08/21/2026
CITY COUNCIL RECAP — AUGUST 17
First, I hope all of our students had a great first day back! And to the parents, students, drivers and staff who had a much more stressful day than expected because of transportation issues, I know today was a rough one. I’ve seen and heard the frustration, and I know there are families who are still looking for answers. I hope tomorrow is a much smoother day for everyone.
On that note, thank you for your patience waiting for this recap. It has been a very busy week getting our family ready to go back to school, and Monday’s meeting had a lot to unpack. I wanted to make sure I had time to go back through the meeting and get the details.
So, finally... let’s talk about Monday night’s Council meeting.
○Appropriations○ YES on the spending, NO on accelerating the whole package
The first major piece of legislation was an amendment to our annual appropriations.
This included quite a few unrelated items: an epoxy floor at Fire Station #2, public-records software, accrued leave payouts, Police and Fire holiday/overtime pay, lubrication systems for two dump trucks, funding connected to the SR 83/Chestnut Ridge project, and several other appropriations.
I voted NO on dispensing with the second and third readings and NO on the emergency clause. I voted YES on the underlying legislation.
That distinction is important.
Some of the items in this package had legitimate urgency. Others, in my opinion, did not meet that same standard.
I said during the meeting that I think something gets lost when we bundle numerous appropriations together and then treat the entire package as an emergency simply because some pieces are urgent.
I'm not suggesting every expenditure needs its own ordinance. But I do think we need to be more mindful about distinguishing between something we want or need to accomplish quickly and an actual emergency.
I'll continue looking at those as two separate questions:
Do I support the legislation?
Does it actually require emergency passage?
Sometimes my answers will be yes and no.
○Power Cots & LUCAS Devices○
Next was the purchase of three Stryker power cots and three LUCAS mechanical CPR devices for our Fire Department.
We all voted YES, including on the accelerated/emergency passage.
I also want to specifically thank Fire Chief Reese for how this was handled.
Before the meeting, Chief Reese proactively emailed Council explaining the age and condition of the equipment, that some of it can no longer be serviced because replacement parts aren't available, and why timing mattered.
That's exactly the kind of information that helps us evaluate an emergency request. Rather than simply being told something needs to move quickly, Council was given the information necessary to understand why.
When there is a legitimate immediate need, particularly involving equipment our first responders rely on to care for residents, I have no problem supporting emergency legislation.
○Fund Advance For Chestnut and 83 Project○
We then considered a separate resolution authorizing a fund advance connected to the SR 83/Chestnut Ridge Roundabout project.
This one is easy to lose in the weeds.
Essentially, some grant-funded projects require the City to spend the money first and receive reimbursement afterward. This legislation allows money to be advanced from the General Fund to the NOPEC Grant Fund, with the General Fund being repaid after the project expenditures are made and reimbursement is received.
I voted YES.
○ODOT Sign Improvements○
Next was ODOT's replacement of aging overhead sign-support structures on SR 10.
We all voted YES.
We dispensed with the third reading and adopted the resolution, but we did not use an emergency clause.
The Mayor explained that ODOT needs the City's consent returned by early October. Because ordinary legislation becomes effective after the applicable waiting period, Council could meet that deadline without declaring an emergency.
I think that's worth pointing out because it demonstrates something I've been talking about: Dispensing with a reading and declaring an emergency are not the same thing.
We were able to move the legislation along faster while still allowing the normal effective-date period to occur.
○Assisted Living/Rest Home Moratorium○
The proposed additional 180-day moratorium on new assisted-living facilities and rest homes received its second reading.
No vote to adopt it occurred Monday.
It simply moved through the normal reading process.
○Sugar Ridge/Bender Roundabout○
Next was legislation allowing the City to apply for additional Ohio Public Works Commission funding for the proposed Sugar Ridge/Bender Road roundabout.
I voted NO on dispensing with the third reading, NO on the emergency clause, and NO on the legislation itself.
My opposition isn't about whether obtaining outside funding can reduce the City's cost. Of course it can.
But cheaper is not free, and obtaining a grant doesn't automatically make this a project I believe we should prioritize.
When I was knocking doors and talking with residents during the campaign, this proposed roundabout came up more than a few times, and the feedback I heard was that it is unessicary.
There are intersections and corridors that I (along with many residents) consider higher safety priorities. Lorain Road and Lear Nagle is one of the most obvious examples.
We know there are significant safety concerns there and, while there may eventually be a larger long-term solution, I think we should also be asking what smaller or temporary improvements could be made now.
When we're committing local resources, even as a match for outside funding, I want us asking:
Is this where our dollars can have the greatest impact?
For me, the answer on this project remains no.
○Behm Road Water Main / CDBG○
Next was the Behm Road water-main replacement.
I voted YES.
The City was awarded $150,000 in CDBG funding, with $30,000 retained by Lorain County for administration, leaving $120,000 toward the project.
The discussion then wandered considerably beyond the Behm Road project and into the recently approved Urban County agreement and the referendum petition currently circulating.
So I want to clarify something important.
The Behm Road CDBG grant predates North Ridgeville's participation in the new Urban County program.
This is funding obtained through the existing CDBG structure. It was not awarded because Council approved the new Urban County agreement earlier this month.
There was also a suggestion during the discussion that the referendum petition currently circulating is essentially a petition to block CDBG grants.
It is not.
The referendum concerns the ordinance approving North Ridgeville's participation in the new Urban County structure.
And signing a referendum petition is not itself a vote against the ordinance.
If enough valid signatures are collected, the question goes to the voters. Residents then decide whether the ordinance should stand.
That's an important distinction.
There are legitimate arguments in favor of the Urban County program, and there are legitimate questions and concerns about it. I voted no on that agreement; other members voted yes.
We can all explain and advocate for our positions.
But residents deserve an accurate understanding of what the petition does, what the new program changes, and what it doesn't change before making their own decision.
○Through-Truck Penalties○
Finally, Council unanimously approved increased penalties for prohibited through-truck traffic.
We all voted YES.
This one was particularly satisfying for me because addressing through-truck violations is something I raised before I was elected and continued advocating for afterward.
The goal is simple: if the penalty is too small, it can become little more than a cost of doing business. Stronger penalties should create a more meaningful deterrent for trucks illegally using residential and other prohibited routes.
I'm happy to see it move forward, regardless of whose name is attached to the legislation.
And now I want to see whether it works.
Passing legislation is only step one. Over time, I'd like us to look at citations, repeat violations and enforcement data to see whether the increased penalties actually reduce prohibited truck traffic.
One last thought...
Monday's meeting was a pretty good example of why I continue writing these recaps.
A roll-call vote tells you how seven Council members voted.
It doesn't necessarily tell you why.
I can support an expenditure while disagreeing that it constitutes an emergency.
I can support moving legislation faster without supporting an emergency clause.
Outside funding can make a project cheaper without convincing me it's our highest priority.
And when something said during a meeting doesn't match the information I have in front of me, I'm going to ask the question.
