[0:03] and department head updates and agenda
item updates. So,
[0:11] anybody have anything on the agenda
tonight?
[0:14] Okay.
>> Hey,
[0:18] » figured some people do.
Um, number 11, resolution uh for the
[0:24] city council to authorize and approve
the addition of one temporary fire
[0:27] station maintenance coordinator, which
is the supervisor position for the uh
[0:31] FY26 budget. This is to align with the
retirement of our incumbent who will uh
[0:36] hopefully be able to work with and train
the replacement. Uh the uh current
[0:40] coordinator retires September 30th.
>> Okay.
[0:45] » All right. Thank you.
>> That's John. Okay. And this is just to
[0:49] overlap for a little bit and then that
one will defund and close out.
[0:53] » Correct. Per usual.
>> Thank you,
[0:58] sir. How are you doing?
>> Doing okay. How about you?
[1:02] » I'm well, thank you.
>> I have item number 18. Uh requesting an
[1:07] unbudgeted expense of $72,900
to replace the uh sand filter tanks for
[1:14] the indoor pool.
They are 26 years old and when we fired
[1:20] the pumps back up, they failed.
So, I guess they're about due to be
[1:25] replaced.
>> Thanks, sir.
[1:27] » Uh, we did move some money or are
requesting to move some money within our
[1:31] capital improvements uh budget that was
for the press box renovation, repairs,
[1:37] however you want to say that. Um, so we
were moving shifting money over from
[1:42] that to cover it.
>> All right. Perfect.
[1:45] questions for Pat.
>> Thank you. I'm
[1:48] » good.
[1:54] » Good evening, sir.
>> Good evening.
[1:56] » How are you?
>> Good. How are you?
[1:58] I just have uh
number 10. And that is just our uh
[2:03] annual fire extinguisher inspection
service.
[2:09] » We good with this one?
>> Yep, we finally got one.
[2:11] » This is third time's a charm. Is that
right?
[2:13] » Yes. Finally got someone better late
than never. Hopefully hopefully they're
[2:17] good. So we haven't worked with them. So
>> that's all we got.
[2:21] » Okay,
>> perfect. Easy enough.
[2:25] » We're flying through this.
>> Oh, it's smooth.
[2:29] » Yes, ma'am.
>> I have I have se several I have from 12
[2:33] through 15. Um item number 12. This is
authorized to hire Jackson Thornton to
[2:40] do a rate study that will cover um gas,
electric, water, and sewer rates um
[2:48] coming up. Do you'all have any questions
on that? You selected it last um
[2:52] meeting, and this is to authorize the
contract.
[2:55] » And when was the last time we actually
did the study? 22.
[2:59] » It was 22's data. And this will use 26's
data. So, as soon as we close the year,
[3:05] we'll get them the data they need, and
it take them about six months to
[3:08] complete.
>> And do they recommend doing this every 3
[3:11] to four years? Is that
>> Yes. Yes.
[3:15] Um, and you can really see on some of
the budget meetings we've kind of talked
[3:18] about, you can really see the cost of
our um, you know, our costs going up
[3:24] from, you know, 22s to current.
Um, you have any questions on that,
[3:31] » ma'am? Um the next next one is number 13
and this is where we've we've had a lot
[3:39] of discussion on us we're needing to
borrow money for water and sewer. Um if
[3:44] you remember we borrowed two years ago
25 million. Um we did an extension and
[3:50] added additional 5 million. This past
year did a six-month extension that is
[3:55] due November 1st. And so we're looking
at at the same time is to do an RFP at
[4:02] the banks, local banks to see if we can
um what kind of rates we have from the
[4:06] local banks. Um and so this is
authorizing um me to advertise to do an
[4:12] RFP with the local banks. And then um
number 14 goes along side by side with
[4:18] this. Um it's been since 2007
um since the city has actually done a
[4:25] bond issue to go and they've done
ratings
[4:29] um a few ratings throughout the year and
I think maybe the last rating was an
[4:33] update I believe it was in 15 um but for
us to actually do the bond issue it's
[4:38] been that many years it's just
recommended that us look at um
[4:43] competition for underwriters to um do a
selection of underwriters for them to
[4:49] come in and give you what their quotes
what they would do for a bond issue. Um,
[4:54] » and so council, we're doing simultaneous
RFPs, but is it fair to say that we
[5:00] could go either or or some kind of
hybrid combination even possibly?
[5:04] » We could.
>> That's exactly.
[5:06] » We're just going to see what what they
come back with consultant recommends.
[5:10] » Yeah. And you want to compare what the
um issuing cost is. You know, comparing
[5:15] rates of a bank and your issuing cost is
very minimal. And then compared to a
[5:21] bond issue, you have underwriting cost.
Um and then looking looking at those
[5:26] rates. Um also being able to look at
what's your call date. You know, a bond
[5:31] issue is 8 to 10 years. Sometimes the
bank you can have a call date that's
[5:34] less that if you think that you would
want to pay that off early, that's where
[5:39] the difference in the in the call rates
going to be. And in council, we just for
[5:44] kind of a background, we we did 25
million on a bank loan. We renewed it
[5:48] and added 5 million, so we're at 30
that's due on the first. We're we're
[5:54] looking at another 50
>> or so. So, we're looking at about 80 80
[5:59] million and and even have more than that
in projects in the next several years.
[6:03] So, um
I think every little bit will help on on
[6:09] this. So, that's why we're deciding to
to um put it out for an RFP and see if
[6:13] we can't get as many um good responses
as possible to to and then on the bond
[6:18] we just select somebody to go with on
the underwriting that won't necessarily
[6:22] have quotes.
Um,
[6:26] but I think it's a good process. We've
never borrowed this much money before.
[6:30] So,
>> that that that's right. I mean, and it's
[6:32] it's looking at how much money the
city's never borrowed this much um
[6:36] money. So, that's that's you're just
trying to be good steward to make sure
[6:39] that we're, you know, getting the lowest
cost of issuance. We're doing the right
[6:43] thing.
>> Any questions for Kim?
[6:48] » And then the next item I have is has our
stop loss. So, um you can see with the
[6:55] attachment on the stop-loss, our um
Cobbs Allen is our insurance consultant
[7:01] and they put out for um renewal or for
bid every year for our stop-loss and um
[7:07] our current provider at our current
staying at a $100,000 stop-loss was
[7:12] doing a 60% increase.
And um and we had on there is no lasers
[7:18] and lasers are the um high claims and um
so Cobbs Allen is recommending um to
[7:25] stay with the same provider but um to
increase our stop-loss coverage to 125.
[7:31] So we pay the first 125 and then stop
loss would come in and pick up any
[7:37] claims over the 125. And so that would
make our difference going up um almost
[7:43] 40% 39% increase. Um and so you know
that's the recommendation.
[7:51] If um if y'all see something different
you would want to do something different
[7:55] but um you know I'm trusting our
consultant and um and then we'll have
[8:00] some other meetings to come back and
look at maybe some structures of our
[8:04] plan. Um, right now I have in the budget
an 8% increase in health insurance to be
[8:11] able to get um the amount of money that
needs to be funded to um offset the
[8:17] claims that's going to be recommended.
What we think our future claims are
[8:20] going to be. Um we're, you know,
shooting at a number. We're shooting at
[8:24] a number. It's almost um $6.5 million in
insurance claims. Um, so we're we're um
[8:31] so I've got that in the I've got that in
the budget to um be able to have an
[8:35] amount of claims, but we will have some
future meetings with mayor um and the
[8:39] consultant to look at um maybe some plan
structures.
[8:43] » Uh so we're going to increase stop loss
to 125 and instead of it going up 60%
[8:47] it'll go up 39%.
>> Yes.
[8:51] » And we like that better than the 150
option.
[8:56] » Yeah.
the risk the unknown. Yeah,
[9:00] » it's it's the risk that's that's going
on that you have,
[9:04] » you know, the claims.
>> But I mean, how many more
[9:09] » significant claims? Uh I'm just looking
at um
[9:15] » so
>> we're looking at a 1.1 uh what's the
[9:20] 1.1 the premium?
>> Yes, that
[9:23] » versus 970. So that's
130.
[9:29] You'd have to have I guess six
>> six claims greater
[9:33] » six maxed out.
>> Yes. And I mean in 23 24 um we had two
[9:40] we had six and the 2425 and then this
year we had the four. Um, so
[9:50] » a great answer to this question
unfortunately because there's just
[9:54] » I mean your
[10:00] cost not just here but in but everywhere
have skyrocketed and it's just it it's
[10:05] it's becoming unworkable for for for
everybody
[10:10] » and there's just no way of knowing you
know
[10:12] » right
>> the claims the future of the claims and
[10:15] what you're going to have.
>> Um, and I think that's, you know,
[10:17] obviously the hard part. If we had a
crystal ball, it'd be easy, but
[10:22] » trying to look at historical data and
again recommendations from the
[10:25] consultant and and again trying to I
guess trying to balance the risk that
[10:30] we're taking.
[10:35] » It's definitely and I mean and the the
question came was do we do we go back
[10:39] fully funded with Blue Cross or do we
still stay self-funded? And you know, me
[10:44] analyzing it over the past five years,
we actually um bal we were we were
[10:50] balanced, you know, but on those good
years, we were able to put that money in
[10:54] the bank account, you know, we we made
up that money, but if we were with Blue
[10:59] Cross and we had that good year that
there was one year that was $400,000,
[11:05] Blue Cross would have kept that.
>> Yeah. you know, and then the next year
[11:08] another 300,000 that was put into the
bank account, they would have kept that,
[11:13] but the the bad year would have
increased and we wouldn't have been able
[11:17] to get any savings from that. So, so I
think the plan has done very well.
[11:21] » Okay.
>> Um it's just, you know, we've hit a
[11:25] couple of bad years,
>> but you know, I think we've done done
[11:29] well and we just got to get through
this.
[11:34] » Okay. And any other questions for for
Kim on on a stop loss?
[11:39] » Thank you, Kim.
>> Thank you, Kim.
[11:40] » Thank you.
[11:47] » Good evening, sir.
>> Yes, sir. We only thing I have is a
[11:50] public hearing. Um, since we had an
early meeting, the applicant's actually
[11:54] here. Typically, we wouldn't even talk
about that in a work session. And
[11:58] because it's a public hearing, we
wouldn't do that until 6 regardless. Uh,
[12:02] » is that still the case or would you like
to talk about they might go grab a cup
[12:05] of coffee or something since there's two
hours to go?
[12:07] » Yeah, I think I would Larry Larry might
treat y'all to dinner. I
[12:12] » I'm going to stay here for the rest of
it, but but uh I don't we typically
[12:16] don't talk about those public hearings
in a work
[12:19] » until the time. So, okay. So, we're even
if we're flying ahead of things, we need
[12:23] to bring that one back to six o'clock.
Okay. Is that okay?
[12:27] » All good. All right. Thank you.
[12:38] And sir,
>> good evening. If it's allowable, I'll
[12:40] cover my agenda items and also knock out
number two on the work session at the
[12:45] same time.
>> Why not?
[12:46] » I have items 6, 7, 8, and nine. Uh item
number six, we are before you asking for
[12:53] what I consider to be a good change
order uh for our uh Julins Plaza
[12:59] project. Um this is brought on by by two
things. Uh the project can go forth
[13:04] without the change order, but but a
couple things arise. Uh one, uh on the
[13:09] original corner that has been uh
demolished and being rebuilt, there did
[13:14] exist 80 of the 12x 12 memorial pavers.
And uh I think staff has learned the
[13:21] hard way that you cannot be nonchalant
when it comes to the location of
[13:26] memorials that people have given it
time. And when we looked at other
[13:30] locations within the city to locate
them, let's just say the folks that gave
[13:35] them memorials were not real thrilled
with that. Uh this change order allows
[13:39] us to keep the memorial at the same
corner. Other than the fact that it
[13:42] doesn't run up fair hope, they would run
down bankrooft from that corner and
[13:46] allow us to do that 105 foot sidewalk
and the red pavers that we've done many
[13:50] of our sidewalks as opposed to concrete.
And we're asking you to consider that
[13:55] and our treasurer has found funds to
transfer to cover it. Uh but we would
[14:00] the architect as well as the city and
and those that uh gave those memorials
[14:05] would really appreciate this change
order. So I'd be glad to answer any
[14:08] questions on it.
[14:12] Item number seven and and I will tell
you I want to thank the the city of Fair
[14:17] Hope and you as the council because you
have allowed me to expand my horizons as
[14:22] an engineer and uh I can't say that
there's many engineers in the in the
[14:27] world of engineering that have a hermit
hut on their resume. And uh uh as you
[14:33] know this has been a passion project of
many of the stakeholders of the Henry
[14:38] Stewart House. And part of the the
process has been the city agreed to
[14:43] accept the Henry Stewart House and
relocate it to Flying Creek Nature
[14:48] Preserve and then take care of it in
perpetuity. If they raised the money to
[14:52] cover the cost, which they uh have
worked very hard to do, we turned it
[14:56] into a public works project, went out
for bid. will tell you that we we had a
[15:00] pretty um pretty detailed bid process.
One, uh we knew we had to have a local
[15:07] general contractor be the lead, but they
had to bring in with them a qualified
[15:11] house mover, and we had a
pre-qualification process there uh of
[15:16] the bidding uh contractors. They
submitted pre-qualifications for four
[15:20] house movers. Two of them under
separately. One moved the Cape Sand
[15:24] Blast Lighthouse and one moved the Cape
Hatteris lighthouse which a pretty
[15:29] impressive historic masonry structure
and we opened those bids um uh a couple
[15:34] weeks ago and they were competitive. We
did receive five qualifying bids and we
[15:40] are asking you to consider the the
awarding of the bid uh to Fair Hope
[15:44] Building Company uh at a bid of
$421,050.
[15:49] That price does include a pretty large
10% contingency because we've never
[15:54] moved a historic masonry hermit hut. So,
we know there's probably going to be
[15:58] some things that we find in this project
that we didn't anticipate. As well as
[16:03] $30,000 for mechanical, electric, and
plumbing, even though we're only going
[16:08] to run electric to the building because
that's all that it has today. and uh
[16:12] including landscape materials because
we're moving a building into a park and
[16:18] we've got to restore that whole area
that that that move path and everything
[16:21] else. And uh I do want to take time to
remind you that the team of DDG and
[16:27] Cypress Coast Consultant basically
volunteered their uh architecture and
[16:32] engineering services and the only hard
cost that the folks that raised the
[16:36] money was the $3500 for the surveying
that had to be done because that was one
[16:40] thing that that design team did not have
in house as surveyors. So, it's been a
[16:44] wonderful team. uh just everybody uh
kind of rowing in the same direction and
[16:49] we're excited that you're considering
this tonight and we are recommending uh
[16:53] you award that contract. I'd be glad to
answer any questions.
[16:59] » Well, what is your opinion on the move?
Do you think that it's going to
[17:02] withstain? I know you said you have
these professional companies that do
[17:06] this for a living.
>> I tend to be a riskadverse person in
[17:10] general. Um and but after getting to
know these house movers, uh
[17:18] they kind of look at this as a piece of
cake, you know, considering the things
[17:22] that they have actually moved that were
much larger, much much more complex, the
[17:27] environment much more difficult to work
in the distance greater and everything
[17:31] else. They're the subject matter experts
and uh the actual uh subcontractor is
[17:38] Hollis Kennedy from Athens, Alabama.
They're the one that moved the Cape Sand
[17:42] Blast Lighthouse. And his comment to me
was, "This is a piece of cake. It's like
[17:46] eating ice cream. Nothing to it." So, I
mean,
[17:48] » I guess they're going to dig around it.
>> Yes, they will excavate it, put
[17:53] substructure structural support under
it, literally jack it up out of into the
[17:58] air, put dollies under it, and drive it
down the road to its new site. So,
[18:03] » that's that's how it's going to go,
right?
[18:04] » At at about the speed of a slow person
walking. So, um, that's so this is their
[18:09] industry. That's what they do. So, they
don't I if you're asking Richard
[18:14] Johnson, do I have reservations? Yes,
every day and twice on Sunday. But they
[18:17] seem to be very confident in in their
abilities. So,
[18:20] » okay. Thank you.
>> And item number eight is also our work
[18:25] session item. As you recall, the state
of Alabama passed the Rebuild uh act um
[18:31] uh back in 2019 that uh provided a
1-cent gas tax to go toward road
[18:37] resurfacing and road maintenance
projects. Part of that act, we have to
[18:42] adopt an annual transportation plan,
which is basically a list of roads that
[18:46] are pre-qualified for that money to be
spent on. Uh I do want to cover with you
[18:51] in the in the last year uh which just
finished up uh in our 2026 paving
[18:58] package we uh resurfaced 21,000 linear
feet of roadway. Uh that works out to be
[19:05] eight lane miles, meaning any mile of
two-lane road has two lanes in it. So uh
[19:10] one mile of road gives you two lane
miles or four roadway miles of
[19:15] resurfacing. and we've pretty held
pretty steady over the last many years.
[19:20] I I probably should send you a report of
everything we've paved since 2017. It's
[19:24] a pretty en encompassing list. And um
just so you know, the rebuild act
[19:30] produces right around $190,000 a year.
So the roads that we have listed here
[19:35] represent over millions of dollars worth
of paving. So we any of these roads will
[19:40] qualify and we won't have any problem
consuming that in uh this next year's
[19:43] budget. But uh there's a resolution that
you have to pass it which is item eight.
[19:48] But this is a housekeeping item. And
then the next thing I have to do per the
[19:52] act is we will report where we spent
their money uh in FY26 and the
[19:58] contractors that received those
contracts. So I'll be glad to answer any
[20:01] questions about that.
>> I I have a question. How do you decide
[20:04] which roads are to be repaved? I have
citizens asking me to come look at their
[20:10] roads and who makes that decision. So we
can answer that question. one u through
[20:16] multiple avenues whether it's a city
council member saying can you look at
[20:21] road X or someone does 311 and says I
sure would like my road repaved we add
[20:27] it to the list
>> and then John Thomas and his team
[20:30] including our inspectors go out every
year and evaluate that list and rank the
[20:36] roads based upon their condition and
importance and everything else and we
[20:40] try to be kind of systematic in saying
Hey, what are the top 10 worst roads
[20:45] that we have right now? How many of
those can we get knocked out in the in
[20:48] the coming resurfacing year?
>> I think that's good news and we're able
[20:52] to move forward.
>> And this list is is ever changing,
[20:55] meaning right now public works and and
the construction rightway inspectors are
[21:00] actually doing the evaluations and roads
will get added and priorities will
[21:05] change. But basically, the only thing
we're doing tonight, we're not approving
[21:08] paving. We're just approving a list of
roads that qualify for these funds to be
[21:13] spent on in the next budget year.
>> Thank you.
[21:18] » Thank you.
>> And uh the last uh uh item is item
[21:22] number nine. We are asking you to
approve the selection of Geocon to
[21:27] provide geotechnical testing services
for our safe room construction. Uh if
[21:32] the council would be willing, I would
love for you to approve the awarding of
[21:38] the contract. It is a on call service
meaning that when we need to test the
[21:42] soils they come in do a soil test and
and but they they said it would be a not
[21:47] to exceed 30,000 and understand that is
a 9010 meaning 90% of it's being paid by
[21:53] the FEMA grant for the professional
service. If you can't do that tonight
[21:58] we'll see in two weeks with a not to
exceed a 30,000 but we may have a call
[22:02] for some soil testing between now and
then. So I I would prefer to have it
[22:06] kind of legitimately in place. You're
just saying um just add it to this
[22:10] resolution at approval or do we have to
walk on a separate one? Marcus,
[22:14] » this would be authorizing the mayor
approve the selection of that
[22:17] professional services division. It would
just be add on or not additional just be
[22:22] amended to not to exceed
>> not to exceed 30 just add that language
[22:26] to this current resolution. Yeah, I
don't see any reason why
[22:29] » modify it just instead of just a not to
exceed of 30,000 and be done
[22:34] » and authorize the mayor to execute the
contract.
[22:36] » Yeah.
>> About the Would they not to exceed
[22:39] » and we'll probably just do it by
purchase order if that's because it's
[22:42] just a a services contract for them to
come in and test materials. So,
[22:46] » I'll be glad to answer any other
questions.
[22:51] » All right.
>> Thank you, Richard.
[22:54] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, sir.
[23:04] » All right. Is five. Five is done, right?
[23:10] » Found the chief.
>> No, you're gonna cover that in a second.
[23:14] » Yeah, I think it's
>> chief. Yes, ma'am.
[23:15] » Um, I've got three items. 19, 20, and
21. Uh, 19 is the Bowwin County Humane
[23:21] Society requesting permission to close
the streets downtown for the witches
[23:25] ride. And that's on October 29th from 5
to 7.
[23:32] » Questions for Chief
[23:37] It appears to be the same route as last
year, so nothing's changed. Um, item 20
[23:41] is an application for retail food store
consumable hit products. Uh, that's
[23:46] Kamal Constantine doing business as
Piggly Wiggly. Everything checked out
[23:50] fine on that application.
[23:58] And the last item is beer wine on on off
premise uh for the club at Fair Hope
[24:04] Golf Works and everything checks were
there as well.
[24:12] » Any questions on any of those items from
um
[24:15] » where is that place?
>> Right across from public works, right?
[24:18] » No, actually this is going to be off of
um
[24:20] » I think they have a spot there, but this
is this is over by maybe the warehouse
[24:24] » with the warehouse. Yeah.
>> Oh, warehouse. Yeah.
[24:28] Sorry, Hannah. I thought you'd have a
great five o'clock place.
[24:34] » All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Chief.
[24:35] » Thank you.
[24:39] » Sorry, Eric. We're trying to steal your
thunder there. I was just
[24:41] » You're not stealing. Well, literally. Uh
yeah. Um no. Uh it took an interesting
[24:46] turn last week because we uh several
folks and I got a lot of texts on Friday
[24:51] afternoon that somebody had just torn
the building down. So it is a pile on
[24:56] the on the lot right now. There were no
permits issued for that. So I spent time
[25:01] Friday afternoon and today Reverend
Cody's going to be here and u so the
[25:07] permit our typical process is if work is
done without a permit the first thing we
[25:12] do is determine was the work done in
compliance with city codes. If it was,
[25:17] then we will issue an after the-act
permit and we double the permit fees is
[25:21] how the ordinance uh penalizes that
work. We've got everything we need to
[25:26] issue the permit except some sort of
letter or documentation verifying who
[25:31] owns that church because I don't want to
issue a legal document that we can that
[25:36] they can tear it down until we have
something stating who actually own owns
[25:40] it and yes, they have permission to tear
it down. Reverend Cody is going to be
[25:44] here tonight. He said he can present us
with some documentation to that effect.
[25:48] So, if he can, then they're welcome to
load it up and haul it off and be done
[25:53] with it and we'll we'll all move on to
the next project.
[25:57] » Perfect. Okay.
>> We need to keep this on the agenda since
[26:00] we don't know about making sure they're
hauling it out.
[26:02] » Let's go on ahead. Yeah. That's the one
thing in the bids that we got, the one
[26:07] that the church got was like half of
what the other three quotes I received
[26:11] was. And my biggest concern and the and
what I kept telling the pastor was I
[26:15] want to make sure that they understand
that they have to take that debris to
[26:18] Magnolia landfill. They're not going to
be allowed to take it to the city
[26:22] landfill. We don't accept CND. And in
talking with the other contractors, over
[26:27] half of their bid was loadout and haul
off and tipping fees at Magnolia. So it
[26:32] kind of, you know, my radar went up when
I saw that bid that was half price
[26:37] trying to make sure that they accounted
for the tipping fees and the actual haul
[26:42] off of the debris. So that but really to
be honest with you right now it's in the
[26:46] church's hands. We're not going to issue
a permit until we have legal
[26:49] documentation that they own it and that
they give per they gave permission for
[26:54] it to go down from talking to the
pastor. No one at the church ordered him
[26:58] to do it. Apparently the contractor took
it upon himself. So it, you know, as it
[27:03] stands, it's through no fault of the
church members or Reverend Cody or
[27:07] anyone in that situation. Gotcha.
>> Eric, now that it's knocked down though,
[27:11] » it's not a dangerous structure, right?
>> Yeah. Still fall under
[27:14] » It's not going to It's not going to fall
and hurt somebody. We do want to get rid
[27:17] of the pile of debris because it's an
attractive nuisance. We want to go on
[27:21] ahead and get that cleaned up.
>> That could still fall under the
[27:23] » It could still fall under this, but as
it
[27:26] » table is
because we're not gonna demo it, but we
[27:30] still got issues with carrying it off
that we don't know what's
[27:34] » I mean, you tell what I'd like to do if
it's okay with the council is let
[27:37] Reverend Cody and his folks come tonight
and give their accounting of what
[27:40] happened and what they're what they're
in the process of doing and then if the
[27:44] council feels that it's appropriate to
table at that time, then that would be I
[27:48] would at least give him a chance to tell
us, you know, what happened on their end
[27:51] and how they intend to deal with it.
Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[27:55] » Thank you.
[27:59] All right. I've got 16 and 17, which are
both related to the airport. Kind of
[28:04] Councilman Brell's wheelhouse, maybe.
>> And what's that?
[28:09] » Yeah, just Grant's and he's already gone
through the agenda, I think, with the
[28:12] mayor, so he's he said he's pretty much
up to speed on everything when he gets
[28:16] here. Um, I guess we'll go ahead and
roll into uh the next item on the agenda
[28:25] I have is uh presentation of the
recommendation from the Evergreen
[28:29] Solutions Compensation and
Classification Study completed for the
[28:33] city of Air Hope.
[28:44] » So say I'm not presenting on the budget.
Well,
[28:48] » um, so this is, uh, not the full report.
I'll just start by saying that this is,
[28:53] uh, just kind of an update on how we got
to the recommendation for the
[28:57] classification plan, which we are asking
the council to adopt with the FY27
[29:01] budget. Uh, the full report, the
consultants are still finishing that.
[29:05] They're still on schedule with that. So,
when that's completed, we'll schedule
[29:08] for uh, for that presentation to be
made. So, just want to let y'all know,
[29:12] we're not going through everything, but
uh, just kind of the first few phases.
[29:16] Um so uh study goals uh first assess our
current conditions. So this was done um
[29:22] going through focus groups with our
employees and the consultants being on
[29:26] site um issuing a citywide survey to our
employees and then a thorough review of
[29:31] our pay policies. After that we reviewed
our internal equity. So that was going
[29:35] through all of our job descriptions,
placement within the pay scale, um going
[29:39] through a job assessment process with
the uh both employees and the
[29:42] supervisors, reviewing that data, um and
understanding kind of how everything is
[29:46] sitting today. From there, they uh
evaluated our external equity, which is
[29:51] going through the labor market and
benchmarking job classes against um
[29:55] other municipalities and utilities and
then presenting us with recommendations
[29:59] for a pay scale. So um we'll give you
some uh information on that. Um starting
[30:04] off you'll see that we have 50 uh 53% of
our employees currently sitting above
[30:09] the midpoint of the grade. So all of our
grades have a minimum, a midpoint, and a
[30:14] maximum. Uh so the majority of our
employees are sitting above that
[30:17] midpoint. Um 15% are in the first
quartile. So it's the first 25% of the
[30:22] pay range. Uh 67% of our employees are
sitting in the second and third
[30:26] quartile. You're also going to see that
our average tenure is 9.2 years for our
[30:31] employees. That's actually higher than a
lot of our competitors, but it's not as
[30:35] high as it used to be. Um, it's not
quite as surprising to those of us in
[30:38] the industry that uh people aren't
sticking around in the public sector
[30:42] quite as long. Um, seeing that 67.4%
those are uh our employees, that's 50%
[30:48] of the pay range, the second and third
quartiles. Um, that's saying two things.
[30:52] One, we're actually hiring at a
competitive market rate regardless of
[30:56] our current grade minimum. Um, so we're
bringing people in higher than that
[31:00] minimum set for the grade. Um, you're
also seeing that uh current minimums are
[31:04] not competitive and uh that's why we're
having to hire in uh bring in employees
[31:08] at a higher rate. Um the let's see what
else. So our current hiring practices,
[31:14] this is part of what's pushing so many
of our employees into the second third
[31:17] quartile. Um we've made a lot of changes
to payroll over the years, some
[31:22] improvements for our employees, um but
also having to bring them in at a higher
[31:26] rate in order to stay competitive and in
order to retain them. So um kind of
[31:29] operating outside of the norm uh from
for industry standards. Um typically if
[31:36] you're hiring somebody in to a position
as an external hire with 10 to 15 years
[31:41] of experience, that employee should be
brought in closer to the midpoint. But
[31:45] because of the scale that we have today
that we're operating in, we're bringing
[31:49] people in with almost no experience in
the job close to that midpoint. And
[31:53] that's because that midpoint is the
actual competitive pay rate. Um, let's
[31:57] see, a couple of other points. Uh, and I
think I kind of covered this. The
[32:02] midpoint of a career is closer to 10 to
15 years. So seeing employees who have
[32:06] been here for nine years being paid
closer to the midpoint tells you that
[32:10] our current pay and our pay scale aren't
quite matching for
[32:14] » Do that one more time. So where should
they be? You're saying at 10 years
[32:18] » lower than the midpoint.
>> They should be lower than the midpoint
[32:21] » at at an average of 9.2 years. And
because typically you're assuming the
[32:25] midpoint of your career is closer to the
midpoint of that range. So a 15-year
[32:30] somebody with 15 years of experience
should be sitting closer to the
[32:33] midpoint. But because of our lower rates
and having to attract qualified talent,
[32:38] we're bringing employees into the city
closer to the midpoint today than we
[32:42] probably should be. But that's due to
the ranges that we're having to work
[32:46] with today which is the reason for the
study as well.
[32:50] Um so internal review this is the
employee outreach. Um it includes some
[32:54] feedback from the focus groups as well.
Uh we had 250 survey responses received.
[33:00] Um with 77% of our employees feeling
that pay doesn't align with the cost of
[33:04] living. Um of course most of our
employees are coming here and staying
[33:08] because of our benefits. Um the majority
of our employees do live here in Bowwin
[33:12] County. So that location and that
commute makes a pretty big difference to
[33:16] them. Um we talk a lot about our
competitors, the county, Daphne, Spanish
[33:21] Fort, Gulf Shores, Orange Beach. Um all
of that was taken into account within
[33:25] this study um and paid close attention
to as well because they are, you know,
[33:29] who who we compare ourselves to with and
and you know, kind of trade employees
[33:33] back and forth with throughout the year.
Um additional internal review more
[33:38] specific to compensation. um probably a
more negative side. Uh not as many
[33:44] employees feel that our pay is
competitive compared to the market. Um
[33:48] they're not sure about our uh pay
practices, which we've been working on
[33:52] over the years, and as we adopt a new
pay scale, we'll probably have to update
[33:56] our pay practices moving forward
anyways. So, that's something that's
[33:59] going to have to be fluid with us. Um
they're also wanting pay tied to
[34:03] performance. So they're looking for
their pay increases to be tied to their
[34:07] annual performance valuations as opposed
to uh just a small bucket that um that
[34:12] they're able to look at. So that's
something that we're talking about
[34:15] internally and trying to find ways to
improve upon as well. Um and just to
[34:19] make sure that we you know are able to
share with our employees that we're
[34:22] hearing them and we're listening to
them.
[34:23] » And of of the folks that answered this,
how many of them I mean do you know what
[34:30] where they are on the pay scale? I mean,
is the person saying anonymative at the
[34:34] top of the pay scale or the bottom of
the pay scale?
[34:36] » It was an anonymous survey and that
information wasn't correlated.
[34:38] » Okay.
>> I know I know we said anonymous, but
[34:42] tell us
>> um luckily I didn't conduct any right
[34:47] now.
>> Um so moving to the external review. Uh
[34:51] this is something that was included in
the RFQ as well. Selecting our peers,
[34:54] collecting data, comparing their pay
ranges with ours, then determining our
[34:58] position within the market. Um this is
important because when you're doing
[35:02] compensation study, you cannot just do
an internal review or just do an
[35:05] external review. You have to do both of
those so that you can blend them and um
[35:10] kind of aggregate those results. So um
we of course recognized all of our
[35:14] competitors within the county, but we
also went throughout the state as well.
[35:18] Um our true labor market is not just
what happens in Bowwin County and it's
[35:22] not just what happens in a specific
industry. it's what happens across the
[35:26] state with other local and um municipal
agencies. So that's who we're talking
[35:31] about when we talk about our labor
market. Um so we had 20 peers that was
[35:36] the number that was outlined in the RFQ
and we were fortunate enough to receive
[35:40] 100% response rate. So that gave us
really really robust data to work with.
[35:44] Um we identified 129 job
classifications. Um that's not the total
[35:49] number of classifications because we do
have rank structures within our larger
[35:53] departments. So for those
classifications, we either chose an
[35:56] entry- level rank or more of a ceiling
rank and knew that we could kind of
[36:00] build up or down on that. Um if uh we
did not have an agency who had enough
[36:06] information, then maybe we weren't able
to include them or um the consultants
[36:10] sometimes were able to go find some uh
independent data through some uh federal
[36:15] labor market databases. um with these uh
129 classifications and the matches um
[36:23] antitrust law requires that the
consultants have five or more exact
[36:28] matches in order for that to be
considered um an accurate data point
[36:32] that they can use. So because of that we
had almost 1,200 uh peer matches that
[36:36] they were able to work with which gave
us a lot of information. Um the other
[36:40] thing is that they were not looking at
just a job title or just a minimum
[36:45] qualification. they were really looking
at the essential functions of a job. Um
[36:48] because from one agency to another
they're everybody titles things
[36:51] differently. So we're looking at what
the actual job does and then what that
[36:55] job pays from one agency to the next.
Uh so what they found uh was that our
[37:02] market position was around the 50th
percentile. Um our minimums were 15%
[37:07] below uh the market average. Our
midpoint was about 9 and a half% below
[37:12] the market average. And generally our
maximums of our grades were pretty
[37:16] competitive. Uh the range spread is
probably the biggest point to note on
[37:21] this slide. Um the city's range from
minimum to maximum was about 85.6%.
[37:28] But what our peers are are doing are
closer to 55%. So that uh kind of
[37:33] tightens up that scale for an employee,
but it brings those minimums way up to
[37:37] make them more competitive while still
leaving plenty of room for employees to
[37:41] grow within their range or within their
assigned grade.
[37:45] Um going back to that slide five, we we
brought those minimums up closer to that
[37:50] second quartile to make it make a little
bit more sense for our employees. And
[37:54] then um of course they've got some
recommendations, you know, individually
[37:58] from there.
Um so what they recommended were um two
[38:02] different market align plans. One is for
um typical our typical uh 40hour week
[38:09] employee or 280 hours a year and the
other one is a separate public safety
[38:13] plan. If you look at our pay scale now
it's separated. Public safety is below.
[38:17] That's because they've got a different
rank structure and of course they've got
[38:20] different annual hours. So it's
basically mirroring what we have now. Um
[38:24] they then uh worked with us and we
slotted all the classifications into the
[38:28] new scale and then uh gave us some um
recommendations for administering the
[38:34] new plan.
So 30 30 grades as opposed to our
[38:39] existing 16 which also gives us more
room within the city to have um more
[38:44] growth for our employees especially as
they move up within promotions. We found
[38:47] a lot of jobs are existing in the same
grade when they're actually different
[38:51] ranks. So, it was not a true promotion
for the employees. So, we made sure that
[38:55] every job is separated so that there's
uh no none of those compression issues.
[39:01] And then this is the public safety
scale. So, they're going to have 14
[39:04] grades in total. And these are based on
the 2,184 hours per year that they work.
[39:13] » Questions?
>> Tons.
[39:16] » Thank you for taking this on. I know I
know that's a heavy lift and it's you've
[39:20] been working on it a long time and I I
would just say some responses to some of
[39:25] the data put out by here. I mean
unfortunately inflation's just been a a
[39:30] beast and and there's no way we can keep
up with the cost of living
[39:35] uh versus what inflation's done the last
three or four years. It's just it would
[39:40] it would probably bankrupt the city if
we try to keep up with that true cost.
[39:44] Um, but looking at that, it it seems
like what it's saying is we're going to
[39:48] have to raise some of that entry level
>> pay to be competitive. Um, I mean, I
[39:54] agree with that. We want to attract top
talent here. We want to keep them here.
[39:57] I also feel like sometimes
>> it's very hard to
[40:02] to kind of navigate the raising the
entry level and recruitment pay scale.
[40:07] And then it seems sometimes like you
wind up almost penalizing people for
[40:11] being loyal and staying here a long
time. and that, you know, I don't know
[40:15] how you thread the needle on that, but I
certainly don't want the the longtime
[40:20] employees to be
overlooked just for the hey, we're going
[40:24] to raise all the costs for recruiting
new people. And
[40:28] » part of the RFQ and what they've also
provided us, which is subject to budget,
[40:31] is um some options on how to administer
current salaries within the new pay
[40:37] plan. So that's something that working
closely with mayor and department heads
[40:41] on to make sure that there is some
equity with that so that we're not
[40:45] punishing somebody who's been here for a
long time or you know we're not keeping
[40:48] somebody outside of a range because of
where their pay is. So um they did give
[40:52] us a lot of those options. It's not
something I can present
[40:56] » right.
>> But um but y'all you know that
[40:58] information we can dive into if y'all
have questions about it. But I think,
[41:01] you know, when you get into salaries
with budget conversations, it's been
[41:05] wrapped up in there
>> and and that's the challenge. We we've
[41:07] had multiple conversations about that
already is we want to raise salaries.
[41:12] We've just got to do it in a sustainable
kind of manner. Um so we we just need
[41:18] everybody to do two jobs and we get
everybody really good raise. But um does
[41:24] anyone have any questions for Hannah on
the survey?
[41:26] » I do. Hannah, thank you. I've been
waiting for this. It's been uh one of
[41:32] the lot a lot of data. Um when when
first I want to ask some questions about
[41:37] the actual survey that was done, there
were comments that the colas were not as
[41:41] close to our peers, but what's is that a
reality
[41:46] » what I'm talking to compare that data
set the 20 or just our Baldwin County
[41:50] peers?
>> The survey is
[41:53] perceptions, right? So, they're given a
list of questions and and these are
[41:58] consultants who do statistics and that's
not me. Um, so this is how employees are
[42:02] perceiving our pay rates or perceiving
our benefits or perceiving our cost of
[42:05] living adjustments. Um, I personally
don't know what other agencies in Bowwin
[42:09] County are doing as far as cost of
living adjustments. So, I don't think I
[42:12] could speak on that.
>> But just in the pay range comparison,
[42:15] we're starting 15% average below
>> what other places.
[42:20] » Well, we're the 50th percentile. We're
right we're right there. I mean, we're
[42:24] sort of like, right, 50% 50 is above us,
50 is below us, right?
[42:30] » I mean, like, yes and no. So, what the
one of the perceptions that they have is
[42:33] that we don't have competitive pay. And
that's because when we talk about hiring
[42:36] an employee or moving an employee,
>> everybody thinks that everywhere.
[42:39] » Yeah. I mean, get in line with an
employer. They'll tell you that.
[42:42] » But what they're seeing is what they're
seeing is the low minimums, right?
[42:46] they're saying it that, you know, I I
have to start at $13 an hour when that's
[42:51] not the reality because we've worked so
hard to bring entry level pay up. So, I
[42:55] think that's kind of a hard question to
ask. The survey wasn't
[42:58] » Well, I think to to me it's important
because we need to know if it's a
[43:03] reality or is it bad communication on
our end? Is Daphne really raising cost
[43:08] of living by 5% every year and we're
only doing two or is Daphne actually
[43:11] doing three and we're doing four but the
board is not getting out. That's, you
[43:15] know, that that's that's a key
differentiator if if if that's the case.
[43:20] » Yeah. I think the other thing too is
over the past 5 years, I mean, we've
[43:24] done an across the board increase and I
think almost every municipality in
[43:27] Baldwin County has done an across the
board increase more significant than
[43:31] just the cola throughout the past 5
years. And I think that has varied like
[43:35] we might have done it one year and then
Daphne raised 5% and then we did a cola
[43:40] of 2% and they might have done 3% or we
did a 10% adjustment across the board.
[43:44] So, um I think we can probably get you
those comparisons, but I think that
[43:48] everybody has done significant increases
trying to get pay to where it where we
[43:53] could all be competitive because we were
losing employees to each other. So, it's
[43:56] a constant back and forth.
>> I would just love to know if it's a poor
[43:59] perception, but the reality is different
or if the reality is true. Hey, yeah,
[44:02] over the last 5 years we've done 10% of
COLA adjustments and Daphne, which has a
[44:07] higher starting point, has done 15%.
Well, that's stuff we need to know. But
[44:11] if it's reverse then okay well we might
just need to be communicating that more
[44:15] clearly.
>> I think you even find other
[44:16] municipalities in Bowwin County who
haven't done a cola at all in 2 to 3
[44:19] years and that would be something to
talk about able to maintain that.
[44:22] » And the the second thing is it's we
talked a lot about salary but is that
[44:26] total compensation or is that strictly
the paycheck that they're taking home.
[44:30] » They're probably looking at the paycheck
that
[44:32] » just the paycheck because that the other
thing we need to look at is
[44:34] » yeah the benefits package is is how that
compares because that's that's a huge
[44:38] right
>> that can be very big.
[44:40] » Yes. And so there and that comes in the
full report is kind of how our benefits
[44:45] are comparing to other agencies. That's
not what I have for y'all today, but the
[44:48] full report will have that information,
kind of how we're doing competitively.
[44:52] » Um it might not have everybody's
individual rates, but it'll tell you it.
[44:55] It'll be much more informative than what
I can give you right this second.
[44:58] » Uh
>> we do give that to the employees once a
[45:01] year at the benefit.
>> Yes.
[45:04] » They get a statement that shows their
salary
[45:08] total value.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. My wife's job does
[45:11] that, too. It's a good shows like the
total value of your compensation, right?
[45:14] Which is which is a good thing. Okay.
That's all I have.
[45:17] » I just have something quick. Um, so
didn't you say at the meeting that we
[45:22] were at recently that actually the
employees that begin working for Fair
[45:27] Hope can look and see as time progresses
how their pay scale is going to
[45:32] increase?
>> Um, no. Because we have we're moving
[45:37] we're sticking with an open range plan.
So, one option in compensation is a step
[45:43] plan where you can see 25 steps and that
gives you 25 exact hourly rates or
[45:48] annual rates. And so, somebody could
say, "Oh, well, if I get one step every
[45:51] year for 25 years, I know what my final
salary would be." But, we're doing an
[45:55] open range plan, so there are no set
figures within that minimum to maximum
[46:00] range. Um, some employees like that
option. It's not uncommon in the public
[46:05] sector, but that's the only way that
they would be able to actually track and
[46:09] and
>> still know that each step that they take
[46:12] that they're going to have be rewarded.
>> No, not not quite. Not not with the
[46:17] open.
>> How do they know that they're going to
[46:19] get a pay increase?
>> Right. We have mer.
[46:21] » Yes. So that that would be performance
based. Um so with the colas that's
[46:25] obviously subject to budget but our
performance-based system um typically
[46:29] that's based on their evaluation and
that's something that they're looking
[46:32] for as well more of is a better
performance management plan where they
[46:36] can see you know if I do you know so
well on my evaluation this year this
[46:40] would be a designated amount that I
would get but that's not something we
[46:43] have today but it's something that
according to the surveys they're
[46:46] interested in. Yeah, I think so.
Definitely
[46:50] » people are motivated by money.
[46:54] » All right. Any other
>> Not me. Not me.
[46:56] » Any other questions for Hannah on this?
All right. Thank you very much.
[47:00] » Thank you.
>> Appreciate it.
[47:03] All right, Kim. Here we go.
[47:19] Good evening. Um you you have a copy of
the um the presentation also.
[47:26] Um you have for the um wastewater we
have a summary you have a summary of the
[47:33] um utilities that's the utility cash
flow requirements. And then for
[47:38] wastewater wastewater is one that when
we've had these budget we've had budget
[47:42] multiple budget meetings. wastewater is
one that we just haven't completely gone
[47:47] through. And so what you have um tonight
is a detail of their um department and
[47:55] then um wastewater's five-year plan um
for capital plan and then you'll have um
[48:02] detail of equipment capital improvements
and system improvements. And on that it
[48:08] gives a little justification. So that
gives you a little bit more detail of um
[48:13] of the wastewater and then at this um
PowerPoint presentation that I'm going
[48:17] to go through this is all the utilities
um capital infrastructure and then at
[48:22] the end we'll just have any questions if
you have more in-depth questions um for
[48:27] the um wastewater or any of the
utilities we can talk about.
[48:32] So we're going to um start with gas
department. Um if you can you can see
[48:38] that um on vehicles and equipment um
there's a an increase for this year and
[48:45] um so the equipment here
um you you'll see that there's multiple
[48:51] pieces of equipment caterpillar
um some mapping equipment a new vehicle
[48:58] um do you have any questions on and if
you need some specific on what a piece
[49:03] of equipment um does that would be Yes.
To answer that question, um, do you see
[49:10] » aren't a couple of these be to help
reduce our cost from contracting out
[49:15] things? Is that right,
>> or am I mistaken?
[49:18] » That was the calibration um the
calibration machine, the smart
[49:21] calibration machine. So, the
electrofusion machines, that's actually
[49:25] eight machines. So, they're $7,000 a
piece. And then they're having to send
[49:28] those out for 45 days for calibration.
And this allows us to calibrate them
[49:32] ourselves. Okay.
>> Yeah. It's going to save some time.
[49:34] » Yeah.
Um the capital improvements. Um this is
[49:39] for an additional bathroom facilities in
the um utilities um public works
[49:44] building. Um it's there's I believe my
understanding is there's one female
[49:49] bathroom and so um we're going to be
adding on in the backside or the
[49:54] recommendation is to add a bathroom in
the back side of that building and
[49:58] additional office spaces. Um, and I
think they were going to do some
[50:02] improvements to the other bathrooms that
are existing in with this. Um,
[50:07] » the ones off the break.
>> Yes. Off the break room. And um, the gas
[50:11] department actually that is that
building is their asset. It's it's on
[50:15] their on the books says the gas
department. And so this asset would be
[50:19] on the um, gas department, but I also
have a transfer in from the other
[50:24] utilities to help offset um, that
building holds a lot of departments in
[50:28] there. So, we're share we're actually be
sharing some cost. It's just the asset
[50:32] has to be booked on um the gas
department.
[50:36] » Have any questions?
>> No, ma'am.
[50:40] » Um the next system improvements, we're
going to do 7.3 um million. Um as you
[50:47] are aware, the um cast iron replacement,
that has been a a um sixphase plan. So,
[50:53] we're continuing to work on that plan.
And so you can see on there um
[50:58] engineering for phase four. At the same
time, we're working on phase three. So
[51:03] it' be the the goal would be to finish
up phase three. At the same time, we'll
[51:08] be working on getting that phase 4
engineer to have it ready to be able to
[51:13] go out to bid for in 28.
>> And that's the biggest ticket item. And
[51:18] Wes has been working on at least
submitting grants trying to capture
[51:22] funding for that. May or may not be
successful, but
[51:25] » yeah. And we h we hope by November that
we will know um if we're awarded um the
[51:31] grant to help to help cover the cost of
that cast iron replacement. But there is
[51:35] money in the federal government for um
the cast iron replacement.
[51:40] Um and you'll see like the I10 um that
800,000 the I10 um gas is going to be to
[51:48] move that gas line for the bridge. um
that will be reimbursed by by the state
[51:54] and we have another the county road 64
relocation
[51:58] um that is a reimbursement from the
county. So we'll have that money coming
[52:02] in to offset the um set that pro
project.
[52:06] » Any of this rollover
>> um
[52:11] » oh
[52:14] » just have to read and it says rollover.
>> Yeah.
[52:17] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> We were almost there. You you figured it
[52:20] out. to roll over. So, y'all have any
questions on that? That I know that's a
[52:24] lot, but um cast iron is the biggest um
project
[52:28] » on that cast iron. Mayor, is that
something
[52:30] » until you get it done? So,
>> do we solicit Dne's help on that? Is
[52:34] » so we we've already done that and we've
gotten letters of support from our
[52:37] federal delegation. Actually, I just
talked to Dne this morning again to
[52:40] remind him um to to make a a few
additional calls knowing that in October
[52:45] that's going to be awarded. So, he he
said that he would do that. But again,
[52:49] that's $14 million, which will cover the
remainder of the phases. So, I told him,
[52:54] I said, you know, if we make it to a
second or third round, however they're
[52:57] doing that, I said, I just want to make
sure that we're communicating that we're
[53:01] willing to do 50/50. We're willing to,
you know, work with them. We, you know,
[53:05] we'd love the whole grant, but we also
are willing to take 50 cents on a dollar
[53:08] if we can get
>> because we have to do the work. So, it's
[53:11] not an all or nothing.
>> Correct. I said if we can get part of it
[53:14] this year and have to wait another year
as additional funding becomes available,
[53:17] whatever we have to do to get some of
that money that we're willing to work
[53:20] with them. So
>> hoping that will work. Fingers crossed.
[53:24] » Everybody cross your fingers,
>> your toes, everything.
[53:28] » Yes. Do y'all have any questions on the
gas department?
[53:34] » Um
>> Wes, I've already asked you, but I mean
[53:36] look at you disappointed.
You really did a good job, Kim and the
[53:42] mayor and Wes on this
>> um electric department.
[53:48] Um as you can see on vehicles and
equipment, it's $821,000.
[53:55] Um there's a couple of those trucks
there. We're actually budgeting half.
[53:59] Those trucks will take um two years to
come in. Um so that's what you're seeing
[54:05] that we're budgeting half the boom truck
for this year and then next year we'll
[54:08] budget the other half. Um and that way
we can go ahead and order those trucks.
[54:14] We can go ahead and um put those um get
those POS done for those trucks and get
[54:18] those in line. Um and then you can see
there there is a rollover truck that
[54:25] we've already ordered and we're waiting
on that truck to come in.
[54:29] » Y'all say um the other day that these
are two to threeyear orders. Are they
[54:33] that far out?
>> 289
[54:37] » they'll come in.
and Ben is out working on power outages.
[54:42] So, y'all have any questions?
[54:46] » Yeah. Um, next, um, capital
improvements. Um, looking at a gate for
[54:53] the, um, pole barn or the pole yard. Um,
it's 30,000.
[55:01] And then, um, system system
improvements. Um, it's just a a variety
[55:05] of stuff that we're going to be doing.
um you know poles and reconnectors on um
[55:13] section street.
Um
[55:16] we've already ordered this under is is
under residential distribution metering
[55:22] cabinet. Um that one y'all have already
approved to order that but that was a
[55:26] lead time that it's going to come in in
um in 27's budget.
[55:32] And um it's just a you have also some
traffic signals. So you'll see that the
[55:39] big ticket item is Vana and section
street signal improvements. That's
[55:43] 400,000.
And when we the next next meeting we'll
[55:48] talk about on the general government
side. And so you'll see there's a
[55:51] project on the general government side
that's going to be improvements to that
[55:55] intersection. So, at the same time,
we'll be um you know, putting up the
[55:58] traffic lights and doing some um
additional improvements, drainage in
[56:02] that um area. But do you all have any
questions on any of the um system
[56:07] improvements for electric?
>> I did just want to remind everybody that
[56:12] $750,000 expenditure when we had the
study done of our system, that's one of
[56:16] the weak areas in our system. There's
copper lines there. Um so, we know we
[56:20] need to replace those. So, that's that's
what that project is. Um, and it's
[56:24] actually splits two years. So, it's
we'll start part of the project and then
[56:28] we'll go into the next budget year as
well.
[56:33] » I wanted to ask you about the Volanta
project. There seems to be
[56:39] high traffic, driving too fast. What are
we What were we talking about doing with
[56:43] that
>> on Atlanta?
[56:45] » Vena.
>> Um, the only thing that's come up on
[56:47] Well, there's there's a couple projects
on Vena. There's Atlanta at 98, which is
[56:51] an ATIP 2 project, which will add turn
signals, we'll add signals, we'll add
[56:56] turn lanes at 98. Um, and then on the
other side of Atlanta is a public works
[57:01] project will be drainage and repaving.
And then the intersection bin and then
[57:06] we'll at that time change out the lights
and change out the cabinet for the
[57:10] traffic signals. Um, as far as speeding
on there, that's been to the traffic
[57:13] committee. Y'all correct me if I'm
wrong. The only thing we've really
[57:16] talked about is at Val and Bond Secure.
Um the we put the um electronic metering
[57:22] there for our speed trap, the speed sign
there for the police department, but
[57:25] we've also um looked at a four-way stop
or at that intersection, but that's
[57:30] really it on Balena.
>> Okay. I just getting a lot of stuff from
[57:34] that area.
>> You want to be specific? Um just that
[57:40] the the traffic is so fast that the
people in Banta are really upset because
[57:46] they can't pull in and out of their
driveway. Just traffic's going too fast.
[57:51] I I live near there. Jimmy lives near
there. I haven't any problems.
[57:55] » I think the the challenge that I I know
you already mentioned is that Valent 98
[58:00] trying to take a left.
>> That's an awful intersection.
[58:02] » A left on Valanta up 98. They come so
fast around the curve you can't really
[58:06] see them. Well, this is more towards the
the new restaurant they're putting in
[58:10] » closer to that.
>> Yeah. Well, that's that's right. Yeah,
[58:13] that's right there at Bon Secure and um
Vanna. Um we have talked about in the
[58:17] traffic committee. That may be something
that we can evaluate again, but I do
[58:19] know the chief and them. They did a
traffic study there. So, they probably
[58:23] can address some speeding information
for you if you want to see that.
[58:26] » And that intersection is tab for
improvements in fact on here.
[58:30] » Yeah,
>> quite quite a bit of improvements.
[58:36] Any other questions? Ma'am,
>> I'm going to shoot the light out with a
[58:38] shotgun one day if they stop me. I was
five minutes later because nobody there
[58:42] and I had to stop for five minutes.
>> Run the light.
[58:46] » Shabb city council run it.
>> Would be good.
[58:51] » I'll shoot the light out, but I won't
run it.
[58:54] » I'm kidding.
>> Yes, ma'am.
[58:57] » Um,
>> water now.
[58:59] » Yeah, water. And
now you can you can actually see that in
[59:03] 27 you know we we're getting a lot done
in 26 and then in 20 27 um it is reduced
[59:10] a little bit um for the water department
but it still is a lot. Um starting out
[59:16] with their equipment um which is
reduction from what we've done last this
[59:21] past year is um $290,000.
Um, you can see there's a a submersible
[59:27] pump that keeps a pump available for if
a well does go down. They're able to
[59:32] grab a a pump versus us renting a pump.
Um, a dump truck. This dump truck is um
[59:39] if approved will be shared um with
public works because public works as
[59:44] times that needs an extra truck. Um and
then there's replacement of some trucks
[59:51] and some equipment. Do you have any
questions on that?
[59:56] And then the capital improvements.
Um, as you can you can see there,
[1:00:02] there's for the um water treatment
plant. We're looking at some roof
[1:00:05] replacement,
um, a booster station,
[1:00:09] um, some building improvements, um, some
asphalt at the treatment plant one.
[1:00:19] And then next we'll go to um, as you'll
see, upgrade to the SCADA. So the SCADA
[1:00:24] is the, you know, communication um of
what's going on at those treatment
[1:00:28] plants. And so this would be for us to
do improvements for that um software or
[1:00:34] actually the equipment at um treatment
plants 2, four, five, and six. You have
[1:00:40] any questions on that?
And then um $17.7
[1:00:47] million in um improvements.
Um you'll see that you know we do meters
[1:00:54] every year having to add the new meters.
Um what you'll you'll see there is um
[1:01:02] a lot of projects but let's let's just
be able to hit some of the high ones. A
[1:01:05] 12-in uh water man replacement on 98
between 34 and 32. And that is the area
[1:01:12] that they continue to have um breaks in.
And so to be able to replace that whole
[1:01:18] area
um would save on when they happen to
[1:01:21] have to shut keep shutting the water off
because we keep on having breaks is to
[1:01:24] replace that whole line there. Um you'll
see another you know 1.5 million for 12
[1:01:31] in on old Pierce
um to 181. And then the big project here
[1:01:38] is a um a 2 milliongal tank that's going
to we're going to spread that over
[1:01:43] multiple years, but we've budgeted for
this year is 9 million. Um so that is a
[1:01:48] multi-year project. Um right now it's
being engineered. So um you'll be seeing
[1:01:54] this come soon.
Um and then
[1:01:58] well number four is to drill a new well
new um treatment plant. That's the 1 um
[1:02:04] 2 million
Um, and you can see just some other
[1:02:09] upgrades. Is there any questions on
those? I know it's a lot. Chairman,
[1:02:13] » I have a question.
>> Yes, sir. Please.
[1:02:15] » You know, obviously the $9 million water
tank jumps off the page. Um, it used to
[1:02:21] be about a million dollars for a million
gallons, and so let's just say
[1:02:26] it used to be $2 million for two million
gallons. So, we're at four and a half
[1:02:32] times that. and inflation. I know I've
been on this council a long time. I
[1:02:36] don't think it's 450% in that time.
>> Is there anything that we can do about
[1:02:42] that? I mean, this is this is highway
robbery. I mean, this is highway
[1:02:46] robbery.
>> And and I I mean, I'm um know somebody
[1:02:50] that's at G Shores utility and I mean,
when he told me the number of what
[1:02:55] they're they just did the same same
tank. Believe me, I was I was on
[1:03:00] vacation texting mayor like let me tell
you what G shores the what it just came
[1:03:03] in. I'm like we don't have enough in the
budget.
[1:03:06] » Well, they know that we're growing and
they know we have to have it and they
[1:03:09] know that you know our citizens demand
us to say yes to this. But I don't know
[1:03:13] if there's a way to say no to this.
>> It's really
[1:03:16] » so that they get a message that they're
not going to make $9 million.
[1:03:19] » It's really not 9 million. It's 12
million split over two years. So it's 9
[1:03:23] million then plus three million. And um
to be honest, I mean, if you it's not
[1:03:28] only here in Baldwin County, across the
state, if you're in utility meetings,
[1:03:32] this is what a 2 million gallon tank is
running, unfortunately, because I'm like
[1:03:36] you. I've been around long enough where
it was basically a million dollars a per
[1:03:41] million gallons.
>> And yeah, and now we're are
[1:03:45] » I hope when we bid it, it comes in less,
but I mean, obviously, we'll do
[1:03:48] competitive bids, but I mean,
>> right now, that's what we're seeing in
[1:03:53] the industry.
>> Well, what did it cost? Crazy to paint
[1:03:55] that tank. It
>> cost a million. Yeah, it cost a million
[1:03:58] dollars to paint the tank right now.
Just to paint it, to drain it and paint
[1:04:01] it.
>> Yeah.
[1:04:04] » I bought my first house in Fair $55,000.
>> I'd like to maybe look a committee of
[1:04:11] experts that can go all over this
country. I mean, you could pay people to
[1:04:14] live here for a year and build it. I
mean, it's still I mean, it's crazy.
[1:04:18] » It's expensive. I agree.
>> I have no interest in hiring a local
[1:04:21] company if that's what it cost.
>> Yeah. And again, we've had, you know,
[1:04:25] folks reaching out and we want to make
sure we get the best price possible. So,
[1:04:28] I'm hoping that we get a lot of bids,
but there are not local contractors to
[1:04:32] be honest. They're out of Texas and
other places that are that are looking
[1:04:34] at these.
>> Got to be somewhere in this country that
[1:04:36] people need work. I mean, got to be.
>> But we've looked at North Ballin just
[1:04:40] put a
>> Yeah, North Ballin just did one at
[1:04:42] » NLIS.
>> I mean, so we we've been looking around
[1:04:45] and this is basically the going cost of
them.
[1:04:50] Any
[1:04:53] other questions? It's a lot.
Um, wastewater. Um, again, we, as y'all
[1:05:01] can see around town, we've been
continuing to do work. Um, so what we're
[1:05:06] asking for in 27 is a little bit less
than what we've done. Um, but it's still
[1:05:12] it's still a lot. um vehicles and
equipment. You can see they're wanting a
[1:05:16] side by side for the um wastewater
treatment plant. Another new vehicle.
[1:05:21] And then the big ticket item is a um
camera van.
[1:05:27] If you um have any detailed questions on
the camera van, um Darl or mayor can be
[1:05:33] able to answer a little bit more. But
the van we currently have is nine years
[1:05:37] old.
>> Nine years old.
[1:05:38] » Nine years old. Yes.
Um and capital improvement. You'll see
[1:05:44] that the concrete apron at the
wastewater treatment plant of 30,000
[1:05:50] and then um 17.6
million um INI um mitigation and y'all
[1:05:58] just approved um last meeting the
$500,000 on that contract.
[1:06:04] um Valley Force um lift station um or
main is 200,000.
[1:06:12] The 181 main and um force main and um
two regional lift station is 5 million
[1:06:19] in this budget that is a multi-year
project. Um so that will that is looking
[1:06:26] at the really the 15 million going over
and then um hot taps of force man of
[1:06:32] 80,000. You have any questions before we
go to the next page?
[1:06:35] » I've got a couple questions on
um on these. So
[1:06:41] well and I'll start on this page. the
sewer camera van 450,000
[1:06:46] I feel like and and I know it said it on
here is outdated but didn't we just do a
[1:06:51] pretty extensive outsourcing of that if
we have this kind of equipment do we are
[1:06:56] we not able to handle more of that kind
of sewer line filming inhouse or is this
[1:07:02] only for smaller projects
is I feel like we just did a very large
[1:07:08] outsource job to to have somebody come
in and film home our lines. Am I am I
[1:07:14] not remembering that correctly?
>> So So that that was a contract we had
[1:07:17] through our INI mitigation. That was the
CIP and manhole restoration. Um and
[1:07:22] that's kind of an annual thing we're
doing as part of the INI,
[1:07:25] » right? I guess that's my question. We
have a almost a half a million dollar
[1:07:30] camera van. Is that not something we
would do with this?
[1:07:33] » It it is in addition to I mean that our
current van van goes out every single
[1:07:38] day. Okay. Um, it goes out every day.
And, um,
[1:07:43] one of the a lot of the issues with our
current camera van is it's old, it's
[1:07:48] outdated, the software is hard to get,
the parts are damn near uh, obsolete.
[1:07:52] Um, there's long lead times, and our
support for that van is in Jackson,
[1:07:58] Mississippi.
So, anytime we have to take the van, we
[1:08:02] have to drive it all the way to
Mississippi, get it worked on for a
[1:08:05] couple days, and then bring it back. the
current van we want to get um kind of
[1:08:09] mirrors DAP util that Daphne utilities
van they they just got a brand new one.
[1:08:13] I've sent guys over there. They're
looking at it. They're they're putting
[1:08:16] their hands on it. They're they're
getting to use a little bit and um it it
[1:08:21] the and the local support is in Mobile.
It's not in Mississippi.
[1:08:25] » Hey Darl, I think too his question is
couldn't we not do the INI camera
[1:08:30] instead of doing a $500,000 contract?
And I think probably the answer
[1:08:34] » or vice versa. We're we're using our our
sewer.
[1:08:38] » I didn't realize we were using it every
single day. Yeah. So, I I didn't know
[1:08:41] that there. I did not realize it was in
you couldn't do a project like that
[1:08:46] because you'd have to continually pull
it and it would cut into operations
[1:08:49] basically.
>> And we we we don't have the personnel to
[1:08:51] do that.
>> Yeah. I really didn't know y'all use it
[1:08:53] that frequently. So,
>> Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask Darl,
[1:08:56] what makes that van cost what makes that
camera van450,000?
[1:09:01] » Uh, it's the technology in it. Um those
cameras are that that that that sewer
[1:09:06] camera the one that actually goes is
very expensive. Um just the technology
[1:09:11] in it alone is is state-of-the-art and
that and we mirrored that price off of
[1:09:16] what Daphne Utilities paid for theirs.
>> Well, the van is what kind of the van
[1:09:19] can't be more than the shell of a van,
right? I mean, is it What kind of van?
[1:09:22] » Well, it is it's it's outfitted with
with the camera and and
[1:09:26] » what kind of van is it, please?
>> It's a Ford or or a
[1:09:29] » line, something like that.
>> Yeah. So, it's a $50,000 van and
[1:09:32] $400,000 worth of equipment on it.
>> Yeah.
[1:09:35] » And those cameras and the technology is
400 grand.
[1:09:38] » Yes. It's expensive.
[1:09:44] » Build water towers.
>> Jack, you're not liking the paradox of
[1:09:48] inflation.
[1:09:52] » Like I said, we we we me and and and my
guys, we've done our research on it and
[1:09:57] we're, you know, we're we try to get the
best bang for our buck.
[1:10:03] Yeah, it's going to save a lot of money
not having to drive it at Jackson,
[1:10:06] Mississippi.
>> And then we're out of a camera van for a
[1:10:09] week, week and a half.
>> Yeah, that's a big pain.
[1:10:11] » So, um,
>> look at the positives.
[1:10:18] » All right, y'all ready for page number
two?
[1:10:22] » Yeah.
[1:10:26] Um, page number number two. um insertion
valves. Um and that is not just one
[1:10:33] valve. That's that could be up to about
six. I mean, depends on the number of
[1:10:37] inches. Make sure it's right. The number
of inches that um those valves are put
[1:10:41] in. But those valves do save um when
they have to um cut off some water. They
[1:10:46] have areas that they can just cut a
section off. And so inserting these
[1:10:50] valves um actually help um this ain't
necessarily water. This is a sewer. So,
[1:10:55] um those valves do help in those areas.
>> Um relocating a force man on scene at 98
[1:11:03] of 400,000.
Um our on call contractor of 200,000 and
[1:11:09] you have seen that on water and on
sewer. We have the on call contractors
[1:11:14] and those are for um areas or times when
they don't have the equipment or the
[1:11:19] availability to get into some breaks
that may happen. um that it could be a
[1:11:24] time that it's too deep that um they'll
have those on call on on call
[1:11:29] contractors come in. Um some of our
larger larger projects here we're um 2.8
[1:11:38] million it is a rollover um but that is
going to be for rehab of the Grand Hotel
[1:11:44] lift station. We have this in
combination that we have um the regional
[1:11:48] lift station and um then once the
regional lift station that's the 2.8 and
[1:11:54] then it's the Grand Hotel at the 750 and
then we also have in there that's the
[1:11:58] engineering that's still part of um that
project.
[1:12:03] Um there's several um lift stations on
here. Magnolia Beach Apartments for
[1:12:08] 660,000 East of the Sun lift station
1.2.
[1:12:13] Um we have some air scrubbers for the um
lift station 100,000 Twin Beach um
[1:12:21] bypass pump 200,000
some um a half a you know half a million
[1:12:26] for just some general lift station
upgrades and these are some stations
[1:12:30] that they end up failing um that they
were unknown and so that pot of money is
[1:12:36] for that. Um and then we have for the um
wastewater treatment plan expansion
[1:12:43] phase two the engineering and design of
1.6 million and then um being able to
[1:12:50] put a million dollars of um blowers at
the treatment plant. Do you'all have any
[1:12:54] questions? That's a lot going on.
>> Got a question. Are the rollovers
[1:12:57] captured in the system improvements for
26 and 27?
[1:13:02] » Yes.
>> Okay. So we're So if you look at that
[1:13:04] number and you add the two together,
that's being some of those numbers are
[1:13:08] being double.
>> That's right. Okay. That's right. And so
[1:13:10] when I'm trying to look at look at cash
needs,
[1:13:14] » you need to know what's still coming.
>> Yeah. I still need to know what's
[1:13:17] coming. I have to look at projects that
are or contracts I've already approved
[1:13:22] and they're they're still coming. And
then if there's anything new, I've got
[1:13:26] to add those together.
>> And then random question for Darl, East
[1:13:30] of the Sun lift station. And I hadn't
heard that name yet. Where where exactly
[1:13:33] is that?
>> Yeah, we've got we've got some unique
[1:13:35] names. We don't know where they came
from,
[1:13:37] » but um that's over by Spring Run. It's
kind of tucked away back in there, but
[1:13:41] it's a it's a high volume station and a
lot of that cost
[1:13:45] » um a lot of that cost is going to be
getting that force mane off of doghouse,
[1:13:50] which is another
>> Now, that one I've heard of for years.
[1:13:53] So, um, and that's, um, you know, during
during significant rain events that that
[1:14:00] do house lid lift station gets a lot of
use.
[1:14:03] » So, we're trying to take we want to
remove some of that flow. Also, East of
[1:14:07] the Sun lift station needs it just needs
a whole new rehab. It's a very, very old
[1:14:11] station.
>> Council, any questions for Daryl or Kim?
[1:14:14] » I want to follow up with your question.
I think I understood it. I think I
[1:14:17] understood. Kim, you're u you said that
those rollovers were included in both.
[1:14:23] So, if we had spent that I got roughly I
was doing some really quick math about
[1:14:27] 4.8 million. Does that sound about
right? About 4.8 million. So, if we had
[1:14:33] spent it all in 2026, that number
wouldn't have changed because that's
[1:14:36] what was budgeted. Right.
>> Right.
[1:14:38] » In 2027 would have been reduced by 4.8
million and that number would be 12.8
[1:14:45] roughly instead of 17.6 and so the
reduction would have been significantly
[1:14:50] less. Yes, it would be
>> like 50% reduction almost and some 40 40
[1:14:56] to 50% reduction. So that's
>> because when you look at those two
[1:14:59] numbers
>> that makes it look a lot better if you
[1:15:00] look at it as if it had been spent then.
>> Okay.
[1:15:04] » I was looking at that across the board
for all of all of them. I thought oh my
[1:15:07] gosh
>> there's no way we've spent that much
[1:15:10] money and we still spent a lot of money
but
[1:15:13] » makes me feel better spend it and then
it would made this year's number a lot
[1:15:16] less anyway.
>> Yeah. And we budget we budgeted to
[1:15:19] borrow 40 million this year. So that
kind of gives you an idea that we've
[1:15:22] been, you know, um, we borrowed an
additional five and so we've been what I
[1:15:28] call limping along. Some of these
contracts haven't, you know, gone out to
[1:15:32] bid. You know, engineering is still
working on some things. I know like the
[1:15:36] um the regional the force main and the
regional lift station that's been in the
[1:15:40] works for a couple of years. Um, so you
know, some of these, you know, we we
[1:15:46] haven't, you know, got there yet.
>> Council President, I have a question.
[1:15:50] And Kim, you and Kim and council, you
can help me. Um, I haven't done a deep
[1:15:55] dive. I'm I'm going to take water and
sewer sort of out of it because we know
[1:15:57] there's some significant challenges and
and upgrades and stuff that we have
[1:16:00] planned, but for gas and electric, we're
operating at a significant deficit um to
[1:16:07] to income. And how I mean, obviously,
you can't do that sustainably forever.
[1:16:12] So, how common has it been in the last
few years to
[1:16:16] to operate at this level of because I
see it's a reduction. So, it's I mean
[1:16:21] last year we spent even more but does
this
[1:16:23] » I only see one year here, right? If
there was five years maybe it'd be
[1:16:26] easier to tell.
>> Well, on the um when we got the rate
[1:16:28] study that was based on 22's number for
gas. So, at gas we were at 78 78%
[1:16:37] recovery. So, not at 100%, you know,
recovery. Um, but we really focused on
[1:16:43] water and sewer, you know, water and
sewer. And I know it's very hard for
[1:16:47] y'all to come in and, you know, do rate
increases. You get a lot of phone calls,
[1:16:51] but, um, that is that is one that I'
I've looked at, you know, a lot today.
[1:16:56] Um, looking at our rates, looking at
some other rates, looking back at that
[1:16:59] study. Um, so for gas, we're going to
have to increase those rates. Um, I just
[1:17:05] know when that rate study comes back,
we'll even be further down that down the
[1:17:09] hole really. Um, and so on gas, the last
time the rates were increased, it looks
[1:17:15] like around 1516
was the last time rates were increased
[1:17:19] on there. We do add a labor cost
adjustment every year. I calculate that
[1:17:23] after the budgets pass. I look at
actual, look at um what we're budgeting
[1:17:27] and so we put in the labor cost
adjustment. So that's really the only
[1:17:31] thing that's been going in the base rate
is the labor cost adjustment, but the
[1:17:35] actual per cubic feet, am I saying that
right? Swiss um cubic feet rate has not
[1:17:42] changed. And so actually looking at a
competitor um our our rate is 148 and a
[1:17:51] competitor um utility is $210.
So that really shows you that, you know,
[1:17:58] but we haven't we haven't really focused
on gas. Um electric, we looked at their
[1:18:02] rates in 23
before the um study came out. The study
[1:18:07] came out and showed electric electric
looked good. It was at 100% capacity
[1:18:13] recovery. But in 2018, it was even it
was even better. So you can tell like
[1:18:19] it's gone down. I can see from looking
and you the charts I've showed y'all is
[1:18:24] from 23 to 27's budget. You can see like
on electric the cost is just doing this
[1:18:30] but our but our rates is is you know
revenues are staying flat. So there is
[1:18:36] some adjustments that um I'm going to
recommend you know as part of this
[1:18:39] budget especially for the gas and the
water and the sanitation that we need to
[1:18:44] increase rates.
>> Oh and can I address that a little bit
[1:18:47] too?
>> Yes sir please. You mind chairman?
[1:18:49] » Of course not.
>> Uh so you know on the on the gas
[1:18:53] especially if if you look to me if you
look at the net operating of the gas it
[1:18:57] looks good and you know we have finally
gotten into this cast iron replacement
[1:19:04] that was has been you know we've known
about this for 20 years and so we're
[1:19:07] finally getting in the meat of it. If
you took away that $5 million a year
[1:19:11] that we're having to put into it every
year and you get past that once we get
[1:19:15] past that as well. I'm not saying we
don't need to look at rates because we
[1:19:18] absolutely need to look at rates and
keep up with inflation makes some more
[1:19:21] sense after that. But with but but gas
is like really performing well if you
[1:19:26] just look at a net operating um balance
sheet and then you look at electric I
[1:19:31] think it's starting to fall behind but
something that Kim has said to me before
[1:19:36] she's correctly recognized is that we
keep adding customers which means we
[1:19:40] keep having to add infrastructure and we
have to have reliability and we put a
[1:19:44] lot of of investment into that but just
due to the efficiencies of appliances
[1:19:49] and lights and things like that our
revenues are pretty flat.
[1:19:53] you know, people using LED lights and
people have, you know, 181 19 SER air
[1:19:59] conditioning units and so all of that,
you know, is kind of is is kind of
[1:20:04] dampening our income as well. So, you
know, one one of these days that
[1:20:09] that'll, you know, maybe they won't, but
the efficiencies probably will slow down
[1:20:14] a little bit. We may catch up, but our
rates have to catch up as well. And in
[1:20:18] electric too because of the territory
laws, we're not adding a ton of
[1:20:22] customers. Um, and we're not going to,
but you're adding efficiencies. Um, you
[1:20:26] know, where you may have had a house
that was on two lots, somebody will tear
[1:20:30] it down and they'll build two houses,
but again, you're building in
[1:20:33] efficiencies. So, um, that's where the
change in that is. In gas, we are adding
[1:20:37] additional customers. We're adding, I
think it was about 200 a year. Isn't
[1:20:40] that right, Wes? About 200 customers a
year in gas. So that that will be
[1:20:44] significant, but electric is one of
those ones that's going to, you know,
[1:20:47] continue, I think, to be a little bit of
a challenge with the cost of
[1:20:50] infrastructure.
>> Yeah. I mean, at that rate, electric, we
[1:20:53] won't even be able to do it right
>> the same amount next year.
[1:20:56] » And we've built two substations, you
know, two substations plus the 44 KV
[1:21:01] loop, which we've talked about for
years. So there's been a lot of things
[1:21:03] that we have paid for using cash
reserves or are using revenues that are
[1:21:09] 50-year, you know, infrastructure. So we
have used a lot of our reserves in doing
[1:21:14] that.
>> And I think if you look at those
[1:21:17] balances in in gas and electric as well,
we still have some reserves left. So we
[1:21:22] had saved up for this time that we
figured we were going to do a cash burn.
[1:21:26] So we've been doing a cash burn for
several years, but we still are in the
[1:21:30] black.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:21:33] » Yeah. Do you have any questions?
>> Okay. Thanks.
[1:21:35] » Um just just to tell you what our our
plan is. the next meeting on the 14th,
[1:21:40] I'll go over general funds um capital
and um our capital projects fund go over
[1:21:47] those projects and then for the last
meeting of September would be a whole
[1:21:52] overview of the budget and um you know
be a recommendation on the the passing
[1:21:58] of passing of the budget. um plan is on
the week of the um September 7th is to
[1:22:04] give you your budget books a complete
for the budget. And so that gives y'all
[1:22:08] opportunity um to be able to review it.
If y'all need additional meetings,
[1:22:12] additional questions, please get with
mayor or me. Um and we'll be happy to
[1:22:18] answer any more questions.
>> Thank you, Kim.
[1:22:21] » Thanks, Kim.
>> Did a good job.
[1:22:23] » And has everybody had several meetings
already with you, Kim?
[1:22:27] » Everybody's done all meetings.
>> Okay. Excellent. Good job, everybody.
[1:22:32] Um, let's see. Next item up is committee
updates. Council member Brell
[1:22:40] » given a report on the airport authority.
Uh, we do have airport authority has a
[1:22:45] couple of uh resolutions.
>> Those are the only two support some
[1:22:48] grant applications
>> tonight. kind of routine stuff for us is
[1:22:53] to just get the the city to sponsor the
grant application. And uh
[1:22:58] » we have a
streets and traffic committee meeting
[1:23:04] coming up in week or so, right?
>> Is that this week or next week?
[1:23:10] » September day.
>> Couple of weeks. Okay. All right. That
[1:23:12] that's it.
>> All right. Councilman Gamon. Uh, I
[1:23:16] haven't had any, but I'll have tree
committee this week and um FIFA and not
[1:23:20] FIFA Fair Environmental Advisory Board.
FIEA FIAB doesn't really roll like FE,
[1:23:25] but uh they'll be
>> thief would be a correct correct
[1:23:29] pronunciation.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:23:31] » Uh, Councilman Robinson.
>> Yeah. Rec board met um Wednesday of last
[1:23:37] week. uh variety of topics discussed,
but but one of the things that they're
[1:23:41] still working on kind of finalizing is
revising some of the uh rental uh rental
[1:23:49] terms for each and every facility uh
around around the city. Um once we kind
[1:23:55] of get that ironed out, I'll bring it
back and show you guys.
[1:24:00] » Um I had
>> Are you ready? I had a library meeting
[1:24:03] and just basically the library is very
healthy and happy at the present and
[1:24:08] they have their plans for the future
year and we went over all the plans and
[1:24:14] some really good stuff coming your way.
>> All right. And I had a mi unfortunately
[1:24:19] missed a parking authority meeting due
to a work conflict but had met with the
[1:24:24] chairman the day day or so before that.
So, they were mostly going over um kind
[1:24:29] of the parking study recommendations we
had and trying to determine how they
[1:24:34] could best help or or best um fit in
with with next steps and kind of
[1:24:40] engaging on that. I've got a couple
meetings coming up in the next few weeks
[1:24:44] and I think that's it. So, um at this
time, council, if if y'all like, let's
[1:24:50] take about a 10-minute break and plan on
starting back around 5:40. Yeah, sounds
[1:24:56] good.
>> All right.
[1:38:15] We're going to go ahead and get started
tonight.
[1:38:19] Um, welcome to the August 24th city
council meeting. Um, first item is to
[1:38:25] have my good friend, Reverend Ellen
Huckabe,
[1:38:29] lead us in the prayer followed by the
pledge.
[1:38:33] » Thank you for being here.
>> Thank you. Let us pray. Almighty God,
[1:38:38] our creator, redeemer, and sustainer, we
give you thanks for the abundant gifts
[1:38:43] you have entrusted to the people of Fair
Hope. We give you thanks for our mayor,
[1:38:48] city council members, police officers,
first responders, and municipal
[1:38:52] employees. We lift up their service to
you today, asking you to make them wise
[1:38:58] and discerning leaders.
Give them the grace for their eyes to
[1:39:02] remain open to see your hand at work in
the world around them as they work for
[1:39:08] justice, peace, and the common good.
Loving God, give us all the humility to
[1:39:14] recognize that every neighbor we
encounter, whether they sit beside us or
[1:39:19] across the table, is a sibling in
Christ, created in your image. All this
[1:39:26] we ask in the name of Jesus. Amen.
>> Amen.
[1:39:32] To the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[1:39:37] stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[1:39:42] for all.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Ellen. All right,
[1:39:48] council. Uh, first item on tonight's
agenda is to approve the minutes of the
[1:39:52] August 10th regular city council meeting
and the minutes of the August 10th work
[1:39:57] session.
>> So moved.
[1:39:58] » Got a motion. Second
>> and a second. Any changes,
[1:40:01] modifications?
>> All right, hearing none. All in favor,
[1:40:05] please say I.
>> I.
[1:40:06] » I.
>> All right, minutes pass. Mayor, your
[1:40:09] report.
>> Thank you. Um, I really don't have much
[1:40:12] of a report tonight. I just really want
to thank our staff and thank the city
[1:40:15] council. We've been working hard on the
budget and we had our first budget
[1:40:18] presentation tonight. Um, I just want to
thank all the leadership in particular
[1:40:22] for um, being real timely and working on
the budget this year. And again, thank
[1:40:26] you to all the council members for um
making time to come to those budget
[1:40:29] meetings. I know they are not fun and
they last a long time, but it's
[1:40:32] important that we're all there working
together as a team. And really want to
[1:40:36] thank Kim and her staff who've worked
really hard on the budget as well. Um we
[1:40:40] also tonight in the work session had a
presentation from um Hannah Non, our HR
[1:40:44] director, about the compensation study.
And again, thank you to Hannah and her
[1:40:47] team um for for taking on that. That's a
huge undertaking and it's really
[1:40:51] important to our employees and important
to um being able to retain staff. So,
[1:40:55] um, appreciate her and her all her
efforts. Thank you.
[1:40:59] » You.
>> All right, that's it. That was that was
[1:41:01] short. Okay. Um, next item up is public
participation. And this is going to be
[1:41:08] for agenda items 5 through 21. We'll
skip agenda item four because that's a
[1:41:14] public hearing. And in fact, guys, we're
going to skip that up until the point at
[1:41:18] 6:00. And um, just since that's when we
would have advertised for that to start.
[1:41:22] So, um, at this time the floor is open.
You've got up to 3 minutes to cover
[1:41:27] anything on items 5 through 21. You'll
have another opportunity at the end of
[1:41:32] the meeting to address public
participation items that are not covered
[1:41:35] on the agenda. So, floor is open.
[1:41:42] All right. Seeing no one, we'll close
the floor and council comments. Uh,
[1:41:48] Councilman Brell,
>> I have none.
[1:41:49] » Oh, I thought we were doing that at the
end. Never mind. Oh, well, we're we're
[1:41:52] moving it up to
>> Councilman Gam.
[1:41:55] » Uh, yeah. Um,
he threw me off. I thought we're doing
[1:42:01] the end.
>> I'm sorry. Yeah, that that was just a
[1:42:04] typo. We always do it right afteration.
>> Um, no, I mean, obviously, uh, it's been
[1:42:11] the last time we were in this chambers
was in for a very, uh, spirited
[1:42:15] discussion over city schools and, uh,
the this county school system. and want
[1:42:19] to thank everybody that came out and
thank you for the um the feedback that
[1:42:22] we received. Obviously, there was a lot
of u misinformation on there that we had
[1:42:26] already made up our minds or that a
decision had already been made which
[1:42:29] couldn't be further from the truth. But
um I guess the apologies to anybody if
[1:42:34] if we didn't communicate that clearly
enough uh where in my day job uh we say
[1:42:40] perception is reality. So um if we made
an error obviously we did. So, apologize
[1:42:45] to the citizens if anybody was concerned
or thought that we were taking a vote
[1:42:48] that night or the night after to remove
kids from schools. That certainly wasn't
[1:42:52] it. I don't think that um that
conversation, even though we've we've
[1:42:56] suspended it for now, uh doesn't mean
there's any valid points or invalid
[1:43:00] points on either side. I think that
there's many benefits to staying inside
[1:43:03] of the county. Um we've seen that US
News and World Report that just came
[1:43:07] out. We're in the top, I'll say 4% of
all high schools in the nation. Um which
[1:43:12] is a pretty amazing feat. Um, and
there's, you know, all the benefits and
[1:43:16] all the every all the talking points. A
lot of the students and stuff came up
[1:43:19] really talk about that how great of a
school system that we have and how um
[1:43:23] beneficial it is to stay in the county.
But I think it's also important to point
[1:43:27] out that there are some benefits to
leaving this uh the county and having a
[1:43:31] city school system. You know, the
proponents talked about uh potentially,
[1:43:35] right, devil's in the details and the
numbers, but potentially having more
[1:43:38] money to spend per pupil. That's
disputed depending upon which study you
[1:43:41] look at. um having greater local control
and um you know a number of other items
[1:43:47] but uh it's it's a good thing for us to
have these discussions and for us to
[1:43:52] figure out uh is the status quo correct
or should we investigate something
[1:43:57] different and so I always encourage
folks to to come to me with those
[1:44:00] questions and I think it was a great
conversation for us to have about this
[1:44:03] and about anything you know we should
always be looking forward to the future
[1:44:06] and saying what could we possibly be as
opposed to what are we today um so thank
[1:44:11] you everybody that came out and looking
forward to talking through other things,
[1:44:16] » sir. All right, Councilman Robinson,
>> I do not currently have any comment.
[1:44:21] Councilman B.
>> No, I do not.
[1:44:24] » Okay. Well, I guess I will uh try to try
to keep it short and sweet. Then I I
[1:44:29] just would would echo Councilman Gammon,
thank you to everyone who came out,
[1:44:34] participated, completed a survey online.
Um, you know, we were asking for input
[1:44:38] and and I think we we got it. We heard
it. I think um maybe I you know
[1:44:44] communication on my side maybe what was
missed was um somehow I think the the
[1:44:51] expectation was that we had this looming
pending vote that we were about to take
[1:44:55] in any minute. And the reality is all we
were asking is tell us what you want us
[1:45:00] to pursue. Pursue or not pursue. We're
just looking for feedback. And the good
[1:45:05] news is we did get feedback. So, we got
some clear direction and and I
[1:45:09] appreciate people being involved and um
we do need to have difficult
[1:45:13] conversations about education and many
other topics uh during our time here.
[1:45:18] So, um, we do like having an engaged,
uh, community and and I think that we're
[1:45:24] in a special place and, you know, the
fact that some of the issues we're
[1:45:28] trying to weigh are, you know, can we be
better than the third or the sixth best
[1:45:33] school in the state, you know, we we
have so many people coming downtown that
[1:45:37] we can't find places to park during
lunchtime and, you know, the issues we
[1:45:41] have in Fair Hope, I think a lot of uh a
lot of places would love to have. So,
[1:45:46] we're very fortunate, very blessed, and
um special community, and I just
[1:45:51] appreciate everyone being out there and
being engaged. So,
[1:45:56] moving on, uh public hearing. We still
got to wait 10 or 12 minutes for you
[1:45:59] guys. So,
>> um Eric,
[1:46:03] » we wait on your two for a little bit.
So, we're going to come back to the top
[1:46:07] of the order in a little bit, and we
will move on to um item number six,
[1:46:12] which is a resolution that Mayor Sherry
Sullivan is hereby authorized to execute
[1:46:16] change order number one for Julins Plaza
Project with a cost of 17,975.72
[1:46:24] to award change order number one to
RHD's Building Company LLC. The new
[1:46:29] total contract will be $450,373.86.
[1:46:34] Authorized treasur to transfer
1797572
[1:46:38] in the fiscal year budget from general
fund to capital projects fund.
[1:46:43] » Motion to approve.
>> Got a motion and a second.
[1:46:46] » Any further discussion? And we covered
in the work session. This is just to
[1:46:50] move the pavers
basically on on that project from around
[1:46:55] the corner so that we uh are still
having the memorialized pavers for
[1:46:59] people in place.
>> The memorialized pavers or what that was
[1:47:02] concerned. So yes, we're going to move
them properly.
[1:47:06] » Yes. So any motion? Second. Any
questions? All right. All in favor,
[1:47:11] please say I.
>> I.
[1:47:13] » All right. Motion passes.
Item number seven is a resolution to
[1:47:18] award a bid to Fair Hope Building
Company for the re for the relocation of
[1:47:22] the Henry Stewart House from 22787US98
to Flying Creek Nature Preserve with a
[1:47:28] bid proposal not to exceed $421,50
which includes a project contingency of
[1:47:35] 10% and a $30,000 contingency for MEP
and landscape materials. This project is
[1:47:42] 100% funded by donations.
>> May I speak before sir motion for that?
[1:47:48] Yeah. I uh I spoke to Mr. Sunonny Brewer
last week and he just wanted to send his
[1:47:54] deep regrets to to everyone for not
being able to attend
[1:47:58] » uh tonight. he had an emergency and had
to be out of town and uh anyway, but
[1:48:02] that he he just wanted to, you know, let
everybody know what a big deal it is and
[1:48:08] let everybody know that, you know, how
the rest of the country is watching
[1:48:11] this. This is a piece of of history. So,
I think that that all the citizens owe a
[1:48:15] a debt of gratitude to Mr. Sunny Brewer.
Um we thank him a lot and and everybody
[1:48:20] that worked with him. you know, he's not
only an author, now he's a
[1:48:24] philanthropist and an activist and and
they raised a 100% of the the the
[1:48:28] private funds needed to to move this.
So, uh you know, he put his heart and
[1:48:32] soul into it and I just wanted to make
uh you know, make it known during this
[1:48:36] meeting that he he's really sad that he
couldn't be here. So, uh you know, we we
[1:48:41] miss him and we thank him for all that
he did. And mayor, do you want to add on
[1:48:44] to that? I know he spoke to you and
shared his sentiments.
[1:48:47] » No. Um, you you summed it up great,
Jack, but there is also several people
[1:48:50] here in the audience who've been
instrumental in that. Dick Scott's here,
[1:48:53] also Katherine King, I think Savan
Wilson. So, there's been several several
[1:48:57] folks working on this. Um, Fairup Single
Tax has been instrumental in this
[1:49:02] project. So, again, thank you to
everybody that's been involved. I'm
[1:49:05] really excited to see at, you know, the
Henry Stewart house at their permanent
[1:49:09] home at the Flying Creek Nature
Preserve. And, um, again, we'll see that
[1:49:13] hopefully sometime around the first of
the year. You know, I want to add just a
[1:49:16] personal thought on that is that I'm
really happy that we are we're able to
[1:49:20] move it to a location that that he
actually would have, you know, walked in
[1:49:25] in his lifetime, you know, that the area
between Flying Creek and Rock Creek, you
[1:49:30] know, and uh you know, he knew that
area. That was that was where he lived.
[1:49:33] And so we're we're able to move it. It's
not going to be on the site that he
[1:49:37] built it on, but it's going to be within
walking distance and certainly land that
[1:49:41] he would have traversed in his lifetime.
So,
[1:49:43] » it's going to be much more visible. I
think it's a great location. And also,
[1:49:47] we want to thank Richard for doing such
a gut good job as well.
[1:49:51] » I I'll just add that I gave him a shout
out on the radio this morning because
[1:49:56] when the price practically doubled to
421,000,
[1:50:01] I didn't really think they would be able
to raise all of that money
[1:50:04] independently. I thought they would come
back to the city and ask for more. and
[1:50:08] and I was thrilled to give them the land
to put it on, but I kind of felt like
[1:50:12] the money needed to be raised through
private donations. And you know, they
[1:50:16] certainly he certainly showed me they
they raised every bit of it through
[1:50:20] private donations and tells me that we
have some incredibly generous donors um
[1:50:26] out there in this community, but also
people that really value preserving
[1:50:30] history and and I think it's fantastic
that we're keeping it and keeping it in
[1:50:34] a as you said a very similar type of
location. It's not like we're moving it
[1:50:39] to some completely unrelatable property.
It's moving to places very similar to
[1:50:45] what he would have been uh living on
back in the day. So, congratulations,
[1:50:50] Sunny. Everybody else that was involved.
Very well done.
[1:50:53] » And I think it's going to make a great
VBO myself.
[1:50:56] » I
I think that'll be it would be fun to be
[1:51:00] out there and watch them when they
actually are bringing it down the
[1:51:03] street. That'll be
>> Well, they're worth watching. I get a
[1:51:06] good view of it. Councilman. Yes, sir.
President Conurs, I I'd also like to say
[1:51:11] that there were some some anonymous
donors that that that that donated very
[1:51:16] large sums of money for this and they
remain anonymous and so that you know,
[1:51:20] God, you got to love an anonymous donor
that just gives, you know, tens of
[1:51:23] thousands of dollars. So, thank you to
those unnamed people.
[1:51:27] » I was going to say over $150,000,
one private individual donor. So, I'm
[1:51:32] hoping at some point they will allow us
to recognize them, but that's a huge
[1:51:35] contribution. Well, and if they won't,
they're hopefully watching. Thank you
[1:51:40] » very much. Um, on that note, would
anybody like to make a motion on this?
[1:51:44] » Motion.
>> All right, we've got a motion.
[1:51:47] » Second and two seconds. Lisa, who got
it?
[1:51:51] » Ladies first.
>> Okay.
[1:51:54] » Motion and two seconds. All in favor of
the resolution, please say I.
[1:51:58] » I.
>> Any opposed? All right. Motion passes.
[1:52:02] Congratulations. Well done. Um, item
number eight is a resolution to adopt a
[1:52:07] transportation plan pursuant to the
Rebuild Alabama Act for fiscal year
[1:52:11] 2027.
>> So moved.
[1:52:13] » Got a motion and a second. And this is
relative to the 1-cent gas tax. Any
[1:52:18] further discussion?
>> Great details there.
[1:52:21] » All right. Hearing none. All in favor,
please say I.
[1:52:24] » I.
>> I. Any opposed? All right. Motion
[1:52:27] passes.
Um, item number nine is a resolution
[1:52:32] that the city council approves the
selection of Mayor Sher Sullivan for
[1:52:36] professional engineering services for
the construction of materials and
[1:52:40] special inspections for the first
responders safe room project to Geocon,
[1:52:44] Inc. and hereby authorize Mayor Sher
Sullivan to negotiate
[1:52:49] um to execute the contract and and for a
not to exceed amount of $30,000.
[1:52:57] » Move. I'll second.
>> Got a motion and a second. And this is
[1:53:00] 90% reimburseable through FEMA grant.
So, um, any further discussion?
[1:53:07] » All right. Hearing none. All in favor,
please say I.
[1:53:09] » I.
>> I.
[1:53:11] » All right. Motion passes. Item 10 is a
resolution to award a bid to Larsson
[1:53:16] Meridian Group LLC for fire extinguisher
inspection services annual contract in
[1:53:21] the amount of 55,000. If y'all recall,
it's the third time we've put this out
[1:53:26] of bid and Y'all are good with this one?
>> Motion to approve.
[1:53:30] » Got a motion and a second. Any further
discussion.
[1:53:35] All right. Hearing none. All in favor,
please say I.
[1:53:37] » I.
>> I.
[1:53:38] » Any opposed? All right. Motion passes.
Item number 11 is a resolution that the
[1:53:44] city council authorizes and approves the
addition of one temporary fire station
[1:53:49] maintenance coordinator position to the
fiscal year 2026 budget to align with
[1:53:53] the retirement of the incumbent who will
work with and train their replacement.
[1:53:57] This will be beneficial to the city as
well as the new employee and Mr.
[1:54:00] Sarosino is scheduled to retire
September 30th and after which this
[1:54:05] position would uh be defunded, roll off
and the new employee would assume
[1:54:11] that position
>> and we've done this several other times
[1:54:15] and it's been very helpful to
>> to have have somebody shadow for a
[1:54:19] couple months
>> approve
[1:54:21] » motion.
Did y motion?
[1:54:25] » Oh, you did you already motion?
>> Second.
[1:54:26] » Oh, you you motion?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:54:28] » All right. And we got a second. All
right. You got a motion and a second.
[1:54:30] Any further discussion? All right,
hearing none. All in favor, please say
[1:54:34] I.
>> I.
[1:54:35] » I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:54:38] All right. Motion passes. Item number 12
is a resolution that Mayor Sherry
[1:54:42] Sullivan is hereby authorized to execute
a contract with Jackson Thornton
[1:54:46] Advisors LLC for revenue requirements
analysis and utility cost of service
[1:54:51] study uh and rate study with a not to
exceed amount of $86,800.
[1:54:57] This is going to cover gas, electric,
water, and sewer.
[1:55:01] » A motion to approve.
>> Got a motion.
[1:55:03] » Second,
>> and a second. Any further discussion.
[1:55:07] » All right.
>> When will we hear back?
[1:55:10] » Yeah.
>> Six months from the time they start.
[1:55:13] » Six months from Yeah.
>> Thank you.
[1:55:15] » And it's been about four years since we
we did this. So, all right.
[1:55:20] All in favor of the resolution, please
say I. I.
[1:55:23] » I. Any opposed?
>> All right. Motion passes. Item number 13
[1:55:29] is a resolution that the city council
authorizes city treasurer to advertise a
[1:55:33] request for proposals for a bank loan
for water and wastewater.
[1:55:39] » So moved.
>> Second.
[1:55:40] » We've got a motion and a second. Any
further discussion?
[1:55:44] » Thank you.
>> All right. Hearing none. All in favor,
[1:55:47] please say I.
>> I.
[1:55:50] » All right. Motion passes. Item number 14
is a resolution that the city council
[1:55:55] authorizes city treasur to advertise a
request for proposals for bond
[1:55:59] underwriting services. Move
>> second.
[1:56:01] » Motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
[1:56:05] » All right. Left side of the dash.
[1:56:09] » All right. Hearing none. All in favor,
please say I.
[1:56:12] » I.
>> I. All right.
[1:56:15] » Motion passes. Item 15 is a resolution
that the city council approves and
[1:56:19] authorizes city treasurer to execute a
medical stoploss proposal with Symmetra
[1:56:24] Life Insurance Company for specific and
aggregate stop-loss insurance to be
[1:56:28] effective October 1st, 2026.
>> Motion to approve.
[1:56:32] » Got a motion.
>> Second
[1:56:35] » and a second. All right. Um we did go
over this in detail in the work session
[1:56:40] just talking through this and um this is
the the option that's been recommended
[1:56:44] by Coben and had some good thorough
discussion on that. So any further
[1:56:49] discussion on this item? Miss is the
125. Okay.
[1:56:52] » Yes, sir. 125,000.
>> Yep.
[1:56:57] » All right. All in favor of the
resolution, please say I.
[1:57:00] » I.
>> I.
[1:57:02] » All right. Resolution passes. Item 16 is
a resolution to approve the fiscal year
[1:57:07] 2026 AIP grant application for land
reimbursement and that the mayor is
[1:57:12] hereby authorized to sign and execute
any necessary and appropriate documents
[1:57:16] including grant applications and grant
agreements so that the city of Fair Hope
[1:57:20] and the Fair Airport Authority can
receive funding under the FAA airport
[1:57:25] improvement program at AIP for grant
funding in the amount of $285,339
[1:57:31] for land reimbursement. The matching
funds, if any, required for this AIP
[1:57:36] grant should be the responsibility of
the Fair Hope Airport Authority and not
[1:57:39] the city of Fair Hope. Council member
Bell, we did not address these two items
[1:57:44] really in work session since you weren't
here.
[1:57:46] » So, um, yeah, these these these grants
can be used for anything uh on the
[1:57:55] property for for which we already have
in our master plan. And it it doesn't
[1:58:00] specifically have to be for land
reimbursement, although if you go back
[1:58:04] many years, historically, we had used
some of these grant monies to to pay off
[1:58:09] some of the principle on the loan. Uh it
hasn't been used for that so much
[1:58:15] lately, but there are some needs that
the airport authority has, such as we
[1:58:21] need access roads. We need we need more
access on the east side so that that we
[1:58:25] can we can lease the additional land
that we have over there. Now there
[1:58:30] there's basically one u one road that
runs east west on the east side where
[1:58:35] there's a lot of new hangers and we need
a road open to the south of that.
[1:58:39] There's other needs. Uh I I um I was
struggling with it for a while that they
[1:58:44] weren't using that to pay down their
principal, but if it will help them
[1:58:48] increase their revenues and and they'll
agree to that land transfer on the east
[1:58:54] or the west side, I'm sorry. We were
talking about the values of those lands
[1:58:57] once we get that road built uh on the
west side and and they're going to
[1:59:01] they're going to seed all of that land
to us, which they should since we've
[1:59:06] been paying for it since seemed like,
you know, I was a kid. But um anyway, um
[1:59:12] that land will be, you know, valuable. I
I' I'd put the value of that land
[1:59:16] somewhere, you know, between 10 and 15
million dollars once we get it improved
[1:59:20] and and we'll we will start seeing all
of our returns for the investment then.
[1:59:24] And I think that land to go quick once
we get that developed. So
[1:59:30] » with that in mind, let them spend it to
improve the east side, you know. I think
[1:59:35] » Okay. Thank you.
>> And I'll make the motion to approve the
[1:59:37] grant application.
>> Second. Got a motion and a second. Any
[1:59:40] further discussion?
>> All right. Well, thank you for the
[1:59:43] explanation and update on that. Um, all
in favor of the resolution, please say
[1:59:47] I.
>> I.
[1:59:48] » All right. Any opposed? All right.
Motion passes. Item number 17 is a
[1:59:53] resolution to approve the fiscal year
2026 AIP grant application for fencing
[1:59:58] project at the HL Sunny Callahan Airport
and the mayor is hereby authorized to
[2:00:03] sign and execute any necessary and
appropriate documents including grant
[2:00:07] applications grant agreement so that the
city of Fair Hope and the Fair Airport
[2:00:11] Authority can receive the grant funding
acting acting for and in behalf of the
[2:00:16] airport in Fairip, Alabama so that the
grant applications for this AIP funding
[2:00:21] opportunity may be finalized, approved,
and accepted in accordance with
[2:00:25] applicable law and procedures.
>> So, um, council president, I think, uh,
[2:00:31] everybody would realize that security is
paramount
[2:00:35] » at an airport and, uh, we need to make
some improvements to our fencing there,
[2:00:40] » about 114,000 and, uh, the airport
authority will only be responsible for
[2:00:45] about $5,700 of that uh, which which
they can afford. So, uh, I think we
[2:00:50] should, uh, uh, submit this grant and,
uh, move forward with this fencing.
[2:00:56] » All right. Anyone like to make an
official motion on that?
[2:00:59] » I will do that.
>> Got a motion.
[2:01:01] » I'll second
>> and a second. Any further discussion?
[2:01:05] » All right. Hearing none. All in favor,
please say I.
[2:01:07] » I.
>> All right. Motion passes. Item 18 is a
[2:01:11] resolution that the city of Fairhip
approves the award for the request for
[2:01:15] quotes and labor and materials for the
installation of sand filters at the
[2:01:19] indoor pool to classic pools and patio
center inc for the not to exceed project
[2:01:24] cost of $72,900.
This public works project will be less
[2:01:29] than 100,000 and therefore does not need
to be formally bid out. authorizes
[2:01:33] treasurer to transfer funds in the
amount of 72,900 from savings on press
[2:01:38] box at project at major field to
municipal pool project in the 2026
[2:01:44] budget with rec within recreation
capital improvements and authorized
[2:01:48] treasurer to pay the 50% vendor upfront.
>> Get it done. Make a motion to approve.
[2:01:54] » Second.
>> Motion and a second. Any further
[2:01:56] discussion?
How close are we to having the pool
[2:02:00] open?
Approximately 10 days.
[2:02:03] » Okay. 10 days. So I've had people
asking. So right after Labor Day, I
[2:02:07] guess. Okay. Around there.
>> Close. Or right before Labor Day. All
[2:02:12] right.
>> All right. All in favor, please say I.
[2:02:15] » I.
>> I.
[2:02:16] » All right. Motion passes. Item 19 is a
request from Leslie Edgeman, uh,
[2:02:21] chairperson of the Fair Hope Witches
Ride, Ballwin County Humane Society,
[2:02:25] requesting permission to close the
streets in downtown Fair Hope on
[2:02:29] Thursday, October 29th,
2026 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for the
[2:02:34] Fair Hope Witches Ride 2026 and for the
city to provide barricades and two power
[2:02:39] boxes. The ride will begin at Coastal
Alabama Community College Amphitheater.
[2:02:44] This whimsical bike ride benefits local
animal rescue and helps animals
[2:02:48] throughout our area.
>> A motion to approve.
[2:02:51] » Got a motion.
>> Second.
[2:02:52] » And a second. Any discussion?
I'll just say um kind of downtown on
[2:02:58] that route. It's always interesting to
see somebody from out of town who has no
[2:03:03] idea what's going on when this comes by.
So, um always a good event. So, um we
[2:03:11] got a motion and a second. All in favor,
please say I. I. Any opposed?
[2:03:16] All right. Motion passes. Item 20 is an
application for retail food store
[2:03:22] consumable hemp products by Kamal
Constantine Manning Inc. doing business
[2:03:27] as Piggly Wiggly 100 Plantation Point
Road, Fair Hope, Alabama 36532.
[2:03:32] Chief said everything was in line.
She's back there. Would anyone like to
[2:03:38] make a motion?
>> Chief, has anybody began selling those
[2:03:41] yet? because I know that I had heard the
first two that we approved weren't
[2:03:44] actually selling them yet.
>> You haven't seen any?
[2:03:49] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. I was just curious because the
[2:03:52] other two obviously besides Greers were
liquor stores which are naturally
[2:03:56] restricted by ages, but this one and the
Greers there's pretty strict um retail
[2:04:02] display rules. So, I've just I've yet to
see those in place. So,
[2:04:11] been looking for them.
>> You know me.
[2:04:21] » All right.
>> A motion to approve.
[2:04:22] » We've got a motion.
>> Second.
[2:04:24] » And a second. Any further discussion?
>> Yes, if you don't mind. I just uh you
[2:04:28] know, I want to put a warning out. Don't
break the rules on this or you will lose
[2:04:32] your business license. You won't lose
your license to sell these products. You
[2:04:35] will lose your business license. So,
you've been warned.
[2:04:39] » There you go.
>> Absolutely.
[2:04:40] » Fair enough. All right. All in favor of
the application, please say I.
[2:04:45] » I. Any opposed?
>> Nay.
[2:04:47] » All right. We've got one nay. But motion
passes. Item 21 is an application for
[2:04:52] beer and wine on and off premises
licensed by John Parin. Um, the club at
[2:04:57] Fair Hope Golf Works LLC doing business
as the club at Fair Hope Golf Works, 363
[2:05:03] Commercial Park Drive, Fair Hope,
Alabama. Chief said everything was in
[2:05:06] line with this application.
>> I make a motion to approve.
[2:05:09] » We got a motion and a second. Any
further discussion?
[2:05:13] » All right. Hearing none. All in favor,
please say I. I.
[2:05:16] » I.
>> All right. Motion passes. Now we're
[2:05:20] coming back to the top of the order. And
item number four is going to be a public
[2:05:25] hearing for an ordinance to amend zoning
ordinance number 1253. public hearing to
[2:05:31] consider the request of the applicant
SEC Civil LLC on behalf of the owner Kut
[2:05:37] Kut Enterprises LLC for conditional
annexation to R1 lowdensity single
[2:05:43] family residential district. The
property is located at the southeast
[2:05:46] corner of County Road 13 and Mosley Road
and is 43.6
[2:05:52] acres. Would somebody like to introduce
the ordinance?
[2:05:55] » I'll introduce the ordinance.
>> Thank you, sir.
[2:05:57] » Hunter.
>> Council President.
[2:05:59] » Yes, sir. You're right.
>> Um, so we'll jump right into kind of
[2:06:03] showing the property. Um, this is the
acreage that you refer to. Uh, the
[2:06:07] aerial on the right shows the current,
uh, conditions of the property. It is a
[2:06:12] large track, so what you might not be
able to see is the house uh, facing 13.
[2:06:17] Uh, that is currently within the, uh,
county, not within the city of Fair
[2:06:23] Hope. It is zoned R at the moment. Um
this is survey. I'll kind of jump jump
[2:06:31] through. Um there's ne never been any
application for this particular property
[2:06:36] with the city. Um it's currently ab
budding this property. Uh within the
[2:06:42] city is RSR2. That's PON Ridge
subdivision. To the south is within the
[2:06:48] city is R1. And to the west is the
county rural agriculture.
[2:06:53] um RSF
which I believe is 80,000 square foot
[2:06:58] lots and RSF2 which is 1200 12,500 foot
lots in the county are also nearby on to
[2:07:08] the north. Um
I'll kind of go through go back to the
[2:07:13] zoning map here that shows the existing
zoning in the county on the left and
[2:07:18] then on the right uh where you see the
yellow and brown that is brown is R2 U
[2:07:25] and yellow is R1 that are in the city
limits.
[2:07:31] R1 is our lower density uh single family
residential developments. Um it requires
[2:07:38] a minimum of 15,000 square foot lots 100
foot wide and has a gross density of 2.9
[2:07:45] units an acre. Um a as some of the
conversation sorry this is a list of
[2:07:51] kind of the uses that allowed there. For
the most part those are single family
[2:07:55] homes. Um
there there is a component of this when
[2:08:00] we started looking at the the uh first
conversations and what can be done on
[2:08:05] the property and certainly staff was uh
recommending kind of keeping working
[2:08:10] with the trees, working with the land.
Uh that evolved to the applicant
[2:08:14] actually voluntarily restricting the
density of this property to 1.4 units an
[2:08:19] acre as opposed and that's the gross
density as opposed to the two uh.9
[2:08:24] allowed. That's just a number right now,
but as it moves forward, if approved to
[2:08:30] a preliminary plat, they would have to
meet that density instead of the 2.9.
[2:08:34] So, that's a self-restrictive um uh and
and this would be a part of the
[2:08:40] ordinance, Lisa, what we would request
um that this form be included in the
[2:08:45] ordinance if the council so uh chose to
adopt. This is a conditional annexation.
[2:08:51] So the request for zoning is absolutely
tied to the annexation. Um
[2:08:57] if the zoning is given the property
would annex into the city. Uh there was
[2:09:02] a few comments at the planning
commission. Um one of those was uh there
[2:09:07] was rumor that the land was in a trust
and a conservation easement and
[2:09:11] something like that that protected it
that there is no uh trust on this
[2:09:16] property. They did uh actually check
that and then there were some other
[2:09:20] comments but for the most part those are
related to drainage and traffic. That is
[2:09:25] not something we review in a straight
zoning request as this. Those would
[2:09:29] certainly come up if it were to move
forward, get approved and go to uh a
[2:09:33] preliminary plat application. We review
those details within that application.
[2:09:39] So with that said, staff does recommend
approval with that one condition. Sub
[2:09:44] site shall be restricted to a maximum
density of 1.4 four units an acre. Um
[2:09:49] that is being gross density. The
planning commission also recommends
[2:09:53] approval. Um and they did recommend that
unanimously with a vote of 8 to zero. Uh
[2:10:00] tower homes Price and Will High Tower
here as well as representatives from SC
[2:10:04] Civil. If there's questions, uh
certainly I'm here if you have any of
[2:10:08] staff or um anything I can do to help.
>> What's the minimum and maximum lot size
[2:10:13] for R1's? R1 is 15,000 square feet
>> total square feet um and 100 foot wide
[2:10:23] at the front setback.
>> Yeah.
[2:10:26] » So effectively if they're going from 2.9
would be allowable to 1.4.
[2:10:31] They're basically and I'm they're not
saying that they're all going to be
[2:10:34] 30,000, but they're going to
>> limit it to that equivalent of that
[2:10:40] number. And really and and
>> we haven't had really too many
[2:10:44] conversations about what the layout
looks like, you know, had a very high
[2:10:48] level. But what that would allow to do
with the 15,000 square foot lots is kind
[2:10:53] of move around, keep the same number of
house of of of lots than the 30,000 if
[2:10:58] you will, but work with the trees, you
know, you know, instead of having to
[2:11:02] carve out for 30,000 square foot lots.
You can kind of work around the trees.
[2:11:08] You may have a 20, you may have a 40,
you may just kind of
[2:11:12] » may all be 15,000 and half the lot of
common area common area and and green
[2:11:17] space and preserved uh that
>> that as we move forward, we'll we'll see
[2:11:22] what but it gives that flexibility, I
believe.
[2:11:25] » All right. Well,
>> I have a few questions.
[2:11:27] » Yeah. Would y'all like to ask questions
first or hear from the public? I say go
[2:11:31] ahead and ask them if you got some.
>> Yeah, I'll ask may make spark more
[2:11:34] questions. Um, can you go back to the
original
[2:11:38] » uh where you showed the lodge as the
squares? I was a little bit confused.
[2:11:43] So,
>> which this one or that one?
[2:11:46] » I go back to that. What was the one with
all the parcels right here? Oh, that
[2:11:49] one.
>> Yep.
[2:11:50] » So, are all of those parcels uh A and E,
B, C, and D, and F. Are all those
[2:11:56] included in this annexation?
>> Yes, that's
[2:11:59] » They're not excluded. Okay. The way it
was cut up, I didn't know if something
[2:12:01] was being excluded or not. And this one
might be easier to see.
[2:12:05] » Yeah, the one on the right. So, is
everything
[2:12:08] » everything in yellow?
>> Nothing's being carved out there, right?
[2:12:11] » Okay.
>> All right. Um, that was the first
[2:12:14] question. Thank you for that. Um, I had
a local resident uh that is uh in the
[2:12:22] watershed of this area. I'll just call
it that for lack of a better word. And
[2:12:26] and they were concerned that they may
get runoff. And I I I did tell them I
[2:12:30] hopefully rightfully so that you know if
it if the development's done right, it
[2:12:35] could actually help your property as
opposed to hurt. Larry, is that would
[2:12:39] that be a true statement? Could you give
them confidence that the water
[2:12:43] management would probably be better now
or once developed than it because you
[2:12:48] guys have obligations to to contain that
as opposed to vacant land that may not,
[2:12:54] right?
>> Yes. Um just direct Larry Smith Essie
[2:12:58] Civil um you're absolutely right. Um
that was one of the one of the many
[2:13:03] reasons when we started looking at this
that density is going to be reduced to
[2:13:07] make sure that we have adequate common
area so we can manage and maintain the
[2:13:11] storm water runoff while also protecting
some of the trees that are in these low
[2:13:15] areas. Um you know our our client has
now a history with Fair Hope of wanting
[2:13:21] to protect trees. um Hunter can attest.
We worked through on Stone Veil um
[2:13:26] subdivision regrading the entire site
after we had totally done the design to
[2:13:30] help protect and we relayed some of the
lots out to help protect trees um and
[2:13:35] save trees so that they can um be
enjoyed by the future homeowners. So
[2:13:39] yes, we will have to look at the
downstream. We'll have to um make sure
[2:13:44] that we're not hurting it, but we also
will in that process try to make it
[2:13:49] better for anybody downstream of us.
this um property takes on runoff from
[2:13:54] the subdivision to the south. Um it
comes through and flows through this
[2:13:57] site. So, we'll take that into account
as well.
[2:14:00] » And I think this gets challenging when
you're when you're talking to
[2:14:03] constituents because right now all
that's really before us and and granted
[2:14:08] they're looking down the road to how
many houses could be there, but right
[2:14:12] now all that we're considering is just a
reszone.
[2:14:15] » So that we don't have the a layout to
see where water would or wouldn't flow,
[2:14:19] » but it wouldn't be worse. by law they
they can't make it any worse.
[2:14:22] » Correct.
>> Correct.
[2:14:23] » So, and then one last question I had and
I'm looking at the the aerial map and I
[2:14:29] mean it's not a topo but it it's a you
know it's kind of showing the landscape
[2:14:34] there. Appreciate you voluntarily uh
agreeing to lower the density to 1.4.
[2:14:41] But you always have to ask the question
if 50% of the land wasn't usable then
[2:14:46] you're at 1.4 4 and everything's just
crammed on half of it. I don't really
[2:14:52] see that here. So, I just want to ask
that question. You're not just, you
[2:14:57] know, voluntarily making it 1.4 cuz
realistically that's all you could get
[2:15:01] on there anyway.
>> I I don't believe that's the case. And
[2:15:05] we've done several layouts, some of them
with higher density, some of them with
[2:15:09] lower density, and this is kind of where
we landed. Um, obviously, we haven't
[2:15:13] done a full drainage design that will
come with the subdivision. um component
[2:15:18] of it, but it it's not that they could
only get 1.4. So, we're acting like
[2:15:22] we're giving you something.
>> Exactly. You know, we've had a lot of
[2:15:25] people come in here and go, we're going
to have this great amenity
[2:15:28] » and it's,
>> you know, 20 acres is completely
[2:15:31] unusable land, and they call it a 20
hour a 20 acre green space, which was
[2:15:35] » Yeah.
>> undevelopable to begin with. So,
[2:15:38] » I I believe the first time we sat down
with staff, and you correct me if I'm
[2:15:41] wrong, we we had a layout that was
denser than 1.4 units per acre.
[2:15:45] » Thank you, sir.
And to to be candid, there is we don't
[2:15:50] know exact boundaries, but there is a
natural creek kind of coming through,
[2:15:55] but it doesn't encompass 50% of
>> it. I mean, that's why I said runs north
[2:16:00] to south approximately through here.
>> Would likely have a 50ft buffer on
[2:16:05] either side of that,
>> but you're you're not talking about 50%
[2:16:08] of the acreage. How how many of the or
what percentage would you say of the
[2:16:12] trees and the natural forestation is
there are you planning on keeping and or
[2:16:18] eliminating? However you however you
figure that out.
[2:16:21] » Um
>> because I've seen your property that
[2:16:22] you're developing over on uh 181 and I
can see you have lots of tree protection
[2:16:27] that's noticeable.
Unfortunately, I can't answer that yet
[2:16:31] because our next step will be to do a
full tree survey um so that we can
[2:16:36] figure out how to orient the roads um to
best protect the trees similar to what
[2:16:42] we had to do the last time.
>> Is it fair to say you're not going to
[2:16:45] clear cut?
>> Yes. Well, is that fair to say?
[2:16:51] » Yes, that that's fair to say.
>> Feel free to take out all the camper
[2:16:54] trees and all the popcorn trees in the
popcorn. No, no worries. We'll try.
[2:17:01] » All right. Um, at this time, I guess
we'll go ahead and open the floor for
[2:17:05] the public hearing if anybody um from
the audience would like to speak to
[2:17:09] this.
[2:17:14] Good evening.
>> Hi, I'm Will High Tower with Tower
[2:17:18] Homes. Um, we got we came before you
guys about nine months ago for the
[2:17:22] property that uh you referenced on
Highway 181, and we're super happy to be
[2:17:27] back here. Um, so as a quick refresher
on who we are and what we do because I
[2:17:31] know you guys have been in this room for
a while this afternoon, so I will make
[2:17:34] it pretty quick, but we are a
family-owned and operated home building
[2:17:38] company. We're based in Birmingham and
we've been building here for about three
[2:17:42] years. Uh, my dad is here with me and we
we have the privilege to build houses
[2:17:46] together and we think this site is super
special. Um, we really think Fair Hope
[2:17:50] is super special and it's a place that
we saw uh a few years ago. We kind of
[2:17:56] thought that there was not um someone
building the kind of houses that we
[2:17:59] really like to build. There was the
national builders at the lower end.
[2:18:03] There's the custom guys that do the
super nice $2 million homes and there
[2:18:06] was a gap in between those two. And so
that's really what we aim to fill and
[2:18:11] that's what we envision on this site.
We've been building uh we're building
[2:18:15] North Hills right now, Rock Creek, the
Meadows, some of the communities that
[2:18:20] really fit that product in your city.
And when we met with Hunter and city
[2:18:25] staff about this site, we outlined that
vision. We talked through the density.
[2:18:29] Um there are wetlands running kind of
there's a running north south through
[2:18:33] the property. And so um to to the
questions about the trees, hard to say
[2:18:38] today exactly how many, but there will
be a natural tree buffer around those
[2:18:42] wetlands. So it will be uh I think the
site will lay out really neatly. uh and
[2:18:48] and it will not look nearly as dense as
um many developments that you picture
[2:18:52] when you hear production home building.
This also aligns with the comprehensive
[2:18:57] plan. So the comprehensive plan
describes this site as being within the
[2:19:01] suburban residential classification.
Some quotes from that are lot widths are
[2:19:06] 75 to 100 ft. We're talking about 100
foot lots here. Uh generous setbacks and
[2:19:13] preservation of sensitive natural
features. We like preservation of
[2:19:17] sensitive natural features because our
home buyers like preservation of
[2:19:20] sensitive natural features and so that
is a win for us. I think it's a win for
[2:19:24] the city and it's certainly a win for
the future homeowners.
[2:19:29] We think it'll be about 50 lots. That's
actually even less than 1.4 per acre,
[2:19:33] but just as we've worked on it with
engineers and the site design that we
[2:19:36] like, we think it's going to be about 50
lots. Um, and we really think it's
[2:19:41] something that we can be proud of and I
hope it's something that each of you can
[2:19:45] be proud of as well as you drive past
it. So, I'm happy to answer any
[2:19:48] questions you may have.
>> I've been sitting here looking at your
[2:19:51] twin daddy over there. Y'all look so
much like all the meeting I've been
[2:19:54] drawing going, they look just alike.
But, no, it it sounds great. I remember
[2:19:57] you. You were one of my first when I
first became council, you came up and
[2:20:02] spoke and I remember you. You did a
great job. I'm excited for you guys.
[2:20:06] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, council. Any questions? Yeah,
[2:20:09] Jay, I got a couple questions. Um, first
off, you got a great YouTube program
[2:20:14] going on because I see y'all like every
other day on my YouTube account.
[2:20:18] » They charge us for that. So, I'm glad
someone seeing it.
[2:20:20] » Your dad, I'm getting to know you real
well. Um, but uh, no, I I I just some
[2:20:26] general comments and then overall, I
mean, I think number one, you know,
[2:20:29] we're coming from an agricultural
designation in the county, but we're
[2:20:32] we're building it in a lot of city
property surrounding it. I think it's a
[2:20:36] little bit more unique. Um, the last
time you came up to here, I voted
[2:20:39] against you the that reasonzoning. I
wasn't too thrilled with it. But this
[2:20:44] one, I think for staff and anybody else
that's listening, I think this density
[2:20:49] makes so much more sense as an R1, you
know, you're talking 50 lots and really
[2:20:55] 61 units if you if you really got to the
1.4 versus a total that could possibly
[2:21:00] be of 130. To me, a 50 lot neighborhood
is a heck of a lot different than a 130
[2:21:07] unit lot on the same on that same track
of land. So, I think long term, I just
[2:21:11] think that's something that we got to
look at. There's that to me is a good in
[2:21:15] between from agricultural and so-called
low density. I don't consider 130 units
[2:21:20] um on that acreage low density, but I
digress. I I I do think it's um it's a
[2:21:27] great thing that y'all are doing. I've
noticed the work, like I said, on 181.
[2:21:31] um I don't see a lot of that. So, it's
it it makes a difference. I appreciate
[2:21:35] you all protecting those live oaks and I
get that there's probably um some
[2:21:39] economic advantage to doing that, right?
Your your customers want it. Um it's
[2:21:43] good PR, but it doesn't mean that it's
not also beneficial to the community.
[2:21:46] Two things can be true at once. So, I
thank you all for doing that. Um and I
[2:21:50] also like the u the optional the the
carryon is saying, "Look, we're not
[2:21:56] going to go higher than 1.4." Um that
gives me a lot more um good feelings
[2:22:01] about this because again it it doesn't
look like you're just simply trying to
[2:22:05] squeeze every penny that you can out. Um
you're trying to match the the
[2:22:08] neighboring facilities a little bit. I
actually live right around the corner on
[2:22:11] a little bit denser properties than uh
than this one. Um but uh it it it
[2:22:16] definitely looks like it'd be good. And
um you know this is one that I think is
[2:22:20] a little bit little bit different when
you talk about conditional annexation.
[2:22:23] They're not coming to us asking for,
hey, we're going to put an apartment
[2:22:26] tower here and or we're going to stay in
the county. So, um I I feel much better
[2:22:31] about this and thank you all for what
you've been doing on the other property
[2:22:34] as well.
>> Thank you.
[2:22:36] » Thank you. Any any comments? Yeah, I'm
always in favor of somebody that wants
[2:22:41] to uh be more self-restrictive on what
they can develop instead of just trying
[2:22:45] to maximize it out, flip it to a pud,
see if they can squeeze a few more units
[2:22:50] in it. So, thank you for that. But um
would anyone in the audience like to
[2:22:55] speak to this?
[2:23:00] All right. Well, seeing no one, um we'll
let this lay over and be taken up for
[2:23:06] final adoption at the next council
hearing. So, thank you guys.
[2:23:09] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:23:10] » Thank you all.
>> And Larry, I'm sure took y'all somewhere
[2:23:12] nice during your break.
Um, Eric, item number five is a
[2:23:18] resolution that the city council
authorizes and approves a contract
[2:23:22] between the city of Fair Hope and
Children's Site Works, Inc. for the
[2:23:25] demolition of the dangerous building on
the Fair Hope Church of God in Christ
[2:23:29] property and the total amount not to
exceed 22,500 and that the mayor, the
[2:23:34] building official, the city attorney,
and any other officials or employees
[2:23:38] acting under the direction of the mayor
are empowered to do such things as are
[2:23:43] necessary to carry out emergency
demolition on the property and otherwise
[2:23:47] carry out purposes of this resolution.
>> Okay.
[2:23:50] » Yes, sir. You gave us a little bit of
background. Maybe
[2:23:53] » I gave you a little bit of background.
Um uh yes and and the river just gave me
[2:23:56] some information. So
okay, haul out and dump uh fee is listed
[2:24:03] on the contract that they have with the
gentleman who already tore the building
[2:24:08] down. So we're good with that. Um as I
mentioned to the re everything is good
[2:24:12] that really this is a contractual issue
now between the church and the
[2:24:16] contractor. The contractor needs to he
has submitted for his permit. I need
[2:24:21] some kind of documentation
>> saying who owns the building
[2:24:24] » rising because what we don't want is the
city to issue a permit there is unclear
[2:24:29] title or unclear ownership and then
we've given permission to tear it down
[2:24:35] and there be a dispute later on by
someone who is an owner of a grandson of
[2:24:40] an owner down the line. So some sort of
documentation letting us know we have uh
[2:24:45] one of the legal owners of the property
or legal ownership of the property
[2:24:49] giving permission for that and then we
can issue the permit. I will deal with
[2:24:53] uh the contractor directly and talk to
them about permitting and the
[2:24:58] requirements for permitting. One of the
things that as I mentioned uh you know
[2:25:02] the permit fee per our ordinance for
working without a permit. We verify
[2:25:06] first if the work is in compliance. If
it is, then the fee that is charged uh
[2:25:11] is increased as part of a as as part of
an assessment or a fine for that. And
[2:25:16] I'll work that with the contractor
directly.
[2:25:19] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[2:25:20] » But but do do we need to vote on this in
any way at this point?
[2:25:26] » Remove it from the agenda.
>> Yeah. I just wanted to give y'all an
[2:25:29] update because we've been up in front of
you now four times. Yeah.
[2:25:32] » And uh I know everybody kind of wants to
know what's going on and I got bombarded
[2:25:36] with phone calls late for or not phone
call. Well, phone calls and photos late
[2:25:39] Friday afternoon and so we're keeping
you informed as to what happened and I'm
[2:25:43] going to let the Is there anything else,
sir?
[2:25:46] » Well, I did not give him permission to
start. I told him he could start anytime
[2:25:50] after Monday after we meet. Praise God.
But we we we did get what we needed to
[2:25:56] get the bill. Now, we have another
issue. Um, this building was has been in
[2:26:02] the city of Fair Hope for since 1931.
the pillar states 1931. Um, uh, it's
[2:26:12] been torn down. I'm I'm I just have a
question for Eric and maybe I don't know
[2:26:16] if the council because like I say, I'm
just I'm just asking a question. Why is
[2:26:20] it not that he can dump in the city of
Mobile? Why do he have to
[2:26:25] » I mean the city of I'm from Mobile. I'm
sorry. That's okay.
[2:26:29] in the city of no take that he can't
typo
[2:26:36] » uh because it's just rubble it's bricks
and wood so that's my question
[2:26:41] » and I will uh I will answer that even
though that is kind of outside my
[2:26:44] wheelhouse I know that we have we do not
accept C and D at our landfill unless it
[2:26:49] is generated by citizens because of
limitations on what our landfill can
[2:26:55] accept and I may ask for some backup
from John on that just to make sure I am
[2:26:59] not speaking incorrectly.
>> Yeah, our our CN landfill is and I
[2:27:06] talked to Murray Lawrence about that,
>> but it it's it just can't handle the
[2:27:11] volume y'all got over there and we just
take residential garbage. We sort it and
[2:27:15] we don't have all the bricks. We keep
all that stuff separate. So, with it
[2:27:19] being just a big mix match of stuff, we
just we just can't take it there.
[2:27:24] » Okay. But then the reason I asked
because he's come back to me now saying
[2:27:27] that he had talked to someone at the
city uh dump and they told him that he
[2:27:32] could and now he can't. So now he's
asking for more money which I told him
[2:27:36] we have a contract
>> because uh you know the the dump was so
[2:27:41] I just need to know why. Why?
>> What do y'all from the city perspective
[2:27:46] at this point?
>> Are we removing it completely?
[2:27:49] » Remove it this right now
>> and we don't need to put it back on.
[2:27:52] It's not table. Just remove it. We're
not going to hire children to do the
[2:27:55] work. Uh they have their contract with
with recovery or asphalt ser asphalt
[2:28:01] paving.
>> Uh so this is done as far as I believe
[2:28:04] this council is concerned.
>> Do we need to motion to amend the agenda
[2:28:08] to remove item five?
>> Second.
[2:28:10] » We got a motion in a second to remove
item five. I just wanted to say that I
[2:28:14] want to do a shout out to Hope Community
and Susan Godwin because she came
[2:28:19] together for Barry and she
>> and several of our pastors and our
[2:28:24] community came to a round table and
before we left the meeting there was
[2:28:28] $8,000 collected. By the time I got back
to my shop, another 2,000 came in from
[2:28:32] the Baptist church and then two more
thousand came in. So, our community has
[2:28:37] been extremely giving, compassionate,
and that's what Fair Hope's all about.
[2:28:42] » Yes. And I did I did want to thank them
for I didn't know if I could do it here.
[2:28:46] I ain't want to get nobody,
>> but I do want to thank them. They came
[2:28:50] together in less than five minutes. We
had
[2:28:52] » Oh, wow.
>> half of what we needed. And And it was
[2:28:55] just so awesome. We could only cry, my
wife and I, because
[2:29:00] » it's good. It's good stuff.
>> That's great. Well, sound like we've got
[2:29:03] this kind of wrapped up from our
perspective.
[2:29:05] » I appreciate the council's
working with us on it.
[2:29:08] » Well, thank you, Eric, for helping us.
Thank you so much.
[2:29:11] » Thank you.
>> Thank you guys. We appreciate you.
[2:29:15] » Yep. We got a motion and a second. All
in favor of amending the agenda to
[2:29:20] remove that item, please say I.
>> I.
[2:29:22] » All right. Any opposed? All right.
Motion passes. Item 23. Now, we'll jump
[2:29:28] back over here. Is uh public
participation.
[2:29:31] You are free to address the council on
any topic you wish. You've got up to
[2:29:35] three minutes and just need to give your
name and address to the city clerk. So,
[2:29:40] the floor is open.
[2:29:47] All right. Seeing no one, we will go
ahead and close the floor and entertain
[2:29:51] a motion to adjurnn. So, move. So, move
second.
[2:29:54] » Motion second. All in favor? All right.
>> Bye.