►
From YouTube: Special Council meeting June 7, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
E
E
C
B
Just
waiting
on
joe
here
I
am
oh
you're
here
you
just
stuck
in
all
right.
We
got
everyone
here,
yeah
all
righty.
What
time
is
it
701?
I
now
call
the
committee
work
session
of
monday
june,
7th
it's
701.
B
Please
stand!
Please
write
for
pledge
of
allegiance
and
tonight's
silent
reflection,
don
nicklard
passed
away
over
the
weekend.
I
think
some
of
us
worked
with
and
on
console
and
he's
been
a
councilman
for
a
while,
so
think
of
him
on
your
silent
reflection.
Please
rise.
E
E
B
B
C
B
H
B
Before
we
get
to
new
business,
I
have
a
gentleman
that
wants
to
talk
tonight.
His
name
is
john
sadati
to
sadati
and
I'd
like
to
do
a
roll
call
and
see.
If
that's,
okay,
he
could
speak
tonight.
G
I
I
I
D
B
Yes
and
one
other
one,
I
have
a
lady
that
would
like
to
read
her
letter.
Can
I
get
a
motion
to
read
her
letter
tonight,
I'll.
H
H
A
A
B
It
is
michelle
merton,
okay,
she
did
she.
She
just
has
a
letter
that
she
wants
to
read.
So
should
we
do
john
siddonke?
Can
we
get
him
in
there
robert.
G
G
I'm
sorry
was
received
at
3
34
today
from
michelle
merton,
who
resides
at
3450
ruth
drive,
hello,
council
people.
Our
neighborhood
is
quickly
deteriorating.
G
G
G
G
We
have
put
in
prior
complaints
on
houses
that
are
on
ruth
club
side
and
hillcrest
and
have
yet
seen
any
progress
made
on
any
cleanup
on
those
properties.
Junk
vehicles
on
blocks
remain
at
the
homes
we've
complained
about
for
years,
who
was
responsible
for
enforcing
the
junk
motor
vehicle
laws,
housing
issues
and
businesses?
Being
operated
from
residents.
G
If
the
enforcement
of
these
laws
is
too
much
for
our
local
government,
then
maybe
we
should
con
contract
out
to
another
municipality
and
or
summit
county
collectively.
Our
neighborhood
is
tired
of
the
city's
inability
to
address
those
issues
in
a
timely
fashion.
I'm
available
to
discuss
any
of
the
properties
in
our
neighborhood
michelle
mertens.
A
B
President,
yes,
yes,
yes,
charlotte,
go
on.
F
I
honestly,
since
we
read
this
later
on
and
we
all
or
tonight
we
all
got
a
copy
of
it.
I
did
talk
to
mr
braymond
this
afternoon
late
and
he
has
actually
been
out
and
put
a
hanger
on
the
door.
It's
what
I
was
told
didn't
get
any
answer
and
he
just
got
that
done
on
friday.
I'm
not
sure
if
that
was
the
right
address,
but
just
so
everybody
knows.
Apparently
something
has
been
issued
here.
But,
okay,
I
didn't
want
it
to
go
to
thank
everybody.
She
was
being
totally
ignored.
H
F
C
B
We're
gonna
john
john
sadati
is
not
here
yet
so
we're
just
gonna
move
on
and
then
robert
will
tell
us
when
he
comes
in
new
business
committee
of
the
whole
norton
avenue
resurfacing.
Mr
kernan.
H
Thank
you,
mr
president.
This
is
ordinance
number
71..
This
is
norton
avenue
resurfacing
program.
This
is
something
that
we
need
to
take
care
of
fairly
quickly.
We
did
get
some
amaz
money
on
this.
We
will
have
an
80
percent
grant
funding,
so
the
total
cost
of
the
resurfacing
is
390
000.
H
H
Was
the
low,
the
lowest
and
the
best
bid
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
cushion
built
into
that?
Their
bid
was
about
367
000.
B
Do
I
have
a
second,
I
second,
it
okay.
Is
there
any
other
further
discussion
on
ordinance,
71,
2021.
H
D
I
I
B
All
right,
then,
item
b,
emergency,
storm
sewer,
repair
on
gardner
boulevard,
mr
kernan.
H
Thank
you,
mr
president.
This
is
a
repair
on
gardner
boulevard.
Apparently
there
was
a
storm
sewer
that
washed
out
the
the
road
is
currently
closed.
This
is
asked
to
be
awarded
to
kenmore
construction
company,
an
amount
not
to
exceed
75
000
again.
This
is
something
that
we
would
like
to
get
taken
care
of
as
soon
as
possible.
So
having
said
that,
I
will
move
to
add
ordinance
number
72
2021
to
the
agenda
tonight
with
the
readings
there
is
emergency
language
in
it.
B
You
owe
me
first
I'll,
come
with
the
further
discussion
here.
We
have
a
motion,
a
second
for
ordinance,
72
2021
for
first
reading,
we're
going
to
suspend
the
second
and
third
with
emergency
language.
Is
there
any
other
further
discussion?
Mr.
K
H
F
Yeah
the
legislation
does
not
mention
parkway.
Is
this,
including
parkway.
F
J
So
the
we
won't
need
to
do
parkway
they're,
just
going
to
create
a
t
on
parkway
now
and
replace
from
the
t
down
downstream.
J
So
it
crosses
gardner
boulevard
and
then,
where
it
crosses
gardner
they're,
going
to
put
a
t
into
the
current
line
on
parkway
and
extend
it.
So
it
was
angled
the
way
it
was
constructed.
It
came
down
across
gardner
and
then
took
a
45
degree
angle
and
met
the
exit
pipe
for
parkway.
We're
going
to
take
the
45
out
now
and
make
it
a
t
and
just
extend
it
across
gardner
boulevard.
F
J
F
G
D
I
H
You,
mr
president,
this
is
we
need,
because
the
federal
government
requires
that
there
be
a
different
company
observing
the
construction
as
opposed
to
the
one
that
actually
engineered
the
construction.
H
We
have
to
hire
a
different
company
to
oversee
the
construction
on
norton
avenue
and
that's
what
this
is
so
dlc
of
ohio
incorporated
was
the
low
bidder
at
thirty.
Eight
thousand,
two
thirty
two!
So
that's
why
we
have
to
go
ahead
and
whoever
it
is.
We
have
to
hire
someone
and
dlc
was
low
company.
So
I
would
make
a
motion
to
add
deals
or
ad
ordinance,
number
73
2021
to
tonight's
agenda,
waive
the
readings
and
vote
on
this
tonight.
There
is
emergency
language.
B
H
B
Yes,
thank
you
item
me,
police
department
concept,
design.
You.
B
H
Thank
you,
mr
president.
As
some
work
was
being
done
on
worcester
road,
a
storm
sewer
line
was
found
to
be
in
the
way
and
the
storm
sewer
line
was
deteriorated,
so
there
was
a
need,
immediate
replacement
needed
in
order
to
maintain
safety.
H
So
we
have
a
bid
here.
The
lowest
bid
was
for
lockhart
construction
company
to
do
that.
Work
at
41
000..
There
is
a
waiver
of
the
first
and
second
readings
in
emergency
language,
and
I
would
make
the
motion
to
add
ordinance,
number
74
2021
to
tonight's
agenda
for
first
reading
waving.
Second
and
third,
with
emergency
language.
F
B
I
have
a
motion,
a
second
to
add
to
tonight's
gender
ordinance
74
2021,
for
a
first
reading
with
emergency
language.
Suspending
the
second
and
third.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
ordinance,
74,
2020.
H
B
B
Yes,
all
right
now:
item
8
police
department
concept
design.
That's
me
this
is
an
ordinance
to
enter
into
agreement
with
app
architecture,
to
draft
a
concept
for
the
construction
of
a
new
police
facility
for
the
norton
police
department.
The
funding
will
come
from
the
money
earmarked
for
the
locker
room,
upgrade
that
was
suggested
to
be
non-performed
by
the
city
engineer
during
the
renovation,
and
I
think
it's
going
to
be
18
950.
F
President,
I
know
we're
saying
it's
a
construction
of
a
new
police
facility,
but
the
proposal
actually
just
for
clarification
for
the
people's
sake.
It's
actually
the
proposal
is
actually
tracking
an
addition
to
our
current
police
station
and
a
minimal
renovation
to
the
department.
Just
so
that
everybody's
aware
of
that.
After
going
because
I
had,
I
was
wondering
the
same
thing
when
I
first
read
it
and
then
I
was
wondering
since
we're
getting
the
money,
the
money's
part
of
the
money
probably
is
coming
from
the
locker
room
upgrade.
J
H
J
H
Wanted
I
I
just
wanted
to
indicate
that
this
is
just
to
come
up
with
a
concept.
It's
been
years,
I
mean
literally
years
since
we've
done
an
upgrade
to
the
police
facility
and
something
I
mean.
I
think
we
need
to
take
a
look
at
it
and
look
and
see
what
we
need
to
do
to
upgrade
to
update
and
how
much
that's
going
to
cost.
Then
we
can
make
a
decision
from
there,
but
I
think
we
need
to
at
least
take
a
look
at
it.
D
Other
discussion,
yes,
I
thought
that
maybe
we
should
add
in
there
as
part
of
the
study,
to
evaluate
the
community
center
what
it
would
cost
to
turn
that
into
a
new
police
station
and
then
at
some
point
build
a
new
community
center.
Bringing
the
police
station
up
in
the
regular.
H
Okay,
I
I
mean
just
I
you
know
I
I
mean
I
guess
we
could
always
look
at
the
options.
I
never
have
a
problem
looking
at
the
options-
and
that's
I
think
is
all
that
scott
has
indicated-
is
look
at
that
option,
but
I'm
not
sure
I
would
want
to
see
the
community
center
used
for
anything
other
than
a
community
center.
So
but.
D
I
B
B
I
have
a
motion
in
a
second
for
ordinance,
75
2021,
to
be
put
on
tonight's
agenda
for
a
first
reading.
Is
there
any
other
further
discussion
there
being
none
roll
call
carrie?
Mr.
A
G
A
B
H
Mr
president,
this
is
an
ordinance,
so
basically,
what
we're
looking
at
is.
We
have
to
purchase
some
new
servers
for
the
sw
seom.
H
The
revised
code
has
restrictions
on
lease
purchases.
So
what
we're
going
to
do
as
the
lead
here
is
we're
going
to
purchase
those
servers
and
then
the
various
members
are
going
to
reimburse
us
and
the
amount
of
that
initially.
H
L
H
Thank
you,
miss
keener,
and
then
our
portion
would
be
whatever
our.
What
what's
our
percentage
on
that
miss
keener?
Do
you
know.
F
C
M
Would
be
to
get
the
business
agreement
with
barbara
dean
copley
done
this
week,
get
an
agreement,
get
a
form
of
ordinance
to
council.
Really
we
wanted
to
have
this.
We
were
trying
to
get
it
for
this
special
meeting.
The
intent
would
be.
M
We
would
have
to
move
pretty
quickly
once
we
have
all
that,
and
so
at
least
one
to
have
the
topic
out
there
and
that
that
quote
out
there,
because
we
may
ask
if
everything
falls
in
line,
we
may
ask
for
a
pretty
quick
passenger
on
it,
just
because,
because
of
the
the
chip
server
or
server
chip
shortage,
there's
a
pretty
tight
timeline
on
getting
the
equipment
locked
in
before
there's
a
price
increase.
So
that's
that
was
the
purpose
of
putting
it
on
the
agenda
tonight.
H
H
So
I
mean
the
way
I
look
at
this
is.
Is
this
is
going
to
be
something
that
we
need
to
do
so
you
know
I,
I
think
we
should
move
forward,
get
the
agreement
together
and
once
the
agreement's
in
place,
then
we
can
look
at
that
and
we
can
go
from
there.
B
Okay,
anyone
else
on
what
mr
kern
said.
Thank
you,
joe
all,
right
before
we
go
to
introduction
of
new
legislation.
I
wanted
to
add
an
item
g
there,
the
trash
contract
which
we
did
in
2016,
it's
expiring
end
of
june
here
and
here
it
is
june
7th.
I
know
if
we
don't
do
nothing,
we
can't
extend
it
another
year.
Is
anyone,
mr
robert?
What's
your?
What
would
you
like
to
do.
J
J
J
You
know
from
our
perspective:
it's
not
an
easy
solution
right
there.
It's
not.
H
H
Does
it
also,
does
it
go
like
on
to
once
a
month
or
what
what
happened.
M
Right,
the
the
existing
agreement
is
a
stall.
It's
a
license
exclusive
license
for
the
existing
hauler
for
that
that
period
of
time,
so
we
would
need
to
get
in
placing
new,
preferred,
hauler
or
or
sole
source
license.
M
There's
a
few
ways
you
can
do
it,
but
the
way
norton
chose
back
of
2016
was
to
do
the
the
sole
source
paula
program.
So
that's
that's,
basically
how
it
works,
rob.
Is
there
anything
else
you
want
me
to
add
to
that.
M
That's
that's
correct,
so
now
we
we
have
the
ability
to
go
back
and
bid
that
that
those
services
again
for
to
get
new
pricing
new
service
providers,
things
like
that.
M
Yeah,
so
it's
not
it's
not
technically,
since
we're
not
the
city's
not
directly
expending
funds,
it's
not
a
true
bid
like
you're
thinking
of,
but
you
would
you'd
want
to
put
it
out
there
to
have
a
competitive
process
to
get
the
best
value
and
the
best
services
for
the
residents.
So
I
think
that's
the
process
you
would
follow,
but
it's
not
legally
a
bid
because
we're
not
spending
money.
H
M
J
I
mean
what
happens,
what
we
envision
will
happen:
it'll
be
a
free
market.
At
that
point
right
there
could
be
multiple
haulers
if
we
decide
to
go
the
multiple
hauler
route,
we're
going
to
put
in
some
permitting
process
that
allows
us
to
to
restrict
the
number
of
haulers
and
allow
the
residents
to
see
a
benefit
that
they
can
select.
One
of
our
preferred
haulers.
J
C
A
M
Yeah
yeah
it's
exclusive
haul
or
yeah
exclusive
trash
haul,
as
opposed
to
multiple
trash
haulers.
Some
some
communities
do
preferred
bids
and
then
allow
a
certain
number
of
haulers
and
that
they
have
they
have
a
city
wide.
It's
like
electrical
aggregation
in
a
way
right.
They
get
a
preferred
bid,
but
you're
free
to
choose
your
own
there's
a
lot
of
way
different
ways.
You
can
do
it.
There's.
A
To
use
the
reason
I
asked
that
is,
I
remember
when
this
was
originally
contracted
and
the
discussions
that
were
held
about
it
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
reasons
for
the
single
source
contract
single
source
supplier.
A
If
you
will
was
the
fact
that
we
would
have
that
so
many
less
trucks
on
our
roads
deteriorating
our
roads
in
norton,
and
I
don't
know
that
anything's
changed
since
that,
and
that's
if
I
remember
correctly,
that
was
the
main
driving
force
to
go
to
a
single
source
supplier
and
so
unless,
unless
there's
some
other
explanation
or
change,
that's
that
would
be
my
recommendation
to
go
to
a
single
source
supplier
be
whoever
it
may
be.
A
H
Less
trucks
and
jack,
I
think
one
of
the
things
yeah.
I
was
talking
with
someone
the
other
day
and
there
was
some
talk
that
some
of
the
neighborhoods
would
have
smaller
trucks
on
their
side
streets.
That
would
not
break
down
the
side
streets
as
much
and
I
don't
think
that's
happened.
So
I
you
know,
I
don't
know
about
that.
But
but
you.
H
F
I
remember
all
that
quite
well,
because
I
was
adamantly
against
going
with
one
hauler,
and
that
was
the
main
reason
for
using
one
was
saying
how
it
was
going
to
save
our
roads
when
a
lot
of,
and
so
now
we're
allowing
them
monopoly
to
come
about.
Which
is
another
thing
that
I
complained
about,
and
but
the
thing
of
it
is.
Is
they
kept
getting
bigger
trucks.
H
F
B
Right
well,
it
sounds
like
the
administration
is
looking
into
this
and
they'll
get
back
to
us
as
soon
as
they
got
something
going
correct.
Robert
yes,
sir
alrighty
any
introduction
of
new
legislation,
ordinance
71
2021,
mr
kernan.
H
B
G
H
A
H
Yes,
at
this
time,
I
moved
to
adopt
ordinance
number
71,
2021.
B
H
A
B
72
2021
mr
kearney
thank.
H
B
B
A
A
H
Yes,
at
this
time,
mr
president,
I
moved
to
adopt
ordinance
number
72,
2021.
B
I
have
a
motion,
a
second
to
adopt
ordinance
72
2021.
Is
there
any
other
further
discussion
there
being
none
roll
call?
Gary
mr
kernan.
H
A
I
H
Thank
you,
mr
president.
I
offer
ordinance
73
2021
for
its
first
rating
and
ask
the
clerk
to
read
it.
Please.
F
B
H
I
I
B
H
A
H
I
H
That
we
had
discussed
this
as
a
first
reading,
but
I
see
no
reason
to
wait
on
this,
so
I
will
move
to
wave
the
second
third,
a
second.
B
F
G
H
I
I
B
Exactly
we
have
a
motion,
a
second
to
adopt
74
20
21.
Is
there
any
other
further
discussion
on
ordnance
74
2021
there
being
none
roll
call
carrie
to
kernan.
H
A
B
B
G
B
Is
the
koi
property
construction
for
near
wells
and
storage
tanks?
It's
was
300,
we're
gonna,
move
it
to
a
hundred
feet.
Scott.
Did
you
get
your
answers,
quick
questions
answered.
D
Yeah,
it
looks
like
you
know,
this
is
specific
for
this
area,
this
versus
any
area
throughout
the
city,
okay,.
B
We
have
a
motion,
a
second
to
suspend
the
third
reading
on
ordinance
68
2021.
Is
there
any
further
discussion.
F
Yes,
mr
president,
I
don't
I
don't
understand
what
mr
pilot
said.
He
said
it
was
going
to
be
specific
to
this
area
and
the
way
I
understood
it,
this
is
going
to
be
specific
to
any
residential
areas.
The
area
he
had
asked
about
before
was
where
they
were
having
a
major
site
plan.
I
think
where
there
it
was
200
foot.
I
think
it
was
and.
F
G
F
Any
any
of
the
private
areas
as
opposed
to
a
subdivision
or
major
or
whatever,
and
I
had
asked
do
we
know
how
many
of
these
sites
we
actually
have
that
would
be
affected
by
this
and
they
didn't
know
what
they're
supposed
to
look
into.
I
think
mr
karan
had
said
that
the
epa
or
somebody
would
have
that,
but
I
would
thought
we
would
know
it.
F
I'm
just
leery
about
changing
something
to
fit
a
code
when
that
is
one
of
the
main
reasons
why
we
have
kept
charter
in
order
to
have
our
own
things.
And
yes,
I
understand:
what
do
we
care
if
somebody
wants
to
build
their
house
next
to
an
oil?
Well,
I
just
don't
like
opening
up
those
can
of
worms
if
we
don't
have
to,
and
I
think
that
the
man
is
building
a
house.
I've
never
had
a
direct
answer
from
that.
F
Although
I
did
speak
to
mr
bremen,
like
I
said
earlier
today,
so
I
believe
it's
a
house,
I
believe,
he's
already
put
a
garage
on
it.
I
could
be
wrong
because
I
haven't
didn't
get
the
opportunity
to
go
back
and
check
the
bz8
stuff,
so
he
had
gotten
a
variance
for
that
and
he
could
possibly
be
at
270
feet
now
from
the
well
as
opposed
to
the
300.
I
If
were
you
finished
charlotte.
F
I
Well,
just
to
add
that
this
brings
us
in,
I
believe,
in
compliance
with
the
rest
of
the
state,
and
it
only
lessens
the
restrictions,
so
it
doesn't
change
any
area
just
makes
it
available
in
the
future
to
build
closer
to
those
wells.
It
really
doesn't
change
any
existing
areas.
Nothing
is
going
to
be
actually
changing
those
other
areas.
F
Right
and
there's
so
I
believe,
clinton
see
actually
at
400
feet
so
and
again,
just
because
the
state
says
something:
that's
why
we
have
a
charter.
So
we
don't
have
to
follow
specific
state
code
on
everything
other
than
that
then
get
rid
of
the
charter,
which
I
would
never
agree
to
you
by
the
way.
But.
B
With
that,
then,
let's
just
I'm
going
to
take
mr.
J
Justin
and
I
interact
for
just
a
second-
please:
yes,
go
on
so
justin's,
aware
of
the
broadview
heights
court
case,
where
the
city
of
broadview
heights
restricted
construction
of
wells,
and
it
was
a
supreme.
I
believe
he
would
be
better
at
speaking
to
this
and
I
but
the
city
lost
the
case,
and
he
can
better
explain
why
we
are
obligated
to
follow
state
law.
With
this
specific.
M
Yeah
yeah
robert,
that
was
that
one
was
not
the
broadview
heights.
It
was
a
monroe
falls
case
and
monroe
falls
tried
to
limit
wells
by
by
their
zoning
code
and
that
did
go
up
to
the
supreme
court
and
it's
a
home.
The
supreme
court
ruled
that
the
chap
not
to
pull
the
chapter
up.
M
I
forget
the
chapter
now,
but
the
chapter
that
revised
code
that
we're
all
talking
about
is
an
issue
of
statewide
concern,
so
you're
not
allowed
to
vary
it
because
they
want
uniform
oil
development
throughout
the
state,
or
at
least
that's
the
court's
logic.
So
I'm
I'm
of
the
belief
that
we
can't
vary
the
provision,
otherwise
we'd
be
subject
to
a
potential
legal
challenge,
so
we
should
follow.
State
law
on
that
issue
is
my
my
belief.
F
A
I
hate
to
hold
you
up
again,
but
I
I
just
wanna
in
my
so
I'll.
Have
it
clear
in
my
own
mind
in
the
first
place,
I'm
in
favor
of
it,
I
I
believe
you
should
be
allowed
to
build
within
at
least
100
feet,
so
I
mean
farther
than
100
feet.
You
should
be
fine.
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
that
at
all.
I,
I
think,
if
you
have
300
feet
in
all
directions,
you're
wasting
all
kinds
of
space.
A
If
you
owned
a
piece
of
property,
that's
600
by
600,
you
couldn't
even
build
a
house
on
it
for
so
well
in
the
middle
of
it.
So
in
the
first
place,
I'm
in
favor
of
secondly,
the
I
just
want
to
make
certain
that
we
know
if
I'm
correct,
we
know
that
this
does
apply
to
the
entire
city,
not
just
to
the
individual
who's
applying
now
and
in
the
future.
A
Anyone
who
wants
to
build
within
more
than
a
hundred,
if
he's
outside,
of
a
hundred
feet
of
an
oral
well,
he
will
not
have
to
apply
or
she
will
not
have
to
apply
to
the
zoning
commission
for
a
for
a
whatever.
You
call
it
a
variance
to
the
zoning
commission.
A
I
mean
to
the
to
the
code
on
that,
because
the
code
will
be
a
hundred
feet
and
there'll
be
no
nothing
necessary
to
apply,
for
it
will
save
every
individual
who
wants
to
build
that
cost
to
apply
for
a
variance
which,
I
think
is
ridiculous.
If
you
own
the
property,
you
should
be
able
to
build
as
long
as
you're
100
feet
from
the
oil
well
and
and
as
long
as
as
long
as
you
who
own
the
property
feels
that
it's
not
a
safety
issue
for
the
building
or
the
structure
or
whatever
you're
building.
A
I
A
good
question
about
this:
if
the
state
code
is
100
feet
and
ours
currently
is
300
and
we're
making
a
motion
to
for
an
audience
to
change
the
code
from
300
to
100,
why
don't
we
just
repeal
the
code?
Is
there
anything
else
wrapped
up
in
it?
If
we
just
repeal
the
code,
it
would
default
to
the
state
code.
I
M
Yeah
I'd
have
to
look
through,
I
mean
I'm
not
prepared
without
going
through
and
looking
at
all
the
provisions
in
that
there's
an
entire
section
there.
I
wouldn't
be
comfortable
doing
that
tonight.
F
F
Thank
you.
This
is
a
second
reading
only
since
it
does
involve
tap
in
fees
and
residents,
not
just
cider
bridge
project,
I'm
not
going
to
move
to
wave
readings.
Okay,.
A
B
Oh
second,
I
have
a
motion
a
second
to
wave,
the
third
reading
on
ordinance,
70
20
21..
Is
there
any
discussion,
roll.
F
I
We're
just
voting
on
the
waiver
on
the
waiving
the
third
reading
right
now
we're
not
discussing
the
ordinance
yet.
I
was
kind.
I
A
D
B
I'll
second,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
to
adopt
ordinance,
70
20
21..
Is
there
any
other
further
discussion
on
ordinance,
70,
20
21.?
Yes,.
I
Those
living
farther
away,
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
other
than
it's
good
for
the
school,
it's
good
for
the
city,
so
I
think
that's
a
good
thing,
however,
almost
unanimously
those
next.
The
golf
course
are
not
pleased
and
it's
generally,
they
don't
care
about
the
street
lights
and
they
don't
care
about
the
sidewalks.
But
I
do
I
agree
with
mr
pilot
and
the
other
problem.
I
I
This
is
what
we
want
them
to
do,
but
I
would
rather
say
that
one
of
the
the
one
realtor
that
I
spoke
to
said
she
had
19
people
right
now
that
that
she's
got
a
waiting
list
to
get
condos
and
they
would
love
to
have
that.
So
she
furthered
on
that
suggestion,
not
rental
properties.
She
was
adamant.
It
would
bring
down
the
value.
I
The
other
three
realtors
all
said
that
they
expected
the
property
value
to
go
up
with
this
general
project,
but
only
the
the
fourth
one,
the
one
that
said,
absolutely
not
reviewed
the
entire
plan
and
seeing
the
rental
property.
She
was
concerned
that
that
would
bring
down
the
property
values
of
the
adjacent
properties,
so
in
a
good
conscience.
I
Voting
for
this,
when
I'm
in
ward
3
with
my
constituents
affected
that
greatly,
I'm
probably
not
going
to
be
for
this,
and
I
I
should
probably
just
defer
the
next
step
of
this
to
mr
pilot,
but
I'm
we
talked
about
this
earlier
about
the
sidewalks
and
the
lighting,
and
I
think
we're
in
agreement.
So
I'll
turn
that
over
to
mr
pilot.
D
Regarding
the
sidewalks,
mr
fowler
sent
me
our
codified
ordnance,
1024.03
new
construction,
sidewalks
required
it
states,
no
person
shall
construct
or
redevelop
a
new
residence,
commercial
or
industrial
structure
upon
one
or
more
parcels
of
land
within
the
city
without
installing
sidewalks
within
the
right-of-way
or
other
public
ground,
a
budding
a
public
street,
or
at
least
one
side
of
each
street.
D
Such
an
installation
shall
be
in
accordance
to
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.
Chapter
residential
parcels
of
land
having
more
than
100
feet
of
footage,
shall
be
reviewed
on
a
case
by
case
by
the
director
of
public
service,
who
shall
decide
if
the
installation
of
sidewalks
are
required
at
the
location
of
new
construction.
D
To
me,
this
still
applies
it's
not
in
the
right
of
way.
It's
not
on
the
public
ground.
Even
though
they've
made
a
walkway
between
residents
of
this
facility,
you
know
putting
the
walkway
from
right
by
your
house
over
to
the
next
person's
house
or
driveway.
That's
not
a
sidewalk.
A
sidewalk
is
in
the
right-of-way
out
by
the
road
where
people
can
walk.
D
If
it's
going
to
be
for
older
individuals,
which
they
stated
that
they
expected
50
plus
years
of
age,
I
think
it
was
you
know,
wouldn't
you
want
street
lighting
besides
somebody
having
a
light
on
up
on
their
house,
I
mean
you
want
to
make
this
safe.
D
You
want
to
make
this
a
nice
part
of
the
community.
I
like
the
project.
I
don't
like
the
fact
that
they
don't
have
street
lights
and
sidewalks,
and
I
think
dan
brings
up
a
very
valid
point.
I
think
it
would
be
better
for
the
community
as
a
whole
if
they
were
condos
versus
rentals
condos,
it's
a
long
term
purchase.
D
H
D
C
H
And
that's
the
business
portion
of
it
that
allows
us
to
have
the
tiff.
Secondly,
sidewalks
and
street
lights.
I
mean
I
get
that
there
are
people
that
would
like
sidewalks
and
street
lights.
I
would
assume
that
the
developer
has
done
his
research
and
has
looked
at
the
market
and
has
decided
that
he
can
sell
his
properties
without
sidewalks
and
street
lights,
and
that's
up
to
him.
H
D
D
H
D
H
D
H
J
J
M
Just
I'll
just
make
two
quick
legal
points
and
then
I'll,
let
you
guys
get
back
to
your
discussion,
the
first,
the
the
code
section
that
was
read
as
robert
mentioned.
I
think
it
was
mentioned
other
times.
That's
for
public
right-of-ways.
We
have
private
streets.
The
public,
right-of-way
adjacent
to
the
property
would
be
required
to
have
sidewalks,
which
is
the
the
one
actually
fronting
the
public
public
street.
M
The
the
drive
itself,
the
private
drives,
are
not
required
by
our
own
ordinances
to
have
sidewalks
and
then
the
second
point
I
think
robert
was
starting
to
make
is
for
street
lighting
the
way
that
street
line
works,
that
they
can
be
installed
by
developers,
but
the
the
cost
of
lighting
the
streets
is
actually
paid
by
the
city.
That's
our
electric
bill,
the
city's
electric
bill,
and
I
would
not
be
in
favor
just
like
you
can't
do
snow
plowing
on
private
drives
you.
M
You
can't
expend
funds
to
pay
for
an
electric
bill
to
light
non-public
streets,
non-public
areas.
So
we
we
couldn't.
I
mean
they
could
put
the
street
lights
there,
but
we
couldn't
light
them
up
with
city
electricity.
So
that's!
Those
are
the
two
legal
points
I
understand
the
desire
to
have
them,
but
I
don't
think
legally
that
it
works
well.
F
M
F
M
A
Actually
going
to
this
project,
if
I
might,
if
I
may,
the
shellheart
road
sidewalk
is
going
to
go
up
to
the
very
entrance
of
this
project
and
that'll
be
the
last
public
street
involved.
The
rest
of
the
streets
inside
of
that
project
are
all
private
they're
maintained
by
the
developer
by
the
owners.
A
B
I
I
I
see
the
logic
on
the
on
the
sidewalk,
the
lighting,
which
is
unfortunate,
but
it
sounds
like
there's
not
much
leverage
there.
I
The
other
issue
is
the
rentals
versus
condominiums
or
something
else,
and
if
they
were
totally
invisible
to
the
neighbors
on
either
side
would
not
affect
any
property
on
either
side,
I'd
be
for
it
whole
hog.
But
if
there's
just
rentals
and
they're
going
to
be
visible
and
could
affect
the
surrounding
area,
I'd
be
willing
to
give
up
a
tip
to
get
condominiums,
and
I
know
that's
not
part
of
the
bargaining.
I
I'm
a
big
fan
of
what
mayor
cloud
did
up.
C
I
Westlake,
they
managed
their
properties
a
lot
more
tightly
than
we
do
and
they
they
would
be
able
to
dictate
that
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
make
that
type
of
suggestion
to
the
builder,
but
that's
not
what
they
came
to
us
with.
So
I'm
a
little
frustrated
on
this
end
representing
my
ward,
I
will
be
voting
against
it
at
this
point
in
time,
hoping
that
they
come
back
to
us.
I
like
having
the
project-
I
agree
with
scott
on
this,
but
I'm
just
I'm
not
sold
at
the
rental
properties.
I
M
To
it's,
not
just
that
it's
one
I
mean
mr
fowler
can
explain
it's
not
that
it's
wonderful!
It's
we're
we're
currently
in
the
process
of
building
a
two
and
a
half
million
dollar
water
line,
and
the
tif
revenue
is
is:
is
the
repayment
source
for
that
water
line,
so
you're
gonna
have
to
come
up
with,
and
it's
fine
council
has
the
ability
to
vote
how
they
want
just
understand.
We
have
passed
the
development
agreement
twice.
M
H
We've
talked
about
this
and
the
tiff
has
been
part
of
this
whole
thing
so
that
we
could
run
that
water
line
and
pay
for
it
and
the
only
way
we
can
do
that
unless
we
decide
we
want
to
start
using
tax
money
or
other
public
money
is
to
have
a
tif
and
the
only
way
we
can
have
a
tiff
is
to
have
the
rentals
and
I
mean
come
on.
I
mean
look
at
columbia.
Woods
isn't
like
it's
some,
you
know
nasty
place,
I
mean
come
on.
I
mean
people
rent
apartments,
that's
what
they
do.
H
Some
people
rent
apartments,
that's
how
they
want
to
live.
There's
nothing
wrong
with
that!
There's
nothing
wrong
with
apartments.
I
mean
the
redwood
apartments
that
I've
seen
look
pretty
darn
nice
honestly,
I
mean
there
may
be
room
somewhere
else
in
the
community
for
for
condos.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
condos.
H
F
F
I
don't
believe
that
some
of
us
on
council
apparently
was
not
quite
fully
aware
of
how
it
was
we've
given
been
given
things
in
pieces
and
we've
been
told,
we
have
been
told
from
the
get-go
that
any
point
when
something
was
projected
come
upon
on
us
that
we
could
do
something
about
it
and
change
it,
and
now
we're
down
here.
Oh
let's
wave
the
third
reading
and
we're
still
fighting
over
the
fact.
But
we'd
like
this
changed
and
we
can't
and
can't
do
it.
F
M
F
A
B
I
D
I
B
What's
a
vote
three.
D
M
Yeah,
let's
I
want
to
look
through
the
code.
I
mean
you
have
to
disapprove
of
the
the
psych
plan,
so
I
need
to
look
through
it.
Give
me
a
second
on.
A
M
J
You,
mr.
B
B
H
H
At
this
time,
I
would
move
to
adopt
amended
ordinance
number
59.
H
B
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
adopt
amended
ordinance,
59-20-21.
F
Any
discussion,
thank
you,
mr
president.
The
language
has
been
actually
changed
where
parkwood
was
taken
out
of
this,
this
particular
ordinance.
However,
we
don't
have
an
updated,
exhibit
a
and
there
has
been
no
change
in
the
dollar
amount.
F
Well,
if
you
want
to
go
back
and
read
exhibit
a
which
the
last
one
I
had
was
when
it
come
off
with
parkwood
parkwood
is
definitely
spoken
of
in
that
contract.
J
J
F
J
So
well,
when
you
asked
me,
you
asked
me
on
the
floor.
If
this
included
park
wood-
and
I
said
I
needed
to
check
when
I
checked
with
the
engineer
he
said-
we
had
discussed
it
because
it's
been
over
a
year
and
a
half
I
apologize,
I
couldn't
remember,
we
had
taken
it
out.
He
and
I
discussed
taking
that
section
of
water
line
out
so
because
of
the
connection
to
the
private
line
that
wasn't
so
a
private
line.
Some
of
you
have
asked
it's
a
lot
smaller
than
a
regular
line.
J
I
believe
that's
a
two
inch
private
line
and
it
services
two
homes,
the
city
of
barberton,
allowed
that,
because
it
was
paid
for
by
the
individual
property
owners
who
needed
water
access,
rather
than
paying
for
a
large
line
to
service
the
entire
area,
they
chose
to
allow
them
to
hook
up
a
two
inch
line.
Well,
we're
not
going
to
loop
that
line,
because
it's
not
up
to
our
standards.
J
F
And
that's
what
it
says:
it's
for
the
observation
of
the
johnson
road
improvements
not
to
exceed
74
000,
and
maybe
I'm
not
making
myself
clear
but
from
what
I'm
seeing
exhibit
a
which
came
with
the
original
before
we
took
parkwood
out
of
this,
the
language
in
front
of
us
exhibit
a
does
say
parkwood
on
it
for
74
000
to
this
so
shouldn't
it
now
have
parkwood
removed
off.
Of
that
exhibit
a
that.
F
I
A
My
my
questions
were
answered,
robert
by
what
you
just
said
about
the
two
inch
water
line
and
all
that
that
that's
where
I
was
confused,
I
thought
there
was
a
regular
water
line,
ran
down
wood
dale,
and
that's
why
I
was
confused
about.
It
was
asking
many
questions,
but
that
completely
covers
my
my
questions.
I
had
no
problem,
it's
just
a
question
that
I
wanted
to.
I
was
curious
about,
but
that
answers
it
as
far
as
the
water
lines.
H
A
A
G
Ms
whipkey,
mr
mclean.
B
Yes,
all
right,
we
have
a
communications
with
the
public
john
cenotes
here.
Can
you
let
him
in
robert.
J
B
Hi
john,
this
is
dennis
film.
Council
president.
I
just
want
to
remind
you,
have
five
minutes
and
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
K
C
K
Okay,
yeah.
I
appreciate
the
time
I
know
this.
There
wasn't
an
open
forum.
So
thanks
for,
let
me
speak
a
little
bit.
I
guess
I
was
looking
at
the
agenda
and
I
know
that
I
don't
know
I
haven't
been
listening.
The
whole
thing,
but
I
know
where
the
vote
was
gonna
happen
for
this
for
the
final
site
plan,
and
I
think
this
includes
the
apartments.
K
If
that's
right,
yes,
okay,
I
so
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
few
things.
I
know
I've
talked
to
my
councilman.
I
don't
know.
Have
you
guys
voted
on
that
already.
K
K
K
K
K
I
think
this,
what
would
have
been
better
from
the
beginning
would
have
been
a
similar
density
of
build
compared
to
what
we
have
in
nash
heights.
But
I
know
that's
not
the
plan
for
the
how
for
the
single
unit
housing
but
yeah,
I
just
I
don't
support
the
apartments
in
this
area.
I
don't
think
it's.
It
meets
the
spirit
of
norton.
K
I
know
I've
talked
to
many
people
in
my
award,
I'd
say
at
least
40
or
50,
and
I
don't
know
anyone
that
wants
the
that
wants
apartments
in
this
area.
I
don't
think
anyone
wanted
housing
this
dense.
I
think
they
would
have
agreed
to
something
a
little
more
spread
out,
but
even
more
so
on
the
apartment
side.
So
I'm
hoping
that
we
can
avoid
that
situation
regardless.
K
K
Okay,
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
about
then
was
the
traffic.
So
I
have
a
prelim
traffic
report
and
I
know
that
I
believe
so
far.
I
think
it's
a
positive.
We
have,
I
believe,
at
all
the
intersections
on
the
shell
heart.
We
have
the
raised
curb
going
to
the
south
as
you
leave
the
development
going
on
the
shellheart.
K
K
I
think
many
people
aren't
looking
aren't
going
to
look
at
the
long
report
and
probably
just
don't
know.
I
don't
even
think
there
needs
to
be
a
lot
of
comment,
but
I
think
for
the
ward.
I
think
people
should
know
when
I
look
at
this
report.
K
There
are
maybe
10
to
15
cars
at
peak
morning
and
afternoon
and
in
the
full,
build
out
of
this
of
the
development.
What
I
see
in
the
numbers
we've
got
60
to
120
cars
in
the
am
and
pm,
and
that's
a
big
increase
at
the
intersection
doesn't
mean
they're
all
going
to
go
all
the
way
to
easton,
but
it's
still
a
lot
more
traffic
and
I
think
that
I'd
like
to
request
a
ward
3
meeting
for
that
number
two.
K
C
K
B
Right
all
right
now
we're
going
to
go
into
executive
session
here,
I'm
going
to
temporarily
adjourn
the
special
counsel
meeting
to
enter
into
an
executive
session
for
the
reason
of
consider
the
purchase
of
property
for
public
purposes
or
for
the
sell
property
at
competitive
bidding.
If
premature
disclosure
of
information
that
would
give
an
unfair
competition,
competitive
or
bargaining
advantage
to
a
person
whose
personal
private
interest
is
adverse
to
the
general
public
interest
per
orc,
121.22
g2.
B
And
section
3.122
of
the
norton
city
charter
and
preparing
for
conducting
or
reviewing
negotiations
or
bargaining
sessions
with
public
employees
concerning
their
compensation
or
other
terms
and
conditions
of
their
employment
for
orc,
121.22,
g4
and
section
3.124
of
the
norton
city
charter.
Do
I
have
a
second
second?
A
C
B
B
While
we're
in
executive
session
there
there
will
be
a
video
showing
that
we're
in
his
session.
Once
we
get
back,
we
will
adjourn
our
meeting
at
the
special
counsel
meeting.
So
we'll
see
everyone
at
the
executive
session.
J
J
F
C
F
C
C
F
C
F
J
Yeah,
I
know
justin
reese
sent
you
the
link,
justin,
resent
you
another
link.
F
B
B
F
B
All
right
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
adjourn
tonight's
meeting.
It's
nine,
almost
nine
o'clock.
Second,.