[0:05] >> my apologies. I would like to

[0:08] call this meeting concerning

[0:11] the new notice for the new tax law

[0:14] to order and

[0:19] you will make a presentation first?

[0:20] >> yes or we wanted to

[0:22] open up the public hearing that we

[0:23] will have this afternoon, the first

[0:24] one will

[0:26] be on house bill 581

[0:28] and will have a description in that

[0:29] in a presentation first with any

[0:31] questions that come after that. Once

[0:32] we finish that we would go

[0:35] on to the homestead

[0:37] exemptions and annexation and talk

[0:38] about the one acre law versus an

[0:41] unlimited amount and go ahead

[0:44] and describe

[0:46] the for the public and take any comments

[0:48] on that one also. Mayor, if

[0:49] you would not mind we can go ahead

[0:51] and and off

[0:54] to our finance director who

[0:55] would like to make a presentation

[0:57] on hb 581.

[1:00] >>

[1:03] good afternoon.

[1:04] >> good

[1:06] afternoon.

[1:07] >> so,

[1:09] hb 581 is a bill that was

[1:11] signed into law on april 18, 2024.

[1:14] but it was contingent upon a referendum

[1:18] that was recently passed

[1:20] in november of in november 2024. It

[1:24] incorporates three new

[1:27] tax provisions.

[1:31] so the first one is a revision of

[1:33] the property tax procedures. The

[1:35] second one is the lost or local option

[1:36] sales

[1:39] tax which limits,

[1:42] their limits

[1:45] and the

[1:46] last one is the implementation of

[1:47] the statewide floating homestead exemption.

[1:49] this is the one most directly impacting

[1:51] the taxpayer and the

[1:52] one we're going to focus on today.

[1:57] why is this important? So,

[2:00] in response

[2:02] to the substantial increase in property

[2:03] taxes,

[2:04] lawmakers decided that they wanted

[2:06] to provide more certainty

[2:08] for the taxpayers who were concerned

[2:12] about the taxable value of

[2:15] their homes. Under this bill the homeowner

[2:18] will have a better idea of

[2:21] the value of their home and

[2:24] they will know

[2:26] that it will not increase any more

[2:27] than the cpi or

[2:28] the inflation rate for the previous

[2:30] year. This prevents

[2:33] having large jumps in

[2:36] property tax value and

[2:39] thus, stabilizes the taxpayer's

[2:42] annual bill.

[2:45] so with the

[2:47] 558, 581 floating homestead exemption,

[2:51] is going to apply starting

[2:54] in 2025,

[2:57] so this year. It will conclude

[3:00] an adjustment factor

[3:02] and the adjustment factor allows the

[3:03] assessment of

[3:04] homestead properties to rise annually

[3:06] by the rate of inflation,

[3:09] this exemption will be in addition

[3:10] to the

[3:11] other homestead exemptions, except other

[3:15] base year value exemptions

[3:18] such as the freezes or floats.

[3:19] when a local jurisdiction has a base

[3:21] value exemption already in place,

[3:23] by law, the taxpayer must receive

[3:27] the exemption

[3:29] that is most beneficial. So that brings

[3:30] us to why

[3:32] we are here today. So, marietta currently

[3:33] has a

[3:36] floating homestead

[3:39] exemption.

[3:42] and as you can see, based on

[3:45] these slides, they are very similar.

[3:48] with two very distinct

[3:51] , very important distinctions.

[3:54] as

[3:56] one of the pioneers in the state,

[3:57] marietta

[4:00] governing officials have been providing

[4:01] this benefit

[4:03] since 2002 and

[4:06] this is one that allows for

[4:09] a freeze. Again, setting itself apart

[4:11] from other jurisdictions and agencies.

[4:12] the

[4:15] second more

[4:16] important distinction is the homestead

[4:18] exemption that was established

[4:21] 23

[4:23] years ago does not include an adjustment factor.

[4:27] this is what I mean

[4:28] about freeze, the inflation rate,

[4:30] unlike hb 581 is not

[4:31] included in the marietta floating

[4:33] homestead.

[4:36] the exclusion of the adjustment factor

[4:37] allows

[4:39] the base year or the taxable

[4:42] value amount to remain

[4:44] the same, regardless of inflation

[4:48] as long as the home is

[4:50] still owned at the same property owner.

[4:57] so let's look at a calculation

[5:00] comparison.

[5:01] example shows marietta homestead residence

[5:03] with a net taxable value

[5:06] of $350,000.

[5:09] at the time the homestead

[5:12] was implemented. So there

[5:15] are questions we have received in

[5:18] regards to whether or not

[5:21] it is the value

[5:26] that you purchased the property. It's

[5:27] actually the value in which

[5:30] the homestead exemption was implemented.

[5:31] so in most cases when people purchase

[5:33] a home,

[5:35] they are purchasing a home that they

[5:36] live in

[5:48] and they apply the

[5:49] homestead exemption. There are cases

[5:50] where people may purchase a home that

[5:51] may not be their

[5:53] primary residence and later on the

[5:54] transfer and that is their primary

[5:55] residence. At

[5:56] that point and time the freeze is

[5:57] implemented. Okay? Taking the growth

[6:00] tax value at 40%

[6:03] which is

[6:06] less and 40% less the fair market value

[6:09] , the exemptions, leslie exemptions

[6:12] and then less,

[6:15] multiply that times the

[6:17] millage rate and you will get your

[6:18] net taxable value

[6:21] for the amount you owe.

[6:24] so let's walk through this one.

[6:26] you have a fair market value, you

[6:27] take that

[6:30] and multiply

[6:32] by 40% and that is going to give you

[6:33] the taxable

[6:36] home value.

[6:39] in this instance on the first year

[6:41] you purchased the home that's $350,000.

[6:42] and then that is

[6:45] in this particular assumption we

[6:48] have already excluded any

[6:51] additional exemptions.

[6:54] typically there is a $4000 or $6000

[6:57] state exemption with a disability,

[7:00] it would be $6000.

[7:03] so in this particular instance we

[7:04] have taken

[7:07] that out. You will multiply that

[7:08] by the millage rate and it will give

[7:10] you a tax bill

[7:13] of $657. Now as we

[7:16] fast forward five years, he

[7:18] will look at a home that has no exemption.

[7:22] the taxable value

[7:24] is $425,427. Multiplied by the city

[7:28] millage rate and you have a

[7:31] taxable liability of $798.

[7:36] for the same home if you are applying

[7:40] hb 581,

[7:43] your taxable value is

[7:46] $386,335

[7:49] . Apply the city millage rate and

[7:51] you have taxable amount that is due

[7:55] of 725. With the city

[7:58] of marietta current floating

[8:01] homestead exemption,

[8:04] at a value of 250,000

[8:07] , notice the amount does

[8:09] not change. And that is in regards

[8:14] to the freeze. With the state exemption

[8:16] it does have an inflation rate so

[8:18] you'll see the increase in taxable

[8:19] value of

[8:22] your home. Again, apply the

[8:25] millage rate to the city's

[8:28] taxable value and you will have

[8:31] $657 of liability,

[8:33] which is the same amount you paid

[8:34] in

[8:37] year one. Okay?

[8:43] so, the opt out provision.

[8:46] so, the

[8:48] state requires local jurisdictions

[8:49] to provide the most

[8:54] beneficial option to the taxpayer.

[8:55] the city of

[8:56] marietta has already been doing that.

[8:58] why are we

[9:01] opting out? Opting

[9:03] out allows the city to continue to provide

[9:04] the best

[9:05] options without having the additional

[9:10] administrative costs. So,

[9:13] by us opting out, we are

[9:15] not changing our methodology, we are

[9:16] not changing our

[9:19] taxes that

[9:22] are billed to the taxpayer, our

[9:25] millage rate has remained

[9:28] the same for quite some time.

[9:31] as well as our exemption.

[9:34] so what the city is currently

[9:36] doing provides the best benefit to

[9:37] the taxpayer

[9:40] and that is why we are

[9:43] choosing to opt out.

[9:44] >> will you take

[9:45] questions as we go?

[9:46] >> certainly.

[9:49] >> when you say we will do it,

[9:51] you know now we have to advertise

[9:54] and see there is a tax increase. We

[9:55] will still

[9:58] have to do what

[10:01] is the law we came under. Make the disclosures.

[10:04] >> that's required

[10:07] under either option, yes sir.

[10:10] >> yes,

[10:11] so during the billing cycle we have

[10:13] to go through and advertise and indicate

[10:16] if we roll

[10:18] back whether or not there is a tax

[10:19] increase which would have been assumed

[10:21] for the taxpayer, if we did not take

[10:25] the new millage rate.

[10:28] >> folks that have not seen that in

[10:31] the past, basically it is saying

[10:33] is the city taking in more dollars

[10:37] overall, in

[10:38] texas that year than they took in

[10:40] the previous year without changing

[10:41] the taxes. Because

[10:43] we have development and things going

[10:44] on in

[10:45] the city we are taking in more money

[10:49] on annual basis

[10:51] then we did the prior year so the

[10:52] state makes us go say it

[10:54] is a tax increase when it really isn't,

[10:55] the taxes do not change.

[10:58] it is a revenue increase, that we

[10:59] are getting

[11:01] more revenue off the taxes

[11:03] , but there are no individual taxes

[11:04] being changed by the

[11:07] city. And in fact

[11:09] three years we reduced the taxes but

[11:10] we were charging everybody as

[11:12] far as the tax bill because we reduced

[11:13] the bond millage on that.

[11:16] it is something the state put

[11:19] in place that is really kind of confusing.

[11:22] when you have to state it

[11:25] is so we usually put another ad that

[11:26] goes

[11:27] in the paper that lets everyone knows,

[11:28] the city has not

[11:31] changed the tax rate

[11:34] and is not

[11:36] increasing taxes and if you have a

[11:37] homestead property, you will see zero

[11:38] impact. You're

[11:39] not going to have any tax increase

[11:40] at all, if you

[11:42] have commercial piece of property

[11:43] you do,

[11:44] the homestead property you could own

[11:46] 20 years

[11:49] with us and not change taxes but they

[11:50] will pay nothing different than they

[11:52] paid 20 years ago.

[11:55] >> if you don't, if you

[11:58] interpret it. By the

[12:01] city opting out, the non-homestead people

[12:04] are the same either way.

[12:07] >> yes sir.

[12:10] >> we are not adding much

[12:13] other than tax purposes

[12:16] giving to homestead.

[12:19] >> that's a good point, if you have

[12:20] a commercial

[12:21] piece of property with another residential

[12:22] piece of property

[12:24] are renting ports not primary residence

[12:25] and you will see

[12:29] no change.

[12:32] >> so it would keep

[12:34] , what we have been doing in the past

[12:35] we

[12:36] will continue to do. What we are seeing

[12:38] is simply

[12:39] what we have been doing is still better

[12:42] than what the state is opting to do

[12:44] currently for this bill.

[12:47] so, if

[12:50] you are a homestead, you have

[12:53] a homestead property, that was

[12:55] recently purchased or you sold the property,

[12:59] once you sold the property,

[13:02] the new homeowner would assume

[13:05] the taxable value at that

[13:08] point and time.

[13:09] >>

[13:11] yes, the overarching point

[13:12] is the city in its infinite wisdom

[13:14] 20 some

[13:17] years ago put

[13:18] this in place and protected the homestead

[13:23] property owners from the

[13:24] increases and hardly anybody else

[13:26] in the state

[13:32] did.

[13:33] so the other law is to do with everybody

[13:35] else in the state that is

[13:36] not have that protection and our protection

[13:38] is better

[13:40] than with the state has imposed.

[13:41] >>

[13:42] four counties out of 159.

[13:43] I don't know if there is more. I don't

[13:44] know, chatham

[13:47] or, it was done local

[13:50] .

[13:53] to me we're not often

[13:56] opting out,

[13:57] they are opting in. 155 counties.

[14:05] >> have a question. We don't know

[14:07] what the county is doing at this point?

[14:08] >>

[14:11] we do not, that is a good point.

[14:13] we have heard different things both

[14:14] ways and I

[14:16] cannot say for sure.

[14:17] >> because that

[14:18] affects the

[14:20] total bill

[14:26] .

[14:27] >> well, it would not really

[14:28] affect city bills.

[14:29] >> not the city

[14:30] bill but the homeowner pays.

[14:31] >> the

[14:32] county

[14:33] is exempted, too like we are so

[14:34] as far as the homestead properties.

[14:40] the difference is, if you're in the

[14:41] county, you have to pay

[14:43] the fire fee so the fire fee would

[14:44] not be regulated, if they opt

[14:46] in sorry if they opt out then the

[14:47] fire fee would

[14:49] not have regulation on its. It would

[14:50] continue to

[14:53] do as it does now

[14:57] and go up with appraisals. If they

[14:59] opt in it would be subject to 3%

[15:02] or whatever inflationary amount each

[15:03] year

[15:04] but the city residents will not feel

[15:05] any impact either way.

[15:10] >> I guess the point I was making,

[15:11] the county still every two

[15:12] years or three years whatever it is

[15:14] come around. And evaluate.

[15:17] >> yesterday. >> I have

[15:20] 38% increase this year.

[15:23] >> hi 20s

[15:26] and 30s.

[15:27] >> not just me, whatever

[15:29] I was in,

[15:32] we were behind. And if

[15:35] I may, this is, but the

[15:38] county has, most

[15:40] of the cities will probably opt out

[15:41] from what I have

[15:44] seen in the paper. The county has

[15:46] things like the fire to consider.

[15:47] they

[15:50] have a lot more conservatory

[15:53] property. You know,

[15:55] to see how that's going to balance,

[15:58] but boy I think they will say, the cities

[16:02] don't tend to have large

[16:05] aggregates under conservation.

[16:08] >> they do

[16:11] have until march 1 to file with

[16:13] the state and declare one way or another

[16:17] opting in or out. So I

[16:20] am sure, as many have seen

[16:22] the news, where so many different agencies

[16:26] are starting to advertise and doing

[16:28] exactly what we are doing, holding hearings

[16:29] if they

[16:32] are choosing to opt out.

[16:40] >> so, mayor, however you want to

[16:41] do this, if you want

[16:43] to hand it over to [ name ] to do

[16:44] the public portion or

[16:46] if you would like to do it, however

[16:47] you would prefer. On that, but the

[16:50] presentation is finished.

[16:51] >>

[16:53] I think this is important enough of

[16:54] an issue

[16:56] to have a public hearing.

[16:59] so everybody can have their say on

[17:02] the record.

[17:05] conduct a public hearing.

[17:08] >> yes sir, this will be

[17:10] a public hearing on hospital 581.

[17:11] regarding the floating

[17:12] homestead exemption. It appears that marietta may opt out,

[17:14] anyone here who would like to speak on that

[17:16] please come forward.

[17:17] state your name and address and make any comment. Anyone?

[17:19] mayor tumlin no one

[17:20] would like to speak on this matter,

[17:22] public hearing is closed.

[17:25] >>

[17:28] down here please. Nobody is

[17:31] coming down.

[17:33] what we just presented, is that on

[17:34] our webpage?

[17:37] >> yes we have

[17:41] had it on the page.

[17:43] we have a flyer that's on the page

[17:44] that describes everything we went

[17:46] through and it has the chart on it

[17:47] with

[17:50] those issues.

[17:51] >> I apologize, state your name and

[17:53] address please.

[17:54] >> [ name

[17:56] ] 667 hampton place

[17:59] marietta 30064.

[18:08] thank you for the opportunity to

[18:09] address you guys tonight. Just wanted

[18:10] to make a few comments and make sure

[18:11] we

[18:12] have clarification, for the homeowners

[18:14] in the city. With a few comments

[18:17] made by, with the

[18:19] calculation I think is what we are

[18:20] trying

[18:23] to understand.

[18:24] the calculation will change but property

[18:25] taxes may increase year-over-year

[18:26] even though

[18:29] the assessed value

[18:32] also changes? So if I

[18:33] look at my property tax, I'm sure

[18:35] if you look at

[18:38] mr. Goldstein's property taxes in

[18:40] the last several years he has seen

[18:41] increases and changes

[18:43] in the homestead value as the assessed

[18:44] value

[18:46] goes up, but not everybody is afforded

[18:49] the same opportunity. What I am trying

[18:50] to

[18:52] find clarification for is why does

[18:53] my neighbor get a different

[18:55] homestead floating exemption than

[18:56] I do from one

[18:59] year to the other and his taxes stay

[19:02] the same and mine go up?

[19:05] >> yeah, while there shouldn't

[19:06] be any change because what should happen,

[19:08] I was

[19:09] able should happen if you're both

[19:11] inside the city. Okay so

[19:13] if you brought your property five years ago,

[19:15] he bought his two years ago or three years ago whatever

[19:19] the sales price value was at that time

[19:20] that the county used, it would freeze at that point.

[19:22] if you're getting a city tax bill

[19:25] it's comp located because you have

[19:27] city taxes

[19:30] and you also have school taxes. The

[19:31] school

[19:33] taxes are not

[19:36] , so if you look at just the

[19:37] city portion, it should stay the same

[19:39] if it's frozen at 300,000 or whatever

[19:41] it should stay that way for your house

[19:44] for 20 years. Unless the city goes

[19:45] in and

[19:47] changes the millage which the city

[19:48] has not done since

[19:51] around 2003.

[19:53] so, that, although we have gone down

[19:57] three times.

[19:59] but yes it should stay the same the

[20:00] entire time now

[20:01] on the school portion that would've

[20:03] gone up because when

[20:04] the county goes to reappraise the

[20:06] property as the mayor was talking about,

[20:08] then it's going to make property tax

[20:09] go up on that

[20:11] site. Since the city bills for both

[20:12] of those you get

[20:14] one bill with school and city tax

[20:15] on it

[20:17] and that's why we have frequently

[20:18] folks will come

[20:21] to us

[20:24] at meetings and

[20:25] so you said my taxes did not go up

[20:27] but they did, I was paying this,

[20:30] now I'm paying this. And that is true

[20:31] you are

[20:32] paying more on that tax bill but the

[20:33] portion going to the city did not

[20:35] change.

[20:36] >> I don't know that I would

[20:37] agree with that and

[20:39] I think mr. Tumlin mentioned something about

[20:41] county taxes, my county taxes for cobb county homestead

[20:43] exempt has remained the same for the last five years

[20:44] since I owned my home since 2020.

[20:45] so while I see that the line item remains the same,

[20:47] because they make a floating adjustment

[20:48] on homestead

[20:50] exemption number, as my value increases

[20:51] on my assessed value

[20:54] , that number goes up

[20:57] to remain

[21:00] my tax bill the same.

[21:01] however the city line item continues

[21:03] to remain stagnant at 4000

[21:05] or when you're going up to 40,000

[21:06] and next year back

[21:09] to 4000, my value continues

[21:10] to increase some actual cost has risen

[21:12] almost 40% in the last five years

[21:15] since I have on my home.

[21:20] >> that does not make sense at all.

[21:21] >> it does not. Understand

[21:23] city schools is going to have a hearing

[21:24] tomorrow to discuss the

[21:27] same thing. I do again see my

[21:28] homestead exemption staying the same

[21:30] at $4000,

[21:32] but neighbors owning their home since

[21:33] 2016 with kids,

[21:36] not of age 62 or older and

[21:38] 0they have adjusted homestead exemption

[21:39] going up and down during the

[21:42] same period.

[21:45] so I'm trying to

[21:46] get clarification for the homeowners

[21:48] in the city to make sure everybody

[21:49] is on the

[21:51] same page because once everything

[21:52] you stated

[21:53] is not reality if you look at everybody's

[21:54] tax bill.

[21:56] >> since you are talking about the

[21:57] 4000, I think

[21:58] we are talking about two different

[22:00] things. And I will let

[22:06] , come up, the 4000 is

[22:08] not what we are talking about here.

[22:09] we are talking about the actual valuation

[22:10] of the property. And then you do have

[22:12] other valuations that are changing

[22:13] on the homestead

[22:14] with state also that comes in and

[22:15] has given relief at times

[22:18] so that has changed a little bit too

[22:22] >> real quick

[22:23] the comments are seeing the city is

[22:24] years advanced in terms of adopting

[22:27] the floating

[22:30] homestead exemption was the flotation

[22:31] goes as your assessed value goes up you

[22:33] it floats up

[22:35] so your taxes remain the same. That's

[22:36] the constant, I

[22:38] understand that and I think that is

[22:39] a better opportunity

[22:44] than what the state may have provided

[22:45] but I do see the

[22:48] assessed value

[22:51] , the homestead floating exemption

[22:53] not rising at the same value as the

[22:54] assessed value so you pay more taxes going above and beyond

[22:56] the consumer price index inflation value year-over-year.

[22:57] >> go ahead, that should not be happening.

[22:58] >> what you should see on the tax bill is come

[23:03] okay. This is cobb county.

[23:04] >> the city is right here.

[23:09] >> so, it is showing,

[23:12] your millage rate, for marietta

[23:23] . This is from the board of assessors, this

[23:25] is not

[23:27] your bill. Okay I see what it is now.

[23:31] so you

[23:33] are not paying this.

[23:34] >> that is the estimate.

[23:37] >> let me swing, so every year

[23:39] the tax assessors around this time

[23:43] will ask

[23:44] , they will go release what the new

[23:46] assessments are.

[23:48] if you notice on that piece of paper

[23:51] it will tell you this is not a bill.

[23:52] so they

[23:54] give an estimate, not always is that

[23:58] inclusive of all the exemptions

[24:01] that you have. In the

[24:04] last couple years

[24:07] we have worked closely

[24:08] with the tax assessor office to get

[24:10] that as close as we can

[24:14] in providing the tax assessor office

[24:16] with those exemptions in advance

[24:18] of this notice going out. So you should see

[24:22] , you will see increase in your

[24:25] assessment, but he will also see increase

[24:27] in the number of exemptions that you have.

[24:31] homestead exemptions.

[24:34] so that will increase,

[24:37] to equal out to the base rate

[24:38] or the value of the home when you

[24:40] purchased it.

[24:42] >> understand, and understand the

[24:45] calculation process. However, I know

[24:46] this is

[24:49] just the notice I printed off online,

[24:50] but

[24:52] the bill like it in the mail

[24:55] and the one that

[24:56] I process right outside this building,

[24:58] right outside this office,

[25:00] is the exact same thing that is printed

[25:01] on here.

[25:04] unless I go through the process to

[25:10] .

[25:11] >> it

[25:12] should not be exact because we found

[25:13] a lot of inaccuracies in that over

[25:16] the last couple years.

[25:17] >> maybe

[25:19] I have overpaid my taxes.

[25:21] >> we are talking about inaccuracies

[25:22] of the

[25:24] tax assessor because it tells you

[25:25] it is

[25:28] an estimate.

[25:29] >>

[25:30] they have to do it way before any

[25:31] taxes are set and so they

[25:34] are guessing

[25:36] at that point.

[25:37] >> everybody else experiencing

[25:38] the same thing

[25:40] up here?

[25:41] >>

[25:43] in the prior years.

[25:44] >>

[25:46] get confused with

[25:48] that notice.

[25:49] >> understand it's a notice

[25:51] and I'm not using this as hard facts,

[25:52] but what

[25:55] I paid in 2024 for property taxes

[25:56] is what the notice stated, what I

[25:58] paid 23 is what

[26:01] the bill stated for city

[26:04] school taxes.

[26:05] >> what we

[26:06] can do for you in the next 15 minutes

[26:09] as I can have one of my staff members

[26:10] sit and go through the computer

[26:13] and pull up your true bill and show what you

[26:18] paid and might see if there's a problem,

[26:19] if there is we need to deal

[26:22] with it.

[26:23] >> again if

[26:24] you look at the notices available

[26:25] to the public will see it and

[26:28] when asking people on my street or the neighborhood they

[26:29] pay what they receive as the notice so

[26:30] I see this consistently across the area that I live in.

[26:31] >> I don't know, I can see the notice I get

[26:32] each year is different from what I

[26:33] am paying because when I get the actual

[26:34] bill, it's different because we don't

[26:35] put the notice out. We put

[26:36] the bill out but let's look and see because

[26:37] you should not have any change on that,

[26:38] it should exactly be the same. I mean

[26:40] I have been here 20 some years and mine has always been the same.

[26:41] >> first two years it stayed the same and then the

[26:42] value really started to increase in 22 and 23

[26:43] and that's why the the floating homestead exemption

[26:47] did not float at the same rate to

[26:49] make sure my city taxes

[26:52] remain flat. And

[26:55] again, school

[27:01] may be separate

[27:03] and that's tomorrow.

[27:04] >> that's the

[27:05] question, you did the homestead application,

[27:06] you applied with

[27:07] the county office and you went to

[27:08] the city office and applied?

[27:09] >> it's

[27:10] line itemed here so I assumed I did

[27:11] both of them. Maybe that's where

[27:12] the issue is but I don't know why

[27:13] it would

[27:19] be there if

[27:21] I didn't apply for both.

[27:22] >> we'll

[27:23] figure that out for you. We'll go

[27:24] ahead

[27:25] and do that. We can do that probably

[27:26] today.

[27:27] >> appreciate your time. >>

[27:28] thank

[27:29] you.

[27:30] >> the other two components of

[27:31] the bill were

[27:32] the 2010 bond issue. We haven't had

[27:33] one

[27:37] since then .

[27:38] >> that's a good

[27:39] point to mention.

[27:40] >> if it goes up

[27:41] 30,000 then your exemption goes up

[27:43] 30. Is

[27:46] there a

[27:54] mechanical problem?

[27:55] >> we definitely

[27:56] look and see there. There would've

[27:57] been two, depending

[27:58] on what years we are talking about,

[27:59] there would've been two times. I don't

[28:00] know

[28:01] when you bought property initially

[28:02] but there would've been an additional

[28:03] tax that would've been

[28:04] added on because there were two different

[28:05] bonds that voters approved. There

[28:06] was a

[28:07] parts bond that approved and added

[28:08] tax and there was also redevelopment

[28:09] bond that

[28:10] was approved and added tax so that

[28:11] would've been two years where it would've

[28:12] gone

[28:13] up even though your appraisal, from

[28:14] our standpoint, would not have changed.

[28:15] so we

[28:16] can show that also.

[28:17] >> I will also

[28:18] like to bring up the

[28:20] fact that the state issued

[28:23] an additional exemption last

[28:26] year up

[28:29] to $18,000 that was not renewed

[28:32] this year. So there will be a

[28:35] differential there in the

[28:38] taxes that you paid for

[28:44] the $18,000 that's not exempted

[28:45] from the state this year.

[28:46] >> what

[28:47] they did with that is they basically

[28:48] took

[28:49] our general tax that we would normally

[28:50] charge and then they said we are

[28:51] going to reduce it, everybody, everybody

[28:52] in the state, and they said we are

[28:53] going

[28:54] to take our excess reserves that we

[28:56] have and we are going to pump it

[28:58] into the state and allow everybody's

[28:59] tax

[29:00] to go down a little bit this year.

[29:02] so they did that and then

[29:03] they didn't do it to the same amount

[29:05] next year so it went up.

[29:07] >> that was the year the rebates during

[29:08] covid for

[29:11] income tax.

[29:14] they were flush with money so they

[29:17] shared it with the homestead

[29:20] people.

[29:21] >> a real good thing.

[29:22] >> public hearing is closed unless

[29:23] there are

[29:24] further comments. The public hearing

[29:27] is closed.

[29:28] >> mayor, we had the second

[29:29] item we have on their which

[29:32] is talking about annexation

[29:36] and also the exemption that we have

[29:38] right now on

[29:39] school tax for 62 andover, which is

[29:41] one acre at the current

[29:44] time and the

[29:45] discussion was whether we should possibly

[29:47] extend

[29:50] that and make that unlimited

[29:51] if it's to a parcel that is owned

[29:53] and

[29:55] lived in by someone who can be under

[29:56] the homestead

[29:57] at 62 point currently the way it works

[29:59] is if you have

[30:02] 10

[30:03] acres or let's make it smaller. Let's

[30:05] have five acres. You can only have

[30:08] one acre of

[30:11] that land

[30:14] exempted if you're over 62. The rest

[30:15] of

[30:16] that property is taxed for school

[30:17] tax. If you're in the county that

[30:18] is not

[30:19] the case. If you're in the city it

[30:20] is. And so the discussion was

[30:21] whether council should consider extending

[30:22] that exemption over the entire piece

[30:23] of property that

[30:26] is the

[30:28] one parcel, with multiple parcels

[30:29] I guess you could combine

[30:32] if you wanted to. But it

[30:34] would be whatever is owned by that

[30:35] homesteader and used by the homesteader,

[30:36] not rental property or whatever else

[30:38] that

[30:41] we have. Anything else

[30:43] you want to add to that?

[30:44] >> does the

[30:45] county have an acreage limits

[30:46] at all?

[30:47] >> they got a 10 acre. >>

[30:48] they have a

[30:53] 10 acre. In another issue

[30:54] when we were annexing, there were

[30:55] some properties that say they had

[30:56] six acres. The

[30:58] city got them to put their residence

[31:02] within one

[31:05] acre and

[31:08] --

[31:09] >> the rest was

[31:10] separated.

[31:11] >> the rest were separated.

[31:12] I think the way we mostly do it

[31:14] is people --we would take a pro rata.

[31:15] >>

[31:16] that's what would happen if they didn't

[31:17] put them on

[31:20] separate parcels. And so

[31:21] I know part of the discussion was

[31:23] we have large blocks

[31:26] of land that are adjacent to the city,

[31:29] the annexing

[31:32] the city

[31:35] , but

[31:36] we've heard that in the past where

[31:38] they didn't want to do that because

[31:39] of

[31:40] the difference between what we had

[31:41] in the county had on that. Because

[31:42] they

[31:43] would all of a sudden have to be paying

[31:44] school taxes that they were not

[31:47] currently.

[31:48] >> I'd like to ask a question

[31:49] for doug. We are an independent school

[31:50] system.

[31:53] we approved

[31:56] there millage. It doesn't say

[31:58] we have to rubberstamp it. According

[31:59] both

[32:02] to georgia law

[32:05] and hours, but they had to make

[32:09] the decision and would this be considered

[32:14] a recommendation?

[32:15] >> that's a real

[32:16] good

[32:17] question. We've got it actually in

[32:18] our city code at this point as far

[32:19] as

[32:20] if you look at marietta city code

[32:26] part five,

[32:28] miscellaneous special laws, article

[32:29] two, special tax exemptions, section

[32:32] 5.202. Homestead exemption for elderly

[32:33] from ad

[32:34] valorem taxation purposes. And it

[32:35] talks about the

[32:37] one acre, as used in this paragraph,

[32:39] the term term homestand should have

[32:41] the specified meaning

[32:44] by law for state, county and civil

[32:45] purposes

[32:47] except that the term should

[32:49] not include more than one acre of

[32:50] land immediately surrounding

[32:53] the residence of

[32:56] the applicant.

[32:59] >>

[33:02] that's something we don't think

[33:04] about much but the independent school

[33:05] system, 21 of them, and we are

[33:08] blessed to

[33:11] have one, the recovery first, the

[33:12] school system, they

[33:14] are referring to the 159 county

[33:17] school systems. Not private schools.

[33:18] not independent

[33:23] school system.

[33:24] >> are you ready for

[33:25] a

[33:29] public hearing?

[33:32] >> are there any facts?

[33:34] there is a $400,000 difference that

[33:35] would make this if we did it.

[33:36] >> it

[33:38] wouldn't make any difference

[33:40] to us.

[33:41] >> to the school system? >>

[33:42] we looked at that in the

[33:43] city. It's a guess.

[33:44] >> based on those

[33:47] residences that have applied thus

[33:50] far and qualify for the

[33:53] excess acreage, or greater than

[33:56] one acre, with

[33:57] the homestead properties, it's approximately

[33:59] $150,000 when we

[34:02] last checked.

[34:05] there are additional properties that

[34:06] may qualify

[34:08] later on but we

[34:11] don't know, due to the fact that they

[34:14] have to meet the

[34:16] age requirement and we don't know

[34:17] what

[34:19] the owner's age of older properties

[34:20] may be

[34:24] for those particular

[34:25] properties that qualify from an acreage

[34:27] standpoint.

[34:28] >> as somebody

[34:29] who was annexed into the city, they

[34:30] would pay

[34:33] more tax.

[34:34] >> as

[34:36] far as --

[34:39] >> school tax. >> if they

[34:40] were annexed to the city and they

[34:42] were 10 acres

[34:43] less, we did 10 acres, they would

[34:45] pay whatever the difference is

[34:46] between the county school tax but

[34:53] they wouldn't pay anything. If they

[34:54] were 62 andover

[34:55] they wouldn't pay anything on the

[34:56] school so they would come in to be

[34:57] exempt from

[34:58] the whole thing. If it was 15 they'd

[35:00] have five would get but if

[35:01] they are in the county they'd have

[35:03] to pay. If we

[35:08] did five than it just depends on the

[35:09] size of

[35:10] their parcel.

[35:11] >> if it's limited to

[35:12] one acre, they weren't [

[35:16] inaudible ]

[35:17] >> currently, I was thinking

[35:18] if we did that change. Currently

[35:21] that's the problem, yes

[35:23] or.

[35:24] >> they've got up to nine acres

[35:25] extra that they've got to

[35:27] pay for, that they would not pay for

[35:28] in

[35:29] the county. That is to discourage

[35:30] people from annexing.

[35:31] >>

[35:32] 18 mills, that's a lot of money.

[35:33] >>

[35:39] yes sir.

[35:40] >> we did have that

[35:41] problem somewhat with the large annexation

[35:42] that we got on the east side of

[35:43] town that we just did with beazer

[35:45] homes now, that are

[35:51] going on. That property was

[35:53] a family property, as we are all aware,

[35:54] and we talked

[35:57] to them years ago

[35:58] about annexing them and made them

[36:00] want to do with that

[36:03] particular time

[36:04] because of the extra tax cuts once

[36:05] they have. So they basically said

[36:06] we'll just

[36:07] wait until at some point, if some

[36:09] revise it from us, wants to

[36:10] develop it, then they can talk to

[36:12] you. Thankfully

[36:14] they did.

[36:15] >> will you conduct the

[36:16] public

[36:17] hearing?

[36:18] >> mayor tumlin and the city

[36:19] council have authorized

[36:21] a public hearing on item

[36:23] 20250027, on whether or not to increase

[36:24] the

[36:27] one acre

[36:29] exemption to unlimited. If you would

[36:30] like to comment on this, please

[36:31] come forward and state your name and

[36:33] address, and address the

[36:39] city council.

[36:42] >> it's good to

[36:45] be here. I'm on this side.

[36:47] my name is scott cochran and I'm a

[36:48] new marietta resident at 546

[36:51] saint john's court over

[36:54] in

[36:59] oakton. And this directly affect me.

[37:00] it affects

[37:01] a lot of my neighbors who are here.

[37:03] our neighborhood is filled with lots.

[37:04] they

[37:05] are platted lots. They are numbered

[37:06] as a single residential lot they are

[37:07] over

[37:09] and acre and

[37:12] our people

[37:19] , including myself, are getting older,

[37:21] and we are to the point where we would

[37:23] qualify for this, due to age. I told

[37:24] somebody the other day, one of

[37:26] the on the good things that I found

[37:27] out so far about getting older is

[37:28] maybe I'll get a homestead exemption.

[37:30] I can't think of anything else that

[37:31] happened.

[37:32] mr. Mayor, I think you hit the nail

[37:33] on the head. This

[37:36] to me seems a

[37:37] lot like the first issue you guys

[37:39] had. I was dealing with this, too.

[37:41] a lot of the cities are. One of the

[37:42] benefits, the best benefit I've seen

[37:44] that I think one of the best benefits

[37:45] of being in cobb county is

[37:46] living in the city. The cities just

[37:48] provide more services. They have more

[37:49] grassroots government.

[37:51] it's just

[37:54] better. And

[37:56] I think one of the reasons you guys

[37:57] have on the agenda,

[37:59] the other issue to opt out of the

[38:00] statewide thing is because what you

[38:01] already

[38:02] do is better. Right? It's just that

[38:03] are. It's that way for the other

[38:04] cities that had to float an exemption

[38:06] but what you guys agreed to do

[38:07] years and years ago was better than

[38:09] what the state now has agreed to do.

[38:12] so you opt out of that but

[38:13] this is a similar thing. But it's

[38:15] a little bit different because times

[38:16] have changed

[38:18] so you guys have your own school board,

[38:19] you're

[38:20] the only city in the county that's

[38:21] got its own school

[38:23] system, right? But now there's a tax

[38:24] benefit for residents

[38:27] as far as school taxes

[38:29] are concerned for residents living

[38:30] in the county over

[38:32] residents living in the city of marietta.

[38:33] and when you said about somebody being

[38:36] annexed so if someone lives

[38:39] on a five

[38:42] acre site in cobb

[38:45] county and they

[38:48] get annexed in marietta,

[38:50] right now the way your law is set

[38:51] up, that's a

[38:56] huge disadvantage because they go

[38:57] from being exempt from cobb school

[38:58] taxes

[38:59] to having to pay marietta school taxes.

[39:00] that's a disincentive for people to

[39:01] live in

[39:02] the city. And I know that the cities

[39:03] --I think all of them,

[39:06] I learned a lot in the discussions

[39:09] about what cities

[39:11] offer over and above what the county

[39:12] offers,

[39:14] and this is the only thing that I've

[39:15] seen out there that's just

[39:18] a disconnect. This is one of the

[39:24] few things

[39:25] where county residents have an advantage

[39:27] over city residents. As a practical

[39:28] matter, I don't

[39:30] think it's going

[39:33] to cost

[39:35] the school system any money. I don't.

[39:36] I heard the $100,000 or

[39:38] so estimate but the problem with that

[39:39] I think is that people can come in

[39:42] and carve out

[39:45] some of

[39:48] that. They can carve out, somebody

[39:49] lives on a

[39:50] five acre tract, they can come in

[39:51] and carve out for acres and one

[39:53] acre, and get it replanted, and usually

[39:54] what's remaining is going to be a

[39:56] lot less valuable than where the house

[39:57] is built. Where we are, there's creeks

[39:59] and things running through, so our

[40:00] excess property is on buildable. It's

[40:01] nice to

[40:02] have but it's on buildable. It's not

[40:03] worth the same as the property where

[40:04] the

[40:06] houses are. So somebody did a deep

[40:07] study, I don't

[40:08] think it's going to cost any money

[40:10] to the

[40:13] school system. You

[40:14] know what you guys have known here

[40:16] is fantastic.

[40:20] the way the squares operate now, and

[40:22] thriving. The way

[40:26] the neighborhoods, your oversight

[40:27] zoning and annexations is great. This

[40:28] is just

[40:29] something that I think needs to be

[40:31] fixed,

[40:34] and I don't see

[40:37] really

[40:40] any downside

[40:42] and I think is consistent with other

[40:43] things

[40:44] that you are doing. That's my two

[40:45] cents. I didn't ever expect to be

[40:49] here on this side of

[40:52] the podium but I

[40:53] am. I'll tell you guys, I'm very happy

[40:55] to be a marietta resident now. I

[40:57] appreciate all of you.

[40:58] >> thank you.

[40:59] the closed session,

[41:01] what was the date on that?

[41:02] >>

[41:04] it's old. Things have

[41:10] changed.

[41:11] >>

[41:12] you give 10% off the top to the school

[41:13] system. This thing

[41:16] we chiseled out other things.

[41:22] >> 1980. >> 1980? >> yes sir. >>

[41:25] one year out of

[41:28] high

[41:31] school.

[41:34] >> bill

[41:35] w was around 12 mills and when the

[41:37] state around 1980 raises it 20, we

[41:40] must have been --I just think

[41:43] I'm real curious, not

[41:46] many things we let

[41:52] the county leave to someone

[41:53] as far as taking care of taxing.

[41:54] >>

[41:55] I'll say I'm not exactly sure it's

[41:56] 1980, but the way it phrases it, it

[41:58] says the exemption provided for all

[41:59] years

[42:00] beginning after december 31st, 1980.

[42:01] that's referring

[42:04] to 1980. When it was

[42:07] passed.

[42:08] >> so that was done in 1979.

[42:09] >>

[42:10] mr. Mayor?

[42:11] >>

[42:13] yes sir.

[42:14] >> it looked like it was

[42:15] an amendment to the constitution that

[42:16] allowed it to happen back in

[42:17] 1980 because it refers back to a georgia

[42:19] law, 1980,

[42:25] page 2123.

[42:26] >> two

[42:28] jurisdictions side-by-side. Mr. Wills,

[42:34] your next.

[42:40] >> larry wills,

[42:41] 60 oakmont drive, marietta, georgia.

[42:43] I'm going to read a statement

[42:46] and then turn it in as

[42:49] part of the record for this

[42:51] public hearing. I'm reading it because

[42:52] this is kind

[42:55] of complicated. I

[42:58] have long relayed to the marietta

[43:01] city council the importance

[43:07] of maintaining

[43:11] a low density residential buffer around

[43:12] kennesaw mountain national park. Numerous

[43:13] studies over the

[43:14] years reveal such buffers provide

[43:17] a vital transitional zone between

[43:19] development

[43:22] areas and national parkland. So

[43:25] far my diss suggestions have

[43:28] fallen on deaf ears. At the

[43:31] december 19 committee meeting, the

[43:32] city

[43:34] council released

[43:37] ledger

[43:40] star 20241136. This document revealed

[43:43] another threat to

[43:49] kennesaw mountain I had not

[43:50] previously considered. Waitlisted

[43:52] 150 properties greater than

[43:58] one acre currently receiving school

[43:59] tax exemptions.

[44:00] a school tax exemption is available

[44:01] to any

[44:05] owner-occupied property owner 62 years

[44:07] of age or

[44:09] older, but the school tax exemption

[44:10] is granted for no more than

[44:13] one acre of

[44:16] a multi-acre parcel. Apparently

[44:19] the

[44:22] 150 parcels were receiving exemptions

[44:23] for

[44:25] their

[44:27] entire acreage, for how long, I don't

[44:28] know. The

[44:31] exemption amounts range

[44:34] from $36-$7000. 28

[44:40] range between $1000 and $5000. The

[44:41] remainder

[44:46] range between $36 and $998. Most of

[44:47] the large parcels

[44:51] have developed as a type of defective

[44:52] density buffer

[44:55] adjacent to and

[44:58] in close proximity to

[45:01] kennesaw mountain. If

[45:02] you look at the street addresses,

[45:04] they are most around,

[45:06] right up against the mountain. It

[45:07] is

[45:08] assumed that these parcels will be

[45:10] reappraised to correct

[45:13] this mistake and will motivate some

[45:16] property owners to subdivide

[45:19] and develop

[45:22] their property

[45:25] to relieve their new tax burden. Instead

[45:26] of suddenly hitting these property

[45:28] owners

[45:31] with higher taxes, the city council

[45:32] and/or the

[45:34] impacted residents have several

[45:40] possible actions

[45:43] . They

[45:44] could establish a low-density zoning

[45:46] buffer around the park and offer a

[45:47] property tax exemption

[45:49] to all property owners who agree to

[45:53] manage their property

[45:55] in accordance to buffer standards.

[45:56] the other option

[45:57] for residencies the formation of a

[45:59] special

[46:02] taxing district.

[46:05] state statutes authorize special

[46:08] taxing districts

[46:11] and specify their powers and

[46:12] duties, governance, structure, and

[46:17] other things that regulate

[46:20] their

[46:23] land-use and they could also

[46:24] enforce building codes among other

[46:26] items.

[46:28] special assessment programs include

[46:32] landmark historic

[46:35] property, may qualify for

[46:38] preferential assessments where the

[46:40] property has been certified by local

[46:41] government as

[46:44] landmark heritage property

[46:47] and where local

[46:50] ordinance extend the

[46:53] preferential assessment. Special

[46:57] taxing districts. There are other

[46:59] special assessment programs

[47:02] available to

[47:03] property owners whereby property can

[47:05] be reassessed at its current

[47:08] use value rather than the fair

[47:11] market value.

[47:14] qualifying properties must be maintained

[47:16] and that the current use for a period

[47:17] of

[47:20] 10 years. These special

[47:22] programs include environmental sensitive

[47:23] property,

[47:26] forest land

[47:29] property, and

[47:32] something

[47:38] else. Residential transitional

[47:40] properties. These properties can be

[47:41] assessed

[47:43] at its current use value rather than

[47:46] fair market value, when it is used

[47:47] for

[47:49] residential purposes but located in

[47:50] an area that

[47:53] is changing to or

[47:56] being developed for a use

[47:59] other than residential. It's my

[48:02] belief that

[48:05] some of these actions

[48:07] are not taken to create a low-density

[48:08] buffer around

[48:11] kennesaw mountain national battlefield

[48:13] park. I fear that in 20 years or so

[48:14] the roofs

[48:16] of townhomes will replace the tree

[48:17] canopy

[48:19] in marietta and extend right up to

[48:23] the

[48:26] park's boundaries

[48:27] . Two things are already foreshadowing

[48:29] the looming degradation of

[48:32] the parkland. Traffic is backing up

[48:35] all the way from barrick parkway

[48:38] to the park's

[48:40] trailhead and trail crossing on bert

[48:41] hickory, and a little

[48:43] over a month ago a deer struck my

[48:44] daughter's car

[48:47] at the

[48:48] intersection of polk street and burnt

[48:50] hickory,

[48:53] causing $6000 in

[48:55] damages. These situations and other

[48:56] negative

[48:59] impacts to open space

[49:01] enjoyment will only increase if action

[49:05] is not taken.

[49:08] thank you.

[49:09] >> next speaker, anyone

[49:10] else that would like to address this

[49:11] matter? Please come forward, raise

[49:14] your hand. City council, the public

[49:17] hearing

[49:20] is closed.

[49:26] >> we

[49:27] would have two more public hearings.

[49:29] we'd have one at our next meeting,

[49:30] our regular

[49:31] meeting, which will be coming up in

[49:32] two

[49:35] weeks

[49:37] and then we would have one in our

[49:38] community meetings in february. And

[49:39] then at

[49:40] that committee meeting in february

[49:41] that would be a special called meeting

[49:42] by the

[49:43] mayor if the mayor so chose and could

[49:44] be voted on at that particular time,

[49:46] since we would have two handy in our

[49:47] decision before march 1st.

[49:48] >>

[49:50] and the next 20s --

[49:53] the next public hearing is when?

[49:56] >> it's our committee, the 12th. The

[49:57] regular

[50:02] council meeting

[50:04] .

[50:05] >> [ inaudible ] work session? >>

[50:06] it's actually going to

[50:07] be at 6:30 before the 7:00 council

[50:08] meeting on wednesday.

[50:09] >>

[50:11] well then I'd like

[50:14] to adjourn

[50:17] the

[50:20] meeting and turned the ball

[50:23] over. Which one are you?

[50:24] >> at this

[50:25] time I'd

[50:26] like to call the finance committee

[50:27] meeting

[50:29] to order. The first item is to

[50:32] approve the

[50:34] minutes from december 19th.

[50:35] >> I'll

[50:36] make a motion

[50:38] to approve the revised minutes that

[50:41] we have a copy of on our desk.

[50:47] >> second. >> all those in favor say

[50:48] by

[50:50] raising your hand.

[50:51] >> all

[50:53] right. So moved.

[50:54] >>

[50:56] all right. The next item on the

[51:02] agenda is --are the

[51:05] hotel motel

[51:11] tax and --did we

[51:13] take all four of those?

[51:14] >> yes or.

[51:15] I can take all

[51:17] four of those together. The

[51:20] first one is

[51:21] the hotel/motel. The december collections

[51:23] are the highest they have been

[51:26] in the last four year

[51:29] period, with the collections of

[51:35] december at 274,000. The year to date

[51:36] collections are comparable to

[51:38] the 2023 --sorry, the 2024

[51:43] numbers. So your debate, so we are

[51:44] still in line as we have been

[51:48] for the prior year. For the auto

[51:51] rental, the total for the month

[51:54] is $170,877. If you

[51:58] remove the payments from the november

[52:00] that I reported on

[52:01] last month's presentation, stating

[52:02] that there were some payments that

[52:03] came

[52:05] in late, so they were reported in

[52:06] december. If

[52:07] you remove those and reassign them

[52:09] back to november

[52:14] you'll have 128,000 for the month

[52:15] of

[52:16] december. So the year to date collections

[52:18] are about $30,000 less than

[52:21] last year. And we

[52:23] continue to exceed the budgeted collections

[52:30] by almost 31%. The

[52:31] current year to date collections,

[52:32] and this is total collections between

[52:33] the two, are not

[52:35] as great but they are still higher,

[52:36] 24%

[52:42] higher than

[52:47] fy '23, year to date. So although

[52:48] we are not exceeding

[52:49] the '24 numbers, we are exceeding

[52:50] '23. And the consumer reports indicate

[52:51] that we were

[52:52] kind of looking at some of the aspects

[52:54] of the auto

[52:55] rental and rideshare has had an impact

[52:57] on that as well as

[53:00] the

[53:03] overall economy

[53:05] is slowing so we are trying to take

[53:06] a

[53:08] look at that and see how that is trending, and

[53:09] how that will go forward,

[53:10] and how we will implement that into

[53:12] the '26 budget. Then we'll have the

[53:15] finance report, I'll take the finance

[53:17] update and a quarterly report all

[53:20] at once. The quarterly report, if

[53:21] you look

[53:24] on

[53:26] page 4, for the revenue, total revenue

[53:27] is 61%

[53:33] to budget, primarily to the property

[53:34] tax deadline that was back in october.

[53:36] so we've received about 94% of

[53:39] property tax collections.

[53:45] why oldie

[53:47] personal property taxes is lagging

[53:48] behind, so that's only a

[53:49] 52% collection. So we will work on

[53:51] that

[53:53] as we get closer to the end of the

[53:54] fiscal year. There

[53:59] is a positive uptick in the commercial

[54:00] and residential

[54:03] building permits over prior

[54:05] year and that's a good sign for construction

[54:06] as we go into the spring and

[54:08] summer months, all the way into fall.

[54:09] business

[54:12] license revenue will increase as

[54:15] we are currently in

[54:21] the renewal

[54:23] season. So the next couple of months

[54:24] will be the heaviest portion

[54:25] of renewal season for business license

[54:26] and that revenue will show for the

[54:27] end

[54:30] of q3. And

[54:33] then

[54:39] lastly, all all

[54:40] other revenue areas such as charges

[54:41] for services, fines, and other transfers,

[54:42] are all in

[54:45] line as we look at through period

[54:46] six, where

[54:48] approximately 50% through

[54:51] the budget. And then same with the

[54:52] expenditures.

[54:54] there is no big markers for

[55:00] the expenditures.

[55:03] we are able --it seems most of the

[55:04] departments

[55:05] are able to utilize their capital

[55:06] funds. Previously we've had a delay

[55:09] in that,

[55:10] being able to receive products. We

[55:12] haven't seemed to have that issue

[55:15] this year so we've

[55:16] been able to move through those funds

[55:18] and

[55:20] encumber those fairly quickly, so

[55:21] we are in line

[55:23] with that, as well. And that concludes

[55:27] my report.

[55:28] >>

[55:30] so do

[55:33] we need

[55:36] a motion?

[55:37] >> you need a motion to

[55:38] receive

[55:39] and file, which I

[55:42] so make.

[55:51] >> are

[55:52] we adjourned?

[55:53] >> nothing else on the

[55:54] finance report?

[55:55] >> call to order

[55:57] the personnel insurance committee.

[55:58] on our

[56:00] agenda

[56:03] is the

[56:05] amendments from the december 19th

[56:06] meeting. Do I hear a motion?

[56:07] >>

[56:08] I'll make a motion to approve the

[56:09] meeting minutes.

[56:10] >> second. >> revised

[56:12] copy.

[56:13] >> the minutes have

[56:15] been revised.

[56:18] at the top I changed

[56:21] it.

[56:22] >>

[56:24] over

[56:27] here.

[56:28] >> the revised agenda.

[56:32] meeting minutes.

[56:33] >> second. >> all

[56:36] in favor. Thank

[56:39] you, joseph.

[56:42] appointed officials compensation

[56:45] and contracts?

[56:46] >> hr direct

[56:48] are coming

[56:51] down.

[56:52] >> good evening. I'd like

[56:54] to request that we move this to a

[56:56] brief executive session, if that's

[56:57] okay?

[56:58] >> that would be the end

[57:00] of tonight, I guess do that as part

[57:01] of

[57:03] the general council

[57:06] session.

[57:07] >> anybody

[57:09] got a problem with

[57:12] that?

[57:15] okay. So we are moving on to the ethics

[57:16] committee council

[57:18] report .

[57:19] >> yes or. You've got, as

[57:21] you can see down there, you've got

[57:24] two different ones .1 is

[57:27] the mayor

[57:33] 's appointment, which would be

[57:35] next, this one is the council appointment.

[57:36] we currently do have individuals serving

[57:37] in both

[57:38] of those seats at the current time.

[57:39] from what we can tell, both of them

[57:41] would be willing to continue on that.

[57:43] but they both run out in the

[57:44] next two months so the first one,

[57:46] like I said, is the one kelly is

[57:47] serving in currently and that's a

[57:48] two year term go until 2027.

[57:49] >> and

[57:50] I make a motion to approve michelle

[57:52] cooper kelly

[57:55] to another two year term?

[57:59] >> second. >> all in favor? The next

[58:01] one, the mayor's

[58:03] of point.

[58:04] >> I've got a question on

[58:05] this one. Are these once supposed

[58:07] to be voting

[58:10] on this or is this

[58:11] the mayor's power on this one?

[58:12] >>

[58:13] that's a good point.

[58:14] this one probably is the delineation

[58:16] that he wants to put this person on

[58:17] their and we will just be put on directly

[58:19] onto the

[58:21] agenda so if he decides that he wants

[58:22] to move forward

[58:23] with this, probably stick it under

[58:27] mayor's appointment.

[58:28] >> okay. How

[58:29] about

[58:31] civil-service board?

[58:32] >> sir,

[58:34] that one is a

[58:35] little bit different in that you've

[58:36] got the actual civil-service board

[58:37] recommending

[58:40] that you

[58:44] reappoint philip hynninen to the civil-service

[58:46] board to. That is a one

[58:47] year term which will expire in 2026.

[58:48] as y'all remember, because of state

[58:49] law

[58:52] changes, any time a

[58:54] board has someone that they have the

[58:55] ability to

[58:58] appoint to their board, they

[59:01] have to get concurrence by the

[59:03] council.

[59:04] >> okay. Could I make a motion

[59:05] to

[59:07] reappoint philip hynninen?

[59:08] >> second.

[59:10] >> all in

[59:13] favor? That's unanimous.

[59:16] >> question, for the

[59:19] council ethics and for

[59:22] this one is consent okay?

[59:23] >> you.

[59:25] that's good.

[59:27] and then we are adjourned subject

[59:31] to the --

[59:33] >> recess probably, right? >> or recess

[59:34] subject to

[59:37] the

[59:39] --

[59:40] >> prior report as well, it's up

[59:43] to you.

[59:44] >>

[59:46] the mayor's. We can't

[59:49] do [

[59:52] inaudible ].

[59:55] >> we'll

[59:58] --

[59:59] >> recess, I

[1:00:01] guess, until after the

[1:00:04] meeting.

[1:00:05] >> thank you. >> so

[1:00:07] I'm going to call the parks,

[1:00:09] recreation, and tourism committee

[1:00:10] meeting.

[1:00:13] first up is to approve the

[1:00:15] minutes from december 19.

[1:00:16] >> I'll

[1:00:17] make

[1:00:19] a

[1:00:22] motion.

[1:00:23] >> as amended. >> as

[1:00:25] amended.

[1:00:26] >>

[1:00:28] I second.

[1:00:29] >> all

[1:00:34] in favor?

[1:00:35] >> all right. So next up

[1:00:36] is going to be our 2009 parks bond

[1:00:37] report.

[1:00:40] mr. Chairman, good evening,

[1:00:43] everyone. Report

[1:00:45] starts with the financial, as usual.

[1:00:46] we earned $522 of interest

[1:00:48] last month, which is considerably

[1:00:49] less than

[1:00:52] we had been

[1:00:53] but that's because we spent almost

[1:00:55] all the money now. We paid out a good

[1:00:57] bit on wildwood park so we still have

[1:01:01] some money at

[1:01:03] this time but that's why you see a

[1:01:04] reduction from that high

[1:01:07] thousands to 2000 a month that leaves

[1:01:10] us over $101,000 in

[1:01:13] available balance we can allocate

[1:01:16] comedies on other projects once we

[1:01:17] finish

[1:01:19] that wildwood project up

[1:01:22] entirely point all

[1:01:23] we are lacking now is the restroom.

[1:01:25] we've done all the other work

[1:01:26] out there that we have scheduled,

[1:01:28] that you all are signed up and all

[1:01:29] the other

[1:01:31] work

[1:01:34] is complete. As I pointed out in a

[1:01:35] prior

[1:01:36] meeting, I think it's been very popular

[1:01:37] out there and we actually had the

[1:01:38] december data that we got off the

[1:01:40] place for a I and in the month

[1:01:41] of december last year we had about

[1:01:43] 833, if I

[1:01:45] recall correctly, at wildwood park

[1:01:46] this year we had a little over

[1:01:49] 2400. So you can attribute most of

[1:01:50] that to

[1:01:52] the disk golf players that are

[1:01:58] out there . It was pretty decent,

[1:01:59] obviously

[1:02:00] this month not as good but I was out

[1:02:01] there on a 30, 40 degree

[1:02:02] day. There were people out playing

[1:02:04] so they're enjoying it.

[1:02:10] let's see . We do get the fully executed

[1:02:11] project

[1:02:12] unit from the state of georgia for

[1:02:13] the land and water conservation fund

[1:02:14] rent

[1:02:15] so we are allowed now to proceed with

[1:02:16] all activities with the west

[1:02:19] dixie park project.

[1:02:21] with that and permission we've gone

[1:02:22] ahead and begun ordering

[1:02:24] the restroom, which takes some time

[1:02:25] to get in

[1:02:28] production, so it will be here

[1:02:30] for us so we can get all the other

[1:02:31] construction work complete. We

[1:02:33] are also looking at getting a bid

[1:02:34] out for the playground equipment ahead

[1:02:36] of schedule so we can get that done

[1:02:37] and then we are still working

[1:02:39] over our stormwater issues with them

[1:02:40] so we don't have a

[1:02:41] full set of construction documents

[1:02:43] ready to go

[1:02:46] to read

[1:02:48] that we should have that within the

[1:02:49] next two or three weeks, I would imagine,

[1:02:51] and then we can get those bid documents

[1:02:52] prepared.

[1:02:53] >> questions? I

[1:02:55] think councilwoman richards has

[1:02:58] a

[1:03:01] question.

[1:03:02] >> you

[1:03:04] talked one time about doing a ribbon-cutting

[1:03:05] at

[1:03:07] wildwood.

[1:03:08] >>

[1:03:10] yes ma'am.

[1:03:11] >> are we going to plan

[1:03:12] that for

[1:03:13] june?

[1:03:14] >> I was thinking maybe

[1:03:16] late march, if that works with

[1:03:18] everyone. I was going to look into

[1:03:19] your schedules to see if you were

[1:03:20] involved

[1:03:21] in any national meetings, and I haven't

[1:03:22] done

[1:03:25] that yet. Or it is still a little

[1:03:26] cold, we can do

[1:03:27] it a little bit later. We are still

[1:03:28] online to have the restroom shipped

[1:03:30] in mid-february, so that could take

[1:03:31] five meetings, it could take

[1:03:34] two weeks. So I'm thinking only a

[1:03:35] three day installation,

[1:03:38] probably early

[1:03:39] march. We are getting ready to order

[1:03:45] a clack so that's why we are wondering,

[1:03:47] what do we put on the plaque

[1:03:48] for the dedication date and today

[1:03:49] I'm saying we could just put spring

[1:03:50] rather

[1:03:52] than a month but if, you know, we

[1:03:53] want to push

[1:03:54] it back a little bit into april or

[1:03:55] something or whatever you want to

[1:03:59] do, we can do that.

[1:04:00] >>

[1:04:01] if you want to talk about it and let

[1:04:02] us know what you think

[1:04:05] I'm a that would

[1:04:06] be great. But I wouldn't do it before

[1:04:08] the end of march because I just

[1:04:09] don't feel secure about the restroom

[1:04:11] building to that last

[1:04:14] couple weeks. That's really what we

[1:04:17] were kind of waiting on.

[1:04:18] >>

[1:04:23] anymore questions?

[1:04:24] >> okay, thank you. That concludes

[1:04:26] my parks bond report.

[1:04:27] >> if there are no questions, so we

[1:04:29] are going to

[1:04:32] move on

[1:04:33] to the recreation facilities quarterly

[1:04:35] report

[1:04:36] >> I'm going to turn

[1:04:38] that over to aaron.

[1:04:39] >>

[1:04:43] thank you.

[1:04:44] >> how are you doing, man?

[1:04:45] >>

[1:04:46] I'm good. How are you doing? Good

[1:04:47] evening everyone. Just before I

[1:04:49] start my report I want to take a moment

[1:04:50] to recognize one of our staff

[1:04:52] members. So we found out last week,

[1:04:53] hunter

[1:04:54] keyser, who is one of our recreation

[1:04:56] specialist,

[1:05:02] custer park

[1:05:05] sports

[1:05:06] and fitness center, is being recognized

[1:05:08] as one of the top 30 young parks and

[1:05:09] recreation of nationals under the

[1:05:11] age of 30 in the nation. That's the

[1:05:12] 30

[1:05:13] under 30. That's a cool recognition

[1:05:20] for him.

[1:05:23] several

[1:05:24] applicants across 27 states so it's

[1:05:25] a big accomplishment for him. So hunter

[1:05:26] does a

[1:05:27] great job for him and of course we

[1:05:29] are very appreciative to the national

[1:05:30] recreation and park association for

[1:05:31] recognizing hunter. So if you see

[1:05:32] him, congratulate him for

[1:05:34] that. As far as the reports, so this

[1:05:35] is the report for the second

[1:05:36] quarter and this is for custer park

[1:05:37] sports and fitness center, parks program

[1:05:38] and the

[1:05:39] franklin gateway sports complex. So

[1:05:40] for the quarter you have your reports.

[1:05:41] custer park

[1:05:42] sports and fitness center had a total

[1:05:44] of 3800 attendees for all of our activities

[1:05:45] throughout the quarter. Gross revenue

[1:05:50] was almost $142,000 for

[1:05:53] the quarter. Versus a little

[1:05:56] over $120,000, versus the second

[1:05:59] quarter, last

[1:06:01] fiscal year. The parks program is

[1:06:02] currently closed for the season and

[1:06:03] then

[1:06:04] we will open on friday, may 2nd. We'll

[1:06:05] open for the year

[1:06:11] for that. The sports complex

[1:06:12] had 45,286 participants this last

[1:06:14] quarter so we stay busy

[1:06:16] out there and the majority of those

[1:06:17] were

[1:06:20] soccer rentals. The total

[1:06:23] gross revenue at the sports complex

[1:06:24] per

[1:06:26] quarter

[1:06:29] was $16,656 and of course that

[1:06:35] was down a little bit for the quarter.

[1:06:36] so a

[1:06:37] lot of that had to do with organizations

[1:06:41] last

[1:06:44] year that

[1:06:47] didn't [ inaudible ] for various

[1:06:48] reasons. Some of those had events

[1:06:49] during the first quarter, the second

[1:06:50] quarter. So some

[1:06:52] of that was timing. And then as previously

[1:06:53] mentioned in other reports,

[1:06:54] last year we changed our billing model

[1:06:56] to pay

[1:06:59] in advance of that, as well. If you

[1:07:00] remember back

[1:07:02] in the first quarter

[1:07:05] report for franklin, we were up

[1:07:06] about $46,000 in the first quarter

[1:07:08] so some of it is just

[1:07:11] timing, just

[1:07:14] looking forward, starting in february,

[1:07:15] we don't

[1:07:16] have a day without a rental giveaway

[1:07:17] until june 15th

[1:07:22] and we'll continue to fill those up.

[1:07:23] also, this course,

[1:07:24] this is the third quarter in january.

[1:07:26] this january versus last january was

[1:07:32] almost double

[1:07:38] so we are continuing to

[1:07:39] do well there. Program-wise with our

[1:07:40] youth basketball league and custer

[1:07:41] park sports and fitness

[1:07:43] center, we are wrapping up over the

[1:07:44] next few weekends. We'll have our

[1:07:45] season end

[1:07:46] tournament. This year we had 259 players

[1:07:47] versus 231 players last year, so

[1:07:49] we had a good increase there. And

[1:07:50] then special event-wise,

[1:07:52] of course we had fourth in the park

[1:07:56] this

[1:07:57] year, harvestfest and our christmas

[1:07:58] tree lighting. The next large event

[1:07:59] for the city

[1:08:01] will be marietta the gathering. That

[1:08:07] will be saturday, march 21st. That

[1:08:08] includes our report.

[1:08:09] >> thank

[1:08:10] you so much. Do we have any questions

[1:08:11] for eric?

[1:08:12] >> I'd add

[1:08:14] two things that

[1:08:16] are not messerli at the rec center

[1:08:17] but a couple projects you may

[1:08:20] be interested in. We have

[1:08:23] that pipe

[1:08:25] project at city club, we had our funds

[1:08:26] for. That's 80% complete.

[1:08:27] there out there working. They hope

[1:08:29] to be done by friday but

[1:08:35] the rain

[1:08:38] the last week or

[1:08:40] so and impending rain on friday, I

[1:08:41] think that will be next week before

[1:08:43] they get it all buttoned up but that

[1:08:44] is going on very well. It came

[1:08:46] at a good time when it was cold. We

[1:08:47] had the greens covered. No

[1:08:49] one could play golf so no interruption

[1:08:50] to the players during that period.

[1:08:51] than the

[1:08:52] second thing you notice that glover

[1:08:53] park on the that barricade for some

[1:08:54] time.

[1:08:55] we had the drainage project that you

[1:08:56] did at the playground, back in the

[1:08:57] playground area. We did eventually

[1:08:59] get to a pipe that was completely

[1:09:00] jammed up with roots.

[1:09:01] that has all been removed. The pipe

[1:09:02] has been replaced and then we got

[1:09:04] a new --a couple new spots at the

[1:09:06] end of that pipe, and new

[1:09:09] cleanouts that we put in,

[1:09:12] a tap box

[1:09:13] actually that we put in so that we

[1:09:15] can get it in the future, should

[1:09:16] that arise again. Pike electric is

[1:09:20] up there, still doing their electrical

[1:09:21] work

[1:09:24] and rewiring all the light

[1:09:25] poles, a little bit of collateral

[1:09:27] damage, irrigation lines, so we expect

[1:09:30] that to be done

[1:09:31] and we may expect that to push off

[1:09:33] once

[1:09:39] we energize. I don't think

[1:09:40] we have anything that anyone can handle,

[1:09:42] just a couple things that

[1:09:43] were unexpected.

[1:09:44] >> so I guess next

[1:09:45] up is going to be the

[1:09:47] street closures.

[1:09:48] >> a disclosure for

[1:09:49] us,

[1:09:51] disclosure

[1:09:54] first.

[1:09:55] >> members of

[1:09:57] my family, I myself

[1:09:58] and members of my family owned properties

[1:10:00] in the downtown area. On a member

[1:10:06] of the

[1:10:09] cobb naacp and that I serve on the

[1:10:10] port of the marietta visitors bureau

[1:10:12] serving the city

[1:10:13] of marietta. And that polish a, my

[1:10:15] aunt, is on the [

[1:10:21] inaudible ].

[1:10:30] >> thank you. Appreciated. This is

[1:10:31] the

[1:10:32] annual street closure request, before

[1:10:33] I give you any details on either of

[1:10:34] them you

[1:10:35] might see two that you think are missing.

[1:10:36] one is marietta the gathering. Of

[1:10:37] course we just dealt with that last

[1:10:38] month because of the timing of the

[1:10:39] event

[1:10:40] coming up in march and needing to

[1:10:42] be done, and rather than putting it

[1:10:43] on

[1:10:44] now for 2026, we'll just wait until

[1:10:45] later in the calendar year, again,

[1:10:46] like

[1:10:48] we just did this last time as

[1:10:53] a one-off. And the other one you might

[1:10:54] be wondering

[1:10:55] about is the cherokee heights arts

[1:10:56] festival. This particular request

[1:10:57] here are only the

[1:10:58] ones that come through special event

[1:10:59] applications and actually use glover

[1:11:00] park in the downtown

[1:11:01] square. That was done separately off

[1:11:03] of what we call a

[1:11:05] parade permit. It's come through a

[1:11:06] different mechanism so

[1:11:07] they will be coming back for that

[1:11:09] street closure for you at a

[1:11:10] later date, sometime probably early

[1:11:11] summer if not late spring. So those

[1:11:12] two are

[1:11:15] on our radar. They just

[1:11:16] aren't on this particular report so

[1:11:18] I just wanted to bring that

[1:11:23] up. So all the other events on here

[1:11:24] are repeat events. Everything that

[1:11:25] we've

[1:11:27] had in the past, and

[1:11:30] there are only two changes,

[1:11:31] street closures that have all been

[1:11:32] previously approved. One of them is

[1:11:33] from juneteenth and

[1:11:34] they requested the northpark square

[1:11:36] be closed this year. In

[1:11:39] the past, I point out on

[1:11:42] friday night, on friday nights they've

[1:11:43] always

[1:11:45] had a concert and they have had

[1:11:48] the concert in east park square

[1:11:54] and its

[1:11:57] gotten very popular. And by closing

[1:11:58] northpark

[1:11:59] square we get more opportunity for

[1:12:00] patrons to come and sit and enjoy

[1:12:01] the music.

[1:12:02] that was their request. We are extending

[1:12:03] that because of the location of

[1:12:04] the restrooms that are along the courthouse

[1:12:06] on lawrence

[1:12:07] street with patrons imbibing and all

[1:12:09] the back-and-forth traffic that

[1:12:12] goes

[1:12:14] across their. And I think I just got

[1:12:18] that wrong. They did not have east

[1:12:19] park four

[1:12:20] point they were asking for north and

[1:12:21] we are recommending east

[1:12:27] as well because of that traffic

[1:12:29] that goes back and forth in that crosswalk,

[1:12:30] and lack of management there. And

[1:12:31] also with moore park closed down,

[1:12:33] we

[1:12:35] would expect it from lawrence street

[1:12:36] down to waddell, like

[1:12:38] we do with other events, because that's

[1:12:39] where the police put the security

[1:12:40] barricades,

[1:12:45] to keep

[1:12:48] people

[1:12:49] from running up lawrence street and

[1:12:51] then on to the northpark square that's

[1:12:52] closed. So

[1:12:53] we actually added onto their request

[1:12:54] and we are recommending that we do

[1:12:55] north

[1:13:00] and east

[1:13:02] .

[1:13:03] >> what event was that? >> that's

[1:13:04] for juneteenth and it's

[1:13:05] the friday night. You know they do

[1:13:06] a friday, saturday and sunday event.

[1:13:07] friday is

[1:13:08] when they have a big concert. Folks

[1:13:09] come up and it's similar to our

[1:13:11] friday night concerts that we do and

[1:13:12] they're just kind of trying to get

[1:13:14] to that point and the parks are jammed

[1:13:15] up full so this gives

[1:13:17] them an opportunity and we are recommending

[1:13:18] the additional street for safety.

[1:13:19] the other request

[1:13:20] was from the organizers of art in

[1:13:23] the park and they have historically

[1:13:24] closed 5:30 on

[1:13:27] friday on

[1:13:30] north park east and south

[1:13:33] and asked to

[1:13:35] close that at 4:00, and there is a

[1:13:41] letter attached from carolyn, why

[1:13:42] she thinks that needs to be done.

[1:13:43] I

[1:13:44] can tell you we've had some additional

[1:13:45] conversations since then. We don't

[1:13:47] necessarily agree 100% the logic that

[1:13:48] was there but we

[1:13:50] do understand she has some interesting

[1:13:51] closing earlier and

[1:13:53] some needs and we think it would be

[1:14:00] more appropriate

[1:14:06] than to close

[1:14:08] all those streets at 4:00, as she

[1:14:09] has requested, or even at 5:30, to

[1:14:10] do northpark

[1:14:11] at 4:00, south park at 5:00, and east

[1:14:12] park at 6:00. What that does

[1:14:14] is add a one hour block to each of

[1:14:15] the sections and this is how

[1:14:16] it works with chalktoberfest. Having

[1:14:18] done that the last couple years has

[1:14:19] proven to

[1:14:20] be a much better method for us to

[1:14:21] close the streets down that

[1:14:24] way . One of the things we don't want

[1:14:25] to do

[1:14:26] is tell anybody, so we close it down

[1:14:27] and there is an additional half an

[1:14:29] hour then on that particular street

[1:14:30] to get the cars out of there. The

[1:14:37] cars aren't even, the

[1:14:38] police can check the license antagonist,

[1:14:39] get a name, maybe a phone number to

[1:14:40] call.

[1:14:41] we can go to a restaurant on that

[1:14:43] street, try to find those people

[1:14:44] and get them out of there. To try

[1:14:46] to do that on all three of

[1:14:47] those streets at one time while people

[1:14:48] are trying to manhandle barricades

[1:14:49] for the

[1:14:50] traffic department and our staff trying

[1:14:51] to get out cones doesn't work well

[1:14:52] so it's

[1:14:53] really better off for us, we found,

[1:14:55] if we did one block

[1:15:01] at a time. Know

[1:15:02] carolyn would love to put that up

[1:15:04] at 2:00, 3:00 and 4:00. We are

[1:15:05] recommending 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00 from

[1:15:06] a staff perspective and she is amenable

[1:15:07] to that.

[1:15:08] carolyn is here if you have to ask

[1:15:10] her any

[1:15:12] questions. That would be the recommended

[1:15:13] change if you

[1:15:14] are amenable to doing it earlier than

[1:15:17] 5:30. It makes it flow and then it

[1:15:18] keeps the northbound traffic on atlanta

[1:15:19] street

[1:15:22] open until 6:00 against that

[1:15:23] northbound rush-hour extra time, even

[1:15:25] over the 5:30, which

[1:15:27] they've had the past 30 some years,

[1:15:28] so

[1:15:30] it actually helps out on that side.

[1:15:31] >> okay,

[1:15:34] so do we need to vote on that?

[1:15:37] so first

[1:15:38] item that we'll entertain a motion

[1:15:41] for would be the northpark square

[1:15:43] to be closed and also the east park

[1:15:45] square to be closed for juneteenth

[1:15:46] could do we

[1:15:49] have a motion?

[1:15:50] >> I'll make

[1:15:55] a motion. To make

[1:15:56] the closure of those streets.

[1:15:57] >> okay.

[1:15:58] >> following the staff's recommendation.

[1:15:59] >>

[1:16:03] from a point of order I guess on this,

[1:16:04] rather

[1:16:05] than individual motion, should we

[1:16:07] do that way or try to

[1:16:08] do one motion, incorporate all the

[1:16:10] changes and

[1:16:13] move on?

[1:16:14] >> okay, good

[1:16:15] enough.

[1:16:16] >> all right, and then approve

[1:16:17] everything.

[1:16:18] sounds good.

[1:16:19] >> I was going to ask

[1:16:20] on

[1:16:21] that because the way the motions were,

[1:16:22] one item at the end

[1:16:25] of this, should there be a

[1:16:31] base motion

[1:16:37] to approve, deny, or something like

[1:16:38] that, and have motions to do the other

[1:16:40] changes, something like that?

[1:16:41] >> you

[1:16:42] can do it either way. I think with

[1:16:43] the chairman wants to do is do

[1:16:45] these one at a time and have a global

[1:16:46] motion at the end.

[1:16:47] >> so

[1:16:48] it's been moved and properly seconded

[1:16:49] on the juneteenth recommendation.

[1:16:50] we'll move

[1:16:52] on to --all

[1:16:55] in favor?

[1:16:56] >> started

[1:16:58] at 6:00.

[1:16:59] >> 6:00,

[1:17:01] yes

[1:17:04] or.

[1:17:05] >>

[1:17:12] one of these we had different times?

[1:17:13] >> all of the events

[1:17:14] have some different times. This particular

[1:17:16] case here with juneteenth is different

[1:17:17] than the

[1:17:18] park, yes. So all the other events

[1:17:19] have their individual listings in

[1:17:20] the memo.

[1:17:21] all of them are the same as what we've

[1:17:22] always done in the past few

[1:17:23] years. Only juneteenth and our department

[1:17:25] are different.

[1:17:26] >>

[1:17:28] we put the bus down all the way at

[1:17:29] oak

[1:17:31] street or [

[1:17:33] inaudible ]?

[1:17:34] >> I don't know. >> we've

[1:17:35] got five

[1:17:37] very viable businesses on

[1:17:38] church street that we haven't had

[1:17:40] in

[1:17:43] the equation.

[1:17:44] >> for juneteenth

[1:17:46] we wouldn't be touching that.

[1:17:52] no.

[1:17:53] >>

[1:17:54] talking about the ones come after

[1:17:55] 6:00 I think it's fair game.

[1:17:56] >> the juneteenth wouldn't be touched

[1:17:58] at all.

[1:17:59] >> open it for somebody, or

[1:18:00] it's detrimental to somebody. The

[1:18:04] same 24/7.

[1:18:05] >> true,

[1:18:07] it

[1:18:10] does.

[1:18:11] >> this would

[1:18:13] take it.

[1:18:16] >> I don't have --probably

[1:18:22] juneteenth --

[1:18:25] >> that's what we are voting on

[1:18:28] is the juneteenth.

[1:18:31] we voted okay on that.

[1:18:32] >> that was

[1:18:33] north

[1:18:37] and east.

[1:18:38] >> I did

[1:18:39] failed to point out one other thing

[1:18:40] in our park and that was the

[1:18:43] closure on

[1:18:46] west park. Excuse me

[1:18:52] a second.

[1:18:58] that was just to move that up a little

[1:18:59] bit, a half

[1:19:00] an hour, actually the street closed

[1:19:01] at 10:00. Before the street would

[1:19:02] close

[1:19:04] at 9:00 but the people in the parking

[1:19:05] spaces would

[1:19:06] not have to leave until 9:30. So it's

[1:19:07] a half an hour earlier than what

[1:19:09] it was but it would allow those folks

[1:19:10] having dinner to have until 9:30 to

[1:19:12] get out of that west parkside. Just

[1:19:13] a one half hour

[1:19:18] change their. We will stop the traffic

[1:19:19] just because the people don't come

[1:19:20] in

[1:19:21] and dive into spots as they open up

[1:19:22] some better management for the police

[1:19:23] and

[1:19:25] traffic. Okay.

[1:19:26] >> so that motion then

[1:19:28] would be for the art in

[1:19:31] the park to close at 4:00, 5:00

[1:19:36] and 6:00.

[1:19:37] >> northpark at 4:00, south

[1:19:38] park at 5:00, east park at 6:00 and

[1:19:41] then westpark would

[1:19:44] be closed

[1:19:45] , the street at 9:00, parking spaces

[1:19:47] at 9:30.

[1:19:49] >> okay. Are we good with that? All

[1:19:53] in

[1:19:56] favor?

[1:19:57] >> 4:00 on

[1:19:59] northpark.

[1:20:00] >>

[1:20:02] [ inaudible ] but the city does a

[1:20:05] good job

[1:20:07] of keeping [ inaudible ]. Before,

[1:20:08] we were

[1:20:14] trapped in. Especially to go down,

[1:20:17] for them to

[1:20:20] sell products to do harm to other

[1:20:22] businesses, it's like being against

[1:20:23] santa claus

[1:20:26] or the

[1:20:29] easter bunny.

[1:20:33] why can't the northside be last?

[1:20:34] >>

[1:20:35] northside

[1:20:38] be last? You know I

[1:20:41] guess because

[1:20:44] --

[1:20:45] >>

[1:20:46] [ inaudible ]

[1:20:47] >> it's just not seen

[1:20:48] as a through route,

[1:20:49] like south park, where you are trying

[1:20:50] to get over to dallas

[1:20:51] highway and down roswell, where you

[1:20:53] can go around

[1:20:55] the park on northpark. If people are

[1:20:56] coming, they can go west,

[1:20:57] they can go south, they can go east

[1:20:59] and get deck around. It's a little

[1:21:00] bit easier detour than what people

[1:21:02] would encounter if we did south park

[1:21:05] before northpark.

[1:21:06] >> just

[1:21:08] want

[1:21:09] it later?

[1:21:10] >> keep in mind this is

[1:21:14] a request

[1:21:15] so it can be dealt with the way you

[1:21:17] deem appropriate.

[1:21:18] >> [

[1:21:20] inaudible ]

[1:21:22] >> what do you want us to do? >> and

[1:21:23] also

[1:21:26] when you close

[1:21:29] that, we are going to have [ inaudible

[1:21:35] ] restaurants, if we

[1:21:36] [ inaudible ]. If you can't get the

[1:21:38] trucks in there and stuff,

[1:21:41] I've seen delivery trucks

[1:21:44] and

[1:21:47] trash when they had one of

[1:21:49] them open. And I think every one of

[1:21:50] them will be

[1:21:53] very successful.

[1:21:56] you know

[1:21:59] they're not [ inaudible

[1:22:02] ] anymore. We hadn't cut a

[1:22:03] deal with the baptist church, we got

[1:22:08] that place, but hansen street is basically

[1:22:11] closed.

[1:22:14] >> we are having some

[1:22:15] ongoing discussions. They do have

[1:22:17] something that we are going to need

[1:22:20] to bring back

[1:22:22] to discuss. Hopefully we are going

[1:22:23] to solve that in

[1:22:25] the future. We won't be immediate,

[1:22:26] that's for

[1:22:29] sure.

[1:22:30] >> I'm

[1:22:32] talking about we have problems,

[1:22:35] that's better than a

[1:22:37] deserted square. But I think the change

[1:22:41] is coming.

[1:22:42] >> do

[1:22:43] you think moving the times a little

[1:22:44] bit

[1:22:47] would help?

[1:22:48] >> I really

[1:22:53] can't offer --you are either going

[1:22:56] to do it or not so I

[1:22:59] guess --I'd like

[1:23:01] to encourage or keep some of the traffic

[1:23:08] flowing well on reed street

[1:23:11] and hensel. Because it

[1:23:14] does bottleneck

[1:23:23] . Could be closed

[1:23:24] around 4:00, too.

[1:23:25] >> cherokee would

[1:23:26] not close until 6:00.

[1:23:27] >> 6:00. You

[1:23:28] can take

[1:23:29] it uninhibited on the cherokee street.

[1:23:30] >> it closes up to

[1:23:35] hensel. Yeah.

[1:23:38] >> and you would still be

[1:23:40] able to flow through our --

[1:23:41] >> you

[1:23:42] can still flow-through hensel and

[1:23:43] get

[1:23:44] back on cherokee and you would be

[1:23:45] able to go on westpark until

[1:23:47] 9:00 p.m.

[1:23:50] >> just with all

[1:23:53] this smaller streets open as we

[1:23:56] close them.

[1:23:57] >> one section of route

[1:23:58] will

[1:23:59] be closed.

[1:24:00] >> between northpark

[1:24:02] square and hansen would be closed

[1:24:08] at 4:00.

[1:24:09] >> it wouldn't

[1:24:14] affect --

[1:24:17] >> [ inaudible ]. >> it wouldn't affect

[1:24:18] you leaving.

[1:24:19] you just wouldn't be able to get into

[1:24:20] northpark to turn on from wood

[1:24:23] street. You

[1:24:26] can leave from

[1:24:27] the parking spaces back behind the

[1:24:29] wall from your place.

[1:24:30] >> I'm just

[1:24:31] talking about

[1:24:32] going home.

[1:24:33] >> we have carolyn here

[1:24:34] if she wants to answer anything in

[1:24:35] particular.

[1:24:36] >> folks have had to get

[1:24:41] them before.

[1:24:44] >> definitely would

[1:24:47] want to keep that

[1:24:50] portion open. Wouldn't be able to

[1:24:51] enter from

[1:24:53] the square.

[1:24:54] >> on talking about

[1:24:56] 15 cars

[1:24:57] >> really we would just lock

[1:24:59] it at

[1:25:01] the square and he wouldn't have any

[1:25:02] other blockage,

[1:25:05] right?

[1:25:06] >> root street would be

[1:25:08] blocked at sugar cakes.

[1:25:10] >> and that's it? >> that's it. Nothing

[1:25:13] beyond their.

[1:25:14] >> that's what I'd like

[1:25:15] to clear

[1:25:20] up. Apologize .

[1:25:21] >> I

[1:25:22] wonder what the problem is.

[1:25:23] >> two

[1:25:24] thirds of our parking lot our uninvited

[1:25:26] guests.

[1:25:29] >> you. >> I don't want to be sued

[1:25:30] by somebody

[1:25:31] that's trespassing.

[1:25:32] >> we wouldn't

[1:25:35] be putting like

[1:25:37] until 9:00 there wouldn't be anything

[1:25:42] blocking church

[1:25:47] so that everybody would be able to

[1:25:48] go

[1:25:49] around.

[1:25:50] >> they wouldn't even be blocking

[1:25:51] at 9:00. The traffic would still be

[1:25:52] able to get down to middle street

[1:25:53] right there. It would just be that

[1:25:54] block from

[1:25:55] mill street forward on that friday

[1:25:56] evening.

[1:25:57] >> blocking those restaurants

[1:25:58] and all them.

[1:26:00] >> they will still be open. >>

[1:26:03] every business has a [

[1:26:06] inaudible ]. We are committed

[1:26:09] to the baptist church parking

[1:26:14] there, too.

[1:26:15] >> we'll provide that

[1:26:16] access

[1:26:18] as we

[1:26:21] have been.

[1:26:24] >> so do me a favor. Let's

[1:26:27] restate

[1:26:28] or art in the park, what we're doing

[1:26:30] so it will be on record and

[1:26:32] then we'll get a total group on both.

[1:26:33] >> the friday

[1:26:38] night closures would be northpark

[1:26:39] square at 4:00, south

[1:26:40] park square at 5:00, east park square

[1:26:45] at 6:00 and westpark square at

[1:26:48] 9:00 p.m... Then the

[1:26:51] saturday

[1:26:54] and sunday

[1:26:57] --saturday,

[1:26:58] sunday, monday stay the same as they

[1:27:00] have been in the past. Nothing has

[1:27:01] changed so what's in the memo would

[1:27:03] be correct and I can provide a

[1:27:04] revised memo for the council meeting

[1:27:06] that details what we

[1:27:10] just discussed.

[1:27:11] >> okay. So I guess

[1:27:12] what we'll do now, all in

[1:27:13] favor of approving what is brought

[1:27:15] before us for the

[1:27:18] juneteenth and also art in the

[1:27:21] park. Do we have a motion? All

[1:27:24] in favor?

[1:27:25] >> were you going to

[1:27:27] use his motion?

[1:27:28] >> we'll just

[1:27:30] use

[1:27:33] --

[1:27:34] >> [ inaudible ] motion on

[1:27:38] his wording.

[1:27:39] >> moved and seconded.

[1:27:40] all in

[1:27:42] favor?

[1:27:45] passes 3-0.

[1:27:48] >> point of inquiry

[1:27:51] on this. Now a full thing,

[1:27:54] although closures.

[1:27:55] >>

[1:27:57] those are the

[1:28:00] two changes. Are they full

[1:28:01] closure lists now?

[1:28:02] >> we'll now make a

[1:28:03] motion to approve

[1:28:06] all

[1:28:08] of the closures that we discussed

[1:28:09] for juneteenth and also art

[1:28:12] in the park. Do we have a motion?

[1:28:15] all of them. A

[1:28:20] whole list.

[1:28:21] >> I'll add there are

[1:28:22] those

[1:28:23] three events on there that also request

[1:28:24] the permission for

[1:28:27] alcohol sales, oktoberfest,

[1:28:29] art in the park and taste of marietta.

[1:28:30] that would be in

[1:28:31] the motion as well.

[1:28:32] >> we'll use that

[1:28:33] motion that rich just

[1:28:35] talk about for all of the events that

[1:28:39] are scheduled. Do

[1:28:44] we have a motion for that?

[1:28:45] >> I'll

[1:28:46] make a motion

[1:28:50] for approval for all of the items

[1:28:51] that we just

[1:28:54] discussed, including juneteenth

[1:28:56] and art in the park.

[1:28:57] >> it's been

[1:28:58] moved

[1:29:00] and seconded that we are

[1:29:03] going to approve everything. All

[1:29:06] in favor?

[1:29:09] passes

[1:29:12] 3-0. Everybody good

[1:29:15] with consent?

[1:29:18] >> would you like to vote the

[1:29:19] consent or weight and have the revised

[1:29:21] memo? How would you like to handle

[1:29:22] that?

[1:29:23] >>

[1:29:24] I provide one anyway, whether you

[1:29:25] move it or not.

[1:29:26] >> let's

[1:29:27] check just

[1:29:30] to see so we can get out

[1:29:36] of here.

[1:29:37] >> five, four,

[1:29:39] three, two, one.

[1:29:40] >>

[1:29:42] no comment.

[1:29:43] >> so we

[1:29:45] are good.

[1:29:48] >> okay. And I'll revise all that.

[1:29:49] >> just revise

[1:29:51] it, bring it back. Perfect.

[1:29:54] thank you. Any other

[1:29:56] things that need to come before parks,

[1:29:57] creation,

[1:30:00] and tourism? We

[1:30:02] are adjourned.

[1:30:03] >> okay. I call to

[1:30:06] order the judicial legislative

[1:30:09] community. First item

[1:30:12] of business will be the revised

[1:30:15] minutes.

[1:30:16] >> a motion to

[1:30:17] approve?

[1:30:18] >> got a motion and a second.

[1:30:20] any questions, comments, or concerns?

[1:30:21] hearing none, all

[1:30:24] in favor? All right. We've

[1:30:28] got three plus one person who doesn't

[1:30:30] know what he's doing.

[1:30:33] the next item

[1:30:36] of

[1:30:39] business --I

[1:30:42] lost

[1:30:44] it. The next item of business is zoning

[1:30:48] code amendments.

[1:30:49] >> I'm

[1:30:50] going to turn that over to mr. White

[1:30:51] and

[1:30:54] ms. Little.

[1:30:55] >> the legendary

[1:30:56] ray stevens saying it's me here, margaret.

[1:31:00] I'm here I'm back on the

[1:31:05] zoning amendment. We discussed this

[1:31:06] in december after we discussed it

[1:31:07] a

[1:31:08] couple months before december and

[1:31:09] this time I

[1:31:12] tried

[1:31:15] to summarize just a reminder

[1:31:17] of the purpose of the changes for

[1:31:18] the zoning

[1:31:21] amend vent.

[1:31:23] the amendment to the zoning ordinance

[1:31:24] in the first place, that's the first

[1:31:25] three items,

[1:31:26] is just to remind you of what this

[1:31:27] is about, why this got started

[1:31:29] in the first place. And then items

[1:31:31] 1

[1:31:33] through 6 are the changes I made based

[1:31:34] on

[1:31:35] feedback I got last month and these

[1:31:37] were sort of

[1:31:40] also sent to shelby

[1:31:43] and rusty and I think

[1:31:44] shelby had to mention a couple things

[1:31:46] that I also incorporated

[1:31:48] that were consistent with what was

[1:31:49] brought up in the

[1:31:50] last meeting. I can go through those

[1:31:51] individually if you want but hopefully

[1:31:52] you've had

[1:31:54] a chance to look at them and I did

[1:31:56] want to point out at the end there

[1:31:58] was a request

[1:32:03] made that alternative language be

[1:32:04] proposed for those two

[1:32:05] sections. So let me just address maybe

[1:32:07] it is helpful to go back and

[1:32:10] remind you

[1:32:11] but the three main categories that

[1:32:13] we are addressing in this

[1:32:16] amendment are to adopt a

[1:32:17] distinction between the zoning decisions

[1:32:19] and because I judicial

[1:32:20] decisions that's enacted in the cpl.

[1:32:22] we

[1:32:27] are also updating and enacting the

[1:32:28] procedures and

[1:32:29] policies for council bza and planning

[1:32:30] commission that were required by the

[1:32:31] cbl and

[1:32:32] then updating the appeal portions,

[1:32:34] the judicial review portions

[1:32:35] so that's the main purpose. Then you will

[1:32:37] see each one of these things,

[1:32:40] in

[1:32:43] section 1

[1:32:45] , this is what rusty had pointed out

[1:32:46] to me right before the

[1:32:47] last meeting so I added it to this

[1:32:49] one that their language and

[1:32:51] 704 06 probably needed to be updated.

[1:32:52] it was old language that

[1:32:53] really was talking about variances

[1:32:54] but calling them special exceptions.

[1:32:55] so I just updated that

[1:32:58] section

[1:33:00] to reflect the language that we are

[1:33:01] adopting

[1:33:04] now about zoning decisions and

[1:33:10] quasijudicial decisions

[1:33:12] . I'll just go through these all quickly

[1:33:13] and you

[1:33:14] can come back and ask me questions

[1:33:16] about them. But number two, the second

[1:33:17] change

[1:33:18] we made after the last one was to

[1:33:19] update the language about temporary

[1:33:20] buildings,

[1:33:21] to incorporate the language. There

[1:33:22] is one correction noted last time

[1:33:23] and then also we

[1:33:24] noted there was a recommendation that

[1:33:25] we could clear the temporary buildings

[1:33:26] while there

[1:33:28] is an act of

[1:33:31] construction permit.

[1:33:36] we talked back and forth about vacancies,

[1:33:37] automatic

[1:33:40] vacancies on the planning

[1:33:41] commission at the bza. I lined those

[1:33:43] up to reflect the things you agreed

[1:33:46] on, which I think we watched

[1:33:52] the meeting, what we

[1:33:53] could tell, there is general agreement

[1:33:54] it could be three meetings within

[1:33:55] a year, a

[1:33:56] calendar year, that would trigger

[1:33:57] an absence. There never seemed to

[1:33:58] be any consensus

[1:34:01] about whether that's automatic or

[1:34:02] who decides what just cause is or

[1:34:04] anything

[1:34:08] like that. I left that language in

[1:34:10] there about without just cause in,

[1:34:11] because there wasn't a consensus.

[1:34:12] but there is a proposed alternative

[1:34:13] language on the

[1:34:15] second page that would make a referral

[1:34:16] to council

[1:34:19] and you can --basically what

[1:34:22] the alternative language

[1:34:23] says actually amounts to a resignation

[1:34:25] but that resignation

[1:34:28] is forwarded to you so you can

[1:34:29] decide whether to accept it or find

[1:34:31] there was just cause were not. So that's

[1:34:32] kind of the in between or compromise

[1:34:34] language I

[1:34:36] offered their for that suggestion.

[1:34:37] and then in

[1:34:43] section nine,

[1:34:48] there is a category of decisions that

[1:34:49] were able to be appealed to

[1:34:52] the bza. That

[1:34:54] change was made based on recommendation

[1:34:55] from

[1:34:58] ms. Little. And then

[1:35:04] both 720

[1:35:06] 07 and 720 04f were updated to remove

[1:35:07] the language about the conflict of

[1:35:10] interest rules and 720.05

[1:35:13] and 720.04 were

[1:35:18] just removed it as the restriction

[1:35:19] on numbers appearing before their

[1:35:20] boards, that

[1:35:21] was removed. Then there was a suggestion

[1:35:22] made that I didn't add

[1:35:25] it to it but we are welcome

[1:35:27] to use it. That's the bottom of this

[1:35:31] page saying members are subject to

[1:35:32] the code

[1:35:34] of ethics and I just referenced

[1:35:37] the article and then the last thing

[1:35:40] to

[1:35:43] note is the language in 722.11

[1:35:45] regarding appeals of zoning decisions.

[1:35:46] the cbl now

[1:35:49] uses

[1:35:52] the term for when

[1:35:53] it's talking about appeals of zoning

[1:35:55] decision. It talks about

[1:36:00] challenging them so instead of saying

[1:36:01] appeal or judicial review, it

[1:36:02] talks about challenging the constitutionality.

[1:36:03] this legislature adopted that based

[1:36:04] on the

[1:36:06] case law that's basically built up

[1:36:07] over the years. I changed

[1:36:10] hours, instead of

[1:36:11] making them both petitions for review.

[1:36:13] the first one talks about bringing

[1:36:14] an

[1:36:16] appeal as

[1:36:22] a challenge . It's a

[1:36:23] very arcane legal distinction but

[1:36:25] you bring a challenge to a zoning

[1:36:31] decision under equity --basically

[1:36:32] under

[1:36:33] the declaratory judgment action. That's

[1:36:34] what the zbl says so I

[1:36:40] changed

[1:36:42] that draft to say that and then the

[1:36:43] bza appeals and the appeals of

[1:36:44] variances, basically quasijudicial

[1:36:45] decisions are now under the petition

[1:36:46] for review. So that's another

[1:36:49] change that was made since the

[1:36:52] last meeting that I don't think was

[1:36:53] discussed at all,

[1:36:54] so I make sure you understood what

[1:36:55] I was doing your. Those are the

[1:36:57] changes I made. There is the reasons.

[1:36:58] happy to answer any more questions

[1:37:00] but just as far as next steps, this

[1:37:01] is like any other zoning code amendment.

[1:37:03] it would need to be advertised and

[1:37:04] go before the planning commission

[1:37:05] and back

[1:37:07] before

[1:37:09] you so even if you still want to talk

[1:37:10] some more I would suggest

[1:37:12] let's get it on the cycle for getting

[1:37:14] it before the planning

[1:37:15] commission and then it would have

[1:37:16] to be advertised for 15 days before

[1:37:17] that or

[1:37:20] just before

[1:37:23] your meetings.

[1:37:24] >> so I have

[1:37:29] a question. Yes. I'm sorry, go

[1:37:32] ahead.

[1:37:33] the zoning --it's on here as a request

[1:37:35] to update zoning

[1:37:38] procedures, not as

[1:37:41] a direct the staff

[1:37:46] to advertise.

[1:37:47] >> if you want to go

[1:37:48] forward,

[1:37:50] that should

[1:37:52] be added. For the city to advertise

[1:37:56] and conduct the requirements.

[1:37:59] >> okay. >> for the people that were

[1:38:02] on the committee, do I have

[1:38:08] a motion?

[1:38:15] >> [ inaudible ]. >> okay, first let

[1:38:17] me ask, are there questions or

[1:38:19] concerns? What is your concern, sir?

[1:38:20] >> right now there

[1:38:23] are three. The

[1:38:24] first two are dealing with those alternate

[1:38:32] language choices.

[1:38:34] [ inaudible ] to make that choice

[1:38:35] whenever emotion is made

[1:38:36] as to which language you want to use,

[1:38:38] whether it's the --for the

[1:38:39] vacancy language, whether it's an

[1:38:41] automatic vacancy or whether

[1:38:42] it's --whether it comes back before

[1:38:44] us for

[1:38:47] our decision. The conflict of interest

[1:38:48] languages to reference back to our

[1:38:50] ethics code and the final one

[1:38:52] just a question about the state last

[1:38:53] month

[1:38:56] over on page

[1:38:59] 16. How would you like me to

[1:39:02] handle that? How would you like to

[1:39:03] make

[1:39:05] the motions? One at a time?

[1:39:07] >> yes, [ inaudible ]. >> good with

[1:39:08] the vacancy

[1:39:12] language first. Right now again it

[1:39:14] says it's automatic

[1:39:18] vacancy with an exception for just

[1:39:20] cause, but

[1:39:24] again, doesn't specify who determines

[1:39:26] what just cause is. Because of the

[1:39:27] importance of making sure we have

[1:39:29] a functioning board and have had members

[1:39:30] attending,

[1:39:31] I think that is important that once

[1:39:32] you hit

[1:39:34] that three that it's basically an

[1:39:35] automatic-they

[1:39:41] are basically

[1:39:44] shall be considered for resignation

[1:39:45] from

[1:39:46] the board and then that resignation

[1:39:47] gets forwarded along to us to make

[1:39:48] that

[1:39:49] final decision whether to accept or

[1:39:50] find that there is just cause to allow

[1:39:51] them

[1:39:53] to continue. That will be my personal

[1:39:54] preference on that one as opposed

[1:39:58] to automatic, they removed but we

[1:39:59] don't

[1:40:00] determine how just cause is determined

[1:40:02] and that's

[1:40:05] current language. I think the council

[1:40:06] action

[1:40:07] is important in this one since we

[1:40:08] are

[1:40:10] the ones to [ inaudible ], we should

[1:40:11] be the ones to

[1:40:14] remove it, if that's the

[1:40:17] case.

[1:40:18] >> you are saying the language

[1:40:20] on page two is what you're

[1:40:23] comfortable with.

[1:40:24] >> it shall

[1:40:25] be considered for resignation from

[1:40:26] the

[1:40:29] board rather than just

[1:40:30] saying resignation from the board.

[1:40:32] that is the one change I'd

[1:40:33] add just language-wise, just for flow

[1:40:35] of the sentence. But the rest of

[1:40:38] that gets

[1:40:41] my concern.

[1:40:42] and it forces us to have to consider

[1:40:44] an action

[1:40:47] on

[1:40:48] that once they hit that three.

[1:40:49] >>

[1:40:50] okay, so taking these individuals

[1:40:53] at three, do I

[1:40:56] have a motion on the alternative board

[1:40:59] vacancy

[1:41:01] language? So what mr. Goldstein is

[1:41:02] saying is the language

[1:41:08] on page two, which

[1:41:09] says the failure of a board member

[1:41:11] to attend three regular meetings within

[1:41:12] a calendar

[1:41:13] year shall be considered for resignation

[1:41:14] from

[1:41:20] the board. Such resignation shall

[1:41:21] be

[1:41:22] forwarded to city council, who may

[1:41:23] accept the resignation or

[1:41:25] may decline to accept it if it finds

[1:41:26] just cause exists for the absence.

[1:41:34] and then it continues on. So do I

[1:41:35] have a motion for that

[1:41:38] language or to leave it as it

[1:41:44] is, which --is it in here?

[1:41:45] >>

[1:41:47] it is. It's

[1:41:52] in section --

[1:41:53] >> 723. >> it's in 723

[1:41:59] and 722-04.

[1:42:00] >> thank you. The current

[1:42:01] language

[1:42:02] is page

[1:42:08] six I.

[1:42:14] so I now says failure of a board member

[1:42:15] to

[1:42:16] attend three regular meetings within

[1:42:17] a calendar year without just

[1:42:22] cause shall be considered resignation

[1:42:23] from the board to. Upon

[1:42:26] such

[1:42:28] automatic resignation, resignation

[1:42:29] by other means, or other

[1:42:30] vacancies occurring, the chairman

[1:42:31] shall inform the city council. So

[1:42:32] this

[1:42:37] one is an automatic. You missed three,

[1:42:38] you're out unless you have

[1:42:40] just cause. The other question I guess

[1:42:41] that mr. Goldstein is raising his

[1:42:42] what's just

[1:42:43] cause. Should that be determined by

[1:42:44] the board or should

[1:42:47] that come up here to

[1:42:53] be determined?

[1:42:58] >> that's policy decision. This is

[1:42:59] adopted from the bylaws so I

[1:43:01] guess at some point the boards adopted

[1:43:02] these

[1:43:04] bylaws and said, I guess they originated

[1:43:06] as

[1:43:08] the board determining, the border

[1:43:09] of the planning commission,

[1:43:10] whichever one it was, determining

[1:43:12] just cause

[1:43:14] so that they policy preference. I

[1:43:15] think that it is

[1:43:18] appropriate to have

[1:43:21] somebody make

[1:43:27] the decision

[1:43:29] and the council needs to say, if you

[1:43:30] are fine with it

[1:43:31] being the board, we can put language

[1:43:32] in there saying the bza were the planning

[1:43:33] commission makes the decision about

[1:43:35] what just cause is but I think it

[1:43:36] would

[1:43:37] be wise to say [ inaudible ].

[1:43:38] >> I'm

[1:43:39] going to step out and

[1:43:40] say that I make a motion for the alternative

[1:43:42] board vacancy language where

[1:43:45] just cause is determined at city

[1:43:48] council, not at

[1:43:51] the board.

[1:43:54] any discussion before we

[1:43:57] go

[1:44:03] forward?

[1:44:04] >> they missed three

[1:44:06] regular meetings with a

[1:44:08] calendar year.

[1:44:09] >> right. >> if they

[1:44:10] have

[1:44:11] a surgery or a heart attack or something,

[1:44:12] they have a letter from

[1:44:15] their doctor.

[1:44:17] >> then it comes up here and we decide

[1:44:18] whether or not that's just

[1:44:20] cause.

[1:44:21] >> it still comes up here.

[1:44:22] >> at least under

[1:44:27] this alternative

[1:44:29] language.

[1:44:30] >> under the motion I am

[1:44:31] making it would come up here

[1:44:32] for us to determine whether or not

[1:44:33] that's just cause. Even with a

[1:44:35] heart attack, you know they've got

[1:44:36] you up and

[1:44:38] moving around. Never had a heart attack.

[1:44:39] I

[1:44:41] don't know. Pretty quickly. This is

[1:44:45] 90

[1:44:46] days. This is 90 days you couldn't

[1:44:48] make

[1:44:51] it back. My motion

[1:44:56] is that you go with the language that

[1:44:57] says just cause is

[1:44:59] determined up here at council. And

[1:45:00] I've

[1:45:02] got a second. Anybody else? I'm looking

[1:45:03] at

[1:45:06] the

[1:45:09] mayor.

[1:45:10] >> I have a question. >>

[1:45:11] oh, please.

[1:45:12] >> everyday language,

[1:45:13] does that mean it would

[1:45:15] automatically go to

[1:45:18] [ inaudible ]?

[1:45:19] >> yes, they are automatically

[1:45:21] --they

[1:45:24] have resigned. They submitted

[1:45:25] for resignation and then it comes

[1:45:27] up

[1:45:33] here and we say thank

[1:45:34] you, it's been really nice having

[1:45:36] you. Know, we really want you to stay,

[1:45:37] you

[1:45:39] had cause. Or --

[1:45:40] >> this would happen

[1:45:41] automatically? At

[1:45:42] the

[1:45:43] following meeting? At the following

[1:45:45] meeting of

[1:45:49] city council, upon this condition

[1:45:51] be met?

[1:45:54] >> yes. >> it's my question

[1:45:59] for doug. When it comes to the council,

[1:46:00] will it be voted

[1:46:02] on?

[1:46:03] >> yes sir, it will be in public.

[1:46:04] they supply whatever

[1:46:06] just cause.

[1:46:08] >> I guess appealed it, not appealed

[1:46:15] it --

[1:46:16] >>

[1:46:17] could it be an executive session issue?

[1:46:18] >> I would not

[1:46:21] think so.

[1:46:22] >> it's

[1:46:24] not considered a personnel?

[1:46:27] the vote would have to be --

[1:46:29] >> the vote would have to be public

[1:46:30] but

[1:46:35] the reason --

[1:46:36] >> I guess it would depend

[1:46:37] on the reason, and if it's

[1:46:38] confidential medical information it

[1:46:39] could be

[1:46:41] executive session.

[1:46:42] >> [ inaudible

[1:46:43] ].

[1:46:44] >> so that

[1:46:45] would be an ad hoc decision.

[1:46:46] >>

[1:46:51] yes or.

[1:46:52] >> okay, again we've got

[1:46:54] a motion and

[1:46:57] a second. The discussion. All in

[1:46:59] favor? It's 3-0. So that's just that,

[1:47:03] okay? What's next?

[1:47:05] >> the second one is with the conflict

[1:47:06] of interest language. The code of

[1:47:08] ethics already covers what they can

[1:47:09] and can't vote

[1:47:14] on so it would be better just to have

[1:47:15] a reference back to

[1:47:17] that to make it clear who is trying

[1:47:18] to interpret

[1:47:20] something else when they already have

[1:47:21] something they have

[1:47:23] to follow. And just make reference

[1:47:27] to it so

[1:47:30] they'll work [ inaudible ].

[1:47:31] >>

[1:47:33] so the two conditions

[1:47:36] are what's written

[1:47:41] here, which says the board members

[1:47:42] are subject to the code

[1:47:44] of ethics as set forth in chapter

[1:47:45] 14, article one of the city's code

[1:47:49] of ordinances, abuse of office and

[1:47:51] conflict of interest. This language

[1:47:52] says

[1:47:57] that so the alternative language --

[1:47:58] >> that's

[1:47:59] the alternative language.

[1:48:00] >> okay.

[1:48:01] the current language

[1:48:03] says --

[1:48:04] >> the strikethrough language

[1:48:06] right now.

[1:48:12] >> okay, b 2, that does

[1:48:14] not say what I needed to say.

[1:48:15] >> that's

[1:48:16] the

[1:48:21] current language. The alternative

[1:48:22] language reference to

[1:48:24] the code of ethics.

[1:48:25] >> I think

[1:48:27] it was supposed to be three.

[1:48:30] did

[1:48:32] I?

[1:48:33] >> okay. I'm reading b 2 and I'm

[1:48:34] going, that [

[1:48:36] inaudible ].

[1:48:37] >> I'm talking about

[1:48:38] b 3.

[1:48:39] >> page 8, down at the bottom,

[1:48:40] in red and

[1:48:45] it says b3. New board member shall

[1:48:46] here or vote

[1:48:47] upon any appellate which he or she

[1:48:48] is directly or indirectly interested

[1:48:54] in a personal or financial way.

[1:48:57] so that kind of states what's in the

[1:48:58] ethics,

[1:48:59] kind of. But the other language says

[1:49:03] turn

[1:49:06] to the ethics ordinance for your guidance.

[1:49:07] >> just

[1:49:09] for context, this was probably adopted

[1:49:10] before the ethics code

[1:49:13] so it had the

[1:49:14] more general language. Ethics code

[1:49:16] was adopted that has more detail

[1:49:19] on it. I don't think it's a

[1:49:22] bad idea to say it

[1:49:23] gives you more clear parameters than

[1:49:24] the ethics code if you want to reference

[1:49:26] it but it's fine either way. Either

[1:49:28] one covers

[1:49:30] the rule. Short and sweet like the

[1:49:31] old way or

[1:49:33] you can reference it.

[1:49:34] >> the short

[1:49:35] and

[1:49:37] sweet, what do

[1:49:39] you miss?

[1:49:40] >> there's a specific --

[1:49:41] there is

[1:49:43] some more things in the abuse

[1:49:49] of office,

[1:49:51] whatever section. The reality is whether

[1:49:52] you change

[1:49:53] it or not, the ethics code says they

[1:49:55] are subject to it. Whether it's referenced

[1:49:56] in this part or not, this applies

[1:49:58] to --we are missing repeating

[1:50:01] the details in the

[1:50:03] ethics code at the ethics code itself

[1:50:04] says

[1:50:05] if you are a councilmember or a member

[1:50:07] of an appointed board, these are the

[1:50:08] rules that apply to you so they are

[1:50:10] still subject to them. We are just

[1:50:11] not repeating them here in as much

[1:50:13] detail.

[1:50:14] >> okay. Do I have a

[1:50:16] motion for the board members?

[1:50:20] >> so -->> councilmembers? >> yeah,

[1:50:22] I would say my

[1:50:25] recommendation would be

[1:50:28] to go with

[1:50:30] the revised language.

[1:50:31] >> that's on

[1:50:32] page 2.

[1:50:34] >> that's on

[1:50:37] page 2.

[1:50:38] >> did you hear

[1:50:40] that?

[1:50:43] so what andre just

[1:50:46] said was he wants to

[1:50:49] go with the language that's on

[1:50:52] page 2, which directs them basically

[1:50:55] to the ethics

[1:50:59] ordinance.

[1:51:00] >> seconded. >> I'm looking

[1:51:01] for a

[1:51:03] second. Seconding?

[1:51:04] >> would you like

[1:51:05] to

[1:51:07] second?

[1:51:08] >> I can second it.

[1:51:10] okay. Somebody got a motion and

[1:51:12] seconded, any discussion? Hearing

[1:51:13] on, all

[1:51:16] in favor. You

[1:51:19] can do

[1:51:22] either hand

[1:51:25] . Okay. So

[1:51:26] that's a 3-0. Okay. So we've got those

[1:51:28] two. What's your third one?

[1:51:29] >> last

[1:51:31] one just questioning over on --

[1:51:34] it's page

[1:51:37] 16, actually. They were getting

[1:51:40] closer

[1:51:43] to what the

[1:51:46] ocg a

[1:51:50] 3666 5.1 dealing with the appeal up

[1:51:52] to the thing. I think

[1:51:55] I'd asked last month about

[1:52:01] the state

[1:52:04] ,

[1:52:05] what happens if it's only parts, like

[1:52:07] one of variance versus the risk, while

[1:52:08] the

[1:52:09] rest of the development might be able

[1:52:10] to get done outside of maybe one house

[1:52:11] or something like that, for example.

[1:52:13] would this stay the entire thing or

[1:52:14] just the

[1:52:15] one house being developed, or something

[1:52:16] like that? Would that be an issue

[1:52:17] or

[1:52:18] is that something that's also the

[1:52:19] state law mandates to do based off

[1:52:20] of that

[1:52:21] procedure?

[1:52:22] >> if it's an appeal of

[1:52:23] the decision,

[1:52:28] you know,

[1:52:30] if it's a zoning decision with a variance

[1:52:31] tied in, that's

[1:52:32] the zoning decision and that's going

[1:52:34] to be an appeal under title ix, really,

[1:52:40] or under the declared judgment action.

[1:52:41] that's its own

[1:52:43] thing. So if we're

[1:52:44] talking about just appealing the variance

[1:52:46] or the zoning decision,

[1:52:49] it's all the same thing for a

[1:52:52] variance. If there

[1:52:55] is multiple variances

[1:52:57] created by the bza or you guys acting

[1:52:58] as far as your judicial capacity,

[1:52:59] the

[1:53:00] whole thing, it's not just one. You

[1:53:01] know I guess you could look and

[1:53:04] see if the petition

[1:53:06] for review, like if the motion is

[1:53:07] broken down and they're only

[1:53:09] challenging one portion of it, arguably

[1:53:13] you could try to take a position

[1:53:15] that only everything else can continue

[1:53:16] but

[1:53:19] my default position would be that

[1:53:20] the whole

[1:53:22] thing would stay.

[1:53:24] I literally as close as I could, cut

[1:53:25] and pasted the language

[1:53:28] from that statute into something for

[1:53:29] city council

[1:53:30] and those things because that's what's

[1:53:31] in

[1:53:33] the deal now so even if we didn't

[1:53:34] have it in there

[1:53:37] it's going to apply anyways.

[1:53:38] >> if

[1:53:39] it's

[1:53:40] in state law that overrides us, that's

[1:53:41] the end of my line of questioning

[1:53:42] because we don't have --we can't override

[1:53:46] state law. If that's what state law

[1:53:47] says, is

[1:53:49] that

[1:53:51] correct?

[1:53:52] >> does anyone else have

[1:53:53] any questions, concerns? Okay. Do

[1:53:55] we have a

[1:53:58] motion

[1:54:01] regarding this

[1:54:10] , with the changes we've already

[1:54:12] voted on?

[1:54:13] >> I would like to make

[1:54:14] a motion.

[1:54:15] >> if you could

[1:54:16] state the motion that would be great.

[1:54:17] >> yes ma'am. The motion would be

[1:54:18] to

[1:54:19] authorize the advertisement in the

[1:54:20] conducting of the necessary public

[1:54:21] hearings to adopt the

[1:54:22] amendments to the zoning ordinances

[1:54:23] as set forth in ledger star 20240993.

[1:54:24] >> that's

[1:54:25] the motion. Is there a

[1:54:28] second?

[1:54:29] >> second.

[1:54:32] okay.

[1:54:33] >> got the second. Any

[1:54:36] discussion, concerns? And again, this

[1:54:38] is advertising where we are at

[1:54:39] right now. Hearing no questions or

[1:54:41] concern, all

[1:54:44] in favor?

[1:54:45] it's 3-0. Does that go on consent

[1:54:47] or

[1:54:50] is it --

[1:54:51] >> it's

[1:54:52] advertising.

[1:54:53] >> consent to advertise.

[1:54:54] all

[1:54:55] right. Consent, please. All right.

[1:54:59] that wasn't too painful. So the

[1:55:05] next item --this

[1:55:06] is going to be [ inaudible ] --the

[1:55:08] next item is the campus realty

[1:55:09] advisors. Hello miss little.

[1:55:10] >> hello,

[1:55:11] good evening. I'm here to present

[1:55:12] to you

[1:55:14] the request for detailed

[1:55:17] plan for 950 hudson

[1:55:20] road. This is

[1:55:21] a nine acre apartment complex that

[1:55:23] was

[1:55:26] zoned in

[1:55:29] 1983 for 1296

[1:55:32] students over a 15

[1:55:35] acre tract. Campus realty advisors

[1:55:38] is proposing to

[1:55:41] demolish the nine acres

[1:55:44] and

[1:55:47] build three five story

[1:55:49] apartment buildings. So this will

[1:55:50] amount to a

[1:55:53] total of

[1:55:56] 240

[1:55:59] units with

[1:56:02] 665 beds.

[1:56:08] two of the main issues that

[1:56:09] are still outstanding, it's gone through

[1:56:11] staff

[1:56:14] review twice. The first

[1:56:17] is this many

[1:56:20] units would require two access

[1:56:23] points and

[1:56:26] right now there is only one

[1:56:29] vehicular access proposed off

[1:56:35] hudson. They --

[1:56:37] they're showing there is a pedestrian

[1:56:38] path that runs

[1:56:41] from the apartments across

[1:56:44] to sbs you, or

[1:56:47] sorry, asu. They're amenable to

[1:56:50] using that as a sort of

[1:56:53] a secondary

[1:56:55] emergency access. They are working

[1:56:56] on getting

[1:56:59] easements from ksu

[1:57:02] but being that it

[1:57:05] would still only result in

[1:57:09] one access point for daily users,

[1:57:11] that's something that

[1:57:12] would require a variance. The second

[1:57:14] issue

[1:57:16] --and when we've gotten some updated

[1:57:17] information from the applicant

[1:57:20] today on the

[1:57:22] unit composition, that they will be

[1:57:23] based

[1:57:26] on those

[1:57:27] parking requirements and the zoning

[1:57:29] ordinance. They'll be short 61 parking

[1:57:32] spaces so that would also

[1:57:35] require

[1:57:38] a variance.

[1:57:43] considering that it's primarily supposed

[1:57:44] to

[1:57:49] be students, there is a pedestrian

[1:57:50] path. There is also a bus stop

[1:57:53] right on the loop. But

[1:57:56] you have to walk up hudson and

[1:57:59] over. Those are some

[1:58:02] considerations for the reduced

[1:58:05] parking requirements. There

[1:58:08] are

[1:58:10] also some stipulations that were included

[1:58:11] in the 1983

[1:58:14] zoning regarding it only

[1:58:17] being used

[1:58:19] by students that would need to be

[1:58:23] revised and

[1:58:25] kevin moore was going to be here.

[1:58:26] he could probably

[1:58:29] speak to the legality of those

[1:58:30] restrictions and the fair housing

[1:58:35] act but do you have randy

[1:58:38] herring here? From campus

[1:58:41] realty advisors? If you have any

[1:58:44] questions.

[1:58:45] >> by approving this,

[1:58:47] would this

[1:58:49] make this a [ inaudible ] plan?

[1:58:50] >>

[1:58:53] yes.

[1:58:54] >> [ inaudible ]? >> I'm

[1:58:58] sorry.

[1:58:59] >> what was referred to in

[1:59:00] 1983 was 1200 [ inaudible ]

[1:59:02] so this in essence

[1:59:05] is basically a [ inaudible

[1:59:08] ] for

[1:59:11] the 1200.

[1:59:14] they said [ inaudible ] is long enough

[1:59:15] to

[1:59:17] use

[1:59:19] it but I'd like to make it clear that

[1:59:26] the 1200 [ inaudible

[1:59:29] ] we change is the 665.

[1:59:30] >>

[1:59:32] yes, okay. [ inaudible ], is that

[1:59:33] all right?

[1:59:34] >> this would supersede the prior

[1:59:36] zoning,

[1:59:39] prior approval.

[1:59:40] >> a formal

[1:59:42] action to

[1:59:44] override it.

[1:59:45] >> you probably shouldn't

[1:59:46] included in the

[1:59:47] motion, if you do approve it, that

[1:59:48] it supersedes

[1:59:49] all prior [ inaudible ], the units

[1:59:51] and the [

[1:59:54] inaudible ].

[1:59:55] >> they are

[1:59:57] cutting in half the number

[2:00:00] of beds.

[2:00:01] >> in 1983 they

[2:00:02] were approved for that many. They

[2:00:03] never

[2:00:06] built

[2:00:09] that many. I think they only

[2:00:12] built 120 of the 468 that

[2:00:15] were approved

[2:00:17] so only a small portion of the units

[2:00:18] were

[2:00:21] ever built. What's out there

[2:00:24] now is 120

[2:00:27] units and

[2:00:30] 205 beds so this would

[2:00:33] still be an increase.

[2:00:34] >> this is triple

[2:00:36] the number of beds.

[2:00:37] >> yes,

[2:00:41] but it's still what was approved originally

[2:00:42] back

[2:00:45] in

[2:00:46] 1983.

[2:00:47] >> and in 1983, what was the

[2:00:48] density? I see that it would be

[2:00:51] right now like 33.

[2:00:54] >> so

[2:01:00] in 1983

[2:01:01] the zoning included the adjacent site,

[2:01:03] so it was a total of

[2:01:06] 15 acres. With the 468

[2:01:09] units over

[2:01:11] in 15 acres, the density would've

[2:01:12] been about 31 units

[2:01:14] per acre.

[2:01:15] >> this would not only increase

[2:01:16] the

[2:01:17] triple the beds, but increase the

[2:01:18] density.

[2:01:21] >> yes. >> yes sir.

[2:01:24] >> how do

[2:01:27] you overcome

[2:01:28] the 61, not enough parking spaces?

[2:01:30] is this because a lot of

[2:01:32] these students don't have cars? Is

[2:01:33] this something

[2:01:38] that's doable?

[2:01:39] >> today they also

[2:01:40] let us

[2:01:45] know that

[2:01:47] they are trying to get an agreement

[2:01:48] from ks you that

[2:01:49] it would allow some overflow on the

[2:01:51] campus. I think it's still in the

[2:01:54] works. We haven't gotten

[2:01:57] anything formal but if

[2:02:03] you go to probably like the

[2:02:06] fifth page, yeah,

[2:02:09] right there.

[2:02:12] there's a

[2:02:15] path down on

[2:02:18] the south. I think it was built

[2:02:20] almost up to road standards but it's

[2:02:21] used as a

[2:02:26] pedestrian linkage from an apartment

[2:02:27] complex, over to

[2:02:33] ksu.

[2:02:36] >> [ inaudible

[2:02:39] ]?

[2:02:42] >> [ inaudible ], if you

[2:02:45] don't mind. We've got another question.

[2:02:46] talk

[2:02:48] about 240 apartments but you are saying

[2:02:49] there's

[2:02:51] more beds

[2:02:54] than 1200?

[2:02:55] >> no. >> what am

[2:02:56] I missing mathematically? 240 is below

[2:02:57] 1200. Those would

[2:03:00] be one to two units.

[2:03:01] >>

[2:03:02] they didn't build to what they were

[2:03:03] given permission

[2:03:06] to build and it would've also included

[2:03:07] the part

[2:03:08] that was across the street, which

[2:03:09] would go from 10 acres

[2:03:12] to 50.

[2:03:13] >> how

[2:03:15] many on already

[2:03:18] built,

[2:03:21] this 240?

[2:03:22] >> how

[2:03:24] many of the 240?

[2:03:27] >> talking about the

[2:03:30] original zoning,

[2:03:33] this is not just

[2:03:35] a little amendment. This ought to

[2:03:36] go through the planning commission.

[2:03:39] >>

[2:03:42] I agree.

[2:03:47] what do we do about that, doug? Do

[2:03:48] we have that ability?

[2:03:49] >> you absolutely

[2:03:50] do.

[2:03:51] adopt a motion to refer this to the

[2:03:52] planning commission and then back

[2:03:53] to

[2:03:54] the city itself. That's what you want

[2:03:55] to do.

[2:03:56] >> do you have any

[2:03:57] other questions from anyone? I make

[2:03:58] a

[2:04:00] motion that this goes

[2:04:03] to the planning committee, the

[2:04:06] planning commission, not

[2:04:09] directly appear.

[2:04:10] >> second.

[2:04:12] >> any

[2:04:15] comments, concerns? All

[2:04:21] in favor?

[2:04:24] you're going to the

[2:04:25] planning commission. Consent on the

[2:04:27] agenda consent?

[2:04:30] consent, please.

[2:04:36] thank you. The next

[2:04:39] item of business

[2:04:41] we have is polling location change.

[2:04:42] we are looking at

[2:04:45] three a, 4 b

[2:04:51] and 6a.

[2:04:54] >> these changes were made by

[2:04:57] the county. Probably should have come

[2:04:58] here first to

[2:04:59] ask before that was done but this

[2:05:00] is

[2:05:06] a cleanup.

[2:05:08] >> can I ask a question? >> please.

[2:05:09] >> we've

[2:05:12] already talked to the

[2:05:14] board of elections, who say get it

[2:05:15] to us before making a change for

[2:05:18] future work changes. Thank

[2:05:24] you.

[2:05:25] >>

[2:05:26] so are we just ratifying? Because

[2:05:27] we are not really approving.

[2:05:28] >> basically

[2:05:29] you

[2:05:30] do have to approve for your elections

[2:05:31] so even though they made

[2:05:36] the move, it's really not valid unless

[2:05:38] you approve.

[2:05:39] >> okay. Sabean devils

[2:05:40] advocate, which I love, what if we

[2:05:41] say no?

[2:05:42] >> that would be a problem. >> hold

[2:05:43] your

[2:05:46] own election.

[2:05:47] >> you couldn't do

[2:05:48] that.

[2:05:49] >> we did that last time more

[2:05:50] than

[2:05:52] one moved. They worked

[2:05:55] with us.

[2:05:58] >> you were

[2:05:59] part of this?

[2:06:00] >> I looked at a couple

[2:06:01] of these. I saw it on

[2:06:02] the agenda, I said, oh. Some of these

[2:06:04] were --they

[2:06:07] are not

[2:06:08] --these places told the board of elections,

[2:06:10] we are not going to hold elections

[2:06:13] here anymore. So

[2:06:14] these may be polling places that serve

[2:06:16] as polling places in non-city elections,

[2:06:17] so they come to the board of elections

[2:06:19] and said, we are not going to

[2:06:20] hold elections anymore and so I will

[2:06:22] make a special note. There has been

[2:06:25] a

[2:06:27] sort of --not a big but at least a

[2:06:28] significant turnover in

[2:06:30] the department of site location and

[2:06:31] site

[2:06:32] planning, and all that, so this is

[2:06:34] probably one of those --one

[2:06:37] of the things that led to

[2:06:39] that change, this is not getting ahead

[2:06:40] of these changes like that. I'm

[2:06:41] also sort of surprised the board is

[2:06:43] going

[2:06:49] to be

[2:06:51] trying to get out of most of the schools

[2:06:52] over the

[2:06:53] next few years because the parents

[2:06:54] want them out, which is unfortunate

[2:06:55] because it really

[2:06:56] limits the places. Right now the high

[2:06:58] school is still on there because cobb

[2:06:59] is

[2:07:00] not object but these really should've

[2:07:01] come here first.

[2:07:07] but honestly

[2:07:10] these were changed, I

[2:07:11] think most of these that I looked

[2:07:13] at had already changed for prior elections were

[2:07:14] these

[2:07:15] were just polling places that either don't

[2:07:16] want to hold it or have had

[2:07:17] to move for other reasons. Now is

[2:07:19] just kind of applying to the context

[2:07:20] of

[2:07:21] municipal election so that's why your

[2:07:22] bill is [ inaudible ].

[2:07:23] >> now are

[2:07:24] some

[2:07:25] of these moving outside of their ward?

[2:07:26] I mean ward 3 letter a is

[2:07:27] coming over to sweitzer.

[2:07:28] >> do you

[2:07:29] know

[2:07:32] the reason for pleasant grove? Did

[2:07:34] they not want to do

[2:07:40] it anymore.

[2:07:42] >> I hear these every month so I did

[2:07:43] not --if I had

[2:07:44] seen somebody I would've gone and

[2:07:46] pulled each one and said why did they

[2:07:47] end

[2:07:48] up changing but I'm in meetings in

[2:07:49] here there is two or three

[2:07:50] of these in every meeting.'s over

[2:07:52] the last two or three election cycles,

[2:07:53] since

[2:07:54] our last noticeable election, days

[2:07:55] have changed so I have to

[2:07:57] go back and I'm happy to do that if

[2:07:58] you

[2:08:03] want email from between now and the

[2:08:04] council meeting.

[2:08:05] >>

[2:08:07] I would

[2:08:09] think ward 3 a, I think it should

[2:08:10] be at marietta

[2:08:13] miller school middle

[2:08:14] school instead of all the way --everybody

[2:08:16] else is pretty

[2:08:19] close

[2:08:22] by but

[2:08:24] if we don't have any say so in it

[2:08:25] at this point.

[2:08:26] >> you certainly, that requires talking

[2:08:28] to the board of elections but also

[2:08:29] our

[2:08:31] site

[2:08:34] survey team. Are they available and

[2:08:35] can they

[2:08:37] make

[2:08:40] it work?

[2:08:43] have a look at

[2:08:44] next year's calendar. They are doing

[2:08:45] the general cycles, the municipal

[2:08:46] cycle this

[2:08:47] year but if that's something you want

[2:08:49] to

[2:08:52] run by. Very accommodating

[2:08:53] for all the cities and how they want

[2:08:55] to work

[2:08:58] where they want to have their

[2:09:01] polling places.

[2:09:02] >> or how do you

[2:09:04] feel about [

[2:09:07] inaudible

[2:09:10] ]?

[2:09:11] >> is that center

[2:09:13] still open?

[2:09:16] >> [ inaudible ].

[2:09:19] >>

[2:09:22] okay.

[2:09:23] >> all right,

[2:09:28] and 6a?

[2:09:31] I hope it's that close.

[2:09:33] >> it's by the va. >> okay. >> it's

[2:09:34] right up the hill

[2:09:37] on 41.

[2:09:38] >> 6a, your thoughts?

[2:09:40] >> that one, I can say that's

[2:09:43] where my

[2:09:45] mom votes [ inaudible ] so that's

[2:09:46] been there for at least two

[2:09:49] cycles

[2:09:52] now so getting to just wherever it

[2:09:53] was before has already changed in

[2:09:55] the last

[2:09:57] two cycles. We are trying to match

[2:09:58] up the closest we could get. The problem

[2:10:01] is the precincts for countywide elections

[2:10:04] don't always directly map onto

[2:10:07] the ward so they did what they

[2:10:09] thought was the best but we've got

[2:10:10] plenty of

[2:10:13] time between now and november to change

[2:10:14] it.

[2:10:15] but the earlier, the better, so we

[2:10:16] can get notices

[2:10:22] out.

[2:10:23] >> you are talking about

[2:10:24] 6a?

[2:10:25] >> any of them that you look at

[2:10:26] this list and

[2:10:27] you go, I was specifically talking

[2:10:28] about liberty church.

[2:10:29] >>

[2:10:31] your mom is in 4 b.

[2:10:32] >> now she's in

[2:10:34] the county.

[2:10:35] >> I would like for you

[2:10:36] to check

[2:10:37] in to

[2:10:40] ward 3.

[2:10:43] that's quite

[2:10:45] a difference.

[2:10:46] >> what they've got

[2:10:47] to

[2:10:52] think about is if they want to make

[2:10:54] it just for the municipal's, what

[2:10:55] they've probably done is put it in

[2:10:56] a

[2:10:59] place for the larger general

[2:11:00] cycles that it's big enough but these

[2:11:01] municipal's you are talking about

[2:11:02] are smaller turnouts

[2:11:03] and they maybe need to look at doing

[2:11:05] something [ inaudible ] but

[2:11:10] they probably need to move forward.

[2:11:11] the

[2:11:12] other thing, there is an a.d.a. Compliance

[2:11:14] that we had to enter into to move

[2:11:15] some of these locations to places

[2:11:17] that are

[2:11:18] a.d.a. Compliant. A lot of these churches

[2:11:19] just don't have to comply on their

[2:11:21] own and we can't force them as the

[2:11:23] board of elections to

[2:11:27] comply so there are some places that

[2:11:29] are just too out of compliance

[2:11:31] that we have to make changes. Schools

[2:11:32] and public

[2:11:33] buildings generally are in pretty

[2:11:34] good shape but some of the churches

[2:11:35] just

[2:11:38] don't have --

[2:11:39] they have elevation problems in terms

[2:11:41] of where the

[2:11:44] parking is and the

[2:11:45] grades and some other things like

[2:11:46] that. I don't know if that's specifically

[2:11:47] for this

[2:11:48] one but if you want me to ask them

[2:11:50] about ward 3 I can

[2:11:53] do that for sure.

[2:11:54] >> okay. Sean, while I'm on a roll

[2:11:56] I'm going to make a motion that

[2:11:57] we move this forward to the monday

[2:11:59] agenda work

[2:12:01] session to give you some time to figure

[2:12:02] out

[2:12:05] what they were

[2:12:08] up to. Give

[2:12:09] the ward members time to go look at

[2:12:10] these, see if they are acceptable

[2:12:11] to you.

[2:12:14] and

[2:12:16] if not, where would be acceptable?

[2:12:17] again,

[2:12:18] they wanted to move me to the water

[2:12:20] department. It

[2:12:21] made zero sense because it was too

[2:12:23] far off of line from the buses.

[2:12:25] and most people in my ward, more than

[2:12:28] generally, are bus people, so I said

[2:12:29] no to

[2:12:34] that because you are just getting

[2:12:35] people

[2:12:37] not to vote in a ward that only has

[2:12:38] 4% people voting already. So look

[2:12:43] at these --again, my motion is to

[2:12:44] move it to

[2:12:45] the agenda work session.

[2:12:46] >> I second

[2:12:47] that.

[2:12:48] >> we got a second. My

[2:12:49] motion gives you time to look at them.

[2:12:50] any other

[2:12:53] discussion? Hearing none, all in

[2:12:56] favor? 3-0. We'll

[2:12:59] see you

[2:13:00] back at agenda work session because

[2:13:02] we love

[2:13:07] seeing you.

[2:13:08] >> the location, I think

[2:13:09] they ought to pay

[2:13:11] the cost. A big

[2:13:14] build up.

[2:13:15] >> the next item

[2:13:17] is actually a discussion and a question

[2:13:18] that

[2:13:20] ronnie barrett is going

[2:13:23] to be asking as far as the

[2:13:26] ward boundaries deals with the

[2:13:27] election and how we display the ward

[2:13:29] boundaries.

[2:13:32] >> so back in 2020 for you all approved

[2:13:33] the new ward boundaries for the upcoming

[2:13:35] election. We posted the new

[2:13:38] words, new ward boundaries, and we

[2:13:39] left the

[2:13:40] old wards up on the website. But as

[2:13:41] we are rolling

[2:13:44] into

[2:13:45] this election year, we didn't know

[2:13:47] when you guys wanted us to officially

[2:13:48] switch from

[2:13:50] the old wards to the

[2:13:51] new wards. We didn't want to confuse

[2:13:52] voters. We didn't want to confuse

[2:13:53] council

[2:13:59] people

[2:14:03] by getting inundated with questions

[2:14:04] from people they didn't think were

[2:14:05] in their ward,

[2:14:06] but that were in there ward. So we

[2:14:08] have not made the official switch.

[2:14:09] there

[2:14:10] is no easy way and some of the tools

[2:14:11] that we have to list kind

[2:14:13] of the new and old without confusion.

[2:14:14] so operationally, it would be better

[2:14:15] if we

[2:14:16] just made a decision of when to make

[2:14:17] that switch and we are

[2:14:18] just looking for guidance from you

[2:14:19] on when to officially change everything,

[2:14:20] in all the

[2:14:21] systems, so that they reflect the

[2:14:23] new wards.

[2:14:24] >>

[2:14:26] yes or.

[2:14:27] >> I thought we've already

[2:14:29] made the switch. Back when

[2:14:32] you did the

[2:14:35] charter change

[2:14:38] to

[2:14:40] change the boundaries.

[2:14:41] >> so we did

[2:14:42] not change anything in the system,

[2:14:43] so

[2:14:44] that would've been an oversight on

[2:14:45] our part. But we were clear.

[2:14:46] >> we

[2:14:47] kept

[2:14:48] them both in there because we had

[2:14:49] people that were saying, wait a minute,

[2:14:50] I voted for so and so and that's the

[2:14:51] word I'm in. Until the next

[2:14:52] election and you are not anymore.

[2:14:53] but now what we are worried

[2:14:54] about is with the election coming

[2:14:56] up, obviously we want

[2:15:02] to understand [ inaudible ], they

[2:15:03] knew who they

[2:15:04] are going to be voting for, they need

[2:15:05] to know the right ward they

[2:15:08] are in.

[2:15:09] >> I

[2:15:10] know that affects where there voting

[2:15:11] is going to be, as well, in case this

[2:15:12] hasn't already been transmitted up

[2:15:14] to

[2:15:17] the state for their voter registration,

[2:15:18] too.

[2:15:19] is going to be important, especially

[2:15:20] with the special elections

[2:15:23] going on.

[2:15:25] >> [ inaudible ]? >> anything that's

[2:15:26] going to be annexed.

[2:15:27] >>

[2:15:29] that's next year.

[2:15:32] >> right. That's not going to be decided

[2:15:33] by us until

[2:15:35] the next redistricting.

[2:15:36] >> thank

[2:15:38] you.

[2:15:39] >> nobody from the

[2:15:41] city council or

[2:15:43] --the subsequent data has been adversely

[2:15:44] affected.

[2:15:45] >> they

[2:15:47] have not.

[2:15:48] >>

[2:15:50] a horrible situation for all of us.

[2:15:53] she moved and then

[2:15:56] they changed

[2:15:59] the mapmakers.

[2:16:00] >> as long as no

[2:16:02] one moves, we've already voted

[2:16:08] it in .

[2:16:09] >> okay, so go ahead

[2:16:10] and pull the old ward information.

[2:16:11] >> do I have any comments on whether

[2:16:12] or not

[2:16:13] to pull now or pull later?

[2:16:14] >> I think

[2:16:15] it's probably best [

[2:16:17] inaudible

[2:16:19] ]

[2:16:20] >> really should've already been

[2:16:21] done and made sure we transmitted

[2:16:22] the word,

[2:16:23] made sure everyone knew.

[2:16:24] >>

[2:16:26] your thoughts on whether or not we

[2:16:27] should change

[2:16:29] boundaries now

[2:16:32] or later?

[2:16:33] >> change what we

[2:16:35] all discussed.

[2:16:37] >> I'll say, just to reiterate, we

[2:16:38] do have

[2:16:40] on-site, these are the maps that are

[2:16:41] in place for the next election.

[2:16:44] we just also had the old ones in there

[2:16:45] so

[2:16:47] that you both, we are just going

[2:16:49] to wipe out, just keep the new one

[2:16:52] in there.

[2:16:53] >> it's the last detailed

[2:16:59] question is do you want me to go ahead

[2:17:00] and do it now or

[2:17:01] do you want me to wait until you take

[2:17:03] the official vote on february 12th?

[2:17:04] >> actually you don't even have to

[2:17:06] take that vote if you all just

[2:17:07] instruct us to do it.

[2:17:08] >> we voted

[2:17:09] in '23, I thought to go

[2:17:10] >>

[2:17:12] for purposes of the sidewalk

[2:17:15] fund for zoning and all that, I

[2:17:18] think we operate the way we

[2:17:21] were

[2:17:24] elected. Unless somebody wants [

[2:17:27] inaudible ]

[2:17:28] >> we can

[2:17:29] maintain that data so if there's a

[2:17:30] question, we

[2:17:32] can work through that.

[2:17:33] >> our ideas

[2:17:36] among ourselves

[2:17:37] stays the same until [ inaudible ].

[2:17:39] >> yes or.

[2:17:42] >> I think

[2:17:45] that's right. I'm

[2:17:46] still spending my street money on

[2:17:48] my

[2:17:49] streets but they are going to be different

[2:17:51] people who will be voting for me.

[2:17:55] that's okay.

[2:17:56] >> all right. Thank you

[2:17:57] all.

[2:17:58] >> weird on.

[2:18:03] all right. Proposed amendment to

[2:18:06] ordinance 10-4-030.

[2:18:07] >>

[2:18:09] yes ma'am. This

[2:18:12] first request is to amend

[2:18:14] that ordinance, while we are reviewing

[2:18:15] that ordinance, looking at some

[2:18:18] other ordinances we

[2:18:19] have. It didn't include all public

[2:18:21] places as

[2:18:27] an example

[2:18:29] , if someone wanted to camp or light

[2:18:30] a fire out

[2:18:31] here on the green between police and

[2:18:32] fire department, it's not covered

[2:18:33] in this ordinance.

[2:18:34] so basically it's a slight change

[2:18:36] to add the words, upon any

[2:18:38] other public property, which would

[2:18:39] be other city property. That's

[2:18:42] really it.

[2:18:43] >> that's easy. >> it shortens

[2:18:44] it and it deletes some extraneous

[2:18:45] language by

[2:18:48] providing that

[2:18:54] firsthand. That doesn't otherwise

[2:18:55] change

[2:18:56] the meaning outside of that additional

[2:18:57] language.

[2:18:58] >> no, not at all. Camp

[2:18:59] or

[2:19:00] build a fire.

[2:19:01] >> do I have a motion?

[2:19:02] actually first, any

[2:19:03] comments? Comments,

[2:19:05] concerns, issues? This is the shortest

[2:19:06] thing we are looking

[2:19:09] at all day.

[2:19:12] >> this was on the middle

[2:19:16] six acres, can we enforce this on

[2:19:18] private property?

[2:19:19] >> this

[2:19:21] is the public one. The

[2:19:24] first one. That's the next one.

[2:19:30] >> this [ inaudible ] in washington,

[2:19:33] oregon.

[2:19:34] >> it's any --

[2:19:36] as it's

[2:19:39] worded.

[2:19:40] >>

[2:19:41] it's on private property.

[2:19:42] >> the next

[2:19:43] one we are going

[2:19:44] to talk about his private property.

[2:19:45] this one is public property.

[2:19:51] >> 225073. >> I

[2:19:54] went ahead of you, thank you.

[2:19:55] >>

[2:19:57] anyone else, do I have a motion?

[2:20:00] >> yes, a motion to approve

[2:20:03] 10-4-030 with

[2:20:09] the changes

[2:20:12] that you have brought before

[2:20:14] us.

[2:20:15] >> do I have a second? Got a second.

[2:20:16] got a motion and a

[2:20:17] second. Any other discussion?

[2:20:18] >> county

[2:20:21] property

[2:20:24] including transit,

[2:20:30] is that our jurisdiction?

[2:20:32] >> we would contact the county, let

[2:20:33] them deal with it. For instance, if

[2:20:34] they

[2:20:35] started camping in the civic center

[2:20:36] parking lot, you're going to call

[2:20:37] cobb county and

[2:20:38] enforce their ordinances.

[2:20:39] >> thank

[2:20:40] you.

[2:20:41] >>

[2:20:42] all right go hearing any other

[2:20:44] questions? Having a motion and a second?

[2:20:45] all

[2:20:48] in favor, it passes 3-0. Is

[2:20:51] this good for consent?

[2:20:53] on consent, please. So the last thing

[2:20:57] we have, which is something I'm

[2:21:00] passing around --

[2:21:01] >> it was

[2:21:02] not in the package.

[2:21:03] >> one thing is

[2:21:04] you are passing it around, I

[2:21:06] think for first meeting, this is

[2:21:09] an ordinance.

[2:21:10] >> that's right.

[2:21:15] thank you.

[2:21:17] >> that's the same thing as polling

[2:21:18] places technically, too.

[2:21:19] >>

[2:21:21] okay. This goes around, talking about

[2:21:22] prohibited use

[2:21:24] of private

[2:21:25] property. Chief, I'll let you take

[2:21:27] it.

[2:21:28] >>

[2:21:33] yes ma'am . This ordinance, if

[2:21:34] adopted, would allow us to charge

[2:21:36] individuals who are camping on private

[2:21:37] property without

[2:21:38] the property owner's permission. We've

[2:21:39] done some research. There

[2:21:41] are multiple local jurisdictions in

[2:21:42] georgia that already have

[2:21:45] this ordinance

[2:21:48] work for

[2:21:49] including glynn county, cleveland,

[2:21:50] georgia, and woodstock, georgia. They've

[2:21:51] all had it

[2:21:56] in place everywhere from 2011, 2013

[2:21:57] to 2023. We reached out to

[2:22:00] those three jurisdictions to find

[2:22:01] out if they were

[2:22:03] having any trouble prosecuting

[2:22:06] a charge and they are not. We spoke

[2:22:10] to the prosecutors of all

[2:22:13] three jurisdictions.

[2:22:15] to do a little further research today,

[2:22:16] just to see

[2:22:17] if there were any other local jurisdictions

[2:22:18] in georgia and we haven't made phone

[2:22:19] calls

[2:22:22] to

[2:22:25] these two but and perry also

[2:22:26] have the same ordinance in place.

[2:22:27] in some cases it's an ordinance by

[2:22:28] itself. In other

[2:22:29] cases it's a bullet within a camping

[2:22:30] ordinance but it's the same verbiage.

[2:22:31] spoke

[2:22:32] to van smith and solicitor ben smith,

[2:22:34] he felt like he had no issue whatsoever

[2:22:40] prosecuting them.

[2:22:46] we ran the ordinance by rich

[2:22:47] bus from a parks perspective, which

[2:22:48] doesn't have a lot to do with parks

[2:22:49] but

[2:22:50] still thought he should look at it.

[2:22:52] he's on the real issues and ron brewster,

[2:22:53] a code enforcement perspective for

[2:22:54] the city, of course mr. Haney's office

[2:22:55] is also [

[2:22:56] inaudible ].

[2:22:57] >> what does this do

[2:22:58] with

[2:23:02] the cta? Do you still have to have

[2:23:04] that?

[2:23:05] >> the what? >> the trespass

[2:23:07] [

[2:23:10] inaudible ]

[2:23:15] >> I see it as two different things.

[2:23:16] >> okay. >> I

[2:23:17] believe you could be charged with

[2:23:18] both actually, as an example, if we

[2:23:19] have

[2:23:21] a trespassing situation where we have

[2:23:22] somebody who

[2:23:23] has been warned not to be on the property

[2:23:25] before, that's a charge by itself.

[2:23:26] and if they were there camping on

[2:23:28] top of that, it would be a

[2:23:30] second charge. That being said, from

[2:23:31] an enforcement standpoint, I would

[2:23:32] prefer that my officers enforce it

[2:23:33] similarly. We're giving people a chance

[2:23:34] to leave the

[2:23:37] grounds and not

[2:23:38] just coming in and start charging

[2:23:40] people

[2:23:41] without first having them the opportunity,

[2:23:43] probably 2

[2:23:45] to 3 days opportunity to get off the

[2:23:46] property with

[2:23:49] there camping materials,

[2:23:50] et cetera, before we write the citation.

[2:23:52] and we would also verify that the

[2:23:54] owner of the property has not given

[2:23:55] permission for people to

[2:24:01] camp there.

[2:24:03] that's the plan for the enforcement

[2:24:04] side. I will say that the other

[2:24:05] jurisdictions, the three we've spoken

[2:24:07] to, they don't do that.

[2:24:09] they assume --they cite and then they

[2:24:10] leave it up to the

[2:24:13] defendant

[2:24:16] in court to prove that they had permission

[2:24:17] to do

[2:24:18] so, unless they prove it to the officer.

[2:24:19] I would prefer not to do

[2:24:21] that. I would prefer to do it on the

[2:24:22] front end before we prosecute, verify

[2:24:23] that they do not have [ inaudible

[2:24:25] ].

[2:24:28] >> okay. >> I have one

[2:24:29] question.

[2:24:30] >> please. >> chief, so

[2:24:31] in that instance

[2:24:33] let's say you --what's the timeline

[2:24:34] if you can't really

[2:24:37] find an owner?

[2:24:39] >> will the options there are going

[2:24:40] to be that we

[2:24:41] don't prosecute or that we prosecute

[2:24:43] like the other jurisdictions I

[2:24:49] just mentioned .

[2:24:50] we do have some situations where we

[2:24:52] have a company that owns land and

[2:24:53] we can't get a person on the telephone.

[2:24:55] >> is kind of what I was

[2:24:57] leading to. Yeah.

[2:24:58] >> if you want to

[2:24:59] go at it

[2:25:00] purely from an enforcement standpoint,

[2:25:01] I believe we could still charge based

[2:25:02] on what these other jurisdictions

[2:25:04] have done and had no issues with,

[2:25:05] and

[2:25:10] based on

[2:25:11] what our city solicitor said, that

[2:25:13] he feels he could prosecute the case.

[2:25:14] that being

[2:25:15] said, if we did it and it failed,

[2:25:16] we would have to stop prosecuting

[2:25:17] and those people would be allowed

[2:25:19] to camp there until we could find

[2:25:20] the owner

[2:25:22] and verify.

[2:25:23] >> you have corporations

[2:25:24] with

[2:25:25] different names and that might be

[2:25:26] a

[2:25:28] little difficult.

[2:25:31] >> great. Any

[2:25:34] other --[ inaudible ].

[2:25:37] >> motion is called

[2:25:40] the probably

[2:25:49] [ inaudible ].

[2:25:51] y'all not just walking through the

[2:25:52] woods trying to find them. Neighbors

[2:25:53] complain about noise.

[2:25:54] >> on almost a daily basis. I receive

[2:25:55] one a day, again, of complaint about

[2:25:56] people camping and just generally

[2:25:58] in the area, causing issues. So it's

[2:25:59] usually neighbors. It's

[2:26:00] sometimes the property owners but

[2:26:01] it's

[2:26:07] usually neighbors

[2:26:10] , they

[2:26:12] see the campfires, they see the people

[2:26:13] go in the woods. They see the

[2:26:15] tents when the leaves fall off the

[2:26:16] trees. They call us about the situation.

[2:26:17] but

[2:26:18] sometimes it's property owners, as

[2:26:19] well. We've had people laying down

[2:26:20] and sleeping in yards,

[2:26:21] not that as much as the camping that

[2:26:22] we have that on occasion

[2:26:25] as well.

[2:26:26] >>

[2:26:28] first thing, we know other cities

[2:26:29] are

[2:26:31] doing it, just I want

[2:26:33] to ask the same question I did with

[2:26:34] disorderly conduct is making sure

[2:26:35] we

[2:26:37] have the authority going back. The

[2:26:40] squatter law doesn't have

[2:26:42] that exception, so that would be a

[2:26:44] question on

[2:26:50] that one

[2:26:52] [ inaudible ].

[2:26:53] >> the city, if it

[2:26:54] would so

[2:26:55] choose, would have the authority under

[2:26:56] the police power of the constitution.

[2:26:57] >> than the

[2:26:58] other thing that worries me on this

[2:26:59] is kind

[2:27:00] of the thing you brought up already,

[2:27:02] the fact that

[2:27:07] it's a --the law almost assumes that

[2:27:08] there is

[2:27:12] no permission --that no permission

[2:27:14] was given by the owner to

[2:27:16] do it and then you have to put into

[2:27:19] the thing of proving it otherwise,

[2:27:23] which is

[2:27:25] a rare thing. The thing is, though,

[2:27:26] you get someone

[2:27:32] who says, it becomes

[2:27:33] impossible, he said/she said or you

[2:27:34] try to look around, [ inaudible ].

[2:27:35] it

[2:27:37] makes it hard to prove. The proof

[2:27:38] of

[2:27:39] the thing is something I'd be worried

[2:27:41] about especially, and also if

[2:27:44] there is

[2:27:48] an officer, say someone in the future

[2:27:50] came up and they just saw

[2:27:53] this language, would they assume they

[2:27:54] have right to go on to someone's property

[2:27:56] to take a look for someone not

[2:27:59] doing it, not

[2:28:01] camping out, and possibly then have

[2:28:02] a fourth

[2:28:08] amendment violation.

[2:28:11] that's kind of --those

[2:28:12] were some of my concerns about the

[2:28:13] current language as proposed.

[2:28:14] >> I

[2:28:15] don't disagree. I

[2:28:16] think it's very important with an

[2:28:17] ordinance like this that we do a lot

[2:28:18] of

[2:28:19] back end planning before we actually

[2:28:20] enforce it. Once it's adopted we will

[2:28:21] need

[2:28:22] to make sure our officers are trained

[2:28:27] properly and what you said is exactly

[2:28:29] true. We can't just go tromping

[2:28:30] onto private property. We need a minimum

[2:28:32] of a complaint where there is an issue

[2:28:33] of fire or something that could be

[2:28:34] dangerous. The property owner that

[2:28:35] has already

[2:28:41] told us

[2:28:44] there shouldn't be

[2:28:45] anyone on the property but if I see

[2:28:47] one tent on five acres of land

[2:28:48] in the middle, from a drone or something

[2:28:50] that's flying over, that doesn't give

[2:28:51] me permission to go onto that property

[2:28:53] and check that tent out. Could be

[2:28:54] the

[2:28:55] property owner's tent so there's a

[2:28:56] lot of back and training on it.

[2:28:57] >>

[2:28:58] as presented, if the authority thing,

[2:28:59] which I know this

[2:29:02] would be some of

[2:29:03] the concerns, wordsmithing or something

[2:29:05] like this would go into effect on

[2:29:08] that. That would be my concern

[2:29:11] on

[2:29:13] that one.

[2:29:14] >> just to integrate what

[2:29:15] you just said into

[2:29:17] the language so that we have some

[2:29:19] --I know you will do. I don't know

[2:29:20] what the next one will do,

[2:29:22] if that makes sense. I know how you

[2:29:23] enforce it, basically what you

[2:29:29] just told is making sure

[2:29:30] that it's very clear going forward

[2:29:32] so we don't have incidents going forward

[2:29:33] in

[2:29:34] case there is a break in the chain

[2:29:35] or something like that. Okay?

[2:29:36] >> okay.

[2:29:38] >> I guess I have -->> [

[2:29:42] inaudible ]

[2:29:43] >> the other question

[2:29:44] would be --

[2:29:45] >> [ inaudible ]. >>

[2:29:46] I'm good with the language, too.

[2:29:47] >>

[2:29:48] do you think that the people will

[2:29:50] that we would be

[2:29:51] addressing and dealing with, will

[2:29:53] they actually come to

[2:29:59] court?

[2:30:00] >>

[2:30:02] I couldn't really answer that.

[2:30:04] if I had to give you my best guess

[2:30:05] I would say it's a 50/50.

[2:30:07] I think some have the capability to come

[2:30:08] to court and some don't. As an example,

[2:30:10] we made an arrest today in that area

[2:30:11] for a failure to

[2:30:14] appear case out of

[2:30:17] cherokee county,

[2:30:19] a misdemeanor public drunk jaywalking

[2:30:20] case that had

[2:30:21] been made in cherokee county, and

[2:30:23] the person did not go to court. And

[2:30:24] they were

[2:30:26] on how standing that area today, and

[2:30:27] we made contact, had an outstanding

[2:30:29] warrant, maybe arrest, turn them over

[2:30:30] to cherokee county.

[2:30:32] that's probably an

[2:30:35] example of how they ended up where

[2:30:37] they ended up. I couldn't tell you.

[2:30:38] I don't know. They did not go back

[2:30:39] to

[2:30:40] court in cherokee county.

[2:30:41] >> got it.

[2:30:42] >> some may make that attempt to

[2:30:44] go. It's not actually that far. Look

[2:30:47] at the city

[2:30:50] of marietta. Assuming they stay

[2:30:52] in the marietta area, they at least

[2:30:53] have the opportunity to go to court

[2:30:55] if they choose to do so.

[2:30:56] >> so they

[2:30:57] will be served and the whole

[2:30:59] nine yards. Is that kind of how

[2:31:05] that worked ?

[2:31:06] >> if they are cited,

[2:31:07] the citation will have a court date,

[2:31:08] location, everything on it. If they

[2:31:09] are arrested

[2:31:10] they would have a copy of that when

[2:31:11] they left the facility.

[2:31:12] >>

[2:31:13] all right. Do I have a motion?

[2:31:14] >>

[2:31:15] I make a motion to approve.

[2:31:17] >>

[2:31:20] second.

[2:31:21] >> got a motion and a second.

[2:31:22] all

[2:31:23] in favor.

[2:31:24] >> move forward. >> move

[2:31:25] forward.

[2:31:26] >> you. >> that's all

[2:31:32] in favor. It

[2:31:35] is

[2:31:38] an ordinance so I can

[2:31:41] consent the first one,

[2:31:44] all right?

[2:31:45] >> with

[2:31:46] the recommendation of the second,

[2:31:47] to be waived or not?

[2:31:48] >> [

[2:31:53] inaudible ]

[2:31:59] >> no sir. >> consent, no consent?

[2:32:00] >> if you

[2:32:01] want to have consent please show me

[2:32:02] your hands.

[2:32:03] >> four point >> we've

[2:32:04] got

[2:32:05] consent. Just hands, please. All right.

[2:32:06] I keep losing my minutes now.

[2:32:11] all right. Seen nothing further before

[2:32:12] jail, we

[2:32:18] stand adjourned.

[2:32:21] >> [ inaudible ] >>

[2:32:24] nope,

[2:32:25] nope. Economic and community development

[2:32:27] is first.

[2:32:28] >> they

[2:32:30] never have anything.

[2:32:36] >> okay.

[2:32:38] I call the economic community development

[2:32:40] committee to order. The first item

[2:32:41] of business is the regular meeting

[2:32:42] minutes from september

[2:32:43] 24th, 2024, and that's because it

[2:32:44] was that far back, that's one without

[2:32:46] revisions. So is there a motion on

[2:32:54] the minutes?

[2:33:03] >>

[2:33:04] motion to approve.

[2:33:05] >> second. >> a

[2:33:06] motion to approve is properly made

[2:33:07] and seconded.

[2:33:08] is there further discussion on the

[2:33:09] minutes? Hearing them, call the question.

[2:33:10] all in

[2:33:11] favor please raise your right hand.

[2:33:12] the motion passes 3-0. Before the

[2:33:13] next item

[2:33:14] I make a disclosure that I am on the

[2:33:15] board of directors for

[2:33:21] visit marietta

[2:33:22] , representing the marietta city council.

[2:33:24] next item of business is the

[2:33:25] extension of the pole banners installations

[2:33:26] for visit marietta.

[2:33:27] >> thank you mr.

[2:33:28] chairman. Back

[2:33:29] in september you approved a request

[2:33:30] for a visit marietta to hang some

[2:33:31] pole banners

[2:33:33] up in downtown business

[2:33:34] district. That is set to expire on

[2:33:42] january 31st

[2:33:46] . Brittany gray, the executive director,

[2:33:48] has requested that be extended for

[2:33:49] an

[2:33:50] additional nine months, which would

[2:33:51] take you up to the end of october,

[2:33:52] as I

[2:33:53] recall. And she has a letter of request

[2:33:54] that I attached, email of request,

[2:33:55] to the back of it. I did discuss with

[2:33:57] britney the fact that there are

[2:33:58] other eligible nonprofit groups who

[2:34:00] might wanting to put up a

[2:34:06] banner and

[2:34:13] there is a provision for that to take

[2:34:15] place. So if such a group did make

[2:34:16] an application to you, and you wanted

[2:34:18] to approve that, she's 100% amenable

[2:34:19] to

[2:34:20] her banners coming down for that two

[2:34:21] week or less period and then hers

[2:34:22] could

[2:34:23] be put back up when the others come

[2:34:24] down. So by giving that nine-month

[2:34:25] extension, you would not eliminate

[2:34:26] others from using the banners if they

[2:34:27] were qualified applicant.

[2:34:30] >> is there any discussion for

[2:34:36] a motion? Before we go for a motion,

[2:34:37] I know you made that recommendation

[2:34:39] there. Right now the motion on the

[2:34:40] agenda

[2:34:42] is a straight approval.

[2:34:44] in the recommendation they also included

[2:34:45] the

[2:34:51] language about

[2:34:54] a

[2:34:55] provision for other groups to use

[2:34:57] the polls for an allotted period with

[2:34:58] the

[2:34:59] visit marietta banners to be replaced

[2:35:00] at the conclusion of the allotted

[2:35:01] timeframe.

[2:35:06] and without cover of the

[2:35:07] language or need to add anything else

[2:35:09] before the city council meeting, make

[2:35:10] sure its

[2:35:11] approval by city council for that.

[2:35:12] >> that would be good.

[2:35:14] the language in the recommendation,

[2:35:15] yes sir.

[2:35:18] >> so a possible motion

[2:35:24] would be

[2:35:35] , a motion to approve a nine-month

[2:35:36] extension for the visit marietta pole

[2:35:37] banners

[2:35:38] in the downtown area, retroactive to

[2:35:39] february 1st, 2025, with the provision

[2:35:40] for other groups to

[2:35:41] use the polls for an allotted period

[2:35:42] with the visit marietta banners to

[2:35:43] be

[2:35:44] replaced at the conclusion of the

[2:35:45] allotted timeframe. Is there a motion?

[2:35:46] >> motion. >>

[2:35:47] is there a motion to that effect?

[2:35:48] >> I thought you made the motion.

[2:35:50] >> I just looked at the numbers first.

[2:35:51] I can make it if you'd

[2:35:54] like. I

[2:35:57] make that --I so make that

[2:35:59] motion I just stated.

[2:36:00] >> second. >>

[2:36:01] any further discussion?

[2:36:02] >> yes.

[2:36:03] >> I'm for

[2:36:05] it but it's starting to smell like

[2:36:06] this

[2:36:09] is permanent and I like them. I

[2:36:11] like the banners on it. I thought

[2:36:12] we ought

[2:36:15] to maybe look at it just

[2:36:18] be a staff decision. Maybe not

[2:36:21] tonight. Just --

[2:36:22] >>

[2:36:27] direct staff,

[2:36:32] before the next extension, if visit

[2:36:33] marietta plan to continue these

[2:36:35] banners to have that come up at the

[2:36:36] appropriate time in a committee meeting,

[2:36:38] please?

[2:36:39] >> are you thinking that just

[2:36:40] whatever banners go up in the future

[2:36:41] will

[2:36:42] be staff decision or just these particular

[2:36:43] items?

[2:36:44] >> we went from no banners

[2:36:45] to approval for

[2:36:48] 9 months, very happily extended

[2:36:50] another nine, with other people being

[2:36:51] able to

[2:36:53] use it. And I think it's going to

[2:36:54] be

[2:36:57] routine.

[2:37:00] to me

[2:37:02] it's appropriate.

[2:37:03] >> we can still

[2:37:04] draw it that way.

[2:37:05] >>

[2:37:06] not tonight but I'm just [ inaudible

[2:37:07] ] to

[2:37:09] see

[2:37:11] because feel the [ inaudible ], we

[2:37:12] don't even know who these other

[2:37:14] people are and we've [ inaudible ].

[2:37:15] >> okay. And for these other people,

[2:37:21] though, we do

[2:37:23] have --at this point it would be approval

[2:37:24] by council for them to put it

[2:37:26] up and take it back down within that

[2:37:27] two week period.

[2:37:28] >> that's what

[2:37:29] I'm suggesting. I'd hate for us to

[2:37:30] have

[2:37:36] 26 meetings.

[2:37:44] [ inaudible ] it is almost.

[2:37:45] >> there

[2:37:46] are some requirements in there currently

[2:37:47] on what type of organizations can

[2:37:49] use

[2:37:55] the banners

[2:38:01] and so

[2:38:02] forth. We can go in and refine that

[2:38:04] even more.

[2:38:05] >> it would be a

[2:38:06] nonprofit, so someone who is receiving

[2:38:07] tourism funds from the city. There

[2:38:08] is a

[2:38:09] two week maximum, or less, as were

[2:38:10] approved by the council. And the council

[2:38:11] would

[2:38:12] improve approve the artwork, so that's

[2:38:13] in the existing one point

[2:38:14] >> council

[2:38:15] would or the hpr?

[2:38:16] >> it does not go

[2:38:17] to the hpr now, no.

[2:38:18] >>

[2:38:19] do you think that can be brought up

[2:38:20] at the appropriate time, to the appropriate

[2:38:21] committee? Because I'm not sure if

[2:38:22] that would be ji l or economic

[2:38:26] development.

[2:38:27] >> I'm not suggesting

[2:38:28] the [ inaudible ] but I think one

[2:38:29] of

[2:38:30] these days somebody's going to come

[2:38:31] with can we have it for two weeks

[2:38:32] and

[2:38:33] I think it's appropriate.

[2:38:34] >> we have

[2:38:35] had that in the

[2:38:39] past, definitely.

[2:38:40] >> we've had some

[2:38:41] bozo some people

[2:38:42] have talked to me if they are interested,

[2:38:43] perhaps, in a couple of our

[2:38:44] established events which we are approving

[2:38:45] street closures for earlier. They

[2:38:46] may

[2:38:47] come and make that requesting some

[2:38:49] upcoming months.

[2:38:50] >> we should

[2:38:52] have standards about taste

[2:38:55] and everything.

[2:38:58] >> yes sir. >> okay, and

[2:39:01] a motion is currently

[2:39:03] before us, properly made and seconded.

[2:39:04] is there any

[2:39:07] further discussion? I can

[2:39:09] see you. Are you good?

[2:39:10] >> I'm good.

[2:39:11] >> hearing no more

[2:39:16] discussion, call

[2:39:18] the question. All in favor please

[2:39:19] raise your right hand.

[2:39:20] the motion carries 3-0. Is this appropriate

[2:39:28] for consent?

[2:39:31] >> [

[2:39:32] inaudible ].

[2:39:33] >> hearing no objections,

[2:39:34] this is recommended for consent. Is

[2:39:35] there any further

[2:39:36] business to come before the economic

[2:39:37] and community development committee?

[2:39:38] hearing none, this meeting is

[2:39:40] adjourned.

[2:39:42] >> sorry, I messed up. Looked like

[2:39:43] it was shorter.

[2:39:49] >> make a motion to approve

[2:39:52] the revised minutes.

[2:39:53] >>

[2:39:55] second.

[2:39:56] >> second. >>

[2:39:58] all

[2:40:01] in favor.

[2:40:02] >>

[2:40:03] mr. Chairman, all I have on the 2016

[2:40:04] is the rotten wood creek trail project

[2:40:06] and we are preparing that project

[2:40:07] to go back out to

[2:40:11] bead at this time and hopefully we'll

[2:40:13] get some better

[2:40:16] numbers. Hopefully.

[2:40:17] >> fingers crossed.

[2:40:18] >>

[2:40:19] that's all I have on the

[2:40:21] 2016. I will see if anyone has any

[2:40:25] questions.

[2:40:26] >> [

[2:40:28] inaudible ]

[2:40:29] >>

[2:40:30] a few updates. We're going to talk

[2:40:31] about a couple of the projects here,

[2:40:32] thinking

[2:40:34] we can go over the concept

[2:40:36] for brent hickory and polk roundabout,

[2:40:37] that intersection that will

[2:40:40] be coming up as well

[2:40:43] as woodlock drive intersection

[2:40:44] improvements. We will show that one

[2:40:46] as well. A

[2:40:49] couple others. Tower and

[2:40:50] james intersection improvement, that

[2:40:51] project is well underway. The upright

[2:40:52] polls

[2:40:55] have been up, put a.

[2:40:56] they've been working on concrete,

[2:40:58] started concrete work

[2:40:59] this week. They are hoping to get

[2:41:01] the master installed

[2:41:03] this week if the weather continues

[2:41:04] to hold, which

[2:41:06] it looks like it's going to. So they'll

[2:41:07] move toward completion

[2:41:10] very rapidly

[2:41:12] now at this point. Mountain view ridge,

[2:41:13] I told you that I would

[2:41:15] continue to a date you on that so

[2:41:16] we

[2:41:19] are still --we finalized the plan

[2:41:21] modifications of this and we are still

[2:41:22] proceeding to bid this spring with

[2:41:25] estimated construction in

[2:41:27] late summer, late spring, early summer

[2:41:31] for that project, as

[2:41:36] well point mayberry avenue is a sidewalk

[2:41:37] project that was

[2:41:40] using mr. Goldstein --somebody's arpa

[2:41:43] money there so that project now has

[2:41:45] moved to --I said it's underway in

[2:41:48] the up dates there and we moved almost

[2:41:49] 2 punchlist items at

[2:41:52] this point.

[2:41:53] >> mr. Chair,

[2:41:55] may I? Budget is

[2:41:58] doing okay

[2:42:07] he'll all arpa funds were used

[2:42:09] at this point?

[2:42:10] >> we've spent every

[2:42:11] last dollar of your arpa money for

[2:42:12] that

[2:42:13] project, you sort.

[2:42:14] >> and the rest

[2:42:15] of it is going out of the council

[2:42:16] sidewalk safety funds?

[2:42:17] >> correct.

[2:42:18] >> thank you. >>

[2:42:19] and east exit trail has been a project

[2:42:20] that's been on my books

[2:42:21] for a while. We've been stating we've

[2:42:22] been waiting on marietta water

[2:42:25] to start their project.

[2:42:28] they have started that

[2:42:29] project now. According to mr. Dewoody,

[2:42:31] that project will run through sometime

[2:42:33] in may. We are looking to try to use

[2:42:34] their contractor

[2:42:37] to potentially --since they're

[2:42:38] already being mobilized, to go ahead

[2:42:43] and move forward with our trail

[2:42:45] project. But we've got to work the

[2:42:46] details out with them to make sure

[2:42:47] that

[2:42:49] they can do that project, so

[2:42:50] we don't lose any momentum there,

[2:42:52] while they're

[2:42:53] already there. Mayor langfield, that

[2:42:58] contractor is

[2:43:04] mobilizing this week. He will

[2:43:05] obviously start construction, if you

[2:43:06] will, but he's mobilizing, getting

[2:43:07] everything ready to go now.

[2:43:09] he will start work, moving dirt next

[2:43:10] week out there on that project. That's

[2:43:12] all I have on the 2022 unless anyone

[2:43:13] has any specific questions.

[2:43:19] >> next item is [ inaudible

[2:43:21] ].

[2:43:22] >> before going to that, mr. Chairman,

[2:43:23] mr. Goldstein had sent us some

[2:43:27] information on the governor wanting

[2:43:29] to release some money for

[2:43:30] transportation projects. So we have

[2:43:32] reached

[2:43:34] out, seen some of those qualifications

[2:43:35] for those

[2:43:36] and we are in the process of applying

[2:43:38] for some

[2:43:40] of that money. The include sidewalk

[2:43:41] projects as well

[2:43:45] as streetscape projects and of course

[2:43:46] we have several of those so we are

[2:43:50] in the process of applying

[2:43:52] for some of that. I hate to call it

[2:43:53] freestate money

[2:43:54] but we are in the process of going

[2:43:56] after that money, as well. I just

[2:43:57] wanted to up date mayor and council

[2:43:58] on that, that we are going through

[2:44:02] that process,

[2:44:05] as well

[2:44:14] , for that, as far as going

[2:44:15] to the departmental things. So we

[2:44:16] are pursuing that. The departmental

[2:44:17] activities, you see the

[2:44:18] numbers there. Bettina has already

[2:44:19] kind of talked about the inspection

[2:44:20] numbers, permitting numbers.

[2:44:21] so those are still holding steady.

[2:44:22] all the other activities, even through

[2:44:23] the cold spell

[2:44:24] in the winter weather event we had,

[2:44:25] we still maintained our activities

[2:44:26] for the month

[2:44:27] so we are looking good and I'll be

[2:44:29] happy to answer any questions anyone

[2:44:32] has.

[2:44:35] >> next

[2:44:37] item is the [ inaudible ].

[2:44:38] >> this

[2:44:39] is an item we've had on the agenda

[2:44:41] for the last couple of

[2:44:42] committee meetings as we've been working

[2:44:43] through talking to congressman loudermilk's

[2:44:44] office about possibly

[2:44:47] reallocating that money as well as

[2:44:50] having conversations

[2:44:51] with g.about their timeline requirement

[2:44:53] for

[2:44:59] bridge replacement

[2:45:00] . We have had conversations or feedback

[2:45:01] from congressman loudermilk's office

[2:45:02] now. They will

[2:45:03] not allow us to reallocate that money

[2:45:05] toward any other project so it has

[2:45:06] to

[2:45:11] be spent

[2:45:14] that if we are going

[2:45:16] to spend it, it has to be spent on

[2:45:17] this particular project. I had a

[2:45:18] conversation yesterday with g.'s chief

[2:45:19] engineer about the timeline because

[2:45:20] there was

[2:45:21] a little bit of miscommunication between

[2:45:23] the congressman's

[2:45:29] office and

[2:45:35] gdot. Somewhere along the line the

[2:45:36] congressman's office was under the

[2:45:37] impression that gdot was amenable

[2:45:38] to allowing us to work

[2:45:39] under our original schedule. A year

[2:45:41] and a half to two years construction

[2:45:42] time.

[2:45:43] that is not true. Gdot is going to

[2:45:44] hold us to that five-year-plus

[2:45:45] scheduled to do this project in order

[2:45:47] for us to get

[2:45:49] this money. So we're back to the original

[2:45:50] item

[2:45:55] before you. You have two options here

[2:45:56] for this project. You can

[2:45:58] accept the money from congressman

[2:46:05] loudermilk's office, with

[2:46:06] the understanding that we are under

[2:46:07] gdot's timeline for construction.

[2:46:08] which means five to seven

[2:46:11] year construction window, which means

[2:46:12] money that we will receive from the

[2:46:14] congressman's

[2:46:15] office, we will spend at least that

[2:46:17] much money by the time we actually

[2:46:18] get

[2:46:19] to construction, just due to inflation.

[2:46:20] or we do not have

[2:46:25] to accept the money from the congressman's

[2:46:26] office, and we will move forward with

[2:46:27] our

[2:46:29] own construction timeline

[2:46:32] and reallocate

[2:46:35] money. We already have bridge replacement

[2:46:36] money in

[2:46:37] the current spl ost. We'll have to

[2:46:38] move some other money around to get

[2:46:39] the

[2:46:40] current, cover everything. We'll be

[2:46:41] a little short but

[2:46:44] not everything and

[2:46:46] then we'll be able to get this project

[2:46:47] completed right after the world cup,

[2:46:48] which

[2:46:50] is about 18 months

[2:46:53] timeframe. So --and save us a considerable

[2:46:54] amount

[2:46:55] of money. So those are the options

[2:46:57] before this committee and mayor and

[2:46:59] council at this point.

[2:47:00] >> they say

[2:47:01] that

[2:47:02] we can't do it, finish early.

[2:47:03] >> no

[2:47:04] sir.

[2:47:05] if

[2:47:08] we take the money --

[2:47:09] >> they distribute

[2:47:10] the

[2:47:11] $750,000 over five years and if we

[2:47:12] finish it in two years you get

[2:47:13] that prorated?

[2:47:14] >> if we do this and

[2:47:15] we take the money,

[2:47:17] we

[2:47:20] are under

[2:47:31] gdot's control at that point for this

[2:47:32] project. Gdot will distribute the

[2:47:34] money. Gdot will manage the project.

[2:47:35] gdot will assign a contractor. It's

[2:47:36] basically

[2:47:37] gdot's project. We have no control

[2:47:38] over it at that point.

[2:47:39] >> [ inaudible

[2:47:40] ].

[2:47:41] >>

[2:47:42] and sorry, mr. Chair, may I? With

[2:47:43] regard to some of the gdot

[2:47:44] stuff, they are also being hamstrung,

[2:47:45] I think, by the federal

[2:47:46] highway authority's regulations. And

[2:47:47] that's I think what they said

[2:47:50] is the main cause for

[2:47:52] the five-year [ inaudible ].

[2:47:53] >> that

[2:47:54] is what gdot

[2:47:59] says . Some of

[2:48:00] that mystification, I think, going

[2:48:02] back and forth. I don't know that

[2:48:03] I totally believe

[2:48:04] that total requirements on that but

[2:48:05] that's what gdot is telling us. Yes,

[2:48:06] that's

[2:48:08] where they're getting that requirement.

[2:48:10] so anyways, it doesn't matter where

[2:48:11] they are getting it. They're going

[2:48:12] to

[2:48:13] hold us to it. If we take that money

[2:48:14] we are under their control at

[2:48:17] that point for this project. It's

[2:48:18] a

[2:48:19] minimum of five years and we will

[2:48:20] --whatever that end up

[2:48:23] construction cost is, based on

[2:48:25] our estimates right now with construction

[2:48:26] dollars,

[2:48:29] my estimate, we will spend

[2:48:34] at least $4 million by the time we

[2:48:35] actually get to construction, based

[2:48:36] on

[2:48:38] inflation and where construction

[2:48:41] costs are.

[2:48:42] >> we are so much better

[2:48:43] to

[2:48:44] do it right now.

[2:48:45] >> that is my opinion,

[2:48:46] yes sir.

[2:48:47] >> I asked

[2:48:48] for one more moonshot on this one.

[2:48:54] is there anyway --at this

[2:48:55] point it's hard to justify taking

[2:48:57] the funds if we have

[2:48:59] that five-year is that basically adds

[2:49:00] $4 million, the exact

[2:49:06] same amount

[2:49:09] we had

[2:49:10] been getting for it so it still cost

[2:49:12] us the same amount and just

[2:49:13] take longer. Costs us essentially

[2:49:14] the same amount in just take longer.

[2:49:15] I want to ask

[2:49:16] if there is any way between now and

[2:49:18] the work session, we can get

[2:49:19] someone from congressman loudermilk's

[2:49:20] office, someone from gdot, on the

[2:49:21] same call with you,

[2:49:25] and just see if we can talk and figure

[2:49:27] out where this

[2:49:29] miscommunication is, why are we getting

[2:49:30] two different

[2:49:31] messages on this, and see if we can

[2:49:39] get this

[2:49:45] hashed out hopefully in a

[2:49:46] favorable position for the city on

[2:49:47] that.

[2:49:48] >> I'd like to keep them on

[2:49:49] the same page.

[2:49:50] >> I'm happy to put

[2:49:51] them on the same call but I've

[2:49:52] gotten the same email from the two

[2:49:53] individuals, one from the congressman's

[2:49:54] office, one from

[2:49:55] gdot, that says everything I just

[2:49:57] told you.

[2:49:58] >> okay, so they are

[2:49:59] now on the same page.

[2:50:00] >> yes. >> so

[2:50:01] let's think.

[2:50:02] >> [

[2:50:05] inaudible ] ?

[2:50:06] >> the appropriation

[2:50:07] from the

[2:50:08] congressman's office is $4 million.

[2:50:12] >> yeah. >> we are estimating this

[2:50:13] project

[2:50:15] to be about $6 million total. We

[2:50:16] have almost $4 million allocated in

[2:50:18] the

[2:50:21] current law so we

[2:50:22] have to come up with another couple

[2:50:23] million dollars to do the project,

[2:50:26] which again, save that amount of money

[2:50:27] being able to do

[2:50:30] it on our time schedule, that's a

[2:50:31] savings in the end run versus trying

[2:50:33] to

[2:50:36] wait because it will

[2:50:39] cost us

[2:50:42] . It will cost us every

[2:50:44] bit of that $4 million by the time

[2:50:45] we get to get, in at

[2:50:47] least five years.

[2:50:48] >> and I get an

[2:50:49] idea [

[2:50:51] inaudible ]?

[2:50:52] >> is there more

[2:50:54] to it [

[2:50:57] inaudible ]?

[2:51:00] >> it's

[2:51:01] all on the money.

[2:51:02] >> it's hard for

[2:51:03] me to justify taking an additional

[2:51:04] five years and

[2:51:05] it costing us more, yeah.

[2:51:06] >> the $4

[2:51:07] million we

[2:51:09] would save, we could put in

[2:51:11] another project that the same day

[2:51:18] would happen.

[2:51:24] whatever of the

[2:51:26] 4 million projects out there, if you

[2:51:27] wait five years it's going to cost

[2:51:28] you $6.5 million anyway.

[2:51:29] >> that's

[2:51:30] correct.

[2:51:31] >> so you mitigate it by

[2:51:32] spending

[2:51:33] the money, just on a different project.

[2:51:34] >> that's correct. That's a very good

[2:51:35] point,

[2:51:36] mr. Maher. If we save that money now

[2:51:37] and do the project now then

[2:51:39] that

[2:51:42] would be money,

[2:51:43] that instead of spending it later

[2:51:45] on, we'd be able to focus that money

[2:51:46] somewhere

[2:51:48] else, on another project, and

[2:51:49] spend it.

[2:51:50] >> that's why I'm saying

[2:51:51] I agree on that. It's hard

[2:51:54] to justify taking this with

[2:51:56] the amount of time it would take in

[2:51:57] the amount of cost it would

[2:52:00] be.

[2:52:01] >> it's the

[2:52:03] same principle that

[2:52:06] [ inaudible ]

[2:52:09] >> correct. >> what's

[2:52:12] the bridge rated at right now?

[2:52:15] >>

[2:52:16] the bridge --excuse me, the bridge

[2:52:18] is safe.

[2:52:21] gdot --when gdot came out and did

[2:52:22] their

[2:52:24] assessment, it did not meet their

[2:52:25] requirements.

[2:52:26] since that time, we have made improvements

[2:52:27] and it is safe that

[2:52:30] this point.

[2:52:33] but we still want to go

[2:52:36] ahead and replace it, to make sure

[2:52:37] that it fully

[2:52:38] meets their requirements and everything

[2:52:42] is done.

[2:52:45] plus, it would allow us

[2:52:46] to improve some other safety improvements.

[2:52:48] we've had some other accidents and

[2:52:49] other things in

[2:52:53] that area plus with the trail coming

[2:52:54] in, it would allow us to go ahead

[2:52:56] and finish off a lot of things that

[2:52:57] we need to do.

[2:52:58] >>

[2:52:59] the one other thing I would suggest,

[2:53:00] then, is we know the

[2:53:06] reason why

[2:53:08] this doesn't work in this case. We

[2:53:09] need to express that

[2:53:10] to the congressman's office as best

[2:53:12] we can and hopefully we take a look

[2:53:14] to see if we can get them to take

[2:53:15] a look at doing changes by

[2:53:17] that federal level or whatever the

[2:53:18] appropriate level is so that if we

[2:53:19] try

[2:53:20] and do a different project going forward,

[2:53:21] or some other

[2:53:23] city does, they don't have the same

[2:53:24] issue we just ran into. That

[2:53:26] does need to be discussed at some

[2:53:27] point.

[2:53:33] >> discussing

[2:53:36] with ashley

[2:53:37] from the congressman's office, I think

[2:53:39] she is fully aware and understanding

[2:53:40] now that this

[2:53:41] is an issue that's going to have to

[2:53:42] be addressed and corrected at the

[2:53:44] federal level to make sure these issues

[2:53:45] don't happen

[2:53:47] again but going forward, if the council

[2:53:48] chooses to go this direction then

[2:53:49] we'll make sure that she understands,

[2:53:51] or if the congressman's office understands

[2:53:52] why we are

[2:53:53] having to go this route.

[2:53:54] >> would

[2:53:55] we have any luck with the newer

[2:53:58] administration and their wanting to

[2:54:00] do away with some of

[2:54:05] the regulations? That's just pie in

[2:54:06] the sky?

[2:54:07] >> that's a difficult question

[2:54:08] to

[2:54:09] answer at

[2:54:12] this point.

[2:54:14] I guess if we had --

[2:54:15] >> one week in

[2:54:16] office.

[2:54:17] >> I guess we

[2:54:18] had enough time to wait it out, then

[2:54:19] that's a possibility. The problem

[2:54:21] is g.wants an answer

[2:54:25] now on

[2:54:28] this so

[2:54:29] the buddha

[2:54:30] >> it would be our lobbyists

[2:54:31] to

[2:54:37] do that, gma?

[2:54:38] >> this would be

[2:54:39] a combination of gma and lc at this

[2:54:40] point.

[2:54:43] I could bring it up to

[2:54:44] britney colder with and lc. She's

[2:54:46] the transportation

[2:54:50] policy person. It's and lc to talk

[2:54:51] about these issues .4 gma it would

[2:54:53] be claire chan. She's the federal

[2:54:54] person. I'm also on the federal policy

[2:54:55] committee

[2:54:58] so I'll make sure to

[2:55:01] get that to her.

[2:55:02] >> more on their plate right now they

[2:55:04] us.

[2:55:05] >> I think my opinion is

[2:55:07] definitely worth

[2:55:10] pursuing and

[2:55:16] if this

[2:55:17] is a way the council wants to go,

[2:55:19] and allow us to go ahead and

[2:55:20] move forward with it, if it does change

[2:55:22] later on, then if we do get

[2:55:23] additional money, if it changes, then

[2:55:24] we could always go back and apply

[2:55:25] it

[2:55:26] toward the project at whatever stage

[2:55:27] we are in and it will definitely help

[2:55:28] free

[2:55:29] up wherever we are at.

[2:55:30] >> one month

[2:55:31] to score this would be prudent?

[2:55:32] >> if that's the council's wishes,

[2:55:33] we can. If that's council's wishes.

[2:55:34] >>

[2:55:35] at

[2:55:40] these dry

[2:55:43] .

[2:55:44] >> they could actually move it

[2:55:45] to the work session to at least keep

[2:55:46] it on a thing, keep it

[2:55:47] on an agenda to talk about, and if

[2:55:49] it doesn't get worked out by then,

[2:55:52] we can always then

[2:55:55] shift it back to the committee schedule

[2:55:56] or move it forward to council to take

[2:55:58] the appropriate action.

[2:55:59] >> if they

[2:56:00] say no way --

[2:56:01] >> I say make a motion

[2:56:02] to move this towards

[2:56:03] the agenda work session so we can

[2:56:04] get that progressive update.

[2:56:07] >> second? >>

[2:56:13] next item.

[2:56:22] >> I'm sorry. We received

[2:56:23] a request for traffic calming on ayers

[2:56:25] avenue from

[2:56:30] warren street to tyler street so we want

[2:56:31] to do a

[2:56:32] speed study in this area just to determine

[2:56:34] if traffic calming devices are needed.

[2:56:35] aires

[2:56:36] avenue from lawrence to tolliver is

[2:56:37] approximately 173 feet in length.

[2:56:38] does

[2:56:39] have a variable right-of-way between

[2:56:40] 30 feet and

[2:56:43] 40 feet. This section does have

[2:56:46] a

[2:56:47] current posted speed limit of 30 miles

[2:56:49] an hour. It is considered a residential

[2:56:50] street

[2:56:51] and is located in ward one a. We would

[2:56:52] recommend proceeding with a proper

[2:56:53] setting of the speed limit at 25 miles

[2:56:55] an hour

[2:56:56] once the speed study has been completed.

[2:56:57] we would recommend moving forward

[2:56:58] with the

[2:57:04] speed study.

[2:57:10] >> didn't we just do a speed study

[2:57:12] on ayers?

[2:57:13] >> not on ayers. We've done

[2:57:14] several of those surrounding streets

[2:57:15] but

[2:57:16] we've not done ayers.

[2:57:17] >> I thought

[2:57:18] we did ayers when we put in that

[2:57:19] three way stop sign because of the

[2:57:20] buses.

[2:57:21] >> no ma'am. >> I make a

[2:57:22] motion to approve the ayers speed

[2:57:23] study.

[2:57:24] >> I'm with that setting of

[2:57:25] the

[2:57:26] speed limit.

[2:57:27] >> that's our normal

[2:57:28] thing.

[2:57:29] >>

[2:57:31] our second.

[2:57:33] >> seconded. >> yeah, second. >> all

[2:57:40] in favor?

[2:57:43] >> is that okay for consent? >> no

[2:57:44] objection to consent.

[2:57:46] >> no objection. >> consent.

[2:57:52] >> consent.

[2:57:57] >> our building inspections vision

[2:57:58] and planning and zoning department

[2:57:59] have discovered

[2:58:00] some discrepancies between code sections

[2:58:01] and personal response abilities when

[2:58:02] it

[2:58:07] comes to

[2:58:17] some duplication of efforts between

[2:58:18] the departments for condemnation of

[2:58:19] unsafe structures and systems. It

[2:58:21] is stated in section 718.01 that the

[2:58:22] director of development services shall

[2:58:23] order the discontinuance

[2:58:24] of any illegal work being done without

[2:58:25] defining the extent of this illegal

[2:58:26] work.

[2:58:27] I have spoken to the director of development

[2:58:28] services, the fire chief, and it

[2:58:29] is our recommendation that all determinations

[2:58:31] of unsafe structures and systems be

[2:58:32] performed by the

[2:58:34] chief voting official or his

[2:58:40] or her

[2:58:46] designee. This is due to the stringent

[2:58:47] certification and training

[2:58:48] requirements for the building inspectors

[2:58:49] who can make these determinations

[2:58:50] based upon the applicable

[2:58:51] construction codes. So in order to

[2:58:52] clear up these discrepancies, the

[2:58:53] following amendment is

[2:58:54] being proposed, section 7-4-2-0 40,

[2:58:55] section e, entitled powers and

[2:58:57] duties of the building official, by

[2:58:58] adding this paragraph to

[2:59:01] this

[2:59:03] section stating all such unsafe building

[2:59:04] structures or service systems are

[2:59:05] hereby declared

[2:59:06] illegal, shelby properly placarded

[2:59:08] and shall be aided by

[2:59:11] repair and rehabilitation or

[2:59:14] by demolition

[2:59:19] in accordance with the provisions

[2:59:20] of

[2:59:21] the applicable construction code as

[2:59:22] determined by the chief building official.

[2:59:23] if this is

[2:59:24] approved this will require two public

[2:59:25] readings as approved and adopted.

[2:59:26] >> may I? >>

[2:59:29] yes.

[2:59:30] >> for

[2:59:32] the determination

[2:59:37] --when you talk about the termination

[2:59:38] you're talking

[2:59:39] about the termination of where it

[2:59:40] is supposed to be repaired and rehabilitated

[2:59:41] or

[2:59:42] demolished, or are you talking determination

[2:59:43] of whether it's unsafe?

[2:59:44] >> it's unsafe.

[2:59:45] >> right

[2:59:46] now the way the thing reads, it looks

[2:59:47] like that determination is not about

[2:59:48] the unsafe part. It's about whether

[2:59:49] it should be abated and repaired or

[2:59:50] demolished. It

[2:59:51] seems that's where that discretion

[2:59:52] looks to be, otherwise it looks like

[2:59:53] the chief building

[2:59:55] inspector has any discretion in this

[2:59:58] ordinance on that.

[2:59:59] >> in the first graph

[3:00:00] in

[3:00:01] this section come of this will be

[3:00:02] the

[3:00:08] second paragraph

[3:00:17] , it states because

[3:00:18] it's titled section e is unsafe buildings

[3:00:19] or systems. It says all building structures,

[3:00:20] electrical,

[3:00:21] gas, chemical or plumbing systems

[3:00:22] which are unsafe, unsanitary, or do

[3:00:23] not provide adequate egress

[3:00:24] or which constitutes a fire hazard

[3:00:25] or otherwise dangerous to human life,

[3:00:26] or which

[3:00:27] in relation to existing use constitutes

[3:00:28] a hazard to safety or health, are

[3:00:29] considered unsafe

[3:00:30] building and service systems so this

[3:00:35] is just moving,

[3:00:36] trying to move this forward a little

[3:00:38] bit more.

[3:00:39] >> I know. That's what

[3:00:40] you are trying to get the chief building

[3:00:41] inspector to determine that part

[3:00:43] of it. As it's written it doesn't

[3:00:44] look like that's what he

[3:00:45] is determining.

[3:00:46] >> I don't agree.

[3:00:47] I think with both paragraphs --

[3:00:51] >> all such buildings

[3:00:52] are declared illegal and shall be

[3:00:58] placarded. It doesn't say the determination

[3:00:59] goes back to that first sentence.

[3:01:00] that's

[3:01:02] one thing I'm worried

[3:01:03] about. It looks like it doesn't have

[3:01:05] much discretion on what can or can't

[3:01:07] be done. It's a lot of shalls in this

[3:01:08] case and also a different question

[3:01:11] is what if the system is just a small

[3:01:12] system

[3:01:14] that can be

[3:01:17] theoretically done by turning it

[3:01:20] off, if the rest of the building

[3:01:23] is safe, do

[3:01:24] you have to placarded and close down

[3:01:26] the entire building when you have

[3:01:27] just one

[3:01:28] system that could be easily turned

[3:01:29] off? That's what

[3:01:30] I'm worried about with this language.

[3:01:31] >> that goes back to the training

[3:01:38] and certifications

[3:01:41] and experience of these inspectors.

[3:01:42] they

[3:01:43] understand that if they can go in

[3:01:44] and not have to condemn or close

[3:01:45] down an entire building, and they

[3:01:47] can just isolate a system and make

[3:01:48] that

[3:01:49] area or that system safe and keep

[3:01:50] the entire building open,

[3:01:51] than they have that knowledge and

[3:01:53] expertise to do that.

[3:01:54] >> I'm just

[3:01:55] worried

[3:01:56] the language doesn't allow them to

[3:01:57] use their

[3:01:59] proper

[3:02:00] discretion, that's the thing that

[3:02:02] was a little bit worried about with

[3:02:03] the current

[3:02:04] language. It feels almost like it's

[3:02:05] trying to use a sledgehammer but too

[3:02:06] much

[3:02:07] when that's not the tool that should

[3:02:08] be used on

[3:02:10] the language.

[3:02:11] >> [ inaudible ] as

[3:02:12] written?

[3:02:13] >>

[3:02:14] second.

[3:02:15] >> all

[3:02:17] in favor?

[3:02:20] >> all opposed? >> I oppose.

[3:02:21] >> this will require two public readings

[3:02:23] unless you want to

[3:02:29] wave it.

[3:02:32] >> whitlock drive

[3:02:35] first.

[3:02:36] >>

[3:02:38] whitlock drive.

[3:02:39] >> excuse me. >> these

[3:02:40] last two

[3:02:41] items are named projects on

[3:02:44] the 2022

[3:02:47] splost, so this first

[3:02:50] one, after numerous meetings with

[3:02:51] the neighborhood and

[3:02:53] public input,

[3:02:59] this is the design that has been acceptable

[3:03:00] by

[3:03:02] the neighborhood as well as our

[3:03:05] engineering staff. This design

[3:03:06] would maintain the current islands

[3:03:08] that are in place,

[3:03:14] the tree islands there that you see,

[3:03:15] create

[3:03:16] pedestrian crosswalks, create additional

[3:03:17] green space by the removal of existing

[3:03:21] pavement, create stock conditions

[3:03:23] for traffic at all points of street

[3:03:24] intersections, install rapid flashing

[3:03:25] beacons at all the crosswalks, and

[3:03:26] create two points of

[3:03:28] raised speed tables or crosswalks.

[3:03:29] you see those

[3:03:31] in red there, one right there and

[3:03:33] one up

[3:03:35] right there. The original budget approved

[3:03:42] the 2022

[3:03:47] splost for this project was $750,000.

[3:03:48] the

[3:03:49] revised construction estimate for

[3:03:50] this project is now $125,000 for what

[3:03:51] you see

[3:03:52] there. This project is located in

[3:03:54] ward 3 a.

[3:03:55] >> saving the city a lot of money

[3:03:57] on

[3:04:00] this now. Speaking of

[3:04:03] the money,

[3:04:04] do you have something earmarked for

[3:04:06] the remainder of

[3:04:08] this money and when do you think this

[3:04:09] project might be

[3:04:12] able to get started now?

[3:04:13] >>

[3:04:14] this project, because the scope has

[3:04:15] been reduced and is very simple

[3:04:18] right now, if council approves

[3:04:20] this concept, we are ready to go to

[3:04:24] construction here probably in

[3:04:25] 30-45 days. It's a very simple project.

[3:04:27] we can get out the door

[3:04:29] and get started on. It will be very,

[3:04:33] very quick.

[3:04:34] >>

[3:04:35] I make a motion to approve this as

[3:04:36] designed.

[3:04:37] >> second. >> [

[3:04:39] inaudible

[3:04:42] ]

[3:04:43] >>

[3:04:45] [ inaudible ] sign rather than

[3:04:48] a yield sign at whitlock

[3:04:49] drive in hillcrest.

[3:04:50] >> part of the

[3:04:51] point

[3:04:53] there was, when I was looking at this

[3:04:54] initially, was to

[3:04:57] help slow traffic down there

[3:04:59] and improve some of the safety coming

[3:05:00] around both

[3:05:06] turns. So

[3:05:09] our original design,

[3:05:11] of course, as some of you saw in several

[3:05:12] of the emails that was

[3:05:13] flying around during the years past,

[3:05:14] was put some roundabouts there. And

[3:05:15] of course that

[3:05:17] did not go over well. So we came back

[3:05:18] with a design. We had

[3:05:19] a couple different options, one of

[3:05:21] which was some yield signs, one of

[3:05:22] which

[3:05:23] was stop signs, and this was the one

[3:05:24] that the neighborhood agreed-upon

[3:05:25] that

[3:05:30] they liked the most. We actually had

[3:05:31] everybody

[3:05:32] vote on it and we had a meeting in

[3:05:33] here. This is the one

[3:05:36] they chose. We have no problems

[3:05:38] with this.

[3:05:39] >> I'd love for us to consider

[3:05:40] at a

[3:05:42] stop sign rather than the

[3:05:45] yield sign their.

[3:05:46] >> does it

[3:05:48] say yield? It supposed to all be

[3:05:51] stop signs. If it says yield --

[3:05:54] those are stop signs.

[3:05:55] >> those

[3:05:56] are stops.

[3:05:57] >> yeah, those are stops.

[3:05:58] >> if it says yield that's

[3:06:03] a mistype. There

[3:06:04] all supposed to be stop signs.

[3:06:05] >>

[3:06:06] thank you, thank you.

[3:06:07] >> they are

[3:06:08] currently

[3:06:09] yield and we are taking them out.

[3:06:10] >> running yields or

[3:06:11] running stops.

[3:06:12] >> I would ask for

[3:06:15] this item, if it's okay, not

[3:06:18] to be on

[3:06:20] consent and for you to take a vote,

[3:06:21] just

[3:06:27] due to --

[3:06:28] >> nonconsent, please. >> the items.

[3:06:30] >> let people show up if they want

[3:06:31] to

[3:06:32] for this one.

[3:06:33] >> that is correct.

[3:06:34] >> so it's not on

[3:06:35] consent. Okay. Next item?

[3:06:36] >> next

[3:06:37] item

[3:06:39] is our first big

[3:06:42] project

[3:06:43] of 2022 splost, intersection improvement

[3:06:45] at hickory and

[3:06:51] polk. So

[3:06:54] this proposed design would replace

[3:06:55] the current

[3:06:56] traffic signal that is in place with

[3:06:57] the roundabout that

[3:07:00] you see their. The roundabout

[3:07:02] would allow for the best flow of traffic

[3:07:03] at this intersection, without the

[3:07:04] backups

[3:07:06] of traffic during morning and

[3:07:09] evening rush

[3:07:17] .'s. It would create pedestrian crosswalks,

[3:07:18] create additional green space in the

[3:07:19] middle of

[3:07:20] the roundabout, allow for traffic

[3:07:21] to move at all times toward whitlock,

[3:07:22] down burnt

[3:07:23] hickory, and install rapid flashing

[3:07:24] beacons at the crosswalk. The

[3:07:26] original budget amount approved in

[3:07:27] the 2022 splost for this

[3:07:29] project is $1.5 million. We do not

[3:07:30] have an estimated construction at

[3:07:31] this point.

[3:07:32] we wanted council to look at this

[3:07:33] concept before we move any further

[3:07:35] forward with this. This project is

[3:07:36] split between three wards. Actually

[3:07:37] two, but

[3:07:42] three a,

[3:07:45] 4 letter a and 4 c. The size of

[3:07:47] that roundabout, just to kind of give

[3:07:48] you some reference, is approximately

[3:07:49] 120 foot

[3:07:50] radius through their. As you are moving

[3:07:51] down burnt hickory coming there from

[3:07:57] the northwest to the southeast there,

[3:07:58] coming down toward

[3:08:01] whitlock, you see there is what

[3:08:02] I call a slip lane that will allow

[3:08:05] traffic to continually move and not

[3:08:07] get caught up in the

[3:08:12] roundabout traffic coming down burnt

[3:08:13] hickory, to move on

[3:08:16] toward whitlock, to

[3:08:19] keep traffic

[3:08:24] constantly moving through there. And

[3:08:25] you

[3:08:26] would still be able, if you need to

[3:08:28] get into the roundabout, to move on

[3:08:29] toward polk, you'll get in that left-hand

[3:08:31] lane if you're coming down burnt hickory.

[3:08:32] you're getting that inside lane, move

[3:08:34] around and get on to pole, and move

[3:08:35] your way around. Everything would

[3:08:40] be beautified

[3:08:42] streetscape as far as brick islands,

[3:08:43] and like I

[3:08:44] said, the crosswalks. The center spot

[3:08:45] there you see, we just indicated that

[3:08:46] right now

[3:08:47] with green. We are proposing to bring

[3:08:48] that back to our design, internal

[3:08:49] design

[3:08:50] group, to come back with some sort

[3:08:53] of gateway structure. We just don't

[3:08:55] know what that's going to look

[3:08:56] like at this point, but it will be

[3:08:58] some sort of

[3:09:04] gateway monument

[3:09:08] type item at this point. We just don't

[3:09:10] know what that's going to look

[3:09:11] like. I don't want you to think that's

[3:09:13] just all going to be green.

[3:09:14] it's not. It's going to be some sort

[3:09:16] of gateway structure.

[3:09:17] >> [ inaudible

[3:09:18] ]?

[3:09:19] >> I'm sorry. So that's the concept.

[3:09:20] I'm happy to

[3:09:22] answer

[3:09:25] any questions

[3:09:26] . If it's acceptable then we'll continue

[3:09:27] moving on, finalizing design, and

[3:09:28] getting this

[3:09:31] project on out to bid. I

[3:09:34] do not --this will be

[3:09:37] a project that will have to be a summer

[3:09:39] construction project, just because

[3:09:40] of school traffic,

[3:09:43] so we don't impact

[3:09:45] school traffic, and then we get a

[3:09:46] little closer to that, which

[3:09:52] I anticipate

[3:09:58] to be summer of '26 before we actually

[3:09:59] are

[3:10:00] ready to do construction, at a minimum.

[3:10:01] once we get to that point, a

[3:10:02] little closer, then I would be happy

[3:10:03] to have a conversation with mayor

[3:10:04] and council

[3:10:05] as to more specifics, as to the construction

[3:10:07] timeline. A couple of options I've

[3:10:08] got

[3:10:09] in mind on doing this, just the up

[3:10:10] to council

[3:10:12] to tell me how quick you want to pull

[3:10:13] the band-aid off, make this

[3:10:19] thing work

[3:10:25] , whether or not we want to work

[3:10:27] 24 hours a day, seven days a week,

[3:10:28] in order to get traffic least impacted,

[3:10:30] or we want to stretch this out for

[3:10:31] a number of weeks and have traffic

[3:10:33] impacted. But we'll come back and

[3:10:34] have that discussion

[3:10:35] a little later when we get closer

[3:10:37] to actual construction time.

[3:10:38] >> I

[3:10:39] make the

[3:10:40] motion to move

[3:10:43] this forward.

[3:10:52] >> [ inaudible ]. >> I

[3:10:54] am well aware of that x city employee.

[3:10:55] >> [ inaudible ]. >> I

[3:10:56] have not. She knows we're going to

[3:10:58] do a project there but she has not

[3:11:00] seen this. I have not shown this plan

[3:11:01] to anyone, until mayor and council

[3:11:02] see

[3:11:03] it tonight.

[3:11:04] >> I make the motion moving

[3:11:05] forward.

[3:11:06] >> I'll second it. >> all

[3:11:07] in favor, raise your hand.

[3:11:08] >> you

[3:11:09] guys get stopped by another one person

[3:11:10] on the roundabout, that

[3:11:13] ain't right.

[3:11:14] >> they're a natural

[3:11:15] born target,

[3:11:18] aren't they?

[3:11:19] >> stop sign [ inaudible

[3:11:25] ] at

[3:11:28] that shopping center [ inaudible ]. Anyway.

[3:11:29] >> I will

[3:11:30] say this about this. We only have

[3:11:31] to have a little bit of additional

[3:11:32] right-of-way from the southeast and

[3:11:34] the southwest, two parties, that bank

[3:11:35] and

[3:11:36] then that assisted living facility.

[3:11:37] the other two properties to the northeast,

[3:11:38] northwest, are

[3:11:42] city-owned. Now one of those parks,

[3:11:43] part of the parks

[3:11:45] and rec grounds and we'll have to

[3:11:46] work

[3:11:49] that out with

[3:11:51] rich buss and his folks. But other

[3:11:52] than that, we already owned those

[3:11:53] two

[3:11:55] right of ways.

[3:11:56] >> just for an update,

[3:11:57] with

[3:11:58] your counterpart, basically when they

[3:11:59] tore

[3:12:01] up your roads, but

[3:12:04] you

[3:12:06] know, I think bill w did a good job

[3:12:07] of 2020 weather, today

[3:12:10] we

[3:12:13] lost two, I guess the park sign

[3:12:15] and one just off of [ inaudible ].

[3:12:16] the water main break

[3:12:19] >> on lawrence. >> 3:00

[3:12:22] in the

[3:12:25] morning. But who goes --you fix the

[3:12:26] street

[3:12:28] back later?

[3:12:29] >> we

[3:12:34] do.

[3:12:35] >>

[3:12:36] just [ inaudible ]?

[3:12:37] >> it depends

[3:12:38] on the size of the patch.

[3:12:39] so if it's a small enough patch then

[3:12:40] my streets crews will go fix

[3:12:43] it but those are too

[3:12:46] large so for having our paving crew,

[3:12:48] we've already given that over to our

[3:12:49] paving contractor as part of our resurfacing

[3:12:50] price

[3:12:51] for this year and they are going to

[3:12:52] hit those first and get

[3:12:58] those repaired because

[3:13:00] they are too big for our guys to handling

[3:13:01] house so they are going to

[3:13:03] fix those first, as soon as they get

[3:13:04] in town and get that fixed.

[3:13:05] >>

[3:13:07] you guys did outstanding work. I

[3:13:10] saw some stuff on

[3:13:14] the ring system

[3:13:20] for like,

[3:13:21] what's going on. But I tell you what,

[3:13:23] for the ones that affected my

[3:13:26] ward, there are two

[3:13:29] of them

[3:13:32] , [ inaudible ].

[3:13:33] >> we

[3:13:34] will, streets will, keep them maintained

[3:13:35] in the meantime until we get the permanent

[3:13:36] patch on

[3:13:37] them. We'll make sure that they're

[3:13:38] all

[3:13:41] safe.

[3:13:42] >> why do water pipes burst at 3:00

[3:13:43] in the morning? Why don't they ever

[3:13:44] --

[3:13:45] [ laughter ].

[3:13:46] >> same reason my storm

[3:13:47] water pipes --

[3:13:48] >> anything else

[3:13:49] for public works?

[3:13:50] >> just because

[3:13:56] we own the [ inaudible

[3:13:57] ], most of those pipes were probably

[3:13:59] put in 80 years ago. So I think

[3:14:02] we've gotten good life. They

[3:14:05] were built

[3:14:16] by '39 or '40 point

[3:14:17] >> they had had

[3:14:18] multiple days of

[3:14:19] extremely cold weather, and they were

[3:14:20] dealing with the settling and everything

[3:14:21] else in the

[3:14:22] roof, and everything else going on.

[3:14:23] that's the time that you would have

[3:14:24] something like

[3:14:25] that happen.

[3:14:26] >> and we are doing a

[3:14:27] job the last few years of

[3:14:28] working with marietta water on any

[3:14:29] time now we have a project, streetscape

[3:14:30] project or

[3:14:31] anything else, we are looking at doing

[3:14:32] a drainage improvement project over on

[3:14:33] maxwell

[3:14:34] right now and we've identified some

[3:14:35] of their old clay sewer pipes, and

[3:14:36] we've

[3:14:38] been in conversations with

[3:14:41] marietta water

[3:14:44] and said even though we are not touching

[3:14:45] those pipes, but we are going to be

[3:14:47] close enough, you might want to

[3:14:48] go take a look at those, since we

[3:14:50] are going to have the road

[3:14:51] opened. Now would be a good time for

[3:14:53] you to go in and if you want

[3:14:55] to do something, now would be a good

[3:14:56] time when we've got

[3:14:57] the road open so you are not having

[3:14:59] to

[3:15:00] pay double early on, so we are constantly

[3:15:02] in communication with them to try

[3:15:03] to

[3:15:04] help both parties get things done

[3:15:05] like this.

[3:15:06] >>

[3:15:07] thanks for putting that in motion.

[3:15:08] >> thank you.

[3:15:11] >> thank

[3:15:14] you all.

[3:15:17] >> I want to call

[3:15:18] the special council meeting work session

[3:15:20] to order. First item of business is

[3:15:21] addressing the

[3:15:23] december 19th 2024

[3:15:26] meeting minutes

[3:15:28] . Motion?

[3:15:29] >> make a motion to approve.

[3:15:30] >> second. >> all those

[3:15:31] in favor please raise your right hand.

[3:15:32] motion carries. Do

[3:15:34] we have a personnel executive session?

[3:15:35] >> yes sir,

[3:15:36] would you like to have that for that

[3:15:38] item that was on the other agenda?

[3:15:39] >>

[3:15:40] I see two of them, wasn't it?

[3:15:41] >> one

[3:15:47] was voting for

[3:15:49] --

[3:15:50] >> one was just a question. >> however

[3:15:51] reanalyzed.

[3:15:52] >> there was a question

[3:15:53] during the personnel meeting about

[3:15:54] your appointment to the ethics board.

[3:15:55] >> we couldn't

[3:15:56] do it [ inaudible ].

[3:15:57] >> that's just your appointment

[3:15:59] but we put it on there as a reminder

[3:16:00] so we would just give it

[3:16:02] to you before the

[3:16:05] next agenda.

[3:16:06] >>

[3:16:08] if I had unsuccessful

[3:16:14] phone calls I might be

[3:16:16] able to put it off for another month,

[3:16:17] but the sooner I try, the better,

[3:16:19] because the committee is doing a lot

[3:16:20] of

[3:16:23] work and

[3:16:25] I'm sure they'd like to know their

[3:16:26] future.

[3:16:27] >> it appeared both of the

[3:16:28] individuals wanted to still be on

[3:16:29] it. Like I say, they are in the middle

[3:16:30] of work at this point.

[3:16:34] >> for that committee more

[3:16:35] than once, there is never been a wrong

[3:16:38] line. It takes a good

[3:16:41] citizen. So yeah,

[3:16:44] I want notice it

[3:16:47] this time.

[3:16:50] >> and we do -->> make

[3:16:52] a motion to go in executive session

[3:16:53] for personal matters. >> I make a motion

[3:16:55] to go into executive session for personnel matters.

[3:16:58] >> is there a second? >> second.

Special Called Meeting and City Council Committee Meetings - January 28, 2025

Agenda

Transcript