[00:00:08]
SESSION. WE'RE GOING TO START OFF. WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THE PRAYER AT THE REGULAR MEETING. AND WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH THE COMMUNITY CENTER AGAIN. AND SO, MISS ANDERSON. WHERE IS TAMMY? OKAY. SHE STEVEN CAN DO ROLL CALL. MR. OMAR. OH, PRESENT HERE. HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE. DID YOU SEE THAT, MR. SMITH? NO LAW DEGREE. AND SHE DID THAT JUST LIKE THAT. BUT I DID THE CHECK MARKS IN THE OFFICIAL BOOK. IT'S A TEAM EFFORT, MISS
[Proposed Community Center]
ANDERSON. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO TONIGHT, WE ARE HERE TO CONTINUE A WORK SESSION DISCUSSING THE COMMUNITY CENTER. IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION JUST A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TODAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS INFORMATION TO GO THROUGH REGARDING, I BELIEVE, THE FINANCE OUTCOME, MAYBE FROM THE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE WHERE COMMUNITY CENTER WORK SESSIONS. SO WE'LL PROBABLY START THERE. I DO WANT TO KIND OF HELP LEVEL SET JUST FOR EVERYBODY. AND ON COUNCIL WE HAD A LOT OF GREAT DISCUSSION TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN WE CAME TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, I THINK WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO DRIVE IS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THIS SITE SELECTION FORMALIZED. WE HAVE MONEY IN THE BUDGET WITH THE THOUGHT THAT THIS YEAR CAN BLOW OUT CONCEPTS FOR US, AND WE REALLY NEED TO GET TO THAT NEXT STEP IN HAVING THOSE CONCEPTS FOR THIS COMMUNITY CENTER. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION AS WELL ABOUT INCOME TAX. I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE PIECES FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, SO IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO HEAR ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HAS THAT, THAT THE FINANCE TEAM FROM THE ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO PRESENT. WE HAVE A NOVEMBER BALLOT, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL HAS TALKED ABOUT. AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO. AND BEING NOW THAT IT IS MARCH 2ND, WE HAVE A SHORT TIMELINE TO GET THERE. SO I WILL KIND OF TALK ABOUT TIMING AND A ROADMAP AND KIND OF THINGS THAT I HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH. BUT LET'S FIRST GO WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE FINANCE PIECE THAT THEY WANT TO SHARE.THANK YOU. CHAIR ANDERSON. TAMMY, DID YOU HAVE THE EXHIBIT FOR MURFIN? YES. IF WE MAY START OUT, I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING, THE ONLY PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT WAS LEFT THAT WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IN FULL DETAIL WAS THE MURFIN FIELD. SINCE THAT TIME, DIRECTOR CASSELL AND I HAVE MET WITH THE MURFIN BOARD, AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS TWICE. AND AS YOU SEE, THIS IS THEIR LATEST PROPOSAL TO US. AND IT OUTLINES, AS YOU CAN SEE, APPROXIMATELY 11.2 ACRES OUT IN FRONT THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SELL. NOW AS PART OF THAT SALE, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND ITSELF, IT THERE'S SOME DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES WITH THEIR EXISTING FIELD AND THEIR THEIR BUILDING STRUCTURE. BUT IN TURN, FOR US ACQUIRING THAT 11.2 ACRES, THEY'RE REQUESTING PAYMENT OF $1 MILLION CASH THAT THE CITY WOULD INSTALL, TWO FULL SIZE SOCCER TURF FIELDS. YOU HAVE THE NEXT EXHIBIT AFTER THAT. INSTALL FIELD LIGHTING, FENCING, THE STORAGE AND BATHROOMS, REGRADE DIAMONDS ONE AND TWO AND EXTEND EXISTING PARKING LOT ON THE EAST 100 SPACES. NOW, WE DID A PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE IN TERMS OF THE COST OF THAT, AND WE ESTIMATE THAT BETWEEN 6 AND $9 MILLION. AND OF COURSE, THAT ACQUISITION WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM THE MONEY WE HAVE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER ITSELF. SO JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT UPDATE AND WONDER IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT. MR. YES. 6 TO 9 MILLION INCLUDES THE 1 MILLION CASH OR I BELIEVE SO, YES. AND AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T WENT THROUGH ANY ENGINEERING ESTIMATES FIRMS. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S THAT'S I THINK A PRETTY GOOD BALLPARK ESTIMATE. SO AGAIN, WHAT WOULD MURFIN STAY THERE AND OPERATE SOME OF THE SOCCER FIELDS. IS THAT CORRECT. THEY WOULD STILL OPERATE ALL THE ALL THE FIELDS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE TWO THEY WANT IN THE BACK LABELED BOTH OF THEM.
NUMBER ONE. THAT WOULD BE THE TWO TURF FIELDS. AND PLUS I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE MAYBE 4 OR 5 MORE SOCCER FIELDS, SOME OF THEM FOR YOUNGER CHILDREN, SOME OF THEM FOR REGULATION,
[00:05:04]
BUT THEY WOULD STILL OPERATE THERE. AND AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT IF YOU LOOK AT THAT EXHIBIT, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE WOULD HAVE DEVELOPING AROUND THEIR BUILDING INGRESS EGRESS TO THE PROPERTY. BUT AGAIN, UNTIL YOU GO INTO DESIGN, YOU'RE YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW. SO AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS ABOUT 50 ACRES IN TOTAL, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S ABOUT WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT PAST WORK SESSIONS. SO 50 ACRES. SO THEY'RE KEEPING TEN OF IT. AND THEY WELL MOST OF IT BUT TEN OF IT. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE CITY TO PAY FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN THE BACK. CORRECT. AND THEN THAT BE THE FRONT 11 ACRES. AND FOR THE 11 ACRES, THEY'VE PROPOSED $1 MILLION FOR THAT LAND ACQUISITION COST PLUS PLUS THE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ITEMS IN THE EAST SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY, PLUS SOMEWHERE AROUND 6 TO 9 MILLION FOR THE BACK. YES, YES TEN. SO WE'RE PAYING AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THIS? WE'RE GETTING 11 ACRES. THAT IS CORRECT. UNDER THIS, UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, GETTING 11 ACRES FOR 6.9 MILLION. THAT'S CORRECT IN ESSENCE. OKAY. MOVING ON. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND WITH THAT LAND ACQUISITION COST, I MEAN, IF WE THINK OF THAT AS THAT, YES, THAT'S THE LAND ACQUISITION COST. WE REALLY ONLY GET 11 ACRES. WE KNOW THAT 6 TO 9 IS TO REDEVELOP. THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE OBVIOUSLY SITE. WHEN CINDY WALKED THROUGH THE PRESENTATION LAST WEEK, SHE DEFINITELY ARTICULATED POTENTIAL OF KIND OF LIKE SITE COSTS IN ADDITION TO THAT. SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT. THERE WAS WE DID HAVE CALLS FOR THE A NEW TURN LANE INTERSECTION ON HAHN ROAD, AS WELL AS A IMPROVEMENTS TO THE THERE'S A LIFT SANITARY LIFT STATION ON ANNABELLE THAT HAVE TO BE UPGRADED. AND CINDY HERE, DO YOU REMEMBER THOSE THOSE THAT COST. LET'S SAY 1.5 MILLION. YEAH. THE PRESENTATION TWO WEEKS AGO, WE SHARED THE $500,000. CINDY, IS THAT ON? I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU. SO FOR SITE ACCESS, WE WERE ESTIMATING $500,000 TO SIGNALIZE AN ENTRANCE INTO THE SITE AND THEN 700,000 TO 1 MILLION FOR UPGRADING THE LIFT STATION SO THAT THOSE COSTS WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE 6 TO 9 MILLION TO MAKE THE SITE VIABLE. SO LIKE 1 MILLION TO 2 FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE IN-GROUND INFRASTRUCTURE. AND IF WE AT ALL THOUGHT THAT ANOTHER ENTRANCE NEEDED WITH TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY AS THESE TOURNAMENT FIELDS AND THAT ONE ENTRANCE GETS BUSY, WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER INGRESS EGRESS, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL COST THAT WOULD BE DESIGNED WITH YOUR BUILDING FOR YOUR STANDARD PARKING LOT. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE PARKING AND ACCESS THAT WOULD ALL BE IN OUR BUILDING COST. SO I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ADD IT TO IT. BUT YEAH, I'D CERTAINLY THINK THAT IF WE WERE TO ENTERTAIN THE SITE, WE WOULD CONTEMPLATE A SECOND ENTRANCE TO THE SITE TO FOR BETTER ACCESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT. I MEAN, THIS IS 11 ACRES. I MEAN, IF WE WERE LOOKING FOR A LOT MORE LAND IN THE VERY BEGINNING. SO, I MEAN, IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR 11 ACRE PARCELS, THEN WE COULD OPEN UP A WHOLE NOTHER GAMUT OF PROPERTIES. BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR MORE THAN THAT. SO I THINK THIS AUTOMATICALLY DISCOUNTS THIS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO HELP TRY AND LEVEL SET FOR EVERYBODY. JUST A REMINDER AGAIN, WE WERE REALLY LOOKING AT I BELIEVE IT WAS A MINIMUM OF 15 ACRES THROUGH THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE, I THINK. HENCE HANDSWORTH PARK MIGHT HAVE BEEN JUST A LITTLE LESS. I THINK IT EVEN MET THE 15 POINT FOR THAT.OKAY, SO 15 BEING THE MINIMUM THAT THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE WAS TRYING TO EVALUATE. AND AGAIN, THAT'S THE CENTER ONLY, NOT TOURNAMENT FIELDS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE CERTAINLY HAVE STARTED TO GET TO AT THIS POINT. BUT 11 ACRES DEFINITELY COMES DOWN A LOT LESS FROM THAT INITIAL. YEAH. AND I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT DOESN'T LEAVE FOR IF WE DECIDE TO START WITH A SMALLER I MEAN, WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH ALL THESE SITES, WE WERE LIKE, IF NO MONEY'S NO OBJECT, WE KNOW, WHAT WOULD WE WANT? HOW BIG WOULD THE CENTER BE? OBVIOUSLY, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE PROBABLY WILL BE SCALING BACK FOR MULTIPLE FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT THIS WOULD LEAVE NO ROOM FOR FUTURE EXPANSION AS WELL. SO I'M I'M NEW ON THE COUNCIL, BUT IN REVIEWING THE OTHER LOCATION, I THINK THIS IS A DISTANT THIRD OR EVEN FURTHER. OR JUST BRING IT TO THE. AND THEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR FURTHERING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH MURFIN, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN PART OF THE EXERCISE AND THE ONGOING WORK EVEN THAT THE PARK BOARD HAS TALKED ABOUT. SO REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THAT CONVERSATION WAS ABLE TO GET SO FAR TO THIS POINT WITH
[00:10:01]
PROPOSALS. THANK YOU. YES, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH. FROM THE ADMINISTRATION STANDPOINT, WE HAVE NOW RULED THIS OUT AS A NON ELIGIBLE SITE. SO ADMINISTRATION HAS HAS TAKEN THAT POSITION. THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT MURFIN OKAY. WE ALL AGREE THAT THAT'S NOT A POSSIBILITY. YEAH. JODY. YEAH I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT SITE ELLEN.IT FALLS BEHIND SEVERAL OTHERS. YEAH. RANDY. GEORGE YEAH, IT'S BEHIND ALL THE OTHERS. SO THREE OUT OF THE FIVE PRESENTED SITES ARE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE. OKAY, THAT ONE'S GONE. OKAY. DO WE WANT TO MOVE ON TO THEN THE FINANCE. SURE. I THINK YOU HAVE AN EXHIBIT IN FRONT OF YOU THAT WE ENGAGE THE FIRM OF BAKER TILLY TO LOOK AT. THE QUESTION WE ASKED THEM IS HOW MUCH OF HOW MUCH CAN WE AFFORD STRUCTURE OR CENTER TO BE WITH JUST FUNDING STRICTLY FROM THE PINNACLE TIFF. AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS HERE, BUT BASICALLY WHAT WHAT THIS CONCLUDES IS THAT THE CITY OF GROVE CITY, THROUGH THE TIF REVENUE THAT LASTS APPROXIMATELY 22 YEARS, CAN BORROW APPROXIMATELY 71, $71.5 MILLION. AND THAT'S WITH THE CITY ALSO PUTTING IN $6 MILLION UP FRONT FROM THE PINNACLE. AND WE WOULD START OUR DEBT SERVICE IN THE YEAR 2029. AND WHEN WE GO TO WHEN WE GO TO THE MARKET TO FOR INSTITUTIONS THAT WE BORROW FROM, THEY DON'T GIVE US A SET AMOUNT LIKE YOU DO WITH YOUR HOME. YOU GET A 30 YEAR MORTGAGE AT 4.5%. WHAT THEY DO IS TAKE THAT 50 MILLION, 60 MILLION, 70 MILLION, AND THEY PUT AN INTEREST RATE IN THE FIRST YEAR CLEAR DOWN TO THE 50TH YEAR. AND OF COURSE, AS, AS THEY PROJECT ON IN THE IN THE 30TH YEAR, THE 25TH YEAR, THOSE RATES BECOME HIGHER BECAUSE THE UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT'S GOING ON. SO THE THE FIRST YEARS ARE LOWER, BUT THE AVERAGE RATE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IF WE WENT TODAY FOR THE AVERAGE RATE WOULD BE 3.79%.
FOR THE AVERAGE RATE FOR THAT 22 YEAR PERIOD. SO AGAIN, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE $7,172 MILLION AND WE ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COST AT $550 A SQUARE FOOT, WE ESTIMATE THAT WE CAN BUILD WE CAN A PROJECT OF 130,000FT■!S. REFRESH MY MEMORY. WHAT'S THE CURRENT SIZE THAT WE WE DID HAVE TWO, TWO FIRMS. LOOK AT IT. OF COURSE. OUR INITIAL ONE WAS WITH PROS. THEY ESTIMATED RIGHT AROUND 130,000. AND THEN WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT A YEAR LATER, THEY SAID WITH ALL THE THE WISHES THAT YOU THAT PEOPLE WANT, IT WENT UP TO 188,000FT■!.
AND IF I MIGHT, JUST BY COMPARISON, AS YOU KNOW, THAT THE CITY OF HILLIARD JUST OPENED THEIR WELL, THEIR FACILITY IS 111,000FT■!S AND 25,000FT■!S OF THAT IS LEASED TO THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY. SO THEIR ACTUAL ACTIVITY PART OF THE CENTER IS 86,000FT■!S, AND THEIR SQUARE FOOT CONSTRUCTION COST WAS $585 A SQUARE FOOT. IN COMPARISON, UPPER ARLINGTON BUILT 165,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY. OHIO STATE LEASES 33,000FT■!S, WHICH GIVES THEM 132FT■!S FOR THEIR ACTUAL RECREATION CENTER, AND THEIR COST WAS $513 A SQUARE FOOT.
AND THEY BUILT UP. THEY BUILT UP. THAT'S CORRECT, MR. MAYOR. SO DOES THIS INCLUDE DOES THIS INCLUDE ANY FIELDS OR ANYTHING? THIS IS SIMPLY THE STRUCTURE. STRUCTURE? THAT'S CORRECT. YOU KNOW, THE PARKING AROUND IT. BUT NO, THERE'S NO BALL FIELDS OR ANYTHING. HILLIARD'S TOTAL COST FOR THEIR WHOLE COMPLEX, WHICH IS I THINK MAYBE 100 ACRES WAS, I'M GOING TO SAY $120 MILLION. AND THAT INCLUDES ROADWAYS, I THINK THREE ROUNDABOUTS. I FORGET HOW MANY FIELDS, BUT THEIR TOTAL PROJECT COST WAS 120 MILLION. SO YOU'RE SAYING WE HAVE 71 MILLION FROM THE FROM THE PINNACLE TIFF ITSELF THAT THAT YOU CAN THAT WE CAN FINANCE AND THAT WOULD BUILD 130,000. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT THAT IS NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPERATING COSTS. IS THAT CORRECT? NO. AGAIN, UNDER THE FANCEIN COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, WAS THAT
[00:15:03]
OPERATING COSTS WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $5 MILLION A YEAR IN THE FIRST, I THINK THREE YEARS AT LEAST IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS, THERE WOULD BE A SUBSIDY AND THAT WOULD BE FINANCED THROUGH AN ADDITION OF A HALF PERCENT INCOME TAX, WHICH WOULD BRING IN APPROXIMATELY $11 MILLION A YEAR. THE SUBSIDY WOULD BE $1,250,000 A YEAR OUT OF THAT.AND THEN THE REST OF THAT WOULD BE FOR CITY SERVICES. IT WOULD GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND FOR APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL. WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH IT. IT COULD YOU YOU COULD USE IT FOR ADDITIONAL BONDING, INCOME TAX, DEBT SERVICE, OF COURSE, ANY OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. AND, YOU KNOW, PRICES ARE GOING UP. YOU KNOW, CAN YOU HELP US? CAN YOU CAN WE EXPAND ON THAT FOR A SECOND? AN INCOME TAX INCREASE OF A HALF PERCENT? AGAIN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. YOU SAID 5 MILLION OF THAT WOULD BE USED TO OPERATE OR THE SUBSIDIZED PART SUBSIDIZED PART OF THE 11 MILLION WOULD BE ABOUT 1,250,000. THAT'S A THAT'S AFTER SOMETHING OPERATING. YES. OKAY. SO THAT IS THE PIECE THAT COMES OUT OF THAT INCOME TAX INCREASE. BUT AS MISS BURROWS JUST MENTIONED, THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REST. SO I JUST WANT TO KIND OF ALLOW THE CONVERSATION AROUND THE INCOME TAX INCREASE IS NOT SOLELY TO FUND THE COMMUNITY CENTER OR THE OPERATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER, AND THERE WOULD BE A PORTION THAT WOULD GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND FOR ADDITIONAL THINGS WITHIN OUR CITY AND WHATEVER OUR GENERAL FUND IS USED FOR, WHAT IS THAT OFFSET? WHAT IS THAT DIFFERENCE? IF WE AND I BELIEVE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT THROUGH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER, HOW MUCH WOULD COME IN POTENTIALLY FROM THAT HALF A MILLION, EXCUSE ME, HALF PERCENT INCOME INCREASE, HALF PERCENT WOULD GENERATE $11 MILLION. 11 MILLION, A LITTLE OVER 11 MILLION. YES. A YEAR, 11 MILLION. AND WE WOULD ONLY NEED TO UTILIZE 1 MILLION UNDER THE PRO FORMA THAT THAT WAS DONE. YES. OKAY. SO SO, CHUCK, WHAT DOES THIS DO IF WE BORROW THIS WHAT DOES THIS DO TO OUR BOND RATING. IS THAT GOING TO IS IT GOING TO LOWER OUR BOND RATING. I MEAN IS IT WE HAVE A BOND RATING THAT WE MIGHT DOUBLE A, BUT DOUBLE A, DOUBLE A ONE? I MEAN, DOES THAT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OUR INDEBTEDNESS? CERTAINLY. I JUST WONDERED IF OKAY, IT'S IT'S NO IMPACT KEEPS US A LEVEL. AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S A REVENUE BOND. RIGHT. RIGHT. WE HAVE THE OFFSETTING REVENUE TO PAY THE BOND. THERE COULD BE YOU YOU COULD BACK IT BY A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND WHICH WHICH ARE NORMALLY LOWER INTEREST RATES THAN A A REVENUE BOND ISSUE.
HOW MUCH, MIKE, WOULD YOU SAY 25% POINT DIFFERENCE. NO, THE DIFFERENCE IS IS MAYBE FIVE BASIS POINTS. SO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION IS THIS WOULD THIS AFFECT OUR DEBT RATING? IT WOULD NOT. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT IF WE GET AN INCOME TAX INCREASE OF 2.5%, THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE OUR REVENUE PORTION OR OF OUR DEBT PORTFOLIO. SO WE MAY EVEN BE ABLE TO GO TO TRIPLE A, BUT. DOUBLE A ONE IS A VERY GOOD CREDIT RATING. IT'S ONE OF ONE OF THE HIGHER ONES IN OHIO, AND IT WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS ISSUE. IF I COULD, MADAM CHAIR.
YES, PLEASE. MIKE, TODAY, UNDER OUR FORMULA FOR BORROWING, WE COULD BORROW WHAT, 70 MILLION? NO, 50, 50 MILLION. I THINK WE WE CALCULATED AT 60 MILLION. IT'S ON YOUR ON YOUR SLIDE. BUT IT'S REALLY A FUNCTION OF HOW MANY MILLS WE NEED TO USE TO PAY OUR HIGHEST YEAR OF DEBT SERVICE. AND THEN YOU BACK OUT, WE CAN LEVY UP TO FOUR MILLS. YOU BACK OUT. I THINK WE HAVE TWO AND A HALF MILLS LEFT. AND ASSUMING A 30 YEAR, 30 YEARS AT 5%, WE COULD BORROW 60 MILLION MORE AND STILL STAY WITHIN THAT 4%. BUT WHAT THAT TELLS US IS, IS WHAT WE CAN BORROW JUST USING THE 4% CHARTER MILLAGE. WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE IS TO PLEDGE OUR INCOME TAX REVENUE, AND THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT OUR CHARTER MILLAGE. SO WHEN YOU PLEDGE THE REVENUES, IT'S THE BONDHOLDERS, IT'S THEIR SECURITY TO FOR LENDING US MONEY. WELL, I'M SORRY, MADAM CHAIR. THE REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION IS I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT THIS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF BORROWING, THAT BEING THROUGH THE TIF REVENUE, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION, WHICH IS AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST OUR GENERAL FUND AS ANOTHER BORROWING
[00:20:05]
AVENUE. CORRECT. IF WE IF WE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS TO PLEDGE OUR INCOME TAX REVENUE, AND WE WOULD STILL HAVE AN IF REVENUE REVENUE. NO. WE'RE WHAT WE PLEDGE. WHAT WE TELL THE BONDHOLDERS IS WE'RE GOING TO PAY THIS WITH INCOME TAX. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PLEDGING. THAT'S OUR COLLATERAL THAT. BUT WE WILL STILL THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO USE INCOME TAX REVENUE TO ACTUALLY PAY IT. WE WILL. THE PLAN IS TO USE THE PINNACLE REVENUE TO PAY IT. IT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE HERE, BUT THAT REALLY DOES LEAD INTO WHAT THE MAYOR IS SAYING. WHEN THIS IS FINISHED, WE STILL WILL RETAIN OUR $60 MILLION DEBT LIMIT. AND THAT IS WHEN WE PLEDGE REAL ESTATE TAXES. IT'S JUST LIKE IF YOUR HOUSE I MEAN, IF YOU DEFAULT ON IT, THEN IT'S REALLY GOING TO COME OUT OF YOU THE INCOME TAX MONEY ANYWAYS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE PLEDGING, THAT YOU'RE WE'RE GOING TO BE LEGALLY FORCED TO USE OUR INCOME TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR THIS DEBT FIRST. AND IF WE DID A GENERAL OBLIGATION ISSUE, WE WOULD BE LEGALLY FORCED TO USE OUR REAL ESTATE TAXES TO PAY FOR THAT ISSUE FIRST. IT'S LIKE IT'S LIKE DIFFERENT FORMS OF COLLATERAL, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO. AND WE EXPANDED THE YEAH, THE TIF MONEY WOULD BE THERE TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY. THE BONDHOLDERS DON'T REALLY CARE AS LONG AS THEY GET PAID. BUT BUT IF THINGS GO SOUTH THERE, THERE ARE LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR THEM TO GET PAID. AND THEY WE WOULD BE FORCED, LIKE I JUST SAID, TO USE CERTAIN SOURCES TO PAY THAT DEBT FIRST. SO WE HAVE TO ALWAYS STAY UNDER THESE, THESE LIMITS THAT ARE IN, YOU KNOW, THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND OUR CHARTER. SO THE LIMIT THAT WE HAVE THIS 71.5. THAT THAT DOESN'T MATTER AT THIS POINT. RIGHT? WE GOT 71.5, NO MATTER WHERE IT COMES FROM, 71.5 THE THE CHARTER VILLAGE OR DEBT LIMIT, THIS IS A FUND OUT OF THE TIF. THAT'S REALLY NOT A LIMIT. SO IF WE'RE IF WE'RE USING THE INCOME TAX, WE COULD WE COULD BORROW MORE THAN 70. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. WE COULD OUR INCOME TAX. YOU COULD PLEDGE 71.5 FROM THIS AND AND 20 MILLION FROM INCOME TAX IF YOU WANTED TO IF WE NEEDED 100 IF WE NEED WE WE WE HAVE WE COULD BORROW MORE MONEY IF WE NEED IT. BUT I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD DO THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT YOU CAN BLEND THEM IF YOU NEED TO GET HIGHER OR WHATEVER.YES. OR YOU BUILD WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD. YEAH. YES. THAT'S A THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SO YOU CAN AFFORD. SO ARE WE TRYING TO GET MONEY TO BUILD THE 188,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT MUCH MONEY? OR ARE WE SAYING WE'VE GOT THIS MUCH MONEY, THEREFORE WE CAN BUILD TO THIS SIZE? WHAT WHAT WE WHAT WE HAD ANALYZED IS WHAT, BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED TO BUILD THE BUILDING WITH PINNACLE TIF REVENUE, WE WE ANALYZED HOW WHAT IS THIS CASH FLOW COMING FROM THE PINNACLE TIF AND HOW MUCH CAN WE BORROW JUST ON THAT CASH FLOW. AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE COMING UP WITH THIS $66, $70 MILLION. WE CAN BORROW MORE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO USE A SOURCE OTHER THAN THE PINNACLE TIF REVENUE. SO WE WOULD THEN BE DIPPING INTO THE $11 MILLION OF THE INCOME TAX INCREASE. PROPOSED PASSES. YEAH, EXACTLY. EXACTLY. NEEDS TO PASS ONE THING, RANDY, THAT YOU MENTIONED WHEN WHEN YOU WHEN UPPER ARLINGTON WAS SITED THERE, THERE THEY WENT UP INSTEAD OF OUT GOING OUT CHEAPER PROBABLY THAN GOING UP. SO YOU KNOW, TO YOU CAN'T REALLY COMPARE THINGS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT. YOU HAVE TO IF WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO 72 MILLION, WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SEE WHAT WHAT IT GETS US. YEAH. IF WE BUILT A 130, IT WOULD STILL BE DESIGNED IN SUCH THAT IF WE NEED TO EXPAND, IT COULD BE EXPANDED UPON. RIGHT. IF WE PUT IT ON THE RIGHT PROPERTY, IN THE RIGHT LOCATION. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT'S HOW THAT'S HOW THE 15 ACRES CAME. IT IS FOR EXPANSION. BUT ABSOLUTELY, WE'D DESIGN THAT BUILDING FOR FUTURE EXPANSIONS. AND IF WE GOT A CONTRACT WITH. PICK A VENDOR LIKE THE OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE, I'LL JUST USE OSU AS AN EXAMPLE.
I'M NOT SAYING I'M WORKING WITH OSU, BUT IF THEY CAME IN AND WANTED 25,000FT■!S, WOULD WE ADD 25,000FT■!S ONTO THE 130? YES. AND THAT WOULD PAY FOR ITSELF. BASICALLY, WE WOULD HAVE TO
[00:25:03]
FORMULATE THEIR LEASE TO PAY FOR THAT AMOUNT OF DEBT SERVICE. AND AGAIN, SAY UPPER ARLINGTON'S LEASE WITH THE OSU FOR 15 YEARS. SO WHATEVER THAT AMOUNT WAS FOR 15 YEARS, IT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO INCREASE THE PRINCIPAL IN THOSE YEARS. WE'RE NOT TAKING OUT 22 AND 30 YEARS UNLESS THEY WOULD WANT TO SIGN A LEASE FOR 30 YEARS, WHICH IS PROBABLY DOUBTFUL. BUT MY POINT IS IT IT ALLOWS YOU TO GET A BIGGER BUILDING FOR CLOSE TO THE SAME PRICE BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE IS PAYING FOR IT. YES. ARLINGTON'S PHILOSOPHY WAS THAT, HEY, IN 15 YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO EXPAND AND OSU'S LEASE IS GOING TO BE FINISHED. THEY'LL MOVE OUT, WE'LL MOVE INTO THEIR SPACE, AND IT'S PAID FOR. THEY COULD STILL GET TO YOUR SQUARE. YES. I HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE PAY FOR IT. YEAH. OR THEY OR THEY STAY. AND NOW YOU'RE MAKING A PROFIT. YEAH.SO THE. ARE WE OKAY WITH THIS? WE WANT TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PROPERTY, THE OTHER TWO PROPERTIES. DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON THOSE TWO OR WHAT ARE THE PINNACLE AND BRIER? I THINK CINDY AT THE LAST MEETING GAVE THE THE COST IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE. WE KNOW WHAT WE CAN WE CAN FUND. I THINK THE DECISION IS LIKE, SAY, IF YOU'RE GOING INTO DESIGN AND YOU TELL THE ARCHITECTS, HEY, WE'VE GOT $130 MILLION OR 70, $71 MILLION TO SPEND DESIGNING A BUILDING. THEN WE LOOK AT IT AND IF WE THINK WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT, FINE. IF WE SAY, GOSH, WE'D LIKE OTHER SPACE, THEN WE'D HAVE TO ADD TO IT AND WE'D HAVE TO DETERMINE WHERE THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE IS COMING FROM, THE PAY FOR THAT DEBT SERVICE, ADDITIONAL DEBT SERVICE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU TOOK ANOTHER, SAY, $40 MILLION, $30 MILLION INTO THE FACILITY, YOU WOULD NEED APPROXIMATELY ANOTHER $2.5 MILLION FROM THE INCOME TAX FUND TO PAY FOR THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE. JUST THAT'S JUST A BALLPARK JUST TO. WELL, WHEN THEY DESIGNED 130,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY THAT HAD, LIKE ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES AND ALL THE STUFF THAT WE WANTED, RIGHT? YEAH. IT DOESN'T HAVE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT FOR AN EXTERNAL COMPANY, THOUGH. YEAH.
OKAY. AND AGAIN, IF YOU GO TO THE HILLIARD CENTER AND VISIT THAT, LIKE I SAY, IT'S 111,000FT■!S. THEY'RE UTILIZING 86,000 OF THAT. YEAH. WELL IT SEEMS TO BE OPERATING WELL. IS THERE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE IN OUR FACILITY? AND IF IT IS, WHAT DOES THAT COST? LIKE I SAY, IT'S BUDGETING IS CHOICES, RIGHT? I DO WANT TO I DO WANT TO SAY AND I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THE. PIECE THAT THEY PRESENTED LAST AUGUST. AND I THINK THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE HAS CHANGED. AND I'M LOOKING AT THE PARK BOARD AS WELL. AT ONE POINT IT WAS SOMEWHERE OVER 100,000. I THINK IT WAS AROUND 130,000. CERTAINLY TALKED ABOUT, AND I'M TRYING TO SEE IF SO, THEN AT THE FINAL, FINAL PIECE, IT WAS DISCUSSED ABOUT 188,000 SQUARE FOOT, BUT THAT ALSO OBVIOUSLY HAD A LARGE PROJECTED COST. AND I'M TRYING TO SEE IF THAT HAD I DON'T THINK IT INCLUDED EXTRA SPACE FOR PARTNER FOR A HOSPITAL OR SOMETHING. NO, IT DID NOT COMING IN. YEAH. SO I JUST WANT TO AT LEAST STATE THAT. BUT NOT THAT THAT I THINK, RANDY, YOUR QUESTION WAS DOES THE 130,000 GET ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES? I THINK AT ONE POINT WHEN THIS WAS BEING LOOKED AT AND THAT THAT 188 WAS ALSO EVERYTHING OF EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY AND THAT HAS COME OUT THROUGH FEASIBILITY STUDIES. I THINK THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY PIECES FOR EVERYBODY WITHIN THE 100 TO 130,000 SQUARE FOOT SPACE AS WELL. SO, YEAH, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, UNDER THE PROS, THEY HAD A BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY 120,000FT■!S. THAK ZUHDI CAME IN AND UNDER THEIR ESTIMATE, THEY ADDED APPROXIMATELY 68,000FT■!S, WHICH IS BROKEN DOWN BASICALLY ADDITIONAL 14,000FT■!S FOR SENIR CENTER SPACE, 5800FT■!S FOR COMPETITION POOL. THEY HAD COMMUNITY ROOMS THAT ADDITIONAL 2000FT■!S TEACHING AND DEMONSTRATION KITCHEN, 2000FT■!. THEY HAD CONFERENCE AND TRAINING ROOMS, 22,000FT■!S BUILDING GROSSING FACTOR OF 15%. AND THAT WAS FOR AREAS, HALLWAYS AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE
[00:30:07]
THAT WASN'T WERE NOT INCLUDED IN PROSE WAS EVERYTHING FROM FURNACE ROOMS TO TO JANITOR'S OFFICE. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A COMPARISON. YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THAT AGAIN. IT WAS 120,000 FROM PROSE, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. THANK YOU FOR HELPING GROUND THAT OUT. SO MY SUGGESTION IS. WELL, WE HAVE TWO THINGS TO DECIDE ON SIZE AND LOCATION. SO WE SHOULD DECIDE ON LOCATION. THAT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SIZE I THINK WE SHOULD BUILD WHAT WE CAN AFFORD. AND WE'VE SEEN THAT AT 130,000. AND THEN THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS, WE MIGHT HAVE TO MAKE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS ON WHAT GOES AND WHAT STAYS. BUT ALWAYS KEEP IN MIND THAT WE CAN EXPAND IN 5 OR 10 YEARS BASED ON DEMAND AND CHANGES IN COMMUNITY SENTIMENT ON. DO WE REALLY NEED THIS EXTRA POOL OR WHATEVER THE NEW SPORT IS? AND THAT GETS US IN WITH A FINANCIAL PLAN THAT FITS. SO I RECOMMEND INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESIGN EVERYTHING AND THEN TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW MUCH WE CAN AFFORD, WE'VE NOW FOUND OUT HOW MUCH WE CAN AFFORD. SO LET'S DECIDE ON THE SIZE AND THEN WORK THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS, WHICH WE KNOW COSTS US 6 TO $8 MILLION. AND WE GOT TO GET STARTED. AND THEN COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WITH COMMUNITY INPUT WHAT WE TAKE OUT, WHAT WE DON'T TAKE OUT. SO THERE'S ONE THING, RANDY, THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS, AND THAT'S ANY OF THE BALL FIELDS AND THE AND THE AND THE, THE OTHER, THE COMPETITIVE STUFF THAT WE THAT WE LOOKED AT AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION. SO KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT 130,000FT■!S, DO WE PUT THAT ALL UNDER ROOF OR DO WE ALSO LOOK AT OTHER. OKAY. SO THAT'S OPTION B. OPTION B TO ME WOULD BUILD 100,000 SQUARE FOOT AND SEE WHAT WE CAN AFFORD, YOU KNOW, SEE WHAT WE CAN GET IN THERE. AND THEN THAT LEAVES US AT LEAST MONEY ON THE TIF TO DO ALTERNATE THINGS. AND SOME CANDIDATES FOR THOSE ALTERNATE THINGS IN MY MIND ARE OTHER FIELDS OR POTENTIALLY ANOTHER LOCATION IN THE CITY THAT HASN'T HAD MUCH DEVELOPMENT IN A LONG TIME, LIKE BROOK PARK, AND PUTTING A SMALL FACILITY THERE OUT OF THIS SAME MONEY, INSTEAD OF BUILDING ONE MASSIVE PLACE HERE, WE BUILD A NICE PLACE HERE THAT CAN EXPAND. AND THEN IN SHORT TERM, WE MAKE A COMMITMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING OVER HERE AS WELL. FOR THE OTHER HALF OF GROVE CITY. AND I THINK THAT WILL HELP THE PALATABILITY OF THE INCOME TAX INCREASE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK A POINT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, THOUGH, WHEN YOU DO THOSE SEPARATE FACILITIES, YOU'RE GOING TO MOST LIKELY BE INCREASING OPERATION COSTS, CORRECT? THE OTHER, YOU HAVE LESS MONEY FOR PERHAPS FOR, FOR THE CAPITAL SIDE. YEAH. AND BUT THE INCOME TAX PRODUCES 11. AND RIGHT NOW WE ONLY NEED ONE FOR THE OPERATIONAL SIDE. SO IF WE NEEDED ANOTHER 300,000 FOR OPERATIONAL, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S PLENTY IN THE INCOME TAX TO PAY FOR THAT. FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, FROM A CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND, IT'S ALWAYS BEST TO BUILD THE MAXIMUM YOU CAN TO START OUT WITH RATHER THAN ADDING ON AT A LATER DATE, AND AND A NUMBER OF THE OTHER FACILITIES AROUND THE STATE. THEY'VE GOT THESE FACILITIES TO OHIO HEALTH AND OHIO STATE, ETCETERA, WHICH I THINK WOULD GREATLY IMPACT THE SIZE OF THAT IF WE KNEW WHAT REVENUE STREAM WOULD COME FROM THOSE TENANTS. SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE A CHICKEN OR THE EGG. IT IS. YES. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE HAD ANY DISCUSSION WITH THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS REAL INTEREST IN DOING THAT. THAT WOULD HELP OFFSET THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOKED AT THAT, THEN WE COULD GROW INTO THE FACILITY WITH SHORTER TERM LEASES LIKE UPPER ARLINGTON DID IN MY IN MY VIEW, THAT THAT MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS A COMMENT ON THAT. I JUST WANT TO[00:35:03]
THROW THIS OUT. ORIGINALLY WE WERE LOOKING AT A COMPETITIVE SPORTS FACILITY. YOU KNOW, THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY GENERATE SOME INCOME OFF OF. AND I KNOW THE MAYOR'S LOOKED AT LAND THERE. I MEAN, IT'S AGAIN CHICKEN OR THE EGG. DO YOU INVEST IN THAT COMPETITIVE SPORTS FACILITY FIRST? SO THERE'S MONEY COMING IN TO THE COMING IN AND THEN LOOK TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOUR IDEA IS AND DROP IN CENTER SOMEPLACE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THESE ARE ALL DISCUSSIONS.WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH A I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ARLINGTON MODEL THEY'RE ANTICIPATING IN TERMS OF LEASE, ABOUT $1 MILLION A YEAR FOR THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT THEY ALSO FACTORED IN INCOME TAX REVENUE FROM THE PHYSICIANS AND EVERYBODY WORKING THERE AT APPROXIMATELY $175,000 A YEAR. NOW, WHEN WE GO OUT, WE'VE HAD, I WON'T SAY A DISCUSSION, HAD INQUIRIES FROM HEALTH PROVIDERS. AND UNTIL WE ADVERTISE THAT, WE'VE GOT TO BE SENSITIVE, CERTAINLY TO THE EXISTING HEALTH CARE INDIVIDUALS AT MOUNT CARMEL, OHIO HEALTH AND AGAIN, OHIO STATE DOES HAVE A PRESENCE AT THE AT THE Y RIGHT NOW. SO LIKE YOU SAY, ALL THOSE WOULD COME INTO FACTOR AFTER YOU. YOU WOULD ADVERTISE HOW MUCH SPACE YOU NEED, YOU KNOW, GO GET IN THAT NEGOTIATION THEN THAT THAT TAKES SOME TIME. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THAT IS A PIECE THAT THEY COULD CERTAINLY DO. WE KNOW THE CITY CAN DO THOSE NEGOTIATIONS AS WELL. BUT THAT IS A PIECE THROUGH THEIR CONSULTING THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT THROUGH THE DESIGN PHASE.
THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE THE ONE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS. THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS IT'S NOT JUST HEALTH CARE THAT COULD COLLABORATE HERE. THERE'S OTHER ENTITIES THAT COULD COLLABORATE WITH WITH THE CITY ON DIFFERENT THINGS, LIKE THERE'S DIFFERENT SPORTS COMPANIES THAT, YOU KNOW, CHILLERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT MAY WANT THEY THAT MAY WANT FACILITIES THAT WOULD DO THE SAME THING THAT WOULD ADD TO OUR, TO OUR BASE. SO, I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OUT THERE TO COLLABORATE WITH AS WELL. COLLABORATOR. MAYBE SOMEBODY JUST WANTS TO PUT THEIR NAME ON THE BUILDING TO COVER THE 1.5 YEAR THEY HAVE TO BE, NOT THEY HAVE TO BE NOT FOR PROFIT. RIGHT? YEAH, THEY HAVE TO BE NONPROFIT TO DO IT. SO A COUPLE THINGS. THE, THE FINANCING CHANGES. YEAH. SO THE, THE THE TAX INCREASE, THE MORE WE TALK ABOUT IT, THE MORE I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A HARD SELL. I MEAN, WE JUST SAID THAT WE NEED 1.5 AND IT'S GOING TO GENERATE 11. SO YOU KNOW JUST IN CASE WE GOT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A BUFFER. I WISH I COULD DO THAT WITH MY JOB. JUST BUILD IN A BUFFER. RIGHT. SO I THAT THAT YEAH I I'M NOT I'M NOT I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW IF THAT PASS TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST. SO I THINK WE NEED TO COME UP WITH CONTINGENCY PLANS ON WHAT IF THE INCOME TAX DOESN'T PASS. AND IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A WAY TO TO DO IT WITHOUT THAT, THEN WHY EVEN PUT IT ON THE BALLOT? THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO IS WHAT ABOUT THOSE THREE YEARS WHEN THE DOORS FIRST OPEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE FULLY OPERATIONAL AND GETTING THAT 75% RECOVERY AND ONLY NEEDING THE 1.5, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO NEED? DAY ONE WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM? AND WE MIGHT NEED THE WHOLE FIVE DAY ONE THE FIRST YEAR, YOU KNOW, WHERE WHERE IS THAT COMING FROM. AND AGAIN, I, I DON'T LIKE JUST SAYING THAT'S YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING 11 MILLION IN THE TAXES. WE'LL JUST USE IT FOR THAT. BECAUSE I HAD HAD A COUPLE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT DOING THE TAX INCREASE AND SAYING NO, IT'S DEDICATED TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER. AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT IS NOT THE CASE. SO THE THOSE ARE ONE ONE AND TWO. A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT HAVE COME UP IN THE LAST MEETING. AND I ACTUALLY MADE SOME NOTES JUST TO MAKE SURE I GOT IT RIGHT. THERE WAS A QUESTION OF DO TIF FUNDS PROHIBIT ANY TYPE OF A PARTNERSHIP? AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS ACTUALLY NO, IT DOES NOT. USING TIF FUNDS DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANY PARTNERSHIPS WITH ANOTHER ORGANIZATION. THERE'S THERE'S TWO POINTS OF THIS. AND STEVEN, PLEASE KEEP ME HONEST ON THESE TWO POINTS. SO THE TIF FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE HAVE TO BE OWNED BY THE PUBLIC ENTITY. SO ESSENTIALLY THAT WOULD BE BUILDING THE BUILDING. WE OWN THE BUILDING AS THE CITY, AS THE CITY. THE CITY OWNS THE BUILDING OWNED BY A PUBLIC ENTITY, A PUBLIC ENTITY. MOST LIKELY IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE IT WOULD BE THE PUBLIC ENTITY. RIGHT. BUT TIF FUNDS CANNOT BE USED FOR ONGOING OPERATIONAL. THAT'S CORRECT. AND IN NO SITUATION, WHETHER IT'S THE REC CENTER OR ANY OTHER PROJECT WE DO, TIF IS JUST USED FOR IMPROVEMENTS. BRICKS AND MORTAR OPERATIONAL IS HAS TO BE PAID FOR THROUGH A DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCE. IT YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET A LITTLE CREATIVE IN TERMS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. WE USED TO BE ABLE TO GET REAL CREATIVE WITH IT AND THE LAW CHANGED. WE CAN'T ANYMORE. SO IT HAS TO BE OWNED BY US. BUT OPERATION COULD NEVER BE PAID FOR WITH TIF FUNDS EVER. OKAY, CAN I HELP
[00:40:03]
CLARIFY THAT THOUGH? BECAUSE THE LAST COUNCIL DID VOTE ON THAT TIF EXTENSION AND WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WANTING TO PUT IN A QUALIFIER ABOUT IT BEING OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE CITY, AND WE WERE ASSURED WE DIDN'T NEED TO PUT IN THE OPERATED QUALIFIER THAT WHILE THE TIF IS CAN'T PAY FOR OR PAY FOR THE FUNDING OF OPERATIONS, IT STILL NEEDS TO BE A CITY ENTITY THAT IS OWNED AND OPERATED. IT CAN'T BE OPERATED BY ANOTHER VEHICLE UTILIZING A BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT WITH TIF FUNDS. THAT WAS WHAT WAS SOLD TO US. YEAH, WE DIDN'T PUT IT IN THERE BECAUSE THAT'S WELL, WE DIDN'T PUT IT IN THERE BECAUSE OPERATION ISN'T COVERED UNDER THE TIF AND IT NEVER CAN BE, WHICH IS WHY WE DIDN'T PUT IT IN THERE. BUT THE OUTPUT OF WHAT THE FUNDS BUILD, THE OUTPUT, THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE BRICK AND MORTAR THAT CAN BE BUILT WITH THE TIF FUNDS, THE OUTPUT STILL NEEDS TO BE CITY OWNED AND OPERATED, BUT CITY OWNED? YES. CITY OPERATED, YES. BUT THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE WE CONTRACT WITH OTHER PEOPLE. THERE'S NOT PROHIBITIONS ABOUT WE COULD CONTRACT WITH SOMEONE TO RUN IT FOR US IF WE CHOSE TO. WE CAN CONTRACT WITH OHIO STATE TO HAVE CORRECT FEE. YEAH. I MEAN, THERE IT ISN'T. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY NO IN TERMS OF OPERATION, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE PEOPLE TO RUN IT. WE COULD HIRE, YOU KNOW, LIKE FOR BIG SPLASH. WE'VE HIRED A FIRM TO DO THAT AT ONE POINT IN TIME. SO THAT CAN STILL BE DONE, BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE CITY OWNED, PERIOD.THE LAND, THE BUILDING PERIOD. WE DEFINITELY HAD CONVERSATION THAT WE WOULD OWN AND OPERATE THIS BUILDING, AND WE VOTED ON TIF LEGISLATION AND THE PRECIPICE TO TAKE THAT MONEY AWAY FROM THE TOWNSHIP, TO BRING AN AMENITY TO GROVE CITY, THAT THIS WOULD BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE CITY. SO I, I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT CLARIFYING PIECE AND HELP INNOVATE AROUND THE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED IN 2020. THAT'S NOT BY LAW, BUT IN A, IN A FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO, THAT'S FINE. I'M JUST TELLING YOU GENERAL TIF GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN OR CAN'T DO. IF THIS COUNCIL WISHES TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN TERMS OF HOW THAT'S YOUR RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY.
AND I THINK BIG SPLASH IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. ABSOLUTELY. THERE WAS A FIRM THAT WAS BROUGHT IN AND OPERATED BIG SPLASH, AND IT WAS DETERMINED. I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN. THE ADMINISTRATION CAN CERTAINLY CLARIFY THIS, BUT WITH OUR NEW PARKS DIRECTOR, JACK CASSELL, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CITY WOULD OPERATE BROOK PARK. THE CITY WOULD HIRE LIFEGUARDS. YES.
AND THAT IS THAT WE WE DID THAT LAST YEAR. CHANGED OVER. AND AGAIN, WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED FOR BY THE COMMUNITY IS TO FULFILL A CITY OWNED AND OPERATED COMMUNITY CENTER. SO I, I THINK THE IDEA OF A PARTNERSHIP OF A HOSPITAL OR THE CHILLER OR THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT COMES AND TAKES UP A DIFFERENT SPACE IS ONE THING VERSUS AND I THINK MR. HOLT TALKED ABOUT THIS AS WELL, THE GROVE CITY EXPERIENCE. AND, AND WHEN YOU WALK IN AND WHO IS DETERMINING MEMBERSHIPS AND WHO IS HIRING THE STAFF AND WHO IS NAVIGATING THE DAY TO DAY. SO, SO WHILE IT MAY NOT BE IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT WAS A BIG PART OF THE CONVERSATION IN 2025. WE CAN PUT IT IN THERE. WE CAN AMEND OUR ORDINANCE TO SAY CITY OWNED AND OPERATED, EXCEPT OTHERWISE BY CONTRACTED VENDORS OR SOMETHING FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT'S INTERESTING. YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE THAT BECAUSE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, SEE, WAS IT 2512 OR 1225, THE ONE THAT ESTABLISHED THE COMMITTEES AND SAID CITY ONLY BACK IN APRIL? RIGHT. I JUST MAY ADD, IN TERMS OF THE OPERATION PASS THE TIFF IF IF I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS IF WE HAD SOMEBODY ELSE OPERATE IT, DO YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE LEGISLATION? ANY OPERATION WOULD MOST LIKELY BE MORE THAN A 12 MONTH PERIOD. ANY CONTRACT THAT WE APPROVE HAS TO ABOVE ONE YEAR HAS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. SO I DOUBT IF SOMEBODY. YEAH. AND YOU KNOW AND AGAIN I'M NOT PUSHING ANY ONE AGENDA OR NOT I WANT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THE RESIDENTS OF GROVE CITY ULTIMATELY IS WHAT I'M IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO. BUT THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIFF, AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT LEGALLY, THAT WE'RE NOT PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH ANY WITH ANYBODY ELSE, IF WE IF WE CHOSE TO, IF WE CHOSE TO DO SO.
BUT THERE THERE IS STILL THE OUTSTANDING QUESTION. AND WE'VE SEEN FEEDBACK AND I'VE GOTTEN MANY CALLS THAT PEOPLE ARE STILL ASKING, WHY AREN'T WE LOOKING AT THE WHY? WHY AREN'T WE LOOKING AT THE WHY? AND AGAIN, I'M NOT PUSHING ONE AGENDA OR ANOTHER, BUT I THINK WE WE NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR, DIRECT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND, AND IT'S AND BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION, PEOPLE START MAKING STUFF UP. RIGHT? SO NOW NOW, NOW I'M GETTING THE QUESTIONS OF WHY ARE YOU GUYS TRYING TO GET RID OF THE WHY? WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO KICK THE WHY OUT OF THE OUT
[00:45:06]
OF GROVE CITY? AND, YOU KNOW, LET'S BE VERY CLEAR, NOBODY IS TRYING TO DO THAT. AT LEAST I'M NOT. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT NOT THE INTENT. YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE THE I THINK THE, THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THERE'S ROOM FOR BOTH IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO OR SOME SORT OF COLLABORATION, IF THAT'S THE WAY WE WANT IT TO GO. WHICH BY THE WAY, I WELL, OKAY, SO THE CITY IS NOT LOOKING TO TO PUT THE Y OUT OF BUSINESS. NUMBER ONE, YOU KNOW, THE Y IS, IS HAS BEEN A COMMUNITY PARTNER FOR AND HAS BEEN GREAT FOR THIS THIS COMMUNITY FOR YEARS, DECADES AT THIS POINT. AND IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER YOU'RE FOR THE Y OR NOT AT THIS POINT. AT THIS POINT, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEFINE IS WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE MODEL OVER THE ENTIRE THING? WHAT'S THE UMBRELLA OF HOW THIS THING IS GOING TO BE OPERATED? AND I AGREE THAT THE UMBRELLA OVER THE OVERALL OVERARCHING GOVERNANCE MODEL HAS TO BE THAT THE CITY'S IN CHARGE, THE CITY IS MAKING THE FINAL DECISIONS ON EVERYTHING ACROSS THE BOARD. YOU KNOW? YES, I THINK THE OWNING OF THE BUILDING, I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT'S IN QUESTION. THAT'S OBVIOUS. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, THE OPERATIONS AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY THAT THAT WE'RE USING, I THINK HAS HAS GOTTEN EITHER DILUTED OR TWISTED OR, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE TAKING IT ONE WAY AND ANOTHER PERSON HAS TAKEN IT ANOTHER WAY, RIGHT? SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OPERATIONS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE DAY TO DAY, THE DAY TO DAY IN THE BUILDING TYPE OF TYPE OF OPERATIONS, THAT COULD BE ANYBODY. BUT LET'S ASSUME JUST FOR THE MOMENT THAT WE AGREED TO, TO, YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO SAY PARTNERSHIP ANYMORE BECAUSE PARTNERSHIP IMPLIES 50 OVER 50, LIKE 5050 OWNERSHIP, 5050 DECISION MAKING.AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT ANYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE THE CITY HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL OF THIS. RANDY, TO SOME OF YOUR POINTS THAT YOU'VE MADE, WHO ARE THEY GOING TO CALL WHEN THINGS ARE GOING BAD? WELL, THEY SHOULD BE CALLING THE CITY. IF IT'S IF IT'S A CITY COMMUNITY CENTER, RIGHT? THE CITY NEEDS TO BE ON THE HOOK, BOTH FROM A TAKING CARE OF THINGS AND FROM THE FROM THE FINANCIAL SIDE SIDE OF THINGS AS WELL. YOU KNOW, THIS IS ABOUT STEWARDSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC, RIGHT? THIS AS FAR AS I KNOW.
AND MAY OR MAYBE YOU CAN CORRECT ME THIS THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE LARGEST INVESTMENTS OF THE CITY'S EVER MADE, RIGHT? YES. I MEAN, NO QUESTION. I MEAN, WHEN WE DID BUCKEYE PARKWAY AND THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG BUCKEYE PARKWAY, THAT WAS A BIG NUMBER. BUT JUST THIS THIS STANDS ON ITS OWN. IT'S THE LARGEST ONE.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO AGAIN, THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH IS WHAT IS THAT OVERARCHING GOVERNANCE MODEL. AND AGAIN I BELIEVE THAT AGAIN, THE CITY OWNS THE PLACE AND THE CITY HAS TO HAVE FULL. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE WORD IS HAS, HAS TO BE THE DECISION MAKER, YOU KNOW, ON THINGS, YOU KNOW, DRIVING PRICING AND, AND AND AGAIN, WHO WHO DO YOU CALL WHEN WHEN THINGS ARE GOING, ARE GOING AWRY. BUT THE REASON WE THAT THE CITY HAS TO DO THAT IS TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS. WE WANT TO MAINTAIN TRANSPARENCY RIGHT FROM A, FROM THE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE CITY AND, AND KEEP THE DECISION MAKING ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF GROVE CITY. THIS IS ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF GROVE CITY. SO AGAIN, I'M I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD PARTNERSHIP ANYMORE BECAUSE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TAKING THAT BE 5050. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COLLABORATIONS. COLLABORATIONS MIGHT BE OSU MIGHT BE A HIGH HEALTH, MIGHT BE THE YMCA MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS, COULD BE COULD BE JUST ABOUT ANYTHING DIFFERENT COLLABORATIONS. AND YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM LINE IS, YOU KNOW, WE ALL WANT A STRONG COMMUNITY CENTER THAT SERVES THE PUBLIC WITHOUT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THOSE THAT ARE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN HERE, THAT ARE ALREADY DOING A GOOD JOB AT THE SAME TIME. RIGHT. SO I FOUND IT INTERESTING. SO CINDY WAS KIND ENOUGH TO TO SEND ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION TO US, WHICH THANK YOU FOR, FOR THAT IT WAS A LITTLE OVERWHELMING. AND TO THE COMMITTEES THAT HAVE THAT GENERATE ALL THAT DATA. WOW. THAT WAS AGAIN, VERY OVERWHELMING, A LOT OF INFORMATION. BUT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, AS I AS I TRIED TO GET THROUGH JUST ABOUT ALL OF IT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND INTERESTING WAS IN THE IN THE FINAL REPORT. AND I PROMISE I'M GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS IN THE FINAL REPORT, AUGUST 25TH ON PAGE FOUR OF THE FINAL REPORT, IT IT SAYS IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE GROVE CITY YMCA SITE ONE WAS HIGHLY RANKED BY THE COMMITTEE AFTER REVIEW OF ALL PARCELS WITH THE TEST FIT LAYOUTS, WITH THE CONDITION THAT CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS WERE MET. THEREFORE, THE COMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDS CONSIDERING THE GROVE CITY YMCA SITE FOR THE REVISED PROGRAM OF A NEW MULTI-GENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER. IF THE CITY DEEMS IT POSSIBLE TO PURSUE THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A COLLABORATION WITH THE Y. BUT ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT THEY DO CALL OUT IS ALL OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMING ARE CITY MANAGED.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT IT WAS NOT THE ONLY REASON FRIAR PARK WAS REASSESSED. THE
[00:50:06]
STIPULATION WAS, IS THAT THE Y WOULD WALK AWAY FROM THEIR LEASE AND NOT EXIST IN GROVE CITY ANYMORE. THAT WAS. DOES THAT SAY THAT ANYWHERE? I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS IN WRITING, BUT THAT IS WORD FOR WORD. THE STIPULATION THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE WHEN THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE FIRST MET AND REVIEWED ALL OF THE SITES, FRIAR PARK DID NOT LAND IN THE TOP SIX. IT DID NOT. WHEN THE SITE COMMITTEE CAME BACK THE NEXT WEEK, OR A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER, WHENEVER IT WAS, THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE WAS ASKED TO REDO FRIAR PARK BASED ON THIS EXACT WORD FOR WORD STIPULATION THAT. WHAT WAS THAT, MISS BURROWS? TWO SITES, TWO SITES. THANK YOU, FRIAR PARK AND BROOK PARK. THANK YOU.BASED ON THE STIPULATIONS FOR BROOK PARK THAT THE SCHOOL DIDN'T EXIST, SAY, SAY WE OWN THE LAND OUTRIGHT. WE OWNED IT ALL. WHAT DOES THAT SITE JUST LOOK AT THE LAND. AND WITH THE Y, IT WAS THE STIPULATION THAT THE Y WOULD NOT OPERATE ANYTHING. THEY WOULD NOT BE THERE ANYMORE. SO I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON AND THAT'S FINE.
I'M JUST I'M NOT SEEING THAT. EEING THAT IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED. THAT IS FAIR. AND I KNOW YOU'RE COMING INTO THIS CONVERSATION AFTER THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S ALSO TO YOUR POINT OF WHAT HAS CONFUSED THE COMMUNITY. RIGHT, EXACTLY. THE MESSAGING HAS BEEN AND I HAVE HORRIBLE I CAN SAY ON THAT. BUT MISS BROWN, YOU WERE STARTING TO I WAS JUST GOING TO ADDITIONALLY COMMENT ON THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE AS WELL. CORRECT. AND THE REASON THAT BROOK PARK GOES UP INTO WHERE IT DID IS BECAUSE WE, NOT BROOK PARK, THAT THE WHY THE FRIAR PARK IS BECAUSE WE OWN THE LAND. BROOK PARK, WHEN WE REEVALUATED, DID NOT RISE UP MUCH BECAUSE WE DON'T OWN THE LAND. THE SCHOOL OWNS IT. SO THERE WERE DEFINITELY CIRCUMSTANCES AND STIPULATIONS AROUND REEVALUATING WHAT THE CRITERIA ON THOSE TWO SITES. OKAY, SO IT WAS NOT REEVALUATED THAT IT WOULD BE ANY TYPE OF PARTNERSHIP, ANY TYPE OF OPERATION, ANY TYPE OF ANYTHING. OKAY. AND I THINK A RECOMMENDATION IS PROBABLY TO START LEAVING FRIAR PARK OUT OF THE SITE SELECTION BECAUSE OF THAT, I THINK, AND EVEN SITTING AS A SITTING MEMBER OF THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE, IT FELT A LITTLE WONKY AND NOT NECESSARILY FAIR FOR IT TO COME BACK THROUGH THE SITE SELECTION CRITERIA PROCESS, BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY RANKED AMONGST ALL OF THESE 52 CRITERIA. I THINK OF THESE FIVE SIX SITES, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PINNACLE PARK HAS SEEMED TO BUBBLE UP TO THE TOP, AND I THINK WE KNOW WE'RE AT A PRECIPICE OF NEEDING TO WORK WITH PEZZUTI TO START GETTING THESE CONCEPTS BUILT, IF WE CAN LOOK AT. AND YOU ALSO ASKED THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE OPERATIONS AND WHERE THIS HAS COME FROM. IT HAS BEEN MULTIPLE YEARS OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS ASKED FOR A CITY OWNED AND CITY OPERATED CITY PRESENCE OF A COMMUNITY CENTER. AND I THINK WE IF WE KIND OF SEPARATE AND KNOW THAT THE Y CAN EXIST AND SERVE AND CONTINUE TO SERVE THE MEMBERS THAT THEY SERVE, JUST LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO CANNIBALIZE THE GYMS THAT BELONG THAT EXIST HERE IN GROVE CITY, OR THE ENTREPRENEURS THAT HAVE OPENED UP FITNESS FACILITIES OR FITNESS PROGRAMING. HERE IN GROVE CITY. WE HAVE 40,000 PEOPLE HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND WE CAN STILL BUILD A COMMUNITY CENTER THAT SERVES SOME OF OUR OUR RESIDENTS. WHILE THE Y STILL OPERATES AND DOES WHAT THEY DO, WE CAN OWN AND OPERATE IT. JUST LIKE WE TOOK OVER BIG SPLASH AND DECIDED TO START OPERATING THAT AS WELL TOO. AND THAT BEING A TRUE GROVE CITY EXPERIENCE. BUT WE DO NEED TO DECIDE ON A SITE. WELL, IT AGAIN, YOU KNOW WHAT WHAT I CONTINUE TO BE I'M GETTING EMAILS. WE'RE GETTING IT THROUGH THE FEEDBACK. YOU KNOW, I'M GETTING PHONE CALLS AND PEOPLE ARE SAYING, WHERE'S THE SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON? THAT WE DECIDED NOT TO EVEN ENTERTAIN WORKING WITH THE Y. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY PARTNERSHIP BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. TALKING ABOUT COLLABORATION. WHAT DOCUMENT IS THAT IN? WHERE'S THE DATA? WE PASSED THE LEGISLATION. TAMMY, YOU COULD MAYBE TELL ME THE NUMBER IN YOUR SPARE TIME. HERE. I HAVE A COPY. WE TOOK A VOTE ON COUNCIL TO NOT PURSUE WORKING WITH THE Y IN THE OPERATION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. YES. AND COUNCIL PASSED THAT WITH AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY. AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS DONE AT THAT POINT. AND BUT IT CONTINUES TO COME FORWARD. WELL, RANDY, ONE THING, WE'VE GOT THREE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WEREN'T PART OF ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS. OKAY, SO LET'S PASS IT AGAIN. THAT'S FAIR. BUT ALSO THIS WORK STARTED BEFORE I CAME ON COUNCIL. THIS WORK STARTED BY THE PARK BOARD AND SCHOTTKY IN. I DON'T EVEN WANT TO BE INCORRECT ON THE YEAR 2023 AND BEFORE AND 2024, JODY AND I WERE NEW. OH I'M NOT. I'M JUST SAYING WE GOT WE NEED TO BRING EVERYBODY ALONG. DO YOU WANT ME TO PASS ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION THAT IT'S NOT.
IT'S ALL CITY OWNED AND OPERATED. BASED ON WHAT? DATA. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.
WHERE'S THE DATA? IT'S BASED ON COUNCIL'S DESIRE. THERE WAS A FEASIBILITY STUDY DONE, AND MR. THERE WAS A FEASIBILITY STUDY DONE IN 2023 BY PROS CONSULTING. AND THE DATA POINT THERE WAS AND I'LL PULL IT UP BECAUSE I DEFINITELY HAVE IT IN THE STACK. THE DATA POINT WAS THAT MAJORITY OF OUR COMMUNITY WANTS A CITY OWNED AND OPERATED, SO THAT WAS PROS CONSULTING. I
[00:55:04]
LOOK I LOOKED AT THAT. AND THE WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION ANY WAY, ANY WAY YOU WANT. AND I AGREE THAT THAT WAS THE MAJORITY THAT CAME OUT OF IT. I'LL GIVE YOU MY OPINION.MY OPINION IS WHAT PEOPLE WERE SAYING WAS WE WANT THE CITY TO BE IN CHARGE, WHICH IS TRUE, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE SAYING DO NOT WORK WITH X, Y OR Z I GUESS. WHY DO WE THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A PARTNERSHIP VERSUS LET THE Y BE WHO THE Y CAN BE, THE Y AND WE CAN BE? AND WHY NOT LOOK AT THIS AS WE ARE A COMMUNITY OF 40,000 PEOPLE WE NEED. LET ME LET ME. YEAH. LET ME CLOSE THE LOOP. LET ME CLOSE THE LOOP WHERE WE CAME FROM BECAUSE I APOLOGIZE. I'VE TAKEN TOO MUCH TIME ALREADY. AND AGAIN, I AM NEW TO THIS, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSIONS. GOOD. I MEAN, SO SO THE SO THE WE STARTED WITH TALKING ABOUT FINANCES AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO THERE'S NOT AS MUCH MONEY AVAILABLE AS WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PASS AN INCOME TAX, WHICH I THINK IS A LONG SHOT. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE IF WE COLLABORATE WITH ANOTHER ENTITY, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THE Y ANOTHER ENTITY CAN CAN ANOTHER ENTITY IN COLLABORATION HELP CLOSE SOME OF THOSE FINANCIAL GAPS? YES. SO JUST A COMMENT IS WHEN WE STARTED WORKING WITH PEZZUTI ON, WE'RE AT 188. IT WAS BASICALLY SAYING LOOKING AT THE SURVEYS, LOOKING AT IF THERE WAS NO MONEY, WAS NO OBJECT, RIGHT. JUST PUT EVERYTHING ON THERE. I WISH THAT WAS THE CASE, BUT WE KNEW THAT. WE KNEW THAT. BUT WE WERE JUST SAYING, OKAY, YOU KNOW, JUST YOUR WISH LIST. BUT WE KNEW THAT AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT WE WERE PROBABLY GOING TO SCALE BACK BASED ON WHAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE WE WORKED WITH THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE, WORKED DIFFERENTLY OR NOT DIFFERENTLY, BUT NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY. WE WERE NOT PRIVY TO ALL THE DIFFERENT INFORMATION UNTIL WE ALL CAME TOGETHER. SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE BIASED BY FINANCING VERSUS SITE. SO THERE WAS GOOD. YEAH, EXACTLY. SO I, I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK, AS YOU'RE LEARNING THAT WE WERE SET ON 188,000FT■!.
YEAH. THAT WAS JUST KIND OF A A WISH LIST. YEAH, YEAH. SO YEAH. PLEASE. SO OKAY, I, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALL BEEN ON THE TRAIN LONGER THAN YOU, THAN THREE OF YOU HAVE. SO I MEAN, OF COURSE OUR, OUR EXPERIENCES ARE COMING FROM DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS AND DIFFERENT APPROACHES AND EVERYTHING. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S DISAGREEING THAT THE THAT THE CITY HAS TO BE OWNED AND OPERATED. YOU KNOW, WE CAN LEASE SPACE. WE CAN CHARGE CITY AND CITIES IN CHARGE. LET ME JUST ASK, WHAT DO YOU NEED TO SEE AND HEAR TO BRING YOU AND THE REST OF THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS UP TO THE POINT I WOULD LIKE TO THIS IS JUST ME. I JUST YOU KNOW WHO I AM. I'M A DATA GUY. I WANT TO SEE. I WANT TO SEE WHAT WHAT WAS THE INFORMATION, THE ACTUAL DATA THAT WAS USED TO MAKE THAT DECISION ABOVE AND BEYOND. THAT'S JUST WHAT WE WANT. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY DATA TO MAKE WHAT NOW? WE ALSO MAKE THE DECISION TO MAKE THE DECISION THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE CITY. CITY ONLY. WELL, I MEAN, WE ALL AGREE THAT THIS HAS TO BE CITY OWNED AND OPERATED. SO ARE YOU SAYING, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? WHAT? I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT OF WHAT ARE YOU WHAT ARE YOU ASKING FOR MORE INFORMATION? BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW IT HAS TO BE CITY OWNED AND OPERATED. SO IT HAS TO BE. IT HAS TO BE CITY OWNED. AND THE CITY NEEDS TO MAKE THE DECISIONS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CANNOT COLLABORATE WITH ANOTHER ENTITY.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT COLLABORATION. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT OHIO STATE. YOU'RE LOOKING AT OTHER ENTITIES. I THINK MR. SHERMAN'S LOOKING AT OHIO STATE. I THINK MR. STERN IS PROPOSING THE FACT OF THE Y COMING IN AND OPERATING THIS VEHICLE, HIRING THE LIFEGUARDS, NOT BEING LIKE, I THINK YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A PARTNERSHIP. WELL, WHERE AGAIN, THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY I STARTED TO GO AWAY FROM THE PARTNERSHIP WORD BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOTTEN THAT'S WHAT IT IS DILUTED. ARE WE KEEPING THE Y SEPARATE. AND THEY JUST THEY EXIST AT FIRE PARK. THEY SERVE AN INCREDIBLE MEMBERSHIP. THAT'S GREAT. THE COMMUNITY CENTER IS IN A SEPARATE LOCATION. IT IS A GROVE CITY COMMUNITY CENTER. IT IS SEPARATE FROM THAT. IF THERE'S A PARTNERSHIP, IT'S WITH A A VENDOR OR AN ENTITY. THEY'RE NOT BRINGING DOLLARS INTO OPERATE IT. THEY'RE JUST THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING WAS TAKE UP 50,000FT■!S, 25,000FT■!S. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. IT WAS THERE WAS THERE ANY ANY POSSIBILITY OF THAT? THAT'S THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. THERE'S A SHORTFALL FROM THE ORIGINAL NUMBERS THAT WE WERE WISHING FOR, YOU KNOW, IS THERE IS WITH SOME SORT OF A COLLABORATION. IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE SOME OF THAT GAP? THERE IS, AND IT'S WITH A NOT FOR PROFIT COMPANIES LIKE OSU. WELL, I JUST HEARD THOSE WERE A WASH MOUNT CARMEL. THEY'RE NOT A WASH THEY'RE PAYING FOR. THEY'RE THEY'RE PAYING FOR THEIR OWN. AND THAT'S IT. NOW AFTER 15 YEARS OR WHATEVER THE LEASE IS, THAT'S THAT'S THE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. BUT THE WISE NONPROFIT TEAM. SO YEAH. BUT TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING NOW YOU'RE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE Y COMING IN AND OPERATING THE, THE AQUATICS OR THE GYM WHEREAS OSU OR AND AGAIN WE'RE JUST, WE'RE JUST SAYING THINGS.
WHEREAS THE CHILLER THEY'RE A SEPARATE BUSINESS. YOU ARE GOING IN AND YOU ARE DOING STUFF AT THE CHILLER. RIGHT. SO TOTALLY SEPARATE. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO WHAT INFORMATION,
[01:00:06]
WHAT DATA DID THE THREE OF YOU WANT TO SEE THAT WE CAN GET AND DISCUSS. SO YOU'RE SO YOU'RE MOVING SO WE'RE ALL MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. YEAH. WELL RIGHT. RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M THAT'S WHAT I'M BEING ASKED FOR. AGAIN THIS IS NOT JUST FOR ME. THIS IS THIS IS THE THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE ASKING ME THIS QUESTION ARE SAYING, SHOW ME THE SIDE BY SIDE. HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST WITH THE Y? HOW MUCH WOULD THE WHOLE THING COST WITHOUT THE Y? YOU KNOW, AND GO DOWN THE LIST, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM BOOM. BUT THAT'S THAT'S OPERATING RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET A DESIGN FOR BUILDING IT. THERE AREN'T A BUILDING IS JUST US. RIGHT. SO YEAH, THE THE FUNDS WOULD NEED TO BE BUILT STILL BY THE CITY.THAT THAT HAS BEEN THE CONVERSATION IS THAT THE THAT THERE'S NOT OTHER FUNDS THAT ARE GOING TO COME IN THROUGH A PARTNERSHIP. SO THE EXPECTATION IS STILL THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO FUND IT. THIS 50,000, 50 MILLION OR MORE. AND AT THAT POINT AND OKAY, THAT'S OKAY. SO IS THAT WHAT THE WHITE TOLD US? THAT'S ONE OF THE DATA POINTS I'D BE LOOKING FOR IS IF WE IF WE IF WE PARTNERED COLLABORATED WITH THE WHY ARE THERE EXTRA FUNDS COMING IN THAT THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE DATA POINTS THAT I'D BE LOOKING FOR TO BUILD THE BUILDING. NO. NO.
OPERATIONAL. OPERATIONAL. YEAH. AND BUILD AGAIN. WE'RE BUILDING IT ON OUR ON OUR OWN. IT SOUNDS LIKE NO MATTER WHAT. CAN I CHIME IN FOR A SECOND? SORRY, I PERSONALLY I HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE WHY. I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO. I THINK THE CONCERNING THING FOR ME, AND I'VE HEARD QUITE OFTEN IN THE PAST COUPLE OF MINUTES, IS THAT WE WANT THE CITY TO HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER THE THE COMMUNITY REC CENTER, AND THAT ULTIMATELY MEANS HAVING THE FINAL SAY IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. MY CONCERN IS THE WHY OWNS ITS OWN COMPANY. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MISSION AND PRINCIPLES. SO HOW WOULD THAT ALIGN WITH THE LONG TERM GOAL OF A CITY OWNED AND OPERATED RECREATION CENTER? AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO HAVE THE Y COME IN? AND THAT'S WHAT I DON'T KNOW. AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVEN'T SEEN. I MEAN, WHAT WAS THE WISE PROPOSAL? THEY WERE INVITED TO PAST WORK SESSIONS IN 2024 THAT I CAN THINK OF. I'M TRYING TO RECALL IF THEY WERE HERE IN 2025. CINDY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE THE. IS JACK HERE? JACK'S NOT HERE. I MEAN, THE Y DOESN'T HAVE HALF THE PROGRAMS THAT GROVE CITY HAS, AND WE STILL WOULD HAVE TO RUN THE PROGRAMS THAT THE CITY RUNS EVEN THOUGH THE Y WAS THERE. SURE. SO NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OPERATING THE OPERATING THE FACILITY. BUT YOU CAN'T OPERATE ALL THIS STUFF BECAUSE THEY'RE GROVE CITY PROGRAMS. AND WE'VE WENT THROUGH THAT. THE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AND THEY DON'T OPERATE. AND SO IT GOT DOWN TO LIKE, WELL, WHAT'S THE POINT? WELL, YOU COMBINE THE TWO, THE SYNERGIES OF THE TWO TOGETHER GIVES YOU GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS. RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. WAS THAT THE CASE. WHAT WHAT DID THE MATH SAY. IF YOU DO THE MATH UNDERNEATH SIX OUT OF SEVEN OF US DIDN'T THINK SO SIX MONTHS AGO. OKAY. BASED ON WHAT DATA. WELL, AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT. THERE'S A NEW COUNCIL SITTING, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER. SO I DO WANT TO HELP WRAP THIS UP AS THE CHAIR I GET IT. IT'S 633. I THINK WE HAVE FOUND OUR. AND MR. BOZO WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING. I THINK COUNCILMAN HOLT ASKED ABOUT THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED.
THAT WAS RESOLUTION NUMBER CR 825, AND IRONICALLY, IT WAS PASSED ON MARCH 3RD, 2025, WHICH WOULD BE A YEAR TOMORROW. THE IRONY, ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS IS THAT THIS COUNCIL SUPPORTS THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION AND THE CREATION AND FURTHER WORK OF THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE TO ASSIST WITH THE RESEARCH AND PLANNING EFFORTS FOR A PROPOSED CITY OPERATED COMMUNITY CENTER. FURTHER STATED, IN SECTION FIVE, THE CITY ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED NOT TO EXPAND ANY FINANCIAL OR STAFF RESOURCES TOWARDS OTHER OPTIONS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL. IF I COULD, MADAM CHAIR, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG REASONS THAT THE WHY HAS NOT COME FORWARD WHEN YOU HAVE A PIECE A LAW. THIS ISN'T JUST A RESOLUTION. THIS WAS A LAW. AND IT DICTATED TO OUR STAFF NOT TO SPEND ANY TIME ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE COMMUNITY CENTER, AS WE DEFINED IT. IS THAT AN ORDINANCE OR AS AN ORDINANCE RESOLUTION? NO. WHICH ONE WAS IT A RESOLUTION? IT'S A RESOLUTION, I'M SORRY. RESOLUTION. IT'S A THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE. THE THE WALL WAS FOR THE BROOK PARK, WHICH WAS THE SAME THING RESOLUTION ABOUT IT. BUT THE POINT IS THAT THEY WERE NOTIFIED BY VIRTUE OF THAT PARTICULAR RESOLUTION THAT THAT THEY ARE OUT IN ESSENCE. AND THERE ARE ALREADY CONVERSATIONS BEFORE THIS, THOUGH THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS IN 2024 AND EARLY PARTS OF 2025 BEFORE THIS CHANGED. NEW DIRECTOR DOWN THERE. AND WHEN YOU SAY, WELL,
[01:05:04]
GIVE A COMPARISON, I, AS A PERSON WHO'S GOING TO HAVE SOME INFLUENCE ON THIS INCOME TAX, I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT PASSING AN INCOME TAX UNTIL WE HAVE THE YMCA COME IN HERE. TELL US, KNOWING THAT THESE THINGS ARE EXISTING, KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE THE OWNER, KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE THE OPERATOR, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR US? CAN YOU STILL EXIST? BECAUSE THE LAST THING WE WANT TO HAVE IS A BUILDING SITTING DOWN IN FRIAR PARK. THAT'S A SKELETON. SO I'M JUST FROM THE ADMINISTRATION STANDPOINT, WE'VE COME TO TWO CONCLUSIONS. ONE, THIS FRIAR PARK IS TIED WITH PINNACLE PARK FOR LOCATION NUMBER TWO, THAT IT HAS TO BE A CITY OWNED, CITY OPERATED FACILITY. IT HAS TO HAVE THE AVAILABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY LEASES. AND AND UNTIL WE GET SOME ADDITIONAL DRILL DOWN NUMBERS, DILUTION OF MEMBERSHIP FROM THE Y, THE ABILITY TO TO GARNER ENOUGH MEMBERSHIPS TO CASH FOR OUR OWN PROJECT, WE DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITHOUT HAVING SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, PARTICULARLY HAVING THE Y COME IN AND TELL US WHAT THEY CAN DO. MR. MAYOR, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS, AND FOR EVERYBODY ON COUNCIL, THIS LEGISLATION, CR 0825, WAS BROUGHT FORTH WITH THE PRESENCE FROM THE PARK BOARD AND IN SUPPORT OF THE PARK BOARD AND THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND REC TO FULFILL WHAT HAD BEEN ASKED ALL ALONG FROM THE COMMUNITY THROUGH FEASIBILITY STUDIES, THROUGH PROS CONSULTING, RESEARCH, THROUGH OTHER PAST RESEARCH TO MOVE FORWARD WITH LOOKING AT A CITY OWNED AND OPERATED. THAT WAS THE WORK THAT THIS COUNCIL WAS WORKING TO TRY AND JUST BRING FORTH. AND I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO LOSE SIGHT OF THAT. MR. I DISAGREE, HE SAID. CITY OWNED AND OPERATED. I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S OPERATED. WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE COMING IN AND DOING THE HIRING, LET'S ASK THEM WHAT THEY THINK THEY COULD DO. OKAY. ARE WE OKAY? IN SUMMARY, WE'RE AT THE END HERE. SO IN SUMMARY, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE AT LEAST THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WANT TO HEAR FROM THE. WHY. IS THAT CORRECT? I'M ASKING. I'D LIKE TO I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THEY THINK. WE'D BE VERY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE ASKING AND WHAT WE WANT. THE WHY TO PRESENT IS THE WHY BRINGING FORTH DOLLARS. IS THAT THE DATA THAT BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IT, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY AND CAPITAL THE Y WILL BRING FORTH. THAT'S MY I HAVE AN IDEA ON THAT. WHY DON'T YOU AND I, MISSY AND THE MAYOR, MEET WITH THE Y AND LAY OUT WHAT THAT AGENDA IS GOING TO BE PRIOR TO THE MEETING, AND BUT WE'LL GO BACK AND WATCH THE TAPE. WE'LL WATCH THE TAPE AND THE, THE FIVE THINGS THAT THE MAYOR JUST SAID AS A STARTING POINT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ASKING THE WHY, WHAT CAN YOU BRING TO THE TABLE WITH THIS CRITERIA? YOU KNOW THAT IT'S IT IS CITY OWNED AND OPERATED AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR ON WHAT WHAT THEY'RE RESPONDING TO. YEAH, IS WE'VE JUST I JUST WANT TO AGAIN, REMIND EVERYBODY THAT IF WE NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING FOR NOVEMBER, I DID WANT TO IDENTIFY ROAD MAPPING. WE ARE WE'VE SPENT ANOTHER WEEK TO ANOTHER HOUR TOGETHER WITH THE WORK SESSION. WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT A SITE. WE REALLY SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT THE SITE IS, DRAW, HAVE SOME CONCEPTS FROM PIZZUTI. CONTINUE THIS MODEL, GO TO THE VOTERS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. AND IF IT DOESN'T, I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE ALSO IDENTIFIED A PLAN WHERE WHAT IF WE DON'T DO THE THE INCOME TAX? I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO ANSWER SOMETHING BEFORE WE'RE EVEN ANSWERING. WHAT TYPE OF BUILDING CAN WE DO? HERE'S THE FUNDS. THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW WE CAN CAN SPEND ON THE BUILDING. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THIS OPERATION AS WELL. I THINK IT'S NOT AN OPERATION. I'M GOING TO KEEP SAYING THAT AGAIN. I THINK IT'S IT'S A COLLABORATION. AND THAT'S WHERE I'M OKAY WITH THAT. IS THAT OKAY? WE'LL WE'LL HAVE A WE'LL HAVE A NO, IT'S NOT BECAUSE I WAS SOMEBODY THAT VOTED FOR THIS RESOLUTION, AND IT WAS TO FULFILL THE MISSION OF THE PARK BOARD AND TO WORK TOWARDS A CITY OWNED AND OPERATED. SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR. BUT I WILL JUST SAY THAT I KNOW. MR. BUT IT'S AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME. WE'VE GOT NEW MEMBERS ON THAT. WE IF THEY NEED IF THEY NEED INFORMATION AND THEY NEED EDUCATION, I'M FOR THAT. BUT I MEAN, I AGREE I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT IT WE NEED TO BRING EVERYBODY ALONG ON THE ON THE TRAIN HERE. SO WITH THAT WE'LL WORK ON THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE I CAN BRING TO THE TABLE ON A CITY OWNED AND OPERATED MODEL AGAIN. SO WE CAN SO WE CAN TELL TELL THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE ASKING THE QUESTION. HERE'S WHY WE SAID NO. HERE'S WHY WE SAID YES. NOT SITTING ON AN OPERATED. THE SECOND YOU LET SOMEBODY ELSE MAKE ANY DECISIONS ABOUT HIRING OR ANYTHING. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT'S THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WOULD BE DOING. WHAT WOULD THEY BE DOING? THEY WOULD BE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM. WHAT CAN YOU DO. NO, NO I DON'T. I'M ASKING THEM WHAT CAN THEY BRING TO THE TABLE IN THAT MODEL. OKAY. WITH THAT, WE WILL RESUME THIS MAYBE[01:10:06]
AS EARLY AS MONDAY IF WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION QUICKLY TO MOVE, BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS TO MOVE THIS DOWN THE ROAD. SO WE'RE ADJOURNED FOR THIS. WE'RE ON