* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] GROVE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW IN SESSION. WE'RE GONNA DISPENSE WITH OUR NORMAL, UM, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER AND EVERYTHING SINCE THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING AND GET RIGHT INTO THE RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA. UM, BUT SINCE WE ARE DOING THAT, I'M GONNA, WE HAVE TWO AGENDA ITEMS TONIGHT. UM, WE HAVE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ORDINANCE C 37 26, AND RESOLUTION CR 32 26. SO THOSE ARE THE AGENDA ITEMS ON FOR TONIGHT. UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UM, RABBIT EAR OR BUNNY EARS ARE PERMITTED, , BUT, UM, WE THANK YOU FOR TIP, REMOVING YOUR HATS. I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT. SO, UM, WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'RE GONNA START, I'M GONNA HAND THIS OVER TO THE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE. WE NEED TO TAKE A CALL. OH, YOU CALL, WE GOTTA DO ROLL CALL EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ALL HERE. WE HAD TO DO ROLL CALL FOR THE RECORD. MR. OMAR. PRESENT. ANDERSON. HERE. LINGA. PRESENT. GARY? HERE. HOLT? HERE. HERE. PER HERE. WE'RE ALL THANK YOU. WE'RE [Additional Item] ALL HERE. MR. PRESIDENT? YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADD TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA ORDINANCE C 44 26 IN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF GROVE CITY, OHIO AT THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026, AN AMENDMENT TO THE GROVE CITY CHARTER TO ADD A NEW ARTICLE TITLED COMMUNITY CONSENT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. SECOND, OMAR? YES. ANDERSON? YES. LINGA? YES. BARRY? NO. HOLT? NO. STERN. NO BURS? YES. OKAY. THAT'LL BE ADDED TO THE END OF THE AGENDA. UM, GO AHEAD WITH YOUR POINT OF ORDER. YES. ADD IT TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA. THAT WAS THE MOTION. YES, HE HAD THE MOTION WAS ADDED TO THE TOP. WE CAN ADD IT TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA THEN. GO AHEAD. UM, RANDY, THAT'S YOUR AGENDA ITEM, SO I'LL JUST PUT THAT ON THE TOP HERE. RIGHT? OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THE ITEMS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION THIS EVENING ARE, ARE NOW C 44 26. C 37 26, AND CR 32 26 CR 44. DO I HAVE THAT? YES. CR 44 26 AND ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF GROVE CITY, OHIO, WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026. AN AMENDMENT TO THE GROVE CITY CHARTER TO ADD A NEW ARTICLE TITLED COMMUNITY CONSENT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGNED UP FOR THE AMENDMENT THERE. TWO PEOPLE SIGNED UP. AND WHEN DOES THE EMERGENCY HAPPEN? ONCE YOU VOTE AT THE, ONCE WE VOTE. WHEN. WHEN YOU VOTE. ALL RIGHT. SO, COUNCIL FIRST, DID YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING THOUGH? YEAH. COUNCIL FIRST FOR COMMENTS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. UM, SO THIS IS THE VERSION THAT CAME OUT OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT, UM, MYSELF, COUNCILMAN JODY BURROWS AND, UH, STEVEN SMITH, OUR CITY ATTORNEY, HAVE BEEN HAVING WITH THE PROTECT GROVE CITY, UH, ORGANIZERS BEHIND THE, UH, CCA, THE ORIGINAL CCA, THE COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT. UM, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL VERSION. UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DOCUMENT THAT WAS INITIALLY ABOUT 17 PAGES, UH, WHICH IS NOW ABOUT FIVE PAGES. UM, ULTIMATELY THE, THE, THE BIGGEST CHANGES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION HERE TODAY, UH, THE INITIAL CCA HAD A 50 ACRE THRESHOLD, AND THIS NEW VERSION NOW HAS A 750,000, UH, SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. INSTEAD, UM, ANOTHER MAJOR CHANGE IS THAT THE VERSION SEVEN COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE FIRST BEFORE IT GOES TO THE PUBLIC. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS WITH THE ORIGINAL CCA, IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A REFERENDUM, BUT THIS TIME COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT BEFORE THE PUBLIC HAS A SAY. UM, THE INDEPENDENT IMPACT STUDY IS GONE. THE ORIGINAL REQUIRED A DEVELOPER FUNDED INDEPENDENT STUDY COVERING WATER, ELECTRIC TRAFFIC, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, JOBS, TAXES, NOISE, ET CETERA. VERSION SEVEN REMOVES THAT ENTIRE REQUIREMENT. UM, THE ORIGINAL ALSO REQUIRED AT LEAST TWO CCA SPECIFIC PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE THE VOTE. VERSION SEVEN ALSO REMOVES THAT THE ORIGINAL ALSO HAD ACTUAL MEASURABLE STANDARDS. BASELINE TESTING AND INDEPENDENT MONITORING VERSION SEVEN REMOVES THOSE DETAILED STANDARDS AS WELL. UM, FROM THE, UH, NEW VERSION OR, YEAH, FROM THE NEW VERSION. UM, THE ORIGINAL ALSO REQUIRED ONGOING PUBLIC REPORTS ON ELECTRIC USE, WATER USE, ACREAGE, NOISE, LIGHT VIBRATION, AND MORE. VERSION SEVEN REMOVES THAT WHOLE SYSTEM. THE PENALTIES WERE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED. SO THE ORIGINAL FINES ESCALATED FROM 25,000 A DAY TO 500,000 A DAY. VERSION SEVEN IS [00:05:01] NOW ONLY A THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY. THE COMMUNITY IMPACT FUND IS GONE. THE ORIGINAL SENT 50% OF THE FINES TO A NEIGHBORHOOD REMEDIATION SLASH COMMUNITY FUND. VERSION SEVEN REMOVES THAT AS WELL. THE ORIGINAL REQUIRED A PERFORMANCE BOND AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND. THOSE ARE BOTH NOW GONE. THE ORIGINAL HAD PROVISIONS FOR AFFECTED RESIDENTS OUTSIDE OF GROVE CITY. SO IN, IN THE SURROUNDING TOWNSHIPS, UH, INCLUDING WHAT'S KNOWN AS AN ADVISORY VOTE, VERSION SEVEN ALSO REMOVES THAT AS WELL. UH, THE ORIGINAL HAD A DETAILED 10% CHANGE THRESHOLD, UM, AND CUMULATIVE CHANGE REVIEW VERSION SEVEN BASICALLY SAYS IF A PROJECT EXCEEDS THE APPROVED LIMITS, IT NEEDS AN AMENDED ORDINANCE AND GOES THROUGH THE SAME COUNCIL AND VOTER PROCESS AGAIN. UM, SO THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE STREAMLINED THAN THE ORIGINAL CCA. UH, I WILL SAY, PERSONALLY, MY CAPACITY, I DO HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS ONLY BECAUSE WE, WE HAVE SUCH A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME TO SIT DOWN WITH THE ORIGINATORS OF THE ORIGINAL CCA. UM, BUT THIS, THIS IS WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH AFTER OUR MANY, MANY CONVERSATIONS. SO THAT IS ALL FROM ME, CHAIR. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER COUNCIL COMMENTS AT THE MOMENT? YEAH, CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO COMMENT, UM, JUST FOR THE RECORD, DURING THE, THE NEGOTIATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL CCA TO THE VERSION SEVEN THAT MR. OMAR TALKED ABOUT, UM, I WAS IN ATTENDANCE OF ONLY THE LAST ONE. AND THIS WAS NOT A CONVERSATION OR, OR A DIALOGUE WITH THE ENTIRE COUNCIL. IT WAS JUST OPEN DIALOGUE TO SEE IF SOME COMPROMISE, OR IF YOU WANNA CALL IT NEGOTIATIONS, COULD HAPPEN. BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION OUT THERE THAT THIS WAS ALL NEGOTIATED WITH ALL OF COUNCIL IN THE CITY, AND IT WAS JUST A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVING OPEN CONVERSATIONS TO TRY TO MOVE TO A BETTER PLACE. AND I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER, ALSO, THE OTHER CHANGE IN THIS IS ONCE COUNCIL WOULD APPROVE THIS, IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GO TO A REFERENDUM IF THERE WAS FOR THE CITIZENS TO VOTE VERSUS BEFOREHAND. CORRECT. AND WITHOUT COLLECTING SIGNATURES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GO TO A REFERENDUM. YEAH. SO BASED ON THE LANGUAGE, THAT IS THE UNDERSTANDING. UM, AND THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. I THINK THERE WAS AN IMPRESSION THAT THIS WAS A COUNCIL NEGOTIATION, UM, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE ONCE I READ THE ORIGINAL CCAI TRUTHFULLY, AND, AND THIS IS JUST ME BEING COMPLETELY HONEST WITH OUR COMMUNITY, WAS NOT A FAN OF SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT. UM, SO INSTEAD OF WAITING AROUND FOR A VOTE TO HAPPEN, WHY NOT TAKE LEADERSHIP AND GO MEET WITH THE ORGANIZERS AND SEE WHAT CHANGE WE CAN COME UP WITH AS A COLLECTIVE? UM, OBVIOUSLY WITH THE SUPPORT OF OUR, OF OUR CITY ATTORNEY, THE DOOR WAS OPEN. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE, WE HAVE LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON HOW MANY COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD BE PRESENT, BUT THANK YOU COUNCILWOMAN, UM, BURROWS FOR PARTICIPATING IN THAT FINAL MEETING. UH, BUT THE DOOR WAS OPEN FOR ANY COUNCIL MEMBER TO REACH OUT AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SCHEDULE A CONVERSATION WITH THE ORIGINATORS TO, UH, HOPEFULLY TRY TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT THAT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL CCA. SO THAT'S WHERE I SAYING, OKAY. UM, YES, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. SO I THINK THANK YOU MR. UM, AMAR FOR WALKING US THROUGH SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES. CAN YOU ALSO JUST HELP WITH, UM, I WAS NOT THERE THROUGH THOSE CONVERSATIONS. UM, UNDERSTANDING FOR US WHAT BENEFITS THE CITY, UM, NOT BEING THERE AS PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. I THINK WHAT I DON'T HAVE A LENS TO, OR MS. BURROWS, IF YOU HAVE THIS AS WELL, FOR THE, UM, THE MEETINGS THAT YOU ATTENDED, I DON'T HAVE THE LENS TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH, UM, POSSIBLY THE ADMINISTRATION OR OUR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WAS ASKED. OR IF YOU, YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU CONNECT WITH THEM AND ASK QUESTIONS, BUT IN TERMS OF, UM, WHO DECIDED, UH, GOING FROM 50 ACRES TO 750,000 GROSS FEET OR WHAT, YOU KNOW, WERE THERE THINGS THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE PROBABLY LIKED TO HAVE SEEN? DID THOSE THINGS GET INCLUDED OR WAS IT MORE OF THE GROUP THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING THAT WAS, UM, GIVING DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO TRY AND TAKE THIS IN A DIFFERENT PATH? JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UM, MORE ALONG THE LINES OF, UH, THE BENEFITS MAYBE THAT WE'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TO TRY AND BETTER, UM, THIS. YEAH. SO THE, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. UM, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IN THESE CONVERSATIONS, UH, IT, IT WAS REALLY OUR OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL CCA BE LIKE, THIS, THIS JUST SIMPLY WON'T WORK, OR THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A DRASTIC IMPACT ON EXISTING BUSINESSES, UM, AND, AND DEVELOPERS THAT MAY WANT TO COME TO GROVE CITY. SO, UH, IT WASN'T A DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OR WITH THE MAYOR, OR WITH THE ADMINISTRATION. IT WAS JUST US LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE AND, AND GOING BACK TO THE, UH, ORIGINATORS AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS IS JUST A LITTLE TOO MUCH OR TOO EXCESSIVE. UH, CAN, CAN YOU ALL WORK ON THAT LANGUAGE? AND, AND THEY DID. THEY WERE VERY, UM, I WILL SAY EASY TO WORK WITH. THEY DID GO BACK MULTIPLE TIMES. I THINK THERE WERE ABOUT, UH, YEAH, A TOTAL [00:10:01] OF SEVEN VERSIONS WHERE THEY WENT BACK AND MADE THOSE CHANGES. EVERY TIME A VERSION WAS SENT OVER, WE WERE GIVING ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK LIKE, CAN, CAN YOU GO BACK AND MAKE THOSE CHANGES? SO I, I WISH THAT WE HAD MORE TIME. THERE PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN A VERSION 15, I'M NOT SURE. BUT WITH THE TIME THAT WE HAVE NOW, THIS IS WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO PUT A STOP TO OR PUT A STOP ON. UM, YEAH. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING, MR. SMITH? NO, I THINK YOU DID A NICE JOB, SIR. AND, AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION, SHARE PLEASE. UM, AND THEN I THINK SOME OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD AMONGST COUNCIL WITH THE ORIGINAL CCA, UM, CERTAINLY, UH, OUR, OUR BUSINESSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY HERE COULD BE IMPACTED IF THEY WANTED TO EXPAND. IS, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW THIS HAS COME ABOUT AND WILL IT IMPACT FUTURE CURRENT BUSINESSES, NOT FUTURE DEVELOPERS THAT WANT TO COME AND ESTABLISH SOMETHING OUR CURRENT BUSINESSES THAT ARE HERE? YEAH. AND, AND I DO WANNA CLARIFY. UM, I WAS PRESENT AT ALL OF THESE MEETINGS. UM, I OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T NEGOTIATE ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL OR THE CITY. UM, REALLY WHAT I SPENT MY MIND, MY TIME DOING, AND I THINK THEY GOT SICK OF ME WAS GOING THROUGH IT. 'CAUSE THEY'RE LIKE, WHAT DO YOU TH OR WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES. AND FRANKLY, I JUST RIPPED IT APART EACH TIME AND TOLD 'EM WHAT DIDN'T WORK AND WHAT COULDN'T WORK LEGALLY. UM, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL VERSION I THINK, I, I THINK IS LEGALLY FLAWED IN CERTAIN RESPECTS. I'VE GIVEN EVERYONE MY OPINION ON THAT. I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN IT. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE NEWER VERSION IS SIGNIFICANTLY STREAMLINED. UM, ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS FROM THE FIRST ONE WAS THE IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE ON EXISTING BUSINESSES. WHAT THIS ONE DOES IS IT IN ESSENCE, EXEMPTS THE EXISTING BUSINESSES. AND IT REALLY JUST APPLIES TO NEW PROJECTS, NEW PARCELS, NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD EXCEED ONE OF THE THREE THRESHOLDS. SO THAT WAS A, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A BIG CONCESSION. 'CAUSE ONCE AGAIN, THIS WASN'T A NEGOTIATION. THIS WAS JUST DISCUSSION AMONGST THE CITY AND OR ONE COUNCIL MEMBER AND A GROUP. SO IT REALLY, IT WASN'T A NEGOTIATION. I KNOW EVERYONE KEEPS SAYING IT'S A COMPROMISE, IT'S A NEGOTIATION. IT REALLY WASN'T. WE, YOU KNOW, I OFFERED INPUT IN TERMS OF LEGALLY WHY IT WAS FLAWED AND THEY MADE CHANGES A LOT. UM, BUT, UH, I DO BELIEVE WHAT IT DOES IS IT DOES THE, THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY EXEMPTING EXEMPT OR CURRENTLY EXISTING, EXCUSE ME, I CAN'T TALK TONIGHT, UM, YOU KNOW, WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY THIS. IT REALLY AFFECTS THE NEW PROJECTS THAT COME ONLINE THAT WOULD EXCEED ONE OF THE THREE THRESHOLDS. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION. UM, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE HAS SEEN, WE ARE, UM, A COUNCIL OF SEVEN MEMBERS, BUT WE ARE ALSO IN A STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE COUNCIL WILL PUT, UM, WELL, WE WILL VOTE FOR SOMETHING AND THINGS ARE VETOED OR WE AS COUNCIL WILL HAVE, UM, GOALS AND IDEAS AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAS EVERY RIGHT, UM, THROUGH OUR CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THEIR OWN GOALS AND AGENDA AND MOVE FORWARD WITH PROJECTS OR DOING THINGS. UM, AND COUNCIL THEN OBVIOUSLY COMES IN WITH BUDGETS. SO I AM CURIOUS, I KNOW STEVEN WAS THERE, BUT I AM CURIOUS IN THE SENSE OF THE MAYOR AND THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE OPINION VIEWPOINT THOUGHTS THAT THEY HAD THAT WERE ABLE TO MAYBE BE ARTICULATED THROUGH THIS NEW AMENDED VERSION. AND, AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, I I WAS NOT THERE ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR. I WAS NOT SPEAKING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION. I KNOW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT I DON'T REPRESENT THE MAYOR OR ANY OF YOU ON COUNCIL INDIVIDUALLY. MY CLIENT IS THE CITY OF GROVE CITY. SO I WAS THERE JUST IN MY CAPACITY. I DID NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, SEEK INPUT OR WAS NOT THERE ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION. SO, MR. HOLT? YES. CAN I GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION? YES, SIR. UH, FIRST IT CAUGHT US ALL BY SURPRISE, BE QUITE HONEST, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE WERE THREE PETITIONERS THAT FILED THE ORIGINAL CCA AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, NONE OF, UH, ONLY ONE TIME, WELL, NO, I'M SORRY, NO TIME. WAS THERE ALL THREE AT THESE NEGOTIATIONS? NOT A TRUE STATEMENT, MR. DEMAR. THAT IS CORRECT. SO WE HAVE A NEGOTIATION GOING ON WITH NON-DECISION MAKERS. SECONDLY, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS BETTER, WE STILL ARE GONNA HANDCUFF SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT QUESTION. YOU STILL HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE REFERENDUMS. AND JUST THE STIGMA THAT IS THROWN AGAINST OUR UP ON OUR COMMUNITY, THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA GO TO GROVE CITY, YOU BETTER WATCH YOU. WHAT YOU PICK AND CHOOSE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DATA CENTER, WHAT YOU PICK AND CHOOSE TO DEVELOP, BECAUSE THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THEIR CHARTER THAT FORCES YOU INTO A REFERENDUM. TO ME, THAT'S TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. THE THIRD POINT IS [00:15:03] TOMORROW'S THE DAY, IT'S LABOR DAY WEEKEND, THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE BEEN HERE VERY DILIGENTLY TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER CCA HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT. THEY MAY HAVE HAD THIS MAYBE TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY THIS WEEK, AND WE'RE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. 2000 PEOPLE SIGNED THAT ORIGINAL CCA, AND 1600 OF THEM WERE OUR CITIZENS. THEY ARE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY NOW TO SEE AND TO READ WHAT THE NEW PROPOSED QUOTE, UM, UH, THE, THE AMENDMENT MIGHT BE. WE THINK THAT'S VERY UNFAIR. THAT'S NOT THE WAY GOVERNMENT WORKS, AND WE THINK IT'S VERY UNFAIR. I HAVE OTHER POINTS, BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THOSE TO START WITH AND WE'RE IN A MORATORIUM. OKAY. UM, ALAN, ANYTHING? YEAH, I'VE GOT A COUPLE THINGS. SORRY, I'M STILL TRYING TO DIGEST THIS SINCE WE JUST GOT IT TODAY. MY QUICK MATH SHOWS, UM, CHUCK WILL KNOW 750,000 IS ABOUT 15 ACRES. UH, 17 POINT. YEAH. OKAY. 17.22 ACRES. OKAY. SO FROM 50 ACRES TO 17 ACRES? YES. AND, AND JUST TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S BUILDINGS ON A DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU WOULD HAVE A, A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD COME IN AND SAY THEY HAVE, UH, HOMES THAT ARE 3000 SQUARE FEET EACH. IF IT'S OVER 250 HOMES, IT WOULD HAVE TO REFERENDUM. SO IT SPEAKS ABOUT, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS ON THE DEVELOPMENT. WOW. SO THAT COULD BE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, A STRIP MALL. A YEAH, I, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY. THAT, THAT COULD BE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. LIKE YOU SAID, IT COULD BE A, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE A STRIP MALL DEVELOPMENT. IT COULD BE ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD BE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, NOT INDIVIDUAL HOMES. IN THE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE WITH, UH, UH, HOUSING, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PROPOSING, SAY, 250 HOMES AT 3000 SQUARE FEET EACH. OKAY. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM. OKAY. ALAN, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO TO THE PUBLIC AND COME BACK TO YOU? UM, SURE. YEAH. YEAH. , UH, GEORGE, ANYTHING OR AFTER THE PUBLIC? I HOLD ON. YOU TWO PUBLIC, WE GOT, SO THE WAY PEOPLE SIGNED UP HERE, SO THERE ARE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO TALK ABOUT CCA. TWO PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY SAID COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT. SO NOW I BELIEVE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT. SO I'M GONNA CALL THOSE TWO PEOPLE. WELL, THAT'S WHAT THE CCA IS. WELL, THERE'S JUST CCA, IT'S THE WAY THEY WROTE IT. THEY WROTE CCA AMENDMENT. OH, OKAY. SO IS IT MATT, IS THAT TRUE? YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, UH, THE AMENDMENT OR YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ORIGINAL CCA? I GUESS I COULD ASK IT THIS WAY. THE ORIGINAL CCA, SIR. JUST THE ORIGINAL. I WASN'T AWARE OF THE AMENDMENT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT PUTS YOU IN THE BIG LIST. AND, UH, JONAS PETERSON, SAME QUESTION. SAME THE ORIGINAL, PLEASE. OKAY. SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY AMENDMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS. CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT IF THAT'S OKAY. HMM. I'D LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT. OKAY. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. SO WE HAVE EIGHT PUBLIC COMMENTS COMING. OKAY, GO AHEAD. YEAH, SO I, I JUST WANTED TO, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR ENGAGING IN THIS DISCUSSION. UM, I JUST WANT TO TO SAY THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M MAKING THIS MOTION TONIGHT AND, AND HAD THIS ADDED TO THE AGENDA IS BECAUSE I FEEL THAT IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A BETTER VERSION THAN THE ORIGINAL CCA. UH, DO I AGREE WITH ALL THE LANGUAGE IN HERE? I DO NOT. AND I BELIEVE STEVEN CAN ATTEST. THERE WERE A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT I BROUGHT UP THROUGHOUT OUR MEETINGS. UM, WE DRAFTED A, AT OUR FIRST MEETING, I BELIEVE, UH, A VERSION OF THIS THAT WAS MORE SPECIFIC TO JUST DATA CENTERS AND THE ORIGINATORS OF THE ORIGINAL CA WERE NOT OPEN TO THAT. WE EVEN TALKED ABOUT, UH, IF THE CONCERN IS, IS A LACK OF TRUST IN, IN COUNSEL AND IN THEIR ABILITY TO DECIDE, UH, TO INCREASE THE VOTE ON, ON THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT OR, OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, UM, TO A SUPER MAJORITY THAT DIDN'T WORK. SO IT WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH AND CHANGES. I DON'T, I CAN'T CONFIDENTLY SIT HERE AND SAY THAT THIS IS THE PERFECT VERSION. HOWEVER, TONIGHT SOMETHING IS GOING TO THE BALLOT WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. AND THE ORIGINAL CCA RESIDENTS HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT. IF THEY DISAGREE WITH SOMETHING TO ORGANIZE IN THEIR COMMUNITY, TO GET OUT [00:20:01] THERE, GET SIGNATURES AND PUT ANYTHING ON THE BALLOT. RIGHT? SOMETHING'S GOING ON THE BALLOT. NOW, DO, CAN I CONFIDENTLY SAY IN THIS MOMENT THAT IF WE SEND THE ORIGINAL CCA TO THE BALLOT THAT IT IS GOING TO FAIL? I CAN'T. RIGHT? BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY, UM, THAT ONE SIGNED THE ORIGINAL PETITION TO PUT THE ORIGINAL CC ON THE BALLOT. UM, BUT WE ALSO SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT FEEL THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS IN THEIR CITY. AND I DON'T WANT US AS COUNCIL TO UNDERESTIMATE THAT VERY LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. UM, AND, AND TO BE FULLY TRANSPARENT, THERE WAS A POINT IN TIME WHERE I, I WAS LIKE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN JUST BEAT THE ORIGINAL CCA, THEN I SAW THE CAR SHOW THAT PROTECT GROVE CITY HOSTED OVER THE WEEKEND. AND I'M LIKE, WHOA. THEY HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT. RIGHT? SO I DON'T WANT US TO, TO UNDERESTIMATE AND THINK THAT BECAUSE THE, IN, IN YOUR OPINION, BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL CCA IS SO BAD THAT WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND BEAT IT. UM, BECAUSE COMMUNITIES CAN MOBILIZE, PEOPLE CAN GET OUT THERE AND KNOCK DOORS TALK TO PEOPLE. I THINK IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE ORIGINAL CA OR THIS VERSION OF THE CA, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD BE READY TO GET OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY AND, AND, AND MOBILIZE PEOPLE THAT ALSO DISAGREE WITH IT. UM, BUT I, I PERSONALLY, IN MY CAPACITY, DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SENDING THE ORIGINAL CCA TO THE BALLOT. 'CAUSE I CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT IT IS GOING TO LOSE. AND THAT WOULD PUT OUR CITY IN A MUCH, MUCH WORSE POSITION. AND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PUBLIC, HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE HERE TONIGHT WILL SPEAK AND, AND SHARE THEIR OPINION. BUT THE REASON WHY I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS SOMEWHAT OF A BETTER VERSION. IS IT GONNA HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY? YES. HOWEVER, IS IT BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL CCA? ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I AM. THANK YOU. UH, ANYTHING ELSE? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE'RE GONNA CALL FOR. SO, OKAY. RANDY. ALAN'S READY? YEAH, I THINK SO. I HAVE JUST SOME MORE COMMENTS SINCE WE'RE KIND OF SOUNDING LIKE WE'RE ABOUT DONE AND PROBABLY GETTING READY TO CALL THE ROLL. UM, I DON'T HAVE A LOT MORE TO SAY, BUT I DO ECHO SOME OF YOUR SENTIMENT, MR. OMAR. AND I JUST WANNA SAY THAT THANK YOU FOR ARTICULATING ALL OF THAT. I DO APPRECIATE THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE ABLE TO COME TOGETHER, UM, DURING THE TIME AND AT LEAST TRY AND HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS. I ALSO WISH WE COULD HAVE HAD A LOT MORE TIME. I WISH WE COULD HAVE HAD MORE WORK SESSIONS THAT WERE PUBLIC WORK SESSIONS WHERE THE COMMUNITY COULD HAVE HAD MORE TIME TO GATHER INPUT, WHERE WE AS COUNCIL COULD HAVE HAD MORE TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT OF ALL OF THESE THINGS IN THE ORIGINAL CCA MEANS THE MOST TO THE PUBLIC. UM, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE OUT OF THAT TIME. AND, UM, I, I AGREE WITH YOU. I, I, THAT WAS PROBABLY GONNA BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, BUT I'M NOT GONNA ASK IT. MY QUESTION WAS KIND OF LIKE, WELL, WHAT ELSE DID YOU NOT GET IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS? WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU HAVE TRIED TO ASK FOR? UM, I, I AGREE THAT THIS PROBABLY ISN'T THE BEST FOOT FORWARD, UM, BUT SEVEN VERSIONS LATER, THERE'S AT LEAST SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I DO LIKE THAT AT LEAST COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE SOMETHING FIRST. I DON'T, UM, I, I THINK THAT AT LEAST STILL GIVES DEVELOPERS OPPORTUNITIES TO COME. BUT I AGREE THAT ALL OF THIS DOES POTENTIALLY, UM, HARM OUR FUTURE AND, AND OUR DEVELOPMENT. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY DO HAVE THAT DISTRUST AND ARE FRUSTRATED. UM, I AM SOMEBODY THAT VOTED FOR THE MORATORIUM THOUGH, AND WE ARE DOING THE WORK ON THE DATA CENTER TASK FORCE. AND I STILL FEEL THAT IS IMPORTANT. AND I SAID LAST NIGHT, I'M COMMITTED TO THAT WORK, I'M COM COMMITTED TO THAT TASK FORCE I'M COMMITTED TO CONTINUING ON. UM, SO IT'S, IT IS HARD TO KNOW THAT, UM, WE HEARD THE COMMUNITY, WE HEARD YOU WITH THE IDEA OF THE FRUSTRATION AND, AND THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DATA CENTER, AND WE FORM THE MORATORIUM AND IT'S HARD TO SEE THAT THEN THIS IS STILL THE RESULT. UM, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THAT THERE HAVE AT LEAST BEEN CONVERSATIONS FOR SOMETHING. SO THAT'S WHERE I'LL END. OKAY. THANK YOU ALAN. OKAY. MY FIRST QUESTION IS, WHERE DID THESE NUMBERS COME FROM? THE THRESHOLD NUMBERS? WHAT ARE THEY BASED ON? WHAT WAS THE, THE DATA AND THE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHAT WERE THE APPROPRIATE VALUES TO USE? SO THAT WOULD BE A DIRECT QUESTION FOR THE ORIGINATORS. UM, THIS WAS THE FINAL VERSION THAT WE RECEIVED. IT WASN'T A RECOMMENDATION THAT I, MYSELF, JODY, OR STEVEN MADE TO THE ORIGINATORS. UM, BY OUR LAST MEETING, THIS WAS THE LAST VERSION THAT WE RECEIVED. SO THERE'S NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE THRESHOLD VALUES. I CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT. AND WHY, WHY WAS IT CHANGED? THE, UH, THE ACREAGE TO, UH, SQUARE FEET CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT EITHER. THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE ORIGINATORS. [00:25:02] OKAY. ON THE MEASUREMENTS, IT'S MEASURING BASED ON CAPACITY INSTEAD OF ACTUAL USAGE. SO IF I HAVE A CAR THAT DRIVES A HUNDRED MILE THAT CAN DRIVE A HUNDRED MILES AN HOUR, I CAN'T GET A TICKET BECAUSE I CAN DRIVE A HUNDRED MILES AN HOUR. I CAN ONLY GET A TICKET IF I DO DRIVE A HUNDRED MILES AN HOUR. WHY ARE WE BASING THESE MEASUREMENTS THAT FOR ENFORCEMENT BASED ON CAPACITY AS OPPOSED TO ACTUAL USAGE? OKAY. WHO ARE HERE? UM, LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE? SO THE HIGH IMPACT DEFINITION, IT CORRECT. LITERALLY CAN CALL SOMETHING HIGH IMPACT, EVEN IF IT IS NOT THE, THE LANGUAGE ACTUALLY SAYS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S EFFECTS ARE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT. IT CROSSES THE THRESHOLD BOUNDARY, IT STILL CAN BE CALLED HIGH IMPACT. CORRECT. EVEN THOUGH ITS EFFECTS ARE CONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT. CORRECT. SO YOU'RE GONNA CATCH THINGS THAT ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. YEAH, AND THIS WAS, I I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF MY CONCERNS FROM THE BEGINNING WITH, WITH ALL OF THE VERSIONS THAT I LOOKED AT, IS I ZONING AND LAND USE IS REALLY HARD AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET RIGHT. MM-HMM . AND, AND I, FRANKLY, I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU AS COUNCIL, BUT I THINK EVEN YOU ALL SOMETIMES STRUGGLE WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT, HOW THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. YOU KNOW, ONE IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION, ONE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION. UM, ALL OF THE VERSIONS OF THE CCA THAT I LOOKED AT, KIND OF RUN THOSE ALL TOGETHER AND KIND OF MISMATCH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT. UM, THIS VERSION, JUST LIKE THE FIRST VERSION, IT, IT, IT ALMOST READS LIKE WHEN YOU FIRST SIT DOWN TO READ IT, LIKE, HEY, THIS IS A ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT IT IS NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, ZONING'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL GAME FROM WHAT THIS DOES. THIS SAYS, IF YOU HIT ONE OF THESE THREE THINGS, YOU ARE IT. AND THAT'S THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST VERSION. ALSO, UM, IT, IT, IT DEFINES SOMETHING AS HIGH IMPACT, WHICH WE HAVE A HIGH INDUSTRIAL SECTION, OUR ZONING CODE, BUT THIS ISN'T ZONING, THIS IS JUST, WE'RE CREATING A CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE USE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. SO IT REALLY DOES GET CONFUSING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR CODE AND YOU SEE IND TWO, WHICH IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, AND YOU'RE LIKE, OOH, THIS FITS THERE. AND THE ANSWER IS, THIS DOES NOT FIT THERE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS, THIS LITERALLY IS LOOKING AT THREE FACTORS AND SAYING, IF YOU HIT ANY ONE OF THESE THREE AND BOTH OF THE VERSIONS DO THAT, THEN YOU ARE HIGH, WHATEVER THE WORDING IS, HIGH INDUSTRIAL OR, OR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OR WHATEVER. EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT, EVEN IF THERE'S NO IMPACT, EVEN IF THERE'S NO IMPACT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. LEMME KEEP GOING 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA BE HERE ALL NIGHT. OKAY. SO, UM, WHY WERE, IF, IF, IF THE INTENT IS TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROTECT PEOPLE, OUR PEOPLE, WHY WERE NOISE STANDARDS IN FOR SOUND, LOW FREQUENCY SOUNDS, LIGHT STANDARDS, VIBRATION STANDARDS, AIR EMISSIONS, AND GROUNDWATER IMPACTS TAKEN OUT? I BELIEVE I ASKED THAT QUESTION AND I THINK THE ANSWER I WAS GIVEN, I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS THE ANSWER. I'M JUST SAYING WHAT WAS TOLD TO ME IS THAT WOULD BE LEFT FOR EITHER THE DATA CENTER TASK FORCE TO COME UP WITH THOSE STANDARDS OR FOR COUNSEL TO ESTABLISH THOSE STANDARDS SEPARATELY, IS WHAT I WAS TOLD HONOR. INTERESTING. OKAY. UM, SPEAKING OF THE TASK FORCE, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE MANDATE OF THE TASK FORCE IS. IT WAS TO PUT A MORATORIUM ON FOR A YEAR SO THAT WE COULD STUDY THE OVERALL, UH, THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS AND DETERMINE WHAT THE APPROPRIATE AND ACCEPTABLE, UM, THRESHOLDS WOULD BE, IF ANY. AND IN THE END, TO RECOMMEND CHANGES TO ZONING, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CHARTER, UM, CITY CODE, UH, TO, UH, TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT, UM, AND PRESENT THAT TO CITY COUNCIL THAT IT COULD BE ACTED UPON. AND THAT, WHICH IT MIGHT INCLUDE A, A, A A A VOTE AS WELL, A PUBLIC VOTE. OR THE OTHER END OF IT, WE MIGHT DECIDE, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE DON'T EVER WANT ANYTHING LIKE THIS, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA BAN IT OUTRIGHT AND PUT THAT IN THE CITY CHARTER. YOU KNOW, WE COULD PUT THAT UP OUT TO THE, OUT TO THE, TO THE, UH, TO THE VOTING PUBLIC AND SAY, DO YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE CHARTER THAT THESE TYPES OF HIGH DENSITY COMPUTING FACILITIES ARE BANNED IN GROVE CITY? BUT WE DECIDED NOT TO GO THAT ROUTE. OKAY. SO THE VA, THE, THE, UH, THE THRESHOLDS, THIS IS, THIS IS INTERESTING BECAUSE BETWEEN, FIRST OF ALL, THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE JUST GOT TODAY AT 1217, THE FINAL VERSION, [00:30:04] IT DOESN'T SAY IT'S VERSION SEVEN. IT SAYS IT'S WORKING REVISION 7.1, THAT DOES NOT TELL ME IT'S A FINAL VERSION. THAT'S TELL ME IT'S STILL, IT'S STILL A WORKING COPY THAT THERE, THAT IS STILL BEING WORKED ON YOU. AND YOU JUST SAID WE CAN END UP WITH VERSION 15. YEAH, I MEAN, HAD THERE BEEN MORE, WE HAD MORE TIME, WHICH WE'LL TALK, WE CAN TALK ABOUT TIME IN A, IN A SECOND. BUT AS PART OF THIS, THERE WAS A CHANGE FROM ACRES TO SQUARE FEET. RIGHT? SO IN THE LAST, HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN? THREE WEEKS, FOUR WEEKS? I'M NOT SURE. SINCE, SINCE YOU STARTED YOUR CONVERSATIONS, I'M NOT GONNA CALL 'EM NEGOTIATIONS 'CAUSE NOBODY WAS NEGOTIATING AUGUST. UH, YEAH, I THINK OUR FIRST MEETING WAS AUGUST 7TH, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, SIR. OKAY. IT WAS A FRIDAY NIGHT, SIX WEEKS. IT WAS AUGUST 7TH. I, ON MY CALENDAR IN FRONT OF ME. SORRY, FOUR, FOUR WEEKS. THREE WEEKS, THREE, FOUR WEEKS. OKAY. SO IN THREE OR FOUR WEEKS, WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THAT ONE OF THESE VALUES WAS WRONG AND WE SHOULD CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL CCA HAD ACRES, AND THIS IS NOW SAYING SQUARE FEET. SO THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A CHANGE IN, IN FOUR WEEKS TIME. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING THIS UP FOR, FOR THE, TO THE BALLOT TO CHANGE THE CHARTER ITSELF, WHICH IS A PERMANENT CHANGE UNTIL THE NEXT TIME IT COULD GO BEFORE THE VOTERS. AS A, AS A TECHNOLOGIST MYSELF, THE FIRST RULE OF THUMB IS YOU NEVER HARD CODE PARAMETERS. YOU DON'T PUT ACTUAL VALUES. YOU, WHAT YOU DO IS YOU SAY YOU'RE GONNA CONFORM TO THIS BASED ON THE PARAMETERS THAT YOU KNOW WILL CHANGE. I MEAN, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, RIGHT? IN FOUR WEEKS, WE'VE ALREADY CHANGED ONE. IF, IF, IF THIS HAD ALREADY GONE AND WAS ALREADY IN THE CHARTER, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHANGE IT UNTIL ANOTHER REFERENDUM TO, TO AGAIN, CHANGE THE CHARTER. THAT HARD CODING OF VALUES DIRECTLY INTO THE CHARTER IS JUST WRONG, IN MY OPINION. WHAT ELSE? AS FAR AS TIME IS CONCERNED, WE DO HAVE TIME. WE'RE UNDER A MORATORIUM RIGHT NOW. WE COULD CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS AND PUT IT ON THE MAY BALLOT AND WE WOULD STILL BE UNDER THE, THE MORATORIUM. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'M IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING MORATORIUM THROUGH 2028 JUST TO GIVE US WHATEVER TIME WE NEED. WE HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD, QUITE HONESTLY, WE CAN EXTEND THAT MORATORIUM AS LONG AS WE WANT. SO TIME IS NOT AN ISSUE. AND, AND I, I'M FEEL, I I FEEL LIKE WE'RE EVERYBODY'S BEING PUSHED INTO A CORNER RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? THAT WE'VE ONLY SEEN THIS. WE'VE, WE'VE ONLY HAD THIS THING FOR FOUR HOURS. THE OTHER ONE WE DO NOT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO OUR CITY CHARTER, AND WE'VE ONLY, WE'VE ONLY SEEN THIS VERSION FOR FOUR HOURS. WE GOT THE OFFICIAL CHOICE. WE GOT THE OFFICIAL COPY TODAY. NO, NO COMMENTS. IT SAYS 7.1, EVERYONE. NO, NO. IT SAYS 7.1. NO COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE. THIS IS A ONE WAY DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL. OKAY. SO I MOVE ON? YEAH, I, I DIDN'T GET ANY ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO, CAN I JUST CLARIFY SOME, SOME STUFF? THANK YOU. UM, THE REASON WHY I, I CANNOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED IS BECAUSE I DIDN'T ORIGINATE THIS. AND I, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW, AND, AND MAYBE NOT ONLY TO YOU, MR. STERN, BUT HAVE ANY OF YOU REACHED DIRECTLY OUT TO THE ORIGINATORS OF CCAI? I. I, I CAN'T ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AND I, I WOULD REALLY RESPECT, UH, WOULD APPRECIATE THE DECORUM IN THE ROOM TONIGHT AS WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AS I DID NOT ORIGINATE THIS, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO EVERYTHING. MM-HMM . SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU'RE SEEING IN HERE. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SAY THAT THEY FELT THAT IT WAS WRONG OR IF THEY WERE GENUINELY TRYING TO HEAR SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE WERE BRINGING AS RESIDENTS OF GROVE CITY AS VOTING RESIDENTS OF THE CITY AND, AND THEM TRYING TO BE CONSIDERATE AND, AND MAYBE ACCOMMODATE BECAUSE WE WERE WILLING TO WORK TOGETHER AND DRAFT ANOTHER VERSION. 'CAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THOSE CONVERSATIONS, WE DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE GONNA END UP WITH THE PERFECT VERSION. RIGHT. THIS IS NOT PERFECT. I CANNOT SAY IT'S PERFECT. I CAN ALSO SAY THAT THIS WASN'T IN YOUR INBOX FOUR HOURS AGO AND THAT WELL, YOU'RE, YOU ARE CORRECT. ACTUALLY, THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE WAS IN YOUR INBOX, BUT THE LANGUAGE IN THIS WAS IN YOUR INBOX, I WOULD SAY ABOUT ALMOST A WEEK AGO THAT I SENT IT TO YOU ALL. IT WELL, IT WAS, THAT WAS THE LATEST COPY. YEAH. AND, AND THEN I, AND THEN WE GOT THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY CHANGES. AND THEN WE GOT THIS ONE TODAY. YEAH, YOU'RE CORRECT. HERE'S THE, HERE'S THE FINAL VERSION. OFFICIAL ORDINANCE IN THE ORDINANCE. YOU'RE CORRECT ABOUT THAT. UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY CHANGES. I DIDN'T DO A DIFF ON THE FILES. GOOD POINT. UM, I, I, I, ALL I'M SAYING IS THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE ACTUAL, WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, RIGHT? YOU CAN BRING IT UP. VERSION 7.1. ANYTHING WAS SENT OUT [00:35:01] TO COUNCIL DAYS AGO. UM, AND I REALLY WANT TO EMPHASIZE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IN THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO THE ORIGINATORS. JUST LIKE I DECIDED AND I TOOK INITIATIVE AND I REACHED OUT AND SAID, COULD WE SIT DOWN AND POSSIBLY WORK THROUGH THIS? OKAY. I, ONE FINAL POINT. YEAH, PLEASE. UM, YOU ARE RIGHT. WE DO HAVE TIME, RIGHT? WE PASSED THE MORATORIUM SIX TO ONE. WE MADE A COMMITMENT AS A COUNCIL AND AS A CITY TO DO THE WORK. MM-HMM . WE ARE DOING THE WORK. OUR TASK FORCE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE. UM, HOWEVER, AS OF TONIGHT IN THIS MOMENT, WE MAY MOMENT, WE MIGHT HAVE TIME ON THIS LANGUAGE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TIME ON THE ORIGINAL CCA. IT HAS TO GO TO THE BALLOT LEGALLY, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. SO ACCEPT THIS OR ELSE I'M, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, ARE WE REALLY COMFORTABLE AS A COUNCIL SENDING THE ORIGINAL CCA TO THE BALLOT KNOWING THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY IT MIGHT, THAT IT MIGHT WIN. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THAT GRANDFATHER'S IN OUR EXISTING BUSINESSES, IT IMPACTS POTENTIAL BUSINESSES. THIS STILL DOES HAVE AN IMPACT, BUT THERE'S STILL STUFF THAT'S BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THIS THAT WON'T HAVE AS DRASTIC OF AN IMPACT AS THE ORIGINAL CCA WILL. AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE SENDING THAT DO MR. HALL. THIS IS WHY I FELT OKAY WITH PUTTING THIS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. OKAY. IF YOU'VE HAD HIS, THAT'S TED'S GONNA COMMENT HERE. FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND MO THAT THIS WAS NOT A PUBLIC MEETING THAT YOU HAD AND EVERYTHING. YOU WERE JUST TRYING TO WORK OUT SOME ISSUES ON YOUR OWN AND, AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I I DO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M, BUT I'M CONFUSED AS I WAS GETTING EMAILS. I MEAN, YOU, WE HAD ONE DATED AUGUST 27TH THAT YOU'RE ASKING US NOT TO PUBLICLY POST ANYTHING ON SOCIAL MEDIA. AND THEN I GET ANOTHER ONE FROM, I'M COPIED ON THIS FROM, UM, DAVID FREE THAT SAYS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER ALIGNING THE CCA VITAL SAFEGUARDS WITH THE FORM OF A GOVERNMENT CHARTER, GOVERNMENT, A CHARTER, UM, AMENDMENT. THIS IS TRANSFORMATIVE, SO ON AND SO FORTH, SO ON AND SO FORTH. I'M ASKING MYSELF, WHY IS DAVID FREE SOMEBODY THAT'S ADVOCATING FOR A CHARTER CHANGE INVOLVED IN A MEETING THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE CCAI, I DON'T GET IT. AND THEN WE HAVE MARK RES THAT'S, THAT'S COPIED ON THIS EMAIL AND, AND OTHERS, I I'M CONFUSED ON WHAT THESE MEETINGS WERE ABOUT IS AND WHAT THE GOAL OF THE MEETINGS ARE. I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TRYING TO TALK TO THEM. THAT'S A, THAT'S A VALID THING. THAT'S A, SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD DO AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. BUT I'M SEEING ALL THIS STUFF, THIS, THIS CLUTTER, AND IT'S CONFUSING AS TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY THE AGENDA HERE. YEAH. AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT IS VALID. AND, YOU KNOW, MR. FREE REACHED OUT AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO WANTED TO BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION AND, AND HE WAS ALLOWED TO BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION. MY, MY MY MINDSET IN THESE, IN THESE DISCUSSIONS WAS LET'S TRY TO INVOLVE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE MAYBE THERE'S A PERSPECTIVE OUT THERE THAT MIGHT GET TO THE ORIGINATORS OF CA AND THAT MIGHT HELP BRING US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I'M NOT, I CANNOT SAY THAT THIS IS THE WRONG DIRECTION BECAUSE THEY MANAGED TO GET OVER 2000 SIGNATURES. BUT NO, I'M NOT, I'M NOT CRITICIZING YOU FOR REACHING OUT TO PEOPLE. I'M NOT, I KNOW. I'M JUST EXPLAINING. IT'S WHEN YOU'RE SEEING ALL THIS HAPPENING HAPPENING AND EVERYTHING, AND YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, NOW WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO CHANGE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THEY'RE INVOLVED IN A MEETING NOW, AND NOW WE'VE GOT PEOPLE SAYING WE SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT IT. AND, AND, AND THEN IT'S NOT A PUBLIC MEETING. I'M JUST SAYING IT'S CONFUSING IS ALL, IT'S, I'M NOT KNOCKING YOU AT ALL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S A, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO AS A COUNCILMAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S INVOLVED IN, IN THE, IN, IN, IN THIS ISSUE AND EVERYTHING. ME, I SAY THE CITIZEN SIGNED A PETITION, IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE BALLOT. DO I LIKE IT? NO, BUT PEOPLE SIGN THE PETITION AND IT SHOULD GO TO THE BALLOT. WE SHOULDN'T BE, WE SHOULDN'T BE CHANGING SOMETHING BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID OF SOMETHING. THE VOTERS, IT, IT, THEY'VE GOT THE SIGNATURES. IT, THEY, IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE BALLOT. AND THE DISCUSSION NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN, IN, IN THE PUBLIC, IN A CAMPAIGN, IN WHATEVER CAMPAIGNS HAPPEN. I MEAN, IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT 1600 PEOPLE SIGNED ON TO. I MEAN, UNLESS ALL 1600 PEOPLE ARE GONNA COME IN HERE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS OKAY, BECAUSE THEY SIGNED ON TO SOMETHING TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. NOW, WHETHER THEY WERE MISGUIDED OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE POINT OF THE MATTER IS, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE THE SIGNATURES. THIS, THIS DISCUSSION NOW GOES INTO THE PUBLIC FORUM FOR, FOR THE CAMPAIGN AND EVERYTHING. AND THAT'S WHERE THE DISCUSSION HAS TO, IN MY MIND, HAS TO HAPPEN AT THIS POINT. OKAY. SO EVERYBODY'S HAD AT LEAST ONE BITE AT THE APPLE, BELIEVE MAYBE SOME TOO. SO, STATE MR. STAGE, YOU ASKED FOR COMMENT. THIS WILL BE PERHAPS, WELL, I, I JUST WANNA RESPOND TO, UH, MR. OMAR'S COMMENT ABOUT NOT REACHING OUT TO THE COMMITTEE. I'M, I'M LIKE, MR. BARRY, THIS [00:40:01] PETITION AND THIS GROUP OF PETITIONS WAS SIGNED BY 1600 PEOPLE. THEY'VE BEEN VERIFIED THEIR VALID SIGNATURES. IT'S ON THE BALLOT AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED. THE ONLY THING THAT HELD IT UP WAS THIS CASE IN TRENTON AND WHAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN POSSIBLY WITH ELECTOR VERSUS PERSON WHO VOTED IN THE LAST ELECTION. BUT IT IS FACT. THERE WERE 1600 PEOPLE SIGNED IT SAYING GO TO THE I I'M NOT GONNA REACH OUT AND SAY, WELL, DO YOU WANT TO TRY TO GO, GO TRY THE 1600 PEOPLE GET IN, REVERSE THEIR HERSELF. NO, IT WON'T HAPPEN. OKAY, JODY, JUST SOME FINAL COMMENTS, FINAL COMMENT. UM, I APPRECIATE THIS BEING ADDED ONTO THE AGENDA BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT OBSERVED AIRTIME BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING, SOME WORK THAT WAS DONE. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. IF, IF THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE FEEL THAT THIS IS, UM, NOT THE, THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS SIGNED BY THE 1600 PEOPLE THAT WERE CERTIFIED, WE CAN WITHDRAW THIS AFTER, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE'VE HAD THIS AIRTIME ON THIS, WE CAN STILL WITHDRAW THIS AND GO BACK TO THE, YOU CAN JUST FOCUS ON THE ORIGINAL. I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE AS WELL. JUST VOTE ON IT. I MEAN, WELL, I MEAN, THERE'S, IT'S THE SAME THING. YEAH, IT'S, I COULD ASK TAMMY, BUT IT WOULD BE THE SAME THING AS VOTING ON IT, WOULDN'T IT? I JUST HEARD SO MUCH CONCERNS ABOUT THE ORIGINAL CCA AND THE EXISTING BUSINESSES AND THE IMPACT WE HEARD FROM THE EXISTING BUSINESSES AT OUR LAST MEETING, AND THIS NEWER VERSION ALMOST LIMITS THAT FOR THE MOST PART AND THE IMPACT THAT IT WOULD HAVE ON OUR EXISTING BUSINESSES. OKAY. AND IF WE'RE OKAY WITH MAKING THE DECISION OF, OF, OF SENDING SOMETHING TO THE BALLOT, IT'S GONNA HAVE A DRASTIC IMPACT. I JUST, I DON'T KNOW. WELL, THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW IT AS WELL, DON'T THEY? MM-HMM . IS THAT TRUE? I MEAN, BASED ON THE CONVERSATION, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA WITHDRAW. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S TO THEM. YEAH. SO, ALL RIGHT. C 44 26 ADDED TO THE AGENDA. SO I DON'T HAVE THE OFFICIAL WORDS TO READ HERE, TAMMY, BUT, UH, IS AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF GROVE CITY, OHIO AT THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3RD, AN INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GROVE CITY CHARTER VERSION 7.1, AND TO ADD A ARTICLE TITLED COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT. SO THIS IS THE ADDED AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND DECLARING EMERGENCY. YES, SIR. DO WE DECLARE THE EMERGENCY FIRST OR AFTER YOU DO IT AS PART OF THE, WHEN YOU MOVE, WHEN YOU MAKE A MOTION, YOU MOVE TO AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY? YEAH. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. YOU HAVE TO. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT , WHAT? WILL YOU MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE? OKAY. TO WAIVE THE RULES OF COUNSEL, YOU NEED TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND WAIVE THE WAITING PERIOD. I MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES OF COUNCIL AND REMOVE THE WAITING PERIOD FOR THIS LEGISLATION. SECOND. OKAY. OKAY. AND IF, IF THE VOTE IS AFFIRMATIVE ON THAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO WHAT WHAT HAPPENS IS, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A, A LITTLE DIFFERENT PROCESS THAN, THAN WE'RE USED TO, IS THIS AMENDMENT IS A VERSION THAT IN ESSENCE TURNS THIS INTO COUNCIL MAKING A REQUEST TO THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS TO PUT THIS ON IN ORDER TO DO SO, AND MEET THE GUIDE OR THE TIMELINE ESTABLISHED BY THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS TOMORROW. THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE ENACTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE. SO IT WOULD REQUIRE FIVE VOTES FOR IT TO BE AN EMERGENCY. IF THERE ARE NOT FIVE VOTES TO WAIVE THE RULES AS YOU'VE JUST MADE A MOTION, THEN FRANKLY, THIS DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T DO WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO IN TERMS OF THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. SO ON THE TABLE, TAMMY, IS THE MOTION TO MAKE IT AN EMERGENCY SEAT 44 26? YES, SIR. SO THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY VOTING ON THE AMENDED VERSION. THIS IS JUST VOTING ON THE OPTION OF IT BEING AN EMERGENCY. THIS IS, THIS VOTE IS TO WAIVE THE RULES OF COUNSEL AND MAKE AN EMERGENCY WAIVE THE 30 DAY GRACE PERIOD SO THAT IT CAN BE APPROVED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE. THIS IS, THIS IS A PETITION BY COUNSEL TO PUT SOMETHING TO THE VOTERS. AND THIS, THIS IS A TWO PART VOTE. THE FIRST PART WOULD WAIVE THE RULES. IF YOU GOT FIVE VOTES ON THAT, THEN PRESUMABLY SOME WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE, WHICH WOULD BE THE SECOND VOTE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE. OKAY, SO WE SHOULD CALL FOR VOTE. THIS IS ON THE EMERGENCY. EVERYBODY CLEAR? MM-HMM . OKAY. ANDERSON? YES. LINGA? YES. I'M SORRY. NO. YES, YES, YES. FOR THE EMERGENCY, CORRECT. BARRY? NO. COLT. NO. [00:45:01] STERN. NO BURROWS? YES. OMAR? YES. OKAY. SO EMERGENCY PASSED. NO. EMERGENCY. DID NOT PASS. DID NOT PASS. OKAY. NO, SIR. YOU HAVE A SIMPLE MAJORITY AND AN EMERGENCY TAKES FIVE VOTES. OKAY. SO C 44 26 IS DONE FOR NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW ORDINANCE C 44 26. SECOND. I'LL SAY SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. LINGA? YES. BARRY? YES. HOLT? YES. YES. BURROWS? YES. OMAR? YES. ANDERSON? YES. OKAY. C 44 WAS THE 26 C 44. 26 WAS THE ADDED ITEM FOR TONIGHT. NOW TO THE AGENDA ITEMS, [Ordinance C-37-26 Provide for the submission to the electors of the City of Grove City, Ohio at the General Election to be held on November 03, 2026 the Initiative Amendments to the Grove City Charter to add a new Article titled Community Consent Amendment. Second reading and public hearing.] ORIGINAL AGENDA ITEM ORDINANCE C 37 26. VERY SIMILAR, BUT NOT VERSION SEVEN ONE WITH ALL THE ORIGINAL PARAMETERS. AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF GROVE CITY, OHIO AT THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3RD. THE INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GROVE CITY CHARTER TO ADD A NEW ARTICLE TITLED COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT. AND WITH THAT, WE WILL START WITH PUBLIC INPUT AND THEN GO TO COUNCIL INPUT, AND THEN WE WILL VOTE. EVERYBODY CLEAR WITH THAT? IN THE ORDER THAT PEOPLE SIGNED UP, I'LL CALL AND YOUR COMMENTING ON COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT. ITEM NUMBER C 37 26. PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND PROVIDE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND CITY. THANK YOU. UH, MATT. S-Z-O-L-L-O-Z-I. SO, OR ZI? ZZI. OKAY. MATT, HAVE AT IT. DO I PRESS OKAY. IT'S ON ITS OWN. UH, YOU'RE, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. IT'LL GO YELLOW WHEN YOU HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE. AND I'M SORRY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO STOP YOU AT THREE MINUTES. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE, MAYOR, UH, ESTEEMED, UH, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. I APPRECIATE IT. MY NAME IS MATT AZZI. UH, I SERVE AS THE DIRECTOR OF ACT OHIO, WHICH STANDS FOR AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION TRADES OHIO FOUNDATION, OR THE BUILDING TRADES HERE IN THE STATE OF OHIO. YOU GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS, SIR, WHAT WAS YOUR ADDRESS? I'M SORRY. 1707 STANFORD ROAD, COLUMBUS, OHIO. OKAY. 4 3 2 1 2, UH, REPRESENT A HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE, UH, MEMBERS ACROSS THE STATE OF OHIO, HUNDREDS OF WHOM LIVE HERE IN GROVE CITY. OUR MEMBERS ARE ELECTRICIANS, PIPE FITTERS, CEMENT, MASONS, ROOFERS, UH, LABORERS, UH, ALL THE INDUSTRIAL CRAFTS, UH, SOLID MIDDLE CLASS JOBS. UH, WE INVEST, UH, UPWARDS OF $80 MILLION PER YEAR IN APPRENTICESHIP AND SAFETY TRAINING. UH, NOT ONE PENNY OF WHICH IS TAXPAYER SOURCED ALL TO TRAIN WORKERS TO BUILD THE PROJECTS THAT THIS PROPOSAL SEEKS TO ELIMINATE IN GROVE CITY. UH, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE FAMILY OR FRIENDS IN THE BUILDING TRADES, IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE WITH, WITH OUR MEMBERS. LIFE IS GOOD WHEN WORK IS GOOD AND LIFE GETS TOUGH WHEN WORK IS BAD. OUR CONCERN WITH THIS, UH, CCA IS THAT ENERGY GENERATION PHARMACEUTICAL, UH, ADVANCED, UH, MANUFACTURING, AUTOMOTIVE, DEFENSE, AEROSPACE CHIP PROCESSING RELATED IT INVESTMENT LOGISTICS. ALL EXAMPLES OF RECENT LARGE SCALE INVESTMENTS HERE IN CENTRAL OHIO WILL BE OFF THE TABLE FOR GROVE CITY AND OUR MEMBERS WHO LIVE HERE. IF THIS WERE TO PASS MEMBERS OF THE TRADES, BLUE COLLAR WORKERS WHO PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES ON THESE JOB SITES, TAKE THE DIRECT HIT. UH, I DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH, UH, WHAT THE ORIGINAL CCA WILL ACCOMPLISH. WE BELIEVE IT'S CLEARLY DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE INVESTMENT IN GROVE CITY BY CREATING NUMEROUS HURDLES AND OBSTACLES TO ECONOMIC GROWTH. UM, LONG STORY SHORT, WE FEEL NO INVESTOR WILL OPT FOR THIS LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY AND DELAY. THAT'S JUST NOT THE WAY ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WORKS IN THIS STATE, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU'RE COMPETING WITH, UH, OTHER AREAS OF OHIO THAT ARE LOOKING TO INCENTIVIZE THIS INVESTMENT INSTEAD OF, UH, AS THIS CCA DOES PUNISH INVESTORS. UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS COMMUNITY CONSENT AGREEMENT IS THE MOST ANTI-DEVELOPMENT JOB KILLING PROPOSAL WE'VE SEEN IN 30 YEARS. [00:50:01] UH, I ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. IF YOU DO ACT OHIO, THE OHIO STATE BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL AND THE COLUMBUS CENTRAL OHIO BUILDING TRADES WILL BE ALL IN AGAINST IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. NO, UM, NO CLAPPING, NO COMMENTS DURING DISCUSSION AND PEOPLE'S PRESENTATIONS. SEAN CONRAD, GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND THANKING YOU FOR THE TIME FOR, UM, GETTING TOGETHER AND PAYING SUCH SERIOUS ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. I AM NOT PREPARED OR AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF, BEHALF ADDRESS, I'M SORRY. NAME, ADDRESS. CITY. I KNEW THAT SEAN CONRAD. I KNOW WE KNOW IT, BUT , YEAH. 4 0 6 9 BROADWAY GROVE CITY. OKAY. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. UM, I'M NOT PREPARED OR AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE NEW, UM, THE THE NEW CONVERSATION, IF YOU WILL, UH, REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT. BUT I AM HERE TO TELL YOU THAT AS A LARGE AND WELL-RESPECTED CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN CENTRAL OHIO, UM, ONE OF THE LARGEST, UH, SUBURBAN CHAMBERS, WE REPRESENT OVER 750 BUSINESSES REPRESENTING OVER 29,000 EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT THAT MEMBERSHIP. AND THOSE PEOPLE COUNT ON US TO HELP PROVIDE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS SAFE, UH, FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS. AND I'LL, I CAN DO THIS EVENING AS TELL YOU THAT WE STAND ON OUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT, UH, PREPARED BY OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WHICH SAYS, THE CHAMBER SUPPORTS RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, THOUGHTFUL PLANNING, PRESERVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT MAKES GROWTH CITY A WONDERFUL PLACE TO WORK, LIVE, AND DO BUSINESS. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE A MEANINGFUL VOICE IN SHAPING THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY. AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW, HOWEVER, THE CHAMBER BELIEVES THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD CREATE SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, INVESTMENT, AND BUSINESS EXPANSION. THE BOARD IS CONCERNED THAT THE AMENDMENT COULD LIMIT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO RESPOND TO FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES, INCREASE REGULATORY COMPLEXITY, AND MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR EMPLOYERS TO INVEST AND GROW IN GROVE CITY. THE CHAMBER BELIEVES THAT GROVE CITY'S EXISTING PLANNING, ZONING, AND PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING PROCESSES PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING, UH, DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, WHILE BALANCING COMMUNITY INPUT, ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND LONG-TERM PLANNING. AFTER CONSIDERABLE AND CONSIDERABLE, UM, AND EXTENSION CONSIDERATION, THE CHAMBER HAS DETERMINED THAT IT CANNOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED CCA AND ENCOURAGES RESIDENTS TO VOTE NO. WHILE WE CANNOT SPEAK ON BEHALF OF 750 MEMBERS AND 29,000 EMPLOYEES, WE CAN TELL YOU THAT OUR BOARD REPRESENTS THAT, UH, DIVERSE MEMBERSHIP AND SPEAKS TO THEIR, TO THEIR SATISFACTION. AND SO I THANK YOU FOR LISTENING, AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE. THANK YOU. NEXT, WE'LL HAVE JONAS PETERSON. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MAYOR STAGE. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I'M JONAS PETERSON. I RESIDE AT 4 0 9 OAK STREET IN COLUMBUS. UH, SO JONAS PETERSON, I'M THE CHIEF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH THE COLUMBUS PARTNERSHIP. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF ONE COLUMBUS, YOUR REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION SERVING THE 11 COUNTY REGION. IN THAT ROLE, OUR TEAM WORKS WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF COMPANIES AND INDUSTRIES, UH, AS THEY PURSUE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT GIVES US UNIQUE INSIGHT INTO HOW BUSINESSES SELECT LOCATIONS, HOW QUICKLY THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE, AND THE FACTORS THAT PULL COMMUNITIES OUT OF CONSIDERATION. WANNA LEAVE YOU WITH THREE POINTS TONIGHT? THE FIRST IS THAT GROVE CITY MATTERS TO THIS REGION. IT'S ONE OF THE STRONGEST COMMUNITIES IN OUR REGION, AND WE WANT, WE NEED GROVE CITY COMPETING FOR AMAZING JOB CREATION OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE COMING TO CENTRAL OHIO. WE NEED NOT JUST COMPETING, WINNING THOSE OPPORTUNITIES HERE. SECOND, THIS AMENDMENT WILL STOP FAR MORE THAN DATA CENTERS. MAJOR EMPLOYERS NEED AVAILABLE SITES. THEY NEED A CLEAR, PREDICTABLE PATH TO A DECISION. THE COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT TAKES GROVE CITY OUTTA THE RUNNING FOR MANY OF THOSE MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS AND INVESTMENTS. COMPANIES WILL NOT WAIT. THEY'LL SIMPLY INVEST [00:55:01] ELSEWHERE. WHEN GROVE CITY MISSES OUT ON THOSE JOBS AND INVESTMENT, IT ALSO LOSES OUT ON THE TAX REVENUE, THE TAX REVENUE THAT ALL THOSE PROJECTS WOULD GENERATE. THAT MEANS FEWER RESOURCES FOR POLICE, FIRE, ROADS, PARKS, AND OTHER SERVICES THAT RESIDENTS RELY ON. IT MEANS LESS SUPPORT FOR SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY ASSETS THAT HELP MAKE GROVE CITY SUCH A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE AND DO BUSINESS. THIRD POINT, WE CAN PROTECT THE RESIDENTS OF GROVE CITY WITHOUT TAKING THE CITY OUT. THE COMPETITION FOR NEW JOBS, RESIDENTS DESERVE A VOICE. LOCAL LEADERS SHOULD PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS, SET HIGH STANDARDS, AND EVEN REJECT PROJECTS IF THEY'RE NOT RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY. WE GET THAT. THAT'S GOOD. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT ONE COLUMBUS. WE'RE HERE TO HELP YOU DO THAT. KEY IS PRESERVING A FAIR PROCESS ALONG THE WAY THAT EXAMINES EACH PROPOSAL BASED ON ITS MERITS, NOT SHUTTING THE DOOR COMPLETELY ON GROVE CITY'S ABILITY TO COMPETE AND GROW. CLOSING GROVE CITY'S VITALLY IMPORTANT TO THIS REGION. WE WANT GROVE CITY TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE AND WIN FOR AMAZING JOB O OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE COMING TO CENTRAL OHIO. I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT, ANDY, HARLEY NAME AND ADDRESS, AND CITY PLEASE, ANDY. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. UH, MY NAME IS ANDY HARDY. I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS. I RESIDE IN 1900 COVENTRY, COLUMBUS, OHIO, 4 3 2 1 2. UM, AS I MENTIONED, I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS FOR THE COLUMBUS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, UM, WHICH REPRESENTS MANY EMPLOYERS ACROSS THE CENTRAL OHIO 11 COUNTY REGION, INCLUDING MANY WHO DO BUSINESS HERE AND WORK HERE AND LIVE HERE IN GROVE CITY. WE'RE HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IN GROVE CITY DOESN'T NECESSARILY STAY IN GROVE CITY. UM, CENTRAL OHIO HAS SPENT THE LAST DECADE. BUILDING A REPUTATION IS ONE OF THE MOST ATTRACTIVE REGIONS IN THE COUNTRY FOR BUSINESS INVESTMENT. AND THAT REPUTATION DEPENDS ON PREDICTABILITY. EMPLOYERS NEED TO KNOW THAT THE RULES FOR BUILDING HERE ARE CONSISTENT, LAWFUL, AND APPLIED FAIRLY ACROSS COMMUNITIES ACROSS THIS REGION. THE PROPOSED AGREE, UH, THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY CONSENT AGREEMENT RAISES EXACTLY THE KIND OF UNCERTAINTY THAT GIVES BUSINESSES AND SITE SELECTORS CONCERN. IT WOULD TAKE, UH, A SPECIAL PUBLIC REFERENDUM IN ADDITION TO GROSS CITIES ALREADY VERY GOOD ZONING PROCESS AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS BEFORE ANY LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT COULD MOVE FORWARD, POTENTIALLY AFFECTING MANUFACTURING, LOGISTICS, WAREHOUSE PROJECTS WELL BEYOND DATA CENTERS AND OTHER DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE. WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE FINES TONIGHT, THE ESCALATING FINES UP TO $500,000 ON DAY 91. THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AS WELL, AND I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL. THE MATERIAL TRAIN CHANGE PROCESS IS CUMBERSOME. THE COMPLIANCE AND APPARATUS ITSELF IS SUBSTANTIAL. SETTING THOSE SPECIFICS ASIDE, OUR BROADER, BROADER CONCERN IN HERE, IN FACT HERE, IS REGIONAL. IF A GROSS CITY ADOPTS A REFERENDUM PENALTY MODEL LATER ON TOP OF A ZONING MODEL, OTHER COMMUNITIES MAY FEEL PRESSURED TO FOLLOW. UM, THE REALITY IS THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES FRAGMENTING THE PREDICTABLE INVESTIBLE CLIMATE THAT IS MADE CENTRAL OHIO COMPETITIVE BUSINESSES CONSIDERING THE REGION, THESE RULES, NOT A PATCHWORK, THEY, THEY'LL JUST GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. THEY DON'T NEED TO BE HERE. WE WON'T HAVE THE JOBS AND WE WON'T HAVE THE INVESTMENT. SO THE REALITY IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS JUST YOU SCRUTINIZE THIS, YOU TAKE YOUR TIME, YOU FOLLOW THE PROCESS AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS GREAT CITY. MAYOR COUNCIL, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME HERE AND WE APPRECIATE ALL YOU DO. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU. NEXT, DON ANDERSON. THANK YOU MAYOR. UH, CITY COUNCIL. APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. MY NAME IS DON ANDERSON, 1816 AMBER LIGHT WAY, GROVE CITY, OHIO. UH, LONG TIME GROVE CITY RESIDENT. UM, FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER FOR A LARGE CENTRAL OHIO CONTRACTOR. I'M ALSO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL A GC, SO I'M INTIMATELY TIED IN WITH THE CONSTRUCTION WORLD. UH, I'VE SPENT 36 YEARS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, WHICH THAT HURTS TO SAY ALLOWED TO BE HONEST. UH, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON PROJECTS ACROSS EIGHT STATES, AND I'VE WORKED WITH [01:00:01] DOZENS OF MUNICIPALITIES. AND DURING THAT TIME, I'VE LEARNED ONE REALLY IMPORTANT LESSON. WELL-INTENDED POLICIES OFTEN CREATE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. I BELIEVE THIS CCA MAY BE ONE OF THOSE CASES. I'M NOT HERE TONIGHT TO ADVOCATE FOR DATA CENTERS, NOR AM I HERE TO BE AN OPPONENT OF DATA CENTERS. IN FACT, I'VE NEVER BUILT ONE AND HAVE NO INTENTION OF BUILDING ONE. MY CONCERN IS NOT ABOUT ANY ONE PROJECT OR INDUSTRY. MY CONCERN IS ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THIS PROPOSAL COULD SET AND THE UNINTENDED IMPACTS THAT IT COULD HAVE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR COMMUNITY. I'VE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HELP BUILD PROJECTS IN GROVE CITY, HAVE MADE MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCES IN PEOPLE'S LIVES. BUCKEYE RANCH, COBBLESTONE MANOR, WHICH IS SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SOUTHWEST CITY SCHOOLS EVEN TARGET UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. PROJECTS LIKE THESE WOULD'VE FACED OBSTACLES OR UNCERTAINTY TO EVEN HAPPEN FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE LIVED HERE LONG ENOUGH. AND I HAVE, WE REMEMBER WHEN GROVE CITY WAS OFTEN DISMISSED WITH LABELS LIKE GROVE TUCKIE. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I HEARD THAT PHRASE. TODAY. WE'RE SIMPLY GROVE CITY, A COMMUNITY WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE, WANT TO WORK, WANT TO INVEST, AND WANT TO RAISE THEIR FAMILIES. WHAT MORE COULD YOU ASK FOR THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. WE SHOULD BE PROUD THAT BUSINESSES WANT TO INVEST HERE. WE SHOULD WELCOME THOUGHTFUL GROWTH, AND I STRESS THOUGHTFUL GROWTH. TO REMAIN STRONG IN A SUSTAINABLE CITY, WE NEED OPPORTUNITIES FOR INVESTMENT, FOR JOB CREATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. I'D LIKE TO STRESS HERE, WE ALREADY HAVE ESTABLISHED PROCESSES, REGULATIONS, AND ELECTED OFFICIALS WITH EVALUATING THESE, COMMUN THESE OPPORTUNITIES ON BEHALF OF OUR RESIDENTS. MY BIGGEST REQUEST HERE TONIGHT IS THAT WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS BASED ON FACTS, THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, AND A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES. AND NOT BASED ON EMOTION ON SLOGANS, SOUNDBITES, AND POLARIZING CATCHPHRASES. AND THE BEAUTY OF IT IS WE'RE A DEMOCRACY. EVERYONE HAS THEIR SAY. EVERYONE WILL GET A VOTE ULTIMATELY, AND WE SHOULD ALL BE THANKFUL FOR THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT. THANK YOU. NEXT WOULD BE ANDREA ASHLEY. THANK YOU. ANDREA. ASHLEY, 2 7 9 4 CLIFTON ROAD, COLUMBUS. UH, GOOD EVENING. AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR CONCERNS WITH THE COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT. MY NAME IS ANDREA ASHLEY. I MANAGE THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR THE CENTRAL OHIO. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS ARE A-G-C-A-G-C IS A CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATION WHOSE MEMBERS ARE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDERS ACROSS 14 CENTRAL HILL COUNTIES. WITH OUR MEMBERS IN CONSTRUCTION ADVANCEMENT PROGRAMS, WE REPRESENT OVER 150 CONTRACTORS. THEY BUILD YOUR SCHOOLS, RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS, OFFICES, MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, AND OTHER VERTICAL STRUCTURES. THEY EMPLOY HUNDREDS OF GROVE CITY RESIDENTS. COMPANIES AND DEVELOPERS HAVE CHOICES WHERE THEY INVEST PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IF BUILDING OR EXPANDING IN GROVES GROVE CITY BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT, UNCERTAIN, OR TIME CONSUMING, THEY WILL SIMPLY CHOOSE ANOTHER COMMUNITY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY MEET ANY OF THE THRESHOLDS CONTAINED IN THE CONSENT AMENDMENT. SMALL BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO AVOID IT. 'CAUSE YOU'RE BASICALLY PUTTING UP, WE'RE NOT OPEN FOR BUSINESS. SIGN PROBE CITY WOULD MISS OUT ON THE NEW INVESTMENT JOBS, TAX REVENUE, AND OTHER BENEFITS THAT COME WITH RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO SPECULATE. THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE TRIED TO DO SUCH AN INITIATIVE WHERE THEY HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS TIED TO VOTES OF THE CITIZENS. AND 2006, ST. PETE BEACH VOTERS AMENDED THE CITY CHARTER TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL OF CERTAIN LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT CHANGES. FIVE YEARS LATER, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAD AN ANALYSIS THAT CONCLUDED THE REQUIREMENT EFFECTIVELY STALLED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT. ST. PETE VOTERS LATER REPEALED IT. AND SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA. A VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1977. THEY'VE MISSED OUT ON SO MUCH INVESTMENT, SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES. THIS NOVEMBER, THE CITY IS ASKING RESIDENTS TO REPEAL IT, CITING LOSS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS TO ECONOMIC GROWTH. THE GROVE CITY COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT IS MORE EXPANSIVE THAN THOSE TWO EXAMPLES. IT DOESN'T GOVERN A PARTICULAR ZONING CHANGE OR TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT COULD AFFECT HOSPITALS, SCHOOLS, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHURCHES, PARKS, AND OTHER EXISTING FACILITIES. THINGS EVERY RESIDENT USES. A PUBLIC VOTE COULD BE REQUIRED WHEN AN EXISTING EMPLOYER WANTS EXPAND BY MORE THAN 10%. OR BECAUSE OWNERSHIP OR OPERATIONAL CONTROL CHANGES SHOULD THE BALLOT PROPOSAL PASS. GROVE CITY WOULD BE EXPERIMENTING WITH THE REGULATORY [01:05:01] STRUCTURE CONSIDERABLY PRODDER THAN THE PROBLEMATIC EXAMPLES I PROVIDED. AND THERE WERE A LOT MORE. IF YOU LOOK TO CALIFORNIA, LEARN FROM THOSE EXPERIENCES RATHER THAN REPEAT THEM, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE THIS COUNCIL AND GROVE CITY RESIDENTS TO OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALISON CHESTER. ALISON CHESTER, 2 3, 1 4 BROADWIN CIRCLE, GROVE CITY, OHIO. I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT TO SHARING MY LOCATION AS OTHERS HAVE STATED IN PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS. IT'S NOT NECESSARY AND YOU COULD CHANGE THAT RULE AT ANY TIME. I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I'M AN ACTUAL GROVE CITY RESIDENT, NOT A BUSINESS OWNER AND NOT FROM COLUMBUS. UM, I'VE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY TONIGHT. AND WITH THE AGENDA, I ALSO WASN'T SURE WHAT TO PREPARE. AND I ASKED ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS VIA EMAIL YESTERDAY MORNING, UM, SEVERAL QUESTIONS. TWO OF YOU, WHICH REPLIED, MR. OMAR SENT A VERY THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE AND MRS. BURROWS REPLIED, MR. BARRY SAID HE WOULD RESEARCH IT AND NEVER GAVE ME AN ANSWER. AND THE REST OF YOU NEVER REPLIED AT ALL. UM, I FULLY SUPPORT THE CCA AND I APPLAUD GROVE CITY PROTECT GROVE CITY'S WILLINGNESS TO COME TO THE TABLE. THEY HEARD CONCERNS FROM THE COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS MEMBERS, AND WERE WILLING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS WITH MR. OMAR AND MR. SMITH. UM, AND THE REST OF YOU COULD HAVE ANY TIME CONTACT THEM OR DO ANYTHING. THIS PETITION HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE JULY. ONE OF YOU HAVE EVEN SIGNED THIS PETITION AND KNEW WHAT IT WAS. UM, SO I CAN'T, I REALLY, REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE TIME OR NOT UNDERSTANDING IT WHEN YOU COULD HAVE REACHED OUT EARLIER THAN AUGUST. UM, THE CCA IS GOING TO PASS IN NOVEMBER, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. SO YOU SHOULD HAVE PASSED THE AMENDED LANGUAGE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. THE PEOPLE OF GROVE CITY ARE REALLY SICK AND TIRED OF NOT FEELING THEY'RE, THEY'RE HEARD. UH, MANY, MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT TO GROW, BUT DON'T AGREE WITH WHERE THE CITY IS GOING. DON'T AGREE. I DON'T KNOW ANYONE THAT AGREES WITH THE TWO, UH, THE 2050 PLAN OR WHERE THE CITY CITY IS HEADING. I MEAN, YOU LOOK AT SOCIAL MEDIA AND IT'S PRETTY PROOF OF THAT. UM, YOU WANNA ASK WHETHER'S MISTRUST. IT'S 'CAUSE THERE'S A PERCEIVED LACK, WHETHER THERE IS OR NOT, OF TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNICATION FROM BOTH THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE ADMINISTRATION. UM, I'VE TALKED TO MOST OF YOU ONE-ON-ONE, BUT WHEN I'VE RECEIVED, WHEN EMAILED YOU, THERE'S NO COMMUNICATION. THE ONLY MEMBERS WHO HAVE ACTUALLY HELD TOWN HALLS WHERE THERE GETS TO BE BACK AND FORTH CONVERSATIONS ARE MR. OMAR AND MR. BURROWS ON THE LAST ONE. SO TO SAY THAT THERE ISN'T A GOOD COMMUNICATION, WE COULD GO BACK AND FORTH AND ACTUALLY HAVE A CONVERSATION OR HAVE TOWN HALLS, BUT THERE ISN'T THAT RIGHT NOW IN OUR COMMUNITY. UM, I'VE ALSO HEARD PEOPLE SAY THERE'S THE MORATORIUM. THERE'S NO FIRE, THERE'S NO NEED TO RUSH THIS. UM, YOU DON'T INSTALL SPRINKLERS WHEN THERE'S A FIRE. YOU STALL THEM BEFORE THEY HAPPEN. UM, CCA IS A BARE MINIMUM, NOT THE MAXIMUM THE TASK FORCE SHOULD DO ITS JOB AND PUT REQUIREMENTS ON THIS IS JUST BARE MINIMUM OF WHERE WE SHOULD GO. BECAUSE HEADWATERS EXTENDED THEIR LETTER FOR 18 MONTHS. I THINK THE EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA 'CAUSE THEY'RE SITTING THERE WAITING FOR THAT MORATORIUM TO EXPIRE. TO EXPAND. UM, IN CLOSING, SUPPOSEDLY YOU MUST PASS THE CCA AND IF YOU WERE GONNA PASS IT ALREADY, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WAITED FOR THE TRENTON DECISION. IF WE SUPPORTED VOTERS IN WHAT THEY WERE SAYING, WE SHOULD HAVE JUST PASSED IT BEFORE AND NOT HAD THIS MEETING. UM, IF YOU'RE CONSIDERED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THE COMPROMISE VERSION. AND ABOVE ALL, WE NEED COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPARENCY FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FROM THE ADMINISTRATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND LAST IS TODD BOWEN OR BOWER. UH, THANK YOU. TODD BOWEN. 5 4 6 6 CEDAR BUSH ROAD, COLUMBUS, 4 3 2 2 9. UM, AND NUMBER ONE, THANK YOU TO EVERYONE HERE, UM, THE ADMINISTRATION, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE. UM, IT'S, IT'S A LOT THAT YOU DO AND IT'S, UH, VERY NOTED. UH, I REPRESENT THE BIA OF CENTRAL OHIO, AND I JUST HAVE THE AMAZING OPPORTUNITY TO BE THE PERSON WHO REPRESENTS THOSE IN CENTRAL OHIO WHO BUILD FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE NEIGHBORS AND FAMILIES. OUR MEMBERS WHO HAVE THE HONOR TO BUILD PLACES IN OUR COMMUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE, WORK, PLAY, AND RAISE A FAMILY ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON GROVE CITY BEING THAT PLACE FOR HOMES TO BE BUILT FOR OUR FUTURE NEIGHBORS AND OUR FUTURE FAMILIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC, UH, SIGNED UP COMMENT. SO NOW IT WOULD BE TIME FOR OUR COUNCIL COMMENT. ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL? I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. CHAIR. UM, IT'S ACTUALLY DIRECTED TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY. MR. SMITH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE, UM, THE LEGALITIES BEHIND ALL OF THIS? YOU KNOW, SINCE UH, [01:10:01] CITIZENS GOT THEIR, I GUESS, SIGNATURE CERTIFIED, WHERE DOES THAT PUT US TODAY AS COUNSEL? UH, AS COUNSEL. AND AS I INDICATED TO YOU IN THE EMAIL I SENT EARLIER THIS WEEK, I BELIEVE THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS A MANDATORY OBLIGATION TO PASS THIS AND PUT IT IN FORTH IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER. THAT'S IT. OKAY. UH, ANYBODY ELSE ON THAT RESOLUTION? OKAY. UM, GEORGE, WE WANT TO GO, UH, NOW WE'RE GONNA GO WITH JODY FIRST. OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, THANK YOU MR. SMITH FOR CLARIFYING AND OUTLINE THE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON WHAT'S BEFORE US. UM, MY COMMENTS IS THE CO THIS COMMUNITY CONSENT AGREEMENT OR AMENDMENT IS UNDOUBT, UNDOUBTEDLY COMPLICATED. HOWEVER, THE VOTE IS NOT. I TOOK AN OATH OF THE OFFICE WHEN I ACCEPTED MY POSITION ON COUNCIL FOR FOLLOW, THE CITY CHARTER AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OHIO. THIS ORDINANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO IF THE MEMBER OF COUNCIL AGREES OR DISAGREES WITH THE CCA. IT'S WHETHER THE SUBMITTED, SUBMITTED, CITIZEN INITIATED PETITION, CHECKED ALL THE BOXES, AND FOLLOW THE LAWS TO GET IT CERTIFIED AND ON THE BALLOT. I JUST THINK THAT'S THE FACTUAL STATEMENT. AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY, WHETHER OR NOT WE SUPPORT THE CCA, OUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER AT THIS POINT. WE ALL GET A VOTE. WE'RE ALL RESIDENTS. WE GET A VOTE WHEN IT'S ON THE BALLOT. OKAY. UH, GEORGE? YEAH. UM, UH, COORDINATION AND CONS? MICROPHONE. MICROPHONE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. I WILL VOTE FOR THE, UH, CCA AMENDMENT BECAUSE I'M REQUIRED TO DO SO LEGALLY. OKAY. PERSONALLY, I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PASSAGE OF THIS BY THE, UH, VOTING POPULATION. IT WOULD COMPLETELY STIFLE ANY GROWTH, ANY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AS A PRIOR OWNER OF SOME VERY LARGE BUSINESSES. IF THIS PASSED, I WOULDN'T TOUCH GROVE CITY WITH A 10 FOOT POLE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO THE VOTERS? OKAY. THAT MEANS THAT WE MOST LIKELY WOULD HAVE A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE BECAUSE AS WE NEED MORE FIRE, WE NEED MORE POLICE, WE NEED MORE SERVICES, WE'RE GONNA NEED MORE TAXES. AND IT MIGHT SURPRISE EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS DO NOT REALLY COVER THEIR OWN EXPENSE. IT'S THROUGH BUSINESSES. BUSINESS TAXES AND EMPLOYMENT TAXES. OUR PROPERTY VALUE WILL ALSO GO DOWN. 'CAUSE NOBODY'S GONNA WANNA LIVE HERE. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE OTHER, THE OTHER THING, UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THE REC CENTER. FORGET THE REC CENTER. WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT. SO THAT COMES OFF THE TABLE. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE MORATORIUM, WHICH IS GOOD. WE HAVE THE, UH, DATA CENTER, UM, UH, THE DATA CENTER TASK FORCE, WHICH IS GREAT. WE'RE MAKING SOME PROGRESS THERE. UM, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. I'VE HEARD THAT A COUPLE OF TIMES HERE. WELL, I THINK THE PETITION WAS CIRCULATED WITH DECEPTION. IT WAS, IT WAS, UH, TOLD TO THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED IT. THIS WAS AGAINST THE DATA CENTER. I HAD TWO PEOPLE THAT TAUGHT US QUIET HONOR. PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RESPOND. IF THAT CONTINUES, I'LL HAVE YOU REMOVED. WELL, THEN THEY SHOULDN'T ACCUSE US OF STUFF. THE I ASK THAT YOU DON'T DO THAT. I'LL HAVE YOU REMOVED. THERE WAS DECEPTION. POLICE ARE RIGHT THERE. I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME TO ME AND SAID, IF I KNEW WHAT THIS WAS FOR, I WOULDN'T HAVE SIGNED IT. I WANTED TO DO IT AGAINST THE DATA CENTERS. AND I ACCEPT THAT. I HAD TWO PEOPLE APPROACH ME ABOUT SIGNING IT. AND I WAS TOLD IT'S FOR THE DATA CENTERS. I BELIEVE THAT WHEN IT WAS CIRCULATED, NO ONE REALLY READ, READ THE PETITION AND KNEW IT WAS IN IT. OKAY. AND, UH, SO IN MY OPINION, THIS IS GEORGE'S OPINION. UH, WE ALREADY HAD THE MEMORANDUM, AND IN MY OPINION, PROBABLY 50% OF THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THE PETITION DIDN'T KNOW, REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING. THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY YES OR NO AS A VOTER IN THE FALL. THE OTHER THING THAT'S VERY INTERESTING IS I HEARD OMAR, UH, MUHAMMAD SAY THAT, UM, IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE NEGOTIATING [01:15:01] COMMITTEE THAT WE JUST LIMITED TO THE DATA CENTERS. AND HE WAS TOLD NO. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT'S A BIGGER PROBLEM TO ENCOMPASS ALL DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S WHAT IT TELLS ME. IT TELLS ME THAT RATHER THAN FOR DATA CENTERS, IT WAS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR USURPING, UH, AUTHORITY AND RUNNING THE CITY THE WAY SOME PEOPLE WANT TO RUN IT, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GIVE IT TO THE POPULATION, TO THE VOTING POPULATION, TO INFORM THEM EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR IN THIS PARTICULAR CCA AND LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION. BUT IT CAN'T BE FALSE INFORMATION, INCORRECT INFORMATION AND INFORMATION THAT COMES FROM A SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW. IT NEEDS TO BE OPEN AND HONEST, AND IT NEEDS TO BE TRANSPARENT. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I PERSONALLY OPPOSE THIS PARTICULAR CCA, BUT WILL IN FACT VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE I'M REQUIRED BY THE LAW TO DO THAT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE SAY. THANK YOU, GEORGE. UH, ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO DISCUSS TED? NO. ANYBODY. OKAY. WELL, ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MAKE A COMMENT. OKAY. WELL, YOU ALMOST RAN OUT OF TIME. ALMOST RAN OUT OF TIME. UM, I, I JUST KIND OF WANT TO SAY HERE THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF US, AS OF LAST NIGHT, WE'RE AT THE, THE DATA CENTER COMMITTEE AND EVERYTHING, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WAS A GREAT, WE, THERE'S GREAT MEETINGS. THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION COMING OUT. WE'RE DISCOVERING A LOT OF INFORMATION. WE'RE LEARNING AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. WE DO HAVE A MORATORIUM RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE GONNA EXTEND THAT MORATORIUM. SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE. ANYHOW, WE'RE GONNA EXTEND THAT. UM, SO WE HAVE ADEQUATE TIME. SO THERE'S NO DATA CENTER COMING TO GROVE CITY RIGHT NOW. UM, OR, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I VOTED AGAINST THE ONE THREE YEARS AGO AND I DON'T SUPPORT THEM NOW, BUT I'M NOT GONNA CUT OFF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CITY AND HURT OUR TRADE UNIONS AND OUR PEOPLE AND, AND, AND, UH, OUR CITIZENS LIKE THIS. BUT OF COURSE, I HAVE TO VOTE FOR THIS, AND I WILL. BUT I WOULD ASK, YOU KNOW, THE, THOSE THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT OUR MEETINGS FOR THE DATA CENTER COMMITTEE ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME. YOU'RE WELCOME TO LISTEN. YOU'RE WELCOME TO BE PART OF IT. AND WE ENCOURAGE THAT. I MEAN, WE WOULD LOVE IT. WE HAD A GREAT TURNOUT LAST NIGHT, UM, AND EVERYTHING. AND AGAIN, THERE'S NO DATA CENTER COMING TO GROVE CITY. IT'S NOT HAPPENING. WE HAVE A MORATORIUM. MY GUESS IS IT'LL BE EXTENDED, UH, PROBABLY UNTIL, I DON'T KNOW, 20, 28 OR SOMETHING. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW YET. BUT I'M JUST ASKING THE ORGANIZERS OF THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE TIME WHERE YES, WE EVEN DISCUSSED IT LAST NIGHT, ALAN, IN, IN THE MEETING. THAT, THAT ONCE WE LEARN WHAT THE CRITERIA IS THAT WE WANT AND DON'T WANT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, MAYBE WE ARE COMING BACK TO THE CITIZENS. SO IT'S A STRONG, SO IT'S A STRONG EFFORT TO SAY, HEY, WE WANNA BAN THIS FROM HAPPENING, AND WE WANT YOU TO VOTE ON IT AND EVERYTHING. SO THAT COULD HAPPEN THROUGH, THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH OF LEARNING AND, AND, AND GOING THROUGH ALL THESE, ALL THIS, THIS ENTIRE EXPERIENCE AND EVERYTHING. SO I THINK THAT COULD HAPPEN. I THINK IT WILL HAPPEN. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE COUNCIL THAT REALLY WANTS A DATA CENTER ANYHOW. UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY JOIN US IN THAT EFFORT AND LET'S NOT DESTROY THE CITY OF GROVE CITY BY PUTTING THIS ON THE BALLOT. UM, AND THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS. I'M PUTTING IT, I'M PUTTING IT OUT TO YOU. YES. WE WILL CAMPAIGN AGAINST IT AND WE WILL EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON, ON WHAT IT IS. BUT I DO, I'M OFFERING YOU GUYS A HAND TO SAY, JOIN US IN THIS DATA CENTER COMMITTEE AND LET'S COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS. UM, WE, WE HAD THAT PAST, UM, BEFORE THE CYBER CAME OUT AND EVERYTHING. SO WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH EVERYBODY AND HAVE EVERYBODY COME IN AND DO THIS TOGETHER. SO, THAT'S MY COMMENT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE SPEAKING OF ORDINANCE 37 26. THIS ORDINANCE IS AT ITS SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING, AND I MOVE IT BE APPROVED. SECOND BARRY? YES. HOLT? YES. ST. STERN? YES. AROSE? YES. OMAR? YES. ANDERSON? YES. LINGA? YES. OKAY. ORDINANCE 37 26 WILL BE ON THE NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026 BALLOT. CAN WE SIGN IT TONIGHT? RESOLUTION [Resolution CR 32-26 Oppose the proposed “Community Consent Amendment” to the Charter of the City of Grove City, Ohio, due to the Impact it will have on Churches, Parks, Businesses and Residential Development in the City and the Ability of the City to provide Essential Services and Amenities to our Residents.] CR 32 26, A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF GROVE CITY, DUE TO THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON CHURCHES, PARKS, BUSINESSES, AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND AMENITIES TO OUR RESIDENTS. SO THIS IS WHAT GEORGE WAS TALKING ABOUT IN HIS COMMENT, THAT HE MUST VOTE FOR [01:20:01] 37 26, BUT IN ADDITION, HE OPPOSES IT. THIS IS RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE THE CCA COMMENTS FROM THE MAYOR? THANK YOU, MR. HOLT. UH, FIRST, UH, THE QUESTION CAME UP. WHERE DOES THE ADMINISTRATION STAND ON THIS? WELL, THE ADMINISTRATION DRAFTED THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION, AND THE WORDING WAS MUCH MORE, UH, WHAT I'LL CALL, UH, DIRECTED. AND, UH, WE RECEIVED COMMENTS BACK FROM SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND WE DILUTED OR WATERED DOWN, OR BASICALLY CHANGED SOME OF THE, UH, SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS BECAUSE WE APPRECIATE THE, THE COUNCIL WEIGHING IN ON IT. UH, BUT, UH, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, AND A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ASKED ME, WHERE, WHERE IS ADMINISTRATION? WE ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT, AND WE WILL WORK VIGOROUSLY AS INDIVIDUALS TO OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT. AND I JUST WANNA GO ON RECORD THAT THAT IS THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? UM, OMAR? YEAH, JUST A QUESTION. UH, MAYOR SAGE, HAS THE ADMINISTRATION MADE LIKE ANY OFFICIAL STATEMENT? I JUST, I, I JUST MADE, I THINK THE FACT THAT WE PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA, I ASKED IT TO BE ON THE AGENDA, UH, IS A STATEMENT. BUT I I JUST MADE THAT PUBLIC STATEMENT. I'LL WRITE YOU A NOTE IF YOU WANT ME TO, BUT NO, WE, WE ARE GOING TO OPPOSE , UH, THIS, UH, THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AND WITH THE, AND, AND, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE THE GROSS AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WHO HAS SAID, OPPOSE IT. WE'VE HAD OTHER INDUSTRIES AND OTHER, UH, UH, UH, AGENCIES AND ASSOCIATIONS WHO ARE GONNA WORK WITH US TO OPPOSE THIS. AND, UH, AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE TRADES HERE IN GROVE CITY. THEY'VE CALLED ME AND THEY'VE ASKED ME, DON'T, DON'T SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. AND SO, ADMINISTRATION, WE, WE ARE ON RECORD, UH, SQUARELY OPPOSING THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS? CHAIR? UM, JODY? YES, MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT, UM, CHANGING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE. WHEN THIS WAS FIRST DRAFTED. I DID WORK WITH CHAIR HOL, UM, ON COMMENTS TO REDUCE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED IN THIS. ALTHOUGH I STILL DON'T SUPPORT 100% OF SOME OF THE OTHER REMAINING LANGUAGES, I DO UNDERSTAND THE POSITION OF THE CITY. SO THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. I'LL GO CHAIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I HELD MY COMMENTS. I KNOW THERE WERE COMMENTS EARLIER DURING THE ORDINANCE. I HELD MY COMMENTS 'CAUSE, UH, AGAIN, UM, AS OUR LAW DIRECTOR STATED, WE HAD A MANDATORY OBLIGATION. AND I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR, OF OUR COMMUNITY. UM, I DO WANNA SHARE COMMENTS THOUGH, UH, FOR THIS RESOLUTION. FIRST, I DO THINK THE ADMINISTRATION FOR COMING FORWARD AND HAVING, UM, AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT. I'M OBVIOUSLY THE ONE THAT ASKED DURING THE READING OF THE FIRST ORDINANCE, UM, FOR THAT POSITION. AND SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, AS I STATED EARLIER, I, I AM PART OF THE DATA CENTER TASK FORCE. AND I STATED THIS LAST NIGHT DURING THE MEETING, UM, BECAUSE WE WENT AROUND AT FIRST AND ASKED, WHO WANTS TO CONTINUE REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE CCA, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT THE OUTCOME IS, UM, FROM TODAY OR EVEN IN NOVEMBER. AND I STATED LAST NIGHT, I AM COMMITTED TO CONTINUING THE WORK OF THE DATA CENTER TASK FORCE. UM, I APPRECIATE MR. STERN ALSO MAKING A COMMENT ABOUT, UM, CONTINUING THAT, UH, MORATORIUM. I THINK WE SHOULD CERTAINLY HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND THE RESOLUTION AND, UM, MAKE CONSIDERATIONS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER OF, UM, THAT DURATION OF THE MORATORIUM AND THE TASK FORCE. UM, YOU KNOW, AS THIS RESOLUTION IS WRITTEN, IT'S WRITTEN STATING, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT. UM, AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE COMMUNITY CAME FROM IN ORGANIZING TO PULL THIS TOGETHER. I REALLY DO. I, I KNOW THAT IT CAME FROM A PLACE OF WANTING SOMETHING GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND FEELING THAT THEIR VOICES HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD. UM, I HOPE AS YOU CONTINUE TO, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS DOING THIS. SOME HAVE BEEN HERE LONGER, SOME ARE A LITTLE BIT NEWER, BUT I WAS NEW ONCE AT ONE POINT TOO. I HOPE. UM, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE STARTED TO COME AROUND NOW FROM THE CCA, SOME HAVE BEEN COMING AROUND FOR A WHILE. SOME HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LOT LONGER COMING AROUND. I REALLY DO HOPE THAT YOU, UM, SEE THAT THOSE OF US THAT ARE SITTING HERE ALSO WANT THE SAME FOR OUR COMMUNITIES. AND WE ARE LISTENING TO OUR RESIDENTS. I KNOW NOT EVERYONE, UM, BELIEVES THAT WE ARE COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY WITH EVERY INDIVIDUAL PERSON OR EMAIL THAT COMES IN. UM, I HAVE SAID BEFORE IN MY COMMENTS THAT I DO READ ALL OF THE EMAILS THAT COME IN, AND I DO HAVE LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS. AND, UM, I HAVE LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS, SPECIFICALLY IN MY [01:25:01] WARD AS WELL, BUT NOT LIMITED TO MY WARD. UM, I DID FAVOR THE AMENDED VERSION THAT WAS READ EARLIER. I AGREED THAT I APPRECIATED THAT IT GOT SOME AIRTIME. I WAS APPRECIATIVE THAT THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING TO TRY AND GET TO A DIFFERENT VERSION FOR WHAT COULD BE ON THE BALLOT IN FRONT OF RESIDENTS THIS NOVEMBER. UM, WE DIDN'T GET TO THE POINT OF VOTING ON THE ACTUAL AMENDED VERSION, BUT I WAS IN FAVOR OF IT. AND I DID VOTE YES ON THE EMERGENCY TO AT LEAST TRY AND GET TO THAT PROCESS. SO I DO WANNA MAKE NOTE OF THAT. UM, I THINK THE AMENDED VERSION WAS NOT STRONG HOLDING OUR COMMUNITY AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT AS THIS PROPOSED IS, AND THIS IS WHY I WAS IN FAVOR OF VOTING, AT LEAST TOWARDS THE EMERGENCY FOR NOW, UM, TO GET TO THE VOTE OF THE AMENDED VERSION. THIS DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW AS PROPOSED IS A VERY, VERY LARGE AND SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO OUR CHARTER. AND I TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY WHEN A VERY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS MADE TO OUR CHARTER. AND IN THE PAST, UM, I'M JUST GONNA REFERENCE THE, I WANNA SAY AROUND THE 2020, EXCUSE ME, 2017 TIMEFRAME WHEN A CHANGE WAS ASKED TO BE MADE FOR OUR CHARTER. EVERY RESIDENT GOT IN THE MAIL, THE CHARTER WITH THE DRAFTED CHANGES. AM I CORRECT ON THAT, MAYOR? THAT, THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT THE PROCESS. THAT IF COUNCIL HAD BROUGHT FORTH AN AMENDMENT, UM, THE CITY RESIDENTS WOULD RECEIVE THROUGH A MAILING, A COPY OF THAT CHARTER IN THEIR MAILBOX THAT THEY COULD LOOK THROUGH IT. BEFORE I EVEN EVER THOUGHT ABOUT RUNNING FOR COUNCIL, I SAT IN MY LIVING ROOM HERE IN GROVE CITY AND READ THROUGH THAT. AND I, I KNOW THAT THIS GROUP IS DOING SO MUCH WORK TO GET OUT THERE AND GET IN FRONT OF THE COMMUNITY. AND YOU DESERVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE ON THE BALLOT NOW BECAUSE YOU GOT THE SIGNATURES. BUT I DON'T SEE THAT THIS STILL GETS THE PATH WITH A CITIZEN LED BALLOT INITIATIVE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THOSE ARE WRONG, I'M JUST SAYING THAT RIGHT NOW WITH THIS TODAY, THAT HOW WILL WE ENSURE THAT EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT GETS A COPY OF THIS EXACT VERSION AND LANGUAGE IN THEIR MAILBOX, PER SE, SIMILAR TO, UH, THE WAY THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE CITY WAS LEADING IT. UM, SO I'M JUST SHARING A LOT OF THOSE THOUGHTS. UM, IT WOULD'VE BEEN INTERESTING TO SEE THE AMENDED VERSION POTENTIALLY MAKE IT A LITTLE FURTHER. AND WITH THAT, I, UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN SUPPORT THE CURRENT AS IT'S PROPOSED COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT, BECAUSE I DO FEEL IT IS A VERY LARGE AND SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. BUT I DO HEAR WHERE THE COMMUNITY IS COMING FROM. I WAS IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT. UM, SO THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYTHING FOR YOU, GEORGE? YEP. UH, JUST A, JUST A QUICK COMMENT. UM, I LIST ALL MY CONSTITUENTS AND, UH, THAT'S, UH, EVERYTHING THAT I SAID IS BASED ON WHAT THEY'VE TOLD ME. UM, I AGREE WITH MR. STERN ON INCREASING THE LENGTH OF THE MORATORIUM, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING, IT'S VERY, UH, IT'S VERY COMPLICATED. AS ANYBODY ON THE COMMITTEE WILL TELL YOU, IT'S NOT AN EASY, LET'S SIT DOWN, LET'S FIGURE THIS OUT. QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I'M FOR HIM OR AGAINST HIM. OKAY. I JUST BE PERFECTLY CLEAR ON THAT. I'M TRYING TO BE OPEN-MINDED, NOT CLOSE-MINDED ON THAT, ON THAT ISSUE. SO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, UH, UH, I THINK IS, UH, IS IMPORTANT. AND, UH, THE REASON I VOTED TO DISCUSS ORDINANCE 44 26 IS I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE PUT IN SOME, A LOT OF TIME IN IT. AND, UM, UH, MUHAMMAD DID ALSO, AND SOME OF THE OTHER MEMBERS IN HERE DID. AND, UH, MY KUDOS TO OUR, UH, LEGAL COUNSEL, STEVEN SMITH, HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON IT. SO I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY BRING THAT OUT IN THE PUBLIC AND LET EVERYBODY TALK ABOUT IT, BECAUSE I, I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. SO I JUST WANTED PEOPLE TO KNOW WHY, WHY, ON ONE HAND I SAID, YEAH, LET'S DISCUSS IT. AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I, I SAID NO. SO, OKAY. THAT I PASSED. ALAN, ANYTHING? A COUPLE THINGS. YEAH. UM, SO AGAIN, THIS STARTED WITH DATA CENTERS AND THE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF HAVING ONE IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND WHAT I HEARD FROM RESIDENTS, IT WAS NEARLY A UNIVERSAL OPPOSITION TO BRING IN A DATA CENTER. HERE COUNCIL LISTENED AND RESPONDED BY PASSING THE MORATORIUM AND WITH THREE BASIC PURPOSES, STOPPING ANY DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT, CREATING THE TASK FORCE TO RESEARCH, UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS, AND DETERMINE WHAT STANDARDS, IF ANY, WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. AND NUMBER THREE, IDENTIFYING WHATEVER CHANGES MAY ULTIMATELY BE APPROPRIATE TO OUR CITY CODE ZONING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. AND AGAIN, THAT COULD END UP BEING NONE. WE'RE BANNING EVERYTHING WE DON'T KNOW YET. WE'RE NOT THERE YET. UM, AND AGAIN, THAT PROCESS IS UNDERWAY, [01:30:01] AS EVERYBODY HAS SAID. AND I SUPPORT THAT EXTENSION OBVIOUSLY, AS WELL. UM, THE, THE, UH, THE, THE CCA, THE COMMUNITY CONSENT AMENDMENT, UH, ENDED UP BEING MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT. IT, THE CCA IN AND OF ITSELF ACTUALLY WOULD NOT PREVENT A DATA CENTER FROM COMING TO GROVE CITY. IT COULD STILL COME, IT COULD STILL GO THROUGH IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS VOTED POSITIVELY. UM, AND THE CA IS NOT LIMITED JUST TO DATA CENTERS. IT APPLIES TO ANY BUSINESS IN ANY INDUSTRY, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PROJECT CROSSED ONE OF THE CCAS SELF-DEFINED THRESHOLDS. UM, AND, AND I, I, I STILL HAVE THE QUESTION OF WHERE DID THOSE NUMBERS COME FROM? WHAT ARE THEY BASED ON? WHAT WAS THE ANALYSIS THAT THAT'S BEHIND THOSE? AND HARD CODING THEM INTO OUR CITY CHARTER. I JUST, AS I SAID EARLIER, UH, I JUST BELIEVE IS, IS JUST, JUST THE WRONG APPROACH TO TAKE. MY BIGGER CONCERN ACTUALLY, THOUGH, IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN DOWN THE ROAD IF THOSE THRESHOLDS WERE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED AND THIS PROCESS WAS, WAS IMPLEMENTED. UM, THE CCA CREATE WOULD CREATE AN ENTIRELY NEW CHARTER LEVEL PROCESS INVOLVING THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS, STUDIES, REFERENDUMS MONITORING, REPORTING ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES, ONGOING COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND OTHER PROCEDURES. AND AGAIN, IT APPLY, IT COULD APPLY TO ANY BUSINESS, UM, IN ANY INDUSTRY, NOT JUST, UH, NOT JUST DATA CENTERS. SO, AS I, AS I WAS READING, AS I WAS READING THE CCA AND I READ IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN JUST TO TRY TO ABSORB IT, UM, I KEPT THINKING ABOUT THE OLD, UH, RUBE GOLDBERG MACHINES DIAGRAM. SOME OF YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THOSE OLD CARTOONS WHERE IT WAS AN INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED, UM, MECHANISM OF RAMPS, GEARS, LEVERS, PULLEYS, AND DOZENS OF OTHER MOVING PARTS TO ACCOMPLISH A FAIRLY SIMPLE TASK. UM, SOME OF YOU MIGHT EVEN HAVE PLAYED THAT OLD, UH, BOARD GAME MOUSETRAP, UH, THAT WAS BASED ON THAT, ON THAT CONCEPT. AND WHAT I WOR STARTED WORRYING ABOUT WAS THAT WE MAY ACTUALLY HAVE STARTED TO BUILD OUR OWN RUBE GOLDBERG MACHINE IN OUR CITY CHARTER. I'M VERY VISUAL. I LIKE DIAGRAMS. I ACTUALLY WENT TO THE, UH, CREATED MY OWN RUBE GOLDBERG VERSION OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE WERE TO IMPLEMENT THE CA SURROUNDING OUR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. OUR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS THIS LITTLE SQUARE RIGHT HERE. THAT'S IT. EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AROUND THE CCA. YEAH, THAT'S OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS RIGHT THERE. THANK YOU, TAMMY. THAT'S OUR CURRENT ONE. THAT'S OUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE, I THINK IS THE, UH, THE CCA THAT NOW IS GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT. THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND I'M SURE THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, LITTLE, LITTLE PIECES THAT MIGHT NOT BE ULTIMATELY EXACT, BUT IT, IT ACCOUNTS FOR EVERY, EVERY PART ALONG THE WAY OF, OF THE CCA. AND THAT'S WHERE I WORRY, WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD IN THAT, THAT THIS THING LITERALLY INTO OUR CHARTER AND INTO OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO THAT MATTERS FOR ANOTHER REASON IS THAT, AND THAT IS GROVE CITY'S LONG-TERM FINANCIAL HEALTH. SO AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE OTHER DISCUSSIONS ALONG THE THESE LINES AS WELL. GROVE CITY RELIES MOST HEAVILY ON MUNICIPAL INCOME TAX REVENUE. IN RECENT YEARS. OUR POPULATION HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY. WHILE INCOME TAX REVENUES HAVE REMAINED FLAT, MORE RESIDENTS MEANS GREATER DEMAND FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND BASIC CITY SERVICES. THE MOST SUSTAINABLE WAY TO GENERATE REVENUE TO MEET THOSE NEEDS IS TO GROW THE TAX BASE, NOT RAISE TAXES. THAT MEANS ATTRACTING NEW EMPLOYERS, NEW INVESTMENTS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, NEW JOBS. AND WE'RE NOT TALKING DATA CENTERS . RIGHT? EXACTLY. AGAIN, WE MIGHT END UP BANNING DATA CENTERS ALTOGETHER. RIGHT? THAT'S WHY I WORRY ABOUT PERMANENTLY PUTTING A CHARTER LEVEL, OVERLY COMPLICATED PROCESS IN FRONT OF MANUFACTURERS, RESEARCH CAMPUSES, TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES, HOSPITALS, EXPANSIONS, OR OTHER POTENTIAL MAJOR EMPLOYERS THAT WE DO WANT HERE, PARTICULARLY AS WE WORK TO DEVELOP OUT THE MEDICAL AND INNOVATION GATEWAY AT ALL 6 65. NONE OF THAT MEANS WE SIMPLY HAVE TO ACCEPT A DATA CENTER OR SOME OTHER MEGA PROJECT THAT QUITE THE OPPOSITE. I SUPPORT STRONG STANDARDS. IN FACT, I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO CALL FOR DEFINED STANDARDS, SPECIFICALLY FOR DATA CENTERS. AS I SAID, BACK IN MAY, IF WE CAN ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR CHICKENS, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR A DATA CENTER. AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD ESTABLISH MEANINGFUL PROTECTIONS FOR NOISE, WATER, ELECTRIC EMISSIONS, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS. WE SHOULD PROTECT RESIDENTS. WE SHOULD PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS. WE SHOULD REQUIRE MEASURABLE STANDARDS AND REAL ACCOUNTABILITY. WE SHOULD ALSO PRESERVE GROVE CITY'S ABILITY TO ATTRACT JOBS AND INVESTMENT THAT WILL HELP US TO PAY FOR BOTH THE HAVE TOS AND THE WANT TOS OF TODAY AND, AND OF TOMORROW. TO ME, THE GOAL IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY [01:35:01] SIMPLE. I BELIEVE WE CAN PROTECT RESIDENTS FROM DATA CENTERS OR OTHER MEGA PROJECTS WITHOUT PUTTING THE REST OF GROSS CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUTURE AT RISK. AND I BELIEVE THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT SUBJECTING IT TO A NEW CHARTER LEVEL. RUBE GOLDBERG. LIKE MACHINE MORE COMPLICATED DOES NOT MEAN MORE PROTECTION. AND MORE BUREAUCRACY DOES NOT MEAN MORE TRANSPARENCY. AND THE MORE COMPLICATED A SOLUTION IS, IS VERY OFTEN NOT THE BETTER SOLUTION. AND IF I COULD JUST MAKE ONE MORE NOTE, SORRY. REGARDING THE VOTE FOR THE CCA THAT WE JUST DID, THAT I VOTED FOR. AGAIN, WHATEVER MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CCA COUNSEL'S ROLE AT THIS POINT IS NOT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE FOR THE VOTERS. WHEN A CITIZEN INITIATED CHARTER PETITION SATISFIES THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION FOR SUBMISSION, WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE IT TO THE ELECTORATE. MY VOTE TO SEND THE ISSUE TO THE BALLOT SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE CCA. I HAVE SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS, AS YOU JUST HEARD, BUT FOR ME, PEOPLE OVER POLITICS MEANS TRUSTING THE PEOPLE. RESIDENTS DESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THIS PROPOSAL, ASK QUESTIONS, UNDERSTAND BOTH ITS INTENDED PROTECTIONS AND ITS POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES, AND ULTIMATELY DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. I TRUST THE PEOPLE OF GROVE CITY TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK, WEIGH THE FACTS, AND MAKE THE DECISION THEY BELIEVE IS BEST FOR THE FUTURE OF GROVE CITY. THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU ALLEN. UH, THIS RESOLUTION, SIR, A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS, MORE COMMENTS. WE HAVE MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER. YES. YOU HAVE A PIECE OF LEGISLATION ON THE FLOOR AND COMMENTS SHOULD BE ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION ONLY. JUST A POLITE REMINDER TO ALL. THANK YOU. AND EVERYBODY'S HAD ONE CHANCE, SO I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH, BUT, UH, PLEASE GO. YEAH, I MEAN, I, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION, UM, AND THE OPPOSITION TO THE CAI DID WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE PETITION AND HOW IT REPRESENTS BEYOND THE LANGUAGE OF JUSTICE CCA. I THINK ONE THING THAT I'M NOT HEARING HERE TODAY IS THAT OVER 2000 RESIDENTS SIGNED THE CCA, WHETHER WE AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, RIGHT? 2000 RESIDENTS SIGNED THE CA AND TO ME THAT IS A VERY, VERY CLEAR SIGN THAT THERE IS A HUGE LACK OF TRUST WITH OUR GOVERNMENT. UM, WE PASSED THE MORATORIUM. I WANNA TALK THAT, UH, WE PASSED THE MORATORIUM, RIGHT? I'M NOT, I'M NOT HERE TO, TO SAY MY STANCE. I'VE EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS WITH THE LANGUAGE. UM, BUT I JUST DON'T WANT US AS A COUNCIL TO ALSO IGNORE THE MESSAGE OUTSIDE OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE CCCA A RIGHT THERE, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A DISCONNECT SOMEWHERE IN ORDER FOR 2000, OVER 2000 RESIDENTS TO SIGN THIS PETITION. RIGHT? AND I DON'T WANT US TO IGNORE THAT THE MORATORIUM PASSED. I FULLY SUPPORTED IT AS I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPEARHEADED IT. WE ARE DOING GREAT WORK, BUT I THINK AS A COUNCIL AND AS A CITY, WE SHOULD ALSO FOCUS ON HOW CAN, HOW WE CAN REBUILD TRUST WITH OUR COMMUNITY, RIGHT? OUTSIDE OF THE EFFORTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY MADE. LIKE THE TASK FORCE, LIKE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THERE'S MORE THAT WE CAN DO. I DO COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS IN MY OWN CAPACITY. UM, BUT LET'S NOT IGNORE THAT. AND LET'S ALSO TRY TO BRING THOSE 2000 PLUS PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THIS ALONG WITH US AS WELL, UM, IN THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS OF THE YEAR, WHATEVER, HOWEVER LONG IT MIGHT TAKE. THAT IS ALL FOR ME. OKAY. MY LAST COMMENT. THANK YOU. UM, IT WAS PART OF MY EARLIER STUFF AND JUST DIDN'T MENTION IT. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CURRENT EXISTING BUSINESSES. I KNOW THAT, UM, THAT WAS A PIECE WITH THE AMENDMENT IS THAT THEY WERE EXEMPT. AND THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT I ASKED FOR, UM, THE RECORD. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CURRENT BUSINESSES THAT HAVE INVESTED HERE ALREADY. SO REGARDLESS OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR, OR PROJECTS THAT ARE WANTING TO COME IN, IT IS OUR CURRENT BUSINESSES WHO WOULD BE, UM, WHO WOULD BE LIMITED IN THEIR EXPANSION. AND THESE BUSINESSES CURRENTLY EMPLOY RESIDENTS AND THEY GIVE BACK TO OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH PHILANTHROPIC MEANS. AND, UM, THAT, THAT IS A PIECE WITHIN THIS ORIGINAL, UM, PIECE THAT DOES CONCERN ME. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. FINAL COMMENT, TED. I JUST HAVE ONE LAST THING TO SAY, MO IN YOUR COMMENTS WHEN EITHER RANDY OR ALLEN ASKED YOU WHETHER THE GROUP WOULD JUST MAKE THIS ABOUT DATA CENTERS AND THE ANSWER WAS NO. CORRECT? CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT. SO WHEN THEY, WHEN THE CI WHEN THEY WERE CIRCULATING THE PETITIONS, THEY SAID IT WAS AGAINST DATA CENTERS. AND THE REAL ISSUE ISN'T DATA CENTERS, IT'S SOMETHING ELSE. NOW THAT'S A DIALOGUE THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE WITH THE PUBLIC TO FIND OUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IS. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ABOUT DATA CENTERS. WE KNOW THAT MM-HMM . BECAUSE THEY, WE COULD HAVE MADE THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT DATA CENTERS AND YOU PROBABLY GOT ALL OF US TO SUPPORT IT YEAH. AND EVERYTHING. SO WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IS HERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT THIS, THIS, THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT DATA CENTERS. IT'S NOT, IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS. IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING MUCH BIGGER. SO ANYHOW, THAT'S MY POINT. OKAY. I KNOW [01:40:03] ONE MORE TIME. I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, AS YOU KNOW, AS COUNCIL MEMBERS, IT'S THE NOW THEREFORES THAT HAS A MEAT IN IT. THE NOW THEREFORES IN THIS RESOLUTION SAYS, IN PREPARATION FOR THE NOVEMBER 3RD ELECTION COUNCIL ENCOURAGES ALL GROSS VOTERS TO READ NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT IN FULL AND CONSIDER IMPLICATIONS TWO, THE LEGAL READ, THE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER. SO AS A GROUP, AND THIS IS THE ADMINISTRATION, GET A DRAFT OF THIS AND YOU READ THE NOW, THEREFORE, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. AND I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR. OKAY? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. RESOLUTION CR 32 26. THIS RESOLUTION HAS HAD ITS READING IN PUBLIC HEARING AND A MOVE WOULD BE APPROVED. SECOND HOLT. YES. STERN. YES. BUR YES. OMAR? YES. ANDERSON? YES. LINGA? YES. GARY? YES. AND WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE CONCLUDED MY TWO ISSUES. OUR NEXT MEETING, OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE MONDAY. WE'LL SEE YOU ALL BACK HERE. NOPE, TUESDAY. THAT'S RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A, A LABOR DAY WEEKEND BY YOURSELF. SO WE'LL SEE YOU EVERYBODY ON TUESDAY. THANK, THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR COMING IN TONIGHT. I KNOW THIS IS WHERE YOU WANTED TO BE. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.