[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.