO IF COUNCIL WANTS TO APPROVE IT WITH SOME THOUGHTS AND SOME INSIGHTS, THEY WANT TO SHARE FOR THE WHAT TO EXPECT ON THE REZONING. THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS WE CAN DO THIS RIGHT NOW, AND IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THE STIPULATIONS, THE NUMBER ONE STIPULATION I THINK HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT WORKED ON THERE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN. BUT NUMBER TWO, THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE. I MEAN, IF THEY GOT US TO STORY ACROSS THE STREET. CORRECT. IT'S IS THERE A WAY TO KIND OF TO MAKE IT NOT APPEAR AS A TRUE FULL TO STORY? IS THERE A WAY TO INCORPORATE SOME ELEMENTS THAT KIND OF LAYER IT DOWN? SO BUT WE PULL IMAGERY AND WE CAN WORK THROUGH THIS WITH MR. SHARP AND GET ALL THESE THINGS BEFORE THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THERE'S GOING BECAUSE IT'S PWD, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ZONING TEXT AND ALL THAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT'S A CONSOLE. OKAY. JUST MAKE A QUICK COMMENT IF I IF I CAN. ONE, I WANT TO SAY THAT I JUST LOVE SEEING THESE KIND OF PROJECTS IN OUR OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS. IT SORT OF JUST BRINGS NEW LIFE AND I THINK RAISES THE BAR FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I WANTED TO SAY THAT ALSO, YOU KNOW, I KEEP THINKING ABOUT THE MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION AND THERE'S SO MUCH CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE HOUSING MARKET. I HAVE I HAVE TWO YOUNG ADULTS AND NOT IN OUR MARKET, BUT THEY'RE CURRENTLY HOME SHOPPING AND AND HOW THIS CRAZY HOUSING MARKET IS REALLY BRINGING ABOUT A NEED FOR US TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CREATIVE IN TERMS OF OUR PERCEPTION OF HOW A HOUSEHOLD SHOULD OPERATE AND WHO CAN LIVE IN A HOUSEHOLD, ETC.. SO THAT THAT PIECE OF IT, WHICH IS YOU NEED A PLACE TO LIVE AND YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE YOUR YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS COME AND BE IN THAT SAME STRUCTURE THAT REALLY RESONATES WITH ME ABOUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. WE HAVE OUR PRICES ARE DRIVING HIGHER AND HIGHER AND HIGHER. GLAD TO SEE THE INVESTMENT. GLAD TO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF CREATIVITY. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC ON THERE. OH, MR. SHARKEY, IS IS AN APPROVAL. MR. SMITH, IS THIS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS? WHERE ARE WE APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS? NOLAN AS SOON AS YOU'RE APPROVING. IF YOU SAY YES, THEN YOU'RE GIVING A YES VOTE TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WITH THESE TWO STIPULATIONS. IF YOU SAY NO, THEN YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING. COMMISSION AND STAFF SAID THIS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? RESOLUTIONS HAD ITS READ IN PUBLIC HEARING. I MOVE IT BE APPROVED SECOND. MR. SHARKEY. YES. MR. SIEGRIST. YES. MR. BARRY. YES. MR. HOLT. YES. THIS IS HELP. YES. [00:30:01] SHARP. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOUR ALL THE REST OF IT DEVELOP OVER A PERIOD OF TIME WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S CATCH UP WITH MY PAPERWORK FOR A SECOND. I'M HERE. OKAY. [Resolution CR-16-22 Approve the application for the placement of certain farmland in an Agricultural District owned by the Virgil H. Sidner Trust and the Elizabeth Ann Sidner Trust] RESOLUTION C.R. 1622 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CERTAIN FARMLAND AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT OWNED BY THE VIRGIL H. SYDNOR TRUST, ELIZABETH AND SYDNOR TRUST. MR. SMITH, THIS IS ALL BRAND NEW TO ME. I'VE HAD A PHONE CALL IN TO YOU ABOUT THIS AND WE'VE DISCUSSED IT. BUT IF YOU DO ENLIGHTEN COUNSEL AND THE REST OF THE PUBLIC ON THIS, BECAUSE THIS MAY AND I DON'T KNOW OR NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN THIS IS IT'S FUNNY YOU SAY THAT, SIR, BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST GOT THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, I KIND OF SCRATCH MY HEAD AND SAID, HEY, I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE. SO WHAT HAPPENS UPON ANNEXATION? THIS THIS IS REALLY ALL FOR TAX PURPOSES IN TERMS HOW THEY'RE TAXED AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. I KNOW. MS.. HAWKES, LOOK AT ME GOING, YOU KNOW ALL THIS. BUT WHAT IT ALLOWS THIS COUNCIL TO DO, THERE'S A SPECIFIC PROCESS IN CHAPTER NINE OF THE REVISED CODE THAT ALLOWS THIS COUNCIL UPON ANNEXATION ON A ON A PIECE THAT'S CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH AN ANNEXATION PROCESS TO CLASSIFY THIS AS AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. FRANKLY, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE CITY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. THIS IS REALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER DOING THIS FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL TAX BENEFIT. IT REALLY DOES NOT IMPACT US. THEY'RE JUST FOLLOWING THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE TO ASK COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE THIS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE ANNEXATION AND AGREEMENTS AND OTHER AGREEMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE WITH THE SIGNERS ON THAT PROPERTY AND WHAT OUR PLANS FOR IT ARE. THIS IS REALLY A A PERSONAL TAX TYPE THING FOR THEM. DID I DO A GOOD JOB, MS. HOUCK BECAUSE YOU'RE YOU PRACTICE THIS AREA. YOU AGREE? YOU'RE ASSIGNING ME AN AREA OF EXPERTIZE THAT I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE, BUT I. BUT I'M FOLLOWING YOU. OKAY, WELL, YOU WERE NODDING YOUR HEAD, SO I FIGURED YOU DO TAXES, SO I HAD TO BE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. WELL, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU THAT I THOUGHT OF BEFORE I HAD TO GO TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO FIND OUT ABOUT TAXES AND HOW THEY GO ABOUT DOING THIS. AND IT'S ACTUALLY LOWERING THE VALUE OF THE LAND, NOT DECREASING THE MILEAGE ON THEIR BUT THEY LOWER THE VALUE OF THE LAND. WHEN THESE COME IN AND WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM THAT THEY WILL COME IN AS AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THEIR. AND MR. JOLLY, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO COME UP IN A MINUTE ON THAT. SO WHAT YOU DO IS AND I'M JUST 1/2 THIS SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE A ZONING CLASSIFICATION AS AGRICULTURAL ON THERE, THIS WILL THIS AGREEMENT CARRY OVER TO WHEN WE BRING THEM IN UNDER ZONING. THIS WILL IMPACT THEIR. I KNOW HE WANTS TO COME OUT AND TELL THE STORY AND TELL ME WHERE I'M WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS IT. THIS IMPACTS NOT THE ACTUAL ZONING, BUT HOW IT'S CLASSIFIED FROM THE COUNTY, FROM TAX PURPOSES. MR. JOLLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ENLIGHTEN US IF YOU GIVE YOU FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. WOULD YOU LIKE MY HOME ADDRESS OR. MY WORK IS FINE SINCE YOU'RE HERE AS A AS A REPRESENTATIVE, SO. GOOD EVENING, COUNSEL. MY NAME IS JOHN JOLLY. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF ISAAC WALES IN COLUMBUS. MY MY ADDRESS AT AT THAT OFFICE IS TO MIRA NOVA PARKWAY, SUITE 700, IN COLUMBUS. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE SIGNER FAMILY THIS EVENING. I'VE REPRESENTED THE SIGNER FAMILY FOR THE EXPANSE OF THE LAST THREE FOUR YEARS AS SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT RELATED ITEMS HAVE HAVE OCCURRED. I'M WITH MR. SMITH THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE FIRST TIME THAT ANY OF US HAVE COME BEFORE COUNSEL TO ANY COUNSEL TO TO DISCUSS THESE SORT OF ITEMS, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY WHEN PROPERTY THAT IS OF A FARMLAND NATURE ANNEXED INTO A MUNICIPALITY COMES BEFORE A CONSIDERATION LIKE THIS. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS WOULD ALL BE HANDLED AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, I THINK IS AS WAS DESCRIBED, IT WOULD SIMPLY BE A PROCESS OF PUTTING THE APPLICATION THAT I BELIEVE THAT COUNSEL HAS SEEN BEFORE THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE AND SIMILAR TO WHAT GOES ON IN A C AUV, THE AGRICULTURAL VALUATION PROCESS, IT'S SIMPLY A FORMALITY THAT GOES THROUGH. THERE IS THE EXTRA LAYER OF PUTTING THIS BEFORE COUNSEL WHEN YOU HAVE PROPERTY THAT'S EITHER ANNEXED OR IN IT PETITION TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. THE MUNICIPALITY IS AS SUCH WHAT THE THE SIDE OF THEIR FAMILY PROPERTY HERE TO GIVE SOME [00:35:07] COLOR COMMENTATOR COMMENTARY FOR THE FOR THE GROUP THE SIGNERS HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR IN EXCESS OF DECADES. IT GOES AT LEAST BACK TO 1957 THAT THEY'VE ACTIVELY OWNED THESE PARCELS AND ACTIVELY FARM THEM. AND I HAVE SENSE TO BELIEVE THAT IT GOES BACK FARTHER THAN THAT. AS FAR AS AS BACK AS THIS LAW HAS BEEN IN PLACE, WHICH IS 1982, I BELIEVE THE SIGNERS HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THIS. AND IT IS AGAIN A PARALLEL TO WHAT YOU HAVE IN TERMS OF S.U.V. SO S.U.V. IS THE COMPONENT WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO REDUCE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY TO SOMETHING THAT'S COMMENSURATE WITH THE WHAT THE USE OF IT, AND THAT IS AGRICULTURAL USE AND THEREBY THE BASIS OF YOUR TAX IS IS ATTRIBUTED OR ARRIVED USING THE MILLAGE RATE AND THEN THAT THAT REDUCED VALUE FOR AS LONG AS IT IS ACTIVELY FARMED. THE THE THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. WHAT IT DOES IS IT, IT PLACES AN ADDITIONAL OVERLAY OVER OVER THE PROPERTY THAT GIVES IT THREE ADDED BENEFITS AS WELL. THERE'S A SORT OF A NUISANCE ADDED BENEFIT, I WON'T CALL IT IMMUNITY, BUT IT'S, IT GIVES AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER TO SOMEONE COMING FORWARD AND SAYING WE'RE GOING TO SUE YOU FOR YOUR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BECAUSE IT'S PUTTING OFF OFFENSIVE NOTICE OR OFFENSIVE ODORS, YOU KNOW, ACTIVITIES THAT MAY THAT MAY BE OFFENSIVE TOWARDS SOMEONE IN A MORE URBAN AREA. I'D SUGGEST JUST TO STOP THERE AND ADDRESS THAT THIS PROPERTY IS RIGHT ACROSS FROM WACO. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WE'VE GOT THOSE SORT OF ISSUES BREWING WITH WITH ALLOWING THEM TO CONTINUE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE SECOND ONE IS IT IT'S SORT OF THAT THAT ATTENUATION OF A TOUCH ON ON TAXATION, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. SO IT WOULD DEFER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST A PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN PLACED INTO AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT SO THAT IF THERE ARE UTILITIES. YES, SIR? IS THIS GOING TO END TO THE FARMLAND PRESERVATION LAND BANK OR IS IT JUST THE AUV? IT'S IT IT HAS A VIEW AUV DESIGNATION TO IT. AND IT WILL CONTINUE THAT YEAR OVER YEAR FOR AS LONG AS THE THE OWNERS APPLY FOR IT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A BANK PER SE. I JUST WONDERED IF THEY'VE GIVEN UP DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IS FOR THE STATE LAW. NO. AND IF I MAY, PRESIDENT BERRY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOKED AT WITH THIS WAS LIKE A S.U.V. IN ESSENCE, WHAT THIS DOES IS IT PRESERVES THEIR RIGHTS TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS A FARMLAND. ONCE THEY STOP OPERATING AS A FARMLAND, ALL THIS KIND OF GOES BYE BYE. AND THEY THEY HAVE TO PLAY CATCH UP IN A LOT OF WAYS. SO IT REALLY JUST PRESERVES THE STATUS QUO AS A FARMLAND. AND THERE'S A BENEFIT IN TERMS OF TAXATION AND MONEY WHERE IT GOES BACK TO THAT USE. SO IT'S NOT TAXED AT A HIGHER RATE. SO THEY GET THE BENEFITS OF THE VIEW, THEY GET A FEW OTHER LITTLE KISSES ALONG WITH IT. BUT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, ALL THIS DOES IS PRESERVE WHAT THEY HAVE NOW, THE MOMENT THEY FLIP THE SWITCH AND DECIDE TO DIVEST. BETTER DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IS THERE. ALL THIS GOES AWAY AND WE'RE THEY'RE GOING TO PLAY CATCH UP AND AND HAVE SOME FUN TAX THINGS TO DEAL WITH. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. MR. SMITH IS RIGHT. I JUST WONDERED IF IT AFFECTED THE FARMLAND PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OR LAW WITH THE STATE OF OHIO, WHERE IT GOES INTO A LAND BANK AND THEY DEFERRED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND ALL THAT STUFF. THAT IS THAT IS A PART OF THE BUNDLE OF STICKS THAT THEY COULD CHOOSE TO DO. BUT THEY ARE NOT CHOOSING TO DO THAT, TO TAKE AWAY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AT THIS AT THIS JUNCTURE, AT THIS TIME. SO THEY WILL CONTINUE AND THEY HAVE THE THE PRE AGREEMENT AND THE HOPE OF COMING INTO THE CITY UNDER A RURAL DESIGNATION OF OF ZONING. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO FARM THIS PROPERTY FOR FOR THE THE THE IMMEDIATE AND MODERATE FUTURE AND THEY INTEND TO USE THESE BENEFITS. AND AS MR. SMITH SAID, AS SOON AS THAT PROPERTY EITHER IS ONE DESIGNATED TO NO LONGER BE WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT OR NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE FOR CUVEE, OR IF YOU MOVE IT OUT OF THOSE THOSE OPERATIONS, IF YOU NO LONGER FARM IT, THEN BOTH OF THOSE GO AWAY AND ALL OF THE ALL OF THE CATCH UP HAPPENS CUVEE HAVING TO HAVING TO REPAY THE DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN FROM FROM COUNCIL'S PERSPECTIVE WHERE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE IN THAT OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE'RE ANNEXING PROPERTIES OBVIOUSLY THE CONCERN THAT THAT LANDS ON IN YOUR LAP IS A WHETHER TO ACCEPT IT AND THEN WHAT DOES IT COME IN FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE? WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY DOES NOT IMPACT ANY OF THAT. IT'LL COME IN AT THE ZONING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. THIS IS PURELY A BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER JUST TO IN ESSENCE GET THE BENEFIT TO [00:40:05] CONTINUE TO FARM IT AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO FARM IT. NOT ONLY DID THEY HAVE THIS TYPE OF AGREEMENT, DISTRICT, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT WITH THE TOWNSHIP. YES, WELL, NOT WHAT THE TOWNSHIP, BUT WITH THE COUNTY. THE THE TOWNSHIP DOESN'T HAVE ANY TOUCH UPON THIS WHEN YOU'RE IN AN UNINCORPORATED. BUT THEY ARE. THIS IS IN FACT A RENEWAL OF THEIR NAMES. YEAH. IF IT WASN'T IN THE CITY, SIR, THIS WOULD, AS HE SAID, IT WOULD BE AN APPLICATION FILED THROUGH THE COUNTY. IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN THE MIDST OF AN ANNEXATION AND COMING INTO A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, IT LANDS IN FRONT OF YOU. AND AS FAR AS I KNOW IN MY TENURE HERE, THIS IS THE FIRST ONE I THINK WE'VE DONE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JOLLY OR MR. SMITH? I'LL BE APPLYING FOR MY BACK YARD. TEN ACRES IS THE MINIMUM. I KNOW. I'M WELL AWARE. I GREW UP ON A FARM. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. JOLLY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THEIR. MR. RUTH, COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE COUNCIL, PLEASE. BOB. RUTH. FOUR SEVEN. FOUR FOUR. COUNT FLEET DRIVE, GROVE CITY. IS THIS THE PROPERTY AT 665 AND HARRISBURG PIKE? IT IS. YES, IT IS. WHY WASN'T MORE OF AN EXPLANATION IN. LET'S DRAW A MAP OF IT. OH, THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT MAN. THAT'S NOT IT. NO. YEAH. THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT YOU GUYS APPROVED FOR EXPANSION OF THE CRA. CORRECT. RIGHT. I JUST. THE THING THAT WE'RE ANNEXING, THERE'S NO EXPLANATION. UP ON THE SCREEN. YEAH, IT'S NOT LARGE TRACT. IT'S AT THE CORNER. I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IT SEEMED LIKE THE DISCUSSION WAS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING TO MAKE THIS ISSUE VERY SIMPLE WITHIN FRANKLIN COUNTY AND PROBABLY ALL COUNTIES WITHIN THE STATE OF OHIO. WHEN YOU'RE DOING FARMING, THE VALUE OF THAT LAND IS TAXED ON THE FARMING VALUE. RIGHT NOW, IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 1800 DOLLARS AN ACRE. RATHER THAN PENALIZE FARMERS FOR HAVING PROPERTY THAT COULD BE INDUSTRIAL AND VALUED AT, SAY, 50 TO 100000. WHEN THAT PROPERTY IS SOLD FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES AND THE VALUE OF THAT LAND GOES UP, THE THE BUYER OR THE OWNER HAS TO GO BACK THREE YEARS AND PAY AGRICULTURE RECOUPMENT FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD FOR THE NEW VALUE. SO QUITE SIMPLY, IT'S THERE TO PROTECT FARMERS WITHIN THE STATE OF OHIO. OKAY, GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE? SEE. SO RESOLUTION SAID IT'S READING IN PUBLIC HERE AND I MOVE IT BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. SECOND. YES. MR. BERRY. YES. MR. HOLT. YES. HOUCK YES. MR. SCHOTTKY. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING UNIQUE TONIGHT. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON, RESOLUTION CR 1722 RESOLUTION IS SET FORTH AS REQUIRED BY SECTION [Resolution CR-17-22 Set forth, as required by Sec. 709.031 of the ORC the Municipal Services that can be furnished to 6.2+ acres located at 4745 Big Run Rd. in Jackson Twp. to the City ] 709.031, THE OHIO REVISED CODE, THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES THAT CAN BE FURNISHED TO 6.2 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES LOCATED AT 4745 BIG RUN ROAD IN JACKSON TOWNSHIP UPON ITS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF GROVE CITY. PETITION WAS FILED BY ABUNDANT LIFE ASSEMBLY OF GOD WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. REQUIRED STATEMENT INDICATION OF WHAT MUNICIPAL SERVICES WOULD BE PROVIDED UPON. ANNEXATION IS REQUIRED, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE. MR. CAHILL WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT IT ON YOUR. IT'S CALLED C U L L. OH, I'M SORRY. I HAD TO. I COULD NOT READ THE WRITING. I HAVE TERRIBLE HANDWRITING ON C U L L. I APOLOGIZE, MR. COLE, WOULD YOU GIVE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? YES. MY NAME IS MATTHEW CULLUM WITH THE LAW FIRM OF CABOT FISHER ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ADDRESSES TO ZERO SEVEN NORTH FOURTH STREET, COLUMBUS 43215. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS MIGHT HAVE. ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME READ THE REST OF IT HERE. AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS IS IF WE'VE DONE THIS A FEW TIMES ON THERE, THE REQUIRED STATEMENT IS CITY GROVE CITY WILL PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING MUNICIPAL SERVICES POLICE, WATER, SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND ZONING. JACKSON TOWNSHIP WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FIRE SERVICES. ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? OC RESOLUTION SAYS READING PUBLIC HEARING A WOULD BE APPROVED SECOND. [00:45:05] MR. BERRY? YES. MR. HOLT. YES. THIS IS HOW. YES. MR. SCHOTTKY. YES. MR. SIEGRIST. YES. THANK YOU, MR. COLE. MR. PRESIDENT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE THIS EVENING. YOUR TIME IS UP. MY TIME IS UP. MR. SEACREST. THANK YOU. SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ORDINANCE C 1720 TO AMEND SECTION 194.18 [Ordinance C-17-22 Amend Section 194.18 of the Codified Ordinances titled Interest and Penalties. Second reading and public hearing. ] TITLED INTEREST AND PENALTIES. THERE'S THIS. WE'VE HAD A FIRST READING ON THIS BEFORE, AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW OR I'D LIKE TO ASK. WE HAD SOME CHANGE IF. MR. TURNER WOULDN'T MIND. JUST CLARIFYING JUST THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED AS HOUSE BILL 513 WAS OR 519 WAS GOING THROUGH THE STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. AND THAT BILL TO BEGIN WITH WAS ATTEMPTING TO ELIMINATE OUR ABILITY TO INVOKE PENALTIES ON THE NON-FILERS AS THAT BILL HAS CHANGED, THAT THEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR AMOUNTS, THAT THEY ARE LIMITING FILING PENALTIES FOR IT TO BE $25. THIS ORDINANCE. MR. SEEGER STARTED OUT, WE WERE GOING TO LIMIT OUR PENALTY TO $50, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT THAT $50 PENALTY NOW BE CHANGED TO $25, WHICH WOULD MIRROR THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PASSING THROUGH THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I'LL TAKE THEM. JUST A MATTER OF PROCEDURE. DO WE FIRST HAVE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OR. WELL, YOU CAN'T. OR YOU CAN TAKE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFOREHAND IF YOU'D LIKE. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR COMMENTS. I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, IF I MAY. AND I GUESS I SHOULD REALLY START WITH I ALWAYS HAVE A DISCOMFORT WITH THE SECOND READING THAT ISN'T REALLY THE SAME AS A FIRST READING. SO IN MY MIND, THIS IS REALLY A FIRST READING AND THAT'S JUST SEMANTICS. BUT IN TERMS OF THIS ACTUAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION AT THIS TIME, I KIND OF WANT TO JUST SEE IF I COULD GET A SENSE OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY THE REGIONAL INCOME TAX AGENCY. WE HAVE EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEARS BEGINNING JANUARY 1ST, 2021, WHICH IS THE TAX YEAR IMMEDIATELY THAT HAS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON TAX RETURNS FOR. AND I GUESS, ONE, HOW WILL IT LOOK FOR RITA OR IS THIS BASICALLY CODIFYING THE POLICY THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY OUR TAX ADMINISTRATOR IN THE CITY OF GROVE CITY? IF YOU COULD GIVE ME THAT DISTINCTION. FOR STARTERS, I WANTED TO ASK THAT QUESTION. AND THEN ALSO AGAIN, WE HAVE A CERTAIN SET OF, TO ME, CONFUSION WHEN WE BRING BACK SOMETHING ON A SECOND READING THAT DOESN'T LOOK THE SAME. BUT I ALSO WANT TO COMMENT BRIEFLY ON HOUSE BILL 519, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PASSED. AND AND AND THIS IS REALLY FOR ME, PROFESSIONALLY, I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT MUNICIPAL TAXATION IN THE STATE OF OHIO. AND SO IN MY MIND, ANYTHING THAT MAKES IT MURKIER IS NOT NECESSARILY THE PATH THAT I WOULD CHOOSE TO TO UTILIZE. I THINK THAT OUR END GOAL MIGHT BE A GOOD ONE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T WAIT TO SEE THAT PROCESS PLAY OUT ON THE STATE LEVEL. AND SO IF WE COULD ADDRESS WHY THAT IS THE CASE AND THEN BEFORE I CLOSE MY COMMENTS SO THAT I DON'T TAKE UP TOO MUCH MORE TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AND I SAID THIS IN CAUCUS WE HAVE A VERY UNIQUE BENEFIT IN THE CITY OF GROVE CITY. WE USE THE THIRD PARTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR, RITA REGIONAL INCOME TAX AGENCY, BUT WE HAVE A TAX ADMINISTRATOR, MR. DONNELLY, WHO'S HERE WITH US THIS EVENING. HE IS AN IMMENSE ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY, HAS BEEN A VERY VALUABLE RESOURCE, BOTH IN TERMS OF INTERACTIONS WITH RESIDENTS AS WELL AS PROFESSIONALS, TAX PROFESSIONALS IN THE COMMUNITY. HE HIS GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION, I THINK HE IS HE OBVIOUSLY HAS HAD A VOICE IN CRAFTING WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US THIS EVENING. AND AGAIN, I GUESS MY ASSERTION IS AS TO TIMING ONE AND THEN HAVING EVERYONE UP HERE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION. THANKS. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE MR. DONNELLY, OUR RESIDENT IN-HOUSE TAX EXPERT. [00:50:06] HELLO. MY NAME IS RICHARD DONNELLY. I'M THE CITY'S TAX ADMINISTRATOR. SO THE FAILURE TO FILE PENALTY STRUCTURE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE HAS A COUPLE OF BIG PROBLEMS WITH IT, TOO. FIRST, IT IS TOO BIG. YOU WANT PENALTIES TO BE A COMPLIANCE TOOL AND TO BE AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOAL, WHICH IS COMPLIANCE. THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REVENUE STREAM. WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE A REVENUE STREAM. SO WE WANTED TO LOWER THE MAXIMUM PENALTY TO WHAT I THOUGHT BASED ON 25 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WOULD BE THE MINIMUM LEVEL NEEDED TO DO IT. AND I THOUGHT $50 THE STATE HOUSE THINKS 25. I'M HAPPY IT'S GOING DOWN AT LEAST 100, 125, BUT IT WAS WAY TOO HIGH. SO WE'RE GETTING IT TO A MORE REASONABLE LEVEL TO ACCOMPLISH OUR GOAL. THE SECOND THING IS, IS THAT IT WAS VERY POORLY AIMED, SO IT HIT PEOPLE WHO HAD NO CLUE THAT WERE MOVING IN FROM OUT OF STATE OR FROM A CITY THAT DIDN'T HAVE MANDATORY FILING THE SAME AS IT DID THE 600 AND SOME ODD GROVE CITY RESIDENTS WHO REFUSED TO FILE YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR UNTIL THEY'RE PENALIZED. SO BY GIVING A FREE PASS ON THE FIRST OFFENSE, WE SORT OF HELP GET THAT PENALTY WHERE IT SHOULD BE. ON THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW ABOUT THAT, THEY SHOULD FILE AND REFUSE TO DO IT. SO I DON'T REALLY WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER YEAR TO IMPLEMENT THIS AND HOPEFULLY THE STATE HOUSE WILL MOVE ALONG AND GET IT IMPLEMENTED THIS YEAR TOO. BUT RITA WILL SIMPLY STOP SENDING OUT THE BILLS FOR THE CURRENT TAX YEAR, WHICH WOULDN'T GO OUT UNTIL OCTOBER ANYWAY, UNTIL THEY CAN UPGRADE THEIR PROGRAMING TO MAKE SURE THAT FIRST TIME OFFENDERS ARE NOT BEING HIT WITH THE PENALTY. I'M NOT SAYING THAT A COUPLE PEOPLE WON'T. YOU KNOW, SLIP BY BECAUSE OF SOME UNIQUE FACT PATTERNS, BUT WE'LL CLEAN THAT UP AS WE GO ALONG. SO ON OUR END, RITA WILL SEE SENDING OUT NOTICES FOR TAX YEAR 2021 FOR NON FILING UNTIL THEY GET THEIR PROGRAMING UP TO RECOGNIZING FIRST TIME OFFENDERS AND NOT FINDING THE FIRST TIME OFFENDERS. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THAT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND YOUR SECOND QUESTION. I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TWO POINTS. SO I GUESS YOU'RE ADDRESSING THEIR. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SEND A NOTICE. CORRECT. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SEND A NOTICE WITH A PENALTY. WITH A PENALTY. YES. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SEND A NOTICE WITH EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS FROM THE TIME THAT WE WOULD PASS THIS. THEY WOULD HAVE THEY WOULD HAVE THAT ABILITY, YES. FOR TAX YEAR 2021 TO GET THEIR PROGRAMING UP TO DATE. AND AS YOU SAID, THEY WOULDN'T REALLY BE ADDRESSING 2021. SO. AND I GUESS I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE ANSWER TO SO WHEN A NOTICE GOES OUT TO SOMEONE. WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A RICHARD DONNELLY. WHAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? YES. THAT IS WHAT THE PENALTY. AND THAT'S THE BIG PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT STRUCTURE. OKAY. WHEN YOU. SO FOR BACKGROUND, WHEN SOMEBODY MOVES INTO GROVE CITY, THEY FILE THEIR OHIO RETURN WITH THEIR GROVE CITY ADDRESS, AND WE GET NOTIFIED FROM THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION THAT THEY MOVED IN. THAT PROCESS MEANS THAT MOST OF OUR NEW RESIDENTS, THE LION'S SHARE OF OUR NEW RESIDENTS GET A LETTER FROM RITA SAYING, HEY, WELCOME TO GROVE CITY. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FILE AN ANNUAL RETURN. RIGHT. 70% OF THEM GET IT IN JANUARY OF THE FIRST YEAR THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FILE. SO THEY'RE GETTING IT 45 DAYS OR MORE BEFORE THEIR FIRST RETURN IS DUE. BUT BECAUSE THE TIMING ISSUE, SOMETIMES THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN FOR EVERYBODY. BUT WE'RE GETTING 95, 98% OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE GETTING THAT NOTICE BEFORE THEIR SECOND RETURN WOULD BE DUE. SO BY GIVING THEM A FREE PASS ON THE FIRST ONE, FIRST OFFENSE, THAT MEANS THEY'VE ALL GOTTEN SOME SORT OF NOTICE. I CAN'T FORCE THEM TO READ IT OR PAY ATTENTION TO IT, BUT THEY'VE GOTTEN SOME WRITTEN NOTICE IN THEIR MAIL AT THEIR ADDRESS, INFORMING THEM OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO FILE. WE USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO DO OTHER THINGS TO TRY TO GET THE WORD OUT THERE. BUT THE BIG PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT PENALTY STRUCTURE IS IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T KNOW TO [00:55:04] CALL ME AND IT'S THEIR FIRST TIME, THEY'RE GETTING CRUSHED UNDER THE CURRENT. SYSTEM. AND THAT'S NOT GOOD. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS ARGUING THAT THAT'S GOOD. WE TRY TO. THE CITIES IN OHIO ALL TRY TO ADMINISTER EVERYTHING UNIFORMLY. IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE PREPARER COMMUNITY. BUT THIS HAS JUST GOTTEN TO THE POINT. YOU KNOW, I HEAR THE STORIES. I'M SURE SOME OF YOU MIGHT GET CALLS, BUT I HAVE PEOPLE COME INTO MY OFFICE AND THE REAL HARDSHIP THAT THIS CAUSES TO SOMEBODY MAKING 20, $25,000 A YEAR OR YEAH, IT'S JUST AWFUL. AND SO BUT IF THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT TO CALL ME, THEY'RE GETTING CRUSHED. CHANGING THE STRUCTURE WOULD REALLY HELP ALLEVIATE A GREAT DEAL OF THAT THAT ISSUE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PERFECT SOLUTION, BUT THERE'S BETTER. WHO'S GOING TO TRACK THE FIRST VERSUS SECOND VIOLATION? IS THAT GOING TO BE RITA? YES. TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, EVEN IF THAT PERSON HAS ZERO TAX LIABILITY, IF THEY HAVE GONE ONCE AND GOTTEN THEIR FREE PASS, IF THEY SECOND TIME DO NOT FILE, THEY OWE ZERO TAX. THEY WILL BE CHARGED $25. YES, THERE IS STILL THE OPTION TO CONTACT ME IF THERE'S EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THINGS HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DEATH IN THE FAMILY AROUND TAX TIME. THINGS SLIP. SO THINGS HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE. AND I MEAN, MY LARGEST CONCERN TRULY IS THE PEOPLE THAT THAT JUST PAY THAT THAT THEY DON'T ASK QUESTIONS. THEY GET A BILL AND THEY PAY IT BECAUSE IT'S FROM A TAXING AUTHORITY. SO THAT TO ME IS OF CONCERN. AND THEN, AS I SAID, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW AND I GUESS CLARIFY FOR ME IF THIS IS IF THIS IS PASSED IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT WITH THE STATE OF OHIO, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE CITY OF GROVE CITY? SO LIKE THIS CODE SECTION HERE IS PROPOSED HAS $50, I SUSPECT, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVE ROEMER AT THE STATE HOUSE AND THE VOTE THAT WAS TAKEN WHILE I WAS THERE THAT A VERSION OF THIS WILL PASS WITH A $25 CAP. IF THAT DOES, WE'LL HAVE TO AMEND OUR CODE DOWN TO THE 25. AND SO ONE OF THE LAST ITERATIONS I SAW WAS THAT IF YOU PAID THE $25 THAT BUT YOU HAD NO TAX DUE, THAT IT WOULD BE REIMBURSED TO THE TAXPAYER. IS THAT A POSSIBLE AND WHAT WOULD BE THE ADMINISTRATIVE NIGHTMARE OF THAT? YES. YEAH. SO THAT WAS UNFORTUNATE LANGUAGE. REPRESENTATIVE ROMER PROPOSED THAT LANGUAGE. AND THEN WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO HIM WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAID VERSUS WHAT HE MEANT. THAT'S WHY IT WAS NOT VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE THAT DAY. THE LEGISLATIVE SERVICE COMMITTEE COMMISSION IS WORKING TO REWORD THAT SO THAT IT'S REALLY ONE TIME FREE PASS, $25 CAP PER YEAR. AFTER THAT IT IF I MAY, UM, COUNCILMEMBER HOW? YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY UNDER HOME RULE WE CAN BE MORE LENIENT, WE CAN'T BE MORE STRINGENT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE MAKE IT 25 AND THE STATE COMES IN AND MAKES IT 50, WE'RE FINE. HOWEVER, IF WE WERE TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, 50 IN THE STATE COMES IN AT 25, WE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND IT DOWN TO THE STATE MAXIMUM. I MEAN, THE HOME RULE ARGUMENTS ASIDE, I WOULD STILL ARGUE WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT, BUT THAT'S JUST ME. BUT SO IF WE WENT TO 25, WE WOULD BE IN ESSENCE SAFE, REGARDLESS OF WHICH PROPOSAL FROM THE STATE HOUSE PASSED, BECAUSE EVEN IF IT WAS 50, WE'RE ALLOWED TO BE MORE LENIENT. MR. CHAIR. MR. SEACREST, IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR. RIGHT HERE. RIGHT HERE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, YOU STILL COULD CALL RITA, CORRECT? ON THERE. ON THE ON THE LETTERS THAT ARE SENT TO YOU, THEY GIVE YOU THE NUMBER FOR RITA TO CALL SO YOU CAN GET INFORMATION FROM THEM, TOO, ABOUT IT. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE KNEW THAT THAT THAT'S ALREADY ON THE LETTER. THANK YOU. MR. SHARKEY. IS THERE ANY OTHER JUST CONTINUED FOLLOW UP AFTER THIS WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION? WE WOULD PROBABLY BE DOING THIS ANYWAY. THERE WAS A STATE LAW, NOT A STATE LAW, BECAUSE IT BECAME PRETTY OBVIOUS WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT BY SOME CONSTITUENTS. [01:00:02] AND THIS BILL, 519, HAS NOT BEEN PASSED BY THE WHOLE HOUSE AND IS NOT GOING TO CONFERENCE TO SENATE. SO IT MAY NOT GET PASSED. SO WE WANT TO BE PROACTIVE, GO AHEAD AND GET IN OUR BOOKS. AND WE'RE MODIFYING IT TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, DOWN TO $25. AND THAT'S MORE OF THE LOGIC AS TO WHERE WE ARE. THIS IS A SOFTENING OVER THE CURRENT SITUATION, RIGHT? ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE? MR. SECREST, I WOULD MOVE TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT PROVIDED BY MR. TURNER. IS THERE A SECOND SEX? I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE. SO IF I MIGHT HELP YOU, UH, SECTION A WOULD NOW START WITH. NO PENALTY FOR THE FAILURE. SECTION B REMOVES THE WORDS IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND INDIVIDUALS, AND IT STARTS WITH THE PENALTY FOR EACH FAILURE AND CHANGES $50 TO $25 AND SECTION C WOULD BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY. SO I MAKE THE MOTION. THERE ARE STILL SECOND. MR. HOLT? YES. MRS. HOUK. YES. MR. SHARKEY. YES. MR. SIEGRIST. YES. MR. BARRY. YES. SO THIS IS NOW HAD ITS SECOND READING AND I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE MOVE IT TO BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. SIR. MR. BARRY, YOU SECONDED THAT MOTION. THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS HULK. YES. MR. SCHOTTKY? YES, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. MR. SIEGRIST. YES, IT'S VERY. YES, YES. OKAY, GREAT. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ORDNANCE. [Ordinance C-20-22 Amend Section 161.15 of the Codified Ordinances titled Discrimination and Harassment Prohibited. First reading. ] SEE 2022. THIS IS TO AMEND SECTION ONE 61.15 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCE IS TITLED DISCRIMINATION HARASSMENT PROHIBITED. THIS IS THE FIRST READING AND THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS IS COUNCIL MEMBER. HOW CAN I WONDERED IF YOU'D LIKE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THIS? MAKE SOME COMMENTS. OH, NO, NO. UM, NOT REALLY ON THE FIRST READING, BUT I WILL SAY WELL, YEAH, BUT YES, I WILL ON THE FIRST READING. NOW THAT YOU'VE THROWN IT OUT THERE, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A REFINEMENT OF A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA ON THE 22ND. AND SO IN MY MIND, THIS IS REALLY JUST HOUSEKEEPING AND GOOD TO SEE IT. BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR FIRST READING THIS EVENING AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN ON THE FOURTH. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON TONIGHT'S I? THIS AUDIENCE HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING. THE SECOND READING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE APRIL 4TH. NOW WE HAVE SOME RESOLUTIONS FOR THREE RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE QUITE SIMILAR FOR SOME FESTIVALS COMING UP WHERE WE WANT TO WAIVE THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES FOR THESE VARIOUS FESTIVALS TO BE ABLE TO BE HELD AND TO HAVE A DEFINED AREA FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL. [Resolution CR-18-22 Waive the provisions of Section 529.07(b)3 of the Codified Ordinances for the Wine & Arts Festival on June 17 - 18, 2022 in the Town Cente] AND THE FIRST ONE IS C.R. DASH 1822. WHEREAS THE 2022 TO 2022 WINE ARTS FESTIVAL WILL BE HELD ON THE STREETS OF THE TOWN CENTER ON JUNE 17, THE 18TH. WE HAVE THIS AS A RESOLUTION TO WAIVE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 TO 9.7 OF THE CODE, CODIFIED ORDINANCES FOR THE WINE ARTS FESTIVAL TO ALLOW BASICALLY FOR THIS DRINKING TO BE INSIDE THIS PARTICULAR DESIGNATED AREA INSIDE THESE RED. YOU CAN SEE THE RED BORDER HERE. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR. IF I MAY, MR. SEGERS THIS IS ONE OF THOSE STANDARD THINGS WE DO EVERY YEAR FOR EVENTS. AND BASICALLY, AS MOST PEOPLE KNOW OUTSIDE THE DOOR, YOU CAN'T WALK AROUND WITH AN OPEN CONTAINER. THIS ALLOWS IT TO OCCUR. AND WHERE THIS GOT UNIQUE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO IS YOU CAN KIND OF LAYER THE DOOR NOW WITH THIS. SO YOU CAN HAVE BOTH IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. YOU STILL CAN'T WALK BACK AND FORTH WITH THE ALCOHOL, BUT THIS WAVES THE OPEN CONTAINER PROVISIONS AND ALLOWS THESE EVENTS TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THESE BOUNDARIES. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENTS FROM OUR MAIN EVENT COORDINATOR? OKAY. OKAY. SO. THIS RESOLUTION'S HAD ITS READING IN PUBLIC HEARING AND I MOVE IT TO BE APPROVED. [01:05:06] YEAH. MR. SHARKEY. YES. MR. SIEGRIST. YES. BARRY. YES. YES. THIS IS HOW. YES. THE NEXT RESOLUTION IS TO WAIVE THE SAME SECTION FIVE 29.0 7B3 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCE [Resolution CR-19-22 Waive the provisions of Section 529.07(b)3 of the Codified Ordinances for the Tacos & Tequila Festival on July 16, 2022 in the Town Center. ] FOR THE TACOS AND TEQUILA FESTIVAL FOR JULY 16, 22, 2022, IN THE TOWN CENTER. SAME THING AS BEFORE. JUST A DIFFERENT DATE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? THIS RESOLUTION HAS HAD ITS READING AND PUBLIC HEARING, AND I MOVE IT TO BE APPROVED SO I CAN. MR. SIEGRIST. YES, BARRY. YES. YES. THIS IS HELP. YES. MR. SCHOTTKY. YES. THE THIRD RESOLUTION, AGAIN, CONTINUATION WOULD BE FOR THE CRAFT DISTILLERS FESTIVAL ON [Resolution CR-20-22 Waive the provisions of Section 529.07(b)3 of the Codified Ordinances for the Craft Distillers Festival on August 13, 2022 in the Town Center. ] AUGUST 13, 2022, AND THE TOWN CENTER TO BASICALLY FOLLOW THE SAME PROVISIONS AND TO ALLOW THE DRINKING AS DESCRIBED BY MR. SMITH. AND TO THESE THIS AREA FOR THAT FESTIVAL IS ANYONE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION. THIS RESOLUTION HAS HAD ITS READING IN PUBLIC HEARING. AND I MOVE IT BE APPROVED. I CAN. MR. BERRY. YES. MR. HOLT. YES. THIS IS HOW. YES, YES. YES. WE'LL GO TO MR. HALL FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, MR. BERRY. FIRST IS AUDIENCE C 1522 APPROPRIATE $80,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE ROOF REPAIRS. [Ordinance C-15-22 Appropriate $80,000.00 from the General Fund for the current expense of roof repairs to the Grove City Welcome Center and Museum. Second reading and public hearing] GROVE CITY WELCOME CENTER. AND WE HAVE MR. BURKETT SIGNED UP FROM THE AUDIENCE. IF I MAY, MR. HOLT, JUST QUICKLY, UM. THIS WAS THE WAIVER WE SOUGHT PREVIOUSLY IN COUNCIL APPROVED FORBIDDING. WE WOULD GO OUT AND GET QUOTES AND THIS IS JUST PAYING FOR THE BEST QUOTE OR THE MOST LOWEST AND BEST QUOTE THAT WE FOUND, SIR. MR. BURKE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. ROGER BURKETT, GRASSLEY ROAD. THE ROOFING REPAIR HAS ALREADY BEEN STARTED. IT'S BEEN DAYS NOW. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT. THIS ISSUE. HERE IS THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. SHOULDN'T THIS HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE IT WAS STARTED? WE ALL LEARN BEST FROM OUR OWN EXPERIENCES. I HAVE EXPERIENCES PAYING FOR ROOFS. THERE WAS A FEW YEARS WHEN IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYTHING I OWNED NEEDED ROUGH RESIDENTIAL. BUT I DO HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH A FLAT ROOF TO PAYING FOR. 80 GRAND IS WAY TOO MUCH. AND THEN I WAS TOLD. WHERE WE GOING TO PUT WINDOWS IN IT TO? IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT WINDOWS IN, IT OUGHT TO SAY SO RIGHT THERE. THEN MAYBE 80,000 AIN'T SO CRAZY. STARTING TO REPAIR WITHOUT BEFORE THIS IS PASSED. SOUNDS ILLEGAL TO ME. A FEW DAYS AGO, I WAS TOLD, YEAH, PROBABLY, BUT WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. YES. ALL RIGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGES WILL MAKE. PROBABLY NONE. DIFFERENT TOPIC, SAME LOCATION. I BUILT A BELL TOWER REPLICA THAT'S BEEN ON DISPLAY IN THAT MUSEUM FOR YEARS. I HEARD THAT THEY HAD I HAD IT HAD TO BE BROUGHT IN IN TWO PIECES TO GET IT THROUGH THE DOOR. THEN PUT TOGETHER INSIDE. SOMEBODY DECIDED TO DISPLAY IT OUTSIDE. I'VE BEEN TOLD. [01:10:03] AND THEY CUT IT UP. THEY COULD HAVE CALLED ME. AND I WOULD HAVE TOLD THEM HOW TO TAKE IT APART. THE FOUR LEGS ON IT HAVE STEEL CORDS. IT WAS BUILT TO BE STRUCTURALLY. BULLETPROOF. SORT OF KIND OF. MR. BURKETT, IF I MAY, WE DO HAVE TO STICK TO THE LEGISLATION, LEGISLATION AT HAND AND NOT THE ERRORS OF. THEY GOT THE IDEA, ANYHOW, THAT I WAS GIVING HIM HIS 3 MINUTES. I WAS WAITING ON HIS 3 MINUTES. TIME'S UP. NOW IT'S A MR. TURNER. YES. I'D LIKE TO RESPOND. WE PASS AN ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE EVERY YEAR, AND WE HAVE PLENTY OF FUNDS IN OUR BUDGET TO DO MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF CITY FACILITIES. AND THIS PROJECT, WE FOLLOWED ALL OF OUR PURCHASING PROTOCOLS THAT WE NORMALLY DO, AND WE COULD ABSORB THIS IN OUR BUDGET. SINCE THEN, WE DO HAVE A GRANT. WE HAVE FUNDING THIS. THIS PROJECT WILL BE PAID FOR, BUT THE GRANT DOLLARS NEED TO BE APPROPRIATED. SO WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS THAT THAT $80,000 OF GRANT MONEY TO BE REAPPROPRIATED. SO NOW OUR BUDGET IS BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL LEVEL AS, AS YOU PASSED IN DECEMBER. THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. THIS ORDINANCE ADDED THE SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING AND I MOVE IT BE APPROVED SECOND. MR. HOLT? YES. THIS IS HOW. YES, MR. SHARKEY. YES. MR. SIEGRIST. YES. MR. BARRY. YES. [Ordinance C-16-22 Appropriate $5,000.00 from the General Fund for the current expense of joining Broadband Access Ohio as a sponsoring member. Second reading and public hearing. ] ORDINANCE C 1620 TO APPROPRIATE $5,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE CURRENT EXPENSE OF JOINING BROADBAND ACCESS. OHIO IS THE SPONSORING MEMBER. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THIS ORDINANCE SAT AT SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING AND I MOVE IT BE APPROVED. SECOND. MRS. HOUK. YES. MR. SCHOTTKY. YES. YES. MR. BERRY. YES. MR. HOLT. YES. [Resolution CR-21-22 Authorize the Creation of the ONEOHIO Opioid Settlement Fund. ] RESOLUTION. C.R. 2122 AUTHORIZES THE CREATION OF ONE OHIO OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUND. AND ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. MIKE, YOU WANT TO TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT THIS FUND, PLEASE? YEAH. THIS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED THE CREATION OF THE FUND. IT'S IT'S AN ACCOUNTING TOOL HERE, AND WE'RE REQUIRED TO CREATE A SEPARATE FUND FOR THIS. WE WERE NOTIFIED BY THE ORDER OF STATE. WE WILL BE GETTING MONEY FROM THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT. FROM MY RESEARCH, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT MIGHT BE ABOUT LESS THAN 200,000. AND IT SPREAD OUT AMONG 18 YEARS. SO THIS MONEY IS GOING TO FLOW THROUGH AND SLOWLY BUT SURELY. AND WE WILL BE ACCOUNTING FOR THE MONEY, PUTTING IT INTO THIS FUND, LETTING IT ACCUMULATE, AND IT WILL BE RESTRICTED ON WHAT WE CAN USE IT FOR. AND ONCE WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING, I'M SURE WE'LL BE BACK TO YOU WITH SOME PROPOSALS ON HOW TO USE IT. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. THIS RESOLUTION HAS HAD ITS READING AND PUBLIC HEARING AND I MOVE IT BE APPROVED. SECOND, MR. SCHOTTKY. YES, MR. SEGERS. YES, MR. BERRY. YES. YES. YES. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. BERRY. THIS WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT OF OUR FOR NEW BUSINESS. [Call for New Business; Call for Dept. Reports & Closing Comments; Adjourn ] IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING IN THE CHAMBER THAT THEY WANT TO ADDRESS AT THIS TIME, THEY CAN COME FORTH AND DO SO OR THINK ABOUT IT UNTIL THE MAYOR'S REPORT'S DONE. THANK YOU, MR. MURRAY. I HAVE NO FINANCIAL REPORT THIS EVENING. A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS, IF I COULD. OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT. WAS AWARDED A RECOGNITION BY THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. AN ACHIEVEMENT OF EXCELLENCE IN THEIR REPORTING. SO THIS IS KUDOS FOR OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT. AND CONGRATULATIONS, MIKE. I HOPE NOBODY FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT SAID WE'D DO IT ALL THE TIME. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT CAME FROM, BUT VERY INAPPROPRIATE. TOMORROW WE MEET WITH ODOT. [01:15:01] AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LITTER. MANY OF YOU HAVE COMMENTED ON THIS CITIZEN COMMENTED ON IT. I MEAN, WE KNOW THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM. IT STARTS UP AT THE SPLIT AT 315 AND GOES SOUTH TO US THROUGH TO BY THE LANDFILL. AND WE WERE WORKING WITH THEM TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE OTHER THINGS WE CAN DO AS A COMMUNITY TO TRY TO ASSIST THEM IN POLICING THE AREA, BECAUSE A LOT OF IT IS OUTSIDE OUR OUR TERRITORY. AND WE'VE GOT CALLS INTO THE COUNTY TO FIND OUT. BUT IT'S JUST AN FYI, PRIMARILY AS MUCH FOR THE PUBLIC AS ANYBODY ELSE SAID, BECAUSE WE GET SOMETIMES ACCUSED WHERE YOU DON'T YOU GOT THE TRASH IS FREEWAY ENTRANCE AND SO FORTH AROUND TOWN. WELL, WE WORK VERY HARD ON IT. CINDY AND HER CREW DID AN INCREDIBLE JOB LAST WEEK, AND WE'RE MEETING WITH ODOT TO CONTINUE THAT DIALOG TO TRY TO GET SOME ASSISTANCE FROM THEM. WE ARE. I UNDERSTAND. KYLE, ARE YOU STILL GOING TO BE GOING TO THE WACO BOARD MEETING ON THE 24TH? SO WE'LL BE PRESENTING THE VIDEO THAT WAS SHOWN HERE ABOUT OUR SOUTH GATEWAY MEDICAL AND TECHNOLOGY QUARTER TO THIS WACO BOARD ON THE ON THE 24TH. WE CONTINUE TO BLEED OUR HEARTS FOR UKRAINE. AND WHAT CAN WE SAY? ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? SO I HAD SOME FRIENDS COME INTO TOWN AND THEY ABSOLUTELY RECOGNIZE THE FLAG AT 270 AND 62. SO APPRECIATE THAT, MAYOR. NO QUESTION. THANK YOU, BOZO. NOTHING. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MR. TURNER. NOTHING. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MR. SMITH. I JUST WANT TO ASSURE COUNSEL THAT I WOULD NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, AS MR. BIRKHEAD INDICATED. AND. AND HE KNOWS THAT. MISS KELLY. ANY BUSINESS FOR THE COUNCIL? NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU, SIR. ANYBODY ONLINE? NO. ANY DEPARTMENT HEADS WISH TO SAY ANYTHING? SURE. SO JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO HIGHLIGHT SOME AMAZING WORK FOR OUR POLICE DIVISION. LAST WEEK, OFFICERS PARTICIPATED IN A ST PATRICK'S DAY ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS CALLED THE NATIONAL CRASH AWARENESS AND REDUCTION EFFORTS. WE MADE 449 TRAFFIC STOPS AND TOOK 14 DRUNK OR DRUGGED DRIVERS OFF OF OUR CITY STREETS. THERE ARE 2021 OFFICER. THE YEAR WAS SELECTED BY HIS PEERS. OFFICER ANDREW COLE WAS HONORED AND WILL BE HONORED AT OUR ANNUAL BANQUET AND OUR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 2021 WAS MELISSA WADDELL, ONE OF OUR COMMUNICATION TECHNICIANS. NEXT MONTH, KELLY DAVISON AND MISSY WADDLE WILL ALSO BE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR WORK AT THE OHIO GOLD STAR AWARDS PROGRAM HONORING OHIO'S EMERGENCY DISPATCHERS. THERE'S SOME GREAT WORK I WANT TO PASS ALONG TO COUNCIL. VERY NICE, SIR. THANK YOU. ANYONE AT ANY OF THE OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE ANYTHING? KIM YORK TIMES COMING SOON. SPRING IS AROUND THE CORNER. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO TO CLOSING COMMENTS, MR. SEACREST. SPECIAL THANKS AGAIN. I THOUGHT TO CLEAN UP BY THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT ON 71 AND SPRINGTIME WAS SO NOTICEABLE AND THAT WAS JUST OUTSTANDING. AND HE OFTEN PROBABLY GOES UNNOTICED. VERY QUIET INDIVIDUAL. MR. DUNN, LARRY DONNELLY. HE'S LIKE HE'S LIKE THE ON THE JOHN MADDEN ALL READ A TEAM IF YOU IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO GET A PICTURE WITH HIM WITH THE SENIORS OR OR THE SORRY THE AP STUDENTS TONIGHT, THIS GUY RIGHT HERE KEEPS THIS CITY'S TAXES STRAIGHT, MR. WHOLE. NOTHING ELSE, I DON'T THINK. THANK YOU. THAT'S HOW. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING. I DID WANT TO SAY THAT NOT STILL A FAN OF THE PENALTY FOR A ZERO TAX TWO TAX RETURN. THAT'S MY PERSONAL PLUG, BUT I APPRECIATE OUR MOVING IN A VERY POSITIVE DIRECTION. THANK YOU, MR. SHARKEY. I JUST WANT TO THANK THE GROVE CITY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS FOR ATTENDING AGAIN THIS EVENING. I HOPE YOU YOU LEARNED SOMETHING ABOUT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE I MET WITH THE PARK BOARD LAST TUESDAY NIGHT ABOUT THE RECREATION SLASH COMMUNITY CENTER, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS WELL RECEIVED AND WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. AND I TRULY APPRECIATE THE PARK BOARD FOR HOSTING ME THAT EVENING ON THEIR. THANK YOU. SO HOW MANY OF YOU GUYS ARE HERE FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL? RAISE YOUR HAND. WOW. SEE, THIS IS WHAT I LIKE. A FORCED AUDIENCE. DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING FOR US? MAN. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING MORE ABOUT TAXES OR AGRICULTURAL DISTANCE. [01:20:05] YEAH. SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR MEETING FOR THE EVENING AND WE WILL MEET AGAIN HERE ON APRIL 4TH AT 7 P.M.. WE ARE ADJOURN. THEY'RE DOING GREAT. IT'S JUST. IT'S. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.