[0:01] It's 5:02 PM on Monday, July 27th.

[0:03] We call to order the work session agenda for the Board of Commissioners.

[0:09] With 4 of 5 commissioners present, we do have a quorum.

[0:13] Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:17] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:21] United States of America and to the republic

[0:21] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

[0:24] with liberty and justice for all.

[0:42] The next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Is there a motion?

[0:47] Motion to approve.

[0:48] Second.

[0:50] We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Carpenter,

[0:54] seconded by Commissioner Streufert. Any discussion on the agenda?

[0:59] All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

[1:06] Item 3 is approval of minutes for the work session for June 15th, 2026.

[1:11] Is there a motion?

[1:13] Motion to approve.

[1:15] Second.

[1:16] We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

[1:19] All in favor of approval signify by saying aye. Aye.

[1:23] All opposed?

[1:24] Motion passes unanimously. The next item on the agenda is citizen comments.

[1:29] No one has signed up to speak at citizen comments, but if you would like to do so,

[1:34] now is your opportunity. Seeing none, that takes us to our discussion items.

[1:39] The first discussion item is a pavilion at Greystone property with Mary Kate

[1:43] Polreese from Friends of Nolensville Park.

[1:46] So I'll invite you up to the microphone, and, um,

[1:49] between Staff and Friends of the Parks, please share this update.

[1:53] So Mary Kate came and visited with me a couple of weeks ago, something like that,

[2:00] and we talked about some other improvements that Friends of the Park

[2:06] improvements that Friends of the Park could be

[2:06] working on. And one of the pieces of the conversation came out about Greystone

[2:13] conversation came out about Greystone Park.

[2:13] What are we going to be doing there? It's now cleaned up.

[2:18] What would be nice to be able to go in there that would be passive but would be a

[2:24] benefit to the community, to that area and what all?

[2:29] One of the things that was presented was the possibility of a pavilion at that.

[2:35] And so as we do with these particular projects,

[2:39] if that's something that you all are interested in seeing there—

[2:44] Yes.

[2:45] and Friends of the Park is interested in raising money for in order to put there,

[2:50] then you all would need to eventually give consensus on that or vote on that,

[2:56] that you're supportive of that should they decide to work on that project.

[3:01] And so that's kind of what we're here today,

[3:04] and Mary Kate's going to tell you about it.

[3:07] Yeah, absolutely. So we're just requesting approval to partner with the town to

[3:12] donate a pavilion for the Greystone property, and this is at no cost to the

[3:17] property, and this is at no cost to the town.

[3:17] Recently, a local business approached us with the opportunity to donate materials

[3:23] for this project. We saw this as a unique opportunity to provide an amenity—

[3:28] an amenity— that aligns with the park's town master plan while minimizing the

[3:33] financial impact to the town.

[3:34] The park master plan identifies the need for gathering spaces throughout it.

[3:39] And it specifically mentions community gathering spaces such as pavilions.

[3:44] And also, during the public input process,

[3:47] pavilions were mentioned by residents as well in that area.

[3:51] So we're fully committed to working with staff to locate this pavilion where it

[3:56] staff to locate this pavilion where it will

[3:56] not hinder any further development at this property.

[4:00] We know there's not a master plan for that,

[4:02] so we don't want to interfere with it or any future development.

[4:06] And we're happy to answer. I'm happy to answer any further questions.

[4:12] Any questions? I think it sounds like a great idea and part of what the

[4:17] partnership was intended to do,

[4:20] so I don't have any questions at this point.

[4:23] So unless others got questions,

[4:25] what we would intend to do is actually commemorate this with a resolution of

[4:31] support. So that you all, both parties,

[4:35] have something to kind of fall back to that says, yeah, we discussed it,

[4:40] we're supportive of this,

[4:42] and we'll try to bring that resolution at the voting meeting.

[4:47] So I certainly don't have any issue with supporting and moving forward.

[4:51] I think it's a fantastic idea.

[4:53] At what point do we have the opportunity— will this be back before us?

[4:58] I know that there was an email that I received that's Roughly 20 by 20,

[5:02] not holding you to size.

[5:03] Um, and so will we see this before us again for location within the park so that

[5:08] there's a little bit more discussion?

[5:11] Is this something that staff feels that they'll be able to take care of placement?

[5:16] I know even Mary Kate mentioned they don't want to interfere with what future plans,

[5:21] but will we be able to see location before approval?

[5:24] We can. I think staff can work with them to Uh, I guess give a first, a first, uh,

[5:31] blush of, of where it should go, what it should look like, those type of things,

[5:37] and then just kind of bring that to the board for you all to ultimately give us

[5:43] board for you all to ultimately give us the

[5:43] official go-ahead on that.

[5:45] Okay.

[5:46] Or support.

[5:47] Would the expectation be that the town provide the slab to build upon?

[5:54] And if so, So we discussed that briefly,

[5:59] Victor, and you hypothesized this idea that

[6:04] perhaps—

[6:05] There is a possibility.

[6:07] Well, we talked about, is that something that we could do,

[6:10] that we could provide that slab, we could put it in?

[6:13] Is that something that Kyle's crew can do? It may be.

[6:16] I hadn't talked to Kyle, but that may be a little bit more than what Uh,

[6:20] they want to try to do, especially when you want to try to get a nice,

[6:24] very smooth finish on that.

[6:26] Uh, we'll come up with a cost estimate and I'll have that information for you at

[6:31] your voting meeting.

[6:32] Is there— I don't think I've received any emails about this.

[6:36] Is there an email that went out about it?

[6:39] No, I think, I think Mary Kate may have had a conversation with—

[6:43] Was there a rendering in the email that you received as an attachment?

[6:46] I don't think I've received anything.

[6:48] Okay.

[6:49] So you have an attachment, an email?

[6:50] Um, I—

[6:52] yes.

[6:52] No, I don't think I've had any communication about this from you all.

[6:57] Um, do you want me to—

[7:00] are you wanting the picture? Is that what you're wanting?

[7:02] Do you want me to forward it or—

[7:04] okay.

[7:06] Um, my, my email came from Wynn Elliott, um, which board member,

[7:12] correct? Yeah. Um, and So there's enough detail to let me know sizing

[7:19] and a picture, but that's about the extent of what I have.

[7:24] So let me forward.

[7:26] Tuesday.

[7:35] Okay.

[7:37] So it sounds like the intention Is that there is no cost to the town,

[7:42] at least for the pavilion portion?

[7:45] We are committed to making this a no cost to the town. That's our hope and desire.

[7:52] Okay.

[7:53] Is that—

[7:54] that includes slab? If that's the—

[7:57] okay.

[7:58] So it sounds like you have the support from all of us up here.

[8:03] Well, I say that I— the 2 at the end are nodding, but,

[8:07] but so I have no problem. I think it's a fantastic idea.

[8:12] Maybe there might be a few more details.

[8:16] I mean, there's always more details.

[8:17] Yeah, that just make sure are straightened out.

[8:20] But yes, certainly the support and moving forward.

[8:23] I think even the size lends great with that park as like an initial setup for

[8:28] something. And so I love the fact this shows 4 tables.

[8:32] I mean, to have a place where you could actually have a birthday party and get it

[8:37] running.

[8:37] And we have one of those tables already that they want to give to the town and

[8:43] that they want to give to the town and made

[8:43] out of— and that's another just cool part of the story.

[8:47] All of this lumber comes from state parks that were downed trees during Winter Storm

[8:54] Fern. So that's how these— the lumber was able to be given to us.

[8:59] So that's a rendering of what it would look like.

[9:05] So I think it's a great idea.

[9:07] I think that— I mean, everybody's pretty much said what I, what I want to say,

[9:12] so I'll just say that I think it's, it's a great first big project,

[9:17] and it does exactly what I've wanted to do with that parcel,

[9:21] which is to kind of activate it.

[9:23] I think we've talked about, you know,

[9:26] the potential of initially like a birthday park or something, you know,

[9:31] gathering space. And so this can kind of also accelerate that and bring some value

[9:37] to the community. So yeah, I'm fully supportive.

[9:40] And I actually look forward to how everything plays out,

[9:44] given that this is kind of the first big project that we're—

[9:48] Lots of opportunities for learning, I'm sure.

[9:51] Exactly. Exactly.

[9:54] Yeah, I too will express my support for this.

[9:56] I know I just asked a very blunt question, but I like this.

[9:59] I think this is a great first step and a great use of that park.

[10:03] Yeah, anything we can do to help.

[10:04] So will you send me whatever proposal you guys have sent to everybody else?

[10:09] Yeah, that would be great. All right.

[10:11] Any other questions or conversation concerning,

[10:13] concerning the pavilion at the Greystone property?

[10:19] One question. It looked like we had some remaining budget,

[10:23] at least in the June report that was provided. Is there any chance that's

[10:27] provided. Is there any chance that's available?

[10:28] There's about $60,000 left in that Greenstone redevelopment.

[10:31] Well, if it's in June money, it's gone.

[10:35] Yeah.

[10:36] Okay.

[10:36] That's what— Because we're in a new budget year.

[10:38] Yep.

[10:39] That's what I presumed. So thank you.

[10:40] All right. The next—

[10:43] Item on the agenda is a discussion for allowing

[10:48] alternative waste systems in the UGB.

[10:52] Victor.

[10:53] All right, so, uh, we wanted to— or this was asked to be brought back up,

[10:59] and one of the questions that the mayor had asked of me was to try to understand

[11:07] where the original agreements were with Metro that defined, number one,

[11:13] what their territory was and what responsibilities were.

[11:18] So, uh, Enoch, Chuck, and I had a conversation this morning,

[11:24] and Chuck was able to find in 1997 where the city agreed to a joint agreement with,

[11:32] uh, Nolensville College Grove Utility District, with Brentwood,

[11:37] obviously with Metro to essentially convey the territory that's considered as the

[11:45] Mill Creek drainage basin. So Mill Creek drainage.

[11:50] So that's essentially the ridgeline to the north.

[11:54] So everything that's in that drainage basin is considered Metro's territory.

[12:01] Okay.

[12:05] Our municipal code has a reference to 2002, and we eventually found it as well.

[12:11] Or, well, we found yet another, I guess,

[12:15] place in there where it basically just gives the authority to Metro saying that

[12:21] gives the authority to Metro saying that it

[12:21] is— that any sewer disposal Yes. Has to be approved by Metro.

[12:26] There is somewhere, and I hadn't been able to find it.

[12:31] Brad and I discussed it, whether or not it's in the zoning code or whatever,

[12:37] that we have an allowance to allow alternative sewer systems.

[12:42] I've read that somewhere.

[12:44] When Brad and I were discussing, he thought the language sounded very

[12:50] thought the language sounded very familiar.

[12:50] We've not yet found that again. Again, we'll continue to look for that.

[12:56] But according to this, it's actually a little bit stronger than,

[13:01] than I had even thought, because I thought that, that by staying in the county,

[13:08] that the county could allow those alternative systems.

[13:12] And in fact, they allowed the farm to have an alternative sewer system.

[13:18] But according to this agreement,

[13:21] I don't know that the county could have because the entire drainage basin was

[13:27] conveyed to them. So whether it was an error or not, um, the,

[13:32] the property from anything that's in that drainage basin, uh,

[13:37] and that was originally part of Nolensville College Grove, Brentwood,

[13:43] or the town of Nolensville under our control, then is— Is part of the county.

[13:49] Yes.

[13:49] That's part of Metro's now. So Metro has the final say.

[13:54] The backside of the hill, the south side of the hill is not part of that.

[13:59] That's not part of the Mill Creek Drainage Basin.

[14:03] So everything on that side of it, number one, is not subject to Metro.

[14:09] And even in our conversations with Metro, they've acknowledged that,

[14:14] that they have no desire on the backside of that.

[14:18] Anything that's going to require it to be pumped They're not necessarily interested

[14:25] in, or they're not at least claiming as their territory.

[14:29] In those areas, they're in the county.

[14:32] The county allows alternative sewer systems except when they're in a UGB.

[14:38] And the reason that they don't allow them in a UGB is because it would then take

[14:44] away the city's discretion on whether or not to annex.

[14:48] Because if things can just develop as they are without the cities, uh,

[14:54] being able to, to control it, then what's the point of a UGB?

[14:59] The annexation laws have changed to where now cities don't get to annex at will.

[15:05] You can only annex by request.

[15:07] And so if something has already developed Then why would they request?

[15:13] We see that with Silverstream. We see it with the Farm, those 2 prime examples.

[15:21] When—

[15:22] is it Sage— was it Sagebrook developed, which was out on—

[15:28] Clovercroft?

[15:31] No, it's not on Clovercroft. It's on— that's not the one I'm talking about.

[15:37] Are you talking about Willow Ridge?

[15:38] Willow Ridge. Willow Ridge.

[15:40] When Willow Ridge developed, originally you all had,

[15:44] had discussed turning it down for annexation.

[15:47] And when you did that, they then reached out to the county,

[15:50] and the county had reached out to me and says, hey,

[15:54] we've got a letter here that says you've denied this plan.

[15:58] Are you saying you don't want to annex?

[16:00] Because if you don't want to annex,

[16:03] then We're going to allow them to develop something.

[16:06] Uh, we indicated at that point that we did want to annex them.

[16:10] We did want that in our prop— in our city limits.

[16:13] And so the county would not approve a plan of theirs.

[16:17] But had we said, yep, go ahead, we're not interested,

[16:20] they would have allowed them an alternative sewer system.

[16:24] It would have been served by Metro.

[16:26] Oh, well, you're actually— you know what, you're right,

[16:30] because that is part of the drainage basin.

[16:33] So it would— and they, they already had their, their letter from Metro,

[16:38] so they could have, they could have had theirs.

[16:41] But, um, all that to say is that was—

[16:44] that's when the county would have stepped in and allowed them to develop,

[16:49] is after we had denied their plan and said we did not want to annex them.

[16:54] So the question comes,

[16:56] and the county is very opposed to opening up the UGB again and taking someone out of

[17:02] the UGB. But the question then comes to you all is the properties that you may

[17:07] you all is the properties that you may feel

[17:08] are further out than what we really should have placed in our UGB or further out

[17:13] than what we expect to annex or whatever,

[17:16] if you want that property to be allowed to annex, then we would have to then—

[17:22] Right.

[17:23] Essentially, uh, make a statement that it's not our intent to annex that property

[17:29] and then allow the county to let it develop inside the county with an

[17:35] develop inside the county with an alternative

[17:36] sewer system. So we would have to give the county permission to allow alternative

[17:42] sewer systems in our UGB. That's how that would have to go.

[17:47] Um, We would have to work with Charles to see what kind of limitations we could put

[17:54] on that, because if you just blanket laid it out there,

[17:58] then that would mean anything south of the ridgeline would be subject to that.

[18:05] So you would—

[18:05] we would have to make a determination of,

[18:08] of what that is and create our own 59th parallel,

[18:12] if you remember that term.

[18:14] Yeah.

[18:14] from history a long, long, long,

[18:17] long time ago and determine whatever line it's going to be and then say

[18:22] from that point south or something like that, if you wanted to do that.

[18:27] What questions do you have with regard to that?

[18:31] Where's the ridgeline?

[18:34] Where is the ridgeline?

[18:37] Yes.

[18:37] You know where the water tank sits?

[18:40] Up there behind the Van Slyke property.

[18:43] That's essentially the— that ridgeline.

[18:48] Well, I think to answer one of your questions,

[18:52] if we had no intention of future annexation for the UGB,

[18:56] we wouldn't have sought the area in which we clearly included in our UGB.

[19:02] So to say I would want to remove that,

[19:06] to think we wouldn't be annexing that in the future, my answer would be no.

[19:12] I'm curious why this is before us.

[19:15] Me. I asked for it to be added to the agenda.

[19:18] I'd be happy to provide more clarity on that.

[19:21] So what was not— first of all, June 15th at that workshop,

[19:24] we went through this information just in nothing in writing,

[19:28] just a verbal report from Victor.

[19:31] Um, which I think probably all of us— I know had questions.

[19:34] I went back on Friday and rewatched the June 15th workshop,

[19:38] and the understanding when we left that workshop is that additional information

[19:44] would be provided so we could continue to review this.

[19:47] Um, in my view, we have to make a decision because we—

[19:51] the impacts of alternative sewer systems in the urban growth boundary and within

[19:56] town are actually items that we haven't discussed with details to know where in

[20:01] discussed with details to know where in our

[20:01] subdivision regulations, which I think subdivision regulations,

[20:06] from what I could research over the weekend,

[20:09] is probably where most of the details come from.

[20:12] Um, there is a, there is a, a length of feet, it's 1,000 feet,

[20:16] that's referenced for when, uh,

[20:18] you would have to hook to sewer or whether or not you could do an alternative

[20:23] wastewater system, if there are agreements dating back to 1997, we have a—

[20:28] in my opinion, have a responsibility as an organization to make sure that we know

[20:33] what they are, when they apply,

[20:35] so that we can fairly apply them to whether it's the Jenkins farm or whether

[20:40] whether it's the Jenkins farm or whether it's

[20:41] the Mosley farm that's in the urban growth boundary,

[20:44] or whether it's the Van Slyke property that is before us later today for

[20:49] that is before us later today for annexation.

[20:50] that would fall under the subdivision regulations and could potentially be more

[20:55] regulations and could potentially be more than

[20:55] 1,000 feet from existing sewer.

[20:57] So we need to be organized and understand what the regulations are, when they apply,

[21:03] and in order to do that, we need more than just anecdotal descriptions of it.

[21:08] We need to actually have those agreements, know if they need to be updated,

[21:13] and know when they apply.

[21:14] Just from the discussion from June 15th to today,

[21:18] it's clear to me that we don't have all those details because I think a lot of

[21:23] those details because I think a lot of the—

[21:23] I mean, from, from what, Victor, what you shared, you were pulling information,

[21:28] going back and researching those agreements with Metro today.

[21:32] Um, none— not a single member of our current staff nor a single member of this

[21:38] current staff nor a single member of this board

[21:38] was on the board in the early 2000s. Or worked here in the early 2000s.

[21:43] So we need to understand what they are,

[21:45] especially in light of the 600 acres of annexations that are being voted on at the

[21:51] beginning of August and how that would be impacted.

[21:54] In addition, I don't— for the June 15th workshop,

[21:57] one of the things that was shared was that the urban growth—

[22:01] the Growth Management Roundtable Which was a byproduct of the Urban Growth Boundary

[22:07] Coordinating Committee and the interlocal agreement that we have with the other

[22:12] municipalities in Williamson County that meets quarterly.

[22:16] Um, you know, I, I took one of the things that Victor said on that June 15th meeting

[22:21] to think that that group did not want to discuss, discuss this issue.

[22:26] Um, after watching that meeting back and,

[22:29] and having the opportunity to think through more the issue,

[22:33] it's not that group that doesn't want to discuss The items in the urban growth

[22:38] boundary, it's literally the Urban Growth Boundary Coordinating Committee that was

[22:43] put into place. And the evaluation— and Victor said this,

[22:47] but I'm just reiterating this—

[22:49] every single municipality in Williamson County would have to go through that

[22:54] County would have to go through that 2-year

[22:54] process, which was a 2-year process that we went through in evaluating each of the

[23:00] parcels in the urban growth boundary, whether they should be in or out,

[23:04] a significant amount of public meetings.

[23:07] Okay.

[23:08] Um, that is the piece that there is not appetite to open back up.

[23:13] And for reference, when that process went into place,

[23:17] it had not happened in 20 years.

[23:20] So to open it up this fast is the part that I think is probably not recommended

[23:25] that I think is probably not recommended or

[23:26] not necessarily something that everyone supports.

[23:29] But I do think that property owners have a right to understand what can or can't be

[23:36] done. And if you can be literally across the street at the Catholic Church and have

[23:42] an alternative waste system, and they're wanting to develop not in town limits,

[23:48] which is essentially what— where we're at, I do have a hard time saying, well,

[23:54] you asked us, we said no, but you still can't do anything, even though—

[23:59] Right.

[24:01] We have not researched and really dug into what the implications are until

[24:06] Victor shared just now that there's an agreement from— what did you say,

[24:11] '97 or 2004?

[24:12] '97.

[24:13] From '97. I was not aware that there are any written

[24:17] agreements with Metro.

[24:19] And so we need to have clarity on that.

[24:22] We need to make sure we have our act together in,

[24:26] in So your ask is what systems are allowable under whatever these

[24:32] particular agreements may be?

[24:35] Well, all of it. So if you go through— if you go through the zoning ordinance, um,

[24:41] and I, I'm— my ask is that there be a staff report related to this because I'm

[24:47] staff report related to this because I'm just,

[24:47] I, I'm just reading.

[24:49] If you go through the zoning ordinance, it references the subdivision regulations.

[24:55] If you go through the subdivision regulations,

[24:58] which were just reviewed by the Planning Commission on 7/1/2016,

[25:03] The subdivision regulations never come to this board.

[25:07] They live with the Planning Commission.

[25:10] There's specific 5.7 that goes through sanitary sewage facilities and provisions

[25:16] sanitary sewage facilities and provisions of

[25:16] those, and when you're allowed to do an alternative sewer system and when you're

[25:22] not. There's 2 criteria for that, and it's it's 5.7 item 2 a, and it's.

[25:27] Related to a written intent to service the area,

[25:31] which I think we've always interpreted as a will-serve letter from Metro,

[25:36] but it's broader than that in that there's not necessarily a development plan at

[25:42] this point. And then item 5.72 specifically references that in order to

[25:48] specifically references that in order to have to hook

[25:49] to it, it has to be reasonably available, which is designated as 1,000 feet—

[25:54] within 1,000 feet of a public sewer—

[25:57] and if the routing of the sewer can occur via natural drainage or other acceptable

[26:03] routing. So I'm just asking for clarity from the interpretation from legal and

[26:09] from the interpretation from legal and staff

[26:09] so that we as a board can make an informed decision Because to date,

[26:14] what we haven't— what we have in front of us is just anecdotal stories about

[26:20] allowing sewer in the urban growth boundary.

[26:23] And what I shared with Victor when we talked on Sunday evening was that when the

[26:29] Willow Ridge subdivision was considered for annexation,

[26:33] my belief is that I was told that it could not develop if it was not in town limits

[26:39] because Metro would not serve it.

[26:42] Okay.

[26:43] And board members at the time voted based off of that.

[26:46] After the fact, it came back that Metro would serve it,

[26:49] and we ended up having to go back and reconsider that specific item.

[26:54] What I learned from that experience is trust but verify. Show me the regulations.

[26:59] Show me the subdivision regulations. Show me the zoning code.

[27:02] So show me the agreement with Metro. If it exists, bring it forward.

[27:06] If it doesn't exist, that's fine, but let's work it out.

[27:10] And then also understand that there are property owners that are—

[27:14] have been waiting for, in my opinion, a significant amount of time for,

[27:18] for a resolution that ultimately is something that we have to act on.

[27:23] I second that. Um, my biggest hurdle

[27:28] here, I feel like there's a lot of—

[27:35] sorry.

[27:37] Fairy bells ringing.

[27:38] Um, there are— the biggest sticking point for me right now is the feeling like we're

[27:45] putting, we're putting landowners in an impossible situation where we've decided

[27:52] that we're not ready to annex,

[27:55] but we're also kind of putting a hard stop on any development in that area,

[28:01] especially knowing that Metro Metro has said they will not serve past a certain

[28:08] point.

[28:08] But nowhere in writing.

[28:10] But nowhere in writing. But that's where I second what you're saying, that I—

[28:14] But it is kind of in writing because they say it's the Mill Creek drainage basin

[28:20] is what was outlined. The Mill Creek drainage basin is to the north of the

[28:25] drainage basin is to the north of the ridge.

[28:26] But in Haley's defense, I haven't seen that. You read that in the meeting.

[28:32] And I'm just saying, I think I get what she's saying.

[28:36] I think that these are big decisions that we need to have more in front of us to be

[28:43] able to, to look through and to, to fully understand what we're,

[28:48] what we're talking about.

[28:51] You know, I, I think we've said this before, that the annexation is just— for

[28:57] before, that the annexation is just— for me,

[28:57] it's just too— it's just too soon.

[29:00] But I also don't like this idea of of us preventing a—

[29:04] these landowners to make a decision on their property with us not wanting to

[29:11] their property with us not wanting to annex

[29:11] them. So I, I support what the mayor is saying. I want more information.

[29:17] One other item that I know I have briefly talked with Charles about before is in

[29:23] relation to the sewer moratorium that Metro currently has and understanding if

[29:28] development south— well,

[29:30] development anywhere was able to have any sort of an alternative sewer system that

[29:36] could then eventually hook into— do you remember this conversation?

[29:40] I didn't prep Charles on this one.

[29:43] I'm just throwing it out there because it is something—

[29:47] this was a while ago when the sewer moratorium started.

[29:51] And that there could potentially need to be certain ordinances in place that would

[29:57] require potential neighborhood, say for example,

[30:00] if the Vance-like neighborhood was developed and under the regulations as

[30:05] developed and under the regulations as they exist

[30:06] today in the subdivision regulations were allowed to develop under an alternative

[30:12] sewer system but is within the gravity-fed basin, if they could, uh,

[30:16] if that ordinance could require them to, when it became available, hook on.

[30:22] Um, I don't know how all that works,

[30:24] but I think that's why we have staff and legal to review it.

[30:29] And I think that's another component of it that needs to be evaluated again,

[30:34] because there are 600 acres of potential annexations that this board— really,

[30:40] it's more than 600 acres.

[30:41] It's probably closer to 800 acres if you were to add in the Jenkins development.

[30:47] Farm development is not an accurate way to describe that.

[30:51] But it all comes down to we need more information,

[30:55] which is what we discussed on June 15th.

[30:57] And I just want to make sure I continue to push for that so that we have the ability

[31:03] to make an informed decision. So what could be next step for that?

[31:08] Because we left June 15th with that discussion, what would, Victor,

[31:13] you propose as next steps to make sure that we are working through this?

[31:18] So what I would propose, you mentioned a staff report.

[31:23] Staff will go through all of this information.

[31:27] We will work with legal counsel and we will put you together a—

[31:32] we'll call it a, uh, our own policy, if you will,

[31:37] based on the agreements that are in place outlining Uh, where it can go,

[31:43] if it can go, what are the regulations that surround it for you all to have

[31:50] in front of you.

[31:51] Do you think it's possible to have that by our, um—

[31:57] By your voting meeting.

[31:58] Okay, great.

[32:01] If I can ask an additional couple of things on that, if it's Yes.

[32:06] Is it possible to get statements from Metro on some of this?

[32:11] I think that's an important step forward to have some of what Metro has held as

[32:18] formal or informal policy in writing to us.

[32:21] And to match that with some layouts and some maps,

[32:25] we have our wonderful GIS staff here, Joel. If we can get some of that

[32:31] Joel. If we can get some of that information.

[32:33] Okay.

[32:33] And overlaid on our current parcel data and boundary data that I think will help

[32:38] understand a little bit more of where these boundaries start to overlap and what

[32:43] implicates what in terms of decision-making.

[32:46] But again, if we can get some sort of statements from Metro on their sense of

[32:51] statements from Metro on their sense of not

[32:51] only their— using Mill Creek as their boundary,

[32:55] but also do we have any kind of timing on the Sewer capacity in general.

[32:59] You know, I know they are probably going to throw that probably back in the napkin,

[33:05] but I think all of that would help in this report.

[33:08] Okay.

[33:08] Any other discussion or information

[33:12] related to alternative waste systems in

[33:16] the UGB?

[33:20] All right.

[33:20] The next item on the agenda is the Alternative Cross Section for the Historic

[33:24] District Streetscape Project Update. From Town Manager Lay.

[33:27] So the next issue there,

[33:30] we talked a little bit about it during the last time— last meeting.

[33:37] The revised estimate that we received from Kimley-Horn was

[33:43] significantly less. It went from a little over $5 million down to—

[33:49] which did not include The utility costs down to a lesser

[33:55] right-of-way. I sent to you all images of what that cross-section

[34:02] would look like. The estimate on that— and if I can share my screen.

[34:09] OK.

[34:18] Is that working? Admin,

[34:22] maybe I'm clicking on the wrong one here.

[34:29] Yeah, just click on—

[34:32] instead of me sharing the screen,

[34:38] just click— Just click on it and put it up

[34:45] there.

[34:46] Is this the one you want?

[34:48] Yes.

[34:51] Well, I've got it. I just was trying to get it on the big screen.

[34:57] That's all right. That's all right. Don't worry about it.

[35:03] Yes, that's what I'm wanting you to do. All right.

[35:08] So if you look at that,

[35:10] that was actually Kimley Horn's estimate for this particular project.

[35:17] Now notice that it has the utilities set at zero.

[35:21] The state of Tennessee, TDOT, actually did a—

[35:26] and we just got an email last week from them where they took a look at this

[35:33] particular project.

[35:35] OK.

[35:35] Particular cost estimate and they revised it where they actually added in

[35:42] the right of— or the utilities cost.

[35:46] Evidently they thought that there may be some utilities cost.

[35:52] That was, um, $906,000, I think, is the number that they added in there.

[35:59] They had also, through the others, dropped it, uh, some others, $140,000.

[36:06] So Their number came in at $3.6— I'm sorry, yeah, $3.56 million.

[36:13] If that were our number,

[36:15] if that's what the construction cost and you did have that $900,000 of

[36:22] utility cost in it, we would have 20% of that.

[36:27] We'd have to budget for the whole thing. We would get reimbursed 80%.

[36:34] Our 20% would be $712 million, essentially $712,800,000,

[36:40] if the TDOT's estimate of—

[36:42] Thousand.

[36:43] What did I say? Million? Yeah, uh, $712,800,000.

[36:49] Uh, if TDOT's estimate of $3,564,000 Was ultimately the number.

[36:56] So if you all were amenable to that as far as a future cost,

[37:03] and that future cost would be at least a year out because we have

[37:10] to go through design.

[37:13] Today I received a— the proposal for what the redesign would cost,

[37:20] which was I think $90,000 is what that number was.

[37:26] I've given you a copy of that.

[37:29] It's laid on your tables from Kimberly Horn. $89,500.

[37:36] So we've already done design, but because there is a new proposed design,

[37:40] we have to pay $90,000 additional for new design?

[37:42] If you want to go to a redesign, then yes. That would be correct.

[37:47] And have we—

[37:50] quite some time ago when we discussed the cost increase and speaking with the

[37:54] businesses downtown, which I continue to communicate with, have we,

[37:57] have we opened a line of communication with those businesses?

[38:01] Have we reached out to them?

[38:02] A lot of them are still under the impression that this was not going to

[38:06] impression that this was not going to happen based

[38:07] on cost and did not really seem to have a feeling that it would affect them should

[38:11] Did it not?

[38:12] And so I'm curious.

[38:13] So the process that I wanted to go through— no, I have not engaged them

[38:18] through— no, I have not engaged them again.

[38:18] The process that I wanted to do was to see, first of all,

[38:22] in general tonight where you all were. I'm not asking you to vote on anything.

[38:27] Where are you?

[38:28] Does—

[38:29] is this a route that you all are interested in going?

[38:32] If it is, then what I want to do is turn around and have some public engagement

[38:38] around and have some public engagement with

[38:38] them to talk to our business owners, get a—

[38:41] spend a little money and get a new graphic put together,

[38:45] get it in front of those business owners so that they can look at it,

[38:50] and then you can get some feedback from them before you commit one way or the

[38:55] them before you commit one way or the other

[38:55] on this. When I had gone through before and talked to some of them,

[39:00] like the feed mill, they were— while they were Going along with it,

[39:05] they didn't like the proposal because it removed their parking.

[39:09] It did a number of things.

[39:11] They— we definitely need their input if we are going to change it because it is

[39:16] different. And so, no, short answer is no,

[39:19] but I am not asking you to make a decision right now.

[39:23] Okay.

[39:23] I am just looking to see if this interests you at all because if it doesn't interest

[39:29] If you look at it and just go, hey, you know what,

[39:33] I'm not interested in finding another $700,000,

[39:36] not interested in spending another $100,000 right now for design,

[39:40] then it's our intent to shelve the project and just not deal with it.

[39:45] And when you say— sorry, when you say find, we have just completed the budget,

[39:50] so this would really be a matter of finding where the funding is coming from.

[39:55] from, and if that's being taken from another source,

[39:59] or you know that we potentially have that and so we could move forward with the 90

[40:04] fairly easily?

[40:05] You could. Christina, Chuck, and I have sat down and we've looked at our dollars,

[40:12] and if I could have pulled up my screen,

[40:15] I can go to the budget that we presented you all that would show the capital

[40:22] projects and the dollars associated with those capital projects.

[40:27] It's listed— yeah, it's listed under that capital projects tab of that budget

[40:34] dashboard sheet that we have.

[40:36] And inside that, you can see what we've budgeted across through there.

[40:42] But for this discussion, more importantly, at the very bottom of that—

[40:48] Yes.

[40:50] There are charts that show for the next 5 years what that spending looks like.

[40:57] I'm going to try that, that Windows+K again and see if that will get us there.

[41:04] I'm seeing your Admin AV21 display and I'm clicking on it.

[41:10] It says it's connecting.

[41:12] Yes.

[41:13] There it is.

[41:15] Okay.

[41:17] So if we are going back up here,

[41:20] let's get rid of that window.

[41:23] If we're going back up here and we're looking at the, um,

[41:29] streetscape project, uh, where is it? Just a second.

[41:35] Okay.

[41:45] Well, it's not in here.

[41:48] If there it is, the Street Shapes project right

[41:56] here. This is last year's budget.

[42:01] This column is this year's budget.

[42:06] Obviously we didn't put any money in this for this

[42:14] year's budget.

[42:17] All right.

[42:18] It was coming out of the facilities tax.

[42:20] Mm-hmm.

[42:20] So the adequate facilities tax.

[42:23] So if we go down to the adequate facilities tax and look at their chart,

[42:28] which is right here, what we would see is that if we were looking For dollars, for,

[42:35] for number one, for this year, we said, hey, you know what, we need this,

[42:41] we're going to spend $100,000 for engineering fees this year,

[42:46] then it's going to be right here.

[42:49] And so we have available right now for this year, uh, $3.1 million.

[42:54] Now that's assuming that all it is assuming that we have Our revenue that

[43:00] assuming that we have Our revenue that comes in,

[43:01] which is about $450,000,

[43:03] $455,000 is what we were projecting in revenues for this year.

[43:08] But roughly, that's what we have available for this year.

[43:12] All right.

[43:14] $100,000 is not as significant as the $700,000 that we would be needing for the

[43:21] $700,000 that we would be needing for the next

[43:21] year. Or the next 2 years if you split that out over time.

[43:26] And there's— this is a bigger discussion because we also want to have a discussion

[43:33] about the overage of the Chris Mann Brown Park bids,

[43:38] what it would look like if the Nolensville— I'm sorry, the York— If Rocky

[43:44] Nolensville— I'm sorry, the York— If Rocky Fork Road,

[43:45] Newsome Lane intersection comes, which we're about to go to bid on,

[43:51] if that one comes in higher than we projected,

[43:55] and we don't want to zero out our budgets, but, but it's kind of all connected.

[44:01] But nonetheless, right now, if you said, hey, you know what,

[44:06] we're willing to commit the $100,000, the $90,000, yes,

[44:11] you have the money in adequate facilities to commit the $90,000.

[44:17] Next year it's less, uh, projection,

[44:20] less Less based on all the information that we have in the models right now.

[44:26] If everything stayed the same, all of our other budgets were fine,

[44:32] then you would have $750,000 or $712,000 less in the next year budget.

[44:38] So instead of $2 million, you would be at—

[44:41] $1.8 million.

[44:43] 1.25, assuming none of the other projects needed additional

[44:50] funding. Once again,

[44:52] I'm not asking y'all to make any decisions tonight.

[44:57] I'm just looking to get a feeling on how you feel toward this

[45:04] project. And do you want to see us reengage the community and talk

[45:11] to them, or is this too much too late and let's move on to other

[45:18] things?

[45:19] So who

[45:22] wants to

[45:25] jump?

[45:28] You had mentioned— so it's an 80/20 split?

[45:30] Correct.

[45:31] It's a reimbursement.

[45:32] It's a reimbursement.

[45:33] Who would be spending that?

[45:35] We would have to spend $3.6 million and hope to get a factor of

[45:39] that back, $2.8, $2.9 back to us.

[45:41] Correct.

[45:42] Okay.

[45:47] And note, just because of the size of the project,

[45:51] depending on when it was let, it might span 2 fiscal years.

[45:55] So that's, you know,

[45:57] that money could be split over time depending on But also comes with the

[46:02] park and Rocky Fork.

[46:04] Correct.

[46:04] And additionally, though,

[46:06] we would still be waiting on the bridge over the creek from a pedestrian

[46:11] over the creek from a pedestrian standpoint.

[46:12] That's correct. And the bridge has to get redesigned too.

[46:16] And so which could delay the bridge design again,

[46:19] because now instead of—

[46:25] I hope we get some of that. Yeah, I'm just saying.

[46:27] I mean, we all get hungry at these meetings.

[46:29] So—

[46:29] This is now taking and creating a 10-foot sidewalk on the west side of the road

[46:36] versus, I think— well, Enoch's not here,

[46:39] but there were smaller sidewalks on both sides of the road.

[46:44] And so the bridge itself would probably need to be redesigned because then you

[46:51] need to be redesigned because then you would

[46:51] have a narrowing of the, the path and then a widening on the other side.

[46:57] And that's on TDOT?

[46:59] That would probably be on TDOT to do that.

[47:03] So here's what I'll say.

[47:04] I don't think this project is not worthy, um, of completion at some point,

[47:09] but I think with the roughly 8 years-ish,

[47:12] 7 and a half-ish years That it's taken us to get to this point to know that we now

[47:18] have to re-examine an alternate in design that's going to cost us because we're not

[47:24] able to use any portion of the design and spend another $100,000 when I have two—

[47:30] we have two large projects in which construction goes over,

[47:34] one of which you mentioned is the park.

[47:37] Um, and so at this point, I would not be in favor of going forward.

[47:41] Simply because of the expenditure that would come our way and the potential

[47:47] would come our way and the potential growth

[47:47] in these numbers. So even though we're looking at a small portion of that $3

[47:53] million, but we don't know what that could go to.

[47:56] We don't know what the timeline is going to be with, with TDOT and the bridge.

[48:02] And I think we have quite a bit on the plate at the moment.

[48:06] So I would be in favor of continuing to push pause.

[48:09] I'm, I'm torn because I— this is on the list, but it's not the priority for me.

[48:17] And so if at the end of the day we looked at everything and we said, hey,

[48:23] we actually— we do have the $100,000, I would be in favor of of doing design.

[48:31] That's not to say going to then construction in the same— in that

[48:37] construction in the same— in that timeline, but—

[48:38] But that being said, I— we have an obligation with the park.

[48:44] We have the SPP that we're trying to save for. We've got York.

[48:49] There's a lot of competing interests.

[48:53] I don't want this to be something that just falls to the side.

[48:59] I feel like we do have an opportunity with some creative thinking to push

[49:05] forward. But my biggest hurdle right now is the other things that we have yet to

[49:13] discuss in this meeting.

[49:16] So I don't disagree with you.

[49:18] I guess my concern, especially with working with TDOT and another bridge

[49:23] working with TDOT and another bridge design and

[49:23] this process taking so long,

[49:25] some of that because of our lovely crayfish and salamanders and things of

[49:30] crayfish and salamanders and things of that

[49:31] nature. But also just design in general.

[49:33] My concern would be if TDOT gets to their bridge design and this doesn't work and

[49:39] we've now expended additional funding. I don't disagree with you.

[49:43] I do think it's something that we have to look at,

[49:47] but I'm still of the fact that there's so much that we need to—

[49:51] that is starting and looking for completion so quickly that if we continue

[49:56] completion so quickly that if we continue to poll,

[49:57] are we going to have enough to do that?

[50:05] Welcome, Commissioner Gill. Do you have any comments?

[50:07] Mayor, thank you. Mayor, thank you.

[50:09] And just a side note, I apologize for being tardy.

[50:12] Um, had to take care of a family matter this afternoon in Humphreys County.

[50:17] Nonetheless, uh, I feel like I could offer ditto to both what Commissioner Carpenter

[50:22] and Vice Mayor Salamida have offered.

[50:24] I think the issue with the bridges is quite— at this juncture for me,

[50:28] is dispositive of moving forward simply because we might be doing—

[50:32] we might be expending town money to work toward this latter goal of ours now,

[50:37] and we don't know what the state might do with that bridge.

[50:40] And the money we're spending might— may or may not conform to the state's plans,

[50:45] or it could hold up even the bridge itself if they like Oh, y'all are doing this?

[50:50] Well, then we'll have to re-engineer that.

[50:52] And with all the other priorities that we have—

[50:55] and this is certainly an important part of our town.

[50:58] I work in the historic district now,

[51:00] and I walk that spot of Nolensville Road from time to time,

[51:04] and I always wish that this type of a plan was already completed.

[51:08] I want it for our young people that use it, our visitors,

[51:11] the people that visit all the other merchants in that area.

[51:15] However, I think with all the other priorities that we're dealing with that

[51:19] priorities that we're dealing with that have

[51:19] already been enumerated, Yes.

[51:21] As well as, as the Vice Mayor just said, the bridge issue,

[51:24] waiting on the state or working with the state.

[51:27] We are injecting uncertainty to this that we don't need to do because that can only

[51:32] slow down the process. And therefore, I would say let's push pause.

[51:36] Can, can you share more about the bridge design?

[51:40] I mean, I know that probably 6 years ago TDOT said that that bridge was in

[51:47] critical need, and it was on the list for TDOT to redesign completely

[51:53] independently of the Historic District streetscape and completely independently

[52:00] of the Nolensville Road Center Turn Lane project.

[52:04] Um, can you put that in perspective with this project and how they touched?

[52:11] So So when we— All right.

[52:13] So when we first were given the challenge of the bridge,

[52:17] that came to us when TDOT said you have to move your ending point from the project

[52:24] from stopping essentially at the last business on Nolensville Road north just

[52:30] business on Nolensville Road north just south

[52:30] of the bridge to a logical termini. And then that ended up being Sunset Road.

[52:37] And so at that point, there were— prior to that,

[52:41] there was no consideration at all about the bridge.

[52:45] The bridge was completely out of it.

[52:48] And because TDOT was saying, well, to utilize this money,

[52:52] you have to have this logical termini,

[52:55] which means you have to locate it at a crossing point that's got a sidewalk,

[53:01] and that nearest point was Sunset Road, then we—

[53:05] Right.

[53:06] Even if it had been Stonebrook Boulevard, which doesn't have a sidewalk on it there,

[53:13] we would have had to cross the bridge.

[53:16] That then caused TDOT to have to go, oh, well, we've got to—

[53:21] if we're going to require you to go up here,

[53:24] then we have to redesign the bridge to accommodate the sidewalks.

[53:30] So they went into that redesign that delayed it—

[53:34] that delayed the bridge project about 2 years, I think,

[53:38] in and of itself from the design piece on it.

[53:42] Then— and that bridge was supposed to have already been started.

[53:47] However, TDOT's budget constraints then delayed the bridge.

[53:52] And I'm not sure— Joel, do you know when that—

[53:56] No.

[53:58] Okay. So for the current design,

[54:03] estimate of 2028 for that bridge to

[54:07] start. If—

[54:08] Which part of the process?

[54:10] 2028 to start construction of the bridge? Construction of the bridge.

[54:15] Um, obviously if we come back and go, hey, um, we're changing this, we're going to—

[54:21] and, and all of TDOT concur, That it's OK to change,

[54:24] then they would have to go back and redesign their bridge.

[54:28] Now, at this point, it doesn't— it changes the width a little bit,

[54:32] but not as significantly as it did prior to.

[54:35] So I don't know how much— is it just lane shifting on what they were going to build,

[54:41] and it really is not that big of a deal? Or is it a lot of work?

[54:45] That piece, we don't know yet.

[54:47] OK.

[54:49] Is the 20— and I don't know if this is a Mr.

[54:52] Cook question or a you question, but is the 2028— I know TDOT has talked, um,

[54:58] a little bit to not only, um,

[55:00] board members but also to GNRC a bit about that shifting with the additional

[55:05] unexpected cost out to our east.

[55:07] And so I had heard about 6 months ago that there was the potential for what is

[55:13] currently on the list for the next 24 months,

[55:16] that that could be shifted or pushed due to the most recent increase,

[55:21] which again was about 6 months ago,

[55:23] based on having to do additional bridge work and road work in the east.

[55:28] For Hurricane Helene?

[55:30] Yes, there was an initial that came out after the storm of how much that would be,

[55:35] and everything got pushed,

[55:36] but that there was additional conversation that had just come out— I say just,

[55:41] but in the last 6 months from TDOT that there was still additional work,

[55:46] and with the cost increase to them, it may be pushing smaller—

[55:50] I say smaller projects like what ours may be.

[55:53] And so I'm just curious if we know if we're kind of in that bubble.

[55:57] And so to say 2028 is the hopeful projected and maybe staying within those

[56:02] projected and maybe staying within those confines,

[56:02] or is that something that might be—

[56:04] I don't know if we're in that bubble. I had heard something similar.

[56:09] At the last GNRC meeting, they briefly talked about it.

[56:12] I don't recall them giving us a definitive list of here's the projects,

[56:17] but I will definitely reach out to see if this is one of those projects.

[56:23] I'm not comfortable with expending $90,000 to redesign if it at all delays TDOT

[56:30] replacing a critical bridge on Nolensville Road.

[56:34] I still think it's valuable to have connectivity from Sunset Road south to

[56:41] connectivity from Sunset Road south to Publix,

[56:41] and that's an important part of— this project is an important part of that.

[56:48] I also think that it's important for us to understand that general fund dollars and

[56:55] adequate facilities tax are the only 2 funding sources,

[57:00] which was in your all's memo.

[57:02] TDOT projects are challenging,

[57:05] and it seems like there are multiple hoops to jump through and hoops within the

[57:12] hoops within the hoops within the hoops.

[57:15] Um, going over that bridge, when they changed that,

[57:19] that just completely altered the scope of the project and what the initial design

[57:26] would reasonably be.

[57:28] I appreciate that you say that we don't have to make decisions on this tonight and

[57:35] we'll continue to work through the information that's been provided.

[57:41] It is incredibly helpful, the detail that has been provided for, for this item.

[57:48] I—

[57:51] that bridge is going to be the important part.

[57:55] That 28 construction date has been different dates in years past.

[58:00] I guess what I'm trying to wrap my mind around is when to believe a construction

[58:06] commencement date when it comes out of— also trying to say it as nicely as

[58:12] also trying to say it as nicely as possible.

[58:12] I wonder what percentage of TDOT construction dates actually get met.

[58:18] I don't know.

[58:20] I guess is what I'm trying to—

[58:21] Careful, Mayor.

[58:23] But also understandable.

[58:25] Again, there's a lot of factors,

[58:27] not only with TDOT and its budget and its budget to remain debt-free,

[58:31] but also if you have a natural disaster like they have and trying to complete that

[58:36] work to the east, it really does affect those in middle and to the west.

[58:41] So there's been quite a few projects.

[58:43] And so regardless of, of if '28 becomes that date It would be nice to know,

[58:48] are some of their smaller projects—

[58:50] while this may be a bridge that warrants replacement,

[58:53] if it's not at the critical point, we are a— and I know what the verbiage was,

[58:58] but if it's not at what they now see as their critical in terms of budget,

[59:03] would it be one that would be pushed?

[59:05] So that's where I go back to,

[59:07] it's not that this is not important or that we do not want the connectivity,

[59:12] But based on what we have outlined currently,

[59:14] to say you are going to go through a complete redesign at $90,000 with so much

[59:19] uncertainty behind that is where my hesitation lies.

[59:23] All right.

[59:24] Any other discussion for the alternative cross-section for the Historic District

[59:29] Streetscape Project update? The next item on the agenda—

[59:32] Just so I understand,

[59:33] the feeling I am getting from everyone in general is that You're not necessarily

[59:38] interested. Maybe we find out some more of this information,

[59:42] but at least at this point, uh, it's not— Victor, let's go ahead and move forward.

[59:47] Okay.

[59:50] Yeah. All right, that's what I need to know.

[59:53] Thank you.

[59:53] Okay, the next discussion item is pedestrian signal on Sunset Road at

[59:57] pedestrian signal on Sunset Road at Chrisman Brown

[59:58] Park.

[59:58] So just trying to again try to provide you the information associated

[1:00:05] with that, we looked at the possibility of the sidewalk connection.

[1:00:12] And that was something— if, Montique,

[1:00:15] if you can click on that link there and for that particular—

[1:00:21] the image of the sidewalk, the sidewalk cost.

[1:00:26] So we had— Enoch and Joel put together a couple of graphics of what that

[1:00:33] sidewalk piece would look at.

[1:00:36] We know that the signal would be— it's not a traffic signal,

[1:00:41] so it's not going to be at the intersection.

[1:00:46] We would put it more of a mid-block of our park area.

[1:00:51] And there seems to be room to do that.

[1:00:55] Yeah.

[1:00:57] We think that that, that is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of about

[1:01:03] $200,000. And we're just basically taking that estimate.

[1:01:07] We, we spent about $158,000 for the construction of the signal at, uh,

[1:01:12] Sunset School.

[1:01:13] About $175,000.

[1:01:16] Um, for the construction of the school, uh, we had some—

[1:01:21] we were You're going to have probably $10,000 to $20,000 in design cost for this

[1:01:28] particular one, probably on the lower end of the $20,000.

[1:01:33] So all in, we're saying you're probably going to be around $200,000 for this one.

[1:01:40] We looked at the possibility of the bridge across, having it—

[1:01:45] and that was a couple million.

[1:01:47] Yeah.

[1:01:48] We've looked at the possibility of putting a sidewalk from there to the school.

[1:01:54] That is according to Enoch's number.

[1:01:57] That was about $560,000 and about $120,000 of that, just so you know, is, uh,

[1:02:03] estimate on right-of-way costs where our right-of-way is averaging about $5 a

[1:02:09] right-of-way is averaging about $5 a square

[1:02:10] foot. And he is estimating about, um, $2,000,000.

[1:02:13] Let's see, about— maybe that's— I don't know if that's $2,400.

[1:02:18] I'm not sure what— how his math calculates there.

[1:02:22] But anyway, he estimated the right-of-way cost to be about $120,000.

[1:02:27] So total of $560,000, $440,000 if the right-of-way is donated.

[1:02:34] There are—

[1:02:34] go down to the next.

[1:02:36] There are some design challenges, and so slide down to the Next graphic.

[1:02:41] Keep on going. Keep on going to the next. Keep going.

[1:02:50] Okay.

[1:02:50] They've gone too far.

[1:02:52] Where's the one, the graphic that shows where the

[1:02:56] kind of the wetlands area?

[1:02:59] The top map?

[1:03:01] Maybe it's the top map. So go back up.

[1:03:06] Right there.

[1:03:06] You passed it.

[1:03:07] One down.

[1:03:10] There it is.

[1:03:11] Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see it. But yep, it's the yellow area.

[1:03:16] That's kind of a wetlands area that you'd have to have either some type of culvert

[1:03:24] or some type of bridging over that. That's a challenged area.

[1:03:29] area as far as constructability. And you can do it, it just costs money.

[1:03:36] One other option is if you're looking and you want the sidewalk,

[1:03:42] is to turn around and look at it from the back perspective.

[1:03:47] And if you can allow me to share my screen again, and I can pull this up—

[1:03:54] if I can pull it up.

[1:03:55] Yes.

[1:04:04] When Enoch was talking about the right-of-way, have we— has he discussed,

[1:04:09] or have we as staff discussed with the county yet in regards to the school and

[1:04:14] working with them like we did at Nolensville Elementary and maybe having a

[1:04:18] Nolensville Elementary and maybe having a cost

[1:04:19] share there rather than an actual right-of-way and putting in on their

[1:04:23] right-of-way and putting in on their property that

[1:04:24] would connect into the sidewalk leading to the east.

[1:04:27] So with the current system that we have on Sunset Road,

[1:04:31] have we had any communication with the county to potentially work together to put

[1:04:36] county to potentially work together to put a

[1:04:36] safer way for the students to get to school that are coming from the north

[1:04:40] school that are coming from the north side?

[1:04:41] And maybe there's not as much of a right-of-way purchase there,

[1:04:45] but having a working relationship and installation.

[1:04:48] The school portion is a very, very small segment. Of the 1,300 plus or minus feet.

[1:04:53] So I don't know that it would be right there. That is a significant cost offset.

[1:04:59] Um, right. If you can see my cursor on the screen, that's,

[1:05:04] that's all the school portion right there.

[1:05:08] Um, this particular property, uh, which is the,

[1:05:12] I think that is the Brown property or a portion of it.

[1:05:17] We had looked at one time about trying to acquire this triangle in the back.

[1:05:23] That's about half an acre. It sits in the floodplain.

[1:05:28] That's it zoomed up a little bit more. Sits in the floodplain.

[1:05:33] In 2024, the appraisal that we received was that it was valued at $52,000.

[1:05:40] And so we were— or I'm sorry, Yeah, right at, right at, right at $50,000.

[1:05:46] Um, this is a little bit more.

[1:05:49] If you were looking and your goal was to try to get a sidewalk between it and the

[1:05:56] school and have the school do some cost share on placement of sidewalk, it's your,

[1:06:03] uh, walking trail going around the park is going to be right in this area.

[1:06:10] And so then to create a sidewalk from here to here and then do something joint to

[1:06:17] the school, I haven't necessarily measured that,

[1:06:21] but that seems like it might be more economical than trying to take it through

[1:06:28] economical than trying to take it through here.

[1:06:29] So the question really becomes an additional signal or

[1:06:34] right-of-way purchase and sidewalk. Is that correct?

[1:06:38] So honestly, I would in the future would like to see both a crossing and the

[1:06:45] northern side trail.

[1:06:47] I think that there's a lot that can be done putting a trail up through there,

[1:06:53] whether it's sidewalk or walking trail,

[1:06:57] into the school property to help connect to the Britton community.

[1:07:02] But in the short term, I think a light is going to be the best option.

[1:07:08] The reason why I, I'm concerned about anything outside of,

[1:07:13] of a crossing at the property is I,

[1:07:16] I just don't believe kids are going to walk the distance down to the school to

[1:07:23] walk the distance down to the school to cross

[1:07:23] the street. I think we could We could not put any kind of crossing and they're going

[1:07:31] to cross the street.

[1:07:32] And it's— I think it's important for us to do whatever we can to help make it safe.

[1:07:39] So yeah, I'm for the crossing.

[1:07:47] Is there any other information that we can bring to you all or take a look at?

[1:07:56] I think the only thing that's still in my mind is a conversation that I had with

[1:08:02] Enoch where he said that he didn't think that the HAWK signal was the correct

[1:08:08] application for the entrance to Sunset Elementary and Middle.

[1:08:12] He did think that it was the appropriate application for a mid-block crossing at

[1:08:19] Chris Mann Brown Park. Um, And I'm just—

[1:08:22] It's because it— he's— he doesn't like it because it's at the intersection,

[1:08:27] and it doesn't function as well at the intersection because it confuses drivers

[1:08:33] somewhat. But yes, at this particular location of where we're proposing it,

[1:08:39] which is mid-block, then it does function better.

[1:08:46] So what about that intersection at Sunset, at Sunset Elementary and Middle?

[1:08:51] I mean, if that piece of equipment is not functioning as optimally— well,

[1:08:55] let me rephrase, that was bad phrasing.

[1:08:58] The equipment is functioning,

[1:09:00] is functioning in compliance with the manual on uniform traffic control devices

[1:09:05] manual on uniform traffic control devices and

[1:09:05] is functioning correctly.

[1:09:07] If the application could be improved Can you move that hawk signal mechanism to in

[1:09:12] front of the Chris Munro Park and replace it with something? I, I'm not an engineer.

[1:09:18] I don't know these things.

[1:09:19] Can you replace some of that equipment since you already have the arm there so

[1:09:24] since you already have the arm there so that

[1:09:25] it's more of a functioning light instead of purchasing 2 hawk signals,

[1:09:29] one of which is—

[1:09:30] Well, um, I guess the, the short answer is Yes, in time we probably possibly could.

[1:09:36] We will be— when the signal at York and Williams and Nolensville Road is complete,

[1:09:43] we'll be able to retrieve our controller information and those existing lights that

[1:09:49] are there. That controller will be what's needed.

[1:09:52] And so you could then turn around—

[1:09:55] And it's practically a brand new controller because Remember, if you

[1:10:00] controller because Remember, if you recall,

[1:10:01] the lightning hit the old one,

[1:10:03] and so we had to purchase a brand new one to put in there.

[1:10:07] And so there is the possibility that you could turn around and look at changing the

[1:10:13] type of light that you have there. It might require an additional pole.

[1:10:19] I don't know. We'd have to look at what that design looked like.

[1:10:23] But you would have some—

[1:10:25] at least some of the components to potentially change that out.

[1:10:30] And place a different style signal there and make it into a full traffic signal,

[1:10:36] if you will, which would benefit those trying to turn in.

[1:10:40] It would benefit those trying to get out and frustrate those that are going on

[1:10:46] Sunset Road. But it would be a better application than probably the HAWK signal

[1:10:52] application than probably the HAWK signal at

[1:10:52] that intersection.

[1:10:53] Okay.

[1:10:56] So thank you.

[1:10:59] I would have concern, especially morning and afternoon traffic,

[1:11:04] that traffic is very much so directed by a crossing guard.

[1:11:07] So unlike, um, the crossing guards at Nolensville Elementary or Mill Creek

[1:11:12] Nolensville High School, they don't necessarily direct per a light.

[1:11:17] They're at an intersection in which they then direct traffic And so it's, I guess,

[1:11:22] is putting a permanent light or even a temporary light like we're doing at Kidd

[1:11:27] Road, or have done at Kidd Road.

[1:11:29] I would just— my concern would be how does that actually affect the flow of traffic

[1:11:35] and timing on a daily basis during the school year?

[1:11:38] So yes, I think if we can reuse the equipment, I think that's great,

[1:11:43] as long as whatever the solution is for the schools on Sunset,

[1:11:47] that it's accommodating to what they would actually need to move the cars in and out

[1:11:52] of that facility.

[1:11:54] So one of the things about the signals, um,

[1:11:57] where they are actually directing traffic today, that police officer could— they—

[1:12:03] all of the new style signals have the ability to be controlled remote— remotely.

[1:12:09] And so they can sit off in their vehicle Near this, near the signal, they have a,

[1:12:15] actually a hardwired controller.

[1:12:17] But is that something the district could have?

[1:12:19] Because we're not guaranteed to have an officer there on the daily.

[1:12:22] When you say the district, so I'm not talking about us controlling it,

[1:12:27] I'm talking about them.

[1:12:28] Oh, the sheriff himself.

[1:12:29] The sheriff himself could come in,

[1:12:33] and instead of the guard having to be out in the

[1:12:40] middle of the road, he could be in his vehicle

[1:12:46] on the Okay.

[1:12:47] So it—

[1:12:49] I don't—

[1:12:50] have we heard from everybody?

[1:12:52] I'll just offer that the mayor's idea is aligned with where I was going with this.

[1:12:57] If we can reuse the practically new equipment that we installed on Sunset Road

[1:13:02] equipment that we installed on Sunset Road and

[1:13:02] then look at a better solution,

[1:13:04] for Sunset Schools working with the school district to see what—

[1:13:08] as well as the Sheriff's Department. That would be ideal, I would think.

[1:13:12] Yes, we— I was delighted a year ago when we opened that new system, Hi-5.

[1:13:16] We were all glad about it.

[1:13:18] I can tell you, as a fellow that goes up and down Sunset Road daily,

[1:13:22] and I have a child that goes to Sunset Middle School,

[1:13:25] it can and does indeed become confusing. At, uh, drop-off or pickup time.

[1:13:29] We know red light means you stop,

[1:13:31] but then you've got the gentleman that works for the Sheriff's Department.

[1:13:35] Took us about 6 weeks to get that, that gentleman in place, by the way.

[1:13:40] That was a blessing when they finally were able to recruit somebody.

[1:13:44] He does a great job now, by the way.

[1:13:46] Looking forward to seeing him again in a couple of weeks.

[1:13:49] But, uh, I would think if we can reuse the assets that we have there,

[1:13:53] since that is not the optimal solution— not a bad solution,

[1:13:57] just not The best solution perhaps,

[1:13:59] but it's what we could afford and what we were going to give a shot at in comparison

[1:14:04] to what we've done in other school areas in town.

[1:14:07] Let's see about maybe moving that down.

[1:14:09] I can certainly also echo what Commissioner Carpenter said.

[1:14:12] One day I would love to be able to see the trailhead continue on,

[1:14:16] whether it be a sidewalk or not.

[1:14:18] If there's some way we could actually reach the Britton Downs subdivision and

[1:14:23] reach the Britton Downs subdivision and then

[1:14:23] maybe one day over to the school, that would be ideal. We're not there yet.

[1:14:27] I certainly cannot see, however, And thank you, Mr.

[1:14:30] Lay, for bringing to everybody's attention the cost of that idea I had about buying

[1:14:35] a bridge. Well, let's just say that my eyes were bigger than our wallets are.

[1:14:40] And no, that wasn't— that's not going to work. But nonetheless, also what we have—

[1:14:45] It was a valid option. It's just— it's expensive.

[1:14:47] It's very expensive. Yes, sir. So I thanked him and moved on past that.

[1:14:52] We mark that off our list for sure.

[1:14:54] With that being said, what we have before us as well just is the expense of it all.

[1:14:59] We just can't go there. So I'm coming back around.

[1:15:02] I would think that if we can create a crosswalk that's signalized using what

[1:15:07] crosswalk that's signalized using what we've

[1:15:07] got down the street or something akin to that, that would be ideal.

[1:15:11] That's my feedback tonight.

[1:15:14] Okay, we are 1 hour and 20 minutes into our meeting.

[1:15:17] We have some people in the audience that are here for specific agenda items.

[1:15:22] Who are probably wondering why they didn't ask to be moved up in the agenda earlier.

[1:15:29] I really enjoy this.

[1:15:30] I mean, who doesn't love a good chocolate or baller thing going on?

[1:15:35] I mean, I would ask that we take a 5-minute recess restroom break,

[1:15:40] but then I would ask if the board would be amenable to moving the items for—

[1:15:47] I believe it's the annexations up and then go back to the rest of the discussions,

[1:15:54] um, if that suits everyone.

[1:15:57] Yes, ma'am.

[1:15:57] I have one question before you take your break.

[1:16:00] So from all this discussion we just had on these traffic signals,

[1:16:04] what I'd like to be able to do is bring you all a resolution to do the design for

[1:16:09] you all a resolution to do the design for a

[1:16:09] pedestrian signal at Chris Mann Brown Park.

[1:16:13] Okay.

[1:16:13] Okay, we will have that on the voting agenda.

[1:16:16] Bless you.

[1:16:17] Okay.

[1:16:30] All

[1:16:37] right,

[1:16:53] we

[1:16:58] will

[1:17:08] take

[1:17:18] a

[1:17:21] 5-minute

[1:17:41] break

[1:17:54] and

[1:18:01] be

[1:18:06] back

[1:18:16] at,

[1:18:24] um,

[1:18:32] 6:23.

[1:18:44] What

[1:18:55] is

[1:19:00] happening?

[1:19:25] We

[1:19:30] will

[1:19:40] move

[1:19:51] to

[1:19:56] those

[1:20:08] and

[1:20:16] then

[1:20:26] go

[1:20:31] back

[1:20:41] to

[1:20:46] discussion.

[1:21:14] Is

[1:21:20] that—

[1:21:32] Yes, ma'am.

[1:21:34] Okay, so that takes us to unfinished business.

[1:21:38] The first one is second reading of Ordinance 2609,

[1:21:42] an ordinance amending the zoning map.

[1:21:45] This is the Williams annexation, and it is also paired with Agenda item number 2,

[1:21:52] which is the resolution. This is an item— hold on, I kept my livestream on.

[1:21:58] This is an item that was deferred at the request of the applicant at the last

[1:22:05] meeting. And there was some discussion about commercial as part of the rezoning.

[1:22:11] And so I'll turn it over to staff first.

[1:22:15] I don't know that staff has any additional comments.

[1:22:19] They're on— under Resolution 2644,

[1:22:22] there is a staff report.

[1:22:26] As you—

[1:22:26] the mayor mentioned,

[1:22:28] this has been both to the public hearing and the first reading before this board.

[1:22:32] Um, staff, staff supports the, the organization and resolution,

[1:22:36] the ordinance and resolution on this item. Happy to answer any questions.

[1:22:40] I I would just add to that report that the recommendation

[1:22:46] or going through the annexation came with a zoning of CD-2.

[1:22:53] Yes.

[1:22:53] And so it's staff's opinion that that's the way that it should come

[1:22:59] in and that we would not—

[1:23:02] it would not be to the city's advantage to wait until some new zone

[1:23:08] or some, some different plan were put into place,

[1:23:12] that annexing right now under the CD-2 is the preferred method.

[1:23:18] And does the applicant have anything that you want to come up and share?

[1:23:22] Say hello for a second. Uh, sorry, I'm a little tall. Can you guys hear me?

[1:23:26] Uh, so I'm Jordan Hart again with Toll Brothers, and we're working with the

[1:23:31] Brothers, and we're working with the family.

[1:23:32] And, you know, thank you to each of you.

[1:23:34] We, we were able to meet with everybody over the last month,

[1:23:38] and thank you to staff too for the continued support and guidance.

[1:23:42] And, uh, I think, I think we agree.

[1:23:44] We've—

[1:23:45] through these discussions we've been having with everybody,

[1:23:48] we certainly understand the importance of this location for the town.

[1:23:51] Uh, the family understands the importance of the location for the town, and, uh,

[1:23:55] it's, it's our ultimate goal collectively to work with the town to come up with a

[1:23:59] development that suits everybody's interests.

[1:24:01] And we believe that through the work of staff that's ongoing with the zoning

[1:24:05] ordinance, that there is going to be a path to achieve that.

[1:24:08] Today, we don't know what that is exactly,

[1:24:11] and so trying to force some specific zoning with this annexation really limits

[1:24:14] zoning with this annexation really limits our

[1:24:15] ability to create what we believe can be something truly unique in the future.

[1:24:19] So, you know, we'd like to bring the property into the town.

[1:24:22] The family has always intended for the property to be part of the town limits,

[1:24:26] and we want to continue to work with staff.

[1:24:28] Thank you.

[1:24:29] As they continue to— sorry— evaluate the zoning ordinance so that we can, you know,

[1:24:33] at a later date give this board an opportunity to weigh in when the property

[1:24:37] opportunity to weigh in when the property comes

[1:24:37] back for a rezoning.

[1:24:39] And what that looks like, I think,

[1:24:40] will be determined by the work that is being done today.

[1:24:43] But we're excited to keep working with staff.

[1:24:46] I think it's been great so far,

[1:24:47] and we appreciate all the feedback you guys provided in our meetings and look

[1:24:51] forward to kind of continuing that dialogue as we go on.

[1:24:54] And If there are any, any questions maybe weren't answered,

[1:24:58] I will try to answer them as best I can.

[1:25:00] But if not, we look forward to the meeting next week— next month.

[1:25:03] Thank you. Is your all's intent to have this voted on in August?

[1:25:07] Uh, yes.

[1:25:09] Okay.

[1:25:10] Any questions or discussion on the annexation request for the Williams

[1:25:15] annexation request for the Williams property?

[1:25:16] Mayor, I'll just note that Of course,

[1:25:19] our staff has recommended we approve this resolution as is.

[1:25:24] Our Planning Commission has reviewed it and voted in favor of it as well.

[1:25:30] We appreciate that report and that hard work.

[1:25:34] We have approved it on first— no, we don't—

[1:25:37] first reading.

[1:25:39] We've got to this point, and if I may,

[1:25:41] and I appreciated the time that you good folks came and spent with us, and well,

[1:25:45] Individually, I guess the meetings were obviously individual,

[1:25:49] but we met upstairs in the conference room.

[1:25:51] I know that Chuck was there and of course Victor.

[1:25:54] And Victor, you said something I found to be extremely helpful in my decision-making

[1:25:59] on this matter, and that was that we risk something by not moving forward if we kill

[1:26:04] this deal now in its tracks by not voting down exit, even though it's at CD2.

[1:26:08] But we're all planning for it to be some You're going to come back to us at some

[1:26:12] point and seek a different zoning,

[1:26:14] and there might be a chance for modification work done on that as well,

[1:26:18] modification work done on that as well, Chuck.

[1:26:19] I understand that. I'm in favor of looking into that.

[1:26:22] But the bigger issue is what we saw in the legislature this last year,

[1:26:26] where they attempted to remove from municipal governments the ability to annex

[1:26:30] without first having to get approval by the county or whatever they had

[1:26:34] the county or whatever they had envisioned.

[1:26:35] Thankfully, that didn't pass.

[1:26:36] There's no guarantee of that not happening again come January.

[1:26:40] That's the bigger risk to us as a municipal government right now,

[1:26:44] that we lose the opportunity to choose whether this does or does not come into

[1:26:48] whether this does or does not come into our

[1:26:48] corporate boundaries.

[1:26:49] I would imagine, had I not been a part of this board,

[1:26:52] I would actually have been shocked, awed,

[1:26:55] surprised to find out it wasn't already a part of Nolensville's corporate

[1:26:59] boundaries. So this is a natural movement. And, um, thank you for your time, Victor.

[1:27:04] Thank you for that very good analysis you gave to me in that meeting that I have

[1:27:08] with these good folks.

[1:27:09] Thank you.

[1:27:14] Any other discussion or questions related to these 2 agenda items?

[1:27:18] Just quickly, again, thank you for the time.

[1:27:20] Thank you for the staff looking into this.

[1:27:23] I think we all agree as we've had these meetings that while, you know,

[1:27:27] we're going to battle legislature and the evolution that they're going to bring

[1:27:32] forth in potential annexations,

[1:27:34] I think it does point to where we may have our own shortcomings in zoning to,

[1:27:38] to bring forward the vision of what the Williams family wants to do with this

[1:27:43] property. So if you just be patient with us as we work through that,

[1:27:47] I think that's going to, I think, bring the vision to life.

[1:27:50] So I've expressed this since the first Planning Commission where both property

[1:27:55] owners came forward to annex and, and expressed this in our meeting as well,

[1:28:00] that I do think there's no justice for you or for us or the property owner in

[1:28:05] annexing you and then saying, hey, we'd also like to see X zoning.

[1:28:09] And, and so upzoning you at this point when we are going through an extensive

[1:28:14] overlook of our current zoning is not beneficial to any party,

[1:28:18] including us and what we want for the future in the south.

[1:28:22] And so even in our meeting,

[1:28:24] I appreciate the conversation being we're not in a hurry and we have to get this

[1:28:29] right.

[1:28:29] Thank you.

[1:28:30] And being patient with us as staff.

[1:28:32] So I've agreed all along that annexing is the correct thing.

[1:28:35] We, we know even in the last few months legislation has been done,

[1:28:39] but we already have rewrites starting, and,

[1:28:42] and we will see county annexation coming back this season.

[1:28:45] So I appreciate everything that you all have done and your patience to get there,

[1:28:50] your willingness to kind of hold and have additional meetings.

[1:28:53] But I do believe that your annexation is proper and coming in at CD2.

[1:28:57] Ditto. And what that looks like.

[1:29:02] You're welcome.

[1:29:04] All right. So we will see you all at the August voting meeting.

[1:29:07] Great.

[1:29:08] Thank you.

[1:29:08] All right.

[1:29:09] The next 2 items under unfinished business are second reading of

[1:29:16] Ordinance 26-10 for The annexation of the Van Slyke property and

[1:29:22] Resolution 26045, which is also related to that.

[1:29:27] I will start with staff again.

[1:29:30] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:29:33] Uh, similar to the last item, both Ordinance 2610 and Resolution 2645,

[1:29:38] there's a staff report under the resolution portion of that.

[1:29:42] This item has gone both to the Planning Commission and before this board.

[1:29:47] Prior for a first reading and public hearing.

[1:29:50] Staff supports and has recommended favorable approval and happy to answer any

[1:29:56] questions you may have.

[1:29:57] And does the applicant want to come up as well?

[1:30:02] Good evening, Mayor, members of the council, staff. My name is Mike Burton.

[1:30:06] I'm with Landmark Investments.

[1:30:08] I'm working with the Van Slyke property or family to Uh,

[1:30:12] bring their property into the town of Nolensville. From the beginning, as Mr.

[1:30:17] Gill mentioned, the impetus for these properties coming in as sister properties

[1:30:22] properties coming in as sister properties was

[1:30:22] state legislation and the overreach that I think most all agree that the county was,

[1:30:28] was trying to reach or obtain.

[1:30:30] And as, as he mentioned and many others have pointed out as well.

[1:30:34] Just, you know, the,

[1:30:35] the fact that that failed this time around doesn't mean it's going to fail next time

[1:30:41] around or the next time around.

[1:30:43] And, uh, the Van Syke family has been in the town for many, many years,

[1:30:47] and their alignment has always been with the town.

[1:30:51] And, um, you know, because of the, um, uh, the state legislature's actions,

[1:30:55] you know, it really pushed this, uh, to move forward up and up in timeline.

[1:31:00] So, uh, really appreciate, uh, the considerations that you guys have, um,

[1:31:05] in bringing in $600,000 acres or so to the town.

[1:31:08] But at this point in time, there's no intentions for any additional zoning asks,

[1:31:13] whether up or down at the property or for the property.

[1:31:17] It is simply just to come into the town,

[1:31:19] get alignment with the town's goals ultimately,

[1:31:22] and we'll see what transpires from there. But happy to answer any questions.

[1:31:27] Thank you. Any questions or discussion related to the Vance Lake annexation?

[1:31:32] So I think my main question related to this goes back to the alternative sewer

[1:31:37] discussion that we had earlier and just getting clarity on the subdivision

[1:31:42] regulations and the number of feet from available sewer.

[1:31:46] I do believe, just based on the measurement in the GIS system,

[1:31:50] that the Van Slyke property would be more than 1,000 feet from the existing sewer

[1:31:55] line. And so I just want to make sure I understand that.

[1:31:59] Yes.

[1:32:00] understand how that applies, if it applies,

[1:32:04] and if what's in the plan for service specific to sewer is

[1:32:10] still accurate. Any other feedback or questions related to

[1:32:17] this agenda item?

[1:32:18] I'm happy to explain what I understand our position to be on the sewer item.

[1:32:25] Yes.

[1:32:25] With respect to the Vance Lake property,

[1:32:28] it is in the Mill Creek Sewer Service Basin and it is subject to Metro's sewer

[1:32:34] system and the ability to— for them to service the site.

[1:32:38] Yes, it is outside of 1,000 feet, but, you know,

[1:32:42] Metro has made comments previously in the past, not through us in any way.

[1:32:48] This is third-party.

[1:32:49] That they would not release any area from their Mill Creek Basin to be served in

[1:32:55] some other alternative way.

[1:32:57] So there is no intention on trying to move forward with some other avenue.

[1:33:03] Okay.

[1:33:05] And so thank you. I appreciate that.

[1:33:07] I am looking for that agreement that Victor—

[1:33:10] I am assuming that is part of that agreement earlier.

[1:33:14] So I will want that before the the voting meeting, just so that—

[1:33:18] but you may have your votes without me, so it doesn't really matter.

[1:33:23] But, um, okay, any other discussion or comments about this annexation?

[1:33:28] Thank you for your time again.

[1:33:30] We appreciate it.

[1:33:31] Thank you.

[1:33:31] Okay, the other item that we talked about moving up for people that are in the

[1:33:37] audience would be item 3, 4, and 5 under new business,

[1:33:41] which is first reading of Ordinance 26-14, an ordinance amending the zoning map.

[1:33:48] This is one that was discussed in the, I believe, June 15th work session,

[1:33:53] which is the Tarver-Ringman annexation.

[1:33:57] And this also includes a rezoning to Character District 3.

[1:34:01] So I will start with staff.

[1:34:04] Thank you, Mayor. Yeah,

[1:34:06] this was at last month's Planning Commission where it did receive favorable

[1:34:11] recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Commissioners.

[1:34:16] Staff does have a recommendation of approval for both Resolution 2676 and

[1:34:21] approval for both Resolution 2676 and Ordinance

[1:34:22] 2614. Happy to answer any questions.

[1:34:24] Any questions for staff?

[1:34:27] And does the applicant want to

[1:34:31] come up?

[1:34:37] Good evening. My name is John Tarver, and I represent the landowners,

[1:34:42] Ammon and Anna Ringman.

[1:34:44] We intend to hope to annex and rezone this property CD-3,

[1:34:49] and our intent is to build 51 single-family residential units at this

[1:34:55] single-family residential units at this property.

[1:34:56] We have a site plan. The average width of the lot is 55 feet.

[1:35:01] Average depth is 110 feet.

[1:35:03] Thank you.

[1:35:04] And again, yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions.

[1:35:07] I know this is new business,

[1:35:08] so you may not have had a lot of time to look at it yet,

[1:35:11] but if you do have questions, I'm happy to answer them.

[1:35:13] So questions for the applicant?

[1:35:16] So I am wondering, did we discuss this on June 15th,

[1:35:20] or am I just remembering the Planning Commission meeting?

[1:35:25] Is Planning Commission the only place that This has been discussed.

[1:35:30] This also came before you for the initiation discussion,

[1:35:34] and that was prior to Planning Commission.

[1:35:36] So it came to you all for— at a work session,

[1:35:39] and then went through the full Planning Commission review.

[1:35:42] That happened July 15th, and now it—

[1:35:44] now it is here.

[1:35:46] So my feedback is, is similar to what it was then,

[1:35:50] which is concern for expanding the character district for CD-3.

[1:35:56] Um, which was in the discussions for the zoning ordinance in 2023,

[1:36:01] was a transitional zone from a CD-4, CD-4C,

[1:36:04] or office industrial into more low-density residential.

[1:36:09] Um, I know that in the staff report there's references to the requirement for

[1:36:15] connectivity into what is the existing 3DC,

[1:36:18] which is on the southern portion of the property.

[1:36:22] Yes.

[1:36:24] And that, that staff had said that for, um, for submitted site plans,

[1:36:30] that would be a requirement.

[1:36:33] But that's a piece I'm still not entirely understanding what,

[1:36:38] to quote Vice Mayor Salamida, what that will look like.

[1:36:43] Um, and so this is our first time seeing it as a submitted plan.

[1:36:48] There's not—

[1:36:49] Yes.

[1:36:50] From what I remember when we talked about it broadly,

[1:36:54] any changes to the concept plan.

[1:36:56] But I have some concerns about the application of the zone.

[1:37:01] Also, the application of the zone because we have turned down other annexations that

[1:37:07] wanted to go into the CD-3 character district.

[1:37:10] So that is my 2 cents from the initial discussion here.

[1:37:15] Thank you.

[1:37:19] I do not disagree. I unfortunately had a family event and was not able to

[1:37:25] attend the Planning Commission meeting.

[1:37:28] I do have some concern with the upzone in this particular location,

[1:37:34] much like we did further to the south.

[1:37:37] So looked at this twice,

[1:37:39] reviewed the Planning Commission meeting and gone through it several times,

[1:37:46] and then looking at this I agree is what I will say at this point.

[1:37:54] Additional feedback?

[1:37:55] I think the mayor's point is well taken— pardon me— as well as noting that—

[1:38:00] as well as noting that we have actually declined another annexation request

[1:38:05] declined another annexation request because

[1:38:06] of this request a CD-3 due to— it's almost for the exact same purpose.

[1:38:11] So with all that being said, I am looking at the items we have before us.

[1:38:16] I am certainly not against the annexation.

[1:38:19] However, we might need to review the CD-3 request and see what else could be—

[1:38:24] what might make better sense for that particular part of our town,

[1:38:29] assuming it becomes part of our town.

[1:38:32] So I agree with the mayor on both points in that regard.

[1:38:36] And I'm sure we can find a way to move forward, though.

[1:38:40] I will just echo the sentiment of the rest of the board.

[1:38:46] I'm not opposed to this annexation,

[1:38:51] but I am reluctant to say CD-3 is the right application in this

[1:38:58] parcel. That's my largest concern.

[1:39:05] Commissioner Carpenter, do you have any feedback?

[1:39:06] Uh, in addition to what everyone else has said, my, my concern,

[1:39:12] just looking at the concept plan, I realize things change, but connectivity

[1:39:19] realize things change, but connectivity is,

[1:39:19] is also important to me.

[1:39:21] Um, I'm having a hard time conceptualizing that, but like everyone else said,

[1:39:28] that we've We've been here before.

[1:39:31] Annexation, contiguous annexation, I support almost every time.

[1:39:37] The zone would have to be worked out a little more.

[1:39:42] Do you have any questions or feedback for the board as part of the work session?

[1:39:49] Sure, yeah. I would just like to say regarding the connectivity,

[1:39:53] that's something that our engineers are Yes.

[1:39:56] So that is something that we are studying right now.

[1:40:00] That was one of the items that came up with Planning Commission or it was

[1:40:05] with Planning Commission or it was something

[1:40:06] that was anticipated might come up by Planning Commission.

[1:40:10] So our engineers are looking at that now.

[1:40:13] We are eager to work, you know,

[1:40:15] as best we can physically and economically with the Board's And the zoning's

[1:40:20] regional connectivity or connectivity to the adjacent properties.

[1:40:24] The property to the south of us is also zoned CD-3.

[1:40:28] It's our understanding that they are planning a similar residential

[1:40:33] planning a similar residential development.

[1:40:33] As I believe you said, Mayor,

[1:40:35] connectivity to the property in the south is challenging because of the creek and

[1:40:41] also because we don't You know, we don't control that property.

[1:40:45] We don't yet understand exactly what it is they're doing there.

[1:40:50] But to the best of our ability,

[1:40:52] we intend to cooperate with the adjacent properties and the adjacent developments

[1:40:58] properties and the adjacent developments to

[1:40:58] provide that connectivity.

[1:40:59] All right.

[1:41:05] Any additional comments from staff?

[1:41:07] Okay.

[1:41:08] All right. Thank you.

[1:41:09] Thank you.

[1:41:10] All right. To go back to the regular agenda items.

[1:41:15] The next item is Discussion E, East-West Corridor,

[1:41:20] Rocky Fork Road to McEwen discussion item.

[1:41:25] So we put this on the agenda.

[1:41:27] Obviously, it became an issue last week when Smyrna announced that they had been

[1:41:34] funded for the preliminary engineering for their portion.

[1:41:38] So there's not any construction funding of their portion.

[1:41:42] I think we have sent to you all the— resent to you all the study, its

[1:41:48] resent to you all the study, its parameters,

[1:41:49] and was just trying to find out what information you all wanted us to put back

[1:41:55] information you all wanted us to put back out

[1:41:55] into the public, what kind of statements that you wanted us to make.

[1:42:00] I think— Commissioner Salamida,

[1:42:03] Vice Mayor Salamida had sent us a list of questions that she had been receiving.

[1:42:09] We tried to do an answer for those questions and sent those back out to you

[1:42:15] questions and sent those back out to you all,

[1:42:15] so folks were pinging you, you would have to be able to make a response.

[1:42:20] Do you want us to make some type of official statement in regard to, to all of

[1:42:26] official statement in regard to, to all of this?

[1:42:27] What would you like us to do?

[1:42:29] I always say knowledge is power,

[1:42:31] and so if we are able to at least point out the portion,

[1:42:34] portion that has been approved And we can put out even a map of the potential future

[1:42:40] of what the East-West Connector will look like. I think that is beneficial for us.

[1:42:45] It also answers a lot of questions.

[1:42:47] Some very easily can get a hold of us and often do,

[1:42:50] which is a lot of the questions that I received as soon as this went out.

[1:42:54] But I do believe that as we are kind of the middle connector of this,

[1:42:59] it would benefit us to put something out just to say this is what has been

[1:43:03] just to say this is what has been approved,

[1:43:04] the section that will start construction, here's where it goes in the future,

[1:43:08] here's a map of what has been approved, and go from there.

[1:43:12] Yeah, I also got a lot of questions when that came out and some calls specifically

[1:43:18] from Scales Farmstead, as I'm sure many did.

[1:43:22] Um, and as Vice Mayor Salamida indicated, just having Something—

[1:43:27] sometimes these studies get lost in memory,

[1:43:30] and so reminding the background that Nolensville participated cooperatively

[1:43:36] Nolensville participated cooperatively with

[1:43:37] other jurisdictions, not just in Williamson County but also in Rutherford

[1:43:43] Williamson County but also in Rutherford County,

[1:43:43] on studying the corridor,

[1:43:45] and when the proposed alignment was added to the Major Thoroughfare Plan,

[1:43:51] I think that that is, is helpful to, to put out.

[1:43:55] Thank you.

[1:43:56] Um, also level-setting expectations.

[1:43:58] Smyrna may have preliminary design funding, but that is not, uh,

[1:44:03] close to construction.

[1:44:05] We applaud them on funding they can get, as we also, you know,

[1:44:10] have focused on the Nolensville Road project with participating in the SPP

[1:44:15] program, um, with TDOT investing, you know, close to $94 million.

[1:44:20] Okay.

[1:44:21] on what will be our major thoroughfare,

[1:44:24] or is our major thoroughfare through town.

[1:44:27] But I think it is helpful to just periodically remind what cooperative work

[1:44:33] periodically remind what cooperative work has

[1:44:33] been done on other corridors because this will be key long-term as well.

[1:44:38] I will say that we applied for funding along with

[1:44:43] them, with them, and our section did not get

[1:44:47] funded.

[1:44:48] Yeah, I think the interstate interchange is a key component of that and the amount

[1:44:54] of the volume. I mean,

[1:44:56] that's one of the challenges that we have through everything is while our traffic is

[1:45:01] not great, the volume here versus the volume in Smyrna or even La Verne with the

[1:45:07] interstate and Franklin will just— they're just not the same.

[1:45:11] All right, any other discussion or questions for The east-west corridor,

[1:45:16] Rocky Fork Road to McEwen discussion item.

[1:45:19] All right, the next item is SPP project contract.

[1:45:22] So we've provided to each of you all a copy of the contract that was sent to us.

[1:45:29] Chuck, do you want to— uh, well, no, I'm sorry, I was looking down at the next one.

[1:45:36] Anyway, we provided that contract to you all.

[1:45:39] It's Basically the terms that you all have seen before.

[1:45:44] We do have to— when we sign the contract, we have to send in the check.

[1:45:50] So what we'll be doing is looking to put a resolution for you all authorizing the

[1:45:57] mayor to sign the contract,

[1:45:59] and that will also authorize us to release the $500,000 to TDOT. Thank you.

[1:46:09] Any questions related to the SPP project contract?

[1:46:12] I would just add that as part of the contract,

[1:46:15] you all need to understand that this is a pretty significant long-term commitment.

[1:46:21] There are cost overruns,

[1:46:23] which seem to be pretty common in today's transportation world.

[1:46:27] You're signing on for a long period of time.

[1:46:30] as a partner to covering those expenses.

[1:46:33] So you want to make sure at the end of the day you understand that the baseline

[1:46:38] commitment, but that there may be costs above and beyond that that you're

[1:46:43] above and beyond that that you're committing

[1:46:44] the town to in the long haul.

[1:46:46] Significant commitment, uh, is an understatement for sure.

[1:46:50] This is quite possibly the largest This is the largest financial commitment that our

[1:46:57] town has undertaken in any sort of transportation project,

[1:47:01] and it does make me sick to my stomach every single time we talk about it.

[1:47:07] However, the single most common item that I hear from citizens as a priority is

[1:47:12] being able to travel down Nolensville Road.

[1:47:16] It's not just convenience because you want to go somewhere.

[1:47:20] It's economic development,

[1:47:22] the ability for our business businesses to have customers come to them.

[1:47:27] It is quality of life, it's safety, it's connectivity, it is all the things.

[1:47:33] I know that Commissioner Carpenter likes to give me a hard time about things I

[1:47:39] repeat over and over and over again,

[1:47:41] but I am most likely to be yelled at because of traffic.

[1:47:46] I imagine the rest of you are as well.

[1:47:49] The $500,000 is just the beginning because there is these specific commitment that

[1:47:55] we pledged as part of the SPP, the overrun is the most challenging part.

[1:48:00] I mean, you can look at what we just talked about with the historic district

[1:48:06] streetscape and know that that is likely a reality.

[1:48:10] But, um, with all the information we have,

[1:48:13] I still feel that moving forward with the SPP partnership with the state of

[1:48:18] Tennessee, actively working with them to communicate Because they ultimately manage

[1:48:24] the project, but staying in constant— staff staying in constant contact with

[1:48:30] staff staying in constant contact with those,

[1:48:31] with the board, getting project updates as much as possible.

[1:48:35] This is key to the core of our community.

[1:48:38] In addition to that,

[1:48:40] the Transportation Modernization Act that included the choice lanes on I-24,

[1:48:45] when construction starts on that,

[1:48:48] will add additional traffic through through our community.

[1:48:52] And so we can't— from my view,

[1:48:54] we can't kind of bury our heads in the sand that Nolensville Road continues to be

[1:49:00] something we have to advocate for and put our money where our mouth is.

[1:49:06] Yeah, I'll just add, I think there are many times when we say to residents,

[1:49:12] Nolensville Road is TDOT. Can't do anything about it. Sorry.

[1:49:17] This is one of those times we can do something about it.

[1:49:22] We have been given an opportunity to, to move this notion forward and to,

[1:49:28] to do something big for the town. And I, I get that it's heavy. Um, I feel it too.

[1:49:35] But I also think that there are moments where we have to be, you know,

[1:49:41] using the word courageous for a road project seems But I think that's what it

[1:49:48] project seems But I think that's what it is.

[1:49:48] I think we have to, as a board, we have to take that step and, um,

[1:49:54] and do what we can to, to, to better the quality of life in town.

[1:49:59] So I'm still, I'm still fully on board, and I think we're doing the right thing.

[1:50:06] You say courageous like we're playing Frogger across the 5-lane road.

[1:50:12] Uh, I, I think Commissioner Carpenter kind of nailed it. We need to take this jump.

[1:50:19] Uh, I heard it at the business mixer last week.

[1:50:23] How do, how do we, how do we get people through here more effectively?

[1:50:29] So, um, it's a big commitment on our part.

[1:50:32] We have to be cognizant of that for future boards and for the community at large

[1:50:39] and, and I think it's a major jumping-off point for us, but I'm here for it.

[1:50:45] I remember the night that we discussed what, if any,

[1:50:48] contribution we might pledge to this project if we could get ourselves on the

[1:50:53] 10-year list. And I respected and appreciated the heavy lifting done by my

[1:50:57] colleagues and the advice we got from counsel and from Victor and his team.

[1:51:02] And I concur with the mayor in regard to the nausea we all feel about the amount of

[1:51:07] money that we're having to commit to this.

[1:51:09] I will also look at it from a different vantage point, and that is this:

[1:51:14] we're on the list. This time last year we were not.

[1:51:17] And that is something— this is, this is the, the game upon which we must play,

[1:51:21] and it's the way that state road projects get funded.

[1:51:25] And this town is now on the list.

[1:51:27] That's 10 years away, I get that, but at least we're on that list.

[1:51:30] We weren't a year ago.

[1:51:32] And so to my neighbors all across Nolensville,

[1:51:35] I would hope that we let them know that we hear you, we understand,

[1:51:39] we drive that same thoroughfare every day,

[1:51:41] and we want the very best for our citizens,

[1:51:44] for our people that are in business in our town,

[1:51:47] and for the people that are trying to live, work, and earn a living here.

[1:51:51] And this is something we can do, to echo Commissioner Carpenter.

[1:51:55] And I'm very thankful we had this opportunity.

[1:51:57] And when the resolution is prepared, Mr.

[1:52:00] Lay, I'll be voting in favor of it to give the mayor the authorization to sign it.

[1:52:05] Thank you.

[1:52:10] All right, thank you.

[1:52:11] The next discussion item is Police Headquarters Construction Manager at Risk

[1:52:15] selection.

[1:52:16] Mayor, members of the board, I'll keep my comments brief.

[1:52:20] You were provided in your agenda package a copy of the request for proposal.

[1:52:25] Hopefully that gives you an idea of what we were looking for in terms of a

[1:52:30] construction manager partner.

[1:52:32] We were successful in Receiving 11 different proposals from very

[1:52:37] different proposals from very well-qualified

[1:52:38] construction contractors, many of which have extensive CMAR experience.

[1:52:43] Out of the initial review process with town staff that included both Mr.

[1:52:48] Lay and myself, as well as Enoch and the police chief,

[1:52:52] we have narrowed the field down for interviews to American Constructors, Bell,

[1:52:57] and parent company.

[1:52:59] Yes.

[1:52:59] All of which have, as I mentioned, extensive CMAR experience.

[1:53:03] We are asking them basically to go through a cost analysis now as part of the next

[1:53:08] step in the process.

[1:53:09] We will be conducting interviews in mid-August and the intent is to hopefully

[1:53:14] mid-August and the intent is to hopefully select

[1:53:14] a contractor that we can then move forward with contract negotiations,

[1:53:18] specifically using the AIA Construction Manager at Risk template that we have.

[1:53:23] Uh, it's a good one because it also marries the AI agreement that we'll have

[1:53:28] marries the AI agreement that we'll have with

[1:53:28] the Architect of Record on it.

[1:53:30] Happy to address any other questions you may have at this point,

[1:53:34] but the process is continuing.

[1:53:35] We wanted to make sure that you were aware of where we were in that process and to

[1:53:41] see if you had any questions at this point.

[1:53:43] Can you just repeat for me again?

[1:53:45] So you have Bell parent and American Constructors, Bell and parent company.

[1:53:56] Any questions or discussion for this update?

[1:54:00] No action requested, so thank you.

[1:54:05] Thank you, Chuck. All right,

[1:54:08] the next item on the discussion agenda is All

[1:54:12] Nashville Roadshow Special Event.

[1:54:17] So we'd been approached by All Nashville Roadshow wanting to host an event there,

[1:54:24] self-described as an Opry-styled event.

[1:54:27] They would come in and it's totally self-contained,

[1:54:32] so there's not anything that we would have to provide or do on this,

[1:54:38] and it doesn't cost the town.

[1:54:40] It is— they end up selling tickets in advance for their particular show.

[1:54:46] They had approached us because they were looking for a spot to host the event.

[1:54:53] Initially, we were looking at the front portion of the Chris Munro Park.

[1:54:59] We've had some internal discussions with staff to look and see what is the the—

[1:55:06] what's the real possibility that it could be on that particular property?

[1:55:13] Chuck, do you want to talk a little bit more about that particular piece?

[1:55:19] You have an item on the agenda later this evening regarding the park and the

[1:55:24] contract award for that.

[1:55:26] If everything goes well with your consideration on that,

[1:55:29] we will be turning a package of information over to TDAC for their

[1:55:34] information over to TDAC for their consideration.

[1:55:35] And to basically authorize proceeding with the contract execution,

[1:55:39] which is kind of a Part A, Part B.

[1:55:41] If everything goes well,

[1:55:43] we hope to have a contract ready for your consideration by the August work session

[1:55:48] with the intent to have you all act on that in early September.

[1:55:53] That being the case,

[1:55:54] we would issue a Notice to Proceed and issue a pre-con meeting as Yes.

[1:55:59] So, that's part of that process to get the work underway.

[1:56:02] Depending on the outcome of the contract award process,

[1:56:06] the sewer contractor is also the grading contractor for the park work.

[1:56:11] So, kind of one and the same.

[1:56:13] So, they will be able to basically transition very efficiently to the dirt

[1:56:18] transition very efficiently to the dirt moving

[1:56:18] part of the contract.

[1:56:19] There is a strong likelihood that the site work will obviously involve staging and

[1:56:25] mobilization of a lot of equipment.

[1:56:27] Yes.

[1:56:30] And so, that may render a significant portion of the property unusable or have

[1:56:36] portion of the property unusable or have to be

[1:56:36] cordoned off basically to keep citizens from mixing in with construction traffic

[1:56:42] from mixing in with construction traffic and

[1:56:42] all the hazards associated with that.

[1:56:45] That may entail basically curtailing the outdoor event.

[1:56:49] So, if you all proceed with allowing this on the Crispin park property,

[1:56:54] just understand that it may be with some limitations or some restrictions,

[1:56:59] basically to cordon off the area that's set aside for construction work on the

[1:57:05] set aside for construction work on the park.

[1:57:05] You're speaking my language.

[1:57:07] So, um, I have 2 concerns,

[1:57:09] but one of which was looking at the timeline for putting in utilities and

[1:57:14] timeline for putting in utilities and groundwork

[1:57:15] and saying, oh, October, that's going to be an issue.

[1:57:19] Anyone who's ever been on an active construction site knows Putting that in

[1:57:24] construction site knows Putting that in with

[1:57:24] active residents can be a large problem. So that was one of my biggest concerns.

[1:57:30] So I appreciate you speaking to that.

[1:57:32] I have other concerns too, but I don't know if there are more comments.

[1:57:37] I would say alternatively,

[1:57:39] if for some reason TDAC does not give us a timely response back,

[1:57:43] which at this point we don't anticipate,

[1:57:45] in a conversation I had with them this past Yes.

[1:57:48] They indicated it's measured in days rather than weeks.

[1:57:51] But if for some reason that was delayed,

[1:57:54] then obviously that pushes it into the October voting cycle.

[1:57:57] That may provide an opportunity for you all to have the event because you

[1:58:01] all to have the event because you obviously

[1:58:02] wouldn't have the construction conflict going on because the Notice of Proceed

[1:58:06] going on because the Notice of Proceed would

[1:58:07] not be issued until sometime in October.

[1:58:09] So that's a remote possibility, but, you know, our hope is to—

[1:58:13] Get that construction work on the park underway by September, hopefully.

[1:58:17] Is, is the, um, is this organization aware of

[1:58:21] these internal conversations as they apply?

[1:58:26] Like, I'd have to defer to Mr. Lay and others.

[1:58:29] We've had some brief conversation with them that there could be the possibility

[1:58:35] them that there could be the possibility of

[1:58:35] some conflicts. We've not had an extensive conversation with them about to the level

[1:58:41] of that or to the absolute space requirements that they're going to, to

[1:58:47] requirements that they're going to, to require.

[1:58:47] Part of that is we wanted to have a conversation with you all to see if

[1:58:52] conversation with you all to see if there's

[1:58:53] interest in allowing them.

[1:58:55] We will end up having to lease the space to them, and we have—

[1:59:00] because one of the things that they do, they're being self-contained,

[1:59:05] is they have the ability to sell alcohol.

[1:59:08] Okay.

[1:59:09] We can't— we don't allow alcohol on our properties, uh, as far as city functions.

[1:59:15] If it's leased, then they could.

[1:59:18] We've had them talk to Charles about the legalities of all that.

[1:59:23] And so that's why we wanted to bring this to you all and have some further

[1:59:28] discussion with you to see, number one, is there interest in having it?

[1:59:34] Yes.

[1:59:35] Is there a willingness to lease the property so that they can do it here?

[1:59:42] And then besides all of that,

[1:59:44] is there going to be room on the property for them to do all that?

[1:59:50] So basically, this is a— for us,

[1:59:53] this is a fact-finding with you all on what are your concerns,

[1:59:58] and then we'll end up taking that back to them to try to convey, yep,

[2:00:04] we can do it, here are the parameters, or is there someplace else?

[2:00:10] So for me, first and foremost,

[2:00:12] I don't want any possible delay for what's going on at the park.

[2:00:17] We have a very strict timeline per our grant that we have to have this work

[2:00:22] complete. I think it's a great idea reading through the concept and the

[2:00:28] reading through the concept and the potential.

[2:00:28] I think it's a great, uh, activity to have in town. A couple of concerns.

[2:00:34] Construction, biggest concern.

[2:00:36] That in itself is a no for me in terms of the timeline.

[2:00:40] We also have a very large event that has been a part of Nolensville for quite some

[2:00:46] time, which is the Broken Wheel Festival, that is very close in time proximity.

[2:00:52] And then lastly, we have Founders Day, which is that day, and For me, at least,

[2:00:58] Founders Day is something that the town should be providing to its residents.

[2:01:03] And so while the concert is a great addition to that,

[2:01:07] it's also a cost to our residents.

[2:01:10] And so if we are here and we are celebrating and we are putting together a

[2:01:15] celebrating and we are putting together a Founders

[2:01:16] Day program, I do have a little bit of hesitation to then having something that

[2:01:22] hesitation to then having something that they

[2:01:22] would have to pay to,

[2:01:24] to I think it would be very hard for them to realize that these are 2 separate

[2:01:30] activities. And so we would then be asking them to purchase tickets to go to the

[2:01:35] concert at a separate location.

[2:01:38] But my biggest concern is definitely construction and timeline and having our

[2:01:43] residents on an active construction site.

[2:01:46] The insurance and liability there, I don't know that Yeah.

[2:01:51] I think it's— I love the idea.

[2:01:53] I'm— there's so many unknowns right now that make it such a big risk to take.

[2:02:00] Coming into this, my, my biggest concern was traffic.

[2:02:04] I would just want to know It's great that there's no cost to the town, but if,

[2:02:11] if it shuts down traffic and they don't manage that well,

[2:02:15] or we don't manage that well, it's a new thing,

[2:02:19] then that would be a big concern of mine.

[2:02:23] Um, I know in, in other jurisdictions there are events that are held and I've

[2:02:29] there are events that are held and I've been

[2:02:29] stuck in traffic for 2 hours because it's, it's just crazy.

[2:02:34] It may be different with this being a paid event, but— I Um,

[2:02:39] I think what everybody's saying makes a lot of sense, and, and I support it.

[2:02:46] I do think an event like this is,

[2:02:48] is great and that our town should pursue something like this,

[2:02:53] but I realize this is a fact-finding mission,

[2:02:57] but I would need more facts of my own to be able to support something like this.

[2:03:04] I realize we're close on time, but we're also close on time with construction.

[2:03:10] So, so let's take our property out of the mix for right now and just say that

[2:03:16] there's so much concern about our property that,

[2:03:19] that we're not interested in leasing that property for whatever reason.

[2:03:24] There also is the concern that you've had about its proximity to, in time,

[2:03:30] to other things that are going on, including the Founders' Day.

[2:03:34] Uh, which it could be a great addition to Founders' Day, but it's not free.

[2:03:40] And, and can it be distinguished from Founders' Day?

[2:03:44] So if the— if you take our property out and let's say that they found private

[2:03:49] property, i.e., the north side of Sunset Road,

[2:03:52] it's got its own little entrance there, it's private, uh, they don't—

[2:03:57] we don't have to worry about leasing it.

[2:04:00] Are you also saying that you would want us to discourage them from Having the event

[2:04:06] on private property at the same time as our Founders' Day,

[2:04:10] which would be that evening.

[2:04:12] Most of our events would be over, I'm assuming, by that time.

[2:04:17] So, um, and they're looking—

[2:04:19] they're looking at 300 to 500 people is what they're expecting.

[2:04:23] And so, so to say discourage, no. I mean, it's private property, right?

[2:04:28] So they, they're— that kind of changes the equation.

[2:04:32] But even if you took the north and the south side,

[2:04:35] where do you put roughly 100 to 125 cars, park them safely,

[2:04:39] and to Commissioner Carpenter's point,

[2:04:41] let them out in traffic that is going to get you out in a somewhat timely manner on

[2:04:47] Sunset Road? And I'm assuming based on a private company that they will be

[2:04:52] responsible for that and have to work with the police department.

[2:04:56] Um, I think it's fine, but again,

[2:04:59] you're picking a corner that they would need to know.

[2:05:02] If they do this in November and it rains, it's also unusable.

[2:05:06] So I mean, I think there's a lot of factors because we're 2 hours into our

[2:05:10] factors because we're 2 hours into our workshop

[2:05:11] and I want to make sure that we're consistent.

[2:05:13] So if we're— if we are— are you talking about a town event that's related to us?

[2:05:18] Because if we already have a special events permit process in place,

[2:05:21] and so if any local business wants to do a special event,

[2:05:24] there's already established policy framework here that they would have to go

[2:05:29] through. There's an application on our website.

[2:05:31] So those discussions are really independent of anything that we would be

[2:05:35] independent of anything that we would be discussing

[2:05:36] today. If there's discussion of this being tied to our Founders Day celebration for

[2:05:40] the town's 30th birthday, that's really how we need to frame this, in my view.

[2:05:44] Is that what you're suggesting?

[2:05:46] That's what I'm— that's what I'm asking.

[2:05:49] So My— I gave feedback to Katie and Montique, who I appreciate the, like,

[2:05:54] the brainstorming around Founders Day.

[2:05:57] I know I've been trying to really push how we're going to celebrate and commemorate

[2:06:03] this 30th birthday for the town. So love the ideas.

[2:06:07] 2 months out to propose a festival,

[2:06:10] I don't think is enough time to do it justice this year.

[2:06:14] So again, love, love the brainstorming.

[2:06:17] We need to have an environment where staff feels like they can bring forward ideas

[2:06:23] and have discussion.

[2:06:24] Um, but given the proximity to the Broken Wheel Festival,

[2:06:29] given that we don't have the details worked out for an event that would try to

[2:06:35] worked out for an event that would try to sell

[2:06:35] alcohol that is also tied to the town,

[2:06:38] the contracts that would have to be approved Presumably in the August meeting

[2:06:43] approved Presumably in the August meeting in

[2:06:44] order for us to do a— like, that contract's not here on our agenda for us

[2:06:49] contract's not here on our agenda for us to review.

[2:06:50] I don't think that we're at a juncture where this makes sense this year.

[2:06:55] But if that's something in the future,

[2:06:58] I do want to be very respectful of established festivals,

[2:07:02] especially ones that released their dates months and months and months ago.

[2:07:09] And—

[2:07:09] Yeah. in this particular instance,

[2:07:11] raise money for a not-for-profit that provides scholarships to local students

[2:07:16] provides scholarships to local students that

[2:07:16] help, uh, families in need.

[2:07:18] So, um, I, I know we could have a long discussion about this.

[2:07:22] My opinion is no because of timing and all the things that I've laid out.

[2:07:26] Well, Mayor, I'll just make this quick. Ditto and ditto.

[2:07:29] And under the heading of respect,

[2:07:31] I think we ought to respect the keen efforts of our team that's putting

[2:07:35] efforts of our team that's putting together the

[2:07:36] Founders Day plans right now.

[2:07:37] And when the time comes for us to be able to use Chris Mann Brown Park without

[2:07:42] worrying about delaying the construction, and that is an extremely valid point,

[2:07:46] one we ought to stay focused on before we move forward too far down the line on

[2:07:50] having a concert. I'd also like to be able to show respect to the Brown family,

[2:07:54] to Ms. Moore, to the Woodley family across the street,

[2:07:57] because they're going to be absorbing a lot of traffic issues perhaps on events

[2:08:02] lot of traffic issues perhaps on events like

[2:08:02] this. But that's part of going with the park.

[2:08:04] But however, They're going to be dealing with the noise,

[2:08:07] and I just want to get their feedback and respect them and how we can ameliorate

[2:08:12] that if at all possible, or find a timeline for future events.

[2:08:15] But then it comes back to the timeline on this one.

[2:08:18] We're sitting here at the end of July, and as far as a town event is concerned,

[2:08:22] I think we're way too close to try to make this happen.

[2:08:25] Whatever they can plan to do on private property, that's their business.

[2:08:29] So the other items that I think we do need to talk through separate from the All

[2:08:34] Nashville Roadshow that are technically in this discussion item in the proposal that

[2:08:40] Montique and Katie did a lot of work on.

[2:08:42] One is the digital passport program that the Economic Development Advisory

[2:08:47] the Economic Development Advisory Committee

[2:08:48] is already working on,

[2:08:49] which I think is an incredible addition to supporting local business and also using

[2:08:55] it as a way to celebrate the 30th birthday.

[2:08:58] The other item that's in this agenda item is the flag design campaign,

[2:09:02] which we talked about in our last meeting.

[2:09:05] And I, I took away from that that everyone was very supportive of that.

[2:09:10] The only thing I would add as feedback would be when it opens and when it closes.

[2:09:15] 30th birthday lasts a whole year.

[2:09:17] I mean, we in our household, we celebrate birthdays for like a whole month,

[2:09:22] but when it's for the town,

[2:09:24] I think that the full year is is reasonable and expected as a way.

[2:09:29] So I just hope that as we finalize some of these things that we're not trying to

[2:09:34] just fit it into one month and know that we have time to adequately plan.

[2:09:39] So that, that would be my feedback there.

[2:09:42] Anybody— does anybody have any feedback about the digital passport?

[2:09:46] It's great.

[2:09:49] You said it's great?

[2:09:50] Yeah, I agree. I think anything that we can do to facilitate movement to

[2:09:56] can do to facilitate movement to businesses

[2:09:57] around town is a great way to drive development for our retail and commercial.

[2:10:03] So I think it's fantastic.

[2:10:05] I get what you're saying about the dates and the celebration.

[2:10:10] I don't have a one way or the other,

[2:10:13] but I do agree it would be somewhat neat to be able to unveil Nolensville's new

[2:10:19] flag. So, but yes, I love the Passport,

[2:10:23] and I agree with the other half down there that this isn't an event that we don't

[2:10:29] want to see. I just think the timing is off for the actual concert event.

[2:10:36] The other item that was in there is sponsorships for it,

[2:10:40] and I also gave my feedback on that.

[2:10:43] I'm, I'm of the opinion that we already solicit sponsorships for Buttercup,

[2:10:48] the Veterans Day Parade, um, possibly other things,

[2:10:51] but that our local businesses already get asked for a lot.

[2:10:55] And so I, I, I love the brainstorming, but I'm not sure for this particular, um,

[2:11:01] celebration that, that that's something that I would be supportive of.

[2:11:06] Does anyone else have feedback on that?

[2:11:08] As far as sponsorships go, I think we are underutilizing sponsorships.

[2:11:14] And I don't necessarily mean that we should be putting more pressure on our

[2:11:19] businesses, but we also— I mean, we have— we don't have to just stay local.

[2:11:25] There are all kinds of corporate businesses that are in or around our town

[2:11:31] businesses that are in or around our town that

[2:11:31] could also sponsor. And I think that there's a lot of ways that we could

[2:11:37] there's a lot of ways that we could increase

[2:11:38] sponsorship activity.

[2:11:39] Okay.

[2:11:40] So that's, that's one area where we've had discussion.

[2:11:44] Town events, something I feel strongly about.

[2:11:48] So do you want to do sponsorships for the Founders' Day celebration projects that

[2:11:54] will happen?

[2:11:56] I don't have an issue with them.

[2:11:58] Are you saying that you do want to move forward with the Founders' Day celebration

[2:12:02] with having the sponsorships as proposed in this document on the agenda?

[2:12:06] Yes, I will make a note.

[2:12:07] We've been— Montique and Victor and I have been contacted by a local business asking

[2:12:13] how they can sponsor the town in different variations. So that's, um, why we put—

[2:12:19] included that on the proposal to you all. Yeah, I don't, I don't have an issue.

[2:12:24] I think that, um, any business that we have is able to certainly not be a

[2:12:28] have is able to certainly not be a sponsor,

[2:12:29] but I do agree with Commissioner Carpenter that I, I do think even at Bridge Stone,

[2:12:34] they give out quite a few sponsorships for even activities like this.

[2:12:38] And so I don't take issue with the sponsorship.

[2:12:41] Any other feedback?

[2:12:50] Okay.

[2:12:51] All right. Is that it? Everything for this discussion item? All right.

[2:12:57] Then that takes us into our proposed agenda for August 6, 2026.

[2:13:02] Is there something we missed?

[2:13:04] Nope, sorry.

[2:13:04] Okay, um, we have the budget report from the finance director,

[2:13:09] which is the summary information for the last 12 months, which I thought was, um,

[2:13:16] fascinating to go through.

[2:13:18] Um, does anyone have any questions or comments through the, um,

[2:13:23] initial information that was presented as the end of 6 30, 2026.

[2:13:28] All right, any questions about reports from departments or town committees?

[2:13:35] Um, for the TAPS committee, one thing I did want to, um,

[2:13:39] bring up was something that they talked about in their last meeting,

[2:13:45] which was a way of marking, um, Trail markers for 911 calls,

[2:13:49] and that's something that they are exploring.

[2:13:53] Coincidentally, it's also something that Brentwood has done on their trail markers.

[2:14:00] I don't know if you saw that today, but our,

[2:14:03] our TAPS committee is also exploring that,

[2:14:07] and hopefully we'll have more information soon.

[2:14:11] All right, so for unfinished business,

[2:14:14] we have already gone through each of those items.

[2:14:18] Under New Business, Item 1, Resolution 26086,

[2:14:21] a resolution granting a certificate of compliance to Tipsy Cow Wine and Spirits.

[2:14:28] Um, staff, do you have any comments about this particular item?

[2:14:34] There was a question that was raised about the response from town staff regarding

[2:14:39] the zoning verification that we wanted to clarify for you all.

[2:14:43] The subject property, as you well know,

[2:14:46] initially had been zoned in a Village Commercial classification.

[2:14:50] Village Commercial classification under the old Zoning Ordinance allows for liquor

[2:14:55] stores. That's one of the many permitted uses that are allowed.

[2:14:59] As you know, the property also was developed under a Planned Development

[2:15:04] developed under a Planned Development project,

[2:15:05] receiving Planned Development approval and a zoning classification that went with

[2:15:10] it.

[2:15:10] Yes.

[2:15:10] One of the allowable permitted uses that was stipulated in the approved plan

[2:15:15] documentation was a liquor store.

[2:15:17] So it's kind of tying the old zoning with the planned development.

[2:15:21] Under the new zoning regulations,

[2:15:23] also liquor stores or alcoholic beverage retail sales stores are also permitted,

[2:15:28] and that is currently what this—

[2:15:30] the current zoning classification under the official zoning map is.

[2:15:37] Yes.

[2:15:37] And then, in terms of conformance under the CD-4C,

[2:15:41] we would like to offer as part of an updated agenda package for your

[2:15:45] updated agenda package for your consideration

[2:15:46] next week a modified letter that bridges basically the old zoning ordinance with

[2:15:51] basically the old zoning ordinance with the

[2:15:51] planned development and the new zoning requirements so that it shows basically

[2:15:56] requirements so that it shows basically that

[2:15:56] it has conformed with all of those different approvals and prior zoning

[2:16:00] classifications. Happy to address any questions you might have on that.

[2:16:05] Police background check was okay,

[2:16:07] and you should be in a position to give favorable consideration if everything is

[2:16:12] favorable consideration if everything is in

[2:16:12] acceptable order from your perspective next week.

[2:16:15] Any questions about Resolution 26086?

[2:16:20] Is that going to be the name they do business under,

[2:16:23] or is that just their LLC's name?

[2:16:25] I assume so.

[2:16:27] Tipsy Cow.

[2:16:28] Yeah, hopefully the applicant will be here for

[2:16:33] the The Chief of Police is smiling over there.

[2:16:37] I think he appreciated— I mean, I just think it's a great name.

[2:16:41] I can't wait to tell my preacher.

[2:16:43] Maybe I might tell him I'm going to go by the Tipsy Cow and pick him up something

[2:16:48] for a Christmas gift. I don't know.

[2:16:51] You tell him you're responsible for that.

[2:16:52] Chocolate milk. I'm getting some chocolate milk. I'm sorry, Mayor.

[2:16:55] I know we're trying to get through this agenda, and I couldn't have—

[2:16:57] I had to have a moment.

[2:16:59] No, I'm actually right there with you on that one. That was one of my questions.

[2:17:02] We did have a call from the owner of the shopping center today that suggested there

[2:17:07] might be a name change.

[2:17:09] They weren't confirmed that they were going to, but if, if one comes up,

[2:17:13] don't be surprised.

[2:17:15] Okay, thank you guys very much.

[2:17:17] Um, item 2, first reading of Ordinance 26-15,

[2:17:20] an ordinance of the Town of Nolensville amending plan review permitting inspection

[2:17:25] fees contained in Appendix B of the Town of Nolensville Municipal Very simply,

[2:17:31] we've identified a few additional revisions that need to be made to the

[2:17:36] revisions that need to be made to the Master Fee

[2:17:36] Schedule that's a part of Appendix B of the Municipal Code.

[2:17:41] These specifically are coming from the Planning Department.

[2:17:44] There are some refinements that are ongoing with the subdivision regulations

[2:17:48] ongoing with the subdivision regulations as well

[2:17:49] as the future draft of the Zoning Ordinance.

[2:17:51] There are a couple of items that basically deal with meeting requests and the fees

[2:17:56] associated with those that are not being utilized currently by applicants.

[2:18:00] And so we're going to be striking those from it and then also providing a little

[2:18:04] from it and then also providing a little bit

[2:18:04] more clarification on where specific fee references are in either the zoning

[2:18:08] ordinance or the subdivision regulations.

[2:18:11] So it's a bit of a housekeeping measure as well.

[2:18:13] Happy to address any other questions you have.

[2:18:17] You guys have done a ton of work over the last, I think,

[2:18:21] year and a half to 2 years on these items, um, and I'm—

[2:18:24] I know that's not a small undertaking.

[2:18:26] Yeah, good thing is, you know,

[2:18:28] we're generating some good revenue from this to offsetting a lot of our

[2:18:33] this to offsetting a lot of our development

[2:18:34] service-related expenses. So we appreciate your support on it.

[2:18:38] All right, that, uh, items 3, 4, and 5 we have already discussed.

[2:18:43] Resolution item 6, Resolution 26-078,

[2:18:45] a resolution to amend the terms of the Nolensville Buttercup Festival Committee.

[2:18:59] So I am looking for guidance regarding this resolution.

[2:19:02] Um, when I looked at other bylaws and resolutions that we completed or that were

[2:19:07] approved for other committees, they had staggered terms, um, as well as—

[2:19:11] and you all wanted to change the start date and the end date So I was wondering

[2:19:16] date and the end date So I was wondering if

[2:19:16] you all wanted to do the staggered terms with this board as well,

[2:19:20] with this committee as well.

[2:19:21] I think right now they have 2-year terms and they can't serve 3 years

[2:19:26] and they can't serve 3 years consecutively.

[2:19:26] That's part of the bylaws.

[2:19:28] And then we— you all said that you did not want them to do the January to December,

[2:19:33] so I'm looking for what dates you would want them to start and then commence.

[2:19:41] So I think the first time this resolution was voted on was in 2025,

[2:19:48] um, and I, I don't remember if that included the term lengths in

[2:19:54] it. I, I do read in the bylaws,

[2:19:58] which I don't think the board approves,

[2:20:01] so I don't think we've ever stipulated outside of the original 1

[2:20:08] year. We did reappoint in Like May of '25. No, August of '25.

[2:20:14] August.

[2:20:16] The initial reasoning for 1-year terms was to not put too much pressure on a local

[2:20:23] business. But I think consistency in what works for the committee now that we're in

[2:20:29] our second year, I don't necessarily have opinions on that.

[2:20:34] But I do think an August or a September term start matters.

[2:20:38] I also don't have an opinion on staggering it or not,

[2:20:42] since this is kind of a different committee.

[2:20:46] Like, I mean, it's a specific event versus the advisory committees.

[2:20:51] So I think it would just be what the— your all's opinion and will of the board.

[2:20:57] Okay.

[2:21:03] Yeah, I, I will defer to Vice Mayor. No, no, go ahead.

[2:21:07] Okay.

[2:21:08] Um, yeah, I, I think I agree.

[2:21:11] Uh, in a sense, it's almost like one of those committees that

[2:21:17] dissolves and then, you know, re— rejoins or re—

[2:21:21] comes back together. Um, My point is, I agree.

[2:21:26] So I guess the question would be,

[2:21:29] has the committee said in terms of start/end what they would prefer or

[2:21:37] what they feel is most appropriate, or no?

[2:21:41] No.

[2:21:42] Yeah, that was one of my things that I had meant to do.

[2:21:45] I'll fall on the sword on this one.

[2:21:48] Was reach out to everyone and say, hey, you know,

[2:21:51] are you willing to serve another year? And if so, you know, go on.

[2:21:56] I don't know, again, do we need to have official and formal terms to this?

[2:22:01] I don't know that that's appropriate.

[2:22:03] I do like the mayor's suggestion of kind of a September to August cycle.

[2:22:08] To August, yeah. Because again, by June-ish, it's kind of, you know,

[2:22:13] things are wrapping up or wrapping of the finances and whatnot.

[2:22:17] So, and again, it's kind of starting all over, but you do want the people that are—

[2:22:23] that have done it before to bring some of the knowledge forth.

[2:22:27] So yeah, I think it's appropriate to maybe reach out to the committee members and

[2:22:33] say, hey, you know, looking for the next year starting in September,

[2:22:37] would you like to be a part of it?

[2:22:39] So September 1st to August 31st,

[2:22:41] which makes the most amount of sense even considering Considering the donations that

[2:22:46] are given do not take place until August,

[2:22:48] which also gives them the opportunity to have additional meetings to move into what

[2:22:52] could potentially be the new— yeah, okay.

[2:22:54] So between now and the voting meeting,

[2:22:58] there'll be some conversations so that can get reported back

[2:23:04] and recommendations made to the board about who wants to

[2:23:10] continue to serve. Did, did it—

[2:23:13] Do y'all want us to make those calls?

[2:23:15] Because obviously, um, and, and one of you all can, but we all, 5 or 6 and staff,

[2:23:21] all don't need to be calling everybody so you get 7 phone calls.

[2:23:26] Uh, I mean, if I could ask Montique or Katie, either one, to reach out.

[2:23:32] Yeah.

[2:23:33] Commissioner Gill, did you have any feedback on this?

[2:23:36] Ditto.

[2:23:36] I do have one other topic. So we still need to present checks to them.

[2:23:41] Did you want to wait till not the August meeting but September so they can get into

[2:23:47] school? And what do you all think? I think last year we did August.

[2:23:51] So we do start a week later,

[2:23:53] so we actually miss it with the new start date this year.

[2:23:56] So if you want to do September or even right before workshop, maybe.

[2:24:01] Okay.

[2:24:01] They may prefer the earlier time, but I'm fine with either one.

[2:24:05] Okay.

[2:24:06] But yes, we do miss that first being back in school.

[2:24:08] So we'll fill in a September 1st to August 31st first term. Okay.

[2:24:15] All right.

[2:24:16] Anything else on this item?

[2:24:18] The next item is Resolution 26-079,

[2:24:20] a resolution approving a purchase of Nearmap USA Incorporated imagery and

[2:24:25] LiDAR data.

[2:24:29] Jules is going to represent this issue and the next issue.

[2:24:32] And the one after that.

[2:24:35] And the one after.

[2:24:36] 7, 8, and 9.

[2:24:41] All right.

[2:24:43] So as the mayor said, Resolution 26079,

[2:24:46] a resolution approving the purchase of Nearmap USA Incorporated

[2:24:52] imagery and LiDAR data. I included a staff report.

[2:24:56] Do you have any questions? Any questions?

[2:25:00] Thank you.

[2:25:03] Did you— making sure you had time to read over the staff report.

[2:25:08] We currently have a subscription to Nearmap.

[2:25:11] Imagery for the town is flown twice a year.

[2:25:14] It's great, great imagery that we utilize pretty much every day in multiple

[2:25:20] departments. The additional data that we want to get will help classify some

[2:25:25] pervious and impervious surfaces that can help go to our stormwater model.

[2:25:30] We also want to get more contours that are more up to date.

[2:25:35] Our latest contours that we have are from 2024.

[2:25:38] There's been quite a bit of construction since then, earth moved,

[2:25:43] so we want to get more up to date.

[2:25:45] Okay.

[2:25:50] The information provided in the agenda item is great.

[2:25:52] We don't usually get presentations from you, so I want to ask a lot of questions,

[2:25:57] but I think everything that you guys have provided has been great,

[2:26:00] and I don't have any questions.

[2:26:01] But I'm excited to see what you do with the information and know that this was a

[2:26:06] budgeted item.

[2:26:07] I'm with the mayor, Joel.

[2:26:08] You don't get to do this very often, so can we make this a true formal testimony?

[2:26:12] Will you please raise your right hand? Let me place you under oath.

[2:26:15] He's Facebook famous now.

[2:26:16] I'd be careful.

[2:26:17] Oh, then I revoke that. No, thank you for doing this.

[2:26:19] And I remember the presentation you gave us during the budget discussions.

[2:26:23] I think those happened— was that the end of February we were together?

[2:26:26] Um, you work very hard for the town. You do a great job.

[2:26:29] And I know you've done a lot of this coding yourself, I believe, on some

[2:26:33] coding yourself, I believe, on some things.

[2:26:33] Thank you for keeping us up to date on it.

[2:26:35] Thank you.

[2:26:36] Well, I'm very lucky to have the right tools in place to be able to do this

[2:26:40] tools in place to be able to do this stuff.

[2:26:40] So any objection with consent agenda for

[2:26:45] item 7? All right, that takes us to item

[2:26:49] 8.

[2:26:50] All right, uh, the resolution I'm probably the most excited about tonight, uh,

[2:26:55] resolution approving the purchase of Violetics America Incorporated Enterprise

[2:27:01] Violetics America Incorporated Enterprise AI

[2:27:02] Road and Asset Management Software.

[2:27:04] So as you remember from The the strategic planning session,

[2:27:09] I believe it was or back in February whenever we all met.

[2:27:13] We had talked about that we wanted to budget for some software or to add on to

[2:27:19] budget for some software or to add on to our

[2:27:19] our current software that would help with our sign inventory.

[2:27:24] Have a consultant go out re video all the roads in town and.

[2:27:28] Basically give us a packaged up, hey, here's all your signs,

[2:27:33] here's the conditions of them.

[2:27:35] And it was a great tool whenever we first signed up in 2024.

[2:27:40] They did our pavement conditions assessment, same principle.

[2:27:44] It was an add-on for that.

[2:27:46] Some things have changed as far as technology in the past 2 years to where

[2:27:52] technology in the past 2 years to where now as

[2:27:53] staff we don't have to have a consultant go do it. We can go do it ourselves.

[2:27:58] Yeah.

[2:27:59] Um, and utilize our smartphone to have video capture capabilities from a dash cam

[2:28:06] and, uh, use AI to process that video and, uh,

[2:28:09] give us the data we need and that we're looking for.

[2:28:13] Uh, current signage around town.

[2:28:16] Um, we had a— Violetix actually came and gave us a little demo of what they did.

[2:28:22] He spent 15 minutes driving around Stonebrook.

[2:28:25] And already nabbed 150 signs, gave them all classifications, geolocations,

[2:28:31] and just within 10 minutes had everything that we needed and that we were looking

[2:28:37] for.

[2:28:38] And road conditions.

[2:28:39] And road conditions— potholes, storm drain inlets.

[2:28:43] It gathers a lot of information, and we're able to make informed decisions better.

[2:28:48] The neat thing about it, instead of paying a consultant one time to go do it,

[2:28:53] You know, and do that about every year. We go do it every month if we want.

[2:28:58] We have guys out in the field, Wayne and Dave, in, in the engineering department.

[2:29:03] They're going to construction sites all around town every day,

[2:29:08] driving a lot of miles.

[2:29:09] And we can start heat mapping the town to where they can see where they have been,

[2:29:14] where they haven't been, be collecting more up-to-date data every time they

[2:29:19] more up-to-date data every time they drive.

[2:29:20] Okay.

[2:29:21] It's unlimited amount that we want to drive.

[2:29:24] So before a project starts, our guys can go out and drive,

[2:29:28] get the pavement conditions of what the road was like before.

[2:29:32] It's not just somebody's opinion— the road was kind of good.

[2:29:37] It's hard data that's been classified and archived.

[2:29:40] And after construction starts and after construction's complete, we can see, hey,

[2:29:46] how bad was the road How bad is it now?

[2:29:49] Um, it just helps as we're planning some of our longer-range projects,

[2:29:53] kind of what the issues that can arise from it.

[2:29:57] And whenever it comes to budgeting, how important it is to make sure that we are,

[2:30:02] uh, we are staying focused on what we need to. So, um, yep. Any more questions?

[2:30:08] Any questions for Joel for Resolution 26-080?

[2:30:12] I will say that Violetics,

[2:30:14] we just so happened to talk with them and they are looking to branch into this area

[2:30:21] of the country and they are really excited to hopefully bring us on if it's approved

[2:30:27] to have one of these partnerships where they want to showcase us as a premier,

[2:30:33] you know, hey, look at this town, look at what they're doing.

[2:30:38] Okay.

[2:30:38] So this software is pretty new,

[2:30:40] but we can really be at the forefront of how it's implemented in a municipal

[2:30:44] government, a smaller municipal government.

[2:30:47] So is there a rough timeline of completion?

[2:30:50] Like, how long do they foresee driving around town before data is received

[2:30:56] for the entirety of Nolensville?

[2:30:59] Um, we can— he's already turned it on for me free. to try it out.

[2:31:04] It usually— if you say, if I drove a road,

[2:31:08] he says within 24 hours you have the data's already been processed.

[2:31:13] All the data is back to you and you own it.

[2:31:16] So potentially quick turnaround as you pocket different parts of Nolensville and

[2:31:21] bring it back.

[2:31:22] And I think the goal at first to conquer the 80-something miles of roadway we have

[2:31:27] neighborhood by neighborhood. That would be the easiest.

[2:31:31] So, and you can knock one of those out a day.

[2:31:37] All right, any objection to this budgeted item being under consent agenda?

[2:31:41] I'm super geeked for this. I'm excited for this. Yeah, uh, I think it's great.

[2:31:45] I, I spoke to Enoch and, and Joel, uh,

[2:31:48] about using this more widely across Public Works in terms of work order tracking,

[2:31:53] uh, so we can start monitoring Uh, emergent maintenance, routine maintenance,

[2:31:57] things like that along, you know, implications with roads, stormwater,

[2:32:01] implications with roads, stormwater, downed trees,

[2:32:02] things like that. I think it's going to be amazing for us to start recording these

[2:32:07] metrics and identifying the need,

[2:32:09] whether it be staff needs or equipment needs and things like that.

[2:32:13] So much appreciated on this initiative. Um, and I'm happy to see this in place.

[2:32:18] Absolutely. Yeah. I'm excited to, if it's approved, roll it out and, uh,

[2:32:23] let Kyle and his crew also show what it can do.

[2:32:25] Some of the capabilities that are part of this price, it's pretty amazing.

[2:32:30] All right, consent?

[2:32:33] Yes.

[2:32:34] All right, the next item is number 9, Resolution 26-081.

[2:32:37] All right, this is a resolution approving the professional services agreement with

[2:32:44] Neil Schaefer Incorporated for annual as-needed professional engineering

[2:32:50] as-needed professional engineering services

[2:32:50] related to PC SWMM stormwater infrastructure model maintenance as part

[2:32:56] infrastructure model maintenance as part of the ARP

[2:32:57] grant that we received,

[2:32:59] one of the aspects was for 75% of our stormwater system to be mapped and for us

[2:33:05] stormwater system to be mapped and for us to

[2:33:05] be able to run a model anytime, you know,

[2:33:09] we needed to run it after big events or new development coming in.

[2:33:14] We can utilize it to help with making those evaluations.

[2:33:20] The—

[2:33:21] that grant covered 75% of the stormwater modeling.

[2:33:24] Obviously, if you— if you pay for something, you want to make it the best

[2:33:30] something, you want to make it the best you can.

[2:33:30] You want to continue it.

[2:33:32] Our goal is to hopefully have 100% of the town built out and to continually keep it

[2:33:38] updated. With that, we did budget this year to put money towards—

[2:33:43] Yes.

[2:33:44] Uh, having Neil Schaefer continue that service for us to keep the model up to

[2:33:48] service for us to keep the model up to date

[2:33:49] and also input. We're going to be start backfilling the 25% that we didn't get

[2:33:53] covered in the grant slowly.

[2:33:55] We're not going to do it all at once, but to catch up to current day development.

[2:34:00] And then hopefully as new development comes in,

[2:34:03] it's automatically being put in there and, uh, part of this yearly, uh,

[2:34:07] hopefully budget item we could have every year.

[2:34:10] Okay. So any questions for 26-081?

[2:34:12] I do think it's a benefit to the town long term if we have model data for

[2:34:17] stormwater. I mean, a lot of Nolensville is in a floodplain,

[2:34:21] and also the Stonebrook neighborhood behind us was developed prior to the town

[2:34:26] behind us was developed prior to the town being

[2:34:27] here. And I know that there's a lot of differences between stormwater in that

[2:34:32] neighborhood area versus some of the developments that can be challenging.

[2:34:37] And I think the work that's been done in this particular area benefits the whole

[2:34:42] town but also benefits areas that don't have the stormwater infrastructure.

[2:34:47] And it takes knowing what you got before you can do something about it.

[2:34:52] So I see this as a, as a budgeted component of that that is important to

[2:34:56] component of that that is important to move

[2:34:57] forward with.

[2:34:58] And Neil Schaefer, with, with this,

[2:35:00] they'd kind of be on call as needed and The other day we had a pretty major rain

[2:35:05] event on one side of town, wasn't on the other side of town.

[2:35:08] We were able to kind of plug in some rough numbers while we were on the call with

[2:35:13] them. And they said, well, look,

[2:35:15] let's look at this node here and see how the water flows.

[2:35:19] And it's pretty neat having that modeled out to where if something were to happen,

[2:35:24] we have the data behind it to figure out what's going on besides just somebody

[2:35:28] thinking, you know, it's always important to have the hard data.

[2:35:32] Oh, sorry. No questions, just a big thank you.

[2:35:35] I know that, um, your department in particular has come a very long way in the

[2:35:40] particular has come a very long way in the last

[2:35:41] 2 years, and I know that you're behind quite a bit of that.

[2:35:44] And so just a big thank you to everything that you are trying to facilitate and

[2:35:50] really organize so that we can better manage when a storm event happens,

[2:35:54] or just the data to go out for roadway projects. We greatly appreciate it.

[2:35:59] So thank you.

[2:36:00] Thank you.

[2:36:01] Thank you, JoJo.

[2:36:03] All 3 were on consent.

[2:36:05] I was about to say, any objection to consent?

[2:36:07] No.

[2:36:10] All right, the next item, um, the next item is number 10, Resolution 26-082,

[2:36:18] a resolution authorizing purchase of a vehicle through Tennessee Statewide

[2:36:25] Contract for Fire Matthew's not able to be with us tonight, but the position—

[2:36:32] or the equipment that he was referring to here is the brush truck.

[2:36:38] It is a budgeted item. It comes from the fire fees.

[2:36:41] They had a total of $400,000 in there to come from there.

[2:36:46] This one is less than $100,000.

[2:36:48] The other is the Type 3 pumper that they were looking at, uh, that would—

[2:36:54] that the remaining funds would go to.

[2:36:57] But this is, uh, basically it's a pickup, like a, um, an F-350,

[2:37:01] something on that order,

[2:37:03] that they would purchase off the state contract and then have the brush equipment

[2:37:10] mounted onto that.

[2:37:11] Just for confirmation, it's a 2026 Chevy 3500 pickup truck, not a—

[2:37:17] not a Ford.

[2:37:17] Sorry, for $48,344.60.

[2:37:20] All right, any questions for Victor for Resolution 26-082? Any objection to

[2:37:27] Resolution 26-082? Any objection to consent?

[2:37:29] No.

[2:37:30] Item 11, Resolution 26-083, a resolution requesting the Nolensville,

[2:37:35] Tennessee municipal election be held in conjunction with the State of Tennessee

[2:37:40] general election on November 3rd, 2026. Does staff want to talk about this one?

[2:37:46] Resolution that we do every time an election is up that I send to Chad Gray,

[2:37:51] I think is his name,

[2:37:52] and let him know that we want to have the election with the state general election,

[2:37:57] and then he puts it in the Williamson Herald for us.

[2:38:01] Any questions about this? Any objections to consent?

[2:38:05] The next item is Resolution 26-085,

[2:38:07] a resolution authorizing the execution of a statement of work with Civic Plus

[2:38:13] for the next request standard plan and Archive Social economy plan.

[2:38:18] It's our, um, new hopefully, um,

[2:38:20] records request software that will be used within town staff.

[2:38:24] It's already in the budget for this year,

[2:38:27] and they are giving us Archive Social for up to 12 accounts,

[2:38:31] which is social media public, um, records requests,

[2:38:34] which hopefully we will keep and continue to have,

[2:38:37] but they're giving it to us for a year. It's a bundle deal for that.

[2:38:41] Any questions about this particular agenda item or objection to consent?

[2:38:48] Item 13, Resolution 26-088,

[2:38:50] a resolution to authorize submittal of results of request for proposal and

[2:38:56] recommendation for contractor to TDEC for Chris Mann Brown Park project and

[2:39:02] commitment to initiate budget amendment to fund a portion of construction costs not

[2:39:10] I see how this is last.

[2:39:11] Save the best for last. Try to keep it brief but very straightforward for you

[2:39:18] brief but very straightforward for you all.

[2:39:18] Um, we've been through a bid process. We received 6 different proposals.

[2:39:23] Uh, we went through a protest of one of the contractors regarding the We have

[2:39:30] reviewed the bid package documentation that was provided.

[2:39:34] We felt it was compliant with state law as well as our RFP.

[2:39:39] So we have summarily moved on from that protest.

[2:39:42] You have before you a package of information that basically breaks down the

[2:39:48] proposals that we received. You have a bid tabulation summary.

[2:39:53] The bids range from around $1.6 million up to $3.2 million.

[2:39:58] You can see there's quite a bit of swing or gap between the two.

[2:40:03] We are recommending the lowest, most qualified to proceed with,

[2:40:08] and that would be Steelhead Construction.

[2:40:11] In the agenda package, you also have some choices to make with the bid package.

[2:40:17] We included both additive as well as deductive alternates for you all to give

[2:40:23] consideration to. The deductive alternates basically involve removing the asphalt

[2:40:30] surfacing from the loop trail around the playfield.

[2:40:34] Town staff does not recommend that you do that simply because since you have a

[2:40:40] contractor mobilized,

[2:40:41] we think it's in the best interest of the town to move forward and surface the

[2:40:47] walking surface correctly.

[2:40:49] Okay.

[2:40:50] Correctly. This would be considered potentially a defect from an ADA

[2:40:54] potentially a defect from an ADA compliance

[2:40:55] standpoint because, you know,

[2:40:57] gravel in itself is not considered a suitable material for that.

[2:41:01] The other deductive element involved the sidewalk that basically goes from the

[2:41:06] parking area out to Sunset Road.

[2:41:08] And again, because of pedestrian safety,

[2:41:11] we feel that it's an important element to include in the initial bid package.

[2:41:16] Okay.

[2:41:18] The additive change orders basically involve the restroom building.

[2:41:22] If you recall, we had as part of the design 2 different options.

[2:41:26] One was basically a basic restroom facility with a little bit of an overhang,

[2:41:31] you know, somebody could get out of inclement weather.

[2:41:34] We also provided an add-alt that would allow for an extension or an enlargement

[2:41:39] allow for an extension or an enlargement of

[2:41:39] that restroom facility to include an enclosed—

[2:41:42] Bathroom.

[2:41:42] porch, basically. We feel that this would be a really nice feature in the event of

[2:41:47] inclement weather. You know,

[2:41:49] as you all have seen on many occasions in recent history,

[2:41:52] our thunderstorms are more severe these days.

[2:41:55] Many of them bring hail and everything else,

[2:41:58] and the last thing you want is a group of individuals out on the sports courts or

[2:42:02] out in the playfield and they have nowhere to shelter.

[2:42:05] And so this provides at least an option within a reasonable distance of the sport

[2:42:10] courts.

[2:42:11] Thank you.

[2:42:12] to shelter in the event of a storm.

[2:42:14] Can we accommodate a couple hundred people under that? Absolutely not.

[2:42:19] But at least it gives those first individuals an opportunity to shelter

[2:42:24] individuals an opportunity to shelter under it,

[2:42:25] and hopefully we make a priority for older folks, women,

[2:42:29] and children in that particular case.

[2:42:32] The Ad Alt basically allows you to construct the porch addition for

[2:42:36] construct the porch addition for approximately

[2:42:37] $30,000 or $29,000 and change.

[2:42:39] The other additive alternates include a standing seam metal roof.

[2:42:44] The first option, 2A, is for the base building.

[2:42:47] The second option involves basically the enlarged building,

[2:42:52] so it's a little bit more significant cost.

[2:42:55] You've got $8,000 and change versus about $12,000.

[2:42:58] Town staff recommends that you give favorable consideration to awarding the

[2:43:03] favorable consideration to awarding the project

[2:43:04] basically on a base bid plus the additive one,

[2:43:07] which would basically enlarge the restroom building,

[2:43:11] and also for you to give consideration to a standing seam metal roof,

[2:43:16] which we feel is a more durable surface for roofing in the long term,

[2:43:21] especially when you consider the frequency and the intensity of storms,

[2:43:26] especially those involving hail.

[2:43:28] They don't tend to do well with asphalt shingle roofs in the long haul.

[2:43:33] Thank you.

[2:43:35] Those together would have a cost impact of about $40,000.

[2:43:40] That would bring the difference basically in line with about $512,000

[2:43:47] of additional cost between what we have currently budgeted versus what

[2:43:53] we feel would be the difference if you were to do the additive plus

[2:43:59] the base bid.

[2:44:00] Okay.

[2:44:01] We have also recommended in the bid or in the agenda package your consideration of a

[2:44:07] $50,000 construction contingency,

[2:44:09] which we think would be appropriate to address any unforeseen circumstances on

[2:44:15] address any unforeseen circumstances on the

[2:44:15] project. That brings us basically to the discussion on—

[2:44:19] unless you have any questions in terms of just the bid package itself.

[2:44:23] That brings us to the funding of it.

[2:44:26] Obviously, the state grant falls short of the cost.

[2:44:29] construction valuation that we've received in the, in the low bid.

[2:44:34] Uh, if you were to take basically the additive bids for the enlarged restroom

[2:44:39] additive bids for the enlarged restroom and

[2:44:40] then the metal roof, you're looking at a difference of about $512,000.

[2:44:44] When you add the $50,000 contingency to that,

[2:44:47] you're now at about $562,000 in cost difference.

[2:44:51] Staff's giving you initially the option of taking monies from your fund balance

[2:44:56] reserve In the amount of $562,000.

[2:44:59] You have available uncommitted currently in the fund balance reserve,

[2:45:03] and you have to keep a certain amount in order to maintain your fund balance policy

[2:45:09] compliance of about $1.8 million.

[2:45:11] Another option that you could consider is to take those monies out of adequate

[2:45:17] facilities tax. And I apologize for not providing that as an option as well.

[2:45:22] But you currently have, as budgeted in the FY 26-27 budget,

[2:45:26] $3.156 million in Adequate Facilities Tax that's uncommitted and available for use

[2:45:32] in this project. You also, as part of any local funding commitment,

[2:45:36] in this case for sewer, you're using, I believe, Adequate Facilities Tax as well.

[2:45:42] As part of the funding mechanism for the sewer extension that will be under

[2:45:47] construction here in the very near future.

[2:45:50] So you could just sweep money in from adequate facilities if you would like.

[2:45:55] So you basically have 2 options to cover the difference.

[2:45:59] Contractually, we have a commitment that we have to cover that difference.

[2:46:04] If you choose not to,

[2:46:06] then obviously we have got to go back to TDEC and try to descope or reduce the

[2:46:11] TDEC and try to descope or reduce the scope

[2:46:12] of the project.

[2:46:13] Okay.

[2:46:13] I don't know how that would fare with them.

[2:46:16] Typically, they're going to expect you to do the work at some point.

[2:46:20] There's no better time now than to get the work done.

[2:46:24] It certainly is not going to get cheaper as time goes on.

[2:46:27] So with that, we provided you with a draft resolution that does a few things.

[2:46:32] Number one, it authorizes the mayor to basically prepare and execute a letter

[2:46:37] transmitted to TDEC that basically contains a package of information.

[2:46:42] There's a lot of document requirements that we have to show as part of the bid

[2:46:47] process, but also it provides a recommendation on who we would like to

[2:46:51] recommendation on who we would like to hire.

[2:46:51] In this case, we're recommending Steelhead Building Group.

[2:46:55] You also have to address the disparity or the difference between the grant amount

[2:47:00] and the construction contract amount, and in this case,

[2:47:04] we're also including the budgeted contingency, which is not a requirement of

[2:47:09] contingency, which is not a requirement of TDEC,

[2:47:09] but it's Yes. Something that we feel is important to have just in case we have to

[2:47:14] important to have just in case we have to go

[2:47:15] back and deal with something unforeseen.

[2:47:17] We are looking for instruction from you all on whether you would like to see the

[2:47:22] base bid enhanced with the enlargement of the restroom structure, and if so,

[2:47:27] are you okay with Alternate 1 that has been presented?

[2:47:31] And then also before you is Alternate 2A and B.

[2:47:34] If you would prefer to see a standing seam metal roof versus an asphalt

[2:47:38] architectural shingle roof system in place.

[2:47:41] It's a lot to digest,

[2:47:42] but happy to kind of work through that with you all one step at a time if you

[2:47:47] with you all one step at a time if you would

[2:47:48] like. Sorry we are waiting for this to be the last item on the agenda,

[2:47:52] but hopefully we can cut through it.

[2:47:54] All right.

[2:47:56] Any questions for Chuck and feedback on the specifics?

[2:48:00] I just appreciate the thoroughness of this with the alternatives suggested and bid

[2:48:07] out by the proposers. No real questions.

[2:48:11] You know, I think we just have to decide where we are going to pull that extra

[2:48:18] funding from. I like the idea of a A larger building, larger covering at least.

[2:48:25] I'll defer to your knowledge of standing seam versus asphalt shingles from a

[2:48:31] durability and maintenance standpoint for long term.

[2:48:36] But yeah, I appreciate all the work on this.

[2:48:40] We provided for your consideration a spreadsheet that gives you different

[2:48:45] combinations of alternates as well.

[2:48:47] So if you want to try to mix and match a little bit,

[2:48:50] you're welcome to give consideration to that as well as far as a combination.

[2:48:55] Deductive and additive change orders.

[2:48:57] Again, our recommendation is to leave the base bid as is,

[2:49:01] which would basically negate the deductive,

[2:49:04] and to just focus on whether you want to do the additive,

[2:49:07] which would be the enlarged restroom and then standing seam metal roof either in

[2:49:12] then standing seam metal roof either in its

[2:49:13] original building or the enlarged.

[2:49:15] So I'll defer to staff and your knowledge based on, again, Again,

[2:49:19] I agree with Commissioner Strouffer at the end, material-based, but even sizing,

[2:49:25] and if that is something that you are recommending based on—

[2:49:29] if we have all been outside and we are looking for someplace, I agree with you.

[2:49:34] Still like a bit more time in terms of where we pull the overage from.

[2:49:39] I know for myself it is not a surprise.

[2:49:42] The 5 in front is a little bit of a surprise,

[2:49:45] but based on construction climate these days,

[2:49:48] not surprised that it came in over what we were expecting.

[2:49:52] I tend to lean towards adequate facility,

[2:49:55] but a bit more time just to kind of review that and maybe a few more questions for

[2:50:01] staff regarding that particular topic.

[2:50:03] But I agree with Commissioner Strufer in terms of the, the size,

[2:50:08] and then materials I would lend to staff.

[2:50:11] Thank you.

[2:50:14] Same. Also, kind of,

[2:50:16] I think we definitely need the larger bathroom restroom with the area to

[2:50:22] bathroom restroom with the area to shelter.

[2:50:23] I know initially it had been proposed that there be a pavilion on the property.

[2:50:30] I think that would have solved some of that issue, but I think in the future,

[2:50:36] that would be a great thing to, to have as well.

[2:50:41] But I, like they said, I trust y'all. I looked at that.

[2:50:45] If you think it's needed, absolutely.

[2:50:49] Yeah, the, the covered porch basically is just— it's an area of refuge.

[2:50:53] We weren't looking at it as trying to figure out a way to program or use that

[2:50:57] figure out a way to program or use that space

[2:50:58] or put a table on it or anything like that. It's strictly just—

[2:51:01] I didn't connect those two.

[2:51:03] I was more so saying that The—

[2:51:05] I was more so saying that if it were about shelter,

[2:51:09] I think a pavilion would have, would have solved that.

[2:51:13] However, I know we're not going to put picnic tables in the restroom.

[2:51:18] I mean, very good.

[2:51:21] You could start something.

[2:51:21] It seems unsanitary, but I'll leave it at that.

[2:51:25] The one thing that you all— Vice Mayor,

[2:51:28] you've made a very good I think that's a good point in terms of understanding the

[2:51:32] financial commitment you are making to cover the difference.

[2:51:35] You basically have 2 different funding sources, one being your cash balance

[2:51:39] sources, one being your cash balance reserve,

[2:51:40] the other being adequate facilities tax.

[2:51:42] Both of them have sufficient monies to cover this.

[2:51:45] It could be a combination of the 2. It could be just one.

[2:51:48] I think the important consideration of all of this obviously is that there is a lot

[2:51:52] of capital projects that are looming out there.

[2:51:55] Yes.

[2:51:55] Mayor, that was to your point earlier tonight,

[2:51:58] making sure that we are not draining those resources To a point that it's—

[2:52:03] you're in kind of an unrecoverable mode.

[2:52:05] So we've got to be very careful when you commit these dollars.

[2:52:09] You've got to always be mindful that, well, we've got an intersection project,

[2:52:14] we've got this road project, we've got this and this.

[2:52:17] You always want to make sure you're preserving some component of that nest egg

[2:52:22] preserving some component of that nest egg for

[2:52:22] rainy day emergencies, other things that may arise.

[2:52:25] Yes.

[2:52:25] So very important that you understand the commitment you're making.

[2:52:29] Chuck, did you talk about the difference in the bid for the utility relocation and

[2:52:35] the monies that we're going to save there?

[2:52:37] Um, in terms of the sewer extension?

[2:52:43] Yeah. Yes.

[2:52:44] Okay.

[2:52:44] On the sewer extension,

[2:52:46] we had budgeted initially $400,000 for extending the sewer from right behind the

[2:52:51] mobile home park across Mill Creek and then up into the site.

[2:52:55] As you recall, we awarded a contract recently through the board's approval for

[2:53:01] roughly $250,000. So we've got a savings of about $150,000 there we could use

[2:53:06] of about $150,000 there we could use toward

[2:53:07] that as well. And again, that money is out of Adequate Facilities Tax, as I recall.

[2:53:12] Chuck, let me defer to Victor.

[2:53:18] So the $560,000 could be reduced by another $150,000?

[2:53:23] Yes, it could.

[2:53:26] Well, just that you're replenishing that fund by not using those monies.

[2:53:30] We wouldn't reallocate it necessarily, just drawing out of that bucket.

[2:53:35] Chuck, you and your team put together an excellent proposal,

[2:53:39] and therefore it deserves more than just my typical trite Echoing by saying ditto.

[2:53:44] But frankly, that might be the biggest compliment I can offer.

[2:53:48] You've made it so concise and complete that it really does come down to how do we

[2:53:54] fund it. And that's a very—

[2:53:56] that's—

[2:53:57] that is a very good work product from your team. Thank you for it.

[2:54:00] Mayor, I just say ditto to what we already heard tonight.

[2:54:04] So I think what I'm hearing from everybody is the standing seam roof Which is the

[2:54:10] staff recommendation to be added into the resolution along with the porch for the

[2:54:16] restroom facility, and then probably a staff recommendation from either adequate

[2:54:22] facilities tax, because it'll be a voting item on the— on next week.

[2:54:26] So they'll— I assume whatever questions Vice Mayor Salamida has,

[2:54:31] she'll work with staff.

[2:54:33] Okay.

[2:54:39] All right, do you need staff on— to put staff on, on their heels right now?

[2:54:45] Is, is there a recommendation to go one versus the other from a funding standpoint

[2:54:50] for split funding, or is there a strategy that makes sense to do that?

[2:54:55] Um, can I comment on that?

[2:54:58] Sure.

[2:54:59] Um, I like the adequate facilities tax because you've— number one,

[2:55:04] it's replenishable from our building permits.

[2:55:08] We're even— even if our building permits, if we're only half right, you know,

[2:55:14] as far as what our projections are,

[2:55:17] that's only about a $200,000 swing off of the numbers that you're seeing right

[2:55:23] there. So if you're talking about we're not going to spend— we didn't—

[2:55:28] not going to spend as much on the sewer side that was coming out of adequate

[2:55:34] facilities For the, the sewer connection.

[2:55:38] So we're really talking about a $410,000 hit.

[2:55:41] You're dropping from $3,156,000 or $3,156,000 to, uh, $2,700,000 and change,

[2:55:47] roughly. So you're still leaving quite a bit there.

[2:55:51] The reason why I prefer it out of there versus your general fund cash is that when

[2:55:58] you go to borrow for the police station construction,

[2:56:02] when you go to borrow for that, cash is king.

[2:56:05] And to be able to have as much inside your fund balance as possible is, to me,

[2:56:12] much more advantageous than holding on to adequate facilities.

[2:56:17] Thank you for that.

[2:56:21] All right, any additional Commentary about Resolution 26088.

[2:56:25] So just to recap, base bid, enlarged restroom,

[2:56:30] metal roof, and adequate facilities tax for the funding

[2:56:36] source.

[2:56:38] Okay, thank you.

[2:56:40] And then we will have an additional resolution or an additional ordinance

[2:56:45] resolution or an additional ordinance added for

[2:56:46] first reading for the budget amendment, is that correct?

[2:56:50] Because we'll have to have that started at the same time.

[2:56:55] We'll start that process.

[2:56:57] All right. That takes us to our other item.

[2:57:01] Any additional updates from staff or from commissioners?

[2:57:06] I will add, we do have a county general election.

[2:57:11] And if you have not already gone out to early vote,

[2:57:16] I believe early voting for, um,

[2:57:19] county commissioners and county mayor ends next Thursday— this Saturday.

[2:57:26] Saturday.

[2:57:27] This Saturday, um, which is August 1st,

[2:57:30] and then the general election I believe is August 6th.

[2:57:34] So if you have not already, um, done your civic duty and gone out to vote,

[2:57:39] I would encourage you all to do so. Any other updates?

[2:57:44] Um, we didn't recognize it in the last meeting,

[2:57:47] but the police department did receive an award a couple weeks ago at the Tennessee

[2:57:53] Municipal League Conference for excellence in police service.

[2:57:58] So congratulations to Chief Armour and the team, well-deserved recognition,

[2:58:04] and was excited to, to be there with you when you were awarded.

[2:58:09] All right, anything else, or is there a motion to adjourn?

[2:58:13] Um, actually, one more thing.

[2:58:15] So our Southwest Regional Championship, again for I believe the 5th year—

[2:58:20] it's been 6 years, I think our Little League has taken it for 5 of those 6

[2:58:25] League has taken it for 5 of those 6 years—

[2:58:25] but our U-12 team will be traveling to Georgia August 6th through the 11th,

[2:58:30] and the boys are excited because that means they miss the first days of school

[2:58:35] again, so they're really excited about it.

[2:58:38] But they will be traveling, and we wish them the best of luck.

[2:58:42] You can watch them on ESPN.

[2:58:47] All right.

[2:58:47] Is there a motion?

[2:58:47] Before we have a motion, I just want to say, Mayor, about the election,

[2:58:51] because I have a feeling I'm totally blowing the curve tonight on the timeline,

[2:58:55] right? I just want to say, Mayor,

[2:58:57] I'm delighted that you and Commissioner Carpenter and I got to spend quality time

[2:59:01] together about 18 months ago in the fall of the year,

[2:59:04] as opposed to having to stand out there.

[2:59:06] During time when I think some other candidates may be spending, because I did—

[2:59:10] I read today that the temperature reached a feels like 115 degrees, Chief.

[2:59:14] So I know that when we got to spend quality time together,

[2:59:17] it was more along the lines of 70-ish every day, and that was much nicer.

[2:59:20] So, and we still got sunburned, and we still did.

[2:59:24] Motion to adjourn.

[2:59:25] Is there a second? All in favor of adjournment signify by saying aye.

[2:59:32] All opposed?

[2:59:33] Motion passes unanimously. We are adjourned.

Work Session

Transcript