https://www.facebook.com/585969137927007/

Cali Zingale North Ridgeville Council At Large, North Ridgeville, OH (2026)

05/21/2026

A few thoughts following Monday night’s Council meeting, and thank you for your patience with me being a little behind getting this recap out.

This week has been a little extra chaotic at home while my husband is away (again) attending leadership training in Columbus during the already chaotic final week of the school year. The program runs one week per month over the course of three months, and while juggling work, kids, end-of-school activities, home, and Council meetings solo definitely keeps me busy, I also think it is important to recognize the investment our department is making in developing strong leadership within its ranks. Programs like that matter, not only for individual career growth, but for the long-term strength and stability of our safety services as a whole.

Now onto the meeting itself.

First, thank you to everyone who reached out, attended, emailed, and stayed engaged regarding the proposed data center moratorium. It was very clear that residents care deeply about the future of our community and the long-term impacts large-scale developments can have on infrastructure, utilities and the environment.

I also want to be clear that I have significant concerns regarding the compatibility of data centers with our community and infrastructure.

My questions Monday night were not about whether we should proactively address the issue. They were specifically about the use of both dispensing of readings and the emergency clause simultaneously when the information previously provided to Council indicated there were no active applications, pending proposals, or ongoing negotiations regarding a data center in our city.

The information I received from both the Mayor and Planning & Development Director Kim Lieber prior to this legislation seemed to indicate that this was not considered an immediate concern for North Ridgeville and that the rezoning process already underway would ultimately address the issue long term and that enough planning commission and council oversight existed in the meantime to manage the risk. The Mayor even stated that the city does not have sites capable of supporting the infrastructure or space demands associated with a data center.

That is why I struggled with simultaneously dispensing of readings and invoking the emergency clause.

I will often be hesitant to support both procedural accelerators being used together. The emergency clause does not simply “speed things up by 30 days.” It specifically removes the referendum period, while dispensing of readings already significantly reduces public visibility, deliberation time, and opportunities for community input by eliminating two of the three required readings.

I appreciate the clarification provided during discussion that the ordinance was intended as a proactive policy measure while the rezoning process continues. To me, however, that creates an important distinction between proactive policy management and an imminent emergency situation.

I also believe residents deserve the opportunity to participate in public discussions, even when there appears to be broad agreement on an issue. Sometimes the legislative process is not only about the final vote, but also about transparency, visibility, and allowing the community a chance to be heard.

During lobby session, resident Bernard Garcia made a comment that really stood out to me:
“We need to be mindful that if we want to collaborate and get the best minds and the best input from the city, we have to be open, and that is both for the positive and negative feedback. Just because somebody doesn't agree with something, or it's unpopular or they take offense to it, that doesn't mean that their voice doesn't need to be heard.”

I thought that was an important reminder. Collaboration and public trust require space for people to participate, ask questions, and voice concerns, even when there may already be broad agreement on the outcome. That is part of why I believe allowing legislation to proceed to additional readings when possible can still be valuable. It gives residents the opportunity to engage in the discussion and helps ensure the public process remains meaningful.

I know I often take a more cautious approach than some of my colleagues regarding dispensing of readings and emergency clauses. That is not because I oppose every ordinance that comes before us. It is because I believe those procedural tools should be used carefully and intentionally so they continue to carry meaning when true emergencies arise.

I also wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the Fire Department reports included in the agenda packet. In 2025, North Ridgeville Fire Department personnel responded to 6,057 incidents. Another statistic that stood out to me was that approximately 44% of incidents in December 2025 overlapped with another active incident. Those numbers reflect the reality of the demands being placed on our safety forces as our city continues to grow, and I appreciate the professionalism and commitment our firefighters, paramedics, and command staff demonstrate every day. Thank you North Ridgeville Firefighters IAFF Local 2129 for your continued commitment to the safety of our Community!

Lastly, thank you to everyone who takes the time to read these posts. Honestly, I am always a little shocked when people make it all the way through them, and I know I probably sound like a broken record sometimes. But I genuinely appreciate the conversations, the questions, the feedback, and even the disagreements. I see your comments, I read your messages, and I appreciate everyone who takes the time to stay engaged, even when we may not always be on the same page.

As always, thank you to everyone who continues to stay informed and engaged. Your input matters.

05/14/2026

As we wait for Monday’s Council agenda, I’ve decided to write about last week’s meeting.

It’s taken me a bit longer to do so.

Not because I didn’t have thoughts on it immediately, but because I wanted to be intentional about how I used my voice and what I wanted to say publicly.

I know my colleague has done a great job outlining the votes and legislation that passed after the meeting. I want to take a minute to dig into some of the conversations we had, and some we didn’t.

I didn’t run for Council to quietly go along with things. I ran because I believed residents deserved someone willing to ask difficult questions, explain the process, and say uncomfortable things out loud when accountability or transparency were lacking.

So here it is.

To be absolutely clear: I support the Root Road Park project, and I support extending the smoke shop moratorium.

My concerns were never about whether those items should move forward.

My concerns were about process, timing, communication, and the increasing pattern of Council being brought in at the last minute and asked to approve “emergency” legislation that could have been addressed proactively.

Starting with the smoke shop moratorium:

What I do not agree with is creating our own emergencies and then asking Council to rush through legislation under a single reading.

This was a known deadline, yet Council was not proactively informed as we approached expiration.

During the meeting, I asked why the moratorium was only being brought to Council two days before expiration.

The response was:

“I’m not sure.”

And that was it. No explanation. No follow-up.

I had additional questions prepared, including what steps were being taken to avoid situations like this moving forward, but there was no indication those concerns were going to be meaningfully addressed in that moment.

That is not acceptable to me.

Not because I expect perfection, but because I expect forethought, communication, and respect for the role Council plays in the process.

The same pattern showed up again with the Root Road Park project. Administration became aware of significant cost increases the Monday before the meeting, but Council did not receive the agenda and supporting information until after 2 PM on Friday. That left very little time for review or meaningful follow-up questions before being asked to vote on an emergency ordinance involving more than $260,000 in additional costs.

Projects run into issues. Deadlines shift. Emergencies happen.

But when known issues are not addressed proactively and Council is brought in at the last minute, we end up creating our own emergencies.

Council members should not have to chase down critical information through hallway conversations, weekend phone calls, or by piecing things together ourselves after the fact.

We have also been discouraged from contacting departments directly and encouraged instead to contact the Mayor privately on weekends. I do not believe that is a healthy or sustainable way for a legislative body to operate.

Questions about legislation should happen publicly, during meetings, on the record, where residents can hear both the questions and the answers.

That transparency matters.

Especially right now, when there has been so much discussion surrounding “tone” and decorum, I think this meeting highlighted exactly why subjective standards can become problematic.

Some people may not have viewed the response to reasonable questions about the smoke shop moratorium as dismissive. Others, myself included, did.

I also think it’s fair to acknowledge that these interactions can feel very different depending on who is asking the questions and who is interpreting the exchange.

That’s exactly why subjective standards surrounding “tone” concern me.

What should not be subjective is whether Council is receiving timely information, meaningful answers, and enough time to review legislation before being asked to vote on emergency ordinances.

Asking why a known deadline was missed is not hostility.
Asking why Council received critical information at the last minute is not obstruction.
Asking questions before voting is literally our job.

I know this post will probably make some people uncomfortable.

That’s okay.

I was not elected to protect the process.
I was elected to question it, explain it, and push for it to work better.

And I intend to continue doing exactly that.

05/03/2026

Tomorrow’s City Council agenda is short, but important.
Monday, May 4 at 7:00 PM – Council Chambers

First Readings (New Legislation)
• O 2026-53 – Smoke Shop Moratorium Extension
This would extend the current pause on new smoke shop permits while the City reviews zoning regulations.

• O 2026-54 – Root Road Park Parking Lot Project (Cost Increase)
This ordinance increases the total project cost from about $817,800 to over $1 million.
The increase is tied to soil removal, base replacement, and utility adjustments encountered during construction.
(Based on the legislation, it appears much of this work has already been completed, and Council is now being asked to approve the additional cost at this stage of the project.)

• O 2026-55 – Budget Amendments
Adjustments to this year’s budget to cover various expenses, including project cost increases.

Third Readings (Final Votes Expected)
• O 2026-27 – Mobile Food Vehicles (Food Trucks)
A full rewrite of the City’s food truck regulations—covering permits, locations, hours, and safety requirements.

• O 2026-48 – Engineering & Building Permit Fees
Updates to permit structures and associated fees.

As always…
Your input matters. Council meetings are open to the public, and residents are welcome to attend and speak.
If you have questions about anything on the agenda, feel free to reach out.

04/24/2026

There is an elephant in the room, so let’s paint it purple and give it a hat.

Recently, a resident shared some disappointing correspondence from a member of council in response to questions about our vote to add “courteous tone” language to our bylaws governing public participation.

During council discussion on this change, I expressed concern about us becoming the “tone police” and asked how something like “courteous tone” could be fairly and consistently enforced. The Law Director advised that this type of language was not only acceptable, but important, in part because our meetings are streamed on YouTube. There is a lot I have to say about that direction, but this post is already long. Following his input, a colleague voiced support for the change in the spirit of promoting respect during our meetings.

I ultimately took issue with the subjectivity of the language, and those concerns are why I voted no. I do not believe the majority of my colleagues voted with any malicious intent. It is more likely that most placed trust in the legal direction provided by our Law Director.

Then last week we received an email from a constituent expressing concerns with this decision. It is my understanding that with the exception of one council member, everyone responded to this constituent’s concerns in a respectful TONE.

We were elected to represent our community, to hear concerns, and to engage even when the questions are difficult or the tone is not perfect. We do not sit at that desk to look down on or call people names when they disagree with us. We sit there to listen, to consider different perspectives, and to make thoughtful decisions.

I have also seen and experienced firsthand how policy, especially when it is vague or subjective, can be used in ways that go beyond its original or peoposed intent. Those experiences are something I carry with me when I evaluate every vote. I ask myself not just what a rule is meant to do, but how it could be misused by someone who may not have the same intent.

Serving in this role comes with a different level of responsibility. It means listening, even when it’s uncomfortable, and responding in a way that reflects the position we hold.
At the end of the day, residents should feel that they can come to a council meeting, send us emails, ask questions, and be heard without fear of being dismissed or personally attacked.

That is the standard our residents deserve, and that will always be my goal.

04/22/2026

Last Night's Council meeting covered several important items for our city.

Flooding & Infrastructure:
We approved nearly $500,000 in state funding to help address long-standing flooding concerns on the east side.

Road Salt Contract:
Council finalized our annual road salt contract ahead of the May 1 deadline to ensure we are prepared for the upcoming winter season.

Mobile Food Vendors (Proposed Ordinance Update):
Council amended the proposed ordinance to allow mobile food vendors to operate until 10:00 PM. The full ordinance will be up for a vote at our next meeting.

Summer Concert Series:
Council approved the ordinance to allow beer sales at this summer’s concert series. This initiative is intended to help generate revenue for local community organizations.

Heron Ridge Development:
Council considered the proposed Heron Ridge residential development, which has generated significant community interest. After discussion, Council chose to move forward rather than delay and accepted the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the proposal.

I appreciate the many residents who have taken the time to stay informed and engaged throughout this process.
As this matter may involve additional proceedings, I will be mindful of that moving forward.

It’s never too late to stay informed, ask questions, and be part of the conversation.

04/15/2026

✨️Planning Commission Recap – And Thank You✨️

Last night’s Planning Commission meeting covered three items: a Madison Avenue salon, the Heron Ridge subdivision, and a minor subdivision for Beckett.

I want to start by sincerely thanking everyone who showed up, spoke, and stayed engaged throughout the meeting. We had a strong turnout, and that sent a message.

It’s important to me to hear directly from residents. Whether you’re speaking in support, raising concerns, or just taking the time to follow along, that input helps shape how I approach these conversations when they come before Council.

Quick recap:
• The Madison Avenue salon (PPP 2026-0414) was recommended for approval after revisions to site layout, traffic flow, and lighting compliance.
• The RW Beckett minor subdivision (SPLC-26-0001) was also recommended for approval. No new development is proposed at this time, though residents did raise ongoing concerns.
• The Heron Ridge subdivision (CPD 2025-03-06), a 51-home development off Sugar Ridge, generated the most discussion and public input of the night. Concerns centered around traffic safety, infrastructure capacity, and overall impact to the area.

The Planning Commission voted not to recommend approval.

What happens next:
Planning Commission is a recommending body. Final decisions are made by City Council.
All three items will now move to Council.
For Heron Ridge specifically, because it was not recommended for approval, it will require a supermajority vote (5 of 7 Council members) to move forward.

Thank you again to everyone who participated! Whether you spoke, listened, or followed along. That engagement matters, and I will continue to take it into account as this moves forward.

04/14/2026

Tonight, North Ridgeville City Council continued discussion on Ordinance 2026-27 (Mobile Food Vendors) and voted on several proposed bylaw changes that impact how council operates and how the public participates.

🚨Ordinance 2026-27: Mobile Food Vendors
Council reviewed a full rewrite of the existing code, aimed at addressing safety concerns such as fire access, pedestrian flow, and long-term setups in parking lots.

Key points discussed:
• Annual permit structure with inspection and administrative fee
• Limits on duration (60 days per year, 5 consecutive days)
• 9:00 PM end time
• Exemptions for vendors working with brick-and-mortar establishments, while still requiring compliance with safety standards
This ordinance will return to council for a future vote.

🚨Bylaw Amendments: Expectations vs. Reality
Going into this discussion, I was hoping to see a clearer, more consistent process that gives council adequate time to review legislation and ask questions before votes take place.
That includes:
• receiving agenda materials earlier in the week (right now we do not get them until Friday)
• having access to full staff during normal working hours to ask questions.
• ensuring key questions and answers happen in a public setting.

What we got did not quite match that.
Deadlines were discussed, but ultimately framed as guidelines rather than firm requirements. It was acknowledged that council may still be asked to act on short timelines, sometimes within 24 hours.
There was also an emphasis on handling questions outside of meetings, including over weekends. In practice, that limits access to full staff and reduces the opportunity for the public to hear the same questions and answers that inform council’s decisions.

🚩Why That Matters
Council meetings are not just for voting. They are where the public gets to see how decisions are made, what questions are asked, what information is provided, and how conclusions are reached.
When that process moves outside of meetings, transparency suffers.

Public Participation and Decorum (Section 26)
Council also adopted changes to the rules governing public comment, including restrictions on “indecent, profane, and obscene” language and a requirement that speakers maintain a “civil and courteous manner and tone.”
I raised a concern about how some of this language is defined and applied.
Streaming meetings does not change the standards we are required to follow. It just makes it more important that we apply them carefully and consistently.
There are already clear legal definitions for certain types of restricted speech. Expanding into broader, more subjective terms like “indecent,” “profane,” or expectations around “tone” introduces interpretation into enforcement.
And once enforcement depends on interpretation, it can depend on who is in the chair that night.
For that reason, I voted no on this section.

The Bigger Picture
There was a clear effort to add structure in some areas, while maintaining flexibility in others.
That balance matters, but it should be applied consistently.

Independence is not what we say during a campaign, it is what we do when a vote is in front of us.

For me, that means continuing to ask questions, push for clarity, and make sure the process is just as transparent as the outcome.

04/13/2026

🚨Tonight’s Committee of the Whole | 7:00 PM🚨

Tonight we’ll be discussing Ordinance 2026-27, which will help shape the future of food trucks in our community by updating how they’re permitted, where they can operate, and how we balance flexibility for small businesses with safety and consistency.

We’ll also continue the conversation around potential changes to our bylaws, which dictate how our meetings are conducted. This includes decorum during public comment, when and how Council receives information, and how public input is handled and where the line may be drawn.

These may sound like routine procedural updates, but they directly impact how accessible our meetings are, how information flows, and how comfortable residents feel speaking up.

🕖 7:00 PM | City Hall
You’re always welcome to attend and be part of the conversation. I’ll share a recap after the meeting.

12/31/2025

As Holly Swenk, Paul Wolanski and I prepare to step into our new roles on City Council, I’ve been giving careful thought to one of the first major responsibilities we’ll face: appointing a new representative for Ward 2.

City Council is a public position. Every one of us who was elected had our qualifications, experience, and judgment discussed publicly. We participated in public forums and meet the candidates night. That’s part of accountability, and it comes with the job.

An appointment to Council shouldn’t be treated differently.

As we prepare for a required Ward 2 appointment, I made an early request that deliberations about candidates occur in public session. This isn’t about any one person or outcome. It’s about ensuring the discussion is focused on qualifications and quality, not party, and that it happens on the record, when we are accountable.

We owe it to our constituents to be able to explain why we support a particular appointment. Public discussion allows residents to understand our reasoning and trust that the decision was made thoughtfully and transparently.

This is a copy of what I sent to council and our Law Department.

11/30/2025

A quick update for residents following the Sugar Ridge projects (To be addressed on Monday):

At Monday’s Council meeting, the City will again be asked to advance more than $800,000 in engineering contracts tied to the Sugar Ridge/Bender roundabout and the Sugar Ridge rehabilitation project. These engineering costs alone include:

$429,807 for the Sugar Ridge/Bender roundabout
$370,410 for the Sugar Ridge rehabilitation

There is also significant concern about how much these projects have increased from their earlier estimates. Costs have climbed sharply, and the public has not yet been given a clear explanation for the increases or how much of the final bill will fall on local taxpayers.

Both contracts are being moved on an *expedited timeline* due to ODOT scheduling, and both reference funds from the 2026 budget, which Council has not yet approved.

One additional note for transparency:
American Structurepoint, the firm tied to the $370,410 Sugar Ridge rehabilitation contract, includes individuals who have donated to Mayor Corcoran’s campaign, including Willis Connor.
This does not automatically indicate wrongdoing, but when large contracts are being pushed forward quickly and project costs are rising, residents deserve clarity on how vendors are selected and why.

I am not on Council until January and will not be voting Monday night, but as Councilmember-elect, I am following these projects closely. Sugar Ridge improvements are important, but so is transparency, especially when cost increases continue and major spending decisions will shape next year’s budget.

Cali Zingale North Ridgeville Council At Large

05/21/2026

05/14/2026

05/03/2026

04/24/2026

04/22/2026

04/15/2026

04/14/2026

04/13/2026

12/31/2025

11/30/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category