06/02/2020

[0:00:00] uh please stand with us we'll be led in prayer by alderman gallagher um honorable for prayer everyone will join us in a moment of silence uh in honor of the life of mr jim green uh jim greene was the first concert promoter in the city of south haven uh at the bankplus amphitheater and uh you know for a long time jim is a lifelong resident of southaven he uh grew up as a you know southland charger with southampton high school you know had a lot of success in the concert promotion business uh in other locations and then when uh the opportunity presented itself for him to come back to south haven he brought music to southaven so we want to honor the life of mr jim green you passed away last night definitely call the lord we come before you once again to ask for your blessings and wisdom lord i want to pray for the family of general green lord i pray that you would send your holy spirit to the family during their time lord i pray for our nation that's going through our struggles right now lord jesus christ just be with us lord help us to uh love one another more than we love politics in jesus name i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic which stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice strong first on the agenda this evening is the

[0:02:04] approval of minutes for the may 19 2020 meetings of the regular meeting of may 19th 2020 motion baller in pain second alderman brooks is there any discussion appearing none of the wrong call yes yeah that motion carries next on the agenda is a resolution for a vintage sign ordinance and basically this ordinance in our ordinance committee we've had this discussion uh our plane director whitney cook had this discussion about specifically revitalizing you know our original business district and we realized that the new sign ordinance in a lot of ways has restricted the motivation for sign owners in our original business district to replace their site because the way it is now if you make an amendment to yourself you have to bring the sign in full compliance which is it can be can be cost there is a reason for it because obviously it makes the city more attractive it's reducing the height of the sun it's adding a brick base it's making them more attractive which is improving the property values in our city however as whitney and i discussed your defeat your purpose if you're eliminating the motivation for someone to keep their signs looking as good as it can so we realize that we have some businesses that are not changing their sign panels you have faded signs dilapidating signs because they don't want to have to come into full compliance with a new sign audience so this will allow signs that are over 30 years old to be refaced and without having to be brought into full compliance i want to give credit also we have a citizen named ricky neal that reached out

[0:04:06] to me and we had a meeting about just some you know brainstorming some ideas for revitalization of our original business district uh many of the things that were on his list are things that are great ideas but they're not things that are legal to do so there was a lot of things that we couldn't do but we did find some common ground and this is one thing that like i said whitney and i had already uh been talking about this a little bit and then when ricky brought his ideas uh we said hey now there's something that that we may be able to do so i want to give credit to ricky neal for uh for his idea and his um for the original part of the city and want to see the businesses in the original part of our city become revitalized so with that being said that's what this ordinance is about um and we'll open up the floor ask for a motion for crew is there any other discussion hearing none roll call yes that motion carries next on the agenda is the resolution for the revision of our salon ordinance mr nate manley and this resolution just causes a flying ordinance to reflect that the linear feat is what is used to measure as far as the distance from each line and one together so price clarity based on our discussion we had earlier this year and then last year regarding this ordinance so tonight this point on men that ordinance has been advertised for uh for our poor consideration tonight so uh tonight just need an authorization to afford it and we can then receive advertising or proceed with commercial zone district

[0:06:22] we have a motion baller brooks second of all kelly is there any discussion so when he says line distance we're talking about the actual distance taking the travel there and this you may remember a few months back we had this discussion and we uh after that meeting went back an ordinance committee started discussing that again a way to clarify that and uh these things um certainly our confidence changes we purposely played it until we could get back together with in-person meetings we want to make sure that everyone had a fair chance to to know what's on the agenda to attend the meeting they want and we felt like it was somewhat of a disadvantage with remote meetings to do that so that's why it's been a few months since we originally discussed it okay so we have had a motion in a second is there any other discussion about the epsilon ordinance just clarifying the distance to rule hearing none roll call yes that motion carries next on the agenda is a resolution for revision uh to our property maintenance code again this is another ordinance that was discussed in the ordinance committee uh and this discussion was birthed by the again the ongoing concern about rental property in our city and when this property managed code was created and adopted in 2015 that discussion again started with just concern about the property values in our city and seeing some of our older neighborhoods becoming deteriorated and so we've reached out and spent many many hours we looked at other cities ordinances and we've uh but i said we spent many

[0:08:24] hours talking about this for about five or six years we have and every every time we always come back to it's uh it's difficult uh you can't discriminate in a lot of ways against uh an owner based on the way the home is occupied the other thing is there were some discussions about having a true rental property ordinance but in order to do that we realized it would take an enormous amount of additional staff in order to enforce that because what you would have to do is you have to have the rental property owner come in to get a special permit to schedule an inspection each time and you're talking about a massive amounts of activity to do that and then again uh you know legally nick kind of counted us through uh the legal ramifications of that and bottom line is it's always resulted back to it's not best for our city to have a rental property ordinance but we could tighten the property and that's what the manufacturer maintenance code is for is for one thing is for improving property values in our city and not letting our neighborhoods get deteriorated and so the discussion tonight since we adopted that manuscript in 2015 our code enforcement officers and me get an enormous amount of calls about a house that's dilapidated in a way in one way but the ordinance that we passed in 15 requires that there be two factors in order for it to be a defined as a blighted property those just quickly i'm not going to read all this to you but there's eight different categories exterior structure surfaces which would be you know you're riding or missing parts of the exterior of the building roofs fences deteriorated exterior property sanitation you know clutter that causes liability hazards causes rodents and snakes motor vehicle inoperable motor vehicles on the property grass and weeds shrubs that are unkept in parking lots

[0:10:26] so those are the categories well in 2015 what this one with the board at that time he agreed to pass is it has to have two of these different conditions in order to be defined as a blighted property and there was a lot of discussion at that time and the board agreed to only approve this if there were two well what that has done is caused problems with the again the code enforcement officers and then when people call me they say hey this is clearly bringing down property values in our city it's heinous it's also in this ordinance it's important to note that it has to be visible from a public street so again some of you that were here excuse me for latin but 15 we had some ridiculous things that were said that people were going to go inside homes and then we were going to go with a magnifying glass and see if they had some chipped paint in the house and that's how ridiculous the discussions got so in the ordinance it clearly says it has to be visible from a public street and so in other words it has to be to uh you know to an advanced stage and so our code enforcement officers have to tell a lot of people hey that's not a violation because it's only one thing as heinous as it may be it's not a blighted property because there's only one thing one condition wrong with it same thing i explain it all the time so in our last ordinance committee meeting uh an alderman brought up the fact that since we can't we don't believe a rental property ordinance is feasible or practical that it would be best to adjust our property maintenance code to where take that from two down to one so if you have one condition it's now applied to property so that's what the new ordinance tonight is about is changing our property maintenance code down to where it's it's defined as a blighted property as one condition that is unsatisfactory this american question uh you mentioned in the property maintenance code that

[0:12:30] when they say one thing do they do that like category or do they judge that by items within the categories you mentioned exterior look paint rotten wood is that just is that one category is that one like if they have chip paint yeah and rotten wood is that one violation yes no that's one that's a great question i would have taken that as two volumes well it's not written that way if you look at the ordinance um section 467 uh section uh section two i'm sorry it defines blighted property violations and it says any of the following conditions shall constitute a blind well it's any two of the following conditions subconsciously a blighted property that should be deemed a violation of this ordinance and then if you go into the conditions they're numbered so 2.1 is exterior structured services so like what you said uh that could be walls trim piles porches stairs decks balconies chimneys awnings foundation exterior doors windows shutters gutters downspouts roof turbine skylights or any other surface materials all that's category so in order for it to be a violation it has if they're not two in that one category it's by number so then 2.2 would be roots so they could have five things wrong in that category thing certainly right okay so i've misunderstood that since since we united years ago yeah because my major concern was if you just we if we just base it off one category say paint i mean that's 70 percent of the homes could be a violation of that and that was always concerned yeah and it still is but i i have a better understanding so to be even more specific and descriptive you could have an outside of a structure that is rotten the shutters the garage door bent the shutters falling off

[0:14:32] no paint on the house every every exterior surface deteriorated to the nth degree but if if the roof is good and the fence is good and sanitation is good no no wind water no no unoperable vehicles no house rubs no parking problems they're not violation so this would change it to where any one of these categories would qualify as a black problem so question instead of instead of moving it to one [Music] violation i mean one one category one one instance can we make it multiple instances within any category well you could but that would even i mean that would be um in linux 2. but i mean i guess yeah sure it could be done you know what what would you want to leave this too well like i said my concern is if we make the incidents that say paint you know chip paint that's visible from the i'm not saying that that's going to be you know that enforcement's going to get those homes but i don't like making a law that gives them power to do that i think there's a lot of effective property that we need to give our options to address it falls under grass and weeds and says this says that's a good question if i made this as short 2.6 says grass and weeds any premises or yard which has grass wheat or plant growth excluding trees shrubs or cultivated flowers and gardens that exceed six inches in height or

[0:16:36] length so what you're talking about is like grassroots right yeah and you put in range right yeah it looks terrible right and so so the word length and actually nick manley added that in 2014 so the word length there addresses what you're talking about you know i understand auburn paine's concern and you did a really good job of explaining that expressing the concerns about it um the only thing i would say that is again if if we leave it like or do what you're saying you're still you're weakening the ordinance you're weakening it but that's the board call and you know and again i'll point out the fact that uh one of your peers is the one that brought this back up so if other aldermen would speak y'all brought it up okay i have a motion by our mates to approve it the second alderman gallagher and the last thing just to address against pain the concern i agree with you that there are many houses in our city that could use a paint job but again we're not talking about a house that could use a paint job we're talking about houses that are when when you can see paint shipping from the street you're you're no longer it's no longer about your house it's affecting the other houses in the neighborhood especially in these outside companies have gobbled up homes and deteriorated property values like i said my concern is about you know

[0:18:39] the elderly in southampton you know on an overhang that you can see they have a beautiful house they keep a beautiful yard yeah and they have a piece of rotten wood maybe on their front board somewhere that's fine i understand i just don't think it's you know that we can always make and i'm not belittling what you're saying i i get what you're saying the only thing i would say is that um are in most cases not going to be visible from the street and our code enforcement officers are they're not going to be out like with the magnifying glass i mean you know again that's one of the wording in the thing it says if it's visible on the street so but anyway i get your concern i just think that i'll say what i said in 2014 we got to decide what we want our city to be and we have some neighborhoods that are teetering they're teetering right now and what i mean by that is they could go one way or the other and just again i'm not trying to be mr know-it-all but i'm an insurance underwriter i know that little things make a huge difference and when you let properties stay in a deteriorating position your property values in the city it's a matter of time before they start going down and i just think it's a it's a very serious thing and i'm not the one that brought this back up but i'll go on the record saying i strongly advocate for this just like i did in 2014 before we adopted it but enough enough of me anybody any other comments i just comment that i've had a lot of people ask me why we're not tougher on the properties than we are our code doesn't allow us and if we get to a point where the code enforcement officers are being

[0:20:41] ridiculous we can change that i'm sure we'll get pressure from i think this is a step in the right direction to make it a little tougher to have property here if you're not taken care of there's enough stuff to keep these guys busy i mean whenever they talk about the house that's mentioned before about the front of the house [Music] until he did something else he couldn't i just i would interpret that as more than one instance you know we've got missing boards and i'm sure the house needed violations as oliver gallagher stated um when when an ordinance is passed it still has to be implemented and managed by the day-to-day operation so regardless if it's me in the mayor's seat or whomever i understand your concern about making a law and then saying well you're going to use good judgment and fortunate but i can tell you that our code enforcement officers don't have time to be they're not looking at a little petty thing they're doing what audrey said they're going to go and see hey look wow i mean

[0:22:42] that's a that just jumps out at you from the street that's a problem because it affects the property values of the homes of the neighborhood those are the things they're going to address they're not going to nobody's you know i'll just tell you if a code enforcement officer no austin's with us austin's the same way he's going to supervise the guys if they brought a violation to him and you have to go look and see what they're talking about he's going to say hey no no no that's not it you're on the wrong page and if it's brought to my attention i would quickly say that's not a violation that that's not what the intent of assurance is so there's going to be some management involved in the day-to-day operations as well and again this is this is designed to only address things that will affect the property values of other homes in the area so would have to be clearly visible for the street it had to be flame my take on this is very much the same as comes back to discuss this uh i think this is one of those things that does have great attention that will help the city it's just my personal opinion that it's not the governor's rules for pretend property kind of the individual i think it's one of those situations where if you're about to be dropping because of your favors you shouldn't address that with your neighbors we've got a lot of organizations around here all right i recognize the elderly we've got service out here to where i know they think this happens there's a lot of ways that help you know that different government's perspective again i think the intention is good i just think this is one of those things that we can't well said and uh much respect to you on that um i would just say that uh you know we do have south haven we do have ways when a violation is given there's warnings that go out there's plenty of time like you said if you have a an elderly person or someone else who's not physically able to maintain their home there is a time process before any

[0:24:44] violation is given to them being conscientious of that and but i will just uh have a great deal of respect for you and you i remember you saying the same thing then the only thing i would just disagree with is i do believe that we have an obligation to protect property values in the city because you let your property values go down your crime goes up that's a proven fact so i do think for that reason we do have an obligation but you and i just disagree but i respect you great deal and honor pain knows i respect him too any other discussion hearing none roll a couple yes okay that motion carries next on the agenda is the resolution for ktg incorporated tax exemption this resolution was passed at the last board meeting um having combat values changed since then so tonight is for revising the uh ktg inc tax exemption for real and personal property has been approved by the senator county auto call services are recommended by the center council to deny authorization for this resolution for attack and to protect pge yes yes emoji carries next on the agenda is a resolution for free warehouse tax exemption for kendra scott design incorporated okay this is a table of last board meetings authorization to bring up the table first but then i'll make that question a second

[0:26:45] commercial flores second log of gallagher all of every state uh this was approved uh by the mississippi county yesterday and also recommended by the tax uh foreign academy economic council um just relying on the report where a house for camper you can provide information required and this will allow for the uh goods and transit commutes and for its purposes yes no motion carries next on the agenda is the resolution for ratification of an emergency repair it's just there was a well issued had to be repaired um that uh for the particular department and certainly authorization that gravity transferred price repair and the expense and was associated with it uh um on the mayor's report tonight you got a motion by oliver wheeler second lotterman flores is there any discussion mary none roll call yes the motion carries next on the agenda is approval for a bid to get a bid for the soccer concession building discussion

[0:29:01] it was all done as one project but we started the uh fields first so they started all the drainage infrastructure and the clean services cars and then the soccer concession was being designed then so that's that's the purpose any other discussion hearing none roll call yes yes emoji carries next on the agendas are cambodia amendments mr chris wilson we have two tonight for one uh the major wants to tell communication policy which simply establishes the rules and the policies of the employees um is however it will accommodate an employee it does specifically mention child care as being something that could come up as it has closing so that's kind of left that part but any other discussion

[0:31:20] hearing done roll call yes um [Music] is yes the motion carries next on the agenda's donation docket and this is just um a bus was donated to us from one of our citizens david mccammon and that bus is going to be used for uh fire training in our training facility so we just need to accept that donation say no eyes have it promotion carries next on the agenda is a resolution to clean private property we have motion water and brooks second monitor with flores there's very discussion among the board fairy god is there anyone in the

[0:33:23] audience that has a financial interest in any of the properties it would like to speak hearing or seeing none roll call place yes that motion carries next on our agenda is our planning agenda is when you cook uh yes sir the first application we have is uh john mcbride for minor subdivision approval uh two lots on the east side of davis road south of church road um they're range in size from 1.78 acres 1.83 acres both have direct access on the base road davis prior already has the existing aid for the broadway needed uh there were no comments by staff regarding this proposed subdivision recommended approval with one stipulation uh that was to provide little documentation showing where the portion that you see on the other side of davis road there was separated out fire in the sale and that the two lines are only encompassing the east side they didn't provide us with that information practices means we're requesting approval and no further comment a second alderman wheeler is there any discussion hearing none roll call yes the motion carries item number two we're asking to have removed from the agenda there was some other documentation and some construction phasing that needed to occur or disapprove what had not been done as of today so we're asking to remember that we'll bring it up but a future agenda um item number three is going to be an

[0:35:26] application a pan attorney development company for subdivision approval of plum point pv area h lot 6. it's coming out of the west side of airways north of church road um you see the overall parcel parcel there highlighted in red the section north of the yellow line is the lot which is approximately 10 acres that is being proposed tonight um there were standard interest or standard uses on there no ingress egress issues um it's a very standard single lot commercial proposal for a subdivision lot we have no comments on recommended approval there's three is there any discussion hearing none wrong yes yes emotion carries item four is a conditional use permit request by century one llc uh for a reader board sign on the south side of church road last week parkway uh previously we had approved a car wash facility at the site they want to do the reader board owner signage which requires that it is secondary signage to the overall site that has 8h letters at max at this point in time that's gamer or white lettering they have complied with that by the renderings they submitted to us in the specs so it is compliant with the conditional use with recommended approval ballerina brooks is there any discussion hearing none roll call

[0:37:29] yes yes that motion carries item number five is an application to re-zone 3.38 acres of property on the south side of state lawn road west of two london road from ag to plan business park um you'll see right here in the highlighted red area this is the small portion that's being proposed um to the north to the south to the east and to the west that this property is already zoned planned business park has actually encompassed an overall master plan for this site there's an existing home on there the option to buy they couldn't come up with an amount they agreed on in 2006 fast forward to 2020 they're back they're ready to settle the option of buying back on the table um so contingency is obviously more rezoning it um like i said it's definitely a character in the neighborhood since it's surrounded on all four sides and it's considered an intel development so it falls in line with that comprehensive plan also doesn't mean this area for technology and industrial distribution which falls in line with what they want to utilize it for if approved they'll come back to us with site plan design to make sure it's conducive to what's already around there so um all that being said we recommended approval was voting name has been in favor of playing admission good motion ballroom wheeler second alarm and kelly is there a discussion here you guys is there any discussion uh from anyone in the audience that has a financial interest in the state of property part interest of any kind or just doesn't like what we said hearing or seeing none roll call please yes yes no motion carries thank you all

[0:39:34] right next on the agenda is our mayor's report um for once i promise that i'm not going to talk about covenant 19. can i get a 19 discussion tonight all right so the first thing that um we want to talk about is there's um just to make a long story in history really short the city of south haven annexed somerwood in wooden place back in i think 2009 somewhere back then it was heavily disputed you know there were a lot of residents that fought that annexation but when it finally happened there was an issue of sewer services so me the residents there did not want to pay city sewer services they already had septic systems that they were happy with so there was a deal that was made where people that had a septic system that wanted to keep that they could do that however the city would now be an inside city limits the city wanting to have the ability to produce basic you know water and sewer services offered a program to do a pump station sewer system that's that's there when you go in and do a pump system you have to have a certain number of people on it for it to work effectively so like if you only had a few that wanted it and most people want to stay on the old septic system it wouldn't work for any so there had to be some incentive for people in those areas to get off the septic system and go on the city pump stations our pump system so for that reason um you know just long before me i'm just trying to from what i know about it i'm trying to relay the way i understand it the city produced uh kind of an incentive period to where if you went on the city system within like a an unforgettable amount of months but a limited time the city would pay the cost of that and the average cost that's about seven thousand dollars and so that incentivized people to get off their septic system join the city

[0:41:37] system which helped it work better uh since then that's been many years ago that time that window of opportunity has passed so now the way it stands now according to that policy you know someone now that let's just say someone bought a house there they weren't even around then when that offer was made and when they bought the house they're like hey yeah i wanna i wanna be on the city uh have city sewer well now the way it stands if we're still enforcing that policy we'd be making them pay the seven thousand dollars well you know if you look at the um you know the science home and the cost of seven thousand dollars that's it's just that's a lot of money for someone buying a home in that price range to pay for a service that's a basic city service and so we recently had this come up again and so it brought it to my attention i've had discussions with ray hunter achilles director and it just i just have to say it in a real straightforward way i don't believe that's right i just don't think that if you gave it to one of your citizens in 2009 for free you went in and put it in but yet in 2020 to get the same service it's gonna cost them seven thousand bucks that that's that doesn't make any sense to me and so for that reason and i don't think from what nick's told me and didn't guide me through this i don't think it requires any board action i just want to open up for discussion in case anyone disagrees with me but i think that we need to change that policy immediately and if someone wants to join city sewer services in silverwater wood place or any other annexed area we should go out and put the equipment in for them because they're going to become a customer of ours at that point they start paying for services so it makes business sense and it makes philosophical sense to me that we don't charge them for that upfront cost and so that's is there anything that else that has to be done i would have a motion just to stay behind on our minutes that the grinder pumps are necessary in that area which they are

[0:43:39] necessary in that area and uh shooting for our authority of mexico 21 27-23 uh the city was called right across those requests the driving problems based on that being required service in there and then the other thing just to kind of fill in on one of my first questions is if we do this but we have a rush like we have a ton of people that would come out immediately and say yeah i want that and the thought process is that probably not because if you're if you chose years ago to be on a septic system and it's working right and you don't want to pay city sewer service you're probably not going to be motivated to change that because you're going to have to start paying the city so we don't feel like it's going to be a rush but we feel like it would be fair for those that truly didn't have the opportunity to make that decision back so many years ago and and some of them that where their septic system is malfunctioning so they got to do something they got to spend money to fix their septic system or they got to get on the city of services it opens up that door but i would advocate tonight that we allow that the motion you know what i think we just did what nick said i can't remember what he said but um but i'm asking for that motion it's just a motion to install over here that's required to provide sewer service in those areas that need to grind the common constant for sewer service and the authorities would proceed to install it pursuant to 21273 2723 assuming that appropriate runways and our agents are collected and or are received by the city for those services now we've got a much modern wheeler second monitor that has is there any discussion so is there uh is there going to be any fee for the customer receiving services to get installed no i'm trying to remember ray when we

[0:45:42] did that 10 years ago wherever it was that wasn't there like a 500 fee did the customer had to pay to get hooked up uh no there wasn't any fee but they did have to provide the electricity for the pump so the city didn't do that part of it so if you you're going to be an electrician put a box on the wall so you can do the same thing with this they would if they'd still fall into the same thing and i think we probably need to stay with that you know the ones that are really extra involved also if i remember correctly aren't there several several homes installed the system but we didn't do the files and they stayed on their septic system they did if they signed up for it then we installed it so that was the thing so we installed that once we installed it then they start have to pay the things we had a couple situations where we installed it they signed up for it and we installed it and then they didn't want to use it right so it's just not fair for us to put it in and you know hey you know we're still taught under that it's pretty important in 1978 that says when you provide it and they don't look up that's the city close right toward it so either 15 or 16 uh we amended our ordinance to say basically provided and united up to it still mma being authorized yes it did happen so back to alderman gallagher's question

[0:47:44] we do charge if they for their they have to provide their own electricity right i just remember i remember paying something is because but to clean that up is it your recommendation that we limited 200 feet or what are your thoughts on that um i mean that seems like that could cause still cause confusion if you're saying hey we'll do it we're trying to get 200 feet you know from the line and how many situations do we have like that are there a lot of there's some situations where they may be in an area where there are a thousand kids and that was decided a long time ago to charge anything over 200 i think but the traditional pipeline that's to install and maintain the life though if we would amend the motion to allow at least 500 feet without charging anything i just i don't like charging them for something that's a basic city surface that's that's my thing all weekend if y'all you've got to want to charge them i have a limit on the amount of footage but i get his point too if you have someone that's really far off the road like if you're not on that type of system like in my house i have to maintain my bikes from the main line to my house that's my responsibility and that's the way it is in most places in the city so this would kind of make it kind of like that like we're already putting the pipes in free for you on private property even though we'll maintain an easement but um you know i can see having a little bit of skin in the game if you have an unusual situation where you have a large amount of height that has to be laid on private property

[0:49:47] is that right that's the thought process right yes you want to do it at 500 or have it online okay so um okay honorable wheeler men's emotion everything just like it is but it allows up to 500 feet of pipe on private property um and then anything that exceeds 500 feet would be uh there would be a charge how much did you say i think it's four dollars should it just be a market rate or should we declare the dollar amount now and i'll get better than i'll be clearing for the one doing it okay is that okay with your arm getting much that way and i want to say i'm in a complete agreement with mayor i wish we didn't have to do that from the beginning but you know we were forced to because if we didn't a lot of people wouldn't sign up for it and it just wouldn't work we couldn't get the system to work this really makes it a lot cleaner and i'm happy that you know hopefully we're good for this i don't think it's a whole lot of people i don't have a number there but uh i want to say probably less than 50 that that would apply to and from a percentage didn't you say that more than 80 percent are already on yes so we're not talking about a mass it may not be near that many but not to be safe i'd say at least 50 but uh most of them probably everything's working and we would encourage them as long as they want to just keep what they got so we don't get rushed but anybody that's having trouble would definitely want to you know jump on those so we had the most modern wheeler automator as you second the motion as amended thank you any other discussion yes

[0:52:10] okay and then uh as nick mentioned earlier we had two other emergency repairs for the water wells uh the one in nail and get well and also on a green brick parkway that are having are going to have to have an emergency repair so we're asking for offers just found out about that today so i'm asking for authorization of that uh was it 55 000 right that was for the um the one at uh at green grove yes do we know the cost i don't have the cost from the other ones and then there's one on the agenda tonight for college road for motor replacement yeah those those two weren't on the agenda though okay can i get a motion for that you got a motion automatic or a second ball of a wheeler any discussion hearing none all in favor say hi any posts they know i just have it but she cares okay then we have an issue y'all are familiar with the project that we have to replace the online creek bridge on state line road west and with that bridge that's that that project will bid in the very near future and be under construction this year until then there's been some indications that there could be some danger with um heavy trucks going over that bridge until it's repaired so the recommendation is that we change that area to a non-truck route just for safety until the bridge is done so we'll have to put up signs on uh state line road west to send trucks the other way so we feel like that's a a safety concern that needs to be addressed immediately so i'm asking for a motion to authorize us changing state line road west to a non-truck

[0:54:12] route motion ballroom flores three second monitor wheeler is there any discussion firm if you start from 301 like highway 301 on the west end would restrict trucks from coming down state line road there and then you would do the same thing uh dan highway 51 right yes they'll be cookie one to highly thrilled well that's true that's a good point yeah yeah you know and we didn't get into that detail we obviously wouldn't come to that same conclusion i appreciate you bringing it up so yeah we'll do it where it makes sense the problem is you don't want to get a truck on the route with no place to turn around then they're already there they're already in violation so you want to make sure that you communicate that clearly by signage before they you know are in violation give them a fair chance so yeah we would adjust that so i guess you're all residential when you pass corn lake road after awg it'll be all residential or ag until you get to the real one so we'll do a number [Music] um [Music] okay any other discussion about that hearing none i'll better say i phone say no i just have as much carrots the next thing i need to update you about obviously with all that has been

[0:56:15] going on we haven't had a chance to have everybody together and talk about this but um the artificial turf design for sun grove park in greenbrook park has been under design it's going to be ready for bid on july 2nd and when we do that we're going to bid it uh my recommendation is that we fit it with alternates to be stoked for a park broken down greenbrick park broken down and then the foul lines separated out with both parks the reason is due to our budget possible budget changes because of the crisis that i'm not saying the word but the crisis that we went through we're going to have to make some financial decisions so we may have to we don't want to be in this situation but we want to leave ourselves a flexibility financially to break that up however it fits our budget so for that reason we're gonna we're gonna bid it broken out like that so that bid will happen on july 2nd anyway that's just an update any discussion about that questions i mentioned the hornet creek bridge project it will bid and go out to bed on june 25th i do need board action with one other thing the medline project you all know that you authorized us to board underneath interstate 55 to get fire suppression water to the development and there's a change order with that when they started that process they realized that there was a sewer line under there that they weren't aware of so they're gonna have to make some adjustments to that it's gonna cause a change order of fourteen thousand three hundred and nine dollars i'm asking you to approve that change order for metallized damage we got a motion automatic gallery the second ballroom wheeler any discussion hearing none roll call please yes

[0:58:21] yes yes yes okay that motion carries and then the last thing um the green brick indoor facility proposed change order we're going to discuss that now or is that under your marriage i mean under your attorney's report okay okay let's go ahead and do that we have an issue with our greenbrick indoor facility that is is done now we had a situation where the contractor is requesting additional monies and we've had long discussion about that with our architects urban ark is in attendance and nick has been in all those discussions but um urban art brown or ryan one of y'all give us just give the board an overview a summary of what the issue is so they can be informed and make a decision on that thank you mayor holmen um we're trying to get that project closed out um we you know part of that closeout process is to do final counting the contractor submitted as the mayor said a change order that he claimed essentially he was delayed by three different aspects of the project we initially looked at those details and we determined that we didn't think that they were valid so we told mr fullwood forward construction that we didn't see eye to eye on that and we projected the change of work i think it was an amount of twelve thousand four hundred fourteen dollars and some change above and beyond what's left in your contingency allowances is just just a little bit shy of 4 000 so um at that time we rejected the claim um they obviously disagreed they came back to us and said we want you to reconsider

[1:00:24] so um recently my associate ryan morris and i went back and we looked and tried to be as objective and fair as we possibly could we looked at all of the the delay claims um there are three primary reasons why um that they're requesting um these additional days which essentially equal um general condition dollars for every day they're now on the job site they want additional dollars for being out there on the job site we um personally professionally believed that that the delays were really self-inflicted however there was one aspect of the work it was added scope added asphalt work to the contractor's scope and we we essentially understand that that was added work to his scope but it did not delay the overall project at the end of the day the project was late by approximately two months and um the the asphalt work that what's which was the additional scope i mentioned was finished in december or was actually finished i'm sorry january february i think so it was finished approximately a month before the project was finished so exterior work like asphalt in our opinion had no bearing on interior work that was still yet to be finished so if substantial completion wasn't reached until mid-march our essentially our verdict was you're not doing any additional time for asphalt work that you completed during your your overall you know contract work and it had no effect on your interior scope of work which was still not finished we couldn't declare them substantially complete until march 16th so effectively we've gone back recently trying to be as objective as we possibly could try to determine are we being too harsh maybe there's

[1:02:26] some room for you know some gray area here and we came up with a alternate scenario essentially a compromise um to tell them we believe you know you know at best you're due the remaining contingency and um just a little bit of time which equated to about 400 over and above the contingency amount which that would be presented to you all in the form of a change order for the 400 um and i know nick and the mayor we've gone through this several times there's varying opinions but our overall opinion is asphalt didn't delay the overall job the overall job getting the interior of the project was not was not complete anyway so the asphalt had nothing to do with the interior the other part of their claim was that entergy didn't turn the power on quick enough and essentially the uh the claim was that they requested power on twelve nine they're effectively counting all the days between december nine and i don't get too far into the weeds but from december nine to one three the claim is that we asked the power we didn't get and so don't punish us for entertainment okay that's that's effectively the argument um our contention is it wasn't until 12 23 12 9 the start date was when you got your gas meter turned on you got your gas meter set from 12 90 12 23 the contractor was working to get ready for inspection on 12 23 is two days before christmas contractor gets went to the city gets all the forms filled out and turns it into entergy and finally says we're ready for inspection so from 12 23 to 1 3 is effectively the time that it took for

[1:04:28] instance to turn on the power and as you all know that time period it you know has holiday major holidays at the end of the year we believed initially that entergy complied and effectively completed their work within a reasonable amount of time and it was our contention that the contractor should have asked prior to when he really needed power and it's kind of your job to in our opinion it was their job to schedule the product and know when to ask for power when you're going to need power there was some some delay um you know but again i think about 10 days over the major holidays at the end of the year was was something reasonable to expect and then the other part is actually related to the energy entergy delay and that was they rented a um generator for one week and the cost of that is six thousand plus dollars so they're asked also asking you to pay for that to which we felt like that was not really your responsibility um but again our compromise position would have been we could split the generator with you we can pay the remainder of the contingency that's remaining in the job and then also because the contractor is late beyond their substantial depletion date you have the right to enforce liquidated damages which effectively reduces the amount that you will be paying him for these things and also they've come to that 400 more than contingency which is which is what i'm here to report about tonight contractor is in disagreement with us and you know at this point in time we don't know what their um you know recourse would be beyond you know trying to still

[1:06:30] you know take recourse against the city to collect the mice so that's where we are now trying to close this project brian do you know all the winners um i do not cannot speak to that i i don't believe they have because uh a recent message from the contractor said i need to get my i need to get my retainage so i can release the retainage to my subcontractors so there's a large sum of money that is still in um in the city's hands which hasn't been paid out to the contractor and that's the retainage on the project now the retainage is i want to say 60 000 60 000 plus the additional 12 000. so we still have contract money at the end of the job when we've all settled up and we say yes this job is done we've you know we're all kind of signing off we release them their final payment which includes their retaining which you hold all the way throughout the project to make sure the product's done right in case you something goes wrong you know that if you had to get somebody else to finish the job that's why you hold that money so we're we're arguing about a small sum of money we're in a we're in a disagreement at this point in time and i think nick and you know may have some feelings but they feel fair march 16th we ran a substantial completion they adjusted substantial completion date by schedule based on ads to the contract i think our original and also based on weather delays our original contract was sometime back in 2019. all that got adjusted because of weather today uh weather days and other scope that was added to them and the adjusted substantial completion deadline

[1:08:32] was january 25th they finished in march 16 march 16th just hearing what you had to say now that was essentially our assessment uh and again they believed that we're being too harsh so they asked us to consider that so would you i guess tonight would you say authorize a change order an amount of 4 400 well the remaining contingency amount is 3991.34 so the logic that that i send you all in an email essentially um would uh award him award the contractor that amount of remaining money plus 396 dollars and 38 cents so to you all the change would be 396.38 by the way of change so you can do a change order bank stuff updated for four thousand something dollars you're dealing with 396 that's correct you've already got that argument and we typically do monies that are already in the project by construction change directive to move up an actual change over change orders are reserved for monies above and beyond the contract when you have that at one percent but then this is faster than one percentage is you know [Music]

[1:10:43] any other questions um their offer above and beyond your contract currently they're asking for twelve thousand four hundred and fourteen dollars the question is yeah how much money will it cost you in legal fees et cetera et cetera well but then if i may excuse me um if we give a clear answer to urban art tonight then that they ain't make the discussions over from their point now it could be a legal discussion after that so you're not he um the direction from us what do y'all want to do i mean the contractor's asking for the money we don't believe we owe it and uh but they're trying to make them you know make a compromise and resolve the issue with a compromise again not knowing he'll accept and when we look at it the same kind of everybody of all things being equal but so that's where we are tonight so tonight it's just how to go forward we'll proceed with that i think and i don't want to speak privately or not to be okay already in the is

[1:12:53] so brian the generator that they rented i mean we didn't force them to get the generator did we i mean that's 100 right they did not ask us for permission to rent a generator they wanted a generator and and i think because it was in the same time period that they were waiting on power they are suggesting well you all pay for because of the fact that we weren't able to get power turned on during that duration we needed a generator to keep the project going and so we want you to pay for that which they were talking about in the first place you know i'm here to tell you we're trying to we're trying to work with them we really are we've rejected it in the past it just it keeps coming back and ultimately what we have to do is we have to give present them a change order and that tallies up all the money and says this is what you're this is what you're getting and this is what the check that you're going to get is at that at this point in time i think we're down to you know our best what we believe our best offer would be and you know and even your best offer includes paying taxes that's correct at the generator fee ten days worth of uh power um uh you know delays and no time for no time for asphalt but then a deduction of liquidated damages for having extended your schedule beyond january 25th all the way march 16th [Music] if you want to resolve it you know you know we don't know what steps he'll take after this then then you could make a decision but again i don't think you disrespect anybody but the city did not

[1:14:55] if we owe a dollar i would always advocate that we pay it but i do not believe the city is out there no none of them i don't believe what he's talking about again is he's just trying to you know make a compromise with them just to give them the benefit of the doubt about the generator but i don't know again like we just talked about how how do you justify that the cost of the generator is the city's cost that's not whatever entergy did or didn't do that's that's not our business that's the contractor's job to coordinate the project was the difference no no that was a rude to be honest we don't care whether he had the generator he still had to talk it's not our response his decision as a general contractor to to line up the schedule with entergy or whomever else and so for that reason i don't believe that my taxpayers deserve have to pay the money i just i don't that's not our that's not our fault so he didn't make that uh make that mistake and we did i do like i said i'd be the first one in front of the united advocatingly pay it um but i i don't i have to have to do my job and so i don't believe the city of south america i agree with you you got a motion for jeffy offer london florida second by army gallagher so any other discussion hearing none roll call yes motion carries thank you brother appreciate it is there any other questions i'll wrap up um yes yes contract responded we'll release the funds and you know send the pay application back to the contractor with these notifications made position of the city and at this point in time they can be paid their last monies and we would fully expect them actual documentation

[1:17:28] in this final negotiation basically so we haven't we haven't raised any red flags about that any other questions for uh brad and erin thanks bro appreciate it thank you for being here okay that's all tonight under the mayor's report the next one the agenda is our citizen's agenda is there anyone in the audience would like to speak anyone want to speak tonight in the audience hearing or seeing none we'll move on now next on the agenda is our personnel doctor swear so emotional and brooks the second daughter in pain and serena's casual hearing none we're all calm yes that motion carries some of the agendas our city attorney's legal update just one quick item i found out about earlier tonight uh in the orchard hill case the judges have held the sanctions um recording our motion that was granted for that case so the motion was granted to transfer to circuit court so tonight authorization to appeal that to whomever we need to kill it to and uh in the knee we have to pay attention to the court and take those sanctions at the appropriate times also authorization to appeal um based on the emotion being granted so we feel like we should be able to fill the motion or kill the order so

[1:19:34] to make sure we understand that how many nick so though we're being sanctioned for something that emotion that was granted all right which means you're the attorney that means that that the judge agreed that it was a legal move that we did it was granted and it was legal but he still sanctioned the city of southaven for the seeking the transfer to the second court so tonight i mean so uh yeah so we were it was still we were so sanctioned you know granted um uh our attorneys filed the motion uh the river deficit in this case the motion was granted um the motion was filed on the day of trial i mean those should stop before trial started but the hearing was a trial and that was supposed to happen um in april the motion was granted the city granted sanctions against a city for following the motion for for the motion but also at the same time granted emotion so at this time i would like to appeal that if we ask promotion reconsideration of those sanctions against the city and so tonight uh have you ever heard of that before i mean we have not in this situation the original one uh noted that the judge had discretion and grant sanctions um but obviously we would uh differ a little bit so that's why the motion in our emotional reconsideration we pointed a couple things out that's about the board so uh obviously he's thinking about the hill at the appropriate time maybe sooner rather than later do you know how to build as the process goes to file a bill to overturn the sanctions against the city for most of the granted that's it was

[1:21:56] both transferred to circuit court motion was filed and now this vacation didn't think for five years the motion was filed uh late at a later date that didn't normal but not proud untimely but for us non-attorneys in the room so again basically we've had a legal motion that the judge agreed with it's granted for that correct but then he's going to punish caress for that that's that's yes sanctions yes and we're not talking about punishing the attorneys you're talking about punishing the taxpayers of the city of south africa yeah they see some statements correct yes and then hey you know the passenger appearance is upheld makes sense to me i'm just curious i just don't it seemed like if you were if the judge were unhappy with the attorneys that represent us that there would be a sanction against them not the city of south david didn't make a mistake i mean like like it was a legal maneuver so why are you punishing the people of south haven for something that was a legal motion and you agreed with it by granted excuse me but that just doesn't make any sense just you know authorized me i do it i knew i could never when i filled it i killed that order yes we appreciate it was quite a bit of money from the

[1:24:02] city's perspective so um that's why we want to kill that from our perspective the attorney's not paying us the taxpayers are not paying you for taxpayers yeah so what is the motion tonight we have to put the money in the city to put money up front still trying to figure that part out but authorization to appeal and authorization in the event that we need to put the money in escrow order to pay it so that it feels complete second okay so we have a motion modern flores second model for groups any other discussion hearing that in roll call yes yes that motion carries and that includes authorization to pay the money and to appeal all right yeah object we have to pay it in there you know during the build process to put it up if we include all that justice okay okay next on the agenda is our utility bill adjustment document mr mayor movement utility bill uh which adjustment pocket as presented on the statement we have a motion monitoring pain second ballerina hoops is there any discussion right did you guys yeah i think they've got a problem so we have a motion to approve the

[1:26:58] document removing horizon horizon horizon travel plaza uh removing batman but approving all the others and we've got a second on the motion blade baltimore gallagher second larger wheeler is there enough discussion okay that's my question automatically but this is just one deal this isn't like an accumulation uh almost six hundred dollars so i guess we could tell them no and they delivered [Music] but

[1:29:41] is yes that motion carries next on the agenda is the approval of two claims dockets is there a motion to approve docket one this movement approved clean stock at number one in the amount of one million six hundred and five thousand seven hundred twenty five dollars and thirty three cents including the maintenance well doctor one we have a motion bond and pain second law of fluoresce is there a discussion hearing none roll call yes that motion carries is our motion to pro docket too this is where we approved number two in the amount of fifteen thousand eight hundred and sixty eight dollars and eighty nine cents we have most volume of pain second bond with fluoresce is there a discussion hearing none roll call yes yes that voice experience next on the agenda is

[1:31:44] the purpose of determining the need for executive session we have a motion by alderman gallagher second baltimore wheeler paul ferrissian do you post say no i just have emotion carries the need this evening is litigation and claims regarding public infrastructure in the salvation police department potential leasing any potential leasing of city property economic development and parks personnel is there a motion to declare executive sessions got a motion caller gallery second margaret wheeler all better say i alright paul told us they know i was having motion carries the mayor board will now enter executives

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=i6o2VlhN7q8