[0:12] Thank you.

[0:43] You're good.

[0:56] Good evening. It's 5:30 on uh Tuesday, August 25th, 2026.

[1:02] This is a special council meeting Gates Council.

[1:08] Uh pursuant to uh uh the meeting we have posted the agenda

[1:15] and the notice 24 hours posted the notice 24 hours in advance and declared

[1:20] the purposes of the meeting which is what's required by way of our

[1:25] [clears throat] ordinances because it's a special meeting. Uh it's

[1:29] generally limited to those items that are specifically called for in the

[1:32] agenda and we have uh listed five. So other information um keep five

[1:41] cameras going to cover today. Okay.

[1:44] [clears throat] So we'll follow the agenda and

[1:47] appreciate your your patience and uh both of them.

[1:52] Um, I want to um announce for those that may not know it that uh council member

[1:58] John Nusco resigned from council yesterday at um

[2:03] [clears throat] about 9:00 a.m. sent to uh many people. We don't know who, but I

[2:07] presume 500 plus probably those that run must connect his letter. And um in a

[2:14] [clears throat] few minutes we'll ask council to accept his resignation. But I

[2:17] thought it'd be first um helpful for me to outline a few of the points u from

[2:23] his letter that have a different slant to them and we'll document these

[2:28] eventually in an email or Facebook connect that goes out this week. Um

[2:35] there's a question on on connectivity for the last meetings and and this is

[2:40] important. Um we had an expectation that the meeting

[2:46] would be uh attended by two of our council people remotely. Um when we have

[2:52] meetings uh in the um community center, we were only allowed to have one Zoom

[2:57] meeting. Uh we knew that there would likely be an executive session call

[3:01] because council member Greco had asked law director Hunt for legal

[3:06] interpretation on four or five matters and the answer would come back at at

[3:12] some time and so we needed to provide for an executive session if one were to

[3:17] be arranged and called for by council members.

[3:21] I made the decision uh to have the meeting here because it would be easiest

[3:26] for connectivity standpoint to have the zoom session right here. If there was a

[3:30] need for an executive session, we would excuse the individuals that um not part

[3:34] of the executive session team, which is all of you individuals except for

[3:38] council members, ask you to stand outside for 20 minutes while we

[3:42] conducted our executive session business and reconvene.

[3:45] One council member asked why I did that and I explained it and she seemed happy

[3:49] with that. Second council member said, "Why'd you do that?" And I said the same

[3:52] thing. And she said, "Okay, it might be nice to have the community center." A

[3:57] third council person um was rather demanding and thought that that was a

[4:02] bad move and demanded that uh I move the session to the community center. I

[4:08] explained that connectivity is an issue with us. We had an issue in March or

[4:12] April where we went into a private session, executive session with the Zoom

[4:18] capability and and a microphone or was such had not been muted or turned off or

[4:22] people kept it on and and private matters with executive session were

[4:27] discussed. I didn't want to have that risk. So having it frankly in this room

[4:32] turned out to be an expert. Nonetheless, the council

[4:36] person was rather demanding of his uh request and so I said, "Well, let me

[4:41] check with um our connectivity here and see what we can do." So we moved at his

[4:46] request um specifically and for to make sure that we did not lose anyone

[4:51] communication [clears throat] the council meeting uh to the community

[4:56] center had ited on Zoom and for the pro the executive session uh we had

[5:03] conference call numbers set up so that the two council members that were

[5:07] participating remotely could participate. I reviewed all this with

[5:10] Mike F before the meeting, actually the day before the meeting to make sure that

[5:14] there would be no issue with connectivity. I also asked Mike to make

[5:19] sure that we had a phone um in the room, that the numbers were pre-programmed,

[5:24] and to reach out to the two council members that would be traveling to make

[5:27] sure that they had the number, they could call in both to the Zoom number

[5:31] and to the conference call number. >> [clears throat]

[5:34] » uh that the time would roughly be about what we would have that breakout session

[5:38] because one of the council members was on the west coast and otherwise tried to

[5:42] do as best we could to ensure that there was continuity that we had all seven

[5:45] council people the entire meeting in person in zoom on the speaker phone. So

[5:52] the comments in here about connectivity and so on read a bit

[5:58] unfairly. It's almost like we already planned uh

[6:02] to uh have an executive session. Executive sessions are called by

[6:06] council. I don't actually vote. So, anything that happens is voted by

[6:11] council. My only vote is when there's a tie. And in the two and a half years

[6:15] I've been doing this, I haven't voted for anything because there's never been

[6:18] a tie. So, uh the again the the innuendo that's

[6:23] in the letter I think is is a little unfair.

[6:29] Um what goes into executive session? Um we had the u motion for an executive

[6:36] session. Um there was a second to that motion and with a motion and a second

[6:41] there was call for discussion. A council member wanted to have a discussion on

[6:45] that and wanted to discuss what goes into executive session. I

[6:49] [clears throat] referred him to Mr. Hunt who responded uh to um to that and that

[6:57] seemed to explain it. I then went to the two council members who were

[7:01] participating via Zoom to make sure that we didn't lose them. They didn't hear it

[7:05] perhaps traveling in the car or or being remote they would lose some connectivity

[7:10] and said I think John Megan anything and there was no further comment. I called

[7:15] for the roll call. So what we did in executive session was

[7:19] perfectly fine, perfectly done the right way, perfectly done legally. It has case

[7:24] law from Ky County. If need be, we can um cite that as to what went into

[7:30] executive session. Coming out of executive session, there was a motion

[7:35] made by Mr. Young to withdraw the prior resolution. It was moved, seconded, and

[7:40] discussion was had. After the discussion was had, roll call was taken.

[7:47] The second motion at that time by Mr. Anusco who wanted to uh wave the

[7:52] attorney client privilege of the document that the law director gave us.

[7:58] He made the motion. There was no second. The motion died. We went on to the next

[8:03] order of business. Some of those things are not in the letter that he put. Okay.

[8:09] And it was just good to have this on here so that those that do want to read

[8:15] it or go back and check the written record uh will have a more complete

[8:19] view.

[8:25] The fire station. Um I'm I am for improving town hall

[8:33] and having better police department quarters. I probably am the one that

[8:38] brought it up a year and a half ago and said we really should do something. This

[8:41] building is 90 years old. It was last refurbished 60 years ago. The plaque

[8:45] hanging right outside the door that confirms all that. And so I went and I

[8:50] found a contributor uh who would pay 25 $30,000 to get us started with the

[8:56] police locker room with the police locker room by putting in new lockers.

[9:01] This building um has room to be refurbished. Our police function no

[9:06] longer includes a jail. It no longer includes a booking room. It probably

[9:11] doesn't need an armory. It doesn't need a salport. One of those doors where you

[9:15] open, drive in, and close and you take your prisoners out because we don't have

[9:18] prisoners. When we have prisoners, we take them to somebody else's jail.

[9:23] There's a room downstairs. The fire department. We don't need a

[9:27] fire department the way that we have in some of our neighboring suburbs. We have

[9:31] one person on duty. we don't need a whole building for that.

[9:37] We have four bunks upstairs and they're made usable as can be. There was a

[9:42] desire and I I shared all that with with with the council member. Um I said we

[9:48] don't need a fire house. We don't need a police house. What we need are better

[9:53] fixtures inside and redoing redo this building so we have ADA access and we

[9:58] have a lot of other things that a a 90-y old building doesn't quite have.

[10:04] I mentioned that it's not part of our priorities this year. It was not

[10:08] something that we discussed with council going into the year and I think I've

[10:11] been reported once or twice in the newspapers that um I'm going to move

[10:15] ahead during 2025 and through 26 and make the improvements that we could make

[10:21] to what we currently have. I don't object to what uh he wanted to do of

[10:25] going out and seeing what bigger things could be done there. Indeed, I helped

[10:29] him. Uh I sat down with them and gave him two hours of history on the

[10:33] buildings and where they are. I mentioned that there was a roadway

[10:36] initially plan that would continue behind Sarah's behind the library and

[10:40] end up on on the outside of the community center other side of the east

[10:45] side of the street. I gave a study from 2002 that while it sounds old, 2002 in

[10:51] gates mills is like 2026. traffic patterns, amount of retail,

[10:56] parking spaces, all those issues of 2002 are still here today and they're

[11:02] probably [clears throat] not much different. They gave that report to the

[11:05] architect and they gave it to the other person that the council member was with.

[11:09] So, not blocking the progress, trying to make sense out of figuring out what

[11:13] what's needed first. And if council wants to discuss that, then that's a

[11:18] 2027 project and we should discuss that in

[11:21] November and December when we go through our priorities for the year. So we can

[11:24] line them up and apply resources and and make that make that interesting. Um,

[11:32] so um I I do take objection to the way the

[11:37] building's been described. It's an old building. This village is old. Okay,

[11:42] there's a lot of old things. There's old bridges and old roads and a lot of old

[11:47] houses and some are taken care of and some are not. And this building probably

[11:50] hasn't been taken care of very well. Not the basics. Bathrooms are poor. There is

[11:56] no elevator. There's poor ADA access. The facilities downstairs are old. But

[12:03] it's not inhumane. And when people start to use words like that to to really

[12:07] belittle and describe in their descriptions what we are, I I take

[12:11] objection to that. So, um, a few thoughts on that. I will, uh, I don't

[12:16] know what his issue is on financial stability, by the way. He said, uh, he's

[12:20] concerned about that. um there is no committee. There's been a threeperson

[12:25] working group that has put together financial projections

[12:29] um that are not council members. So, this is not a committee. It's not

[12:33] subject to any committee laws. We're putting we're doing the hard work.

[12:37] They're doing hard work. We're putting together spreadsheets that cover every

[12:40] dollar that's been spent and raised in the last 10 years, every dollar that's

[12:44] going to be spent or raised in the next five years. That report was given to me

[12:48] about probably four weeks ago. I've looked at and given my comments back to

[12:53] the the working group. Um and yesterday we set up I think a date ch here I don't

[12:58] think uh to uh to me to go through um go through now. So that is um if there are

[13:07] concerns about the financial stability of the village I don't know what those

[13:10] are in his mind. The village has $10 million of cash. We operate generally

[13:15] the last two years on a surplus. would operate this year at a deficit because

[13:18] we are putting aside money for the $925,000 firet truck which includes

[13:23] $250,000 from last year's surplus plus $35,000 per month receiving fund payment

[13:29] that we're making from our general fund into our capital fund to essentially be

[13:33] able to accumulate all that funds and have that available by the end of 2027.

[13:39] So, um, look, I I thank John for his contributions. Um he's he's he's been a

[13:46] worker. He's helped us uh quite a bit on a couple areas that aren't glorious

[13:50] areas. Um we have a new internet system and and technology going into this

[13:55] building and uh a lot of that is his his design and his architecture and I

[14:00] [clears throat] thank him for that. He's been helpful to us on the CVG uh buried

[14:04] fiber optic cable in a in a large way talking technically to uh the

[14:08] counterparts at CVG and he's been helpful to us certainly on the police um

[14:14] side in terms of the traffic enforcement and the significance. So I thank him for

[14:19] his service. I'll write him a letter that effect um but I did think it was

[14:22] important for us to um at least air a few of the his points from the other

[14:27] side. Are there any questions for councel of

[14:32] me or of the letter? It's a good time to raise them. If not,

[14:39] then I would um move and look for a second to accept the resignation of

[14:43] council member. >> Second

[14:48] call before we do anything. >> We should. Yeah.

[14:53] » Shannon. [laughter]

[14:58] Yes. >> Greco.

[14:59] » Yes. >> Rose.

[15:00] » Yes. >> Stein.

[15:01] » Yes. >> Turner.

[15:02] » Yes. >> Young

[15:03] » here. >> No.

[15:06] » Motion. >> Made a motion.

[15:09] » So you made a motion. >> No.

[15:11] » No. >> Okay. I So I'll make a motion to accept

[15:15] uh council member Anesco's resignation. >> Thank you. Is there a second?

[15:20] » Second. >> Thank you. Any further discussion?

[15:23] » There's a second. >> Megan.

[15:26] » Thanks. Roll call, please. >> I I'll say I think it would be very

[15:31] appropriate to thank John in the letter. He's

[15:33] » great. >> He did do a lot. He pointed out he did a

[15:36] lot. >> Yes.

[15:42] » Yes. >> Yes. Perez.

[15:45] » Yes. >> Steinberg.

[15:46] » Yes. >> Turner.

[15:47] » Yes. >> Young.

[15:48] » Yes. Thank you.

[15:53] Okay. Um, second item on the on the agenda here, the ordinance 2026-43.

[16:00] Mr. Steinberg, um, turn over to you for more.

[16:02] » Uh, yes. This is an ordinance providing for the submission to the electors of

[16:06] the village of Gates Mills. proposed amendment to the charter of the village

[16:10] of Gates Mills to renew for a period of 5 years the existing 1m mill tax levy

[16:14] for the public purpose of public purpose of conserving retaining protecting and

[16:19] preserving land water forest open natural or wetland areas in the

[16:23] municipality predominantly in their natural scenic open or wooded condition

[16:27] or as suitable habitat for fish plants or wildlife including the acquisition of

[16:32] such real property or interest therein as may be necessary to carry out that

[16:36] purpose. and declaring emergency. >> Move to suspend the rules for ordinance

[16:44] number 2026-43. >> Is there a second?

[16:47] » Second. >> Thank you.

[16:52] » Any discussion? >> I have some comments I'd like to make.

[16:56] » Okay.

[17:01] I do want to share my version and my own view uh not only to council but to the

[17:07] residents that are here. And I think that this is important. This measure

[17:12] that was just read carries a new ordinance number. Otherwise, it's

[17:17] identical to the charter amend amendment that was withdrawn by Councilman Young

[17:24] at our last meeting. This ordinance rests on the same

[17:29] underlying report from the ad hoc levy committee produced the same way.

[17:36] As council member Young stated at our last meeting, when this ordinance was

[17:40] withdrawn, there were open meetings act violations

[17:45] connected to how that report was prepared.

[17:51] None of you have seen that report. It was distributed to council but has

[17:56] never been made public. You are being asked to trust a process

[18:02] you cannot see or evaluate for yourselves.

[18:08] I've looked at the case law myself and here's my concern.

[18:13] Ohio courts have said that a later public action can cure an earlier open

[18:18] meetings problem, but only if that later action is a genuine independent

[18:24] reconsideration, not a rubber stamp. In my opinion, that requires actual

[18:31] council deliberation on the merits of what we're being asked

[18:34] to do. what's actually in front of us tonight.

[18:40] This ordinance doesn't ask us to to deliberate on the merits of the levy

[18:44] itself. It asks us to vote on whether it should be placed on the ballot.

[18:51] It doesn't really give council any opportunity to independently reconsider

[18:56] anything. We're not being asked to debate the report's conclusions

[19:02] or examine the committee's work. were being asked to vote yes or no on ballot

[19:06] placement on an expedited timeline at a specially called meeting using the same

[19:13] report. In my opinion, this isn't the kind of independent reconsideration that

[19:18] cures what happened before. It is the same process with a new number and I ask

[19:24] council to consider this before voting tonight.

[19:29] » Thank you. Let me make a comment to that. Um it has been a public record. It

[19:35] was distributed to council the report. >> Yeah.

[19:40] » I was asked by John post it

[19:45] » initially on that Monday night or Tuesday. I said I'll post it tomorrow

[19:49] because it had just been published on Monday before council meeting.

[19:53] [clears throat]

[19:55] The council member then asked questions about the ad hoc process and several

[19:59] Ohio revised code provisions and asked the law director for a legal view of

[20:04] those. I was then informed by the law director

[20:08] to not post, >> but it is available as a public record

[20:16] and I did mention them at least three times to anyone including at the meeting

[20:21] that would like a copy to email me was their name and I will email it to them.

[20:26] » I received two requests >> between the time that I made that

[20:29] announcement a month ago and today >> I know

[20:32] » it has so it is available. It is a public record. No one's interested in

[20:37] it. >> I don't think that's true.

[20:39] » Two people were two people interested and they were providing it.

[20:43] » I know why it was I know why uh >> all I'm saying Karen is your your

[20:47] comment about it not being available is not is not

[20:51] » well anybody can re request it. It under the public records act. I understand

[20:56] that but it wasn't made available like most things are where it's posted

[21:03] on the website. Never. That never happened.

[21:06] » True. For good reason. >> Well, I will state that that report has

[21:13] absolutely no bearing on my vote. Um >> agreed.

[21:17] » And um and u and I I think maybe at this point um as a hypothetical, I know

[21:26] there's been some mention of the um Open Meetings Act here. Um, and I

[21:32] [clears throat] don't I think people in the audience might want to know how the

[21:34] open meetings act works. And if you stay for the discussion on the uh uh

[21:42] potential agreement, you're going to see why it's can be a little bit frustrating

[21:47] that if a committee is formed and say that committee has four people on it and

[21:54] um a quorum of the committee is three people.

[21:59] um those people cannot even circulate drafts in an email as the way you would

[22:06] normally work um on a document for people. You can't

[22:11] submit those drafts and say, "Hey, I think we should make these changes or

[22:16] hey, I want to circulate this to you. What do you think before the meeting?"

[22:21] Um you can't do that. you um every one of those drafts would have to be

[22:27] discussed or every change every if you wanted to change a paragraph has to be

[22:32] discussed in an open meeting. it makes it pretty hard to do anything and um and

[22:41] so um

[22:44] sometimes people make innocent mistakes and um and

[22:51] I I don't think there was anything nefarious a foot. I I think everything

[22:56] um it it's hard to get used to saying, "Hey, I can't I can't draft something up

[23:03] and email it over and say, "Hey, what do you think about this?" Um I can't do

[23:07] that. I have to wait and I have to type it out and I have to bring it to the

[23:11] meeting and then say, "I think we should change this or we should change that or

[23:15] we should change this." And and there's there's reasons for it. And I'm I'm not

[23:20] debating. I'm just saying that um a lot of times when people come on council

[23:26] they don't realize that and they try to work as efficiently as possible and save

[23:32] time and unfortunately that sometimes collides with the open

[23:37] meetings act. >> And Karen, I I appreciate the comment. I

[23:42] I think and I ask our law director to correct me on this if I'm wrong on any

[23:48] of this, but I think there's two separate actions that we're taking. One

[23:52] is the ordinance and whether the levy itself should be on the ballot, which is

[23:58] what the current motion is for. The second part of that is the agreement and

[24:03] and the terms of the agreement, which I think are very much still a discussion

[24:07] and and what we'll have next. And I think the separation that we are hoping

[24:12] to achieve is not related to the ordinance because the levy is is its own

[24:18] its own you know action. The discussion on what the term should be the split the

[24:24] requirements of the land conservancy the uh reporting aspects of that what the

[24:29] funding will be used for. I think that that is separate. And while ideally I

[24:34] know there's people and it would have been great if we had that all finalized

[24:38] for this vote to put on the ballot, I I think that we can do our best and it's

[24:43] going to be really critical for us as council members and as a village to make

[24:47] sure that residents have the information that they need to make an informed

[24:50] decision at the ballot box. So, you know, I hope that we have an operating

[24:54] agreement soon and the discussion today will hopefully frame that, but that's

[24:58] not on the same timeline as allowing the residents to be able to bow on the on

[25:02] the levy itself. And so, I I understand we're under an expedited timeline. I

[25:05] don't think any of us find that ideal. Um I think it would be it would be um

[25:10] detrimental to the village and and the land conservancy to not put it forward

[25:13] for a vote. I think that's really up to the residents and that's what the motion

[25:16] is for now. >> Well, except for the fact that the

[25:19] report did advocate for this levy being on the ballot.

[25:24] So let me >> it was called the advocacy

[25:28] » right >> of the yes um after the or my

[25:33] observation or recollection is that after the ordinance the prior ordinance

[25:37] you know was was withdrawn we had a wonderful discussion a very open

[25:42] discussion and as a matter of fact John said it was the best discussion that

[25:47] he's ever had on council where in in an open forum we talked about our you know

[25:52] desire for um the distribution of funds. And my understanding on the agenda is

[25:59] that that's going to that's going to continue and that's going to be, you

[26:02] know, the new um uh the [clears throat] new term

[26:06] sheet, if you want to call it that, that will that the mayor will negotiate with

[26:10] the um with the land conservancy. So, in my mind, the the prior recommendation is

[26:18] is moot. I it doesn't ex it doesn't exist. That's

[26:23] not what we're doing tonight. And this discussion may continue into September.

[26:28] Um we may not get it done tonight, but I think it's an important discussion and

[26:33] you know it's um >> well

[26:38] okay.

[26:42] » Are there any other council members wishing to make a point?

[26:48] Roll call please on the question of >> yes

[26:54] » no >> yes

[26:57] » yes >> charter

[26:58] » yes >> yes

[27:04] » have a motion >> move to approve ordinance 2026-43

[27:09] » second

[27:13] » been a motion and a second is any discussion

[27:16] » my only comment in all of this is that this is at its core a tax levy that

[27:22] council has the power to put on the ballot and it's up to the residents to

[27:27] decide whether they want this or not. Not four members voting on council or

[27:33] five members voting on council with however it may work out.

[27:38] Does this vote wave the rereading rule and declare an emergency?

[27:48] And it is an emergency has an emergency clause. If so, if it's passed, it will

[27:53] be an emergency and will go into effect upon signature passage and signature by

[27:59] the mayor. >> There was a September 4th deadline to

[28:03] get this to the board. >> Any further discussion?

[28:11] » Roll call, please. >> Broom.

[28:13] » Yes. >> No. Perez,

[28:16] » yes. >> Steinbrand,

[28:17] » yes. >> Turner, yes. Young,

[28:19] » yes.

[28:23] » Motion passes. Thank you all.

[28:37] Okay. Item number three, discussions potential agreement with the Gates Musl

[28:41] Conservancy. uh at the end of the meeting last um

[28:45] last regular meeting I went through history of the percentages

[28:50] that we've used in the past to allocate and also a few of the fringe provisions

[28:56] each of you received a copy of the existing operating agreement between the

[28:59] conservancy and the village in your packets last week I trust you've had a

[29:04] chance to go through the seven or eight pages

[29:07] um there [clears throat] are three items in there that I would bring up uh

[29:12] discuss those. You may have some items that we could discuss as well so that we

[29:18] could go back service

[29:23] point of council. Uh number one, uh there has always been uh concern about

[29:30] the um ability of the land conservancy to purchase a piece of land without or

[29:38] with knowledge of other than their board.

[29:42] current agreement is that prior to them making financial commitment to purchase

[29:47] a property or that uh they need to inform council as most council of that.

[29:54] They have been of the and they have been few purchases so there's been few

[29:59] notifications but it has worked. Um there is some concern that uh notifying

[30:05] council is essentially seven people, eight if not count. And that when you're

[30:10] in the middle of negotiations to acquire land or a lease or what have you, uh

[30:14] that's eight more bodies that now know something

[30:18] manner and those eight each talk to one person. All of a sudden you've got a

[30:22] dozen more people, 16 more people that are trying to weigh in or hearing things

[30:27] about a potential acquisition. they uh would be agreeable to change the word

[30:31] council to the term mayor. They understand the need to um

[30:37] communicate with the village and accept that responsibility. Uh believe that if

[30:42] they inform the mayor, extend the mayor's um responsibility to inform

[30:47] council, which the mayor can do. The mayor may also need to talk to the legal

[30:52] director andor the village engineer. there are a few pieces of land when

[30:56] they're acquired that may have storm water or other topographical

[31:01] complications to them. Um, and the mayor can inform council through executive

[31:07] session if that's that's a permitted use of the executive session rules. I think

[31:12] that's a very practical uh reasonable answer. It doesn't change their need to

[31:17] report uh in advance. just changes the word to whom they one word to whom they

[31:23] report your view on that

[31:30] » a a question I guess I mean I think there's been just has it just been one

[31:34] acquisition in the past five years or has there been multiple

[31:37] » one recently um and there may have been may have been a few earlier in the five

[31:42] year period >> the only the only other expense was

[31:46] paying off the loan for the clerk property. [clears throat]

[31:49] » Did informing council pose a challenge in that situation

[31:56] » that the land acquisition purchase like was it

[31:58] » time? >> You don't know. Yeah,

[32:00] » it's not. Yeah, that's well the one the um

[32:06] » uh uh the per Perkins property >> um the land conservancy brought it

[32:12] forward and there was a lot of support on council.

[32:15] » I mean among council members to uh there was support. We thought that was a good

[32:20] uh we never came up to a vote but I think individually we were supportive of

[32:24] that property. It was um >> so in that case

[32:28] » important important part of >> the requirement of informing council

[32:32] prior to a purchase was not an impediment to the deal.

[32:35] » No. >> Yeah. I guess I'm just wondering if

[32:37] there's a challenge we're trying to fix because it does the operating agreement

[32:40] does say that we would also get to hear about the economic impact and tax

[32:43] implications which I know are concerns that have also been raised. And so we I

[32:46] we would be kind of a second tier to that I guess if it's just to the mayor.

[32:50] So that would change the like how we are informed I guess.

[32:55] And I think part of the is issue about infor informing the mayor or you know

[33:00] ultimately the council is to know for example um there was a situation with

[33:05] planning and zoning where um there was a there was property that had been limited

[33:10] even though it was 15 or 16 acres it was limited to one house and so it would not

[33:16] be prudent for the in that case for the land conservancy to purchase that

[33:19] because it was already limited to one to one house. Um so they didn't know that

[33:24] but the council member knew knew about that. So the discussion was prudent in

[33:28] terms of um saving the land conservancy from spending some money unne

[33:33] unnecessarily. As things turned out they didn't spend the money anyway for a

[33:37] different reason but I think that's a good example of why it's important to

[33:40] bring it to council. >> Thank you for that.

[33:46] » This is not a big issue. There's only an acquisition or

[33:49] » Yeah. two in a fiveyear period. It's not something where we have

[33:55] a lot of time into it. And the other thing is so the consery is a supporting

[34:01] organization for the village believe 509

[34:07] A3 and uh and if they were to notify the

[34:13] mayor of an acquisition um part of the being a supporting

[34:18] organization is to carry out goals and things of the organization you're

[34:23] supporting which is the village and um And I would say that uh Todd, this is a

[34:31] question for you. If we were to if the mayor were to be notified of a

[34:36] acquisition and then bring it to council at the council meeting,

[34:39] » potential acquisition, these are all >> in

[34:44] under the rubric of it's a supporting organization. I think that could be an

[34:48] executive session over the acquisition of land. Uh,

[34:52] it could be if obviously if there are legal issues and you need legal advice,

[34:59] at least under the court of appeals decisions out of this county, that would

[35:03] be appropriate for an executive session. >> Um, if there are funds that are needed,

[35:09] additional funds, seems to me that that would be

[35:13] appropriate for an executive session. That's often that could be the case.

[35:19] And part of the reason I think that we have that in the current agreement that

[35:25] they would come to to the notch. So under those circumstances I believe yes.

[35:31] I'm not quite I'd like to get back to you on that, but um obviously the

[35:37] charter provision itself um sets out the purpose and so on and so

[35:43] forth. And the the land conservancy was set up by the village,

[35:48] » right, >> 35 years ago,

[35:50] » right? I mean that that uh it it just addresses the issue of the concern that

[35:57] um the conservy is trying to negotiate a transaction and they can say oh hey

[36:04] they're going to the village and asking for money so we'll ask for more right I

[36:09] mean addresses the handicap of the negotiation process

[36:16] I believe the other side of the argument from the conservancy standpoint point is

[36:22] that council meets once a month and >> it's possible that a transaction

[36:29] » uh the a timing of a given transaction would make it

[36:35] difficult to fit into the schedule of the council. So perhaps there's some way

[36:41] we can make council available in between

[36:48] meetings as necessary should something come up.

[36:54] » There are obviously special meetings, emergency

[36:58] meetings on less than 24 hours notice can be had. The issue becomes the

[37:04] purpose of the meeting and how you phrase the purpose.

[37:09] Well, that goes into what said before. If it's a conservation easement or u um

[37:15] or a donation, oftent times those things their life cycle can be very quick and

[37:22] it starts on December 15th to December 18th or December 22nd. It has to be

[37:28] completed by December 31st. Uh so, um >> well, they don't have to come to us for

[37:33] the donations, right? >> No, but anything's an expenditure. So,

[37:38] you know, buying a conservation easement, a bargain purchase of

[37:41] property. Sometimes people are trying to sell their property at a bargain

[37:45] purchase. They're going to take a tax deduction for the bargain purchase

[37:49] portion. And so, uh, there's got to be an appraisal done quickly and they have

[37:55] to figure out what the where the numbers are before they go forward.

[37:58] » So, our meetings are typically the third Tuesday,

[38:02] » right? So, that's pretty close to the pretty close to the end of the year.

[38:08] » Um, you know, I'd be a surprise that it

[38:12] would come up after the third day. No. [laughter]

[38:18] » Yeah. December 30th. [laughter]

[38:21] » Sometimes it's the last day, right? >> Yeah.

[38:25] » All right. [cough and clears throat]

[38:29] Um, but I'd be okay with I mean contact the mayor. I mean I think I think the

[38:34] regs require supervision and I think the mayor constitutes supervision.

[38:49] » Were there other changes? >> I mean we're just discussing them,

[38:53] right? So we >> discussing them. Yeah. to narrow them

[38:56] down, but this would be an easy one to start with.

[38:58] » Okay. Maybe not. So, >> yeah. I guess I look at this as an

[39:02] impediment or an inconvenience. If it's an impediment, then that's, you know,

[39:07] that's an issue. If it's an inconvenience,

[39:10] um, >> you know, I don't I don't honestly, I

[39:14] can't say that. >> There's been so few of these and we have

[39:17] a good relationship with >> Yeah. And I would and I would think land

[39:20] transactions typically take some time anyway. And so someone is charitably

[39:24] inclined to do something with their property, um, council would certainly

[39:29] make themselves available. >> Okay.

[39:33] » So, I think what I'm hearing is, uh, neither an impediment or an

[39:36] inconvenience. Leave it the way it is. >> To inform the mayor,

[39:42] » inform >> to inform counsel. Oh, leave it the way

[39:45] it is in there. Okay. Not the way you stated. Okay,

[39:48] » good. I agree. >> Yeah.

[39:52] I just need a I just need a kind of a sense so go back with the parents.

[39:58] » Yeah, I I I I'm fine with the language as it is. I think if we were going to

[40:02] change it, I would want to make sure that we have like a like clear path

[40:06] forward on communication so we have the benefit of what we just described of of

[40:11] planning and zoning has a concern. So like you know that that's kind of

[40:14] happening very quickly after you're informed so that they're not moving

[40:18] forward without that benefit I guess. and any concerns raised by councel. But

[40:26] » okay. Um, another item is the uh the

[40:31] allocation of funds. Um, I have no number right now and I'm not going to

[40:36] advance number because I advance my number. It was the this one's the same.

[40:41] It's the ad hoc number. Not the same number, but um I think we should just

[40:45] have some fresh thinking. So, we've done a few things. Um I've gone through the

[40:50] history of the percentage the 95 and five which was there for five terms the

[40:55] 50% which was there for a term is is currently what we're operating in now

[41:00] the number that was part of the ad hoc report is is moot and um so we start

[41:05] from from scratch. Uh we met today with a small uh group um village engineer,

[41:11] the service director, the finance director, myself, Sandra, I may have

[41:15] forgotten someone >> [clears throat]

[41:17] » um to understand um some of the the challenges that the village has with

[41:23] regard to storm water and particularly in regard to storm water mitigation and

[41:28] restoration and stabilization of of the banks. Uh we identified five pro pre

[41:34] prior to the meeting they came to the meeting with all the information they

[41:37] identified five projects that are in front of the village over the next 24

[41:40] months that require close to $350,000 of repair work. This would not be the

[41:47] repair of normal covers or sink holes. This would be repairs like we did or re

[41:54] rehabilitation like we did around lower Brookshire down near river road where

[41:59] the erosion was so severe years ago that was eroding the underneath of the road

[42:04] and would have would have lost the road. We had the village engineer comment on

[42:08] each of those as well as the service director. Um if you look at that group

[42:14] of the five projects um one of those is the um

[42:21] the stormwater dunage issue on the corner of river and old mill right

[42:27] across from the green bridge is the house coming down. I think we've

[42:31] reported in the past there's 125 ft of storm water work that needs to be done

[42:36] including the work at the driveway and then past the driveway to forecast into

[42:40] the river. Um those projects qualify under the levy funds uh for storm water

[42:46] management and stabilization issues. And um that particular project we've

[42:52] talked about at council twice and you've approved the use of community share

[42:56] money that we have from the northeastern Ohio region district to fund that which

[42:59] is about $150,000. There are these four other projects. Um,

[43:04] we believe that one of those projects probably would qualify for money under

[43:09] the Ohio Department of Public Works small government

[43:15] uh grant process that we went through this last year with respect to

[43:19] wastewater treatment plant. We have a good reputation there. Um, we know that

[43:24] there's money available. We are looking for projects to evaluate and um we would

[43:30] need to move ahead with these four projects I just mentioned whether we get

[43:34] money from opic public works commission or not. So the plan would be um at this

[43:42] point that the levy funds that have accumulated we have about $450,000 in

[43:46] the levy fund now and that is there because when they went to the 50/50

[43:50] share u the thought was that much of that money would be used to fix the

[43:54] cover problems under Mayfield Road. We reported last time that those co

[43:58] problems were financed by Harper grants instead of by levy grants and hence the

[44:04] dollars that um thought it would store up for that

[44:08] project were used for were satisfied by harbor funds and were not needed for for

[44:14] that. Um, so you know, of the 450,000 that's roughly in our account today in

[44:22] the levy funds, 350,000 essentially could be earmarked for those four

[44:26] projects I just mentioned. That leaves us with roughly $100,000 in the um in

[44:32] the levy conservation fund, which could be used for a variety of things or not

[44:36] used at all. It could be used for land acquisition or easements. It could be

[44:39] used for further tree planting. It could be used for other projects that come up

[44:43] from time to time. We also talked today internally about the need to make sure

[44:47] that if we're going to use levy funds for those four projects or any projects

[44:52] after that that there's a clear distinction between what is um what is

[44:57] normal repair and maintenance and what is really improvement storm water

[45:01] mitigation and channel cleaning and channel stabilization. and that we would

[45:07] ask our village engineer would essentially putting in writing when

[45:12] those requests come forward that X dollars or X percent or some pro some

[45:18] parameters around that. So the entire project is not fun of a levy fund. It's

[45:22] just that section that goes with stabilization.

[45:27] Um, so that answered the question, hoped to answer the question from council

[45:31] earlier about we have the money in the fund. What are we doing with it?

[45:36] If we tackle those four projects, five, if you include the one on old bill,

[45:40] that's already underway because we previously approved that. We don't see

[45:44] anything else in the next two years um that would be of that magnitude or that

[45:50] would require that kind of those kind of dollars. Now, we say that and a week

[45:57] will roll around and there'll be a sinkhole somewhere or there'll be

[46:00] something getting eroded out. Water only goes downhill and it usually damages

[46:05] things when it does that. So, um we just need to be realistic that so much as we

[46:10] can look at crystal ball today and not see anything else besides those four or

[46:14] five, there could be something a week from now or a year from now.

[46:18] Um I don't think we need to store up hundreds of thousands of dollars for

[46:23] potential storm water projects. As I'm saying, if you go back to um where they

[46:28] started, the village has identified because it's kind of doing more of

[46:32] itself. It's it's doing work with the watershed partners. It's doing work with

[46:35] the invasives. We have um worked on the arboratum. We have forestry plans for

[46:41] both the arburetum and filler field. uh now that these bases have been chackled,

[46:46] not completely destroyed, but we're two years under the three-year fight. Uh

[46:51] that there could be work at each of those two locations that that could

[46:54] require tree planting or other kinds of items that would be uh valid levy levy

[47:00] purposes. So I think 50 to $75,000 is is really what the village probably needs

[47:06] to spend out of the levy fund to do what I've just talked about the invasives and

[47:09] try to shed the arbor day and maybe some other small work at the at the two

[47:13] fields or the field and the arboritum. Likewise, the um number doesn't change

[47:19] from um what you saw before. The conservancy and in the village sat down

[47:25] months ago and mapped out all the properties and it's taking a 10-year

[47:29] view towards eradication of all the invasives. Someone raised the question

[47:34] several months ago, why 10 years? Why not seven years or five years?

[47:38] First of all, it takes three years to eliminate the invasives. You got spray,

[47:42] then you cut and you got to get the seeds. And so it's not quite that

[47:46] simple, but you just don't go in there and blast them all and they all

[47:49] disappear. So anything that you do is a three-year process. We could um we could

[47:56] go from a 10-year look, you know, to a seven-year look. I

[48:00] don't think five five years is probably just too soon. Frankly, you want to have

[48:04] people that know what they're doing and uh who've done it well and improve

[48:08] themselves to the village done. So those numbers could change if you wanted to

[48:13] speed up the uh the attack on the invasives. Our style here in the village

[48:17] has been to take things and spread them out over a number of years and and try

[48:21] to handle it that way. Did that with the roads. We find ourselves with you know

[48:26] maybe only 50% of the roads of better or better condition undertook a

[48:30] [clears throat] six year $6 million project and spread with cost over six

[48:34] years. and we wolf I think the number I saw just the other day was 68% or 68 as

[48:40] it score of composite roads that are in the fair or good condition compared to

[48:46] probably in the mid-50s five years ago we fully started this there's some

[48:50] ability to take big project it up into five or six little projects as we do

[48:56] with the roads and end of five or six years which seems like a lot of time

[49:00] when you're sitting here talking about it but it really isn't when you're

[49:03] working at you know we've essentally tack on. We will have all of our roads

[49:06] in fair or good condition by the end of 27. Frankly, we're just quite a few

[49:11] points away. Um, you can do the same with invasives. You can speed the

[49:15] process up if someone wanted to. At this point, we're on a 10-y year amorization

[49:19] and as is the land conservancy. That calculation has land conservancy getting

[49:24] an additional roughly $100,000. If you took the million two that's coming from

[49:29] the levy, we've allocated all that um amount of

[49:33] money um 250,000 per year, there's about $100,000 that [clears throat] the levy

[49:40] amount that we know. We know them because it's going to be a renewal. We

[49:43] know the property values are there's no question about what what the value of

[49:47] the levy is. If you subtract out what you currently know you're going to spend

[49:51] on invasives and watershed partners and remediation and so on, there's about

[49:56] $100,000. But being real blunt here, we can either

[50:00] keep that in the village and make it available for other village projects,

[50:04] make it available to conservancy, make it available to anybody that has a good

[50:08] project that we want to fund, or we could, as was the initial plan, u

[50:14] allocate that to the land conservancy. They're in the business of acquiring

[50:17] land and eastments, controlling them, etc. They could probably make better use

[50:22] of having that in their savings account than the village having that in our

[50:26] savings account. I'm open to either one. Love to hear what council there's any

[50:31] council views on that.

[50:39] So to summarize that, Steve, the um uh the funds from the levy um would be used

[50:47] either by the conservancy or the village for conservation purposes.

[50:53] the to the extent that the village retains any funds from the levy um

[51:01] and doesn't expend them for the things like invasive species addressing

[51:05] invasive species or storm water remediation issues that are causing

[51:10] problems. Those funds are still available to the land conservancy. The

[51:14] land conservancy would just have to come and ask for them.

[51:18] » That's correct. They're all deposited into a separate open space and

[51:22] conservation fund. We have three funds within our governmental accounts here in

[51:28] the village and uh the conserancy funds are also in a separate bank account. So

[51:35] there's double good governance if you one it's bookkeep separately and two

[51:40] it's in its own account. kind of related to that. Um once the

[51:48] money goes to the land consery, it doesn't come back to the to the village.

[51:54] Uh and the other way around, if it stays with the village, it can go to the land

[52:00] conservancy,

[52:04] right?

[52:17] Can I raise a question about the $700,000 that they currently have?

[52:23] » To the extent I can try to answer it perhaps, but I don't I can but sure.

[52:27] » Okay. So, they have $700,000 and they have some additional funds. I think

[52:32] their total they currently have is over a million dollars. I think 950,000 was

[52:39] in the was in the report. >> Okay.

[52:41] » So, the last time around five years ago that they were supposed to endow this

[52:46] money. >> Uh they were supposed to raise it. I'm

[52:51] not sure if they're supposed to I don't know. I don't know if it meant the word

[52:53] endow or or just raise it. I don't know what the actual document says.

[52:58] » Oh, the last uh document. Does anybody have that 2021?

[53:02] » Yeah. >> Yeah. I I thought that the understanding

[53:06] was that they were supposed to endow that money.

[53:08] » It needs and has indicated that the land conservancy has indicated that it needs

[53:13] an ongoing endowment of approximately 700,000

[53:16] to properly carry out stewardship of existing properties it owns or for which

[53:22] it holds conservation easements. >> Which stewardship includes legal

[53:26] defense, liability protection, adhering to the standards of property

[53:29] maintenance, and conducting annual inspections.

[53:34] So a long sum so >> well but but then if you look at

[53:39] » paragraph seven it says how to compute it

[53:42] » it >> not computing is an endowment I can I

[53:47] mean it's [clears throat] counting future funds that are coming from the

[53:52] levy are counted towards that number. So >> yeah,

[53:58] » I I think it probably was a poor choice of words, but

[54:02] » So endowment doesn't mean endowment. >> Well, maybe it shouldn't.

[54:07] » I would say that it should. >> What would you like that to mean? It's

[54:10] » I would like that to mean um on their form 990, they indicate that that amount

[54:17] is now rest endowed. It's restricted and it has to be used for those purposes. It

[54:24] cannot be used for acquisition. It cannot be used. I don't know if that

[54:30] language would allow it to be used for invasives, but it's supposed to be money

[54:34] that they hold so that they can >> continue.

[54:38] » So, a board designated endowment. >> Yes.

[54:43] » I think Nat said that and I think that that was the goal. I mean to your point,

[54:47] Scott, I think that it was going to take most of the levy period for them to get

[54:50] to that amount and so that at at that point that that there would maybe be an

[54:54] investment after the end of the levy. At least that's what Nat implied at the

[54:57] town hall. But >> I use the word board designated

[55:00] intentionally because this is what their board would decide to do as opposed to

[55:04] an endowment that may come from an outside gift.

[55:06] » Oh, no, no, no. That's not what I'm talking about. No.

[55:10] » So, if we were to work that language in, that would be something we're looking

[55:13] for. Well, yeah, but I think that we worked it in last time. It just was

[55:17] never done. So I >> was required by that language this time.

[55:22] » Yeah, >> it was an aspiration, right? Wasn't it

[55:26] » then got that calculation has indicated that it needs

[55:33] » I I >> you can require

[55:34] » Yeah, my point is I would love to. >> Okay, thank you. Appreciate that.

[55:40] that severely handicaps the consery should a acquisition

[55:46] opportunity come up in the next year. An alternative would be to require that

[55:55] if they do raid the onhand cash and I think their understanding of the

[56:01] agreement is they needed to have the onhand cash equal to 700,000 not

[56:08] necessarily an [clears throat] endowment.

[56:10] Um but if they should find it prudent to raid that money and lower their onhand

[56:20] cash for an attractive acquisition that we all agree is attractive to the

[56:27] village. Uh that that would be allowable in somewhat only if they're able to

[56:34] replenish the 700,000 in onhand cash [clears throat] by the end of the levy

[56:38] period. Right. That that is how the language

[56:46] » the the purpose of the 700,000 is there. I believe I you know I'm a newbie here

[56:53] but I thought the intent was should the levy never pass that the village isn't

[56:59] left with a problem. The conservancy isn't left with a problem. would require

[57:02] them to give, you know, turn all of their property over to another

[57:07] organization over which we have no control.

[57:12] » And [clears throat] operationally, at the time that I've been on the levy on

[57:15] the land conservancy, it's operated that way that they have the money by the end

[57:20] of the by the end of the term. Um,

[57:25] and gives them some flexibility, >> right? [clears throat]

[57:30] » Yeah. Yeah, I mean I don't it it should come as no surprise that the Land

[57:33] Conservancy has the cash balance that it does because of the efforts from 5 years

[57:39] ago to kind of set the wheels in motion on putting this endowment together. And

[57:44] I and I you I agree with you Karen. I look at it more as you know whatever

[57:49] they decide the number is but if the levy ever

[57:53] » fails the security of

[57:57] » go away >> 15% of the village or how much the land

[58:00] conservancy own should never be put into question that all of a sudden

[58:03] » right >> another charitable organization is is

[58:05] being brought in on all this. So that those dollars throw off enough to be

[58:09] able to fund operating expenses um

[58:13] » plus the money they raise >> and and the reality is

[58:18] the way land prices are today

[58:24] » I think it's going to be incredibly difficult

[58:27] » to the large tracks of land that are left in the village I think something

[58:31] creative is going to have to be done or given

[58:35] prices

[58:38] There just isn't enough there. >> Agreed. [clears throat]

[58:42] » So Karen, between your and David's comments, if we ask for a board

[58:46] designated endowment fund, >> if we ask for what?

[58:49] » You go back to conservancy and talk about the need for for a board

[58:53] designated endowment fund $700,000 for the purposes of bulk protection

[58:59] » which can be used as long as it can be replenished to that level if there's an

[59:04] acquisition. Obviously, if there is one, they'd bring that to the village to

[59:08] speak about. So, we have our chance to >> weigh in and and comment on it

[59:13] » and that would not completely hamstring them because they could, as you said,

[59:18] raid that fund as long as it can be repaid by the time the levy ends.

[59:21] » Well, an an alternative depending on what this the operating agreement states

[59:25] for the split is that if they needed additional funds and we hadn't spent our

[59:28] levy funds that they could also ask for those and not write the endowment. So,

[59:31] that's another option available.

[59:40] Are there other items?

[59:46] » Well, I think we should talk about the percentage.

[59:52] » And have we come to an understanding about the unbounding issue?

[59:56] » Well, I think >> I I I was trying to summarize it. I

[1:00:00] think you have something to add. We'd like to have the terminology be board

[1:00:04] designated endowment fund or something similar to that

[1:00:07] » amount be $70,000 that amount not be the amount is available for defense etc. um

[1:00:14] that'll be in excess of the amount that they currently have because they follow

[1:00:18] what came from the national national guidelines and that uh that amount shall

[1:00:24] be um in that fund and can be used for acquisition as long as it can be

[1:00:30] replenished by the time the love ends. >> Okay.

[1:00:33] » Is that something that would be legal from an endowment framework?

[1:00:37] » I think a board designated endowment probably can.

[1:00:41] Well, and I would love to hear too like I you know I know there's some members

[1:00:44] of the W conservy board here, but it would be good to hear what the any

[1:00:47] challenges that we need to be aware of. I mean, I'm not I would want to hear

[1:00:51] their perspective on that too to know if there's anything else we need to be

[1:00:54] considering related to that requirement, if there's any limitations or challenges

[1:00:57] to implementing it. >> Fairness to them if they care to speak

[1:01:01] at the end, but we didn't we didn't invite them.

[1:01:04] » I'm saying I don't want to put anyone on the spot. saying after you discuss that,

[1:01:08] you know, there's concerns that we need to

[1:01:10] » have shared from you to us, that would be helpful.

[1:01:13] » Okay. >> So, Steve, if we use the money for the

[1:01:17] activities that you described, the four projects and the invasive mitigation

[1:01:24] projects that are on the books and those that are planned out for the next five

[1:01:28] years, how much does the village require of it? I'd

[1:01:32] » say 75,000 to $100,000

[1:01:35] » a year. Yeah. >> And that is what percentage

[1:01:41] » the uh levy should get us 260,000. So

[1:01:47] um what's the math of that? Um 30

[1:01:53] maybe 40%. 40% of 260. If we show

[1:01:59] that be 75 78,000.

[1:02:06] » We need 100,000 a year and the total is what?

[1:02:09] » 260,000 >> in addition to what we currently have.

[1:02:13] » That's correct. That's just on an annual basis.

[1:02:16] » 38,000. That's 38%. 30 or 40%. Yep. 38.

[1:02:26] So we currently have 450. >> Yes.

[1:02:31] » The um levy if it passes would would have an additional you said 260

[1:02:38] » 260 per year for both programs.

[1:02:43] » And you and you're and you're saying we need in addition to the 450 we have we

[1:02:47] need another half million. We should plan in $100,000 a year

[1:02:54] » for the village's expenses. >> Okay.

[1:02:59] » And the difference the 160 would would be available

[1:03:05] for conservancy >> available for

[1:03:10] » not given to >> no no I'm sorry distributed to

[1:03:13] » okay >> 30. So then the

[1:03:18] » 6040 >> 60 to the main conservancy 40 to the

[1:03:23] village

[1:03:28] » and your 100,000 that in um cuz initially

[1:03:33] with the invas invasives that we have replanting.

[1:03:37] So does that have a little cushion in it for the unknown?

[1:03:40] » Yes. >> Okay. For like storm water.

[1:03:43] » Well and you know we haven't done much um Right. There could be storm water

[1:03:47] issues, but you know, we we're still working on the invasives. We really

[1:03:50] don't have a tree planting plan. >> So, um that

[1:03:54] » I'm thinking more of I mean, we just I think you said the project that we're

[1:03:57] doing on Old Mill that we are using the sewer district funding for would

[1:04:01] technically qualify as a storm water issue, right?

[1:04:05] » So, we're already I mean, we're like 185 to $190,000 that we just spent on levy

[1:04:10] funding that were not expected expenses. So I just want to you know

[1:04:14] » yeah you know and part of it Megan in fairness to everybody you know the

[1:04:17] village it's nice that we take these big projects and we split up into years and

[1:04:21] we pay for them as we go if you will but you know after a while that stuff all

[1:04:25] adds up these projects on Berkshire and the sink holes don't develop overnight

[1:04:31] and the Bergkshire problem has been there for a long time and we fixed it I

[1:04:34] think five or seven years ago and you know it needs more work that we got to

[1:04:39] just tackle these things as they as they and not wait for keep punching the ball

[1:04:43] waiting for something else to to fix it two years from now.

[1:04:48] » There's a possibility that there'll be some grant some grant money that we we

[1:04:52] can't >> guarantee but we'll apply.

[1:04:57] » Can I go to the conservancy with with the 6040 proposition?

[1:05:01] » I'd like to explore 5050. I think 6040 is too much. I'd like to continue what

[1:05:07] we currently have 50 And um I think that's plenty. Plus,

[1:05:14] we're going to ask them to come to us if they, you know, need more. So, they

[1:05:19] always have that opportunity. But, um

[1:05:24] I think that we should continue what we currently have. You know, we're we're

[1:05:30] hopefully going to allow the conservancy to act like a real charity and start

[1:05:36] fundraising in a bigger way than they are now.

[1:05:40] Um, so I don't think the 60 is what I would recommend uh to have them have. I

[1:05:46] think 50 is plenty just like we have now what we've done in the last 5 years.

[1:05:51] » Sure. Thank you.

[1:05:55] » I disagree. I think that's too much for the village. I think 6040 is too much

[1:06:00] for the village. I think there's a difference between what is technically

[1:06:04] qualified and what the villagers

[1:06:10] would expect to be considered what they're voting for in the

[1:06:16] conservation levy. And I think whatever we decide here, we certainly have to

[1:06:21] make it pretty clear uh so the villagers can understand that they're not voting

[1:06:27] to buy property anymore because 50/50 is going to put the conservancy out of the

[1:06:31] acquisition business and that what they're voting for is infrastructure.

[1:06:38] Well, I think that it's better to have more of the money in the hands of the

[1:06:45] representatives who are elected, the council, rather than the conservancy

[1:06:50] that has a board of volunteers,

[1:06:55] because if the residents don't like what is happening, they can vote us out of

[1:07:01] office. >> They can also turn down the levy the

[1:07:04] next time it comes up. >> That's right. They have a controller.

[1:07:07] » That's so they um you put it in the hands of the

[1:07:12] conservancy, they are not elective officials. I I find that to be a very

[1:07:17] strong argument for keeping it the way it is now.

[1:07:22] » I understand that side of the argument. And my

[1:07:28] the other side of the argument is what the villagers perception is. And I

[1:07:35] think that if we did a a poll, we'd find that most of the villagers, again,

[1:07:41] purely my speculation, would find that most of the villagers think this is the

[1:07:45] the the land conservy's levy, not the council's

[1:07:51] levy. And that if we asked the villagers who they trusted more to steward their

[1:08:01] concerns about protecting Gates Mills and they gave him the choice of the the

[1:08:10] conservation commission or or council we lose.

[1:08:14] » Remember this isn't a Gates Mills land conservancy levy. This is a conservation

[1:08:20] levy. I don't think Karen people make that

[1:08:24] distinction. >> Well, they should.

[1:08:25] » Well, I think you know David, I think you bring up an, you know, an

[1:08:28] interesting point and the reality is because of the work of the land

[1:08:32] conservancy over the last 35 years, we've got

[1:08:36] number 20 25% of the village is permanently conserved regardless of who

[1:08:42] owns it. And it costs money to maintain all of that property, hillsides,

[1:08:51] erosion, river banks, issues like we had out here behind the church. Um, and

[1:08:59] who's supposed to pay for all of that? And so I I understand what what you're

[1:09:04] saying and there's there's probably some truth in there that it's a it's it's

[1:09:07] land acquisition, but the reality is that was that was phase one and we've

[1:09:13] heard from the land conservancy that the land acquisition will slow down. Well,

[1:09:16] now the the land that's been preserved and conserved will likely need money

[1:09:22] invested in it so that it stays in its state and we don't have big pockets of

[1:09:28] erosion. Um, again, I'm I'm not in favor of doing culverts and and those kinds of

[1:09:33] things. That's more infrastructure. But when we've got erosion issues and river

[1:09:38] banks and and other kind of storm water runoff issues,

[1:09:42] I I think the thought process really is who's who's best to maintain that

[1:09:50] property and who's going to be hiring the contractors and the engineering

[1:09:53] studies and all the work and everything else. And that typically falls on the

[1:09:57] village to handle those those big projects. So I look at like I said the

[1:10:02] last council meeting 50/50 with the with the the thought that listen if there

[1:10:07] there's ever something that comes up um please come to to council. And you know,

[1:10:14] I've been involved in some of those some of those discussions and the land

[1:10:18] conservancy knows what knows what they're doing, but I worry about some of

[1:10:22] the the big projects that are on the horizon because of all of this

[1:10:28] um it's it's raw land and and unfortunately

[1:10:33] you got you got to put you got to put money into it and it's it's you know

[1:10:37] it's unfortunate reality of the situation I think.

[1:10:41] Does it make sense given that we just had a discussion about the the needs of

[1:10:47] of the village and the distribution came up to 6040. I guess I'm more comfortable

[1:10:54] personally with some data behind the distribution. And while it has been 5050

[1:11:02] um it just seems more um defensible if we've got some data that supports 6040.

[1:11:09] we can put together this rough map that we just did

[1:11:13] worksheet and simp. [clears throat] >> You know, to David's point, I I think

[1:11:17] the $64 question we have is the last uh levy

[1:11:24] uh passed by the highest percentage of all the prior levies, the highest

[1:11:30] percentage of favor of all the prior levies.

[1:11:34] And uh I don't know whether that was because

[1:11:39] the agreement was 50/50 or whether that was

[1:11:46] villagers support supporting the land conservancy and saying, you know, we

[1:11:52] vote for the land conservancy. That's I think that's the question that David's

[1:11:57] posing is >> was it publicized before the election

[1:12:01] last time that it was a 5050 split? >> Oh yes.

[1:12:03] » Okay. And so I don't know whether that was people coming out and saying, "Hey,

[1:12:08] don't touch the land conservancy. We're for the land conservancy. We vote yes."

[1:12:12] Or whether that was people saying, "Wow, that I wouldn't vote for it when it was

[1:12:16] 955, but now I'll vote for it at 50/50." I, you know, we don't know.

[1:12:21] » We'll never know. [laughter]

[1:12:23] » That that unfortunately that question wasn't on the ballot, right? And um and

[1:12:29] either one of those explanations is a possible explanation for why there was

[1:12:35] the highest approval percentage um of any levy. So um

[1:12:42] for what it's worth, it was also the lowest turnout,

[1:12:45] » correct for that election in history, >> right? It was it was less than half of

[1:12:50] prior years. >> Uh so the percentages are are

[1:12:54] » Yeah. still in in overwhelmingly in favor,

[1:12:58] » right? Overwhelmingly in favor, right? So,

[1:13:01] » and it gets a higher percentage than even the operating levy at the P the

[1:13:05] couple not I think not in 2021 but the couple elections before that. I mean

[1:13:09] again I think the work of the land conservancy is I I mean amazing. I think

[1:13:14] any use that the village has for it needs to be under the appropriate

[1:13:18] criteria that you know uh is in the ordinance. Um I just I think you know

[1:13:24] where we can have the flexibility to make sure that we're taking care of both

[1:13:27] sides of the equation. I think that's ideal. Um you know 6040 to 50/50 I think

[1:13:35] I'm probably comfortable with both of those. I would want the data you know to

[1:13:38] back it up. I don't see a huge difference. It's not like a swing of 0

[1:13:42] to 50 or 955. So >> um I think the data would be helpful to

[1:13:46] hear that. And again, I think anything that's in the operating agreement um if

[1:13:50] it's going to be that way needs to provide that flexibility to the land

[1:13:53] conservancy should they need those levy funds and we haven't used them that

[1:13:56] they're able to access them for um again the the goals of the um conservancy

[1:14:01] because to Scott's point, you know, we've really operated handinhand with

[1:14:05] the land conservancy for 35 years and accomplishing some really great things.

[1:14:09] So I I don't want to take that for granted.

[1:14:12] » I have a suggestion. Since we have residents here, should we ask what they

[1:14:18] think? Would that be appropriate at this time?

[1:14:23] » Uh, I don't know. Um, show of hands. How many have a comment on on that?

[1:14:29] » On what? Everything was gone before or what?

[1:14:33] » On a comment on the land. No, not the

[1:14:39] » agreement. On the agreement. So [clears throat] five, can we can we

[1:14:44] do this with um for each of you out there? Can you try to focus your

[1:14:49] comments for >> two minutes?

[1:14:50] » Three to five minutes. Great >> rather than so we can hear from five or

[1:14:55] six people. Okay, can we start with you?

[1:14:58] » Yeah, Emily Hamilton 76.

[1:15:03] Um, I have 50 bucket bad species. My own nuclear and um I'm spending about $2,000

[1:15:12] a month the summer times working on this project in the village surrounds my

[1:15:18] entire property and they [clears throat] are just loaded with loaded with roses

[1:15:22] loaded and I can't you know it would be nice if they actually cleaned up

[1:15:28] but I could stop and do this after

[1:15:34] I would love to see them maintaining that.

[1:15:36] » When you say I know where you live, but when you say surrounded by is that

[1:15:40] village or is that conservancy land? >> It's it's western reserve and geese

[1:15:46] » and I just would like to have you know them taking care of property because

[1:15:50] I've got privet all the way around me all sides and the um also the roses and

[1:15:56] I can keep doing this but it'd be nice for them to clean up their mess too.

[1:16:01] Okay, thank you Sherry. Yeah, I the [clears throat] famous movie

[1:16:06] I sternestously object. The discussion here was u all about

[1:16:13] how the land consery what restrictions have been put in the land conservancy.

[1:16:17] But the other side of the coin we heard a

[1:16:21] sorry to hear back here but $300,000 $400,000 for pulverts and and stuff that

[1:16:27] was normally considered to be road construction infrastructure

[1:16:31] construction. I don't know the distinction. The two [clears throat]

[1:16:35] things I did not hear. The two things I have not heard are a $200,000 commitment

[1:16:42] for planting trees. We talk about all this water runoff stuff. There is

[1:16:47] nothing like a tree to manage water runoff. $200,000

[1:16:53] is a thousand trees. Drive up Brighgam Road. There's a dozen trees that have

[1:16:58] been that have been blown over and been destroyed in the last three or four

[1:17:02] years. I've heard no discussion about when are they going to be replaced. Um

[1:17:09] second issue which I consider even more important when is the village going to

[1:17:14] hire their certified highquality arborist

[1:17:18] works for the village that in imposes his technical skill in in the permitting

[1:17:24] process. So we get control how trees are cut down and how tree how programs are

[1:17:29] improved are approved through the various through architecture review or

[1:17:34] planning and zoning or some combination ideas been thrown around everybody a

[1:17:39] year but if if if I heard okay we're going to put for example $25,000 away to

[1:17:46] hire that really good guy working for the village and not working for the for

[1:17:51] the applicant. These these are the things that I wouldn't want to hear

[1:17:54] other than than the spread in the normal discussions of I think incidentally what

[1:18:00] is the western reserve do about the basin species does anybody know

[1:18:09] that's my point we'll find out

[1:18:17] if nobody else wants so the point about the lucky passing by

[1:18:23] such a high percentage. The people that I talked to in the

[1:18:28] village are very surprised to learn that the

[1:18:32] consery is its own entity. There is not a clear understanding by a number of

[1:18:39] villagers of how much autonomy it actually has.

[1:18:43] So for what it's worth, they may be supporting the conservancy under false

[1:18:50] premises about how much control council has when

[1:18:54] they find out that the conservancy can buy land and

[1:18:59] there's nothing that the village can do to stop them under the current um

[1:19:05] agreement. That that's concerning for a large

[1:19:09] number of people and they don't believe me. But as you told me, Steve, at the

[1:19:14] last meeting, that's absolutely correct. You can only advise. So, I question the

[1:19:21] 74% that uh supports it. Sure, I support it until I find out the what do they say

[1:19:29] that the dangers and the details. I'd just like to s to support what has

[1:19:35] just been said because I've lived in the village for almost 30 years and I uh

[1:19:41] admit admittedly have not been very well informed about how the land conservancy

[1:19:47] operates and I have made an effort recently to become more informed and you

[1:19:53] know when we vote you know you come you come here you you

[1:19:58] know the the levy is on there and and I'm ashamed came to say that I look have

[1:20:05] looked at it for obviously a number of times and said well I guess I'll just do

[1:20:09] it. So I I think that the important thing here is that yes a lot a lot of

[1:20:16] people are informed but I to your point I think that there's many many more that

[1:20:22] are not fully informed on how the conservity conservancy works in

[1:20:27] conjunction with the village and I think that communication is very very

[1:20:32] important >> and should be put out before if you

[1:20:37] really want an informed electorate that's going to make a decision based on

[1:20:41] facts, then they need to know those kind of things.

[1:20:45] » Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?

[1:20:49] » Yes. >> I'm Ruth and I live on Gatesville

[1:20:53] Boulevard. And when they were going to develop the 17 acres behind us, my

[1:21:00] husband who's now deceased, we went around and informed everybody exactly

[1:21:06] what was that issue. And so we convinced the state and the people that were, you

[1:21:13] know, either behind it or core of it and so on that we all put in and decided

[1:21:21] what we would do to preserve that and it is now conservatory but we pay taxes on

[1:21:28] because when we die then we can put it into the conservatory but right now I

[1:21:34] get a tax bill twice a year but because It's limited. I don't pay much.

[1:21:39] » It's not the same rate as my rest of my couple acres. But the point is that we

[1:21:45] didn't want to have a problem back. There was 17 acres that belonged to the

[1:21:51] school board and they wanted the money. Well, they didn't care what was going to

[1:21:57] happen. They wanted the money. I mean, you know, sometimes I have a problem

[1:22:01] with Mayfield schools because they don't understand what they're actually doing,

[1:22:08] but we put a 10-year lean of taxes on our regular property that we pay and it

[1:22:17] just went off recently. And the people on the street behind Gates Mills that's

[1:22:22] off of 91, they had to do the same thing. So everybody was happy went after

[1:22:28] the 10 years. But the conservatory is supposed to maintain the properties that

[1:22:35] they own as a conservatory. But they're not doing that. So they have to be told,

[1:22:42] you either do the maintenance or you're not doing your job. So why should we

[1:22:48] give you all this money? Instead, the village itself should have to maintain

[1:22:53] it. So, no one comes behind me and says, "We're maintaining that. There's a creek

[1:22:59] back there." There was a bridge that was there when I moved in. Well, the bridge

[1:23:05] got beat up after a while. So, recently I had to rebuild the bridge because if

[1:23:12] children go back there, they tell me, "Oh, this is p public land. We are

[1:23:16] allowed to play back there." I said, "No, it's my land. get off because I

[1:23:21] can't be responsible for other people's kids playing in that woods when there's

[1:23:27] a creek back there. And I made sure the new bridge was up to standard so that

[1:23:33] they couldn't put their heads through it or whatever. But see, the pink sheet is

[1:23:38] sent out every month. By the way, all you speak up while we're

[1:23:43] sitting back there. We can't understand you. You, the mayor, every mommy. I go,

[1:23:48] I can speak loud enough. So can you. In the pink sheet, you give a space to

[1:23:55] the L conservatory and you tell them to explain exactly what they're doing and

[1:23:59] how they're doing it and how they're spending the money they want from our

[1:24:03] taxes. If they don't do that, then it should be a different group in the

[1:24:09] community that starts maintaining this because number one, our taxes are high.

[1:24:14] A lot of it goes to the schools which we have a right to know how they're

[1:24:19] spending their money. And the other thing is exactly how every penny is

[1:24:24] spent to maintain the village, maintain the roads, maintain anything around here

[1:24:30] so that it makes a good community for us to have when other people want to buy

[1:24:36] houses and so on. What are the real estate people telling them about this

[1:24:41] village? what makes it desirable to live here. And if they can't tell that and

[1:24:47] nobody is telling them about it, then we're committing fraud when we try to

[1:24:53] sell a house. If you're not giving a person a reason to live here because so

[1:24:59] many the first thing they want when they move in, they go, "Can't we put street

[1:25:03] lights in? Can't we put sidewalks in?" I go, if you wanted sidewalks, if you

[1:25:08] wanted [clears throat] street lights, go over to Mayfield Heights, go over to

[1:25:11] Mayfield Village, go to Lynhurst. Sorry. This is the way we structured this.

[1:25:20] And the other thing people don't understand, and I've had to, you know,

[1:25:24] this garbage collection, please think about it because they're not doing a

[1:25:28] good job. God help you if you don't put your

[1:25:33] recycle bin out and then you put it out and you're waiting and waiting waiting.

[1:25:37] Well, we're going to come tomorrow and say

[1:25:40] I go, "Why did I bother bring it out?" So,

[1:25:47] think about what makes this village unique, why you want to live here, and

[1:25:52] if you don't, then tell them don't buy the croc because our taxes are high for

[1:25:58] what we get. So the thing is that you're on council

[1:26:03] and you're representing us. Make sure you find out what we have to say about

[1:26:09] certain things because I sold real estate years ago. I

[1:26:15] was a single woman and that was how I made it through working as a teacher

[1:26:20] because years ago they didn't pay us very well and we had no benefits. So now

[1:26:28] I'm retired. My husband is deceased. So I'm still maintaining a house that is

[1:26:33] very costly to them. But I also realize it's because I choose

[1:26:39] to live here. So that's what you should stress with

[1:26:44] your neighbors and so on. I told people about the meeting and you

[1:26:49] know maybe come because you have a right to know

[1:26:56] what's going on and the people on the committee here need to know how we feel

[1:27:02] about things. >> Thank you Dorothy.

[1:27:05] » Thank you Dorothy.

[1:27:08] So, I was wondering if the language could be tightened up a little bit

[1:27:11] because I think what people are expressing is a concern that levy

[1:27:15] funding can be used for acquisitions and other things besides maintaining

[1:27:21] conserved property. And I think people would feel a lot better if people just

[1:27:26] restricted to conserving maintaining property owned by of owned

[1:27:33] that by the land in which that land conservancy owns an interest whether

[1:27:37] it's an easement or interested. They should have an obligation to maintain

[1:27:42] their property and the fund should be applied for maintenance and

[1:27:47] conservation. It shouldn't be so the language shouldn't shouldn't be so loose

[1:27:51] that they can use it for other things like land acquisition. Why should we be

[1:27:55] including their acquisition of other property when they're not maintaining

[1:27:59] property that they have and neighbors have to pay for

[1:28:03] invasive species on their property because the land that conservy owns is

[1:28:09] not being properly maintained. They should have an obligation to maintain

[1:28:12] their property and that's what the funds should be used for, not for

[1:28:17] miscellaneous types of purposes. There should be a clear obligation. That's

[1:28:22] what the word >> I think it's preserve, protect. Um

[1:28:25] there's four there's four action verbs that are in the ballot language and in

[1:28:29] the agreement in terms of what the what the money could be used for

[1:28:34] » preserve protect and there's

[1:28:38] the thing that le acquisition

[1:28:43] other things >> okay

[1:28:46] » and I think in the should have an obligation do they have an obligation to

[1:28:50] maintain their property >> I I you know look at

[1:28:55] three years ago, did did anybody talk about invasives? We even know what

[1:28:58] invasives were except for Emily. You know, it's it's become the thing.

[1:29:04] And um you know, I think it I think we're probably the uh at the leading

[1:29:09] edge or what have you of municipalities that are doing things about it.

[1:29:12] Certainly seems putting money aside and actively working on it. So, I I don't

[1:29:17] want to taint them with that, but I I think they know that they need to

[1:29:22] maintain their property and think they do site visits and uh make sure the

[1:29:26] fences are up and so on. We'll let them speak to that. I'll bring that up to

[1:29:29] them. Perhaps there's some language as council

[1:29:33] looks. They may want to tighten some things up. Is there anything else on the

[1:29:37] conservation on the conser on the operating agreement? Let's call it that.

[1:29:44] If not, I'm going to go forward with what you what you provided me in the

[1:29:46] last hour or so. Okay. I'd like to bring back a document at the next council

[1:29:51] meeting. Okay. David,

[1:29:56] what plan are you intending to have this agreement made by council

[1:30:03] in time for the beginning of early voting the 6th? Is that your plan?

[1:30:09] » My plan would be to have a conversation with them in the next seven to 10 days

[1:30:13] and um be able to already got it on his computer. Give him

[1:30:18] some specific direction on on what to change and be able to bring it back to

[1:30:22] the next council meeting on I think it's September 15th, but here's a draft that

[1:30:27] both parties have agreed to. Um recognizing, you know, they've got 15

[1:30:33] people, we've got seven or eight. you know, 23 people can't negotiate a

[1:30:37] document, so it'll have to have some flexibility to it. But hopefully it has

[1:30:42] the structure of what we've all just talked about and we can look at the at

[1:30:46] the wording as opposed to the big issues.

[1:30:49] » One other thought, this is just an idea. Um, [clears throat]

[1:30:52] I think that you you talk about the operating agreement and incrementing

[1:30:58] from the 2021 version, that's one way of doing it. I think you ought to stand

[1:31:02] back and say why do we need an operating agreement

[1:31:06] and build a case for having an operating agreement that faces the future doesn't

[1:31:12] behave the [clears throat] past and I think you find a lot a lot of things in

[1:31:16] here that uh that we want

[1:31:20] » well first of all uh welcome back I know you were in the hospital for a while so

[1:31:24] it's nice to see you physically here and I'm glad that you recovered and

[1:31:27] » I've not recovered back >> well you're We've covered enough to be

[1:31:32] to be in our presence. So, thank you for that. And if you've got specific

[1:31:35] comments, send them along. I'll be happy to.

[1:31:37] » I have done many times. >> Just asking you want to do that. I'm not

[1:31:41] going to dig in for If you've got a few things that are um helpful, send me one.

[1:31:46] Thank you. >> Let us make one observation very short.

[1:31:51] Um in 2021 when this whole thing was renegotiated, the operating agreement,

[1:31:56] the Navy for the most recent time um that was a very very um argumentative

[1:32:03] and very difficult period of time. The village was running out of money. It was

[1:32:08] projecting short-term medium-term deficits. That was a big fight about how

[1:32:13] much money should go to the conservancy. [clears throat] But in spite of all that

[1:32:22] debate, they got the levy on the bot on the ballot in a timely fashion and they

[1:32:29] negotiated the concerns in the village an agreement

[1:32:33] which became live under. Um I don't know why this has

[1:32:37] taken so long. Five years ago we knew this was going to be coming up. Now,

[1:32:42] beginning of this year, you established a committee to to solve this problem for

[1:32:46] us in a timely fashion. That simply hasn't happened. And I don't know why. I

[1:32:51] just simp don't understand it. >> Well, we are where we are today and

[1:32:54] we're moving forward. >> Well, I know that why we are why are we

[1:32:57] where we are today? I mean, it just hasn't worked.

[1:33:00] » It hasn't worked. >> Worried about

[1:33:04] » Thank you for your comment. Okay, I'll go forward with that. Uh,

[1:33:08] last item on here is discuss filling a vacancy on council. I asked Sandra to

[1:33:14] share her thoughts on this. We went back to the time we did this with Ed Walsh's

[1:33:18] passing and some of the procedures that we followed. She wants to run those by

[1:33:22] you and see if that's uh >> agreeable to you.

[1:33:27] » All right. So, the last council um had the occasion to uh to appoint a

[1:33:33] council member. Um the way the requirement that we have as a council is

[1:33:39] to appoint someone within within 30 days of uh of John's uh res resignation. When

[1:33:46] we did this um a year and a half ago, there were five candidates that had

[1:33:52] come, you know, come forward. Um what we what we did is u put out a notice um of

[1:33:59] you know the vacancy and invited people to submit a letter uh and and a resume

[1:34:06] um about their qualifications and uh and interest. Um this year

[1:34:14] we are within the deadline for getting this information out in the pink sheet.

[1:34:20] So, if we can settle on a process th this evening, I can get the information

[1:34:26] to Gail tomorrow morning. It'll be in the pink sheet, which which is great

[1:34:30] because that'll go out to, you know, hopefully all all the residents. Um,

[1:34:34] other ways of of communicating that we we've used as Gates Mills Connect um

[1:34:40] putting it on the websites and uh putting up flyers in the in the

[1:34:43] buildings around the uh around the village.

[1:34:48] The only requirement of for applying is that you be a resident of the village um

[1:34:53] and have a minimum of three living here, a minimum of three years.

[1:34:58] Um what we what we did uh last time was

[1:35:03] conduct um before the before the deadline for submitting your interest

[1:35:07] and your resume. We had a um uh an information session for prospective

[1:35:14] council applicants and that was conducted by the mayor and by um by Todd

[1:35:19] and uh I think it was a you know wellreceived um session because you know

[1:35:25] truly people have no idea really about what goes on in council and we didn't

[1:35:30] cover everything in that meeting but it at least was a was a primer and if

[1:35:34] people were still interested after that um after that meeting you know there the

[1:35:38] deadline to uh um to submit your your your interest through resume. The next

[1:35:44] thing we did is conducted interviews um in private individually. So of the five

[1:35:50] candidates. Um we did that on a Saturday morning which seemed to work out pretty

[1:35:54] well for council and for the um you know for the candidates. And then after that

[1:35:59] there was a council discussion on another date and a and a and a vote

[1:36:03] majority vote to select that to select that new uh council member. Um and then

[1:36:10] the person was approved at the uh next council meeting. So working backwards uh

[1:36:17] I was I was just well you know before I talk about a a dead timeline. Does that

[1:36:23] process seem seem fair? um something you're interested in participating in.

[1:36:30] Um so ideally if we had a candidate before the September 15th and could vote

[1:36:36] on it on that council meeting that would allow us to have you know a candidate on

[1:36:40] board um without having a special coun special council meeting. So, um, it's

[1:36:47] possible that as early as tomorrow, information could could go out about

[1:36:51] about this vacancy and certainly the pink sheet comes out on the 1st or 2nd

[1:36:55] of September. So, that's that's kind of soon enough, too. Um we have Labor Day

[1:37:01] coming coming up and I wouldn't want to do anything on that Friday through

[1:37:05] through Monday but um that that Tuesday, Wednesday, you know

[1:37:11] September 8th or 9th might be a good day to um conduct the information session.

[1:37:18] um that Friday is the 11th and I was thinking that that would be a a deadline

[1:37:25] to to submit um because we would have notified them by September one um

[1:37:32] in the pig sheets and other other ways and they don't have to go to the

[1:37:37] information session but anyway that gives them almost if they have to submit

[1:37:41] by the 11th it's almost well week and a half um to to [clears throat] submit. Um

[1:37:48] I was thinking if the interview there's a Saturday, Saturday the 12th if we did

[1:37:53] the interviews um that date and then you know the next day or later that day

[1:38:02] had the council discussion and and and vote um and then confirmed it on that

[1:38:08] following Tuesday which is the 15th in the council meeting.

[1:38:13] » Sounds good.

[1:38:17] that there.

[1:38:23] » Okay. So, we'll we'll I'll work with the staff to put that together.

[1:38:27] » We get something in the Valley Times

[1:38:33] Valley. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

[1:38:38] » Thank you. So,

[1:38:42] sorry. It's the 11th we're looking at for the interviews

[1:38:44] » for the deadline would be Friday, September 11th, and the interviews would

[1:38:48] be Saturday morning the 12th. >> Okay.

[1:38:56] » Um well, Saturday morning the 5K. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:38:59] » We're out of town. >> Maybe Sunday.

[1:39:02] » Um last year or the last time we did do this was actually on a weekday because I

[1:39:05] remember >> the interviews.

[1:39:07] » Yes. Mhm.

[1:39:12] » I think it's for the other two, but >> Yeah. Okay. Did it on a Saturday.

[1:39:16] » Okay. >> So, okay. I mean, what do you think?

[1:39:20] » So, yeah. I was like, where do I have the 12? Where do I have the 12?

[1:39:22] » Yeah. And you're out of town. You're out of You're out of town.

[1:39:25] » You're out of town. >> The whole weekend.

[1:39:27] » No, I was wrong. >> Oh,

[1:39:29] » I thought the fun run was this this weekend.

[1:39:31] » Oh, yeah. So, the 12th. So, the morning of the 12th. So, is because I realize it

[1:39:35] because it's Roshashana and I know that's that was one of the open dates

[1:39:38] for the race. So, Um, so, uh, the morning of the 12th would be bad for me,

[1:39:43] but we are done at 11:00. So, if we did later, that would be fine. Um,

[1:39:52] » so, Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning?

[1:39:55] » Not Sunday morning. >> Yeah.

[1:39:57] » All right. Saturday afternoon. >> Mhm.

[1:40:07] And I and we had and you know we'll detail this out but each interview was a

[1:40:12] certain length of certain length of time everybody we prepared questions

[1:40:17] everybody had their own own question the same questions were asked of each

[1:40:22] candidate. Um sometimes there was an additional back and back and forth

[1:40:28] but I think the process worked worked well.

[1:40:32] » Well that was great. we just dust it off

[1:40:36] again. We kept everything. So, it's great that you kept all that stuff

[1:40:39] rather than having to recreate it all. >> Um,

[1:40:42] the only other thing I'll note, I I am in DC for work the 14th. So, be here,

[1:40:47] but I could if we did an evening if we for what whatever we need to decide. So,

[1:40:51] if we're interviewing on the Saturday, >> okay,

[1:40:52] » I don't know if we're trying to avoid the Sunday.

[1:40:56] » Sunday. So, Monday would be the >> Yeah, I would it would have to be in the

[1:41:00] evening and I would have to zoom in. >> I I don't think I'll be flying back.

[1:41:04] Yeah, if we did it on the 14th. So, or I guess we could decide after we

[1:41:08] interview, but >> yeah, we could decide after the

[1:41:10] interviews. >> Yeah.

[1:41:14] » Yeah. The advantage of having a day is you have a chance to kind of Friday a

[1:41:19] little bit >> as a backup

[1:41:21] » Friday >> the 11th

[1:41:23] » or the interview >> instead of changing it is the deadline.

[1:41:26] Make the deadline like that Thursday the 10th and then do it on Friday

[1:41:32] the 11th. So not just >> yeah that we'd have to do that in the

[1:41:36] evening for people who might be working. >> Okay.

[1:41:38] » So >> your choice Friday evening or Saturday

[1:41:41] evening? >> Saturday afternoon

[1:41:43] » or afternoon? I'm sorry. >> It's going to be after Saturday. Yeah.

[1:41:49] » Okay. >> All right. All right. So Saturday.

[1:41:52] » All right. Thank you. >> Can I have a motion to adjourn our

[1:41:55] meeting? So moved. >> Thank you. M second. Thank you. Roll

[1:41:58] call. >> Yes.

[1:42:01] » Greco. >> Yes.

[1:42:03] Yes. >> Yes.

[1:42:06] » Yes. >> Yep.

[1:42:08] » Thank you all for attending what I have to do.

[1:42:11] » Okay.

[1:42:15] » Yes.

[1:42:18] You need to be save

Village of Gates Mills Special Council Meeting- August 25 2026

Transcript