[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.