[0:04] Board of Mayor meeting for August 18,

[0:08] 2026 is now in session. Would you se

[0:11] stand for the pledge of allegiance and

[0:12] remain standing after the pledge? I

[0:15] pledge algiance to the flag of the

[0:18] United States of America and to the

[0:21] republic for which it stands. One nation

[0:25] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:28] justice for all.

[0:33] » Let us pray.

[0:35] Eternal God, this is the day that you

[0:37] have made and we thank you for it. We

[0:41] thank you for this great city. We thank

[0:43] you for the occupants of this great

[0:45] city. We thank you again, Lord, for all

[0:47] these great children that we see, Lord.

[0:50] We pray, Lord, that you would guide the

[0:52] leaders, Lord, where we can leave them a

[0:54] legacy, Lord, where they be proud of

[0:56] Springfield. We thank you, Lord, just

[0:59] for being a part of this city, a part of

[1:03] the governing body. I pray for all of my

[1:05] colleagues. I pray for all the parents.

[1:08] I pray for all the citizens, Lord. But

[1:11] we we thank you. We thank you for this

[1:14] great city. And Lord, I end this prayer

[1:16] by saying, please bless America in

[1:19] Jesus's name. Amen.

[1:21] >> Amen.

[1:25] » At this time, the chair would like to

[1:26] recognize parks and recreation director,

[1:29] Mr. Jerry Martin. Terry Martin, the

[1:31] floor.

[1:31] >> Good afternoon, board. How are y'all

[1:32] doing?

[1:33] >> Yes, well, Mr. Chair.

[1:35] >> All right. As we bring these young

[1:36] champions up here, y'all come on up

[1:38] front here, girls. And before the bullet

[1:41] goes down to get a photo op with him, I

[1:44] just want to take a second and say,

[1:50] "HEY,

[2:01] all that is making a bunch of noise."

[2:07] On behalf of the city of Springfield

[2:08] Parks and Recreation Department, on

[2:10] behalf of this team and on behalf of

[2:13] prior teams before them, we would like

[2:15] to thank this board of mayor Alderman

[2:18] for your commitment, your financial

[2:20] commitment that takes a huge burden off

[2:23] of these teams and these parents and

[2:25] these families whenever they win a state

[2:28] championship and they move on to the

[2:30] World Series. And for you helping us out

[2:32] like that and for that we are very, VERY

[2:34] THANKFUL.

[2:41] DOES THAT. THANK YOU very very much.

[2:43] Y'all come on down here on last set and

[2:45] come to the podium and say a few words

[2:46] on her accomplishments while y'all make

[2:49] your way down here. Can we just stand up

[2:51] here?

[2:51] >> Can we just stand?

[2:53] >> Yeah, Terry, it might be better if we

[2:54] stand here.

[2:56] >> So we can stand up.

[3:01] » Good afternoon. Uh for those who don't

[3:03] know me, I'm Seth Owen, programming

[3:05] supervisor for the city of Springfield

[3:06] Parks Department. We are very excited to

[3:09] get to honor these girls and coaches for

[3:11] their outstanding success in this year's

[3:12] Diamond Youth Softball tournament. What

[3:15] began with three regular season teams

[3:17] turned into one all-star team put

[3:19] together by the three head coaches of

[3:21] our regular season. The first milestone

[3:23] was competing at the district level held

[3:25] in White House where these girls went

[3:27] undefeated, outscoring their opponent 71

[3:30] to 17, beating East Robertson, White

[3:33] House, Portland, and White House for a

[3:35] second time to extend their postseason

[3:37] play into the state tournament. At the

[3:39] state tournament in Rockwood, Tennessee,

[3:41] this team continued their hot streak and

[3:43] earned the title of undefeated state

[3:45] champions by beating Houston County,

[3:47] Lewis County, Pleasant View, and

[3:49] Greenber twice. This meant that they had

[3:52] earned their spot to represent the state

[3:54] of Tennessee as team Tennessee in the DY

[3:57] World Series held in Laurel,

[3:59] Mississippi. Facing Louisiana for their

[4:02] first bracket game, Louisiana came out

[4:04] on top 52. But these girls weren't going

[4:06] to give up that easy. They battled their

[4:09] way back through the losers bracket,

[4:10] beating North Carolina 8-6, South

[4:12] Carolina 13-4, Mississippi 8-7, and

[4:16] Texas 15 to 14 in extra innings to send

[4:19] them to the championship game against

[4:20] the only team that beat them in bracket

[4:23] play, Louisiana. Our girls fought hard

[4:26] against Louisiana, but finished up as

[4:28] runner-ups in the Diamond Youth Softball

[4:30] World Series. We are so very proud of

[4:33] them and all their accomplishments and

[4:35] would like to recognize them by placing

[4:37] a sign as you enter Springfield so that

[4:39] everyone can remember how great of a

[4:40] team this was. So, I would like to

[4:42] introduce your 2026 AU DY State

[4:46] Champions and World Series runnerups.

[5:08] Hey, y'all hold them rings out like

[5:10] that. EVERYBODY,

[5:22] » let me see your rings. Let me see your

[5:24] rings.

[5:26] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[5:27] >> Congratulations. Congratulations.

[5:30] >> What you going to do with all that big

[5:31] blue?

[5:36] » Congratulations.

[5:39] A great thing.

[5:45] >> Congratulations.

[6:00] to y'all. How exciting.

[6:18] Crank it up.

[6:25] » Those rings are fancy.

[6:26] >> Yeah,

[6:27] >> are fancy.

[6:30] They were playing last year.

[6:49] Item 1.4 approval of minutes from the

[6:51] regular meeting of board of mayor and

[6:53] alderman held July 22nd 2026. We have a

[6:57] motion by alderman Bradley a second by

[6:58] Alman Huard. Any questions or comments?

[7:03] Hearing none. Are we ready to vote?

[7:06] Let's cast our vote.

[7:08] Anyone care to change their vote?

[7:12] Would you tally the votes, please?

[7:14] >> Motion passes five to zero. Item 1.5,

[7:19] our public comment period.

[7:22] We have three registered speakers here

[7:25] today and we'll you will have two

[7:27] minutes. When you approach the podium,

[7:30] please speak loudly where everyone can

[7:32] hear you. I have first on my list, Mr.

[7:35] Billy Hughes. He is speaking about the

[7:38] Jones Chapel Road water line upgrade.

[7:40] Mr. Hughes,

[7:42] you have the floor, sir, for two

[7:44] minutes.

[7:45] >> Good evening. My name is Billy Hughes.

[7:47] I'm a resident of Jones Chapel Road. I'm

[7:50] a licensed Tennessee general contractor

[7:51] with a municipal utility classification

[7:54] and I've laid hundreds of miles of water

[7:56] line over my 33-year career. I'm

[7:59] standing before you tonight to formally

[8:00] oppose the proposed water line extension

[8:03] along Jones Chapel Road. This project is

[8:05] flawed in its location, its precedent,

[8:07] and its execution. Jones Chapel Road

[8:09] sits four miles outside Springfield's

[8:11] urban growth boundary. Spending

[8:13] municipal utility funds to extend a line

[8:16] this far into the county sets a

[8:17] dangerous precedent for how this board

[8:19] allocates city tax dollars. Springfield

[8:22] taxpayers should not be subsidizing

[8:23] growth far beyond the city limits with

[8:26] existing infrastructure demands and

[8:28] attention. As a contractor, I understand

[8:30] the infrastructure. Based on this

[8:32] project scope, I estimate the baseline

[8:34] cost of this project to be somewhere

[8:35] around $750,000.

[8:38] That is a highly conservative figure

[8:40] that completely excludes the massive

[8:42] auxiliary cost of clearing, road bors,

[8:44] open cut repairs, fence replacements,

[8:46] and final sight dress. Residents have

[8:49] raised real and reasonable concerns.

[8:51] Yet, no one from the utility has reached

[8:53] out to address them. No clear plan has

[8:55] been shared on how tree removal, torn up

[8:57] fences, or damaged driveways will be

[8:59] repaired or compensated. The

[9:02] construction traffic construction

[9:04] traffic alone will ruin the existing

[9:05] rural road infrastructure. an eight or

[9:08] six inch

[9:37] It clearly can't maintain the lines that

[9:39] are already in the ground. We're asking

[9:41] this board to pause, protect city tax

[9:43] dollars, enforce proper utility

[9:46] oversight, and vote no on the Jones

[9:49] Chapel waterline project.

[9:50] >> Mr. Your time is up, sir.

[9:52] >> Thank you.

[9:53] for your comments.

[9:56] Our second speaker today, Mr. Chip Rush.

[9:59] Jones. Chip Rush speaking again on the

[10:02] Jones Chapel Road water line up there.

[10:05] >> All right. Thank you for this

[10:06] opportunity. Uh, I'm opposed to it for

[10:09] the simple reason is I've been in

[10:11] construction for half of my adult life

[10:13] and anytime you upgrade a water line to

[10:17] whether a 6 in or 8 in, that only means

[10:20] one thing. That means that there's more

[10:22] houses to be built on Jones Chapperel

[10:24] Road. Granted, in the Cedar Hill area,

[10:27] from what I understand, you have to have

[10:28] 2 and 1/2 acres.

[10:30] Well, there's a lot of two and a half

[10:32] acres out there. Now, if the expansion

[10:35] of the water line is for uh inadequate

[10:39] water pressure on Jones Chapper Road or

[10:41] Stra Road, then those taps should have

[10:43] never been sold to the individuals in

[10:45] the first place. There's there uh

[10:50] a rough guess an entity could come in

[10:53] and build two 200 homes easy, pay for

[10:57] the infrastructure to do that without

[10:59] any cost to the city. The water line is

[11:02] the main concern. I've lived at the end

[11:05] of Newberry Road for over 14 years with

[11:07] my wife and there's a reason we moved

[11:10] out there because it's out in the

[11:12] country and we'd like to keep it that

[11:14] way. Thank you very much.

[11:16] >> Thank you, Mr. Rush. Our third and final

[11:19] speaker is Mr. Robert Green. Robert, are

[11:22] you here?

[11:22] >> Yes, you are, Mr. Robert.

[11:24] >> I'm not eloquent as they are, but I'm

[11:27] Dr. Green. I live on Indust Road. I'm

[11:29] one of them that has a tap that has not

[11:32] gotten yet. When it was put in, they had

[11:33] to. They said, "Could you wait?" And I

[11:35] said, "Yes." I'm not pushing for this. I

[11:37] don't I I'd rather go without the tap

[11:39] than have the 8 in line. I don't think

[11:42] anybody's saying we don't need a line.

[11:44] We just don't need an 8 in. If you build

[11:46] it, they will come. I mean, also do

[11:48] paving. We cannot handle the traffic.

[11:51] Someone's going to I've been on run off

[11:52] the road two or three times just with

[11:54] what we got out there. We're not saying

[11:56] we don't need taps. Some people are owed

[11:59] them. Like I said, I'm owed one. I don't

[12:00] I'll I'll give it up to keep the line,

[12:03] you know, the line from coming in. The

[12:05] problem we have is we got a petition of

[12:07] everyone that lives on that road. And I

[12:09] don't know anyone that's pushing for it.

[12:11] And you can't cut your phone on or cut

[12:14] the radio TV on the last two years

[12:16] without hearing it's a threat to our

[12:18] democracy. It's a threat to our

[12:19] democracy. Both sides have played that.

[12:22] But what they're saying is they don't

[12:23] they're afraid they don't have a view.

[12:25] They don't have a voice.

[12:27] Y'all are our voice. We don't feel like

[12:29] we have a voice. Like this is being

[12:30] shoved on us. We can't got no say in it,

[12:33] but we do have a say because we've

[12:35] already voted. We voted for y'all. Y'all

[12:38] are our voice. And so we're asking you.

[12:40] We've got the petition. I don't know

[12:42] anyone that's pushing for the 8 inch

[12:45] line. That's what we don't understand.

[12:46] We've asked around. We don't know who's

[12:48] wanting 8 inch line. 4inch line. Just

[12:50] we're asking for maybe stop this. let's

[12:53] look at other alternatives instead of

[12:55] just shoving this down our street where

[12:56] we live. I can tell you that our the

[12:59] roads can't handle it. It's it's a it's

[13:02] a danger now. And so, but I I appreciate

[13:04] y'all's time. Like I said, I'm not that

[13:06] good of a speaker, but I just want to

[13:08] come and talk. Okay. Thank y'all.

[13:11] >> Thank you, Mr. Green. At this time, we

[13:13] will close our public comment period.

[13:15] We'll now move into our public hearing.

[13:17] Mayor, without objection, and quite a

[13:21] few in the room are here for this

[13:22] tonight, I would ask that 3.4 be brought

[13:25] to the beginning of the agenda.

[13:29] I'll second.

[13:40] » Do we have a second?

[13:41] >> Second.

[13:53] » Got a motion in a second to move that

[13:55] item to next on our agenda. That will be

[13:58] item 3.4.

[14:01] Got a vote to move it. So, we're ready

[14:04] to cast our votes to move this item up

[14:06] on our agenda.

[14:07] >> It'll just be

[14:08] >> just be a voice vote. All those in

[14:10] favor?

[14:11] >> I.

[14:12] >> Any opposed?

[14:14] We will move straight to the item 3.4.

[14:17] Discuss and properly take action on a

[14:19] potential waterline upgrade project in

[14:22] the Jones Tra area. We have a motion by

[14:25] Alman Hover. I have a question.

[14:29] >> Can I ask a question?

[14:30] >> We need a motion and a second to get on

[14:32] the floor.

[14:33] >> All right.

[14:34] >> Motion by Alman Hubard, second by Vice

[14:36] Mayor Harris. Now, we have questions or

[14:39] comments.

[14:41] >> What's the city's position while it's

[14:43] being upgraded

[14:44] >> or what why what's

[14:47] >> Well, we're here tonight to establish

[14:48] the city's position because you all will

[14:50] establish the city's position. This

[14:52] originally came about this the the

[14:54] conceptual aspects of this project

[14:56] originally came about last year when

[14:59] some folks that had purchased taps some

[15:01] years ago some have purchased taps

[15:02] decades ago some just a decade and a

[15:05] half ago or so and wanted to do that.

[15:07] Our previous water wastewater director

[15:09] Mr. Beers

[15:11] uh wanted to try to make good on those

[15:14] taps that had been purchased and wanted

[15:16] to upsize the line

[15:19] in that area. There was some 8- in pipe

[15:21] that he had that was in inventory that

[15:24] he wanted to use, which is where this 8

[15:26] inch line concept comes from. It doesn't

[15:29] live that way now though. What the the

[15:31] estimate that we have today,

[15:34] he retired in December. Mr. Price comes

[15:36] along. I think Mr. Beers had drawn up

[15:38] some plans which kind of if you want to

[15:41] make it in plain terms because I'm not

[15:42] an engineer so I don't understand and we

[15:44] may have to get Mr. price to help us

[15:45] understand the technical aspects of it.

[15:49] From a 2D perspective, that looked fine,

[15:52] right? And it looked like Mr. Beer's

[15:55] initial estimate was, hey, we might be

[15:57] able to do this if we've got the pipe,

[15:58] we can do it ourselves. We might be able

[16:00] to do this for $50 to $100,000, right?

[16:02] And make good on the taps that we're

[16:03] sold. Well, 2D and 3D are two different

[16:06] things. So, when it actually comes time

[16:08] to do the engineering aspect and full

[16:10] design, you have issues like not enough

[16:13] right away. So you have to buy

[16:14] easements, you have trees in the way,

[16:16] you have to bore underneath roads. So

[16:19] that's when you run into issues, and so

[16:21] that's what balloons the cost of the

[16:23] project. Also, Mr. Price was not

[16:25] comfortable with a 8 in line. That 8 in

[16:27] pipe has been sitting out for some time,

[16:29] and he wasn't comfortable using that.

[16:31] And frankly, that's too large of a line

[16:32] to put in that area. So what Mr. Price

[16:35] has come up with as far as an estimate

[16:37] is a 6-in line, but you have in your

[16:39] packet his final estimate of that. It is

[16:41] an unbudgeted project. So, uh, that

[16:44] total estimate comes out to $52,000

[16:47] to perform this project.

[16:51] It is obviously up to you all what to

[16:54] do. That is a large expense for um for a

[16:59] handful of taps that were that were

[17:01] sold. Yep. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. I think

[17:04] you have another question. Um, if I may,

[17:06] I was just curious, how many taps are we

[17:08] looking at that were sold that we're not

[17:10] able to satisfy?

[17:12] >> The ones we know about right now are a

[17:15] handful. So, there were some that were

[17:16] sold in the 90s. There were some that

[17:18] were sold in the two, you know, early to

[17:20] mid 2000s.

[17:22] >> Miss Hollerman, there are probably some

[17:24] we don't know about, right? So, I think

[17:26] what happened, and I don't want to I'm

[17:27] not casting blame on anybody. The way

[17:30] the process generally works is when you

[17:32] come to purchase a tab, there's a

[17:34] pressure test done on that line to

[17:36] determine whether or not you can build a

[17:38] house and and and do that. That pressure

[17:40] test is usually good for a year. The

[17:43] pressure test was done, the taps were

[17:45] purchased, and then that sort of

[17:47] happened in a vacuum because someone

[17:49] else came along and that tap wasn't

[17:51] installed. And so someone else came

[17:53] along and and they did install. And so

[17:55] the people that didn't install, the

[17:57] future purchasers, those taps that were

[17:59] sold weren't taken into account for the

[18:01] future folks that tapped in the line. So

[18:03] you have the folks that own the tap say,

[18:05] "Well, you shouldn't have, you know, you

[18:08] shouldn't have let people tap on the

[18:09] line because I had that capacity."

[18:11] That's not exactly what the tap contract

[18:13] says. But that's their position. I

[18:15] understand that. And so that's why Mr.

[18:16] Beers wanted to try to make good on that

[18:18] um on that promise that the city had

[18:21] made initially. I think at this point,

[18:23] am I correct that the the pipeline's

[18:25] really outside of city city limits?

[18:26] Correct.

[18:27] >> It is.

[18:28] >> Okay. Well, I would just be really

[18:30] curious to know again I appreciate all

[18:31] the people who are here with you having

[18:33] voiced their opinion. Again, I I always

[18:35] thank people when they are involved

[18:36] because sometimes I feel like we sit up

[18:37] here in a vacuum not really knowing what

[18:38] people want. So, thank you all for being

[18:40] here.

[18:40] >> Um I would be curious to know what how

[18:43] many taps we're looking at what the cost

[18:44] to refund would be. I mean, this is an

[18:46] exorbitantly high cost, I think, to make

[18:48] good on something 50 versus 500,000. And

[18:51] again, we're hearing from constituents

[18:52] that this is not what they want. Um, so

[18:55] I would be interested to kind of look at

[18:56] those numbers. Um, because as it stands,

[18:59] I'm looking at the cost is just really

[19:00] high and we have a lot of people

[19:02] opposed.

[19:02] >> Miss Holl, we solved this problem moving

[19:04] forward because if you all remember, you

[19:06] all passed an ordinance within the last

[19:08] year because of this very issue where we

[19:10] don't allow this to happen anymore. I

[19:12] think we we were in a period of time

[19:13] where people were buying taps because

[19:16] eventually they may subdivide the land

[19:17] they wanted their grandkids to be able

[19:18] to build. And that's great and noble,

[19:21] uh, but it creates problems down the

[19:22] road. And so now our policy is if

[19:24] someone buys a tab, it has to be

[19:26] installed within absent a subdivision

[19:28] agreement because those houses take a

[19:30] little bit longer. But if it's it's just

[19:32] a single tab, it has to be installed

[19:33] within 60 days or there or it gets

[19:35] refunded. The contract gets canceled. So

[19:37] this problem is is solved moving

[19:39] forward. I would say you're probably

[19:40] right. We're looking at a dozen in this

[19:42] particular pressures area. We're looking

[19:44] at a dozen or less taps. Okay.

[19:47] >> Mayor

[19:49] Tim

[19:49] >> and but if I understood

[19:52] >> Mr. Martin correctly nothing is

[19:54] currently budgeted to do this.

[19:56] >> That's correct. No sir.

[19:57] >> That's correct. And then we and from

[19:58] what we saw it's going to be a whole lot

[20:01] more than what was originally thought

[20:02] that it would be.

[20:04] >> Yes, sir.

[20:04] >> Okay. Um, I mean clearly by the number

[20:07] of people that have signed this pet

[20:09] petition and the number of people that

[20:12] have come forward and asked that the tap

[20:14] be placed, that's a big difference in

[20:17] that. And it's not currently budgeted.

[20:21] We don't currently have the money to

[20:24] really spend on doing this. So, if

[20:26] anybody's willing to hear the motion,

[20:28] I'll make the motion that we not proceed

[20:30] with this expansion project and that the

[20:33] city staff get with the city attorney to

[20:36] work out the details of how the refunds

[20:38] might be given on the taps if that's

[20:40] what's decided to do.

[20:42] >> I'd second that. Plus, I need to make a

[20:45] comment. In the 90s, there was a hasty

[20:49] decision that was made

[20:51] and so about the taps and stuff. It

[20:54] wasn't really it wasn't really carried

[20:57] out properly. I was lamore then. Okay.

[21:02] So, I'm glad to

[21:04] I'm I'm glad to say no and support the

[21:08] citizens for getting

[21:11] really getting misled per se by the

[21:16] 1990s.

[21:19] I have to just come clean with it. Okay.

[21:23] >> Mr. Troder

[21:29] get a motion second. We got a motion in

[21:31] a second.

[21:32] >> Second by me.

[21:33] >> Yeah.

[21:37] » We vote on this like it is.

[21:39] >> Yeah. We need a motion in a second. We

[21:41] got a motion for Mr. Harris to not do

[21:43] the project.

[21:46] We got a second.

[21:47] >> We need Tim made the motion. We need a

[21:50] second. Mr.

[21:52] I'll second if you need to.

[21:55] >> There you go.

[21:56] Now we're ready.

[21:57] >> And the motion was Tim

[21:59] >> that we not proceed with this expansion

[22:01] and that the staff get with the city

[22:04] attorney to see possibly how

[22:06] >> what needs to be done on the present

[22:07] taps out there to get their money back

[22:09] to them.

[22:10] >> So we would we would get with the city

[22:12] attorney and resolve whatever

[22:14] >> needed to be. But as far as at this

[22:15] time, I I just don't think as a city we

[22:17] can proceed with this

[22:19] >> expense-wise and to honor what the

[22:21] majority of the people in that area are

[22:22] asking for.

[22:25] >> Is everyone clear on that?

[22:26] >> We're not asking for.

[22:27] >> So, if we vote yes, we're voting

[22:29] against. We're voting no, right? Is that

[22:30] where we're at right now? I just want to

[22:32] make sure I hit the right.

[22:32] >> You vote yes on the motion. You're

[22:34] voting to not do the project. Thank you.

[22:36] Want to clarify that project. I'm glad

[22:37] you did.

[22:39] >> Are we ready to vote?

[22:41] >> Yes.

[22:42] So my voting yes

[22:45] voted to not move forward. Correct.

[22:47] Everybody clear on that.

[22:49] >> Just want to make let's cast our votes.

[22:56] » Anyone care to change their vote?

[22:59] >> Would you tally the votes, please?

[23:01] >> Motion passes four to two.

[23:05] >> Yeah, we just

[23:10] need to do it. Wait a minute. Wait a

[23:12] minute. We vote no and we kill it.

[23:16] >> The motion that Mr. Harris made was to

[23:18] not do the project.

[23:20] >> So So a yes vote would be in support of

[23:23] his motion to not do the project.

[23:26] >> Okay. Anyway, it's passed.

[23:29] >> Well, you got have to ask the city

[23:31] attorney change it.

[23:32] >> We can change it.

[23:34] >> Motion to reconsider.

[23:40] Make a motion to reconsider.

[23:43] >> Second.

[23:44] >> All right.

[23:45] >> So,

[23:46] vote.

[23:47] >> Revote. Revote.

[23:50] >> Let's cast our votes.

[23:52] >> The motion to reconsider.

[23:54] >> She motion second that.

[23:55] >> I did.

[23:56] >> Yeah, she did. So, Mr. Harris made a

[23:58] motion to reconsider. Miss Bradley made

[23:59] a second. So, just clear the votes.

[24:02] >> Clear the vote.

[24:03] >> I'll just change these. Yes,

[24:05] >> um yeah.

[24:10] Good.

[24:13] >> We're ready.

[24:21] » I just didn't They were welcome to stay.

[24:23] I just didn't want to have to sit

[24:24] through the whole weekend.

[24:25] >> If y'all want to

[24:27] >> are ready to leave, you can ple you can

[24:28] go ahead and leave. If you kind of do it

[24:30] quietly.

[24:32] >> Thank you for coming,

[24:35] » Mr. Mayor.

[24:39] I was Motion since being my wardro

[24:43] 3.9 this time

[24:47] motion to move

[24:48] >> motion need a second

[24:52] >> we have a motion and a second in favor

[24:55] moving

[24:56] >> to item 3.9

[24:59] all signify by saying I

[25:04] » any opposed hearing none

[25:09] The chair will recognize Mr. Robert

[25:11] Gardner. Hold on. We got We got to get

[25:14] to know.

[25:27] » Ma'am.

[25:30] Ma'am.

[25:41] So, we're bringing 3.9. 3.9.

[25:44] >> We're on item 3.9.

[25:49] » Mr. Robert, you have the floor, sir.

[25:52] >> Thank you, mayor. Appreciate it. Uh,

[25:54] Ottoman, and I thank you for this

[25:57] opportunity just to provide an update on

[25:59] the Bransford Community Center. I should

[26:01] say the long awaited Bratz for the

[26:04] Community Center. I think it gives Ryan

[26:07] Martin cold chills when I bring that

[26:09] name up sometimes, but I know that it

[26:11] has been a long ongoing project. But I

[26:14] just wanted to say first of all, uh we

[26:18] really really do appreciate not only the

[26:21] board's generosity in allocating these

[26:24] funds to this project, but also the

[26:26] board's patience. I know it's been a

[26:29] kind of a long, arduous, and frustrating

[26:32] 5 years since these funds were allocated

[26:35] and uh we've had some ups and downs.

[26:38] Um just don't want to get into all the

[26:42] hurdles that we've faced, but we have

[26:43] faced several. Uh but what we have come

[26:47] to realize is that we need to build

[26:49] something and we need to build something

[26:51] soon. And you know, so we're at the

[26:55] point that we are decided just to take

[26:58] the city's allocation and build

[27:00] something as a phase one that we can

[27:02] actually get in and begin operating some

[27:05] programs. We have a very active board.

[27:08] We have very active programs and we have

[27:10] active partners that uh are looking

[27:12] forward to a space to come and call

[27:15] home. And most notably is our Bransford

[27:18] Cubs, formerly our Bransford Pride after

[27:20] school program. and our board is here

[27:22] and do want them to stand and be and be

[27:24] recognized and they are here in full

[27:27] support of this project as always and

[27:29] they've had many sleepless nights. Thank

[27:31] you board. They've had many sleepless

[27:33] nights as I've had to try to bring this

[27:36] project to fruition. But um long story

[27:39] short, we have a million-doll allocation

[27:42] from the city and we have a partner that

[27:45] we have uh trusted a trusted partner

[27:48] with Adam Arrington and Morton

[27:50] buildings. Morton is a national

[27:53] contractor. They've done many many

[27:55] hundreds of buildings and we feel fully

[27:58] confident they can make this happen for

[27:59] us within our budget. So, what we are

[28:03] requesting tonight, um, just kind of in

[28:06] a nutshell, is to be able, even though

[28:09] the the wording of the original motion

[28:11] that was passed in May of 2021 was to,

[28:15] uh, provide funding for construction

[28:17] costs, but as you know, um, engineering

[28:21] and design has to come before

[28:23] construction. So to get this project a

[28:25] kickstart and just to get us off the

[28:27] ground, we're just asking not asking for

[28:29] any additional funding, but asking that

[28:32] the the engineering cost that's

[28:35] necessary for on the front end would be

[28:38] able to be allocated out of that 1

[28:39] million that we'll be able to take that.

[28:41] Again, additional funding is in this

[28:44] request, but just to use those funds

[28:46] that we have just to get the engineering

[28:48] done. Greater Faith Community Action has

[28:50] paid $8,000 for the preliminary plan,

[28:54] which Morton describes as phase one. I

[28:56] think you have a copy of that. Uh we

[28:58] need funding for the uh to take the

[29:01] funding for the construction plans to

[29:03] get those out for bid so we can get this

[29:05] project done. So um that being said, I

[29:08] would like uh if you don't have any

[29:10] questions, I'd like to turn it over to

[29:11] Adam Arrington and he can make a

[29:13] presentation at this time.

[29:16] >> Thank you, Robert.

[29:23] Hello, I'm Adam Harrington with Morton

[29:25] Buildings. Uh we are 120 year old

[29:28] company. Uh the local branch is based

[29:30] out of Murphy'sboro. We've been here 40

[29:32] years. We've built many buildings in the

[29:34] Springfield area. Um I'm I was brought

[29:38] up to speed on what has happened in the

[29:40] past. We do things differently. We're

[29:43] very very careful. Um, I know a lot of

[29:46] people are watching this, but all of our

[29:48] programs, all of our buildings, the way

[29:50] we like to do it is phase one, let's

[29:53] which is where we are right now. Uh, how

[29:56] much money are you thinking you have

[29:57] available? And then we say, okay, we

[30:00] think we can build this building for

[30:01] that. And then we start going through um

[30:04] to verify that. It's kind of a

[30:06] feasibility study. It's very

[30:08] inexpensive. We don't make any money on these. We just want to build. So,

[30:12] they uh put in $88,000.

[30:15] We had a soils engineer come up. This is

[30:19] the building we're hoping that that we

[30:21] can get. Uh you know, budget limitations

[30:24] may change things, but this is this is

[30:26] kind of where we're hoping for. Uh if

[30:28] you'll go down a couple um so what what

[30:32] we did, I think go back up one. Um so,

[30:36] what we did was we had our soils

[30:37] engineer come out because we need to be

[30:39] careful. We know what it we do. Once it

[30:40] gets above the ground, we know what

[30:42] things are going to cost mostly. Below

[30:44] the ground, we don't know. So, we we dug

[30:47] up some uh you know, back originally,

[30:50] they buried the parts of the building on

[30:54] site. I know it saved a lot of money.

[30:56] So, what we did is we we took some test

[30:59] holes around. We found the north side

[31:01] and the south side have about 5 ft of

[31:04] this material which is brick and block

[31:07] left over from the original building.

[31:09] But in the middle we found an area that

[31:11] we can put the building. It has about 2

[31:13] ft of this debris that we'll need to

[31:15] remove. Um we can build that building or

[31:20] something nearby at this point with as

[31:22] much exploratory uh information that we

[31:25] have right now in that area. will rem

[31:28] dig up the two feet in the middle of of

[31:32] the site and we think we can bury it on

[31:35] an uh we have planned ahead to for their growth. So we've got a

[31:41] preliminary civil um design saying we

[31:44] don't want to interfere with the future.

[31:46] So we think we have an appropriately

[31:49] sized detention pond. We can overdig the

[31:52] detention pond, bury about 750 to a,000

[31:57] cubic yards of debris at the bottom,

[32:00] then fill that back out. That also gives

[32:02] us the added benefit of harvesting the

[32:04] good soil. It's got great soil out there

[32:06] if you can just get the the debris out

[32:08] of the way. So, we'll have that to build

[32:10] back. So, we're hoping to cut down 2 ft,

[32:12] build back one foot. Um, so

[32:16] we think we're in the in the ballpark of of having a nice building, a useful

[32:21] building. It's a bit of a stretch right

[32:23] now. Um, and but for what we know right

[32:27] now, I think we're in range. The next

[32:30] phase is where we again are very

[32:32] careful. We we get a full report from

[32:35] the civil engineer. Our architects and

[32:37] engineers have certified stamp plans. Um

[32:42] then we get our mechanical engine

[32:43] electrical and plumbing uh engineers to

[32:46] give us a design and then we have we

[32:48] have a full scope of work and then we go

[32:51] out and get our bids and and then at the

[32:54] end we will know what the what it's

[32:56] going to cost. There might be a surprise

[32:58] or two but we limit our surprises and

[33:00] control our surprises but we'll know

[33:03] before we get down the road like what

[33:05] happened last time. We'll know where we

[33:07] are and then we can adjust the building

[33:09] back down. So, we we build 2500

[33:12] buildings a year. Um, you know, we're confident or I wouldn't be

[33:16] standing here that we can make this

[33:18] happen.

[33:22] » That's good. Thank you, sir.

[33:24] >> Any questions? Mr. Chair,

[33:26] >> I'll make a motion that uh Mr. Gordon

[33:30] just stated they're not ask for any

[33:31] additional funds just to use a portion

[33:33] of we already allocated for it to

[33:36] proceed. I make a motion that we let

[33:38] them do it.

[33:42] I'll second it.

[33:45] You have something you want.

[33:47] >> Just for purposes of clarification for

[33:48] those that weren't here at the time, the

[33:50] reason that we're we're doing this when

[33:52] they came last time in 2021, in May of

[33:55] 2021, as Mr. Gardner says it was, the

[33:57] motion that was made in the vote was for

[33:59] construction expenses because they

[34:01] already had a design. And so that's the

[34:03] reason this was not excluded in in that

[34:05] particular aspect. It just at that time

[34:07] there already was a design for a

[34:09] building that they were pursuing. When

[34:11] Miss Martine and I discussed that

[34:13] looking at the May 21

[34:16] vote that you all had, we thought it

[34:18] would be best if they came and got

[34:19] clarification. And so, mayor, you have a

[34:21] motion to second. I think that we can

[34:22] proceed.

[34:23] >> Any other questions or comments?

[34:27] >> Let's get started.

[34:30] >> If not, we are ready to vote. Let's cast

[34:32] our votes.

[34:34] Anyone

[34:36] care to change their vote?

[34:39] Would you tally the votes, please?

[34:42] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[34:44] >> Very good. Very good.

[34:47] >> All right. I think we're ready to go

[34:49] back

[34:58] » a minute. Yeah.

[35:09] I don't think we did any of these.

[35:10] >> Oh, you're right.

[35:15] » All right.

[35:16] >> Now, we'll move to our public hearing

[35:18] portion of our agenda.

[35:20] First item is ordinance 26-28, an

[35:22] ordinance reszoning a portion of one

[35:24] parcel located at Highway 41 North from

[35:28] restrictive industrial district to

[35:30] commercial services district. Anyone

[35:32] here to speak to that ordinance?

[35:36] Seeing none. Item number two, ordinance

[35:40] 26-29,

[35:42] an ordinance amending section A801 of

[35:46] the Springfield zoning ordinance

[35:47] pertaining to temporary use permits.

[35:51] Anyone here to speak to that?

[35:54] Seeing none, item three, ordinance

[35:57] 26-30, an ordinance amending the fiscal

[36:00] year of 2027

[36:02] annual budget for the city of

[36:03] Springfield by amending certain general

[36:06] fund and utility fund operating budgets.

[36:09] Anyone here to speak to that ordinance?

[36:12] Seeing none, item four, ordinance 26-31

[36:17] and ordinance amending title 5, chapter

[36:20] 6 of the Springfield Municipal Code

[36:22] relative to developer credits for system

[36:25] development charges. Anyone here to

[36:28] speak to that?

[36:30] Seeing none, at this time we will close

[36:32] our public hearing portion and move into

[36:35] our legislative item 2.1 discuss and

[36:38] possibly take action on ordinance 26-28

[36:42] on second and final reading an ordinance

[36:45] reszoning a portion of one parcel

[36:47] located on Highway 41 North from

[36:50] restrictive industrial district RI to

[36:52] commercial services district CS. We have

[36:56] a motion by Vice Mayor Harris, a second

[36:58] by Alman Hubard. Any questions or any

[37:02] comments?

[37:05] See none. Are we ready to vote? Let's

[37:08] cast our votes.

[37:11] Anyone care to change their vote?

[37:15] Would you tally the votes, please?

[37:17] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[37:20] >> Item 2.2, two, discuss and possibly take

[37:23] action on ordinance 26-29

[37:27] on second and final reading an ordinance

[37:29] amending section A- 801 of the

[37:33] Springfield zoning ordinance pertaining

[37:35] to temporary use permits. We have a

[37:38] motion by Alderman Hubard, a second by

[37:40] Alderman Troder. Any questions or

[37:43] comments?

[37:47] Hearing none, are we ready to vote?

[37:52] Let's cast their votes.

[37:56] Anyone care to change their vote?

[38:01] » Would you tally the votes, please?

[38:03] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[38:05] Item 2.3

[38:08] discuss and promptly take action on

[38:10] 26-30 on second and final reading. An

[38:14] ordinance amending the fiscal year 2027

[38:17] annual budget for the city of

[38:19] Springfield by amending certain general

[38:21] fund and utility fund operating budgets.

[38:26] First, we need to pass the amendment.

[38:29] Correct. You've got motion. Motion by

[38:31] Alderman Hover, second by Alderman

[38:33] Hollowman. First we that's for the

[38:37] amendment I believe. Correct.

[38:38] >> That's to put the the item on the floor

[38:40] for discuss.

[38:40] >> Okay. That gets us on the floor then. So

[38:42] we need to go ahead and vote.

[38:44] >> U no sir. It would need to be amended to

[38:47] include the amended exhibit A. So you

[38:49] would be looking next for a motion and a

[38:51] second to

[38:52] >> We have a motion by Alman Hover and

[38:53] Alderman second by Alman Bradley for the

[38:57] >> to amend. Yes.

[38:59] >> Okay.

[39:00] >> Are we ready to vote on the amendment?

[39:04] Let's cast our votes.

[39:07] Anyone care to change their voters?

[39:12] Let's count the votes.

[39:15] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[39:17] >> Okay. Now we come back. I need a motion

[39:20] by Alman Hover. Second by Alman

[39:22] Hollowman to pass the ordinance as

[39:25] amended. Correct. Okay. We have a motion

[39:28] by Alman Hollowman. Motion by Alman

[39:30] Hover. Al Second by Alman Hollowman. Any

[39:32] questions or comments on the amended

[39:36] ordinance?

[39:38] >> Hearing none, let's cast our vote.

[39:39] >> This is your as amended. Original as

[39:41] amended.

[39:41] >> As amended. Correct.

[39:45] >> We ready to cast our votes?

[39:46] >> Yep.

[39:47] >> Let's vote.

[39:51] » Anyone care to change their votes?

[39:56] >> Would you tally the votes, please?

[39:57] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[40:01] Moving to item 2.4. Discuss and possibly

[40:04] take action on ordinance 26-31

[40:07] on second and final reading and

[40:10] ordinance amending title 5, chapter 6 of

[40:12] the Springfield Municipal Code relative

[40:15] to developer credits for system

[40:18] development charges. We have a motion by

[40:20] Alman Hollowman,

[40:23] a second by Alderman Bradley. Thank you.

[40:27] Any questions or comments?

[40:36] He won.

[40:48] » Okay, no questions, no comments. Let's

[40:51] cast our votes.

[40:55] Anyone care to change their votes?

[40:59] Would you tally the votes, please?

[41:00] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[41:04] >> Item 2.5,

[41:06] discuss and possibly take action on

[41:08] ordinance 26-32

[41:11] on first reading, an ordinance amending

[41:14] title 12, chapter 1 of the Springfield

[41:17] Municipal Code. We have motion by Alman

[41:20] Hollowman and second by Alderman Huard.

[41:23] I believe city manager Ryan Martin has

[41:25] some information to share with us.

[41:27] >> Thank you, mayor. So this is an update.

[41:29] If you remember back within the last

[41:32] year or two, we adopted the 2021

[41:35] version of a variety of codes, including

[41:37] the International Building Code. The

[41:38] International Building Code and the ICC,

[41:40] the International Code Council that puts

[41:42] out these codes. It's all-encompassing.

[41:44] So usually there are some things that we

[41:47] don't adopt and various jurisdictions do

[41:49] not adopt uh in those codes. And one of

[41:53] those was missed and this is has to do

[41:55] with storm shelters. this will put us in

[41:57] line with the state of Tennessee uh that

[41:59] they omitted from their 2021 version and

[42:02] it does affect the facility that we are

[42:04] in the process of looking at. So that's

[42:06] why that's what brought this to our

[42:07] attention for us to uh bring it to you

[42:09] tonight.

[42:12] >> Any questions or comments?

[42:14] If not, let's cast our votes.

[42:21] Anyone

[42:27] care to change their vote?

[42:29] >> How do you want to vote, Mr.?

[42:31] >> Yes.

[42:37] » Would you change his votes, please?

[42:38] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[42:41] Moving into our administrative portion

[42:43] of our agenda, item 3.1,

[42:46] discuss and possession on the adjustment

[42:49] of retail electric rates due to the

[42:52] wholesale fuel cost adjustment by the

[42:54] Tennessee Valley Authority. Have a

[42:56] motion by Alman Hollowman, a second by

[42:58] Alman Hubard.

[43:01] Mr. Terry Risha, what do you have for

[43:04] us, sir?

[43:08] Any

[43:13] questions or comments?

[43:16] Let's cast our votes.

[43:22] Anyone care to change their vote?

[43:27] » Would you tally the votes, please?

[43:28] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[43:31] >> Item 3.2, discussing possibility action

[43:34] on the adjustment of the monthly gas

[43:36] rates. Motion by Alderman Hollowman,

[43:39] second by Alman Hubbert. Gas director,

[43:42] Mr. Vincy Davis, what you have for us

[43:45] increase.

[43:50] » Any questions or comments?

[43:53] If not, let's cast our vote.

[43:58] Anyone care to change their vote?

[44:02] Would you would you count the votes,

[44:04] please?

[44:05] >> Motion passes six to zero. Item 3.3

[44:08] discuss and possibly take action on STBG

[44:13] citywide paving paving contract with

[44:15] sections paving of Nashville, Tennessee.

[44:19] We have a motion by Albert, second by

[44:21] Vice Mayor Harris.

[44:23] City manager Ryan Martin, I believe you

[44:25] have something to add.

[44:26] >> Thank you, Mayor. This is a long- aaited

[44:28] citywide paving uh uh contract project

[44:31] that we've been waiting on for quite

[44:32] some time. took a while to get through

[44:34] the approval process because the STBG is

[44:37] surface transportation block grant. So,

[44:39] it is primarily funded by grants. You

[44:42] can see that breakdown. There's a small

[44:44] local match there in your packet of what

[44:46] that funding looks like. We're excited

[44:48] for this project to get underway. We

[44:50] hope that you all will approve this

[44:51] contract tonight. Just to give you a

[44:52] heads up for not only your awareness,

[44:55] but also the public's awareness. Some of

[44:56] the streets that are involved in this

[44:58] resurfacing and paving project include

[45:00] 22nd Avenue. 22nd Avenue is one of the

[45:03] uh it's it's pretty rough from South

[45:04] Main to uh to Tom Austin, John El

[45:07] Patterson, there's a section of 10th

[45:09] Avenue, Roy Pit Road, a portion of

[45:11] Industrial 17th, and a portion of Bill

[45:14] Jones. Those are just some of the

[45:15] streets that are included that need uh

[45:17] need some some attention and that are

[45:19] those are part of this project.

[45:22] >> Thank you, Ryan. Any questions or

[45:24] comments?

[45:26] >> Richard Street especially

[45:28] John El Patterson. McDonald Palace. I

[45:32] keep thinking

[45:33] >> Yeah.

[45:34] >> Let's cast our votes.

[45:37] Anyone care to change their vote?

[45:42] » Would you tally the votes, please?

[45:44] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[45:47] >> Moving to item 3.5, discuss and proply

[45:49] take action on a donation to the fire

[45:52] department from grills for guardians. We

[45:55] have a motion by Alman Hubard, second by

[45:58] Alderman Bradley.

[46:02] Any questions or comments?

[46:07] Let's cast our votes.

[46:11] » Anyone care to change their vote?

[46:15] Would you tally the votes, please?

[46:17] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[46:19] >> Item 3.6, Six, discuss and possibly take

[46:23] action on title 5, chapter 6 of

[46:26] Springfield Municipal Code relative to

[46:28] commercial system development charges.

[46:31] We have a motion by Alderman Hubard, a

[46:33] second by Alderman Hollowman.

[46:36] Any questions or comments?

[46:40] >> Mayor, if I may. Um, I was one of the

[46:42] ones who asked for this, so thank you so

[46:44] much to the city for kind of pulling all

[46:46] this information together. Um, I know

[46:49] just kind of looking at the impact fees

[46:52] as we are presently, we are a little on

[46:56] the higher end compared to I would say

[46:58] comparable cities um for commercial

[47:01] nonutility impact fees. So I I would

[47:05] love to see the city move to maybe um

[47:08] the 25% of allowable. Um, I know that

[47:11] will not completely offset some of that

[47:14] burden that's on the um, uh, developers,

[47:19] but I'm hoping that that will be enough

[47:20] to help maximize growth opportunities

[47:24] that could benefit the citizens of

[47:26] Springfield.

[47:30] » Any other questions or comments?

[47:33] >> What is the alderman considering being

[47:35] comparable

[47:37] >> cities? What are you considering

[47:38] comparable cities to us? Well, I'm

[47:40] looking here. I mean, I don't even know

[47:42] if you comparable might be an iffy thing

[47:44] to say, but you know, we have uh Dixon

[47:46] with no impact fees. Um Goodletville has

[47:49] no impact fees. Hendersonville, um which

[47:52] again, not quite comparable, but um they

[47:54] only adopted residential impact fees.

[47:56] There was no adoption of commercial

[47:58] impact fees there. Um you know, the

[48:01] other ones kind of around that do have

[48:03] the impact fees, obviously Franklin and

[48:04] Brentwood, a bit of a different scenario

[48:06] there. Um, White House has pretty high

[48:09] impact fees, but they're right there on

[48:11] the uh interstate. I don't know. I

[48:13] wouldn't necessarily compare them to to

[48:15] our city. So, um,

[48:19] Portland's lower, but they do have

[48:20] impact fees for commercial.

[48:23] And same with Leven. Leven is

[48:25] significantly lower, but they do have

[48:26] some.

[48:37] So, you're requesting we lower these?

[48:40] >> Yes. I guess I I guess, you know, if no

[48:42] one else has any comments, I would make

[48:44] a motion to lower the um impact fees for

[48:47] commercial to 25%. I think in speaking

[48:49] with the city attorney, you know, we're

[48:51] we have to do these things in a certain

[48:53] way and we can't cherrypick. So,

[48:55] commercial as a whole um reduced it to

[48:57] 25% of the allowable impact fees under

[49:01] the study.

[49:04] Any

[49:06] questions or comments?

[49:11] » Yeah,

[49:12] >> I could live with the 25.

[49:22] » Oh, yes, ma'am.

[49:24] >> Sorry,

[49:25] >> it won't let me.

[49:28] >> It's

[49:28] >> someone pushed it.

[49:29] >> Yeah, someone pushed it. Which

[49:31] >> Can you kick it out, Melissa?

[49:33] >> Yeah.

[49:38] It's a new motion here.

[49:42] Second.

[49:42] >> Okay, we have a motion.

[49:43] >> Okay, it let you make the motion.

[49:45] >> Yes, she made the motion. Now, we need a

[49:47] second by Alderman Bradley.

[49:50] >> No.

[49:51] >> Oh, yes, she did. We seconded that.

[49:52] Okay.

[49:53] >> Any other questions or comments?

[49:56] >> What was the primary reason for asking

[49:58] that they be lowered? Is it because they

[50:01] felt

[50:02] >> just hearing from developers in the

[50:03] commercial area just kind of looking at

[50:06] you know the cost of the impact fees

[50:08] when they're starting to build up

[50:09] particularly larger um uh larger

[50:12] businesses um the way that they're

[50:15] structured it's based on square foot.

[50:16] So, for example, a big box store um

[50:19] might not really uh I'll use example of

[50:22] transportation. Right now, you know, the

[50:24] transportation cost is is pretty high,

[50:26] but a big box store really is not

[50:28] necessarily going to have that much of

[50:29] an impact on transportation, but because

[50:31] it's based on the the size of the square

[50:33] footage, it becomes a really high dollar

[50:35] amount when you're trying to get in

[50:37] certain um commercial providers like I'm afraid to say TJ Maxx or like

[50:43] Publix, but those are things that we

[50:45] know people would love to have in

[50:46] Springfield, but it's kind of cost

[50:48] prohibitive to develop the space for

[50:50] them to come in and do it because the

[50:52] impact fees are so high on the front end

[50:54] for the developers. So, I think trying

[50:56] to find a bit of a sweet spot where we

[50:57] are incentivizing developers um to to

[51:00] get these folks in the door while also

[51:02] still trying to recoup some of the money

[51:03] for uh the development of these spaces.

[51:06] >> Mr. Mayor,

[51:07] >> yes, sir.

[51:08] >> Is it for Mr. Mr. Moore? Would you like

[51:10] to join in this conversation, please,

[51:12] sir?

[51:14] give us

[51:16] insight from your position.

[51:23] » Thank you. Uh Jim Moore with GS Morn.

[51:25] I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[51:29] Yes, sir.

[51:31] Um if you just want my insight, um I

[51:34] think uh

[51:35] >> portion of

[51:38] >> Okay.

[51:38] >> How would it help out?

[51:39] >> Yeah. Yeah, sure. Um I think Miss H Miss

[51:42] Hollowman did a great job kind of

[51:43] breaking down the impact fee. Um some of

[51:46] the other municipalities that that do

[51:48] have impact fees. A lot of them would be

[51:50] based on the use. Um so like a rest a

[51:53] 2500T restaurant would have a higher per

[51:55] square foot impact fee than per se like

[51:58] a Publix who might be a 75,000t or

[52:02] 100,000t building. And on a 2500 ft²

[52:06] building um you can recoup that uh

[52:09] through rent um that that may rent just

[52:12] round numbers say $30 per square foot

[52:15] and then you go rent to a Publix and

[52:17] they may pay $10 a square foot and it

[52:20] just doesn't translate with the I guess

[52:22] the economy of scale would be the best

[52:24] way to put it. Um it's like buying a

[52:26] house. The smaller the house, the higher

[52:27] the per square foot price and it's the

[52:30] same same here. And uh just as you get

[52:32] into larger boxes, the rent number goes

[52:35] down and you're paying the same uh

[52:37] system development charge. Um and then I

[52:41] think it differentiates itself from

[52:43] residential in that these are these are

[52:45] creating jobs. They're creating sales

[52:47] tax. Um and so uh just com like uh Miss

[52:52] Hollerman said compared to our peer

[52:54] cities uh when you look at the pop our

[52:56] peer cities by population our peer

[52:58] cities by income um you know most of

[53:02] them a lot of them are zero some of them

[53:04] may be a dollar or $2. And uh I

[53:06] certainly recognize the need. You know,

[53:08] obviously the city's absorbing a new

[53:11] sewer facility. We got a fire station.

[53:13] Um you know, we I just me personally,

[53:17] how it hits me, I love putting the money

[53:19] back into the buildings. And I hope you

[53:20] all recognize that and see what we've

[53:23] been building and the quality of work

[53:25] and you know, sustainable long-term

[53:27] materials and um we hope that's

[53:30] appreciated and we want to continue

[53:31] putting the money back into the

[53:32] buildings. So, thank you for the

[53:34] consider. Oh, yep.

[53:35] >> While you're there, I keep getting

[53:37] earfuls of

[53:41] are you considering

[53:43] bringing another major sitdown

[53:46] restaurant? I'm going to throw out.

[53:49] >> I might have known that question was

[53:50] coming.

[53:51] >> I will tell you there there is one there

[53:53] is a sitown restaurant touring on the

[53:55] 19th looking for a location. They need

[53:58] about an acre acre and a half. Uh they

[54:01] will do a ground lease. uh Bill Bassoot

[54:04] national sitdown chain. So if anybody

[54:07] has any ideas um I think somewhere

[54:10] around the corner it's uh they'll be

[54:12] hugely success. I'm open for business

[54:14] and every year I recruit them. Uh it

[54:16] just it just everything seems to still

[54:19] be kind of the to- go nature

[54:20] unfortunately.

[54:21] >> Well I I see two lucky spots. The one

[54:25] decides that the open field decides that

[54:29] it million dollar mansion. Uh I'm pretty

[54:32] sure you already tore the water of the

[54:35] uh the car wash. Probably going to tear

[54:39] wits down.

[54:40] >> Witz is coming down as well. Not Yeah,

[54:42] that' be enough coming down right there.

[54:44] >> We could absolutely do a sit down

[54:46] restaurant. Um

[54:49] I don't know to what level the board

[54:51] would get involved. There have been

[54:53] municipalities to pay a restaurant

[54:55] operator to open a business. If they say

[54:58] open for I don't, you know, I'm not

[54:59] getting into that subject. Doesn't have

[55:01] anything to do with me. I'm just saying

[55:02] it's been done. Um maybe the board could

[55:06] look, you know, cuz they're going to put

[55:08] up some they may do $2 million a year in sales. Look at that tax revenue.

[55:13] How can we give that back to the chain

[55:16] to open? And then when you're doing

[55:17] that,

[55:19] pick the chain you want. I guess that's

[55:21] something you all should look into.

[55:24] >> But enough about fast food.

[55:26] >> I'm with you. Yeah.

[55:28] >> In what you stated though, are you

[55:31] saying that your major concern is in the

[55:33] larger square footage buildings? Cuz if

[55:34] we lower this down to 25% as she's u

[55:38] made the motion, then that's going to be

[55:40] across the board

[55:41] >> whether it's 2500 square foot, whether

[55:43] it's 10,000, whether it's 25, whether

[55:45] it's 50 or above.

[55:46] >> Sure.

[55:46] >> But is your concern mainly with the

[55:48] larger square footage?

[55:50] you know,

[55:50] >> or the overall

[55:51] >> how deep you want to like. So, let's say

[55:53] somebody wants to build a commercial

[55:55] building on a a road. Somebody mentioned

[55:58] paving 17th Avenue. So, we're going to

[55:59] go build a commercial building on 17th

[56:01] Avenue and they're going to pay the same

[56:04] rate as a Tom Austin or Memorial fronted

[56:08] business. So, how you divide it up, I

[56:11] mean, I'm happy to answer any questions,

[56:12] but

[56:15] >> Mr. Harris, if I can, I believe in

[56:17] speaking with the city attorney, and she

[56:18] can please correct me if I'm wrong, but

[56:21] I think that legally we can't kind of

[56:25] narrow it down by like, okay, if you're

[56:26] over the square footage, here's your

[56:28] percent rate. I think it has to be

[56:30] across the board with like commercial as

[56:32] a whole. Now, if I am wrong, that would

[56:34] be wonderful to consider.

[56:37] >> That is that is my understanding.

[56:40] However,

[56:41] it's been a little bit since I since I

[56:43] have lunch. So I am perfectly fine to go

[56:48] back and look at and look at that more

[56:50] specifically. Generally we refer to C we

[56:53] refer to categories which would be

[56:56] commercial, residential, industrial but

[56:59] it is possible that that could be

[57:02] offered in another way.

[57:03] >> If if I can help mayor to shed light on

[57:06] that I think from the

[57:08] >> within the confines of our study because

[57:11] that's the way our study was performed.

[57:12] So the study is performed and arrives at

[57:15] figures based on projected growth,

[57:17] right? And it was done per 10,000 square

[57:20] foot across the board. So it's not I

[57:22] don't think it's necessarily it's not illegal. Other cities, White

[57:26] House for instance, they their study was

[57:28] done by use, right? And so they did

[57:30] theirs by use. It's a little bit

[57:32] different take on it, a little bit

[57:33] different angle. Our study was done per

[57:35] 10,000 square foot for any commercial

[57:37] use. So within the confines of our

[57:39] study, I don't think we could divide up

[57:42] uses. I think we would if that was if

[57:44] that were the case, the board would need

[57:45] to commission another study to be done

[57:48] to make sure that the numbers that you

[57:50] chose could not be

[57:53] you could not be accused of being

[57:54] arbitrary.

[57:57] >> Yeah, perhaps that's something the board

[57:58] may want to, you know, if you

[58:01] consider this motion today and then look

[58:03] down the road, maybe we want to look at

[58:05] dividing up by use. Um I know other

[58:08] white house like uh Mr. Martin said

[58:09] white house does that and they hammer

[58:11] the restaurants but the restaurants the

[58:14] small single tenant restaurants are they

[58:16] are the highest users of the public

[58:18] infrastructure and the systems. Um and

[58:21] our initial conversations with some of

[58:23] you and with uh Mr. Martin and and the

[58:26] mayor. I mean that's that's kind of

[58:27] where I was going with it was to still

[58:29] capture that high impact user but it

[58:32] seemed like this study provided some

[58:33] difficulty. So certainly something to

[58:35] consider down the road.

[58:40] » Ryan, if I could, I don't know what it

[58:42] would cost to do a new study. It seems

[58:45] intimidating, lengthy, and costly.

[58:47] >> Insight on that.

[58:49] >> 60 to $70,000. Probably

[58:53] >> 9 to 10 months, maybe.

[58:57] >> Well,

[58:59] probably not. 9 to 10 months usually is I think that's how long the study is

[59:03] that how long the study took last time

[59:04] or was it longer than that the process

[59:07] by the time you put out the solicitation

[59:08] for a firm

[59:10] >> and go that's a 30-day and then you go

[59:12] through that it could be it'll be a year

[59:14] it would be

[59:15] >> and then do we typically do new studies

[59:17] periodically anyway

[59:18] >> so our study that we did requires it to

[59:20] be reviews reviewed every 3 years and

[59:24] kind of matched up with the and this is

[59:26] the information you don't want to know

[59:27] >> but I'll tell you um our I call him our

[59:31] system internally. I refer to him as our

[59:32] system development fees are but Mr.

[59:35] Brewer the city engineer oversees that

[59:38] process and that study required it to be

[59:40] reviewed internally every 3 years. His

[59:43] review uh that he performed after the

[59:45] first three-year period said we've got

[59:48] more growth coming than the than the uh

[59:50] study projected so we should be charging

[59:52] more.

[59:53] >> So which currently we are half of what

[59:55] we could be charging.

[59:56] >> Correct. And we're already half. So if

[59:59] we were to perform that same study

[1:00:01] today, it would be higher uh because

[1:00:04] that study was conducted prior to Vesper

[1:00:06] Village being in in the equation. So

[1:00:09] that's um I'm sorry.

[1:00:11] >> And Blackwood

[1:00:12] >> and and Blackwood Farms. Yeah. So that's

[1:00:14] So that that would be it would it would

[1:00:16] not be good news, right?

[1:00:20] >> Any other questions, comments?

[1:00:23] >> I was just going to mention uh I think

[1:00:25] it's such a balancing act because you're

[1:00:26] right. these uh institutions, commercial

[1:00:29] institutions that are bringing in uh

[1:00:31] lots of tax revenue, which we want.

[1:00:33] That's a huge part of our, you know,

[1:00:35] budget. So, it's a tough tough balancing

[1:00:39] act.

[1:00:42] » So, we are voting on

[1:00:45] >> Got a motion. Yeah. Okay.

[1:00:49] >> We're voting on

[1:00:50] >> the 25

[1:00:51] >> with the amendment that you added,

[1:00:54] correct?

[1:00:55] taking the impact fee from 50% to 25

[1:01:00] >> for commercial only.

[1:01:01] >> Yeah, commercial only. Everyone clear on

[1:01:04] that?

[1:01:05] >> Are we ready to vote? Let's cast our

[1:01:08] votes.

[1:01:11] Anyone care to change their vote?

[1:01:16] Would you tally the votes, please?

[1:01:19] >> Motion passes 5 to one.

[1:01:22] Item 3.7, discuss and possibly take

[1:01:25] action on an application for a

[1:01:27] certificate.

[1:01:28] >> On the motion,

[1:01:30] >> the original motion was to put it on the

[1:01:32] floor. You're good. We're good to move

[1:01:33] on.

[1:01:34] >> All right. So, you're ready to move on

[1:01:36] 3.7.

[1:01:36] >> So, now we've got a vote on the motion.

[1:01:38] >> You're ready to move on 3.7.

[1:01:40] >> You're good.

[1:01:42] >> We haven't done 3.7 yet.

[1:01:44] >> Yeah, that's what you're ready for now.

[1:01:46] >> Okay. That's what I was at. Item 3.7,

[1:01:49] discuss and possibly take action on an

[1:01:51] application for a certificate of

[1:01:53] compliance for retail food store wine

[1:01:55] for sudden service number 36 located at

[1:01:59] 501 Memorial Boulevard. We have a motion

[1:02:03] by Alman Bradley, a second by Alman

[1:02:05] Hubard. Any questions or comments?

[1:02:10] » Mayor, if I if I may, this has nothing

[1:02:13] to do with 3.7. I need to clarify 3.6.

[1:02:17] six. So everyone knows what what has happened and what will need to

[1:02:21] happen. What you all have done is voted

[1:02:23] administratively and signaled your

[1:02:25] intent to amend the municipal code

[1:02:28] relative to commercial impact commercial

[1:02:30] system development fees. What will need

[1:02:32] to happen is beginning in September. You

[1:02:34] all will have an ordinance that reflects

[1:02:36] that. It will need to be passed in

[1:02:37] September and in October to become

[1:02:39] effective.

[1:02:40] >> Thank you. So

[1:02:42] >> nothing to do with the certificate of

[1:02:44] compliance.

[1:02:45] >> Thank you. Thank you,

[1:02:47] >> Mr. Martin.

[1:02:49] >> So, we're back on item 3.7.

[1:02:54] >> Any questions or comments?

[1:02:55] >> Which location is this?

[1:02:56] >> Where's it located at?

[1:02:57] >> The one down.

[1:02:59] >> Memorial.

[1:03:00] >> Yeah.

[1:03:00] >> Memorial.

[1:03:01] >> Crossies.

[1:03:02] >> It's 50.

[1:03:06] >> It says on 501 Memorial.

[1:03:08] >> Right across from the building.

[1:03:11] >> Right across the building.

[1:03:12] >> Yeah, it's the one. It's the one at

[1:03:13] Fifth Avenue. 50. Yeah.

[1:03:17] Everyone clear on that?

[1:03:19] >> One down there. We ready to vote?

[1:03:23] >> Let's cast our votes.

[1:03:26] >> Anyone care to change their votes?

[1:03:29] >> Would you tally the votes, please?

[1:03:31] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[1:03:33] >> Item 3.8, discuss and possibly take

[1:03:36] action on a water leak insurance

[1:03:38] protection program for customers of the

[1:03:41] water system. We have a motion by

[1:03:43] alderman Hollowman, second by alderman

[1:03:45] Bradley. City manager Ryan Martin has

[1:03:48] something to add for this.

[1:03:50] >> Thank you, Mayor. So, this is something

[1:03:51] that we've never done before. A lot of

[1:03:53] water utilities in the state do this and I'm highly recommending that we

[1:03:58] pursue this this we actually began this

[1:04:00] research about seven or eight years ago

[1:04:02] prior uh to me becoming city manager.

[1:04:04] The previous city manager was um Miss

[1:04:06] Holt was was looking at this as well. It

[1:04:09] is a leak protection program that

[1:04:12] results in the customers paying a small

[1:04:14] dollar amount premium per month that

[1:04:17] protects them. And so you build your

[1:04:19] plan with the company. It's called Serve

[1:04:21] Line. Uh it's usually about $200 to $3 a

[1:04:24] month. And that will provide generally

[1:04:25] about $2,500 in protection up to two

[1:04:28] leagues in a calendar year period. I

[1:04:31] believe or roll it's either calendar

[1:04:32] year or rolling 12-month period. Why

[1:04:34] does why is that necessary? We're

[1:04:36] actually, it is difficult uh when we see

[1:04:40] these leaks happen to our customers.

[1:04:43] Miss Hollowman has one in her ward right

[1:04:45] now that we're uh dealing with with a

[1:04:47] lady there, the limited income, a

[1:04:51] husband with an illness and had not one

[1:04:54] but two leaks that resulted in about a

[1:04:55] $2,500 water bill over the course of two

[1:04:58] months. What are we currently authorized

[1:05:00] to do? We're currently off and I'm just

[1:05:02] going to use that that because this is

[1:05:04] kind of what sent this I said we need to

[1:05:06] bring the leak protection program back

[1:05:07] up again.

[1:05:09] What are we authorized to do? The

[1:05:10] current conditions of service that you

[1:05:12] all put in place allow us to issue a 25%

[1:05:15] leak adjustment. Okay. And then put them

[1:05:17] on a maximum of a six-month payment

[1:05:19] plan.

[1:05:20] The 25% leak adjustment. What does that

[1:05:22] do? That's great. Uh except that's 25%

[1:05:26] of $2,500, right? So she's still up

[1:05:29] against a lot of money. What happens to

[1:05:31] the 25%. Again, it's kind of like when

[1:05:33] we talk about um sidewalks, that's not

[1:05:36] the city doesn't absorb that. That's

[1:05:39] shared by the other customers. We've all

[1:05:40] heard the what what about people that go

[1:05:42] to the emergency room and don't pay?

[1:05:43] Well, that cost gets passed along to

[1:05:45] everybody. What's the same thing with a

[1:05:46] water leak? That water was produced and

[1:05:48] transported and that water has to be

[1:05:49] accounted for and that's shared by the

[1:05:51] rest of the customers. And so, the

[1:05:53] utility never receives that revenue.

[1:05:54] It's it's built into the rate structure

[1:05:56] for the rest of the customers. What

[1:05:58] would the leak protection program do?

[1:06:00] The leak protection program and maybe it

[1:06:02] would be cheaper. We don't know uh

[1:06:04] exactly. We've got the company working

[1:06:05] on it. But before they went too far, I

[1:06:07] wanted to make sure that you all were

[1:06:09] interested in seeing something before we

[1:06:11] did a whole lot of research and got a

[1:06:14] lot of things together. If so, we'll

[1:06:15] bring it back in September and hopefully

[1:06:17] have an agreement, a proposed agreement

[1:06:18] for you all to approve. But we're

[1:06:21] looking at about $2 to $3 a month to

[1:06:23] provide about $2,500 in protection. At

[1:06:25] $2 a month, it would take a thousand

[1:06:27] months for that $2 to amount to $2,500,

[1:06:31] right? It would take a long time. So,

[1:06:33] it's definitely a wise investment for

[1:06:35] the customer to protect against the

[1:06:36] leaks. I saw it with my own grandmother

[1:06:39] four or five years ago when she had a

[1:06:40] $1,500 water bill and on limited income

[1:06:43] that hurts badly, right? And so, what's

[1:06:47] the benefit to the other customers who

[1:06:49] aren't the victims of a leak? Well, they

[1:06:51] no longer have to subsidize that 25%

[1:06:53] leak adjustment, right? Because now the

[1:06:56] insurance program is going to pay 100%

[1:06:57] of the bill. So, it's a win for

[1:06:59] everyone. It's a win for the customer

[1:07:01] that's the victim of the leak. It's a

[1:07:02] win for the other customers who've been

[1:07:03] subsidizing the 25% leak adjustment.

[1:07:06] It's a win internally operationally

[1:07:08] because we're no longer administering

[1:07:10] payment plans and leak adjustments

[1:07:12] because that's all going to be taken

[1:07:14] care of uh by the Serveline program.

[1:07:16] This program was adopted and formulated

[1:07:19] for Tennessee. The Tennessee Association

[1:07:20] of Utility Districts actually, from my

[1:07:22] understanding, put this together and a

[1:07:24] lot of utility districts in the in the

[1:07:26] state have adopted this program. I

[1:07:29] believe um there was one Mr. Price that

[1:07:31] you mentioned, who did you mention?

[1:07:33] >> Portland looked at this and the one

[1:07:35] local to us was Castellian Springs.

[1:07:37] >> Castion Springs. Ashlin City also, I

[1:07:39] believe, has adopted it. There are

[1:07:41] several in Middle Tennessee that have

[1:07:42] adopted it. And so I would highly

[1:07:44] recommend uh us to pursue that as well.

[1:07:47] It's no cost to the utility whatsoever.

[1:07:50] No cost to the and when I I I've used

[1:07:52] that terminology on purpose because I

[1:07:54] could say no cost to the city, but

[1:07:55] really it's the utility uh and it's the

[1:07:57] customers because that's who that's

[1:07:59] who's bearing the cost right now. So

[1:08:01] I'll be glad to answer any questions you

[1:08:02] have about it. So

[1:08:03] >> that monthly fee to the customer, is

[1:08:05] that mandatory or elective or

[1:08:07] >> they can opt out? Okay. But it is that

[1:08:10] we were told that the program is an auto

[1:08:12] optin. So all customers we would put out

[1:08:14] there would be a notice period where you

[1:08:15] would have 60 90 days to opt out if you

[1:08:18] want to. They said they usually do see

[1:08:20] about a 1% opt out because some people

[1:08:22] are just I don't want to pay $2. I want

[1:08:24] to take my chances. Um and that's okay

[1:08:26] but 99% of the customers I believe

[1:08:28] usually stay in and so everyone would

[1:08:31] have the opportunity to opt out at any

[1:08:33] time. Uh, and I think within the first

[1:08:36] 30 days, you could even opt out and get

[1:08:37] refunded if you missed the first window,

[1:08:40] I think, is the way they they explained

[1:08:41] it to us. So, but opt out at any time.

[1:08:43] It's purely voluntary, but it is an auto

[1:08:46] opt in on the front end.

[1:08:47] >> So, you're just trying$1 or $2 a month

[1:08:49] on a deal.

[1:08:49] >> That's right.

[1:08:50] >> To protect against a $2,500 leak.

[1:08:52] >> I think it's a great deal. Yeah,

[1:08:54] >> it's it's a we have I mean we talk to

[1:08:57] these customers and how they stress

[1:09:00] about having a $1,200 $1,300 water bill

[1:09:03] when when when the when the pipe breaks,

[1:09:06] >> right?

[1:09:06] >> Yeah.

[1:09:08] >> Any other questions or comments?

[1:09:12] >> Not I don't think we need a vote this

[1:09:14] month. I think we just I wanted to make

[1:09:15] sure you all were were okay with us

[1:09:17] pursuing this and bringing you back in

[1:09:19] agreement. I'm hearing that. I'm not

[1:09:20] hearing any objection to it. So, we'll

[1:09:22] bring you back something later. Thank

[1:09:24] you.

[1:09:24] >> Thank you, Ryan. Item 3.10 discusses

[1:09:28] property take action on title 16,

[1:09:30] chapter 3 of the Springfield Municipal

[1:09:32] Code relative to the city's sidewalk

[1:09:35] maintenance regulations. We have a

[1:09:37] motion by Alderman Hollowman, a second

[1:09:39] by Alderman Hover.

[1:09:42] Questions, comments?

[1:09:48] Me?

[1:09:51] Well,

[1:09:53] I would like to thank the city attorney

[1:09:56] for the research and kind of looking at

[1:09:58] our codes. And you know, this I think is

[1:10:01] just it's hard because I think that um

[1:10:05] it's very hard for all the people that

[1:10:07] I've talked to, citizens, to understand

[1:10:09] that that sidewalk they didn't choose is

[1:10:11] their responsibility, but then we all

[1:10:12] benefit from it. So, it's tough, but I

[1:10:15] think that just kind of talking through

[1:10:17] what we talked through last time, the

[1:10:18] cost is too astronomical for the city to

[1:10:21] absorb. I and and of course, we we have

[1:10:24] the issue if there are places in the

[1:10:25] city that don't have the benefit of

[1:10:27] sidewalks. So, I think that that my

[1:10:30] thoughts at this point are to how do we ensure preserve the sidewalks

[1:10:35] that we do have? Perhaps we need to do a

[1:10:37] little bit better on enforcement of

[1:10:39] those that are really bad off. Um, and

[1:10:42] then just educating continually people

[1:10:44] because they just don't they don't under

[1:10:46] they don't understand they don't know.

[1:10:48] Um, and I I'm I wanted to talk to the

[1:10:52] board about whether and I don't know how

[1:10:53] you fund this, but having some sort of

[1:10:55] um potential sidewalk maintenance fund

[1:10:58] for those who are truly indigent and

[1:11:00] need assistance and cannot do it

[1:11:02] themselves. I think in speaking with the

[1:11:04] city attorney there was mentioned that some other places have done that

[1:11:07] and had like you know based on income

[1:11:09] would someone apply? Um I'm not aware of

[1:11:13] that being a particularly pressing issue

[1:11:15] right now. I think it's more of just we

[1:11:17] need to maybe start I don't want to say

[1:11:19] policing it because that sounds kind of

[1:11:21] more intimidating but making sure that

[1:11:23] people do I do also want to um request

[1:11:27] that we modify our current ordinance

[1:11:30] because it currently says that the uh

[1:11:33] homeowner would have to correct

[1:11:35] sidewalks within 5 days and I don't

[1:11:38] think that anyone would have really the

[1:11:40] ability to do that unless they

[1:11:41] themselves could fix it. So, I think

[1:11:43] that there's other cities that allow,

[1:11:46] you know, 30 to 60 days, which I think I personally think 60 days is more

[1:11:50] reasonable because finding someone to do

[1:11:51] it and getting them to look at it and

[1:11:53] follow through the process. I think we

[1:11:54] just need to give people more time to

[1:11:57] fix the sidewalks after they're

[1:11:58] notified. That's just my two cents.

[1:12:01] >> Thank you,

[1:12:04] Mayor. May I address that? I'd like to

[1:12:06] address things that Alderman Holland

[1:12:08] brought up. It's great points. I will

[1:12:10] share with the board uh with regard to

[1:12:13] enforcement. You all funded I requested

[1:12:15] and you all were gracious enough to fund

[1:12:16] a position in this year's budget a

[1:12:19] dedicated property maintenance inspector

[1:12:21] that we have never had. Property

[1:12:23] maintenance has formerly been kind of

[1:12:26] put under the umbrella of our building

[1:12:27] and codes inspectors. And that is tough

[1:12:29] in a high growth environment because

[1:12:31] when they're when we have a thousand

[1:12:33] units under construction right now or

[1:12:34] dirt's been turned on a thousand units,

[1:12:36] there's a lot going on for those codes

[1:12:38] inspectors. So we had an opportunity

[1:12:40] based on some personnel transition to do

[1:12:43] that this year in the budget and you all

[1:12:45] have funded that and we are excited

[1:12:47] about that person that that position has

[1:12:49] been filled as of last Monday

[1:12:52] and I have told him that he's my new

[1:12:54] best friend. Um because we because that

[1:12:58] is going we're going to tackle property

[1:13:00] maintenance. So sidewalk enforcement is

[1:13:02] something that would be able to fall uh

[1:13:04] within and underneath the property

[1:13:06] maintenance inspector. I'm really

[1:13:07] excited about the fact that we finally

[1:13:09] have someone dedicated uh to ensure that

[1:13:11] the city's cleanup. And it's not that

[1:13:12] our codes inspectors were lazy. It's

[1:13:14] that they didn't have time to do

[1:13:15] property maintenance because when you

[1:13:17] have so many inspections to do, uh

[1:13:19] property maintenance falls by the

[1:13:20] wayside. And unless a complaint comes

[1:13:22] in, we were the you would you could see

[1:13:24] the selfinitiated aspects of property

[1:13:27] maintenance drop off and then they could

[1:13:28] pick back up when inspections weren't

[1:13:30] high. And so it was always an eb and

[1:13:32] flow. Having that dedicated person to do

[1:13:34] that is going to be extremely

[1:13:36] beneficial. And I think we've got

[1:13:37] someone who's really good to do that and be able to do it in a positive way

[1:13:41] rather than just what I say beating

[1:13:43] people over the head and shoulders. Um,

[1:13:46] with regard to u 5 days

[1:13:50] that is what the ordinance says in

[1:13:52] practicality and from a due process

[1:13:54] standpoint, it doesn't play out that way

[1:13:56] because they would get served notice

[1:13:57] first. We can't cite them until we

[1:14:00] provide notice. So, in theory, they

[1:14:05] would have a lot longer than 5 days, but

[1:14:07] I understand we can clean up the

[1:14:08] language. I have no issue doing that.

[1:14:10] And with regard to the sidewalk fund

[1:14:12] that you mentioned, um, what we have

[1:14:15] heard other folks do, and I'm not just

[1:14:17] through the grapevine, we have heard of

[1:14:20] criteria, you know, the the city

[1:14:24] government will provide up to

[1:14:28] a, you know, 25% of the sidewalk repair,

[1:14:31] up to a $500 maximum

[1:14:34] if you meet certain income eligibility

[1:14:35] limits, which may be 100, say 125% of

[1:14:38] the federal poverty level or something

[1:14:39] like that. And if that's something you

[1:14:40] all would like to see brought back in

[1:14:42] the form of a proposal or see that in

[1:14:44] writing, we could certainly bring that

[1:14:46] back next month.

[1:14:48] >> For what it's worth, I would like that

[1:14:49] just just to kind of again I think that

[1:14:51] Alderman Gra made a good point which is

[1:14:53] that I think there are a lot of people

[1:14:56] >> that can do it and and just don't know

[1:14:58] and that comes in with the education and

[1:15:00] making people aware of what they need to

[1:15:01] do. But for those who can't and the in

[1:15:03] the interest of preserving what we

[1:15:05] already have given the high cost of

[1:15:08] putting it all back um I would love to

[1:15:10] see that as just for those who may not

[1:15:13] have the financial ability to completely

[1:15:15] fix it.

[1:15:20] » This did not make me happy by the way.

[1:15:23] >> I did not find joy in that memo.

[1:15:27] >> Mayor, if I could clarify, he started

[1:15:30] last Monday. So, I need some time. He

[1:15:32] needs to get trained. So, I don't want I

[1:15:34] don't want to set the expectations too

[1:15:36] high that we'll be, you know, doing full

[1:15:38] sidewalk enforcement tomorrow.

[1:15:40] >> I mean, we can't in the building now.

[1:15:41] You're not in there.

[1:15:42] >> You can't go all Marty Fo,

[1:15:44] >> right out there. I mean, he's got to

[1:15:46] have some time to get acclimated.

[1:15:47] >> That's right. Understand city

[1:15:49] regulations, understand property

[1:15:50] maintenance code, and be trained in

[1:15:52] processes and and so it'll take some

[1:15:54] it'll it'll take a little bit, but we

[1:15:56] finally have that position.

[1:15:57] >> But you see that he'll be here in

[1:15:58] September.

[1:15:59] >> He'll be right. Yeah,

[1:16:03] >> we will not take any action on this

[1:16:05] tonight. Correct.

[1:16:06] >> Well, we we would need some direction

[1:16:08] from the board if I've heard from

[1:16:09] Alderman Hollowman that she would like

[1:16:11] to see a proposal for a sidewalk fund. I

[1:16:13] have not heard from anyone else.

[1:16:14] >> As I would also

[1:16:16] >> Okay.

[1:16:18] >> What are your thoughts about the

[1:16:19] sidewalk?

[1:16:20] >> I'm fine if they want to look at it and

[1:16:22] see what we can do. Does anybody have

[1:16:26] any idea like a average house on Walnut

[1:16:29] Street if the sidewalk had to be fully

[1:16:31] replaced what that cost would be?

[1:16:34] >> Any Mr. Moore could probably answer

[1:16:36] that.

[1:16:37] >> What?

[1:16:38] >> Like if you had a an average house on

[1:16:40] Walnut Street that the the entire

[1:16:42] sidewalk in front of their house needed

[1:16:44] to be replaced. What cost estimate?

[1:16:47] >> Say if it was 75 or 80 linear 75 or 80

[1:16:50] linear feet.

[1:16:52] And I know a lot of them could probably

[1:16:53] just be repaired instead of fully

[1:16:56] replaced.

[1:16:57] >> Oh yeah, there's plenty of those also

[1:17:00] because there's some historic

[1:17:03] >> aspects of it.

[1:17:11] » That doesn't

[1:17:16] $5,200 would just be start from scratch.

[1:17:19] >> Right.

[1:17:19] >> Mr. Trump,

[1:17:20] >> would this sidewalk fund be used?

[1:17:21] Citywide, correct? Not just for one

[1:17:24] particular area.

[1:17:25] >> That that would be up to you all as to

[1:17:27] why.

[1:17:27] >> That is my request. Citywide if it's a

[1:17:30] sidewalk that exists to preserve it.

[1:17:32] Have this option for those who can't

[1:17:33] afford

[1:17:34] >> and also explore

[1:17:36] putting the sidewalks in the sections of

[1:17:39] town that don't have sidewalks. Okay.

[1:17:43] >> That's also up to you all.

[1:17:45] >> Yeah. Yeah. If

[1:17:45] >> you wanted to put in sidewalks

[1:17:46] everywhere in the city tomorrow, you

[1:17:48] could.

[1:17:48] >> Yeah. Major money. Make sure there's there's there's a balance there.

[1:17:54] Okay.

[1:17:56] >> Rose Hill. I'm tired of my people

[1:17:58] walking on the road.

[1:18:03] » So, okay.

[1:18:06] >> I've heard consensus. I will bring back

[1:18:07] a proposal in September.

[1:18:08] >> Okay.

[1:18:11] >> Just move this item to to next.

[1:18:15] >> Yeah.

[1:18:17] No vote taken tonight. We move on

[1:18:19] to our consent agenda. Item 4.1.

[1:18:22] Gas department has request for approval

[1:18:24] to purchase a Caterpillar mini excavator

[1:18:27] with trailer in the amount of $84,952

[1:18:31] from Thompson Machinery of Lever,

[1:18:33] Tennessee utilizing SWC number 2525,

[1:18:38] budget amount $90,000.

[1:18:42] We have a motion by Vice Mayor Harris,

[1:18:44] second by Albert. Any questions or

[1:18:47] comments?

[1:18:49] Are we ready to vote?

[1:18:52] Let's cast our votes.

[1:18:55] Anyone care to change their vote?

[1:19:00] » Would you count, please?

[1:19:03] >> Motion passes six to zero.

[1:19:05] >> At this time, city manager Ryan Martin

[1:19:07] has his report.

[1:19:08] >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first I want to

[1:19:10] recognize uh our police chief, Jason

[1:19:12] Head. He was recently sworn in as the

[1:19:14] vice president of the Tennessee

[1:19:16] Association of Chiefs of Police. That is

[1:19:17] a uh phenomenal accomplishment. YEAH,

[1:19:24] that is a quite an accomplishment to

[1:19:26] have somebody from our from our city

[1:19:28] representing on a on a statewide. He's

[1:19:30] also very uh active and involved in in

[1:19:32] the International Association of of

[1:19:34] Chiefs of Police. I was going to cover

[1:19:36] the property maintenance inspector, but

[1:19:38] uh and share my excitement there, but

[1:19:40] we've already done that. I need to

[1:19:42] update you on our fuel situation. What

[1:19:44] we've had, we had a u a malfunction.

[1:19:47] Most of you know, some of you may not

[1:19:48] know, we have always provided our own

[1:19:50] fuel. We've had our own fuel tanks and

[1:19:52] our own fuel system to to fuel city

[1:19:53] vehicles and city equipment. We had a

[1:19:55] malfunction there. Uh those that fuel

[1:19:58] system and those pumps were decades and

[1:20:00] decades old. We have pivoted away from

[1:20:03] doing that fully internally now.

[1:20:05] hundreds of thousands of dollars to

[1:20:07] repair a 40-year-old system was not what

[1:20:10] we thought was a wise investment. Uh

[1:20:12] we've negotiated a deal with a uh with a

[1:20:14] company to provide a deep discount on

[1:20:16] fuel that will give us a little bit more

[1:20:18] flexibility and uh and so we've

[1:20:20] implemented that. We do intend to

[1:20:23] maintain some fuel storage in in the

[1:20:24] event of emergencies and uh and

[1:20:27] potentially an ethanol free aspect of

[1:20:29] that. If not, we'll work out an

[1:20:30] arrangement. But uh just to let you know

[1:20:32] that's a strategic shift in our business

[1:20:34] operations and I it doesn't mean any

[1:20:36] doesn't change your life or anything

[1:20:37] like that but I always want to keep you

[1:20:38] informed that we have a strategic shift

[1:20:41] uh in our business operations because

[1:20:42] now instead of buying loads of fuel we

[1:20:44] will be purchasing it at the pump but

[1:20:47] frankly at a at a better rate than we

[1:20:50] were getting it in the loads. Uh first

[1:20:52] Friday night market or first Fridays are

[1:20:54] coming up. The next one is in September the 4th. in a couple of weeks.

[1:20:58] As far as the economy so far in FY27,

[1:21:01] sales tax receipts are kind of how we

[1:21:02] gauge that and those are promising for

[1:21:04] the first two months of the fiscal year.

[1:21:06] Both months have been ahead of budget in

[1:21:08] July and in August. And so that lets us

[1:21:10] know how well our economy is performing

[1:21:12] locally. It has nothing to do with, you

[1:21:14] know, grabbing tax revenue. It has to do

[1:21:17] with that's a great bell weather to know

[1:21:19] if people are shopping local and how

[1:21:21] well the economy is doing. So, it's a

[1:21:22] very promising sign as far as the fire

[1:21:24] station. And that's the last uh thing I

[1:21:26] have on my list tonight. Uh we expect

[1:21:28] our uh the IDB, the Industrial

[1:21:31] Development Board expects their

[1:21:32] guaranteed maximum price to be delivered

[1:21:34] uh by the end of this week or early next

[1:21:36] week. I think the uh bids are out for

[1:21:39] the subcontractors and I think that bid

[1:21:42] deadline was today or is was today. So we should know something by the end

[1:21:47] of the week. What I expect to happen

[1:21:49] being very realistic with you

[1:21:52] is that we're going to need more money.

[1:21:54] I think I told you this last month. Uh I

[1:21:56] think we're going to need more money. We

[1:21:57] had originally had a $7 million budget

[1:21:59] and you issued 500,000 of that was cash

[1:22:01] to get us started and $6.5 million bond

[1:22:04] issue. I think we're going to need a

[1:22:06] little bit more money. I just don't know

[1:22:08] how much. We'll hopefully know in the

[1:22:09] next week or so. What I anticipate

[1:22:11] happening is the Industrial Development

[1:22:13] Board, uh they meet in early September.

[1:22:16] If they approve, if they're satisfied

[1:22:17] with the result, what they're going to

[1:22:19] do is approve that guaranteed maximum

[1:22:21] price subject to the additional funding

[1:22:23] that you all give them. Um,

[1:22:26] Miss Sanford and I are working on a uh a

[1:22:28] plan to figure out where that money

[1:22:31] might come from. So, I hope to have that

[1:22:33] for you sometime soon. And if you've got

[1:22:35] any to spare that you want to share,

[1:22:36] we'll take that, too. So,

[1:22:38] >> I say it come out of parks and rec.

[1:22:40] >> There you go.

[1:22:44] » Oh, mayor. That's all I have. Thank you.

[1:22:46] >> Thank Thank you, Ryan.

[1:22:48] >> Any other questions, comments,

[1:22:51] statements? If not,

[1:22:54] journ.

[1:22:56] >> Thank you everyone for joining us.

[1:22:59] >> Have a good week.

[1:23:00] >> How you doing?

[1:23:02] >> Taking the boy around town.

Board of Mayor and Aldermen Meeting August 2026

Transcript