City Council - Regular Meeting

The May 28, 2026 executive session of the Clarksville City Council. The first item on our agenda, as usual, is our Planning Commission report. Mr. Tindall. And the first item on our Planning Commission report is Ordinance 71-2025-26. Mr. Tindall, please.

Good afternoon, City Council. We have a few cases in front of you today. The first case is Planning Commission Case Z11-2026. This is the application of Casey and Beth Brown Community Property Trust, and the agent is Matt Placitor. This is 1.51 acres, and it's currently zoned C3, and they're requesting to go to C5 Highway and Arterial Commercial District. The property is along the northern frontage of Merchants Boulevard, approximately 980 feet west of the Merchants intersection with Wilma Rudolph Boulevard. It's currently a vacant lot. This is in Council Ward number 11. It is in the St. B planning area. The applicant's statement is to build a gymnastic center, and this gymnastic center is not permitted in C3, but it is permitted in C5. This is the future land use opinion map, and you can see that it is a corridor commercial color there.

And here's the zoning map.

The majority of that area is either C3 or C5. As you're pulling into Merchants on the right, just past the furniture store, this is the property. It does back up to 374. Obviously, it only has access to this road. And that's looking back toward Wilmer Rudolph, where the property ends. across the street.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

And back on the other side of the street looking in Merchants. The department comments, a traffic assessment was required. It was received by the street department and accepted. They did ask for some line of sight distances at the entryways, and that was also accepted. They did reserve a comment that improvements may be required at Merchants and Wilma during the site plan review. the impact of this would be c5 zoning is intended to support a diverse mix of auto oriented commercial uses and services and a broader range of commercial uses in the area staff does recommend approval the request is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan the proposed c5 highway and arterial commercial district aligns with the corridor commercial future land use designation of this parcel The intersection of Merchants Boulevard and Wilmer Rudolph Boulevard currently has some safety and traffic flow concerns, particularly with northbound or left-turn movements. Both current zoning and proposed zoning uses are similar traffic generators. Planning Commission also recommends approval.

Thank you, Mr. Tindall. Any comment or question from council regarding this ordinance? All right. We're ready for Item B, Ordinance 79, 2025-26. Mr. Tindall.

This is Planning Commission Case Z17-2026, application of Marvin Pitts. This is .85 acres, currently zoned M2, general industrial, and wishing to go to C5 Highway and Arterial Commercial District. It's a parcel located on the northern frontage of Craft Street, approximately 780 feet west of Craft Street and College Street intersection. The property is currently a tire shop in operation on the property. The applicant statement is to make the current business compliant with zoning and to conform with zoning in the general area. This is in Council Ward number six and the downtown urban core planning area. Here's the future land use map. We have commercial industrial hybrid in the light blue, corridor commercial in the orange. You have heavier industrial in the pink just above that and mixed use in the brown. A little bit of everything going on near this intersection. And here's the current zoning. So as you'll see, The majority of these parcels out here are still M2 zoned. This is the first industrial area of Clarksville as it was growing, and many of the uses out here are non-conforming anymore. A lot of, such as this, tire uses, auction houses, other retail uses or wholesaling, which don't currently conform with the current zoning ordinance but have been there for quite a while.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

This is Craft Street, and you're looking, I believe, at the property. THIS IS FROM THE PROPERTY LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET. LOOKING BACK TOWARDS COLLEGE STREET, THE PROPERTY ON OUR LEFT, THERE IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH THE ZONING. SO WE'RE LOOKING BACK FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET THAT WE WERE JUST ON, CURRENTLY IN OPERATION AS A TIRE SUPPLIER. AND THEN THAT SIDE OF THE STREET LOOKING BACK.

THIS IS A DEMONSTRATION OF WIRECAST.

There's the white sign is the property right there. All right, department comments. We did not receive any comments or concerns from other departments. This would increase commercial development opportunities with a diversity of auto-oriented commercial uses and remove the potential industrial uses from this parcel. Staff does recommend approval. The request is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The proposed C5 highway and arterial district has usable frontage on an arterial highway, SR13, also known as Craft Street, and aligns with the commercial and industrial future land use designation for the area. It should be noted that both C5 Highway and Arterial District and M1, again, this is M2, but M1 Light Industrial both align with the commercial industrial hybrid future land use designation for this area. Planning Commission also recommends for approval. Thank you, Mr. Tindall.

Any comment or question regarding this ordinance? Just for the record, I am not related to Mr. Marvin Pitts. He probably wouldn't climb me anyway. All right. We're ready for Item C, Ordinance 82-2025-26. Mr. Tindall.

Thank you, Mayor. Many council members may remember this case a little about a year ago. This is Z20-2026 from the Planning Commission. Application of Tonya Bosley. Agent is Jason Harrington of the Franklin Square Partners. This is 4.41 acres, and it's currently zoned R1 and requesting to go to C5 Highway and Arterial Commercial District. It's a parcel located at the northwest corner of Rossview Road and Bosley Lane. Bosley Lane is basically the road next to the school there. So that's one of the entries to Rossview Three School Complex right there. It's a fairly large and level parcel with a single family home on site. This is in Council Ward Number 11. It's in the St. Bethlehem Planning Area. The applicant statement is for a retail and child care facility. Again, last year there was a case for C2, which had planning commission and staff approval and disapproved that city council. So they attempted to come back as a PUD that was not successful to get released to come back to the planning commission. So they've waited the year, and it's coming back now. Here's the future land use map. It was asked at the planning commission why, and here's the zoning map first, THE C5 TO THE EAST THERE, THAT LARGE CHUNK OF C5, IT'S A LITTLE OVER FIVE ACRES, AND THIS IS ABOUT FOUR ACRES. WHY THAT IS IN THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, IN 2023 AND 22, WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE EXERCISE TO MAKE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BEFORE IT WAS ADOPTED IN EARLY 24, THAT PARCEL WAS NOT ZONED C5 AT THE TIME TO THE EAST. IT WAS C4. AND WE THOUGHT LONG TERM IT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED FOR LIGHTER COMMERCIAL AND APARTMENTS. SO THAT'S WHY YOU'LL SEE THAT AS MIXED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WHILE THAT MIGHT FEEL A LITTLE OUT OF CHARACTER NOW WITH THE LARGER C5 TO THE EAST.

THIS IS A DEMONSTRATION OF WIRECAST.

HERE'S THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION LOOKING AT ROSSVUE ROAD BACK TOWARDS THE INTERSTATE. AND THEN BACK TOWARDS DUNBAR CAVE ROAD. This is across the street. And then looking into the site right here, that house would be part of this request. Department comments, there's no gravity sewer available, but it can be extended at the applicant's expense.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

The street department asked for an updated traffic assessment to reflect C5, and it was reviewed and approved by the street department. THE SCHOOL SYSTEM HAS CONCERNS BEYOND CAPACITY, SO I WILL READ THIS SINCE IT DOES DEAL WITH ACCESS TO THE SITE. AS COMMERCIAL SITES ARE DEVELOPED NEAR A CMCSS THREE SCHOOL CAMPUS, VEHICLE CONGESTION AND INCREASED PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SAFETY MUST BE CONSIDERED. VEHICLES TURNING LEFT FROM MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS ONTO ROSFE ROAD WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC APPROACHING, EXITING TO AND FROM THE ROSFE CAMPUS DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR. Currently, traffic access to the Rossview campus proves difficult with daily vehicle load counts traveling in and around the vicinity. OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THIS CONTINUED GROWTH NECESSITATES ADDITIONAL ACTION TO ADDRESS BUILDING CAPACITY AND SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY. THIS DEVELOPMENT SHOULD, THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD ADD ADDITIONAL STUDENTS. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY ADDED THAT THERE. IT'S C-5, NOT C-2 THIS TIME. AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING. NO CONNECTIVITY WILL BE GRANTED TO THE CAMPUS ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WE'LL HAVE IT OWN DRIVEWAY ON ROSKEW ROAD. UNLESS THEY HAPPEN TO WORK SOMETHING OUT, BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY WANT TO WORK SOMETHING The staff does recommend disapproval of this. The request is not consistent with the overall goals and objectives. The proposed C5 highway and arterial commercial zoning classification does not align with the future land use designation of mixed residential neighborhood. The C5 district permits a broad range of auto-oriented commercial uses, many of which are incompatible with adjacent residential development patterns and the nearby school. Planning Commission recommends for approval.

Thank you. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Tindall, I do want to clarify that this is somebody different that is planning on doing it than had previously come before us, as well as who had wanted to try and bring forward a PUD, correct?

That is correct. Same property owner, different applicant.

Okay. And could you talk a little bit about C5? I mean, I know we've got C5 right there, but they were very specific in what they were planning on doing next door. This one's a little bit more right in the front yard, especially of, I think that's the elementary school right there. Am I correct?

That's the front of the elementary fields and parking lot, elementary schools to the northwest, and the middle school to the northeast right there. The C5 to the east with the self-storage, facility in the strip malls that are there. I believe that was C4 originally. And the applicant said that they wanted to do self-storage. And those uses aren't allowed in C4. So they asked to go to C5. And I do believe staff was against it. But it did eventually pass because the applicant said, well, it's already commercial. I'm just making it a different type of commercial. The reason this one, we're against it with the C5, C2 last time, I think staff was in favor of it last time because C2 is a little gentler, doesn't have as many larger uses, not as many auto-oriented uses. The applicant statement is a child care facility and general retail. But as you know, when the zoning passes, and that's what staff mostly looks at, is what could it be eventually.

Well, and I know at the Regional Planning Commission we heard from the real estate agent. I don't recall hearing from whoever it is that's planning on doing it, whereas previously we heard from the person planning on doing it, their statement. And I understand the concern of the council that C2 would allow for it to have apartments there. But I know he stood up there, but we didn't have anybody come at the RPC that stood up and said, this is exactly what my plan is, what I'm wanting to do. And also, I know with the PUD, when I had talked with them and they had asked for early submittal to be able to come back earlier with the PUD, that PUD was strictly going to be a child care facility, which I think would be beneficial. But with C-5, we're kind of opening up a lot, you know, and heavy use right there in front of the school. So I was a no at the Regional Planning Commission, and I'll be a no Thursday night.

Councilman Brown, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. So they're willing to put some retail space up front and a daycare in the back. That's the way it sounds.

That's what they've indicated, yes.

So my issue with that is we're going to have kids going in and out from a daycare, and we've got retail stores right in front of them. Probably coming through the same driveway, I don't think that's a good idea, to have those mixed there. Just afraid for the kids' safety out there with the traffic coming in and out of that. You know, just using that same access for those two, I can't see it being safe. And it would just have one driveway. You've got parents coming to drop kids off and then businesses trying to run a business and, you know, kids jump out of the car to go inside, but other traffic there. It just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Thank you. Councilman Shekinah, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm actually for this, and my reason is because on Exit 8, I live off of Exit 8, we already have a lot of rooftops, and C2 and C4 permit apartments, and the residents in that area don't want apartments there. This is a safe way to kind of offset that. The people that live in this particular area have no place really to go to do anything commercial wise. We have to go to exit 4 or exit 11 to handle our business besides getting gas. So I want to see some commercial development off of Rossview Road. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Tindall, do you say just one access point onto Rossview Road from here?

Yes. They would either share a driveway or it would be one parcel with two buildings or three buildings on it. Okay. Yeah, due to the the length of the frontage. You can see the building to the east there also only has one, and that's got more frontage.

Councilman Chandler, you recognize him? Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry about being late on that. My brain freezes sometimes.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

I don't like the idea of anything other than that house is sitting there right now. And the reason why is is go out there any given morning afternoon especially when school is getting out we're talking about redesigning all that intersection and then we're going to turn around and put another group of businesses trying to pull out go left or right the majority of the time My granddaughter takes piano lessons at that church. And even on Saturday, we go out there for her piano recital. It's impossible to get out almost. So there's plenty of other places in town to put a daycare. There's plenty of other places to put what's going to be in the strip mall. Another nail salon, another tobacco store, You know, I'm totally against this. Thank you, Mayor. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

I forgot something. I apologize. Mr. Tyndall, do you want to reference anything with the potential changes in the zoning rewrite?

Well, not just the zoning rewrite, but the Planning Commission last month. the commissioners asked the planning staff to look at additional regulation on tobacco in vape stores. We are currently working on something. We are probably going to wait a month or two, but you'll get that here over the summer months, and it could coincide with the future use of a property like this. But limiting distance to schools would be very similar to the liquor store rules would be in that ordinance.

And then also with the zoning rewrite, though, and as well as in there was a potential change, as well as in what we're working on, is a potential change to where they can go.

Yeah, it was always going to be in the future rewrite, but the Planning Commission felt like if it was easy enough to do now, let's get it out of the way now rather than wait another couple more months beyond that. And it's pretty easy to change the chart and just add the conditions to that section. Which would be just C5? It would be limited to just C5 uses for those, correct. Okay, thank you.

Any more comment or question regarding Ordinance 82? Pardon me. Item D, Ordinance 83, 2025-26. Mr. Tindall.

This is Planning Commission Case Z21-2026. Application of Todd Morris. This is currently zoned M1 Light Industrial and requesting C5 Highway and Arterial Commercial District. You can see the theme this month. It's a parcel located on the western frontage of Industrial Drive, approximately 700 feet north of West Dunbar Cave Road and Industrial Drive intersection. It's a developed lot with two structures on site, actually. This is in Council Ward number nine. It's in the St. Bethlehem planning area. The applicant's statement is just to be more compatible with the surrounding areas. We'll talk about that in a moment. This is the future land use map for the area. You've got suburban neighborhood to the west and to the north. And this whole area is commercial industrial hybrid in blue there. And then there's the zoning map, the industrial parcels in the gray and then the commercial parcels in the blue with some office off of Old Trenton Road in the back there. This is the property with those two structures up there. They've been built for a while. We asked the applicant's attorney. He's continuing to work on this. We'll see what the update is by next week. What Mr. Morris ultimately wants to do with this, we don't know. He said something about his contractor's office, but that is an allowable use in M1. So if it is an allowed use and something he can do in M1, we definitely will make sure that that's referenced for you all by next week. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS. THERE WERE NONE LISTED. THE PROPOSED C-5 DESIGNATION IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT A DIVERSE MIX OF AUTO-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL USES AND SERVICES. STAFF, UNFORTUNATELY, WE RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL ON THIS ONE, JUST LIKE WE DID TWO DOORS DOWN A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. IT'S NOT CONSISTENT IN OUR OPINION WITH THE OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE REQUEST FOR C-5 HIGHWAY AND ARTERIAL DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY. and the nearest arterial is Wilma Rudolph Boulevard, over a quarter mile from this parcel. It should be noted that the M1 district is currently being reviewed as part of our zoning ordinance rewrite, and it is likely that the available uses within M1 district will expand to allow a wider range of uses that are more appropriate to an industrial setting in the future. Planning Commission does recommend for approval.

Thank you, Mr. Tindall. Any comment or question regarding this ordinance? Thank you.

All right. That's all we've got.

All right. Thank you very much. We're now ready for the consent agenda. Madam Clerk, if you don't mind, read the consent agenda.

All items in this portion of the agenda are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the council and may be approved by one motion. However, a member of the council may request that an item be removed for separate consideration under the appropriate committee report. Ordinance 51-2025-26, second reading, an ordinance amending the zoning code and map of the city of Clarksville, application of CGH properties for a zone change on 1182 Rossview Road from R1, single-family residential district, to C1, neighborhood commercial district. Ordinance 58, 2025-26, second reading. An ordinance amending the zoning code in the city of Clarksville, application of infinity investment for a zone change on a parcel located on the western frontage of Seven Mile Ferry Road, 1,450 plus or minus feet south, of its intersection with pumping station road from our one single family residential district to our three three family residential district ordinance 67 2025 26 second reading an ordinance authorizing the exercise of the right of eminent domain to acquire easements and rights of way for utility improvements required to facilitate design and construction of various projects Ordinance 68, 2025-26, second reading. An ordinance approving the conveyance of certain real property from the city of Clarksville to the Clarksville Montgomery County Museum. Ordinance 72, 2025-26, second reading. An ordinance amending the zoning code and map of the city of Clarksville APPLICATION OF RICHARD GARRETT FOR A ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF TRENTON ROAD AND HAYES STREET FROM R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO 01 OFFICE DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 73-202526 SECOND READING. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE Application of Raul Lozano for a zone change on property located along the eastern frontage of Center Road, 180 plus or minus feet south of its intersection with Britton Springs Road from RM1 Single Family Mobile Home Residential District to R4 Multiple Family Residential District.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

Ordinance 75-2025-26, second reading. An ordinance amending the zoning code and map of the city of Parksville. Application of Paul Richard Pinkstaff. for a zone change on property fronting on the east frontage of Fantasy Lane, 325 plus or minus feet north of the Fantasy Lane and Candlewood Court intersection from R1 Single Family Residential District to R1A Single Family Residential District. Resolution 62-2025-26, a resolution repealing certificates of compliance for worker barrel and iron oak wine and spirits. Resolution 67, 2025-26, a resolution approving a certificate of compliance for sale of wine in a food store at Wawa, number 7015, located at 1290 Parkway Place. Resolution 68, 2025-26, a resolution approving appointments to the After Hours Establishment Board the Arts and Heritage Council, Community Action Agency, the Economic Development Council, the Human Relations Commission, the Museum Board, the Power Board, and the Tree Board, and the adoption of minutes from April 29th, the special session on May 7th, and regular session on May 7th.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Anyone wish to be recognized on the consent agenda? Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Yes, Mayor. Would it be possible for Ordinance 58-20-25-26 for Mr. Smith to come up here? I know myself and, according to him, some others had some questions regarding that one.

Without objection, yes. Councilman Clonch, you're recognized on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to pull that. 58-25-26. Okay.

All right. Getting ready to talk about it. Anybody else on the consent agenda? All right, Mr. Smith, Councilman Streetman, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Smith, there was some conversation a month ago regarding whether or not land would have to be purchased, not purchased. There was just a lot said about that. Of course, the only opportunity we have to talk to you is during executive session.

Sure. Abracadabra. We've got a quick presentation. A couple came in, a couple of you came to meet with me and said it made a whole lot more sense when you saw it on some of the GIS maps that Mr. Emmerich, Sonny worked so hard on. So I'll walk through some of this really quick. My statements were that obviously with this development, road improvements would be necessary and that land acquisition was probably likely as well. And I think the applicant said that that was not correct. So we'll just walk through why we made those statements and and just give you a better idea. If you haven't been to the site, this is 7 Mile Ferry Road. The site in question, I'm gleaning from Mr. Tindall here, is just up on the right. So just a little bit past this, just where the grass is mowed, take note of the topography. You've got a ski slope on the left, you've got a ski slope on the right, you've got a ditch on the right side, and you've got 18 foot presently of asphalt. We're asking for a minimum of 22 for two 11 foot travel lanes. And then the applicant must also install sidewalks on the furniture of the property. When you do that, when you widen to that, if you widen to the right side of the road, you've got to push that ditch backwards to continue to convey stormwater. In the realm of road construction, that requires you to buy sloping cement because you've changed the lay of the land on that person's property. So whether it's acquired in fee simple as right-of-way or otherwise, land would be needed in this circumstance again. Is there an engineering way to do that without acquiring? Yes, there's gravity walls or tending walls and stormwater systems and whatnot, but that drives the cost way up. And traditionally in our community, we don't see developers go down that road. Again, that's the ditch just to the side. Again, that's probably a little exaggerated, but it is conveying stormwater. This is the property, subject property to the left. You can see, just based on the way the assessor has drawn this, the existing asphalt profile, you know, within a threshold, looks to already cross what's established as right-of-way. So if we're widening this, and you can see how the right-of-way tapers to this property, we only have 19 foot of right-of-way that exists across a third of this property. So there's really, he'll be encroaching within his own property if he widens to that side. But again, there's some other issues with that if he shoulders to the opposite side of the roadway. This looks super busy, but these are one-foot contours. So this just shows how quickly, absent the roadway beside either way, that it rides uphill or downhill and how quickly. You can look just a few feet off the side of the roadway. It drops from 440 feet above to 420 foot. So that's a pretty significant drop over a really, really short span. In the other direction, Like sign, this is just down from the property. This is as you head out to the resident's concern. Sixteen and a half foot of existing asphalt. So we know if we widen to the left side of this image, we've got a ditch that's conveying stormwater and we've got a ski slope running uphill. Can't really widen to the right. There's a utility pole right there in the way. So that pole has to be moved. So there's additional costs. There's utility coordination, those sorts of things. And here's the asphalt profile, 16 foot. You can see where would he likely widen that? Where does he have the room to widen that? And that's to the northeast. To widen to the northeast of the utility pole has to be moved. So is there a way to do this without buying property? That's possible. We will want to see those engineering documents and whatnot. It is more than likely, I mean, 90th percentile that land acquisition is necessary to widen this roadway and be legal. So that's the science behind why the street department made the comments that when those road improvements come, property acquisition may be necessary. So that's the seven-mile ferry zone.

Also, it was stated that the only way the improvements would be made all the way up, I believe it was to Pumping Station Road, was if the rezoning was done. It can be developed as it is, as R1, 40 homes, and there would be no improvements made along 7 Mall Ferry Road.

I think we're at the zoning point of this. When it gets to site plan and subdivision, that's when all the departments come in formally and opine, and we look at the actual impact studies, what can the road handle, what is the span of that improvement. And then we start to analyze intersections. What does the intersection of 7 Mile Ferry and Highway 12 look like? Is a signal warranted at that location? Then it requires TDOT involvement and coordination as well. So we're really early in this process, and we really don't make them start down that road until they're a little bit farther along.

In your opinion, would there still need to be improvements made if it was our one? Yeah, I think so.

There are some moving parts, obviously. I think that the applicant... intends to purchase a parcel to the north, but that's not what's before us. Obviously, if he does that, the improvements would be mitigated significantly, but at the flag connection that they presently have, you know, at this point, they're going to have to widen beyond just the boundaries of their parcel in order to convey traffic in and out.

And what's the, if I remember correctly, and I'm looking over to Mr. Tindall and he can nod for me because I don't have it pulled up in front of me, but I believe the traffic assessment puts the intersection at an F. And he is nodding that that is correct. Yes. What is the likelihood that TDOT would allow a light to go in there?

That's a good question. I can't speak to Big Brother. But, I mean, we would certainly urge, if that's the case, if the council votes this up and that's the proposal, especially if the north of the site develops as well, that's going to be double or triple the amount of homes. So, I mean, that grade's going to go from bad to worse.

Okay. All right. That answers my questions. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr. Smith? Okay.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to be recognized on this? Councilman Clonch.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I spoke out of turn pulling this, forgive me.

We knew what you meant.

Yeah, I appreciate it. I will be a no on this when we do vote if I can't pull it again.

You can't.

But I would actually implore that we reread those emails. They have increased significantly since the last time that we heard about this, as well as drive up there and check out the topography, the atmosphere in that area. Again, the residents have said 40 houses does not bother them, but you multiply that by two, and that's concerning. Conservation Club is back there. It's a different vibe for the youth. That's all I have, sir.

Okay, thank you. Any other comment regarding this item off the consent agenda? All right, we're now ready for the Finance Committee report. Chairman Streetland.

Thank you, Mayor. Ordinance 74-20-25-25, first reading, an ordinance to amend the official code of the City of Clarksville amending Title X, offenses miscellaneous, to create a new chapter relative to parking and parking violations and ten sections therein pertaining to parking and parking violations within city limits and amend the official code of the City of Clarksville by deleting Title I, Administration, Officers, and Personnel, Chapter 19, Clarksville Parking Commission. The Finance Committee voted in favor of approval. And, Mayor, I'd like to turn this over to the sponsor, Councilman Joe Shakinib.

Councilman Shakinib, you're the sponsor. You're recognized.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. And I spoke on this at the Finance Committee meeting, but for those who are not a part of the Finance Committee meeting, I would just like to do a little background orientation first of all. CPD has overall responsibility for parking in the city.

Demonstration of Wirecast.

The parking... This is a heavy subject, so it's just a fuse blow. So the parking commission focused primarily on downtown. You have one city council member on the parking commission, and the rest are individuals that signed up for their services to render to the city. So they're part of this commission. So we have five individuals on it.

This is a demonstration.

And I've been on it now for almost four years, three-plus years. So my time on the parking commission, we look at a lot of issues that surrounds parking, primarily downtown, but it goes beyond downtown. And we've been working to implement different rules for the parkers themselves, the businesses, and then the residential entities, and again, city general. So since I've been on the commission, we've had three different... chairs for this commission addressing problems or concerns every month. We also look at the parking tickets, the parking violations. We look at the protocol for the violations, how they're graded, and then we have to weigh in on those that do not accept the responsibility. So Park Mobile is always a big concern. The rates, the penalty for violating any type of parking statute that's in place. We look at all of that. In the April's meeting for the Parking Commission, I mentioned to the commission, and as a matter of fact, I raised the question, what would it take for us to decommission the Parking Commission? Because in my eyes, there has to be a better way to do this. We need real insight or oversight on this, and we need fortunate functions to do this thing, to do it right, to make it work for everyone. And I said, that's why we have a council. We pretty much have oversight on everything else. Why don't we have oversight on this? So I said, I want to bring it before the council so the entire council can weigh in and we can kind of make parking citywide better. Today, I look at where we are with the parking commission. Some people may say, well, it's a bad idea to decommission the commission. and turn it over to the city council. But I argue that I don't think we need to wait. We need to take action when there's a problem. If any of us bring a problem before the council, then we should collectively address the problem and try to figure out how to make it better. So what I think going forward with this proposed ordinance and when you look at it, you will see where the parking commission had various duties and responsibilities outlined starting on page seven. of the item number here. So if you look on that, you'll see where the parking commission had all the duties and responsibilities. But again, no real Forcing function. All right, so we can't make anybody do a wire cast right? Even if if we was to the parking Authority give tickets the Commission we can't make anybody pay, right? We can vote on it, but we can't make them do anything and they don't have to go to city court So again to me there has to be a better way than to keep just on the same thing over and over and over And the volunteers that are on this commission Like I said, they give their heart to working every month, and some of those meetings are three hours long. Some go beyond that. So we're pretty much working in vain. So that's why I said it has to be a better way. That's why this is coming before the council to weigh in on it. And a question was posed about the debt. The parking commission, since I've been on it, I've heard and all the members of the commission have heard that the city garage is the parking commission's problem. So we have to pay that. And The parking commission argues every month. That's not our problem. That's the city's problem. The city council voted on that. And I'm on the council, and I'm on the commission. And I tell the commission, that is the city council problem. It should be the city council problem, because the city council is the one voting on the budget. So all of that to say that this is why I think there's a need for this to be in an ordinance and the CPD already controls parking for the entire city. They need to control it for the entire city because they have a forcing function. City court has a forcing function. not the commission. So to me, the commission, while it's good, I admire the people that give their time on it, but there has to be a better way, and I think this is the better way.

Councilman Brown, you recognize for a question or comment?

Thank you, Mayor. So I just have a couple concerns with this, is if we move these civilian employees under the police department, I don't think they can write tickets to city court. because they don't have the authority to do that without changing the statute. I know building codes can. The police department can as officers, but that's just something else we need to look at and make sure that we have that correct in there. Another issue I have is we're wanting to put this under the police. I don't have a problem with disbanding it, moving it. But our police chief already has the police department, over 400 employees. He oversees dispatch that does the dispatch for the police and fire. And we're wanting to give him another assignment to add in to what he's responsible for.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

Should he get extra pay for having to oversee what was another agency that's going to fall under him now? And another thing is this did not go to the Public Safety Committee, which has police department, building codes, fire department. So those are some of my concerns, and I'll be asking for a deferral next month so it can go to the Public Safety Committee for review also.

This is a demonstration.

Okay, well, I'm glad you didn't have another concern because I was because I have to try to keep track of all the stuff you're saying, so give me one at a time.

I understand.

So right now, CPD is in charge of parking citywide. So this is not really adding more to their responsibility. They're already in charge of it. They have a forcing function. The personnel that are working right now parking, those personnel will go to CPD. They're already trained in parking. They will get the other requirements that they need to have. And those conversations are already taking place over the past month with CPD. So it's not a burden on CPD to do something that CPD is already pretty much doing. They already have the authority to do that. But the parking commission itself, again, you've got three or four people that are giving out tickets, but they can't enforce it. They just can't do it. And the commission itself has oversight over parking, over that department. So the department head can't even make the rules. The commission make the rules, which in how much sense does that make to me? The city council should be making these rules.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast. Yes, sir.

I don't have a problem with moving away from the parking commission. My big thing is I think it should come to the public safety committee for review also and then those other issues because the police department right now cannot write parking authority tickets. which if we do away with that authority, then we've got officers. We're down, you know, 40 to 50 officers and assigning this to them also to go around downtown to write parking tickets, I don't think that we're taking people off the road to go write a parking ticket.

Well, number one, you're not taking anyone off the road. And number two, this is not just downtown. But right now, the parking commission only focuses on downtown. We're not big enough to do anything else. That's a headache in itself. And we're not effective at that. So how are we going to do something somewhere beyond that? We can't even do things beyond, you know, Austin Peay, right, as an example. So you're not taking anything from CPD. And personnel are going to go to CPD. So the personnel right now that are getting paid to do this, they're going to be under CPD. So they're going to have the manpower to do it. But this stuff will also go to city court, which right now it doesn't go to. So it's more than just CPD. It's more than just about CPD and the parking commission. We're talking about citywide. What are the rules and who regulate the rules for citywide parking? I get calls all the time about, can we get this vehicle towed?

This is a demonstration, a wire cast.

Who has the authority to do that, right? So when you look at this ordinance, it covers everything parking citywide. So that's why I said you have to look beyond downtown parking. That's a part of the commission, and that's been a big focus of the commission. But in my, and not just my opinion, right, because I've been on this commission from my time on this commission, that's been a failed part of the commission.

All right.

Thank you. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. First, I do agree with some of the concerns from Ward 9. But my concern right now is I don't believe this governing body can send something like this back to a committee for consideration. I think that in previous situations it's been a violation of the First Amendment right. So I just wanted to clarify that for...

He can make a motion to postpone for a month and ask that it go, but can't require it.

That's all. Thank you.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate the councilman from Ward 11 working on this. I will say that I'm likely going to be in favor of postponement or deferral for another month just because I myself would like to dig a little bit more into this. I've kind of heard some pros and cons on both. And I'd like to see if there's any changes that might need to be made. And again, I appreciate all the work you've done on it. There's a huge amount that you put into this, and I'm grateful for that and grateful for your time on the commission. But I'd love to see if there's some way we could look at, you know, maybe some potential changes. I think it's still great to have that parking authority to be able to give input, but I also know that when we get complaints, there's, you know, we can't, we don't write the rules, so it's not us that's able to do it. So I think it'd be great if there's a way for one to be able to find a middle ground there. Um, plus I want to find out a little bit more in regard to what the council member from ward nine said in regard to the police department. look at, you know, maybe what other communities are doing, whether it should be the police department. There's just a lot more. This is a big change. And again, a lot of work that you put in, but I'd like to be able to dig in and do a little bit more work on it myself.

Councilman Chikina, you're the sponsor. Yes, talking about what other communities are doing. Nashville, Metro Nashville, they have 45 police officers that handle downtown parking to enforce it. And they also have a nonprofit that also offsets that because 45 is not enough. How many officers do we have that enforces downtown parking from CPD?

This is a demonstration of Wirecast. All right.

can tell you that we do need to address parking in our city I mean it's it's out of hand people parking on sidewalks parking in front of fire hydrants they're parking in front of mailboxes driveways we get it constantly and this will streamline and simplify the parking uh, in our city and make one department responsible instead of it having two heads. And, um, and while it has functioned, okay, it is not functioning to the benefit of the citizens and we need to change it. So I want to commend the sponsor of the ordinance for bringing it forward. Councilman Chandler, you're recognized on this ordinance.

I think we're talking about two different things. Uh, If I'm not mistaken, there's already code on the book about parking and blocking sidewalks, handicapped fire lanes, and things like that. Where I'm getting confused is we're lumping that in with parking downtown. And to be honest with you about it, we all know that charging to park downtown is to make money. End of story. I'm like Councilman Brown. The police department has the authority already to take care of things that aren't downtown, including parking on the sidewalk. They can give you a ticket. If you're parking handicapped, they can give you a ticket. If you're parked in the fire lane, they can give you a ticket. Now, I'm not knocking the police department, but, I mean, we see it all over town, and there's no tickets being written. On my way here tonight, coming through a housing area, there's a tractor-trailer truck parking the wrong side of the road. So... Yeah, I think we need to sit down and look at it from all aspects, but I just don't see how worrying about downtown parking, why we have to change, because if it's something that's in the code, the police department will go ahead and do it. That's all. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Where we're confused is we also have that two-headed monster where we have the parking commission and the parking staff, so we just need to simplify things. Exactly. Okay. Councilman Shekinah, be recognized.

Yes. I would like to address Councilman from Workforce concerns. When you said that parking is designed to make money, the parking downtown, but the parking commission is over that. not the parking department for the city. The parking commission sets the rates. They determine whether it's free parking for how many hours, how long. The parking commission does all of that. And my thing is that should not be part of the parking commission. Then the enforcement part. And then when you talk about who grades those tickets. The parking commission grades those tickets, right? We vote every month on those violations. Some months we may have 50 or 60 violations, sometimes 100, and that's why we're there for three hours. But should it be the parking commission that's doing that? Because the debt of the city should not be the debt of the parking commission because the parking commission didn't come up with this idea about a garage or anything else. So, again, the CPD already has authority. You're right. They have authority over parking over the entire city. So if they have authority over the entire city, then let them be in charge of parking over the entire city.

Councilman Clonch, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to express my agreeance with Councilmember from Ward 11. There's too many hands in the cookie jar. Streamlining the process, removing the what-ifs and the have-nots, and putting it under one organization that's already kind of doing the work, as well as many conversations with that department head about the complexities of the citizens and these boards, and one week they want to do this, and the next week they want to do this, and then three-hour meetings. It's malarkey.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

Is that a legislative term? We can add that to the course.

Okay, we'll adopt that.

All right, thank you. Councilman Brown, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. I have a question maybe Chief Burdine might be able to answer, and then I have a question for the Attorney's Office.

Okay. Without objection, come on up, Chief Burdine. Then we'll put it to a vote. All right, you have the floor, Councilman.

Chief Burdine, I know one big difference. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this. Right now, the parking authority, they can write a parking ticket and leave it on the card and keep going.

Yes.

For your officers to write a ticket, Do they have to have an operator or the owner of the vehicle there to issue the citation?

I think what we could do is not have them there. We just have to have a system in place to where due process is handled to where they get notified of the charges and when and where to be at the look for city court is what would have to be done. And they can use, of course, um, the way we can gain access to tags to find the owner of the vehicle to issue citation. All right.

And then you're battling with a person saying, well, I wasn't driving it at the time.

Correct. That could come up during court, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Question for the attorney's office.

Okay. Mr. Johnston?

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

Hope I do half as good a job. So my question would be, I don't know if you know offhand or you may need to find out for us, but who can actually write city court citations?

So there is, it would be under TCA, it's TCA 763-101. It does allow for certain departments within the city to be able to write citations to city court. You can do the police department, the fire department, building codes, and transit 42 have been authorized by state statute to write those codes. There's an attorney general's opinion out there that says while all these people are authorized to do these citations, the departments are better handling their own code sections. So we have a fire code that we cite to and we have a building code that we cite to. That attorney general's opinion does suggest that those departments are best left, legally best left to their own departments and their own codes. So that's probably why you're seeing the police department is being authorized to do this as opposed to fire department or building and coach or transit. And also, sorry, the state statute further states that those in the fire department and in the building and coach department would have to be authorized as like special police officers. So it would be even further than just being a part of building and coach.

And that was my concern is, you know, if we move these employees under a certain authority, Whatever department it is, would they have to be reclassified to meet like an officer and write tickets? Would something have to change in their classification to be able to write those citations? They would have to be police officers. So they'd have to be a police officer to write a parking ticket? Correct, due to other state statutes that correlate with the writing of the citation, yes. So those employees that currently are out there writing tickets, if they moved over to the police department, they'd have to become police officers.

Correct.

So they'd have to go to the academy.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

To write those tickets, to be a police officer.

Well, I mean, to be able to write as police officers, Potentially but for that you would have other authorizations you'd have to have other action to get building codes Employees and fire department employees to do that as well So they wouldn't have to go the Academy.

They just have to be classified as a certain level to be able to write I would fall back on that Attorney General's opinion that says it's best to leave them

legally best to leave them within their own confines of their department building codes. I mean, there's, I'm probably preaching to the choir, but there's all sorts of things that building codes deal with in terms of search warrants, property, you know, trash, trash codes and stuff like that. That's, you know, better suited.

And their fire code has their own things, sprinklers, yada, yada, building specifications and stuff like that. So they could fall under building codes. Wouldn't have to be a police officer, but, We would have to write that into the code that they'd be authorized. Technically, I would say yes. Thank you.

Councilman Haywood for Mr. Johnston. Yes, sir. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. Could the police department not just make a subdivision like they've got dispatchers and they've got... Could they not do that?

There's other statutes about being able to cite people for misdemeanors, which the... city officers can do. It's just misdemeanors. It's what our city, not city officers, our city court can handle and stuff like that. Yeah. I don't know that you would be able to necessarily. Again, probably something I can look into and make sure I have a better answer next time around. Okay. Thank you.

Councilman Streetman for Mr. Johnston.

I'm not sure if it's going to be for him or actually for Building and Codes. I'm not really sure which one.

Go ahead and ask it and they'll fight over it.

I know that any time there's a Building and Codes violation in order for them to cite it, you have to give them written notice.

I think that's a building codes question by default, Mr. Crosby.

And they have a certain amount of time to correct it. And I don't know, maybe that has to do, I'm just knowing from dealing with building issues, not so much a parked car. Right.

When we cite folks, we have to give them, I think, 14 days to come correct before we can take further action.

So if they go under your department and they are parking there for six hours and they're only supposed to be there two hours or whatever it might be.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

They have 14 days to move before you can actually do anything?

I'm not exactly sure where the parking authority's rules lie. I don't know if it's in city code or in the zoning ordinance. The things that we... site folks for come out of either city code of the zone and ordinance.

Um, if parking is completely separate from that, it, whatever their rules say, I guess would apply if, if that's, so if this got moved under your department and these individuals worked for you, then they would be able to go ahead and write a, write a ticket for them that I'm not sure.

So a building codes code officer now couldn't go write a parking ticket to my knowledge. In the way that parking tickets are written today, you know, we don't cite people in that way for parking. You know, a code violation would be parking on the grass, not for an expired meter or anything like that. So it's completely different, and I'm not sure what those differences are.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Councilman Clonch, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to say. We've spent a lot of time talking about this, and that's awesome. So compound that to what the council member for Ward 11 had to deal with with a council of civilians, downtown business owners. The irony is not lost on me. That's all.

Thank you. Councilman Chikina, you're recognized.

Yes, Mayor. I want to again address the councilman from number nine. When you talk about CPD writing tickets, they have a forcing function because they have the city court behind them. individuals go to city court. Right now, when the parking personnel write the tickets, they come before the parking commission. The parking commission doesn't have enforcement function. We can say we're going to void the tickets, and then that's good. But if we say no action and they pay, then that's fine. But if they don't pay, there's no recourse to it. So, again, you have an entity that makes rules, but they have nothing behind them. to enforce the rules. So that's why I said it's lost. That's why I said it needs to come before this body. And this body needs to really look at this because we do have a problem. And it's going to get worse.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT L. Thank you. Any more comment or question regarding this ordinance? Chairman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you mayor without objection, because I know we've spent a good amount of time talking on this one and we could spend a good amount of time talking on others. Would it be possible to move up resolution 65, 20, 25, 26, uh, to go ahead and deal with that one and then come back to the others.

Any objection to that?

You're recognized on resolution 65, resolution 65, 20, 25, 26, a resolution of the city council. of the City of Clarksville, Tennessee, approving an economic impact plan for the St. Thomas Hospital Development Area and adopting designated area policies and procedures. The Finance Committee voted in favor of approval. And Mayor, without objection, could we bring Ms. Wilson up to be able to talk about it? I know she spoke about it at the Finance Committee.

Any objection, Ms. Wilson?

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Thank you, Finance Chair. I would like to give you a little background on the project. We heard about this about a year ago at the Certificate of Need process last year when the hospital was approved. It is a 44-bed project right off of Exit 11, the Boyd Farm. It's about 96 acres. It is adjacent to the Vanderbilt standalone emergency room across the street from TOA, Tennessee Orthopedic Alliance, right off Exit 11. give you a little background information about where it's located. And so really, this transformative project, it's roughly about $418 million in development. Of the project, it is $135 million which would be tax exempt for the hospital only, leaving about $283 million in development for the medical campus. So really, before you representing St. Thomas, asking for the support of the city council to help build this project, not only a hospital, but a transformative place where people can go and go to the hospital, but they can also get medical services taken care of. They can, you know, kind of a one-stop shop, as well as retail and restaurants. There's no multifamily. I did send a map over to the clerk. I don't know if you have that, but that will show you the shaded parcels are all of those that are taxable. Except the 33 acres to the far west, that is not programmed at the moment. But all the others are programmed and taxable and therefore would create an increment for the TIF. And so the applicant today is asking for maximum of $12 million and some change. The project will actually create $15 million of increment, therefore leaving, you know, beyond the debt service that's covered through the city and county from the allocation, leaving about 24% left for the city and the county to do what, you know, to their general fund or what have you. And so The reason the TIF is actually being requested, again, you've got another handout that talks about the extraordinary infrastructure upgrades that have to happen. And so if we're talking about just the hospital, the infrastructure is there to complete that. But again, they're trying to bring really top level health care to our town and our county. And with that, they are requesting some help with that. You'll see everything is outlined. you know, from the new road infrastructures. And not only will it support the project, but it will also support the surrounding area. You know, sewer mains, gas mains, duct banks, electric vaults, road widening, traffic signal, and a new road. So those are all of the infrastructure upgrades that they're requesting, which is about $12 million, excuse me, $27,900.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

As a reminder, the TIF is really, it's a performance-based incentive. If they don't develop, there's no risk to the city or the county. That's zero risk. So again, but for the development, the TIF and the increment is not created. I know this body annexed that property into the city last year or earlier this year. As it stands, if it's just the hospital, zero taxes will be collected by the city. and the county will also have a reduction in what the city what the taxes they collected last year so again if you if just the hospitals built zero taxes will be collected by the city and the county if you approve the the tiff you'll have the other funds that will be created to do what you will with the city um to help it run um and lastly you've also got a one-page summary of the financial analysis of what that means, one-time benefit along with the benefit over 20 years of what the project will create. And so, again, we believe we showed up in droves as a community to support the project at the state level and stand before you to ask for the support for the enactment of the plan. Happy to answer any questions.

Questions for Ms. Wilson regarding Resolution 65. Councilman Brown, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. So prior to this presentation, Project of course it was not in the city. So the city received zero property taxes so because of this project we've annexed it in at their request also and To provide the services so looking at the chart of wire cast sales tax estimated seven hundred and five thousand Property taxes for the city four hundred and thirteen thousand that's after the TIF so Me looking at it, we went from zero income to $413,000 on property taxes if we do this TIF. Yes, sir. And then in the long run, that TIF will go away. Yes. So, you know, to me, I'm looking at it as we had zero, and this is going to actually have some support of the city finances to assist in other projects as well.

Yes, sir. And you'll also be paying, while the TIF is being distributed, debt service will be met. So no matter what that changes to each year, that will be met. So that will help with the management of the finances for the city. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Yeah, the debt service for the city comes off the top. Yes. Any other questions for Ms. Wilson? All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Chairman Streetman. Thank you, Mayor.

Ordinance 76-20-25-26, first reading. An ordinance amending Part 2 Code of Ordinances, Title 1.5, Human Resources, Chapter 6, Leave, Section 1.5-601, Annual Leave, 1.5-602, Sixth Leave, Section 1.5-603, Bereavement Leave, Section 1.5-604, Maternity Leave, Chapter 7, Benefits, Section 1.5702, Eligibility for Health and Dental Insurance Benefits, Section 1.5707, Breaks in Credited Service, Chapter 12, Disability, Section 1.5-1202, Non-Work-Related Disability, and Chapter 15, Miscellaneous, Section 1.5-1501, Holidays, for the purpose of providing additional annual leave benefits for municipal employees to enhance recruitment and retention. The Finance Committee voted in favor of approval. And Mayor, would you mind if Ms. Luntz came up to talk about this and the reasoning behind this?

Probably ought to. Ms. Luntz?

I think she should have to read that all again as well.

Well, we'll skip to just the explanation part.

All right. Yeah, it was a mouthful, and I apologize for that. So this ordinance amends the HR section of the city code, specifically two major changes within it, one of which is annual leave. The first proposed change would allow employees to begin earning additional annual leave after three years of service instead of 10. as it currently sits the recommendation came based off of an employee benefit survey feedback we received back in the fall where earlier leave accrual increases were frequent requests within the survey we also continue to see a high number of employee separations between the three and the five year range for reference in fy 2025 we saw 17.5 percent of separations within the three to five years We believe this could serve as a retention tool. This change also brings us more in line with comparable employers such as county, state government, and Austin Peay. There's no change to the current payout or carryover structure, so we anticipate very little to no financial impact overall. When it comes to the holiday amendment within the city code, our proposed change adds Good Friday as an official city paid holiday. The recommendation brings the city in alignment with the county, CMCSS, Fort Campbell, and many child care providers who all recognize Good Friday as a holiday. This too was based on the feedback from our employee benefits survey. We reviewed leave usage and found approximately 12% of our city general employees utilized annual leave for Good Friday this past year. This requires the departments to function on limited staffing while still trying to maintain operational coverage. As far as financial impact, it's not a clear-cut answer. Employee salaries are already budgeted as fixed line items, so what we would really be looking at is overtime. While some departments require minimum staffing, requiring minimum staffing could experience some overtime costs based on a gas pipeline exploding or something to that effect. I wouldn't expect this. Sorry. Sorry. I looked directly at him. I was trying to figure out what an emergency would be and relate it.

How about a mattress on a sidewalk?

Let's say a sidewalk. Anyway, these departments generally stagger on call, and they utilize their holidays and staffing schedules operationally. So, like I said, we can't put a monetary amount on what this is going to affect the city based on overtime, but it's very minimal. Okay. The remaining changes within these code revisions are primarily housekeeping clarification updates based on experience and administration of the policies over time. The revisions help modernize terminology, improve clarity, and better align the language with current practices while not significantly changing the intent of the existing policies. All of these proposed changes would go into effect January 1, 2027.

Okay, questions for Ms. Luntz, Councilman Chairman Streetman.

Others have questions. I'm going to let them go ahead first.

Councilman Chandler, you're recognized.

Okay, under the Bereavement League, I've got just a slight problem with that being that I don't like the idea of a department being, and this is the Department of Human Services, developing and maintaining a policy pertaining to bereavement leave and may amend from time to time by the department. I think any time that there's an amendment made to the benefits to our employees, it needs a little more than just keeping it within that department.

The existing policy already states that the HR director and the mayor can amend this policy from time to time.

And again, my opinion is that given too much authority to be able to go in and change. You're asking us to vote on it.

This is a demonstration of where it counts.

But then you're saying we can't change it. That you can change it and not come back before the board. It doesn't make sense that you want us to vote on it and approve it, but then not have any further say so. I haven't read all this completely, but like I said, I just have a problem. That's what the council, the mayor, and the department is. It's all checks and balances.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Peters. You're recognized.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

This is my question because in business, that's what I do, right? I don't know how you can say this does not have a cost to it. If I give employees where I work a holiday pay and they don't work it, I still got to pay them that. So when you refer to people like the police department, fire department, first responders, there's a benefit to that, right? So you're going to have to pay them whether they're on the clock or not because it's a holiday. So I don't know how we can say that it's not a cost because that's completely opposite of anything I've ever learned. I don't see how we can say that legitimately. I think it's going to be a cost to the city. And it's just, it's there. I don't know how we can say that it's not. I just don't get that. But for that reason, I'm a firm no on this. I'm just going to let everybody know now. I'm a firm no on this. I don't think we need additional holidays. I don't think we need to, I just don't think we need to give a good Friday. I don't get a good Friday.

Nobody else gets a good Friday.

Let them take a vacation day. That's the way I feel about that. But that's all I got to say on that.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you. And mine's not so much a question and you heard me say this at finance and I will say lead off again, thank you for everything you've done. You're the representative for all of our city employees. And I know you put a lot of work into this and talking with the employees and retention is an issue because when employees leave, it's more costly to replace them. Undoubtedly understand that. Um, my, my one issue that, that sticks with me is the same thing that was stated by the ward three. I know we've discussed before. you know, adding holidays. And I understand it's a state holiday and the state gets off, schools are closed, the county is closed. However, I mean, I've never been off on Good Friday myself. It's not a federal holiday, so even in my former life as a banker, We still worked, as I joked in the finance committee, we spent all day answering the phone, answering that, yes, we are open. But I, too, know that there's a cost associated, regardless, with giving yet another vacation day. And I know that's something that the taxpayers and stuff look at, of how many holidays that government employees already get. So that's the only issue I do take with it. Again, respect all of your work and understand where you're coming from. and why you were trying to come up with creative ways to increase our retention of our employees that isn't necessarily just get paying more money, that type of thing. So I do thank you for that.

Councilman Holloman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. Just the way I see it is, I mean, I couldn't tell you last time I had a good Friday off either, but I typically work late, you know. between six and seven days a week. So I typically don't get too many holidays off or anything like that. But the difference is, is the city employees are under us. And from my perspective, it's like, I would want to give that holiday to them if it means that much to them. And I know it does to a lot of city employees. And so like, you know, I've said in the past, um, regarding the holiday, um, always back to the city employees. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Streetman.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry. And I forgot a part of that. I got carried away saying thank you. And only thinking about the cost, um, regarding having another holiday. But as was mentioned, it's also, you know, that I mentioned in finance, that's another day that our citizens are unable to take advantage of our city services, whether it's something that they need to go to finance for trying to get a city business license. You know, a lot of people's time is limited in what they're trying to do and not being able to go to any of those departments. and be able to conduct the business they need to conduct. To me, that's also a cost that we're looking at there. So that's it. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Luntz, anything else?

Nothing further to add.

All right. Thank you. Chairman Streetman.

Ordinance 77-20-25-26, first reading, an ordinance authorizing the receipt of donated real property located at 0 Jack Miller Boulevard for the purpose of a housing development. Both the Finance and Neighborhood and Community Services Committees voted in favor of approval of this. This is just an accepting of property that we could potentially utilize home funds in order to be able to develop some affordable housing on it's not costing us anything to be able to get the land. They would be giving us that. And again, this would be home funds that are designated to us from the federal government to allow for these types of developments.

Questions about Ordinance 77?

Councilman Lovato, you recognize?

I understand that home funds is going to be utilized, but I understand that that is a grant that we must match. Can either our CFO or Ms. Austin elaborate on what that looks like financially for the city? Sure.

We'll call on the subject matter expert. Ms. Austin?

Thank you, Mayor. So for home funds, we do have to match it up to we have to match 25% of the funds that we use. And typically it's an afterthought because those are usually subsidized by the work we do in other areas. So Often it's the work that we do towards home projects that are paid for through our salaries from the general fund. And again, it's only up to 25% of the cost of that project. In this case, because the property is donated and it appraises at $400,000, we'll be able to use that appraisal, the appraised cost of the property to offset the home fund match in that case.

Okay, so we should not see any dollars from our general fund going.

Nobody has one. Nope.

That's all I have.

Councilman Clark, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Hey.

Ms. Austin, how are you?

I'm great. How are you?

I'm well. You know I'm a nerd, so I just recently learned about that. Opportunity Zone 1.0 and we're about to go to the 2.0. Does this property fall into either of those categories?

So, notably, this is a new census tract. This does fall into that eligible census tract for Opportunity zone 2.0 that being said because it's a city property It's paid for through home funds and the work that we're doing. I don't think we would necessarily need that offset cost for but if This were to prompt some development on the adjacent property. That's currently vacant the The OZ 2.0 could help spur that development Station of wirecast Clarksville monies Federal funds completely.

Thank you, ma'am.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Any more comment or question? Thank you.

Thank you.

Chairman Streetman.

Thank you, Mayor. Resolution 66-20-25-26, a resolution amending the fund balance policy to reduce the minimum unassigned fund balance from 20% of general fund expenditures to 17% of general fund expenditures. The Finance Committee did recommend a vote in favor of approval of this. The sponsor of this resolution, and this is going to, exactly as it says, it's going to reduce our need to have the unassigned fund balance of 20% down to 17%. I did, as one of the questions that was asked in Finance, I did work with Ms. Wilcox on this and verify that this would not affect our credit rating But the benefit of this is that it would potentially help us to be able to reduce our need of the tax dollar to go from the 31 cents that, and we don't know what it will be in the final because we'll be receiving that tomorrow, but it would look at potentially being approximately a 6% reduction. I'm sorry, 6 cent, 6 cent, I said that wrong, 6 cent reduction in our need for our tax rates.

Councilman Zacharias, you're recognized. Thank you, Mayor.

If it's okay with the chair and the sponsor, I would ask if maybe Kristen Wilcox could come up and respond to a question.

Any objection? Ms. Wilcox? Councilman Zacharias. Thank you, Mayor.

So when we spoke about this previously, I thought I had a good understanding of how that fund balance is retained. And I understand that this would lead to a decrease in the tax rate possible decrease in the tax rate being requested with this year's budget. Can you elaborate a little bit on how it would affect future year's budgets?

MS. Let me clear up a little bit about the fund balance policy. It is a very good financial policy to have. There are standards, and this going to 17% will not violate any of those standards of best practices. However, I've heard a lot of confusion going on about that fund balance policy. There are classifications within that. There's restricted, non-spendable, committed, and then there's unassigned. It is a snapshot of what it is as of our fiscal year June 30th. It includes our cash, investments, and other assets. It is not money that we take at year end, which I believe last year was around $45 million, and sit in a separate bank account and leave untouched. Because it includes our cash, investments, and other assets, it is a measurement as of one day. It fluctuates throughout the year. It goes up when we receive revenues. It goes down when we have to pay bills, payroll, any of our invoices, things like that. The city also does not receive significant property tax revenues until December. So at June 30th, it needs to be significant enough to cover our expenses till we start receiving those revenues. It is not money that is set over in its separate account and untouched unless there's an emergency or a natural disaster. I think that's where the confusion might come in. Um, I cannot bring you a bank statement that will show you that they're just sitting there. So this will not violate any best practice. It will, as councilman Streetman mentioned, it will help us have a smaller requirement on June 30th when we do our financial reporting. However, I do not believe it will be a step forward for the city to become fiscally sustainable within future years.

All right. Thank you. Councilman Streetman for Ms. Wilcox.

It's not a question, but I did want to say that previously, several years ago, it had been at 22%. The council reduced it down to 20%, and I think that from talking to the previous person that sat in my seat, The intent then had been to, in a few more years, bring it on down to either 18 or 17%. However, you had turnover on the council, and then COVID came along, and no one was going to do anything there. However, and I know that the previous CFO was not interested when other council members had brought this up to be able to reduce it down. However, this is a time where obviously we are in need. It's not as though it's not something that couldn't be increased back up in a few years. While yes, this is a permanent change. Should future councils choose to bring it back up? That is something they would be able to do. But by passing this resolution now, it's able to benefit us not only for this fiscal year end that we're fixing to come up on at the end of next month, but also in our budgeting for next year. And I know this is something that other council members in previous years have talked about wanting to look at in order to be able to help us with what we were trying to do when it comes to budgeting. So I appreciate that you have worked with me on it and explained it to me in detail. We've spent a lot of time talking about it and started talking about this a few months ago. So thank you very much for all of your help with this.

Councilman Zacharias. Thank you, Mayor.

And I just want to say, I absolutely think that this is a tool that we should be considering as we go into a very difficult budget year. I just want to make sure that as we consider it, we are considering the effects next year and the year after, so we're not making decisions that are convenient now and then we end up regretting later. That's all. I'm just trying to get some more information.

Councilman Holloman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mayor. I personally like this for the position that we're in. We're in a sticky situation, that's for sure. As far as the need for doing this, it's just something I've got to get off my chest. I've been up here about seven and a half years now, and for five years of that, we've been pro-growth, pro-growth, pro-growth. Growth is good. It brings prosperity. Everyone gets more money. The fact is, the opposite happens. Housing goes up. Food prices go up. It's a supply and demand. And now we've got this tax crunch because we've grown. We've had such unmitigated growth that we've grown to the point where we're in the financial situation that we are because we can't keep up with roads. We don't have enough police officers on the streets. And so I am in favor of this. It's just begrudgingly in favor, I guess, is the is the right word because i just feel like i i i feel like the some of the things that that i that i used to my my personal stance um for the past years has been pro-growth and this is a direct the financial crunch that we're in is a direct result of clarksville being so pro-growth for so many years thank you any more comment or question thank you ms wilcox chairman streetman

That concludes my report mayor.

All right. We're ready for neighborhood and community services committee. You wouldn't, we can come back to you. You're recognized.

Yeah. I want to do a closing on it because, and I'm, and I want to do this because I want you all to take down some numbers. So when you talk about fiscal responsibility, Right now we have 31,000 unpaid tickets given by parking just downtown, 31,000. The total is over $845,000. We have 3,300 vehicles with two or more open tickets. One vehicle has 217 open violations.

So they come all the time.

And at the next meeting, before the next meeting, I will have an annual breakdown per year of this that I'm talking about right now for each council member. So delaying it doesn't help this problem. If we're going to be fiscal responsible in one area, then we should do it in all areas of city government. And that's my closing there.

All right. Thank you. You're recognized for your committee report, Neighborhood and Community Services.

All right. I just want to give a kudos to our director, Michelle Austin. Yesterday we had the Opportunity Zone 2.0. It was in conjunction with the Tennessee Economic and Community Development and the Tennessee Hood Field Office for the Clarkson-Montgomery County. It was a great presentation. One of the five opportunity zones that we currently have and possibly moving up to nine opportunity zones. And in the coming months, our director is going to have more on that as we lean forward with all the different stakeholders in the city and the county to make sure we best utilize those zones. Other than that, I have a full report next week.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're ready for Parks and Recreation Committee. Chairman Zacharias, you're recognized. Thank you, Mayor. I'll have a full report next week. Thank you. We're ready for public safety committee. Chairman Lovato.

I'll have a full report next week.

Thank you. Transportation, streets, and garage committee. The chairman is here. She'll have her full report next week. So we're ready now for public comments. Any member of the public wish to address the council? If you would give us your name, you have five minutes.

Hello, everyone. You guys know me. I'm Dr. Gregory Fryer. I'm coming to you regarding the senior, AJAC senior center. As you know, we are mandated to leave as of June 30th. We started packing up. We let people know to start getting their personal belongings and effects out of the building so that when packers come, they're not going to be confused or anything. A number of people are concerned. The members are like, what can we do? Because they've lost their sense of community. As far as you guys know, just the other day, the Parks and Rec director said that if it goes to the Parks and Rec, it will be free. AND THAT IF SOMEONE'S, I THINK, FROM THE AGE, IF THEY'RE YOUNGER THAN A CERTAIN THING, THEY'LL BE $5. The rest will be free. Right now, the fee for a year annual is $35. However, what's left out of that is that some people are not able to afford it. So it is prorated based on those people's income. It's prorated. The other thing is what's left out, I looked at St. Clair, which is the senior center down in Murfreesboro, and they are under Parks and Rec as well. Looking at their structure, it's free. But guess what? They have to pay for every little thing that goes on. They have to pay. So it's kind of like, you know, you get this ticket to Disney World, and you pay one ticket, and you enjoy all those magical rides. And it's wonderful. Versus when you go to the county fair, you're paying just as much. But every ride, you have to shell out. You have to shell out. So that's the difference. That's one of the differences we want to look at. The other thing I want to bring to your attention is that the fire marshal came again to inspect the building today, and it failed again. been that history. So we talk about fiscal responsibility under Parks and Rec. The budget is going to increase. It's going to be an increased tax burden. If we're going to be fiscally responsible for our taxpayers, we need to take a look at keeping it under the non-profit. Thank you guys very much.

Any other member of the public wish to address the council? If you would, give us your name and you have five minutes.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast. Billy Lang, 19 Love Street.

Thank you all. I've wanted to speak on this for a while. My mom ran the senior center for seven years. I know I've watched everything online when it came down to the senior center. Me living in that home through high school when my mom was over the senior center. When members run to the mayor and they complain, I used to hear them complaints whenever they came back to the director because my mom was the director. When I watched a lot of that online of some of the back and forth with the members that were on the board, and they really didn't give good clarification. I can remember my mom being in that same situation. Travis Holland's mom I don't know if I'm allowed to call him by his name, but his mom done so much at the senior center in volunteer work as far as fundraising. I go to that senior center with our community. We don't go every day, but we do go because they do provide a service. I'm not totally against what the city is doing in this situation. If it's going to make a resolution to the problems that they've had over the years. Um, I kind of feel that maybe there is not enough clarification. in what we're doing with the senior center but i am thinking however it works it's going to work good for the community i hope because it's going to create jobs and i do think that we need to consider the people that have put their heart and soul into that community i do think that it can be utilized and beautified me being a life safety director Safety is very important. If we failed today on a fire system because the city didn't pay or we didn't do what we needed to do as a body, then they failed too because even though they're a 501C, and I think I'm talking on that correctly, they get all that funding of money. from the city and then they get donation base. So for me, I had to speak on this because I do have a heart for this because that's what I do every day for our seniors. We don't want everyone to be forgotten. I'm at that age. We're all getting close to that age and we need somewhere for him to go. Kind of what he just spoke on now about the fees. It ain't about the money. It's about the volunteer. It's about what we do as a community as a whole. And I do believe that we will come up with a resolution to this problem. But I think we need more clarity. Thank you all.

Any other member of the public wish to address the council? Now ready for council member comments. Any member of the council wish to be recognized? Councilman Haywood, you're recognized. Thank you. We do have one more. I'm sorry. Councilman Haywood, hang on a second. I'm sorry. Come on up. If you would, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you.

My name's David Key. I live in Wilbin. I just wanted to address the council. I've been retired now since 2015. And one of the things I wanted to do is to help my mother had to use a lot of medical equipment. And it's quite expensive. When she passed away about a month after my retirement, I wanted to set up a nonprofit, and I didn't know how. So someone told me to go by the Senior Center. They're a nonprofit. Maybe they can help you. I went and explained it to Ms. Ashley at the time, and she said, David, we do exactly the same thing you're wanting to do. We have a lending closet, but we don't have anybody to help us with it. If you'd like to volunteer, we'd like for you to take a good look.

This is a demonstration of Wirecast.

And I can vouch that it's helped an awful lot of people. that had no access to medical equipment. And that's just one example of the things that are happening at the senior center. And the people there, I fall in love with them. They're all wonderful people. They're all trying to do their very best. I hate the situation where we would have to move because I don't know that they can be taken care of, at least not in the immediate future. And they depend on it. These are people, 300 and 400 people a week. We have 1,400 paid members that back up and support. They use it at different times. Not everybody's there every day. But it's something that's really benefited the community, and I just wanted to... ask that that be considered with all that's happening and that the hope that something amicable can come from that. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Now back to you, Councilman Haywood. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to give a special shout out. I don't know if anyone saw any Facebook posts about some inmates being followed by CPD on Hazelwood and need more. They weren't inmates. It was me and a few volunteers. It was a joke. The officer around there was like, you guys should take off running and make everyone freak out. But I want to give a shout out to Streets and CPD for their support for our annual warhead cleanup. We picked up a ton of trash, a ton of little liquor fireball bottles. But yeah, it was great. Right. And I will say that I'm planning a school cleanup either this month or June or July. So look out for the date on that. Thank you.

Thank you for initiating that. Councilman Chikina.

Yes, Mayor. I'd just like to send a note of gratitude to the street department and CDE. CDE's been out there on Rossley Road this week doing a lot of tree trimming and cutting. I know it's been delaying a lot of the traffic. But the right-of-way and the line of sight for the commuters, I've been hearing some good comments on that with a lot of those trees coming down, especially close to Basham and Rossview. One of the things I do want to bring to the council's attention when I'm talking about Rossview, and we heard a case today around the Rossview School, we just approved 200 acres on Tate Crozier. And that has some R1. some R2, some R4.

It was a demonstration of Wirecast.

If you looked at the RPC's schedule for this past Tuesday, it was deferred, but there's another proposal rezoning on Ted Crozier. So every time we bill out in that area, those guys, those children, they're going to Rossview schools, whether they go the interstate way or whether they go down Warfield back up to Rossview. We've had, the mayor has worked in the street department, again, lot of kudos. We've worked on really trying to widen Rossview, but we've had some challenges, especially with funding in the state and things like that. But we've had a lot of challenges on Rossview, but we're going to continue to try to work to make that a four-lane road. But until then, we're going to have a lot of problems on Rossview because we're still adding a lot of rooftops to the area, and that's why I've really been trying to divert some of the rooftops to somewhere else besides Rossview because we've got a lot of that. And then The people that live off of Rossview and Dunbar Cave that have to commute every day anyway up and down that road, they can do their services requirements right there in the area where they live. This is a demonstration of the wirecast. We have a situation on Rossview that's not going to get any better. It's already painful. And just like the councilman from Fort mentioned, you can go out there any day, even on a Saturday, and don't let anything happen on the interstate. Rossview is a vein. That's a vein to the city. That's a vein everywhere across the city seems like. So every day is a busy day. And one accident, you don't have easement on roster in a lot of places. Even 18 wheelers coming down there. You almost run off the road. So I'd just like to bring that concern to the entire council. That's one of my concerns when we're looking at a lot of the zoning cases because I'm looking at the entire situation. on Rossview and everything that affects Rossview, those other outlying roads there. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Klotz, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to give a shout-out to the Information Technology Department. I am notorious for locking myself out of all the things, and they, as well as updating this magical device, even offered to deliver it, again, lends to the department heads and their teams and their commitment to all of us, well, my crazy Also, tomorrow the Center of Hope from 9 to 12 is giving out food boxes for everybody, but we would prefer it be the food insecure or the disenfranchised, and that is on Craft Street. So if you see me out there looking goofy, please make me work for you or your friends. That's all I have, sir.

Thank you. Councilman Peters, you're recognized.

I just want to throw a little statement out here, I guess. It hits to probably the street department. I appreciate Mr. Smith giving me a hand here, but this is a concern I've got here. It's coming up soon. I think the Wawa is due to open on June 18th, and nothing has been done to that intersection. There's no line markings. There's no turning markings, no line. This lane goes straight. This lane goes right. They're coming off of Ringo Road. That's a five-minute light. Coming out of Wawa is going to be just as bad, trying to get on the 101st. I think these things need to be addressed before this thing opens because this is going to be a disaster waiting to happen. Like I've said many, many times, Ringo Road, I know school's out right now, but Ringo Road will back up approximately 1.1 mile or the 1.7 mile length that it is during school. And that light takes a good five minutes to change. And it's even worse if you're on the 101st because you get stopped by the turning light. Now you've got to wait for 101st. Then you've got to wait for Ringo and now the road coming out. I think it's Parkway Place, I think, coming out of Wawa. So they have to wait even longer. We really need to look at this intersection if we're talking about traffic flow and all this. This is a disaster waiting to happen. And that's all I've got to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more comment or question? We stand adjourned. See you next Thursday. Thank you.