08/02/2016

[0:00:00] will be led in prayer by alderman gallagher please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance that will be led by alderman ferguson heavenly father we come before you tonight and thank you for this day that you provided for us lord i pray that you would be with our children as they go back to school tomorrow lord that you would keep your hand over them lord keep them safe lord i also pray that for this special election lord that you would give the people wisdom and lord that you would uh watch over us and keep us safe in your name we pray amen amen i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united and to the states for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all before we move on with the agenda tonight um today was a sad day for the city of south haven we had to marry a gentleman that was a great servant for the city of south haven in the state of mississippi judge bob perry and if y'all will i'd like to read a little bit of history about judge perry and then if you will at the end join me in a moment of silence to pay respect to judge perry we were ready to inform you the passing of former south haven municipal judge bob perry judge perry passed away yesterday evening at minnesota healthcare in south haven with friends and family by his side judge perry served as a judge in the city's municipal court for 21 years he was a graduate of horn lake high school class of 1949 and was inducted into the heartland high school hall of fame in 2009. judge perry was an air force veteran who served as state senator representing desoto and ted counties

[0:02:02] from 1964 to 1976. he was president pro tem of the senate and even served a stint as acting governor judge perry later served as executive assistant to governor cliff finch from 1976 to 1980. judge pair was admitted in the mississippi bar in january of 1964. his original law firm was founded in horn lake and then he and his partners moved the firm to southaven in 1967. judge perry often volunteered his time to serve as a judge for the annual southaven springfest barbecue competition judge perry has also been a lay speaker and organist in the methodist church we're very thankful for judge perry's contributions to our state and our city he will be missed by many if y'all will join me for a moment of silence to pay respect to judge perry thank you okay next on our agenda is approval of minutes for the july 19 2016 meeting mr mayor move we approve the minutes of the regular meeting of july 19th 2016 with any additions deletions or corrections second we have a motion by alderman payne and second alderman kelly is there any discussion hearing none roll call kelly yes yes yes okay that motion carries next on our agenda is the rascal road mou and bid authorization mr nick manley i may recall this item was discussed at

[0:04:04] the last board meeting is the cost sharing agreement with mnr and associates araska road extension the agreement since that time we had issues worked out with the other side that are with m r associates as it relates to the cost and sequencing of events the mou will allow for the city to split the cost of m r and associates which is required to build half the road pursuant to our ordinances for the subdivision the city will be the entity bidding out the project before we go to bid mnr will provide an irrevocable letter of credit in about 209 100 and then we will then uh during the course of the project either invoice them for over four months for the 25 or draw down that letter of credit uh for the uh are their costs associated with the project um we'll go to this memo you allow us to go to bid as well we won't go to bed until we get the air vocal load or credit from them our associates um and then the uh the timeline we have not after we go to our last bid we have nine days to award the bid for the mou expired native party will have any obligations under it uh so that's kind of the big picture of the mou i'm having answered questions dan cordell's here as well as far as specific questions you have about the design um but tonight bring this for your approval uh mmr associates has signed it and agreed to it uh sometime we would need approval for the mou and then a separate motion authorized going to bid on the project someone take a second okay this this motion's on the mou yes okay so we have a motion by honor and ferguson second alderman gallagher is there any discussion and i will say that just make it clear for the minutes too that the city has been wanting to do this project obviously for a while from a public safety standpoint abrasive run all the way through so i think it's um the city is able to call share for this miui

[0:06:07] this is exciting mayor we've been waiting on this long time i agree is there any other discussion and just just as a reminder i think everyone understands as i mentioned at the last board meeting but this extension is the short distance going east from swinney road where dead ends now by the fire station and it will connect to um to the home so just that short stretch will then make rasco an east and west corridor that reaches all the way from uh getwell on the east side all the way to highway 51 on the west side so we think in addition to public safety it will also serve as a help with traffic mitigation moving east and west so we think it's great for our city this is coming out of the bond issue right the funding our portion i can refer to chris and later on that i don't know yes thank you we had after the other projects from the bond we should years ago all the other ones there roughly roughly there's about 600 000 left in that uh we our portion is um it's 802. dan is that right i made it 902. the total is 902 minus 200. right so we roughly may have to use a hundred thousand a little above uh from the fund balance but um the majority of it will come out of the buying balance okay okay is there any other discussion hearing roll call yes okay that motion carries and then we need a separate for the bid to get authorized for us to go to bed on the price yes so i moved exactly brought back to you we have a motion on the uh bid

[0:08:12] authorization by alderman flores the second bottom in ferguson is there any discussion this one has to be a little bit right because it's construction well at lowest and best the most basically the low the lowest and best but typically i don't speak out term typically that is the lowest invest but sometimes you will have a bid that is higher but under state law you can go with lowest invest but once we get them in the engineering staff will evaluate that recommendation thank you any other discussion very known roll call yes okay that motion carries all right next on the agenda is the um lima change order i think i'll talk to chris with me that's already been approved at a priority okay so we don't need to do anything else correct okay all right we'll move past that the next on our agenda as a resolution for our special election yes sir uh as the poor is aware and mayor border aware uh july her last meeting was auburn kite's last meeting her resignation was effective july 31 in a letter to the clerk that she submitted last week so under state law since the election or since the vacancy in office is longer than six months which would be you know her tournament determined june 30th requires a special election state law requires that there be an election no less than 30 but no more than 45 days on the day of the vacancy today the vacancy is july 31st uh we've the date suggested in the resolution is september 13th for the special election which would be 44 days from july 31st that would be involved in the statute the plan would be under state law there are certain requirements for advertising the resolution intent for the special election uh it's a little bit it's quirky the way the state law works as far as advertisement goes but it requires us to advertise within a certain amount of days that being said we'll end up advertising

[0:10:14] them five times posting in three special places for the election the deadline to qualify i'm andrea quickly for a moment is on the head of the deadline to qualify the august 24th which will be 20 days prior to september 13th and clerk's office will have all the information regarding uh especially i mean the early voting dates information with a packet so if any candidate wants to pick one up and express interest in the office uh in addition our next item agenda of the election commission or the later agenda item will be appointed by the contract election commissioner that will help with the election as well um special elections so tonight we just need to pass a resolution saying the special election date for september 13th um and then that will also allow for the advertisement of the special election the posting of the special election and then i think tomorrow is when candidates can start turning in their information regarding the attempts to run it they're so big i'll be happy to answer any questions andrew can answer any questions regarding this issue will this one resolution cover everything you just said the dates the advertisement and the vacancy yeah yes the uh resolution the only reason this resolution does is set the date for the special election and the posting of the notice the state law state law then comes in and tells you when everything has to be done regarding the uh qualifications and that type of thing okay i was just trying to make sure there wasn't we didn't have to do more than one on this i'd like to make the motion forward mayor pass resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of alderman of ward 2 in the city of south haven mississippi and calling for a special election to fill said vacancy pursuant to section 2315 857 at mississippi second we have a motion by alderman ferguson

[0:12:17] and a second baltimore pain is there any more discussion election commission agreement this agreement is with a very chatted uh the amount of if it depends if there's a runoff uh if the election is one thousand point seventy five dollars without a run off one thousand dollars to assist our city clerk's office and the city with the special election and tonight i recommend this for our program exactly we have a motion by alderman gallagher second alderman kelly it's during discussion [Music] yes okay that motion carries next on our agenda's appointment of another election commissioner i believe this is our last one did we at the last meeting we discussed we had we have four we needed one more tonight was on the agenda for early gallagher yeah okay okay so we'd like we need a motion uh the person is um that would round it out and be our last one is uh danny thomas so we need a motion to appoint danny thomas i might get in motion one second we have a motion of honor ferguson second alderman gallagher to appoint danny thomas to the election commission is there any discussion hearing none roll call kelly yes yes yes yes okay that motion carries next on our agenda resolution for the filing of liens this resolution is where they've given the city authority to file the liens for those properties that have been cut already or come down been cut these resolutions

[0:14:19] will then be this liens will then be turned into assessments upon the september october meetings for the uh go into the assessments pursuant the state law that was going to be on the properties adjudicating the cost of cleaning property we have a motion volume approval for yes agreement number three for the elmore road south and supplemental agreement number two for the elmore road north construction projects mr dan cordell motions the first is uh supplemental agreement number two change order supplemental greatness what the state uses in this matter it is a request for an increase of 20 completed this is not the final change definitely set up in the project so it's not an increase it's a justification of approval we have a motion by alderman flores second of all in gallagher it's raining discussion that's for change number two right the next one is number three on the southern portion okay that motion carries

[0:16:37] it is a deduct same thing as a adjustment of the as measured quantities in the field is it 42.4 cents what's going on yes next on our agenda is the resolution granting authority to claim no mistake second among the board and is there anyone in the audience agenda is our planning agenda mrs whitney for a two lot subdivision on the east side of getwell north of plum point road it's kind of nestled in the wooden place it isn't a large lot residential side of the city like one having 3.15 acres into the project and they have given you a a lot i did agree to that

[0:18:43] planning commission voted unanimously in favor of it at that point is there a motion to approve i don't want i might get motion both ends this is that no man's land in the middle the house already in existence on this i think what they want to do is break out the back half to get to a family member i did have one comment with me you know the ingressy is straight or just a private yeah this will be publicly dedicated once okay i mean is it your documents that record that it's a crowding secret okay and again we just had understand why the city's not maintaining the street because it's not a public street right when we platinum if we plant it as a designated ingress egress that's essentially a legal driveway that gains access to another lot if we're going to plat it as roadway that the city takes on it will be identified as right-of-way or dedicated public street okay i wouldn't think it's emergency services what address would be they don't have an address to the rear

[0:20:45] lot it'll be addressed off of mary jane lane it'll just be a really long driveway okay i can see i can kind of see a problem way in the future with this let's say that i mean it's a family in the front house and you drive down the drive to get to another family ambassador but in the future say these people go away and somebody else wants to buy these properties i see a problem coming with that driveway yeah but if it's planned that way it is illegal binding it's legal it's legal documents so they may not like them driving about it but it's their right to at that point well and that's exactly my concern that's what happened in some other areas we've had some areas that some develop 30 40 years ago and it was a private ingress egress but then the second homeowners or other people did not understand why the city was not maintaining it you know that's why but if we got it with legal documents i think we've had enough of them now we've just explained okay is there any other discussion on item one hearing none raw calling yes yes motion carries on item one item number two we have an application by philly fraser for a veterinarian clinic on the northwest corner of gatwell road and cherry place drive it's in the tree subdivision the actual pud it's going to be your northernmost entrance just south of college road basically we've we've reassured planning commission and so i was reassured as well that there will not be any outward kennels which was a requirement for this approval as you can see on there it's designed to be residential in appearance it does have a pitched roof architectural shingles it's uh compiled with brick and stone it does have cedar accent on it the only thing that the planning

[0:22:47] commission requested to change was the architectural shingle color you'll see the building elevations in there and you'll see the sample materials beyond that it's kind of orangish red we toned it down to a weathered wood you can see it right past there we've toned it down to a weathered wood and they did agree to that once that agreement came into play they did vote unanimously in favor of it okay you'll see it right past here it's there it's kind of a reddish brown it didn't really go along with materials they proposed for the rest of it so they came down to the weather wood which is a very standard architectural shingle color that we have on all the residential areas around there so like i said they did agree to that and we put that in the notes and it was voted unanimously in favor of that point i'll make that motion expect we have a motion by alderman flores on item two and a second modern caliber is there any discussion bearing known roll call i don't know yes item number three uh we've had many discussions on this has been in front of the planning commission a few times a town hall meeting i've had a few aldermen actually attend some of these meetings this is the pinewood development and this is the property approximately 280 acres on the south side of state lawn road between tulama and gatwell road in 2005 the comprehensive plan was amended to allow mixed use development in this area as opposed to large lot residential we had an application come in that requested to obviously use the hard corners for commercial bring in some office and then on the interior provide plain business park at the first meeting at the town hall meeting obviously i had a lot of opposition mailing due to the warehousing three different alternatives were brought into play what you see here is right before the last one and

[0:24:49] essentially what this did was shift the plant business part more towards the interior provide an area of common open space on the south side a buffering ansley park which was existing hardwoods and pines and actually pulled them in and brought a buffer yard along state line road a little bit further back so people in the valley grove area were not actually staring at retail and the further further through the discussions the applicant came back right before the planning commission last time uh adjusted the plan business park a little bit more towards the interior and brought the parking into that tva line you see going diagonal and instead of having the retail and the office space along state line right in front of valley grove i actually proposed a church and an assisted living facility we let obviously there's some concern citizens mainly the biggest concerns with obviously fame business park uh pollution traffic property values were your main three we had some concerns on north side about like i said being right up on the road against commercial property and they didn't want to sit out on the front porches and then look at it in the end the planning commission voted to deny it based on the cons outweighing the pros and at that point we're bringing it here i have talked to the applicant i do have some concerned citizens in the audience that would like to speak i also have the applicant here as well in lieu of a full denial they have asked to propose something different which would take all the plant business park and leave the church the assisted living the office and the commercial inn so if i could i could allow him to speak and any of the concerned citizens at this point so why don't you allow the property owner to speak first my name is david baker with fisher

[0:26:51] arnold address for the record is 9180 crestwood hills drive memphis 3125. we appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and working with staff and the residents and neighbors on this project as pointed out the staff report and then staff presentation that there was a rejection recommended by the planning commission uh and uh mr fundenberg would like to get some type of activity happening on the site we've had a lot of interest during this process for the retail especially at the state line get well corner and would like to at least have that opportunity to move forward with that while we visit other opportunities for the interior portion of the site having said that i'll be glad to answer your questions and appreciate it again working with the city just to be clear what are you asking for tonight well ultimately we would like to have the planned business part but as as to in order to not get a full rejection we would like to have a commercial in office on the get well and uh to the houma uh sides and the maybe stay in the balance of the agriculture warehouses are gone yes okay i'm they're showing the old picture i'm seeing i'm thinking this is a new revised picture that i'm looking at here for the new planned business part i have brought examples tonight of what it would reflect yes we require rezoning if we win whitney does it still require rezoning to do any any form of approval tonight will require resigning at this point it is one large parcel of agricultural use property my question was

[0:29:11] even with some revised plans does it require a reasoning would it be very the same what would be the rezoning only if we're going to go with just the hard corners and the office areas what we would do is take that portion and reset it essentially to c1 or c4 or office what i would suggest and what we've talked about several times with the citizens is to do a blanket commercial there are some uses that they weren't very excited about i can say i wasn't very excited about them myself if you do a blanket c4 or c1 so the staff reports you have in front of you which was the original staff report will itemize out some things we would like to remove from that um so in light of doing a straight c4 zoning we would probably just take those sections and do small puds on them with itemized uses on them which would still be a rezoning application so you you'd still be rezoning it but you'd be doing a different reasoning did you have a hearing on the rezoning i just see smaller portions no this came up um friday i stated that we would put the request in front of the board and whatever motion is made to either bring it back to the planning commission or make a decision here my concern would be just just talking out loud just my concern but you haven't had we haven't had a hearing on a on a commercial rezoning i don't think you can i don't think this board could be the first quarter impression or the first quarter here i think you'd have to have a full other one here the planning commission did hear the the slight plan and i believe the main objection was the planned business park so they did hear the case uh and so it has been heard with was there action taken on it was just the portion of commercial office no not just that were you here for that meeting oh yes about three or four times so i guess i guess they did not

[0:31:13] okay this plan they denied the plan the old plan there that's correct okay so i would my thinking is that our our planning commission would have to meet on this one on the rezone or not but can we let our city attack would you answer that for us i would i would my concern would be if that if there has not been of course i wasn't at the meeting but there was not any action or anything presented for that specific alternative to be a c4 c1 zone then you'd have to have a hearing for that portion of it i don't know if you come by concerning me tonight if we considered anything that was voted on considered at the original meeting of the planning planning commission that it didn't have it didn't have a hearing if you will for that act for that particular rezoning question rezoning application if that makes sense now because at the hearing that night it was done as a planned business part it was done as a mixed use development mixed use development that was voted down that was voted down so uh and then tonight obviously a c1 and c4 is different from mixed-use development well i i or is it i would caution from doing a straight zoning either way we would still do a mixed-use development because you have office uses and commercial uses uh church uses and assisted living uses and what he's newly proposing would your office relatively able to recommend a change to a c1 or c4 tonight no we don't want to do a blanket rezoned to a c4 what i said just like in our report our commercial areas we worked it off of a master list of c4 uses but because it was a pud you can take out uses you don't want and uses you do want you can add in strip centers car washes things like that we were moved which is allowed in a c4 zone but we didn't want to see in this commercial area so it was already tweaked into a pud form for the commercial corners either way but to answer your question on presentation for what you're looking at now that was not an alternative that was brought from planning commission but what we're proposing tonight still from the hud that's just the planned visions portion

[0:33:16] is removed and left in the ag district i mean i think most most everybody that's been involved with this they know that that land's going to develop to something but they just knew that they did not want any more warehouses and you took those out but i think we need to have a little time for the residents in that area to look this plant over and get this approved you know proper way i'm not sure if we we're taking the right approach to this or not nick are we clear i mean are we can we even look at this tonight i think you can definitely look at what's being presented absolutely i mean what was definitely what was presented to the planning commission can be looked at i think the questions are looked in you know voted on act number four i think the question is coming can this board take action on something that uh this is where i'm getting confused i guess myself can this board take action on something that would may or may not be presented to the planning commission and it sounds like it was presented but there was no action taken is that what i'm understanding well i think that the misconception here is this is all a conceptual design that had sections of uses all through it um there is another alternative that like i said that's this is not the final alternative the final alternative that was given to the planning commission that was voted down still of all the flame business park in there it did remove the retail strip or the retail area along state line road and put in an assisted living in a church area there was some maneuvering of the buildings but essentially the overall plan was denied at the planning commission based on primarily based on the warehousing it was asked by the chairman of the planning commission with the applicant remove the warehousing um for approval

[0:35:18] and at that time not as faulted at all that that discussion had not happened with his property owner so he wasn't prepared to make that agreement with the planning commission at that point they voted unanimously to die mr isn't the planning agreement recommending body to this board correct and then this board could take the action they seem fit whether it's to send it back or to take it that's i think i agree with you i think my concern tonight would be this board taking action from the standpoint of doing that i think this board could table it for further review by the planning commission slash planning director planning office um cons okay i guess we have had a hearing on the property uh but this is the you're correct the plan commission is just simply recommending board this board has the ultimate authority so tonight just so the board's also aware you do have the authority to basically say we don't agree with the planning commission whatsoever and we vote to go with what was presented um in disagreement planning commissions on the board maintains that authority as well so it's it's a i'm not trying to you know defer but it's a board decision tonight from how it stands uh but the board's options would be to the uphold the planning commission recommendation um or uh which would be denied or a returning plan commission recommendation and say this is we disagree we want this here we will vote for this uh i think another option too is to table for further review based on likes based on the recent um changes that were presented on i guess thursday or friday all right now i guess i'll also my thought would be though just as the attorney i would want to hear from the planning director it's like what are your thoughts on i mean if those are the options i would much rather table than deny or then to approve at this point because honestly i haven't had a lot of time to review the newly submitted documents getting it on friday and saturday and sunday and hearing on tuesday i think we're working towards a cohesive development they've made some big

[0:37:21] concessions on their side sounds like we're still working with a lot of the residents trying to make sure that we get what they want in there um so if it's up to me i would recommend tabling at this point there are still two other things that need to be answered though we never really got a clear answer on the question if there's been an amendment made by the property owner but it's not been brought back in front of to have another hearing about it since there's a proposed amendment but we don't know exactly what that is other just the comment of taking the warehouses out so nick my question to you is by law does there have to be another hearing regarding the amendments or could the vote for example could the board vote tonight to approve it without the warehouses without there being a hearing i would caution against the board voting tonight to prove it without that without that being presented needs to have a hearing i would i would recommend appearing since there is a change standpoint of of that thing now that being said that's my recommendation i don't think legally you know it would be half required to because it's already been presented from my hearings from a zoning perspective to a planning commission so it's not required by law but a recommendation yeah and i said i would want to research a little bit further on that okay but just tonight you know you know just looking at it from right now i want to but i would want some time to at least research here just a little bit to make sure i'm right on that because i could see where the and get to look at the minutes from the planning commission meeting as well and look at those minutes and see what was actually saying was actually presented because i think the concern with me from my perspective is having that having something presented tonight to the board that hasn't been considered by the planning commission to me would we i think the board had the authority to overturn the planning commission's recommendation um the issue would be tonight doing something that has not been actually reviewed by the planning commission and when our plan director is also saying she's a little more kind of viewed as well that would be my concern tonight and then my last question would be in all fairness to the property owner rather than us being presumptuous and just assuming how does the property owner know

[0:39:24] that the plan that was turned down by the planning commission would not be approved by the board without a without a formal vote i i don't i don't i think i don't know that so i mean that's what i'm saying if you take what you're telling you're not telling the property on or anything he doesn't know if it's been approved because even though the planning commission recommended and it'll be turned down for it to be officially turned down the board of honor would have the ultimate authority to turn it down so before they go to plan b and submit another go through another hearing with another design i think they need closure to their original proposal because there's never there's not been any formal city action on it now the board is the board is tonight wanting to definitely take action on what was presented to the planning commission i think obviously i think it seems it seems like everybody's on the same page with that which would not prevent them from making another amendment and going back to the process right correct so to me and the board can do whatever you want to table or do whatever but i would suggest that you give the property owner a clear answer you know he's made a he's come before you to ask for there to be an approval based on what was submitted at the hearing and then for him to know what the answer is yay or nay there needs to be a board vote on that question that's huge that's yes sir if it is voted and rejected is there a time period that we have to wait to refile or do we appeal it with the new information that that we brought forth tonight that's a good question that was exactly my question i was going to ask nick if we deny this application and that's the one we're denying not the one we have in our hand this is their due then then that gives him a clear line that we stand behind our planning commissioners and say that that's not acceptable and we're not going to take that during that do we need do does he just come back and resubmit this to our planet our our planning department or our planning commission and come before them and say okay i got a whole new zealand because

[0:41:27] yeah it would have to come in front of us as a new project altogether starting from scratch okay but that would work better denying this tonight if his if his owner wants an answer a formal answer tonight yes i would prefer it being remained back to the planning commission based on this new than a total rejection if that's the right so a table would look would the tag will work the same way i don't know if we can remain back to a planning commission though if this board is the ultimate there's they're not going to bring anything back that's going to be anything to me it's just going to be i think at that point you'll almost be redoing setting it anyway because you have to have the hearing for the planning commission would this be a recommendation by they've given you a recommendation if you change it the planning commission or plain department can say we need to have the hearing for that particular change but i don't that's that's the question is is that does that the question tonight which i think the research is does the change in the structure in the um plan itself require new hearing okay and that's kind of what my question was too if if if we don't deny this let's say we table this tonight okay that just means he goes back before the planning commission to me and submits more changes and these are his changes that he's showing which would shorten your period of time rather than obstructing the time i understand where he's coming from but if we and that's my that's kind of my concern tabling it it expedites it for a year or not a little quicker um because we're looking for if we do start over the process again i mean they have formal applications public notices new fees and it goes into about another three-month process can he bring it back to the planning commission with if you table it you have to untable it here once he finds out what we can and can't do he may find that it's just a recommendation from myself and the residents and the decision here it may find that it's a

[0:43:29] formal recommendation back from the winning commission but i i thank you for being able we can at least get an answer from nick first you could always rezone this that's the point is tonight the board could re-zone it tonight yeah i think i would take i would think you could overturn the planning commission on that tonight and let him hear what he has to say with this new proposal and see that's my that's my point and i see we got someone in the audience wants to speak we'll get right to you okay that's my again that's my thing if i'm the property owner and i'm not speaking to you i'm asking you um if there's no vote this the planning commission is an advisory board they have no authority to make a decision for the city of south haven these people here make the decision for the city so if i'm a property owner even though it's been recommended that it be turned down i want to hear ultimately i want it to be a formal decline but i mean i guess what i'm asking you is if you don't want to vote if you table it then you never will know if you would have been approved for the warehouses you see what i'm saying so if you're willing to make that sacrifice without even knowing how the board is going to vote that's i guess that's your i guess that's your call but i think we probably have a pretty good feel of how the board will vote uh but we don't know that for sure but uh i just know as a property owner if i wanted to i wouldn't want to be warehouses declined before i went to the you know before i compromised but i might that's that's i guess that's your call could we but if i heard you right i may not have heard you right can this body tonight not overturn the planning commission's recommendation and rezone it to what it is right what he's about to propose as long as what he's proposing does not include the warehouses i think he could that question becomes

[0:45:33] if you don't you're you're basically hearing something that has not been that has not you're considering something that has not been considered about formal hearing perspective ordinances you're seeing a plan that has not been you're seeing a plan or a piece on a piece of paper that has not been considered by the at the formal hearing date so to err on the side of caution it would be better to to to uphold the planning commission's recommendation and then let them go back and have a formal hearing you could do that i can see where the mayor's coming from with that so i'm saying you're never answering their initial proposal i mean and that's the thing again i mean not that we don't respect our planning advisory board because we do or we wouldn't put them on the board however they have no authority the authority rests with this board so if you're if they present it with the warehouses and there's never a vote on it we've never decla it's never been declined and that's what i'm saying if i'm the if i'm the property owner i want i want to hear a decline before i go to plan b unfortunately we do that and that to be to me seems to be the best way to go but we do that then they go back into the hopper for a three-month process but is our way to do that without the delay that's what i was well we got a unanimous from denial from the planet mission i mean and that's where i think that's why i think he's err on the side of caution and i mean you know any any of the ways will work i understand where nick's coming from and you know our concerns are for the citizens and for the owner of the property too i'm just trying to see which one's going to expedite it quicker and get everybody an answer be it one they like or one they don't like i mean the people the residents who've been here they've attended every meeting they've come to every town hall meeting i'm like the mayor i want to give them an answer um i'd like to give mr funeral answer but well i think mr thunderbirds do an answer to be honest with you and i think we need we need to take into consideration what's fair to them as well right i'm sure they put a lot of money already out on this yeah but

[0:47:35] that being said i still think that we need to air on the side of caution can you go forward on planning commission's requisition are you making that motion i know you are people okay and i'll make that motion to the board mayor that we deny item number three application the landing fondle burger to rezone 280 acres of property okay we have a motion about arnold and ferguson to decline item number uh number three and a second by harvard kelly is there any other discussion what was the motion though i mean was what was the proposal the proposal was for the plan with the community developments i mean with the retail and developments without the warehouses that's the proposal that you're voting on tonight is what you see out there denying a mixed-use development that included office commercial and planned business park as the use is on the property and we were requesting to amend that to to take the business part off warehouses out believe the remaining i can understand that but i think i would rather it be done right across all of these because i don't think you can i get what you're trying to do and i respect that but i don't think that formally you can change the plan in the middle of the process i mean again unless nick tells me different the way i understand it it does have to go through a hearing and that's not been done yet the amended plan the plan that's on the table now that was uh turned down by the planning commission commission includes the warehousing so we can't just say well we'll approve it if you take the warehousing out i mean it has to go back and go back to a hearing again is that correct nick i think that's what i understand i think they're one i think the point of mr arnold is they're wanting to say you've already had the hearing on the zoning they're saying well to change the zoning if you change the zoning people take the warehousing out and don't i don't speak

[0:49:38] for you but that's seems to be like we've already had the hearing on the zoning as a compromise to assist with overturning of the planning commission we will take out the warehousing of that so what you're doing tonight is you're just considering overturning the planning commission from their zoning from what they they denied the zoning of with some new details that in all parents have not been submitted to the planning commission by being submitted to the sport the concern becomes the planning commission never acted on that from the standpoint they never saw these plans the residents never saw this place it wasn't part of the public hearing what these plans um and so that's that's the part i would want to read through a little bit more if you're not you're not asking for different zoning you're just asking for a different um you're asking for different use within the zoning itself that's what it boils down to so i think that's the question is can you consider the zoning differently i mean the zoning wouldn't change or is this thing designing this will be the same but just be the uses in the mixed use zoning are being revised but i would assume that this board would want to know that before they voted no i mean i'm not i'm just trying to clarify what he's saying i'm not saying that i'm saying that's i think that would be am i saying your point right yeah so i mean yes we you know as i stated mr hunter would like to get some type of activity started on the site we've been working on this for almost a year now and we've been to all these meetings we felt like the major objection was the planning business part portion of this the commercial in office complies or conforms with the comprehensive plans and land use plans for get well until on the road so we felt like that was compliance with the city's long-range plans but the objectionable portion of the plan business part we said let's take that out let's do some more market research of what what could go in that place but while that's going on let's let's get some activity because like i said we've had numerous uh inquiries about the properties at the corner there so

[0:51:38] that's our intent it's not not to confuse anybody or anything like that it's just like so we've been at this for quite quite a bit of time like that and let me and i hope this will help just to help clarify for everyone excuse my non-governmental time frame attitude um but things take so long is there another way since this has already been presented and discussed for so many many months is there a way that mr thunderbird can come back and amend the plans schedule hearing let them make a recommendation put it back on our agenda quickly without going through so when we talk about going through the whole process again why is that necessary why can't he just amend it put it back in front of the hearing again let the planning commission make a recommendation and let's vote on it i mean i'm fine with that i guess what we what we're saying is the next planning commission is not until the very end of august and then it'll go to the third hearing for the ordinance to be rezoned in september um can we can we can you not call a planning commission meeting a special special discussion um i mean we can try i've never actually called a special earring but i mean we can certainly just be trying and we try to extra that i understand where the americans i mean i agree i don't want to hold them up any longer right now yes i don't i want to speed it up for you mr can we try that the statute requires i think 15 days now i'm this off topic i think it's 15 day notice for a hearing for planning so you have so you have so once everything's fitted you just have you set up 15 days and you have to put hearing and planning commission i don't have to look and see what your ordinance is saved i mean i don't i don't all it states as a planning commission meets the end of the month the field process comes to the board of aldermen it doesn't go into a special hearing if you set the hearing on the sign for 15 days or 15 days i think you could then have a planning commission meeting that that i don't think has to be necessarily if there's anything magic about the

[0:53:39] night y'all meet i think you have but you do have to have you do you want to put on that big red sign and advertise everything there is then you gotta give the two uh the notice and the paper all that um but i think i think the main limitation to the mayor's point is speaking it up is it could be sped up basically enough it's just there are certain deadlines by statute for certain notice periods so 15-day notice is required under uh under state law so that whatever and i think it's i don't think it's 15 working days like it is on a bid a bit i think it's just 15 days like a bid statutes 15 working days this is just 15 days but what i'm hearing it still would be realistic to get it back on on this agenda in september i think you could do something yeah we would get it back in september regardless i just think it'd be better for the board to have a month to see it formally rather than try to you know make a decision you know in midship you know i mean i'm fine with however you want to handle it i'll take it next however we make the motion and that would be my uh response back to the property and i said well so you're not going through this long lengthy thing again everybody's familiar with most of it planning commission is obviously familiar with it with the exception of the concern of the warehouses so i think we speed that up and make it quicker but i i think it's uh i i do think and again it's the board's call it's not my call i think that he needs a formal answer you know with a plan that's been declined by the planning commission so he knows what plan b is well i agree with that i think we need to take that care of that and let them come back with a new revision and that way they've done it clean and we're airing outside of caution yeah and i don't like to speak for someone else i mean we don't until we take the vote we don't know what the vote is that's right so so we're voting it down tonight and then we're voting on what's been presented to the planning uh that went through the planning commission that was presented to the board now what's on the agenda is what we're voting on tonight which is and then i don't i mean i don't know i think i made a motion to deny item number three which is this item right here that we're looking at not the one

[0:55:42] that got past that right so it's going to require a new submittal as a new project if it's voted down tonight it will become a whole new project that's what i'm saying well is there any whole new product no i mean well yes but i mean that's i just want to make everybody i mean i just need to not make it a new project and allow him to and resubmit everything it's going to become it's its own new project now yeah right that's the i think earlier if there's a way to mend it on the fly then let's do that but they're based on what's nick's saying there's not a way you can't amend it on the fly it's got to go back to the the hearing so i don't that thing i don't i don't know that's why i want to research that part but i don't know if you man i think you could come in and say i don't know the ant testing i don't without looking a little bit further with it being changed i need to research that but can we table till we can get more information can we do that because we could begin the next meeting right it could come back up in two weeks i think we can but i do think that would need to hear but if we find out that we have to have agreement with we've wasted two more weeks yes by declining the original proposal that doesn't change anything like if if the board voted tonight to decline it i mean obviously if they were to approve it then all this is moved yeah but if they uh if the board voted to turn it down that still doesn't change the fact that when you do your research on it we could give him a quicker answer that it can be amended without going through the whole process again well i think once you turn it down you go through the whole process that's that's what i was trying to point out it does start the whole process again that's i i'll shut up but i just know if i were a property owner i won't i want closure i want to know what the answer is you know but that's again a supports call how long do you think it'll take

[0:57:44] you to find out the answer not very sure this week but i mean we don't unless we call it you know we don't meet again you know especially but we don't meet again but my argument especially and hearing what you've heard would you rather be tabled yes we would like to we would spend a lot of effort and like said mr bunberg spent a lot of money trying to get this point in and it's like it's some type of return without having to start over you know take five new fees uh additional meetings and things like that and i said we were hoping uh and we felt like the main objection was the the planned business part and that the commercial in office that fit with the long-range plans of the city so we're trying to trying to appease the neighbors by taking the planned business park out but still trying to move forward with some type of development to get some yield and return on the problem but you're under the understanding that if we we table it tonight and we come back and nick tells us no we've got to start all over again that that's where we got to be right i understand that all right i don't think find it but yes we've got emotion on the table so okay we have a motion to decline as submitted um by alderman ferguson the second alderman kelly so do we want to rescind that motion i i make a motion to rescind my motion to deny item number three okay and is there a second to rescind it okay i guess we can do that um a motion to rescind the original motion of alderman ferguson and the second by alderman kelly is there any discussion about rescinding that motion hearing none roll call yes okay that motion carries so we'll send that so we're back to where we were so now um before we decide to take what i did promise the gentleman in the

[0:59:46] audience a chance to speak so would you please come forward my name is joe baker i live in hansgood park and i appreciate you giving us the opportunity to present the some views that are pertinent to people that live near this area first of all i agree with the city attorney that the 15-day requirement for public notice for people living in the neighborhood has not been met in this particular situation twice it has not been met and it occurs to me that uh pinewood is anxious to shove this through as fast as i can with only one side of it being shown one of the things i like about living in south haven is that the planning commission and city of south haven i think have done a very good job of protecting residential property values by separating residential areas from areas they should not be adjacent to and on the where we are at this point is there have been two votes on this one was two votes no four votes to table no votes yes then uh the question was clearly asked at the meeting that you're now talking about planning commission meeting would you be willing to take the warehouses out the answer was no there are lots of vacant spaces in existing warehouse areas west of

[1:01:49] 1620 state line road there's there's a number of vacant spaces in there the concern of the people of ansley park and some of the chambliss divisions which that involves 490 homes we did some very careful research about what the future zoning of this would mean if the warehouses went in i understand that we've backed off from that some but if the warehouses went in for the 490 homes there would be a loss of eight and a half million dollars in property value almost immediately we checked the house that was just north that sold roughly two weeks ago 4 800 4 800 square foot house originally a four hundred thousand dollar house it sold for two hundred ninety thousand dollars there's there's another uh cheaper house in another warehouse area and uh it was originally a hundred and eighty thousand dollar house it lost eighteen thousand these are actual sales so i'd be interested to know when uh when when the which are comparing it to what year was the was the house worth that much the uh the four hundred thousand dollar house sold last week when was it what was it when was it no one was appraised for 400. when was well it was or i believe it was 15 years ago see this and again i i respect what you're saying but that's not a fair comparison because property values are tremendously different throughout the city and that kind of i i understand but what was the factor that caused it to lose that much value well there's been a lot of factors

[1:03:51] that decrease values it's in 15 years my personal house has decreased in value since i built him i built mine 15 years ago and and it's not worth as much now i mean just because of the recession and everything that happened you can't i'm just saying you can't blame that the president tells us the recession is over i don't care what the president said but uh at any rate we we did we did honest research and there were estimates that the loss would be considerably higher one of those estimates was epa influenced and quite frankly i don't believe much of what epa says anyhow there's some other factors as you know desoto county has been in a tussle with epa for what 20 years over air quality standards and finally after an enormous amount of pressure including from one of our own senators we're now in attainment with epa we need to look very very carefully at what we do to change this we don't want to go back into non-attainment and we we don't want to lose the value of anybody's house but you know it you can drive through these these housing areas and see that they're quite well kept landscaping including and that sort of thing and the homeowners should not be victims of an overly ambitious developer and by the way let me ask mr baker have you all had contact with uh idi on the possibility of selling this property you haven't ideas not involved excuse me idi is not involved

[1:05:54] but there uh there was the the proposition of selling this property had this gone through was a very different possibility right yes so we're dealing with somebody that probably doesn't even live in mississippi much less desoto county uh mr mayor again thank you for your courtesy and hearing the point of view alderman appreciate your consideration too appreciate the attorney's opinion i think he's right and you know if you're going to do something like this most actions including even those of epa which is as much of a rogue government bureaucracy as exists they have an obligation to have public notice of intent and the public notice of what's in front of you right now has not been held and this developer twice has failed to meet the 15-day requirement well and offer and please stan i i appreciate because i want my goal is for going to make an informed decision whatever that may be so i appreciate your comments and please please remain standing right there because a couple of things i want to clarify all right i don't agree with your cut the facts don't support a couple things that you said because your initial statement was that uh that we have vacancies in our warehousing now which we do have vacancies but there's a reason for some of that there's been some consolidations among companies and jim flanagan our economic development director i've been in many meetings with other people as that are prospects to come here and we do not have a vacancy problem actually there is a lack we we need more warehouse space in the city of south havens and the reason i'm saying that because throughout all this conversation i've heard that and that's not that's not true that's something that some have

[1:07:58] continued to repeat but we do not have um an excessive vacancy in warehouse space we actually need more warehouse bays mr mayor uh i didn't state it clearly enough apparently there are vacant lands west of 1620 state line road several very large parcels of land there are warehouses all around that land so you're you're not saying the existing structures you're saying that there's land for potential that's right okay i got you thanks for clairing that and then the other thing was the um the comment about the epa having been in many meetings regarding our air quality uh i can tell you that that a lot of that has nothing to do with south haven mississippi it's it's the fact that we're grouped in with west memphis arkansas which is you know trucking capital of the world and so a lot of our air quality uh attainment was not caused by the truck traffic here in south haven it's caused by the exposure to west memphis i i was involved in some epa tussles in the 1990s at that time carol browner and al gore who had a habit of disobeying the law ignoring the law and so forth they wanted to slap a to give you some idea their behavior has nothing to do directly with south haven but in that epa can turn on anybody it is related they wanted to find the taxpayers of west memphis 20 million dollars for a superfund site that had never been in the city limits of south haven and never been controlled by the city of south haven we fought that battle for 10 years finally in the bush administration it was ended the city of southaven wound up having to pay zero they even asked us if we would cut the berm on the superfund site we said no we had nothing to do with this to start with

[1:10:02] and we're not involving ourselves now so uh i i think i think all of us have a deep respect for our law enforcement and our people who genuinely service who try to help us out in a weather emergency or whatever the case may be but there is a deep-seated fear across this land of what government can do to us right and then uh in relation to that i'd like to clarify one other thing too the accusation that uh we did not get proper notice would you please address that whitney i mean this is not something and again i'm listening what you're saying but i know that i've been involved in many discus this has been discussed for many many months i don't think it's a fair statement to say that the property owner is trying to force anything down anyone's throat because there's been much discussion for many months about that but whitney if you will please address to make sure that i don't i don't want mr baker to leave here feeling like that the properties have been done wrong or that we have not done things properly so would you please express that um i think one of the things mr baker is referring to is there was a period i believe it was the april hearing that the days weren't adjusted so we held it the other discrepancy that he's stating is the one i checked with nick on was when the planning commission heard it and it was brought up to the board and the dates because we had held it and brought it back up to the board of aldermen he felt that the dates on the board needed to be changed the right side were not changed you said since it had its formal hearing at the planning commission date that we didn't have to go back and change it i think debbie verified that while i was out of town okay you had a planning commission we have the planning commission here at that hearing until the next meeting and since we had that formal hearing you said the dates didn't have to be changed mr baker he respectfully disagrees with that but that was giving more accents it was more and and we've had town hall meetings and uh mr baker is not on our email list but i have a huge list of emails from the

[1:12:06] property owners and the hoas i've sent them all the stuff immediately when i get it and been in correspondence with them since november um and we have a good rapport with them we've tried to keep them informed of every change that's come on all the way down to the change we'll by removing the warehouses we let them know friday so i feel like we've been very open about it and very just forthright with it i would say to you that whitney's office has been cooperating with us thank you well the hearing that i would i would i would respectfully disagree with mr baker that when you had a hearing and you table it the hearing notice that statements that's terrifying about that you give that that you had a hearing date you tabled i don't think you have to re-advertise for the hearing at that point i think you would just have that you would that know at the hearing it was entailed to another hearing right and his request though we did ask the city attorney to make sure if there was something else we needed to do formally just to make sure we were doing it correctly and we wanted to do that um and we did that was at the last hearing from the last four minutes i think is just listening to everybody great talk i can look into it i mean does the playing director replaying office have a recommendation with the group is revised plans um we got on friday um honestly i haven't taken a huge look at them there were some other things that needed to be tweaked that were kind of fine-tuning like i said up against valley grove um i think we've about got that dealt with there's a a couple of the mores that i still want to go over just some minor things with them but otherwise like i said that the warehousing come out coming out would appease the residents we did inform them that the planning commission when those come out the infrastructure improvements that were promised to state long run and things like that are also removed as well uh we inform the planning commission of that so i mean okay all right now all right let me make sure i'm hearing you're right so mr alderman ferguson was here virtually all of this correct that's good let me i want to make sure so we you're you really haven't looked at the changes yet i mean you got them on

[1:14:08] friday you probably looked at them but you you really have a recommendation no more talked to david on the phone and said what do you think about this i said well we just bring it up there and we'll see how they want to make a motion it seems clear to me after hearing the additional information the fair thing to do for the property owner and all the residents and ever and the board is to give them time to let nick do some research on if there can be an amendment so it's my recommendation board we do tablets i think it'd be fair for everybody if you do tablet this morning but we don't we don't have to necessarily make it a restart do we don't we control that no and it may be that it can be just reviewed and handed back up here after review from the planning department it may be that it has to come back down but with i've never had to go through the process in this manner so i mean i'm like the mayor i'd rather have the research with nick first uh i thought also here's my i mean not really quick to be done tomorrow i mean is the plane i don't see it being a big issue i think that it's going to be giving your office time to give a recommendation at that point because that's going to be i mean i feel pretty as long as i can get to the residence and if i need to get to the planning commissioners get to the planning commissioners in a timely manner my office has looked at this so long and in such detail that if it's just the removal of that and a little tweaking at valley grove's state line road area then i can get a recommendation up pretty quick i can't promise that my planning commissioners who are volunteers that come in once a month are going to be able to get in and i you know i can't promise that i can get to the residence in time i mean we can try obviously um we can call another town hall meeting like we did whatever you whatever your research says we have to do we'll expedite it as quickly as possible that's all i can promise but still worst case scenario if nick does research it tomorrow and says that we can't do that then basically it's just a matter of posting for another hearing that we can get letting the planning commission after their meeting we can put it right back on the agenda immediately right and then so in september we can do that in september right go ahead nick i'm sorry i'm just getting confused on why it has

[1:16:10] to be a new project if it's denied here the project's being denied as a whole we're not i thought we're denying the rezoning that is that is the project it's a planned unit development project and and the board the planning commission voted to deny the overall project so that pud request has been denied on the 25th of august right it leaves it as a parcel of agricultural property again so that being upheld here and it's brought back to a 280 acre piece of land it has to start the process back over um i mean it will essentially have a lot of the same details it won't be nearly as in-depth for the applicant um he can do some tweaking but we have to act like it's a whole new project it's about four thousand dollars to reapply um and we take it back through the process as well now we can exit out a little quicker instead of going to the third uh tuesday for the board meeting we can come up board meeting after that whatever planning commission we fall through we also control the fees though don't we i mean yeah the fees are on the application and um and the ordinance uh i i would plead i would plead with you all mr manley and mr mayor that whatever you do you give the residents of the area time to respond give proper public hearing and uh yeah you know we've we've had to do some research too on the question of lost the eight and a half million dollars in loss of uh value of the 490 houses we spent some time on that with consultants and uh well this is this is the first time that's been heard on the 25th it was voted down and no residents were were heard at that time and i didn't i didn't think that was an insurmountable problem at the time but bringing it back up again does make it a problem i just i just think in fairness to everyone since there's still some

[1:18:12] question marks out there and lord i'm not speaking for y'all but i i would think if i were in your shoes i would there's too many unanswered questions tonight and i want the board to have a fair chance to be completely informed before they make a decision so that's why it's my it's my recommendation that we do tablet after hearing everything i've heard tonight did you want anything else to me sir no i just if you want to speak is there anything else you want to say you have it for well i i have a good question for mr baker i've made the main points go ahead uh i know you've been through all this you've been there all you've seen on plans and uh and i firmly believe i think the residents should have a chance to look at the new revised plan any revision but my question you and i i'm not going to hold you do this but knowing everything you know taking the warehouses out is that something that you would be in favor of you could live with or certainly certainly certainly okay the warehouses were the most damaging aspects of this but if we're going through the process of approving something through the planning commission as the mayor's pointed out they're serving probably gratis aren't they they're probably serving without salary are they not the planning commission yes okay so they're they're like they're like everybody in this room they come here without their billfold being involved i've been a landowner and you know i know when you buy land some investments turn out better than others right but i mean all these people are residents of southampton so property values do affect them yes and also any kind of that's why they're always they're willing to serve on the zoning i mean on the planning commission but your decisions do have an impact on the overall financial health of the city as well which affects them when their taxes and they by the way the property tax we made an estimate on the property tax of the 490 houses and this does not include summer wood and does not include the houses on state line road and the houses on tuesday does

[1:20:16] not include williams uh just considering those 490 000 houses i'm sorry 490 houses we estimate that the property tax would be 100 588 000 a year so it's not that we homeowners are sitting back here not contributing to the city we are sure and i hope you'll take all these things into consideration and i i think i have ever used to believe that there's a lot of integrity here but you know use judgment and consider us as well please absolutely and if you'd like to know how many of the people here are residents we can have them hold up their hands and it is fair to say that and i want everyone here i want you to hear straight from me i'm not going to hide behind this question my main goal as a mayor is to make sure that this board and everyone is completely informed and and i know this is a this is a tough call i mean it is there's no doubt about it but when you talk about the financial situation of the homeowners you also got to think about the people in south haven that are not here tonight okay because when you're when you talk about bringing in a development to an undeveloped piece of property there's a significant amount of revenue that that provides to the city and and that benefits everyone in this city because i can tell you when you're talking about a 600 000 to a million dollar uh change in the revenue that this would bring uh that does a lot you can do a lot for 600 000 or a million dollars you know and so i'm just i'm just saying that although it's not that i respect everyone that's here but i'm saying there's also a lot of residents of the city that are not here tonight that would benefit from the financial benefits of the development there was no public notice that this was even on the agenda tonight isn't that right no public notice that this was on the internet yeah we followed all the it's yeah no red signs

[1:22:18] no that's something that's already been done and that's where that's where you disagree with nick the dates change the dates the dates are still uh june and july on the red signs but you had a hearing right now but we're past the hearing stage this is this is only a formal city agenda which is his public record to a lot of people though those red signs are public notice and there was a hearing on those dates we're past that we've already had the hearing with the signs well uh there was a hearing on that when that was there hearing on the ninth of the red sign no the planning commission this is what we asked you the planning commission heard it on the night that was advertised there it was tabled at that point so the board of aldermen date did not correspond with the day it was going to be heard because it was tabled um mr baker brought it up to our office and that's when we contacted you the 25th of july was not on the red side you can go look at those red signs right now by the way they're only on two sides not three sides of the development that's them three sides i've got pictures of all three sides do you yes i drove there myself i bet your park when was the original hearing date november the actual here that the actual hearing was june um 26 which is on the hearing dates it was tabled formally that night july until july 25th which is when it was brought off the table and back back to the next to the next meeting and then carried over here action that night the red signs as of today as of my driving past when i'm coming up here june hearing june here that's right and that's where it was formally titled that's that's what we're talking about right so if you would have came to the junior hearing you would have been i'm not saying you but if you were another citizen and you came to the june hearing

[1:24:20] uh that's posted you would know that it was tabled right so i mean we don't have to give notice again for first like i said we've had a very i've got an email list that i've actually got it as the pinewood concerned citizens group and there's probably 50 people on there plus hoas i talked to the presidents ainsley park hoa and a couple of other people and then um i submit to them everything any changes any date changes i'm trying to keep them as informed as possible uh mr baker comes by and picks his hard copies up at the front office um so yeah but you had a hearing at the june meeting but you mean yeah we had a and it was formally titled at that point they just weren't on the exact date so the sun said i think we met our verb no no no my question is that the hearing note the hearing you had the june hearing you had was about time went on the hearing and that would be able to advertise on their website yes in hopes of moving on you know so we can go on to our other items i appreciate you coming forward mr baker and speaking thank you for that information it's very very useful and so it's my recommendation the board to table this to vote to table this or this evening until we can let nick clarify well you're going to want to do further research on the further revisions on the further review of the submitted plans with your table okay is there a motion to do so a second promotion modern gallagher second bottom and first and is there any other discussion about take women hearing none roll home section d in your general notes it requires a 10 foot utility easement along all the street frontages for those lots um in the development phase of this we found we need to increase that to 20 feet along the road frontage and we just need a scrivener scrivener's

[1:26:22] recommendation so we can go change it at the chancellor clerk's office we have motion modem in florence second alderman ferguson is there any discussion on four yes okay that motion carries thank you whitney all right next on our agenda my mayor's report just update you on a few things obviously there's a lot of concern about the um construction at goodman and getwell the traffic of schools starting tomorrow uh obviously it's gonna be a difficult situation there's no two ways about it we have been in touch with mdot engineers i will tell you that there's an mdot engineer that will be on site monitoring the signals to make it as efficient as possible a lot of myths going around i didn't realize how many engineers we have in the city we got a lot of we got a lot of road engineers that live in the city um just want to clarify a couple of things that the main thing that's being done is this is part of the its project uh that's a cmac project congestion mitigation and air quality this uh intelligent transportation system is being set up where the signals throughout goodman road from iowa branch to walls can communicate and that way it helps the traffic move more efficiently east and west it also gives other capabilities where you can have a digital reader board to inform drivers of traffic delays so it'll do a lot for the traffic improvement on the east and west travel on goods and road the other thing that this does is it's amending the intersection to make it safer it's a proven fact statistics back this up strongly that that your right hand yield lanes when you're having to look back at traffic i'm sure everyone in here has either witnessed that or seen it i know alderman gallagher and myself have seen it many many times in the insurance business that's one of the most common causes of wrecks someone looks back they end up having to stop and get rear-ended

[1:28:24] it happens all the time so that's one of the main reasons is to eliminate the uncontrolled lane which is the yield lane so that's being removed um with that there are improvements you're still going to have a right lane where you can go straight or turn right but you face the intersection instead of having to look back so it makes it safer that's one of the main reasons they're doing it the other thing is there's going to be two left turn lanes right now there's only one so we're going to be adding another left turn lane in all directions which will improve the traffic situation greatly at goodman and galval a lot of people don't know this i'm asking everyone here tonight uh mr long if you can help me anyone else get the word out that the intersection is not being narrowed and reducing lanes even though it appears to be narrowed there is design there to add two left turn lanes which are going to help the traffic flow through goodman and getwell until then it's going to take about four or five more weeks before they're done with that so the bottom line is it's going to be tough i mean we did ask mdot why they did not get this done before school started we don't have the authority to set the timelines for mdot we know it's going to be a bad situation with school starting but mdot has the authority on their timeline so we're just usually our traffic situation is going to be tremendously greater you know goodman and get well and also at government oklahoma but anyway i appreciate the questions have been posed to me i can't get the information out quick enough so if anyone asked you that question please uh tennis expansion recently board approved designed for the new tennis expansion under our parks improvement plan that design is now complete that will again as we've discussed before at eight additional outdoor tennis courts uh in the current location of the south haven tennis center uh there will also be a

[1:30:27] pavilion in the middle uh nice bleachers it's just set up so much better you know to hold tennis tournaments and things like that so it's it's really really nice but the design is done and just to give you an update on timelines the bids will be open on september 9th the board will be asked to approve the bid on september 20th with construction starting sometime in october we plan to have before april of 2017 we plan to have the tennis court so we've been talking about that waiting on a long time so very excited about that with the planetary alley road extension that has now connected the tennis center to stoughton park so we'll now consider that an entrance into snow grove park on the east side off malone so the park the new complex will be the stone grove tennis complex but we're excited about that last thing just to remind everyone we do our budget decisions are coming up we will have a budget hearing and our next board meeting august 16th that's all we'll have this evening next on our agenda is our personnel docket mr mayor i mean we've approved the personnel documents presented on the stage a second we have a motion baller second yes okay that motion carries next on agendas of city attorneys legal update mr nick manley again uh two quick things uh the first item is approval of the pentagon on friday late friday it's just approval of a resolution appointing deputy clerks this is for the training that they that the resolution needed for the deputy clerk to be actually forward janice mccree alyssa pruitt pam pyle sander pride where approval for the resolution for the training that they'll do in october

[1:32:30] resolution second we have a motion by armin kelly second of all is there any discussion where's that training taking place any other discussion hearing none all in favor say hi all opposed say no i just have it motion carried the next item is just a refund of assessment um for 78 799 long road just had the property put assessments the property sold after the assessments were i mean after the assessments were levied and the amount of uh there were some liens on the property which will deduct but the assessment refund would be amount 1 dollars absolutely second we have motion bottom and gallagher second bottom in ferguson is there any discussion hearing none all in favor say hi all right all opposed say no i just have it motion carries okay next on our agenda is our claims docket mr mayor move we approve the claims docket in the amount of two million three hundred thirty one thousand one hundred ninety eight dollars and ninety cents including demand checks and payroll second we have emerging volume and pain second alternative flores is there any discussion hearing none roll call yes yes okay that motion carries next on our agenda is there a motion to determine the need for executive session we have a motion by alderman gallagher second caller kelly paul favor say i uh call post say no i just haven't motion carries a need

[1:34:34] this evening is uh personnel and fire department and potential litigation against the city and economic development now is there a motion to declare existing session okay we have both schmalter with maine secretary gallagher all in favor say all posts say no eyes have motion carries the mayor board will now enter executive session you

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=02rVK3v5YVU