Board of Mayor meeting for August 18,
2026 is now in session. Would you se
stand for the pledge of allegiance and
remain standing after the pledge? I
pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» Let us pray.
Eternal God, this is the day that you
have made and we thank you for it. We
thank you for this great city. We thank
you for the occupants of this great
city. We thank you again, Lord, for all
these great children that we see, Lord.
We pray, Lord, that you would guide the
leaders, Lord, where we can leave them a
legacy, Lord, where they be proud of
Springfield. We thank you, Lord, just
for being a part of this city, a part of
the governing body. I pray for all of my
colleagues. I pray for all the parents.
I pray for all the citizens, Lord. But
we we thank you. We thank you for this
great city. And Lord, I end this prayer
by saying, please bless America in
Jesus's name. Amen.
>> Amen.
» At this time, the chair would like to
recognize parks and recreation director,
Mr. Jerry Martin. Terry Martin, the
floor.
>> Good afternoon, board. How are y'all
doing?
>> Yes, well, Mr. Chair.
>> All right. As we bring these young
champions up here, y'all come on up
front here, girls. And before the bullet
goes down to get a photo op with him, I
just want to take a second and say,
"HEY,
all that is making a bunch of noise."
On behalf of the city of Springfield
Parks and Recreation Department, on
behalf of this team and on behalf of
prior teams before them, we would like
to thank this board of mayor Alderman
for your commitment, your financial
commitment that takes a huge burden off
of these teams and these parents and
these families whenever they win a state
championship and they move on to the
World Series. And for you helping us out
like that and for that we are very, VERY
THANKFUL.
DOES THAT. THANK YOU very very much.
Y'all come on down here on last set and
come to the podium and say a few words
on her accomplishments while y'all make
your way down here. Can we just stand up
here?
>> Can we just stand?
>> Yeah, Terry, it might be better if we
stand here.
>> So we can stand up.
» Good afternoon. Uh for those who don't
know me, I'm Seth Owen, programming
supervisor for the city of Springfield
Parks Department. We are very excited to
get to honor these girls and coaches for
their outstanding success in this year's
Diamond Youth Softball tournament. What
began with three regular season teams
turned into one all-star team put
together by the three head coaches of
our regular season. The first milestone
was competing at the district level held
in White House where these girls went
undefeated, outscoring their opponent 71
to 17, beating East Robertson, White
House, Portland, and White House for a
second time to extend their postseason
play into the state tournament. At the
state tournament in Rockwood, Tennessee,
this team continued their hot streak and
earned the title of undefeated state
champions by beating Houston County,
Lewis County, Pleasant View, and
Greenber twice. This meant that they had
earned their spot to represent the state
of Tennessee as team Tennessee in the DY
World Series held in Laurel,
Mississippi. Facing Louisiana for their
first bracket game, Louisiana came out
on top 52. But these girls weren't going
to give up that easy. They battled their
way back through the losers bracket,
beating North Carolina 8-6, South
Carolina 13-4, Mississippi 8-7, and
Texas 15 to 14 in extra innings to send
them to the championship game against
the only team that beat them in bracket
play, Louisiana. Our girls fought hard
against Louisiana, but finished up as
runner-ups in the Diamond Youth Softball
World Series. We are so very proud of
them and all their accomplishments and
would like to recognize them by placing
a sign as you enter Springfield so that
everyone can remember how great of a
team this was. So, I would like to
introduce your 2026 AU DY State
Champions and World Series runnerups.
Hey, y'all hold them rings out like
that. EVERYBODY,
» let me see your rings. Let me see your
rings.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Congratulations. Congratulations.
>> What you going to do with all that big
blue?
» Congratulations.
A great thing.
>> Congratulations.
to y'all. How exciting.
Crank it up.
» Those rings are fancy.
>> Yeah,
>> are fancy.
They were playing last year.
Item 1.4 approval of minutes from the
regular meeting of board of mayor and
alderman held July 22nd 2026. We have a
motion by alderman Bradley a second by
Alman Huard. Any questions or comments?
Hearing none. Are we ready to vote?
Let's cast our vote.
Anyone care to change their vote?
Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes five to zero. Item 1.5,
our public comment period.
We have three registered speakers here
today and we'll you will have two
minutes. When you approach the podium,
please speak loudly where everyone can
hear you. I have first on my list, Mr.
Billy Hughes. He is speaking about the
Jones Chapel Road water line upgrade.
Mr. Hughes,
you have the floor, sir, for two
minutes.
>> Good evening. My name is Billy Hughes.
I'm a resident of Jones Chapel Road. I'm
a licensed Tennessee general contractor
with a municipal utility classification
and I've laid hundreds of miles of water
line over my 33-year career. I'm
standing before you tonight to formally
oppose the proposed water line extension
along Jones Chapel Road. This project is
flawed in its location, its precedent,
and its execution. Jones Chapel Road
sits four miles outside Springfield's
urban growth boundary. Spending
municipal utility funds to extend a line
this far into the county sets a
dangerous precedent for how this board
allocates city tax dollars. Springfield
taxpayers should not be subsidizing
growth far beyond the city limits with
existing infrastructure demands and
attention. As a contractor, I understand
the infrastructure. Based on this
project scope, I estimate the baseline
cost of this project to be somewhere
around $750,000.
That is a highly conservative figure
that completely excludes the massive
auxiliary cost of clearing, road bors,
open cut repairs, fence replacements,
and final sight dress. Residents have
raised real and reasonable concerns.
Yet, no one from the utility has reached
out to address them. No clear plan has
been shared on how tree removal, torn up
fences, or damaged driveways will be
repaired or compensated. The
construction traffic construction
traffic alone will ruin the existing
rural road infrastructure. an eight or
six inch
It clearly can't maintain the lines that
are already in the ground. We're asking
this board to pause, protect city tax
dollars, enforce proper utility
oversight, and vote no on the Jones
Chapel waterline project.
>> Mr. Your time is up, sir.
>> Thank you.
for your comments.
Our second speaker today, Mr. Chip Rush.
Jones. Chip Rush speaking again on the
Jones Chapel Road water line up there.
>> All right. Thank you for this
opportunity. Uh, I'm opposed to it for
the simple reason is I've been in
construction for half of my adult life
and anytime you upgrade a water line to
whether a 6 in or 8 in, that only means
one thing. That means that there's more
houses to be built on Jones Chapperel
Road. Granted, in the Cedar Hill area,
from what I understand, you have to have
2 and 1/2 acres.
Well, there's a lot of two and a half
acres out there. Now, if the expansion
of the water line is for uh inadequate
water pressure on Jones Chapper Road or
Stra Road, then those taps should have
never been sold to the individuals in
the first place. There's there uh
a rough guess an entity could come in
and build two 200 homes easy, pay for
the infrastructure to do that without
any cost to the city. The water line is
the main concern. I've lived at the end
of Newberry Road for over 14 years with
my wife and there's a reason we moved
out there because it's out in the
country and we'd like to keep it that
way. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Mr. Rush. Our third and final
speaker is Mr. Robert Green. Robert, are
you here?
>> Yes, you are, Mr. Robert.
>> I'm not eloquent as they are, but I'm
Dr. Green. I live on Indust Road. I'm
one of them that has a tap that has not
gotten yet. When it was put in, they had
to. They said, "Could you wait?" And I
said, "Yes." I'm not pushing for this. I
don't I I'd rather go without the tap
than have the 8 in line. I don't think
anybody's saying we don't need a line.
We just don't need an 8 in. If you build
it, they will come. I mean, also do
paving. We cannot handle the traffic.
Someone's going to I've been on run off
the road two or three times just with
what we got out there. We're not saying
we don't need taps. Some people are owed
them. Like I said, I'm owed one. I don't
I'll I'll give it up to keep the line,
you know, the line from coming in. The
problem we have is we got a petition of
everyone that lives on that road. And I
don't know anyone that's pushing for it.
And you can't cut your phone on or cut
the radio TV on the last two years
without hearing it's a threat to our
democracy. It's a threat to our
democracy. Both sides have played that.
But what they're saying is they don't
they're afraid they don't have a view.
They don't have a voice.
Y'all are our voice. We don't feel like
we have a voice. Like this is being
shoved on us. We can't got no say in it,
but we do have a say because we've
already voted. We voted for y'all. Y'all
are our voice. And so we're asking you.
We've got the petition. I don't know
anyone that's pushing for the 8 inch
line. That's what we don't understand.
We've asked around. We don't know who's
wanting 8 inch line. 4inch line. Just
we're asking for maybe stop this. let's
look at other alternatives instead of
just shoving this down our street where
we live. I can tell you that our the
roads can't handle it. It's it's a it's
a danger now. And so, but I I appreciate
y'all's time. Like I said, I'm not that
good of a speaker, but I just want to
come and talk. Okay. Thank y'all.
>> Thank you, Mr. Green. At this time, we
will close our public comment period.
We'll now move into our public hearing.
Mayor, without objection, and quite a
few in the room are here for this
tonight, I would ask that 3.4 be brought
to the beginning of the agenda.
I'll second.
» Do we have a second?
>> Second.
» Got a motion in a second to move that
item to next on our agenda. That will be
item 3.4.
Got a vote to move it. So, we're ready
to cast our votes to move this item up
on our agenda.
>> It'll just be
>> just be a voice vote. All those in
favor?
>> I.
>> Any opposed?
We will move straight to the item 3.4.
Discuss and properly take action on a
potential waterline upgrade project in
the Jones Tra area. We have a motion by
Alman Hover. I have a question.
>> Can I ask a question?
>> We need a motion and a second to get on
the floor.
>> All right.
>> Motion by Alman Hubard, second by Vice
Mayor Harris. Now, we have questions or
comments.
>> What's the city's position while it's
being upgraded
>> or what why what's
>> Well, we're here tonight to establish
the city's position because you all will
establish the city's position. This
originally came about this the the
conceptual aspects of this project
originally came about last year when
some folks that had purchased taps some
years ago some have purchased taps
decades ago some just a decade and a
half ago or so and wanted to do that.
Our previous water wastewater director
Mr. Beers
uh wanted to try to make good on those
taps that had been purchased and wanted
to upsize the line
in that area. There was some 8- in pipe
that he had that was in inventory that
he wanted to use, which is where this 8
inch line concept comes from. It doesn't
live that way now though. What the the
estimate that we have today,
he retired in December. Mr. Price comes
along. I think Mr. Beers had drawn up
some plans which kind of if you want to
make it in plain terms because I'm not
an engineer so I don't understand and we
may have to get Mr. price to help us
understand the technical aspects of it.
From a 2D perspective, that looked fine,
right? And it looked like Mr. Beer's
initial estimate was, hey, we might be
able to do this if we've got the pipe,
we can do it ourselves. We might be able
to do this for $50 to $100,000, right?
And make good on the taps that we're
sold. Well, 2D and 3D are two different
things. So, when it actually comes time
to do the engineering aspect and full
design, you have issues like not enough
right away. So you have to buy
easements, you have trees in the way,
you have to bore underneath roads. So
that's when you run into issues, and so
that's what balloons the cost of the
project. Also, Mr. Price was not
comfortable with a 8 in line. That 8 in
pipe has been sitting out for some time,
and he wasn't comfortable using that.
And frankly, that's too large of a line
to put in that area. So what Mr. Price
has come up with as far as an estimate
is a 6-in line, but you have in your
packet his final estimate of that. It is
an unbudgeted project. So, uh, that
total estimate comes out to $52,000
to perform this project.
It is obviously up to you all what to
do. That is a large expense for um for a
handful of taps that were that were
sold. Yep. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. I think
you have another question. Um, if I may,
I was just curious, how many taps are we
looking at that were sold that we're not
able to satisfy?
>> The ones we know about right now are a
handful. So, there were some that were
sold in the 90s. There were some that
were sold in the two, you know, early to
mid 2000s.
>> Miss Hollerman, there are probably some
we don't know about, right? So, I think
what happened, and I don't want to I'm
not casting blame on anybody. The way
the process generally works is when you
come to purchase a tab, there's a
pressure test done on that line to
determine whether or not you can build a
house and and and do that. That pressure
test is usually good for a year. The
pressure test was done, the taps were
purchased, and then that sort of
happened in a vacuum because someone
else came along and that tap wasn't
installed. And so someone else came
along and and they did install. And so
the people that didn't install, the
future purchasers, those taps that were
sold weren't taken into account for the
future folks that tapped in the line. So
you have the folks that own the tap say,
"Well, you shouldn't have, you know, you
shouldn't have let people tap on the
line because I had that capacity."
That's not exactly what the tap contract
says. But that's their position. I
understand that. And so that's why Mr.
Beers wanted to try to make good on that
um on that promise that the city had
made initially. I think at this point,
am I correct that the the pipeline's
really outside of city city limits?
Correct.
>> It is.
>> Okay. Well, I would just be really
curious to know again I appreciate all
the people who are here with you having
voiced their opinion. Again, I I always
thank people when they are involved
because sometimes I feel like we sit up
here in a vacuum not really knowing what
people want. So, thank you all for being
here.
>> Um I would be curious to know what how
many taps we're looking at what the cost
to refund would be. I mean, this is an
exorbitantly high cost, I think, to make
good on something 50 versus 500,000. And
again, we're hearing from constituents
that this is not what they want. Um, so
I would be interested to kind of look at
those numbers. Um, because as it stands,
I'm looking at the cost is just really
high and we have a lot of people
opposed.
>> Miss Holl, we solved this problem moving
forward because if you all remember, you
all passed an ordinance within the last
year because of this very issue where we
don't allow this to happen anymore. I
think we we were in a period of time
where people were buying taps because
eventually they may subdivide the land
they wanted their grandkids to be able
to build. And that's great and noble,
uh, but it creates problems down the
road. And so now our policy is if
someone buys a tab, it has to be
installed within absent a subdivision
agreement because those houses take a
little bit longer. But if it's it's just
a single tab, it has to be installed
within 60 days or there or it gets
refunded. The contract gets canceled. So
this problem is is solved moving
forward. I would say you're probably
right. We're looking at a dozen in this
particular pressures area. We're looking
at a dozen or less taps. Okay.
>> Mayor
Tim
>> and but if I understood
>> Mr. Martin correctly nothing is
currently budgeted to do this.
>> That's correct. No sir.
>> That's correct. And then we and from
what we saw it's going to be a whole lot
more than what was originally thought
that it would be.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Um, I mean clearly by the number
of people that have signed this pet
petition and the number of people that
have come forward and asked that the tap
be placed, that's a big difference in
that. And it's not currently budgeted.
We don't currently have the money to
really spend on doing this. So, if
anybody's willing to hear the motion,
I'll make the motion that we not proceed
with this expansion project and that the
city staff get with the city attorney to
work out the details of how the refunds
might be given on the taps if that's
what's decided to do.
>> I'd second that. Plus, I need to make a
comment. In the 90s, there was a hasty
decision that was made
and so about the taps and stuff. It
wasn't really it wasn't really carried
out properly. I was lamore then. Okay.
So, I'm glad to
I'm I'm glad to say no and support the
citizens for getting
really getting misled per se by the
1990s.
I have to just come clean with it. Okay.
>> Mr. Troder
get a motion second. We got a motion in
a second.
>> Second by me.
>> Yeah.
» We vote on this like it is.
>> Yeah. We need a motion in a second. We
got a motion for Mr. Harris to not do
the project.
We got a second.
>> We need Tim made the motion. We need a
second. Mr.
I'll second if you need to.
>> There you go.
Now we're ready.
>> And the motion was Tim
>> that we not proceed with this expansion
and that the staff get with the city
attorney to see possibly how
>> what needs to be done on the present
taps out there to get their money back
to them.
>> So we would we would get with the city
attorney and resolve whatever
>> needed to be. But as far as at this
time, I I just don't think as a city we
can proceed with this
>> expense-wise and to honor what the
majority of the people in that area are
asking for.
>> Is everyone clear on that?
>> We're not asking for.
>> So, if we vote yes, we're voting
against. We're voting no, right? Is that
where we're at right now? I just want to
make sure I hit the right.
>> You vote yes on the motion. You're
voting to not do the project. Thank you.
Want to clarify that project. I'm glad
you did.
>> Are we ready to vote?
>> Yes.
So my voting yes
voted to not move forward. Correct.
Everybody clear on that.
>> Just want to make let's cast our votes.
» Anyone care to change their vote?
>> Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes four to two.
>> Yeah, we just
need to do it. Wait a minute. Wait a
minute. We vote no and we kill it.
>> The motion that Mr. Harris made was to
not do the project.
>> So So a yes vote would be in support of
his motion to not do the project.
>> Okay. Anyway, it's passed.
>> Well, you got have to ask the city
attorney change it.
>> We can change it.
>> Motion to reconsider.
Make a motion to reconsider.
>> Second.
>> All right.
>> So,
vote.
>> Revote. Revote.
>> Let's cast our votes.
>> The motion to reconsider.
>> She motion second that.
>> I did.
>> Yeah, she did. So, Mr. Harris made a
motion to reconsider. Miss Bradley made
a second. So, just clear the votes.
>> Clear the vote.
>> I'll just change these. Yes,
>> um yeah.
Good.
>> We're ready.
» I just didn't They were welcome to stay.
I just didn't want to have to sit
through the whole weekend.
>> If y'all want to
>> are ready to leave, you can ple you can
go ahead and leave. If you kind of do it
quietly.
>> Thank you for coming,
» Mr. Mayor.
I was Motion since being my wardro
3.9 this time
motion to move
>> motion need a second
>> we have a motion and a second in favor
moving
>> to item 3.9
all signify by saying I
» any opposed hearing none
The chair will recognize Mr. Robert
Gardner. Hold on. We got We got to get
to know.
» Ma'am.
Ma'am.
So, we're bringing 3.9. 3.9.
>> We're on item 3.9.
» Mr. Robert, you have the floor, sir.
>> Thank you, mayor. Appreciate it. Uh,
Ottoman, and I thank you for this
opportunity just to provide an update on
the Bransford Community Center. I should
say the long awaited Bratz for the
Community Center. I think it gives Ryan
Martin cold chills when I bring that
name up sometimes, but I know that it
has been a long ongoing project. But I
just wanted to say first of all, uh we
really really do appreciate not only the
board's generosity in allocating these
funds to this project, but also the
board's patience. I know it's been a
kind of a long, arduous, and frustrating
5 years since these funds were allocated
and uh we've had some ups and downs.
Um just don't want to get into all the
hurdles that we've faced, but we have
faced several. Uh but what we have come
to realize is that we need to build
something and we need to build something
soon. And you know, so we're at the
point that we are decided just to take
the city's allocation and build
something as a phase one that we can
actually get in and begin operating some
programs. We have a very active board.
We have very active programs and we have
active partners that uh are looking
forward to a space to come and call
home. And most notably is our Bransford
Cubs, formerly our Bransford Pride after
school program. and our board is here
and do want them to stand and be and be
recognized and they are here in full
support of this project as always and
they've had many sleepless nights. Thank
you board. They've had many sleepless
nights as I've had to try to bring this
project to fruition. But um long story
short, we have a million-doll allocation
from the city and we have a partner that
we have uh trusted a trusted partner
with Adam Arrington and Morton
buildings. Morton is a national
contractor. They've done many many
hundreds of buildings and we feel fully
confident they can make this happen for
us within our budget. So, what we are
requesting tonight, um, just kind of in
a nutshell, is to be able, even though
the the wording of the original motion
that was passed in May of 2021 was to,
uh, provide funding for construction
costs, but as you know, um, engineering
and design has to come before
construction. So to get this project a
kickstart and just to get us off the
ground, we're just asking not asking for
any additional funding, but asking that
the the engineering cost that's
necessary for on the front end would be
able to be allocated out of that 1
million that we'll be able to take that.
Again, additional funding is in this
request, but just to use those funds
that we have just to get the engineering
done. Greater Faith Community Action has
paid $8,000 for the preliminary plan,
which Morton describes as phase one. I
think you have a copy of that. Uh we
need funding for the uh to take the
funding for the construction plans to
get those out for bid so we can get this
project done. So um that being said, I
would like uh if you don't have any
questions, I'd like to turn it over to
Adam Arrington and he can make a
presentation at this time.
>> Thank you, Robert.
Hello, I'm Adam Harrington with Morton
Buildings. Uh we are 120 year old
company. Uh the local branch is based
out of Murphy'sboro. We've been here 40
years. We've built many buildings in the
Springfield area. Um I'm I was brought
up to speed on what has happened in the
past. We do things differently. We're
very very careful. Um, I know a lot of
people are watching this, but all of our
programs, all of our buildings, the way
we like to do it is phase one, let's
which is where we are right now. Uh, how
much money are you thinking you have
available? And then we say, okay, we
think we can build this building for
that. And then we start going through um
to verify that. It's kind of a
feasibility study. It's very
inexpensive. We don't make any money on these. We just want to build. So,
they uh put in $88,000.
We had a soils engineer come up. This is
the building we're hoping that that we
can get. Uh you know, budget limitations
may change things, but this is this is
kind of where we're hoping for. Uh if
you'll go down a couple um so what what
we did, I think go back up one. Um so,
what we did was we had our soils
engineer come out because we need to be
careful. We know what it we do. Once it
gets above the ground, we know what
things are going to cost mostly. Below
the ground, we don't know. So, we we dug
up some uh you know, back originally,
they buried the parts of the building on
site. I know it saved a lot of money.
So, what we did is we we took some test
holes around. We found the north side
and the south side have about 5 ft of
this material which is brick and block
left over from the original building.
But in the middle we found an area that
we can put the building. It has about 2
ft of this debris that we'll need to
remove. Um we can build that building or
something nearby at this point with as
much exploratory uh information that we
have right now in that area. will rem
dig up the two feet in the middle of of
the site and we think we can bury it on
an uh we have planned ahead to for their growth. So we've got a
preliminary civil um design saying we
don't want to interfere with the future.
So we think we have an appropriately
sized detention pond. We can overdig the
detention pond, bury about 750 to a,000
cubic yards of debris at the bottom,
then fill that back out. That also gives
us the added benefit of harvesting the
good soil. It's got great soil out there
if you can just get the the debris out
of the way. So, we'll have that to build
back. So, we're hoping to cut down 2 ft,
build back one foot. Um, so
we think we're in the in the ballpark of of having a nice building, a useful
building. It's a bit of a stretch right
now. Um, and but for what we know right
now, I think we're in range. The next
phase is where we again are very
careful. We we get a full report from
the civil engineer. Our architects and
engineers have certified stamp plans. Um
then we get our mechanical engine
electrical and plumbing uh engineers to
give us a design and then we have we
have a full scope of work and then we go
out and get our bids and and then at the
end we will know what the what it's
going to cost. There might be a surprise
or two but we limit our surprises and
control our surprises but we'll know
before we get down the road like what
happened last time. We'll know where we
are and then we can adjust the building
back down. So, we we build 2500
buildings a year. Um, you know, we're confident or I wouldn't be
standing here that we can make this
happen.
» That's good. Thank you, sir.
>> Any questions? Mr. Chair,
>> I'll make a motion that uh Mr. Gordon
just stated they're not ask for any
additional funds just to use a portion
of we already allocated for it to
proceed. I make a motion that we let
them do it.
I'll second it.
You have something you want.
>> Just for purposes of clarification for
those that weren't here at the time, the
reason that we're we're doing this when
they came last time in 2021, in May of
2021, as Mr. Gardner says it was, the
motion that was made in the vote was for
construction expenses because they
already had a design. And so that's the
reason this was not excluded in in that
particular aspect. It just at that time
there already was a design for a
building that they were pursuing. When
Miss Martine and I discussed that
looking at the May 21
vote that you all had, we thought it
would be best if they came and got
clarification. And so, mayor, you have a
motion to second. I think that we can
proceed.
>> Any other questions or comments?
>> Let's get started.
>> If not, we are ready to vote. Let's cast
our votes.
Anyone
care to change their vote?
Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
>> Very good. Very good.
>> All right. I think we're ready to go
back
» a minute. Yeah.
I don't think we did any of these.
>> Oh, you're right.
» All right.
>> Now, we'll move to our public hearing
portion of our agenda.
First item is ordinance 26-28, an
ordinance reszoning a portion of one
parcel located at Highway 41 North from
restrictive industrial district to
commercial services district. Anyone
here to speak to that ordinance?
Seeing none. Item number two, ordinance
26-29,
an ordinance amending section A801 of
the Springfield zoning ordinance
pertaining to temporary use permits.
Anyone here to speak to that?
Seeing none, item three, ordinance
26-30, an ordinance amending the fiscal
year of 2027
annual budget for the city of
Springfield by amending certain general
fund and utility fund operating budgets.
Anyone here to speak to that ordinance?
Seeing none, item four, ordinance 26-31
and ordinance amending title 5, chapter
6 of the Springfield Municipal Code
relative to developer credits for system
development charges. Anyone here to
speak to that?
Seeing none, at this time we will close
our public hearing portion and move into
our legislative item 2.1 discuss and
possibly take action on ordinance 26-28
on second and final reading an ordinance
reszoning a portion of one parcel
located on Highway 41 North from
restrictive industrial district RI to
commercial services district CS. We have
a motion by Vice Mayor Harris, a second
by Alman Hubard. Any questions or any
comments?
See none. Are we ready to vote? Let's
cast our votes.
Anyone care to change their vote?
Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
>> Item 2.2, two, discuss and possibly take
action on ordinance 26-29
on second and final reading an ordinance
amending section A- 801 of the
Springfield zoning ordinance pertaining
to temporary use permits. We have a
motion by Alderman Hubard, a second by
Alderman Troder. Any questions or
comments?
Hearing none, are we ready to vote?
Let's cast their votes.
Anyone care to change their vote?
» Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
Item 2.3
discuss and promptly take action on
26-30 on second and final reading. An
ordinance amending the fiscal year 2027
annual budget for the city of
Springfield by amending certain general
fund and utility fund operating budgets.
First, we need to pass the amendment.
Correct. You've got motion. Motion by
Alderman Hover, second by Alderman
Hollowman. First we that's for the
amendment I believe. Correct.
>> That's to put the the item on the floor
for discuss.
>> Okay. That gets us on the floor then. So
we need to go ahead and vote.
>> U no sir. It would need to be amended to
include the amended exhibit A. So you
would be looking next for a motion and a
second to
>> We have a motion by Alman Hover and
Alderman second by Alman Bradley for the
>> to amend. Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Are we ready to vote on the amendment?
Let's cast our votes.
Anyone care to change their voters?
Let's count the votes.
>> Motion passes six to zero.
>> Okay. Now we come back. I need a motion
by Alman Hover. Second by Alman
Hollowman to pass the ordinance as
amended. Correct. Okay. We have a motion
by Alman Hollowman. Motion by Alman
Hover. Al Second by Alman Hollowman. Any
questions or comments on the amended
ordinance?
>> Hearing none, let's cast our vote.
>> This is your as amended. Original as
amended.
>> As amended. Correct.
>> We ready to cast our votes?
>> Yep.
>> Let's vote.
» Anyone care to change their votes?
>> Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
Moving to item 2.4. Discuss and possibly
take action on ordinance 26-31
on second and final reading and
ordinance amending title 5, chapter 6 of
the Springfield Municipal Code relative
to developer credits for system
development charges. We have a motion by
Alman Hollowman,
a second by Alderman Bradley. Thank you.
Any questions or comments?
He won.
» Okay, no questions, no comments. Let's
cast our votes.
Anyone care to change their votes?
Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
>> Item 2.5,
discuss and possibly take action on
ordinance 26-32
on first reading, an ordinance amending
title 12, chapter 1 of the Springfield
Municipal Code. We have motion by Alman
Hollowman and second by Alderman Huard.
I believe city manager Ryan Martin has
some information to share with us.
>> Thank you, mayor. So this is an update.
If you remember back within the last
year or two, we adopted the 2021
version of a variety of codes, including
the International Building Code. The
International Building Code and the ICC,
the International Code Council that puts
out these codes. It's all-encompassing.
So usually there are some things that we
don't adopt and various jurisdictions do
not adopt uh in those codes. And one of
those was missed and this is has to do
with storm shelters. this will put us in
line with the state of Tennessee uh that
they omitted from their 2021 version and
it does affect the facility that we are
in the process of looking at. So that's
why that's what brought this to our
attention for us to uh bring it to you
tonight.
>> Any questions or comments?
If not, let's cast our votes.
Anyone
care to change their vote?
>> How do you want to vote, Mr.?
>> Yes.
» Would you change his votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
Moving into our administrative portion
of our agenda, item 3.1,
discuss and possession on the adjustment
of retail electric rates due to the
wholesale fuel cost adjustment by the
Tennessee Valley Authority. Have a
motion by Alman Hollowman, a second by
Alman Hubard.
Mr. Terry Risha, what do you have for
us, sir?
Any
questions or comments?
Let's cast our votes.
Anyone care to change their vote?
» Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
>> Item 3.2, discussing possibility action
on the adjustment of the monthly gas
rates. Motion by Alderman Hollowman,
second by Alman Hubbert. Gas director,
Mr. Vincy Davis, what you have for us
increase.
» Any questions or comments?
If not, let's cast our vote.
Anyone care to change their vote?
Would you would you count the votes,
please?
>> Motion passes six to zero. Item 3.3
discuss and possibly take action on STBG
citywide paving paving contract with
sections paving of Nashville, Tennessee.
We have a motion by Albert, second by
Vice Mayor Harris.
City manager Ryan Martin, I believe you
have something to add.
>> Thank you, Mayor. This is a long- aaited
citywide paving uh uh contract project
that we've been waiting on for quite
some time. took a while to get through
the approval process because the STBG is
surface transportation block grant. So,
it is primarily funded by grants. You
can see that breakdown. There's a small
local match there in your packet of what
that funding looks like. We're excited
for this project to get underway. We
hope that you all will approve this
contract tonight. Just to give you a
heads up for not only your awareness,
but also the public's awareness. Some of
the streets that are involved in this
resurfacing and paving project include
22nd Avenue. 22nd Avenue is one of the
uh it's it's pretty rough from South
Main to uh to Tom Austin, John El
Patterson, there's a section of 10th
Avenue, Roy Pit Road, a portion of
Industrial 17th, and a portion of Bill
Jones. Those are just some of the
streets that are included that need uh
need some some attention and that are
those are part of this project.
>> Thank you, Ryan. Any questions or
comments?
>> Richard Street especially
John El Patterson. McDonald Palace. I
keep thinking
>> Yeah.
>> Let's cast our votes.
Anyone care to change their vote?
» Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
>> Moving to item 3.5, discuss and proply
take action on a donation to the fire
department from grills for guardians. We
have a motion by Alman Hubard, second by
Alderman Bradley.
Any questions or comments?
Let's cast our votes.
» Anyone care to change their vote?
Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
>> Item 3.6, Six, discuss and possibly take
action on title 5, chapter 6 of
Springfield Municipal Code relative to
commercial system development charges.
We have a motion by Alderman Hubard, a
second by Alderman Hollowman.
Any questions or comments?
>> Mayor, if I may. Um, I was one of the
ones who asked for this, so thank you so
much to the city for kind of pulling all
this information together. Um, I know
just kind of looking at the impact fees
as we are presently, we are a little on
the higher end compared to I would say
comparable cities um for commercial
nonutility impact fees. So I I would
love to see the city move to maybe um
the 25% of allowable. Um, I know that
will not completely offset some of that
burden that's on the um, uh, developers,
but I'm hoping that that will be enough
to help maximize growth opportunities
that could benefit the citizens of
Springfield.
» Any other questions or comments?
>> What is the alderman considering being
comparable
>> cities? What are you considering
comparable cities to us? Well, I'm
looking here. I mean, I don't even know
if you comparable might be an iffy thing
to say, but you know, we have uh Dixon
with no impact fees. Um Goodletville has
no impact fees. Hendersonville, um which
again, not quite comparable, but um they
only adopted residential impact fees.
There was no adoption of commercial
impact fees there. Um you know, the
other ones kind of around that do have
the impact fees, obviously Franklin and
Brentwood, a bit of a different scenario
there. Um, White House has pretty high
impact fees, but they're right there on
the uh interstate. I don't know. I
wouldn't necessarily compare them to to
our city. So, um,
Portland's lower, but they do have
impact fees for commercial.
And same with Leven. Leven is
significantly lower, but they do have
some.
So, you're requesting we lower these?
>> Yes. I guess I I guess, you know, if no
one else has any comments, I would make
a motion to lower the um impact fees for
commercial to 25%. I think in speaking
with the city attorney, you know, we're
we have to do these things in a certain
way and we can't cherrypick. So,
commercial as a whole um reduced it to
25% of the allowable impact fees under
the study.
Any
questions or comments?
» Yeah,
>> I could live with the 25.
» Oh, yes, ma'am.
>> Sorry,
>> it won't let me.
>> It's
>> someone pushed it.
>> Yeah, someone pushed it. Which
>> Can you kick it out, Melissa?
>> Yeah.
It's a new motion here.
Second.
>> Okay, we have a motion.
>> Okay, it let you make the motion.
>> Yes, she made the motion. Now, we need a
second by Alderman Bradley.
>> No.
>> Oh, yes, she did. We seconded that.
Okay.
>> Any other questions or comments?
>> What was the primary reason for asking
that they be lowered? Is it because they
felt
>> just hearing from developers in the
commercial area just kind of looking at
you know the cost of the impact fees
when they're starting to build up
particularly larger um uh larger
businesses um the way that they're
structured it's based on square foot.
So, for example, a big box store um
might not really uh I'll use example of
transportation. Right now, you know, the
transportation cost is is pretty high,
but a big box store really is not
necessarily going to have that much of
an impact on transportation, but because
it's based on the the size of the square
footage, it becomes a really high dollar
amount when you're trying to get in
certain um commercial providers like I'm afraid to say TJ Maxx or like
Publix, but those are things that we
know people would love to have in
Springfield, but it's kind of cost
prohibitive to develop the space for
them to come in and do it because the
impact fees are so high on the front end
for the developers. So, I think trying
to find a bit of a sweet spot where we
are incentivizing developers um to to
get these folks in the door while also
still trying to recoup some of the money
for uh the development of these spaces.
>> Mr. Mayor,
>> yes, sir.
>> Is it for Mr. Mr. Moore? Would you like
to join in this conversation, please,
sir?
give us
insight from your position.
» Thank you. Uh Jim Moore with GS Morn.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Yes, sir.
Um if you just want my insight, um I
think uh
>> portion of
>> Okay.
>> How would it help out?
>> Yeah. Yeah, sure. Um I think Miss H Miss
Hollowman did a great job kind of
breaking down the impact fee. Um some of
the other municipalities that that do
have impact fees. A lot of them would be
based on the use. Um so like a rest a
2500T restaurant would have a higher per
square foot impact fee than per se like
a Publix who might be a 75,000t or
100,000t building. And on a 2500 ft²
building um you can recoup that uh
through rent um that that may rent just
round numbers say $30 per square foot
and then you go rent to a Publix and
they may pay $10 a square foot and it
just doesn't translate with the I guess
the economy of scale would be the best
way to put it. Um it's like buying a
house. The smaller the house, the higher
the per square foot price and it's the
same same here. And uh just as you get
into larger boxes, the rent number goes
down and you're paying the same uh
system development charge. Um and then I
think it differentiates itself from
residential in that these are these are
creating jobs. They're creating sales
tax. Um and so uh just com like uh Miss
Hollerman said compared to our peer
cities uh when you look at the pop our
peer cities by population our peer
cities by income um you know most of
them a lot of them are zero some of them
may be a dollar or $2. And uh I
certainly recognize the need. You know,
obviously the city's absorbing a new
sewer facility. We got a fire station.
Um you know, we I just me personally,
how it hits me, I love putting the money
back into the buildings. And I hope you
all recognize that and see what we've
been building and the quality of work
and you know, sustainable long-term
materials and um we hope that's
appreciated and we want to continue
putting the money back into the
buildings. So, thank you for the
consider. Oh, yep.
>> While you're there, I keep getting
earfuls of
are you considering
bringing another major sitdown
restaurant? I'm going to throw out.
>> I might have known that question was
coming.
>> I will tell you there there is one there
is a sitown restaurant touring on the
19th looking for a location. They need
about an acre acre and a half. Uh they
will do a ground lease. uh Bill Bassoot
national sitdown chain. So if anybody
has any ideas um I think somewhere
around the corner it's uh they'll be
hugely success. I'm open for business
and every year I recruit them. Uh it
just it just everything seems to still
be kind of the to- go nature
unfortunately.
>> Well I I see two lucky spots. The one
decides that the open field decides that
it million dollar mansion. Uh I'm pretty
sure you already tore the water of the
uh the car wash. Probably going to tear
wits down.
>> Witz is coming down as well. Not Yeah,
that' be enough coming down right there.
>> We could absolutely do a sit down
restaurant. Um
I don't know to what level the board
would get involved. There have been
municipalities to pay a restaurant
operator to open a business. If they say
open for I don't, you know, I'm not
getting into that subject. Doesn't have
anything to do with me. I'm just saying
it's been done. Um maybe the board could
look, you know, cuz they're going to put
up some they may do $2 million a year in sales. Look at that tax revenue.
How can we give that back to the chain
to open? And then when you're doing
that,
pick the chain you want. I guess that's
something you all should look into.
>> But enough about fast food.
>> I'm with you. Yeah.
>> In what you stated though, are you
saying that your major concern is in the
larger square footage buildings? Cuz if
we lower this down to 25% as she's u
made the motion, then that's going to be
across the board
>> whether it's 2500 square foot, whether
it's 10,000, whether it's 25, whether
it's 50 or above.
>> Sure.
>> But is your concern mainly with the
larger square footage?
you know,
>> or the overall
>> how deep you want to like. So, let's say
somebody wants to build a commercial
building on a a road. Somebody mentioned
paving 17th Avenue. So, we're going to
go build a commercial building on 17th
Avenue and they're going to pay the same
rate as a Tom Austin or Memorial fronted
business. So, how you divide it up, I
mean, I'm happy to answer any questions,
but
>> Mr. Harris, if I can, I believe in
speaking with the city attorney, and she
can please correct me if I'm wrong, but
I think that legally we can't kind of
narrow it down by like, okay, if you're
over the square footage, here's your
percent rate. I think it has to be
across the board with like commercial as
a whole. Now, if I am wrong, that would
be wonderful to consider.
>> That is that is my understanding.
However,
it's been a little bit since I since I
have lunch. So I am perfectly fine to go
back and look at and look at that more
specifically. Generally we refer to C we
refer to categories which would be
commercial, residential, industrial but
it is possible that that could be
offered in another way.
>> If if I can help mayor to shed light on
that I think from the
>> within the confines of our study because
that's the way our study was performed.
So the study is performed and arrives at
figures based on projected growth,
right? And it was done per 10,000 square
foot across the board. So it's not I
don't think it's necessarily it's not illegal. Other cities, White
House for instance, they their study was
done by use, right? And so they did
theirs by use. It's a little bit
different take on it, a little bit
different angle. Our study was done per
10,000 square foot for any commercial
use. So within the confines of our
study, I don't think we could divide up
uses. I think we would if that was if
that were the case, the board would need
to commission another study to be done
to make sure that the numbers that you
chose could not be
you could not be accused of being
arbitrary.
>> Yeah, perhaps that's something the board
may want to, you know, if you
consider this motion today and then look
down the road, maybe we want to look at
dividing up by use. Um I know other
white house like uh Mr. Martin said
white house does that and they hammer
the restaurants but the restaurants the
small single tenant restaurants are they
are the highest users of the public
infrastructure and the systems. Um and
our initial conversations with some of
you and with uh Mr. Martin and and the
mayor. I mean that's that's kind of
where I was going with it was to still
capture that high impact user but it
seemed like this study provided some
difficulty. So certainly something to
consider down the road.
» Ryan, if I could, I don't know what it
would cost to do a new study. It seems
intimidating, lengthy, and costly.
>> Insight on that.
>> 60 to $70,000. Probably
>> 9 to 10 months, maybe.
>> Well,
probably not. 9 to 10 months usually is I think that's how long the study is
that how long the study took last time
or was it longer than that the process
by the time you put out the solicitation
for a firm
>> and go that's a 30-day and then you go
through that it could be it'll be a year
it would be
>> and then do we typically do new studies
periodically anyway
>> so our study that we did requires it to
be reviews reviewed every 3 years and
kind of matched up with the and this is
the information you don't want to know
>> but I'll tell you um our I call him our
system internally. I refer to him as our
system development fees are but Mr.
Brewer the city engineer oversees that
process and that study required it to be
reviewed internally every 3 years. His
review uh that he performed after the
first three-year period said we've got
more growth coming than the than the uh
study projected so we should be charging
more.
>> So which currently we are half of what
we could be charging.
>> Correct. And we're already half. So if
we were to perform that same study
today, it would be higher uh because
that study was conducted prior to Vesper
Village being in in the equation. So
that's um I'm sorry.
>> And Blackwood
>> and and Blackwood Farms. Yeah. So that's
So that that would be it would it would
not be good news, right?
>> Any other questions, comments?
>> I was just going to mention uh I think
it's such a balancing act because you're
right. these uh institutions, commercial
institutions that are bringing in uh
lots of tax revenue, which we want.
That's a huge part of our, you know,
budget. So, it's a tough tough balancing
act.
» So, we are voting on
>> Got a motion. Yeah. Okay.
>> We're voting on
>> the 25
>> with the amendment that you added,
correct?
taking the impact fee from 50% to 25
>> for commercial only.
>> Yeah, commercial only. Everyone clear on
that?
>> Are we ready to vote? Let's cast our
votes.
Anyone care to change their vote?
Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes 5 to one.
Item 3.7, discuss and possibly take
action on an application for a
certificate.
>> On the motion,
>> the original motion was to put it on the
floor. You're good. We're good to move
on.
>> All right. So, you're ready to move on
3.7.
>> So, now we've got a vote on the motion.
>> You're ready to move on 3.7.
>> You're good.
>> We haven't done 3.7 yet.
>> Yeah, that's what you're ready for now.
>> Okay. That's what I was at. Item 3.7,
discuss and possibly take action on an
application for a certificate of
compliance for retail food store wine
for sudden service number 36 located at
501 Memorial Boulevard. We have a motion
by Alman Bradley, a second by Alman
Hubard. Any questions or comments?
» Mayor, if I if I may, this has nothing
to do with 3.7. I need to clarify 3.6.
six. So everyone knows what what has happened and what will need to
happen. What you all have done is voted
administratively and signaled your
intent to amend the municipal code
relative to commercial impact commercial
system development fees. What will need
to happen is beginning in September. You
all will have an ordinance that reflects
that. It will need to be passed in
September and in October to become
effective.
>> Thank you. So
>> nothing to do with the certificate of
compliance.
>> Thank you. Thank you,
>> Mr. Martin.
>> So, we're back on item 3.7.
>> Any questions or comments?
>> Which location is this?
>> Where's it located at?
>> The one down.
>> Memorial.
>> Yeah.
>> Memorial.
>> Crossies.
>> It's 50.
>> It says on 501 Memorial.
>> Right across from the building.
>> Right across the building.
>> Yeah, it's the one. It's the one at
Fifth Avenue. 50. Yeah.
Everyone clear on that?
>> One down there. We ready to vote?
>> Let's cast our votes.
>> Anyone care to change their votes?
>> Would you tally the votes, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
>> Item 3.8, discuss and possibly take
action on a water leak insurance
protection program for customers of the
water system. We have a motion by
alderman Hollowman, second by alderman
Bradley. City manager Ryan Martin has
something to add for this.
>> Thank you, Mayor. So, this is something
that we've never done before. A lot of
water utilities in the state do this and I'm highly recommending that we
pursue this this we actually began this
research about seven or eight years ago
prior uh to me becoming city manager.
The previous city manager was um Miss
Holt was was looking at this as well. It
is a leak protection program that
results in the customers paying a small
dollar amount premium per month that
protects them. And so you build your
plan with the company. It's called Serve
Line. Uh it's usually about $200 to $3 a
month. And that will provide generally
about $2,500 in protection up to two
leagues in a calendar year period. I
believe or roll it's either calendar
year or rolling 12-month period. Why
does why is that necessary? We're
actually, it is difficult uh when we see
these leaks happen to our customers.
Miss Hollowman has one in her ward right
now that we're uh dealing with with a
lady there, the limited income, a
husband with an illness and had not one
but two leaks that resulted in about a
$2,500 water bill over the course of two
months. What are we currently authorized
to do? We're currently off and I'm just
going to use that that because this is
kind of what sent this I said we need to
bring the leak protection program back
up again.
What are we authorized to do? The
current conditions of service that you
all put in place allow us to issue a 25%
leak adjustment. Okay. And then put them
on a maximum of a six-month payment
plan.
The 25% leak adjustment. What does that
do? That's great. Uh except that's 25%
of $2,500, right? So she's still up
against a lot of money. What happens to
the 25%. Again, it's kind of like when
we talk about um sidewalks, that's not
the city doesn't absorb that. That's
shared by the other customers. We've all
heard the what what about people that go
to the emergency room and don't pay?
Well, that cost gets passed along to
everybody. What's the same thing with a
water leak? That water was produced and
transported and that water has to be
accounted for and that's shared by the
rest of the customers. And so, the
utility never receives that revenue.
It's it's built into the rate structure
for the rest of the customers. What
would the leak protection program do?
The leak protection program and maybe it
would be cheaper. We don't know uh
exactly. We've got the company working
on it. But before they went too far, I
wanted to make sure that you all were
interested in seeing something before we
did a whole lot of research and got a
lot of things together. If so, we'll
bring it back in September and hopefully
have an agreement, a proposed agreement
for you all to approve. But we're
looking at about $2 to $3 a month to
provide about $2,500 in protection. At
$2 a month, it would take a thousand
months for that $2 to amount to $2,500,
right? It would take a long time. So,
it's definitely a wise investment for
the customer to protect against the
leaks. I saw it with my own grandmother
four or five years ago when she had a
$1,500 water bill and on limited income
that hurts badly, right? And so, what's
the benefit to the other customers who
aren't the victims of a leak? Well, they
no longer have to subsidize that 25%
leak adjustment, right? Because now the
insurance program is going to pay 100%
of the bill. So, it's a win for
everyone. It's a win for the customer
that's the victim of the leak. It's a
win for the other customers who've been
subsidizing the 25% leak adjustment.
It's a win internally operationally
because we're no longer administering
payment plans and leak adjustments
because that's all going to be taken
care of uh by the Serveline program.
This program was adopted and formulated
for Tennessee. The Tennessee Association
of Utility Districts actually, from my
understanding, put this together and a
lot of utility districts in the in the
state have adopted this program. I
believe um there was one Mr. Price that
you mentioned, who did you mention?
>> Portland looked at this and the one
local to us was Castellian Springs.
>> Castion Springs. Ashlin City also, I
believe, has adopted it. There are
several in Middle Tennessee that have
adopted it. And so I would highly
recommend uh us to pursue that as well.
It's no cost to the utility whatsoever.
No cost to the and when I I I've used
that terminology on purpose because I
could say no cost to the city, but
really it's the utility uh and it's the
customers because that's who that's
who's bearing the cost right now. So
I'll be glad to answer any questions you
have about it. So
>> that monthly fee to the customer, is
that mandatory or elective or
>> they can opt out? Okay. But it is that
we were told that the program is an auto
optin. So all customers we would put out
there would be a notice period where you
would have 60 90 days to opt out if you
want to. They said they usually do see
about a 1% opt out because some people
are just I don't want to pay $2. I want
to take my chances. Um and that's okay
but 99% of the customers I believe
usually stay in and so everyone would
have the opportunity to opt out at any
time. Uh, and I think within the first
30 days, you could even opt out and get
refunded if you missed the first window,
I think, is the way they they explained
it to us. So, but opt out at any time.
It's purely voluntary, but it is an auto
opt in on the front end.
>> So, you're just trying$1 or $2 a month
on a deal.
>> That's right.
>> To protect against a $2,500 leak.
>> I think it's a great deal. Yeah,
>> it's it's a we have I mean we talk to
these customers and how they stress
about having a $1,200 $1,300 water bill
when when when the when the pipe breaks,
>> right?
>> Yeah.
>> Any other questions or comments?
>> Not I don't think we need a vote this
month. I think we just I wanted to make
sure you all were were okay with us
pursuing this and bringing you back in
agreement. I'm hearing that. I'm not
hearing any objection to it. So, we'll
bring you back something later. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Ryan. Item 3.10 discusses
property take action on title 16,
chapter 3 of the Springfield Municipal
Code relative to the city's sidewalk
maintenance regulations. We have a
motion by Alderman Hollowman, a second
by Alderman Hover.
Questions, comments?
Me?
Well,
I would like to thank the city attorney
for the research and kind of looking at
our codes. And you know, this I think is
just it's hard because I think that um
it's very hard for all the people that
I've talked to, citizens, to understand
that that sidewalk they didn't choose is
their responsibility, but then we all
benefit from it. So, it's tough, but I
think that just kind of talking through
what we talked through last time, the
cost is too astronomical for the city to
absorb. I and and of course, we we have
the issue if there are places in the
city that don't have the benefit of
sidewalks. So, I think that that my
thoughts at this point are to how do we ensure preserve the sidewalks
that we do have? Perhaps we need to do a
little bit better on enforcement of
those that are really bad off. Um, and
then just educating continually people
because they just don't they don't under
they don't understand they don't know.
Um, and I I'm I wanted to talk to the
board about whether and I don't know how
you fund this, but having some sort of
um potential sidewalk maintenance fund
for those who are truly indigent and
need assistance and cannot do it
themselves. I think in speaking with the
city attorney there was mentioned that some other places have done that
and had like you know based on income
would someone apply? Um I'm not aware of
that being a particularly pressing issue
right now. I think it's more of just we
need to maybe start I don't want to say
policing it because that sounds kind of
more intimidating but making sure that
people do I do also want to um request
that we modify our current ordinance
because it currently says that the uh
homeowner would have to correct
sidewalks within 5 days and I don't
think that anyone would have really the
ability to do that unless they
themselves could fix it. So, I think
that there's other cities that allow,
you know, 30 to 60 days, which I think I personally think 60 days is more
reasonable because finding someone to do
it and getting them to look at it and
follow through the process. I think we
just need to give people more time to
fix the sidewalks after they're
notified. That's just my two cents.
>> Thank you,
Mayor. May I address that? I'd like to
address things that Alderman Holland
brought up. It's great points. I will
share with the board uh with regard to
enforcement. You all funded I requested
and you all were gracious enough to fund
a position in this year's budget a
dedicated property maintenance inspector
that we have never had. Property
maintenance has formerly been kind of
put under the umbrella of our building
and codes inspectors. And that is tough
in a high growth environment because
when they're when we have a thousand
units under construction right now or
dirt's been turned on a thousand units,
there's a lot going on for those codes
inspectors. So we had an opportunity
based on some personnel transition to do
that this year in the budget and you all
have funded that and we are excited
about that person that that position has
been filled as of last Monday
and I have told him that he's my new
best friend. Um because we because that
is going we're going to tackle property
maintenance. So sidewalk enforcement is
something that would be able to fall uh
within and underneath the property
maintenance inspector. I'm really
excited about the fact that we finally
have someone dedicated uh to ensure that
the city's cleanup. And it's not that
our codes inspectors were lazy. It's
that they didn't have time to do
property maintenance because when you
have so many inspections to do, uh
property maintenance falls by the
wayside. And unless a complaint comes
in, we were the you would you could see
the selfinitiated aspects of property
maintenance drop off and then they could
pick back up when inspections weren't
high. And so it was always an eb and
flow. Having that dedicated person to do
that is going to be extremely
beneficial. And I think we've got
someone who's really good to do that and be able to do it in a positive way
rather than just what I say beating
people over the head and shoulders. Um,
with regard to u 5 days
that is what the ordinance says in
practicality and from a due process
standpoint, it doesn't play out that way
because they would get served notice
first. We can't cite them until we
provide notice. So, in theory, they
would have a lot longer than 5 days, but
I understand we can clean up the
language. I have no issue doing that.
And with regard to the sidewalk fund
that you mentioned, um, what we have
heard other folks do, and I'm not just
through the grapevine, we have heard of
criteria, you know, the the city
government will provide up to
a, you know, 25% of the sidewalk repair,
up to a $500 maximum
if you meet certain income eligibility
limits, which may be 100, say 125% of
the federal poverty level or something
like that. And if that's something you
all would like to see brought back in
the form of a proposal or see that in
writing, we could certainly bring that
back next month.
>> For what it's worth, I would like that
just just to kind of again I think that
Alderman Gra made a good point which is
that I think there are a lot of people
>> that can do it and and just don't know
and that comes in with the education and
making people aware of what they need to
do. But for those who can't and the in
the interest of preserving what we
already have given the high cost of
putting it all back um I would love to
see that as just for those who may not
have the financial ability to completely
fix it.
» This did not make me happy by the way.
>> I did not find joy in that memo.
>> Mayor, if I could clarify, he started
last Monday. So, I need some time. He
needs to get trained. So, I don't want I
don't want to set the expectations too
high that we'll be, you know, doing full
sidewalk enforcement tomorrow.
>> I mean, we can't in the building now.
You're not in there.
>> You can't go all Marty Fo,
>> right out there. I mean, he's got to
have some time to get acclimated.
>> That's right. Understand city
regulations, understand property
maintenance code, and be trained in
processes and and so it'll take some
it'll it'll take a little bit, but we
finally have that position.
>> But you see that he'll be here in
September.
>> He'll be right. Yeah,
>> we will not take any action on this
tonight. Correct.
>> Well, we we would need some direction
from the board if I've heard from
Alderman Hollowman that she would like
to see a proposal for a sidewalk fund. I
have not heard from anyone else.
>> As I would also
>> Okay.
>> What are your thoughts about the
sidewalk?
>> I'm fine if they want to look at it and
see what we can do. Does anybody have
any idea like a average house on Walnut
Street if the sidewalk had to be fully
replaced what that cost would be?
>> Any Mr. Moore could probably answer
that.
>> What?
>> Like if you had a an average house on
Walnut Street that the the entire
sidewalk in front of their house needed
to be replaced. What cost estimate?
>> Say if it was 75 or 80 linear 75 or 80
linear feet.
And I know a lot of them could probably
just be repaired instead of fully
replaced.
>> Oh yeah, there's plenty of those also
because there's some historic
>> aspects of it.
» That doesn't
$5,200 would just be start from scratch.
>> Right.
>> Mr. Trump,
>> would this sidewalk fund be used?
Citywide, correct? Not just for one
particular area.
>> That that would be up to you all as to
why.
>> That is my request. Citywide if it's a
sidewalk that exists to preserve it.
Have this option for those who can't
afford
>> and also explore
putting the sidewalks in the sections of
town that don't have sidewalks. Okay.
>> That's also up to you all.
>> Yeah. Yeah. If
>> you wanted to put in sidewalks
everywhere in the city tomorrow, you
could.
>> Yeah. Major money. Make sure there's there's there's a balance there.
Okay.
>> Rose Hill. I'm tired of my people
walking on the road.
» So, okay.
>> I've heard consensus. I will bring back
a proposal in September.
>> Okay.
>> Just move this item to to next.
>> Yeah.
No vote taken tonight. We move on
to our consent agenda. Item 4.1.
Gas department has request for approval
to purchase a Caterpillar mini excavator
with trailer in the amount of $84,952
from Thompson Machinery of Lever,
Tennessee utilizing SWC number 2525,
budget amount $90,000.
We have a motion by Vice Mayor Harris,
second by Albert. Any questions or
comments?
Are we ready to vote?
Let's cast our votes.
Anyone care to change their vote?
» Would you count, please?
>> Motion passes six to zero.
>> At this time, city manager Ryan Martin
has his report.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first I want to
recognize uh our police chief, Jason
Head. He was recently sworn in as the
vice president of the Tennessee
Association of Chiefs of Police. That is
a uh phenomenal accomplishment. YEAH,
that is a quite an accomplishment to
have somebody from our from our city
representing on a on a statewide. He's
also very uh active and involved in in
the International Association of of
Chiefs of Police. I was going to cover
the property maintenance inspector, but
uh and share my excitement there, but
we've already done that. I need to
update you on our fuel situation. What
we've had, we had a u a malfunction.
Most of you know, some of you may not
know, we have always provided our own
fuel. We've had our own fuel tanks and
our own fuel system to to fuel city
vehicles and city equipment. We had a
malfunction there. Uh those that fuel
system and those pumps were decades and
decades old. We have pivoted away from
doing that fully internally now.
hundreds of thousands of dollars to
repair a 40-year-old system was not what
we thought was a wise investment. Uh
we've negotiated a deal with a uh with a
company to provide a deep discount on
fuel that will give us a little bit more
flexibility and uh and so we've
implemented that. We do intend to
maintain some fuel storage in in the
event of emergencies and uh and
potentially an ethanol free aspect of
that. If not, we'll work out an
arrangement. But uh just to let you know
that's a strategic shift in our business
operations and I it doesn't mean any
doesn't change your life or anything
like that but I always want to keep you
informed that we have a strategic shift
uh in our business operations because
now instead of buying loads of fuel we
will be purchasing it at the pump but
frankly at a at a better rate than we
were getting it in the loads. Uh first
Friday night market or first Fridays are
coming up. The next one is in September the 4th. in a couple of weeks.
As far as the economy so far in FY27,
sales tax receipts are kind of how we
gauge that and those are promising for
the first two months of the fiscal year.
Both months have been ahead of budget in
July and in August. And so that lets us
know how well our economy is performing
locally. It has nothing to do with, you
know, grabbing tax revenue. It has to do
with that's a great bell weather to know
if people are shopping local and how
well the economy is doing. So, it's a
very promising sign as far as the fire
station. And that's the last uh thing I
have on my list tonight. Uh we expect
our uh the IDB, the Industrial
Development Board expects their
guaranteed maximum price to be delivered
uh by the end of this week or early next
week. I think the uh bids are out for
the subcontractors and I think that bid
deadline was today or is was today. So we should know something by the end
of the week. What I expect to happen
being very realistic with you
is that we're going to need more money.
I think I told you this last month. Uh I
think we're going to need more money. We
had originally had a $7 million budget
and you issued 500,000 of that was cash
to get us started and $6.5 million bond
issue. I think we're going to need a
little bit more money. I just don't know
how much. We'll hopefully know in the
next week or so. What I anticipate
happening is the Industrial Development
Board, uh they meet in early September.
If they approve, if they're satisfied
with the result, what they're going to
do is approve that guaranteed maximum
price subject to the additional funding
that you all give them. Um,
Miss Sanford and I are working on a uh a
plan to figure out where that money
might come from. So, I hope to have that
for you sometime soon. And if you've got
any to spare that you want to share,
we'll take that, too. So,
>> I say it come out of parks and rec.
>> There you go.
» Oh, mayor. That's all I have. Thank you.
>> Thank Thank you, Ryan.
>> Any other questions, comments,
statements? If not,
journ.
>> Thank you everyone for joining us.
>> Have a good week.
>> How you doing?
>> Taking the boy around town.