City Council - Regular Meeting

I heard you over there talking. Yeah. I think I heard you talking over the machine.

It was. Well, Jordan was yelling for me one time. I didn't even know he was trying to talk to me.

You know, we didn't see you for the 4th of July. We had the fireworks.

it was nice it was really nice we had a good group i mean we can't get on nothing I was just wondering. I appreciate y'all. That's got to be their goal.

They're right behind you, last meeting.

My aunt had an above ground pool almost in the same area for years, like when I was seven, eight, nine years old, a long time ago.

Yeah. Good morning, everyone.

I'm fine. Mommy.

Everyone ready? One.

Yeah, that's good. Oh, that's a cool house. Yeah.

I have to get a double.

Okay, we're going to go ahead and call the July 21st, 2026 City Council meeting to order. We'll start with a roll call. We have wards one, two, three, four, five, six, and at large all present. I will ask Councilman Lewis to lead us in our invocation. Just bow our heads in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Amen. O Father, give us the humility which realizes its ignorance, admits its mistakes, recognizes its needs, welcomes advice, accepts rebukes, Help us always to praise rather than to criticize, to sympathize rather than to discourage, to build rather than to destroy, and to think of people at their best rather than at their worst. This we ask for thy name's sake. Amen.

Okay, thank you for that, Councilman Lewis. Moving on to the approval of the agenda, I do have one amendment I'd like to make. The mayor had requested to add an item under mayor's business, under the mayor's agenda, so this would be 11C. but it's gonna be a request to allow an hourly rate for Casey Piazza's services on Friday, July 24th. We'll have some more discussion, but is everyone okay if we add that to the agenda? Yes.

No problem.

Anything else, any amendments needed? No. Okay. Moving on to announcements. July 23rd, 2026 will be our next budget workshop. August 4th, 2026 will be our next city council meeting. We do not have any guests here tonight, and we'll move on to public forum regarding our agenda. And just a reminder, this is the time, if it's anything regarding the, on the agenda that you would like to talk about, including planning and zoning items, because the public hearing happens at the P&Z meeting, so we may or may not call you up if you're here for that. Dijon Bennett, Boynton? Benoit.

Benoit.

That works.

Deja Benoit, 1013 Booker Street. So I'm looking over. I'm not seeing it clearly, but I was told it would be on the agenda. I put in an event request. It was last weekend, but I think it was going to be talked about this week. I put in a little late, so I do apologize for that. I have requested, this will be my second event by the way, I have a mentorship, a non-profit mentorship. It goes by Hood Community Mentorship. It stands for Hope, Opportunity, Outreach, and Direction. And I work with young men ages seven to 18 with miscellaneous things within their life, school, home. But I requested barricades a couple of times and I was unable to get those barricades and I did not receive a full explanation why. And I did notice that the Hot Dog Day event did have barricades, so I wanted to see if I could get barricades for my events. If it was a justification that I would need to give you guys to get those barricades or who actually approves those.

Just real quick, what is the date of the event?

Oh, so the event, this event transpired this past week.

The application is under a queue on the consent agenda.

Okay.

So it was this past Sunday, but I did one for Palm Sunday, and I was unable to get those barricades. Like I said, this event was requested very late, in my opinion, which I would say will probably be the same for you, but my initial event that I did for Palm Sunday, it was well in advance, and I still did not receive those barricades. and I do only events for the youth, or really for the community, but there's always a lot of youth present. We typically have bounce house, jump slide, water slides, things of that nature, and I'm concerned for the youth, I'm concerned for the community, and it's my event, so I feel like I'll be the one held accountable, and I don't want that to be the case. If there is something that happens, I just want to put that on the record and see what I need to do to get those

Yeah, Mr. Benoit, I mean, I do see that this was, the submission was there via web submission. You did indicate the four barricades. There's a note next to it. I can't really tell what that indicates, though.

Yeah, it looks like, I don't know if it's a check next. It looks like maybe a request for four barricades. Is there a barricades request? Was that approved or not on it? It has initials by it, but it looks like a checkmark as well as an X.

A barricade? A barricade. It requires street closing, and it wasn't in time. They want barricades inside the park, whatever, blocking the drive or whatever going in. But when you do block the street, you know, it's got to be approved and this and that and everything else.

So these barricades, was that to close the street? It was. Okay. Right. I know that, so when that occurs, we do, the city council does have to approve that. So is it an issue of the timeliness of the submission then? Because we didn't have the ability?

I'm not sure.

Okay.

This application was on 7-10, if I'm remembering correctly. Y'all met prior to that. Right. Yes.

This would be our- This application was on 7-10, so it would have been after the meetings.

Like I said earlier, I did do an event for Palm Sunday, and it was input well in advance, and it was still, I don't know.

The event was denied?

No, the event was not denied, but the barricades were denied. In that event, I had well over the amount of people that I had this past weekend and if it wasn't for my father and a couple of friends it definitely there would have been something there were two young guys coming through in big trucks and if it wasn't for my dad you know stopping the traffic and getting the kids out of the way it definitely would have been an issue Mr. Benoit you said it was denied was it denied or the application wasn't denied but the request for the barricade for the especially for the event

The barricades or the street closures? The barricades.

I mean, I'm not sure the difference, but I asked for barricades.

The city council has to approve any kind of street closure that would include barricades. So that would be just, I would just say on this instance, the time list of the submission, we didn't have the ability to approve that. Right, right, right. I can't speak for that. No, no, no, for sure.

That one I do understand, but I'm making sure that is.

In the future.

Right, in the future, we don't want this to happen again. Right, right, right. So for me, when I do request the time, I can do better by that. And also I guess question coming from whenever whenever someone submits this and requests barricades Are they know to notify?

how far in advance that they will get it or

Before they get to the barricade?

Yeah. Will we notify them they have to come to city council? That way they might have the opportunity to come here and explain the event and why they need the road closure? Would they be notified of that date?

For denial?

Yeah, if there needs to be a road closure.

We usually get it. We approve or not approve based on, you know, going before council. If street closures are included and we take in, they'll deliver the barricade.

Mr. Benoit, can I ask, where exactly do you have this need?

I do most of my events on Martin Park and Washington Street. Okay. And how it was explained was that it's like a main corridor from the highway to the beach.

That's correct.

Which I did understand that. But when I saw this past event, National Hot Dog Day, I saw barricades, I saw police marked vehicles.

That's one of the things also with that, that was a city event. Police was present to drive traffic as well.

So would I need to request police presence to get barricades? I don't have an issue.

Yeah, the events are no more than two hours, maybe three at max. So that was something that we knew, I guess, in advance that we could ask for police presence, at least one officer to move their case in case there was an emergency. Okay.

I guess if the, just the process, if you need barricades and there's gonna be a road closure, it'll come to the council. I guess to ask on the administration would be to notify you that it's coming to the council. That way you can come up here and explain why you need it closed. It's kind of.

And one of the things, too, is the justification for closing the street. You know, there's 10 kids, 50 kids, 200 kids. You know, justification for closing the street on the amount of people that's there. You know, hot dog, we knew it was a big crowd in and out all day long with kids coming from Boys and Girls Club, Senior Citizen, everybody else, neighborhood and all. You know, so when we have events, you know, to block the street and there may be 10 or 15 children, you know, I know everyone, it doesn't matter, but we should be able to control that without blocking the street. If it's 100 children wanting to go back there, we expect it. That's totally, completely different. You know, so when we have the events, we also look at, you know, the impact it has on that area as far as bringing people in and if needed and all that.

Yeah, I think I surpassed that 100 kids, for sure. 100 people, for sure. Most definitely.

Yeah, it's not just kids. For sure. Yeah.

I had a good, decent crowd. Thankful for the community for coming out for that, but we had... Yeah, and he does.

He puts on different events and all, you know, for the children and all in the community. I think he uses the common jail, some of the ball fields as well and all, and, you know,

but yeah that was so I do appreciate that I've been looking forward for the next week thank you Mr. Benoit thank you for the work you do Mr. Clarence Harris good evening to the mayor

the city council, ladies and men, to the manager, to the citizens of Bay St. Louis and residents of Bay St. Louis, Waverland County. I'm Clarence Harris I'm here on behalf of the Friends of Lindsay Jones alumni the old school which is the Boys and Girls Club I think you all may have a package of what I was requesting I'm not sure did that get sent out

I don't think so. What they're asking for is an historical marker at VCJ gym. I don't have it with me. I thought it got sent out. But anyway, it's a normal historical marker dedicated to VCJ gym and a little history on it as well.

It's purchased from the state.

Yes. And so with that, it was approved through the state to make it historical. And we would like to get this up there. And I think Mr. Clarence, if you don't mind, to come and ask for an in-kind donation to help support this. And I think he's talked to the county and Waveland as well to split the cost between the three entities to support this. I think the cost is roughly $3,000. I think he's asking $1,000 from each entity. and with that we're looking at also replacing the sign that's on the over towards the gymnasium to put a sign up there as well which we're looking at doing that through the public works department and all of that

Is it going to be Boys and Girls Club or BCJ?

Huh?

The sign that we're replacing, is it going to be Boys and Girls Club or BCJ?

It's going to be on the gymnasium part over there with dedication, you know, for Coach Bradley, and then I would like to add Coach Cleve to it as well.

So is this something we need to bring back up at the next meeting, put it on the agenda? Is it a packet that we can get?

Put it on the next agenda to make a motion to approve it.

That way we can look at it and see what's being proposed.

And Mike, and it's going to be split between the two municipalities based on this wave on the county, Hancock? That's what the proposal is? Yeah. Okay.

And there, Mr. Clience may be able to speak. I think he's going to talk to them. Okay.

I've talked to both of them, and it's $1,000 apiece. And the reason we're doing this is because the school was part of this community, the county, and when they closed it in 72. So we have a – the city owns the building, and we went and got a historical landmark. of that site so now we want to have a historical landmark put there and we thought it was fitting time for each one of them to kind of support that when that was the only school that Menards had to go to during that time and it's a historical thing so we feel like everyone should share the cost of that part of it we want to make that a community type building where we will be back asking for some better use of it some partnerships with the county cities businesses so that we can really make that a history and a historical site known for everybody to use and enjoy and have memories of The other thing, and I appreciate your time, I guess I got a little frustrated right quick because this is the second time that I have presented this to this board, well, not to the board. I delivered one to the city hall last year. It's just been going on about a year. For some reason, the mayor never got it. Just past couple of weeks, it was delivered to the mayor and the board don't have it. That's kind of a little problem with me. and I think we need to do everybody a better service, especially when we get them in on time, and we doing things the right way, and then we still come here and things are not fair. So I'm asking this board to be fair. And we get this in in time. It's not that we playing games or we doing things, but we need your support. You all need our support. And we ask you all to do it. And I'm gonna give you this again.

If you don't mind giving it, if you hand it to me, time is up, but I understand the frustration there. We'll get this put on the next agenda.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

Mr. Seed, is there a date?

I'd like to say something on that, what he just stated. Yes, I didn't get it forward. That's my fault. A year ago, though, this was brought up, and it just died. from lack of back and forth or whatever was needed. This time here, they did bring up, I met with Ted the other day about it, and somewhere along the line, it just didn't get passed on. But going back a year or two, however long it's been being talked about, we met out there then, and again, it just pretty much died. in that they never went to the county, never went to Waveland before that. Like we talked about, just like we talked about this time. So I just want to clear that up. You know, we're not trying to lay it. We're not trying to sabotage anything like that. That's a crock of BS. Well we have it now yes thank you I had a question for you Mr. C is there an actual date that we are aiming to like is there a date that we have to get this submitted by

We're probably going to try to have the marker in place. It takes about six months once you order it. So we're probably looking at next year, sometime before the marker would be in place, ready to go up for a ceremony. But as soon as we can get the funds through, then we can order the marker.

Mr. C, I have a question for you. Yes, sir. Was it the Divine Word Seminary? that helped teach at BCJ.

Not to my understanding of the young lady.

St. Rose.

St. Rose.

Okay. I was just wondering. I couldn't remember if it was. Well, thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Clance, I have another question. On the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, I know that looks like you've submitted that paperwork, correct, based on this packet you just gave us? Yes. Okay. And was that just recently submitted or was that done also?

No, we've done that two, three years ago.

But it still pertains to the current request?

Yes.

And then also I have a question. As far as the other municipalities with Waveland and then the county, have you got commitment from them already?

Yes. From Waveland for sure. The county is based on what Waveland Bay Center is doing.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Aaron Davis.

I wasn't looking at this figure.

Oh, no worries, yeah. No, it's okay, you have to speak now. That's right. Is that the same thing for you? No, Naomi?

I'm here with the zoning.

Zoning, okay. Okay. I'll put you on after Ms. Anita. Ryan? I'm the same, I thought we had to sign it. Sign it, okay, no worries. Ms. Anita Warner?

Good afternoon. Anita Warner on behalf of the Live Oak Registry. I am absolutely thrilled to see that we are finally going to do something to help protect our trees and start enforcing our ordinance and making the penalties for abuse of trees Significant. I'm particularly happy that we are increasing the fine for improper removal or damage to our trees. I'm also very happy to see that we have strengthened the requirements for replacing our protected trees. When people start whining about having to rake leaves, I just want to say, If you walk outside, do you want to stand in the direct sun now when it's 98 degrees, or would you like to stand under an oak tree where it'll be 15 degrees cooler? I am again I'm just and so is the live oak registry we are thrilled that you are doing this because I think people have come to realize how valuable our live oak trees are but as well as a lot of our other trees and so when developers want to come in and clear cut everything so they can build whatever they're building it's so important to keep the trees that we have there's a lot of development going on in my neighborhood right now, and I want to commend the folks for keeping the oak trees. They're doing a good job. So thank you very much. Hope y'all pass this, and then we can start enforcing it.

Thank you. Mr. Cliff Rabelais?

Cliff Rabelais, 702.33. I apologize for not signing in. I just saw what Ms. Anita just spoke of on the agenda. And I guess she answered part of my questions is that, yes, I very much support the tree ordinance being strengthened because we need to. Those of you that know where I live, I got a canopy over my driveway. and I get compliments on it pretty regularly. I was going to ask a question, what's driving the desire to, not that I'm opposed to it, I'm actually not, I'm in support of what's driving the, changing the ordinance to increase the fines from $100 to $1,000, you know, but as Heather can tell you, she's quoted me, when there's no enforcement, there's no rule. So, let's pass it, and let's enforce it. Because if you don't, you're wasting your time passing.

Yes, sir. I agree with Mike. and the building department, but when they do it, and just like fields are, when they cut eight open, but if you're not out there 24-7 watching, and they're not the only one, we've got it around town where people just go cut the open without permission, and that's what we're facing, and that's one of the reasons, you know, we pushed for it originally a while back to get this going and all, and people are waiting just to see. Well, I applaud.

Well, and particularly with the other things that are on the skyline right now, I very much appreciate this push because we want to retain that part of the Bay St. Louis that people still like to come to.

And while we're on the lines and talking about that, so, Mike, using that example, so per occurrence, does one tree constitute an occurrence? Meaning if that developer cut down eight trees, that's eight occurrences. Perfect. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, ladies. And I'll say it again. If there's no enforcement, there are no rules.

Thank you. Thank you.

And how are we handling it? I know we had it come up. Go ahead. We had it come up in the past. If it's causing a hardship, whether that tree is invading, you know, someone underneath their foundation or pipes.

Right.

And that would, so they wouldn't be required in terms of the replacement if it is validated by our tree advisor that it is a true hardship and it's causing damage. Yeah, right.

And whatever, you know, there's no hardship.

Okay, so there's hardship and they wouldn't be required to replant or anything. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. I know that doesn't come up a lot, but it does.

You want to, you know, remove it and get the fruit to be removed because it's sitting here and I don't want to put my house anywhere that I want it here. Yeah. you know, then okay, you can remove it, but this, you have to, you know, look at replacing the trees on it. But what we're trying to do is get to where people just don't take it on themselves and go cut trees down without permits. And again, there's no telling how many we don't catch compared to what we do catch.

And I know there's some clause and provisions in here, you know, again, The example you just mentioned, if they're wanting to replace those trees, but the provision is that there's supposed to be adequate spacing as well, drainage and all that. So it's not a matter of just going and clear-cutting it. We'll just replace those somewhere else in the city. It's on that property. It's got to be replaced.

That's the first choice, try to replace it on that property. If they have the room to do it, and if not, they would make the donation to the city, and the city would find a place throughout the city that needs it.

If they have the room.

If they don't have room. If they don't have room on their property to put it.

But what I don't want that to do is dissuade. So say, okay, I've got a property that's got 10 live oaks. We're going to cut those down. I don't have room to put those on that property. We're going to go put them elsewhere. And that would almost encourage that.

Correct to that point, yes. But again, if it was done illegally, there'd be a whole lot more to it.

But if they come and ask for permission and say, hey, we've got ten oaks, but we're going to replant whatever the circumference diameter around the city, but that would almost promote to me.

And it's like in Shieldsboro. We try to get them to take the trees that we ask for and take and put them on each lot like they did in, I guess, phase one maybe, you know, up front where there's oak trees along the streets and all. Our recommendation was these trees to replace what you cut, but they'd be placed on the lots along the streets throughout the new phase.

I just want to make sure that we're not encouraging clear-cutting of a lot, and then we're going to replace that elsewhere where the city owns the property, which kind of defeats the purpose. And that would have to come to the city council for approval any time it comes to that. So we could ask those questions.

Yes. So.

Anything else?

All right, moving on to minutes approval. I'll call for a motion to approve the minutes of July 7th, 2026. Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilwoman Davis. Any discussion? Vote the motion.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

motion carries 7-0 I'll call for agenda item 5b I'll call for a motion to approve the minutes of July 13th 2026 budget workshop motion my councilman Smith to have a second any discussion motion motion carries 7-0 moving on to our consent agenda did anyone have anything they would like to pull off for discussion okay with that but I just wanted to earmark those fees if they can go directly back into the park

And just to get, is there any other, just a couple things on that. So that's giving, it's a 10-year term lease, right, to that area that's technically MLK in the cities. They have all upkeep to it. Do we have a term without calls? Because I think the way it reads in here, it would fall on the end of the current term. It could be. subject to reaffirming or canceling but if there's a reason we have to with that cause do we have that in there that say hey we need that property back not saying we do but for every reason can we have that ability and it wouldn't have to be canceled get canceled anytime And it could be the way I'm interpreting it, but it seems like it's in...

The term, what you're talking about, that part is specifically referencing, that's because of state law, just to let the homeowners, I like to let the homeowners know that, look, we can do 10 years all we want, but next council could come in in three years and say, we're done, and it is. So that's more of me putting them on notice. I can't remember if there's a...

And that would be my only, you know, because again, something could happen where we need that space and I just don't want to be bound to it. So if there's a without cause termination of the lease, I'd be a proponent of that. And it is specified in here that they're not allowed to develop or build on that part of land as well. And they are responsible for the upkeep. And then do we have a copy? We do have a copy of the liability insurance.

I think they turn it in every year when they...

So we have it in hand now?

Right now we don't have a lease, so when they get it, they will. Before it's executed and signed, they would have to stop. They would have to do that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I agree. It'd be good to add that in there. I know we can't bind a future council and but we don't want to wait with something comes up in the next three years where we need access rather than Yeah.

Four. So do we need to modify the motions to reflect that the money goes back to the park as well as contingent upon insurance?

Yeah, and then I would like to see a 30-day without cause termination For the lessor be able to terminate that agreement should we need that area Yeah

So we can vote this one separately.

Yeah, it needs to be voted separately. Yeah. Maybe B and C, huh?

Or B and C. B and C. Yes. Anything else? Anyone have anything else?

No.

OK.

Sorry.

Yeah, I'll call for a motion to approve the consent agenda removing item 6b and 6c Motion motion my councilman Smith to have a second second second my councilman Holmes any discussion about the motion I motion carries 7-0 6b and 6c

Planning and zoning applications agenda item 7a

I'll call for a motion to follow Planning and Zoning's recommendation and approve the variance of 9 foot resulting in a 14 foot setback to the front yard and a variance of 13 feet resulting in a 7 foot setback to the rear yard to construct a single family dwelling submitted by Ryan Fitzsimmons located at 4051 4th Avenue, Parcel 138D-0-47-143. It was approved 4-0. motion motion by councilman Smith second any discussion why is that front yard at 20 was it required at 23

And that's not so much a question to you, but is that a typo? Because I don't know what's 23 feet on the front.

Can I explain? I'm Ryan Fitzsimmons. I own the property. So the issue is we're having to turn the face of the house on 4th Street because Avenue E is not cut through. It was never developed. So it's trees and woods. The city never developed it. So we have to turn the house on 4th Street. which is causing all the different measurements and offsets and whatnot on the property.

So basically the front and rear is really side yard? Correct.

That's correct, yeah.

Any other discussion? All right. motion carries 7-0 thank you moving on to agenda item 7 B a motion to follow planning and zoning recommendation and approve the variance of 9 foot resulting in a 16 foot setback to the front yard and a variance of 2 foot resulting in a 6 foot setback to the side yard but not allowing the two-foot side yard variance submitted by Aaron Davis located at the 400 block of Webster Street, parcel 149E-0-29-025. It was approved 4-0. First of all, we're supposed to have all discussion regarding agenda items, but Councilwoman Holmes has a question for you if you'd like to come to the podium.

I'll be honest, this one actually confused me a little bit. I know during the planning and zoning, they suggested that you move everything over a foot and then that would eliminate some of the variance. So did y'all decide if y'all wanted to go that route or not?

Well, we can make it work with what we have, which I'll approve. I'll approve, basically, a six-foot setback in the rear.

Well, their suggestion to us was to approve it. So we haven't approved it yet. Right. Their recommendation. Okay.

Okay. Well, anyway, we can make it work. Basically, it would be five feet to the left side of the house and eight feet to the right. Okay. The original request was six feet setback on the right side and six feet setback on the left side. So it would be a setback on eight on each side? No, it would be eight on one side because it would be that dwelling, and it would be five feet on the left side because that's what we'd have, the garage. The garage, okay.

And so this is a depth of this, I think, if I'm not mistaken, 66 foot deep.

Yeah, it's a 60 foot deep line and a 100 feet line.

And so on that side of the road, that's just average going down with it as well. Also, I think there's an oak tree on there as well. That's correct. They're trying to keep it as well.

So we're more or less going to have like an L-shaped cone. peeping to the right-hand side of the property, and we're trying to keep to the drip line of the tree so it's not causing harm.

And what is situated directly behind you, in the rear area, in the rear yard? It's another home. Have you talked to the homeowner? Because that would be closer to them, obviously, and have an impact. Possibly, I guess. Depends on how they feel about it. But have you had the discussion?

No, I haven't.

But I mean he has he has a garage to the right-hand side with about I Remember when I was when I was watching the meeting I know the neighbor it was mentioned he was closer to the property line and that was kind of the idea of shifting the other way so he shift back now and You're going to be, the carport would be five foot from your neighbor who's... Well, on the other side.

Oh, so you're... Like the streets behind me, looking forward, and so the left-hand side of the property.

That's the neighbor with the two foot?

No, he's directly behind me on the right-hand side. And so if you're looking at the rear of the property...

I think that's the storage unit.

Yeah, that's correct. We're right next to the storage unit. And that's where we'd have the AP set back. And the 5B would be for my other neighbor, Karen, to his side.

So if they move it, then are they going to have to resubmit that motion or reword that motion?

No, because they won't need to be.

Or is it, yeah.

They would have the front and rear set back. They're not going to ask for any side yard variances?

When we originally filed for it we did not know that an accessory building could be five feet and that's what Jeremy had explained when we got to the meeting that we really didn't need the side what we really just needed was the front and the back and they didn't mention the front in y'all little write-up That was written up, but it does show up in like Because it is a front and a rear setback But if you like look into under the agenda and like that first little write up that it says under the bullets, it gives them all. But then when I got to the meeting last week, that's when he said the accessory building is five and you don't, you know. So there's really no reason to shift the house and do away with the side one and just worry about the front.

All right, well, just for clarification on the motion, it was a typo, so we'll make sure it's a two-foot resulting in a six-foot rear yard, just for clarification.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering about.

Okay, any other discussion about the motion?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye, motion carries 7-0.

Thank you for explaining it as well.

Just to make sure we did have the motion. We did have a motion and a second before the discussion, right?

There was no motion made. No? So back up.

Okay, I'll call them.

Because they came up, yeah.

Yeah, no, I don't think that we did. Okay, I'll call for a motion to follow Planning and Zoning's recommendation and approve the variance of 9 foot resulting in a 16 foot setback to the front yard and a variance of 2 foot resulting in a 6 foot setback to the rear yard but not allowing the 2 foot side yard variance submitted by Aaron Davis located at the 400 block of Webster Street. Parcel 149E-0-29-025. It was approved 4-0.

Motion.

Motion by Councilman Smith. Moved and seconded. Any discussion about the motion?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carried 7-0. I'll call for a motion to follow planning and zoning recommendation and approve the application for major site plan review for a commercial retail building boat storage and warehouse storage facility submitted by Realm Development Company located at 298 Highway 90 Parcel 149D-3-29-003. It was approved four to zero at planning and zoning. Do I have a motion? Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Moining seconds. Any discussion?

We approved all this other stuff a while back.

Yeah, we did. And I wanted to think that the P&Z, they mentioned they went further in the drainage process.

assessment too i think in the bottom right corner it said like drain pipe bedding details just curious do you have um like any ai generated like are y'all gonna do any like decorum or anything we don't okay like i said it's irrelevant i'm just curious if you had anything at this point we don't not yet okay

And is there, the phase two will be the retail side, that's not included in this?

Correct, this is just the back, the three acres, the front acres still, you know, waiting for the tenants.

Thank you. Yeah, so we have a motion, we have a second. Any discussion? Vote the motion.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries 7-0. Okay, number eight, project updates. Jason is not here.

I do not believe we have any.

Moving on to ordinances 9A, which is going to be – do we need –

yeah so let me just yeah let me clarify so there actually should have been three ordinances on the agenda tonight but i think there was a miscommunication in emails um so i also need to clarify from caitlyn because both of these say ordinance 681-07-26 should those numbers be different in the two ordinances okay Okay, that's fine. I just want to make sure. No, no, no, they were different. They were all different. Yeah. Okay, so the one that was left off is the one that really should be passed first as 681-072026. And I'm just going to read this out for you. Well, first I'm going to explain it, and then I'll read it to you. So what this does is, as you know, there's no secret. There's two conflicting ordinances in the city of Bay St. Louis. There's one in Municode that has been repealed since – well actually this was adopted in 2010 and then as we all know readopted in 2017 because it wasn't published accurately that would have replaced the older ordinance but for some reason through codification and technology it that ordinance never got pulled from munico so the first ordinance that i have prepared to you would be an ordinance of the mayor and city council the city of bay st louis mississippi formally repealing and replacing article 3 tree preservation of the city code of ordinances with section 1011 tree preservation of the City of Bay St. Louis zoning ordinance confirming the intent of the 2017 ordinance to supersede and replace prior inconsistent tree preservation provisions providing for codification, providing for severability, and for related purposes. And so I don't know how much y'all want me, I can pass this around and let you all look at it. It's just the finding, so section one's your finding and intent. And so that's the mayor and city council hereby find, declare, and confirm that the adoption of section 1011, tree preservation, as part of the 2017 ordinance, was intended to supersede and replace prior inconsistent tree preservation provisions of the city, including article three, tree preservation of the city code of ordinances, The ordinance is adopted to formally confirm the intent to eliminate any ambiguity created by the continued publication of Article 3 in the City Code of Ordinances and establish Section 1011, Tree Preservation of Zoning Ordinance as the controlling tree preservation regulation of the city. So that's the main intent of it. And let's see, so then the other parts, looking at the main, that just it's really just clarifying anything that could have been different $75 permit fee directs the city to go in and put it in the code and then 9a is the section replacing a section the section in that ordinance is being passed around correct and then so what the 9a the meat of the ordinances is exactly what it says that gives the strength and provides further details do we have to vote on the first part preferably okay do you have to no we could go back and clean it up but it would be a better order if you didn't have any issues with it because it is here it is in writing right so we'll be able to amend the minutes to show this It would be in the minutes.

If you approve it, it will be in the minutes. Correct. This is amending section 101.7 of that to strengthen the requirements for the replacement. Give everyone a moment to look at it.

In the procedures, is there any timelines on it this time to get authorization once you submit the application?

No.

Sorry, Josh, my head went. I thought you went until it came into play. Then I realized what you were asking.

Yeah, like the seven-day deadline to give them an answer. Oh, yeah.

No, we don't need that.

Is everyone okay with doing that?

Yes. Okay. I'll call for a motion to approve ordinance number twenty twenty six six eight one dash zero seven dash. Ordinance number six eight one dash zero seven dash twenty twenty six an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of bay st louis mississippi formally repealing and replacing article three tree preservation of the city code of ordinances within section. 1011 tree preservation of the city of bay st louis zoning ordinance confirming the intent of the 2017 zoning ordinance to supersede and replace prior inconsistent tree preservation provisions providing for codification providing for severability and for related purposes i have a motion motion motion by councilman smith about a second moynin seconds

Any discussion? Just to clarify, we still have the other two parts of this ordinance that will be discussed in vote nine? Correct.

Okay, yeah. And Kaylin, that is the right number, right? Because these go in order by the way they're passed, correct? Correct. Yeah, so this should be 681, and the next one will now be 682, right? 683, okay. Just making sure. I don't plug in the numbers, so I just wanted to make sure I had that right.

Any other discussion?

Yes.

Vote to motion.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries 7-0.

And Caitlin, please make sure. Yeah.

okay and now i'll call for a motion to approve ordinance number 682-07-2026 an ordinance of the city of bay st louis mississippi amending section 1011.7 of the city of bay st louis zoning ordinance to strengthen the requirements for the replacement of protected trees establishing replacement requirements based upon the diameter of the removed trees establishing minimum size species planting maintenance survival and financial security requirements providing enhanced mitigation for the unauthorized removal of protected trees providing for severe severe ability of repeal of conflicting provisions codification and an effective date and for related purposes motion motion my councilman Smith to have a second any discussion

Discussion. Yes. Yeah, and as I alluded to in the past session, my only hesitation and concern, I think we've come a long way. I think this is a great step. I'm concerned about the unintended consequences with alternative mitigation on the on-site replacement. Using the example I've discussed in the past, say at Shieldsboro where there's eight A lot of oaks were taken down. They could theoretically come and ask for permission to be granted, saying, hey, we're not able to put it on the lot or the development itself. We don't have the room. But it's more of a self-inflicted undue hardship that they were cut down. So they could put that development there, but they'll do it throughout the city, which, you know, that would be my biggest thing is.

And the first priority is to go back on their property. And if there's room on their property, that's the way to go.

But the way we have it now, and it's the provision of alternative mitigation, the tree protection advisor determines in writing that the property cannot reasonably accommodate all required replacement trees, and they have an alternative plan.

So say in, say anyway, you go cut down one tree, 30 inches, 10 trees, you may not have room on your property to put 10 trees. So you You may put five on your property, but then move the other to another property or whatever.

So that gives the tree protection advisor, does that give him sole authority or autonomy to do that? Or would that come back to the council so we can see what their tree mitigation?

No matter what.

So I'd like to see what that tree mitigation plan is. Because what I don't want to happen is they just clear cut it and then it said, hey, we don't have room. And so you'd eliminate all trees in that area. Albeit they would have their place somewhere throughout the city. But, you know, I just don't want that to promote clear cutting of properties.

Any other thoughts from the council on that? I mean, it could be abused in that way. If it comes back to the council, it'll come back as far as the mitigation plan or will it be whenever they're.

To allow a tree to be cut before the council.

We haven't seen the mitigation plan prior to us voting to allow them to cut it.

Yes.

And the instance of someone just violating it.

Just violating it again. It'll come before, you know, be presented to the council, hey, these were cut down, this is what we're going after, this and this, and this is what we recommend. Like I said, in Shieldsboro, you know, and the initial offer was to replant in Shieldsboro along the streets and everything else, keep them in there. He can't replace on the lot that these was cut off of with the amount of oak trees that was stipulated.

And that goes into the part three of this is now they have a higher fine.

The fine is in addition to replacing the trees. So, and that fine is for any of our ordinances. Is that correct?

The next ordinance? Yes.

That's for any ordinance that's violated. That's not tied to the tree, but it's also to go with what the replacement cost would be as well. It would be in addition to that.

And the replacement cost is like thousands of dollars, right?

It goes by the inch of the tree. So that was taken down. If it's a 30-inch diameter, then it's 10 to 12 trees to replace that tree at, I don't know what it is, $500, $600 a tree, whatever at the corn rate.

The way we have it is let's say— So $5,000 plus this $1,000 tree. But if—

But if they cut, say, one tree's a 30-inch DBH diameter, they'd have to replace, but they can go down to 2 1⁄2, right? It can't go below 2 1⁄2. So they can get a bunch of smaller trees at a 2 1⁄2 inch.

That's a 45-gallon tree.

That's the minimum. That's the minimum. Okay.

Yeah. Can't go get a twig, you know, quarter-inch and stick it in the ground. And from what we've realized, too, the 45 to 65 gallons is very good trees to plant and everything. When you start getting big, it's just harder to maintain and upkeep and keep them going.

And, Heather, what are the dynamics on the find? So it's 1,000 per occurrence, and then what is it after? Each day they're notified afterwards, isn't there a provision there? How does that work?

So some of that is more up to the judge and the way the judge interprets it. So the next ordinance that's being proposed is for a zoning violation, so whether it's trees, signs, you know, whatever, the fine could be up to $1,000. That doesn't mean that the judge will impose a $1,000 fine, but it gives them the discretion of doing it. Now, it says $1,000 per occurrence, but... I don't even want to speak on that publicly. I'd let the prosecutor argue. I don't think anything I can say would be helpful to the city's case, but that would be the prosecutor, how he wanted to argue that.

So it could be interpreted per occurrence. It could be per tree in this scenario?

Well, it would be per tree, for sure.

It would be per tree.

Yeah.

So say someone comes in, cuts a couple trees off their property, protected trees off the property, without coming for approval. They're going to get fined per tree But we can't, how are we going to go on the enforcement of making them replant it on their property? If they cut it without our permission, are they going to plant, I mean, we can't.

You can't. That'll be up to the judge at that point.

And then it just continues to escalate from there.

Correct.

And then would they determine if it's suitable to go back on that property, on-site replacement? Or who determines on-site replacement, if it's suitable or not?

mean, typically, so I mean, if something ends up in on the administrative side, then the administrative, the trade advisor building department will be working with them. If it ends up on the court side, typically, you have your prosecutor there that's representing the city talking on the city's behalf. So if it ends up in the court, and the prosecutors going to talk to the administration to figure out what they want to push forward.

Any other questions?

Like I said, I would just want to make sure that alternative mitigation, if it is submitted the right way, if they come after the permit, then it comes to council so we can see what the mitigation plan is and why it would be considered suitable or not suitable to go on their property.

So I guess the question is if they don't take the right steps, it's going to be the tree advisor. Who could direct them? It won't, if they cut it illegally.

If they cut it illegally, that's a code violation. And so you as a council won't have any say over that. We don't have any, that's city court.

But then they wouldn't be able, let's say it's a development, they would not be able to pursue next steps for getting any building permits or anything.

Well, typically that's, typically the city would put a stop work order on it and not proceed until it was all resolved.

Correct.

that's done yeah that result in the courts but there's no i mean it can't come back like once somebody i mean you're not the judge so it can't it can't come back here any other discussion all right we'll call for a vote vote the motion aye aye aye aye aye motion carries six to one okay Moving on to 9B. Let me pull it up one here so I can read it. Okay, I'll call for a motion to approve ordinance number 683-07-2026, an ordinance of the City of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, amending section 1206.1 of the City of Bay St. Louis zoning ordinance to increase the maximum fine for violation From $100 to $1,000, providing that each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense providing for severe ability repeal or conflicting provisions, codification, and an effective date, and for related purposes. Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? I'm going in seconds. Any discussion? Vote the motion. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye Okay, moving on to the city clerk's report. Excuse me. I'll call for a motion to approve, 10A, a motion to approve the docket of claims 26-036, dated July 21st, 2026, and the amount of $534,957.70. Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman DeSalvo. Any discussion? Move the motion.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

motion carries 7-0 moving on to 10 B a motion to approve the docket of claims 26-0 3 7 special dated July 21st 2026 and the amount of three hundred eighty one thousand dollars four hundred three hundred eighty one thousand four hundred seventy four dollars and fifty eight cents to have a motion motion motion by councilman Smith second second by councilman Lewis any discussion vote the motion motion carries 7-0 okay moving on to the mayor's agenda item 11 a a motion to ratify the mayor's reappointment of Joan Bennett to the Housing Authority for a five-year term motion motion by councilman Smith to have a second second by councilwoman Davis any discussion

Any other discussion about the motion

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Motion carries 7-0. Just a reminder to silence all cell phones. Okay. Mayor's Agenda 11B, a motion to approve the engagement letter from D.D. Munroe to provide accounting consulting services beginning July 27, 2026 at an hourly rate of $140 an hour.

motion motion by councilman smith of a second moynin seconds any discussion uh just quick discussion what was there not to exceed we won't exceed what we've already saved in salaries for those two positions what do we have a dollar amount that is right at 70 that we've not spent on those two positions

and what do we anticipate um or how long is it so it's going to be come in evaluate um we don't have an idea i mean once you get in we'll have a better understanding of what the hours is going to be yeah and so that'll just lead us up to the next fiscal year

I knew in our conversations I had asked, you know, it'll be close to figuring out how much time she needs prior to setting up budget for the year. Kind of cutting it close. Yeah. Maybe after a couple weeks she might be able to give us a little bit more of an idea.

Yeah, she'll have an idea when she gets in and really see where we're at in everything. You know, of course, you know, making sure everything's done correctly as being done now, and they're accurate. You know, moving the orders, keep moving them forward. They've already started sending information to AVL on that, so we got that moving as well. And also to come in and help finalize the budget coming up.

Okay. Any other discussion, questions? Okay. Do I have a motion?

We have a motion.

I'm second. Okay. Go with the motion.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion carries 7-0.

Thank you.

Okay. We had 11C that we added to the agenda. Right. It was a motion to allow an hourly rate for Casey Fogg's services Friday, July 24th. Do you want to give a little background on that, Mayor? Yeah.

And what it is, you know... You know, it's been, you know, found that occupational cancer is a leading cause of line of duty of deaths in the fire department. The Honoring Our Fallen Heroes Act was signed into law by President Trump and now recognizes occupational cancer as a line of duty death under the Public Safety Officers Benefit Program. So with that being said, Casey was a member of the Wayland Fire Department. and the Sheriff's Department for over 25 years, and we're just asking for, and there's nothing going on Friday there, and we want to have a place where people can come in and do it. So under the Fallen Heroes Act, I think it more than allows it to be done without anything going on.

And we're just asking to go to that, the weekday hourly rate. The weekday hourly rate on it. I'll call for a motion. Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Second. Second by Councilman DeSalvo. Any discussion? Vote the motion.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. Okay, moving on to Council Business. Nothing on the agenda, but we'll start with Councilwoman Moynihan. I'm good. Good. Councilwoman Holmes. Councilman Moves.

No, I'm good too.

I just have, I had a couple calls. Pontiac Drive which is off of Longfellow they are questioning or asking they said prior to I'm believing it was Zeta in 20 there used to be fencing around the apartment complex there it's come down and the tenants there just kind of help themselves walking across the woods now they're helping themselves walking through everybody's yard and to see if we could put see what we could do to

They will contact them tomorrow. They've been contacted before about this, so they'll be contacted again tomorrow. Which one was it?

What complex?

It's off Shieldsboro right there in the apartment complex there. It'd be on the east side of the property.

I was thinking of Blue Meadow just while we're talking about it I need to send it in I don't know if anyone else has gotten complaints about its crime in that complex I don't know maybe how you just go in and patrol a complex or not, but I don't know if that's something. I've been meaning to send in an email. I got a call about that.

I'm good. All right.

Okay, I'm good too. We'll move on. Moving on to public forum regarding non-agenda items. All right, Mr. Cliff Ravalese.

Ready, bro? Yep. Cliff Ravely, 702.33. I don't know how much y'all can discuss this. I know Heather is involved in this. And this pre-ordinance thing that Kyle brought up I want to ask, and I think it's pretty obvious, city council can turn down a request to cut down a tree, even with this new ordinance, can't it?

Yes.

Yeah, there you go. That's your first line of defense. If they say, no, no, you need to move the house over, you need something else, you can turn it down. And the reason that's of consequence is you may or may not be aware the ongoing SWK suit, which y'all sometimes are kept informed about somewhat. It was postponed. There was a hearing. Was it the 17th, Ms. Heather? Was it supposedly going to be on the 17th?

It was on Friday, and I was going to update them on that. But you're taking my thunder, so go ahead.

Well, no, I don't think you can update it.

They don't like me talking anyway, so go ahead.

Well, can you update in the public?

Well, I was going to tell them that it was postponed. I can say that publicly.

Oh, okay. Well, it was postponed. I don't know why. I don't know if y'all even knew it was postponed, and I don't expect y'all to know why.

What are you talking about? No, he's talking about SWK.

SWK, the one in Gulfport.

No, they're talking about two different things that were supposed to be on Friday. Yeah. You're talking about SWK, and it was postponed by my group because there was a motion filed very late, like a 14-page motion filed very late on Wednesday that we did not have time to respond to by court on Friday.

Okay, thank you, Heather. That explains why it was postponed. I guess my comment... some way we've been doing this in 2017 don't realize that this has been going on since 2017 there's my understanding and Heather please correct me if I'm wrong that we the city wants the Chancery Court is supposed to vacate the old the old subdivision that was there and

That's wrong.

Is that correct?

No.

No, that's incorrect. So I don't really know what we're pushing for. I don't know if you guys know what we're pushing for, but at some point the city should be the people that say this is what the subdivision is you can build. And I hope that is the end game. Ms. Heather, I don't know if I'm going to address you on that or not, but the end game is that eventually when something does get built, the city has the authority to say what they can and can't build.

So what Mr. Flick's doing is mashing a whole bunch of stuff together. Yes. So, yes, this development did start, the issue started in 2017, but the litigation that's currently pending did not start in 2017. The original pending litigation is gone. It's been dismissed. There was a state court and a federal court action. Both of those have been dismissed years ago. What the... What is currently pending is an action asking the Chancery Court to alter a plat. The issue before the court that the city, so the city, we have not gotten to the point to make any of those positions that you're talking about. We're not there. The point that we are at is asking the judge to decide if this, Drake map, which in layman's term has been the holy grail of maps for the city of Bay St. Louis. Waveland has the equivalent since like 1917, maybe something around there. And so that is the question before the judge. So the question before the judge has nothing to do at this point as to whether the subdivision can go in, what the subdivision will look like. None of that is before the judge right now. None of that is on the pending motion. The pending motion right now is strictly on what is the Drake map and if this certain statute applies, that would give the Chancery Court jurisdiction to look at it. Depending on what the Chancery Court rules, that will then depend what we do next steps. But what you're talking about is way in the future.

We're not there yet. Because, you know, quite honestly, the Drake map, if I look at the plot, because I live on a piece that's not in a subdivision, and it refers to the Drake map. Lewis Moses' property right next to me, it refers to the Drake map. Spanish Acres refers to Drake Mat, so it's there, but at some point, we do intend for the city to be the people who say yes or no to what they build there.

Well, of course, but we haven't gotten to, that's not even a... We're not there yet, but that's where we're headed.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Quitt. Thank you, Mr. Quitt. Okay.

Okay. No one else has signed up for our plug for them. Attorney's report?

No, Mr. Cluff covered it for me. I think that's two weeks in a row. Matter of fact, there might be an engagement letter to hire you next.

That's right.

No way, baby. Okay.

Any need for executive session? No. Okay, moving on to adjournment. I'll call for a motion to adjourn the meeting of July 21st, 2026. Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilwoman Holmes. Any discussion? Vote the motion.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion carries 7-0. Meeting's adjourned.