Committee of the Whole

Monday, January 12, 2026 Committee of the Whole 6:15 p.m. Brooklyn City Hall Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER A. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2-8 120825 Comm of Whole DRAFT.docx 3. LEGISLATION A. OLD BUSINESS Ordinance 2025-27 Ordinance 2025-28 Ordinance 2025-29 Ordinance 2025-30 Ordinance 2025-31 4. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION 5. ADJOURNMENT City of Brooklyn, Ohio - Committee of the Whole meeting Page 1 of 8 Committee of the Whole December 8, 2025 6:15 p.m. Council President Kathy Pucci called the meeting to order. Present: Matt Mosley, Aaron Borowski, Kevin Tanski, Sue Grodek, Kathy Pucci, Steven Coyle, Andy Celcherts Absent: None MOTION by Celcherts, second by Coyle to approve the minutes of November 24, 2025. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. (APPROVED) LIQUOR PERMIT REQUEST: A NEW C-2, C-1 and D-6 liquor control permit at ALL FRIENDLY ROCKY RIVER & TIEDEMAN MART LLC 4295 Tiedeman Road. Our Police Chief has no issues with this. Pres. Pucci stated C-1 is for beer carry out, C-2 is for wine/mixed beverage carry out and D-6 is for Sunday sales of those products. MOTION by Mosley, second by Coyle to recommend for a position of no objection. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. A D-5 TRANSFER liquor control permit at Sugarloaf TGIF OH Opco, LLC 10320 Cascade Crossing. Our Police Chief has no issues with this. Pres. Pucci stated this is a full liquor license for restaurants, nightclubs, allowing sale of spiritus, liquor, beer, and wine for both on-premises by the glass/drink and off-premises sealed containers to go. MOTION by Celcherts, second by Tanski to recommend for a position of no objection. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. LEGISLATION: OLD BUSINESS: ORDINANCE NO. 2025-23 (3rd reading/amend/adoption) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE UPDATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR 2026, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Pres. Pucci stated this was amended at the last meeting of November 24, 2025. It will be also be amended this evening to replace the original Exhibit A with a new Exhibit A with adoption. MOTION by Pucci, second by Coyle to recommend Council amend Ordinance 2025-23 to replace Exhibit A with a new Exhibit A. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. MOTION by Celcherts, second by Coyle to recommend Council adopt under suspension of the rules. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. ORDINANCE NO. 2025-24 (3rd reading/adoption) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING EXHIBIT A OF ORDINANCE 2025-12, “PROVIDING FOR THE COMPENSATION FOR THE PART-TIME, FULL-TIME AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES (NON-BARGAINING AGREEMENT) OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN, OHIO" MOTION by Celcherts, second by Coyle to recommend Council adopt. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. ORDINANCE NO. 2025-25 (3rd reading/amend/adoption) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING EXHIBIT A OF ORDINANCE 2024-27, ENTITLED, "AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS FOR CURRENT 1 Page 2 of 8 AND OTHER EXPENDITURES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN, STATE OF OHIO, FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2025 TO DECEMBER 31, 2025" MOTION by Mosley, second by Coyle to recommend Council amend Ordinance 2025-25 to replace Exhibit A with a new Exhibit A and adopt under the suspension of the rules. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. ORDINANCE NO. 2025-26 (3rd reading/amend/adoption) AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS FOR CURRENT AND OTHER EXPENDITURES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN, STATE OF OHIO, FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2026 TO DECEMBER 31, 2026. MOTION by Borowski, second by Coyle to recommend Council amend Ordinance 2025-26 to replace Exhibit A with a new Exhibit A and adopt under the suspension of the rules. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. ORDINANCE NO. 2025-27 (2nd reading) AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE BROOKLYN MEMPHIS RUN EAST TAX INCREMENT FINANCING INCENTIVE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 5709.40, 5709.42 AND 5709.43 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE; DECLARING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARCELS WITHIN THE INCENTIVE DISTRICT TO BE A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND EXEMPT FROM REAL PROPERTY TAXATION; DESIGNATING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE THAT WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT SUCH PROPERTY; REQUIRING ANNUAL SERVICE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES; DESIGNATING A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TAX INCREMENT EQUIVALENT FUND FOR THE DEPOSIT OF SUCH SERVICE PAYMENTS; AND AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO THE BROOKLYN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND POLARIS CAREER CENTER JOINT VOCATIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (Place on 3rd reading) ORDINANCE NO. 2025-28 (2nd reading) AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE BROOKLYN MEMPHIS RUN NORTH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING INCENTIVE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 5709.40, 5709.42 AND 5709.43 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE; DECLARING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARCELS WITHIN THE INCENTIVE DISTRICT TO BE A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND EXEMPT FROM REAL PROPERTY TAXATION; DESIGNATING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE THAT WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT SUCH PROPERTY; REQUIRING ANNUAL SERVICE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES; DESIGNATING A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TAX INCREMENT EQUIVALENT FUND FOR THE DEPOSIT OF SUCH SERVICE PAYMENTS; AND AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO THE BROOKLYN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND POLARIS CAREER CENTER JOINT VOCATIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (Place on 3rd reading) ORDINANCE NO. 2025-29 (2nd reading) AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE BROOKLYN MEMPHIS RUN SOUTH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING INCENTIVE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 5709.40, 5709.42 AND 5709.43 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE; DECLARING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARCELS WITHIN THE INCENTIVE DISTRICT TO BE A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND EXEMPT FROM REAL PROPERTY TAXATION; DESIGNATING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE THAT WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT SUCH PROPERTY; REQUIRING ANNUAL SERVICE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES; DESIGNATING A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TAX INCREMENT EQUIVALENT FUND FOR THE DEPOSIT OF SUCH SERVICE PAYMENTS; AND AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO THE BROOKLYN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND POLARIS CAREER CENTER JOINT VOCATIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (Place on 3rd reading) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-30 (2nd reading/suspension of rules/adoption) A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A CYBERSECURITY PROGRAM PURSUANT TO R.C. 9.64, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Pres. 2 Page 3 of 8 Pucci stated the reason for the request for adoption under suspension is the State has a deadline to adopt this prior to the end of the year. Law Dir. Butler stated the finalized cybersecurity program, along with its attendant policies and standards, were made available to Council today. Council is able to review at their leisure if they haven't already done so. He stated that regardless of whether or not Council has fully digested all of its provisions; 37 pages, the policy can always be amended. This policy enables the city to comply with all of its obligations under the Revised Code. It is based on national cybersecurity principles that have been put into place and have been followed by state entities and municipal governments since the passage of the state law that's requiring these types of cybersecurity policies. The city will be in good stead with the state if Council is able to adopt this tonight. Otherwise, the City faces some audit risk starting January 1, 2026 if we don't have this policy in place. He asked for Council’s approval and if they would like to review and make any comments or have any questions going forward, that would be perfectly fine. He reminded Council that this policy is confidential; not a policy that the public is permitted to see because of the sensitive nature of the cybersecurity world right now; only certain decision makers are permitted to view it. Mr. Butler stated that Council has his full endorsement and he asks for Council’s approval. Pres. Pucci asked if we are paying Simvay extra for this or is this part of their contract? Finance Dir. Raguz stated we have been paying them to develop the cybersecurity protocols as it was before this House Bill took effect; they have just added on the work to our current contract; this is outside their normal consulting fee. Pres. Pucci asked if there was a separate contract for this? Mr. Raguz stated yes. Pres Pucci asked what the timeline would be to fully implement this policy? Law Dir. Butler stated the policy dictates what happens in the event of certain incidents and those incidents are the things that you read about in the press when it comes to cyber security issues; any release of data or any events that would be ransomware events. It's effective immediately upon Council approval and can be implemented immediately. The people who are the city’s advisors on this; the chief security officer working with us, is well-versed in that type of incident response. We will do additional trainings with staff that would also be responsible for incident response as soon as this is adopted. Councilman Mosley stated he hadn’t had a chance to look at the policy since it was just emailed today. He would like to have everybody go over it and bring some discussion to it. He stated he doesn’t like passing things without reading it, though he does trust Mr. Butler’s endorsement. Pres. Pucci stated the reason why Council received it so late was because the Administration was trying to figure out how we could access it through a secure link. She stated she received the email the same time as the rest of Council. May Van Kirk stated this is something that the State really threw at us last minute. Brooklyn is light years ahead of most communities in this area. There are communities that really haven't even started this process. Fortunately for the city, Simvay was already on top of it and we were already implementing these policies. If Council wants to review it prior to voting on it, that's fine. Council will just have to schedule another meeting prior to January 1, 2026 because as Mr. Butler mentioned, we do face an audit risk if this legislation is not passed prior to January 1, 2026. Law Dir. Butler stated he understands the significance of asking Council to adopt legislation without having fully reviewed the policy that the City is putting in place. However, he suggests to Councilman Mosley, that this is a nationally recognized criteria that's being implemented here and he would certainly welcome, in lieu of a special Council meeting in December, some time when we can review confidentially, privately, because this is not a review that can happen in public. If Council sees the need for any changes, which he does not anticipate, we can most certainly make those changes at that point. That is not to minimize the significance of asking you to vote on something that you haven't fully reviewed. But it can be amended as we go if we need to. He stated he does not anticipate that we will, but it can be at any time with Council’s input. 3 Page 4 of 8 Pres. Pucci stated that this should qualify under the Executive Committee, because it relates to security. She asked if that would be appropriate early in the year, once everyone's had a chance to read through it and have any questions? Mr. Butler stated yes. Pres. Pucci stated because they have the clause relating to security issues. Councilman Celcherts stated that this is not something that just came off the cuff; it’s boilerplate, what you would get from a government organization. You can amend it/modify it. Law Dir. Butler stated the city worked through the policy provisions that are specific to Brooklyn and its staffing, and how incidents may be responded to. Every city is different in that regard. Some cities have a much more robust internal IT mechanism than we do, based on their size. So, we had to work through those particular types of issues in terms of incident response. He stated that Mr. Celcherts is correct in characterizing this as originally boiler plated, but well thought out. And yes, one of the exceptions provided for executive sessions is to discuss confidential security matters. Pres. Pucci stated that if everyone on Council wants to review it, then early next year, we can have an executive session if anyone has questions or anything they'd like to discuss about it. MOTION by Celcherts, second by Borowski to recommend Council adopt under suspension of the rules. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. ORDINANCE NO. 2025-30 (2nd reading) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 155 OF THE BROOKLYN CODIFIED ORDINANCES, “BOARD OF CONTROL”, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Councilman Mosley stated he was absent from the last meeting. He did read the minutes, although he cannot verify, because he was not here. He asked if there was any update to the reasoning for a Rec Commissioner being added on to the Board of Control? He does not recall that; he knows the name was put out, but he doesn't specifically remember anybody agreeing to that. He stated if we're going to have four members, he thinks that we should have five, because the way that he reads this is that four people can show up and vote on it; the Mayor, Service Director, Rec Commissioner, and a member of the Finance Committee from Council chosen with an allowance for alternatives. And if the quorum is going to be three, you might as well have five and have two people from Finance. He stated he knows the schedules don't really line up with the timing of Board of Control at the moment, being at 8:30 in the morning, but he knows that we have Zoom at our disposal if that's something that people can use. He stated he is just looking for some sort of input and conversation on the legislation since he was not present at the last meeting. Pres. Pucci stated that someone did discuss having the Rec Commissioner as a possible member. The reason why we added a third person from the Administration was in case there was an emergency meeting; right now, the Board of Control meets twice a month for their regularly scheduled meetings. But if they would need a special meeting for something that was an emergency and the Council representative was not able to make it, then the three members of the Administration, which would be the Mayor, Service Director and Rec Commissioner would have a quorum because the quorum is three. At the last council meeting, one of the things Council discussed was allowing for a substitute for the Administration, just like we allowed for a substitute in case the Council member could not make it. Additionally, Council discussed that it would be someone at a director/chief level. She asked Law Dir. Butler where the city has allowances for alternates, does that mean for everybody now? Law Dir. Butler stated the allowances for alternates language originally was drafted to account for the Finance Committee membership. That is to say that if the person ordinarily attending from the Finance Committee would not be available, then the alternate could come from within the Finance Committee. However, we could certainly expand that language to include an alternate coming from a director level position. That is to say an alternate to the Recreation Commissioner, or we could remove the Recreation Commissioner language. He stated this is Council’s prerogative to replace it with something along the lines of a director level or chief level position officer appointed by the Mayor. He does not see as an impediment; this particular issue of what you're looking for is the ability for other director level positions, someone else holding a director level position to be on that Board of Control at any particular meeting. Councilman Mosley stated that he thinks the point of the conversation was missed with the way that that is written. His goal with changing the composition of the Board of Control was to remove one person having two seats, essentially, which is how it's currently set up. He 4 Page 5 of 8 is not insinuating anything is happening, but a Rec Commissioner and Service Director can't abstain on things that may affect them because it's two people and you need two votes. So that's why he thought Finance Committee members (2), plus the Mayor, especially if you're using Zoom, makes sense to him. Then the alternates (directors) could be there in case of an emergency. Pres. Pucci stated that one thing about Zoom is it's not as simple as just someone Zooming in, because she believes we have to live stream it for the public and she does not know how cumbersome that is. Councilman Mosley stated if the Mayor is here and it's a public meeting that's supposed to be at City Hall and members are Zooming in, then couldn't people come here and attend? Law Dir. Butler stated that the law in Brooklyn, which supersedes state law on this subject, is that you have to provide the public the same access that you provide to a voting member if you're providing a voting member access by Zoom. So that is not to suggest that the members of the public have the same ability to participate the way that a voting member would, although you make that option available, but you do absolutely have to provide them the same access and live streaming is one way to do that. He stated historically, from his many years in municipal law is that Boards of Control typically are overwhelmingly administrative in nature; they're staffed by members of an Administration and not by a majority of members from City Council. It would be rare to have a Board of Control staffed two to one in favor of Council with the one member being the Mayor or someone who's there at the Mayor's directive. That would be highly unusual. Normally, Boards of Control are all administrators and it is not abnormal for one administrator to be voting at a Board of Control on an expenditure that would affect that particular member's department. That is sort of the quintessential function of a Board of Control, but it's to provide additional eyes on those expenditures in addition to the person who may be advocating for it for their department. Pres. Pucci stated because she doesn't think Mr. Mosley is suggesting that the Board of Control be made up of two Council members and the Mayor, that he still is including the Service Director and not to have four, have five. Councilman Mosley stated that he is suggesting it be two members of Council's Finance Committee and the Mayor. Additionally, he stated all of this is came up at the same time as a spending threshold, which is the next ordinance. His thought is that for this being brought up was because we as a Council wanted eyes on things that are being spent at Board of Control; there's no better way to do it than be the eyes instead of being the ears, which is if we're not a sitting member on the Board of Control, then you have to hear it secondhand or you have to watch it live. It's not illegal to have Council members and he doesn’t see why we can't have it that way. Law Dir. Butler stated to Mr. Mosley that he does not find it to be illegal, that it's within Council’s powers as a body of a home rule municipality. Pres. Pucci stated her concern with that would be the availability of two Council members to make a meeting that's during the working day. Councilman Celcherts addressed Pres. Pucci stating that his suggestion at the last meeting about having not just a Rec Director, but just at any director level or chief position. Pres. Pucci stated that yes, that's what she had brought up to Mr. Butler; that there'd be two ways to go with that. Either leave the Rec Commissioner and allow for an alternate that would be at the director/chief level or leave it open that there's a third member of the Administration that the Mayor would be able to select in case there was an availability issue for a director level or chief level person. She does agree with that. Pres. Pucci asked the Mayor if he had any preference on how that would be worded? Mayor Van Kirk stated that he does not; just the flexibility is appreciated. Law Dir. Butler stated for example: The Mayor, Service Director, Recreation Commissioner (or an officer of the City holding the position of director or chief, at the Mayor’s discretion), and a member of the Finance Committee of Council chosen by the committee (with allowance for alternates) constitute the Board of Control. The Mayor shall be ex officio president. That would resolve that particular issue. Pres. Pucci asked if we would still be maintaining the ability to accommodate an alternate from the Finance Committee as well. Law Dir. Butler stated yes. Councilwoman Grodek stated that she was someone who thought that because we haven't had a Safety Director position for a long time, that this needed some attention. She stated everything that she’s heard tonight doesn't make her any more comfortable and that if Council votes on this ordinance tonight, she will be a no vote. She stated she is not comfortable with any of the changes being productive changes yet. Councilman Coyle asked if Ms. Grodek could explain her position or what she is looking for. Councilwoman Grodek stated that there have been so many things thrown around and she’s very confused. She stated that she was surprised when reading this because watching the meeting and reading the minutes, she thought it was going to be amended to say any director and then with the conversations this evening, she does not feel comfortable voting for it today. Councilman Coyle asked if this Ordinance (2025-30) was still only on 2nd reading. Pres. Pucci stated yes, we still have time. 5 Page 6 of 8 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-31 (2nd reading) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 135.02 OF THE BROOKLYN CODIFIED ORDINANCES, “PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING”, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Councilman Mosley stated he had some legal questions for Law Dir. Butler; as this current legislation sits, would Council be voting on our Capital Improvement ordinance and then voting again on each line item over 50,000? Law Dir. Butler stated that there’s a question as to whether or not the Capital Improvement ordinance would even be necessary if this ordinance were adopted in its current form. The Capital Improvement ordinance serves as an opportunity for the Administration to seek contracting authority for capital items that are listed historically in attached Exhibit A. Once those capital items and their specific spending limits are adopted by Council, the Administration uses that legislation as contracting authority. Sometimes the Administration goes out to bid or procures the equipment or services in some competitive way because it exceeds the threshold. Sometimes the Administration is permitted to contract without having to go to bid because it's under a particular threshold; it depends on the item. Almost every purchase is made somehow competitively. In the current form, there’s a question or not, that the Administration would put capital improvement legislation before Council going forward if Council will have to individually approve those specific items; current legislation proposed would require. Sometimes Administrations use capital contracting ordinances just as a planning tool, but those planning tools are often found in the annual budget legislation. There's a question as to whether or not it would be superfluous. The capital contracting authority ordinance that you've recommended for adoption tonight gives the Administration blanket contracting authority for those capital items. If this legislation were adopted, would the Administration be obligated to come back before you for approval of individual expenditures going forward. Pres. Pucci stated over $50,000. Law Dir. Butler stated that is correct, over $50,000. Pres. Pucci stated to Mr. Mosley that Council did clarify with Finance Dir. Raguz at the last meeting that we would still have the capital plan, but it wouldn't be necessary to have an ordinance that authorizes all the expenditures for the capital plan. This process of having the meetings and agreeing to our capital expenditures for the year would not change. The only difference is there wouldn't be a separate ordinance authorizing the Administration to move forward with all of those. Councilman Mosley stated that a current item, such as the Natatorium; that has been approved, but that would have to come back to Council and we would have to review every single thing and then vote, because we can't vote to change it. We vote on whether we pay for it or not as a Council. Finance Dir. Raguz stated that the Administration would need to do is go back to City Council for approval of the individual contracts within that project, assuming that they're over $50,000. Councilman Mosley stated that the Administration compiles all of the information, present it to Council, and we essentially vote to pay for it or not. We're not going to amend it; Council can't amend the plans. Council is not the engineers, nor the lawyers. Finance Dir. Raguz stated correct, you would be approving the contract. Councilman Mosley stated his concern with something like this is that, imagine a $13 million fix of our Rec Center is going to have a lot of paperwork with a lot of things that he’s not qualified to understand in his daily job. Council gets the bid and then obviously there's going to be a ton of discussion on it, something that big. He foresees that delaying, getting the contract signed and done. Finance Dir. Raguz stated when he first came to Brooklyn, what he thought was very unique is that that Capital Contracting ordinance where City Council gives approval for contracts for certain projects up to a certain amount; not all cities do that, and he does think it's an advantage to a city to do that in order for efficiency purposes. As far as getting contracts signed, as long as City Council approved an amount up to that amount per the Capital ordinance and then the Administration can go forward with the project. Mr. Mosley asked Finance Dir. Raguz that he’s saying as it currently is without this? Finance Dir. Raguz stated yes. Councilman Celcherts asked Finance Dir. Raguz since we're using the natatorium project, we approved it in the Capital Budget ordinance already for next year. But if we go to this system, then we're going to have to go after each contract for HVAC, for electrical, etc. because everything's going to be over $50,000, correct? Finance Dir. Raguz stated for each contract that the city is obligated to enter into. He’s not exactly sure how the contract is going to be entered into. There may be a GMP where City Council would then need to approve each individual GMP and that GMP includes contracts or items such as those items that you listed. Then City Council needs to approve each and every other one after that. Pres. Pucci clarified with Mr. Raguz that is the “Guaranteed Maximum Price”; an umbrella contract? Finance Dir. Raguz stated that's an all-inclusive contract up to a certain amount. Councilman Mosley stated he thinks that Council would be able to, while having its Capital Improvement Budget meetings, why Council can't have a special committee put together where three people from Council sit on the committee and where people can then ask questions for this special project; example given: the Dog Park or 6 Page 7 of 8 Memorial Park, something that a lot of people are going to ask us about; possibly have a resident sit on that as well. It's a special committee for that project, then when the project's over, it’s disbanded. Pres. Pucci stated she hadn't thought of that and believes there's really no requirement to have a special committee. Mayor Van Kirk stated that the Recreation Center is a little bit of a different animal than the majority of the contracts that we sign here in the city and he asked to maybe use something different as an example. Using the roads project for example: the process now is we have the Capital Budget work session. with all of the directors. We talk about the different roads. Mr. Henry (City Engineer) explains everything that we're going to get done, explains to Council, we believe the engineering/construction costs will be $1.2 million, the engineer's estimate. When the new year comes around, why we do the capital budget process for that project is so that as soon as the new year comes around, we can get those out to bid very quickly, get ahead of the game. It saves the city money by doing that. The Administration gets those out, they go out to bid, say that the advertising is for four weeks. Mr. Henry sets the bid opening time; nine contractors come in. He tabulates all of those, comes back to the Administration with the lowest and best bid. The contract then begins to be drafted. As it stands right now, the Administration is able to sign that lowest and best bid after Mr. Henry looks at it, Mr. Butler looks at it, Mr. Verba has looked at it, and then of course he (the Mayor) reviews it. The Administration is able to get that contract signed and the project's able to get started. If this change takes place, once that bid opening takes place and the lowest best bid is brought forward, it will then come to Council. At a minimum, it will be six weeks before Council would be able to approve that bid with Council going three readings for additional transparency; not pass by emergency. Mayor Van Kirk stated that if we find out what that information is the day after a Council meeting takes place, now you're talking about eight weeks before a project is able to get off the ground. It will take more time; no question about that. Some will be quicker than others. Mayor stated that's probably a little bit better of an example to use of a contract as opposed to a very large item where we have a CMR and a GMP. Most of the projects do not have that process. There being no further business, MOTION by Coyle, second by Borowski to adjourn. VOTE: Yes: Mosley, Borowski, Tanski, Grodek, Pucci, Coyle, Celcherts. No: None. Meeting adjourned. ____________________________ Dana Schroeder, Clerk of Council Minutes approved: 7 Page 8 of 8