So, it's 5:30, so we'll go ahead and
call this workshop to order.
And just welcome everybody for coming
out and we'll go ahead and get started
here starting with item number one for
the town recorder position. And Tyler,
if you want to go over that.
>> Sure. So, if you'll notice we have a new
face up here at the table with us
tonight. Um
I have interviewed some candidates and
had some deliberations over the town
recorder position. And I ultimately
decided to promote from within and so
Tiffany has been selected for that
position as well as finance director.
Um the town recorder position does
require an official confirmation by the
BMA, more of a procedural thing. Uh so,
that'll be coming up
two weeks at our next meeting. But, uh
glad to have her in this position and
the knowledge that she's going to bring
to it having worked here uh for over
three years.
>> Congratulations and thank you on that.
Any questions or anything on that one?
I'll take us then to the item number
two, certified tax rate second reading.
» So, we brought an ordinance to you last
month about the certified tax rate.
This was due to the
comptroller's office releasing that
after our budget had already been
passed. So, that's a point 9758 tax rate
and this ordinance is just confirming
that rate and updating that for the
upcoming or the current fiscal year.
» Questions on that?
Moving on to item number three, update
on flock cameras.
>> So, if you remember during our budget
conversations,
there was an item approved for flock
cameras within the police department
budget.
Um
we have been contacted by a couple of
media outlets asking where where we're
at with that process. We have um in the
past several weeks, decided to put that
on pause for the time being and invest
that money in other areas in the police
department, other
software that we need in order to
improve our report writing and ticket
writing. So, we have we've redirected
those uh
that amount of money for this for the
time being. Not to say that it's
100% off the table
altogether, but as far as this fiscal
year, it is not going to happen. So, we
just wanted to make you aware that for
now that
process has been put on hold.
>> Will we have to come back and pass it
again?
>> It would have to be included in future
budgets if you wanted it at that time.
>> Okay.
Is the pause due to the
legislations that's trying to happen
at that state and federal levels?
>> The primary reason that we decided to to
pause was to
invest that money in our new
ticket
and crime reporting software.
» So, all that is one thing on that. I
think if we do decide to move forward
that in the future, I would just I just
like to see us make that more of an up
down vote on the board making that
decision if we proceed with that more so
than just putting in the budget cuz I
mean I would
I I never brought up in the budget time
about taking that money out of that for
that line. I don't
and
I don't want to kill the whole budget
just because of a single line item with
it. So, it's like if we're out I think
with something like that if we decide to
ever move forward with that, I'd like to
just see us
have an up down vote on on if we proceed
with it or not.
>> I think that if we were to pursue it
again in the future, that that would be
a requirement from the company before we
went fully live that we would need some
kind of resolution. So, we would
probably approach it in that manner if
it were to be brought up in the future.
>> So, based off that and with no current agreement or contract or
anything like that and now we would have
to have a resolution to proceed with it.
It's essentially dead at the moment.
>> And be correct for the time being. Yes.
» Any other questions on that?
I'll take us then on to item number
four, property issue at 912 South
Sherbrook.
>> So,
this is a slightly complex issue and I
will try to
make it as simple as possible for you to
understand and um
present you with the options the town
attorney and his office have been
crucial in helping us understand our
options in this situation, but um
so that this relates to 912 South
Sherbrook Circle, which is an uh the
property um owners are selling that
property.
Uh when they when they purchased the
lot,
there's a shed and a driveway that
actually resides on an unopened public
street that the the right to that um
belongs to the town.
So, the current owners didn't build
that, but they inherited the property
that way and they have been taking care
of the property even though it is not
physically on their property. They've
gone now to sell it and um want to get
this resolved before they can go to
closing.
So, they don't they don't possess any
ownership interest in it. Um
but they're asking us to do something
about it. We have a couple of options.
We can either keep the street
corridor uh
open
and allow them to use it temporarily
uh under a a revocable agreement, or we
can permanently give up the street uh by
vacating the street.
Um there are a couple of other options,
but basically we're free to decide how
we want to proceed with this based on
long-term goals and interests rather
than this, you know, uh immediate need
that we've been asked about by the
property owners. So, the first option is
we can do nothing. The second option
would be we can require them to remove
those
uh
improvements, the shed and the driveway.
We can require that to be removed.
The third option would be allow the
improvements to stay with the revocable
agreement that the town could revoke at
any time in the future that it deemed
necessary we would need that road need
that street to be open.
Um
fourth option would be to grant a an easement,
which is complicated and it gives pretty
much the same result as the temporary
revocable agreement. And then the the
final fifth option would be just to
vacate the street altogether.
Um
we
we've reviewed this, deliberated about
it. We feel that the option C, which is
a temporary revocable agreement, will
probably be best,
but at the end of the day it's it's up
to your decision.
And I will let the town attorney speak
to any further comments that he may have
might give you more insight on the issue
and then we can have any questions.
>> There's a couple of different avenues to
really achieve
a situation to kind of give everybody
what they want here, but really
our position is to take care of the town
and
um there's two different things that
achieve essentially the same outcome.
One of which is to grant an easement.
And the easement itself seems simple
and there's different ways to explain
it, but more or less
the easement can be written
two different ways. One in which it
would go specifically as to the new
owner.
Another way in which it would go to the
land itself.
And if the town ever wanted to take that
land back, it's my understanding I think
there's around 70 acres behind that
property.
And they wanted to utilize that for any
type of development or anything that
could benefit the town. That could
lead to litigation to just a headache
down the road.
We could do a revocable license, which
essentially achieves the same exact
thing. It allows them the use of that
land. It allows them to maintain, do as
they please.
But it's revocable at any time by the
town.
And that would be recorded along with
the deed. So, it's nothing permanent. It
would be with the understanding
that if the town wanted to use that 70
acres behind that and use that
particular entrance rather than another
egress route uh
another entrance route, that uh they would still have access to
that. So, it's kind of a layer of
protection for the town and down the
road
even though this little
road piece of land in between may never
be used. This may never be an issue in
the future.
But if it is, it allows us to just
simply say, "Okay, we're taking that
back. We now want control of it." So,
it's almost like it's on loan. Whereas
the other way is physically going
through litigation to try to recover it.
» And Jason, what's your input on it? You
know, probably you know these roads back
in there and everything.
» I agree with you. You know, just
let them use it as they need to be, but
we have a right to take it back if
needed.
>> Is that the only entrance into that 70
acres?
>> It appears. Now, that's I don't know for
sure, but
in up here there's
a small street
to the west of that property
that connects to the 70 acres. There
isn't
I don't I don't know know, I don't know
that to be for sure, but it appears they
are. There's another way in here.
>> But, just to be clear,
for perspective, 70 acres this would be
a significant amount of land for houses
to be on.
So, you wouldn't want them to funnel 70
acres through one tiny little one tiny
side street. So, even if there were
additional entrances to it, I wouldn't
think you would ever want to
limit what you could develop because I
mean, just and just so everyone on the
board is clear, it's not the town that
owns that that acreage behind it. It's
privately owned.
Um so, it'd be something that would be
privately developed, but we're just
looking at it kind of on on Google on
the maps here, you I would don't see any
advantage to us to
cut off access to that that property.
Um that the temporary, you know,
revocable agreement is the is about four
of the best solutions we would have to
it, which gives them the ability to
proceed and us the ability to if that
ever somebody came and wanted to build
houses in that area, we can, you know,
look at our development options for the
street at that point.
>> And to kind of add to what the mayor
said here,
we don't necessarily know
uh the areas that he was speaking of to
ingress and egress out of that 70 acres.
I mean, there could be hiccups or bumps
or anything that comes that does not
allow that, then all of a sudden you
have a landlocked piece of property.
And the landlocked piece of property
achieves nothing for anyone.
>> Correct.
So, is our what I guess with staff and attorney recommendation be to
proceed with the with the irrevocable
agreement?
>> And that would be the staff
recommendation.
Because that would at this point help both parties.
It gives us the option to
remove the
um
approval in the future, but right now it
allows them to keep the property the way
they have it.
>> And is that a that's something we'll
just need to take a vote or we'll vote
on on this month's month's
meeting or is that will be will you be
able to proceed just based off
>> We'll need a vote. It'll be a discussion
and consideration on it.
>> Okay.
Any other questions on that?
>> Who who
I guess this is back from when she was
still alive.
Who gave them permission to build or put
buildings on the
street to begin with? Is there not any
permits on file for that?
>> I would say not. And it happened prior
to this current owner.
So
>> So it could have been it could have been
in the past.
>> Well
>> long time.
>> My understanding
>> These owners have had it since 2022 I
think.
So
it was before that.
>> You said just a utility building or is
it a barn?
>> Just an outbuilding.
>> An outbuilding.
>> And a drive to the driveway?
>> Just a turnaround driveway. It's not the
actual
physical driveway to the house, you
know, but it's just a place to turn
around.
» All right, moving on then.
On number five, revisit of ordinance
23-518
street parking.
>> So in 2023 you all passed an ordinance
regarding parking on the street.
parking allowed on the paved portion of
any street except in the event of
extreme inclement weather conditions.
Temporary parking permits may be issued
at the discretion of the chief of
police.
Um
and that's all it said.
We've received some
requests and maybe to look at this
ordinance and maybe
uh rework the language, not get rid of
it entirely. Um
and so I think that it might be a good
time to look at that and see if there
might be some different language. I
think that the premise of the the
ordinance is a good idea. You you need
it for public safety measures, but
um
as we've even talked as staff, inclement
weather is a time when you really need
the streets to be clear.
That's kind of an interesting carve out
that you would want cars parked on the
street during inclement weather.
Um some ideas may be
you know, parties or events or things
that would be a time where it could be
allowed versus inclement weather. But
it's up to you all to decide exactly how
you want it or if you want to leave it
the same. Just bring it to you as an
item that we've received multiple um
comments and complaints about.
>> The inclement weather part of it came
from the Hammonds Estates subdivision
where they have a very steep steep steep
driveways that they cannot get down in
the wintertime
that we would give them permission park
on the side of the street.
>> Yeah, and the creeks out in the street
that neighbors complained about the
steep driveways.
>> So that's where that language came came
about.
>> Should we include something for
commercial vehicles?
Obviously, commercial large commercial
vehicles are not going to be able to go
up a lot of the driveways. They could
just park them on the street.
I mean, it's being done now with no
consequence.
>> Has people come in complaining about
people parking on the road or
want to
get permission to keep parking on the
road?
>> There's been a little bit of both. Um
people having trouble, you know, getting
in and out of driveways or other things,
but also, you know, um
I think people who
would like to park on the on the street
and feel like they can't because of the
way the ordinance is written.
>> So one one thing I want to add about
this is that it it also is one of those
things that
I cuz I I don't I don't know I was
definitely opposed against this when we
passed this in 2023 because of the way
it's written. It incentivizes the people
that are going to make a fuss and
complain. Incentivize might not be the
right word to use there, but it's
becomes like on my street for example,
you could park on my street and probably
nobody really know or complain or care
because the way it's not something that
there's a neighbor that's just
constantly complaining about it or
there's not a um
it's not large traffic uh coming up and
down there. But there's you know, the
argument was always used about it it
being a public safety. And my question
is is there an already TCA code that
says if you're
obstructing the roadway of public safety
people from going through that they can
cite you of uh
I think that's more of a TCA code that
could already be covering that aspect of
it versus a municipal ordinance.
>> Well, also the school bus neighbors
complained a lot about they couldn't get
their buses through some of these
streets because of the cars parking on
the side of the road. They couldn't get
through. Right.
>> East Ridge is is famous for that because
of their narrow streets. It's rough
getting two vehicles down, much less a
bus and a vehicle.
» And so it's not something that I think
if if the blanket ordinance is written
to cover you have with the with just
that blanket ordinance saying no parking
anywhere and there's except you know,
except for the the temporary situations.
I I still think that
it's um
it's too restrictive.
That there are more situations that can
arise where you might need people
parking on on on the side of the road
responsibly obviously, but also that the
way it's written it it
gives the complainer a tool to try to
use government in their
complaint and I'm not a huge fan of
that. So, it's a um it needs to be
something that we revisit and look at a
way to
make it where we're still you know, the roads are still able to be traveled,
but also not just overbearing for the
sake of being overbearing.
My thoughts on it.
» Are there areas that you want to see
carve-outs, exceptions for that I can
draft into an ordinance for your
consideration?
Besides commercial I've heard commercial
vehicles.
» The The idea of a permit from the police
chief to me is a total waste of
everybody's time.
That Again, I didn't vote in favor of
this ordinance when we when we passed it
and I don't still agree with that aspect
of it. It's a waste of
time for everybody.
Nobody And it's hard to even get that
information out to the general public to
know that they would even have to do
that.
Um so, I would I would 100% strike that
language from it.
Uh
is there anything that's enforceable
under two under the current TCA that's
obstruction of roadways and
>> None of the roads are that big here. I I don't mind the policy as is. It just if we're in an
issue permits it should probably come
from here
instead of from us. And then right now
they just call me.
I let everybody know, but the roads None
of our roads are
big.
So, I mean it causes a problem anytime
there's cars parked on the street.
I mean we don't get that many calls for
it really, but when we do, we have to go
and knock on their door.
» Do you ever give Do you ever give them a
room in their driveway? Do you ever give
tickets out when you see cars parked on
the side of the street?
» I think since I've been here they
cooperated. We've gone out there and
knocked on their door and they'll move
it into their driveway.
Most of the time they're parked on the
street when there's not a reason to even
park on the street.
I mean I just had like if someone has
like I just got a call yesterday they're
having family in town over the weekend.
So, they gave us a heads up that they
may have a couple cars on the street.
So, I just advise all the officers, you
know, if we get calls out there
you know, we'll discuss it to whoever
the complaint is and advise them that
it's temporary.
>> And the statute that you were referring
to, it does put it at the officer's
discretion and that is the portion of
ticketing and it's to ask them to move
the cars to a required place.
>> You're making reference to the TCA
statute?
>> Yeah, that is uh TCA 39-17-307.
>> Okay, I'm looking at 39-17-18-12.
Uh
I know
mostly it's because complaints is in the
mornings and afternoons with the bus
routes.
>> What's the
>> Yeah, the buses I've talked to the bus
drivers in the past and then one of the
other big issues is when they park in
the street cuz again that all these
streets are small.
>> Yeah.
>> So, it can get in the way when people on
the other side of the road are trying to
back out or pull out of their driveway.
» Let's um
So, as far as how we want to proceed
with with this
I still would like to see that kind of
up the language updated in some sense.
If you want to take a look at how we
could work on clearing the language up
in regards of getting the permit uh
even if there would be a way to
incorporate that online to the website
where somebody could go in and fill fill
out a form online that just goes
straight to the police department let
them know
I imagine that
uh you know, just something like that of
make if we're going to keep that process
which I still
that's a a lot of hours of manpower for
little return in my opinion. But
Let's I still let's look at cleaning the
language up at least to and then
figure out how we can drive awareness to
that a little bit more.
» Wouldn't you
If you give somebody permission to park
a wouldn't you still have to make sure
our bus still be able to get through
there?
>> That's
>> Yeah, we usually
invite them to the pole office park.
>> I mean he gives them permission and then
a bus can buy and they can't get
through.
>> But that's that's I mean we're you're
never going to be able to legislate
common sense.
I mean just
I'm sorry but you're not going to be
able to legislate common sense.
>> There's not that much
>> If you're If you're the the idea of
parking on the roadway is not that
you're parked dead center in the middle
of the right or left hand lane.
You know, it's that you're
two tires are probably in in the grass,
two tires are probably in the road.
>> Mhm.
>> Right? Um and to me that's where I'm
like this is this is becoming Is this
the best use of our officer's time?
First first and foremost. Yeah, and
that's where I'm starting to go from
there.
>> I guess the biggest thing is how how
close do you park to the curb I guess to
give a bus going around.
>> And and that's where the idea of having
an officer out there with a ruler to
measure how close somebody is to the
side of the road is just like you know,
it's just it's pretty you know, it's crazy.
And I guess we don't have big roads but
there's some of the some of it is just
becomes a if it becomes an a individual
a particular individual issue or is
there not tools in place that you can
address the particular issue versus
having to have such a blanket policy?
>> Unless you do that you can't park 15
foot to a curb. That way you know you
gave yourself a route for a bus to go through.
>> Those streets out there are seven I
think they're 17 foot wide aren't they
Jason?
>> Some of them are 12 Some of them are 12.
14, some 25. You never know.
>> I think anybody can park a car out there
and you still take a school bus by it or
a fire truck if you need to, but you
know
Yeah, I'm going to people are going to
park their cars occasionally whether
they
want to or not.
>> In in your newer subdivisions, yes.
>> Go to the one that was
>> Your your roads are a lot wider.
Now, if you go in the older subdivisions
like
West side of the park, it's civil
Those streets are so small, you can't
even get hardly two vehicles, regular
vehicles
side by side with one another.
>> Only older neighborhoods.
yes. And
that's where the buses is having the
most issues is in the older
neighborhoods, not so much as the newer
neighborhoods.
>> So, the the attorney has already read
some of the TCA statute, can you
elaborate on that?
>> Yeah, part of my concern as we talked
this through and I listened to you guys
uh voice your concerns, uh
a portion of this I'm looking at the
criminal statute now and uh
the town could be exposed to some civil
liability if emergency services weren't
able to respond to a health fire, to an
emergency.
So, that exposure is something to
consider.
>> The town would be responsible for the
civil liability or the person blocking
the road?
>> It looks like it could come back on the
town. I would need to do a little bit
more research. This is just me
>> Just kind of shooting from the hip,
yeah.
So, what's before we
take any action on that because I was
under the impression through what I've
researched I thought that an individual
can be civilly liable if they did
something to prevent a emergency vehicle
from and it might be both actually at
the end of the day, too.
>> It is criminal
a criminal charge.
>> Criminal charge, okay.
Yeah. Let's let's kick that to the attorney
and to Tyler to work on what the wording
needs to look like to to
make it as um
to cover the what the the liability
first and foremost, but also um
you I said we're not going to be able to
legislate common sense, but I think a
lot of this just breaks down to having
common sense of getting your car as far
off the road as you can.
>> Yep.
>> Just plain simple. Um but yeah, we'll I I'll
So, let's let's proceed with going that
route and letting them review that and
action it once that's ready.
>> We'll probably bring that back to you at
the September workshop.
>> Okay.
>> Not put anything on this
>> No, not on the I don't I don't I
wouldn't think it would be approved
ready for this about this month, so.
Any more questions on that?
Want to take item number six then,
interlocal agreements with fire
departments.
Mitch, do you want to tell them what
you're working with?
>> Um Mitch brought me a couple couple of
interlocal agreements that he would like
to see us entertain.
And I'll let him talk about those if he
wants to.
>> There's two uh interlocal agreements.
The first
is with the
Tennessee where our department of public
safety sits in Tennessee Homeland
Security District one.
Um
So, this would be the the actual
interlocal agreement would be with
Sullivan County and Sullivan County EMA
that emergency management, that's who
heads this up.
Um but this would If we enter in this
agreement, we'll allow our guys to go a
lot more training, um
especially specifically technical
rescue, swift water,
uh urban search and rescue, just
participate with the district.
Uh
team trainings that go on on a regular
basis now.
Uh I was a part of that when I worked uh
in Johnson City and it's it would be a
huge asset for us to be able to send
people to that, participate in that.
Um
we just have to have that interlocal
signed with them. Um
the guys have to be when they're
participating as part of the Tennessee District one
Homeland Security District, they have to
uh they have to be covered under their
home department's workers comp. They
can't just bring their own plans and go
up there, by school.
Um the second is with the city church
hill.
Uh they've got it on their BMA agenda as
well.
Um this would be to formalize pretty
much what we do now. Uh it would be for
automatic aid
to
or Mount Pleasant respond Churchill
automatic aid and vice versa
automatically on structure fires.
Um we do that now more or less. It's
just it's a little bit of a delay. We
have to request them, they have to
request us. This just takes that two to
three minute delay out of the mix.
Um
I've spoke with fire chief and the
public safety director there. They've
talked uh to Mayor Deal.
Uh it's it's on their BMA agenda as
well. Uh but they don't foresee any
issues with it being passed there.
» Questions on that?
We're ready to move that forward and
then
on to the meeting.
I think it's item number seven for an
update of rules of order.
And Tyler, you want to go with that?
>> Sure.
So,
we had
some
pretty um
back and forth discussion back in April
and May about moving the meeting and
rescheduling a meeting and when that
motion was brought up and and everything
and I think we talked about, you know,
making sure that we follow our rules
that we set forth and and all those
things so that we have orderly meetings
and motions not made out of order.
So, I think one way to do that is to
adopt our agendas at the beginning of
each meeting. That's pretty standard
procedure. We just don't do it
currently. Um I've done some research on
Robert's Rules and think that it's
important for us to add that in. So,
we'll look at updating our whole order
of business to include adoption of the
agenda.
So that at that point in time it takes a
simple majority to adopt the agenda. If
anybody wants to add anything, which
that runs into open meetings, um
it requires a 2/3 majority to to add add
something to a meeting.
Um
that that also opens you up to further
potential
uh litigation if you were to try to walk
something onto a meeting that was not
publicly noticed.
But really it gives you an opportunity
to to confirm the business that that's
set before you for the meeting, and I
think it'll just be a routine thing we
need to add. So we're going to look at
updating that. Also give a space for us
to do employee recognition or or any
type of visitor recognition right at the
beginning of the meeting.
Uh so that we we follow what we said
we're going to do.
More of a housekeeping item.
>> Questions on that. So basically this is
if you're trying to add a topic at a
meeting.
>> Right.
>> Not something that was previously
requested to be said. Okay.
>> And it's the And just to be human, to
also the business meeting, the workshop
would be available from if you wanted to
add something at the beginning of the
meeting, you'd be able to add it at the
beginning of the meeting. It's not We're
not actually taking action on that.
Uh this this would just be your business
meeting where you could have a true
actionable item gets added night of
meeting.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> That is very That in itself is very
limited in what you're allowed to do.
What I'm trying to get to it would be
something minor.
>> Right.
>> Not a substantial issue.
>> Right.
>> If you do that, you could be open to
litigation.
>> Okay. Okay.
Thank you for the clarification.
>> Any questions on Any other questions on
that housekeeping item?
Before we close out, I just want to
thank the
departments that are here. Uh I think
it's majority of everybody for
coming out Saturday and putting on uh
Touch-a-Truck and Back to School event.
Have received nothing but positive
feedback about it from uh uh
to the guys and you make sure you pass
that along down to the guys that were
here because the uh
the getting to kind of just even be out
there and observe it, too. I mean, I
think everybody did a great job of of
representing the town, representing your
departments, and everybody should be
commended for that. I think we will have
learned some things that we'll do a
little differently next time. Hopefully,
there won't be a monsoon happening a few
hours beforehand.
Um but considering all things considered
with it, we got a great turnout, great
participation, and and wonderful
feedback. So, thank you all for your
great work on that.
>> Let me
add to that. I represented Colonel
Lawson's retirement
function for uh Sheriff Lawson.
And uh
amazingly, he he almost burst into tears
at one point. He's been in law
enforcement 49 years, 16 as a sheriff.
>> Wow.
>> And uh
August 28th, I think, is his last day.
It was really kind of funny. The uh
sheriff's office bought him a rifle, all
tricked out, $4,000 rifle. And as he
opened it, pulled it out, he said,
"Look, my first gun."
Anyway, it was a good function and uh
>> Thank you for going down there on behalf
of the county. We appreciate that.
Anybody else?
We'll see you next week.