[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] 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.