Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mastic Purchase topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects purchase of Mastic Road site after contentious debate
Summary
Fairview Park City Council voted down an amended ordinance authorizing purchase of 22100 Mastic Road using $1,000,000 in ARPA funds after extended public comment and council debate about costs, environmental risks and ARPA eligibility.
Fairview Park City Council on May 18, 2026, voted against final passage of an amended ordinance that would have authorized the city to buy 22100 Mastic Road for up to $990,000, with up to $10,000 in closing costs, using $1,000,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (SLFRF) funds.
Dozens of residents spoke during the public comment period and several council members questioned the project's finances and process. Resident Brian Gibbons, who said the county awarded the ARPA funds in 2022 for a new service center, argued the purchase is an eligible use: "The money had to be allocated before the end of 2024 and spent by the end of 2026." Ken Lineman, a longtime resident, criticized the city's financing plan and warned construction costs could far exceed preliminary estimates: "Buy now and pray later is not a responsible strategy." Dennis Rehore said no appraisal was produced before the February 2 purchase agreement and raised wetlands and legal concerns.
Councilwoman Greenfield moved an amendment adding language that referenced Cuyahoga County action reallocating $1,000,000 of ARPA funds, retroactive authorization to 02/02/2026 and the $990,000 purchase ceiling. The council voted to adopt the amendment. Councilman Lang spoke in favor of the purchase, citing service department needs and prior site searches. Councilwoman Mann and Councilman Railey urged colleagues to reject the measure; Mann said she remained unconvinced the administration proved the move was necessary or ARPA‑eligible, and Railey outlined three "fatal flaws" involving precedent, site selection process and uncertainty about approvals, remediation and costs.
On final roll call, the ordinance failed to pass (Greenfield and King voted Yes; Lang, Minnick, Waring, Raley and Mann voted No). The council did not adopt Ordinance 26‑18 and no purchase was authorized.
What happens next: council members and residents signaled further review of alternatives and potential continued negotiations. Council President King and others encouraged continued public engagement; one speaker at the meeting said a referendum could be pursued if council approved an acquisition.
