[0:03] It is 5:03 PM on August 24th, 2026. We have 5 commissioners.

[0:10] We have a quorum.

[0:11] I'm not starting off very well. We have all 5 commissioners here. We have a

[0:15] all 5 commissioners here. We have a quorum.

[0:15] Um, we will call to order the Board of Commissioners regular work session agenda

[0:19] Commissioners regular work session agenda for

[0:19] August 24th, 2026. Our first item on the agenda is Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:23] Please join us in the pledge.

[0:24] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:31] United States of America and to the republic

[0:32] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

[0:37] with liberty and justice for all.

[0:39] The next item on the agenda is

[0:43] approval of the agenda.

[0:46] Is there a motion?

[0:48] Motion to approve.

[0:49] Second. Any discussion for the agenda?

[0:53] Uh, just one thing. The presentation for the Buddy Cup Committee check,

[0:57] I believe we need to include the library in that, if I'm not mistaken.

[1:01] Okay, so when we get to the item on the agenda, that—

[1:07] because that will be for the voting meeting for September,

[1:13] we can add it in then.

[1:15] Okay.

[1:17] Um, I'd like to make a motion to add a discussion item to discuss the

[1:20] discussion item to discuss the Tarver-Ringman

[1:20] annexation from the August voting meeting.

[1:25] Second.

[1:26] We have a motion and a second. This is just for discussion purposes.

[1:31] We, we— this was on the agenda in the last voting meeting.

[1:35] We had discussed it at the workshop but did not have a motion or a second in the

[1:40] voting meeting, and so there was no discussion during the voting meeting.

[1:45] So this is just to add some context and, and discussion.

[1:49] Any Discussion on the amendment to the agenda?

[1:52] All in favor of the amendment to the agenda signify by saying aye.

[1:57] Aye.

[1:57] All opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

[1:59] That takes us back to the main motion, which is the agenda as amended.

[2:04] Any other amendments or discussion?

[2:06] All in favor of the agenda as amended signify by saying aye.

[2:09] Aye.

[2:10] All opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

[2:12] The next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes for the work session

[2:17] for July 27th, 2026. Is there a motion?

[2:19] Motion to approve.

[2:21] Second.

[2:22] We have a motion and a second. Any discussion for the minutes for July 27th?

[2:27] All in favor signify by saying aye.

[2:30] Aye.

[2:30] All opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

[2:33] The next item on the agenda— actually, before we get to citizens' comments,

[2:38] we have a very special birthday to celebrate today.

[2:41] And so I hope you will all join me. We're not going to sing.

[2:46] We're not going to sing, but today is—

[2:48] I can feel it.

[2:50] Well, free choice. You are all welcome to sing,

[2:52] but I don't want to wait till the end of the meeting to make sure that we recognize

[2:57] Vice Mayor Jessica Salamida on her 21st birthday. Is that where we're at now?

[3:01] Something like that.

[3:02] Something like that.

[3:03] With a few years experience. So happy birthday, Jessica.

[3:05] Happy birthday, Vice Mayor. Thank you.

[3:08] Okay, now we will get on to citizen comments.

[3:10] So the first person for citizen comments is John M. Tarver.

[3:19] Good afternoon. My name is John Mark Tarver.

[3:22] Thank you for adding our item to the discussion,

[3:26] but I wanted to go ahead and say that we have presented the Ordinance 2614 and

[3:31] Resolution 26077 to annex and zone the Ringman property on Kidd Road.

[3:36] And again, we appreciate you bringing it back up for discussion.

[3:41] We know from the previous comments made and from talking to staff that the board

[3:46] and from talking to staff that the board may

[3:47] not support rezoning the property to CD-3,

[3:50] and we just want to learn more about what the board would support or might support.

[3:55] We've looked at our site plan following the last Board of Commissioners meeting,

[4:01] and we've talked with our engineers,

[4:04] and we want to consider other options for this property based on your feedback.

[4:09] Thank you.

[4:10] And we hope that we can talk more about the project and find a plan that works for

[4:14] everyone. Thanks.

[4:15] Thank you. Anyone else for citizen

[4:20] comments? All right.

[4:24] The next item on the agenda is our

[4:29] discussion. First is item A,

[4:34] allowing alternative waste systems in

[4:40] the UGB. As soon as I get connected

[4:46] there.

[4:47] That's my best friend.

[4:50] Well, that's my I'm going to try to share my screen,

[4:57] but evidently I'm not getting the one that I want

[5:04] here. Let me try this and see if that does anything.

[5:11] Oh, there we go. There we go.

[5:15] All right.

[5:16] Fantastic.

[5:17] So we've had discussion for a couple of sessions now where we've talked about what

[5:24] is allowed in the urban growth boundary.

[5:28] What's not allowed in the Urban Growth Boundary.

[5:32] And so I wanted to take it just a little bit further and talk about what could be

[5:39] done in the Urban Growth Boundary.

[5:42] And then with the idea that we prompt some discussion among you all of is that

[5:49] something that is of interest of you all to see done or not?

[5:54] Yes.

[5:57] The urban growth boundary is about a little over 800 acres, about 862 acres.

[6:04] That's the area highlighted in blue on the screen in there.

[6:08] And so looked at it from our perspective, our perspective,

[6:13] if we annexed that whole area and it was zoned CD-2L,

[6:18] and 2L is a half unit per acre.

[6:20] Yes.

[6:21] per acre. The maximum number of units in that whole area could be 431.

[6:27] That's if you could use every acre for construction.

[6:31] But the way that our zoning code is written,

[6:35] that's an impossibility to do because you've got certain lot sizes,

[6:41] and then you also have to have roads and you have to have other infrastructure to

[6:48] you have to have other infrastructure to be

[6:48] put in there. And so just in looking at all of that together, we said, okay, well,

[6:55] if roughly 60% of the property ends up being able to be developed,

[7:00] then what's 60% of that particular set of development?

[7:05] And then so it would end up being like 258 units, I believe.

[7:10] Yeah.

[7:11] 258 units. But then if it was CD-2 at 1.1, what's the maximum there?

[7:16] Uh, or what's the likely there? And that's going to be about 500 and almost 570.

[7:23] If it were CD-3L and then also CD-3, of course, uh,

[7:27] what would those numbers look like?

[7:30] And the reason why I put that out there is one of the things that when we look at

[7:37] our urban growth boundaries is what is the What's the level of development with

[7:44] regard to what is the potential for cost of development,

[7:48] the cost of the services in having to deal with that development?

[7:54] And I've not run an analysis on CD-2L or CD-2.

[7:58] I've not run a fiscal analysis to say, well,

[8:01] will 258 homes pay for the services that it's going to take In order to put fire

[8:08] down in that area and then our police in that area.

[8:12] And we would obviously—

[8:14] we would no longer get any of the dollars for fire response if we annex that area.

[8:21] So I just wanted you all to know what the levels of development might be.

[8:27] Now, what this doesn't take into account is that if you all would think that some

[8:34] is that if you all would think that some of

[8:34] that property that fronts onto Nolensville Road would have commercial potential and

[8:41] you'd want to develop some commercial in some of it.

[8:46] Obviously that would change some of the reasons, I guess, why to annex.

[8:52] But then I also wanted to show, okay, well, what,

[8:56] what could happen if we don't annex it?

[8:59] We have MGA is— MGA-1 is what is in the county zoning right now.

[9:05] On the north side, and just kind of put this in perspective.

[9:10] Let me go back to this screen.

[9:12] If you look right here where my cursor is kind of sliding,

[9:17] you guys can't see my cursor. See if this will light things up at all.

[9:23] All right, so right here. Is Sanford Road.

[9:26] Sanford comes down and then takes a hard turn, 90-degree turn.

[9:32] And if you look at the, the counties,

[9:35] you can see Sanford Road obviously right there. That's that same location.

[9:41] And so everything below Sanford Road is actually RD-5,

[9:46] which is Rural Development 5 versus MGA-1. 2 different zones.

[9:51] RD-5 is 1 unit for 5 acres.

[9:53] MGA-1 is 1 unit per acre in the county zone,

[9:57] and they have different standards and what all.

[10:01] One of the things about RD-5 is it has—

[10:04] it can be developed in what's called a conservation development,

[10:09] which means they can drop down. They don't have to be 5-acre lots.

[10:15] The density is still only allowed at 1 per 5.

[10:19] Right.

[10:19] But they can be dropped down to a minimum of a half-acre lot and grouped tightly so

[10:25] that the infrastructure is really contained, and then you have lots of green

[10:31] contained, and then you have lots of green space.

[10:31] So if you've got 200 acres and you can only develop 1 per 5,

[10:35] so you get 40 homes is all that's allowed on that property,

[10:40] that 40 homes could be condensed into 20 acres,

[10:43] essentially 20-25 acres with the remaining property remaining green.

[10:48] And what I'll—

[10:49] with that, um, so you all are in the driver's seat with regard to these

[10:55] driver's seat with regard to these properties.

[10:56] Um, the, the city has the final say with the— anything,

[11:00] any of the development in the UGB because of the way that the county has chose to

[11:07] operate Which is to defer.

[11:09] If it's in the UGB, the county is not going to approve it unless the town says,

[11:15] we give you the authority.

[11:17] We have— we are denying annexation, and we give you the authority, uh, county,

[11:23] to go ahead and approve something.

[11:26] Um, the city has, has the ability to choose to annex it or choose not to annex

[11:32] choose to annex it or choose not to annex it.

[11:32] The town has the ability to not allow development until it's in the town's best

[11:38] interest. So to, to wait on development until the town wants to annex it and then

[11:45] allow it to develop under the town's authority.

[11:49] Or you can choose to give that authority to Williamson County.

[11:53] You can say you can develop it but only under the existing standards,

[11:59] or you can say you can let it develop and develop it under alternative wastewater

[12:05] systems. So the city is really in there.

[12:08] The town's really in the driver's seat with what they choose to allow in these

[12:15] with what they choose to allow in these pro—

[12:15] in, in these, uh, uh, UGB areas.

[12:17] When you say that, you mean specifically for areas that Metro Sewer will not serve?

[12:22] Because if Metro Sewer will serve it,

[12:24] they will give a letter if capacity is available,

[12:27] regardless of whether we want it or not.

[12:29] That's correct. I am talking about everything that is, uh,

[12:33] to the south of that yellow line across the paper,

[12:36] because that is That's that dividing line that we've been talking about.

[12:41] That's that ridgeline and is the boundary line for Metro.

[12:44] And Metro has confirmed with us that they don't have territory beyond that line.

[12:49] They don't intend to ever want territory beyond that line.

[12:53] And they would have to acquire it.

[12:55] None of the agreements, original agreements back years ago,

[12:59] go any farther south than that line.

[13:02] So—

[13:03] We're talking about, uh, the areas where you all, you all control it.

[13:08] It's just in this blue area.

[13:10] But this is this relatively the same area in which we already denied annexation for

[13:16] very reasonable reasons,

[13:18] both at the Planning Commission and at the Board of Commission level, correct?

[13:23] That is correct. And all I want to do is just There were questions about, well,

[13:29] what are the options? What are we— you know, what do we have the authority to do?

[13:35] And I just wanted to kind of lay out what that authority is and then show you the

[13:42] differences in what— the way it develops and what could go out there, I guess.

[13:48] So when you say that we have already denied annexation,

[13:52] are you referring to the This property south?

[13:55] Correct.

[13:56] Okay, just to be clear for myself and for the board,

[14:01] we didn't actually deny annexation.

[14:04] We discussed— I'm getting, I'm getting there with that.

[14:09] So, um, because that carries certain implications.

[14:14] Um, so this is— I'm probably mostly the reason why this is on the agenda

[14:21] tonight. Some of my questioning at the last meeting,

[14:26] I wanted to really understand what the options were for the properties that lie

[14:33] south of where Metro will serve— service.

[14:37] Victor, can you tell me if a property owner is in the UGB in one of these blue

[14:45] areas and chooses to develop according to what the county allows without any

[14:52] rezone or anything like that,

[14:55] what action triggers us having to give them permission?

[15:00] Because that's kind of how it reads here, is that they— we have to allow that.

[15:08] So what triggers that?

[15:10] So the first thing that the county will do,

[15:13] if they approach the county for development, the county would reach out to

[15:19] development, the county would reach out to us.

[15:19] And say, uh, town, this group or this property owner has asked to develop, uh,

[15:25] it falls within your UGB.

[15:27] If it is the town's desire to see this property develop inside the town and

[15:32] according to town standards, uh, let us know because otherwise we plan to— plan

[15:38] know because otherwise we plan to— plan on—

[15:38] well, they plan on denying it unless we give them specific authorization to move

[15:44] forward.

[15:45] Okay.

[15:46] So, okay.

[15:48] That's the way that Mike Mattson has told me that he approaches properties in the

[15:55] UGB.

[15:55] So this almost sounds like more of a,

[15:58] like a policy guidance kind of thing for future annexations, because if we have

[16:05] future annexations, because if we have the—

[16:05] if we have the authority to approve or deny annexations,

[16:10] it sounds like a property owner in these blue areas The only way they could develop

[16:17] any kind of sewer is if we annex them into Nolensville,

[16:22] or we deny annexation and they go through the county.

[16:26] Well, you would have to deny annexation and tell the county that you did not want

[16:32] and tell the county that you did not want to

[16:32] annex them in the future, because you could say, no, we don't want you to annex,

[16:38] or we, we don't annex you right now, It's not in our best interest,

[16:43] but we do still plan on annexing you in the future at some point in time when it

[16:49] the future at some point in time when it is.

[16:49] So there's— it's kind of twofold here.

[16:52] Um, and you can deny the annexation and hold off with the county, uh,

[16:57] until the county gets an approval that says you—

[17:00] it's not your intent to annex further.

[17:03] So in In thinking of all of these theories of what could be,

[17:09] if we are truly not ready to annex to this level of a property,

[17:15] but we know that we will,

[17:17] the consequence of that could be what?

[17:21] If you think that you know that you will at some point in

[17:26] time, then the consequence is that that property does not—

[17:30] is not Well, I'll just say my concern might be a moot point because I—

[17:36] my concern was that we have these properties south of the service area for

[17:43] properties south of the service area for Metro

[17:43] that are kind of being held hostage in a sense where we are—

[17:48] I think that's a good point.

[17:51] Saying you can't— or that, you know, we're not ready to annex you.

[17:56] This was my thought before I kind of heard you speak today, is that, well,

[18:02] we're not ready to annex you and you can't develop because we don't allow

[18:09] alternative sewer systems.

[18:11] When it sounds like the reality is that if property owners in this area want to

[18:18] develop, they're going to have to go through a process of—

[18:23] Right.

[18:23] of us telling them we don't want to annex you and we're okay with—

[18:29] it's very convoluted.

[18:31] Well, um, yeah, you would have to say we don't annex and we're—

[18:36] we give the county essentially the authority to allow you to develop, uh,

[18:41] and we allow— we give the county authority to allow you to develop with an

[18:46] alternative sewer system.

[18:51] Outside of that too,

[18:52] something to note which was a big discussion in all of this was the services

[18:58] discussion in all of this was the services that we

[18:58] are then providing and therefore the lack of service time to this particular area.

[19:04] And so if these do start to become annexed properties,

[19:08] that Firehouse Number 2 timeline definitely changes.

[19:11] The amount of police officers that you are hiring And the timeline for that changes.

[19:17] So sewer is, is a large part in how these properties can develop and our thought

[19:23] process, but also the services that will have to be provided to them and the cost

[19:28] have to be provided to them and the cost of

[19:29] the residents.

[19:30] Sure.

[19:30] That will increase.

[19:31] Yeah, which is— which was my reasoning for,

[19:35] for not supporting initial annexation. I won't belabor this.

[19:41] I am curious though, so I think this was addressed before,

[19:46] but for clarity, if prop—

[19:48] who responds currently to the development across the street,

[19:54] the enclave? Like, who, who responds for public safety to that area?

[20:00] Is that us or is that the county?

[20:04] If it is a fire, we will respond. Um, and get the $250 per response charge.

[20:11] Sure.

[20:12] If it is police, then typically I think the Sheriff's Department responds to that

[20:18] area. We might— we've had a lot of— I've had a lot of conversation with Mr.

[20:24] Hoffer and, and then also with Allison today on where we respond,

[20:29] how do we respond with regard to our police department,

[20:33] and Lots of times it depends on the call.

[20:36] We may— if it's a, a true emergency, we may respond, get started.

[20:42] When the county gets there, we give them the scene and we come back home, or,

[20:48] or back them up if we need to, to help them with regard to police services.

[20:53] We're responding to calls outside of our jurisdiction, outside of mutual aid.

[21:02] If we're asked to under mutual aid.

[21:04] I'd have to assume it's based on severity of the call.

[21:07] That is correct.

[21:10] Yeah, it seems a bit of a catch-22 because if we don't develop it,

[21:15] we're still responding based on the severity of the call.

[21:20] And if we do annex and allow development, we're still responding more often.

[21:26] All of this is— I mean,

[21:28] I think my main point and the reason why I wanted this on the agenda was just to

[21:34] kind of talk about that alternative sewer thing.

[21:38] But it—

[21:41] I mean, it seems like that's the only option past Metro's

[21:47] service area and that right now the only real avenue is—

[21:52] Yeah.

[21:52] is for this board to either approve or deny annexation.

[21:57] I mean, I, I don't know that there's a policy that really has to be made and put

[22:04] forward regarding alternative sewer systems until we have a property that

[22:11] systems until we have a property that falls

[22:11] outside of Metro that we decide to annex into the town.

[22:16] Okay.

[22:19] So I think that— I don't want to speak for them, but I,

[22:23] I believe that the property that wanted annexation withdrew because they knew if

[22:28] they got a negative vote, they couldn't come back for a year.

[22:33] But I think they very much still want consideration for annexation,

[22:38] and I'm judging that by the fact that they continually come to our meetings and I

[22:43] think have continually reached out to us.

[22:46] So I imagine if It— I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're willing to go

[22:52] through that process.

[22:53] So that if, if that's what we're waiting for, uh,

[22:57] that'll probably happen pretty soon.

[23:00] Um, to me, one of the issues—

[23:02] so areas where we already serve in the unincorporated Williamson County obviously

[23:07] unincorporated Williamson County obviously is

[23:08] a hot topic for me because The citizens of Nolensville pay a specific amount of

[23:13] property tax each year to help fund the services that the town provides.

[23:18] Um, I always support mutual aid.

[23:21] I think it's challenging when we have primary response outside of our

[23:25] primary response outside of our jurisdiction,

[23:26] um, because why would you ever annex into the town if you can get the services for

[23:32] free? Um, If you look at the particular property that's in question now,

[23:37] because of the annexations from the Williams Farm and the Vance-Like Farm,

[23:43] it's about half a mile as the crow flies from one corner of it to the Jenkins

[23:48] property. I think it's about 1.1 miles along Nolensville Road.

[23:53] Um, I, I guess the other part that is different now that we've had the other

[23:58] annexations is response to St.

[24:00] Michael's Academy, which I would imagine— why don't—

[24:04] I haven't ever asked the police department how they respond to St.

[24:09] Michael's Academy or how often they may or may not be going down there.

[24:14] But I do think it's a challenge if things develop in our urban growth boundary and

[24:20] we are going to continually have to service them.

[24:23] I've yet to figure out how Brentwood manages not to do that because Brentwood

[24:29] manages not to do that because Brentwood will

[24:29] not even service something that is a stone's throw from their Their, um,

[24:34] border with the Split Log curve that is quite possibly the worst curve in

[24:39] quite possibly the worst curve in Williamson

[24:40] County. So I find it challenging for us to allow alternative waste systems in the

[24:46] UGB because at that point any property within this map that Victor has shown has

[24:51] within this map that Victor has shown has no

[24:51] incentive to annex into the town if we're continuing to provide them fire service

[24:57] And apparently will also provide police service.

[25:01] Um, that makes me think that it's in the town's best interest to annex when we have

[25:07] a willing property owner.

[25:08] There's still the South Point Church property,

[25:12] which is what connects to the Van Slyke property,

[25:15] and then a couple of smaller parcels.

[25:18] Smaller parcels are always going to be more challenging to potentially annex

[25:23] more challenging to potentially annex under

[25:24] current annexation laws.

[25:25] And are far less likely to aggregate to have enough acreage to—

[25:30] for future development.

[25:31] I think the hole that we have within our zoning ordinance is that we didn't really

[25:37] contemplate MGA-5 versus MGA-1 because almost everything was in the MGA-1 zone.

[25:43] Um, and so the most—

[25:44] the least dense zone that we currently have is 1.1 units per acre.

[25:49] Okay.

[25:51] So I, I do have a concern with taking something that is currently 1 unit per 5

[25:57] something that is currently 1 unit per 5 acres

[25:57] and upzoning it to 1.1 unit per acre.

[26:00] And perhaps a compromise in that is some—

[26:03] so we have the ability to add additional zones in the zoning ordinance.

[26:08] And so perhaps, um, the zone that we took out as part of the zoning Rewrite.

[26:14] Brad, I don't know if you remember what that one was,

[26:18] but there was one that was like 2 units per acre.

[26:22] That's all still in there.

[26:25] 2 units per acre is still in there?

[26:27] No, it's 1 unit per 2 acres is CD-2L,

[26:30] and nothing has been changed or proposed to be changed with CD-2L.

[26:35] And so maybe that is some sort of a compromise If again we still have

[26:42] to service it for public safety.

[26:45] I don't think Franklin goes outside of their boundaries either,

[26:50] so like, I'm— yeah, anyways, that, that's my—

[26:54] I don't think— I don't think they do, and I agree with you with Brentwood,

[26:59] but they are looking at far larger fire department and police departments than we

[27:05] department and police departments than we in

[27:05] Nolensville. And so we aid, we, we give aid, we get aid.

[27:09] In a lot of our calls that go back and forth with our fire and police department,

[27:14] fire mainly. I know police get support as well, but fire mainly.

[27:19] So I, I do not disagree with you, um,

[27:21] in what you've said about the potential of annexing.

[27:25] To me, this is too far away still, but I, I hear what you're saying.

[27:29] My biggest concern is that there will need to be bigger conversation while we aid

[27:35] them right now. You may get a call.

[27:37] If you are putting in a neighborhood, you will get far more call volume,

[27:42] which means that you will have to look at the firehouse number 2 and fire station—

[27:47] fire station, firehouse—

[27:49] and additional apparatus as well as employees if this comes online sooner

[27:54] employees if this comes online sooner rather

[27:54] than later.

[27:55] Um, I realize that this is on the fly, but do we have any ballpark number of what—

[28:02] I mean, we— there's several communities in the neighborhood, myself as, you know,

[28:10] being one of them. How often per day, per week,

[28:14] are fire and police being called to specific neighborhoods?

[28:19] Um, do you— how many, how many calls?

[28:23] And I know we've had 180 calls roughly in the last 6 months.

[28:29] That were outside the town?

[28:33] Correct.

[28:34] How many—

[28:35] do you know how many we've had inside the town?

[28:36] Inside the town?

[28:44] So I can— I was working on some of that data today.

[28:48] Um, where I saved it at, I don't know, because I wasn't planning on that tonight.

[28:53] Um, it was— we're at 904, I believe, is what the monthly report Says, I believe,

[28:58] that I sent— is that what it was?

[29:00] I believe now there's been a few more since I did that data. So 904 minus 180.

[29:05] So the, the calendar year, right?

[29:07] For this calendar year.

[29:08] So just call it 900, 700, 720 calls has been in the town.

[29:13] Okay.

[29:15] Welcome to your first meeting, Interim Chief. We're glad you're here.

[29:18] It's all good.

[29:19] Keeping you on your toes. So, okay, so that's rough.

[29:24] Okay, I'm not going to try to do math on the fly.

[29:28] Um, okay, well, I guess what I'm thinking and processing through here is I actually

[29:35] agree a lot with what the mayor said.

[29:38] I don't, I don't think that we should necessarily give up the property or any of

[29:45] those properties to the county Unless there's this very specific special issue

[29:52] there's this very specific special issue like

[29:52] she kind of mentioned with some of the smaller ones.

[29:57] But, and we have moved past the point of annexing the,

[30:01] the 2 properties that take us further down Nolensville Road.

[30:07] Um, I have some concerns about the fact that with some of these annexations we can

[30:14] say, well, we're annexing this property but nothing's going to happen for a couple

[30:21] years because of Metro, you know, not being able to expand sewer quick enough,

[30:28] being able to expand sewer quick enough, and—

[30:28] but these properties can develop without that.

[30:32] But I also feel like it's almost probably close to a wash when you look at the calls

[30:39] that we already would have to make out there if it were to develop into the

[30:46] there if it were to develop into the county.

[30:46] So I guess all that to say, I agree with the mayor.

[30:51] I see value in this conversation that we're having regarding any willing

[30:57] we're having regarding any willing property

[30:58] owner that comes forward with these kind of conversations.

[31:03] Am I right in understanding that it's about— is that like 0.8 miles from—

[31:09] 0.8 miles.

[31:11] I guess it's about— Victor, that 1.3 miles on the, the image, is that from—

[31:16] That's actually from the yellow line. Okay, the original line.

[31:20] And you can add— I don't, I don't know, it's, uh,

[31:23] probably another tenth of a mile or so on up to our closest point of annexation.

[31:28] Okay.

[31:29] Are we able to share that really great work that Chief Weingart did, um,

[31:34] sharing the calls that we have in unincorporated Williamson County,

[31:40] because you can see all the calls for the enclave at Dove Lake.

[31:45] Also, I don't know if that's appropriate to share just because it does give dots,

[31:51] but you can see the call responses for the enclave in Dove Lake in that.

[31:56] And so it kind of gives you a feel for what a neighborhood— And again,

[32:02] we're already going, we are already going to that neighborhood. fairly consistently.

[32:08] I feel like we're headed— I mean,

[32:11] we don't know when because the board will have to decide this,

[32:16] but I'm not terribly concerned about that Firehouse 2 argument because I,

[32:21] I think there's going to have to be multiple properties developing for us to

[32:27] multiple properties developing for us to really

[32:27] be pushed to that. And I think that we understand that's several years away

[32:33] understand that's several years away because

[32:34] we're going to have to get the police station going.

[32:38] And then as far as like the, the pressure to get there,

[32:42] it's not a major concern of mine.

[32:44] I mean, I do still feel concern and pressure for, um, Fire Station 2.

[32:49] I, I think that's why I've been asking some of the questions about understanding

[32:55] response time both within town limits and outside of town limits.

[32:59] Because I, I do think we want to maintain a certain ISO rating,

[33:04] and we all agreed to that when we signed that interlocal agreement with Williamson

[33:09] County. So I, I know it's on the horizon, and it will come very quickly, um,

[33:14] after the police station.

[33:16] I didn't say that quite PC. I apologize. I, I support the fire station.

[33:24] Yeah, I've I think we need to reconsider the Jenkins Farm.

[33:29] I mean, I, I think that we need to either take all these properties out of our UGB

[33:35] but understand that they very well may end up developing in neighborhoods like the

[33:42] Enclave in Dove Lake, um,

[33:44] or I think we need to consider annexing it for a less intensive use than what I

[33:50] think was originally proposed, but perhaps more intensive than 1 unit per 5-acre.

[33:57] I would support that.

[34:01] Commissioner Gill or Commissioner Strupert, do you have any comments?

[34:09] I do appreciate the concept of annexation to continue to build our tax base because

[34:15] that's really what's going to serve us ultimately as a town.

[34:20] I'm not sure at this point in time looking at the map with streams and a major

[34:26] electrical line running through some of those properties that you're going to get

[34:33] those properties that you're going to get a

[34:33] sizable tax base to really offset running services down there.

[34:38] With that said though,

[34:40] I do see there is benefit to bringing it into the town at some point in time.

[34:46] Is the time right? I'm not sure.

[34:48] I don't feel comfortable with it right now, but those are my thoughts.

[34:54] I will echo Commissioner Streufert's comment that I think that the next step

[34:59] comment that I think that the next step for us

[34:59] would be to working toward annexation,

[35:02] but looking at it in the holistic reality of those particular properties,

[35:06] it may not be as developed as would otherwise be because of the restrictions

[35:11] otherwise be because of the restrictions already

[35:11] there and the inherent— with just what he just said,

[35:15] all the things that are going on with it,

[35:17] it's not going to be able to develop as much as maybe other parcels in our

[35:22] community. However, we are already providing significant services to that

[35:27] providing significant services to that region

[35:27] anyway, and at some point it would be better for us to be able to expand our tax

[35:32] base to compensate for that.

[35:34] And I will offer a ditto to the birthday commissioner up here today.

[35:38] I think it's wise— there's wisdom to be found in what she said about the sooner

[35:43] found in what she said about the sooner that

[35:44] gets developed, the sooner we're going to have to move forward with providing

[35:48] additional services in the form of, for example, an additional fire station.

[35:53] And that's already on our horizon. It's already on our agenda. We know it's

[35:58] already on our agenda. We know it's coming.

[35:59] But it will accelerate whenever we add more specific properties into the town.

[36:04] And we might as well have a tax base that can support it if So Victor,

[36:08] this discussion item, what are you looking at from us?

[36:12] What do you need from us for this particular discussion?

[36:15] Um, I don't know that I necessarily need, need anything.

[36:19] I'm just trying to provide you all as much information as possible so that you all

[36:24] can, can determine a direction to go.

[36:27] We do know that we, we have property that,

[36:30] that's out there and there Their annexation is kind of hanging in the

[36:35] annexation is kind of hanging in the balance.

[36:36] It has not been dealt with.

[36:37] And so it's ultimately trying to just get direction from you all on what you would

[36:43] want to see there. Do you want us to ultimately bring that back,

[36:48] put it on the agenda, and bring it through the process?

[36:52] Do you all want to have more discussion on this particular issue?

[36:56] Is there some additional financial analysis that that you would like us to,

[37:02] to try to develop over this.

[37:04] Um, as, as I look at these areas, one of the things that, that I would say,

[37:09] as you're— as we're going through our zoning ordinance, um,

[37:13] having been on a property such as, uh, I'm going to say it, the Jenkins Farm,

[37:19] where you've got that large acreage there,

[37:22] to me it does make sense if you're going to to have a density of—

[37:26] we'll just say our least dense, which is CD-2L, uh, half unit per acre or,

[37:32] or 1 unit per 2 acres. All right.

[37:34] So that is— that's what, 300 and— what is it, almost 400 acres?

[37:39] 300.

[37:40] 3— almost 300 acres. All right.

[37:42] So on growth side at that, you're looking at 150 homes on the max side.

[37:47] But we know that you can't get 150 on there and with all roads and sewer and

[37:53] there and with all roads and sewer and stuff

[37:54] like that unless you allow a compact design.

[37:57] And only if within the zoning ordinance we allow some flexibility of those standards

[38:03] so that you can actually develop a compact design, um,

[38:08] would that then make sense for us, mostly just because You're going to, uh,

[38:13] you're going to have lots of roads that you are going to have to maintain.

[38:19] And when you're saying— when you, you look at that much acreage, that much roads,

[38:25] for the amount of state street aid dollars that you get to replace those roads,

[38:31] you need those roads to be few versus winding throughout the entire property.

[38:37] Does that make sense?

[38:39] Yes. Yeah, I guess my question would be,

[38:43] if that's an approach to take in this situation,

[38:47] you're not going to put one house on a little over an acre because

[38:54] you're going to create density by creating this workaround to say

[39:00] you've got all this conservation area, X, Y, and Z.

[39:05] Right.

[39:07] But now you've got massive houses that are 50 feet away from each other.

[39:13] And just looking at it just realistically there,

[39:16] you're going to create a conservation zone,

[39:19] but you're just going to create the density by forcing homes to be built

[39:25] density by forcing homes to be built closer

[39:25] together in whatever you're going to develop. I'm not sure that's a trade-off.

[39:31] develop. I'm not sure that's a trade-off. I—

[39:32] The more I think about this, the more I'm open— more open to annexation.

[39:39] I would like to base my decision more in data.

[39:44] And I think what I would like to know is hypothetical development goes in,

[39:51] what does it cost for all of the services that we will have to render?

[39:58] And would, would our current property tax rate applied to the hypothetical—

[40:06] I realize it's all hypothetical, but—

[40:10] Actually—

[40:10] Would it be enough to generate— because I'll finish.

[40:15] This is the most important part.

[40:17] I'm pretty, I'm pretty nervous about this next legislative session and what's going

[40:24] to come out. come through with property taxes.

[40:28] Because if our hands are tied, I mean,

[40:32] it's going to be really challenging to meet the needs that we have already.

[40:38] And so if I could get information that says current tax rate,

[40:43] what could be generated from this property is enough for it to be neutral,

[40:50] then that would go a long way to convincing me You mentioned the fiscal

[40:56] convincing me You mentioned the fiscal analysis.

[40:57] I think, uh, I worked with the property owners and a, uh,

[41:00] someone that was looking at the property at one time to try to get it annexed,

[41:05] and I think I did actually a fiscal analysis on that.

[41:09] Uh, I will see if I can pull that up and provide to you all.

[41:13] You did. I would like you to revisit it though, because it was, it was a while

[41:18] though, because it was, it was a while ago,

[41:18] and I don't believe I remember it taking into consideration like the above and

[41:23] beyond that we would have to— like the financial cost of hiring additional

[41:27] financial cost of hiring additional officers.

[41:28] And maybe it did, but if you could just revisit it before—

[41:31] Oh, absolutely.

[41:32] I think it had service of use but not additional,

[41:35] because that was going to be my question, is if you are servicing this area, um,

[41:41] not fire but police, and you're servicing this area,

[41:44] we know that they drive through neighborhoods on the daily,

[41:48] that they are active with calls that they— this, at least for me,

[41:52] and in talking to the department, this really adds an additional officer per

[41:57] really adds an additional officer per shift.

[41:58] This is their, their placement.

[42:00] And my assumption is, as you start this and people— right, you want to annex,

[42:05] and now there's a school there,

[42:07] and their children are going to want to cross the road safely,

[42:11] to all the things we have experienced in other parts of town.

[42:15] Yes.

[42:15] If you annex this and this becomes what we have seen with Rocky Fork and Sunset,

[42:22] um, you will experience that here, and that's not going to happen with 3

[42:27] that's not going to happen with 3 officers.

[42:28] Okay, I appreciate all that,

[42:30] but those same arguments would apply to the Van Slyke and Williams

[42:34] properties. I mean, that, that— I don't disagree with you.

[42:38] I think that there are hires that have to be made and decisions that are going to

[42:43] have to be made this year where we know we are behind.

[42:46] And with 600 acres, roughly a little over, and this property,

[42:50] there will be some very big decisions to be made.

[42:53] Okay, any other discussion for this?

[42:56] I, I do not support allowing alternative waste systems in the UGB.

[43:00] I think if there's going to be development in the UGB, it should be within the town.

[43:07] Is my position on this particular topic.

[43:10] If other people want to allow alternative waste systems in the UGB,

[43:15] I do think Victor needs that feedback.

[43:18] I think, again, it's a moot point because we— even if we said, you know,

[43:24] we will allow it, it's more complex than that because we would have to deny

[43:30] annexation and grant approval.

[43:33] And so for those reasons, I don't think it's worth Thank you all.

[43:39] Appreciate the discussion.

[43:40] Okay, our next discussion is the pedestrian bridge and signal update from,

[43:44] pedestrian bridge and signal update from, um,

[43:45] Assistant Town Manager Downham.

[43:46] This is probably going to be a little bit of a tag team between Mr.

[43:51] Lay and our town engineer as well.

[43:53] Where we left it The last time we had a discussion with you all is that we were

[43:59] going to try to seek proposals and input from consultant engineers,

[44:04] as well as take stock of equipment that we currently have.

[44:08] We know from kind of an eyeball inventory of equipment,

[44:12] as well as anticipated equipment that we'll be gaining with some other traffic

[44:17] signal projects in town,

[44:19] that we may be able to part and piece this thing together so that we can upgrade the

[44:25] existing signal system at the elementary school.

[44:28] Yes.

[44:29] To be a full functioning traffic signal.

[44:31] But we will need to get input from our signal contractors to make sure that we

[44:36] signal contractors to make sure that we have

[44:36] all the parts and pieces to do that.

[44:39] Obviously, things like mast arms, signal heads, cabinets,

[44:42] controllers all require a long lead,

[44:45] not to mention the volatility that we're seeing in some parts of our market right

[44:50] now because of tariffs and other things in terms of cost escalation. So just—

[44:55] Yes.

[44:55] A lot of things to consider.

[44:57] We also are looking at the pedestrian signal at the park and, again,

[45:01] looking at opportunities where we can do some cost savings measures, again,

[45:06] taking advantage of existing equipment that we may have on hand from other

[45:11] that we may have on hand from other projects

[45:12] that we can kind of pull together with this.

[45:15] However, we know that there's going to be engineering that's going to be required

[45:20] for this.

[45:21] Yes.

[45:22] We don't have existing walkways from the trail system on Sunset to the edge of

[45:27] pavement on the street.

[45:28] We've also got a sidewalk or walkway segment that we're going to have to

[45:33] segment that we're going to have to construct,

[45:33] including some engineering analysis because of the topography involved,

[45:38] to get that sidewalk basically from the edge of pavement around to the park entry

[45:43] walkway that we have along the driveway.

[45:45] Okay.

[45:48] Again, depending on the amount of work that we need,

[45:50] you may have land surveying work that's going to be required from a topographic

[45:55] analysis standpoint and then the actual engineering work itself.

[45:58] We're continuing to put numbers together as well as input to try to figure out what

[46:03] we can do to, number one, save money for the town,

[46:05] to take advantage of existing equipment where we can,

[46:08] but also to identify where we are going to have to spend money,

[46:11] whether that's in engineering and survey work.

[46:14] Yes.

[46:15] As well as any equipment that we don't have currently on hand that we may have to

[46:19] purchase, uh, or find other means to try to get that equipment in order to make a

[46:23] full installation for the PET signal.

[46:25] Uh, we know that some of the equipment can be moved from one site to another.

[46:30] Uh, not sure if all of it can be moved at that point.

[46:32] Rely a little bit more on Victor and Enoch to see if they have anything else that

[46:37] they wanted to add to that.

[46:38] Only thing that I would just add to it is,

[46:41] Because of all the other construction projects going around town, i.e.,

[46:45] at York Road and Nolensville Road, um, we have a,

[46:49] a essentially a brand new controller that we put in after a lightning strike that

[46:54] will be pulled out. Will it be ours? Be sitting in our reserves.

[46:58] So we have things, some of those things that do take a long lead time,

[47:02] we will actually own that could be repurposed elsewhere.

[47:06] Um, we have Uh, at the Summerlin intersection, uh, when that intersection

[47:11] intersection, uh, when that intersection is—

[47:11] or when the, um, the Kroger side develops,

[47:14] that's actually going to replace all of those poles on that.

[47:17] So we'll have all of that infrastructure as well, including the controller from it.

[47:23] So we're going to have these pieces that we think that we can put together and

[47:28] we think that we can put together and place

[47:28] in other things. We'll be putting together an RFP.

[47:31] It's going to be one that's going to be a little bit unusual because it's—

[47:36] we're going to be asking a couple of the signal companies to come in and evaluate

[47:41] our equipment that we have and then give us a proposal for essentially reinstalling

[47:46] that equipment. What's that going to cost since we don't have a contract per se with

[47:52] any particular one of them?

[47:54] Ultimately, when we Uh, get ready to do that, we'll be back to you all and say,

[47:59] okay, here's our RFP, here's what we want to go.

[48:02] We think that we'll be able to have something in hand to show you at the next

[48:07] something in hand to show you at the next work

[48:07] session, so you'll all be able to take a look at that.

[48:10] That won't be the bid, that'll just be our, our stuff ready to go to bid on it.

[48:15] But, um, we have opportunity to, I think,

[48:18] repurpose a lot of equipment and save ourselves a lot of time in the long run.

[48:23] Thank you.

[48:26] I like the creativity.

[48:27] Try to be when we can.

[48:31] Any questions or discussion for the pedestrian bridge and signal update?

[48:37] Thank you, ma'am.

[48:41] All right, the next item is no parking or standing at Sugar Mill and Burrus Drive,

[48:46] which is for Town Engineer Jarrell and Jonathan Weaver from the Sherwood Green

[48:51] Estates HOA, who I see is not here, but maybe Enoch can help us.

[48:55] Yeah, met with Jonathan a time or two and walked the site with him.

[49:00] Knowles Elementary on Rocky Fork, they have, uh,

[49:03] people that are parking on Sugar Mill and the intersection of Burris,

[49:09] walking even over to the school, leaving their car,

[49:13] coming back to pick their kids up to the crosswalks.

[49:17] And it's just creating some traffic issues.

[49:20] So their HOA has requested that we put a no parking or standing, uh,

[49:25] and I know Chuck's— we may have to do some update to our ordinance because according

[49:31] to Mr. Hoffer here, if you're sitting in your car, you're standing,

[49:37] you're not in traffic.

[49:38] So we, we have, you know, similar things at, um, Telfair and at Aiden Rose.

[49:44] Um, for the Sunset schools, and then even on, um, Bradfield for the high school,

[49:50] similar signs. And their request is 9:30 to— or 7:30 to 9:30 AM, and I think it's,

[49:56] uh, what, 2:30 to 4:30 on PM for no parking or standing.

[50:01] Mayor, also just to state, my address is 3201 Burrus Drive.

[50:05] I live in Sherwood Green,

[50:06] and I have spoken with Charles There is no benefit to me financially for signage.

[50:12] So you're saying it's not a conflict of interest because there's no financial

[50:17] benefit to you personally?

[50:19] I, uh, support a no parking sign.

[50:23] I, I find the no standing sign a little

[50:27] strange.

[50:28] If you're standing on the sidewalk, that's fine, right?

[50:32] But if you're sitting in your car and Michael may be able to jump in here.

[50:36] It's considered you're not— you're standing, right?

[50:39] If you're sitting in your car, it's not literally standing. It's the—

[50:42] if you're sitting in your car parked on the street, you're standing, not parking.

[50:45] Sorry, not to— but it's not like you're standing there.

[50:48] It's, um, that you're— and the first experience we had of this was Bradfield,

[50:53] and now— and then Telfair.

[50:55] And so now it seems to be where parents will pull rather than waiting in line at

[51:00] They're doing that on streets, and then their children are walking.

[51:04] You're standing on the sidewalk, on the sidewalk, you're fine.

[51:07] If you're sitting in your car parked on the street, you're considered standing,

[51:11] not parking. So that's the reason for the no, no parking or standing signs.

[51:15] Thank you for that clarification.

[51:17] Along with defining this no parking zone,

[51:20] we'll need to amend the municipal code to properly define and enact a provision

[51:24] dealing specifically with standing.

[51:26] So we'll look for examples and make sure that that's part of the ordinance that you

[51:31] all consider in the future.

[51:33] So is— do we need to update the ordinance first?

[51:37] You'll need to update the order if you're going to post that location,

[51:42] no parking or standing.

[51:43] We need to have a standing provision that's in our municipal code to enforce.

[51:48] Right now we do not have such.

[51:50] Okay.

[51:52] Excuse me, the current signs—

[51:53] Like the municipal code.

[51:57] Okay, thank you.

[51:57] Behind it.

[51:58] We did this over at Eden Rose about a year ago, I guess it was.

[52:02] And with this, I guess those signs say no parking.

[52:05] I frankly never looked at them close enough to say whether they say no

[52:09] enough to say whether they say no standing.

[52:09] But back to the ranch, we also had a conversation at that point about the

[52:14] conversation at that point about the timeline,

[52:14] and I Made a suggestion then.

[52:16] I appreciate my colleagues absorbing it and trusting me on it because at that time

[52:21] and trusting me on it because at that time I

[52:21] had a daughter in elementary school and I knew it was 4:30.

[52:25] So when people— I think we changed what had been proposed to us by that HOA.

[52:30] Is this going to be consistent with what we've got every other sign?

[52:34] So in the other 3 neighborhoods, it sounds like they're similar,

[52:38] but they have different bell times at different schools.

[52:41] So I think the 7:30, 9:30, 2:30, 4:30 One of maybe 2 to 4,

[52:45] but it has to do with their bell times.

[52:47] It's a 2-hour timeframe morning and evening,

[52:50] but it matches the bell times more than anything else.

[52:53] Because this one we're dealing with just Nolensville Elementary School, right?

[52:56] It's not a middle school component, right?

[52:58] It's 8:38 is their bell time and then 2:38, I think.

[53:02] Thank you.

[53:03] Have we reviewed with the police department just operational challenges

[53:07] department just operational challenges with

[53:07] actually enforcing them?

[53:09] I have received Comments from members of the public before about how difficult it

[53:14] the public before about how difficult it is

[53:14] to get— and then also for police officers to have time during these high-traffic

[53:19] time periods for everybody getting to school where there's other calls,

[53:23] and then it becomes difficult to enforce these signs.

[53:27] I know typically the board has always supported each HOA that has requested

[53:31] supported each HOA that has requested them.

[53:32] We've also had challenges with trying to keep the signage as consistent as possible

[53:37] Because I believe they're special order signs.

[53:40] So if one goes down, um, it does seem like it, it expands everywhere.

[53:44] But like, are we able to actually enforce these signs from the police department

[53:49] perspective? And, and Lieutenant Hoffer, if you don't mind, we can't— the,

[53:54] the live stream won't pick you up unless she's talking to the microphone.

[53:58] We can enforce them, but that's typically around our busiest time of day.

[54:04] So it really dictates on whether or not we have officers available.

[54:10] Uh, typically we are able to go into the area,

[54:14] but because of whether it be the signing,

[54:17] the signage and the lack of the standing portion of it, and they'll even correct

[54:23] portion of it, and they'll even correct us,

[54:24] we're not parked, we're standing. So they're aware of that as well.

[54:29] Okay.

[54:31] Okay, so you're saying all signs should have both to go along with what our new

[54:35] verbiage should be?

[54:36] Yes, ma'am.

[54:37] That's a pretty good legal argument.

[54:39] I respect anybody who's brought that up to us, actually.

[54:41] All right, any other discussion on an ordinance that would allow for no parking

[54:47] ordinance that would allow for no parking or

[54:47] standing at Sugar Mill and Burrus Drive and a corresponding code update to define

[54:53] standing within the code?

[54:55] So is it fair to assume this will be on the next voting agenda,

[54:59] or will it need more time to prepare for the, the code update?

[55:04] We will do our best to have it on the upcoming agenda for first read.

[55:07] Okay.

[55:09] All right, the next item is geotechnical services for pedestrian bridge at Chris

[55:13] Maun-Brown Park.

[55:14] Okay, the, um, the Chris Maun-Brown Park has a pedestrian bridge There was not any

[55:20] kind of geotechnical analysis done.

[55:22] The bridge designer has come back and he made some assumptions for the design based

[55:28] off of the specifications of 1,500 pounds per square foot bearing capacity.

[55:34] He's asked the town, if you don't have a geotechnical showing that that'll work,

[55:40] you're taking on some liability for the designer if there's a problem.

[55:45] They want to put the liability on us instead of them.

[55:49] Okay.

[55:50] We took proposals from Terracon, who's done the work out there at the park

[55:55] done the work out there at the park already.

[55:56] They just sent it today.

[55:57] $4,800 would be to dig 4 test pits and confirm that bearing capacity.

[56:02] It's basically insurance for us.

[56:04] It's $4,800 to confirm that it has the adequate bearing capacity so that we don't

[56:09] take any liability on that bridge if it— if the foundations are not you know,

[56:14] built on solid ground and fails.

[56:16] So it's, it's an insurance policy for us because it's a pretty expensive bridge.

[56:21] It's 50-foot long, you know, it's up in the air.

[56:24] So it's just a geotechnical analysis to confirm the bearing capacities.

[56:29] So since that's within Victor's spending authority, if— is that something—

[56:34] It's— it would actually not be.

[56:36] Um, the initial contract with Terracon was done back in 2023,

[56:40] And we have been piggybacking off of that original contract.

[56:44] Change Order 1 was for Greystone Park at $2,500.

[56:48] We had another change order for Greystone Park to do air quality testing,

[56:52] as well as sampling at the end of the demolition process.

[56:56] And then we also, if you recall,

[56:58] we did core drilling on the police headquarters location for foundation

[57:03] headquarters location for foundation design.

[57:03] All of that is in excess of $10,000. So this being Change Order Number 4.

[57:08] Yes.

[57:09] We're coming to you all for your authorization,

[57:12] so we'll be presenting a resolution to you for your consideration with the

[57:17] addendum as an attachment to that.

[57:19] Okay, any questions about the request for geotechnical services for the pedestrian

[57:24] bridge at Chris Mann Brown Park?

[57:25] Thank you.

[57:29] All right, the next item is a partnership with the National Fire Safety Council

[57:33] within the fire department.

[57:35] I think we jumped ahead, Mayor.

[57:37] Actually, it is reduce the speed limit on Maxwell Drive near Kings

[57:42] Barn Drive, which is also Enoch,

[57:44] and then it'll be the fire department.

[57:47] The, um, we've had a couple of folks that's run off the road, uh, on, uh,

[57:52] and that's Maxwell right there where Britton and Maxwell change.

[57:56] Folks, Kings Barn, have had several say they have Poor sight distance,

[58:01] which they do. Um, I've been out there several times and I know the police sit

[58:06] several times and I know the police sit there

[58:07] and monitor it. Um, I went back and looked at AASHTO,

[58:10] which is the highway transportation officials, the Green Book,

[58:14] which is the standards for the entire country for that.

[58:18] And a 200-foot radius, uh, would, would support a 25-mile-an-hour design,

[58:23] and the road is currently 35 miles an hour.

[58:26] Okay.

[58:27] So I would like to, uh, for the board to allow us to put up some sharp curve signs.

[58:31] It'll say sharp curve, 25 miles an hour.

[58:34] It might not slow people down, it might not keep them from driving off the road,

[58:38] but hopefully it would alert someone to slow them down.

[58:41] Because the police says once they're off-road,

[58:43] they're probably doing 30 or 40 anyway. They're doing 50 maybe.

[58:47] But, uh, but I think these, these sharp curve 25 mile an hour signs, uh,

[58:51] can improve safety out there. Thank you.

[58:55] And this is something that we would have to vote on as a board?

[58:57] I think anytime we change speed limits, we— the board votes on it, my

[59:02] we— the board votes on it, my understanding.

[59:03] But y'all tell me.

[59:04] So will there be an ordinance on the first reading of an ordinance on the voting

[59:11] agenda?

[59:11] Correct. That's what I understand. It would take an ordinance to do that.

[59:14] Any questions for Enoch?

[59:16] All right, the next item is for the fire department,

[59:20] and it's a partnership with the National Fire Safety Council.

[59:24] I'm going to request to pull this from the agenda.

[59:27] Okay, um, then the next item is also the fire department,

[59:31] which is a repair of Nolensville Fire and Rescue Engine 92.

[59:46] All right, so back in February we noticed that we had some issues with the engine,

[59:52] so we took it in. They kind of looked at it and said, hey, the pump is bad,

[59:57] we're gonna need some major repairs on this.

[1:00:00] Um, it went in in February, uh, it was supposed to be done this past fiscal year.

[1:00:05] Parts were hard to come by, wrong parts were shipped,

[1:00:09] the one part that came in was bad.

[1:00:11] Yeah.

[1:00:12] So here we are now in August. That engine came from the nonprofit, from the 501.

[1:00:18] They traded 2 other trucks for this truck.

[1:00:21] We're uncertain on the amount of money that they were asking for.

[1:00:25] They did buy it used. It's from the East Coast.

[1:00:29] Currently, that truck has 106,397 miles on it. Engine hours is Just over 8,400.

[1:00:35] If we do the wear miles,

[1:00:36] because the truck idles so much more and pumping at higher RPMs,

[1:00:41] it's equivalent to 283,000 miles right now on that truck is what it's equivalent to.

[1:00:47] It's our reserve engine. We need that reserve engine.

[1:00:51] There's a lot of areas that our ladder truck, even though it has a pump,

[1:00:56] cannot get to. So we need that second engine as a reserve.

[1:01:00] So we went ahead to start fixing the engine.

[1:01:04] Okay.

[1:01:04] And as of right now, they did the pump repairs,

[1:01:07] and that totaled $27,163 just for the pump and the parts and labor.

[1:01:12] While they were doing the pump and took it out of the truck,

[1:01:17] there was a large diameter discharge that we use for relay pumping,

[1:01:21] and also the truck exhaust itself needed to come off,

[1:01:25] and they found that they were bad in order to put back on in order for it to pass

[1:01:31] the pump test. So that was another $5,889.59.

[1:01:35] Then they did the annual pump test, which it passed, so that's great,

[1:01:40] which is required for us to present to ISO every, every revisit when they come.

[1:01:45] We show them each, each year that each truck that we had passed pump test.

[1:01:51] So that was done, that was $250.

[1:01:53] We had the annual maintenance done on it, oil filters, etc.

[1:01:59] Etc.

[1:01:59] We have that done on all of our trucks,

[1:02:02] and annually it's an average of about $2,000 per truck.

[1:02:05] So as of right now today,

[1:02:07] we owe Siddons Martin $35,303.11 for this truck to come back. I met with Victor.

[1:02:12] I also met in depth with engineer Nick Kyriasis, who is our maintenance

[1:02:17] Kyriasis, who is our maintenance coordinator.

[1:02:18] He's researches this stuff in and out. He knows it very well.

[1:02:22] And they gave— they included a list for us of multiple things that needed to be done

[1:02:27] as well, just beyond what they've already completed. One of them is an air leak.

[1:02:33] We have a couple of air leaks, which we know it's an air brake system.

[1:02:37] So with the air brakes, large air leaks cause a problem. We just can't go

[1:02:42] cause a problem. We just can't go anywhere.

[1:02:43] It'll lock the brakes up. And so we don't travel anywhere.

[1:02:47] So that needs to be fixed, and that's $3,497.

[1:02:50] There's a check engine light that they diagnosed,

[1:02:53] that there's a knock sensor that is bad.

[1:02:55] That determines how much fuel is sent to the system.

[1:02:59] If we flood it with too much fuel, it can go into limp mode.

[1:03:03] That's a safety issue for us when we're pumping because it'll drop the RPMs and

[1:03:08] pumping because it'll drop the RPMs and not

[1:03:08] let the truck run appropriately.

[1:03:10] So that's a safety issue, especially during times of a fire and if we have Uh,

[1:03:16] personnel interior. There's a lube system on there as well that needs to be filled.

[1:03:21] That's only $200. What that does is just periodic times based on the hours on the,

[1:03:27] on the engine itself,

[1:03:28] it'll start lubing appropriate spots and just prevent unnecessary wear.

[1:03:33] They said the batteries were bad, which we knew was coming,

[1:03:37] and then with it sitting for so long before they got the parts.

[1:03:41] Okay.

[1:03:42] Um, it's time for that as well.

[1:03:44] Um, the steering we could probably do without at the moment.

[1:03:48] It's not as bad as what y'all might think.

[1:03:51] It needs to probably be addressed at some point,

[1:03:54] but right now we could make it work due to that this engine is going into reserve

[1:03:59] status. And then Nick also wanted me to mention to y'all that these are the items

[1:04:05] that we're not addressing.

[1:04:07] Okay.

[1:04:08] There's some oil leaks, transmission pass-through harness leak.

[1:04:13] Front and rear tires need to be replaced soon,

[1:04:16] but they're still adequate per DOT specs at 5/32. The AC is not working.

[1:04:21] That's one that's hard to tell if we—

[1:04:23] once we get in there and find out if it's compressor,

[1:04:27] if it's just a simple leak or if it's catastrophic. They're not sure.

[1:04:32] Step lights, marker lights.

[1:04:33] Okay.

[1:04:34] Etc. Just that there is about $11,700 with, uh, with the steering.

[1:04:39] So currently, uh, we have $43,264 remaining in the budget for maintenance.

[1:04:44] Our maintenance budget started at $50,000 for the year.

[1:04:48] We did ladder testing by a third-party company for ground ladders and the aerial

[1:04:54] ladder that came out of maintenance.

[1:04:56] And then Nick has just finished Um, annual PMs— excuse me—

[1:05:00] on Engine 91 and Ladder 91 as well.

[1:05:03] So that was deducted from the $50,000, and we're down to $43,264.56.

[1:05:08] With the necessary repairs including into that the NOx sensor, the air leaks, etc.,

[1:05:13] this would be $41,538.

[1:05:15] So that leaves us just under $2,000 left for the rest of this fiscal year.

[1:05:20] So we're just Coming to say we're going to go ahead and get those repairs,

[1:05:25] but we're probably going to need a budget amendment down the road for that line

[1:05:31] item. We kind of went together, Nick and I,

[1:05:34] and put together what if everything goes as planned,

[1:05:38] kind of how much more we would need for the rest of the year.

[1:05:42] And we got DEF fluid, we got oil changes, miscellaneous items, wiper blades, etc.

[1:05:48] Nick pulled from last year what we kind of spent.

[1:05:51] And then some miscellaneous repairs, uh, would be somewhere around like $8,000

[1:05:57] would be somewhere around like $8,000 more.

[1:05:57] And that doesn't include if we fix everything on that engine, which is 53238.

[1:06:03] So you're saying if you go with the 53,

[1:06:05] there's still potential for an additional 8,

[1:06:09] or is that if we go with the 41?

[1:06:11] So if we go with the 41538, um, we'll probably need—

[1:06:14] we're going to need some more money down the road as a budget amendment just to The

[1:06:19] less than 2,000 will not get us through until next July.

[1:06:23] And actually, even if you do the 53, you're still going to need—

[1:06:28] Still going to need—

[1:06:29] You're going to need probably 10 at that point because you've got 2 remaining.

[1:06:35] So it's just— Yeah.

[1:06:39] Yeah. It's— the truck, when we inherited it from the 501, it looks beautiful.

[1:06:44] They had a brand new paint job put on it right before they took delivery,

[1:06:49] but unfortunately it's got 283,000 wear miles on it,

[1:06:52] so it has served its purpose for us and for the community that it served in East

[1:06:58] Coast prior to us.

[1:06:59] Well, sir, on that note, this is a serious issue for our town.

[1:07:03] We want the equipment to be the best and we want it to be working,

[1:07:08] and we don't want to have to— now,

[1:07:10] just a short Not even 2 full months into the new budget year to be exhausting our

[1:07:15] maintenance budget.

[1:07:16] Correct.

[1:07:17] So I might impose upon you and Victor to maybe—

[1:07:19] and I realize this is a reserve unit.

[1:07:21] Yes, so it'll be at our ISO Station 2, the old firehouse.

[1:07:25] Not only reserve though,

[1:07:26] our volunteers that we do have will come in and staff that too if we're on a large

[1:07:31] incident, to either backfill into the town or to come to that large incident.

[1:07:36] So it will be used A little bit more than normal.

[1:07:39] Thank you for that feedback.

[1:07:40] But in full view of the fact it is a reserve unit, nonetheless,

[1:07:44] I might impose upon you and Victor at a future meeting,

[1:07:47] just kind of give us some feedback on what we might look at as far as a full

[1:07:52] replacement of it before we go down this path.

[1:07:54] Um, a serious issue, but I could almost frankly,

[1:07:57] whenever you were going through the line items of things that have to be fixed on

[1:08:02] it, especially when you got to items that you're not addressing,

[1:08:06] There's an episode of The Andy Griffith Show where Barney buys an old car from Ms.

[1:08:10] Lesh, and it drives for just a few miles and then it comes all apart.

[1:08:14] And when Elmer comes back in from Wally's filling station to tell him what's going

[1:08:19] to have to be necessary to fix Barney's car, he pretty much recites,

[1:08:23] a brand new car. Everything on the car was damaged, not working, ruined,

[1:08:27] and it's got to be fixed.

[1:08:29] That's what I was thinking, like, wow, is this truck really worth fixing?

[1:08:33] That's really my question today.

[1:08:35] Is it worth fixing now that we're 6 to 7 weeks into our new budget year and

[1:08:39] exhausting, as well as having to add additional money from through a budget

[1:08:43] amendment from our maintenance budget? Is it worth fixing or not?

[1:08:47] The last truck that we purchased, um, we, we found it, um,

[1:08:52] while it was being constructed.

[1:08:55] They had Didn't have a— it wasn't special ordered, they just had started a spec one.

[1:09:02] And I think we spent $690— what, about $620 on it, um, plus equipment.

[1:09:07] Yeah, well, a lot of the equipment will transfer if you're,

[1:09:12] if you're taking it completely out of service, and a lot of your equipment

[1:09:19] service, and a lot of your equipment transfer.

[1:09:19] But nonetheless, that was 3 years ago, 4 years ago.

[1:09:24] Uh, when we bought that one, 2022.

[1:09:26] So it's, um, I think you're probably looking in the 7s, 7s to 8s probably now.

[1:09:33] I'm just hearing a 13-year-old vehicle that's got nearly 300,000 service miles on

[1:09:38] that's got nearly 300,000 service miles on it

[1:09:38] one way or another by your math,

[1:09:40] and I'm just wondering at what point do we say it's not worth fixing?

[1:09:44] And I keep looking out at our former chief there.

[1:09:47] I appreciate the sign language he was offering there.

[1:09:56] So, so to ask you, um,

[1:09:57] obviously it's used and we never know exactly how our vehicles are gonna hold

[1:10:04] exactly how our vehicles are gonna hold out,

[1:10:04] right? But knowing that this is a reserve,

[1:10:07] if we were to offer you the complete repair, let's just say that's an option,

[1:10:13] repair, let's just say that's an option, um,

[1:10:14] do you have faith in this being operational for quite some time based on

[1:10:20] operational for quite some time based on it being

[1:10:20] reserve. And when I say quite some time,

[1:10:23] I mean enough time that gets us to a point of responsible spending for a new

[1:10:29] apparatus. So 2 years, 4 years potential.

[1:10:33] I think if we put the $53,000, the complete repair, into it,

[1:10:36] I think we could probably get enough time out of it for us to start the process of

[1:10:41] ordering something on that 2 to 3 year lead time?

[1:10:44] She asked it better than I did. That was the answer. Thank you.

[1:10:48] I mean, I look— listen, we know that, again, you're buying a used vehicle,

[1:10:52] and so there are always the hidden, right?

[1:10:55] Like you said, you, you painted it with some fancy lipstick and it looks really

[1:11:00] great, but you don't ever know.

[1:11:02] And so I guess my, my concern— and I agree, like,

[1:11:05] at some point you will have to purchase Something new,

[1:11:09] but based on it being a reserve and at Sanford, or— well,

[1:11:13] I guess it'll be at the county building.

[1:11:15] But if you put this money into it and we know that it will facilitate what we need

[1:11:21] for runs for enough time to really allow responsible financial spending for a new

[1:11:26] apparatus, if you feel that— and things can always go wrong, so I understand that—

[1:11:31] but if that's— Looking at that $53,000 to complete that reserve gives us enough time

[1:11:37] to really focus on what we would need to purchase for future and the spending that

[1:11:42] comes with that, then I appreciate that. So thank you.

[1:11:45] I'm always going to support repair requests that you guys want.

[1:11:50] I mean, in the budget,

[1:11:51] we have always traditionally approved whatever repair budget has been

[1:11:55] whatever repair budget has been recommended by

[1:11:56] the department. So I— my husband works on cars. I do not.

[1:12:00] I have no frame of reference for the values that are put forward here.

[1:12:05] But if you say you need to repair an engine, I'm always going to support that.

[1:12:10] Um, Victor and Christina, where do you see these additional funds coming from,

[1:12:14] from our budget amendment?

[1:12:16] So we've got a couple things that we've been looking at.

[1:12:20] Um, one is there— we have operational dollars were being forecasted for the

[1:12:26] interconnect with the library parking lot.

[1:12:29] To the tune of about— we budgeted about $75,000 for that.

[1:12:33] So that's one place that if we're not going to do that project now because the

[1:12:39] library piece did not get funded, that we,

[1:12:43] we have that already in our operational budget.

[1:12:46] But secondly, we've got our sales tax numbers still continue to come in really

[1:12:52] strong. We've really only got one month in on this fiscal year,

[1:12:57] but looking at those last 3 months and the way that they've trended,

[1:13:02] it's been even more than where we thought we were headed.

[1:13:06] If you prorated the single month that we've got and the rest of the year went

[1:13:12] we've got and the rest of the year went the

[1:13:12] same direction, then we could have an additional $200,000 to $300,000 coming in

[1:13:18] additional $200,000 to $300,000 coming in from

[1:13:19] our—

[1:13:19] Revenue.

[1:13:21] beyond what we had already projected for sales tax.

[1:13:23] So there's a couple pieces that we're looking at.

[1:13:26] So, um, I appreciate the library may be an option.

[1:13:29] I feel like staff as well as the 5 of us definitely conveyed that that was a

[1:13:34] definitely conveyed that that was a project

[1:13:35] that they wanted to continue based on the ease and usability of having the

[1:13:39] additional exit in and out of Town Hall as well as the connection between the

[1:13:44] library. So I would For me, at least, I would prefer to not see that go away.

[1:13:49] Is there a way that you and Christina could potentially just give us that

[1:13:54] could potentially just give us that projected

[1:13:55] tax revenue so that we can look at those numbers as we're considering the totality

[1:14:00] of what he has with the $53,000?

[1:14:02] Yeah, we'll put together a report on that.

[1:14:04] So the—

[1:14:07] I mean, the general fund detail report that's on the agenda right now shows that

[1:14:12] that's on the agenda right now shows that for

[1:14:12] July it was $313,900, which I think was closer to February of 2025 numbers,

[1:14:17] which would really be December collections.

[1:14:20] So I mean, the, the sales tax— and if you take that $313,000 times 12,

[1:14:24] that puts you in really almost $400,000 above what we budgeted,

[1:14:28] because we budgeted $3.4 million for sales tax this year.

[1:14:32] Um, I, I keep a running total of the percent each month Brings in for the

[1:14:39] percent each month Brings in for the entire

[1:14:40] year. And last year, July was 8.9% of the entire year.

[1:14:45] So if you take the 313 and you— that,

[1:14:48] that's what's my proration is 319 divided by 0.089.

[1:14:53] And it came up to about a $3.7 million, a little over $3.7 million. We budgeted $3.

[1:15:01] 3.4. So that was, that was why when I said 200 to 300, just to give some fluff,

[1:15:08] maybe 3, hopefully it's 300 to 400.

[1:15:11] And then also in the engineering update, I believe Enoch shared, um,

[1:15:17] that Kroger is forecasting to open in January.

[1:15:22] Is that still— I just say that because of sales tax.

[1:15:26] They're, uh, pretty confident they're going to open by January 30th.

[1:15:33] Like of 2027?

[1:15:36] Correct.

[1:15:41] Huh.

[1:15:44] All right, any other discussion for the repair request and the corresponding

[1:15:49] repair request and the corresponding budget

[1:15:49] amendment? I would just say also that, like, you should— in my opinion,

[1:15:54] you should have repair budget left,

[1:15:56] and we shouldn't cut it so close that you have to come back to the board.

[1:16:01] So I would hope to see whatever the budget amendment gives you all a reasonable

[1:16:06] amount that in your judgment you can get through, because I mean, we should—

[1:16:11] whether it's the ladder truck, the engines, we should be repairing those

[1:16:16] engines, we should be repairing those regularly.

[1:16:16] Yeah, I, you know, there's incidentals that we can't forecast, but yeah,

[1:16:21] I can work with Victor and with Nick and we come up with an adequate

[1:16:26] number.

[1:16:27] Okay.

[1:16:29] Just, yeah, I appreciate you doing this, putting this all together.

[1:16:33] I would encourage you to include the steering adjustment of $5,000.

[1:16:37] That looks like between your remaining maintenance and what was left here,

[1:16:41] about $23,000. I would also, as the mayor said,

[1:16:44] give yourself some more buffer for the rest of the year.

[1:16:48] Yeah, let's, let's get this fixed and get on the road and Hopefully it gives us a

[1:16:53] couple extra years to prepare and it's serviceable and we can meet the needs and

[1:16:58] expectations of our citizens.

[1:16:59] Perfect.

[1:17:02] Thank you. 2 items in one meeting.

[1:17:04] I know.

[1:17:06] Thank you.

[1:17:06] Do you want another one? Should we, should we add another?

[1:17:08] Yeah, you got one.

[1:17:09] All right, the next item for discussion is the flag design campaign.

[1:17:20] All right, so do you all have any questions about the flag design campaign?

[1:17:25] Do we want to do it? So, um, right now we have a campaign open.

[1:17:30] Um, the deadline to submit is Monday, August 31st at 4:00 PM.

[1:17:34] At this time we do not have any submissions, so if you know of anyone, let

[1:17:39] submissions, so if you know of anyone, let us know.

[1:17:40] We reached out to the schools and also the Artists Guild and asked them them to kind

[1:17:46] of help us. Um, hoping that we get some at the last minute,

[1:17:50] but the selected design will be the official town flag.

[1:17:54] We will also put a replica in it—

[1:17:56] of it into the time capsule that we plan to bury on October 3rd for our Founders

[1:18:02] Day. So if you can help spread the word, we would really appreciate it.

[1:18:07] And everything is online for, um, for the submission form.

[1:18:11] And the, um, we have a few parameters where they need to—

[1:18:15] we would like them to be a Nolensville resident.

[1:18:18] So that's one of the requirements of it as well. I want to make sure I mention that.

[1:18:24] So a week from today?

[1:18:27] Yes.

[1:18:27] Right.

[1:18:28] And then what we will do is we'll send it to you all.

[1:18:31] You'll have until the 31st till the 2nd to review it,

[1:18:34] let us which one you would recommend,

[1:18:36] and then we would probably put it on the agenda for you all to vote on.

[1:18:40] So it will be a voting item.

[1:18:42] I'll talk to both art teachers at the high school tomorrow.

[1:18:48] Thank you. And you all can submit something too.

[1:18:52] I think Mr. Carpenter is the one over here.

[1:18:57] Tyler's the one over here.

[1:18:57] Yeah, it is Tyler. It's a lot of pressure, Tyler.

[1:19:00] And I probably will reach out to the community members.

[1:19:02] And see if some of them will present to you. That might be a good idea.

[1:19:05] I'll look at my existing portfolio.

[1:19:07] All right, any other discussion for the flag design campaign,

[1:19:11] which is an exciting addition to celebrating the town's 30th

[1:19:16] birthday?

[1:19:17] I can't wait to see— I hope we receive some. I'm so excited to see them.

[1:19:20] All right, the next item for discussion— were you going to say something? Oh, okay.

[1:19:26] The next item for discussion is The Tarver-Ringman annexation from the August

[1:19:31] Tarver-Ringman annexation from the August voting

[1:19:32] meeting. Um, we had— I'll go first, although unless anybody else wants to.

[1:19:37] We had discussed this at the workshop and at a workshop prior to it going to the

[1:19:43] Planning Commission, but in the voting meeting it did not have a motion or a

[1:19:49] meeting it did not have a motion or a second,

[1:19:49] and so there was no discussion. We don't discuss unless there's a motion.

[1:19:55] Um, and While that is proper, I think probably if there's someone on the agenda,

[1:20:01] my opinion now is that we probably should have at least had a motion for discussion

[1:20:07] or something. But just wanted to reiterate that my reasons for not supporting the

[1:20:13] annexation was because of the expansion of the CD-3 zone.

[1:20:17] That was in the zoning ordinance, a transitional zone.

[1:20:21] And if we start setting the precedent that we will apply that zone as we expand down

[1:20:27] Kidd Road, I think that the precedent that sets is that everything down Kidd Road

[1:20:33] should be the CD-3 at 4 units per acre,

[1:20:36] which is not something that I was comfortable with.

[1:20:39] The CD-3 application directly left of that particular parcel was transitioned from

[1:20:45] office industrial into the residential.

[1:20:48] And then the 2 parcels that are to the right of that parcel, that CD-3, are the

[1:20:54] right of that parcel, that CD-3, are the CD—

[1:20:54] I think it's 2L, but it's the low-density residential.

[1:20:58] And so I, I have concern about a clear delineation between South Davidson County

[1:21:04] delineation between South Davidson County and

[1:21:04] Nolensville, but also making sure that we don't set a precedent that we expand CD-3.

[1:21:10] everywhere.

[1:21:13] And so I don't know if anybody else wants to share their opinions on that particular

[1:21:17] annexation since we didn't discuss it in the voting meeting, but if so,

[1:21:20] I would encourage you to, to do so.

[1:21:22] So I don't take issue with the annexation.

[1:21:25] Obviously it's contiguous, and so I don't have any issue with that.

[1:21:30] In looking at this both from the Planning Commission side as well as the BOC side

[1:21:36] and looking at the ask for CD 3.

[1:21:38] I agree, not only is this the proper—

[1:21:41] improper use of that zone for moving further out of town,

[1:21:45] but if you look at the topography of it,

[1:21:48] this kind of goes back to Bench Lakes and Williams property and annexing in,

[1:21:54] but being willing to wait and consider what we are reworking with the zoning and

[1:22:00] what is possible for that land.

[1:22:02] If you look at that particular parcel, Again, the creek line,

[1:22:06] the potential connectivity that it has.

[1:22:09] There is, there is a use for it, but what is that? And CD-3 is, is not something.

[1:22:15] So in terms of annexation, yes, I would support that. The rezone, I would not.

[1:22:21] Certainly support CD-3, as I've stated,

[1:22:24] but I don't know what the proper is for that without sitting down with staff

[1:22:29] that without sitting down with staff first.

[1:22:30] Thank you.

[1:22:31] Well, again, and having further discussion on that.

[1:22:34] Yeah, I'm going to echo the sentiment of the prior 2 Commissioners.

[1:22:38] I think the annexation is not the question here.

[1:22:42] I think it is appropriate density in an area that is clearly transitional and what

[1:22:48] that really looks like in terms of design for both that piece of property and

[1:22:53] connectivity to the town as we always push with development.

[1:23:02] I echo everything that they just said.

[1:23:05] I—

[1:23:07] yeah, I don't support 3. I do support annexation. I agree with them.

[1:23:12] Well, since we've got 5 Commissioners now that echo the same thing,

[1:23:16] we're in favor of annexation,

[1:23:18] but it was apparently the CD-3 that was causing the heartburn,

[1:23:22] and it was certainly mine. Problem as well.

[1:23:24] We— that is, that area of town needs to be the transition into something such as

[1:23:29] CD-3. And that being the case, Victor, we didn't vote on it,

[1:23:33] so it didn't get voted down. It just failed for lack of a motion that night.

[1:23:37] Is it something we could bring back up at the next meeting and have a vote on

[1:23:42] perhaps annexation? And do— and I appreciate what Jessica said, we,

[1:23:46] we took the Williams property and went down to CD-2L, I believe.

[1:23:50] Yes.

[1:23:51] the entry level, if you will, and see where we go from there.

[1:23:54] Is that a possibility procedurally?

[1:23:56] You can renew the motion,

[1:23:58] and that would give you the opportunity to bring it back up.

[1:24:04] That's something that you would have to do at the voting meeting,

[1:24:10] is specifically renew the motion.

[1:24:13] And so it Basically, at the—

[1:24:16] the process would be during your approval of the agenda,

[1:24:21] you would ask to renew the motion and add it to the agenda.

[1:24:27] Okay.

[1:24:28] And then you all could reconsider that.

[1:24:31] Charlie wants to say something.

[1:24:34] And if the, uh, the zone was to change after the first, uh, discussion of the

[1:24:39] after the first, uh, discussion of the BOC,

[1:24:39] it would need to go back to the PC.

[1:24:45] Charles, that would be strictly for annexation, but if zone changed,

[1:24:49] they would go through the process which would start at the Planning Commission and

[1:24:54] then return. Is that correct? Is that what I'm understanding?

[1:24:58] Annexation here, rezone, planning, back to BOC?

[1:25:00] Yes.

[1:25:04] If zoning of what it was proposed as changes, it goes back to the POC.

[1:25:09] PC, yeah.

[1:25:10] So I'm seeing some head nods, and one of them is mine.

[1:25:16] I don't know why I said that.

[1:25:20] So what Vice Mayor is saying, I—

[1:25:23] so Victor and I discussed this,

[1:25:27] and I I think like it's challenging the way that the—

[1:25:33] the way that we do things where we have an annexation and then

[1:25:41] there is a formal process even to get the 2L or the 2.

[1:25:47] And because they sought a 3 with annexation,

[1:25:52] can we even vote on annexation before it goes back through PC?

[1:26:00] Yes.

[1:26:00] Basically, can we vote on annexation without voting on a rezone?

[1:26:04] Yes.

[1:26:07] Yes.

[1:26:09] Okay, so we don't have to vote on a rezone. It automatically defaults to the

[1:26:16] rezone. It automatically defaults to the lowest.

[1:26:17] Yeah, no different than what Williams and Bench Lake, correct?

[1:26:22] They didn't. We voted on—

[1:26:24] Oh, you're saying because there was— oh, I see. I'm sorry.

[1:26:28] I'm saying we have a formal process where it's not just an— it doesn't default.

[1:26:32] We actually have to vote to rezone.

[1:26:34] So I think one way to address this is to allow staff and legal time to confer and

[1:26:40] also discuss with the applicant if that's something that they would want to pursue,

[1:26:46] because I think like legal advice on the fly is also difficult because zoning and

[1:26:52] land use is Yes. is complex and difficult.

[1:26:55] So I would encourage us, instead of trying to work that out in the meeting,

[1:27:01] to let staff work together with legal if that is something that the Board is

[1:27:07] supportive of, of annexation at a lesser zone and the applicant is considered—

[1:27:12] wants that. I would also encourage us to really focus in on the connection Between

[1:27:18] Kidd Road, that was one of the areas that I felt really uncomfortable with.

[1:27:24] I know that there is a creek there, but there's—

[1:27:28] having a connection between Kidd Road going into South Walk long-term for our

[1:27:33] community would be a really important connection.

[1:27:37] And so if there's a way to have more certainty around that as a requirement to

[1:27:43] development for either of parcels, that would be important to me as well.

[1:27:48] But did that, did that address what you were talking about, Commissioner

[1:27:54] were talking about, Commissioner Carpenter,

[1:27:54] with the legal part of it?

[1:27:56] Yes.

[1:27:59] Okay.

[1:28:00] Yeah, it sounds like— I can't speak for the, the applicant,

[1:28:06] but it sounds like the best, like,

[1:28:09] route here would be to wait until we've work through some of the regulations,

[1:28:16] because we've discussed the—

[1:28:19] what's the term where you can change certain aspects of—

[1:28:24] Modification of standards.

[1:28:26] Yes, the modification of standards. But we're working through that.

[1:28:30] And I mean, if the applicant wants to pursue the 2 or 2L, that's fine,

[1:28:35] but it sounds like This is a tough property.

[1:28:38] And so I don't know, I'm— if we're looking for directions to go here,

[1:28:43] I think it's really up to the applicant.

[1:28:46] Would the applicant like to speak?

[1:28:48] I know typically when we have an annexation request,

[1:28:50] we didn't have a motion last time,

[1:28:52] so I think it would be appropriate for the applicant to speak since we're in a—

[1:28:56] we're discussion.

[1:28:57] Sure. Yeah, thank you.

[1:28:58] Um, when we designed the property, uh, Under CD-3, the site plan that I—

[1:29:04] we submitted with our rezoning request was really the maximum number of units that

[1:29:11] the property could support under CD-3.

[1:29:14] And in hindsight, that may not have been wise because it may not be feasible—

[1:29:20] it is not feasible, really,

[1:29:23] for us to build the number of units that we showed on the site plan.

[1:29:28] So we are going back and we've talked with our engineers.

[1:29:33] We have another site plan that shows some connectivity to the east and west and has

[1:29:40] 26 units shown in the site plan.

[1:29:42] The problem we've run into, and I think Commissioner Carpenter alluded to it,

[1:29:49] is that there's really not a zoning designation that allows for 26 units on

[1:29:55] designation that allows for 26 units on this

[1:29:55] property because CD-3 is a number of units per acre.

[1:29:59] Yes.

[1:30:00] CD-3L is a square footage and it's not units per acre over the entire property.

[1:30:06] So CD-3L is 20,000 square foot lots.

[1:30:09] And so that sounds like, you know, half the density of CD-3,

[1:30:14] but it's actually a lot less than half the density of CD-3.

[1:30:19] So we have new site plans that conform to CD-3L as as well.

[1:30:24] And so for us, we have to think about what's economically feasible for us.

[1:30:30] And CD3L, we think we maybe could make that work.

[1:30:34] I think once we get below CD3L,

[1:30:36] we would have to really take a hard look at whether or not it's feasible for us.

[1:30:43] But I don't know if you're able to give feedback right now, but just—

[1:30:48] Is CD3L something that the Board would So it's 20,000-square-foot lots.

[1:30:55] So essentially, you're talking about 2 units per acre. Is that correct?

[1:30:58] Well, it comes out to less than that.

[1:31:01] Because you've got all the other roads and stuff like that that you have to—

[1:31:04] Correct.

[1:31:05] Our target when we redesigned it was 2 units per acre.

[1:31:09] And you said connectivity east and west, but not south?

[1:31:17] Issue with connectivity directly south.

[1:31:20] Well, one, the property directly to our south has a driveway,

[1:31:25] a flag that comes up north on the east side of our property,

[1:31:30] and that is one of their entrances.

[1:31:32] And so we border that property to the south across the creek, but also to the

[1:31:38] south across the creek, but also to the east,

[1:31:39] their driveway that That goes up and hits Kidd Road.

[1:31:43] Building a bridge on our property across the creek to provide connectivity to the

[1:31:49] property in the south, which we don't control, the property in the south,

[1:31:55] would be very expensive,

[1:31:57] likely prohibitively expensive to build a bridge to connect directly to the south.

[1:32:03] But since their driveway borders our property to the east,

[1:32:08] Connecting to that property to the east would be a lot cheaper and easier.

[1:32:14] So again, if you look at this,

[1:32:16] when we were going through discussion Planning Commission level, this property,

[1:32:22] like some in Nolensville,

[1:32:24] is extremely unique in the topography that it holds and what is buildable.

[1:32:30] I won't say I'm necessarily opposed to the 3L,

[1:32:34] but I still have a lot of questions about the 3L and the original intent of what the

[1:32:40] Board of Commissioners had for, um, the growth on the outskirts of town,

[1:32:46] or as we transitioned, if you will.

[1:32:48] Um, but I do understand the challenge of the, the creek.

[1:32:53] Even when we were looking at this originally and saying there's no way

[1:32:58] originally and saying there's no way they're going

[1:32:59] to be able to, to give us that even with C with 3 C's.

[1:33:03] Mm-hmm.

[1:33:05] So it sounds like for the east, it's a stub.

[1:33:07] And then when that little sliver should get developed at any point, if it does,

[1:33:13] then you would have your connectivity to the south.

[1:33:16] Again, that's just— it's one of those pieces to this unique property is that

[1:33:21] pieces to this unique property is that there

[1:33:21] is— I hate to say it,

[1:33:23] but the density of what you would need to actually financially be able to do what

[1:33:28] the town would hope with a lot like this is, is much heavier than, than what,

[1:33:33] at least for myself, I would be willing to allow to do.

[1:33:37] So if you're looking for that connectivity to the south,

[1:33:40] it really only comes from that property— well, really to the east,

[1:33:45] or the potential of the one— no, even the west has some creek line in it.

[1:33:50] So yeah, it's really just the east.

[1:33:52] Just, uh, if you can imagine it,

[1:33:54] Kidd Road and then the Ringman property and then the creek and then the properties

[1:33:59] to the south. The property to the south continues up.

[1:34:03] So if the property to the south, directly south of us, is developed,

[1:34:07] which it's been rezoned and we understand it is going to be developed, um,

[1:34:12] I can't speak for the owners,

[1:34:14] but if the property directly to our south is developed, they will presumably—

[1:34:19] You—

[1:34:20] it's not a separate parcel.

[1:34:22] So they will presumably use that as a driveway and we could connect to that

[1:34:27] there. We thought that was a good compromise.

[1:34:30] I think I would support a 3L.

[1:34:33] I have been fixated really since I started getting into this on this idea that we

[1:34:39] have got a lot of zoned property that just cannot be developed to standards.

[1:34:45] I mean, it's just not— they're to the regulations, it's just not possible.

[1:34:50] And so I'm sympathetic to that.

[1:34:53] It's good to hear that you all think that you might be able to get to 3L because

[1:34:59] that was, that was kind of where I was at before the last meeting.

[1:35:04] I'm, I'm not comfortable with 3, and I know it's, it's hard.

[1:35:09] That's why I'm glad we're working through this.

[1:35:13] Yes.

[1:35:13] At the Planning Commission because it is hard to sit up here and say, you know, oh,

[1:35:19] I trust you, you'll build to a certain level when you have this ability to— well,

[1:35:25] you have a theoretical ability,

[1:35:28] hypothetical ability to go to what you were allowed per zoning.

[1:35:32] So I could— I believe I could get to 3L. I appreciate you revisiting that.

[1:35:38] Yeah, that's kind of where I'm at right now.

[1:35:41] One thing that we did think of,

[1:35:45] I don't know if this is something that Nolensville does,

[1:35:51] but since there is that gap between CD-3 and CD-3L,

[1:35:56] we would be willing to restrict the property to a specific unit

[1:36:03] count in CD-3. But, you know, hard capped at X number of units?

[1:36:09] That's something that's under consideration by the Planning Commission,

[1:36:14] but right now we don't have the authority to do that.

[1:36:18] We do have the authority within the zoning ordinance for a special zone,

[1:36:23] but that zone then has to become available for anyone else to use.

[1:36:28] And I imagine Planning Commission has also been discussing that.

[1:36:32] And if there needs to be a different transitional zone out from CD-3.

[1:36:37] You are referencing the special district discussions?

[1:36:43] Yes.

[1:36:44] I'm not sure I understand the provisions as well as I would like to as they are

[1:36:49] currently written as it relates to the special district provisions.

[1:36:53] So I'm not sure what guidance I could give.

[1:36:57] Charles says it's not helpful at all.

[1:36:58] Yeah, there you go.

[1:36:59] That's a, that's a better way to say it.

[1:37:00] So this is kind of where I went back to, um,

[1:37:03] with the 2 properties that were currently annexed.

[1:37:06] They are, um, I won't— I don't want to say in a hurry,

[1:37:10] but willing to work through the Planning Commission finalizing.

[1:37:14] We have a document that is not always usable, as you have experienced,

[1:37:19] and so we are trying to get to a place Where not only is it maintaining the level

[1:37:24] that we would like for development in Nolensville,

[1:37:27] but it is also something that developers are able to come and build more easily and

[1:37:32] understand. And so we are very much so in that process.

[1:37:36] And one of those is looking at if there is a modification of standards to be allowed

[1:37:41] and how that approval process— but we are working through it.

[1:37:45] And I would love to say that it will be—

[1:37:48] Yes.

[1:37:49] Done soon, but I'm going to say soonish that it will be complete.

[1:37:53] It is a very large document with a lot of changes that are needing to be made.

[1:37:59] So again, I don't disagree with Commissioner Carpenter.

[1:38:03] Just 3L, I think it eases my comfort level a little,

[1:38:07] but I don't know that I'm completely there yet.

[1:38:10] Working through just the piece of land is where I'm having some issue with how many

[1:38:16] units go there and what it could potentially become.

[1:38:20] So not a no, but definitely some more information needed.

[1:38:24] And we are very eager to keep having these conversations as well.

[1:38:29] Hopefully we can make everybody happy and get to a place where everybody understands

[1:38:35] what we are trying to do.

[1:38:37] I will say if we are talking about the code,

[1:38:41] what something that we found when working through CD-3 versus CD-3L is if CD-3L

[1:38:47] provided a number of units per acre instead of square footage, that would

[1:38:53] instead of square footage, that would really,

[1:38:53] I think, make it easier for us to develop in CD-3L.

[1:38:57] Thank you. Appreciate that.

[1:38:59] Yeah.

[1:39:00] Thank you all very much.

[1:39:01] Thank you, sir.

[1:39:02] All right. The next item on the agenda is our proposed agenda for September 3rd,

[1:39:08] 2020. 26. We will have recognition for the Nolensville Little League baseball team

[1:39:14] for District 7 champion, for Tennessee state champion,

[1:39:18] and the Southeast Little League region runner-up.

[1:39:21] We'll also have presentations for the Buttercup Festival donation checks.

[1:39:27] And Commissioner Struford,

[1:39:29] you pointed out earlier that this should be amended to also say the Nolensville

[1:39:35] Library. Okay, he said yes very quietly.

[1:39:38] Mayor, if you don't mind, can I just go back to A for a quick second?

[1:39:41] Montique, I sent you and Katie the information.

[1:39:44] Was it— I'm waiting for Coach's name. Yeah, okay, but is there anything else?

[1:39:48] That's all we would need to make. Okay, perfect.

[1:39:50] Okay, thank you.

[1:39:51] Thank you for that.

[1:39:53] And then we will have public hearing for Ordinance

[1:39:58] 26-15. I see that Chuck is coming to the podium.

[1:40:02] Just a very quick reminder that we have an amendment to that ordinance that we're

[1:40:06] going to be introducing during the regular meeting.

[1:40:09] We'll try to get you that well in advance,

[1:40:11] but it deals with the plumbing code and specifically the plumbing permit fees.

[1:40:16] We're going to try to match them up with the new software that we have,

[1:40:19] so we'll be mirroring what we do for mechanical fees.

[1:40:24] During the public hearing,

[1:40:25] will we need to recognize you so that you can share that at that time?

[1:40:28] I'll make that available for the, for the hearing so people can see that in advance.

[1:40:32] And then we also have public hearing for Ordinance 26-17,

[1:40:36] an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2027 budget by the Board of Commissioners.

[1:40:42] Any item or discussion for this public hearing?

[1:40:45] And will our budget amendment for the fire department be included in this So we'll

[1:40:51] probably need to follow suit with how we handle the plan review ordinance and at

[1:40:56] least mention that during the public hearing.

[1:40:59] Is that something the fire department will handle, or will, uh,

[1:41:04] who will handle that in the public hearing so that we know who to call on?

[1:41:09] Christina.

[1:41:11] Okay.

[1:41:17] All right, the next item on the agenda is our consent agenda.

[1:41:21] Any questions about any of the—

[1:41:23] either the budget report from the finance director or any departmental reports or

[1:41:27] reports from town committees?

[1:41:29] Excited to see the new report from Public Works.

[1:41:35] Looks good.

[1:41:35] You guys have been working hard on keeping that grass mowed.

[1:41:40] Um, the— this summer has been ridiculous with the amount of rain,

[1:41:45] and you're doing a good job.

[1:41:47] I don't know how you're keeping up with it because my husband has not kept up with

[1:41:53] our yard.

[1:41:54] Yeah, we've been working very hard to implement the new work order system.

[1:41:59] If you've seen the reports, we had a total of 258 work orders.

[1:42:04] The majority of those were obviously completed.

[1:42:07] Right now our average completion time is 3 days.

[1:42:10] Um, we spent Friday logging our sidewalk sections.

[1:42:14] We have a total of 42 sidewalk sections that need to be completed.

[1:42:18] Because we're putting in those sidewalk work orders now,

[1:42:22] you are going to see an increase to the work order time.

[1:42:26] We are very, very busy with mowing right now,

[1:42:29] but we will be working to get to those sidewalk sections as quickly as possible.

[1:42:35] Thank you.

[1:42:36] And then as the mowing season dies down,

[1:42:39] we will be able to get to those sections much more quickly.

[1:42:42] Thank you, Kyle.

[1:42:45] Mayor, I'll just give you some feedback about mowing.

[1:42:48] When Will turns to be about 16 and wants gas money, that,

[1:42:52] that's a great incentive to get the yard mowed around the family house.

[1:42:57] He, he actually already does mow now.

[1:43:00] Um, he, he actually knows how to use his Your turn as well, Kyle.

[1:43:04] We've just got a lot of grass, man. We've got a lot of grass to mow.

[1:43:08] Have you considered a goat?

[1:43:10] I have, actually, I have, but I'm not very good with farm animals and/or plants.

[1:43:17] Okay, any other comments on the—

[1:43:20] do we want to talk through the capital project update?

[1:43:25] Do we—

[1:43:26] there was some good information in Enoch's as well.

[1:43:29] Is there anything else anyone wants to talk through?

[1:43:33] I do want to recognize the TAPS committee for the grant that they got notification

[1:43:38] in the last week or so.

[1:43:40] It is also a component of the 30th birthday for the town,

[1:43:43] and that it is visual storytelling for interviewing people from Nolensville's

[1:43:48] interviewing people from Nolensville's past.

[1:43:49] There's several different individuals that were identified that were a part of the

[1:43:54] incorporation of the town,

[1:43:56] and I think it will be a really special and unique way to recognize the 30th

[1:44:01] birthday and capture some of those stories that we won't have the luxury of

[1:44:06] capturing forever. So, uh, TAPS committee is, is doing great things.

[1:44:11] All right, unfinished business.

[1:44:13] We have second reading of Ordinance 26-17,

[1:44:15] an ordinance amending the fiscal year '27 budget by the Board of Commissioners.

[1:44:21] Any discussion on this?

[1:44:22] We'll have New business, Ordinance 26-18, an ordinance to amend Title 3, Chapter 2,

[1:44:28] Section 3-205 to establish collection of unpaid fines and costs.

[1:44:32] Any discussion on this item or presentation from staff?

[1:44:36] Able to answer any questions you have.

[1:44:38] The ordinance is to provide a mechanism for us to be able to enter into an

[1:44:44] for us to be able to enter into an agreement

[1:44:45] with a third-party consultant To collect unpaid fines and fees.

[1:44:49] You can see the dollar value in the staff report.

[1:44:53] This goes back many, many years before our current staff.

[1:44:57] Typically, the success rate declines over time because the information that we have

[1:45:03] on the defendant gets old,

[1:45:05] but we're going to do everything we can to engage a third-party consultant with the

[1:45:11] intent of trying to collect Collect as much of that bad debt as we can.

[1:45:17] This is the first critical step to making that happen.

[1:45:21] Is there any objection to this being on the consent agenda?

[1:45:25] The next item on the agenda is Resolution 26-091,

[1:45:28] a resolution to approve vendor services agreement between Town of Nolensville and

[1:45:33] Steelhead Building Group, LLC for construction of Chrisman Brown Park

[1:45:38] construction of Chrisman Brown Park project.

[1:45:41] As you recall, we have gone through a request for proposal process.

[1:45:45] We had a number of qualified contractors that proposed on the project.

[1:45:49] The low apparent bidder was Steelhead Building Group.

[1:45:52] We have gone through, done the proper due diligence on the company.

[1:45:56] Everything was found to be in good order. We have negotiated a contract.

[1:46:01] That contract is before you for your consideration.

[1:46:04] Thank you.

[1:46:05] You can see that we basically in the contract, we reflected not only the base

[1:46:10] contract, we reflected not only the base bid,

[1:46:10] but also alternate bids for alternate number 1 to enlarge the restroom to

[1:46:14] number 1 to enlarge the restroom to include

[1:46:14] that overhang porch area.

[1:46:16] We think that was beneficial,

[1:46:17] especially with the inclement weather to give people a place of refuge.

[1:46:21] And then also substituting the shingle roof for a standing seam metal roof,

[1:46:26] which we think will be a much more durable finish,

[1:46:29] especially given Some of the hail events that we have here.

[1:46:32] Hopefully that'll hold up a little bit better on the investment.

[1:46:36] The contract, as you can see, the dollar amounts that are provided in it,

[1:46:40] we are anticipating issuing a notice to proceed around the middle of September

[1:46:44] following contract approval.

[1:46:46] We have to first submit documentation to the state to get their concurrence on the

[1:46:50] contract instrument itself.

[1:46:52] Once we receive that, we'll issue a notice to proceed soon after that.

[1:46:56] Thank you.

[1:46:57] Contractor has 304 days, roughly 10 months to complete the work.

[1:47:01] That would put the completion date sometime mid-July.

[1:47:04] We are hopeful that they will finish well in advance of that, but again,

[1:47:08] that is the contract terms that we have.

[1:47:11] There is a liquidated damage provision in this contract that was provided.

[1:47:15] So again, part of one of the concerns you all had expressed was making sure that we

[1:47:20] had some—

[1:47:21] Yes.

[1:47:22] Additional mechanisms to ensure timely delivery.

[1:47:25] Happy to address any other questions you might have, but, uh,

[1:47:28] staff's recommendation is to approve the resolution that would approve the contract

[1:47:33] and also authorize the mayor for signature.

[1:47:36] We've included also a project contingency.

[1:47:38] Uh, if you recall the geotechnical work that we have for the bridge abutment and

[1:47:43] foundation systems, we would be using money out of that contingency.

[1:47:47] Thank you.

[1:47:47] for that purpose. Happy to address any questions you might have.

[1:47:51] And we also have James Polland here in case you want to put a face with the

[1:47:55] contractor. They've done a lot of good work here and around Middle Tennessee,

[1:47:59] so if you have any specific questions of the contractor,

[1:48:02] I'm sure he could step up and address those for you as well.

[1:48:06] I think the only change to the contract I would request is that we have a staff

[1:48:12] member be where official notices are delivered as opposed to the, the mayor,

[1:48:18] just because as mayor I'm not here all the time, but staff is.

[1:48:23] And so I noticed on page 7 and 8 there's notices and other communications shall be

[1:48:29] deemed sufficiently given if they're delivered to— it has my name.

[1:48:35] So my preference would be not me.

[1:48:37] Okay, we could put the town manager in your

[1:48:43] place if you'd like. It's usually customary.

[1:48:48] Or assistant town manager, one of the two.

[1:48:50] Yeah, you're the—

[1:48:51] you're the—

[1:48:51] you're the executive.

[1:48:52] We could put Tyler. I mean, I think Tyler would do great. Just not—

[1:48:54] Yeah, I'm here. I'm here often.

[1:48:56] I know other contracts have had the mayor's name.

[1:48:59] Yeah, you're the executive leader within the group.

[1:49:02] So we frequently do town Manager too. Okay, it's fine. You can do that.

[1:49:06] All right, I should have kept my mouth shut.

[1:49:09] Hopefully—

[1:49:10] any other questions?

[1:49:11] Hopefully we won't have any notices that will need to come,

[1:49:14] so good smooth construction process.

[1:49:15] Okay, any objections to that being on the consent agenda?

[1:49:20] If it's on consent agenda, then it's definitely Monday.

[1:49:25] Well, no, let's just take it off the menu. Have the—

[1:49:29] yeah.

[1:49:29] Okay.

[1:49:31] All right. Number 3 is Resolution 26-092,

[1:49:34] a resolution to enter into a professional services agreement with Civil

[1:49:38] Infrastructure Associates for servicing surveying services.

[1:49:43] This is for surveying for Baronswood and the area for sidewalks.

[1:49:47] Any questions or discussion on this?

[1:49:50] One of the things that we owe you is a professional services agreement to

[1:49:53] professional services agreement to accompany

[1:49:53] the resolution. We will be preparing that to include with the agenda package.

[1:49:57] Happy to address any other questions you might have.

[1:49:59] I think the value was around $16,000 for the contract plus a $10,000 contingency.

[1:50:05] And I just want to point out that this project is funded through sidewalk in lieu

[1:50:12] project is funded through sidewalk in lieu of

[1:50:12] payments that were made by development along the Kidd Road area,

[1:50:17] also fees that were Specifically allocated from the Beezer development,

[1:50:22] some of which had to be used on certain roads.

[1:50:26] So this wasn't just, oh, let's put sidewalks everywhere.

[1:50:30] It was specifically tied to certain development that impacted these areas.

[1:50:36] Any discussion or concern with this being on consent?

[1:50:40] I guess you don't want it on consent, do you, Chuck? Are you okay with it consent?

[1:50:46] You haven't seen the agreement yet.

[1:50:48] So it might be appropriate to keep that on the regular part of the

[1:50:52] agenda, but that's your decision.

[1:50:54] Okay, next one is Resolution 26-094,

[1:50:57] a resolution accepting a $10,000 donation from the Tennessee Internet Crimes Against

[1:51:02] Children Clearinghouse for internet crimes against children investigative purposes.

[1:51:08] Any discussion or presentation about this particular donation?

[1:51:13] I think it's a shame that we to have this.

[1:51:16] I, I appreciate that there are donations for investigating these areas.

[1:51:21] I hate that this is an issue in, in our community or any community.

[1:51:25] So this is through the Tennessee Office of Criminal Justice Programs.

[1:51:31] It's a $10,000 grant, and the funds go specifically to specialized training,

[1:51:37] any travel or investigative services that go in line with ICAT cases.

[1:51:42] Uh, there should also be a forensic computer that they're donating as well.

[1:51:48] A ballpark of between $2,000 and $3,000 is estimated value of that forensic.

[1:51:57] So any questions or comments about this donation?

[1:52:01] Thank you, Lieutenant.

[1:52:03] Any objection to this being on consent?

[1:52:09] No.

[1:52:09] The next item is Resolution 26-095,

[1:52:11] a resolution to authorize the purchase of a zero-turn mower for the Public Works

[1:52:18] Department. Any questions or objection to consent?

[1:52:21] You're welcome to talk if you want, Kyle,

[1:52:25] but you don't have to if you don't want to.

[1:52:28] Just, just so you're aware,

[1:52:30] I believe we had $15,500 budgeted for that zero-turn mower.

[1:52:33] We can always use a zero-turn mower.

[1:52:36] It'll help us get those work orders done even faster.

[1:52:39] When the multi-purpose field comes on at Christen Braun Park,

[1:52:43] it will also be dedicated to that specifically.

[1:52:46] I know when we talked about budgeting for it,

[1:52:49] there was some concern about if we used a mower that you all used for right-of-way

[1:52:54] mowing in the park area that we would get weeds in the multi-use field.

[1:52:58] So like, are we no longer concerned about that, or—

[1:53:01] Well, we are. What we would have to do is clean it up very well, uh,

[1:53:05] get it cleaned up, and then once it's being used on that field, that's what—

[1:53:08] that's what it would be for.

[1:53:09] Okay. Any other questions or objection to consent?

[1:53:16] No, ma'am.

[1:53:18] The next item is Resolution 26-096,

[1:53:20] the resolution to accept the Judy Housley Safety Partners matching grant program

[1:53:25] from Public Entity Partners for the purchase of police safety equipment.

[1:53:29] I would like to disclose that I work for Public Entity Partners,

[1:53:33] but this is a grant giving money to the town.

[1:53:36] I don't have a financial interest or involvement in administration of the grant

[1:53:41] programs for Public Entity Partners.

[1:53:44] Any questions about the grant or what we're applying for?

[1:53:47] I'm not going to put that on consent because I'll say that in the meeting too.

[1:53:52] All right, the next item would be appointments to the Historic Nolensville

[1:53:57] appointments to the Historic Nolensville Buttercup

[1:53:57] Committee, and we would make those in the live meeting.

[1:54:01] I know the TAPS committee member still wants to be on the Buttercup Committee,

[1:54:06] and I believe I understand that everybody that served previously from town

[1:54:11] committees wants to continue on,

[1:54:13] but I do believe at least one member of the Buttercup Festival committee is moving

[1:54:18] out of town, and so, um,

[1:54:19] maybe we can get some information before the voting meeting just to confirm so

[1:54:24] everybody is clear about who wants to stay on.

[1:54:27] And Tracy, you're welcome to come up and share if you want to share now,

[1:54:32] or you can do it later.

[1:54:33] I have no new information.

[1:54:35] Okay, that takes us to other. Any other items that we need to review?

[1:54:41] I know this was a really tough couple weeks for our community,

[1:54:46] and I know it's also tough on staff,

[1:54:48] and I don't really think there's the right words to share for the tragedy that

[1:54:55] happened in our community a little over a week ago,

[1:54:59] but I'm thankful to the first responders that were there to serve the community,

[1:55:05] and I know that tragedies like the loss of life impact everybody,

[1:55:10] from children that go to school to anybody that lives in the neighborhood or the

[1:55:16] broader community. So like I said, there's really not the right words,

[1:55:22] but I'm appreciative for everyone who stepped up to serve the community.

[1:55:27] Yeah, thank you for that.

[1:55:29] I don't have anything to add, but I do appreciate you bringing that up.

[1:55:38] I have one, one thing that I just wanted to bring up.

[1:55:42] When I removed Lance Sutton's item,

[1:55:44] I did not know that we had a guest in the audience for that item that drove here

[1:55:51] from Cincinnati.

[1:55:52] Amen.

[1:55:54] And so I wanted to just recognize him.

[1:55:58] Carlton Smith, is that right,

[1:56:01] is with the National Fire Safety Council, is that correct?

[1:56:07] Lance's presentation was going to be wrapped around

[1:56:13] basically a, a, almost a fundraiser type of a thing.

[1:56:19] Yeah, we would welcome you to the podium.

[1:56:27] Lance and Chief Weingart have the information.

[1:56:30] They may have already shared it with you,

[1:56:33] but we're a 501 nonprofit and we've been around since 1955.

[1:56:37] We used to do the missing and exploited children on the milk cartons.

[1:56:42] I don't know if any of you are old enough to remember that, but, uh,

[1:56:47] they used to get at the grocery store.

[1:56:49] We help departments Raise money to provide materials for child safety education,

[1:56:55] fire safety education. And we do that through fundraising through the

[1:57:00] through fundraising through the department.

[1:57:01] Basically what happens is we have a letter format that goes out under the chief's

[1:57:06] signature on your letterhead.

[1:57:09] So it's coming from you or from the chief to the community.

[1:57:13] And, um, If the business— it goes to businesses.

[1:57:16] If the business wants to make a donation to help support fire safety education,

[1:57:22] they return a check and it comes here first. And then it comes to me.

[1:57:27] So there's no, it's all transparent. There's no smoke and mirrors.

[1:57:31] Um, the money goes into an account specifically for your department.

[1:57:36] And then we have materials, which I've given them samples to, Uh, look at that,

[1:57:42] of the materials that we have, and they can choose from those products to, uh,

[1:57:47] get the information out to the community.

[1:57:50] So it's, uh, I just, uh, wanted to make sure that, uh, you know,

[1:57:55] I appreciate the opportunity.

[1:57:57] I'm sorry Lance isn't feeling well, and I just wanted to put a face with the name.

[1:58:02] I'm the contact. So, uh, from the time the decision is made Yes or no.

[1:58:07] If it's yes, then every phone call comes to me. I handle the ordering.

[1:58:12] I handle helping design the products that you might want to take to the kids if you

[1:58:18] want my help. And if not, then it's, it's all good.

[1:58:22] But we appreciate the opportunity,

[1:58:24] and I'm sure they'll have an opportunity to bring that to you in the future.

[1:58:29] But just wanted to put a face with the name and let you know I'm your guy.

[1:58:35] So any of the funds that happen to be donated from this community come right

[1:58:39] donated from this community come right back to

[1:58:40] this community through, through you?

[1:58:42] Exactly right. They can, they stay in your fund balance.

[1:58:46] The only thing that happens the first year, uh, postage is free up to 500

[1:58:51] year, uh, postage is free up to 500 mailings.

[1:58:51] After that, we deduct postage.

[1:58:53] So if we mailed, it's $1.28 this year per mailing,

[1:58:57] and that includes the envelope we mail it in, the check return. Return envelope.

[1:59:02] They send their check back in as well as the letter.

[1:59:06] And if they make a donation, we send a thank you note under the chief's

[1:59:11] thank you note under the chief's signature,

[1:59:11] thanking them for their donation and giving them a tax deductible receipt

[1:59:16] giving them a tax deductible receipt because it

[1:59:17] is tax deductible. So that's all included for your $1.28 per donation.

[1:59:22] So if we mailed 100 letters, it would be $128. If we mail 1,000, it would be

[1:59:27] $128. If we mail 1,000, it would be $1,280.

[1:59:27] Okay.

[1:59:28] Yeah, it won't happen here.

[1:59:30] But, um, other than that, the funds go into your account. They stay there.

[1:59:36] Uh, if you don't spend them all this year, it can roll to the next year.

[1:59:42] Uh, so it's not, it never leaves.

[1:59:45] And if you decided you didn't want to continue the program,

[1:59:49] then until you spend the money, it stays there. We can't give it to anybody else.

[1:59:56] And so it's, it's yours.

[1:59:58] The, uh, I lost my train of thought for a second, but, um, sorry.

[2:00:04] Any other questions while I'm trying to think about it?

[2:00:08] It happens to us all the time.

[2:00:10] Uh, so I'm sure there'll be questions. Oh, I know what it was.

[2:00:15] There's no contract, no commitment other than to say Yeah, we'll give it a try.

[2:00:20] If you try it for a year and you don't like it,

[2:00:23] you can say it's not for us and we won't mail for you any longer.

[2:00:27] If you do like it, then we just continue on.

[2:00:30] We have a— we enjoy a 95% renewal rate year over year,

[2:00:34] and we service about 2,000 fire departments across the country.

[2:00:38] Okay.

[2:00:40] I think it sounds good.

[2:00:41] Thank you.

[2:00:42] Sounds like a wonderful program,

[2:00:43] and I think another opportunity for us to provide an service in town.

[2:00:47] Like Victor said, donation is from here but stays here,

[2:00:50] and we are able to provide that to families.

[2:00:52] So thank you both to the department and yourself.

[2:00:55] And there's no— again, if they don't want to make a donation,

[2:00:59] they throw it in the trash and they hear not back from us until next year.

[2:01:03] Um, so thank you very much. Have a good evening. I appreciate you letting me

[2:01:08] evening. I appreciate you letting me speak.

[2:01:12] All right, any other items before we

[2:01:17] adjourn? Is there a motion to adjourn?

[2:01:21] Motion to adjourn.

[2:01:24] Second.

[2:01:25] All in favor of adjournment signify by saying aye.

[2:01:28] Aye.

[2:01:28] All opposed?

[2:01:30] Motion passes unanimously. We are adjourned.

Work Session

Transcript