[Ordinance C-40-25 Authorizing the Appropriation of Property and Easements for the public purpose of making, repairing and improving Jackson Pike to Install a Shared Use Path and related improvements. First reading.]

COUNCIL, THIS AGENDA IS APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO MR. DO WITH SERVICE. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THE FIRST ORDINANCE I HAVE IS C 4025 AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY AND EASEMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF MAKING, REPAIR, MAKING, REPAIRING AND IMPROVING JACKSON PIKE TO INSTALL A SHARED USE PATHS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS. THIS IS A FIRST READING. WE HAVE A SPEAKER, STEVE FRAGALE. CRAIG, I'M SORRY IF YOU WOULD COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE. AND. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FIVE. I RESIDE IN CHESTER, BUT WE SERVE A WIDER REGION OF CENTRAL OHIO. PRIOR CAREER I WAS A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT FOR CITIES FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS, SO I'VE WORKED WITH A LOT OF THE ISSUES DEALING WITH CONDEMNATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW, IS IS A NONPROFIT LAND CONSERVANCY. WE PROTECT WATER AND LAND RESOURCES FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN CENTRAL OHIO, WHICH IS OUR PRIMARY FOCUS AREA. WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 200 PROPERTIES PROTECTED AND ABOUT 17,000 ACRES APPROXIMATELY SO FAR. I'M NOT HERE BY CHOICE, BUT BY COMPULSION. OUR PROPERTY. WE HAVE A PRESERVED PROPERTY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS THAT HAS BEEN THREATENED WITH CONDEMNATION. WE ARE AS AN ORGANIZATION, WE'RE NOT HERE TO DEBATE TONIGHT, BUT WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT THE USE OF CONDEMNATION IS A REASONABLE PUBLIC EXERCISE FOR THIS

[00:05:02]

PROPERTY, WHICH WE CAN MAKE SOME, SOME, SOME MORE SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO THAT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT HERE TO DEBATE, BUT WE JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE WERE CONTACTED BY GROVE CITY AND WE INFORMED THEM THAT THIS IS PUBLIC PROPERTY OR PUBLICLY PROTECTED PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN INVESTED IN BY THE STATE OF OHIO BY TWO DIFFERENT STATE AGENCIES. IT'S A VERY UNIQUE NATURAL AREA. IT DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH BUFFERING. I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PROPERTY TO PROTECT THE NATURAL AREAS IS AND WHEN WE WERE CONTACTED BY THE CITY, WE POINTED OUT THAT THERE WERE ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING OUR LAND FOR A SIDEWALK OR FOR RECREATIONAL USE THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT TAKING AWAYS PROPERTY, AND WOULD NOT HAVE THE LIABILITIES THAT WE THINK THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE. THE PROPERTY, JUST FOR CLARITY, IS. CONTAINS FOUR BOGS WHICH ARE UNIQUE TO THE AREA. IT TOOK MANY, MANY YEARS TO PROTECT THESE BOGS OF OUR EFFORT, BUT METROPARKS TRIED FOR MANY YEARS. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE TRIED FOR MANY YEARS TO PROTECT THIS PROPERTY. BECAUSE OF THE VALUE OF THE BOGS THAT WERE ON THE SITE. AT SOME POINT THEY CAME TO AOA. THEY WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL AND ASKED US TO TRY AND CONSERVE IT AS A PRIVATE NONPROFIT. IT TOOK US SEVERAL YEARS, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT. WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE FUNDING FOR THE PROPERTY TO PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S OUR OPINION THAT THE THE TAKING OF 30FT OF OUR FRONTAGE AND TAKING THE, THE BUFFERING THAT WE HAVE FOR THE BOGS IS GOING TO BE A LIABILITY FOR US AND FOR THE COMMUNITY. SOME OF THE THINGS JUST I WANT TO BE QUICK HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE A TIME LIMIT OR NOT. DO I HAVE A TIME LIMIT? SO I'LL BE BRIEF. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL IS AWARE OF SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. NONE OF THESE ISSUES WERE EVER ASKED OF US. I MEAN, WE WERE NEVER CONSULTED ON WHAT OUR CONCERNS WERE OR WHAT THESE ISSUES ARE, AND WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE AT LEAST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THESE TO THE COUNCIL. SO AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO A LOT OF DETAIL, BUT I JUST WANT TO MENTION SOME THINGS. I MEAN, WE HAVE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT ARE VERY VULNERABLE TO INVASIVES, VERY VULNERABLE TO THINGS SUCH AS PETS AND PEOPLE TRESPASSING. WE'VE HAD SECURITY ISSUES. WE'VE BEEN BROKEN INTO WHEN CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE ON THE THE SUBDIVISION ACROSS THE ROAD FROM US, WE HAD EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF TRASH AND DEBRIS BLOWING ONTO OUR PROPERTY, WHICH NOBODY DID ANYTHING ABOUT.

WE WERE FORCED TO DO IT, AND LOCAL RESIDENTS WERE FORCED TO DO IT AND CONTACT THE CONTRACTORS. WE HAD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS MADE ABOUT OUR PROPERTY BEING STREWN WITH TRASH, AND IT WAS NOT OUR FAULT. WE HAD INVEST A LOT OF MONEY TO CLEAN THIS UP AT OUR EXPENSE, THOUGH. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED WITHIN YOUR CITY LIMITS AND WAS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN YOUR CITY. IT IMPACTED US GREATLY IN FINANCIALLY. WE HAVE NATURAL AREAS THAT ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO INTRUSION BY PETS AND PEOPLE. WE HAVE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT CANNOT TOLERATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC, OR CANNOT TOLERATE DOGS OR OTHER SPECIES COMING IN AND ATTACKING THE THE NATURAL SPECIES AND NATIVE SPECIES THAT ARE ON THE SITE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE PROTECTION. WE WE HAVE BUFFER AREAS. WE HAVE PLANTED OUR BUFFER AREAS. THIS WAS A FARM. WE PLANNED OUR BUFFER AREAS WITH TREES TO TRY AND PROTECT IT FROM THE TRAFFIC, LIGHT, NOISE, ETC. THE THINGS THAT WOULD IMPACT THE NATURAL FEATURES ON THE SITE AND PROTECT THE CONSERVATION VALUES OF THE SITE. I CAN SAY THAT 30FT FOR TRAIL IS EXTREMELY EXCESSIVE FOR A SIDEWALK TAKING OUR FRONTAGE WHEN WE NEED THAT FOR OUR OPERATIONS. THIS IS OUR PRIMARY. WE WORK IN 22 COUNTIES AND THIS IS OUR PRIMARY SITE FOR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND THINGS THAT WE USE FOR OUR STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES, AND WE USE A LOT OF THAT FRONTAGE FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND TAKING THAT WOULD HAVE FAR MORE IMPACT ON US THAN JUST 30FT, BUT WE FIND IT A LITTLE BIT EXCESSIVE. WE'D LIKE TO ADD THAT THERE'S, AS A PLANNING CONSULTANT FOR MANY YEARS, THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS YOU CAN BUILD IN PLACES YOU CAN BUILD A TRAIL. THERE'S NOT JUST ONE LOCATION. AND AS FAR AS WE'RE WE UNDERSTAND THERE WERE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES LOOKED AT OTHER THAN TAKING OUR PROPERTY, WHICH HAS NO HOUSES TO BENEFIT.

THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT. IT'S OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. THERE'S NO PEOPLE THAT WOULD USE THE TRAIL ON OUR PROPERTY, OTHER THAN PEOPLE COMING OUT FROM OTHER AREAS INTO OUR PROPERTY. WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO CONTROL OR TO REGULATE WHO USES THE TRAIL OR WHAT THEY DO ON THE TRAIL THROUGH OUR PROPERTY. NORMALLY WHEN WE HAVE ACCESS TO OUR PROPERTY, WE HAVE RULES.

PRESERVE RULES THAT GOVERN WHAT CAN HAPPEN, BUT WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO CONTROL THAT. WITH A TRAIL BEING BUILT BY AN OUTSIDER ACROSS OUR PROPERTY. WE THINK THAT THERE ARE THINGS

[00:10:06]

THAT COULD BE DONE THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE DESIGN OF WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED. IF WE'D HAVE BEEN CONSULTED INSTEAD OF TOLD THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR PROPERTY, IF YOU DON'T SELL IT TO US, MAYBE SOME OF THESE THINGS COULD HAVE WORKED OUT BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS POINT.

WE'RE A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS IS THE WAY IS PROCEEDED, THAT WE'VE BEEN FORCED TO COME TO A CONDEMNATION HEARING WITHOUT EVER BEING CONSULTED ON ALTERNATIVES OR LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES ON HOW THIS COULD BE RESOLVED, OR LISTENING TO OUR POINT OF VIEW. WE WERE NEVER ASKED. I THINK THERE'S CERTAINLY ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED, THOUGH. THE LAST THING I'D LIKE TO LEAVE YOU WITH IS THAT. I WOULD JUST ASK WHAT WHAT WOULD BENEFIT THE PUBLIC MORE? HAVING A RARE NATURAL AREA THAT THAT CITIZENS CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, OR JEOPARDIZING ALL OF THAT BY BUILDING A WALKING TRAIL OR A BIKING TRAIL OR WHATEVER, THAT COULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN OTHER LOCATIONS WITHOUT CROSSING A SENSITIVE NATURAL AREA THAT'S PROTECTED. AND ONE THING I LEFT OUT, I JUST WANT TO ADD IS THAT AOA. MY ORGANIZATION, HAS FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN INVESTED BY THE STATE IN THIS PROJECT, AND PART OF THOSE, THE INVESTMENT, THOSE FUNDS IS AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE SITE SPECIFICALLY FROM CONDEMNATION. WE'RE OBLIGATED TO OPPOSE ANY CONDEMNATION OF THE SITE OR ANY TAKING OR USE OF THE SITE. SO WHETHER WE WANTED TO OR NOT, WE WE'RE OBLIGATED TO TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND TO OPPOSE THE CONDEMNATION. AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT THE STATE'S RECORDED THESE ARE LEGAL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WERE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO PROTECT THE SITE, THE PROPERTY. AND WE WANT TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT TAKES CARE OF RECOGNIZES THAT THE CITY HAS NEEDS. BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE AT THE TABLE AND DISCUSS THOSE NEEDS, HOW THEY BE HANDLED, MAYBE ANOTHER WAY THAT WOULDN'T BE DETRIMENTAL OR LIABILITY TO OUR SITE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. THIS IS A FIRST READING AND NORMALLY WE ALLOW QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS AT THE SECOND READING. THE SECOND READING WILL BE ON NOVEMBER THE 17TH. THERE'LL BE NO ACTION TAKEN TONIGHT, BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING. I MEAN, I CAN GO AHEAD. MR. CERTAINLY RESPECT THE SPEAKER'S COMMENTS. CERTAINLY. WE MAY NOT AGREE WITH THEM ALL, BUT IN TERMS OF CONTACTING THIS ORGANIZATION, STEVEN, YOU MIGHT GO OVER WHAT YOU ATTEMPTED TO DO IN GETTING IN CONTACT WITH THE ORGANIZATION, WHO YOU SPOKE TO, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE. YEAH. THANK YOU. WE SO I WAS NOT PART OF THE DESIGN TEAM. MISS FITZPATRICK WAS AND I KNOW THAT WE DID LOOK AT FROM MY DISCUSSIONS WITH HER AND SHE CAN CLARIFY. WE LOOKED AT A WHOLE BUNCH OF ALTERNATIVES HOW TO GET THE BIKE PATH FROM, FRANKLY, CITY LIMITS DOWN TO THE METRO PARK. AND THIS WAS THE ONE THAT WE DECIDED ON AFTER DOING AN ANALYSIS OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT WAYS WE COULD GET THERE. SO IT WASN'T AS IF WE DID NOT CONSIDER ANY OPTIONS ONCE IT WAS DESIGNED. I DID REACH OUT TO ORGANIZATION. I BELIEVE. I SPOKE WITH YOU ON THE PHONE, AND I SPOKE WITH YOUR ATTORNEY, WHO I THINK IS ALSO ON THE BOARD. IS IT BRIAN? I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT I SPOKE WITH BOTH OF THEM AT THAT TIME, VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY SAID TODAY, THAT THEY DO NOT WANT A WALKING PATH ACROSS THEIR PROPERTY EVER. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IN THIS INSTANCE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE BENEFIT TO THE 40 000 PLUS RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF GROVE CITY IS. AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR PERMISSION. IF WE ARE UNABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TAKING. AND THEY CAN CERTAINLY FIGHT. I DON'T KNOW THAT. YOU KNOW, THE LAW LOOKS AT TWO THINGS. IS IT A PUBLIC PURPOSE? I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY CHANCE WE LOSE THAT ARGUMENT. AND TWO IS COMPENSATION PAID. WE HAD AN APPRAISAL. IT WAS IN THE SIX FIGURES THAT WE'VE OFFERED THEM. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN CONSIDER IT. SO UNFORTUNATELY, IF WE WISH TO CONNECT THIS THROUGH, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO FILE AND FIGHT THROUGH COURT. AND THIS IS NOT A QUICK TAKE. AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT WE CANNOT BUILD THE PATH UNTIL THE COURT RULES ON THIS, WHICH COULD BE TWO YEARS FROM NOW, MINIMUM.

PROBABLY THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE DON'T GO QUICKLY, BUT I HAD BEFORE WE EVEN FILED THE LEGISLATION ON THE PROJECT, I HAD REACHED OUT TO THEM AND THIS WAS THE ANSWER I WAS GIVEN.

SO, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS THE DESIGN WE HAD AND THIS WAS THE ONE THE CITY FEELS BEST MOVING FORWARD WITH. AND IT'S IT'S A WALKING PATH, YOU KNOW, IF IF THERE'S ISSUES WITH BUFFERING AND CONCERNS, THOSE ARE ALL THINGS WE CAN TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF THROWING MONEY AT PROBLEMS. BUT I WASN'T IT WAS A NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS VERSUS LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. SO

[00:15:02]

WE WILL, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. IF I COULD MR. DO AND I KNOW THERE'S BREAKING PRECEDENT BY BEING ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS IN A FIRST READING, BUT I AM VERY CURIOUS. ARE YOU SAYING THAT NO PLACE FOR APPALACHIA OWNS LAND? THEY'VE HAD A BIKE TRAIL ISSUE. WHAT IS THE QUESTION? WELL, YOU SEEM TO BE PLAYING THIS AS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION THAT A CITY WANTING TO PUT A TRAIL THROUGH LAND, THAT THE THAT THE TRUST HOLDS. IS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE ENCOUNTERED THAT FIRST TIME THE CITY HAS TRIED TO TAKE OUR LAND FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES? WHAT OTHER PURPOSE WOULD THERE BE? SOMETHING PASSED FOR? OKAY. GAS HAS CHANGED THEIR PLANS MULTIPLE TIMES WHEN IT COMES TO OUR PROPERTY, BUT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, WE HAVE THE GRAND SCHEME OF PROTECTING OUR CITIZENS. AND WE WOULD STILL VERY MUCH BE ABLE TO LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE WITH SOMEBODY WHO HAS SOME DECISION POWER, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A LONG, LONG STRUGGLE.

AND, MAYOR, IF I MAY, I SPOKE WITH THEIR COUNCIL LAST LAST MONDAY, I BELIEVE, ON THE PHONE.

AND HE DID INDICATE THAT IT PART OF THE ISSUE MAY BE THE OHIO EPA. AND FRANKLY, MY OFFICE HAS A LOT OF CONTACTS WITH THE OHIO EPA. SO WE'RE GOING TO REACH OUT TO THEM TO SEE WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE, TO SEE WHETHER THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO WORK ON THAT SIDE OF THINGS TO APPRECIATE IT. SORRY TO BREAK DECORUM. OH NO

[Ordinance C-41-25 Authorizing the Appropriation of Property and easements for the public purpose of making, repairing and improving Jackson Pike/Hawthorne Parkway Intersection and related improvements. First reading.]

PROBLEM. SECOND ORDINANCE IS C 4125 AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY AND EASEMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF MAKING, REPAIRING AND IMPROVING JACKSON PIKE HAWTHORNE PARKWAY INTERSECTION AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS. THIS IS A FIRST READING. MR. SMITH, WOULD YOU CARE TO ELABORATE, PLEASE? YEAH, ACTUALLY, THIS IS THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER.

HOWEVER, THIS IS A SIGNAL THAT'S TIED TO A ROADWAY PROJECT. THIS IS WHAT'S CALLED A QUICK TAKE. AND WHEN I SPOKE WITH THEM INITIALLY ABOUT THIS, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE SIGNAL. IT WAS THE PATH. HOWEVER, THEY KIND OF GO HAND IN HAND. THIS ONE IS FILED SEPARATELY BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THIS ONE GIVES US THE ABILITY TO DO THE QUICK TAKE, WHICH MEANS IF COUNCIL AUTHORIZES THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING, WILL BE ABLE TO FILE, PUT THE DEPOSIT ON WITH THE COURT, AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THIS PART OF THE PROJECT. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S SEPARATED. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. AS MR. SMITH HAS RELATED, THIS SECOND

[Ordinance C-42-25 Authorizing the Appropriation of Property and Easements from multiple properties for the public purpose of making, repairing and improving North Meadows Drive and the Southwest Area Overpass Project. First reading.]

READING FOR THIS WILL HAPPEN ON NOVEMBER THE 17TH. THE THIRD ORDINANCE IS C 4225, AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY AND EASEMENTS FROM MULTIPLE PROPERTIES FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF MAKING, REPAIRING AND IMPROVING NORTH MEADOWS DRIVE IN THE SOUTH WEST AREA. OVERPASS PROJECT. THIS IS A FIRST READING. AGAIN, I'D ASK MR. SMITH TO ELABORATE JUST VERY BRIEFLY. THIS IS THE ROUNDABOUT THAT WILL THEN LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE BRIDGE OVER 71. THERE'S THREE PROPERTIES INVOLVED. WE'VE ALREADY SETTLED WITH ONE OF THE THREE, AND THERE ARE TWO THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY NEGOTIATING WITH. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRST READING. SECOND READING WILL BE NOVEMBER THE 17TH. MADAM

[Ordinance C-43-25 Authorize the City Administrator to enter into an Addendum with the South Western City School District for the Kingston site. First reading.]

PRESIDENT OF THAT CONCLUDES THE SERVICE TONIGHT. THANK YOU MR. DO. I WILL THEN TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO MISS ANDERSON, WHO IS STANDING IN FOR MR. HOLT THIS EVENING WITH FINANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE FIRST ORDINANCE WE HAVE IS C 4325 TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO AN ADDENDUM WITH THE SOUTH-WESTERN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE KINGSTON SITE.

THIS IS THE FIRST READING. I WILL ASK IF MR. BOSA WANTED TO SHARE JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS. WHAT'S COMING IN FOURTH? YES. THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN RENTING FROM THE SOUTH-WESTERN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS. THAT LEASE IS UP AT THE END OF DECEMBER. THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION AUTHORIZED AN ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS WITH AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL OF TEN YEARS. ONE OF THE ITEMS IN THAT IS NEW TO THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT IS THAT UNDER THE OLD CONTRACT, IF THE SOUTH-WESTERN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT WANTED TO USE THAT FACILITY, THEY COULD TAKE THAT AT ANY TIME. THIS REQUIRES THEM TO GIVE UP AT LEAST A ONE YEAR NOTICE, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

[00:20:02]

THIS ORDINANCE HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING. THE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING WILL

[Ordinance C-44-25 Authorize the City Administrator to enter into an Addendum with the South Western City School District for the Brookpark site. First reading.]

BE NOVEMBER 17TH, 2025. WE ALSO HAVE ORDINANCE C 4425. THIS IS ALSO TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO AN ADDENDUM WITH THE SOUTH-WESTERN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE BROOK PARK SITE. THIS IS THE FIRST READING, AND IF MR. BOSA WOULDN'T MIND SHARING AN OVERVIEW AS WELL. YEAH. THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION AUTHORIZES SOME CHANGES IN OUR EXISTING CONTRACT WITH THE SOUTH-WESTERN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. OUR LEASE UNDER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WILL EXPIRE IN 2032. THAT WILL NOT CHANGE. THERE ARE SOME ITEMS IN TERMS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SOUTH-WESTERN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE, TO TAKE OUT THE MODULAR UNITS THAT ARE NO LONGER THERE, THAT ARE SOMEWHAT BECOMING AN EYESORE. THERE'S LANGUAGE IN HERE IN TERMS OF THE OLD CONTRACT THAT WE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE UTILITY COSTS. THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT TO THAT AGREEMENT REQUIRES US TO ONLY PAY $25,000 PER YEAR FOR THE FOR THE UTILITIES. AND I THINK THE BIGGEST ITEM IS IN TERMS OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDINGS, PARTICULARLY. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THE ROOF AND WHO PAYS FOR REPAIRS TO THAT ROOF. THIS MAKES IT MUTUALLY AGREEABLE THAT WE BOTH WORK TOGETHER TO MAINTAIN THAT EXISTING ROOF UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT.

SO AND AGAIN, COUNCIL IN THE PAST HAS PASSED LEGISLATION THAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATION CANNOT SPEND ABOVE $10,000 WITHOUT COUNCIL'S AUTHORIZATION. SO ANYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD REQUIRE ACTION BY THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS ORDINANCE HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING. SORRY QUESTION. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION AS I DID IN CAUCUS, CHUCK, JUST FOR THE JUST FOR THE RECORD. SO WHEN IT COMES TO IF IF THE CITY DECIDES WE ARE INTERESTED IN THAT PROPERTY, WHAT ARE THE WHAT WHAT'S IN THE CONTRACT TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN? THERE IS A AN OPTION FOR US TO BUY, BUT IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A STATE PROCESS WHERE THE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS TO OFFER THAT. I BELIEVE UNDER THE PRESENT LEGISLATION, TO PERHAPS A CHARTER SCHOOL DISTRICT. IF THAT WOULD FAIL, THEN THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENT THAT WE COULD PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $10. AND AGAIN, WE HAVE, LIKE I SAY, UNTIL 2030, MAYBE TO PERHAPS GET SOME CHANGES TO THE LEGISLATION, BUT ALSO ALSO WORK WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN TERMS OF THEY HAVE SOME NEEDS FOR THAT FACILITY RIGHT NOW, AND PERHAPS WE COULD MAKE A DEAL WHERE WE COULD PERHAPS EXCHANGE PROPERTY OR HELP THEM WITH THEIR THEIR NEEDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, FOR THEIR NEEDED FACILITY SPACE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS ORDINANCE HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING. THE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ON NOVEMBER 17TH OF 2025. THAT IS ALL I HAVE TONIGHT, MADAM PRESIDENT.

THANK YOU, MISS ANDERSON. ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONCLUSION OF OUR BUSINESS

[Call for New Business]

AGENDA THIS EVENING. IF THERE IS ANY NEW BUSINESS TO BE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL'S ATTENTION, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO SO. AND I DO HAVE A SHORT LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AGAIN, SIGNING UP WITH NEW BUSINESS FOR COUNCIL. I. WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. AND WE WILL START WITH TERRY JONES WHO IS FIRST ON OUR LIST. AND BEFORE MR. JONES SPEAKS, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORK THE TIMER. I TRIED TO HIT BUTTONS AND IT'S SO OH, JUST SO I'M GOING TO DO IT ON MY PHONE. IF THAT'S OKAY, THAT'S FINE. AND AND EVEN THOUGH MR. SMITH IS UNSURE OF THE TIMER, THE WINDOW IS THREE MINUTES, SO I'LL JUST PUT THAT OUT. I KNEW THAT PART. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE THE LITTLE DOTS WORK UP THERE ON THE SCREEN. WELL, IT JUST IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE, I THINK.

MR. GOOD CALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, MR. JONES. YOUR NAME? OKAY. MY READING TONIGHT IS FROM THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. I DON'T THINK I'LL NEED THAT. WE NEED YOU TO USE THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE, AND REACH YOU. DO YOU HAVE. DID WE HEAR YOUR ADDRESS? EXCUSE ME? YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, 04051. SEQUOYAH. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. TONIGHT I WANT TO TALK ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. AND FIRST OFF TO TO INTRODUCE IT. THIS IS FROM AN EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK CALLED REVIVALS, AWAKENINGS AND REFORM BY WILLIAM G. MCLAUGHLIN. BY 1885, LORD BRYCE, THE ENGLISH COMMENTATOR ON AMERICAN CULTURE, COULD ASSERT WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT CHRISTIANITY, IN ITS EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT FORM IS IN FACT UNDERSTOOD TO BE, THOUGH NOT THE LEGALLY

[00:25:04]

ESTABLISHED RELIGION, YET THE NATIONAL RELIGION. AND NOW, THREE MINUTES I HAVE TO GET RIGHT INTO IT, AND I'M READING FROM THE THIRD CHAPTER OF JOHN, STARTING WITH THE 13TH VERSE.

NO ONE HAS ASCENDED TO HEAVEN, BUT HE WHO CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, THAT IS THE SON OF MAN WHO IS IN HEAVEN. AND AS MOSES LIFTED UP THE SERPENT IN THE WILDERNESS, EVEN SO MUST THE SON OF MAN BE LIFTED UP, THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. FOR GOD DID NOT SEND HIS SON INTO THE WORLD TO CONDEMN THE WORLD, BUT THAT THE WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED. HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM IS NOT CONDEMNED, BUT HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. AND THIS IS THE CONDEMNATION THAT LIGHT HAS COME INTO THE WORLD, AND MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL. FOR EVERYONE, PRACTICING EVIL HATES THE LIGHT AND DOES NOT COME TO THE LIGHT, LEST HIS DEEDS SHOULD BE EXPOSED. BUT HE WHO DOES THE TRUTH COMES TO THE LIGHT, THAT HIS DEEDS MAY BE CLEARLY SEEN, THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DONE IN GOD. AND GOING DOWN TO THE 34TH VERSE, FOR HE WHOM GOD HAS SENT SPEAKS THE WORDS OF GOD. FOR GOD DOES NOT GIVE THE SPIRIT BY MEASURE. THE FATHER LOVES THE SON, AND HAS GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO HIS HAND.

HE WHO BELIEVES IN THE SON HAS EVERLASTING LIFE. AND HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THE SON SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, BUT THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDES ON HIM. AND JUST TO ADD, IT'S BEEN QUITE A FEW YEARS SINCE I STOOD UP HERE AND ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL AND ALL NEW FACES EXCEPT FOR MAYOR, STAGE, COUNCILMAN BERRY AND STEVE SMITH. I RECOGNIZE ALL THOSE FACES, BUT THE REST OF YOU I DON'T KNOW. SO I WAS A LOT YOUNGER THEN, BUT NOW I'M 71 YEARS OLD AND WOULD LIKE TO TELL EVERYBODY ENJOY LIFE WHILE YOU'RE HERE ON THIS EARTH AND TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED. AMEN.

THANK YOU, MR. JONES. THAT WAS PERFECT. THAT WAS LITERALLY THREE MINUTES. I WAS LIKE, ONE SECOND. YOU DID AWESOME. PERFECT. THREE MINUTES. HE HE MENTIONED AT THE ONSET OF THE EVENING THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE THREE MINUTES, BUT YOU MADE EXCELLENT USE OF YOUR THREE MINUTES. AND I REMEMBER READING ABOUT YOU IN THE PAPER, EVEN THOUGH I'M A NEW FACE. YOU WERE IN THE NEWSPAPER BACK THEN. ALRIGHT. WE HAD CHARLES AUSTIN NEXT ON OUR LIST. MR. AUSTIN, YOUR ADDRESS, NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, I LIVE AT 4285 BROADWAY, LOT D-7 IN THE MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY HERE. MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITY, WHATEVER THEY'RE CALLING IT NOW, IT'S IN MR. BERRY'S REPORT. MY CONCERN, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS RECENTLY WE'VE HAD IN LA AND CHICAGO AND OTHER PLACES IN THE COUNTRY, WE'VE HAD ICE GOING AROUND, IN MY OPINION, VIOLATING PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN GROVE CITY. I MEAN, IT'S COMING. YOU MAY NOT WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S COMING. AND I JUST FEEL I JUST WANT TO KNOW, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY? AND THAT'S ALL OF THEM DOCUMENTED, UNDOCUMENTED, WHAT HAVE YOU. AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE HAVE KYRA PAUL. GOOD EVENING. MY ADDRESS IS 4315 PROMENADE AVENUE. I DIDN'T PREPARE ANYTHING TODAY. I KIND OF WANTED TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT FROM THE HEART. I KNOW WE'RE ALL STARKLY AWARE THAT SNAP BENEFITS HAVE BEEN CUT. FOOD PANTRY FUNDING HAS BEEN CUT. I KNOW DEWINE GAVE $25 MILLION TO GIVE TO FOOD PANTRIES TO CONTINUE. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH. WE HAVE FAMILIES, KIDS, ELDERLY THAT ARE GOING TO GO HUNGRY. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE FOOD, HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE ARE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. SO I KNOW THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THEIR SEATS TODAY THAT ARE LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE HERE JANUARY 1ST, OR YOU MIGHT EVEN BE IN A DIFFERENT SEAT. SO THAT GIVES YOU TWO MONTHS IF YOU AREN'T GOING TO BE WITH US ANYMORE. I WOULD LIKE TO IMPLORE THE CITY TO