Open investigation · Sidney, Ohio

Open leads

Every gap we're chasing on this site, in the open. Each lead is unverified inference until a source corroborates it — and every one traces to the corpus-completeness audit or a working hypothesis. Pick one up, answer it, or bring the document that closes it.

Submit a lead

open leads

withheld / sealed

under review

closed recently

22 open leads · unverified

Open question Under review [open] data/extracted/sidney/council/2025-09-08-res-69-25-cra-expansion-and-megaproject-tier.resolution.yaml · data/extracted/sidney/council/2022-10-10-res-84-22-citywide-cra-established.resolution.yaml

Resolution 69-25 — pulled, and it is not what the recitals said it was

ANSWERED 2026-08-13. This lead asked for the CRA legislation the corpus knew only through two instruments' recitals. It is now committed and read, and so is the resolution it amends — and the reading corrected the register twice over. Res. 69-25 does NOT designate the CRA. Its own second recital names the designating act: Resolution 84-22, adopted 2022-10-10, which "created and established the Sidney City-Wide Community Reinvestment Area" under ODOD designation # 149-72424-06. 69-25 EXPANDS that area to be coterminous with the City and amends its §4 — and what it adds to §4 is the whole point. Res. 84-22 as adopted capped commercial and industrial exemptions at FIFTEEN years. 69-25 restated §4 and added clause (e) "Up to thirty (30) years, and up to one hundred percent (100%)" for a megaproject under R.C. 122.17(A)(12). Seven weeks later Res. 80-25 authorized a CRA Agreement carrying a 30-year 100% exemption. The SEQUENCE is `[verified]` from both instruments and the minutes of both meetings; the motive is not — 69-25 names no project, no company and no parcel, and its stated reason is the recent annexations. WHAT STAYS OPEN is the designation itself. The 2025-10-27 minutes say the project "meets the requirements to be designated a megaproject by the Director of the Department of Development" — eligibility asserted by staff, present tense, not a designation stated as made. No ODOD certification is in the corpus. That is the next pull. Guard, unchanged: this register once named "Resolution 18-25, October 2025" as the CRA instrument. No such legislation exists. Do not reintroduce that number.

the route was never blocked — the 403 was an HTTP/2 fingerprint, and one retry over HTTP/1.1 opened 51 year folders of resolutions #1998

Answer this → RES-69-25

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/regulatory-watch.yaml (city site-plan review) · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Instruments to pull" §2

The approved site plan — an administrative approval, so there is no agenda item to watch

The single most load-relevant document not on the record: the approved site plan yields the building count. Review is administrative under Zoning Code §1115.09 by the Community Development Director — the Planning Commission does NOT review it — so nothing about this approval will ever surface as a public agenda item, and waiting for one is a mistake. The City's FAQ has said "under review by City staff" and has not moved since 2026-06-24. `[verified]`. The Development Agreement independently confirms a site plan is in the approval loop (§3.6.1, and a §5.4 site-plan fee under Codified Ordinances §1309.11). Route: an R.C. 149.43 request to the Community Development Director, filed expecting the five-business-day company-notice delay both agreements impose (see COMPANY-NOTICE).

#1383

Answer this → SITE-PLAN

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Separating the campus's wastewater" · data/extracted/sidney/incentive-instruments.yaml (Res. 26-26 §1.1.4, Schedule 1)

The City's significant-industrial-user permit — the only instrument that meters this campus

The campus's actual wastewater will never appear separately in the WWTP's DMRs, because a DMR reports outfall 001 and not an individual user. `[verified]`. The instrument that would separate it is the City of Sidney's own industrial-pretreatment / significant-industrial-user permit (the City reports 16 SIUs today), a municipal record under R.C. 149.43 that is not on Ohio EPA's portal. The 2026-08-01 ingest sharpened this rather than closing it: the Water and Wastewater Service Agreement fixes the RESERVED sewer ceiling at 390,493 gpd (716 gpm gravity, 1,160,000 gal/yr projected, 5.60% of the 7 MGD plant), so what the SIU permit would add is actual metered load against that ceiling. A reservation is a ceiling and a billing basis; it is not a measurement, and the two must not be quoted interchangeably.

#1380

Answer this → SIU-PERMIT

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/regulatory-watch.yaml (instruments, air PTI) · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Regulatory record"

The Ohio EPA air permit-to-install for emergency generators — a verified negative, re-check

The highest-value target on this board, because the draft-for-public-comment is the earliest signal that carries generator count and ratings, and because an air PTI is one of only two routes by which this campus's megawatts could reach the public record. Verified negative as of 2026-07-31: Ohio EPA's eDocument portal returns zero AIR PERMIT documents for Shelby County under "SIDNEY DATA", "CMH" or "AMAZON", and EPA FRS shows the site with NPDES as its only program system. `[verified]`. That zero is trustworthy because the same query shape returns 19 Amazon air-permit documents statewide, including the Licking County "AMAZON DATA SERVICES – CMH050" draft, public notice and permit — a positive control, so this is a clean dated no and not a broken search. Jurisdiction for the air program here is Ohio EPA NWDO, NOT RAPCA (which covers Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery and Preble); surface water for the same county is SWDO. The `SiteFacility` genset fields stay unset until this lands.

next check — Ohio EPA eDoc, County=SHELBY, Program=AIR PERMIT, Facility Name "SIDNEY DATA" then "CMH" #1383

Answer this → AIR-PTI

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "The deeds - three, not one" · data/reference/sidney/parcel-assemblage.geojson (Shelby County Auditor CAMA, read 2026-07-31)

Three deeds, not one — the recorder still owes grantors, instrument numbers and consideration

The Development Agreement's Exhibit A names THREE conveyances to Amazon Data Services, Inc., all in Official Record volume 2329: OR2329/445 (Lot 7648), OR2329/449 (Lot 7647) and OR2329/454 (Lot 7646). `[verified]`. The auditor's CAMA carried only OR2329/454 against the consolidated parcel, which is why both the register and #1379 recorded a single deed. Acreage, transfer date and aggregate price are already `[verified]` from the CAMA; what the recorder still owes is the grantors, the sequential instrument numbers, the per-deed consideration, any recorded easements, and whichever instrument carried predecessor parcels 26-03-251-001 and 26-03-251-002 — three deeds still leave two of the five recited predecessors unaccounted for. Pull Plat V37 P50 (the Lot 7658 Consolidation and Roadway Dedication Plat) in the same request: it retired the "2388 W. Millcreek Rd" situs, would close the ~7.6-acre deeded-versus-planar difference as a roadway dedication, and would connect the 7646/7647/7648 lot series to Lot 7658. Because book and page are now known, this is a document retrieval, not a search.

route negative 2026-08-01 — search.shelbyco.net/eservices/ is an Apache Wicket app that posts a browser fingerprint before it will search; copy request to recorder@shelbyco.net instead #1380

Answer this → DEEDS-RECORDER

Open question Under review [inference] data/reference/sidney/parcel-assemblage.geojson · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Instruments to pull" §5

Is OR2329/497 (County → Dayton Power & Light, same day) the campus substation conveyance?

On the same day Amazon's deeds were recorded, and 43 pages after them, the Shelby County Commissioners conveyed parcel 26-03-429-009 (7.305 ac, Fair and Vandemark) to Dayton Power & Light Co. for $547,875 at OR2329/497. `[verified]` from the auditor CAMA. That it is the campus substation is `[inference]` ONLY — the parcel also abuts DP&L's own 2006 parcel 26-03-429-008, so an ordinary utility land consolidation explains it equally well. It is deliberately excluded from the committed campus assemblage and must stay excluded until an instrument names a purpose. Pull it with DEEDS-RECORDER; a recorded easement or a stated purpose would settle it.

#1379

Answer this → DPL-SUBSTATION-DEED

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/incentive-instruments.yaml (CRA Agreement megaproject, §12) · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Megaproject status"

The Ohio Tax Credit Authority's Sixth Amendment — half the abatement term rests on it

A state instrument this corpus does not hold, and the most consequential gap in the financial record. The CRA Agreement recites that on 2025-10-08 the Ohio Tax Credit Authority authorized a Sixth Amendment to Tax Credit Agreement under which the Company qualifies as a "megaproject" and a "megaproject operator" under R.C. 122.17(A)(11)-(12), and §12 hangs YEARS 16 THROUGH 30 of the abatement on the Company holding a current Megaproject Certificate or certifying annually. `[verified]`. So more than half the exemption term is conditioned on an instrument no one on this record has read, and no prior register entry even named. Route: Ohio Department of Development / Tax Credit Authority meeting minutes and the executed agreement.

#1380

Answer this → OTCA-SIXTH-AMENDMENT

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Zoning district" · SidneyGIS_AllLayers/MapServer/270 (read 2026-07-31)

The annexation or rezoning ordinance — the City's own GIS cannot close the zoning question

The City of Sidney does publish a zoning REST layer (SidneyGIS_AllLayers/MapServer/270, nine districts, "officially adopted October 24, 2016"), but the campus parcel falls in a hole in it: the zoning, corporate-limits and annexation layers ALL miss the parcel's interior point, while its two district-01 neighbours hit all three (SEMCORP 26-03-301-001 → IIM; DP&L 26-03-429-009 → CC), and the annexation layer stops at ordinance A-3145 of 2023-08-28. `[verified]`. Because the auditor's TY2025 tax district already places the parcel inside the corporate limits, this is a CURRENCY gap in the published layers and not an unzoned site — the campus must never be recorded as unzoned on the strength of a missing polygon. The instrument that closes it is the City's annexation or rezoning ordinance for the parcel.

#1379

Answer this → ANNEX-ZONING

Open question Unanswered [open] data/documents/sidney/permits/Grading Permit 5-14-2026 - AWS Data Center 2388 W. Millcreek Road.pdf · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Construction"

The grading plan and storm water report recited on the face of the grading permit

The City of Sidney Engineering Department grading permit — signed 5/15/2026 by Engineering Manager Chad M. Arkenberg, contractor of record George J. Igel & Co., Inc., valid 180 calendar days, scope limited to "excavation and site preparation" and therefore NOT a building permit — recites a grading plan and a storm water report "on file at the City's Engineering Department". `[verified]`. Neither is published. Both would carry site geometry the corpus currently derives rather than reads. Expect R.C. 149.433 to be asserted over parts of them, on the pattern the City has already established (see EXHIBIT-D), so frame the request to the approval rather than to the engineering drawing. Guard on the permit itself: its date is 5/15/2026 from the signature block; 5-14 is the City's own filename and a filename is not evidence of a date.

#1380

Answer this → GRADING-PLAN

Redaction Withheld [open] data/documents/sidney/council/27-26 - Authorizing Infrastructure Development Agreement - Amazon Web Services.pdf (Article 1 definitions, Exhibit D) · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Records posture"

Exhibit D is blacked out edge to edge, with ORC 149.433 written beside it by hand in blue ink

The City published the Development Agreement with the entire Exhibit D water service exhibit blacked out — only its title, its scale bar (1 inch = 150 feet) and a few stray linework fragments survive — and with the sewer line size, the manhole count and linear footage, and the water service line size and location redacted out of the Article 1 definitions. Beside each redaction the City wrote the statute by hand in blue ink: ORC 149.433, the security-and- infrastructure-records exemption. `[verified]`, read from the page image and NOT from the OCR layer — never assert a hand-written statutory cite off OCR. Whether the application of the exemption is sound is not assessed here; what is recorded is that the redactions exist, exactly what they cover, and which statute the City cited. The unredacted exhibits are the ask.

#1380

Fill the gap → EXHIBIT-D

Signal Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/incentive-instruments.yaml (public_records_clause, §32) · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Records posture"

Both major agreements give the company five business days to try to stop a records release

CRA Agreement §32 and Development Agreement §8.17 require the City, on receiving a public-records request touching the company's "Confidential Information", to notify the company, give it a copy of the request, and allow it at least five business days to negotiate a response or to "pursue, at its sole cost and expense, legal remedies to stop the City's release". `[verified]`. Neither clause enlarges any R.C. 149.43 exemption — they are contractual delay layered on top of the statute, not new grounds for withholding — but every municipal request on this board should be filed expecting it, and a slow response should not be read as a denial. The 2023-12-19 Nondisclosure Agreement remains operative and the City is contractually bound to continuing compliance with it under the same §8.17.

#1380

Help confirm → COMPANY-NOTICE

Open question Under review [open] data/extracted/sidney/incentive-instruments.yaml (schedule_term_discrepancy) · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Schedule discrepancy"

The PILOT schedule runs 14 years in one instrument and 15 in another — neither was reconciled

The CRA Agreement's Exhibit E runs FOURTEEN PILOT years (thirteen at $3,333,333 plus a final $2,666,671, summing to the $46,000,000 cap set at §7(b)). The distribution schedule attached to Resolution 81-25 lays the same $46,000,000 across FIFTEEN, and its own workspace cells read "Total $50,000,000 / Per Year $3,333,333.33". `[verified]` both ways. The binding cap is the CRA Agreement's; which instrument governs the final year is unresolved on this record. Practical guard for any prose: do not quote a term of years for the PILOT without naming the instrument it comes from, and do not restate the press figure of "$50 million over 15 years" — the $50,000,000 is the $46,000,000 PILOT cap plus a separate one-time $4,000,000 Initial Payment under §8, which is a different thing.

#1380

Answer this → PILOT-14-VS-15

Open question Under review [open] data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "The resolution and the agreement name different Amazon entities" · data/extracted/sidney/incentive-instruments.yaml (parties)

Resolution 27-26 and the agreement it authorizes name two different Amazon entities

Resolution 27-26 authorizes a Development Agreement with Amazon Web Services, Inc.; the agreement it authorizes names Amazon Data Services, Inc. as "Developer" in both its Project Summary and its signature block. `[verified]`. Both entities are real, both are recited as Delaware corporations in the City's executed instruments, and both appear elsewhere in this record — Amazon Data Services is the permittee and the owner of record, Amazon Web Services the operator. Resolution 26-26 and its water agreement, by contrast, agree on Amazon Web Services, Inc. throughout. Not resolved here. Entity-graph guard: do not merge the two on the strength of this pairing, and do not treat the mismatch as evidence of anything until an instrument explains it.

#1380

Answer this → AWS-VS-ADS

Open question Low confidence [open] data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Ohio EPA entity registrations" · data/extracted/sidney/regulatory-watch.yaml (route_hazards)

Ohio SOS foreign registration for both Amazon entities — a blocked route, not an absence

Verified negative ROUTE as of 2026-08-01, which is not the same thing as a verified absence: businesssearch.ohiosos.gov answers HTTP 403 with a ~1.3 MB challenge body to scripted clients, and businesssearch.ohiosos.com no longer resolves, so there is no scripted route from this workstation. The registrations are unsearched, not missing. Largely moot on the substance, which is why this sits at low priority: both companies are recited as Delaware corporations in three separate executed City instruments (the CRA Agreement preamble, the Water Agreement preamble and the Development Agreement Project Summary), so entity type and formation jurisdiction are already `[verified]` from a primary source. What the SOS record would add is the Ohio foreign-registration date, the statutory agent and the agent's address.

#1380

Answer this → SOS-REGISTRATION

Signal Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Power draw (MW)" · data/extracted/sidney/regulatory-watch.yaml (instruments)

Five state permits have issued across this project and not one of them states a load

A construction-stormwater coverage, an isolated-wetland authorization, a sanitary-sewer permit to install, the City's own road wetland permit and AES's adjacent transmission-reroute coverage have no megawatt field between them. `[verified]`, re-checked 2026-07-31. AWS discloses no floor area either, so the network's usual floor-area screen (Urbana #1327, Troy-Piqua, Bowling Green) cannot be run here at all. `_SIDNEY.facility` therefore carries an investment-scaled `[inference]` screening bracket — roughly 150 / 250 / 350 MW low, central and high, being the disclosed $3B campus divided by a ~$8.5-20M per MW-IT hyperscale construction-cost band — so the profile's power stack has an input. That bracket is NOT a disclosure and does not close this lead. Two guards: do not read the AES reroute permit, or any substation work, as evidence of the campus load; and do not let the screening bracket be quoted as a figure. The number will come from an air PTI (see AIR-PTI) or a utility filing (see PUCO-25-958 and FERC-TSA), or it will not come at all.

#1378

Help confirm → MW-OPEN

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/regulatory-watch.yaml (PUCO 25-958-EL-AIR) · aes-ohio.com press release 2026-07-21

PUCO 25-958-EL-AIR — the AES Ohio stipulation and its data-center tariff sheets

AES Ohio announced on 2026-07-21 an unopposed Stipulation with PUCO Staff and sixteen parties in its multi-year rate case, including "a new Data Center Tariff as recommended by the PUCO", with rates planned through 2029. That is `[reference]` and nothing more — it is the utility's own account of its own filing. The docket itself is WAF-blocked from this workstation (HTTP 200 with a 244-byte "Request Rejected" body), so it is unsearched, not empty. No AES service agreement and no interconnection filing naming this campus is on the record. `[open]`. The pull is the stipulation and the DCT tariff sheets when the docket becomes reachable. Read this alongside RATE-CLASS-BAR: the same load is heading toward a bespoke ELECTRIC rate class while the City has contracted away its ability to create a bespoke WATER one.

next check — PUCO DIS for 25-958-EL-AIR, if it ever becomes reachable #1383

Answer this → PUCO-25-958

Open question Low confidence [open] data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Instruments to pull" §10 · sidneyoh.com/526 (Proposed Data Center FAQ)

A FERC eLibrary transmission service agreement between AES Ohio and Amazon for this campus

The City's own FAQ answers a resident question premised on such an agreement existing, without confirming or denying that it does. `[verified]` that the exchange happened; `[open]` on the instrument. That makes this a lead and not a source, and it must not be cited as evidence that an agreement exists. If one is on file it would be the first document anywhere to state an interconnection figure for this campus, which is why it stays on the board despite the thin premise.

#1383

Answer this → FERC-TSA

Open question Under review [inference] data/extracted/sidney/incentive-instruments.yaml (derived, cycles of concentration) · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "The cooling mechanism finally appears in a record"

Cycles of concentration back-solve to ≈4.0 — that brackets the cooling model, it does not close it

The only description of this campus's cooling design anywhere on the public record is one sentence in the City's 2026-04-27 staff presentation: "All wastewater, including cooling tower discharges, are required to be discharged to the sanitary sewer." `[verified]`. Back-solving the service agreement's own projections — makeup 4,600,000 gal/yr divided by blowdown 1,160,000 gal/yr = 3.97 — gives cycles of concentration of about 4.0, the signature of a closed-loop evaporative tower. `[inference]`. This is the first documentary handle on a cooling model that `_SIDNEY.facility` still correctly carries as UNKNOWN, and it must stay UNKNOWN: a projection inside a service agreement is not a design disclosure, and a reservation is a ceiling rather than a metered use. What would actually close it is the air PTI, the SIU permit, or a mechanical permit or equipment schedule naming the towers.

#1380

Answer this → COOLING-MODEL

Signal Unanswered [open] data/extracted/sidney/incentive-instruments.yaml (rate_class_covenant, impact_fees) · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "The City contracted away its data-center rate class"

The City contracted away its power to create a data-center water rate class for ten years

Water and Wastewater Service Agreement §2.1: "During the Term of this Agreement, Provider shall not take steps to create a separate class of water or sewer rates for data centers or similar high level, but highly variable, users." `[verified]`. The term is ten years, auto-renewing annually, and AWS may terminate at any time on 90 days' notice while the City may terminate only after three years AND twelve consecutive months of ceased operations (§3). What the City did reserve instead is a fee on the UNUSED portion of the reservation — water at 14.3% of the $7.23/ccf standard rate, sewer at 5.60% of the $4.11/ccf rate, reopened every three years from the third anniversary of build-out (§2.2 and Schedule 1). The standing question this raises is not answered by any instrument in the corpus: what the reservation costs other ratepayers over a decade in which the City cannot price this class of user separately.

#1380

Help confirm → RATE-CLASS-BAR

Open question Under review [open] data/extracted/sidney/groundwater.md (#1997) · data/extracted/sidney/data-centers.md "Dominant hydrologic soil group" · data/concepts/ssa.md

Is the Sidney well field inside a designated sole-source aquifer, and is the campus upgradient?

This lead exists to keep a refuted premise from returning. The 2026-06-22 onboarding scaffolding framed Sidney as a buried-valley sole-source-aquifer campus and set dominant_hsg="B" from that premise. #1379's SSURGO read inverted it: the campus is HSG D — Blount and Glynwood silt loams on the Wisconsinan end moraine, 62 of 64 grid points — sitting roughly two miles WEST of the Great Miami buried valley. `[verified]`. The sole-source framing was never true of this footprint, and post-development runoff screens materially higher than a buried-valley outwash assumption would have given. What is NOT established either way is the designation itself: no EPA sole-source-aquifer boundary has been pulled into this corpus, so whether the Sidney well fields sit inside a designated area, and what a campus upgradient of them on the moraine would mean for one, were both `[open]` when this lead was written. ANSWERED 2026-08-11 by #1997, and this text is left standing because the refuted premise is what the lead exists to keep out. The EPA designation WAS pulled: the campus sits 2,702 m (1.68 mi) OUTSIDE the designated Buried Valley Aquifer System, in no part of it, while the City's Washington Township well field is 97.17% inside and its Great Miami bedrock field is 0% inside. So the answer splits — the well field's sole-source framing is real, the campus's never was, and the two must not be merged. Guard, unchanged and now doubly grounded: never restore the buried-valley framing for the campus footprint on the strength of the well field's.

#1997

Answer this → AQUIFER-SCOPE

Open question Unanswered [open] data/documents/sidney/cra-housing-council/CRA Housing Council Minutes March 05, 2026.pdf · data/reference/subdivisions/sidney/subdivisions.yaml (the CRA Housing Council row, which records the split)

The body that reviews this abatement every year publishes nothing, anywhere

The CRA Housing Council recommended the Amazon abatement on 2025-10-23 — and it has no continuing oversight of it. Its own minutes of 2026-03-05 record the Community Development Director explaining the split - "the Housing Council will only review granted 1-family and 2-family housing abatements and recommend whether or not the abatements should continue as part of the annual review. Industrial properties that have been granted an abatement will be reviewed by the Tax Incentive Review Council to determine if they will recommend the continuation of abatements on each individual property." `[verified]` So the ANNUAL CONTINUATION DECISION on an abatement the City itself values at $180-350 million over thirty years sits with the Tax Incentive Review Council. ⚠️ THAT BODY HAS NO CONTAINER ON THE CITY'S PORTAL AT ALL - 18 top-level bodies and 43 leaf containers were enumerated in one request and it is not among them - and it has no row in data/reference/subdivisions/sidney/subdivisions.yaml. Nothing it has ever done is in this corpus. ⚠️ "Publishes nothing on this portal" must never become "does not meet" - a TIRC is a creature of statute (R.C. 5709.85, unread here), and its composition, cadence and duties are all `[open]`. Routes, in order - read R.C. 5709.85 for what a TIRC must be and must do; ask the City whether one has been convened for this CRA and for its reports; and check whether the County maintains one, since an industrial abatement can fall under a county TIRC. The first review of this campus's abatement is the first checkable event.

the abatement runs thirty years; the body that reviews it annually has produced no public record this corpus can find #1998

Answer this → TIRC

Open question Under review [open] data/documents/sidney/council/filename-map.yaml (the three minutes files, and the second-route block that records the API and the enumeration) · data/extracted/sidney/regulatory-watch.yaml (route_retests) · data/extracted/sidney/council/*.resolution.yaml (the vote blocks)

The three vote meetings are on the record — and one of the six votes was not unanimous

ANSWERED IN PART 2026-08-13. The minutes of all three meetings that passed this campus's legislation are committed and read — 2025-09-08, 2025-10-27 (image-only, OCR'd at 300 DPI) and 2026-04-27 — and every one of the six votes now has its mover, its second and its result on the record where the resolution pages journal none of them. FIVE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THE SIXTH DID NOT. Res. 82-25, the income-tax-sharing agreement with Sidney City Schools and Upper Valley Career Center, drew a recorded roll call — "Barhorst yes; Huelskamp yes; Milligan yes; Roddy yes; Thurber no; VanMatre yes; Wagner no" — and passed 5-2. It is the only item on any of the three nights the clerk journalled by name, which is why the division is legible at all. The minutes record no stated reason for either NO vote. Public opposition is now `[verified]` and on the City's own record for the first time, on 2026-04-27, on pretreatment standards, monitoring, tap-in costs, billing against the capacity reserve, fines, noise, vibration, power supply, environmental and health impacts and the city's finances. WHAT STAYS OPEN, and why this lead is not closed. The minutes NAME NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC and give no count — "a number of people present", "those from the public speaking". So the original constraint holds unchanged: organized local opposition is reported in secondary and advocacy sources, but no named group and no named individual outside City government is captured anywhere in this corpus, and nothing on this site may be attributed to a person. The MEETING AUDIO is the route that would change that, and it is not on the portal — it remains an R.C. 149.43 ask to the Sidney City Clerk. Also unpulled: the minutes of 2022-10-10 (Res. 84-22) and 2026-02-23 (Res. 14-26, the consolidation plat), both retrievable on the same portal. Its coverage is `[verified]` by enumeration, not by the portal's own claim about itself - one GET of /meta/docfolder?containerId= on each container returns the full year-folder list, and on 2026-08-13 the Minutes container returned 170 folders ending 1859, 1858, 1857 and the Resolutions container 51 ending 1978, 1977, 1976.

the walk deferred out of #1947 can now cite a divided vote and dated public objections — but still not a person outside City government #1998

Answer this → COUNCIL-MINUTES

Showing all 22 open leads. Closed leads move into the record →