10/03/2017

[0:00:00] here by alderman gallagher please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance led by arnold in vain heavenly father lord we thank you for the opportunity to gather tonight lord lord i pray that you would be with us in each and every decision that that's made tonight lord i want to pray a special prayer for the victims of the vague massacre lord lord uh that you would use this tragedy to turn others to you lord and that our nation would turn to you in your name we pray amen amen and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all okay first on the agenda this evening is approval of minutes for the september 19 2017 meetings mr mayor move we approve the minutes of the regular meeting of september 19th 2017 within the additions deletion to our corrections exactly we have a motion by arm and pain second ballroom and hail is there any discussion very nun roll call yes alderman kelly yes yes okay that motion carries next on the agenda is a resolution for liens for condemned properties mr nick manley this is the liens for the condemned properties that will be our first action tonight will be those um we'll call these liens for those properties and the next motion will authorize it leads to assessment but the first one for number five will be resolution for liens to follow the links on those properties that have been confirmed mr merriman we adopt the resolution therefore the city of south haven adjudicating the cost of lending property posing a penalty and opposing

[0:02:03] lien of the same against property as president of the state second we have a motion by alderman brooks second baller in pain is there any discussion among the board hearing known is there anyone in the audience that has an interest in the properties that we'd like to speak hearing none roll call yes okay that motion carries next on the agenda's resolution authorizing liens to assessments this this will allow for the liens to be converted to assessments under 21 1911 at a later date probably in december what will then cancel those links to put it as an assessment for those properties under the mississippi 21 1911. it's the same resolution right yeah that's a different resolution they look similar but they work they are different i move we adopt a resolution of the mayor board involvement in the city south haven the dude came the cost of cleaning property imposing only and posing assessment of the same against property we have a motion caller in pain second of all gallagher is there any discussion among the board hearing none is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak regarding anything that has a financial interest in any properties hearing none yes okay that motion carries next on the agenda is a resolution for restaurant tourism tax for our parks obviously we've discussed this at this point

[0:04:04] in the upcoming weeks the city needs to give a resolution to state house reps to present this for a possible reinstatement of the tourism tax in the upcoming 2018 session what's been discussed is a potential eight year extension or possibly a resolution that just simply brings back a new boat and starts over with no with no repeal day or with it you know with that leaving that door open as you all know in the last session um it became very clear that many of the legislators around the state refused to approve our tax either with a referendum or an extension because of the fact that four of our own legislators voted no to others throughout the state that offered a new referendum so we suffered because of that so we're just going to decide which way we want to try to do it well basically yeah i'm just open up the floor for discussion you know just want to hear from you we need to make a decision you know what resolution we're going to provide so um yeah just open the floor for discussion mr mayor uh i just like to comment on this uh this has been voted on two times by the people of south haven um i don't see a reason to vote on it again the people have spoken numerous times and uh i think they've given their opinions on what needs well as i mentioned last time there is a percentage of people in our city that oppose this and voted no to it both times and they didn't like it appears to me they didn't like the result of the vote

[0:06:06] but you know that's that's how things are in america you know sometimes you have the right to vote but uh just because the vote doesn't go your way doesn't mean that you have to you keep requesting another vote and that's the way it works you know sometimes you vote for the winning team sometimes you vote for the loser but i would agree with you that um it's been apparent in both elections that the majority of people the city have approved this they see the value of it and they see it as a an extra unnecessary expense a new referendum is what about 40 crisp 40 over 40 000. a little higher than that so that's 40 000 you know to request another vote as alderman gallagher stated that's been voted upon twice so anyway thanks for your comments mr i'd like to do whatever we can do to speed the whole process up the quickest uh if i mean if the state legislature wants us to have another referendum vote then i'm all for it you know we can do that but it i think the first trial we ought to try to see if they'll just institute our tax again because obviously it's it's it's been detrimental to the city we've had uh we've taken out a bond where we we're 100 percent of those proceeds are coming from and uh i i just i hate that you know we can't just go this little bit quicker than having to go through another referendum vote that'll put us probably another year behind well it's fair to say that just um you know losing it for one year which we lost it this year you know that the department of revenue doesn't break down what part is hotel and what part is restaurant but we know that approximately 85 percent of that you know is due to the the restaurant tax so the total amount was uh 1.9 million that

[0:08:10] we lost for one year so you do the math on that 85 percent of that's about 1.6 so basically just that decision alone that it was not extended like so many others found out the state arm cost the city 1.6 million dollars so that a point duly noted the longer you wait you know the more the more time time is money i might be the dissenting one on this one but you know just in my opinion because the tax went away and we'll be asking for for life of edwards a tax increase in the city personally i would like to have a referendum for the citizens to vote on it again that way because it's been so long it's been gone away with and it will take more time to get back in it will be hopefully the final vote on this thing and that way we can just nail the coffin in one way or the other so i'm in favor of having the referendum will the referendum give us a non-repeal date no thank you can they not decide that's what they did last time they decided to run last minute so we'll be the same but we've always been in it every three years or four years whatever it is they can decide that they just want to let it pass they won't get a boat like this this last time it just goes away so yeah again check out those comments i mean um it's kind of like what comes first the cart of the horse you know they ask for the resolution from us but then when when they're down there you know we don't know you know what they're going to approve so basically you know we'd like to see the revenue reinstated so we can continue on with our parts program but we don't know ultimately if it will have a you know a repeal date how long that would be i have been given information that a lot of a lot of legislators now understand the fact if you have a short-term repeal date that limits the city's use you know of the revenue for a bond so i think now that message is finally circulating throughout the state that uh

[0:10:12] you know that a longer extension time is um obviously much better you know for the cities but you don't know don't know that the two potential resolutions that we did one of them was with an eight-year extension and uh one of them is just with a new vote you know with no no wasn't that how it was done it would know no date just to basically if you know the legislature wants to put a repeal date on it they certainly have the um the right to do that i will say this that contrary to the um inaccurate information that circulated when this issue became so highly politicized earlier this year the city's list of things that we want to do you know that on the capital improvement plan that's been distributed to y'all really about eight years revenue is about completes all those things so you heard ridiculous comments from some that it was an indefinite tax and there was no responsibility with the spending that's all false i mean there's always been a plan the city reserves the right to use this board has the right as you know each year to determine the budget determine how the money is spent but with eight years revenue basically that will help us complete everything that's on that list so i really don't think i think that they gave an eight-year extension that's really enough i don't i don't think we need the tax you know i mean we would have to reevaluate what the money is going to be spent on but the things that are in the plan i believe can be completed with eight years of revenue well that was kind of the point of the three-year repealer anyway was to hold us in this board accountable exactly for how we were spending the money well there was if we weren't doing it correctly then you know you don't lobby you know then our legislators wouldn't lobby for us to have this tax right but that's one of the things that we were in that you guys were diligent in doing was showing this is the money that came in this is exactly dollar for dollar paid for penny where it was spent this is what we did with it this is what we want to do for the three years going forward i thought we had a pretty good plan and

[0:12:14] you know that's that was the point of the repealer well that was explained the desoto county house reps that was explained to them by other members of the house that a repeal date was not meant to be taken literally obviously the revenue that it generated in 2012 three years ago nobody come close to the things that were on the plan so it was never intended to be taken literally that it's supposed to be repealed in three years that was well communicated by by the house representatives what you said that they use the repeal dates just as a checks and balances exactly a safeguard i'll go ahead i'm sorry um i mean my opinion on this at the moment is i i don't necessarily have a problem with the vote but i do understand the uh the advantages it gives to the city in project oriented direction the eight hour over the eighth year extension it just makes sense that we are able to fund the projects that we know we're going to do we know where the money already has to be spent we can't spend it anywhere else and to to take it away from us like it did not only 1.6 but we also know as a board that there was a domino effect to that absolutely and those things not only hurt the city of southam they hurt a couple of the other municipalities as well as the county and that's that's huge and for the state to not even recognize that was was kind of say comical but that's the best word that comes to mind at the moment it was it was not thought out even though the information was given to them in black and white and they just had an idea that all taxes are bad and that's not the case almost for sure that we had the plan was set in place the money was spent appropriately

[0:14:18] go ahead and do it let's let's re let's get the extension and move on down the road it's good for the state too i don't know of anybody that's going to complain restaurant owners hotel owners and i had a single one of them say you know i really hate that i have a line out the front door i really hate that all my rooms are booked and it's because of the amenities that this tax alone has brought to the city and it's just it's just a no-brainer to me well said and that is a fact that you know the tourism revenue by law must be spent only on parks recreation or tourism it can't be spent on any other issue or any other expense but now that revenue is gone it's forced our park improvements to compete with other uh projects in our general fund you know and that that hurts i mean if you're gonna do something with parks now that's competing with your street overlays and all your other infrastructure projects so it's it had a harmful a terrifically harmful effect you know from an economic development standpoint and again it's some that and it's just let's just say the facts i mean there are some people that take an anti-tax mentality they think every tax is bad and i can tell you right now you look at the problems in the state of mississippi not just in south haven and some of this radical anti-every tax mentality is killing the state of mississippi and it's killing economic development here we've got roads falling apart all throughout the state education in our state is not funded properly and we have some that want to focus on south haven's restaurant tourism tax so some people need to see the bigger picture and take an economic development frame of mind or else our state will continue to suffer step over dollar sign down so i'm guessing we can't do a reverse referendum like we did the first vote where we do our the referendum first like before the session we'll have to have the permission from the state legislature to do the referendum but i'm assuming you can put that in the there's nothing that stops

[0:16:20] you from putting that in the resolution but if you're considering having a new referendum that makes that was done as a compromise effect you know with you know doing an extension but putting the reverse referendum in there last year well it seems like the last time we did the reverse referendum and when it went to the state legislature the legislature said no real quick y'all getting reverse regard you're saying he's saying reverse referendum like if you you reverse referendum from the standpoint of if you have signatures associated with you're saying remember from right now from random but we can't go this legislation that's that's a premature referendum i'm sorry yeah so that's the you're talking about the same you're trying to different things you're using the same word sorry just clarify we yeah we did a premature referendum before where we i guess you have the previous mayor didn't ask for permission to do the vote he did it that's what he took down there and said hey citizens already wanted it the legislature said no you can't do that so then we had to go through it it took another you're talking about prior to that you're talking back in 2011 yes yes but yeah it does have to be a prayer the state legislature has to approve if there is going to be a new referendum so if we did a reference if we did a referendum we would be put another year away and we don't have to you know tonight we need to talk about it i mean that's the purpose tonight i mean there doesn't have to be a vote tonight but we do in the near future we need to uh we need to do that so we can go ahead and give that to it's been requested by some of our representatives so we need to give that to them where they can they can be prepared you know when the session starts in 18. how's this going to be different than what we requested last year last last year they asked us what we want to do when we told them we wanted to extend the tax and then they came back to us and said no we don't want y'all to ask for the tax extension we want you all to uh have a referendum

[0:18:22] so we talked about it and we asked for a reverse referendum and they said no we're not going to do that and so we said okay well we'll ask for the referendum and then we ask for the referendum and they still didn't get it through so how is this different well and these are not my comments these are comments uh from uh representatives in the state house of representatives they indicated that uh well i mean it's they voted no to both i mean both of them you know hit the floor yeah they voted no to all of them and they in their words uh they voted no because um our own representatives didn't support taxes throughout the state like that so uh whether that's right or wrong that's what they said they voted you know against ours because they did not get support from our own representatives so that that hurt us very badly my belief and this is my opinion just from reading between the lines on what i've been told is that after the fact after that occurred they realized that it made no sense to hurt the third largest city in the state when they're doing extensions for cities all throughout the state no one in the state of mississippi has used the tourism revenue more effectively than the city of south haven our parks program is respected throughout the southeastern part of the united states we've been a model you know with the parks program and using this tourism revenue effectively so a long way to say the other reps throughout the state um realized that it was the wrong you know that it's not fair the city of south bay some actually apologized to me face to face and indicated that they did not want to hurt the city of south haven but that they had to do this because our own house reps would not support bills throughout the state and so i believe that this year it would be different i think they want to send a message to these four house reps and i think this year it would be a different story when it's voted on

[0:20:24] so what did they did they had that they say you you should lean this way or that way or they um and as i said this year it's common to do extensions you know when there's already been votes like there has with south haven it's common throughout the state to do extensions i mean if you look at i mean we can name them you can pull it up and name all the cities that just simply ask for all that south haven asked for a three-year extension and they boom they passed just like that so i think it's still a common practice they like to use repeal things and do extensions so you would prefer for us to give you a resolution to take down there that's an extension and not a referendum well i'm i'm wide open to both and and i'm speaking for myself right here not as a city not what other people told me i get what alderman gallagher is saying it's been voted upon twice i really don't think the result is going to be any different i think the majority of people in this city appreciate what the parks program does for us not only from quality of life but also an economic development standpoint i agree i'm certain i feel certain that if we vote again if you're going to get the same result it's going to be a it's going to be a 70 30 time thing you can continue voting on it it's going to be 70 30. and it's going to pass again [Music] again it will be low voter turnout just like every other election that's nothing that's basically that's right um so i believe that it will i just want to be respectful and listen i mean if if you guys want to have another referendum i'm okay with doing that i do think like i said i think it's an unnecessary expense i think you're going to get the same result you can always have that 30 percent that don't like the result and they're going to they're going to always ask for another vote they want to do over you know and we all got to be grown-ups here you don't get a do-over you know some sometimes things shake down like you want them and sometimes they don't you gotta you gotta pick yourself up and move on down the road but there's a few in our city that refuse to do that well i agree with the eight-year extension house i think just quickly to get started in

[0:22:27] taking care of our business and as a business owner and facility county of a restaurant uh never had one problem at all with somebody saying i'm not paying that one percent or anybody complain about that one percent and you know most of the people paying that one percent are from out of town coming to the ball games and coming to the concerts and you know uh so it's just you know there's a reason they're coming here it's because we have the communities that they want to see without the money i don't think we can keep that up very well said about and i i we didn't have you in that discussion earlier this year so i really uh welcome your input coming from someone that you know is involved in the restaurant business and that's very well said i appreciate your input this may be a chris wilson question but since the tax went away on july 1st do we have any kind of restaurant data as far as what the overall sales and our restaurants have been over the past couple months are they are we showing a huge increase of people eating in south american restaurants because the tax went away i won't release that information all we're getting now on the tax is just the hotel hotel and it went from 180 a month down to 30 000 months of that number that's for the money right so but that's just for the hotel we can't tell with our normal uptick of normal sales tax revenue that you are doesn't give that information well the four years that we've been tracking this since well four years since i've been here the restaurant uh it's been increasing continue every year so with the tax that definitely did not discourage growth the restaurant sales have grown yeah their tourism tax increased every every year right i knew that i just didn't know if there was any kind of if there was any kind of indicator since july first showing you know like with restaurant owners were coming in like oh my gosh it's the tax went away you know our business has been total no there's been no data like that well i'll have time in my tcc um that's probably what it's worth but

[0:24:32] i i agree i would rather go the rough i would rather go to the extension just ask for the extension the better i get that however and i hate to sound like one who's sitting on the dance last time i deep down inside i have a really hard time this is a democracy since the last referendum we've had here voters have come and gone we have we have new voters now we have some older voters that have gone on and we have some other voters that just left the municipality moved somewhere else so we're going to talk about a new tax basically because it's essentially a new tax it's a new tax of an old tax i can see where our referendum would work i hate to do the expense i don't want to make the expense i don't but still democracy we should let the people have their say and i agree with you actually i don't even think it'd be 7 30. i think it'd be 8 20 or to ten and then it gets put to bed once and for all with this administration and then we can move on unless you know what the last three years i'd love to put it back well but that's on them we did our parts and i i don't disagree with you at all the only thing and someone said this to me this is not coming from me someone when i i made a comment to someone similar to that that i believe it will pass as i said early again but if if we want to put it to bed have a new referendum let's go for it and uh what was said to me was three years from now what's going to be said again is that really going to put it to bed is it really going to put it to rest if there's another vote and it passes 70 30. well it won't it may not put it to the rest but this board did what the citizens wanted us to do and they can't ever take that away ever and we gave them the ability to speak however i thought they'd spoken before but that was six years ago it just to some and again i i don't i certainly uh respect that and don't disagree with it um the only thing that i will share with you that i also uh received from some citizens are like how

[0:26:34] many times we gonna vote on i agree i mean i think it's ridiculous for us not to vote on it again or even be discussing this to be honest with you however it is what it is and now we've got to deal with it yes so again my preference is just to ask for the extension but if we know that if we're coming back to going look we're going to let them speak again and when they speak again you better do your job yeah i understand can we not do both the referendum and the eight year like have a referendum voting for an eight-year thing that way if we're done with it and we don't need it anymore we can let it die it doesn't mean that the state legislature will give us 8 years though no but if the voters vote on it when the voters voted the two times before there wasn't a referendum tied to it i made a repeal or tied to it at all that was done on the floor that was done on the floor before it passed we never asked for a repeal i know you didn't so i know you did but we also went down there and said hey look they voted on this but you didn't come ask us we initially won 15 years five members directly straight 15 years we could take out one one bond do it all be done with it and that didn't happen went down there next thing you know we were getting the three-year review and it is fair to know that the uh that was said by many of the opponents of the tax that um that uh well i mean to be fair uh representative criswell told me this he said if it has a repealer on it that means that the tax should be repealed and i explained to him and then not only me but after he got to the you know to the legislature other people explained this to them how they used extensions well several said that they would never vote yes to an extension so even if you do have a new referendum to christians uh on ottoman family's point if you do write it that way you have the referendum and it's for eight years and they only passed three well then they said no you're gonna get three but you're gonna you have a right for an extension when you come back and ask for extension three years from now some

[0:28:35] people have already said i'm not gonna vote to approve that so they're gonna ask for a new referendum every three years and that's you know just i mean i i again i think we asked for the extension but know that there's that other option and honestly representative christopher doesn't represent anybody in my ward so or southampton or southampton right but he did he did play a role in the view of desoto county as did you know a few of the others that were for well the ones it was representative hopkins representative henley and representative foster and representative criswell are the ones that were named that actually voted no to others that had a referendum no i mean not foster i meant eubanks instead of foster right those are the four so several of those people told me that they would approve anything that the people vote for so my question to them was that why did you vote no to other tourism taxes that had a new referendum they said well that's the people's choice to decide i don't know what's going on in brandon and my point to that is exactly so if they're asking for a referendum for brandon why would you vote no to that but they did so yeah and they still passed though yeah yes they did but then again it created hostility and towards the cities to summit county in general and let's remember we're not the only ones like lost theirs as well well let's make sure we understand too brandon's opening a new amphitheater come may off that set that's right several of those same legislators not all of them but several of them also told us they never voted no to to a referendum and when we pulled their voter record it showed their voter record is not consistent with that that is correct and that's a good point you know orlake adjusted millage rates i don't you know orland has to make their decisions but when you put a city in that situation

[0:30:37] are you really you know you know killing one tax to add another is that is that accomplishing anything you know and you take away one tax from them that was paid by people you know 100 percent of that tax number paid by people that live there and then you you put them in a situation where they uh take a property tax millage increase and that's 100 percent paid by the people to see so the third and back on taxpayer property that's right you're not you're not solving any tax problem you're just shifting the burden and i respect the comments and you know we could if y'all want um honor and kelly's question that that's something we could do the suggestion may be if you do the new referendum to leave the back end open not to not to do eight because you don't know exactly you know what they're going to do you know right so we don't want to bind it you know we because we're at their mercy did anyone have any other comments about it my suggestion would be we had a good discussion tonight uh my suggestion would be to um to pass a resolution at the next meeting is that is that accessible with you all ours it is and i also like what senator parker did uh the last session where he kind of had the mechanism within the bill to allow the citizens to come in and get rid of the tax if they need you to i mean that's an option as well yeah that's an option but you wouldn't want you'd be kind of duplicating if you're putting a new referendum on well i mean i'm saying do it not have the referendum but put the mechanism in so that citizens could that's the reverse right absolutely because we want to do what the people want period that should always be left but when the people i mean again when the people vote you know you know someone another comment there was so much discussion you know early this year but um another citizen told me this you know some said well you're not listening to your people if you don't

[0:32:39] have a new referendum that's you know that's not fair to your people and then i had some others that said well it's not fair to me either i voted i voted yes to it and now you're disrespecting my vote are you are you following me like they voted if you voted in favor of it twice and someone said well that's not good enough we're going to vote again i mean they they were offended by that well that's a very good point i voted for it so my vote doesn't count the majority doesn't count so now now just because someone doesn't like the vote results you're going to call a new referendum every time i mean so i thought that was a good point by some of our other citizens that were you know on the other side of the issue but yeah we could definitely that's an option where you could if you wrote the resolution to do aspirin at your extension with a reverse repealer you still you give the option if there's enough people that want it uh reversed that they have that do people have that right absolutely well that's a good discussion how about that let's wait until next meeting and uh vote on that is that is that acceptable yeah i won't be here okay and i won't be able to call in so okay we can put it on november first meeting because i want to be part of that okay we can accommodate that okay any other discussion okay hearing none we'll move on to the next um item on the agenda's resolution for no protest for the bond issuance this is just a resolution uh nothing there was no protest the bond issue piled the city clerk's office today or by today and also allows for the issuance of bonds and amount not to exceed six million dollars so this is we did the intent resolution the first thing september advertised it and then tonight would have the no protest resolution for the board's consideration and authorization this will also also authorize the issuance of the bonds and amount of exceed six million dollars i'll make that motion a second

[0:34:45] well motion monument flora has a second dollar and gallander is there any discussion here you know we're all called third yes yes okay that motion carries next on the agenda is a contract with eti this is a contract eti and thank and answer any questions you have as well but it's with eti for the um improvements for the latter will be at corn lake creek and um the contract is in the amount of 33 32 not to exceed 33 000 um it was included in your budget for this fy 18 and any technical questions obviously ever heard of the mayor dan because i don't know anything about that this is the cleanup work basically for all the development that happened along with the mall along lateral b when we opened up plum point grove knocked the bridge out did those improvements and all the retention related to it we are now finishing our one year warranty period on it with the developer that built the information eti was the original firm that put all the calculations together for the developer went through with us horn lake drainage district and the city of one lake over the impacts of horn lake creek this is and i'm sure y'all all heard i know the mayor has a good bid and george in particular some of the residents there we have changed the the floodplain uh in that area with this work fema does not change the maps but every

[0:36:48] so often and it's based on population growth and that kind of thing so we're actually not scheduled for probably another well that will give you an exact date for five to six years probably in this area for a map revision well for flood insurance everything defaults back to those maps so even though we've improved the flood plain in that area a lot of those residents are still paying for flood insurance because the flood maps still indicate the old data this would allow eti to add to their data process data in a fema format that would allow us to get a lomar letter of map revision which then would reflect improvements to the drainage in that area that would hopefully relieve several of those residents from having to pay flood insurance anymore so it's been a long time coming they felt the impacts of the improvements now they need we're trying to clean it up so they can feel it in their pocket so it's this motion to allow the mayor to sign a contract with vti to do that work correct i like that question or did we do the engineering work the engineering work second so was there other work done to the creek itself involved in this or is this just oh this is this is just paperwork clean up people this is just get the female natural now there is there and this was budgeted in the mayor's and y'all's stormwater improvements plan for this year there is some expenses that the city has to pay through that budget for the actual processing fees that is not included in this it could be around ten thousand dollars in addition to this for the actual map production and release from people but to get the data to feed money is from etis but not to exceed i will be 33 now are there residents at one point that this probably would not affect in a positive way as far as getting drawing them out of the floodplain that you're aware of the conditions wouldn't worsen for anybody they're either in the floodplain now or they're not right right now you have

[0:38:50] some that are paying it or not in the floodplain a significant amount that are painted that are not in the floodplain so it would pull some of those out now there's a couple that may or may not be impacted that would may still be in the floodplain yeah the maps it's important to note the maps are still fema's maps so we have to be careful that we say hey you know we've reduced your risk of flooding here but that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't have to still have flood insurance right so it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone that's that would be when the female maps come out but it should help most dan it should right most of them should should see a reduction or a lot of mortgage companies may not require the flood policy based on the new new data when the maps come out we're just saying it's not 100 we don't know that we can't say dropping flood insurance right now not being an insurance person so i'll kind of ask you guys uh if so if if we redraw the maps we do this they do the cleanup they find several residents aren't in a floodplain anymore where they don't have to have inch flood insurance they go through their insurance provider insurance provider agrees everything's happy then lo and behold something happens five years down the road and they flood does this mean it's really more up to their mortgage company than their insurance provider the mortgage company is the one who's going to tell them if they have to have it have to have flood insurance or don't have to have insurance so but they still can yeah even if they don't have to have some mortgagee requirement they can still get what's called a preferred rated policy if their zone changes so they can still keep just because their mortgage is not requiring it doesn't mean that they can't still keep flood insurance at a preferred rate but it'll be at a lesser rate than someone's in a dangerous flood hazard area so i think where you were correct me if i'm wrong i think i'm understanding you you you're worried about them coming back later and saying hey i dropped my flood insurance because mr payne told me i could kind of

[0:40:58] on an insurance side i'm sure a lot of residents over there don't understand it exactly either so they're thinking they know that they're required that they have to buy you know a lot of people still think when they're hot water heater busts you know that uh everything's covered and technically a lot of times it's not so if if they're being told that they don't have to buy flooding shirts anymore my fear is you know they they all go and they get rid of the because they don't have to pay this extra thousand dollars a month right thousand dollars a year that they're having to pay then lo and behold if something happens are they no longer covered because they don't have flood insurance if something wouldn't happen or just yeah that's on them and joel will maybe want to add something to this but what i would advise someone if you if you live close enough to horn lake creek as dan knows regardless of what happens you you're going to take so you're going to take some risk so my advice to a client would be even if your mortgage company doesn't require i would still keep the preferred rated policy because it's a much lower rate but yeah you're still covered i just know coming off campaign season i think the biggest question was when are we getting it out of this flood clean so i don't have to pay for this flooded church we're basically not making that decision that was the question all we're doing is providing fema the latest information so that the mortgage companies the insurance providers and the residents can make the decision themselves all we're doing is reflecting the latest data for the agencies that already have a mechanism to work through this process and he's right we wouldn't be the one saying you don't need flood insurance anymore uh and and like the flood we had several years ago i mean you know this is a standard up to a hundred year floodplain we've had bigger than that so i wouldn't suggest to anybody that if you're into like you said if you're along the degree that you get out of it just you want to get the people where they're not under the required maximum rate because to be their real estate transactions

[0:42:59] when you're for when your mortgage company is requiring it uh that's uh a negative with real estate transactions the most people i've talked to over there that's the issue is they're wanting to sell their home and they're having difficulty selling because of that sure well that's that's the answer that i was i was asking but most horse companies will go off of uh i think all of them are off to them they're not going to say okay now that you're that they say they're not everyone dropping the mortgage company will require 100 until they redraw the map we did have an initial motion by alderman flores and the second was by hollering wiggler is there any other discussion no but this is a this is a big deal it is for all the residents over there and i know they're very excited about it and dan has done an enormous amount of work and uh dan and i kind of have uh storm event parties you know we when these rains come we kind of have all these these uh creeks and that's one of them we spent a lot of time eyeballing that one haven't we sir yeah just so you can sleep at night yeah i know they're awake where you sometimes you gotta go out there and make sure you can sleep say thank you george oh i called in after a big freedom i had someone actually in plum point as recent as this week asked me if i'd ever seen the ditch i said um i'm there you see the guy out standing in the rain staring at it for hours okay any other discussion hearing none wrong call yes yes okay that motion carries next on the gen is a work authorization with civil link this is a contract for the new signal improvements along 51.

[0:45:01] it covers the design permitting bidding and construction administration inspection on the signals rasco state line basically on 51. there's four of them that would get that area improved and it's on the mayor's plan that's uh we have it down as an hourly not to exceed 180 000 at our uh 2.6 labor market for the mayor to sign the contract correct sorry nate we have much modern florence second alderman hale is there any discussion yes um we plan to have the signals completed and operational before the end of this budget year so it'll take about three months to get everything designed and submitted and permitted by mdot plus in that some bid time of about 30 days and then the construction work will be six months so roughly nine months for us [Music] yes okay any other discussion hearing we're all calm yes okay that motion carries thank you thank you next on the agenda's authorization for public works to purchase equipment from the state contract and go to bid this is the observation to purchase the

[0:47:04] equipment for the um that is on your worker public works request for new mowing equipment off the state contracts there's no no requirement to go to bid and also authorization to go to bid on a piece of equipment i think that's on the next page on your um like it's like a it was a midi track unit in this kid's gear unit so observation to purchase those i don't know the state contract for the first items and then observation go to bid with the menu tracking and the skids your unit tonight so how it works you need two separate motions i think you can do it all one motion i have a question public works you already have a skid steer sure bradley okay you have a backhoe right is that what we bought back yes sir okay thank you sorry okay we have a motion by army gallagher second by alderman kelly is there any other discussion it is but this again is for um bradley would you speak on the details of this is for your right of ways you're bringing the right-of-ways back in-house bush hogging uh yes sir the first the tractor equipment and mowing equipment is for uh specifically that to bring the right away current right-of-way contract back in and in-house to allow us to do that y'all know thankfully we appreciate your approving that request this year so we have the equipment and also working on the personnel to pull that team together and add to what we have now so we would be able to do all the right ways ourselves in the city and then the other two pieces of equipment the mini track and the skid steer for the infrastructure crew we will also do more of those things in-house we

[0:49:05] we've farmed a lot of that right now to third parties we feel like we could do we have this equipment again and we've got the personnel actually already to work on those to make that work so we'll be able to do more of that contract every party we won't do all of it like we will with the right of ways but we'll do i believe we said we think we can at least do about 25 probably more we're trying to be conservative proposing to key offer budgets but it's all things that you voted money wise for us to have to purchase this year for those purposes yeah we reduced the drainage uh the budget line that the construction equipment uh applies to is the drainage maintenance yes sir so we cut that budget line because we knew having this equipment would allow us to do like bradley said uh estimated 25 of ourselves instead of paying a third-party contract and then we did not budget for uh the general runaway bands so that that was 208 thousand dollars or something somewhere in that area so we removed that from the budget to bring it back in-house but i think alderman hale's question was on the we'd estimate that we thought it would cost like 450 000 for the right-of-way equipment and 350 for the construction equipment what does that still look like it gave us a total of 750 it was 450 for the right of ways 300 for the infrastructure uh right now we're looking a little less than 350 for what i mean the number you have here on the tracker sheet and uh that's pretty much everything we need other than a trailer for the mowers we're gonna have two mowers now and we did have to pick another truck uh f 250 uh truck and it's all that should be on state contract actually i think the traders are always good also how much is it going to come in that is it do you know now is it going to come under i don't know i don't have all the pricing on those yet but i feel strongly yesterday would definitely come in under the 450 okay i mean we're going to make it work when we're another but i feel strong we can get everything for less

[0:51:07] than the 450 particularly we have the state contract items what you do on that the infrastructure we also feel we can use the truck and we have we have a trailer that we can use we just need the truck equipment to pull it which that tv would also help us for that so we have 300 for that we should be well below that with these two pieces of equipment and whatever we have left will be used for support to transport them most likely which is also in the budgeted items that were requested for this year so does that answer your question any other questions for bradley you need to mess around with the boats i'm sorry you messed around you bought a kubota well that's our state contract we were happy about that yesterday we're not trying to mess around anyway okay any other discussion hearing none roll call kelly yes yes okay and that motion carries thank you bradley all right next on the agenda is surplus property from the south bank police department it's just the emotion that got added like like resolution to surplus the property just resolution authorized surplus for replacement for the vehicles are no longer needed for service according to 17 25 25. mr mermaid we approve of the resolution of the mayor and board of aldermen of the city south avenue claims surplus property police department and disposing of in accordance to the state law we have emotional volume in pain second of all inhale is there any discussion hearing none all in favor say aye hi

[0:53:10] all say no i was having motion carries just checked on the dollar and that would be correct okay next on the agenda's resolution to claim private property mr merriman we adopt the resolution granting authority to clean private properties presented on the state segment we have a motion alderman brooks second ballerman kelly is there any discussion no discussion among the board is there any anyone in the audience who would like to speak regarding any of the properties carrie nunn roll call yes yes okay and that motion carries next on the agenda is our planning agenda miss whitney cook yes sir our first item you'll have in your package a summary of the consultant services we are requesting to rfp out for the comprehensive plan we did get it approved for the budget this year this is an overall guideline tool for development from community facilities to future land use development to transportation plan um it is required by state statute to have one in play right now the one we're working under is a 2020 plan so it has an expiration date coming up pretty soon it's very outdated so we're requesting to go out to uh for rfp for consultant services on them excuse me we have a much moderate flores second ballroom and kelly is there any discussion thank you indeed it'll come back thank you for the board point to the approved account for the final contract will come

[0:55:12] back yes you'll see that and you can see the dates in here um on page three we have a submittal deadline on november one uh there's interviews if needed consultant selection by november 15th and a final contract in front of the board on december 19th hopefully getting started january 1 of 2018. and i would say um obviously whitney and i will be heavily involved uh with with these um consultants you know with the plan but um again i would ask you to share your input share your thoughts and your you know your visions about different things in the city because as whitney noted that this is like a 20-year thing so i mean it is very very important it needs to be updated planning is one of the most important things you can do for your city you know for the effect it has on the city's future so um please share with me any input that you have and then when i meet with the consultants i'll pass that on to them and we'll try to incorporate that you know into the comprehensive plan okay is there any other discussion hearing none all in favor say aye aye all opposed say no i just have a motion carries on one item number two we have an application requesting to subdivide 4.76 acres of property on the east side of sweden road south of church into three lots it is owned agricultural ordinance states that under loads under low density residential areas on agricultural they can submit for minor subdivision if they have a minimum of one acre per lot and it doesn't exceed the three lots total this does meet that criteria they all have access to swinney road therefore no aggressive regresses are required on it it is compliant with subdivision regulations and we recommend approval absolutely second when did you know who's up with the planet

[0:57:14] yes it's just three homes being built on it on each line yes one per lot okay we uh we had an original motion bottom and gallagher second ballroom in pain is there any other discussion hearing none all in favor say hi all of us say no i just have it motion carries on two item number three we have a request to revise highland row section b specifically lodge 124 you'll see it on the uh well and go back one please i've got a shaded area there's a large parcel it's it's identified as lot 124 right now encompasses 3.08 acres you're going to see a line that shows floodway you're going to see another one that separates it out from floodplain there's two lots one on the north end of it one on the south end of it where the builder and the developer determined that area was essentially out above the floodway and the floodplain and they would like to take those two areas and make them mildable lots so the request is to take the lot 124 separated out to lot 124 a b and c both a and c being uh buildable lots that will comply with pud regulations and still leaving lot 124 b with the excess which is 2.39 acres still complies with the 20 hud requirements still has access from the road as you can see there it is compliant so we're recommending approval as well i recommend we approve that the plan commission item number three sorry so i mean so 124b is still going to remain in the floodplain yes and it's open space they're required to have a certain percentage in there but yes i mean there's nothing you can really do with that um there's floodway in there which you really can't do anything with but it will remain as just common open space and partial drainage for the overall subdivision okay we had a motion belonging flores second baltimore wheeler is there any

[0:59:17] other discussion hearing none all in favor say aye aye all opposed say no i just haven't motion carries on three item number four we have a request to again revise an existing lot too in the dear chase north commercial subdivision this particular revision is going to be located behind the existing retail center we've got the grill house building to the north this is going to be behind the one just to the south of there there is an existing structure on the south lot the applicant did come in and request to name them lot 2b in lot 2c we have asked them to revise it to a and b since there is not a lot 2a that will be floating out there and that would be a little confusing but it does comply with the pud regulations mainly there's a 30 foot buffer line and a fence line between them and the homes behind it in the deer chase subdivision again it's already a recorded lot they're just asking to further subdivide it down so that the individual offices can be purchased and it is complying with the rest of the subdivision regulations so we recommend approval i will make that motion as well for item number four on planning tim second on item four we have a motion bonus in flores and the second ballroom in brooks is there any discussion so these will be offices yes one currently has an office building on it uh and they're going to mirror that same office building kind of like they've already got all of them kind of match it's going to mirror the one that's right next to it to the south okay so uh where you said the grill house was the grill house this is the 2013 aerials because they're much more detailed than the 2016. the grill house is just north of these buildings where you see the identified lot to the north of it it's just shown as a bank a piece of property because this is the 2013. okay is there any other discussion on four hearing none all in favor say

[1:01:23] all opposed say no i just have a motion carries on four number five was pulled off the planning commission last night um due to some problems we're running into with the application uh therefore there's no item number five over three okay thank you okay next on our agenda is uh mayor's reports i want to update everyone on a few things saturday this saturday october 7th is the county hazardous waste day so items that that you cannot put you know in your normal garbage or rubbish they will be collecting those at the lander center from 8 8 a.m to 12 noon this saturday at the lander center a couple quick things we talked about star landing in church um star landing and church well star landing is under um they have work crews there now starting with the patching uh then church road will be there will be work started there in the very near future as well some good news to report y'all know is a big deal in 2015 the city received the government finance officers association excellence in financial reporting award this is an award that is only given to approximately 5 percent of governmental entities nationwide there's approximately 89 000 of those entities and uh and we were in that five percent that's a big deal and uh i'd like to you know commend eddie michael wayne titch cox and chris wilson uh they make up our finance department and they do an outstanding job and this uh this credit goes to them uh has a bigger impact on the city as a whole uh it's the ultimate measure of showing financial integrity with the operation so we receive that award again for 16 so we've got got that prestigious award back to back for the last two years again i like to commend our finance department but also thank this board of

[1:03:26] aldermen for us all working together making it a priority you know to heed the advice of our finance department city attorney and the other experts that we hire to help us but it's a great indicator for the city the people of the city should be excited about that to know that the you know that the money is being handled exactly right here here okay then last thing um just a little quick thing i know you're tired of hearing about this this has been a very lengthy project but part of our overall revitalization and beautification plan a small piece of that was to add decorative signage throughout the city and uh to say we ran ran into a few roadblocks is the understatement of the year but we bought those last year and they've been sitting at our public works facility because we had to do some research engineering research to make sure the weight of them was appropriate for the mast arms we did do that that was cleared everything is good there and then we started to install them we realized that the brackets did not function properly so that delayed us again i had to go back and do some leg work to get the correct brackets uh but we've got that process going so those are being installed now so we've been talking about it for a couple year or at least at least a year and a half but they are up now if you want to see what they look like the first intersection was rasco and canterbury i believe today they did mill branch and maine and then yesterday i think they did nail road and airways so those will be they're just the same they replete replaced the standard green signs and it's a it's a black and white decorative sign that has a city logo on it

[1:05:29] and it will be installed on all the mast arms and all the intersections throughout the city but already getting positive comments back it looks good so when you get a chance go take a look at that i'd like to thank bradley wallace and all of our public works staff for being patient and working hard the city's never installed those before so this is kind of a you know kind of being trailblazers here a little bit but they've done a great job being innovative and making this thing work and it's working well so it'll be another small piece of making our city more attractive that's all i have this evening next on the agenda is our citizens agenda the first person that signed up this week it was mark and shirley stevens so mark and shirley stevens are here would you please come forward to the podium at this time i don't see anyone is mark and charlie stevens here with us tonight i don't see them if they uh come in later i would request the board we'd love to speak later if that's okay with you guys um the next person that's signed up is uh miss graciela victhorne please come forward thank you i just want to make an observation regarding my backyard and the trees that will probably never appear because i just learned that there is not enough space to put trees so i don't know what that entails why a person would come and tell us that they were going to do that i learned one thing that when you buy a house or you're doing anything you need to go down to where they have the properties and check it out find out all kinds of things because the person that sold the house told us

[1:07:31] one thing and now this builder you know i know what miss whitney said he's waiting to finish it might be by that time i might be dead because it's been seven years really that he said that now we can say well you know there were a couple years that were bad but he's been building quite a bit in that subdivision and the curve from my fence is not very far so from my understanding there has to be more space there for trees i don't know if that has been presented when he put the uh which we call it the blueprints i don't know if that's the way it's done i'm not an engineer and i don't know however i only know one thing i know she got upset with me the last time because chances they have to finish all the roads i'm sorry the trees go on the grass they're not in the middle of the street and i had just and he was rude to me one time i called him i forgot his name and just as well however i just want to say that so many times some of these things they take advantage of people i'm not saying that he lied but then on the other hand why get upset if i'm calling you and asking you why the trees aren't there you could say you know this is my situation and you know i can deal with that i just don't deal well with people that just dismiss you and say you know it's not important and i'm not the only person on that stretch okay so enough to said about that and also i asked mr cordell a few times i want to know where the water from that subdivision goes to because you know we used to have a ditch under the blade we

[1:09:35] have a creek now and it's ruined properties on that side not on my backyard but on that side of jacob lane because it's a curve and you know you want to do the planning and i admire that however just look where the water goes i mean there's no place for the water to go it goes to the lowest place so we have water when it's really raining from goodman roseberry dumping into this lake that we have in our subdivision that is not our subdivision water that is theirs that's all i want to say okay well i hope i hope i can share a little bit of information that i hope that you'll view as uh as positive and i appreciate you coming forward tonight the issue with the trees actually i was briefed on that issue this morning and um so it's it's a little different from i think maybe what you've been told in the past the delay is not for the street to get done the delay is waiting on the month of november to get later in the year that's more conducive to tree planting so they don't die and have to come back and replant them so it's my understanding that they have plans in november of planting trees now i confirmed with them today and i told miss miss fitchborn it would be november as soon as they got that section done it's okay well we just got that section of the street done yeah but it's got finished i was told there was not enough space to put trees there okay that's the other thing hardwoods are going to be an issue simply because you only have about three and a half feet and we can put a hardware down what it's going to do is root underneath this the road exactly and actually crack but i mean that's not and why did you do that no i mean i don't know i can't speak on it and that's my question though we as residents sometimes been told one thing and we don't know the rules we don't know the way things are supposed to be done do i need to come to the city and check it out before i say yes to anything probably i should have i mean that wasn't part of the master plan now he did it he's doing it because you asked him to even though he's not there

[1:11:37] we didn't ask him to he promised us that but what i'm saying is the pud and the design there never had a planting screen there it's not required when you develop your own property it's not required to shade and screen somebody else is probably with landscaping like that plenty of people's fences go right together and you're looking at somebody else's backyard oh i mean like i'm excited to look at somebody's backyard i'm looking at a street and the noise and all that from those houses they are very close to mine which is fine i live in a city i don't live in a contract okay but then if that is the case he should have never promised trees well he's still all going to put the trees in yeah i think that's the good news what he's talking about is hardwood trees have a more detailed root structure so that's dangerous there's lots of there's lots of other species that can be planted absolutely like evergreens that would that would be great for you i mean i would evergreens will give you privacy when they grow that's fine but i you know what i'm saying the man could have been a lot kinder and a lot bit more forward and by saying that instead of being off and under shape that's all i'm saying i understand and then again uh dan about the drainage would you speak to the drainage there again all that subdivision water goes through because rose berry is next to it and it comes into our bond right but we we have um the last time that you came forward and spoke with us we did address that again so that's why mr dan cordell is so i don't know okay well here here's dan cornell he is the uh our chief engineering consultant for the city of south haven failing miserably failing miserably but i do have a magnets before any fuel i just want to know where the water goes because you know you're talking about helping the city they're playing ahead you have to know where this water is going certainly we had a ditch we have a creek now there has been homes behind jacob lane that have been ruined and

[1:13:39] actually there have been three homes right at that corner where it comes comes in from that subdivision that the foundations give way one house was had two houses were empty for years because the foundation and the walls cracked and people left it that's the way it was and the fact is i don't know who gave the approval on a property like that to build a house that was not even according to subdivision codes because our garages are on the side and the property is too small so the future we're just facing the street now if you're going to keep on having you should come with a poor rain we have water that people i don't live on the lake thank goodness but the people on the lake have had to reinforce their yard because they're losing it and not because of the lake and necessarily it's all this influx of water that comes in that's all i'm saying dan is that area one that we need to look at on our drainage improvement schedule or what is the issue what is the issue there no sir i i think what she's describing is just common and normal maintenance of erosion and flow i had a map if you would be so kind as a call whitney we'll set up a time that we can lay it out to explain what she's asking where the water is going i have that i've brought it to several board meetings but we haven't hooked up and had that conversation i do not have it tonight but we can sit down and go through it actually our indication shows that that development some of the water does flow there and float there originally but they reduced the amount of flow that goes toward her area with that development so we've redirected the flow

[1:15:41] to go another direction so if she's having an erosion problem but i would would love to sit down with you and go through it you asked where it was going i'd love to sit down and show you and show you how to produce we all know where it goes you can fix it that's my point but the problem sir with the other part of the implant we have three huge pipes that flow into that pond obviously i you know i can't go back to something that uh what was the year that that was approved with probably well i know that i wrote insurance policies there 15 20 years ago 2 000 pinehurst has been there since the early 90s yeah so we can't you know obviously we can't go back in time but what we can do is what mr cordell is telling you we'll be glad to look at that because we do review drainage throughout the city we spent a lot of time doing that and so be happy to coordinate a meeting he can show that there's something that the city needs to do i mean that we want to know that because we we do want to resolve the problem so uh if it's something that is a city if it qualifies for our public assistance we certainly want to do that great we've met with the homeowner association about the pipes she referred to going into the lake and that is an issue for the homeowner association it's not causing a flooding issue they're having a an issue with their lake level with deq and they had to go in and adjust that based off of the dam regulations that are in place now but it's not necessarily an issue from the cd standpoint that we can step in and do anything yet and we have contacted the homeowner association and been in we had to fix that because

[1:17:45] it was eroding the water too much water was floating underneath and it's going down that's what's going on to the creek whatever amount of water it doesn't happen every day it rains who's fixing it now what it's already been done i know who did that already that's my understanding that's the homeowner association and everything that will be that that's right that's what we don't want to association and they're aware of the problem but it is their problem not it's our problem but it's caused by to my opinion is caused by the way things have been planned and allowed to be that's my thing i'm not you know well i think and it means a lot to me that we give you good and correct information and let me answer your question so i think the best thing is as mr cornell indicated that we get the maps out and we talk about that and i'd be happy to sit in on a meeting as well let's we can schedule a meeting with uh mayor i'm done we're trying to i mean we really want to help you we want to answer your questions i'm done you know what the problem is you can fix it actually i was more interested in my backyard because for seven years we've been sliding with me from the southwest uh right back west yeah and there are some things that the city can fix and some things that we cannot i mean well we well i mean state law we follow state law you know we have a drainage improvement policy that's consistent with state law so we're going to we're going to do it the right way but i'm telling you we want to help if we can help you we want to help you if nothing else i think it's fair to you to let you know the truth about the drainage where the water because that was your initial question where are the waters coming from where it's killed it's out of curiosity where this water goes but what i'm saying is the point is if you're planning on bad

[1:19:48] you gotta find out where the water is gonna go when they're given some uh subdivisions the filthy approval and we do that and again i can't i can't criticize or judge what happened 15 years ago but it's on my watch now and the new developments that occur now that is done before land disturbance permits are done there is a drainage plan in place that is reviewed by engineers to make sure that we don't get into these problems 15 years down the road so we are doing that but again i just the door's open i'd like to you know answer your questions and have mr cordell show you the maps and explain that if you would like to i would i would appreciate that if you would uh cooperate with us there and i appreciate you coming forward thank you dan okay next on the agenda is our um personnel document mr mayor i mean we approve the personnel documents presented on the state second we have a motion ballroom and brooks second bottom of wheeler is there any discussion carrie millen roll call yes okay that motion carries next on the agenda's city attorney's legal update we've got one couple quick things first on the star landing uh uh mou with the county last four maybe approved mayor to sign miu with accounting for star landing road the county 500 thousand dollars the county in the city doing the work uh the county hasn't proved it into you as well um and so we'll have a sign tonight just let you know or make a pro or a motion not in motion but just uh no you know you threatened nice minutes so on the record for that that motion that mou being the next minutes um secondly you need authorization for parts director wes brown to sign

[1:21:50] professional service agreements for our independent contractors to help with the tennis lessons um so we have one tonight with christian serrano toronto may not be santa correctly but authorization we're going to sign this along with authorization assigned future ones as they are needed with the parks department gallagher is there any discussion yeah just a quick question so then we're going to have other instructors besides them yeah and they give us a percentage of their proceeds all i need to know scroll expanding i know it is isn't it awesome can't keep up with it i guess imagine that yeah built it bigger made it bigger and again the you know the fee that we pay them comes out of the lesson fee so it's new money okay any other discussion about the instructors hearing none all in favor say hi i'll post say no i just have a motion carries and the last item is the standard contract the yearly contact we do at the center county school district or board of education that will provide an sro and they will give us twelve thousand dollars annually towards the salary of one soo sro i think we do into providing five we end up writing more than the one the one we reimbursed for but this will allow us to receive twelve thousand dollars in the board of education for towards the salary of the full-time sro which obviously doesn't cover the calls but it does help offset itself i'll make that motion second we have a motion balance flores second alderman is there any discussion hearing none all in favor say aye aye

[1:23:53] all of those say no i just have it motion carries all right next on the agenda is claims docket mr mayor move we approve the claims docket an amount of 2 million 81 328.88 including demand checks second we have a motion ballroom with pain second bottom and flores is there any discussion hearing none roll call all right next on our agenda is to determine the need for executive session we have a motion of honor brooke second largeman kelly all in favor say aye all opposed say no i just have it motion carries the need this evening is personnel in city court personnel in parks plains litigation against the city and southampton police department economic development relating to relocating of business to the city and leasing of city property now is there a motion to declare executive session we have a motion by alderman gallagher second by alderman wheeler all in favor say aye all right all opposed say no i was having the motion carries the mayor board will now enter executive sessions okay

[1:26:20] thank you much

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=skigVjtmMm0