City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the November 10th meeting of the Aken City Council. I need if you're inclined, please rise for the invocation followed by the pledge. Almighty God, our heavenly father, send down upon those who hold office in the city of Achen the spirit of wisdom, charity, and justice that with steadfast purpose they may faithfully serve in their offices to promote the well-being of all people. In your name we pray. Amen. Chief, would you lead us in the pledge, please?

Good evening, mayor and council. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [cough] [clears throat] Before the meeting begins, I will review the guidelines. Meetings are public forums in which many opinions are expressed and the business of the city must be conducted. As such, discipline, honorable and professional decorum is paramount. Courteous and respectful communication is required. There should be no disruptions from the floor while council members or members of the public are speaking. Anyone wishing to speak must be recognized so that we can retain order as we conduct the business of the city and all comments can be put into the public record. During public hearings, all questions and statements from the public shall be directed to the chair. If you wish to speak, raise your hand and I will recognize you. Please approach the podium and state your name and address. In order to allow an opportunity for everyone who wishes to address council, speakers should limit their comments to the subject being discussed, please. Each speaker will be given five minutes to address an issue and may only address an issue once unless questions from council are posed to the speaker. During the non-aggenda public comment section, each speaker has three minutes and can only speak once. We now move to additions and deletions to the agenda. I recognize mayor prom Ed Jerido for this matter.

Thank you, mayor. Good evening, everyone. And then there was one. I guess I'll be back at the next one and open things up. But at any rate, it's been a wild ride. We'll we'll save some comments for next week as far as that's concerned. But it has been my honor to be Mayor Pro Tim and serve as mayor pro Tim for Mayor Teddy. We've had a good time. [clears throat] At any rate, there are no additions or deletions to tonight's agenda and I move that as a motion. Mayor,

uh, thank you. Um, Councilman Waltz, second the motion. All those in favor. Thank you. The minutes were provided to council for review prior to the meeting. Is there a motion for approval of the minutes? Councilwoman Gregory made the motion and Councilwoman

Oh, sorry. Councilwoman Price made the motion and Councilwoman Dig second the motion. Any comments or changes? All those in favor. Thank you. Motion passed. There are no presentations on the agenda tonight. So, we will now open the floor to public comments on non-aggenda items. Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker and for a total of 30 minutes. Who would like to start? Yes, sir.

Good evening, Mayor Council. It's good to see y'all. I hope you all are feeling well tonight. Stay warm. Uh my name is Kurt Johnson, 114 Brewster Way Aken. Um, one of the things that I want to bring up tonight, first of all, happy birthday to the US Marines. Second, tomorrow is Veterans Day. So, thank you for all the veterans. Um, I guess the last time that we that I was here, I had uh spoken a little quickly about how many overdoses and how many overdose deaths we have. We have never had 269 overdose deaths in Aken. So, just to clear that up. um for October we do have 291 over suspected overdoses but there was only one fatality out of all that. So by us pushing the Narcan out into the community it is actually starting to show a little bit of progress toward the overdose deaths. Um, with this weather starting to turn, there's going to be a couple places that people will be able to go to warm up. One of them will be Achen Ebenezer Church. We'll we'll start at Thursday morning there at 8:00. Um, Lex will tell you about his. But other than that, that's about all I've got. We just got to if you see somebody out there, let us know. I mean, you've all got my number. It's open 247 and we will try to help them out as much as we can. The shelter is going to be full for a while. So, we're gonna we're going to try to work on something on that that aspect as well. So, any questions?

Yes. Yes, sir. Um I know the the city has warming stations I think at Miss Hazel and the Lesie B. Christ Center. Uh Stewart, am I correct? I did not hear the question. I said I assume that the city has um warming stations located at Smith Hazel Center as well as Lesie B. Price Center and Odell Week. Yes. During normal business hours. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, people can actually go there too, right? Stay warm during the day. And they all close at

5:00. five o'clock. Okay. Um, one of the things that we do is we're going to provide them with warm drinks and and hopefully have enough soup to pass around. Okay. As well. So, we'll give them a chance to even charge the frrones, too. Okay. So, all right. Anything else? Any any more um on available housing for those that it's it's starting. We've got a couple of uh opportunities right now. So, that is something I'm going to let Lex talk about. He's more into that.

Um, one thing that I will ask is if you know people that have cup of soups and ramen noodles, we definitely will need them this year. So, that's one of the things we're going to be looking for. And hand warmers that go in the gloves. So, well, I've packed the blessing box at the Clyburn Center three times in a day and probably an hour after I put everything in and that included noodles and and and other snacks and soup and so forth, it was gone. Well, this Yeah,

at this time with the SNAP program being in Delux, it's made a big difference on that, too, because we're seeing a lot more coming to us and they're not homeless. They're just people that are without food, right? So, we're we're dealing with it. We got the churches. The churches are really stepping up, which is an amazing thing. So, thank you for all you do. Oh, it's all God, believe me. Anybody else? Is that it? Okay. Have a nice evening. Thank you. [applause] Yes, sir. Lex.

All right. Evening, council. Uh, Lex Perry, 1526 Southboundary Avenue. Um, Pastor C4 impact. Um, want to give you a quick update. Um, as Pastor Kirk said, we are working on getting some additional housing. We have been able to secure um some additional housing now with a cooperation with um what partnership we just have with CMSG um legacy group um that's led by Shanaa Butler. Uh she's the director. Um so we we were able to house actually by tomorrow um a single mother and four children uh at that location. We have three other rooms that will be available at that location as well um that we're working on. Of course, we're getting uh bids and no um covers, you know, pills and so forth. Getting it completely set up so we'll be able to house more particularly in that location. We're looking at um women, mothers with children because that's a very difficult uh place to um you know to to to place someone in. So, specifically, that's where we're going to be gearing there. Um we are pretty much

that location. Where is that location?

That's at 1238 um Hatchaway U Bridge Road. Uh that's the house where it is. We are currently looking at other partnerships uh that are out there. So if anyone um you know homeowners that they're renting the place out, looking at it, please give us a call um see if we can contact because we want to collaborate and reuse what's already there. Uh it's a great way to get people housed very quickly. Usually within 72 hours we can get somebody in place just as we did in this particular case. Um we are almost at capacity uh where we are at C4 I think. Matter of fact, we have one place that's open and that's going to be uh filled and we're rearranging it as as needed. Uh but we're going to continue to look for more housing um to be able to get people into with the support that you all have been given um with us. You know, we we're so thankful uh for that. Um, but other than that, we have a warming station Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Um, we pick that time because we know that generally the emergency shelters late at night kind of open at that time for the extended hours when it's really cold. Um, so we know that you have those ones during business hours from 5:00 to 7:00 will be open to give, you know, you know, coffee, hot chocolate, soups, and things like that. We also use that as a touch point to find out what some of the needs are. Um we'll we have staff there sitting down find out what's going on. We'll also schedule laundry um uh showers and that type of thing as well. And also if somebody needs to use our our computer lab, we'll set up those schedules for those as well because all of that was going to be on our site. So again, you know, you know someone in need, give Pastor Kurt, myself a call. U we're going to do everything we can to make sure that they're taken care of.

Thank you. Anyone [applause] else? Okay. Thank you. We'll move now to approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Bemo, will you please read the titles of the items on the consent agenda?

Thank you. We've received no comments uh or requests to remove items off the consent agenda. both electronically by 2 pm Eastern time today and uh paper uh submitting it in paper by 7 p.m. We have the following items on the consent agenda. These are all second readings. An ordinance amending the zoning of real estate located at Abyville Avenue Northwest and Allison Street Northwest from general business to residential multifamily RML. Multifamily lowdensity RML. We have an ordinance to annex property located at the intersection of Abyville Avenue Northwest and Parin Street Northwest and to zone the same residential multifamily lowdensity RML. We have an ordinance to annex property located at 1411 and 1413 Silverluff Road and zone the same limited business LB. We have an ordinance to annex property located at 12 Janet Road and zone the same residential single family RS15. We have an ordinance to annex property located at 219 Silver Bluff Road and to zone the same limited business LB. That is the consent agenda for this evening.

Thank you. Is there a motion for this? So move, Madame Mayor. Councilwoman Price made the motion. Second, Madame Mayor and Councilwoman Burl seconded. Any comments from the public? Oh, sorry. Nope, not tonight. Since the consent agenda does not have comment, we'll go straight to a vote. All those in favor, please. It's unanimous. Thank you. I'll pass along. We now have approval and discussion of appointees to various city boards, committees, and commissions. Mr. Beenbo,

thank you. You have the following uh individuals for re consideration for reappoint. Scotty Mrick to the community development committee and Charles Matthews to the planning commission. Is there a motion to accept these nominations? I so move, Madame Mayor. Thank you. Councilwoman Bro made the motion. I second. Second from Councilwoman Diggs. Comments from the public. Comments from council. All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. Are there any nominations to consider at our next meeting? Yes, sir.

I do, Madame Mayor. Uh, I would like to reappoint John Mcichels to the design review board, please. Madame Mayor, I'd like to appoint Elijah Alfred, lives on Cox Avenue, uh, to the parks and recreation, uh, committee. And I've sent a copy of that resume to uh Jessica to have her to review that as well. He's another 27year-old that's coming on board. We're happy for that.

Yes. Thank [clears throat] you. Um I have a couple of reappointments to make and I'm sure someone's out there wondering. I did run this by Pete who's replacing replacing me and he'll get to vote on this on the next meeting. However, we're reappointing uh John Carman to our E&E committee and also and I've lost my place there. There's John and Doug Cusk to the aviation commission.

[cough] Thank you. The next item under old business is second. Did I miss? Thank you. uh is second reading and public hearing of an ordinance to annex 38.9 acres located on Edgefield Highway, Williams Lane and Union Church Lane, zone it plan residential and approval of a concept plan. Mr. Beenbo,

thank you. It's an ordinance to annex property located on Edgefield Highway, Williams Lane and Union Church Lane and zone the same plan residential PR and approve the concept plan. We have this project in front of you today. Since it is greater than um since it is a larger tract, it's 38.9 acres. Uh it and it wants to come into the city, it requires concept plan and zoning as planned residential since it is primarily residential. It is uh the density is approximately 3.37 lots per acre with lot sizes ranging from 47 feet wide to 67 ft wide with minimum square footage of homes to be plus or minus500 square ft. Exterior building material will consist of fiber cement siding or vinyl siding with vinyl in or shape trim and stone or brick accents for all buildings. Uh it will include 7 acres of common open space, 20ft perimeter buffer. A parking lot has been provided for clustered mailboxes. Emergency access would be via Union's Church Lane near lots 4950 and 132. Amenities include a walking trail dog and a dog park which will be maintained by the development's HOA. It will have sewer and water um and street lighting. Uh, common ground features will be owned and maintained by the HOA [cough] on-site storm water management ponds. Um, one thing that the developer asked that council did not address in the form of a motion was a waiver on uh from section 4.2.6. E.2 requiring 20 foot separation between multi-story buildings. This is to reduce separation between multi-story buildings

to 15 ft. I know uh Mr. Hannah was nice enough to do some research. We uh provided to Mr. Hannah and to council v electronically and uh you have a paper copy at your place now where we contacted Charleston County, Greenville County, city of Columbia, city of Florence, city of Rock Hill, city of North Augusta, Ory County, Spartanberg County, city of West Colombia, town of Mount Pleasant to get uh comparable information uh for this. So again, um council will need if they desire uh to um address and and affirm um the applicant's request an a motion to amend will need to be made at some point uh prior to moving on from this item. Uh the planning commission at their October 14th meeting, all those present recommended it be annexed in zone PR and that the concept plan be approved with the conditions read into the record at the last meeting. It was uh uh approved by city council on first reading October 27th. It's before you for second reading this evening.

Thank you. Is there a motion? So moved. Councilman Geredo made the motion and a second from Second, Madame May.

Councilwoman Price. Any comments from the public? Good evening, council. My name is Peter Msina, 105 Anderson Mill Road, uh in Aken. Um I'm here to object to the request for a variance for building setback on the proposed development before you. Uh the planning board strongly objected to that variance and they wanted to make sure it was clear uh in the condition of approval that that variance was not acceptable to the planning commission. The reasons there's several reasons. One of the main reasons that I'm looking at is the planning concept. When you have it's the planning cont is called light and air. When you have two buildings that are so close together at 15 feet picture between Gail and Andrea a 30 foot high wall between the two you can barely get a car sideways. Uh that's all you have between buildings when you only have 15 feet 7 and 1/2 ft on each side. That area also includes HV HVAC units, gas meters, hot water uh meters on the outside. It has to be no swailed. You have between the two buildings, it comes down into a swale to get the water from uh from that area. Uh very small area to put any landscaping and it's going to be all in shade. So very difficult to plant anything. It does not give privacy to people. The joke is you're in your bedroom, you got to crawl to your dresser to get dressed before you can stand up in front of a window. Uh when you have homes that close. So that's the pling reason I I really feel this variance is is not warranted. The second is basically your fire marshal. I mean your fire marshall in the um recommendation from the planning commission, the fire marshall came out

and as he does on all these applications, uh it does not help the fire department. And it does not help fire safety by having buildings this close. Even if you have cementus board and whatever uh fire can jump, uh windows explode and and the fire goes in the windows. When you see a house on fire, the there's no windows. So you can't put cementous board over the windows. Uh so you we've all seen the horror stories of the LA fires and the Maui fires. U fire spreads like crazy. uh and we no you're not helping matters by having uh buildings only 15 ft apart. The one thing that I think we should stress is that [clears throat] the the only reason the developer is looking to do this is not for to make them more affordable. That's not going to change anything. They're these are market driven homes. Uh it just allows them to get more homes in there. And the more homes he has in there, it causes a stress on the on the neighbors. Every home generates around 10 cars per home on a daily basis. So the more I mean you put five more homes in there than you could have had if the buildings were a little farther away. That's 50 cars you're taking off the road. And I think that's extremely important. Uh also for the future residents. I'm always in my background. I'm you know serving on SE uh city government. I'm always looking at the future. When I'm looking at a development I'm not looking at the developer. I'm looking at the future residents. and we're going to straddle these future residents with having neighbors very close, having no no open space between the homes. And I think that's a sad story that we have to give these future residents uh this type of development to live in. But also, I said the future residents, but also the existing residents. The existing residents came out against this project in terms of the traffic it would generate. And I think that's something

we if we could eliminate that, alleviate that by, you know, a few homes less in the project, I think that would go a long way. Um, again, I thank you and I implore you not to approve this variance. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Hannah. And while he's coming up, if Mario, if you could uh Miss Moltry, if you could explain, the planning commission voted to approve this concept plan with the conditions listed, but they did not necessarily vote. This was requested, this waiver by the developer, but it was not voted in as part of the conditions to grant the waiver. They just heard it as and but ultimately chose to approve this without including the waiver.

That's correct. So that so the condition is that the that they comply with our existing building which is the default condition we do whenever a development like this comes forward. We just assume that what is written in the zoning ordinance they're going to comply with and it's up to the developer or applicant to ask for a waiver. planning can then either say yes, we'll put the waiver and make it part of the conditions or they would say we're not going to put this in the conditions.

Correct. So to comply with because we're they were discussing or they're proposing story and a half. It's treated as twotory as far as the zoning ordinance is concerned. So that would be 20 ft between buildings. That's our minimum standards. um twotory and story and a half are treated as twotory just for clarity. Can I ask a question? Um just for clarification. So this topic was discussed at planning at the planning meeting where the vote took place. That's correct. And so so it remained in the condition even though they're asking for a waiver is that they would comply with

because it it just shows you know that the commission voted six and0 commissioner Reynolds absent to the top first nine conditions and so now why why wasn't that added or negated with planning? If I may, condition number one in that ordinance [cough and clears throat] is that they comply that the subdivision comply with the minimum building separation standards of the zoning ordinance per the building inspector and fire marshall recommendation. Right. So that's what they voted on and recommended was that they comply

with the that so planning wants them to comply correct with the 20 feet after they discussed it at length. Correct. Madame Mayor, the question has been asked of me, has this ever been done? H have we ever approved any homes with a 15 ft separation? Yes, we have. and whether a precedent has been established with so it depends on the location or it honestly it depends on the council just

okay [laughter] so well [snorts] I I think as far as precedent being established I mean real estate is widely considered in the law to be a very different animal and each each parcel of real estate is different from each other parcel of real estate

so each of them they all have their own characteristics I I don't remember, excuse me, city council being briefed on what other jurisdictions were doing with respect to the setback requirements and that sort of thing. So that is new information I believe that council is receiving as part of this application. But in terms of being bound by other previous decisions, I don't I don't believe that's anything that's legally binding upon city council. Well, with what was handed out to us, uh, here they're given examples of Charleston, Greenville, City of Columbia, City of Florence, Rock Hill, and North Augusta. uh in terms of the minimum building separation and it seems like Charleston has 10 ft. Greenville is not mentioned as zoning ordinance. Greenville, Columbia or Florence or Rockill or North Augusta.

And I and I do want to state something because we presented this information to you. I do want to say that I'm not advocating for this. Yeah. Um so like for example north Augusta says between five to eight feet what does that mean? So we have two things we have the actual set um setback to the the side setback which is what the information you're seeing. That's the first

right here. And then we also have we in our zoning ordinance also have minimums which would be if you're a single story you can only be 15 ft to the other structure and typically that's only going to come into play when we have a a plan residential because our zoning ordinance allows the flexibility. So what you're seeing is a comparison. Again, I will say just because I we pulled the information together, I don't want it to be construed as I am advocating for closer, right, setbacks. I just know it has been questioned. It has come up quite a bit. So I wanted to make sure you were all well informed about what we do compared to other municipal cases. Yes.

Yes. And with the sideyard setback, it looks like Charleston has a five feet to 15 feet. Greenville 5T to 25 ft. City of Columbia 5T to 10 ft. Florence 5T to 20T. Rock Hill 5T to 30 feet and North Augusta 5T to 8T. So, as stated, it depends on the council and possibly location as well. So, do and and I'm not aware, but what was um planning's because here we also have this which shows the same cities. Councilwoman Price just mentioned um the minimums are all between eight and 10 feet and that's the same Charleston County, Greenville, Columbia, North Augusta, Ory, Spartanberg, West Columbia, and Mount Pleasant. And then it shows us here. That's the visual we have guys by the way at [cough] 20 feet. So I guess my question is I mean I like to do and and take plannings obviously they're a planning commission so they're there for a purpose and so I guess I I'd like to hear a little bit as to you know why why they are stuck on 20. Yeah. I mean, I understand that they were at uh Kurt, you asked for the variance for at planning and or the amendment at planning and planning wouldn't give it to you and they voted six and 0 to maintain the 20 foot um requirement. So, I guess I I mean I'd like I'd like to understand that a little bit

to that. Absolutely. So, historically speaking, when you go back to the planning minutes, when 15 feet or less actually has been approved, planning has traditionally always sent it through like that. Um, planning has always voted in favor of it and still suggest that they abide by the 20 ft and council has uh given the waiver. Planning doesn't I don't even think planning has the ability to allow the waiver. So I I don't now y'all may be able to speak on that whether or not that's even possible, but I don't I don't know that planning has the authority to give waivers. Um council I think has planning commission is a recommending body. They can recommend a waiver.

They could recommend a waiver. Okay. So they can historically though when you go back to the minutes they they have not but then it's come to council and council has given the 15 feet. So so I think I think there's a lot going on here. Okay. First of all, again, you know, our our fire marshals do suggest the 20 ft. I mean, that's what they they've asked for in the um you know, and in our codes, but it's it's important to recognize that if a if a community does not um require 20 ft, then it falls to state regulations. The state regulation is 10 feet. Okay? So, that is what our state building code is. And aside from special use areas such as coastal areas where they're trying to protect um you know coastal growth and and things of that nature throughout our state, you typically are seeing 10 ft. Um and so I didn't want to be irresponsible and ask for something that is widely known that that you should keep 20 ft between the homes. The issue I found in my research is that's not that's just not the case. We are more stringent on this particular issue. And I and I think it's very important very very important that we establish the difference between preference and and decisions made based off of data. our preference. For instance, anytime we say, "Well, there's not privacy or we don't, you know, for future refer uh uh residents, that's that's a preference. If someone wants to buy a home in a community where homes are that close together, they they see it. And if they don't want to live there, they don't have to buy homes." So, I say preference. It's it's important that we

um that we we understand what is an anti-development policy. Not just this, but but any other policy. And in my opinion, this is my opinion, but is an educated opinion because I've done the research. I truly believe this is an anti-development policy. So if we want to encourage development and if we want to meet the need of what is it 4400 homes that we have to have in this in the county of Aken in the next 5 years to meet our uh current expected growth as our current housing study says we need to be pro growth pro development. Now, I'm not saying let's throw out safety. Like, no. I I want us to be safe. But again, when you go to the building code standards, it's it's safe. It I mean, if it weren't deemed safe, then the state building codes would not allow it. We are and I have talked to our developer about trying to shore up the openings in the homes where the sophets are or eliminating sophets or or eliminating windows. They're open to all of those things because when we see the fire spread, it's going to spread through sophets and it's going to spread through windows. That's where it happens and and so we're open to have those conversations with with and are having them on some other developments uh with the building uh inspector and fire marshall. So I understand the concern the the greatest concern and and the the number one thing that that gives this legitimacy is our is our fire marshal, right? And you I mean that is stated but again the data says that it is safe to have them 10 feet apart and that's state code and all I'm asking is five feet more than state code requires and and and and I and I get it like

people like to paint developers as money hungry greedy devel developers that's not it it is it is like these are. It makes the neighborhoods walkable and enjoyable. And I do not believe it's fair to allow the village at Woodside to have their homes closer than than than 20 ft. And they are. And and and it's not fair to have, you know, North Augusta with an amazing walkable neighborhood where they're like this. I got pictures this past weekend. And it is not fair to have these incredibly beautiful, expensive homes that are 5 feet apart, that are 8 ft apart, and yet when we go over to the north side, suddenly want to we want to say, "Oh, they got to be 20 feet apart." It is not fair. We want our we want our neighborhoods walkable. We want our neighborhoods where people can enjoy them. And and and neighborhoods that are densely populated with homes closer together are historically more walkable. They're more safe and they hold value more. They're That's all I'm asking for, y'all.

If you could speak into the mic again for your name so we can capture it for the record. Lara Momont 11 Brookline Hounds Lake. I grew up here. So, I want to talk about what's fair. I grew up here when we were able to drive on Whiskey Road safely. I grew up here when it was rare to have a car accident. I grew up here when we had enough houses balanced with employers. And so, I'm kind of wondering where are all these people going to work? I'm looking at all of the new developments that are coming and being built and I'm not anti-growth, but what I am, I'm pro smart growth. I also spent 30 years living in California that was highly walkable. It we were all smooshed close in together. Why? They didn't plan for homes that had grace, spaciousness, but Aken is known for. When you when you look at all of the beautiful pictures of Aken, we're not looking at highly dense walkable areas. I want to keep Aken balanced with the infrastructure and smart growth. I'm not saying no growth and anti-growth, but I'm concerned. Where are the people going to live? Right now, we do have an issue with our water and our water lines being very old, and we need to start investing in infrastructure. I'm not against developers making money, but I cringe at the thought of taking Aken from what it historically been and we turn it into California or we turn it into Charleston. We turn it into Augusta, North Augusta. If that's the desire for someone to have high impact,

high density um development, develop over there. Develop over there. think very carefully about what we're approving for Aken and balance it with smart growth with our infrastructure and then places for people to work. We need to have more places for people to work before we build and build and build and then what's going to happen? Where are these people going to work and walkability? I don't know. I I'm thinking I don't want to see it like California. I promise you that. I don't want to see what's happened to Charleston happen here. Just give us some thought. Maybe put a pin in it. If you guys can't think of um a way to approach what the developers asking for and what the people who live here are asking for. My thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you, Laura. Yes, sir. Hello, my name is Don Don Moniac. [clears throat] I live off of Highway 19. Last at the last meeting, quite a few people brought up the issue of traffic. At the planning commission meeting, even more people brought up the issue of traffic. Highway 19 is an increasingly busy road. It's a mile and a half from the junction of Lawrence, Rutland, University Parkway, and Highway 19, Edgefield Highway to Croft Mill Road. So, this council should recommend to DOT, you just have a resolution recommending DOT that speed limit be lowered to 45 from 45 to 35. And the reason is is you can have not just this subdivision, but River Crossing and Portrait Hills, all of which two of which have exit and entrances on curves on that road. It's going to be very dangerous at times to be trying to get in and out of those subdivisions. [clears throat] It's likely that Williams Lane may have a traffic light put in there one of these days. It's only 3/10en of a mile from Croft Mill Road. There's already turn lanes there that the county and DOT required. Another point I'd like to make is that because this is going to be annexed and River Crossing, which is to the north, directly to the north, will also be annexed. And at the planning commission meeting, there was a question asked about that and there's no answer given.

Um the people who live in River Crossing should have been told should be informed that they're going to be annexed, which may be something they want to have done, but they should have been informed that that was the case. Then the fourth point I'd like to make is that um this is an interesting annexation because it's actually in an island. In 2003, city council annexed 70 acres which is now Portrait Hills and um Grand Oaks and they weren't connected. They were connected by 2100 ft of rightway and it's still not connected even though the county building's been annexed since that time. So, it's an interesting fact that this is not contiguous through from one end to the to the other. And you may recall that when you had that with Generations Park that had to be repealed. For some reason, this one didn't have to be, but it was it was done in 2003, so it's long done. I don't think anything's going to change, but it's just something to be it's just an interesting fact. As far as that 20 foot being anti-development statute, I don't there's been plenty of development in this town that acknowledged 20 foot was okay. The um most recent being uh the York Street and May Royal Drive subdivision, they went 20 ft and quite a few others have too. So, other developers have lived with it. Whether it's fair or not is another question, but it's not anti-development. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Chief,

good evening, council. Thank you,

Charles Branco. Uh, honored to be here. I just want to make sure there's some uh clear information. And this is in our zoning ordinance and building separation um is dictated at 15 feet for single story and 20 ft for twotory. Also um I've heard it I've had his talk with Kurt and with Maria um recently that there's a difference between setback and building separation. So, a lot of jurisdictions have building separation of, you know, 15 feet. Well, that actually means a setback of 7 and a half ft from the property line. So, when you think about it in those terms, it's not really as far as you think it is. I just want to make sure council has all the accurate information about um what what's been discussed. Y'all do know our opinion on that. Um but we and the building code is minimum requirements. It's not what Akin sta akin standards has been through the zoning ordinance. So I just wanted to make sure the setback and building separation was explained. I just want to be clear in terms of uh the voting coming up based on your statement. A twostory unit should be 20 feet apart. 20 feet apart, 10 on each side um from the property line or because here and we have it a building separation in our code and so that's sometimes not fair. If they build seven and 1/2 ft from the property line, that other person has to be further away from their property line. So, and we've talked about that in in our future um how we look at building separation um

from the property line. But yes, so some of these numbers that I looked at that was sent is building separation and some of them is setback. So technically difference technically each unit has its 10 ft but the other neighboring property has their 10 feet as well. So it makes it 20T. That's correct. Okay. That's for a twotory. That's the requirement. It's only seven and a half for a single story. [snorts] So you you see the the difference here. I just wanted to make sure that was clear for council as you make your deliberations. Thank you.

Comments from council. Oo, that was a lot. All right, I'll go first. This is something that's pretty interesting. This probably doesn't happen all the time. I've agreed with Don Montiac before, but I pretty much agree 100% with every point that he brought up. Uh, we brought this up last time, two weeks ago, that the the uh speed limit needed to be reduced. I don't think that'll be a problem. I I've been out there on Highway 19 enough to know that that's probably a good idea. And of course DOT will have to decide that the traffic lights a little bit different. DOT and traffic report and they're going to do a traffic study. So we'll have a better idea on that. Making it four lanes or at least doing three lanes like we did on Silver Bluff or DOT approved it. Whatever. Whoever was the guiding hand that helped out an awful lot. That'd be a great idea to do it out there. It just gets cars out of the middle of the road so they can turn reasonably fast. So that's an issue in and of itself. And then we get to the setbacks. Um I I don't really have a lot of heartburn over 15 feet to 20 ft. Uh, it's in the ordinance, but the ordinance is written in a way that we get down to this where it's sent to city council and planning supposed to be the experts that sends it to us with recommendation. If it's going to be 15 ft, it needs to be changed and that's what we're doing in the zoning. The PR needs to change and Pete and I have talked about that. We're in agreement. Also, I'm in total agreement. The city does not need to cowttow to what the county is doing. And what the county is doing is they allow all of this. Uh it's going crazy. And we hear about growth that's halfhazard and going here and there. That's happening

in the county. It hasn't happened in the city, though it may appear that way. I mean, the facts are that that's really not occurring to too much of a degree. And this is experience of eight years. Eight years ago, I came in thinking we want to annex everything we can annex to the north and the east and bring them into the city. That that would be good. And we make them follow our regulations. Um, as time has gone on, I'm not sure our regulations are all that much more uh prevalent than the county because we've ended up allowing things. PR was written in 2002. It replaced the pud designation of things like Woodside, uh, Came Landing. All of those became PRs at that point. They were already there. PR was written at the time for some of the smart grow era that was occurring. What happened was it made it available. They could turn things down fairly easily. It didn't always happen quite as easily. I won't get into all of that, but the tr the truth of the matter is is PR is written so that you can turn it down for just about any reason. You can also accept it for just about any reason. And we've sort of come to that because there is a precedent. We have approved some 15-footers in some of the subdivisions and some of them as Don pointed out, we didn't do it. We they probably didn't ask for it, I would imagine. So it is a a little bit of a sticky wicket and that's where going forward I know that Pete and I have talked about it and Pete wants to change the PR to maybe even not have PR. I think that's probably a good idea going forward and come up with numbers that we're consistent with and we don't have this situation where planning comes and tells us what to do, what they think we should do and then we have to debate it like we're debating right now. Mhm.

So that that's sort of my thoughts on the matter. I do recognize that all these cities, there were cities on the back too, Lesie, that you didn't necessarily get to. Ory County, Spartanberg County, city of West Colombia, town of Mount Pleasant. Great. They pretty much all seem to be 10 feet. We're talking 15 feet.

Again, we're the city of Aken. We need to make up our minds what we want to do. I agree with the speaker who said we don't have to go back there. I grew up here too. I think everybody knows that at this point it's a different world we live in. That doesn't make it better. But at the same time, we can have restrictions on the city that are much tougher than what's in the county and we can get there. However, you do face the fact just like the hotel that's out on whiskey road country in suites in 2002 they decided the city of Aken it was asked to annexation wanted water and sewer it was not granted to that hotel

city said it wasn't necessary we don't need that hotel there well they went and got water from college acres and they got sewer from New Ellington and there it sits and everything's fine turned out fine it's a nice place to go. However, it didn't work the way the city thought that they were doing at the time. And like in 2003, we we none of us had anything to do with that at that time. I guess Lesie, you were probably Bonsi Patel had the hotel.

Yeah. No. Well, you were there for the hotel, but 2003 on the subdivision, which is um Portrait Hills. That that was a different council. You would have participated in that one. that was approved um 2007 if I remember correctly as a G6 and I realized that after they started building it we didn't have anything any say so in that and they just that was already approved sort of like

but yeah that's the backside of Grand Oaks I don't know about Mr. Maniac pointed out whether it was contiguous it is or whatever it is at this particular point in time I don't know but he's right that's water under the bridge and it is what it is u that's kind of interesting I didn't I wasn't aware of anything there not 100% sure but I I have no problem but that's why we need to change the zoning and the zoning particularly for PR PC2 and I think Pete and I agree on that that needs both be changed. Some of the other zoning I do this for my living and I still don't understand how zoning got to be what it is in Aken. It's it's like holy cow how to get like this and we don't know. There's really not much history on it. So is what it is. We work through it and we do the best we can. But um any rate that's my two cents worth on this. Again, I'm not against 15 ft, but at the same time, it's up to us to make to vote on it. I yield the floor.

Is that a proper thing to say?

Madam May, [clears throat] may I complete my comments? Um, Mr. Moniac is is correct in his statement. At our last at a previous council meeting, we discussed the Highway 19, uh if you're headed south, it's going to be tough to make a turn to come into the downtown area on that on that highway. at the speed that the traffic flows with pedestrians traveling that road and the safety as well as you've stated is very curvy and you don't know what's coming around that curve. In addition to that, there are students walking along that highway and so there are many safety reasons that we have to be conscious of. Reducing the speed limit is one, traffic light is another, but the DOT must get involved in terms of making some recommendations as well. Um the I become con concerned u and I'm going to um address Miss Lara's comment regarding growth and I I'm hearing constantly here from individual akin needs to stop growth. we don't need to grow anymore. And I find it interesting uh here it is when you look at the development on the norththeast northwest just the north side period when the growth begins now individual wants to stop growing when finally after almost 40 years we see some changes in the north side growth and I don't mind addressing it publicly and frankly I have a problem with that. Now we're saying all these problems,

we're bringing up all these problems and we want to stop growth. When I first ran for political office, my comment, my theme was preservation and progress can go hand in hand and we can preserve, we can protect, but we can also grow. But that but there must be a a plan growth for our city. It cannot just happen arbitrarily. And I get from people I hear from people all the time. Lesie, do you all have a check sheet? When a developer come into your city and they tell you that they've acquired a certain piece of land, are you consistently bringing up the same things having the people in the room so that everybody is exposed to the same sort of questions constantly con my response was well the development may be different but nevertheless there are some primary things that we should have on that check sheet that every developer should hear from us and it should be a check off and whatever comes from uh next but we have got a main check sheet to know that the key things that we hear constantly from the developers is consistent and the other thing that I hear and I'm going to come clean with you right now I'm hearing Lesie why is the taxpayers paying so much when there is a development. What are you all doing in terms of help working together with the developer and let he or she contractor meet its obligation to the city and the the the taxpayer will bear bear their own. These questions you all are evolving more and more in terms

of uh budgets the city budget the economic giveaways that the city is doing those kinds of things. That is what's occurring right now. People are looking into things more strategically and seriously uh much differently than than they did 15 20 years ago. Thank you, mayor. Thank you for speaking. I'll call the vote. All those in favor What what are we voting on? Let's

We need to first I guess I will ask the parliamentarian for my information. Do the issue of the request for the waiver. How does that need to how does that need to be addressed? The motion that is before council is to accept the ordinance as it is written without the waiver not allow a waiver motion. Madam Mayor, if if council is inclined to make the waiver to a 15t setback instead of a 20 foot setback, then [clears throat] you would want to amend the first condition of the ordinance to allow a 15t setback instead of the 20ft setback that is mandated by the zoning ordinance. Does Mario agree with that?

So tell me how to do that. Who made the motion? Well, I made the motion. Does it have to come from me to make the waiver or can someone else ask for it? Someone else can ask for it. Okay. Someone else can ask for it. Madame Mayor, if I may, I will make that motion. I have I agree with everything that's been said here tonight. And until we update our zoning, we have at village at Woodside, this does not fit. Downtown, this does not fit. So, we cannot keep just deciding willy-nilly how this is going to be,

right?

And I agree with Councilwoman Price and others up here have worked so long to have development on the north side. This council has spent a lot of time and now we're starting to see that. So, let's not stifle this over this here because when you look at what we've heard, Florence, which is a city about our size, [cough] doesn't [clears throat] have anything like that. So, I don't think any of us on this council wants to pave paradise and put up a parking lot. But I also want to see the north side flourish just like all parts of the city. So I am for amending it to grant this.

Thank you. So would there be a second to Miss B's motion? I'll second it. We have a second. Councilwoman Gregory second. And who made the motion? I made the motion, sir. He made the original motion to accept the ordinance as is. All right. Council Mol amend has now said to accept the ordinance as is with an amendment to the first um condition to allow a 15 foot setback instead of a 20 foot setback. So that enables us to vote now with that. Yeah, we've set a precedent. We have a a motion by Miss Brol and a second by Miss Gregory. Okay. Thank you,

Mr. Jer. Do you withdraw your motion? I withdraw my motion to add the waiver. Is that You're just withdrawing your motion. Period. Okay. We'll go We'll go on Miss B's motion. Okay. All right. I withdraw my motion. Thank you. Do I need to uh two comments from Councilman Waltz has a question. Go ahead.

You You're add you're adding a waiver to the zoning ordinance that would allow a 15oot setback instead of a 20 foot setback. If you agree with the motion, not to the zoning ordinance, but to this ordinance. Just for this particular zoning ordinance particular the zoning ordinance requires 20 foot setback. This is a waiver of the zoning ordinance requirement for 20. Oh, okay. I see what you're saying. And that's a one-time thing just for this subdivision. M. That's correct. Correct. Okay.

I just want to add that, you know, just because Mr. W Councilman Wol said it was a one-time thing, but we have set a precedent. So, to councilman's uh Gerardo's point, um we got we got to fix that, you know, and so council people out there in the audience. Uh that's that's a task we've been trying to get our hands around and our wrap our hands around and and it's still a work in process and it's something that needs to change because it needs to be consistent because we can't picky and choosy who you want to give these um 20

you know these setbacks to you know oh well this developer yeah let's give it to them and oh that no to them and it's just makes no sense and it's not appropriate. So on those grounds I I will and then my make a quick clarification. This is a 15- ft building separation. Yes. Not a setback. Yes. Correct. My apologies. Yes. Yes. Per item per item number one on the conditions which is what it states. Seven and a half on each side. Right. And Mari, I'm glad that you corrected that because that's those those two are key words. Building separation. That's right.

I was waiting for Councilwoman Digs to come back. Calling for the vote. Where'd she go? But if she doesn't, [laughter] we lost one. She made the motion. Who? Who made the motion? No, I made the motion. So, okay. And who second it? Okay. I a minute. No, you first and second. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

We're waiting on Gail, I guess. She couldn't wait. Can we go ahead and call the question back?

What? Okay, that's fine. She's going to go for it. That's why we need to change it. Like Andrea said, we've been saying it for a while now. And believe me, Pete's going to go lower on. I don't think 20 magic number. Okay. Sorry. Um, all those in favor? All those in favor? I'm Yes.

Well, I was going to wait for Councilwoman Diggs, but Go ahead. Yeah. All those in favor. Okay. It's um six to to one with one person not voting. No. Six to nothing. Six to nothing with uh one uh one council member out of the room. That's right. Thank you. So six to zero. Councilwoman Diggs was out of the room.

Six. And that's six to nothing in favor of second reading of the ordinance with the uh amendment to um have a waiver requiring the separation between the multi-story buildings. Thank you. Next is second reading and public hearing of an ordinance to annex 72.05 05 acres located at Athel Avenue, Powderhouse Connector, and South Centennial Avenue to zone it general business and plan residential and approve the concept plan. Mr. Beenbell,

thank you. This is an ordinance to annex property located at Athal Avenue, the proposed powderhouse connector and South Centennial Avenue, and to zone the same general business GB and plan residential PR and approve the concept plan. This is approximately 72.05 05 acres off of what is now known as Tribute Parkway and 8 approximately 8.9 would be zone general business. Approximately 63 uh 63.15 would be zone plan residential. Uh the proposed general business zoning is consistent with the plan commercial zoning of the pending summer all development and the proposed plan residential zoning and concept plan is consistent with the con comprehensive plan. Uh the concept plan proposes 118 single family subdivision lots in the eastern and southern portions of the development with 30 paired single family residential units along the western boundary. Front-facing garages are shown for the dwelling units. The single family attached units [laughter] do do not appear to comply with the zoning ordinance 4.2.9 for the maximum number of front-facing garages and waiverss have been requested and they were granted. Um it does have uh open space um compliance with the minimum requirement. Um the like the previous application we heard there was a request for a waiver um in that they have several 1 and 1/2 story structures that would need to be 20 ft separation. They are requesting a waiver for 15t. No uh motion was made to grant the waiver at first reading similar to um the prior project we just

uh discussed. So if council wishes to grant this request from the applicant, an amendment to the required building separation uh condition number three in this would need to be amended in a fashion similar to what we did on the prior item. No, it was they the applicant requested uh the separation. It the planning commission is recommending to council that the required building separations be met per the building inspector and fire marshall. So we do need a waiver. They are requesting a waiver on the one and a half story structures here to 15 feet. Um those present at the planning commission unanimously approved this at their October 14th meeting. Council heard this at first reading on October the 27th and it is before you for second reading this evening.

Thank you. Is there a motion to um motion? Uh so moved. Councilman Gerardo made the motion and a second. Second, mayor. Second from Councilwoman Gregory. And and this is a motion and a second on the ordinance that is in the packet without the waiver. Did we discuss the waiver the first vote? I don't believe it was discussed in great detail at the first vote. No, it was I think I know it was mentioned in my comments, but um it was not um I don't believe discussed

we sort of like it has been that it has been here since it came from planning. [sighs and gasps]

I propose we move ahead and we have discussion. All right. Comments from the public. Any comments from council? I guess we're back to talking about the waiver. Uh the developers here, y'all want to discuss what we just went through on the last one? We didn't discuss this at all in the first vote. No, we didn't discuss it in the last the other subdivision either. So where is it here?

Madame Mayor, u council members, I'm Joel Presley. We withdrew our request for the waiver at planning commission. Okay. Hopefully that I'm sorry that clears it up. Yeah,

we we withdrew our request for the waiver at planning commission. And so if I'm not mistaken, planning commission's recommendations to you, [clears throat] I apologize. I had this um here we go. Um, I think the staff memo possible conditions included that the requested waivers are granted to the garage facing standards

and that is part of the uh ordinance and that waiver was recommended is granted by the planning commission to the council. Right. and the others were the landscaping entrance median depth at 150 ft instead of 200 feet and that the required building separations are met per the fire marshall's recommendation ordinance. So yes, thank you Mr. Presley.

So it it's it's before you the waiver was withdrawn. It was discussed at planning uh but they have agreed to abide by the zoning ordinance and the uh appropriate separation of 20 ft. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Any more comments from council? All those in favor?

Unanimous. All those in favor? Unanimous. All right. That was again um six to one. I opposed because of the location. Lovely project. Oh boy. Next is second reading and public hearing of an ordinance to authorize execution of a modified lease agreement and fixed base operator agreement with Aken Aviation Enterprises Incorporated for the Aken Regional Airport. Mr. Been Bill,

this is an ordinance authorizing the modification of lease terms to Aken Aviation Enterprises for the premises known as the Aken Regional Airport. Uh this does um clean up the least area. If you look at the diagram um on the screen, the blue adds approximately 1 a little over one about one and a3 acres uh one or one and a quarter acres I should say to the um leased area um for the fixed base operator. Um this uh will enable um just with with some cleanup um appropriate um operational boundaries for the fixed base operator. Uh the city is contracted with Aken Aviation Enterprises. We did a lease renewal about 5 years ago. Um and I know there's a lot of interest in um additional hangers out at the airport. Uh this also um makes some appropriate um uh notice and and uh qualifications to uh the fuel um as you know the time around the masters. We have a special events fee. We cleaned up some of the language there um about the timing of it. I think typically we we didn't anticipate that a pandemic would move the M's tournament. So, uh, instead of being specific with month, I think we noted, uh, just around the M's tournament, we'd have a special events fee. Um, this does require, uh, ordinance approval by the council. The general aviation commission approved, uh, recommends this. Um, and this is before you for second reading this evening.

Uh, thank you. Is there a motion to approve this? I so move, Madame Mayor. Councilwoman Br. Second, Madame Mayor and second from Councilwoman Price. Any comments from the public? Any comments from council? All those in favor? Thank you. It's unanimous. Next is second reading and public hearing of an ordinance for budget adjustments for public services HVAC replacement mosquito truck replacement and purchase of the parking lot adjacent to the center for African-American history or [cough]

this is an ordinance amending the budget of the city of Aken for the fiscal year beginning July 1st 2025 and ending June 30, 2026 for the general fund solid waste fund and franchise fee fund. Uh we do have some uh an update for uh replacement of our mosquito truck. Um also to allow for the purchase of property um directly adjacent to the Center for African-American History, Art, and Culture, the two parcels that make up the parking space. You'll consider later in the meeting a resolution to purchase the property. Uh, I think most people believe the city owns the lot already, but we've had it under lease from First Baptist since 2011. Um, so the budget ordinance will allow HVAC replacement at our public services building on Dupont Drive. Uh, the building was built in 1975 and um, mosquito truck replacement and to allow for the purchase of property. And this is before you for second reading. Mayor, I'm going to have to recuse myself as my partner was involved in the development of the values for First Baptist.

Thank you for doing that. Motion made for approval, Madame Mayor. Um, you made the motion. Make the motion and a second from I second. Councilwoman Dig. Uh, any comments from the public? comments from council. All those in it just makes sense u because our African-American museum is being used more and more and more and it for us not to own that parking lot is not a not a wise decision. I think this just makes sense.

Thank you. side the parking lot on the side of the building that extends toward the back and um do we have any ownership in next to Wesley Methodist? Yes.

Yes. Um correct. Uh first, yes, the parking lot we are purchasing is to the north due north uh and it is the black topped parking lot or asphalt parking lot that runs from York to Fairfield. You're asking about the the pavered lot which is to the east of um the cultural center I guess the northeast next to um Founders Park and we own the way it's platted the city owns roughly half of it and roughly half of it is owned by Wesley United Methodist Church.

I didn't know that. Thank you. Um, so any other comments? All those in favor? Thank you. It's uh unanimous except for uh Councilman Tiero who recused himself because of his um partner. The last item under old Should we go? Yes.

Okay. The last item under old business is second is second reading and public hearing of an ordinance approving certain economic development incentives for residential development to be developed by Vanrock Holdings and commercial development to be developed by VP Riverside LLC. Mr. Beanbo,

thank you. So, it is an ordinance authorizing certain economic development incentives uh pursuant to the Aken code of ordinances for a project developed by VP Riverside LLC, Rutland Place, approving an economic development inducement and incentive agreement and other matters related there too. There's been a lot of discussion. I know at the last meeting there was a lot of back and forth about appropriate numbers. Uh there's still uh some disagreement on what the numbers are. Um and I know the city's numbers have changed quite a bit with u or multiple times which um is um not the norm with uh these sort of matters. Um and I know the developer is interested in seeing this uh come through this evening. Um again we've uh the there's still issue with the numbers um by uh what the staff is presenting. Um and I uh I will say this development um has a residential and commercial investment total of about $74.2 million an estimate made in good faith. Uh we've got um I think some some disagreement um about what the numbers are. And I think that we can discuss tonight kind of how to proceed, whether to um approve numbers that are um you know some set of numbers. Uh either I guess what what the city's saying or what the applicant saying um is is a possibility. Um, and I guess we need to kind of have that discussion amongst uh the council and

amongst the staff. I'm going to ask Miss Craig to come up first to uh sort of explain what the city's uh numbers are um and then I guess the applicant can come and explain. But uh I know the numbers uh change some um as we as additional information was received. But uh if Miss Craig come up to the mic please and Yep. So while and then um this is before you for a second reading and um Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

Uh do I have a motion to accept? Yes. Uh, Councilman Waltz made the motion and a second from Councilman. I'll second it. Jeredo. Uh, comments from uh the public, Miss Craig. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, [laughter] as you can see, I've there have been several different numbers. Um, and at our last council meeting, um, I went over the numbers and I went back with staff and again based on the information that we were provided, we stuck with the numbers that we came up with. Um, we did not change. Um, we talked with Mr. Glover and based on what he gave and based on our figures and our fees based on the permits again with the commercial. There are buildings that we do not know what's going to go into those buildings. uh we gave an average of those buildings. The only uh business that's over there right now is Tractor Supply, which is the only building uh that has paid fees. So, um, our staff took an average and those, uh, fees for those at commercial came out to be 3,500. Um, for the water fees. Uh, again, all of these are estimated fees. No monies have been taken for any fees at this time. So again their estimates

I think Mr. Glover is concerned about the cap but a cap has to be put in place so that things uh in the future nothing is paid until a certificate of occupancy is given which is 12 months after that certificate of occupancy is given. Um, so until the fees are paid, you don't know what's going to be uh paid for the fees. So again, these are are estimates. And so based on what he's giving and based on what the staff has come up with, this is the amount that

we came up this this is what we're we're sticking with based on the information that we were provided. and speak to the actual fees and the appropriate fee page because I know there's a lot of of uh examples because we were asked to provide kind of a paper trail of how we got to this point. So, why don't you point out the pa appropriate page that this is on and then walk through the fees and uh explain how each number was derived. Okay. um in the beginning um when he turned in his first

and just the final fee where the the final fee that the city is uh standing on. So you want me to start with the first application or just where we are? Just where we are at this point.

Where we are at this point. Where we are at this point is uh we narrowed it down to the uh business the building permits um and inspection fees um based on the amount of residential which is uh 245 residential I believe they're building Um and then with the commercial with the permits and plan check fees. Uh what we did we combined um

this is 200 your building permits and inspection fees for residential was 220,455. Well we combined um right to come up with the $330,682 because we combined the building permit and inspection fees and the plan check fees we combined. So, this is what's on page you what what you're saying is what the staff came up with is on page 264 of the agenda. Um, you have uh property taxes. That's there's no rebate for that, but the permits to include plan check fees is $330,682

and for commercial was $51,930. And then on impact fees um for residential was 281,750. And for commercial um because again we do not know what is going into the buildings, we only have tractor supply that actually has paid their fees. Uh so over an average that was 30,000. And uh for meter um they'll be paying the water meter fees uh for residential an average of $480 for meters for residential um each for $245 meters was $100,600 and for commercial because we do not know the actual size. So depending on the size of the meter was an average of $3,500. Business license fee uh for residential and they're basing it on a business license fee per house um based on the type of house. Uh I think they have single family units and then they have uh some attached uh town houses. Normally we do not pay a business license fee per house. It's based on the commercial um based on the general contractor. So if the general contractor is building all the residential, then that general contractor needs to pay for that permit. It would not be per house. Uh but we left that amount in there of 129,850. On other properties,

uh that business license would have been like $40, not 129,850 for the commercial. Uh it's $33,480. Then that business license uh for the commercial per each property for that commercial uh again would be given after that co uh is given after the year of the co that 12 months. uh if they are keeping that business open five years beyond the anniversary date and that would go to that business owner like Tractor Supply. So if you look down the column of residential you add those numbers up that's a total of $842,882 for commercial if you add that column up is $118,910. Um so with the residential if you divide that u multiply that by 50% uh that's $421,441 for the commercial the 118,910 you half that that's uh $59,455 uh over the timeline um they would divide that up over a 5-year period each. Again, normally we do not do this together. It would have been separate applications. Um, but on the request of Mr. Glover, we put them on one application.

Yes, sir. Satisfied with Did I hear that right?

No, there was a disagreement on numbers. I know. And and Mr. Glover or someone from the applicant can come because I know uh we've got some additional numbers uh um that I think Mr. Glover would like for [snorts] consideration or u I don't want to put words in the applicant's mouth but uh there is a disagreement on what the value of the various taxes and fees that are generated are. So um that is kind of where the the situation we're in. Um but again based on this information um again I know there was uh there was consideration to try to uh bring this um and get this through um for um approval this evening. So we are bringing this forward and um I know Mr. the applicant Mr. Glover Mr. Johnson's got I guess uh numbers and we can try to figure out uh where the best number is at this point but the this is what the staff is saying um at this point in time.

So So are we going to be able to resolve that or is that something

I think well again this is this number is what staff's recommending uh to be reimbursed uh at 50% over a 5-year period [laughter] as a look back a rebate. Uh but again coming up uh there are issues I think with the numbers uh the applicant has issues um with our calculations which staff believes are the correct calculations. Um but we want to um have I guess this discussion because um it was impressed that we needed to bring this back for a second reading this evening without it uh um uh being continued to another time.

Well, I'm thinking that it's a good idea we're talking about it because it's hard to understand this. Sabina, this is an estimate that you've come up with. Let's talk about the commercial. I guess these are all estimates estimates. Nothing has been paid by, right? I mean, they're just vacant. They're vacant lots. I understand that. And that's again, so let's just say for the sake of the story, it's the the amount of money they spend is less on the next lot. That would reduce the amount of money we would have to pay. Correct. I'm sorry.

We're doing a reimbursement if I understand this correctly. So if the building the next building's smaller than tractor supply then we would have less money that we had to pay is a reimbursement. Correct. Right. It's based on the size of the building and what will actually go there. So if it was uh a laundromat that would go there that would be using a lot of water or hairdresser or you know or a restaurant. So all that comes into play, right? But it could be less than what we're basing the estimates. So the

we wouldn't just give them the money that we estimated. It'd be less is what I'm getting to. It is based on actual receipts, but the again remember these are good faith estimates that are presented. So will that change? We're making an estimate now. The numbers would change somewhere in the future. Correct. If it's more, it's more. If it's less, it's less. Yes. That's I mean, we're in agreement on that. Sounds like the issue is the calculation. Well, if the calculation is it would change. Yeah. To your point, but it's somehow the developer and the city have to agree on the calculation. That's my understanding.

And that's what we're voting on is the calculation right now because they are all estimates. And so, I'll be honest with you. I'm sorry. And I didn't mean to cut you off. I just felt like I needed to explain that. Yeah. Yeah. No. And and I'm [cough] I [clears throat] think probably at this point let's hear from Mr. Glover and sort of hear their side of it since there's a dispute. Does that sound fair? And one more question for Sabina. Did I hear you say is that correct? Nothing is done until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for any of this. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. But we're but we're agreeing to a calculation, right? So, so yes, depending on what goes in there, the reimbursement may go up or down, right?

But it's the calculation that they're not in agreement with. So, we're voting on setting a calculation that could change. No, we're voting on that the calculation. So, that won't change. 50% of the 50%. Yeah. 50. Yeah. Right. So I think the issue is is is the cap and we have to set a cap and I think the issue Mr. Glover when he speaks is I believe is is the cap but a capulation correct? Okay. Yeah. All right.

So the so and we decided to set a cap at what now? And and and can you tell us why the cap is that a standard? It is a standard. Yes. Okay. What's written in the ordinance? Correct. Whatever the number the 50%. Well, the 50% is half of the the total amount we would

pay back uh that we would rebate. uh and the cap you are looking at uh that percentage of of the the fee. Um so if he if they're going to get back $84,291,000, I said not to exceed $85,000. I set that cap. Um okay. So if you wanted to set the cap higher

when Well, no, not necessarily. I'm trying to be consistent as to you've set a cap, but it's 50%. I I I understand what you're saying to a certain degree. I think probably need to hear from the developer as to what their disagreement is and then we just go from there once we hear that. Just to be fair, I have another question regarding uh the cap. So, we're saying that with the residential that cap this is 808 $842,882 for the residential $118910 uh for the commercial.

So, those are the caps that we're looking at. Okay, that that bottom figure where it says regardless of the actual fees paid on page 251. That's correct. Correct. Where it says not to exceed 85,000 a year residential, not to exceed 12,000 a year commercial on the bottom of page 251. Yes, that's over a 5year period. over a 5-year period, but paid yearly. Correct. Yes. Thank you.

All right. I I think I know what the problem is, but I'd rather hear it from the developer. Yeah. As what his difference is. So, I mean, that's fine. I Yes. Because if he, you know, pays more than that, then we've got feel it would not be fair. Okay. I mean, let's go ahead and hear that so that we can clarify it for for our sake before we vote. Thank you. Do you want to do we want to hear from Mr. Glover? Sure. Of course. Thank you, Sabine. Thank you. Thank you, Sabine. Thank you.

Mr. Glover, would you like to speak to us? I have some handouts. I thought I had more, but I think I have eight. So, there should be enough. If I can just Mayor, members of council, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I do want to address several of the issues that were brought up and and I do think parts of it are addressed correctly, but parts of it are not. Um, and if if you would just bear with me, don't get lost in the handouts I just gave you, I'll walk you through them in just a second. Um, I'm going to start by going through the the memo that's on page 261 of your packet. Um um from Miss Craig to um Mr. Beenbo. Um I do think it's important to point out that I originally submitted our first blush of this in discussion with staff in fall of 2024. um as we began to develop this and um work out what the issues are as far as the development. If we could keep the previous screen that you had up because I need to come back to that, too.

I'm sorry, Mr. Glover. I think Stuart needs to be in this conversation. Can we just hold off for a minute? Absolutely. Especially if this memo was to Stuart, I think he needs to be part of this conversation. Can Can we get back to the page that was the the table.

Keep having people disappear. 251. That's why 261 is not [cough] needed or not.

Yes. Thank you. No, no, no, that's not it. Okay. 251. Feel like I'm warning to drive when I went to take my test. Same time I'm trying to get my driver's license. I'm trying to learn to drive. This is

[clears throat]

Thank you, Mr. Glover. Appreciate it.

Oh, no problem. Thank you. So, I just wanted to go through the the memo that is on page 261 of 377, which is a memo from Miss Craig to Mr. Beenbo. Um, like I said, initially just for review and discussion, we submitted this packet in the fall of 2024. Um, back in April of this year, I was submitted um by Miss Craig several examples of prior economic incentive packages that have been approved for me to look over to provide um some flavor to our application that we would submit. So May 1st um I submitted our first application for discussion and where I take some some umbrage with the with the memo here is it says we were requesting incentives in the amount of 1.9 million and 553,000. As you know the incentives are half of the fees. Um, so the incentives that were requested would have been half of those amounts. Plus, I admit there was an error on my part for including some things that are not included in the calculation such as property taxes generated, sales tax, uh, things of that nature. So, I resubmitted um, and that is what you see on page 278. And as the memo states that we were now requesting 1.4,549,000. Um you can see clearly we've marked because of the confusion before we marked with an asterisk that does not

our calculations do not include these numbers which is property taxes, sales tax, some others. And so if you look at the numbers below that, those the numbers are lower than the total and then you divide that by half and then those are the incentives that are applied for. So in that case it was $639,748 for the residential and $154,956 um for uh the commercial. So from May 1st, that was our application. On August 29th, it was not the 22nd, it was the 29th because it was the Friday prior to um Labor Day weekend. I met with Miss Craig and your city attorney, Mr. Smith, and I was given the handout that is um marked number one in the packet that I hate. So there's a blue number one right up at the top corner. So that was what I was provided by staff. So once staff had over the four months um since I had submitted on May 1st, these were the numbers that they came back with and said these are our calculations. I immediately saw some issues that I disagreed with on building permits. And you have to excuse as we're in the meeting. I'm writing my notes on this. So that's why you see scribbling all over the the page. So these were the numbers that staff came back and said, "This is what we believe is accurate." So I resubmitted after reviewing this and and talking to the staff people at the bottom of this page that I've

written down. I resubmitted um the the packet for consideration. We did ask I submitted it in time for the October the first meeting in October, but we were asked to um hold over until the second meeting in October, which unfortunately I had to be out of town and was not able to be here. Item two in your packet, the blue number two up at the top, was what was in included in your packet on October 27th. And then I was emailed a copy of that packet. I immediately as soon as I opened it, I knew there was there was an error. Um, you can see that the residential permits inspections had dropped to $125,000. When I called, I was told by staff that instead of doing individual homes, 246 individual homes, they just did a $50 million building, which comes up with half of the fees because you have a graduated fee on your building permits. So, for a 246 homes, you have a $560 base rate and then it's $3.80 80 cent per thousand over that. Well, for a $50 million building, it's $2,000 base rate and I believe it's $250 maybe uh per thousand. So, that was the difference immediately that I saw there. I notified staff, talked to a couple of folks, and then I believe late on Friday, um y'all received an update to your packet, which is page three, um of this handout. So now you can see the the building permit fees are back up to the 220, which I agree with that number. plan

check fees. We agree with the impact fees. We agree with the water tap fees. We agree with here's the issue again on residential. In in the in the memo, we're told that we calculated business license fees for the residential per house. And that is incorrect. We we factored in business license fees for all of the contractors, subcontractors, landscape architects, all of those stuff. But the number that I've included in my application is the 130,000 that staff came up with. I didn't come up with that number. staff came up with that number, but now we're being told that's incorrect. On the commercial, it is an estimate. I understand that. But if you will look at page four after the October 27th meeting, um I was not able to attend, but I did watch it virtually, which is a great service by the way that you offer folks. And I thought it was made clear that our marching orders from that night were to get with staff and discuss what the disagreements were over the numbers and then to come back and bring that to you tonight. So the email that you have from me is I go through every single part of how I calculated the the fees. I talk about permits. Now, at this point, we're in agreement on on the residential. We're talking about commercial. I talk about permits. We actually talked to a contractor who just priced a retail

building just like we would propose over here on in Rutland Place at the Aken Mall project. He priced it two weeks ago. was $138 a foot square foot for a cold dark shell. That means no interiors, no finishes, no nothing. I added $75 a square foot into that. Now, these are permitted values, not not retail values. The plan review fees is a 50% value. It's a 50% of your permit. That's a pretty easy. Now the impact fees for your commercial are generated by how much water is used by the commercial entity. If you continue further, I have a spreadsheet which would be the last page of your handout where I show parcels 1 through 7. That's every commercial parcel that we have. We show the square footage. We show the the cost per square foot to construct it to give a permit fee. And then we also come up with water usage estimates for each of those buildings. Now, we don't know if it's going to be a car wash. We don't know if it's going to be an insurance company, but if you see in my narrative, what I did was based every single space on just a little bit more than the common house uses for for water. 580 gallons a day. 400 gallons is the standard for a single family residential home. With that being spread out over the course of the it if I have an insurance agency, that's great. they're going to not use that much water. If I have a car wash, they're going to use a lot more water.

So, I submitted that. Here's my spreadsheet. Here's my formulas. Here's how I reach those numbers. It's not a secret. [snorts]

On Thursday, I received a phone call and the um from Miss Craig and she explained to me, "We're sticking with our numbers." So, I asked, "Can you show me how you derived your numbers? How did you reach those numbers? We've already had four different versions of those numbers. How did you get to that number?" We'll send you the packet. I was told that twice. As I stand here tonight, I still have not received that packet. I had to go download all of this off of your agenda packet from the website. So my question to you tonight is one, you see this [snorts] the computations that we put into this, how we reached it. I've not seen one thing from the city that shows us that they did the same exercise. All we've asked is how did you reach the number? And it seems as they've changed four times. In fact, ironically, if you look at this spreadsheet, which is the second to the last page, my figures on here are less than what the staff's recommendation was that they handed me on August 29th.

I don't know that. My point being this, it is an estimate, but if it's estimated too low, then it's the developer that suffers the consequences for that. If it's too high, it doesn't affect anyone because it's still based on actuals. If we put 4 million down here as an estimate and only a 100,000's delivered, then it's based on actual. If you put 20,000 down there and we deliver 4 million, then it's capped at 20,000. I'm not saying that their numbers are wrong. I'm just saying they can't tell me how they got to the number. I think it's fair. We submitted our spreadsheet. We gave How do we come to this number? We didn't just pull it out of the sky. There was a methodology to this. But all we get back is a total number. And the reason I asked for that prior um uh thing that that we had up and this isn't it. I don't think I can put my glasses back on. Exhibit A is mentioned throughout the ordinance as our numbers. Those are not our numbers. And in fact, the prior thing that you had up that I if we could get back to it, I'd appreciate it. At the last meeting, our information from our application was changed to match exhibit A, and it's not what we submitted at all. So, my request to you tonight is, you know, I've changed my number. I changed the business license fees that

the city gave me for residential. That was a number they provided to me. Um, on commercial, I do think it's it's higher than what's listed in here. In fact, my number again is lower than what the city estimated on the August 29th handout, which is number one in your packet. at this point there is no so the way it works is once these permits are pulled 12 months from CO that is when the incentives are paid out meaning that if a home started today and it took six months to construct and then got its co then you're paying out this incentive 18 months from now. We're squabbbling over business license fee estimates that are based on actual. Why does it matter what the number is? It's based on the actual if the you know we did there's I think that's it. There we go. That was not my application. that was changed but that is my application but those numbers were changed. Um I guess I could feel better about it if I saw some methodology to how those numbers were used and I've yet to see it. I've asked for it. I haven't seen it. So my my request to you tonight would be to take these numbers from this spreadsheet and accept that as exhibit A.

So I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Any other comments? Yes. Miss Craig's coming up then I'll call on you. Thank you, Don. Thank you for allowing me to come back up here. And yes, Mr. Glover is correct. We have gone over the numbers multiple times and yes, I did change his numbers um because he has talked with staff multiple times trying to get the numbers correct. Um, I did provide him samples of different incentives and he did not um tell me that business license for residential uh were for plumbers or uh framers or sheetrock roofers or the examples that he gave He did not. Um, as a matter of fact, the one example that I gave to him from Portra Hills, I explained to him that that's how we arrived for those business license um for those developers. That was not in his application the way that it is outlined in this application. Um, so that's different. um which again those business license fees um was $80.

Again uh with another development the business license fee was $50 and another development the business license fee was $16,220.80. So it is a big difference in those fees. He sat down uh or talked over the phone which each staff person one in engineering who talks about uh the water or the sewer. Um, in regards to that, he talked with someone in our building for um, in building license uh, and inspections fees and then he talked with someone um, in the permit um, the business license fees and then someone in our business uh, in engineering and then in our building. So they have talked to him. Our calculations comes from IS-400 based on um the houses the number of houses that's how that's calculated. It does not calculate commercial. So those how those fees are calculated those where the numbers comes from based on uh the number of houses. So those how those figures are came come up with. Um and he does sit has sat down and and talked with those people individually and those how it comes up and each person lets him know these are your numbers based on what you have given.

So, so Sabine, Madame Mayor, may I ask a question, please? Yes. So am I to understand that you received your numbers from commercial and you had the residential numbers and that's how you came to

based on the information that he talked with each staff person. That staff person gave those numbers to me. It's all documented. I have everything documented. And we sat down and we all had a meeting and we all met. We met on several occasions after each conversation that he has had with staff. He's had multiple conversations with staff. So, so no one can he didn't come in the same room together and and say these are the numbers that we have. We met

listen he has met with each staff person on multiple times but only once because I I've asked staff have you talked with Mr. Glover. A lot of times he had not actually talked with him. He's come up with his numbers based on the information that he has took off the website or the our forms. My question is we have sat down one time as a staff group.

Not as a staff group. As a staff group, we have met but not with Mr. Glover. But we have met with Mr. Glover and our attorney at one one time. Yes. Was that but not to talk about his numbers. He met with each staff person and the staff person gave me the numbers based on the conversation after they met with him or talked with him. I ask a question. Madame Mayor, I think he I'm sorry. Is just question. Is it Do you normally do this? This is the first time this has ever been an issue.

But is it part of your normal job to do this? I'm sorry. Is it part of your normal job to calculate these things? I do not make the calculations. The other staff in each other department makes the calculations and I get the calculations from them. By this normally by this time fees have already been paid and they get those and they get those calculations from an AS400 system. You said our computer system. Yes.

So staff's not calculating them. You guys their system generated numbers based on whatever houses or whatever you input. Yes, that's correct. My head hurts. [laughter] Yours? Wow. Um, so are we allowed to talk yet or No, not yet. Yes. Council comments from

I I just, you know, my brain wants to go back to just common sense level ground, right? And so, um, when you were meeting with staff and then Mr. Glover and you and Gary met or you and Gary met, I don't know, Mr. Smith, excuse me. Um, at what point because this this got completely fell off the rails obviously what in August it came before us two weeks ago off the rails and we as a council asked that staff and developer get together and and figure this out together in a room and come up with a solution. I'm not hearing that has happened. So, I'm going to put the ball in Stuart Beenbball's court as the city manager. What oversight and what guidance was given to staff and the developer to work through this? Because it sounds like they haven't met. It sounds like what we requested wasn't accomplished and now we're here trying to do you know

whatever I think it would have been physics mathematics algebra whatever it is you want to call it as a council and I could just look at all of our faces and we don't even I I don't know where to begin.

Well I think there was a a a great desire uh to get this to council [laughter] by today. Um and yes, the meeting did not take place. Um I did um again um I think in a normal circumstance I think there was some frankly I'll just be frank I think there was concern uh that you know having to re-educate or educate a new council there was concern there. So there was uh um I think an artificial urgency to try to get it to this date and frankly uh it the meeting should have happened but I think that uh getting it to this date uh was the main overriding factor but yes I think um um having that meeting did not take place um it should have I know I was uh preoccupied with other items that are going to be on the agenda later Um but uh yes uh that meeting uh did not happen and um I think uh probably well it should happen frankly.

Agreed.

And I know Mr. Gloverhead went out of town. Um we did try to meet um and we did try to pull this together. Um, we did, our staff did get together. Um, after speaking with Mr. Glover, we did try to work this out, uh, as best we could. Um, and try to be fair. Um, and again, we are trying to be fair. Um, and ultimately, as the ordinance says, it is up to council. Um, we're not trying to keep anything from Mr. Glover. Uh, we do want to be fair. Um, I just I just want to add um to Stuart's point. I mean, I've never been trained on this. I've never been educated on this. Um, so our council, the next council, I mean, I I don't work in their AS400 system. You know, it's a it's apparently a plugand play um that comes up with these numbers is what I'm hearing from staff. Um, so you know, educating a council versus the next council, I don't I don't think that's relevant. Um, I just don't think the right meetings were had and we're in this mush of a mess. [sighs]

And I and I hate it for the city and I hate it for the developer. I I am so sorry that this is even happening. Like these types of things shouldn't even happen. it. We should come up with a packet that's bundled, signed, sealed, and delivered where we're looking at numbers that make sense that have a source that come from somewhere because of an ordinance or something of that nature, but I'm not seeing a pathway from the city. And I appreciate your pathway, Mr. Glover, but I mean, anybody can come and give us numbers, right? So, I'm trying to be fair. We're talking a lot about fairness tonight. and and it's just we're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place and that's unfortunate for us. I mean I I don't I don't even know I don't even know how to proceed to be honest with you. I certainly don't want to vote on this.

Well, I'm not certain either. Uh but Mr. Maniac wanted to say something, so I think we need to finish with that part of it. Miss Craig, thanks. Thank you, Sabrina.

Thank you, Sabrina. Mr. Monak, would you like to say something? Guess I'd just like to point out a few things about your ordinance is that in the findings of fact section C it says ordinance was necessary to develop a program under which financial economic developments may be provided to private entities in a consistent manner and I emphasize consistent and all the other economic incentives you've provided in the past have all had a cap. um Loki Lane, Magnolia Acres, Betsies on the Corner who moved. There's a few others. They've all had caps, but the ordinance doesn't require a cap. But the ordinance in section 5C does require a cap in terms of percentages up to 50%, but it's up to 50%. There's no obligation to provide up to 50%. To provide 50%. You could provide just 30% and raise the cap. to make it even more confusing. That you were you were helping until you did that. [laughter]

I thought you were going to make me feel better, Mr. Madam Mayor. I have Excuse me, Madam Mayor. Go ahead. Well, does anybody We need to make sure anybody else anyone else from the public want to speak.

Yes. Most definitely. Okay. Comments from council. I was just going to say at this point it seems to me the most logical thing to do is just table this till the next meeting and let Steuart arrange a meeting and get it taken care of. We could debate this for hours, right? Like we already have, but more hours. So now I would say a motion to continue.

Well, wait a minute. And and just to continue it and and shortly I agree with Andrea of the fact of common sense. I don't understand why we're making estimates of something and saying that makes our cap and and reading the ordinance what Mr. Money just went through like it could be anything we wanted it to be. So it's based on actuals which Mr. Glover pointed out. Uh and we don't have any actuals except for one building. in one building. I I promise you what's coming next could be more, it could be less. It it doesn't matter. The the residential, my experience with residential is they get started, costs are down, but they start adding to it, it gets better, is successful. That doesn't necessarily mean that's going to happen either. I It's This is confusing. We've never done this in the eight years that we've had this. I I've done it and been involved from Mr. Glover's end, but it was not quite the same situation. So, and it's a long time ago and I don't remember everything. So, I guess there's no way to come up with an answer.

Madame Mayor, if I may, and at our last meeting to just to add more confusion, please do. We were given this sheet that was supposed to have been the original, the correct original that was submitted that has none of the numbers that match anything that I have. None. So, I don't Yeah, I don't know where this came from, but it was handed out at the last meeting is the correct original that was submitted. So, I don't know. Anyone like to say something?

So, um I think Ed W. I have nothing to say. You do. It looks like there's five variations of numbers we have at hand to figure out which is Well, I think that was because we were asked to provide kind of a a trail of how do we get to the final numbers? That's why there's a lot of things in the packet. We were asked uh at the last meeting to provide that. Okay. I I've made the motion. I suggest we continue it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

There's There's nothing here that we can actually put our finger on at this point. And I need a second. Well, the the question just hold that thought. We would [laughter] go ahead. The question is though, if if we made a motion, which one are we which motion relying on? Well, now we're just saying we're going to continue it. The motion if I made the motion motion to continue would take precedence over the original motion. Right. And we I'm making a statement. Can I make a statement? Yes, ma'am. Okay, that's what I'm doing. I'm making a statement.

Well, he made the motion. I second. I didn't hear your second. I'm sorry. Okay. Councilman Greg uh Gerardo made the motion and Councilwoman Dig seconded motion. So, we are going to continue. Well, we're going to vote. We have to vote. Oh, sorry. All those in favor? Oh, I made my statement in terms of what and I've gotten an answer. So, is it unanimous? Everyone's voted for it.

Yeah. There's nothing we can do with this. Thank you all. We now move to new business. The first item is approval of a resolution to purchase parking lot property at 128 York Street Northeast and 125 Fairfield Street Northeast from First Baptist Church. Mr. Beenville,

it's a resolution authorizing the purchase of property from the First Baptist Church of Aken. The budget adjustment was done earlier. It's for two parcels. uh that have York Street Northeast and Fairfield Street Northeast frontage. It is used for parking. The church approached us about uh our interest in purchasing. I do believe uh we should consider purchasing these parcels due to the um the fact that that is the primary parking for the Center for African-American History, Art, and Culture. And I believe you're looking you need to recuse it.

Uh but anyway, uh I this uh this is a resolution to purchase and mayor. I will have to recuse myself for the same reason as before. We'll make it fast. You can come right back. So move. Well, I make the motion. Okay. Councilwoman Diggs made the motion. Councilwoman Price, I thought I I I'll second the motion since I made the motion first, but that's okay. I looked the wrong way. Uh Councilwoman Price made the motion. Councilwoman Diggs second the motion. No, I'll let her take the motion. Sorry. Second the other way around. Thank you.

Uh comments from the public, comments from council. All those in favor? Thank you. Motion passed or the res resolution passed. Next is first reading of an ordinance to adjust the 2025 2026 budget to include allocation of se funds for road paving projects. Mr. Beville.

Thank you. It is an ordinance amending the budget of the city of Aken for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026. The state department of transportation provides so-called sea funds allocated for local road projects. We have identified roads with this funding to be paved. These are citymaintained roads. We did pave governor's lane but also Ascot Drive, Spencer Road, Reed Drive, Jias Northland, and Whiteall. And [snorts] um our pavement of citymaintained roads which is about 20% approximately of our road mileage in the city. Uh vast majority of our road mileage is state DOT paved but the these monies were used uh we were unable to pave last fall and into early spring due to hurricane Helen. So, we are a little behind. Uh, but we have gotten Governor's Lane. Uh, and this is before you for first reading. [snorts]

Thank you. Is there a motion? I so move, Madame Mayor. Councilwoman Burl made the motion. A second from I second. Councilwoman Diggs. Any comments from the public? Comments from council? All those in favor? Wait. So this these that are listed here are the only ones that's being um paved right now

for this year. These are the only city maintained roads. There's DOT maintained roads that are being paved. Separate money. We don't um we don't have to approve those funds. This is citymaintained roads. the uh C funds uh are appropriated to us for then dispersement to be paved. I was asking because I see Jasi Drive which is in my district and that sort of wraps around Governor's Aken Park. So yes, that's a good thing.

The question was where do these funds come from? They come from the Department of Transportation uh through I believe gasoline tax money. Thank you, Stuart.

Favor. Thank you. [cough] Unanimous. Next is first reading of an ordinance to grant an easement to Dominion Energy for a utility line to a mixeduse building on Newberry Street. Mr. This is an ordinance authorizing the city to grant an easement to Dominion Energy uh for the uh building at the 100 block of Newberry Street Northwest. Uh that um that is the so-called mixeduse building or the um the lab has a they are calling the building uh and this was uh illustrated in Dr. Green's um presentation

presentation that he gave Thursday and Friday uh the joint institute for workforce development. So we've been calling it uh colloquially the mixeduse building but it is the joint institute for workforce development for the um lab building but um they in order to install a utility line and transformer Dominion needs an easement and it is uh before council for first reading. Thank you. Is there a motion for this motion? I'm sorry. Go ahead. Motion made for approvals.

Councilwoman Price made the motion and Councilwoman Gregory second the motion. Any comments from the public? Comments from council. All those in favor? Thank you. Unanimous. The next item under new business is approval of a resolution accepting a grant from the South Carolina Department of Archives and History for historic resource survey and training for members of the design review board. Mr. Beanville,

thank you. You did read the title. It is a a grant uh with matching uh money. Uh the matching grant is $40,000 from Department of Archives. Uh our match would be up to $5,000. Uh after discussion with Shipo, we added an additional 5,000 to fund training. So um we uh will it's basically a dollar fordoll match. Um has we have not done a historic resource survey since 2010. Um so u having this updated um I think is uh important and this is uh before council this evening for resol in form of resolution.

Is there a motion to accept this resolution for the grant? So move mayor Councilwoman Gregory made the motion and a second from Councilwoman Waltz. Thank you. Any comments from the public? comments from our council. This is a great opportunity to educate our DRB. This is great. It is. So, um, am I missing? It's a big learning curve. DRB's big learning curve. Do I have enough people? Yeah.

Okay. All those in favor then? Thank you. Um, two people missing. Councilwoman Price and Councilman Gerardo were out of the room during the five to nothing unanimous vote. The final item under new business is first reading of an ordinance authorizing the city of Aken to authorize the city manager to execute and deliver an agreement to provide for the development of a parking deck and agreement to stabilize and improve the hotel Aken and surrounding properties. Mr. Beenville.

Thank you. This is an ordinance of the city council of the city of Aken, South Carolina, authorizing the city manager to develop for the development of a parking deck [laughter] and an agreement to stabilize and improve the hotel Aken and certain surrounding properties and other matters there too. Um, essentially, uh, we have approved a purchase and sale agreement with the Oliver Hospitality Group. Um after two readings uh both times we um noted how did we get to this point? Uh so we uh have to turn to a development agreement for this project. The September 29th and September 30th, the Oliver Group uh and their um partners came, Oliver Hospitality Group and their partners came um and took some public input and uh showed the project to the public. It demonstrated that um their intention is to renovate the hotel Aken, add a an what I would call a little u an annex or an a building a piece adjacent to the hotel. Um it would have approx um it's in the 75 to 80. The last number is 77 rooms. Um the Holly House Motor Court on the east side of Bane would be demolished. the uh some of the leanto elements of the buildings fronting Richland Avenue and Newberry Street would be uh removed, but the historic portions of those

buildings, the Johnson building, the McGee building, the uh Johnson drugstore, the McGee building, the old Aken Standard building, uh those um uh majority of that would be adaptively reused. Um what this development agreement calls for is several things that would um allow for continuation of the project. First, um the developer is going to replat the property to more clearly delineate portions of the property that will be adaptive adaptively reused or renovated. Therefore, it'll be eligible for appropriate tax credits and incentive. Um, and it will also delineate where which property will have new construction. Uh, there would be funds from plutonium settlement money not exceeding $2 million for hotel stabilization and a hotel stabilization and improvement contract uh to assist uh with the developer. There is a parking deck construction project uh that is proposed adjacent to um Bane. It would essentially be uh between Bane and Newberry Street. Uh right now it is uh would not it would not exceed 55 ft. It would be four levels with uh four levels of a garage with a parking on the roof. So really five levels of parking approximately. I think right now we're looking at 210 spaces. Um the uh the city would pay for that um [clears throat] uh parking garage. The developer would build the deck. Um and the it would have a cost plus a developer fee of 12%. The square footage of the parking deck when you add in all

levels is approximately 89,670 ft. The developer with the city's support would work with Aken County to potentially obtain uh multi-county business park designation for their new construction portion of the project except for the garage which would be owned by the city. Uh the city finds that the Aken configuration qualifies as again the replatting we mentioned uh two separate abandoned buildings for uh appropriate tax credits. Um there would be a permanent easement encompassing 15 spaces adjacent to the hotel entrance uh for the purposes of valet parking, guest loading, and hotel approach operations, ensuring safe and functional guest access. This is an interesting point. I know when the prior owners, the Shaw family owned the building, we had similar conversations with them um about that uh as well along uh Richland Avenue essentially between Bane and um Laurens Street Southeast. Um and in accordance with the uh economic development ordinance uh there would be a rebate on permits, licenses and utility impact fees uh due to the importance of this project. Um couple things also to keep in mind. This project would still need to go uh uh it falls within the design review board uh purview. So any uh any work done within the footprint of this property would need to go to the design review board for approval. Um at this point in time, it would not need to go to the planning commission. Uh there's really no change to zoning or matters that are within the purview of the recommending body of the

planning commission. Um the uh I know the developer is say saying that they should we pass should this be passed through two readings um and uh I guess the approvals are given they've been working hard the project would um they ideally would like to start middle year 2026 if not earlier. Um the this is kind of akin to a public private portion of the property. I know u it's no secret that we had um the initial plan the so-called project Pascalis plan had uh a lot of uh demolition uh basically demolition of the entire footprint of the site uh going out uh into what currently is Newberry Street uh the the 100 blocks south of Newberry in the southbound lane. um that resulted in a lawsuit that was filed in July of 2022. Um so that project was basically uh stopped and um all those processes were um were terminated and a process began to unwind and and get to this point where we have marketed it and um we are to and we selected the Oliver Hospitality Group and now it is uh in front of council. Um, I know the a parking garage or or a parking deck has been an issue that I think the public uh I mean it's a it is a po polarizing

issue. I don't think is an exaggeration. The deck um is something that I know has been uh thought through carefully. Uh, I know we've heard our representatives from Collers tell us that uh almost everyone who looked at the property uh wanted some sort of parking amenity. In a sense, it's akin uh based on conversation conversations I've had with uh Miss Johnson from historic Aken. Uh it's kind of back to the future. There was a small deck there in the midentieth century. Not not this size, but it was what roughly 60ish as far as we can tell, uh spaces in a parking deck. So, uh it's kind of going back to the future. Um so, um this development agreement, this first reading kind of keeps us on track. Uh the thought is uh try to bring a a second reading back to the council in December um at the December meeting which is I think scheduled for the 9th is it 8th 8th of December. Uh but um just the the Oliver hospitality group was very uh um very much wanting to keep on track. Uh we've been working on this. There's still some elements uh that we're kind of working on that are going to need some finetuning uh about the garage agreement, the uh um and the uh uh hotel stabilization and improvement uh sort of detailing some of those elements. But um again something that's

uh been a lot of work to this point and this is before council uh and the public for first reading and public hearing. Madame Mayor and councel. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to move this? I so move. Councilwoman Brol and Councilman Boltz second the motion. Any comments from the public? Yes, ma'am. [clears throat]

Good evening.

Good evening, everyone. Linda Johnson, 515 Parkside Drive. I have a couple of questions. I mean, most of it makes sense, but on the parking garage, just I've come a long way from no parking garages to yes, we probably need one. How will this really work? So, you have the developer designing it and building it, but then the city would own and manage it. So, would the hotel then have to pay for parking spaces or how will this work? Thank you for um the question because it is a u it should have been mentioned in my comments. The how the proposal would work is uh there would be obviously with the hotel and some and and the small number of uh residential units there would be spaces earmarked we're expecting about 90 n uh 9090 spaces uh up to up to 90 and there would be uh a fee paid um on a regular basis you monthly, quarterly, what have you, uh for use of those spaces, um which would uh be uh which would go into upkeep of the deck and and and maintenance cost of the deck. But the deck would be owned by the city of Aken.

Okay.

And paid Yeah, the deck would be owned by the city of Aken and paid for by the city of Aken. Yes. But at this point it is anticipated that the public if they need to park there for something downtown it would be free. I think that is the expectation now that yes uh a free parking is kind of a divine viewed as a divine right like uh life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in Aken. But uh there have been zero discussion for charging for parking unless you are [laughter] a patron in the hotel or have the um the uh you know or staying in in the multif family.

Okay. But but if I'm a John Q citizen coming to town for an event um or a worker um if there's an open space otherwise the expectation is it would be available and no um no fee for parking. Okay. The other question I still have time um on the improvements that the city's going to pay for. You're doing some sort of prep work then to make it work for the hotel developer or how is this like buying a house and they asked you to replace the carpet first?

It'll be kind of a partnership. We'll work handinand glove with them. Certainly if they need specialized or or particular work done to the hotel, uh we will want to work with them and make sure that the uh firm or entity that does the work is who of the of the Oliver Hospitality groups um choosing if they want uh Red Widget Incorporated to do it, we're not going to hire Blue Widget Incorporated. uh we would work with them to make sure that uh that the appropriate um uh standards and and and it's someone of their uh their uh expectation. So it would be I guess it's it's not a apples to apples analogy of if I buy a house from you and I want you to replace the carpet. It that's not entirely accurate but it will be uh akin to we will be working on a partnership level to make sure that that expectation is reached.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Linda, at the expense of up to $2 million from the plutonium settlement fund, which is which are community funds for north side and downtown development, which provides a good segue because I was going to ask about plutonium funds. I thought they're all allocated already from the $25 million. It would be reallocated from a different So, it' be some projects that are going to be cancelled.

Well, we No, sir. We had projects done uh uh like for work at Generations Park came in under budget. We've got additional monies coming in from CPST5 for generations uh and uh other funds, but primarily from that aspect of the plutonium funds. Okay. Is there an estimate yet on the garage cost? That's what people a lot of people are asking,

right? We're still we that's why we want to get a good estimate but right now it's you're it's probably high seven figures. Um so I would say $7.5 million uh or a little higher um but that's uh what the expectation is. It will be an up to cost or a not to exceed cost. One thing to remember uh if a garage is built, if uh it's going to have to meet certain design standards of the design review board, uh the uh um design guidelines and uh we expect that to uh certainly impact the cost, but but that's okay because we do want this to be a uh something that is in keeping with the harmony um and ethos post of the surrounding properties.

Speaking to that, [clears throat] during the um presentations at Newberry Hall, they showed it being five stories, but this is written down it's going to be four levels. Now, my understanding was it's four levels with a fifth floor uh park. Essentially, you're parking on the roof for the fifth or is it five? I know it's kind of moved back and forth. We could let Mr. Bradford or someone. It is four. Should I speak now? Yeah, you can uh come up and address that matter.

It It's I know fluctuated. I've seen four with a roof, five uh because of the footprint, it's changed several times. That was it.

Good evening, Craig Bradford. Um I'm I'm from Franklin, Tennessee. So um the it is it is five levels. The top level is open air, but they're not building levels. They're they're garage levels which are lower. So it is not exceeding 55 ft. So the fifth level is really the top of the fourth level is what you're saying. Correct.

Yeah. And that's what I was trying to articulate. And I did a I did a a substandard job of articulating that. So typically on a building, you know, you're typically floor plate to plate, you might be 12 feet on a parking garage, you're around 8 to nine. Well, there it's actually 10 feet with with the size of the structure and so forth. Clear span it's about 8 feet. I hope that clarifies.

Thank you. And I guess too, one thing, the entrance, the entrance, there will be one means of egress. It would only be on Newberry Street. Um, and I know I've gotten questions about uh impacts on the festival center. uh the festival center currently. We uh I know uh in in talking to staff that has worked uh Newberry Street for a while or for years u when the lobster races were here, we used the entirety of Newberry, but now we um almost exclusively u still use the area as a turnaround. Um, so patrons of the pizza joint and Newberry Hall to kind of minimize those impacts. But that entrance point would be in that area uh just north of Newberry Hall is where our means of egress would be uh an entrance and exit uh for the uh deck. [clears throat]

Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. council. Uh Judy Reinhardt, 519 Marbor Street. My question is why is the city of Aken having to pay for the parking? I mean, if I buy a house or a piece of property to renovate it for future use, I wouldn't ask the seller to build the garage for me, you know, for the house that I'm buying. Why why was it decided that the city of Aken is to pay for this?

I think two reasons. Uh thank you for the question. The Miss Reinhardt. The uh first um is that a majority of this parking would be publicly available. Um you're right now if we're looking at about 210 211 spaces uh about 58 57 58% of the spaces would be available to the general public. Um the uh other is the um it is an element of this um partnership or endeavor uh for the hotel. Uh the public private nature is that the um uh garage would be um uh the the initial building cost would be paid by the city and the um but again uh once the garage is operational and the and the uh project the hotel and surrounding uh developments are done um there would be costs uh remitted to the city um for maintenance and upkeep.

Okay. And did I hear correctly that it's to be funded by the plutonium money? No, that is not correct. Um part of it is you just said $2 million was going to go towards um resurfacing and re-justing or refixing or whatever the structure before they build. So that's up to $2 million for the hotel a lake a lake a lake a lake a lake a lake a lake a lake a lake a lake and building correct $2 million up to $2 million from the plutonium settlement funds is being negotiated to go towards that in addition to the 7.5 million for the the developer

correct to to set the property so they can build or rehab it. So we're we're assisting them more. We're about 17 almost 167 million now with all these little bits. Every time we vote on something it just keeps going up and up and up. So now 7.5 parking garage, you know, 200,000 for the what is it? The design or the Yes. something, right? Two, we're giving them $200,000 for designing this whole thing. Um let's see. Um 2 million plutonium uh funding that is the community's money for downtown and north side development is going towards this hotel as well. I mean, it's just I think the question was answered that

it's a lot of money. Yeah, thank you for asking the question. And the 2 million is going for the the the garage is not part of the 2 million. It's more shoring up uh the hotel akin uh building, but if I understood Miss Reinhardt's question, I do think it was about uh the garage.

Anyone else like to say? Yes. Thank you. Hello, Council Sam Herb, Dibble Road, Aken. Um, for all you outgoing city council members, I appreciate all the hard work and everything. So, the parking garage is a must. If we don't have the parking garage, will have an empty building. Once that building is a hotel and all the surrounding buildings are built, the city forever will be collecting taxes. That's a wonderful thing. It's better than the way it is right now costing the city money. So, let's move this project forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Sam. Anyone else want to speak? Comments from council

question businesses. Have the developer and um whoever is designing the building that's one and the same. I'm assuming um spoken with the businesses as to what to expect. There's multiple questions uh that these uh businesses are asking and I can't answer them because I have not sat in on meetings even though it's in my district. I don't know how to respond except you will hear from them when you when the when plans are more finalized and that's all I know to tell them. Am I accurate in that or

Yes. Uh there there's been I know during the Cherrettes some of the business owners came and talked to Craig and I believe there might have been some email or contact with I'm thinking of specifically the new proprietor Malias. Uh but uh once I believe this moves if this moves forward, if council deems it [laughter] appropriate to move forward, then those discussions will certainly begin in earnest because they'll begin to uh start developing uh project timelines and then they can accurately um and timely um have these discussions with the uh adjacent businesses. Um, I know I've had multiple meetings with uh a couple of the business owners um because they are understandably uh they they want to make sure the impact on their uh ability for commerce is minimized. There will be some impact just by the nature of construction, but trying to minimize it is going to be critical. Well, the other is that they're concerned about where placement will be with all of the equipment they'll use. That's a great concern. I I don't know that. I'm I've said that I'm sure we'll find a place that doesn't hinder things too much, but those things are unanswered at this moment. Yeah. The developer, the way I've responded.

Yeah, that's that's a good answer. The developer though, I I had a meeting. U Mr. Bradford arrived to town. Um he uh he was uh arrived here early and they've got some idea good ideas to minimize like lay down impacts. Uh there will be some uh by the nature of it being a construction project, but they've got some really good ideas that I think will minimize uh some of the sort of layown aspects of a construction project. Um which which they're working on um and he shared with me several hours ago. I'd like to make comment and that is as a fellow u downtown business owner that um the developer has been very very open and agreeable to talking with me and all the other downtown business [clears throat] at any time and he's offered his email phone number and I'm sure that um it will continue. Well, I need to if if I have a question, can I who can I call as a council member and it's in my district, so I can call you. Thank you,

Madame Mayor. I I know that at our last work session we talked about this and we were assured as time went on and we've gotten this development agreement that they are going to be communicating specifically with the businesses impacted but they want to hear all of our feedback and from the small business and that as long as we keep communicating as information comes available and I know what Lesie's feeling. I've been asked about things and I'll say we will let you know as soon as we know something. And I think they're setting up a um question and answer online. Is that not correct? So that people that have questions can so that there's not all this misinformation out there.

Thank you.

Yes, that's correct. We have a we do have a website. Sorry. That's that's set up right now. Um and um uh Councilwoman Price and and everybody else appreciate the questions. The the more common questions to include Linda when so she she drafts gave some questions to uh uh to the city manager yesterday or today. We'll put those onto the website and hopefully kind of get the truth, you know, truth out there so everyone understands. But a lot of these things that that are very like when we had the design shred, people were asking very specific questions about when are we going to have when's construction going to start? When's going to you know uh what's what is going to be the impact where the where's the layown yard going to be. It's it's very premature to know exactly what those and I think it's it's a worst case scenario to actually say we think or or guess at it than to actually rather know. I'm an engineer by by trade, so I don't I don't do a lot of guessing. Uh because bad things happen when we guess. So

like the cost of a parking garage. You're a good negotiator, too.

Well, I Well, thank you. Um but uh but anyway, this this is the the the parking garage, everything about this. This has been somewhat pretty much an open book. uh with the city and it's been so far again I want to also express my appreciation to both the city as well as to the council uh for for all your assistance. Um the the parking garage design itself is something that we'll be work we would be partnering with the uh the city you know to to make sure that they're lockep understanding in their in it's at their direction to specifically what we're doing. So it's not we're gonna drop something, you know, and and and say here's, you know, here's what it is. This is this is truly a public park priv.

That's okay. [laughter] You got it. Well, I I will tell you something that I I said that uh I hope you agree with me. There there there are businesses concerned about the impact on their businesses and masters. And I said to them, right, nothing is going to start before mast's April this year's mast next year's masters 20 correct 2026 right and also uh that's been written in the agreement that no work can occur during that period of time. Okay. Yeah, we did we did note that that city that we have

the call is still coming in in terms of impact with the masters. The masters will be a a quiet period, the eight eight to 10 days around the masters. Plus, we wrote in there that disruption to be lane [snorts] must be minimized. Uh there may be times when it has to close temporarily, but it's not going to be a case where it's closed for days on end, months on end because it is the main means to supply the uh some restaurants in the alley and the center for the arts and the and malas.

All those all those requests are all permitted closures that we have to go through and work with the city on. Right. So, uh, it's not that we can just shut down a street with without any type of prior, um, prior approval. Thank you for that information. Can you could you give the website that people could go to for our citizens? Do you do you know it all? It's it's it's allosity.com and I think it's under I think it's aliverhospity.com. And let me if it's okay for me to check, I'll Sure. Sure. is is it way people people watching at home which they do will be able to go to that site.

Right. There's also an email address uh that's currently um are are our our public relations people take are are monitoring that but most likely I'm going to take that over and answer his questions directly. So okay. So anyway, thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks.

Any other comments from council? I think the city needs to publish all of I mean what's what's going into this. I mean I understand it's in your in the memo for that but it needs to be published. I mean I I talk to constituents every day and they're like so Andrea what are we in it now? And I give them a number and that number [clears throat] keeps changing and so at least give us the numbers. So publish them, put them out there. The city deserves to know every line item going towards this. And that's a big difference between where we were at 121 13 million to now being over 16 million. That's a big jump that happened overnight. Happened in two weeks. So that was new negotiation that happened. I wasn't aware of that plutonia money thing. So that's new negotiation. It happened. Find about it with this agenda packet for the first time. I mean, I just don't think that's appropriate. Put it out there. Let the community know exactly every nickel and dime going towards this.

Please vote. Call the question.

I'll agree. First reading. her hands. She

Oh, I should have the microphone on. Now, on to petitions and requests. The [laughter and clears throat] first item is approval of a professional services contract for WLA studio to Bruce historic resource survey. Mr. B.

Thank you. We do have a historic uh resource survey. Uh we the planning commission worked with the members of the DRB and uh other interest interested parties to select a firm to produce a historic resource survey. you approved the grant. Uh, and WLA Studios has been selected and they um, uh, this comes as a recommendation uh, to approve this contract from uh, staff.

Thank you. Yes, I do. A motion please from Councilman Waltz and a second from second. Gosh. Second. Councilman Gerardo made the second and comments from the public. I've lost myself.

Comments from council. All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. Next is approval of placement of a historical marker in the parkway at Chesterfield Street South and Park Avenue Southeast. Mr. We heard at our last work session on October 27th about the placement potential placement of a historic marker uh from Eugene White who was past president of the local chapter of the NAACP. Four years ago, Eugene sat with me and uh the former mayor about this matter and uh I think he took it upon himself to uh with with our uh approval that he uh would like to pursue this. Uh I think it was felt at the time it was appropriate given uh kind of the gravity of the [clears throat] event u back in 1926. Uh Eugene worked hard uh I guess since it took I don't believe you worked every day for four years to get to this point, but I know you had a lot of things on your plate professionally and in your former uh job as president of the of the uh NAACP, the local NAACP, but I was privy to see uh uh his work and he ran this through the South Carolina Department of Archives and History and uh minimal changes. The marker uh uh would would memorialize the incident. The proposal would be to place it in the Parkway uh on the I guess what would that be on the

eastern side of Park Avenue and Chesterfield um near uh across from the courthouse. Um, as we have put markers and parkways um around our downtown and um city staff would assist with the installation once uh it's ready for placement and this is for your consideration this evening. Is there a motion to accept this? I so move. Councilwoman Diggs. Second, Madam Mayor and Councilwoman Price second the motion. All those would like to speak from the public.

Yes, sir. It's late. Good evening, everyone. Yes, you're right.

And then there was one [laughter] mayor promp um really appreciate your consideration for this. Um uh before we get to the business, uh we just want to uh say and congratulations to those who will be continuing on city council. We are looking forward to long days and pleasant nights and uh working with you. But for those who are about to take their leave, we certainly appreciate your demonstrated commitment to the city. You certainly have left it better than you found it. Um, and what I'd advise you to do is enjoy the holidays, take a longd deserved rest. Um, figure out what you're going to do with your Mondays and I'm certain we'll figure figure out where we're going to see you um all around again. Uh, related to the monument, we appreciate your consideration for this uh memorial to commemorate uh the lynching of the Lman family. Uh we want to keep in mind that uh this serves as a uh good thing and that it allows us to honor all aspects of our past while helping us to build a more inclusive and resilient future. Um and it also acknowledges a painful chapter in Aken's history fostering healing and understanding. It also demonstrates commitment to truth, justice, and reconciliation. And it benefits all citizens by promoting unity, education, and respect for diversity. Um, I often say when I've been talking about this is that memorialization is not about blame, but about learning, growing, and thriving together. And in closing, um, we just say that, uh, memorializing the lo the Lmen family is a step towards a more unified and compassionate city. And we thank you for allowing us to honor our history and build a future together where all citizens citizens can thrive. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Eugene. Thank you for your commitment [applause] and Madame Mayor, uh I just want to acknowledge uh the president of the NAACP, Reverend Giden, and Dr. Giden, his wife, with him. So, we're happy to see you here tonight. Thank you. They're behind you. You [laughter] want to speak about this? Yes, sir. [clears throat]

First, good even late evening. Uh I'm Wesley [clears throat] Gayton and I'm a local pastor here in Aken. also the president uh president of the NAACP of Aken County and uh I followed uh Eugene White as president uh elected this year and certainly we are in agreement with the marker and something he's been working on and I thought it not robbed to continue with that because I think it's really important uh for the history of the African-Americans and uh so we just want to say that we appreciate you all this evening uh for your uh support that you've given us uh to allow us to have this marker, you know, uh placed in this city because uh I've been raising Achen all my life and I went away come back but at the same time I kind of watched Aken grow and uh so I'm delighted to see this come to pass because I think it's very necessary uh to our culture. So, we just want to let you know that we appreciate you all so very much. And uh with that, if you all can find something in your budget, we will accept it because there is a cost to it. So, whatever you're able to do, we'll certainly appreciate it. Thank you so very much.

Thank you. Thank you so much. [applause] I see you brought several of your officers with you tonight and they stayed their entire time. [laughter] God bless y'all. Miss Swift. All those in favor?

Okay, it's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you, [applause] Mayor. We do have um Lel Coert um from the Veterans Affairs Office. I know tomorrow's Veterans Day and they have an event planned at the Veterans Park tomorrow morning. He just wanted to I guess um share the information about that. Yes, sir. Never be late to this meeting ever again. [laughter]

So, uh I know we've got some new members of council coming on. One of them is back there. You guys might want to pause your replacements after tonight. see if they're still up for the challenge. All joking aside though, uh, Councilman Wolves, Councilwoman Gregory, and Councilman Gerardo. Um, thank you guys for all the support that you've given the veteran community and your time with us. Uh, it's been a pleasure and an honor to work alongside you guys on behalf of the veterans of Aken County. So, appreciate all your all your effort and all your time uh, and your guys' sacrifices. Late nights, obviously. Uh tomorrow we have the Aken County Veterans Council is hosting the uh Veterans Day ceremony that we do every year at the Veterans Park on Richland Avenue. Uh obviously we know that this is a historical year. 250 years our military has been serving this great country. Um in keeping with that historic tradition, tomorrow we will have instead of a veteran speaking, we will have Aken City's own Pete Peters who is your supervisor of tourism. Uh I tell people he is the history version of Bill Nye the Science Guy. Uh he knows every bit of history in Aken. It's pretty astounding. And um he's going to speak about uh some key veterans throughout the history of Aken. So it should be a good event. And then lastly um we have a little bit of an issue that I wanted to share and hopefully people are still up at this late hour watching and we'll get the news. But um December 13th of every year around the world, we pause to do wreaths across America. And that's where we honor every fallen uh service member that is laid to rest in every cemetery around the the world uh with a wreath. Um it's called Reese of America for a reason. And we are short in Aken County roughly a thousand wreaths uh across the board for the cemeteries uh due to a number of reasons. But the website is reaccrossamea.org. You can go on there for more information. Wreaths are $17 to sponsor a wreath for a soldier's grave. Um

[snorts] we have the deadline is December 1st. Uh the ceremony for Aken County will happen at Sunset Memorial Gardens in Graniteville at noon. Uh we have retired Lieutenant Colonel Don Burke who is also a part of our council who is a retired special forces soldier, former deputy commander of fifth special forces group. he will be the keynote that day. And um so again, just wanted to put out those uh those two tidbits of information for the general public. All of you that are on council, thank you all uh for the support that you guys give the veteran community. Roughly 20,000 veterans call Aken County home. And uh again to the three of you that are leaving, thank you so much for all the support over the years. We greatly appreciate it. I greatly appreciate it uh as well. So thank you. That's all I have.

You didn't announce the time tomorrow. 11 o'clock. 1111. Okay. [laughter] Okay. Thank you. And are y'all did that for the Marine Corps? Are you guys relocating to an inside space? No, ma'am. We're going to be outside. So, bundle up. It's going to be a little chilly. Uh but I like to tell people uh those that have served have done far more. I know. For far much longer. You know, I've never missed one, but Yes, ma'am. You've been a huge supporter. Yeah. So, uh wear your gloves, scarves, hats, come out and see us. We appreciate all of your efforts. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yes. And and lol if if my plane gets cancelled in the morning and at this point I sure hope I get that message. You know you can make that happen.

I just assume we'll make it happen and I can be there at 11 in the morning. Chief can create an incident on the way to the where you Augusta or Columbia. No Augusta but [laughter] don't go to that extent. Holy cow. But thanks for what thank you for what you do commitment. [applause] And Eugene, you run for council, I will move to the district [laughter] so I can vote for you. And when Teddy's done, if you want to run for mayor, I don't have to move. I'll vote for you. Be careful. My wife's watching. [laughter]

Okay. Um that was a public comment. So we have 30 minutes to uh comments limited three minutes per speaker. Anyone want to speak? No. [laughter] There any items from Mr. Beenfo our city manager this evening? We are uh just a reminder the city offices are closed in observance of Veterans Day tomorrow. Happy Veterans Day. Is there a motion to adjurnn? I guess I [laughter] I make the motion that we adjourn. Last one. Second. You have three seconds. Not here.

I know. Councilman Gerardo made the motion and well, Councilman Waltz made the second. All those in favor is adjourned. Thank you. Done. That was a another memorable one for the books. God. [snorts]