[0:00] So, it's 5:30, so we'll go ahead and

[0:01] call this workshop to order.

[0:04] And just welcome everybody for coming

[0:06] out and we'll go ahead and get started

[0:07] here starting with item number one for

[0:08] the town recorder position. And Tyler,

[0:10] if you want to go over that.

[0:11] >> Sure. So, if you'll notice we have a new

[0:13] face up here at the table with us

[0:15] tonight. Um

[0:18] I have interviewed some candidates and

[0:20] had some deliberations over the town

[0:23] recorder position. And I ultimately

[0:26] decided to promote from within and so

[0:28] Tiffany has been selected for that

[0:30] position as well as finance director.

[0:33] Um the town recorder position does

[0:35] require an official confirmation by the

[0:38] BMA, more of a procedural thing. Uh so,

[0:41] that'll be coming up

[0:42] two weeks at our next meeting. But, uh

[0:45] glad to have her in this position and

[0:47] the knowledge that she's going to bring

[0:48] to it having worked here uh for over

[0:51] three years.

[0:52] >> Congratulations and thank you on that.

[0:54] Any questions or anything on that one?

[0:57] I'll take us then to the item number

[0:58] two, certified tax rate second reading.

[1:04] » So, we brought an ordinance to you last

[1:07] month about the certified tax rate.

[1:10] This was due to the

[1:13] comptroller's office releasing that

[1:16] after our budget had already been

[1:17] passed. So, that's a point 9758 tax rate

[1:22] and this ordinance is just confirming

[1:24] that rate and updating that for the

[1:27] upcoming or the current fiscal year.

[1:33] » Questions on that?

[1:37] Moving on to item number three, update

[1:39] on flock cameras.

[1:40] >> So, if you remember during our budget

[1:42] conversations,

[1:44] there was an item approved for flock

[1:46] cameras within the police department

[1:47] budget.

[1:49] Um

[1:50] we have been contacted by a couple of

[1:52] media outlets asking where where we're

[1:54] at with that process. We have um in the

[1:58] past several weeks, decided to put that

[2:00] on pause for the time being and invest

[2:02] that money in other areas in the police

[2:04] department, other

[2:06] software that we need in order to

[2:08] improve our report writing and ticket

[2:10] writing. So, we have we've redirected

[2:13] those uh

[2:14] that amount of money for this for the

[2:16] time being. Not to say that it's

[2:19] 100% off the table

[2:21] altogether, but as far as this fiscal

[2:23] year, it is not going to happen. So, we

[2:25] just wanted to make you aware that for

[2:27] now that

[2:29] process has been put on hold.

[2:31] >> Will we have to come back and pass it

[2:33] again?

[2:34] >> It would have to be included in future

[2:35] budgets if you wanted it at that time.

[2:37] >> Okay.

[2:39] Is the pause due to the

[2:43] legislations that's trying to happen

[2:47] at that state and federal levels?

[2:49] >> The primary reason that we decided to to

[2:51] pause was to

[2:53] invest that money in our new

[2:56] ticket

[2:57] and crime reporting software.

[3:02] » So, all that is one thing on that. I

[3:04] think if we do decide to move forward

[3:06] that in the future, I would just I just

[3:07] like to see us make that more of an up

[3:09] down vote on the board making that

[3:11] decision if we proceed with that more so

[3:13] than just putting in the budget cuz I

[3:15] mean I would

[3:16] I I never brought up in the budget time

[3:18] about taking that money out of that for

[3:19] that line. I don't

[3:21] and

[3:22] I don't want to kill the whole budget

[3:23] just because of a single line item with

[3:25] it. So, it's like if we're out I think

[3:26] with something like that if we decide to

[3:28] ever move forward with that, I'd like to

[3:30] just see us

[3:31] have an up down vote on on if we proceed

[3:33] with it or not.

[3:34] >> I think that if we were to pursue it

[3:35] again in the future, that that would be

[3:38] a requirement from the company before we

[3:41] went fully live that we would need some

[3:43] kind of resolution. So, we would

[3:44] probably approach it in that manner if

[3:47] it were to be brought up in the future.

[3:48] >> So, based off that and with no current agreement or contract or

[3:52] anything like that and now we would have

[3:54] to have a resolution to proceed with it.

[3:57] It's essentially dead at the moment.

[3:59] >> And be correct for the time being. Yes.

[4:05] » Any other questions on that?

[4:09] I'll take us then on to item number

[4:11] four, property issue at 912 South

[4:13] Sherbrook.

[4:15] >> So,

[4:16] this is a slightly complex issue and I

[4:19] will try to

[4:20] make it as simple as possible for you to

[4:23] understand and um

[4:26] present you with the options the town

[4:27] attorney and his office have been

[4:30] crucial in helping us understand our

[4:32] options in this situation, but um

[4:35] so that this relates to 912 South

[4:37] Sherbrook Circle, which is an uh the

[4:40] property um owners are selling that

[4:43] property.

[4:45] Uh when they when they purchased the

[4:46] lot,

[4:47] there's a shed and a driveway that

[4:50] actually resides on an unopened public

[4:52] street that the the right to that um

[4:55] belongs to the town.

[4:57] So, the current owners didn't build

[4:59] that, but they inherited the property

[5:00] that way and they have been taking care

[5:02] of the property even though it is not

[5:04] physically on their property. They've

[5:06] gone now to sell it and um want to get

[5:09] this resolved before they can go to

[5:10] closing.

[5:11] So, they don't they don't possess any

[5:14] ownership interest in it. Um

[5:17] but they're asking us to do something

[5:18] about it. We have a couple of options.

[5:20] We can either keep the street

[5:22] corridor uh

[5:25] open

[5:26] and allow them to use it temporarily

[5:28] uh under a a revocable agreement, or we

[5:31] can permanently give up the street uh by

[5:33] vacating the street.

[5:35] Um there are a couple of other options,

[5:38] but basically we're free to decide how

[5:41] we want to proceed with this based on

[5:43] long-term goals and interests rather

[5:45] than this, you know, uh immediate need

[5:48] that we've been asked about by the

[5:49] property owners. So, the first option is

[5:52] we can do nothing. The second option

[5:54] would be we can require them to remove

[5:56] those

[5:57] uh

[5:58] improvements, the shed and the driveway.

[6:00] We can require that to be removed.

[6:02] The third option would be allow the

[6:04] improvements to stay with the revocable

[6:07] agreement that the town could revoke at

[6:09] any time in the future that it deemed

[6:10] necessary we would need that road need

[6:12] that street to be open.

[6:14] Um

[6:16] fourth option would be to grant a an easement,

[6:21] which is complicated and it gives pretty

[6:24] much the same result as the temporary

[6:26] revocable agreement. And then the the

[6:29] final fifth option would be just to

[6:30] vacate the street altogether.

[6:32] Um

[6:34] we

[6:35] we've reviewed this, deliberated about

[6:37] it. We feel that the option C, which is

[6:41] a temporary revocable agreement, will

[6:43] probably be best,

[6:45] but at the end of the day it's it's up

[6:46] to your decision.

[6:48] And I will let the town attorney speak

[6:50] to any further comments that he may have

[6:53] might give you more insight on the issue

[6:55] and then we can have any questions.

[6:57] >> There's a couple of different avenues to

[6:59] really achieve

[7:01] a situation to kind of give everybody

[7:03] what they want here, but really

[7:05] our position is to take care of the town

[7:09] and

[7:11] um there's two different things that

[7:12] achieve essentially the same outcome.

[7:15] One of which is to grant an easement.

[7:19] And the easement itself seems simple

[7:22] and there's different ways to explain

[7:25] it, but more or less

[7:27] the easement can be written

[7:28] two different ways. One in which it

[7:30] would go specifically as to the new

[7:33] owner.

[7:34] Another way in which it would go to the

[7:36] land itself.

[7:37] And if the town ever wanted to take that

[7:40] land back, it's my understanding I think

[7:42] there's around 70 acres behind that

[7:44] property.

[7:46] And they wanted to utilize that for any

[7:48] type of development or anything that

[7:49] could benefit the town. That could

[7:52] lead to litigation to just a headache

[7:55] down the road.

[7:56] We could do a revocable license, which

[7:59] essentially achieves the same exact

[8:02] thing. It allows them the use of that

[8:05] land. It allows them to maintain, do as

[8:08] they please.

[8:10] But it's revocable at any time by the

[8:12] town.

[8:13] And that would be recorded along with

[8:16] the deed. So, it's nothing permanent. It

[8:18] would be with the understanding

[8:20] that if the town wanted to use that 70

[8:23] acres behind that and use that

[8:25] particular entrance rather than another

[8:27] egress route uh

[8:29] another entrance route, that uh they would still have access to

[8:33] that. So, it's kind of a layer of

[8:35] protection for the town and down the

[8:37] road

[8:38] even though this little

[8:40] road piece of land in between may never

[8:43] be used. This may never be an issue in

[8:45] the future.

[8:47] But if it is, it allows us to just

[8:49] simply say, "Okay, we're taking that

[8:51] back. We now want control of it." So,

[8:53] it's almost like it's on loan. Whereas

[8:55] the other way is physically going

[8:57] through litigation to try to recover it.

[9:01] » And Jason, what's your input on it? You

[9:04] know, probably you know these roads back

[9:05] in there and everything.

[9:08] » I agree with you. You know, just

[9:11] let them use it as they need to be, but

[9:13] we have a right to take it back if

[9:14] needed.

[9:16] >> Is that the only entrance into that 70

[9:18] acres?

[9:20] >> It appears. Now, that's I don't know for

[9:22] sure, but

[9:23] in up here there's

[9:25] a small street

[9:27] to the west of that property

[9:31] that connects to the 70 acres. There

[9:34] isn't

[9:35] I don't I don't know know, I don't know

[9:36] that to be for sure, but it appears they

[9:39] are. There's another way in here.

[9:40] >> But, just to be clear,

[9:42] for perspective, 70 acres this would be

[9:44] a significant amount of land for houses

[9:46] to be on.

[9:47] So, you wouldn't want them to funnel 70

[9:50] acres through one tiny little one tiny

[9:52] side street. So, even if there were

[9:54] additional entrances to it, I wouldn't

[9:55] think you would ever want to

[9:57] limit what you could develop because I

[10:00] mean, just and just so everyone on the

[10:01] board is clear, it's not the town that

[10:02] owns that that acreage behind it. It's

[10:04] privately owned.

[10:06] Um so, it'd be something that would be

[10:07] privately developed, but we're just

[10:09] looking at it kind of on on Google on

[10:11] the maps here, you I would don't see any

[10:14] advantage to us to

[10:16] cut off access to that that property.

[10:19] Um that the temporary, you know,

[10:23] revocable agreement is the is about four

[10:25] of the best solutions we would have to

[10:27] it, which gives them the ability to

[10:28] proceed and us the ability to if that

[10:30] ever somebody came and wanted to build

[10:32] houses in that area, we can, you know,

[10:35] look at our development options for the

[10:36] street at that point.

[10:38] >> And to kind of add to what the mayor

[10:40] said here,

[10:42] we don't necessarily know

[10:45] uh the areas that he was speaking of to

[10:48] ingress and egress out of that 70 acres.

[10:50] I mean, there could be hiccups or bumps

[10:52] or anything that comes that does not

[10:54] allow that, then all of a sudden you

[10:56] have a landlocked piece of property.

[10:58] And the landlocked piece of property

[11:00] achieves nothing for anyone.

[11:02] >> Correct.

[11:06] So, is our what I guess with staff and attorney recommendation be to

[11:10] proceed with the with the irrevocable

[11:12] agreement?

[11:13] >> And that would be the staff

[11:14] recommendation.

[11:15] Because that would at this point help both parties.

[11:19] It gives us the option to

[11:21] remove the

[11:23] um

[11:25] approval in the future, but right now it

[11:27] allows them to keep the property the way

[11:29] they have it.

[11:31] >> And is that a that's something we'll

[11:32] just need to take a vote or we'll vote

[11:34] on on this month's month's

[11:36] meeting or is that will be will you be

[11:38] able to proceed just based off

[11:41] >> We'll need a vote. It'll be a discussion

[11:43] and consideration on it.

[11:44] >> Okay.

[11:47] Any other questions on that?

[11:49] >> Who who

[11:51] I guess this is back from when she was

[11:52] still alive.

[11:54] Who gave them permission to build or put

[11:57] buildings on the

[12:00] street to begin with? Is there not any

[12:02] permits on file for that?

[12:04] >> I would say not. And it happened prior

[12:07] to this current owner.

[12:09] So

[12:09] >> So it could have been it could have been

[12:11] in the past.

[12:12] >> Well

[12:13] >> long time.

[12:14] >> My understanding

[12:15] >> These owners have had it since 2022 I

[12:17] think.

[12:18] So

[12:20] it was before that.

[12:21] >> You said just a utility building or is

[12:24] it a barn?

[12:26] >> Just an outbuilding.

[12:27] >> An outbuilding.

[12:29] >> And a drive to the driveway?

[12:30] >> Just a turnaround driveway. It's not the

[12:33] actual

[12:34] physical driveway to the house, you

[12:36] know, but it's just a place to turn

[12:37] around.

[12:43] » All right, moving on then.

[12:45] On number five, revisit of ordinance

[12:47] 23-518

[12:48] street parking.

[12:51] >> So in 2023 you all passed an ordinance

[12:54] regarding parking on the street.

[12:58] parking allowed on the paved portion of

[13:00] any street except in the event of

[13:02] extreme inclement weather conditions.

[13:05] Temporary parking permits may be issued

[13:07] at the discretion of the chief of

[13:08] police.

[13:10] Um

[13:11] and that's all it said.

[13:12] We've received some

[13:15] requests and maybe to look at this

[13:17] ordinance and maybe

[13:18] uh rework the language, not get rid of

[13:20] it entirely. Um

[13:24] and so I think that it might be a good

[13:26] time to look at that and see if there

[13:28] might be some different language. I

[13:29] think that the premise of the the

[13:31] ordinance is a good idea. You you need

[13:33] it for public safety measures, but

[13:37] um

[13:37] as we've even talked as staff, inclement

[13:40] weather is a time when you really need

[13:42] the streets to be clear.

[13:44] That's kind of an interesting carve out

[13:46] that you would want cars parked on the

[13:47] street during inclement weather.

[13:49] Um some ideas may be

[13:52] you know, parties or events or things

[13:54] that would be a time where it could be

[13:55] allowed versus inclement weather. But

[13:57] it's up to you all to decide exactly how

[13:59] you want it or if you want to leave it

[14:00] the same. Just bring it to you as an

[14:02] item that we've received multiple um

[14:05] comments and complaints about.

[14:07] >> The inclement weather part of it came

[14:09] from the Hammonds Estates subdivision

[14:12] where they have a very steep steep steep

[14:14] driveways that they cannot get down in

[14:16] the wintertime

[14:17] that we would give them permission park

[14:18] on the side of the street.

[14:19] >> Yeah, and the creeks out in the street

[14:22] that neighbors complained about the

[14:24] steep driveways.

[14:25] >> So that's where that language came came

[14:27] about.

[14:29] >> Should we include something for

[14:31] commercial vehicles?

[14:33] Obviously, commercial large commercial

[14:35] vehicles are not going to be able to go

[14:36] up a lot of the driveways. They could

[14:38] just park them on the street.

[14:41] I mean, it's being done now with no

[14:45] consequence.

[14:47] >> Has people come in complaining about

[14:49] people parking on the road or

[14:53] want to

[14:54] get permission to keep parking on the

[14:55] road?

[14:57] >> There's been a little bit of both. Um

[14:59] people having trouble, you know, getting

[15:01] in and out of driveways or other things,

[15:03] but also, you know, um

[15:07] I think people who

[15:11] would like to park on the on the street

[15:13] and feel like they can't because of the

[15:15] way the ordinance is written.

[15:17] >> So one one thing I want to add about

[15:18] this is that it it also is one of those

[15:21] things that

[15:22] I cuz I I don't I don't know I was

[15:23] definitely opposed against this when we

[15:25] passed this in 2023 because of the way

[15:27] it's written. It incentivizes the people

[15:30] that are going to make a fuss and

[15:32] complain. Incentivize might not be the

[15:34] right word to use there, but it's

[15:35] becomes like on my street for example,

[15:37] you could park on my street and probably

[15:39] nobody really know or complain or care

[15:41] because the way it's not something that

[15:42] there's a neighbor that's just

[15:43] constantly complaining about it or

[15:45] there's not a um

[15:46] it's not large traffic uh coming up and

[15:48] down there. But there's you know, the

[15:50] argument was always used about it it

[15:51] being a public safety. And my question

[15:54] is is there an already TCA code that

[15:57] says if you're

[15:58] obstructing the roadway of public safety

[16:02] people from going through that they can

[16:03] cite you of uh

[16:06] I think that's more of a TCA code that

[16:08] could already be covering that aspect of

[16:10] it versus a municipal ordinance.

[16:11] >> Well, also the school bus neighbors

[16:13] complained a lot about they couldn't get

[16:15] their buses through some of these

[16:16] streets because of the cars parking on

[16:18] the side of the road. They couldn't get

[16:20] through. Right.

[16:21] >> East Ridge is is famous for that because

[16:24] of their narrow streets. It's rough

[16:26] getting two vehicles down, much less a

[16:27] bus and a vehicle.

[16:30] » And so it's not something that I think

[16:32] if if the blanket ordinance is written

[16:35] to cover you have with the with just

[16:37] that blanket ordinance saying no parking

[16:39] anywhere and there's except you know,

[16:41] except for the the temporary situations.

[16:44] I I still think that

[16:47] it's um

[16:48] it's too restrictive.

[16:50] That there are more situations that can

[16:52] arise where you might need people

[16:54] parking on on on the side of the road

[16:56] responsibly obviously, but also that the

[16:59] way it's written it it

[17:01] gives the complainer a tool to try to

[17:05] use government in their

[17:08] complaint and I'm not a huge fan of

[17:09] that. So, it's a um it needs to be

[17:12] something that we revisit and look at a

[17:14] way to

[17:15] make it where we're still you know, the roads are still able to be traveled,

[17:20] but also not just overbearing for the

[17:23] sake of being overbearing.

[17:27] My thoughts on it.

[17:30] » Are there areas that you want to see

[17:33] carve-outs, exceptions for that I can

[17:35] draft into an ordinance for your

[17:37] consideration?

[17:39] Besides commercial I've heard commercial

[17:40] vehicles.

[17:44] » The The idea of a permit from the police

[17:46] chief to me is a total waste of

[17:48] everybody's time.

[17:50] That Again, I didn't vote in favor of

[17:52] this ordinance when we when we passed it

[17:54] and I don't still agree with that aspect

[17:55] of it. It's a waste of

[17:57] time for everybody.

[17:59] Nobody And it's hard to even get that

[18:00] information out to the general public to

[18:02] know that they would even have to do

[18:04] that.

[18:05] Um so, I would I would 100% strike that

[18:07] language from it.

[18:09] Uh

[18:10] is there anything that's enforceable

[18:12] under two under the current TCA that's

[18:15] obstruction of roadways and

[18:17] >> None of the roads are that big here. I I don't mind the policy as is. It just if we're in an

[18:22] issue permits it should probably come

[18:24] from here

[18:25] instead of from us. And then right now

[18:27] they just call me.

[18:29] I let everybody know, but the roads None

[18:32] of our roads are

[18:34] big.

[18:35] So, I mean it causes a problem anytime

[18:37] there's cars parked on the street.

[18:41] I mean we don't get that many calls for

[18:42] it really, but when we do, we have to go

[18:45] and knock on their door.

[18:48] » Do you ever give Do you ever give them a

[18:49] room in their driveway? Do you ever give

[18:51] tickets out when you see cars parked on

[18:52] the side of the street?

[18:56] » I think since I've been here they

[18:57] cooperated. We've gone out there and

[18:59] knocked on their door and they'll move

[19:00] it into their driveway.

[19:01] Most of the time they're parked on the

[19:03] street when there's not a reason to even

[19:04] park on the street.

[19:12] I mean I just had like if someone has

[19:14] like I just got a call yesterday they're

[19:16] having family in town over the weekend.

[19:18] So, they gave us a heads up that they

[19:20] may have a couple cars on the street.

[19:22] So, I just advise all the officers, you

[19:24] know, if we get calls out there

[19:27] you know, we'll discuss it to whoever

[19:28] the complaint is and advise them that

[19:30] it's temporary.

[19:32] >> And the statute that you were referring

[19:34] to, it does put it at the officer's

[19:36] discretion and that is the portion of

[19:39] ticketing and it's to ask them to move

[19:41] the cars to a required place.

[19:44] >> You're making reference to the TCA

[19:45] statute?

[19:46] >> Yeah, that is uh TCA 39-17-307.

[19:50] >> Okay, I'm looking at 39-17-18-12.

[19:54] Uh

[19:55] I know

[19:56] mostly it's because complaints is in the

[19:58] mornings and afternoons with the bus

[20:00] routes.

[20:00] >> What's the

[20:01] >> Yeah, the buses I've talked to the bus

[20:03] drivers in the past and then one of the

[20:04] other big issues is when they park in

[20:06] the street cuz again that all these

[20:08] streets are small.

[20:09] >> Yeah.

[20:09] >> So, it can get in the way when people on

[20:11] the other side of the road are trying to

[20:12] back out or pull out of their driveway.

[20:29] » Let's um

[20:31] So, as far as how we want to proceed

[20:33] with with this

[20:36] I still would like to see that kind of

[20:37] up the language updated in some sense.

[20:40] If you want to take a look at how we

[20:41] could work on clearing the language up

[20:43] in regards of getting the permit uh

[20:46] even if there would be a way to

[20:48] incorporate that online to the website

[20:50] where somebody could go in and fill fill

[20:52] out a form online that just goes

[20:54] straight to the police department let

[20:56] them know

[20:58] I imagine that

[20:59] uh you know, just something like that of

[21:00] make if we're going to keep that process

[21:02] which I still

[21:04] that's a a lot of hours of manpower for

[21:08] little return in my opinion. But

[21:12] Let's I still let's look at cleaning the

[21:14] language up at least to and then

[21:17] figure out how we can drive awareness to

[21:19] that a little bit more.

[21:22] » Wouldn't you

[21:23] If you give somebody permission to park

[21:25] a wouldn't you still have to make sure

[21:27] our bus still be able to get through

[21:28] there?

[21:30] >> That's

[21:30] >> Yeah, we usually

[21:32] invite them to the pole office park.

[21:34] >> I mean he gives them permission and then

[21:36] a bus can buy and they can't get

[21:37] through.

[21:38] >> But that's that's I mean we're you're

[21:40] never going to be able to legislate

[21:41] common sense.

[21:44] I mean just

[21:45] I'm sorry but you're not going to be

[21:46] able to legislate common sense.

[21:47] >> There's not that much

[21:48] >> If you're If you're the the idea of

[21:50] parking on the roadway is not that

[21:52] you're parked dead center in the middle

[21:54] of the right or left hand lane.

[21:56] You know, it's that you're

[21:58] two tires are probably in in the grass,

[21:59] two tires are probably in the road.

[22:01] >> Mhm.

[22:01] >> Right? Um and to me that's where I'm

[22:04] like this is this is becoming Is this

[22:06] the best use of our officer's time?

[22:09] First first and foremost. Yeah, and

[22:10] that's where I'm starting to go from

[22:11] there.

[22:12] >> I guess the biggest thing is how how

[22:13] close do you park to the curb I guess to

[22:15] give a bus going around.

[22:17] >> And and that's where the idea of having

[22:19] an officer out there with a ruler to

[22:20] measure how close somebody is to the

[22:22] side of the road is just like you know,

[22:23] it's just it's pretty you know, it's crazy.

[22:28] And I guess we don't have big roads but

[22:31] there's some of the some of it is just

[22:32] becomes a if it becomes an a individual

[22:35] a particular individual issue or is

[22:37] there not tools in place that you can

[22:39] address the particular issue versus

[22:41] having to have such a blanket policy?

[22:43] >> Unless you do that you can't park 15

[22:45] foot to a curb. That way you know you

[22:46] gave yourself a route for a bus to go through.

[22:51] >> Those streets out there are seven I

[22:53] think they're 17 foot wide aren't they

[22:55] Jason?

[22:56] >> Some of them are 12 Some of them are 12.

[22:59] 14, some 25. You never know.

[23:02] >> I think anybody can park a car out there

[23:04] and you still take a school bus by it or

[23:07] a fire truck if you need to, but you

[23:08] know

[23:09] Yeah, I'm going to people are going to

[23:10] park their cars occasionally whether

[23:12] they

[23:13] want to or not.

[23:14] >> In in your newer subdivisions, yes.

[23:17] >> Go to the one that was

[23:19] >> Your your roads are a lot wider.

[23:21] Now, if you go in the older subdivisions

[23:23] like

[23:24] West side of the park, it's civil

[23:30] Those streets are so small, you can't

[23:31] even get hardly two vehicles, regular

[23:33] vehicles

[23:35] side by side with one another.

[23:36] >> Only older neighborhoods.

[23:38] yes. And

[23:39] that's where the buses is having the

[23:41] most issues is in the older

[23:42] neighborhoods, not so much as the newer

[23:44] neighborhoods.

[23:45] >> So, the the attorney has already read

[23:46] some of the TCA statute, can you

[23:48] elaborate on that?

[23:49] >> Yeah, part of my concern as we talked

[23:51] this through and I listened to you guys

[23:53] uh voice your concerns, uh

[23:55] a portion of this I'm looking at the

[23:57] criminal statute now and uh

[24:01] the town could be exposed to some civil

[24:02] liability if emergency services weren't

[24:04] able to respond to a health fire, to an

[24:07] emergency.

[24:09] So, that exposure is something to

[24:11] consider.

[24:12] >> The town would be responsible for the

[24:13] civil liability or the person blocking

[24:15] the road?

[24:16] >> It looks like it could come back on the

[24:18] town. I would need to do a little bit

[24:19] more research. This is just me

[24:21] >> Just kind of shooting from the hip,

[24:22] yeah.

[24:23] So, what's before we

[24:26] take any action on that because I was

[24:27] under the impression through what I've

[24:29] researched I thought that an individual

[24:31] can be civilly liable if they did

[24:33] something to prevent a emergency vehicle

[24:35] from and it might be both actually at

[24:37] the end of the day, too.

[24:38] >> It is criminal

[24:40] a criminal charge.

[24:41] >> Criminal charge, okay.

[24:43] Yeah. Let's let's kick that to the attorney

[24:46] and to Tyler to work on what the wording

[24:48] needs to look like to to

[24:51] make it as um

[24:54] to cover the what the the liability

[24:55] first and foremost, but also um

[24:58] you I said we're not going to be able to

[25:00] legislate common sense, but I think a

[25:01] lot of this just breaks down to having

[25:03] common sense of getting your car as far

[25:05] off the road as you can.

[25:06] >> Yep.

[25:07] >> Just plain simple. Um but yeah, we'll I I'll

[25:10] So, let's let's proceed with going that

[25:12] route and letting them review that and

[25:14] action it once that's ready.

[25:16] >> We'll probably bring that back to you at

[25:17] the September workshop.

[25:19] >> Okay.

[25:21] >> Not put anything on this

[25:22] >> No, not on the I don't I don't I

[25:23] wouldn't think it would be approved

[25:24] ready for this about this month, so.

[25:28] Any more questions on that?

[25:30] Want to take item number six then,

[25:31] interlocal agreements with fire

[25:33] departments.

[25:35] Mitch, do you want to tell them what

[25:37] you're working with?

[25:37] >> Um Mitch brought me a couple couple of

[25:40] interlocal agreements that he would like

[25:41] to see us entertain.

[25:44] And I'll let him talk about those if he

[25:46] wants to.

[25:47] >> There's two uh interlocal agreements.

[25:49] The first

[25:50] is with the

[25:52] Tennessee where our department of public

[25:54] safety sits in Tennessee Homeland

[25:55] Security District one.

[25:58] Um

[25:59] So, this would be the the actual

[26:01] interlocal agreement would be with

[26:02] Sullivan County and Sullivan County EMA

[26:05] that emergency management, that's who

[26:06] heads this up.

[26:08] Um but this would If we enter in this

[26:11] agreement, we'll allow our guys to go a

[26:12] lot more training, um

[26:15] especially specifically technical

[26:16] rescue, swift water,

[26:18] uh urban search and rescue, just

[26:20] participate with the district.

[26:22] Uh

[26:23] team trainings that go on on a regular

[26:25] basis now.

[26:26] Uh I was a part of that when I worked uh

[26:28] in Johnson City and it's it would be a

[26:30] huge asset for us to be able to send

[26:32] people to that, participate in that.

[26:34] Um

[26:35] we just have to have that interlocal

[26:36] signed with them. Um

[26:39] the guys have to be when they're

[26:40] participating as part of the Tennessee District one

[26:43] Homeland Security District, they have to

[26:45] uh they have to be covered under their

[26:47] home department's workers comp. They

[26:49] can't just bring their own plans and go

[26:50] up there, by school.

[26:52] Um the second is with the city church

[26:55] hill.

[26:56] Uh they've got it on their BMA agenda as

[26:59] well.

[27:00] Um this would be to formalize pretty

[27:02] much what we do now. Uh it would be for

[27:05] automatic aid

[27:06] to

[27:07] or Mount Pleasant respond Churchill

[27:09] automatic aid and vice versa

[27:11] automatically on structure fires.

[27:14] Um we do that now more or less. It's

[27:16] just it's a little bit of a delay. We

[27:18] have to request them, they have to

[27:19] request us. This just takes that two to

[27:22] three minute delay out of the mix.

[27:26] Um

[27:27] I've spoke with fire chief and the

[27:28] public safety director there. They've

[27:30] talked uh to Mayor Deal.

[27:32] Uh it's it's on their BMA agenda as

[27:34] well. Uh but they don't foresee any

[27:36] issues with it being passed there.

[27:42] » Questions on that?

[27:50] We're ready to move that forward and

[27:52] then

[27:52] on to the meeting.

[27:56] I think it's item number seven for an

[27:57] update of rules of order.

[28:00] And Tyler, you want to go with that?

[28:02] >> Sure.

[28:03] So,

[28:04] we had

[28:06] some

[28:07] pretty um

[28:09] back and forth discussion back in April

[28:10] and May about moving the meeting and

[28:12] rescheduling a meeting and when that

[28:15] motion was brought up and and everything

[28:17] and I think we talked about, you know,

[28:19] making sure that we follow our rules

[28:21] that we set forth and and all those

[28:22] things so that we have orderly meetings

[28:25] and motions not made out of order.

[28:28] So, I think one way to do that is to

[28:30] adopt our agendas at the beginning of

[28:31] each meeting. That's pretty standard

[28:33] procedure. We just don't do it

[28:35] currently. Um I've done some research on

[28:37] Robert's Rules and think that it's

[28:39] important for us to add that in. So,

[28:41] we'll look at updating our whole order

[28:43] of business to include adoption of the

[28:45] agenda.

[28:46] So that at that point in time it takes a

[28:49] simple majority to adopt the agenda. If

[28:51] anybody wants to add anything, which

[28:54] that runs into open meetings, um

[28:57] it requires a 2/3 majority to to add add

[29:01] something to a meeting.

[29:02] Um

[29:04] that that also opens you up to further

[29:07] potential

[29:08] uh litigation if you were to try to walk

[29:11] something onto a meeting that was not

[29:13] publicly noticed.

[29:15] But really it gives you an opportunity

[29:17] to to confirm the business that that's

[29:19] set before you for the meeting, and I

[29:21] think it'll just be a routine thing we

[29:22] need to add. So we're going to look at

[29:24] updating that. Also give a space for us

[29:26] to do employee recognition or or any

[29:29] type of visitor recognition right at the

[29:30] beginning of the meeting.

[29:32] Uh so that we we follow what we said

[29:34] we're going to do.

[29:38] More of a housekeeping item.

[29:41] >> Questions on that. So basically this is

[29:43] if you're trying to add a topic at a

[29:45] meeting.

[29:46] >> Right.

[29:46] >> Not something that was previously

[29:48] requested to be said. Okay.

[29:50] >> And it's the And just to be human, to

[29:52] also the business meeting, the workshop

[29:54] would be available from if you wanted to

[29:57] add something at the beginning of the

[29:58] meeting, you'd be able to add it at the

[29:59] beginning of the meeting. It's not We're

[30:00] not actually taking action on that.

[30:02] Uh this this would just be your business

[30:04] meeting where you could have a true

[30:05] actionable item gets added night of

[30:07] meeting.

[30:08] >> Okay, thank you.

[30:09] >> That is very That in itself is very

[30:11] limited in what you're allowed to do.

[30:13] What I'm trying to get to it would be

[30:15] something minor.

[30:17] >> Right.

[30:17] >> Not a substantial issue.

[30:19] >> Right.

[30:19] >> If you do that, you could be open to

[30:21] litigation.

[30:22] >> Okay. Okay.

[30:24] Thank you for the clarification.

[30:25] >> Any questions on Any other questions on

[30:27] that housekeeping item?

[30:29] Before we close out, I just want to

[30:32] thank the

[30:33] departments that are here. Uh I think

[30:35] it's majority of everybody for

[30:37] coming out Saturday and putting on uh

[30:39] Touch-a-Truck and Back to School event.

[30:41] Have received nothing but positive

[30:43] feedback about it from uh uh

[30:45] to the guys and you make sure you pass

[30:47] that along down to the guys that were

[30:50] here because the uh

[30:52] the getting to kind of just even be out

[30:53] there and observe it, too. I mean, I

[30:55] think everybody did a great job of of

[30:56] representing the town, representing your

[30:58] departments, and everybody should be

[31:00] commended for that. I think we will have

[31:03] learned some things that we'll do a

[31:04] little differently next time. Hopefully,

[31:05] there won't be a monsoon happening a few

[31:07] hours beforehand.

[31:09] Um but considering all things considered

[31:11] with it, we got a great turnout, great

[31:13] participation, and and wonderful

[31:15] feedback. So, thank you all for your

[31:17] great work on that.

[31:18] >> Let me

[31:18] add to that. I represented Colonel

[31:21] Lawson's retirement

[31:23] function for uh Sheriff Lawson.

[31:26] And uh

[31:28] amazingly, he he almost burst into tears

[31:31] at one point. He's been in law

[31:33] enforcement 49 years, 16 as a sheriff.

[31:36] >> Wow.

[31:36] >> And uh

[31:38] August 28th, I think, is his last day.

[31:41] It was really kind of funny. The uh

[31:43] sheriff's office bought him a rifle, all

[31:46] tricked out, $4,000 rifle. And as he

[31:49] opened it, pulled it out, he said,

[31:51] "Look, my first gun."

[31:54] Anyway, it was a good function and uh

[31:57] >> Thank you for going down there on behalf

[31:59] of the county. We appreciate that.

[32:02] Anybody else?

[32:04] We'll see you next week.

BMA Workshop 08/13/2026

Transcript