[0:28] Thank you, Joey, and welcome everybody. Well, we got great audio tonight, haven't we? So, welcome to the

[0:36] work session for the Board of Mayor and Alderman, July 9th, 2024. But we'll be right ahead of

[0:42] good force. We're going to call the roll, Alderman Barnhill, President, Alderman Blanton,

[0:47] All in Caesar.

[0:49] I

[0:52] love it.

[0:54] All in Peterson.

[0:57] All in Burger, Vice Mayor Brown.

[0:59] All in Pods, President.

[1:01] All in Baggett.

[1:03] The Mayor's here also.

[1:05] I had no speaker card for comments.

[1:08] I do have one for later on.

[1:10] On the agenda, so we'll go right to Franklin tomorrow.

[1:14] of the Vision City Conference October 2024.

[1:21] Come right up.

[1:28] Hey there, I'm Mindy Tate, C.L.

[1:30] Franklin Mar, and I have with me tonight

[1:32] Trista Ashworth Harris, our board chair for this year.

[1:37] And we're here to talk to you tonight

[1:39] about our Vision City Conference,

[1:41] which will be October 15th through 17th here in Franklin.

[1:46] And so we've got a little PowerPoint and I'll turn it over

[1:49] to receive a sort of talk through that.

[1:53] Okay, we have done vision city visits for several years now.

[1:59] Just an opportunity for us to go and learn from other cities and communities about what's

[2:04] worked well for them, what we can learn from them about continuing to make Franklin better.

[2:09] We've been to places like Carmel, Indiana, Greenville, South Carolina, Serenbe, Georgia,

[2:16] and last year we went to Huntsville, Alabama.

[2:17] And so all of those have brought us a lot of good information, but what we learned is we go

[2:25] around to some of those cities is that many people say you're coming to visit us.

[2:32] We think Franklin is the best city ever and they talk so much about what we bring to the

[2:39] table and what they want to learn from us.

[2:41] So we believe this vision city conference is an opportunity for us to have the conference here in Franklin to allow people who we've visited before to come here as well as others who have the desire to learn from Franklin and bring folks together where we can all speak to this idea of what the city's futures should look like and what we can learn from each other.

[3:08] So we are planning a vision city conference here in Franklin.

[3:13] We are currently looking at October 15th through the 17th as our dates.

[3:19] We will use if we go to this slide kind of a downtown campus concept.

[3:27] And we will be looking at 150 to 200 attendees based on what we know so far.

[3:33] And we will use the Harpeth Hotel as kind of our key hotel with another hotel in the North

[3:43] McEun area, the Spring Hill Sweets there, as our secondary hotel so that we have plenty

[3:49] of overflow space.

[3:51] And so we'll be looking at the Franklin Theatre as well as Liuri Hall at the factory, as

[3:58] to key locations where we'll be having some of our meetings as well as taking the group

[4:03] out to visit some areas in the community like West Haven where C. Side Institute who was

[4:11] here in 2004 as well as in 2005 was here at the time that West Haven was being planned.

[4:17] This is an opportunity for us to revisit that as part of our conference.

[4:23] And as Theresa mentioned C. Side was here in 2004 and 2005. They're very excited. Just in the

[4:29] Last 10 days, we each have released information to our groups and our mailing list, via email,

[4:37] and we have had about 50 people reply to us expressing interest in participating, and those

[4:45] are from not just from the seaside, it's to area, but also from Virginia, from other parts

[4:53] of Florida, South Carolina, as well as across the state of Tennessee.

[4:57] So, we're excited and we do think that we will have that 150 or so attendees here.

[5:04] We chose to do the downtown campus concept because it allows for walkability, it allows

[5:08] for sustainability, which are all tenants of C-side institute.

[5:13] Many of you visited C-side Florida, C-side is the institute.

[5:17] They have three core values, sustainability, connectivity, and adaptability.

[5:22] And so, we're excited to work with them again, Kristi Milliken, their Executive Director at Hope to be here tonight,

[5:29] but had a family situation she could not avoid being part of that.

[5:34] So, we are excited to bring them back to Franklin that they are excited to be here.

[5:40] We are still finalizing the agenda, but we do have some speakers that some of these will be familiar names to you if you've participated in our trips in the past.

[5:50] Mayor Knox White, the Mayor of Greenville, South Carolina, also former Mayor of Carmel and

[5:56] Indiana, James Briner, who was our first, that was our first trip was to Carmel and Indiana

[6:01] many years ago.

[6:02] He'll be with us and then Micah Davis, who's the Vice President of the C-SIDE community

[6:07] development corporation, but also the son of the C-SIDE founder Robert Davis, and so he

[6:13] has lived at C-SIDE or enjoyed that in his entire life, as well as his family has lived in

[6:19] other locations. And then finally, what we can confirm at this point is architect and urbanist

[6:26] D.R. Tondy. And D.R. is excited about coming to Franklin. He did come either in 2004

[6:33] or 2005. But he's also kind of the history of C.S.R. has recorded that, and we'll be speaking

[6:41] on that, because our topic is how history impacts the future. So what you'll see over the

[6:47] three days of that conference, are we will tell the story of why Franklin Matters, both from

[6:52] the past and why Matters today. But also what C-Sod has accomplished on the Emerald Coast

[6:59] as the first of the three purils of the Emerald Coast, those are C-Sod, Alice Beach and

[7:05] Rosemary Beach all developed by the Davis family. We are hopeful that Robert Davis, the founder,

[7:11] we'll join us and we are hopeful that we'll be able to announce some more luminaries in the

[7:18] field of design and development and planning. But our topics are going to be live Franklin

[7:24] Matters, critical development issues. We are going to have some mobile workshops and then how

[7:30] cities are creating quality of life. And so we're excited to have those mayors. We have invited

[7:35] Huntsville Mayor Tommy Bottle to join us, but we haven't had a confirmation from him. He's in the

[7:41] of a campaign, I think, and so we're looking at that and are excited to bring this conference

[7:49] to Franklin. As we said in our original email, the cost for the three days including the

[7:55] meals would be $400 per person. That doesn't include your lodging. That's why we presented

[8:01] two options for lodging to those who might not be able to stay at the Harpith, but want to stay

[8:08] in a very unique area and that's McEwen, but also we are doing a per day right for locals

[8:16] or individuals who might want to attend for a specific speaker or program, and that'll

[8:21] be $150 a day.

[8:23] So we appreciate the support that we've received from our presenting partners so far, and those

[8:28] include Atmos Energy, Tensy Valley Authority, and Reagan Smith, which is a paid Dawson

[8:34] company and we have had support from Eric and organizing this and we feel the city can be

[8:41] built as a presenting partner as well. So I'm open to questions or suggestions. We know

[8:46] you have a long meeting but we're open to questions or suggestions if you've attended a past

[8:51] event or a speaker you'd like to see us maybe pursue for this event. I don't have any suggestions.

[8:59] I just want to say I've been on all the trips but one and that was unspool and this is something

[9:04] you've dreamed about for a long time. I'm one that likes to go on the trip, but that's okay.

[9:10] So I'm really excited to see this come to fruition for Frank Lundamaro, but also our community

[9:16] because I do think as we've gone on all these trips, that sentiment is always there.

[9:22] But it's amazing we're coming to try to learn from them, but I'm excited about it. So congratulations.

[9:28] Thanks.

[9:31] Okay.

[9:32] Thanks, Max.

[9:33] We'll move on.

[9:35] Growth in infrastructure alignment and future wastewater capacity discussion.

[9:40] So we have some team members coming up and I'll make a few comments to get us started.

[9:45] And this is really fitting following some of the comments many made and the thought and the type of planning that Franklin has done and continues to do.

[9:55] good planning and long-term thinking has been a hallmark of Franklin and of our success.

[10:01] More specifically connecting growth management and infrastructure planning and implementation

[10:08] has been critical. Tonight we want to walk through some components about what we've assumed,

[10:14] what is underlying as we look forward to what we put in place in infrastructure specifically,

[10:22] waste water capacity and how that relates to our land use planning.

[10:28] The absorption we see in terms of the amount of development that has happened,

[10:33] what has been approved, and really sets the table for some policy discussion for the board.

[10:39] Really, I'd say through the balance of this year that sets the tone.

[10:43] About where we go with infrastructure, where we may need to think about policy,

[10:48] as it relates to some specific topics like

[10:51] how you handle a vesting extension request or how you handle different other elements that

[10:56] you see come forward on a regular course of business that you may want to step back and have a

[11:01] broader perspective on. So we're not asking for decisions tonight but we are putting some pretty

[11:07] important information in front of you to help kind of set the stage put in your thought process

[11:12] later this month we're going to be working on the next steps in the update of our strategic plan.

[11:18] I think this will be really important of that.

[11:21] It's not a mistake that this is on tonight as we get ready to do that work through the balance

[11:26] of this month and beyond.

[11:28] And so again, take this in, ask us questions, think about the things that you'll want

[11:34] to have help inform your guidance to us as we move forward.

[11:40] So, our team's been working on this and it's a great example of how we try to sync up

[11:45] the infrastructure planning side and the land use planning and development services side together

[11:51] so that they do work well and in concert. So I'll turn it over to the team here and we'll walk you

[11:59] through these components and answer any questions as we go through. So take it away.

[12:04] So hey, good evening. So I brought a brand is my assistant director who's on a lot of

[12:23] So we're going to go through kind of what Eric talked about, but as we started kind of putting

[12:28] this presentation together in preparation for all of your strategic planning workshops,

[12:34] we realized that there is four of you that were not a part of the IWRP process, right?

[12:38] And it was a, as the other four can attest, it was a very large and a great kind of stakeholder

[12:43] process. I see Brandy and Clyde are both shaking their head. So we're going to kind of talk

[12:48] just very briefly about that and we'll have some questions about that. And then we're going to

[12:52] kind of talk about the historical growth trends, what Emily and her planning department has seen

[12:56] annexations that we've had. Our existing capacity that's in line with growth expectations. And then

[13:04] brands at a lot of calculations on the existing facility and what we have available with what compares

[13:08] to what the growth that we see, the demand projections, our favorite financial impacts that

[13:14] we see, the timeline we have moving forward, and then the impacts to growth and kind

[13:19] of how we're going to kind of talk about that as we move into, as you move into y'all strategic

[13:23] planning sessions.

[13:27] All right, so the idea of your P, as we affectionately refer to it kind of the plan, it was completed

[13:32] in 2011.

[13:33] I was just a little bit over a decade old, and what it was is really an implementable and

[13:38] broadly supported plan to meet Franklin's water resources needs for the next 30 years.

[13:43] Right. So that planning horizon was 2040. And what it did is, you know, through a lot of stakeholder,

[13:48] you know, kind of engagement from not just, you know, not just city staff and, you know, it was Franklin tomorrow.

[13:53] It was a lot of, um, it was a lot of, you know, watershed groups. It was a lot of academia.

[13:58] You know, it was our regulators. A lot of folks kind of coming to the table together to look at how we needed to look at water resources in our community.

[14:04] So phase one, set that stakeholder and advisory group and kind of set some of the eject objectives that we thought were very important to the city as we moved forward in the planning horizon and then phase two was really kind of looking at each of those and coming up with specific objectives that met all of those, right?

[14:23] So one of my favorite ones to talk about is that the reclamation facility expansion that we just had, you know, some of those objectives were like, you know, sustainable.

[14:32] obviously, you know, with the green energy and everything, but really, you know, being able

[14:36] to absorb lots of impacts, right? So we have a lot of ways that we can divert solids.

[14:41] All of that was kind of looked as we were designing that facility.

[14:44] We looked at the harp of the river and how all of the attributes that we have contribute

[14:49] to the river, the health of the river. So the water that we take out to drink, the wastewater,

[14:53] you know, the treated wastewater that we put back in, the reclaim water that we, you know, pull out.

[14:58] And I still don't want to...

[15:00] Or as it's conveyed and then everything that's treated throughout the city, so recommended improvements. We have a list of improvements. Most of those have already been done. Some of those are obviously these larger improvements that we're working toward.

[15:12] That can be completed with that planning period of 30 years and is really the framework for kind of how we move forward with some of these larger things.

[15:21] So, as part of that, so in 2012, kind of when everything finalized and wrapped up, we have

[15:26] this, you know, recommendations and conclusions.

[15:29] And so two of those recommendations was to upgrade the existing plan to 16 million gallons per

[15:35] day, right, which we did, we're done with.

[15:38] And then the other one was to build a new Clean Water Facility at initially a 4MGD on the south

[15:44] side of town with provisions to build out at 8MGD.

[15:47] So I say this now is kind of back in 2011 this is how we have been operating, right? We've kind of

[15:53] been operating the water department understanding this is that we were going to move toward additional

[15:56] capacity in the future. The plan projected growth and anticipated the demand for the planning

[16:03] horizon a 30 years which was 2040. All right, so in 2008, so before the IWRP was actually became

[16:14] the integrated water resources plan, the city, and I was not here, but Mark and Eric,

[16:19] Mark, probably, and when David Parker was here specifically, set out for building a new

[16:22] south plant.

[16:24] Right, and that's when that property on the south side was acquired.

[16:28] So it was acquired with the intention of building a south plant, but then kind of things,

[16:32] kind of migrating in a way of like, let's look at resources throughout our entire community

[16:36] holistically rather than just jumping into building a new plant.

[16:38] Can we, are there other things we can do to kind of change some of those scenarios that's

[16:47] So moving forward a little bit, so the IWRP pulled together some population projections.

[16:53] And this is a graph that you've seen a couple of times.

[16:56] So you can see kind of those 2010 is where the IWRP projected us to be.

[17:00] And it was pretty spot on with where we actually were with the census.

[17:05] What CDM did earlier last year or in early last year was they actually revised this base off of those same projections

[17:11] in the development report. I'm going to expand this to the 2040. So, took our current conditions,

[17:17] revised some of those projections, and made this full this graph out.

[17:25] The IWRP used a 2.9% growth for 30 years, and the 2021 development report used historic growth

[17:33] averages, and which was about 21,000 per decade or 2100 people per year. I'm so I've got all of those

[17:40] there and you can see that orange is where we currently are right now so not not projecting too far off

[17:45] from where we anticipated we would be so Emily is going to take over some of these to kind

[17:51] of talk about how we've we've looked at all of our historic trends to come up with where we are today.

[17:56] Yeah so following the WRP and in preparation really for this discussion tonight planning and water

[18:02] management study more recent population and development trends to establish more of an updated

[18:08] timeline for when a new clean water plant would be needed. So just starting with our population,

[18:15] kind of analysis. Franklin has grown from two square miles in the 1960s to over 44 square

[18:22] miles by 2022. We're still in the 44 square mile range. We're not up to 45 yet.

[18:28] Population has increased approximately 21,000 per decade since 1990.

[18:34] and the 2023 population estimate was 90,000, 92, which was about 38,900 wellings.

[18:44] So let me just make a broader comment.

[18:48] I feel like in the last, I don't know, six months or so,

[18:51] we've heard kind of a ramping up of angst around growth.

[18:56] And I get it.

[18:58] I think it's more about the broader regional growth

[19:01] Because if you look at those numbers on that slide, we've been growing at about the same

[19:08] pace for

[19:10] 3 to 4 decades

[19:12] at about 20,000 a decade, 2,000 or so a year

[19:17] So that pace is not new to us and we've been able to absorb it because we've done this kind of planning

[19:23] We've thought through it and we've been ready to go

[19:25] So that's what we want to continue to do, but when people get concerned about it and I understand,

[19:33] it's really not new in Franklin.

[19:34] We're growing the same way we've been growing.

[19:36] And if, in fact, if you look at it as a relative percentage, it's lowered because we continue to grow.

[19:44] That same amount against a larger base population.

[19:47] So I think it's important to put that in context when we hear that concern and I get it.

[19:53] And it's probably true of other places in the region.

[19:57] But for Franklin, it's really not new.

[20:00] It's what we have been doing.

[20:02] And we think it's a manageable pace.

[20:05] But it also requires an alignment of the land use

[20:08] planning and the infrastructure implementation.

[20:11] And that's kind of why we're having this discussion tonight,

[20:14] especially as it relates to wastewater.

[20:16] So I just, that's something I felt in the community.

[20:18] I think you all have to.

[20:19] And I think it's important to step back and look at

[20:21] what we've really experienced and how this is a pretty consistent pattern that dates back

[20:26] close to 40 years.

[20:28] So that's definitely true of our population projections, and we'll kind of dig into residential

[20:34] grade versus non-residential now.

[20:37] So we've had an average of 833 residential units constructed annually since 2000 on average.

[20:45] But if you really look at the last five years, our average has gone up just slightly to about

[20:50] 180 units constructed per year, and we also have 11,344 approved units that have not been constructed yet, which definitely

[21:00] comes into play when we're looking at our wastewater projections in our capacity.

[21:05] Is that all residential units?

[21:08] Yes, total residential units.

[21:11] In terms of non-residential growth, when you look at 2000 to 2023, we had an average annual non-residential growth.

[21:20] of about 617,000 square feet.

[21:24] If you look at the decade from 2013 to 2023,

[21:28] that did go down a little bit

[21:30] of an average annual non-residential growth rate

[21:33] of 525, 900 square feet.

[21:37] But really, you see the bigger draw

[21:39] looking at the last four years.

[21:41] So the average for the last four years

[21:44] has gone down to 224,000,

[21:47] about 220,000 square feet.

[21:48] Some of that is just due to the cyclical nature of the economy and some, obviously, the pandemic,

[21:57] but there's also, you know, a lot of redevelopment happening in cold springs, which takes away some of the non-residential square footage and adds it back in.

[22:05] So, some of the ways we calculate that, it's not necessarily growth that's more of a net change.

[22:11] In terms of annexations, from 2001 to 2010, the city annexed about 7,500 acres.

[22:22] But then, really around 2010, we started to see a pretty substantial decrease.

[22:26] We weren't growing significantly from 2010 to 2014 in terms of annexation growth.

[22:33] There were some right-of-way annexations, but not really any new developments that came in during that time frame.

[22:38] Then you start to see some annexations, start to trickle back in, starting in 2014 with a couple singular developments around that timeframe.

[22:51] In 2015, that's when state law changed to require annexation by property and a request.

[22:58] So that definitely has had some impacts on how we grow and how we annex and grow geographically our city limits.

[23:04] You can see in 2019 through 2021 we've really started to see an uptick in annexation

[23:11] specifically in the South Lewisburg Pike area in Goose Creek area.

[23:16] That's really where the majority of our annexation grave is occurring.

[23:21] And just in the last 2021 to 2023 we have annexed 709 acres.

[23:27] So we are starting to see some growth geographically, but that really is centralized to particular areas of the community.

[23:37] And this is pretty consistent with what we have modified in the UGB process that we've just gone through.

[23:43] So this, this does sort of match up with the patterns we've seen.

[23:47] So the next slide, just looking at geographically where we're able to continue growing, we did this annexation capability study originally in 2017.

[24:01] We did update it, did minor updates to it with the update of Invision Franklin, but we are undergoing a more comprehensive look at it currently.

[24:10] And this is what our last version that was an envisioned Franklin really provided, and what

[24:17] you see is our short-term annexation capabilities really lie in the West Basin, out how

[24:23] I-96 West, near the new extension of my catcher, and down in the goose creek drainage

[24:29] Basin, along as 65 in the Peyton-Zill Road, Pratt Lane areas, specifically, where we have

[24:35] had a lot of concentrated annexation over the last several years.

[24:40] We also have some midterm growth potential where infrastructure is available and can be figured

[24:47] out and our services can be figured out through the plan of service process.

[24:51] There is some midterm growth potential in the southwest one basin which is kind of going

[24:59] out Carter's Creek Pike and then the just west of Columbia Avenue. Also Spencer Creek on the

[25:07] northern boundary of our of our UGB as well as May's Creek going out east on 96. Murph is very red.

[25:19] So just to sum up our growth expectations are that we're seeing significant growth occurring

[25:24] and very far and so along the way as part of Pike we do anticipate future growth east of

[25:32] and we expect that in the near future.

[25:35] And mix of land preservation and

[25:36] developments anticipated in the west basin.

[25:39] We continue to see development,

[25:42] coming in interested in pursuing

[25:45] development plans and reasonings in that area,

[25:48] but we also know several large properties

[25:50] that are not interested in that one

[25:52] to preserve their properties.

[25:55] And we do anticipate continued redevelopment

[25:58] the cool springs area, the pattern with that is not really consistent, so it's a little bit

[26:05] hard to predict and when it comes to something like wastewater projections and the capacity

[26:10] analysis, but we do expect to see that continued interest in redevelopment throughout

[26:16] cool springs and it may be some years heavier than others that we continue to see that being

[26:22] great expectation.

[26:32] So what our management did is we pulled the monthly operational

[26:36] reports from the Colonial H facility. We looked at every day's flow rate from

[26:43] 2012, January of 2012, through December of 2023. We established a baseline of what

[26:52] that average daily flow rate grew to. Knowing that the development units we have

[26:57] place in 2012, and no one want the development units we had in place in 2023. We could form

[27:04] a relationship of how much capacity was used up over that time. So basically in a nutshell,

[27:11] using the data that we had and using the data provided to us from planning, the rule of thumb

[27:16] is about 4 million gallons day of average daily flow while increase every 10 years. So what does

[27:27] me and gowns a day of everyday flow capacity left at the Cloud Yates facility, so you're roughly about nine years to the exact capacity.

[27:40] Okay, so what we did with our, so with our consultant is kind of just a brief kind of introduction to kind of this level of commitment that we wanted to show you.

[27:53] is we looked at the potential alternatives, so we have A3E on the left side and what that would mean,

[27:59] as far as how we could kind of mix and match. So we have talked about having a, you know,

[28:04] potential portable reuse alternative, right? So that's in that third column that reservoir

[28:08] augmentation, but the total capacity of the plant, what we, the recommendations that we're providing

[28:13] is between a 4 and an 8MGD plant. So as Brian talked about, if we look at 4MGD for the next,

[28:20] kind of increasing our flow by 4MGD every 10 years.

[28:24] That would, we're looking at having another plan to online by 2031, 2034, I'm sorry.

[28:31] That would be that capacity.

[28:33] A 6MGD would give us a little bit more room.

[28:35] I've got that capacity until that planning horizon on the right hand side of those rates.

[28:41] And then obviously the 8MGD capacity would give us the longest planning period that we have.

[28:45] But there are some sort of mix right in there that is that is comfortable with, you

[28:50] We've had, obviously we'll talk about their subsequent effects as far as, you know, on

[28:55] impact fees and rates that come from this, that we have to kind of all, that will all

[29:00] work through.

[29:03] Let me just check up, but the southeast site itself has a potential capacity of up to a

[29:10] 16 million gallon a day operation.

[29:13] It's got the size and footprint to handle that size, so essentially what you've got at

[29:18] you could build in terms of discharge capacity there.

[29:23] Yeah, we did the study several years back.

[29:26] When we were looking at the footprint of the park area down there,

[29:29] we wanted to have a set aside large enough to accommodate up to 16Mgd.

[29:33] Yeah, that's what we're going to say.

[29:35] I remember when we set that aside.

[29:38] And we made sure that there was enough acreage there for that capacity.

[29:45] And you're saying up to 16 as a match these are these are what you would look at as the

[29:51] potential first phase at that site knowing that ultimately you could build to a 16 million gallon capacity. Yeah, so this

[30:00] To be what would that first phase be and how far does that take you into a development assumption, a development time frame on that far right hand side.

[30:11] So the way I've thought about this chart is this is where we talk about kind of setting the target.

[30:17] What would that phase B, what size in terms of treatment capacity, which drives that capital

[30:25] cost?

[30:27] And then from there, we use that as the baseline to set the next stage of sewer impact

[30:33] fees and the assumptions about how we structure rate and debt capacity over that time frame

[30:42] to accommodate the ultimate target or option that we set for that first phase at the southeast

[30:49] plant.

[30:50] So that, again, we're not looking for a decision tonight, but this is kind of the idea,

[30:54] though, that we need to be clear about what we think that needs to be, so that we can back

[31:00] into the assumptions that support and deliver that project in that nine to ten-year time

[31:04] frame.

[31:06] I wanted to point out, too, that the dollars up here are future dollars, they're not present

[31:11] day dollars. So we accounted for inflation and a pretty healthy contingency build into all

[31:16] these based on the timing of the construction. What about your permits, if you mean,

[31:24] can we get permitted for 16 million yellows? So probably not, I mean, we probably wouldn't

[31:31] apply for a 16 million gallon permit to start with. But eventually it would be, yeah. So if you

[31:41] head of the class. Yeah.

[31:47] So the original IWRP had us eight million more. Eight. Eight.

[31:55] So it was a four. It was a four million gallon capacity, but it was about 2029.

[31:59] Four and a eight. There was a four by 2029 and then another four by 2040. Yes.

[32:04] So what I'm reading here in in alternate E is saying I'm trying to determine if we're up a header behind of our plan

[32:13] So I'm trying to think in this makes me believe that we're

[32:17] We're actually ahead your absorption good way your absorption is probably a little slower than the aggressive timeline that we if we had in

[32:25] 2009, but it's not that far off, so but so maybe a couple years

[32:30] You know like you said yes

[32:34] Well, if you look at adding eight,

[32:38] well, that would need to be in place by 2034.

[32:43] It gives you development capacity out to 244.

[32:48] So, your plant deliveries may be only two to three years later,

[32:53] but we're talking about whether it's four or six or eight

[32:57] is kind of a determined.

[32:58] So it's growing faster than the plant assumed or slower

[33:01] than the plant assumed.

[33:02] That's I think it's pretty close to on on par but maybe slightly slowly slightly but it's it's pretty it's pretty it's remarkable how on track it really

[33:12] Good job when we looked at this

[33:14] We were really yeah, well and part of this effort has been and I asked staff to let's kind of revalidate the assumptions and do the assumptions

[33:22] We made then still make sense now and also look at the idea of both the concept of capacity

[33:29] but also geography matters. Okay? So where it happens and what planet goes to matter? And so

[33:36] that's been the mindset of trying to align these and make sure we're checking assumptions in

[33:42] that the target we set makes sense for the growth pattern we can support.

[33:47] And I just want to clarify too. I'm sorry, Alderman. Okay. So the column on the right

[33:53] If we build a 4MGD facility, we would have to have new capacity come online in addition to that

[34:00] Facility in 2039. So I just want to make sure that was clear for everybody

[34:05] So that's not when the plant comes on that's when the

[34:08] Capacity is

[34:11] Yeah, so so you would need new capacity and at that period

[34:16] Thank you. I'm not to jump too far back, but slide six had the population growth projections and

[34:23] And from 2030 to 2040, we're projecting to grow from

[34:27] call it one 19 to over 150.

[34:30] That, and maybe those are just the lines,

[34:33] the green and the light blue line.

[34:36] And I want to make sure that if those are,

[34:38] which of those lines are we using to project

[34:39] anticipated need in the future, out 2030 years?

[34:43] Yeah, I'd look at that next slide.

[34:48] Okay, so when do you grab?

[34:49] So when do you grab?

[34:50] Yeah, that is a, that highest line is the most aggressive,

[34:54] and that was based on a tasser estate projection in 2010. But looking at that next chart

[35:02] you look at at 2040 population number of 127. So thanks for the clarification. And that's

[35:09] going to be closest probably to the dark blue one. Yeah more that's middle group. And we've

[35:16] always set out in the plan we set out a more moderate growth, a middle growth and a more

[35:21] And it's been in that middle ground that it is the actual reality as well.

[35:31] Oh, sure. Yes, absolutely.

[35:34] Really about the side.

[35:41] Okay.

[35:42] So we'll move into the next timeline.

[35:45] And this is really kind of goes with,

[35:47] all of my backends kind of comment.

[35:49] This is the timeline that we've set out for

[35:52] So, in utilizing that idea of Brian's, you know, four million gallons, four million gallons,

[35:57] you know, every 10 years kind of increase, this would be putting, so our initial

[36:01] recommendation is putting a new facility online by 234, right?

[36:04] And then back at that time frame of what it looks like, as far as having to have, you

[36:08] know, construction started, the design started, you know, then we have this permit

[36:13] application and review and then the public hearing and public comment period, right?

[36:17] So, those are those kind of procedural, through T deck that we have to do is for

[36:21] new application. So I think what, you know, some of these can probably happen, you know, kind

[36:28] of simultaneously, and I don't, I don't think they're, you know, a very sequential thing

[36:31] that has to happen. But there's not, we're kind of the idea is that we don't have a lot of,

[36:35] you know, there's not a lot of years to kind of delay this type of decision.

[36:41] So this is where we wanted to probably spend a little bit of time. So I wanted to talk about kind of

[36:45] the two sets of impacts we can see right. So we talked about in the beginning, the IWRP, how

[36:51] We have been, so we have been proceeding with an assumption that we're going to continue to grow and that there will be new capacity available online.

[37:00] Right, so that's this kind of growth, the kind of the growth trend.

[37:04] So we continue as planned and then we re-evaluate growth every year to kind of determine if we need to pivot if things need to go faster or slower, depending on what that is.

[37:12] Brian put a good template together that we're able to do that.

[37:15] So that puts a new facility online in 2034, which is we talked about in that slide before is the minimum of a 4MGD facility.

[37:23] Now that's we have that kind of play if we want to go a little bit larger to give us that little bit of planning room.

[37:29] But then subsequent for that there's the consideration of impact fees and rates and how each of those things and you know cash flowing some of those verses,

[37:36] you know putting an SRF loan is we intend to apply for all that how that evolves into the rates.

[37:40] So the other part of that kind of the separate trail would be to kind of stop growing where we are, right now, which is, you know, not the popular opinion, but we have the existing treatment capacity that's held constant and known new development is added.

[37:55] So with that, we still need a 4MGD clean water facility online by 2034 to accommodate that growth, right? So that's 4MGD, no additional capacities are granted.

[38:06] And then, there's the subsequent consideration of impact fees and rates, because there's a financial consideration with a new facility either way.

[38:14] But then subsequent from that is limiting availability and annexations and developments, because now we're limited to a 4 million gallon capacity.

[38:24] So really wanted to lay those two out for you and kind of get your thought process going in probably questions is to how that's going to look.

[38:36] So in terms of, as we're kind of thinking about the timeline of, you know, backing this up and each step that's needed and thinking about the construction period, I think there's a lot of considerations related to planning that may weigh your decision making as you move forward just thinking about some of these additional limited resources we have with wastewater capacity.

[39:02] So first, as I mentioned earlier, staff is going through a comprehensive update of the annexation

[39:08] capability study.

[39:09] We hope to bring that forward to you by the end of the year with some new updated information

[39:15] and what infrastructure is actually needed to support annexation in certain basins, where

[39:22] there's basins that are ready to go, ready to have properties annexed and where we're more

[39:28] likely to see that growth occurring geographically, which helps us determine where ultimately

[39:34] wastewater will be directed, whether it's to the existing plant or to the new clean water

[39:38] plant and the south side.

[39:40] I've always sort of looked at that study as almost quite the right term by the cost benefit

[39:46] analysis, meeting what is it cost to serve that area and what kind of development are you likely

[39:52] to see come from it. And so, what does that translate into in terms of the value add for putting

[39:59] the infrastructure in place that makes the development happen?

[40:05] Another thing that we wanted to bring out is that with some of these limited resources in

[40:10] the meantime, really placing priority and importance, so in evaluating development, plans and

[40:15] it really meet the various goals of the city and thinking through that maybe not every development

[40:22] is equal in terms of how they achieve those goals of the city and really focusing which

[40:29] development plans advance the best goals and the best practices of the city of Franklin.

[40:37] And then in terms of besting extension request these continue to roll in and essentially every

[40:42] one has approved, you're extending the sewer availability request associated with that development.

[40:49] So it is something to consider because that does take away from the capacity that we have available

[40:55] for other development in the meantime. So just something to consider, you know, a lot of

[41:01] developments have been through a fairly lengthy approval process and at times they run into challenges

[41:07] and they may need a vested rights extension, but sometimes that the number of years that they're

[41:15] looking at or what their actual development timeline really is important and are limited resources

[41:22] with wastewater as well. So just some things to come. These are some really important policy things

[41:27] for us to flush out with you, literally. I think about this though, vesting in particular. And I think

[41:36] we've always known this is true. Capacity is a precious and limited resource. So every time

[41:43] we approve something, we are allocating that precious capacity to that development.

[41:49] The same holds true when they come back and ask for a vesting extension or you saw that

[41:53] pretty significant number of previously approved units. Some of those are very old. We are not

[41:58] really certain that those will really happen. What is our process for saying, hey, you've had

[42:04] or you've had 20 years to build this, you haven't build it, that capacity needs to be reassigned.

[42:10] But having a policy that provides a clear direction on how you want to do that and what the

[42:17] reasons might be to extend besting or what might be the reservations to do it or that if you

[42:22] provide a year, what you want to see in a year to make you feel like you want to go further.

[42:27] There are a lot of ways to think about it, but I think that's a very important place for us to

[42:33] develop some kind of policy framework, and would love your feedback on how that might, what

[42:40] might be helpful in supporting you in developing some more specific guidance that gets

[42:45] at these issues, because it's really important, especially as we see the price tag that's associated

[42:51] with providing that additional capacity that we really are thoughtful and careful on how

[42:56] we allocate it.

[42:58] Rush mayor ahead you and then I've got Alderman Burger. Is this assume literally a replication

[43:04] plot? Yeah, it serves technology and innovation. The pilot we did worked into this already

[43:09] or does that need to be applied specifically capacity? No, this would be, so there was those,

[43:15] there was that third column which said reservoir augmentation. So that's essentially the pilot

[43:20] facility right there is how can we convert, you know, take that kind of treatment to the next level.

[43:24] But the just a general wastewater treatment has advanced in technology so it would be better

[43:30] need to re-remove it would be better, you know, kind of just more efficient processes those types of things.

[43:40] Yeah.

[43:40] All in bird.

[43:42] So it's just thinking about your...

[43:46] How do you go about gauging this best thing?

[43:49] Because there you talk about allocating capacity and you're talking about putting together a policy

[43:56] maybe for reassignment of that capacity. So, I'm not sure understand what legally we can do.

[44:07] Is there a legal, we legally allowed to put, say, limits on this vesting or how does that affect us in this realm today?

[44:16] Is it different than I was thinking 20 years ago?

[44:18] And it's a mixed bag because the state provides a more specific guidance

[44:23] That's what around 2015.

[44:24] Yeah, we got different.

[44:25] Something like that.

[44:26] Sometime in that same time frame that provides some very specific guidance on how long a

[44:31] vesting period can be and what needs to happen within that time frame.

[44:35] And now it's changed.

[44:36] So I don't think the things with that before that are a little more of an open question.

[44:41] Yeah, I mean, in terms of vesting extension request, you're not obligated to extend it even

[44:47] once.

[44:47] If the developer has not met their obligations to develop, to hit their first threshold of development within three years, you are not obligated to extend their vested rights.

[45:01] However, there are situations that arise and we understand that there might be special circumstances.

[45:09] We are getting into the timeframe where we may start to see second rounds of vested rights request to.

[45:16] We haven't had any at this time that we're kind of the point where we've had some that have been granted within the last two years and still haven't made forward.

[45:26] So it's just something to consider at that stage, I would start questioning whether they are truly going to be moving forward or not.

[45:36] But those are things you'll have to consider.

[45:37] So if you extended that, are we allowed legally then to say if we extend it again, then we're going to put a limit.

[45:47] And if you don't move forward and third three years you lose it.

[45:50] Yes, you can do that.

[45:50] We can legally still do that.

[45:52] And that's what I think the policy would be.

[45:54] I was wondering about looking at the context of what the legal framework is, but also where

[46:00] you want to say, here's what we'll do.

[46:02] And here's how we look at maybe the first ask, and if it's a return ask, what might you

[46:07] be willing to say, here's what we'd expect to see to even consider a further extension.

[46:16] I think what's a little more uncertain, at least to me, that we need to work on a little

[46:20] It is, these ones that predate some of the guidance that the state provided.

[46:25] Right, yes.

[46:26] And there are several developments that have development plans or what work concept plans

[46:33] approved prior to vested rights being originally adopted by the state legislature.

[46:38] So we actually had those that never really have an expiration date essentially.

[46:44] So how we consider those in terms of capacity is a big question mark that when we're

[46:50] aren't do have this, it writes, one thing that staff has always had a little question

[46:58] on is what guidance to give applicants in terms of how long should or request the applicants

[47:02] will often ask us should I request one year or two years or three years and we say, well,

[47:06] it's really up to you and what you think you need.

[47:11] But if we had some guidance and what, you know, there might be a policy that you like us to kind

[47:17] reiterate to applicants that would be really helpful for staff as well. Maybe a year to two years

[47:23] maybe the maximum you want to grant maybe three years is just too too much. But that's something

[47:29] that you might want to consider in terms of policy. Well, one of the problems I see sometimes is that

[47:35] not one size fits all. And I think that's why you don't just lump everything together and say three

[47:41] years, boom, you're done, you can't do that, because we have, went through 2020, and we know

[47:47] how all that went, and then we have downturns, and we have recessions, and we have all types

[47:52] of things that play into this. So, I think we have to be willing to work and be able to extend

[48:00] this rights. But there has to be some kind of, in our policy, we have to make sure that we're

[48:07] all those different types of scenarios. So the board does have an opportunity to say, you

[48:15] know, the applicant A and applicant H and M come in here and they're totally different. And

[48:22] there's totally different reasons why. So our policies, I think, have to be able to be flexible

[48:28] enough, but yet at the same time, we have to have some limits.

[48:31] I think you can do both.

[48:33] I mean, that's very true, but I think you also providing some guidance and framework as helpful to it.

[48:40] Exactly. I think we're filling ourselves with, we don't have, we need good guidance,

[48:47] but we have to have a framework that's going to be able, that we can function with him.

[48:53] My feedback would be on the vesting. Is that I think that those developments are approved like this 11,000 units, right?

[49:03] Or I guess there's commercial to the vests that's other. But we look at a schedule.

[49:11] I don't really know what we're looking at. Like we've got, do we have like 3,000 units of single family that are coming up in the next two year?

[49:18] That kind of like a timeline, looking out or like an aging.

[49:22] Yeah, an aging like so in the next year,

[49:25] we're going to have 2,000 that come up or et cetera, et cetera.

[49:29] And that kind of like plan that out.

[49:30] And then when someone starts and meets the, you know,

[49:34] they don't have, we don't have to worry about their vesting anymore.

[49:36] It comes off and this is kind of a rolling thing over the next five years.

[49:40] If we're still here, those are up for election actually.

[49:44] But I think regardless, I think it's a good thing for us to see,

[49:47] because we know that's going to help us refine this capacity need.

[49:52] And I think there needs to be a policy for those that are already approved.

[49:57] Vesting policy because you definitely don't want to pull the rug out from someone who has

[50:03] gotten something approved and invested.

[50:05] But I think there needs to be more stringent policy for new approved developments from a

[50:11] vesting standpoint.

[50:11] So almost like a different, like if you're coming to play ball now, and you get your

[50:17] development improved and like there will be some pretty rigorous vesting, you know, maybe

[50:21] policies.

[50:22] But if you've already been approved, we're not going to change the rule, that's a big

[50:27] change of rule.

[50:27] That's not just a B change, that is a, the whole thing goes, you know, so I think we have to

[50:32] be very, very careful from a policy standpoint.

[50:36] And one really important thing to think about in terms of vesting is that really that first

[50:43] horizon where we often get the extension request is just starting one section or one building

[50:49] of a phase development.

[50:52] It's not even the full build out.

[50:53] A lot of these larger developments have a full build out of 15 years, but they have to start

[50:58] with them three years and pull that first building permit.

[51:03] So we're not even in terms of looking at what might be already given capacity.

[51:10] We also have to consider that because they actually have 15 years to build out to full for you

[51:16] You know to the full

[51:17] I think but I think think us thinking about it may not be that

[51:21] How I just lay that out that could be completely wrong

[51:24] But and that's fine too

[51:25] But like I think we think about that those are the things I'll think about is how is it fair to those that have been approved?

[51:31] But also get some up, you know, get some on their horse and get to go and then we're not sitting here for 15 years with capacity

[51:37] The last question, I want to make sure that this is clear because you said something

[51:44] back on and slide 13,

[51:51] it was that we've gotten nine more years.

[51:56] This four, I'm kind of getting, it's saying we need 4 million, I've just seen it maybe,

[52:02] maybe I haven't read it wrong.

[52:03] minimum of four million needed to accommodate already approved growth.

[52:09] So on the slide 16, it says minimum needed is four million to accommodate

[52:16] already approved growth, but then back on that slide, it was said that

[52:21] with the, I thought it was approved growth were good through 229 or nine years.

[52:28] Clearly I, I clearly missed that, so is that can you help me?

[52:32] So we'll make sure that in the public knows this too, because that can get really going through the process and establishing a baseline

[52:39] I'd mentioned and doing those mathematical relationships

[52:42] We've roughly got 3.56

[52:45] Manions of average daily capacity flow left at Cloud Yates

[52:49] So the whole purpose was telling we'll take

[52:52] Base on the current growth rate of 180 units and that commercial square foot is component that goes with that

[52:59] Winmal that exhaust that's nine years. That's a nine

[53:02] And we keep a 20% we have to keep a buffer too, right, and it 20% in their

[53:08] Well, it's a it's a buffer to start the planning process for the next facility

[53:12] Which we are

[53:13] What do I do now?

[53:15] Yeah, all right, so that if and how just did some rough math

[53:20] But in in the PowerPoint, unfortunately in 2012 there's 30,000 900 dwelling units

[53:26] 23 there's 38,000

[53:29] that's about 8,000 dwelling units additional in that 10-year frame is roughly, now that's a year or so off, but say 4 million, 4 million gallons is roughly 7 to 8,000 dwelling units, now that's not just dwelling units because we've got commercial too, but we've got 11,000 approved now, not yet developed.

[53:48] So you're saying that seven that are that we've got 3.5 million gallons left, which is nine

[53:56] years, excuse me, if all those, because all those aren't going to get developed, right, we're

[54:02] tapped out, right, correct, correct. There's both what you've approved, what's been approved

[54:07] previously, but then there's also what we have actually seen developed. And that nine years is

[54:13] based on what we've actually seen as like an absorption per year over the last decade

[54:19] plus projecting that out into the next decade. Assuming that there will always be some

[54:24] nut. There's always some play with what happens and doesn't happen the timing. It is more

[54:28] looking at what has really happened and what does that extrapolate out against the capacity we have

[54:34] remaining.

[54:37] Yeah, so it's at the current growth rate, so the current growth rate was deployment,

[54:41] You know, the night could extend now.

[54:46] Last thing, but I've approved one single family development of any size.

[54:56] Since I've been on the board, I mean, the popular farms is the only single family development

[55:00] of size.

[55:02] This current minus Greg Alderman Caesar, but we have approved.

[55:06] I don't know that there's, so do you sense that that is going to change? I mean, I'm not

[55:14] seeing a, we're not seeing a ton of single, large single family developments coming

[55:19] before us. I'm not saying that growth is going to stop, it's not, but like, we're not

[55:25] seeing the, at least I'm not hearing about and being presented to the kinds of developments

[55:32] that we saw that led to 20,000 people over 10 years, in a single family situation.

[55:38] So there has to be some, and quite frankly, look at our land use plan, and the capacity

[55:43] out there.

[55:44] I don't know where there's going to be a lot more, just straight up, single family lab

[55:49] parks and West Avens.

[55:50] We're continuing to see single families specifically, growth, Lewisburg Pike, going kind

[55:58] of south.

[55:58] And we do have more annexation interests that you will start to see a few more parcels coming in for annexation with development plans.

[56:07] And also where we've already annexed on the east side of 65 in the Goose Creek area along Payton's old road.

[56:15] We do have development interests. There's still trying to figure out some infrastructure issues that exist in that particular area.

[56:23] But when that starts to develop, I think it will come on quicker than probably we really had initially realized, because it's just waiting and kind of understanding how some of the road financing will happen.

[56:40] I think ultimately in some of the water millcroftains, specifically how they're going to be able to serve some of those properties.

[56:46] but once those things are figured out, it's likely that several large parcels, large sharks land

[56:52] will develop simultaneously.

[56:55] Okay, that's good.

[56:56] Thank you.

[56:57] Just to say good point, we are not the water producer, supplier.

[57:06] We are the wastewater, supplier for basically everybody, but all those other water utility

[57:12] districts you know have their own situations that they are working with and that's not going

[57:20] that's not that is not going to change that's done by the U.S. House of Representatives.

[57:28] All right, this is though a few comments in if I could and maybe it's some lessons learned along the

[57:34] way and one of the lessons was from Austin, Texas and this wasn't surcopacity but is road capacity

[57:41] And they made the decision not to build the roads as they were growing because they didn't

[57:46] want Austin to continue to grow.

[57:48] Austin continued to grow and so they have a real mess as far as road infrastructure.

[57:56] This board and past boards have created an environment where people want to be.

[58:03] We've created an environment where businesses want to come, and, you know, the hold-up right now seems to be interest rates, so when those interest rates drop, I think we're going to see some significant activity, whether it's business relocations or whether it's new plans come and forward.

[58:25] You know, I was on that original, the bummer represented it for originally on the integrated

[58:31] water resource plan, and at that time I think we were maybe one of the few and the entire

[58:37] southeast had had such a plan, and I think back also about the city has always been

[58:44] recognized as somebody that had a vision and had a long-term plan to get to that vision,

[58:51] And also, they connected all those plans as far as road networks, infrastructure, land use, and so on.

[59:00] I think it would be a terrible detour for us to not continue to move forward as far as continuing to build out our system for future use.

[59:16] We have a very business friendly community, we have very low taxes, we have no state-income

[59:22] tax and people, so I want to continue to come.

[59:27] So I'm going to have the good that let's get started tomorrow.

[59:33] It's not soon enough, nine years scares me, because for us went through that process of trying

[59:41] get this plant permitted that we have now and a lot of the challenges that we had, legally

[59:51] and things as far as T-DAC and all the hoops we had to jump through and I think we're much

[59:58] more educated on this.

[1:00:00] On that now, I think probably is the environment for doing it with the state is much better than it used to be. The fact that we just did this multi, I say multi-million dollar study down there where we were.

[1:00:24] And I would advocate that we continue to move forward on other things that generate money to pay for what we're doing.

[1:00:32] You know, the impact fees, whether it's water sewer, whether it's road impact fee, we got to move ahead.

[1:00:38] You know, every day that we don't do something we're getting further behind.

[1:00:42] And I remember back when we were doing the wastewater plant, we got involved in a lawsuit.

[1:00:47] That cost us 30 million or something, but just that delay cost us that much money.

[1:00:56] So, did we not get a lot of money though, given to us on the one that we just finished?

[1:01:05] We had a lot of state reviving it on money.

[1:01:08] We had two of the advantages of that in a very, very low interest rate.

[1:01:12] Yeah, compared to what we would have gotten in the market for our utility bonds, we probably

[1:01:17] saved 30 to 40 million over the lives of that borrowing.

[1:01:22] So that's what we're working to make sure we can provide for in this.

[1:01:27] We have gotten some offset of some of the planning work we've already done in the project.

[1:01:32] So we keep looking for those opportunities.

[1:01:34] We are doing things that are great examples for other communities.

[1:01:38] So TDEC does want to encourage us and partner with us where they can.

[1:01:43] So we want to keep building on that.

[1:01:45] But it's obviously significant demand too.

[1:01:48] And that's why we're being clear about it and checking in and saying,

[1:01:52] this is where we are and we've been working the plan.

[1:01:56] We've never stopped, but we're at a really important point for that next stage.

[1:02:04] Alderman Barnhill. I'll go back just a little bit and cover some of the older vesting

[1:02:10] lights because we need to really look at it. If someone out there there's been in this,

[1:02:17] because because even with the interest rates for the world, they're not the 8.9% that

[1:02:21] were a year and a half ago, I think we need to really look at those, you know, if somebody comes

[1:02:28] in and they've got a new project that's putting it on and we want to do a three year vesting

[1:02:32] on that. And we know that it's a 10-year bill out. That, that doesn't concern me as much as

[1:02:38] it does. The capacity that's sitting out there, from a road stand point, nothing else. From

[1:02:45] the water from the water, by the boat, from the shore. We need to go back and re-look at those

[1:02:51] not advocating to suddenly pull the rug out when anybody who has several million dollars

[1:02:58] and investment and they just weep or whatever. They would know what whatever was. But I think

[1:03:05] we ought to make sure that we understand. I'm not interested particularly in the capacity for some

[1:03:14] project that's sitting someplace dormant for the 5, 6, 7, 18 years because if I drive through some

[1:03:22] these areas. I see where I will whatever and know that dirt and gravel in construction work,

[1:03:30] when site preparation was done many years ago.

[1:03:36] And we are not getting the impact fees

[1:03:39] in the tap fees, whatever else that we need to get out of that. So I would, I'd be more

[1:03:46] and have a kit to look and see what we can do as far as the existing places where there's

[1:03:54] capacity to be in take it

[1:03:59] up.

[1:04:03] I appreciate the work that staff has put in to preparing this and bringing me up to speed

[1:04:08] as a relatively new member on the board.

[1:04:11] My hope is that all of us support the investment to support our growth and I think we all believe

[1:04:17] coming in the future. And one concern I have, I think I share with some others on the board

[1:04:22] is that I don't want us to overbuild because of underutilized investments that are out there.

[1:04:28] And so helping me and my colleagues on the board make a good determination on whether ABCDE or even

[1:04:35] maybe F is the right choice. I think that aging diagram would be beneficial because effectively we've

[1:04:43] more than the tenure expected capacity that is out there. And I know that we can't necessarily count

[1:04:50] on all of that coming in, but I would love to have some best judgments on how much of that might

[1:04:55] actually become a real pull on our current water treatment center. So I would also say that I think

[1:05:03] all of us on this board have heard from constituents that infrastructure is a critical component of

[1:05:08] future and roads is where most of our constituents go when they think about infrastructure and I would

[1:05:14] just finish by saying when roads back up it's frustrating when sewer backs up it's a whole different

[1:05:19] problem and I don't think that any of us want to be involved in the cleanup in a decade or nine

[1:05:25] and a half years when sewer starts to back up. So I want us to be for four thinking here but perhaps

[1:05:31] helping us with a better understanding of those investments would give us the information to give you

[1:05:35] better judgment and better guidance. Thank you.

[1:05:40] This reserve augmentation, I don't know that I, that was in the financial impact slide.

[1:05:47] I don't know that I understand that quite enough, is that augment is it the, the, the,

[1:05:53] the, the, the offending the reservoir. So from the, the, the treated. Yes. So it would

[1:05:59] be sending from sending a small portion from the clean water facility to the water

[1:06:04] and to augment that drinking water.

[1:06:06] When you and I went through a tour down there,

[1:06:09] waters are very valuable,

[1:06:11] and so I would love for,

[1:06:13] it didn't have to be right now because we didn't move on.

[1:06:15] But I do think there are two million gallons a day

[1:06:18] or four million gallons a day

[1:06:20] of available water resource for ourselves

[1:06:25] to supplement the water we buy

[1:06:28] from Harpeth Valley

[1:06:30] and or there are some municipalities in our proximity,

[1:06:33] who could use some water or might be customers as well. I don't know how that works or if it can work but that goes into

[1:06:41] in my opinion the financial calculus of this as well. Like what do we do with this extra 4 million?

[1:06:46] It goes back into the river for recreation. It goes into our reservoir. It goes, is that...

[1:06:54] It goes through the treatment process.

[1:06:56] Right, right, and that's fine, but this is like water, but an additional 4 million gallons a day of water is very valuable and we're either paying for there's a financial

[1:07:09] Impact the two or four and it seems to only be a 15 million dollar delta between the various options and so how

[1:07:19] And that will be part of the next step, so as we, this was kind of just laying it out there and laying kind of the framework for you all to have it when you move into your strategic, you know, kind of discussions.

[1:07:30] This is not really delving into all of that financial, because that really goes with the rates, right?

[1:07:34] Because that really goes with how do we offset the impact fees and the rates that we see to our customers, so that would be the next set of discussions.

[1:07:44] got some direction? Well, we've started a discussion that will help us get

[1:07:49] direction, but this is great for us to follow up and give you more data and

[1:07:55] more context to help give the policy guidance and the direction of, like I said,

[1:08:00] setting the target, which is really what we need to do. I would say through the

[1:08:04] balance of this year would be a way to think about it. Thank you. And great work

[1:08:10] by this team.

[1:08:12] Absolutely.

[1:08:12] Really.

[1:08:13] Great job.

[1:08:14] Thank you.

[1:08:14] I'm free.

[1:08:15] As you would clap them.

[1:08:17] They'll leave.

[1:08:19] Sir at 2024-21 to rezone 44.5 free acres from a state residential to civic institutional

[1:08:27] with a property located south of Mac at your memorial parkway east of Franklin Road, establishing

[1:08:32] public hearing August 13.

[1:08:35] Thank you.

[1:08:36] This rezoning is pretty straightforward.

[1:08:38] The property is owned by the city, and its future intended

[1:08:42] uses for park land, so this is just rezoning

[1:08:44] to bring it into the civic and institutional zoning

[1:08:47] district to keep everything kind of copacetic with future

[1:08:50] pieces for it.

[1:08:55] The applicant supports it.

[1:08:57] So, yes.

[1:08:58] Yeah, we're in favor of the applicant.

[1:09:00] Vice Mayor.

[1:09:01] I got asked this question.

[1:09:03] I thought it was a reasonable question.

[1:09:04] So I wanted to ask it as well.

[1:09:06] I know there's a lot of different overlay districts on this property, not all shown on the map.

[1:09:11] We said we wanted to project this rule gateway. What are the implications if you expanded the

[1:09:17] scenic corridor over that? I know we typically only do that sort of within the limits of sort of

[1:09:24] corridor, but just curious what that implications of that would be?

[1:09:30] So where specifically are we talking about this if we just made this if we if we actually put the put the scenic ward or I mean

[1:09:39] We could do that if that's the the desire the board. I

[1:09:45] The impact would be that if you had any

[1:09:49] Structures or pavement it could not you could you do trails in crates you couldn't do trails. Yeah

[1:09:57] So I would be hesitant.

[1:09:59] Yeah, you couldn't do trails or trail header and thought that right.

[1:10:03] Yeah, we're a parking area for a trail.

[1:10:05] Yeah, if you wanted a parking lot or something like that,

[1:10:08] it would definitely not be a allowed as an encouragement.

[1:10:15] Yeah.

[1:10:16] Everybody's going to keep moving forward.

[1:10:18] Yes, sir.

[1:10:18] Adam Fuller is a resolution 2024-33,

[1:10:21] initiating the annexation process, draft plan services for the annexation.

[1:10:25] at 37.17 acres located west of Hillview Line at 1247 to Hillview Line.

[1:10:33] Thank you. The property being considered is a not-contiguous currently to see limits

[1:10:37] and is partially within the city's urban growth boundary with the exception of a small southern

[1:10:42] portion of the parcel that is located outside of the UGB. And this is a general note the 297

[1:10:48] acres that we have here on the map and also in the reports. That is for the acreage within the

[1:10:54] The total acreage of the entire parcel is about 310 acres, so that's just a little

[1:10:59] kind of mistake there.

[1:11:03] So the parcel is within the development reserve design concepts and envision Franklin,

[1:11:08] which essentially just means that lacks public infrastructure, public sewer, and it does

[1:11:13] not have a road network that could support a lot of additional growth.

[1:11:17] Invisual Franklin, further states that these areas should be subject to further planning and

[1:11:20] with planning and infrastructure improvements and public service delivery.

[1:11:25] So prior to any considered zoning for the property,

[1:11:28] anything other than agricultural or state residential

[1:11:31] would allow for additional density on the property

[1:11:34] and visit Franklin Planet Amendment would have to be approved

[1:11:37] by planning commission.

[1:11:40] So the annexation and initiation doesn't include a draft plan of services

[1:11:44] and that just outlines how the city will serve the properties,

[1:11:48] requesting annexation and any additional infrastructure that will be required

[1:11:51] for the development. So with this property, an extensive sanitary sewer based and study update

[1:11:57] would be required in order to ensure the pump station and force main our size appropriately

[1:12:03] and to determine the location of the future force main. No additional density is recommended

[1:12:09] on this property until additional roadways, at least those within the UGB. Our annex by the city

[1:12:15] and our extended to meet the city of Franklin connectivity requirements. Some potential street

[1:12:21] connections may be required to remain in the county due to be in located outside of our

[1:12:25] UGB and the three connections may require approval by the Williamson County Planning Commission

[1:12:30] or Highway Commission.

[1:12:33] A portion of the property is located outside of our UGB and while the property lies within the

[1:12:38] SW1 basin, which was identified more as a long term growth capability in our 2018 annexation

[1:12:43] study, there is currently as your wary plan underway to revise the Franklin UGB as part of a

[1:12:49] possible countywide growth plan update.

[1:12:52] The update of plan shows the entirety of this property within the Franklin UGB.

[1:12:56] So would you recommend that property be annexed once the growth plan is fully adopted as

[1:13:01] a property could then be annexed by resolution and not have to go through a referendum process.

[1:13:06] So while the property currently lacks public utilities and necessary external road connections,

[1:13:11] many of these potential issues could be worked out through the development process.

[1:13:15] So we do recommend approval of the annexation and initiation to further investigate how the property

[1:13:21] can be serviced in the future.

[1:13:23] Let me just add one piece of, maybe, newer news.

[1:13:28] The city of Brentwood voted last night to approve the urban growth boundary update.

[1:13:32] That is the final jurisdiction that needed to vote.

[1:13:36] So all the cities in the county have now approved the updated UGB that you all approved.

[1:13:40] Think you were the first to do that.

[1:13:43] And so that means we submit that to the state that's probably largely a formality, but that goes to the state for their approval or certification, and then we have an updated UGB.

[1:13:56] So what Joe is referencing is in process and will likely be in place in the near future.

[1:14:04] So that's good news in terms of having that process done and moving forward.

[1:14:11] Well, it was just to prove the final jurisdiction voted last night, City of Brentwood.

[1:14:17] So, then it'll go forward from there to the state.

[1:14:23] I've got Mr. Gamble.

[1:14:24] If the board wants to ask questions, or I'll go ahead and Mr. Gamble, I think you'll pack

[1:14:28] at the theme.

[1:14:29] Would you like to look at it?

[1:14:31] I do.

[1:14:32] And I promise that it would be sure that I know you'll have a full agenda tonight.

[1:14:34] So I'll also talk fast.

[1:14:35] I'm here tonight with Adam Balish with Boyle and Boyle has a simple

[1:14:39] the team of professionals to look at and explore opportunities for this property that we're

[1:14:47] calling the Harland Farm. Our request to you is to give us the opportunity to work toward

[1:14:55] showing you a plan worthy of annexation into the city of Franklin.

[1:15:00] This vote just simply allows us to initiate that process. It is not a vote too annexed the property in.

[1:15:09] I moved here in 2004 and one of the best things about working in the city of Franklin is when we talk about development.

[1:15:15] We talk about growth plans. We also talk about conservation and preservation.

[1:15:19] And we have since the day that I was here probably even before I started working in Franklin.

[1:15:25] We have a new tool in Invision Franklin, which really allows the opportunity for us to start planning

[1:15:32] for this relationship between them where rural, county, and a more urban Franklin.

[1:15:38] And we believe that this is an excellent opportunity to do that.

[1:15:41] If you look at the second page here, we have highlighted the location of the Harlan

[1:15:48] Farmers just south of where future Mac Hatcher extension would go and you can see it's close proximity to

[1:15:57] City of Franklin services to City of Franklin infrastructure

[1:16:01] We know that we have hurdles in front of us if you look at the next page here this shows potential connectivity to this property

[1:16:08] Yes, Hillview Lane is an access to the Harlan property, but there's an existing 50 foot easement

[1:16:16] that goes from the Harlan property to Centerator Road and Centerator Road then goes out to Old Carter's Creek Pike.

[1:16:25] There's also a potential connection to Lula Lane.

[1:16:29] There's also a potential connection to Coleman Road to the south of this property.

[1:16:33] So we're starting to understand this roadway infrastructure and what would be needed to really create connectivity.

[1:16:40] not just a Franklin, but the larger community as well and create opportunities for that traffic to be dispersed.

[1:16:47] If you look at the next page here, we know that there's a plan for Maccatcher Parkway.

[1:16:53] We know that it's going to be built someday in the future, but we don't know when we don't know the timing of that.

[1:17:00] Before Maccatcher is constructed, the map on the left shows you the interconnectivity of local roads or what would need to happen.

[1:17:06] needs to be a connection from Shadow Green to Hildview Lane. Once MacCatcher is constructed,

[1:17:14] then there's a portion of Hildview Lane that's currently covered in trees that would become a

[1:17:18] greenway trail. It would be pedestrian only. It would be set aside and preserved. The intersection

[1:17:23] in the access to Hildview Lane would be off of MacCatcher at the new intersection that would be just

[1:17:29] to the west.

[1:17:34] This is, this MacCatcher infrastructure is a part of the MacCatcher plan. This has nothing

[1:17:38] to do with what we're proposing. This is not a proposal that we're putting on the table.

[1:17:42] This is already something that's a part of the state's plan for Maccatcher Parkway.

[1:17:47] So, thank you.

[1:17:50] On the next page, then, this shows you, you're on page 13 now.

[1:17:57] On page 13, this shows you the infrastructure for sewer and water that would need to be provided

[1:18:03] for property if this area were to develop in the future. There's an existing water line on

[1:18:08] There's also an existing water line that cuts through the harlan property.

[1:18:13] Some of these lines would need to be upgraded. They're too small.

[1:18:16] Now they're there now, but they need to be larger lines.

[1:18:21] There is contemplation by the in the newly adopted urban growth boundary map that you have

[1:18:28] removed a portion of land from your urban growth boundary in this area.

[1:18:32] that area that you've removed is that area developed a south hall that's a long

[1:18:38] Carter's Creek Pike. This pump station would really be right at the limit of what

[1:18:43] could be served under your newer when growth boundary line. So we're we're showing

[1:18:48] that that proposed pump station on Lulu Lane. Kind of everything in this base

[1:18:53] and would gravity flow to that point. So we would go and put it there now in theory

[1:18:59] and it would provide for sewer for this area.

[1:19:02] There is capacity in the line that goes through shadow

[1:19:06] green that goes up to Columbia Pike and then goes back

[1:19:09] to the plant.

[1:19:10] So there was always some capacity considerations for new

[1:19:14] growth in this area with the infrastructure that's been

[1:19:17] installed now.

[1:19:20] This has jumped in a little bit of head probably

[1:19:22] beyond just the plan of services.

[1:19:26] But when we study a piece of property,

[1:19:28] We start with what should be set aside and what should be preserved.

[1:19:33] The Harlem property has some tree canopy on it right now, but it also has a lot of open field.

[1:19:38] So our team has done a full analysis of streams that need to be protected.

[1:19:46] Springs that need to be protected.

[1:19:48] Tree lines and tree canopy areas that need to be set aside.

[1:19:52] with a contemplation and vision Franklin for this to be a village green, it would set

[1:20:01] 218 acres in permanent preservation for this property. And so we started with what needs

[1:20:07] to be preserved. On the next map then we have a plan that we really need to sit down and

[1:20:12] spend some time talking with, say, be staff about planning, engineering, really kind of getting

[1:20:16] down into the nuts and bolts of this. But you can start to see the areas that are really

[1:20:21] set aside for preservation and then the low small footprint that development would have on this property.

[1:20:27] On the page number 17 then this show is just kind of almost a very simple black and white form.

[1:20:34] The areas that would be set aside in green set aside for preservation and then potential for development.

[1:20:41] We're looking at a master plan that would truly be a place making and create a special opportunity.

[1:20:47] Then on the very last page, with the master plan, we have started a density analysis, looking

[1:20:57] at just simple figure grounds of West Haven versus Leapers fork, and then what this development

[1:21:04] footprint could potentially look like within a very, I would almost say, concentrated

[1:21:10] neighborhood.

[1:21:10] So, the property it's currently zoned MGA1, which is in the county is one unit per acre.

[1:21:19] We believe that density within that range would certainly be appropriate to maintain

[1:21:24] with future proposed development this area.

[1:21:27] Do you think I'm mistured like that, too?

[1:21:29] We're happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[1:21:31] Thank you all for this consideration tonight.

[1:21:35] We're going to keep moving.

[1:21:38] Yes, but the number of acres is $2.90, because Joey said something was it $2.97.

[1:21:45] If you look back to the very first page, $3.11.

[1:21:49] If you look back to the very first page, there is currently an area that is outside of your

[1:21:55] urban growth boundary.

[1:21:57] Now, you can't annex that little triangle here until the state adopts the new urban growth

[1:22:03] boundary map.

[1:22:04] Yeah.

[1:22:05] We're kind of processing this this plan and this development along like watching these dates and watching these votes

[1:22:12] Staffs report contemplates only the area that's in your urban growth boundary. There's actually

[1:22:17] 312 acres associated with the entirety of the property. So we've got two numbers that are are kind of floating out there

[1:22:24] One is the whole property and one is just the area in the urban growth boundary. The last thing is

[1:22:31] Thank you

[1:22:32] for taking this village green concept, which has comes from, you saw Franklin tomorrow.

[1:22:42] It was also just all apartments, and while we heard you say that you had to see it, it was a family.

[1:22:47] Like, five minutes ago, you said you had seen any single family, so we heard and changed the plan.

[1:22:51] Wow, you were talking, thank you Adam, but this is the kind of single family we want to see.

[1:22:58] This is the kind of development. We know it's not going to be single-fembers.

[1:23:01] A lot of people that are scared out there, the village green is going to be townhomes

[1:23:05] and multifamily, only, and commercial. You were demonstrating so far, no long way to go,

[1:23:13] but at least conceptually, you have a lot, and this is the first one we've seen in person.

[1:23:20] This is, do not take this lightly. We have put a ton of work into this and so far, so good.

[1:23:28] But this is, and I think we'll learn in October at Franklin tomorrow's conference.

[1:23:36] Like, make us proud, help us refine this even more.

[1:23:40] But this is where we're starting from now with 200 acres of open space,

[1:23:47] whereas before it would have been 150 acres, we're starting from much better spot

[1:23:51] from the community standpoint that wants to see this.

[1:23:54] Thank you, but don't let us down and continue and I know you won't because that's I think you've got the right heart and vision for this

[1:24:02] This is what we I think this is what we had in mind

[1:24:06] And we want to see it in other places because this is what the character of rural Franklin

[1:24:11] Can be

[1:24:13] I say

[1:24:15] the other thing is if you notice on here on this last page you will see that the

[1:24:23] parcels that are on the outside look how big they are. See, so it would be a very large,

[1:24:30] I don't know how many acres for each of those. Well, and the ones over on the left are even bigger

[1:24:37] than that. So in other words, it's not just talking about, you know, just having everything stuck

[1:24:44] and right in together, but it's giving an opportunity to whenever it touches other places,

[1:24:50] is to be somewhat more like them.

[1:24:53] You're exactly right, and I think one of the things

[1:24:55] that is hard to capture at this scale,

[1:24:58] I think this is like a 400 scale drawing,

[1:25:01] so the scales are very disproportionate

[1:25:04] for what you're typically used to seeing.

[1:25:06] But we are, and instead of, I won't say anything negative,

[1:25:12] but in the other projects in town,

[1:25:14] but we vary farms, I can pick on a little bit,

[1:25:16] because we developed, right?

[1:25:17] And so we don't want to just go do another

[1:25:20] very farms and how do we create that diversity and housing stock but also kind of do the

[1:25:26] city proud with some new tools that are in our toolbox to play with through and vision

[1:25:31] Franklin and and uh...

[1:25:34] ornament Peterson you're exactly right some of the lot sizes

[1:25:37] we've really struggled with to find a comparison in Franklin

[1:25:42] we've had to look at Brentwood and other communities in town to find some lot sizes

[1:25:47] that are one acre two acre five acre lots and not just a 40 foot wide

[1:25:53] out of your wrap up because we're talking about whether even to initiate the

[1:25:56] annexation which is the ultimate hotst real quickly.

[1:26:03] Okay we'll move forward on

[1:26:04] the item number five which is resolution 2024-34 remaining the West

[1:26:11] Franklin Park PD subdivision to extend the vested rights for the property located

[1:26:15] North of McEwen Drive East of Interstate 65, located 6,167,100, tower circle, establishing

[1:26:23] public hearing on August the 13th, 2024.

[1:26:32] Sorry, I'm a little sad to figure things out.

[1:26:37] This request is to extend vesting for three years from September 14th, 2024 until September

[1:26:45] 14th, 2027 to allow, I'm sorry, the map.

[1:26:51] There you go.

[1:26:53] To allow for the applicant to secure

[1:26:55] any necessary permits and commits site preparation.

[1:26:59] The approval history and project description

[1:27:01] is that West Franklin Park fewD was approved

[1:27:04] by Beaumont on September 14th, 2021.

[1:27:08] This plan includes 555 multifamily dwelling units,

[1:27:12] approximately 301,000 square feet of office space and 8900 square feet of retail for a site that is composed of 302.43 acres staff recommended approval with conditions of the overall development plan and

[1:27:28] approved the development plan by a vote of 70 zero. The current status is that this

[1:27:33] plan is within the first three year period and is vested until September 14th, 2024,

[1:27:39] the applicant submitted a site plan for a section one but it has not yet been approved.

[1:27:45] The vesting impacts for this site is that the project entitlements would cease to exist,

[1:27:50] stop work orders would be issued if applicable if you do not extend the vesting period.

[1:27:57] A new development would be a new development would need to be approved and would be reviewed against the current local development standards.

[1:28:04] Interviewing the plan against the current city regulations the current plane generally complies.

[1:28:10] The differences in today's zoning ordinances versus their vested zoning ordinance of 12, 8, 2020 are minor.

[1:28:16] and would be incorporated into the design

[1:28:19] without major changes to the plan.

[1:28:22] Also a new park land agreement

[1:28:23] would need to be provided for any new plans.

[1:28:29] FNPC along with staff recommended

[1:28:31] approval of resolution 2024-34 by a vote of 620.

[1:28:37] Thank you.

[1:28:40] Any questions?

[1:28:43] Jerry comments, Mr. Groger.

[1:28:45] Thank you, getting the mayor, Alderman.

[1:28:47] Um, basically, uh, let's see what Chelsea had to say, basically, we are asking this for extension.

[1:28:52] But it is tracking through site plan.

[1:28:54] So the process and project is moving forward.

[1:28:56] I was speaking on behalf of the north of Raven developer.

[1:28:58] They've been part of McEwan, north side, Franklin Park.

[1:29:01] So, uh, it's tracking.

[1:29:03] So this is the reason for this, this extension is because we couldn't hit,

[1:29:06] getting things in the ground, but we're moving through that site plan right now.

[1:29:09] So thank you.

[1:29:12] You drew the luckiest, just hit the luck.

[1:29:15] Exactly.

[1:29:16] That's what I thought after y'all spoke about.

[1:29:18] I remember what you said, believe me, whoever scared or that's why I came up here.

[1:29:25] That was smart, Gary, but I would, but so why, this is directed to staff.

[1:29:31] Why would we not just say, if they're on track, why wouldn't we not just vest it for one year?

[1:29:41] That's a valid question.

[1:29:44] We had been to Emily's point earlier.

[1:29:46] We had been advising applicants who were coming in not to ask for one year at the time because

[1:29:53] because we were saying, oh, we're seeing that it's taking a little longer and then we don't

[1:29:57] want you to have to come back any year and ask again.

[1:30:00] So if this is advice to staff that you want to say advice, less time, we can do that.

[1:30:05] Not advice on this one. I just think this is...

[1:30:07] I think it's as this evolves thinking about if you do a year, what do you want to see in a year?

[1:30:13] I mean, you know, you could do it almost staged so that you're tracking that there's meaningful progress being made.

[1:30:19] I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Three years is a pretty long time, but we also have folks that have...

[1:30:26] I mean, this is not a green field that has not been touched.

[1:30:30] This has evolved and changed, too.

[1:30:32] So you still got to look at each case.

[1:30:34] And I think as we look at this, we might

[1:30:36] want to have some sort of check-in points down the line,

[1:30:41] but this is evolved to for us.

[1:30:45] Good all the way.

[1:30:46] OK.

[1:30:47] Gosh.

[1:30:48] This place doesn't need to be developed over there,

[1:30:51] but I still have heartburn with this.

[1:30:55] When it was brought for us, a lot of things has changed, Gary, since that time.

[1:31:03] And we've got 555 multifamily dwellings.

[1:31:09] My heartburn is just out of control.

[1:31:13] I just can't go there anymore.

[1:31:16] And I just think that needs to be rethought.

[1:31:19] I think if they were for sale, but here we go with more rentals, and I just, that's my

[1:31:27] hyper.

[1:31:28] And also, I know that this was, and you guys did great work.

[1:31:35] I mean, everything you touch, you do great work, and the people in our city that live here

[1:31:40] and develop here, I mean, gosh, they do such wonderful work, but you know, we've got a dwelling,

[1:31:46] it's just snugged right up to that little lake and snugged right there and it's just

[1:31:51] and I like the fact that you go up in the dwelling and you probably overlook the lake and it

[1:31:56] has a good sight but you know I I don't know I just think it needs to be really think it a bit

[1:32:02] be glad to catch up with you if you need to speak but it is a mix of residential or a

[1:32:05] force sale infrared and office in retail. I don't think there's room here. Yeah the force

[1:32:09] there is. I think there's 154 sale out of the five five five five five five five five five five five five five five

[1:32:15] five. I've told 150 I think we're four sales. Yeah, so we're good mixed but I just the residential

[1:32:20] acts to activate this campus. It's just nine to five office just yeah. I know we need to activate that spot.

[1:32:29] Yeah. I do not argue with you. I think some of the stuff you planned and proposed here is great.

[1:32:35] We just don't have really bad a hard spring.

[1:32:38] It's like...

[1:32:39] Ready move off?

[1:32:41] Okay.

[1:32:42] We'll go on to Adam 6, which is Resolution 2024, National 7.

[1:32:47] Resolution is a minted proving development plan for the Preserve.

[1:32:50] It's shared in PUD subdivision.

[1:32:51] One modification development standard for the probably locate West Franklin Road

[1:32:55] and South the various chapel road located at 2247.

[1:33:00] South the various chapel road.

[1:33:02] This went to planning commission, they rejected what we approve, and so tonight we'll be looking at it to see if we want to approve again what we approve.

[1:33:12] So, just for a point of clarification, they concurred with two of the additional conditions, but not the third for the removal of the emergency connection to echo lane.

[1:33:22] So, that is why it's going back to Bowman tonight, tonight's agenda is because of the not concurrence with the third condition that was added.

[1:33:29] And this really just acknowledges the process.

[1:33:33] It is not really a reconsideration by you.

[1:33:38] It is just, the concurrence closes the loop.

[1:33:41] It didn't happen on all items,

[1:33:44] but that doesn't really change the decision

[1:33:46] the board already made in your ability to make it.

[1:33:49] This just closes up the process.

[1:33:51] You've made the decision.

[1:33:53] Do we land or we go?

[1:33:54] Well, you've made the decision.

[1:33:56] Yeah, yeah, yeah, the conditions are still in your decision to make.

[1:34:01] Part of my, just, this is a gift that keeps on giving here.

[1:34:05] Uh, I have one of those too.

[1:34:07] Um, I just want to make two comments.

[1:34:09] One is, um, understand, we've already, we've already done this, but, uh, the two comments I'm

[1:34:14] going to make, one is that, uh, of all the, of all the, of all the things that we did,

[1:34:18] a lot of it was for a lot of the county residents, the one item that was for people who was

[1:34:22] Franklin and Echo States was this item. And so I feel like this is the one that I need to

[1:34:28] represent the most on. I would also say, and again, it's not that I'm flying in a face of public

[1:34:35] safety, but part of the reason I think this came to us as an option was because David owned

[1:34:41] this property. He's in a letter of intent now in a contract to sell that property. So at this point

[1:34:49] to go back in now, add that connection.

[1:34:52] It's not just taking his property.

[1:34:53] He'd be taken to property from somebody else.

[1:34:55] And so I think we need to stay the course

[1:34:57] as my two cents.

[1:34:59] We've made that decision, and we should keep going.

[1:35:01] In other words, no connection.

[1:35:03] There would be no way to do it unless we took it

[1:35:06] from a new owner.

[1:35:09] All right, just a point of order on this tonight.

[1:35:13] While we're acknowledging and accepting,

[1:35:15] what does us not acknowledging accepting the resultant?

[1:35:19] Because I'm all for rubber stamps.

[1:35:20] but when it doesn't understand, you've given me a stamp.

[1:35:23] I feel like I should understand what happens if I don't use it.

[1:35:31] The board already made a decision on this,

[1:35:36] and we provided an opportunity for the planning commission

[1:35:39] to concur because it's different than what they voted on,

[1:35:43] but it's still your decision.

[1:35:45] So, I think it would really be you look at how you'd be reconsidering

[1:35:51] full matter, and I think we'd end up in a different place, and that would be it.

[1:35:58] This is a resolution. Your other actions were much more consequential.

[1:36:06] So maybe John

[1:36:08] I could weigh in further, but I don't know that you'd have to set in place than a whole other

[1:36:14] series of actions to revisit those decisions that were made. So this alone wouldn't undo

[1:36:21] that. Yeah, and I'm not sure that there's a meaningful difference. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:36:31] Adam 7 City Franklin contract 24-24-0159 with Frank Carny of Evans, Petri,

[1:36:38] for engagement agreement for legal counsel for employee pension plan.

[1:36:41] Alderman Barnhill and I are on the pension committee. We work with Mr. Carny on

[1:36:46] a regular basis. He's doing a great job for us. And I would recommend that we move

[1:36:52] forward on that and I think. So we'll move on to Adam A, which is Amendment 1, the City of

[1:36:59] Franklin contract number 2019-0122 with SSCH Franklin LLC for Parkland Impact Fee and

[1:37:08] Construction Agreement for R-A-M. Thank you, Mayor. This is just it's just updates the exhibits.

[1:37:14] It's no change in fees or anything, that's it.

[1:37:20] Adam, nine is 2020.

[1:37:39] I don't know how you voted, let's see.

[1:37:44] You must have voted for a non-concurrents on the,

[1:37:48] you must have voted to have the emergency exit.

[1:37:53] It was 6 o, if I'm reading it correctly.

[1:38:01] We can find that.

[1:38:06] So any question, let's say Adam Nann is resolution 2024-61, resolution

[1:38:13] operative city.

[1:38:14] Franklin joined the state Tennessee and other local governments,

[1:38:17] the meeting Tennessee, state subdivision,

[1:38:19] hope we all debate on agreement and

[1:38:20] improving the related settlement agreement.

[1:38:22] This is a new case with CROGR, where CROGR is part of it now.

[1:38:30] And so we'll be getting funds from that.

[1:38:33] If you agree, then we would also join a settlement

[1:38:36] as part of the main statewide opioid settlement with Croger.

[1:38:42] And it will be a $42 million settlement

[1:38:45] for the state of Tennessee

[1:38:46] and we'll get a portion of that over several years.

[1:38:50] And it'll just trickle in as years go on.

[1:38:52] At this point, we've already kind of made the choice

[1:38:55] to go with the statewide agreement.

[1:38:57] And I would recommend that we do this as well.

[1:39:02] Number 10 is resolution 2024-59 and a resolution of rising the city administrator approved

[1:39:08] agreements and the use of condemnation if necessary to acquire right-of-way and our

[1:39:13] easements for the Maori-Lane North Royal Oaks and Liberty Pike intersection project.

[1:39:18] Mr. Hoosen.

[1:39:19] Now that we have approval on the previous CIP projects, this will allow us to go into the right

[1:39:24] way acquisition phase and have to answer any questions.

[1:39:28] Well, I know we were looking at it, it was pulled off, and we never really made a decision

[1:39:33] other than approving the CUP.

[1:39:35] So bottom one, what's coming back for consideration is now no longer up for reconsideration.

[1:39:43] I feel like this kind of came out of.

[1:39:45] We added discussion on the design last meeting.

[1:39:48] This is kind of just moving that forward in terms of supporting the previous design and what's in the

[1:39:55] CIP but that's kind of why we brought it to you too to confirm I don't think we have a really

[1:39:59] Confirm the direction took a head count. Yeah. Yeah. Well, this would be an opportunity to do that. Okay, obviously

[1:40:06] It's almost it will probably be the cross I die on but I cannot will not ever support this in that area

[1:40:13] so

[1:40:15] I don't know if anybody else I don't know I'm gonna go to anybody but

[1:40:19] I'm again I cannot will not

[1:40:23] support this.

[1:40:27] And it's just pretty standard that we

[1:40:28] authorizes this. Yeah. It kind of nation is our last resort. We go

[1:40:33] through other processes, but this does establish that approval for us to

[1:40:38] move forward on the necessary steps to a part right away, further design.

[1:40:44] And then

[1:40:45] presentation on new city hall design concepts. We have some folks from our

[1:40:50] design team coming up and I'll just make a couple comments moving forward. We're

[1:40:55] want to show you some broad interior design concepts to get your guidance and feedback on.

[1:41:05] Some of our staff team has had an initial chance to look at it at one of the things that

[1:41:09] we asked right up front that I'll share up front is there's not a meaningful cost difference

[1:41:15] between the interior design concepts we're really looking for your guidance about what you

[1:41:20] think best fits the space for new city hall.

[1:41:26] So, you know, this gives us the guidance we need to start formulating what that will look like both in the public spaces and in the more staff areas.

[1:41:37] And so this is to get your response and guidance from there.

[1:41:41] There is not a direct cost implication to choosing one over another.

[1:41:45] This just sets the tone about where we want to go and how we want to make it work.

[1:41:48] So I'm not sure this Malay and Anna Ruth and Chris are here with us to talk through it.

[1:41:55] So I'm not sure who's starting.

[1:41:57] So take it away.

[1:41:57] I can start.

[1:41:58] Okay, thank you.

[1:41:59] Anna Ruth Kimbro, studio eight design, design team representative for City Hall.

[1:42:05] I'm here just to really introduce Malay Cherry.

[1:42:08] She's our principal interior designer with brand interior design.

[1:42:12] And like Eric said, she's going to share some different concept options to get your

[1:42:17] back before she starts selecting into your finishes. So I'm just going to turn it over to

[1:42:23] Malay.

[1:42:26] Hi, thank you everyone for having me today.

[1:42:28] To pull that microphone just a little bit closer, Malay.

[1:42:31] Second. Yeah, that's good.

[1:42:35] Yep. Thank you very much. It is my first time up here.

[1:42:41] So we've already kind of flushed you. I've actually been working with Anna Ruth in our team for the

[1:42:49] of the space planning, making sure adjacencies are correct.

[1:42:53] So we're now starting to get to the fun stuff,

[1:42:55] which is the inside of the building.

[1:42:58] So what we want to try to do when it comes

[1:43:00] to the interior design of the building

[1:43:01] is actually try to come back and say,

[1:43:05] what do we want to project when people walk into the building?

[1:43:09] What do we want them to feel like

[1:43:11] when they walk into the building?

[1:43:12] What do we want to say about our city hall

[1:43:14] when they walk into the building?

[1:43:16] And also we want to acknowledge to the people

[1:43:18] work in the building. How do they feel in the building? Do we communicate? I mean, right now in our

[1:43:24] city hall, I know you all have walked through here. Right now we have a problem with communication,

[1:43:31] community. So how do we make the people inside of the city hall feel? So we're talking about all of

[1:43:36] those things. So as interior designers, what we start to do is to take a look at pallets. So we've put

[1:43:43] together a couple of pallets, three pallets to be exact, to just to throw out there to

[1:43:51] you guys to get your reaction on where you think the city hall should go in a direction

[1:43:57] when it comes to interior design.

[1:44:00] So we've heard a lot of adjectives, we've heard a lot of conversations about what different

[1:44:05] people think the city hall should feel like, so we've taken those adjectives and made them

[1:44:09] to images. We like to communicate in images and less of just words. So we're trying to create

[1:44:16] a visual playbook for you guys to respond to. So we're going to talk a little bit about

[1:44:24] the issue. We're not going to really talk about it. But we're going to look at the issue

[1:44:26] you're designed. Sorry. This is what you guys looked at a couple of weeks ago. Is this not

[1:44:31] updating on your side? Let me go back here. Sorry. I noticed that the screens aren't updating.

[1:44:44] Okay, should we just press it again?

[1:44:51] Click it over.

[1:44:53] I take care.

[1:44:54] Take care.

[1:44:55] Take care of your mouse.

[1:44:56] Click.

[1:44:56] There you go.

[1:44:57] Let's do that.

[1:45:05] We'll just do that.

[1:45:08] It reminds you of the exterior design that we looked at a couple of weeks ago. This is the one with a

[1:45:13] pediment. So they're trying along the top, heartening back to kind of the colonial style, federal

[1:45:20] style or the Greek revival that you have at the courthouse next door.

[1:45:26] One of our palates,

[1:45:27] So we have three pallets that you have three slides.

[1:45:30] I don't want you guys to focus in on the individual images that are on these pallets.

[1:45:35] I want you to look at these pallets as a whole and as a story.

[1:45:38] This will help us kind of dive in in the next steps of design.

[1:45:44] So this is the first pallet, which we call Franklin Charm.

[1:45:48] So we've walked around the city.

[1:45:50] We've taken a look at the history of the city and you know, what is Franklin downtown

[1:45:56] say. So we take a look at some of those elements that really go back to kind of that colonial

[1:46:01] design, taking the elements that of wood, of stone, some of those handmade elements to

[1:46:09] of downtown Franklin. A couple more images, again, back to the colonial design, casing, colors,

[1:46:19] brick, and details that go back to that design. We also have a picture here of the the courthouse.

[1:46:25] Now, let me ask you in those books, but one of those, if you go back that one, that one in the middle there it looks like that every one of the chairs has a desk in front of it.

[1:46:39] It's just a long desk. Now, the challenge here is not to look at the individual pictures, which is creating a palette.

[1:46:46] Okay, I'm going to quickly run through all of these so we can come back and focus on the ones that we want to focus on and also tell me the ones you don't want me to focus on.

[1:46:58] The second option is tailored neutrals.

[1:47:01] So one of the other things, so we went on a lot of site visits in the last couple of years, a lot of project visits and one of them was the Brent one police department that we worked on.

[1:47:11] And the Brownwood Police Department, one of their options that they like, was kind of that tailored

[1:47:17] blue tailored neutrals feel.

[1:47:20] So, these are some of the images that we pulled from there that have that kind of corporate

[1:47:25] buttoned up tailored nothing to in your face, but just very gentle, nice, warm woods, soft colors.

[1:47:36] And

[1:47:40] our last option is corporate campus.

[1:47:42] So we heard a lot about having this building feel like a community, feeling like a campus.

[1:47:49] So we did pull some images that were very similar to what we're seeing in a lot of corporate

[1:47:55] offices these days.

[1:47:57] A lot of modern, a lot of pops of color, we're seeing a lot of just modern places where people

[1:48:06] can get together and communicate.

[1:48:12] And they should kind of familiar to a lot of the things

[1:48:15] that are happening in downtown Nashville.

[1:48:21] So those are three pallets.

[1:48:24] And I'd be very interested in seeing

[1:48:26] what you guys think about these pallets.

[1:48:31] Yeah, that's good.

[1:48:33] I preserve, preserve.

[1:48:36] Prefer the Frank Lundzorn, but I could get on board

[1:48:39] with the second one as well.

[1:48:44] If it was my office, my corporate office, I would love the last one because I like the bright colors and all that, but I think it's a step too far for city hall.

[1:48:52] I really like the tailored neutrals. It feels very comfortable, very warm place to be.

[1:48:59] I think you still do the woods that we want to do in there. You can still get some of that that you get in the Franklin charm without feeling like we have to step too far back.

[1:49:08] We can kind of move it forward a little bit. I think it's a good blend of modern and vast.

[1:49:13] I like the Franklin charm for the first four public areas and I like, I think there's a blend, maybe, and also, so all, Chris, that one of those options didn't have a ceiling, and so maybe that will save us some money, there's ceiling tiles, I'm kidding, my office doesn't have a ceiling.

[1:49:39] But I think that I don't know that the private and charm really goes well into the office.

[1:49:47] And I don't know that that is what the environment we really want are, or people working in.

[1:49:53] And so some variation between the corporate elements maybe of the corporate that could be worked in on the second floors.

[1:50:01] with with with some of the soft tones, I don't know, I think there's probably a middle between the last two for the

[1:50:09] employee for the for the for the staffers. You're like every client I've ever had. Can you just make a little bit

[1:50:13] of it together?

[1:50:19] Yeah.

[1:50:21] We have to remember this is inside the building. This is not historic Franklin outside.

[1:50:27] We have to live in the 21st century so thank you for doing that.

[1:50:32] But you're bringing in a lot of elements of historic areas, which is good.

[1:50:38] I like the Franklin Sharm because you're bringing those elements in there.

[1:50:43] And if you look at the, on Franklin Sharm, that window, the black window that comes all the way down, it's very timely.

[1:50:52] And I'm looking for this whole page right here with, I guess it's, yeah, that one.

[1:51:00] It's timeless.

[1:51:03] That whole thing is timeless.

[1:51:04] And I think that's what we need to focus on, neutrals are good with spots of color

[1:51:10] that we have.

[1:51:13] This is a disaster waiting to happen because I'm a very visual person and I've been in part

[1:51:19] of this career myself early on and everybody has their opinions and it's like getting your

[1:51:27] family together.

[1:51:27] what color wall do you want? What kind of, you know? So everybody's going to have a different opinion,

[1:51:32] but I'm a very visual person. I'm going to look at this. I'm going to look at this thinking,

[1:51:36] how do you, how do you, how do you function within a stark city inside a building for the 21st

[1:51:42] century? And we have to bring the 21st century into the building. I think you've done a great job with it.

[1:51:48] Modern, you know, when you said modern in Nashville, that, you know, I know some people will go,

[1:51:54] Oh, you know, I don't think that's what you're talking about at all.

[1:51:57] I would not use those words because what you present at us to me is not modern is not

[1:52:02] national.

[1:52:03] It is up to date.

[1:52:05] It's timeless.

[1:52:05] A lot of these things are very timeless and I like the tailored look and I think it lends

[1:52:11] itself because one of remind us all we're building this building for the next 100 years.

[1:52:18] Now things will change inside on and off between 100 years of course.

[1:52:22] But I think what you bring if you look at all these old buildings that have existed since colonial times

[1:52:28] It's timelessness in it

[1:52:30] But I think you're done a good job

[1:52:32] I just wanted to say I don't want to see you know

[1:52:39] No ceiling in the room and having a two two story

[1:52:43] You know look

[1:52:46] Having a two story

[1:52:48] look in the four-year and everything they are, and the other thing is that I also don't want

[1:52:55] to see stairs just up out and carved around, you know, in the open and everything, they

[1:53:02] are probably the very first one, the Franklin Charm is probably better for me, but as I say,

[1:53:09] I definitely do not want us to have something that a four-year that, you know, just take,

[1:53:17] Well, it takes away the second floor for other things, you know, and I think that's important, but you can have them probably okay.

[1:53:27] Aldens, these strong preference for number one.

[1:53:30] Okay.

[1:53:31] All the spots.

[1:53:33] Thank you, sir.

[1:53:34] Yeah.

[1:53:35] Alden Burger.

[1:53:36] I liked one of the words that she is, which was timeless.

[1:53:39] I think when I look at, if I'm going to rank, Franklin Charm is number one, the word I actually thought it was classic.

[1:53:48] I think that's what we need to go for. We're not swapping out furniture and paints and things like that and 10 years from now, we need to build it for a lifelong experience.

[1:54:01] If we did pick between two, or you did blend two, I did think that the non-public areas,

[1:54:09] but where our team members are working, that if we wanted to move that to the tailored

[1:54:14] neutrals, I can be open to that as well.

[1:54:17] But I think that for Franklin's charm, no play on your title here, I think that we're trying

[1:54:26] to balance preservation and progress, and I think that probably doesn't the best.

[1:54:29] But

[1:54:34] you're on the bar, aren't you?

[1:54:36] No, I don't think you're on the bar, aren't you?

[1:54:38] No, Shardtree's an orange.

[1:54:42] How many of you would really like an honest answer?

[1:54:48] I think all three of them are very nice.

[1:54:51] I don't think you would go wrong with any of the three.

[1:54:55] I probably just look at what we've looked at, probably would look at number two, more

[1:55:02] the others, but it's not going to be, it's not going to go wrong with any of the three that

[1:55:11] you've got up there. I'm sure that there's some characteristics and some hotspots on some

[1:55:16] of those that everybody would like to see happen, but I would probably lean towards the number

[1:55:23] two resitation that we've got. That's probably by the size of the answers you'll get.

[1:55:29] But if I haven't been counting votes, I hope I'm not the top breaker, but I tend to lean toward

[1:55:36] the Franklin charm.

[1:55:37] I think it's gotten more of a classic look and more of a timeless look.

[1:55:42] I understand what some of you said you'd like to see blending one of these other two into

[1:55:47] that a little bit and maybe more where people are working, maybe they might feel better

[1:55:54] if they had something that was more more new age-maids.

[1:56:01] Thank you.

[1:56:03] Thank you.

[1:56:04] Y'all are gone.

[1:56:06] Good.

[1:56:08] Before we move off the city hall, I just want to make a note and have this, I guess, stated publicly.

[1:56:16] And having some discussion with Alderman Baggett, he expressed an interest in observing, participating in the review.

[1:56:23] We have forthcoming with the interviews and review of the construction manager at risk that we're considering in this process.

[1:56:30] As we shared with you, we had a great response, I think 9 or 10, 10 really good firms and I think

[1:56:39] everybody on the wish list as we talked about initially that we wanted to see all submitted.

[1:56:45] So we feel really good about that.

[1:56:47] But Alderman Baguette expressed that preference, I think that'd be great, but I want the

[1:56:53] board to acknowledge it.

[1:56:55] Just it from a process standpoint at this stage and it's before we start the interviews

[1:57:00] and all that, I think, would just sort of close the loop.

[1:57:02] So I just want to kind of state that, acknowledge it,

[1:57:05] and get your, your blessing that we're doing that

[1:57:09] as a representative of the board.

[1:57:11] Yeah, I think we, we, we're grateful that you raised your hand

[1:57:15] a long time ago, so you can just keep right on going.

[1:57:18] I think it's great.

[1:57:19] I don't really sit up, but I'm not voting in the, in the townlies.

[1:57:26] So, yeah, you're ultimately voting.

[1:57:28] Yeah, yeah, but I'm just observing. So just so that's clear and by the way, if we get

[1:57:34] the whole water on you, if we get the alderman pay, your pay will not go up because you're doing this.

[1:57:42] So how about Harlem's day up pedestrian artwork recommended to the Franklin Public Art Commission?

[1:57:48] And really items 12 and 13.

[1:57:51] We'll see you come up for that.

[1:58:06] Hi, good evening.

[1:58:08] I'm Heather E.C.V.O. Research and Planning Specialist for the Parks Department.

[1:58:12] Here with me, I have Gary Bo Grins, City of Franklin Public Arts Commission Chairman and Monique Public Outreach Specialist and City of Franklin Public Arts Commission liaison.

[1:58:22] Hold

[1:58:25] on.

[1:58:30] Hold that up.

[1:58:30] Could you pass these around?

[1:58:32] Just so people know where the sign is.

[1:58:34] They're actually going in.

[1:58:37] Just want to pass one.

[1:58:42] Okay.

[1:58:47] Okay.

[1:58:48] And we're here to talk about the Harlan sale pedestrian bridge artist in artwork.

[1:58:54] Just to go a little back on the timeline of the artist,

[1:58:59] this time last year we had

[1:59:01] release nationwide or request for qualifications and we had about 10 artists, submit letters

[1:59:09] of recommendation, a portfolio, they had to fill out a couple pages with their background

[1:59:16] in artistic history and the City of Franklin Public Arts Commission had selected three

[1:59:22] artists to interview.

[1:59:25] They had chosen Michael McLaughlin.

[1:59:28] He's based in Torrenton, Connecticut after a couple of virtual interviews and an in-person

[1:59:33] interview with the commission.

[1:59:36] He also came by the city of Franklin and submitted a video when he was unable to meet

[1:59:41] with the commission due to a lack of a quorum that day.

[1:59:45] Um, on April of 23, the commission had voted on two out of the four renderings for the panel inserts and after further revisions Michael had made, uh, they voted.

[2:00:00] On the final four for recommendation.

[2:00:05] Michael had submitted a project duration about 10 months, if approved, for conceptualization and development, to for him to create the clay plaster models and go to fabrication for casting into bronze and then shipping, transportation and construction and installation.

[2:00:25] As you see here, this is the project cost.

[2:00:29] It will be in increments of three prior to his clay creation prior to the fabrication and

[2:00:37] casting and then upon completion of construction and installation.

[2:00:44] I'll let Gary explain a little bit more about the renderings.

[2:00:48] Sure, thank you.

[2:00:49] So I just passed around the location where the art pieces are going.

[2:00:52] There's four pieces, there are two and a half by five feet.

[2:00:55] There's four of them at the end of the bridge,

[2:00:57] located yellow and your exhibit.

[2:01:00] So they're in the set into the stone of the bridge.

[2:01:04] But art is in the eye to be holder.

[2:01:07] And what we wanted to bring to this was

[2:01:09] and it brings about discussion and thought,

[2:01:10] but we want to bring something whimsical,

[2:01:12] work with Michael, went through several iterations of nature,

[2:01:15] but also want to make sure we got the Hollesdale farm

[2:01:18] and the horse walking horses part of the product

[2:01:21] in the art work and that's very crucial to that so he provided these sketches they will be

[2:01:26] decorative bronze of two and a half by five feet four of them two of them are horse scenes

[2:01:31] two of them are more nature, whimsical elements for the river and you know wildlife in the area so

[2:01:37] we just went through an exhaustive just back and forth and tweaking and going through that

[2:01:41] brandy can kind of discuss if she wants to as well she's part of that of our group as well

[2:01:45] but it was a great discussion of working with Michael just going through the process

[2:01:50] So we're just happy where we are today. Just look for your kind of recommendation moving forward. So any questions you have be happy to help up

[2:01:59] Oldman Blanton go ahead. You're the chair. I'm not chair. That's Gary. No, this is really our first in depth

[2:02:07] I would call it project for the public arts commission and I could not be more thrilled with the outcome

[2:02:13] I will tell you that

[2:02:15] The artist came here before he even submitted his first

[2:02:20] Whatever you want to call it went to Harlan Stale walked around learned the native species

[2:02:25] I mean really immersed himself in this project and we loved his art even before he brought us his version of our art

[2:02:35] And for all of us on the board the whimsy really

[2:02:38] Spooked us but also celebrating the horse wasn't even a part of the original four panels

[2:02:44] So for him to step backwards, he did a lot of work on this and there's a little bit of like,

[2:02:50] okay, please don't screw this up board of Mayor and Alderman.

[2:02:54] But we are so excited and I really think it's going to put the cherry on the top for that wonderful

[2:03:00] bridge, John Drower, wherever you went, that we now celebrate in Ireland still in Chestnut

[2:03:06] then.

[2:03:08] So everybody's shaking their head. Good. Adam 14 is public

[2:03:16] right away for South margin street between Columbia Avenue and

[2:03:21] coming straight.

[2:03:39] Sorry, I thought I had it up with the computer

[2:03:41] shut down.

[2:03:49] So before I start, as this pulls up, I will tell you

[2:03:52] there's an error in my memo. I didn't realize that the ordinance got

[2:03:55] updated in 2019, but I'll go over the excess right away. A band

[2:04:00] policy that we adopted in 2019.

[2:04:24] All right.

[2:04:24] It's up in turn over to Adam Seeger to start the presentation.

[2:04:27] I believe you're going to go through the first few slides.

[2:04:30] Yeah.

[2:04:30] Happy to do that.

[2:04:31] Thank you.

[2:04:32] Thanks, Jimmy.

[2:04:33] Adam Seeger.

[2:04:34] I'm with Dale and Associates.

[2:04:35] I'm the civil engineer for the project.

[2:04:37] We've been working on this for quite some time.

[2:04:39] Just to kind of reintroduce everybody.

[2:04:42] I'm sure you've seen the area.

[2:04:44] But to remind everyone where we're at.

[2:04:46] If you want to go to the first slide.

[2:04:48] We're just south of Church Street.

[2:04:50] We encompass multiple properties that kind of start it's the the building just north of the handy hardware

[2:04:56] But handy hardware is kind of the main point in the center that everybody's aware of we cross over margin and

[2:05:02] Then we go all the way down to Renaissance bank, which is down there on on Blackburn Street and so early on on this project

[2:05:11] There was a very strong pull to save handy hardware

[2:05:16] We want to keep that facade along Columbia and then also we

[2:05:20] have this parking issue. How are we going to park this project and keep handy hardware?

[2:05:27] And so as we started thinking through those dynamics, we need an underground parking

[2:05:33] garage. Okay, well, yeah, let's do an underground parking garage. The problem is we have a

[2:05:39] public road on top of where we need to put this parking garage. And so early on, we've talked with

[2:05:46] staff and tried to think through how this could work and the only way we think that this project

[2:05:51] can park itself is to do the underground parking garage but then we have kind of a challenge

[2:05:57] with public roadway. I don't think the city wants to own a roadway on top of a private parking

[2:06:02] structure. So that's why we're here to request the, well I was there original reason why we

[2:06:09] wanted to close margin street and this wasn't something that we said, hey, this is fun, this

[2:06:15] great for the project, it kind of was bored of more of necessity for parking. Then we started

[2:06:20] looking at some of the traffic patterns because we know those are going to come up. One of the

[2:06:24] ancillary benefits I think of this is that we have two traffic lights on Columbia and they're at

[2:06:29] an offset intersection and if you're kind of traveling north south on Columbia you may have to obey

[2:06:35] both traffic lights regardless of this offset and it's just not the most efficient way to do it.

[2:06:41] And so, we believe a more efficient way would be to push that offset back over to Cummins

[2:06:46] where it would be stop sign-controlled and those, we could eliminate one traffic signal

[2:06:51] and for the north southbound traffic on Columbia, make a little bit more efficient.

[2:06:56] So we think that that's a good benefit for the project as well.

[2:07:02] The project is in the works right now, we're in the site plan stage.

[2:07:06] Before we can really go to staff and staff can even legally consider this project,

[2:07:12] y'all can't consider us to put a development on your roadway,

[2:07:16] so we need to come to y'all and talk about this right away abandonment.

[2:07:20] So that's our request.

[2:07:22] Can we have a consideration to abandon this so we can move forward with the project?

[2:07:29] And that's why we're here tonight and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:07:32] And yeah, I'm sorry. I had to sort of flip through there. There's a few more that kind of help

[2:07:37] spell through it

[2:07:40] There is margin on the top. It's about 6,000, 6,500 square feet of ride of way and

[2:07:46] An alley just nobody, nobody in the city uses a says an alley. Nobody doesn't even look like an alley

[2:07:52] But it is there and then in green we are going to provide a through street for night Avenue

[2:07:59] So ninth would come through T into coming street and we would work on the signal to add a leg

[2:08:04] to the signal and put the pedestrian crossings around that four-way intersection there.

[2:08:11] And then there you can kind of see the finished product just to get an idea of how it

[2:08:16] would all work when the buildings are in place.

[2:08:19] So real quick, the abandonment of right away typically works is if the value of the property

[2:08:23] is greater than $75,000, it's typically sold via bid and you're going to advertise and

[2:08:29] you go up to bid with it. That one really wouldn't apply here. The next one is that the

[2:08:34] property is greater than $75,000 and well-suited for another public benefit that you could establish

[2:08:40] a public process in which you could transfer that property. The last one is if the property

[2:08:47] over 75,000 or there's a unique circumstance which we would call this a unique circumstance

[2:08:53] that the board may weigh those requirements and sold by negotiation. So there is a path

[2:08:59] for it with this if you'd like. Right now the biggest concern we have is traffic patterns and

[2:09:05] how it changes and I'll show you this last slide here is and we've got the first round and

[2:09:12] Adams going through it with a third part of consultant that also goes through it is how does the

[2:09:16] traffic patterns really shift, do people start shifting on to

[2:09:19] Cummins, do they shift on to Lewisburg Avenue and East

[2:09:22] Folk Street, I will say what the developers doing is exactly

[2:09:25] what we want, but we are trying to model this, we want to

[2:09:28] make sure before we bring you a resolution to abandon the

[2:09:31] right away that we present the final results of that

[2:09:34] traffic study.

[2:09:36] They're not going to go down the fall.

[2:09:38] I'm talking to Paul. They're going to go on blackburn.

[2:09:41] I hardly ever said that like I told Paul this when we were

[2:09:46] that light at margin in Columbia. You take a left on Cummins. You take a right on Blackburn,

[2:09:51] and you miss a light. I guarantee a 50% of the cars do that there now anyway. I'm sure

[2:09:56] is that I can not go down to East folks and then sit a light there when I pass a stop sign in the middle.

[2:10:02] I do think, though, and I said this from the very first meeting, that this Evan Street, this whole

[2:10:08] area, though, we do need to, I do agree that the traffic study, or we do need to model this out as

[2:10:14] because the residents on that, on Evan specifically, Evan's is an alley, essentially.

[2:10:19] We don't have a lot of improvement area there to do.

[2:10:22] We need to make sure, because I've heard from these folks, this is a war tour.

[2:10:27] They, we have to make sure we get that right.

[2:10:29] I think this helps the whole traffic situation in that area, in my opinion,

[2:10:34] a wife would tell you that she sees people flying through those double lights on Columbia, almost every week,

[2:10:40] Because we're going to Franklin on the ring a lot, but it is a dangerous intersection as it is now.

[2:10:46] I think this overall is better. One question. You said, are we, are we going to buy the green from them?

[2:10:54] We're going to sell in the red and buy the green.

[2:10:56] Yeah, the green's proposed as a public utility or access and drainage easements, but I would assume.

[2:11:02] So we're going to sell in the red and get the green.

[2:11:05] And the reds up to y'all how you want to do it, you can negotiate it, you could sell it to

[2:11:10] them via praisels, you could look at off-site improvements required, it's really, we got to

[2:11:15] go through the traffic study and negotiate.

[2:11:16] Well, we've asked to do a lot here and I would for them to do a lot here.

[2:11:19] I would really encourage us to maybe look at the broader solutions for the area and that

[2:11:25] be a priority rather than negotiating the value of this street.

[2:11:29] Like if we can come up with a very good solution for this game, I think you look at it more

[2:11:33] is a almost a trade, an offset.

[2:11:38] OK, and are you improving the road network generally?

[2:11:41] We've just got to make sure the whole function is well.

[2:11:46] And the traffic city may give us some additional guidance to just make sure we do it right

[2:11:49] because that's what everybody wants here for this to work.

[2:11:53] So the next step is over the next month or so, we have to finalize that traffic impact

[2:11:57] study and we'll definitely bring it back for a presentation to the board and get for the

[2:12:02] direction on how to proceed.

[2:12:05] Item 15.

[2:12:07] Arms did PUD.

[2:12:08] Development plan and modification in the city of Franklin Streets standards.

[2:12:12] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:12:13] A couple of months ago we had a presentation at the joint conceptual workshop on the arm

[2:12:17] instead, also known as the short farm, the development plan there.

[2:12:21] And a really exciting development with a lot of unique requests of the city.

[2:12:26] I'm glad to say that we went from a list of 47 items down to two since that meeting, which

[2:12:31] been very good. Those two items, the first one is up in front of you now is the request to have

[2:12:39] pervious pavers in the right of way. We have best management practice standards for pervious

[2:12:45] pavers today, but it's all for private use and you see them a lot in parking lots and things

[2:12:50] of that nature. Currently we do not allow utilities under, even though in the private property

[2:12:55] under those pavers, due to a maintenance reasons, replacement of utilities and things of that

[2:13:00] nature. But that is a request to have them in the parking

[2:13:05] parallel parking spaces and some locations in this development.

[2:13:11] And generally speaking, when we do allow pervious favors,

[2:13:13] it's going to be on a private street. And just as a reminder,

[2:13:15] we don't typically allow private street in residential

[2:13:18] subdivision because of the long-term issues with maintenance

[2:13:21] associated with that. We would allow it on a private street.

[2:13:25] If there was a commercial entity that was maintaining them.

[2:13:28] That's great, we can move to the next one before.

[2:13:31] The other request is to, I guess I should back up a few years ago,

[2:13:37] we started having a lot of maintenance issues

[2:13:39] with our standard alley section.

[2:13:41] So if you go out and look at some of those,

[2:13:42] you'll see a crack that runs right down the center of most of them.

[2:13:46] Our on-call contractor actually had to buy

[2:13:49] a special piece of equipment to go back in and fix those

[2:13:52] and repave them whenever that is time to be done.

[2:13:55] So the request was to, I know it's hard to see on the screen, but would be to have a concrete

[2:14:02] gutter in the center of the alley for lack of a better term, and slope it to the center as

[2:14:08] we no longer do that, now our standard detail actually pitches everything to the side like a standard

[2:14:14] roadway section. So the request would be to have the gutter section down the middle to allow

[2:14:21] to prevent that seam. However, there's a large cost up front to that, because that

[2:14:26] concrete is very detailed work. You still are creating some seams where you're

[2:14:32] directing water, where you are butt up to the concrete, and we've got some of our

[2:14:37] streets department folks here to help us with any maintenance questions you may have,

[2:14:42] because they're much more well versed in that than I am. So Brian, I'll give you a little bit

[2:14:48] time to kind of go over some of that too. And that's the request in front of us, but

[2:14:52] by the way, we're only down to two as it's in. Yeah, so, um, thank you. So, I think...

[2:15:00] You know, awesome that we've been able to work together to wittle up all the points of discussion down.

[2:15:07] What we're trying to do is to figure out a way forward to allow for us to, you know, certainly with the purbius pavers,

[2:15:15] you know, we want to be more sustainable, more green, and many aspects.

[2:15:18] And this is just one of the tools and techniques. I think hopefully we'll have a subsequent meeting where we'll talk about some of the

[2:15:24] other things like along the side of the road bio swells and stuff that we showed in

[2:15:28] other pictures.

[2:15:29] So we haven't abandoned that, but this was the easiest one and it's sort of more

[2:15:35] easily could fit in the right of way.

[2:15:38] And so the request is that we're able to move this forward because there's a couple of things

[2:15:45] working against this.

[2:15:46] It sounds like one is just sort of the prohibition right now of doing pervious pavers and

[2:15:52] it's on a private street but then you can't do a private street and so there's

[2:15:56] for all instance curves I think that means you can't do the purviews paper.

[2:16:01] So all we want is a way to do it however it's done when we're the other doesn't

[2:16:05] matter to us and as we talked about throughout this a lot of the concerns I think

[2:16:09] that the city has had it have been maintenance related and that's what we talked

[2:16:13] about a lot in the past meeting.

[2:16:16] If it's something that the city wants to do big picture and you want to be more

[2:16:20] more sustainable than obviously figuring out the maintenance concerns is something that

[2:16:25] has to be done. We've offered to, in our project, you know, have maintenance agreements and

[2:16:31] there's sorts of things so you can use us and test out what you're, you know, kind of what

[2:16:36] you might want to do in the future as well, or setting standards and things moving forward.

[2:16:40] Also, staff had a particular pervious paving typeology that they really liked and so that's,

[2:16:49] happy to use whatever works best from that perspective and then on the alleys what we're trying

[2:16:56] to do is make sure that the alleys are pretty wide and we don't want them to feel any more

[2:17:04] like a street than they have to and so if we're now sending the drainage to the edges now we're

[2:17:10] looking at potential curves and all that stuff and gutters and everything I live on one of these

[2:17:19] did my alley. But it was after years of, you know, and so to me, you know, obviously there's

[2:17:27] a cost and a concern and I know you always always worried you all going to end up having

[2:17:30] to take back something that is put in that was private or, you know, you don't want to have

[2:17:34] the maintenance costs over time, but, you know, it's an overall good strategy. It works well.

[2:17:42] And I, you know, the concrete seemed on the middle was our response to the initial concerns

[2:17:48] like, okay, well, you know, our engineers, like what if we did this? So that's what we've been

[2:17:52] exploring. We'd like the opportunity to try it out and see how it goes. And hopefully it's

[2:17:57] a solution that works out about it. I think there may also be an equipment issue that we've

[2:18:02] heard about a special attachment as needed. You know, the cost of that is our understanding isn't

[2:18:08] that much. It's something that I'm sure we could help with, you know, whatever. So we just want to work

[2:18:13] together to figure out how to accomplish these in many other goals. We really want to understand

[2:18:18] moving forward is you know with this project say it occurs but we don't want to just pick one

[2:18:24] project and say this is the standard we would want to change our standards accordingly to what

[2:18:29] the board wishes to see in the in the built environment. So one option real quick on the

[2:18:35] pavers could be to just have the public right away go up to the parking spaces and everything outside

[2:18:42] that be on private property in an easement of some kind. However, one of the main reasons we

[2:18:48] got away from private streets was after 15, 20 years. We all know what happens. The developments

[2:18:54] usually come back to the city to take those own. This would fall on an HOA of some kind at some

[2:19:00] point in time. So we're just hesitant to put that burden on a future entity that may not be

[2:19:07] sitting at the table when we make those decisions. We're very hesitant about putting our utilities

[2:19:11] because you'll have a server sign going off to every single house and every time we dig,

[2:19:15] we have to fix that or pair it to what they have a special contractor to do it.

[2:19:19] And I think at a G.S. Inter-Dust Daniel Brady's, one of our senior roadway inspectors,

[2:19:23] he does a great job with the street department. Do we require any commercial buildings to put

[2:19:32] pervious papers on their, like, someone's building building and they're parking lot?

[2:19:37] Yes, we did it at five points. They have a first bank.

[2:19:41] They have options and it's their choice on how they want to implement the various

[2:19:44] control more.

[2:19:46] No one's required, but it's on the menu, right?

[2:19:49] It's a good option for parking lots because you get the treatment, right?

[2:19:52] Where you put them in flood zones, that kind of they are areas where I have no problem with

[2:19:59] either of these.

[2:19:59] I think we've got to figure out how to maintain this.

[2:20:02] I think you've got a different neighborhood in this type of, now I do think we need standards.

[2:20:07] I think we need to shift our standards, and if the whole neighborhood is being developed

[2:20:13] in an unconventional way or in our days in a more conservation-minded, eco-friendly, we've

[2:20:24] got to be flexible, and I'd be in favor of it.

[2:20:26] I think long-term that we need to have some additional standards that if a adult meets certain

[2:20:32] criteria, then what some of these would be willing to.

[2:20:39] I'm just cautious about putting underburdened to more burns on H.O.A.s.

[2:20:47] These larger developments, it's just unsustainable for these H.O.A.s. sometimes to

[2:20:54] especially in their pools and their clubhouses and they have open space and it gets

[2:20:59] pretty drastic for some of them and they're going to start raising and now that they have

[2:21:06] to do the street trees too. I mean they have to get in there and cut the street trees and then

[2:21:10] they have to tell the residents they have to cut their street trees and then if not then they

[2:21:15] have to go over there and do them and then you're going to keep going out. So we have to figure

[2:21:20] out a way not to add more things to the HOA's. I just don't to end and there's places that

[2:21:28] have the age-wise and stuff. If you go into redevelop, who needs something, so let's be cocked.

[2:21:34] Yeah. All right, pots?

[2:21:36] Oh, it's a good one.

[2:21:38] Like you sort of. I did have a question when you mentioned just a moment ago about the utilities and

[2:21:44] doing those repairs or repairing the the pervious areas and the the chance of damaging the

[2:21:54] utilities underneath this habit you were signing. No it's just when we replace the service lines

[2:21:58] will have to dig up the pavers. We'll have to go try to find matches which will be difficult.

[2:22:02] We can try to save them, you know, you could get street trees with root growth that goes

[2:22:07] into the sub-grade and buckles them and you got tripping hazards. So it's a lot of maintenance

[2:22:12] if you start putting these in the right away. But we can certainly look to do that.

[2:22:16] And one thing to consider is if you had, say, a waterline break or emergency if some kind,

[2:22:22] these pavers are meant to be removed with a tool but an emergency situation that there's just

[2:22:27] way that's going to happen. The book is going to go right through them and you've replaced them

[2:22:31] in can as of new costs. So that's one thing to consider.

[2:22:35] How there have been design considerations to put concrete or pavement over the utility areas

[2:22:43] and then not above our utilities is where the pervious payverse and everything would be.

[2:22:49] We would certainly make sure the main lines are outside of this. It would just be services that

[2:22:53] be the perpendicular to the individual buildings in pervious paper parking lots you see that now

[2:23:03] there'll be a strip of 10 feet of concrete that goes in for situations like that. And so

[2:23:08] has that been considered? I think we would require that honestly just to protect our utility

[2:23:14] and protect a end user if there was a leak of some kind it'd be an easy find honestly they know

[2:23:20] the service was. And for what it's worth to at, you know, at least for the foreseeable future,

[2:23:27] we wouldn't want the city going and making their repair. Just like we wouldn't want the city

[2:23:31] maintaining our neighborhood parks. For instance, you know, it's like that we can do a different

[2:23:35] level of standard of kind of execution. So I mean, I know there's concern about the future HOA's,

[2:23:42] but I mean, we're getting to the age now where our bigger neighborhoods must have, for example,

[2:23:49] I mean, can you ever imagine that each way going?

[2:23:51] I don't know, we're going to turn this over.

[2:23:52] We don't really want to maintain X-Y or Z.

[2:23:56] I know there have been.

[2:23:59] So, right, I'll say there, there are some to do, for sure.

[2:24:02] That's a city in the south.

[2:24:03] Thank you, France, from the question.

[2:24:04] So, I do like the idea of conserving and putting water back where it needs to be

[2:24:14] and getting it into the water table how the best way possible.

[2:24:17] I like the idea of decreasing the non-pervious surfaces.

[2:24:24] I hear what our staff is saying as far as a potential cost associated with it.

[2:24:29] You know, that's my biggest reservation, but I do like the idea of trying this.

[2:24:37] I do have a little bit of concern as well of snow removal, street maintenance.

[2:24:44] things like that as well as far as this service material, but if we've never tried it before,

[2:24:50] I definitely wouldn't mind seeing some numbers on it.

[2:24:53] I'll then see you later then I'll get all of them right.

[2:24:56] I'm not going to give myself this to be quick, but do previous papers replace the need for

[2:25:02] a storm sewer?

[2:25:04] There are some claim they can, and we've actually spoken to City of Milwaukee's done this

[2:25:10] a lot of retrofit type green street enhancement projects. You'll see them in some more dense urban environments

[2:25:17] where especially where they have drainage concerns. So, per the manufacturer and all the testing,

[2:25:24] they can't. So, it's a possibility if they ever get fully clogged, then you have no

[2:25:28] work for the water to go. But we've actually met with the manufacturer of these probably four or five

[2:25:35] times or the past six months to try to vet this out, we're just not at a place where we're

[2:25:39] comfortable bringing it forward yet.

[2:25:41] I appreciate that, thank you, Jim.

[2:25:43] Well, I was a brief, all of a sudden, well, I shut her to say that I tend to agree with

[2:25:48] Patrick.

[2:25:50] Well, I just, I think that we're trying to expand our repertoire to allow things that are

[2:25:57] not typical with this accurate development, you know, it's getting, and it negates the

[2:26:04] been gutter that we are trying to let the bios well do its thing and so I would be of mind

[2:26:11] to support this just so that we can kind of have all comprehensive approach of what has

[2:26:16] been brought to us. And we're splitting layers at the end of the deal which I think would make

[2:26:22] a big difference and now things are received and now they look. So, thank you.

[2:26:29] I'm not, I'm not excited about the city paying for maintenance of the following barn here.

[2:26:36] The V shaped alley, you were right on, because it does wear out and I'll lay up on that,

[2:26:46] and help for several years now, and the city's come back in and had to fix that two or three times.

[2:26:51] So, whatever we do, we don't necessarily want to do that again, so as far as the papers are concerned,

[2:27:04] we're asking,

[2:27:07] the HOA, you can speak for, what if you want to write now on the HOA?

[2:27:12] That's not what the person's on this board's going to hear from in 15 years.

[2:27:18] are 20.

[2:27:20] Whenever something has come up, something that you may

[2:27:22] do comes up that has to be repaired, they will be back

[2:27:27] looking for the city to share in the cost somewhere or

[2:27:30] another.

[2:27:31] We are asking it too many times.

[2:27:34] And yours might be an exception, but I kind of doubt it.

[2:27:39] I've not seen that exception yet.

[2:27:41] But I know that there is always a sharing of cost,

[2:27:45] private streets don't work and we tried it and we tried it years ago and

[2:27:54] wound up going back in and having to do the work ourselves here. So there are things that we need to look at

[2:28:01] I think the staff needs to look at, I think you can look at the papers and see what they are.

[2:28:07] And there are some that actually take the place of a storm gutter then

[2:28:11] Okay, that we might want to work with that or look at that or something other, but I'd be real hesitant about the additional cost.

[2:28:21] It's not tomorrow. It's 10 years from now. It's 15 years from now that you'll put that cost back on to the same board.

[2:28:30] The same seats that are sitting here that may be some smiling faces that you that are different.

[2:28:35] but it will be we got one we're never going to get to the

[2:28:42] Alderman pay Alderman burger we apologize one more time

[2:28:48] But I'll let's go to item 16 if we could and

[2:28:51] Because we do have I think the applicant here and that's

[2:28:56] authorized paid parking 94 and 98

[2:29:12] Please don't ever bring me these speakers cards at seven o'clock ever again

[2:29:17] in, because next time I'm going to throw them in the trash.

[2:29:26] So I'm 16.

[2:29:28] Let's roll.

[2:29:29] Good evening, I'm Tom Marsh, and you know,

[2:29:30] channel requires owning a administrator.

[2:29:32] Appreciate getting a few minutes with you here.

[2:29:34] Try to do a quick introduction and just as you've

[2:29:39] ready to memo, there's a statement in the zoning ordinance

[2:29:43] that required parking places shall be free and accessible

[2:29:48] to the public unless otherwise determined by Boma.

[2:29:51] I know you may have gotten an email today that said that the building neighbor and service department recently decided to enforce this we did not recently decide to enforce this this

[2:30:00] Let's adopt it in December of 2019. Believe it or not, this is the first time, and I congratulate

[2:30:05] the applicant and thank them for following the requirements of the zoning ordinance and

[2:30:11] requested this. This is the first request that has come to our attention to use required parking

[2:30:18] spaces as paid parking spaces. Because they are required for the zoning ordinance, staff

[2:30:25] recommendation will be for disapproval. But it comes before the board, there may be, we thought,

[2:30:31] there might be a variety of questions you might have since this is the first time it's come up

[2:30:35] and several of you were not involved in the discussions five years ago when this came up.

[2:30:41] I'll stop there, can elaborate. I don't think I need to show you the the maps of where these are anything

[2:30:48] and we'll answer your questions and we'll, I think the applicant can probably explain where they are

[2:30:52] Pretty well also. Is that good? Is that Steve Bacon and Keith Mormon? Is that correct?

[2:30:59] Okay, go ahead.

[2:31:00] All right, I'm Steve Bacon.

[2:31:02] I'm here representing 94.

[2:31:07] Launch of this building on the second half.

[2:31:10] I'll be brief.

[2:31:10] I don't know what the answer is.

[2:31:12] We're sort of in this period of this paid parking.

[2:31:15] And what I see in 94 and 98 is two restaurants that are going in there.

[2:31:20] They're making very large and best.

[2:31:22] and all of a sudden there's a requirement that they can't do charge parking, but it's mainly

[2:31:28] they can't manage their line. So I'm asking you to consider having given them the ability to

[2:31:36] manage that line. Because without it, all our harvestworm offices and retail on that first

[2:31:43] having, they're going to park a bad line in those two restaurants that are putting all that money

[2:31:47] into that space are not going to be able to manage it. And all of them, a lot of the

[2:31:52] parking is going to be our tenants and our guests.

[2:31:56] So what I'm asking you is let's try to find some common

[2:31:59] around to give these tenants who are making an investment,

[2:32:03] the ability to hire professional parking management.

[2:32:06] And I've grown to really respect parking management

[2:32:09] as we go through the markets and everything else.

[2:32:12] So people like Keith and others, there's a need for that.

[2:32:16] And as we get more and more demand downtown,

[2:32:19] So I understand they're the deficit on the vote house, but if you give them the ability to

[2:32:26] if you don't give them the ability to that a lot of that lots going to be nine people who are

[2:32:32] not using the rest of it. So I don't think that's fair. So the second thing I know we're

[2:32:36] title time on the second avenue, there's not a deficit. But what I would like you to consider,

[2:32:45] But their business is shut at 430.

[2:32:47] I'd like again to give them the ability to lease that all their parking spots, to people

[2:32:56] that go to the Harpers Square late at night, so they can get that revenue there.

[2:33:01] They're Sloan and their other officers, they're building up for the third.

[2:33:05] Again, it's giving the tenants the ability to manage their life.

[2:33:09] This is sort of new as we grow as a town.

[2:33:12] And I do see a need for people like Keith and Manage in Blocks.

[2:33:17] We have a great manager of glass.

[2:33:20] I could even take in the think without him what we can do.

[2:33:24] Again, I just want you to consider I think staff is asking for guidance of what they can do,

[2:33:30] and what we can do, and sometimes we have a property like General Racer's Church.

[2:33:36] We manage General Racer's Church if they came in here today, they would be in a deficit.

[2:33:40] If they could manage that lot, they could not break because all the porthouse comes in, all the

[2:33:46] cheering comes in, they would be able to have what they do now.

[2:33:51] So again, I hope you work with the staff, how we can manage these lots.

[2:33:56] These people, like the restrooms at the boat house, these two new restaurants are putting a ton

[2:34:01] of money into it.

[2:34:02] And I want them to be able to have the people that park in that lot, or even get the rest

[2:34:07] So, for someone to address the mayor, I did not know I was just about the car and told him to say it.

[2:34:14] I apologize.

[2:34:15] It's not something.

[2:34:16] I don't know if you should have enjoyed it.

[2:34:18] I understand, late in the meeting, it's not good to see that.

[2:34:22] My name is Keith Mooreman.

[2:34:23] I am a part happy.

[2:34:24] I also wanted to address the staff members' comments.

[2:34:28] First of all, it's the first time that a denial has been given to us.

[2:34:32] And it was, for whatever it's worth, first time that I was made aware of the statute.

[2:34:39] So it was not my intention to misrepresent the prior actions of the statute.

[2:34:49] So I just want to clear clear there.

[2:34:51] But the most important thing I want to clear up is the mistake that we're trying to institute

[2:34:59] pay part with respect to the boat, which is the mainstream problem.

[2:35:07] There is a finite number of spaces, and it is right on mainstream.

[2:35:14] And even on a slow, Monday at lunch.

[2:35:19] Before the restaurant opens, those spaces will be taken by customers that are good people.

[2:35:26] who will see an open space that's unmarked and who are going across the street to the

[2:35:32] bakery. I would do the same thing unless there was a consequence. And so the

[2:35:38] consequence is a horse market and it's managed market. And the object here is to

[2:35:43] require somebody who is hopefully a customer of the restaurant that is going to be

[2:35:48] the boat has building. To walk into the boat has validate and we have a very

[2:35:54] efficient system for doing this and receive free parking, it's time and not, it's not

[2:36:02] an important point out that the garage right next to us has time parking as well. So it's

[2:36:08] the exact same concept. It's free parking is limited to a period of time. The restaurant has

[2:36:15] customers who receive the benefit of free parking which is the intent of the law as the

[2:36:24] So what I feel we're doing here is very far from trying this in this represents the

[2:36:31] intent and it's to honor the customers of the building.

[2:36:39] Now the same goes for the Shots and you should show on the set.

[2:36:47] It's validated parting that Mrs. Shots has asked us to answer to if it weren't for a hotel

[2:36:53] and rather than this, this is being across the street that have built market, well, how

[2:36:57] tell us much of it.

[2:36:58] There's no physical parking, you have to go away.

[2:37:02] There would be an open and shut case, however, I understand the city as much in the concern

[2:37:10] where pay parking takes over everything, but that is certainly not our intent, and so I just

[2:37:16] want to leave it back.

[2:37:20] All in burden.

[2:37:21] So, let me ask you, what happens when the restaurants are not open?

[2:37:27] Can people park there?

[2:37:28] And if they can, do they also still have to park or to pay if they want to park there during

[2:37:35] hours that the restaurants don't visit open, do they still have to pay?

[2:37:39] And can they, can they park number one and do they pay?

[2:37:43] Well, I think what happens is somebody who has a lot of saturday after you come to the

[2:37:49] bank, but doesn't end four or five hours, we're just shopping.

[2:37:53] And the first hour they spend at the restaurant, which is legit a bit, and then they want

[2:37:57] to walk down the block, as many people would do, and so the same circumstances is what happens

[2:38:03] if somebody is either not a customer, maybe they were a customer and now they're going to

[2:38:12] a mobile-based system, and without getting it too much new on it, it gives someone an option

[2:38:20] to walk in and validate or to pay a market rate. The only reason for this is that there is

[2:38:28] no other substitute for having gate arms that go up and down. In a perfect scenario, we would

[2:38:34] have an enclosed space with gators.

[2:38:39] And in order to exit, you would have to have that.

[2:38:42] So this is essentially using your credit card

[2:38:47] as the, what if the restaurant is closed?

[2:38:51] And I come down there in a Sunday morning, early in,

[2:38:54] go to church when a park in that lot,

[2:38:57] can I park in that lot?

[2:38:59] Can I park in that lot, number one, and do I pay?

[2:39:03] When the restaurant's not open.

[2:39:06] So I don't want to speak for the client who's hired us.

[2:39:10] We haven't talked about what this was six years ago.

[2:39:14] He might instruct us to say, I don't want anyone park on a lot,

[2:39:18] and when you dial the number you might get a screen that says,

[2:39:22] no parking it's reserved.

[2:39:24] So that's one outcome, and I'm not saying that that's what he would ask for.

[2:39:29] If it says that if the King wishes for us to allow someone to pay her part, then we could limit it.

[2:39:36] We could say you're only allowed to part for one hour, and we give them the option to pay for that.

[2:39:41] So there are many different outcomes.

[2:39:46] That's your question.

[2:39:48] I don't know.

[2:39:49] Thank you.

[2:39:50] I think I understand this concept a little bit more.

[2:39:53] I think for me, you have to understand when the whole idea of paid parking came into play.

[2:40:00] It wasn't done in this capacity.

[2:40:02] There was no validation, there was no, it was all of the places that we, and look at

[2:40:08] you, Steve, grew up, knowing we could find parking, we're no longer available, and now they

[2:40:13] sit vacant, by and large,

[2:40:18] behind-puckets and marries, behind-read-pony and all of that.

[2:40:24] That was the bad taste that was put in the mouth of this community because it was done

[2:40:31] Backdoor it was done differently understand. It's that personal that their property rights to do that

[2:40:38] But I think that there's a little bit of gun shine as fine large because as every lot

[2:40:45] I think chef says a little different because they're a business that's closed and it's

[2:40:49] It's different then and I'm not trying to that's really not fair

[2:40:53] but I do agree it's different. I think the more that we deal with these type of scenarios,

[2:41:00] it is concerning because we are getting to the point where we're going to have no choice,

[2:41:07] but to start charging for parking, and that's not something I want to do right now.

[2:41:12] So I do understand your model. The opportunity to validate is light years from where we were

[2:41:18] in the start in 2001 ever.

[2:41:22] I understand this model.

[2:41:27] Kat's out of the bag.

[2:41:30] The Kat's out of the bag.

[2:41:32] We started the economics of parking in the downtown area has been altered because of what

[2:41:38] she said.

[2:41:39] And so then what happens is they, the people go to the free parking.

[2:41:42] And in this case it's just chefs parking a lot and frankly some people in the hotel

[2:41:48] I know you've tried to keep some of the employees at the bar and stuff

[2:41:51] She told me that we're parking over there, but without any mechanism to keep that I mean people are going to follow

[2:41:58] We're built on economics and so they're going to find the paper

[2:42:02] And the only way there's two ways to solve it is you just make do away with paper and all down town

[2:42:08] Or you have to start dealing with the, which we could, I guess, no, I can't, I can't say no.

[2:42:15] So the only way to manage it, and now you're having this, you've seen that come out with work.

[2:42:19] You've seen the property owners who are now being disadvantaged because they have, they have free parking.

[2:42:23] And I think that's not fair because of the decisions of everything else.

[2:42:27] I would like to hone in on making sure that the customers and uses of your buildings,

[2:42:36] matter now or in the future are getting the free parking and I don't know how we

[2:42:41] monitor that but I want the customer, the use of the building and the users

[2:42:47] of the building so like if it shifts the piano shoppers or the music

[2:42:51] institutes or the how we ensure that in perpetuity the the users

[2:42:58] or the customers of that year whether it shifts piano, show them in the future or

[2:43:04] something else but how we enforce that the user is always going to have free parking in the future

[2:43:09] because that we don't want in ten years this to turn into something else and it's just all

[2:43:13] all paid parking and we have no way of monitoring that or no I've known that the user of the

[2:43:19] use of the building should should have free parking or why do we have the well it went into

[2:43:24] our mental space yeah yeah and it's a detriment to those businesses not to get free parking

[2:43:30] other people they want to come and spend the money in the building. So I mean that's

[2:43:34] though no brainer and I'm also about property rights. People own their property, they own

[2:43:39] those parking lots, they need to do what they want with them. It's not public parking. And

[2:43:45] you can charge for it all day long, but you know, I would say to the people like Brandi said,

[2:43:50] you know, got to validate because you want those customers. Yeah, make sense.

[2:43:55] You want to bring us something back and let us look at it again. Did James?

[2:43:58] I'd like you to put on that.

[2:43:59] Jay, would you say something?

[2:44:01] I think I wanted to say something.

[2:44:02] We've heard the questions and one of the things we'll talk about with a resolution

[2:44:05] for approval, we the possibility of adding approved with the following conditions and so on.

[2:44:10] Yeah.

[2:44:10] Well, they can.

[2:44:11] And I think you may also, you know, what has been heard in the past about when the commercial

[2:44:17] lots downtown become paid lots, that pushes the parkers further out into your neighbourhoods

[2:44:24] for on street parks.

[2:44:25] So I think you will hear something that also.

[2:44:26] You got to go to the mic.

[2:44:36] Turn on the screen.

[2:44:38] Okay, my name is Jay Franks, and I work with you guys for many, many years.

[2:44:42] My wife and I have had a good fortune telling that property for several years

[2:44:46] and we plan on keeping it and going into our trust for our family.

[2:44:50] We'd get Steve leased it for us with a great young couple to do some really outstanding things down there.

[2:44:58] We're willing to put some kind of cover.

[2:45:00] In the parking, that it would have to be free parking for the customers, but we're which committed to that.

[2:45:07] We have to. But it's really important to try to help move this thing on because these folks are trying to get rid of open, you know, about by full Christmas or right around Christmas time.

[2:45:18] Thank you.

[2:45:19] Okay. Thank you, Jay.

Board of Mayor and Aldermen Work Session

Agenda

Transcript