City Council - Special Meeting

Members, please register your attendance. Madam Clerk, take the roll.

All members are present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We have five items, six items that are on our agenda for second reading today. First item is item A, Ordinance 84-2025-26, an ordinance amending the operating capital budgets for fiscal year 2025-26. and adopting the operating and capital budgets for fiscal year 26-27, pardon me, for CDE live band. I'll entertain a motion and a second. Pardon me. Here we go. Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of ordinance 84. Any comment or question regarding ordinance 84? Seeing none, hearing none, are you ready to vote? All members please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

13 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Ordinance 84 is adopted. We're now ready for item B, ordinance 85, 2025-26. An ordinance amending the 2025-26 budget and approving the 26-27 annual action plan and budget and authorizing application for community development block grant and home investment partnership funds as well as other programs. I will entertain a motion and a second. Motion to be made and properly seconded in favor of Ordinance 85. Any comment or question regarding this ordinance? Seeing none, hearing none, are you ready to vote? All members, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

13 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Ordinance 85 is adopted. Now ready for Item C, Ordinance 86, 2025-26, an ordinance amending the operating and capital budgets for fiscal year 2025-26. Adopting the operating and capital budgets for fiscal year 26 27 for the get Clarksville gas and water department I will entertain a motion and a second Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of ordinance 86 any comment or question regarding ordinance 86 Hearing none seeing none. Are you ready to vote all members? Please cast your vote Every member voted any member wish to change their vote madam clerk. Please take the vote. I

13 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Ordinance 86 adopted. We're now ready for Item D, Ordinance 87, 2025-26, an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2025-26 and adopting the operating budget for fiscal year 26-27 for the internal service funds. I will entertain a motion and a second. Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of Ordinance 87. Any comment or question regarding this ordinance? Seeing none, hearing none, are you ready to vote? All members, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

13 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Ordinance 87 is adopted. We're now ready for Item E, Ordinance 88, 2025-26, an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2025-26 budget and establishing the operating budget for fiscal year 26-27 for the Clarksville Parking Commission or proprietary fund. I'll entertain a motion and a second. much in the night properly seconded in favor ordinance eighty-eight commenter question regarding this ordinance saying i'm hearing that are you ready vote all members please cast your vote every member voted in the members to change their vote manquart please take the vote thirteen yes there are no zero abstain ordinance eighty eights adopted we're not ready for item f ordinance eighty nine twenty twenty five twenty six an ordinance amending the operating in capital budgets for fiscal year twenty five twenty six Adopting the operating and capital budgets for fiscal year 26 27 for the Clarksville transit system Do I hear a second motion motion been made and properly seconded in favor of ordinance 89 any comment or question regarding this ordinance Seeing none hearing none. Are you ready to vote all members? Please cast your vote Every member voted any member wish to change their vote. Madam clerk, please take the vote 12 yes 0 no 0 abstain ordinance 89 is adopted.

I

All right, we're now ready for new business. Ladies and gentlemen, before we get into the main attraction for the evening, allow me to begin our meeting with an apology and to take a moment and address our last meeting. In a moment of clarity, after the meeting, it was abundantly clear to me that I am responsible for the anger and animus from some regarding the proposed amendments to the budget ordinance. Our department heads, who are the best people that I have ever worked around, were following my directive and calling and talking about any and all proposed amendments to discuss the impacts on their operations. That's something we've always done prior to budget consideration. We're not playing shell games, resisting change, nor are we looking for another hit of taxpayer money to fund this government. We are simply following a process that's been in place since I've been in office I've given unfettered access to the departments by council members, and you admittedly are free to talk, text, or email them at all hours of the day and night and on weekends when these professionals are spending well-deserved time off. Let me be clear. I apologize to each of you for the lack of communication on my part. It is not, however, the fault of our 19 department heads, especially our CFO, who are charged with operating this city government, with the resources, both human and financial, that we give them. As my Bible commands me, let us reason together. We owe the employees of our city, all 1,400 of them, and the 182,000 citizens our best effort. Thank you. We're now ready for new business. Ordinance 91, 2025-26, first reading, an ordinance amending the operating and capital budgets for fiscal year 2025-26 and adopting the operating and capital budgets for fiscal year 26-27 for the governmental funds and fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2027. I will entertain a motion and a second. Motion made and properly seconded in favor of Ordinance 91. We will again go Wards 1 through 12 in accepting amendments. Just kind of keep my head in this. But members, it was obvious that you didn't like the initial budget presented, so I submitted to you another one. I gave you last night through the clerk's office the list of reductions we made. We did keep all of those that were passed, the amendments that were passed last week, in the failed first attempt at first reading. And so that's the basis for this start. We start at $1.08. on the tax rate with those reductions. And so now that we have it properly before us, I'm going to go around the horn, and we'll see what kind of amendments we have. Councilman Zacharias, do you have amendments?

No, Mayor.

Thank you. Councilman Clonch, do you have amendments? You're recognized.

Yes, Mayor, I do.

Okay. If you'll pass those around and wait until everybody's got them, and then I'll come to you for motion and a second.

Where is that? Just for labeling purposes, on the upper right side, I have a numbering system, Ward 2, and the first one is Alpha. It's in parentheses. All right.

Okay. Councilman Claunch, you're recognized on your first amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the description is to remove the 1.286, uh, 988 million from parks and recs and to decrease that and then give the Ajax senior center back $847,198 to restore the funding. So the total going back to the city would be, uh, 439,790. I understand that there's been quite a bit of discussion about this. To include your comments last week, I respect that, but I feel very convicted that this is in the best interest of moving forward for the senior center, for the seniors that I've spoken to, all sides. That's all I have, sir.

I take that as a motion.

Motion, I'm sorry.

Okay, motion made and properly seconded in favor of this amendment. Any comment or question regarding this amendment? Councilman Smith on this amendment.

Yes, Mayor. I had this same motion about the same thing last week or two days ago or whenever we worked on this budget. And mine is similar, so I would like to make an amendment to his amendment.

Okay. What is your amendment?

My amendment is to restore the funding to the non-profit, the AJAC Turner Center, and remove the funding and position from Parks and Recreation of the $1,286,952. and return the variance to the general funds of $4,886.486.952. Okay? Do you have that in writing? Yes, I do. Okay. Passed. This will return, there will be almost a half a million dollars of these funds will return back to the general funds for the city, and the $800,000 will be restored to the non-profit AJAC Turner Center.

Has everybody got a copy? You've heard the motion to amend the Claunch Amendment. Do I hear a second? Fails for lack of a second. We're now back on the... Clonch Amendment. Councilman Marquis, you're recognized on the Clonch Amendment.

Yes, so something a little similar. Let me grab mine. Our numbers are a little different with different intentions here. I will also make a motion to amend.

If you'll hang on just one second until we get everything squared away, and then I'll come to you for explanation or motion.

All right.

Everybody got a copy? All right. Councilman Marquis, you're recognized.

There's just a difference in number. It's the same idea, but I am instead restoring $776,599 because that is their 2026 actual numbers so even though we budgeted more that is the actual that they received from the city so that's why I went with that number instead and therefore it would give us a little bit higher tax reduction if we eliminate the rest of that so I'd like to make a motion for my amendment motion been made and properly seconded on the amendment to the clause amendment discussion on the amendment

to the amendment. So we're on Councilman Streetman on the amendment to the amendment.

Yes, sir. My stance has not changed from a week ago in regards to this. Like I said, it has been very chaotic over there. And you could really say on all sides over there. It has not been an easy situation for members going there. And I cannot see where doing this is going to be a good move because as of right now, they can't have the adults Day Center and we're already moving forward with getting the adult day center reopened when it reopens on July 20th. I apologize. I could have that date incorrect. I'm not looking at it right now However, but that process has already been moving forward to get that done this is a way that it can stabilize the situation versus the chaos that's been continuing to go on and the way even through yesterday so I I'm not in favor of this and this would be giving to a nonprofit that's not even going to be in one of our buildings that's been changed for that July 1st that's ended so if we're doing this we're just giving to nonprofits and that's giving tax dollars to nonprofits. And if we're going to do that, then do we just pick one nonprofit that we give it to or do we divide it 13 ways and give it to 13 different nonprofits throughout the city of Clarksville that we all believe in and support? Personally, I think in that situation, if we are just giving to a nonprofit and not managing through the city, then you're going to have constituents that are also saying, look, I'm not choosing to give to nonprofits if I want to give Donations to nonprofits and I would give it myself and that went away a long time ago Outside of federal funds that are specific to go to that and not our local dollars. So my stance hasn't changed I think we need to create a stabilization for our senior citizens and Get them to have this place back open and get that day center back open as well Councilman Lovato on the amendment to the amendment

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say I am going to support this amendment, but I do not – I support the amendments to the amendment, but not the original amendment. This council has been provided with enough information, not just from the mayor, but from members and members of their family that there is mismanagement over there. Even things that we have heard at this podium is evidence of the mismanagement over there. Either this money goes to Parks and Rec to fulfill the obligations of the senior center to this community, or I think they should get $0. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Councilman Clonch on the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Mayor, can we have the CFO come up and explain the numbers? Because I've got my numbers from the CFO. Just to clarify from my fellow council members, their numbers versus the numbers that I have.

Sure. Any objection to hearing from Ms. Wilcox? If you would ask the question, Councilman Clonch.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Wilcox. What is the number, the dollar amount that the city gave to the Ajax Senior Center last year?

The original budget that is on your amendment, the $847,000, that's the original budget. The amended budget is the $776,000 on the amended. So that's the variance. Awesome. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Councilman Brown, you're recognized on the amendment to the amendment.

Yes, sir. I was going to ask Ms. Wilcox that same difference, the $776,599. They won't reach that $847,000 this year. This is the total that they're going to receive completely this fiscal year.

That is correct. That includes their June payment.

Okay. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Councilman Shekinah, you're recognized on the amendment to the amendment.

Yes, Mayor. I got a question for you. Yes, sir. If this amendment was to pass and the lease has been already terminated, correct? Has the lease been terminated?

The lease is terminated, effective June 30.

So that means we would have to just pretty much just not fund this at all because the lease is terminated, right?

Would mean the senior center would have an appropriation but there would be no lease in place for a building. The lease would then have to come back to the council for your approval.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Smith, on the amendment to the amendment.

Yes, Mayor. I have a question for Ms. Wilcox.

All right. Ms. Wilcox, without objection.

Yes, Ms. Wilcox. On my amendment to the AJAC senior citizen, it was $800,000 to restore the funding. And where did that come from? Is that what we gave them? $800,000 is what I understood.

Our original budget was $847,198. The amended was $776,000 and some change. The $800,000 was numbers that we discussed on the phone.

Okay. I thought that's what you said, what was in the budget for the Ajax Center. Well, $800,000, that's not that much difference. from the, what is that, $776,599. And so also on this amendment that's before us, what is the tax reduction on here? I see the amount. What is the penny amount?

Is that to the sponsor of the amendment? No, to her. Okay.

I cannot answer that question. I don't know what the other side is.

She's got $510,353.

Right, but where is it written? I have not seen this amendment, so where is it written that it will go back to?

Thank you.

Councilman Marquis, I'll let you address it.

It's not a full penny yet. It's not a full penny? Yet, no. The idea is eventually we get there. But it gets you a lot closer with this number than it did with the previous number.

I don't think so. They're about the same. There's not that much difference in the amount at all. It's not. So it would probably be a, it's not a full opinion.

I know that for sure. Yeah. Yeah.

So I don't know how this is such a big reduction. That's not a big reduction at all to me. It's not even a penny. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any more comment or question regarding the amendment to the amendment? Ladies and gentlemen, I tell you, We're making a fundamental mistake with city finances if we adopt an amendment that will fund this nonprofit. It was said at the last meeting that, and I'm paraphrasing, government could mess up a two-car funeral procession, but not in the case of our Parks and Recreation Department. They are a nationally accredited department, one of only two in the state of Tennessee. They got a perfect score on their accreditation, the first go-round, and they have continued to operate in excellence, everything they do, and many of you participate in those programs. So I would just ask you not to adopt an amendment that would fund the non-profit that operates and allow us to stabilize and provide a safe, nurturing organization at our Senior Citizen Center, because they deserve it. Councilman Clonch?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to thank my fellow council members for, as discussed last week, the conversation about what was allocated, what was truly spent. I think, sir, that the overall issue is the opportunity to provide a grace period or a in the civilian world, a PIP performance improvement plan to reevaluate this. And if we set it up for six months and the parameters are established and they don't meet the criteria and it's transparent to the members and the community, then I will 1000% be with you on this. Uh, but I feel at this point in time, sir, that there's been enough communication from the community to say, let's, try and meet in the middle with this issue. I know you don't share that sentiment, but it was also brought up last week that we all are imperfect human beings. I understand it's not a small amount of money, but the name, the seniors that I visited, the seniors that I've talked to that were for and against I would just feel better if we gave them one last opportunity with something that was transparent to all of us to say this is the plan, this is what you must do. If this is not accomplished in this amount of time, then it goes away. I also have the utmost respect for Parks and Recs. I appreciate what they do. I just don't feel that this is it at this time, sir.

All right. We are now voting on the amendment to the amendment. members please cast your vote every member voted any member wish to change their vote madam clerk please take the vote amendment to the amendment is adopted now we're on the amendment as amended any comment or question regarding this amendment as amended okay we're voting on the amendment as amended every member please cast your vote every member voted any member wish to change their vote madam clerk please take the vote

Seven yes, six no, zero abstain.

That amendment is adopted. We're back on to Councilman Clonch. Councilman Clonch, you're recognized on your second amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So in your letter originally you had a 3% GWI, and I talked to several department heads about a tiered system as well as the possibility of compression if I did a tiered system. So this was the better outcome to reduce that from 3% to 2%. And as you can see, that puts $423,235 back, uh, from the departments and then the transit operations, $29,350 back for a total of $452,585 back. That was ran through, uh, human resources and the CFO prior to these numbers. You recognized on a point of order.

We've already passed the transit budget.

Mr. Bittner? This affects general fund.

Yeah.

You want it?

Yeah.

I got bags. Am I wrong?

Okay, I spoke with finance, and this will be allowed. It will take some maneuvering, but it is allowed.

Okay. All right. Councilman Clonch, back to you. We need a motion and a second. Motion. All right. Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of this amendment. Councilman Brown, you're recognized on the amendment.

Thank you, Mayor. So my question would be the other budgets that we've already passed tonight on the second reading, did those include 3% for those employees of those groups and this would reduce the rest of the city general to 2% and the others would still get a 3%? Um...

We'd have to hear, I know the general fund, the community development ordinance 85, that included the 3% general wage increase. Gas and water, we'd have to hear from Mr. Riggins, CDE, we'd have to hear from Mr. Taylor regarding their general wage increase or equity adjustments that are planned. And I think that would be the only two that we'd have to hear from. Would you like to hear from those? Yes, sir, thank you. Okay, we'll start with Mr. Taylor. And if you would, Councilman Brown, ask your question.

Yes, sir. Mr. Taylor, did you all plan for a 3% cost of living adjustment with your employees? Yes, sir, we did. Okay. So that kind of answers that. And I guess from Mr. Riggins. Okay. Mr. Riggins for gas and water. Councilman Brown. Did you all also plan for the 3%? for your staff in your budget?

No, sir. Gas and water, with the approval of the board beginning the first of the year, our pay plan is separate, so it's voted on separately by the board. They have the jurisdiction over the pay and the salaries now, so we do our own internal investigation, basically an informal pay study, and what we did is contacted several utilities around Middle Tennessee to find out what they did. The range was from 4% to 8% increase. That also included bonuses, things like that. So we worked with HR and came up with what we are proposing, what you passed in the budget is a 3% cost of living increase. So the whole scale changed 3% plus a 2% GWI, which is in line. It was recommended by HR. The board's approved that, and they've approved the pay scale as increased.

So y'all did pretty much like a pay study and adjusted all of them, everybody's pay from that, and then did a 2% GDI?

So, yes. Basically what happens every year is HR does this for city general as well. And as you know, HR still does that for us. One difference between us and CDE, we do not have our own HR department. We stayed with the city's HR. And they do that for city general, and they do that for us as well. And so what I worked with Ms. Luntz, and like I said, we did the work contacting all the utilities throughout Middle Tennessee, including a local one. You know, we don't have a local one comparable, but I wanted to know, you know, what the temperature was of what they're doing here as well. And so we took all that into account. And in consultation with Ms. Luntz, that's how we came up with this amount that we put into our budget and the board ultimately approved.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Councilman Streetman for Mr. Riggins. I do have a question, Mr. Riggins, if you don't mind. So the 3% and 2%, is that everybody will get a 5% bump?

Yes. So what that will be is 3% COLA. So everyone will get the 3%. And then the only two categories of employees who will not get the 2% are those who are topped out, because you cannot make more than top out. And then initially, anyone who's been hired within the last year, and that's not with the city, but with gas and water, well, not with gas and water, but the city as a whole, if they've been employed for less than a year on their anniversary, they'll get that additional 2%. Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. One thing I think we all have to keep in mind is, yes, this is 3% general wage increase, but this doesn't even go into effect until January 1st. So it's not as though they're getting a full 3% for the whole fiscal year. They're getting it for half of the year. I know that HR had spent time researching other municipalities to see what different ones were doing. They were doing 3%. and putting it in line with inflation, trying to combat that. And also keep in mind, we just increased some of our police officers, some of our firefighters, their pay, trying to do what we can to catch up by lowering this below not only the 5% that HR actually looked at for a whole year, the 3% that's being proposed for half a year, this is taking it even further down to only the 2% for half a year. And also keeping in mind, we just voted down an ordinance at the last city council meeting that was to bring items of benefit to our employees that they stated that they wanted. So we're taking further hits against our employees by doing this. Also keeping in mind that the most expensive employee is a new employee because you've got to train them. There's everything that you've got to get for them depending on what their role is. and which department they're with. There may be expenses that have to go along with that. I mean, we're not looking at a lot here. Again, it's 3% that we're looking at for half a year. I think it's important that we go ahead and do this and work to retain our employees versus just bleeding them out and leaving. So I'm going to be voting against this one.

Councilman Chandler on the amendment. Thank you, Mayor. First, I'd like to thank Councilman Clonch for bringing this forward. But 3% for half a year and the way grocery prices, gas prices, you know, we raise salaries in the police and fire for retention purposes. And what about Street Department? What about Parks and Recreation? What about everybody else? Three percent. One percent is a drop in the bucket, the amount of money that this city wastes. So I'm going to have to vote against it because our employees, what's the matter, 1,400? 1,400 employees, they deserve three percent, especially since every time they fill up to come to work, they're losing 20%. So I'll have to vote against this. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you. Councilman clutch on your amendment to my fellow council members.

I appreciate the perspective and the viewpoint. My initial thought process was, and I spoke to this about this to a department head today was the, the gap between the executors, the, the males and females that are in the heat, in the cold, that range is significantly lower. In Clarksville, Tennessee, depending on what report you look at, it's $39,000 to $42,000 in a single-family home. So at two persons in a home, that's $80,000. If you look at the department head average on their pay with the exception of two department heads, and I will not put them out there because that is not respectful and I will not talk about any department specifically, the increase over the last six years is far greater than three to 5%. Some of them are as high as 12% annual increase. Some of them are as low as 8% annual increase. My initial idea that was shot down and I guess I'm asking your thoughts on this was to cap the department heads essentially freeze their salary this year. in order to save funds for the executors, the boots on the ground, the people that are making less than $50,000, less than $60,000, understanding the officers just got a raise, the fire department just got a raise, to not influence or affect their pay because every department head making over six figures can probably figure it out or be all right for this year. That was not well received by the department heads that I, well, let me back up. A tiered system was not well received. Understanding we need to increase funds for the city. So there were three department heads that said, Eric, I would take a knee, drink water and face out in the spirit of saving money if we were froze for this year. Sir, I don't know if that's a discussion that we could have. I know it's not an amendment.

It's not an amendment, so we can't have the discussion. Okay.

Understood.

All right. To your point about department heads and the increase, we've replaced the vast majority of department heads in my tenure in the mayor's office. Maybe they didn't want to work for me, the former ones. And then we go out on the open market to try to hire new department heads. You've got to pay up in this market. That's why we're having to pay up for starting police officers and starting firefighters. I would caution council against trying to reduce the budget or balance the budget on the backs of our employees, because they're out there working their tails off. So we're being penny wise and pound foolish. So that's all I got to say. We are ready to vote on this amendment. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

One yes, 12 no, zero abstain.

Amendment fails. Councilman Clonch, we're back to you and your amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is Whiskey 2 Charlie.

That's funny.

Sorry. I'm sorry my my C's look like L's. I'm a lefty You're recognized on your amendment Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So in a recent meeting with information technology department head, we had a very candid conversation about her needs and the department needs. And we came to a lifecycle computer issue. There's 90 and dropping that from 90 to 80 to say $15,300. And then I understand I put computers on there twice. I believe the second line is laptops to drop that from 19 lifecycle to 15 lifecycle. So to remove 10 from lifecycle for computers and four from lifecycle from laptops, saving a total of $22,024. And that was a discussion with the department head of information technology.

Motion. Motion. motion been made and properly seconded discussion on this amendment you know I'm old enough to remember the frame oil filter commercials it says pay me now or pay me later that you start pushing off replacement for these things and it'll eventually catch up to you you'll have to do a big purchase all at once but that's all I'll say any more comment or question regarding this amendment Councilman Claunch, you're recognized.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. The department and I did discuss this, understanding that there is inherently some risk involved in that, but with some other amendments that were brought back last week, if the infrastructure of our nodes, and I'm not an IT guy, so I'm not using the correct terms, but our stacks, our server locations, is more important to maintain those over the computers. So she... Ultimately was picking the lesser of two evils and what can I help save? Versus what I truly do need so I applaud her for that understanding She did say these computers could cost more next year, but in the spirit of an olive branch and her wanting to ensure that Software updates were done that the new stacks could be purchased.

This was a meat-in-the-middle offering Okay any more comment or questioning regarding this amendment We're voting on the Claunch Amendment, Whiskey to Charlie, or I can't read your writing, sir. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Seven yes, six no, zero abstain.

Amendment is adopted. Councilman Claunch.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Delta is coming around. Probably looks like a P, some of you.

Councilman Clonch, you're recognized on your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I teed that up real nice, right? We saved $15,000, and I want to spend a little bit more. So in the discussions that I had yesterday with several department heads, there was another department head that said he would forego fighting for one of his employees if the IT department could get one of their two that was previously requested, understanding that funds were removed from the IT department last week, sir, so I would like to increase, I would like to reinstate the information tech network administrator for the IT department, which is $32,500, as well as the tools to do the job, which is a computer, office equipment, a cell phone, of $4,650 for a total of $37,150, understanding that another department head said he would forego his request to facilitate IT getting a long overdue addition to their staff to ensure that the city infrastructure continues to run, which includes our networks, two server stacks in two different locations, lights in some buildings, thermostats in some buildings, cell phones, the police network, the fire network. Motion to approve.

Motion been made and properly seconded. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized on the amendment.

Thank you. The $3,500, that's the salary, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

What about everything that goes along with that, the benefits, the Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, everything that we see listed with all the different salaries that are associated?

To my council member, that is not on here. It is. I don't have that. To your point last week, we have the CFO here. Can we ask them to calculate that for us?

And then it will have to be amended to include that number because you can't do just the salary and not have the other components that go along with it. Understood. Thank you.

That is not going to be an easy calculation on the fly, on the spot?

I think so. It may be the same number that I'd had previously of the 46-something. No, I cut the other position. I apologize. Sorry, sir.

That's okay. Councilman Clonch, if we make it past first reading tonight, this may be better to come second reading yes just just so you can get the totally I'm not going to slow down the process and I'm not trying to deny you the opportunity absolutely I'm just saying I want to get it right we're on the same page okay all right if can I withdraw it is that a you have we have a motion and a second already on the floor so we'd have to we would have to can I call for the question and just deny it well you can't now because you've spoken and

Councilman Brown, so I'm not going to ask for the question because I have a question. You spoke about another department that is willing to forego something, but that is not on this amendment. So if this passes, that other department that is willing to forego something doesn't pass, then we've already got this, and that could be an issue of not... So, I mean, I'd have rather seen all of it on one to remove a position or whatever from another department and putting this at the same time.

Understood, sir. The intent was more to say that another department was willing to forego their request and said, please give it to IT.

Right, but that's not on here.

Yes, sir.

Councilman Smith.

I'll follow the questions.

Okay, the question has been called for. There is objection, so we're going to vote on ceasing discussion on the amendment. It takes two-thirds, which is nine of us, to cease discussion. We're voting to cease discussion on this amendment. All members, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Five yes, eight no, zero abstain.

The question fails. We're now back on discussion for this amendment. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. I just objected because I wanted to add on to kind of maybe help answer the question of my council member beside me. I could be mistaken in my assumption here, but I'm assuming what the sponsor is referring to is that another department head, and I guarantee I can guess exactly which one of them it was, said they would rather have this employee fought for versus one that's already been cut. So there's nothing to amend on that because that employee was already cut with what we have here before us. But I know specifically, that's why I bet I can guess which one it was, one department head said to me, man, I rely on the IT department so heavily. She needs that position. So like I said, I don't think there's another half to go with this.

Okay, Councilman Clonch, on your amendment.

Call for the question.

Question's been called for on this amendment. Any objection to ceasing discussion on this amendment? Hearing none, now we're voting on the amendment. Every member, please cast your vote. Madam Clerk, it was close. Take the vote.

Zero yes, 13 no, zero abstain.

Amendment fails. Councilman Clonch?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That's got to be a record for a council member voting in denial of their own amendment. No? Okay. So we have Echo, Whiskey 2 Echo coming around.

Councilman Klotz, you're recognized on your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is to reduce the regional airport operating by 4%, to bring it to decrease by $21,563, which is 4%, which the new budget, their new budget would be $517,493.76, which is still higher than it was last year, I believe, by... Last year was 472 or what is amended for this year was 472,000 so that still gives them almost 40 grand plus or minus well more plus but just in the spirit of trying to Make thousands turn into hundreds of thousands to equal pennies So I have motion Motion made improperly second councilman Lovato you recognize on this amendment.

I

Mayor Pitts, I have a question for you. A previous CFO said that we were contractually obligated to match what the county gives the airport. Is this amendment legal?

It is proper and it is legal. However, the county does match the city or the city does match the county. So I would suspect that if we reduce our appropriation, the county would do likewise. So, yes, that's a long-winded answer to your question.

That's all I have. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comment or question regarding this amendment? Councilman Clonch, any final thoughts?

No, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Thank you. We're now voting on this amendment. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Seven yes, six no, zero abstain.

Amendment's adopted. Councilman Clonch, you're recognized. I thank you, Mr. Mayor.

The next one is whiskey to golf. It looks a lot like whiskey to six.

Okay. Councilman Clonch, you're recognized on this amendment.

Thank you, Mayor. Again, in the spirit of trying to turn thousands into hundreds of thousands, just the legal department reduction by 4%, which is $40,953. I do not have the total of what that would now give them, but I will add that up real quick. Mr. Mayor, it gives them over $100,000 more than they had budgeted or amended for this year, but it, again, saves a little bit of money across the city. Motion?

Second. Motion been made and properly seconded. Councilman Streetman on this amendment.

Yes, sir. I'd like to make an amendment to his amendments.

All right.

What is it? I have one here as well. It was for the legal department. Mine wasn't just a 4% reduction, but it was, again, stating before, we do not have line item authority, but in having a discussion with Mr. Bittner himself to see where we could try and work some, and obviously no one's going to want to give up anything, but This one, instead of being just a straight 4% at $40,953, this one totals up to $26,000, which was totaled with a reduction in training by sending three attorneys to the annual conference versus two since everyone did go this past year, reduce our professional services back down to the $25,000 for the amended budget of 2026, and reduce our legal services from $75,000 to $60,000, knowing that we haven't really gotten close to that number in a long time. So I make a motion for approval to amend his amendment with my amendment.

Motion made and properly seconded.

I will add just a little bit to that. I know that it has increased quite a bit from last year, but keeping in mind that it's working to fully staff as well as one of the attorneys is going through the process of taking the bar, which will also raise that salary too. So I apologize. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay. Councilman Brown on the amendment to the amendment.

Thank you, Mayor. So is this $26,000? adding to the $40,000 that he presented or replacing it totally?

This is replacing it. This is amending it.

Okay. Thank you. Councilman Clonch on the amendment to your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My intent was to not, understanding we don't have line item authority, to tell them where the reduction would happen, to let the legal department figure that out collectively just as a blanket 4%. Understanding I have more amendments that I've used that matrix to make sure that they're above what they had last year, but again, to save a little bit, just to clarify that.

Councilman Streetman, on your amendment to the amendment.

Thank you. And I understand that. And again, I got to this number by having a detailed conversation with Mr. Bittner himself, trying to find where we could look for those numbers. So I try and do it from that approach versus just allocating a percent to it. That's just the difference in how different ones may handle it. But that was where And obviously he could choose to do it elsewhere, however he wanted to do. But this was something that, like I said, talking with him, and I can assure you I especially didn't love some of those reductions on there. But I'm just trying to follow along with the same process that I followed last week.

Councilman Peters, you're recognized on the amendment to the amendment.

My question is for the councilperson who gave this amendment. What is the... What is regarded as reduced legal services? What does that fall under?

Might be best coming from the city attorney. I was going to call on him anyway and ask him to explain the impact to his budget with both. Mr. Bittner.

Okay, the... The reduction in legal services, what I'm using that for is for expert witnesses. When we have a personal injury case, what we've got is we've got a person who's transported maybe to the ER and there's tests run. Uh, after we, uh, get their medical records, we review those records to determine if those, uh, expenses are reasonable or necessary. We send that a set of records to a doctor for evaluation. And that doctor gives us a report. Uh, that doctor charges a $1,500 an hour for court time or deposition time and $1,500 to review the records. So if, um, if we've got, which we do, we have 78 active cases right now. We got 17 car injuries. We've got to, uh, send off and determine whether it was records. If we can't settle it and we're going to dispute it $1,500 a pop, uh, You know, we've got, I guess, what is that, 5? 7,500. So we've got 15. I can't do the math interprofessional, but anyway. So that's what we use that for. We also have an accident reconstructionist, which if there's a dispute on who is actually at fault, we have that person that draws the scene for us, and then we'll give a testimony at court. They'll come in. They charge us $250 an hour. And we have court reporters. We use the court reporter any time we take a deposition, any time we go to court, any time we have a bid protest. They charge us $250 an hour, and then they charge us to transcribe the deposition or the bid protest hearing. That usually runs somewhere around $1,500. That's what we take out of that. Um, and then we have for our police cases, use of force, uh, experts, they, they charge generally $500 an hour to tell us if the police acted within, uh, appropriate guidelines of what they're doing. Um, so that's what that's for. Uh, 15,000 reduction. What I told Councilman Streetman is I don't, I mean, she made it clear, and I appreciate that. I don't, you know, I wasn't turning cartwheels when she called me. But we do have money in the Internal Service Fund for accidents and things, and quite frankly, I'll be accessing that if I...

go down to zero. So Mr. Bittner, what you're saying is you're going to be reducing the amount of instance where you could use this expert, right? So would that not increase our liability? It could.

Uh, yeah, I mean, we use that, um, historically when a case comes into the city attorney's office, which it has quite frequently this year. Um, As you know, we got the Farmington issue going on. We have quite a few personal injury car wreck cases. What we try and do is follow what's called a Rule 12 motion. That is assuming all facts are correct in the complaint. We try and make the written argument that it doesn't state a claim regardless of what's in the complaint. So at the very outset of a lawsuit, all we're doing is using the attorney's time to research the case and using the paper in the Westlaw research. All of that is contained. As the case moves forward through the process, which we've had some of these cases now for years, several months, then that's when we start incurring the fees for the depositions and the doctor's fees and et cetera. So yes, yes, we do need these fees. That's why we asked for them. But as I spoke with Councilman Streetman, you know, if everybody's pitching in, I'll be relying on the internal service fund and I'll be looking to pluck those fees from that fund.

I appreciate your responses, Mr. Bidner. I'm going to vote no on this. I don't think we need to put ourselves in that kind of a liability situation. I think if that's the case, we need to be able to defend the city and the taxpayers from unjust... I'm going to have to vote no on this amendment. Thank you.

Councilman Streetman, you recognize?

Thank you. Mr. Bittner, I do just want to clarify just for everyone. You referenced the court reporter costs, but that one falls with the professional services, correct?

That's correct, 4330 out of that fee, and then I guess.

The legal services.

The legal services, yeah. Okay. Yes, yes.

Okay, sorry. Thank you, sir.

Yeah, my apologies.

Councilman Chandler, you recognize? Thank you, Mayor. I just heard something I didn't like at all. We reduced the fund from 20% to 17%. Now we're talking about reducing your budget, and we might have to go after something in that 17%. I'm going to have to vote no. We need to leave the legal people. They're the ones that keep this from going bankrupt. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Brown, you're recognized. Thank you, Mayor. So, Mr. Bidner, it's... a question you mentioned about the reconstructionist. So I'm assuming that it would not be proper to use the reconstructionist that the police department has on some of these crashes instead of contracting that out to an outside firm?

No, that would be conflict of interest. I'm sure if you put that in front of a jury, they would say, hey, if you're using this guy from the police department, he's going to come in and testify for the police department. Great.

Thank you. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you. Does anybody else have any more questions for Mr. Bittner? Questions for Mr. Bittner?

None. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Bittner.

Thank you. I understand, and again, he didn't love it, and I really would have loved to have seen those cartwheels. But, again, I was just trying to follow the path. I've looked at other departments, trying to look at each of the departments, and looking over just at the budget book in front of us, and seeing that, you know, our actual in 2025 was less than 10,000, and at the time of this, the actual in 2026 was less than 10,000. So that was the only reason why I was looking to reduce it from 75,000 to 60,000, knowing that that's way far from what we've had in the past. Obviously, it's up to the council what they want to support there, or if they would like to amend my amendment, they're welcome to, but... No, actually, you can vote mine down, and then you can amend his because we can't get too deep. But like I said, I was just looking for something to try and do, and this is still less than what we were looking at with the $43,000. All right.

Any more comment or question regarding the amendment to the amendment? We're voting on the Streetman Amendment to the Claunch Amendment. Every member, please cast your vote. Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Two yes, 11 no, zero abstain.

Amendment to the amendment fails. We're back on the amendment as presented. Councilman Brown, you're recognized on the amendment as presented.

Thank you, Mayor. So if this amendment is passed, the 40,953, that leaves it up to the department head to determine which categories they remove certain percentages from, or is this how do they determine... what areas that they are going to reduce their budget by. Well, they will have to figure it out.

And I'm telling you, folks, we're tying both hands and both feet of these departments when we start nickel and diming them. I'm just telling you.

And that's what I was wondering. They would be able to look at their own budget and go, I can take five from here, five from there. That was my question.

Okay. Mr. Bittner, do you want to jump on that?

Yes. Originally, when Councilman Streetman called me, I knew that this other amendment was coming, so I agreed immediately. to work with Councilman Streetman. I appreciate her calling me. However, if you vote to cut $40,953 from the legal budget, I assure you I will lay off the attorney that we just hired that took us a year to get. That will drop us down into the department to three attorneys. 78 active cases. We compare with Murfreesboro, Chattanooga, and Knoxville. Murfreesboro's got seven, Chattanooga's got seven, Knoxville's got 12. I'll remind you, we've got eight federal court civil rights cases. I've got 25 flood cases. We're doing condemnations. I've got six city court appeals. I've got 17 car wrecks. We're reviewing 150 contracts a month. I've got over 600 public records requests every month. I'm handling subpoenas and wage guardsmen. If I lay off an attorney, I guarantee you I am going to try and refer some of these cases to outside counsel because we will not be able to handle it. And I will remind you, in fiscal year 2020, we spent $725,000 in outside counsel fees. Fiscal year 21, we spent $74,000. In 2022, we spent $191,859. Fiscal year 23, we spent $345,000. Fiscal year 24, we spent $185,378. That was not on my tenure. But I tell you what, if we can't defend, we're sending them out because the city needs to be defended. And if we don't have the budget, somebody's going to defend them.

Councilman Brown, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Bittner.

Councilman Smith, on the amendment.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I agree with Attorney Bittner. I think the heavy workload that they have in the office, I was thinking, hey, we're going to end up getting rid of an employee, an attorney at that, and we need to keep all the attorneys that we have to defend us professionally and forcefully and powerfully. So I would be voting against this. I know they've got a heavy workload in there. We need our attorneys. And so I would not vote for anything to decrease the budget in the legal department. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Clonch, you have final comments on your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 26 looks a lot better than 41. That's all I have.

All right. We're voting on the Clonch amendment. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Zero yes, 13 no, zero abstain.

The word amendment fails. Councilman Clonch.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hotel, Whiskey 2 Hotel is coming around.

Councilman Clonch, you're recognized on your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is just to reduce human resources by 4%, reduce it by $136,384, which will still have their budget at $3.273,205 million. Again, it was in the spirit of... I guess this would be $100,000 adding up to pennies. Just trying to reduce where I could, understanding that when I spoke to several department heads, I had originally in my original amendments pulled out a training, understanding we can't do line item deletes that was requested to be left alone because it was advantageous for the department heads and their ability to network and Create esprit de corps within the city leadership. Motion. Second.

Motion been made and properly seconded. Councilman Streetman on this amendment.

I want to make an amendment to his amendment.

I sense a pattern here.

Let me pass mine around.

You'll hang on until we get your amendment passed around. Yes, sir. And we'll come to you.

Did I already hand you each? I think I already handed it to you all. Okay, hold on, I apologize.

Okay, there we go.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized on your amendment. Whose amendment?

Okay. I realize court is on here as well. I put two of them together, but I had HR and security on here as well. I did spend some time talking with Ms. Lentz regarding her budget, and one of the things that we were able to put down here was $45,000 to remove a replacement of radios. Those radios, they were actually able to use some of this year's funds just recently to be able to do, and they literally came in today. So that means that it'll fall on this year instead of falling on next year's. So she was able to work with me so that we could remove that $45,000 from there. And then, like I said, I already had it on the page together, so I just went ahead and put it around. It's a small amount. It's drops trying to fill a bucket. $2,200 to reduce office supplies. and cut the number of new chairs for court for the individuals that work in the window from four chairs to two chairs. I make a motion for approval.

Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of the amendment to the amendment. Councilman Shekinah on the amendment to the amendment. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I apologize. I just wanted to add because that way we may not have to talk again on it. My concern is if we go too big and go with just the straight 4%, because again, working with them. And again, a reminder, we don't get line item. These are just numbers that go with it, and I'm giving where the number's coming from that I'm suggesting. But my concern is if we just go straight with the What we may be looking at is having the pay study taken out of the equation for human resource, and I think that's very valuable to us as a city to know where our salaries lie and where we need to work towards. So my concern would be losing that. So I would just ask that you vote in favor of my amendment to replace this amendment, and like I said, I won't talk again on this one.

Councilman Shekinah, you're recognized on the amendment to the amendment.

Yes, I'm good with the amendment, the original amendment, Mayor, and when it comes around to me, I'll pass out something else on HR. Okay.

Councilman Chandler, you're recognized on the amendment to the amendment. Cut my mic off, Mayor. Thank you. All right. Any more comment or question on the amendment to the amendment? The chair's. folks in the windows at city court stand on their feet a lot and they need they need good chairs to support them and while that seems to be a small amount a new chair goes a long way all right we're voting on the amendment to the amendment every member please cast your vote madam clerk take the vote two yes eleven no zero abstain amendment to the amendment fails we're back on the amendment as proposed councilman Clonch You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, just a blanket 4% understanding the other council members' concerns with their budget. Just, again, kicking it back to the department heads to allow them to figure out where they can save on X, Y, or Z. And it still is a $300,000 increase from the previous year's budget.

Okay. I sure would love for Ms. Luntz to come forward and talk about impact. That's a big number. That is a big number. And it may seem small, but it's a big number. Ms. Luntz, can you give us a sense of what the impact of 136,384 reduction in your budget would be?

Well, considering my operating is only $329,000, I mean, that's a third of my budget that we're taking away. I would default on contracts. I would certainly take out the pay study because there's nothing guaranteed with that. I don't know. I don't want to make a blanket statement on the floor, but the impact is great in that. First and foremost, I wouldn't eliminate any of my filled positions, but, I mean, it's that's a significant decrease within our operating. And one thing that I do want to mention, if we had had a conversation ahead of this, I would let you know that our finance committee knows this as well. We absorbed two positions from the police, one of which from the police department, the other which from the Parks and Recreation Department. So while it looks like I'm receiving a lot more this year, we have two positions in my budget as a whole. There are HR positions that are specifically doing the HR function within those departments, and we're centralizing our services.

Councilman Brown for Ms. Luntz or just in general?

Thank you, Mayor. And that's what I was going to ask you about was, you're absorbing two positions from other budgets into yours so you know that is going to be a decent chunk you know 100 000 or whatever the number may be that is a part of that increase that you know if we didn't ask we wouldn't have known you know and that's was something that i emailed the other day and found out that you were absorbing two from other departments so that's just what i was going to ask and you answered it ahead of time

Councilman Claunch for Ms. Luntz or just in general?

Just in general.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Luntz. Oh, Ms. Luntz, hang on. Councilman Smith, you're recognized. I'll come back to you. I'll come back to you, Councilman Claunch.

Looking at this amendment, I think that any time you're going to pull money or decrease money from any department, you do need to talk with the department head because they know what they need before you ask. So with this being said, this amount of money would affect them, impact them in a serious way, and I see that because I know about HR and what they do, and I wouldn't be voting to take this amount of money out of their department. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more questions? Councilman Streetman for Ms. Luntz?

Not for Ms. Luntz.

Okay, thank you. You're recognized, and I'm coming to you.

Would it be possible, since everybody already has this, for me to propose a different amendment and take away the $2,200 for the court and specifically for the $45,000 for the removal of the radius?

That would be an amendment to the amendment. We have just one amendment before us now. We can go, Robert's rules allow for an amendment to an amendment, and that's it. Councilman Lovato, you had a point of order, a question?

Yeah, yes, because her amendment failed and she was not on the prevailing side, I don't think she can bring it back.

It's a different amendment.

It'd be a different amendment.

And the budget, we can keep bringing back amendments, I thought.

The red rule does not apply for budgets or budget amendments, so it can be brought back until the cows come home. Okay. What are we doing?

Can I do it without rewriting it since everybody already has it in front of them and just cross out the $2,200?

If you don't mind, just scratch out what you don't want, and we'll ask the clerk to make copies. That way we have it all in front of us. Okay.

My handwriting's not great, but it is what it is. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

I'll fix mine.

Okay, the posture we're in is Councilman Streetman is going to propose an amendment to the Claunch Amendment. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Yes, this is for the $45,000 we just heard from Ms. Luntz about what the effect the $136,000 would have on us. I appreciate the Councilmember from Ward 9 talking about why theirs also went up in regard to the movement of The two employees, as well as Ms. Luntz, talking about the two employees that were absorbed into their department. And again, this is $45,000 that has already been utilized this year and won't need to be utilized next year. So I would just make a motion to reduce it by $45,000.

The motion has been made and properly seconded to amend the amendment. Councilman Chandler, you're recognized on the amendment to the amendment.

Again, Mayor, I'm ugly, not stupid. But I'm still trying to figure out. He has made an amendment to the budget to reduce by 4%. Then Councilman Streetman, her amendment is to reduce the radios. How is that amending his amendment?

They both have to do with the HR department and their budget.

But that doesn't negate his amendment. If we approve hers, that doesn't negate his amendment. Because it didn't say anything about replacing it. It just said amend the budget to remove the radio.

Well, I'll let her speak for herself, but she is saying that this would replace the Claunch amendment for the HR budget.

Okay, then that would be proper, I think.

Okay, thank you for keeping me straight. You're welcome. Any more comment or question regarding this amendment to the amendment? All right. We're now voting on the amendment to the amendment. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Eight yes, four no, zero abstain.

This amendment passes, so we're now voting on the amendment as amended. which is just to reduce $45,000 from the HR department for the potential replacement of the radios that we don't need to. Any question or comment regarding that? We're now voting on this amendment as amended. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Nine yes, three no, zero abstain.

This amendment is adopted. Councilman Clonch, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is Whiskey 2 India.

Councilman Claunch, you're recognized on your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, in the spirit of pennies equaling thousands, I appreciate the reduction of $60,000 for a vehicle. Just trying to save some more money, 2%, which is $18,000. $18,659 from the mayor's office. Motion.

Motion has been made and properly seconded. Okay, well, Councilman Smith, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor.

Question on this amendment.

Yes. What are you trying to reduce for $18,000? What particulates?

We do not have line item authority, so I am just reducing his budget by 2%, which is $18,659. My intent is to let the mayor's office decide where that $18,659 comes from because we do not have line item.

Well, I see a lot of line items on many of these amendments that we just passed. So I'm going to ask the mayor if he would explain to us how would this affect or impact his office?

Well, I mean, we operate on a pretty thin budget as it is and thin margins. I mean, we, you know, we're looking at postage and supplies and, you know, again, you're tying both hands and both feet. And you got some duct tape over your mouth at this point and throwing us in the trunk. So I would ask you to vote against this reduction.

Well, I will not be voting in favor of this because I might be sitting in that seat one day. Thank you, Mayor.

Could be. Any other comment or question? Councilman Clonch, you have final word.

I understand, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate your perspective as well. I just really feel that if the funds are needed to operate the city, we could all do a little bit, and 2% is better than 4%, but not as... much as 8% and better than 0%.

I think I understood that. Councilman Streetman, you recognize on this amendment?

Yes, sir. And I understand where the sponsor of this amendment is coming from. Again, trying to work through the different ones. But knowing that we did already take $60,000 from that and looking at the overall budget is $932,000 and $848,000 of that is wages and salaries. And then you've got software, a lot of different things that go into account with this. I have a hard time of trying to take another $18,000 from it because we're looking at a small amount coming from a small amount at that point.

Any further comment or question regarding this amendment?

Aye. Mr. Mayor, I would just like to say that what was budgeted this year was $902,517. With the removal of $18,659, you'll still be left with $914,291. Understanding that in this room, the next mayor sits. No disrespect to the incoming mayor. Again, all in the spirit of $1,000 equals hundreds of thousands of dollars that equal pennies.

The vast majority of that number is personnel. All right, we're voting on this amendment. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Four yes, nine no, zero abstain.

Amendment fails. Councilman Clonch.

Let me see what I got here. Mr. Mayor, I'm reading the tea leaves. I am going to take this opportunity until the second reading to adjust some of my amendments. I would just like to say that I understand there was some feelings from a couple of the department heads about the numbers that were offered, and I would offer that there was some feelings about what happened last week with our amendments getting handed out.

So are you saying you're done for the evening or the moment?

For the moment.

Okay, I got you. All right. Councilman Peters, amendments?

I don't have anything, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Councilman Chandler?

None.

Councilman Marquis, are you recognized for amendments?

Yes, please. I have a couple here.

Don't tease us when you say two.

There you go. This one.

You'll wait until everybody gets it, and then I'll come to you for explanation and motion. Everybody got a copy? Councilman Marquis, you're recognized on your amendment.

All right. This one is from IT. This is just a couple of conferences that they are willing to just forego. This is done in conversation with Ms. Wilson, and she said that they can hold off on these pretty much. So I would make a motion for my amendment. Second.

Motion been made and properly seconded. I know you've said I don't doubt your veracity in talking to her, but I'd like to hear from our CIO the way technology is changing. I mean, I'm a dinosaur, and they laugh at me in the IT department, but Ms. Wilson, can you talk about the impact on your department if we pass this amendment?

So there were three conferences that we discussed. One is the MSISAC conference, which is a cybersecurity conference. The MSISAC we are part of. We are a member. We are a member because the state pays for us to be a member. We get alerts from that conference. Well, not from the conference itself, but daily. If there's a tack on a specific piece of software, we're notified of it. With the World Cup going on right now, we are made aware of cyber attacks that could happen because of that. Anytime there's something going on in the world, we're notified of that impact. So this would just allow us to go and network with those individuals that are getting those same communications that we are. A project management summit, we do that. We would like to send an individual. Our project managers are the ones implementing the softwares. Other trainings that we have. There's a network conference. There's an RSAC, which is a cybersecurity conference as well. We go to conferences like TILER, which is our ERP system. And we go and we get information about new features in those conferences that we bring back and share with our end users. There's a conference we go to for the police and fire department that's Axon and Locution we have in there. So we go and network with those end users as well. Training is a big piece of what we have to do. And I would give up my conference because I'm not going to ask my employees to give up their conferences and me still go.

Councilman Clonch, for Ms. Wilson or just in general?

For Ms. Wilson. All right. Ms. Wilson, we spoke and you had offered these. And will you please repeat what you just said about if you can't go? What did you just say?

I just said if I'm going to ask my employees to give up their training, their education, I'm going to take my conference out first.

Thank you, ma'am. I have the utmost respect for the IT department and the conversation we had about trying to figure out how we can save money. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Councilman Streetman for Ms. Wilson or in general?

Mine's in general. Okay. And mine falls right in line with what you just pointed out. These are some of the same ones because I have the stars beside them. These are some of the same that I had talked with Ms. Wilson about last week. Okay. I appreciate that you commended her, but that she sat up here and said, because that was exactly what she said to me when I talked about taking out one of the ones for her employee, and the very first thing she said, before you even take theirs, you take mine. So I just appreciated that greatly.

Councilman Smith, you're recognized on this amendment.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you for letting us know about the different conferences this And I heard you say that you would give up your training. No, you should never give up your training because you are the lead. The person that is the leader of their department should always have the knowledge, have more knowledge than those that they are over. So you should never give up your training, or neither should your employees. I think education is power, and we always need to be safe, cautious, and be aware if there is cyber stealing or anything that's going on within our city, IT. We need to keep all of this training. I believe in keeping training. I believe in our leaders being informed and educated. That's very important. So, no, I would not be voting on this because I think we need our training. That's very important. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Marquis, you get final thoughts. thanks all right we're now voting on the marquee amendment remember please cast your vote every member voted any member wish to change their vote madam clerk please take the vote seven yes six no zero abstain amendment is adopted councilman marquee you recognized yes this is another

Small one that I had a couple of people reach out about this also, and they feel like it can wait a little bit. The public would, well, some in the public who brought this up would prefer this to not happen.

Hang on just one second, if you don't mind. That way we can... Councilman... Do you have extra copies on the end over there? all right you're recognized on your amendment yep and it's just the purchase of the new fountain people in the public think that it can wait a little bit and that's the reasoning why so I'd make a motion for the motion made and seconded any comment or question regarding this amendment all right we're voting on this amendment to not purchase the fountain every member voted Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

10 yes, 3 no, 0 abstain.

Adopted. Councilman Marquis, you're recognized. All right.

One second. This is just...

If you'll get it passed out, then that way we'll come to you. She's going to explain in here in a minute. Everybody got a copy? Councilman Marquis, you're recognized on your amendment.

Yes. So this one, I'm not changing any numbers or anything. It's just that this is something that was annotated in the budget as moving, being closed and transferred over. So the request here is to delay that until council receives... an approval memorandum from bond council and is presented to us with how this money is going to be spent. It's just another way of us being accountable to the public on where their money is going. And I'll make a motion for this amendment. Second.

Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of this amendment. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. On this amendment, it says drainage mitigation, and I am going to be extremely cautious with any language or removal that says drainage mitigation. What exactly would moving this money do to this project?

Is that for the sponsor?

That is for whoever can answer that question.

That's a Mr. Smith question, if ever I heard one. Mr. Smith, if you will ask your...

So we'll need a seat amendment because we actually killed a couple of those capital projects, moved those into operating money, so we'll need to see how that's going to... Okay. So those were capital projects that were recurring for, I mean, several, several years, and we closed those as capital projects and moved those into operating accounts. So those are, in essence, now cash accounts that come directly from our operating...

So Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

I did not think that that was legal to move projects that are paid for with bond money from capital projects into operational. There's some conflicting information that we've been getting.

There's not any current contracts on this, so this would be from this point forward, instead of paying for these out of any kind of contracted value, we would pay for those going forward out of operating if we had a sinkhole fallout or anything like that within the right-of-way that we had to have engineering done and pay for material costs that would come from that.

It still isn't making sense because the original, and it's the same with the sidewalk, but I'm most concerned with the drainage. The original projects were approved as capital projects, meaning that it would be bond money, meaning that it would be debt. It was my understanding that you could not move that to operational.

Every year we appropriate, this council appropriates money that goes into a drainage mitigation fund. Some of it's paid for out of the operating cash. Some of it is bonded, borrowed money, depending on the size of the project and what we're doing. We're moving this money into operations. It's not debt we've already issued. It's merely moving it from borrowed money to cash. So we don't have to keep borrowing money for smaller projects or projects that have to do with sinkholes or drainage or...

putting a pipe under a road for example that sort of thing my confusion and frustration and this is not a question this is a statement my confusion and my frustration is the differences in responses that i get when i ask the same question that's all i have okay any more comment or question regarding this amendment councilman marquis you're recognized for final thoughts

No, again, the intent was just to be able to give our constituents a clear route on how the money is being spent ultimately. Thank you.

So if we borrow money for the sidewalk matrix or the drainage mitigation in those amounts or up to those amounts, you're requesting an approval memorandum from bond council before we move on.

before you move it to streets operating expenses? Because if this is bonded money, you're now moving bonded money into operating.

Well, no, we haven't bonded it. We haven't bonded it yet.

Okay.

We haven't borrowed the money yet.

So then where is this money coming from?

Cash, right? Yes. Yes. It's in the operating budget just like payroll and supplies and gas, et cetera. It's not debt. Everything we've done to this point where we borrowed money for, we aren't moving that. We're obligated to pay those bond payments, and that's in our debt service. But this would be going forward in the new fiscal year. Councilman Clontz, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My understanding is this is just to create accountability and transparency to the city of where the funds are going. Is that an accurate statement?

Is that to the sponsor? Is that to the sponsor?

Is it to the sponsor? Okay. Yeah, that is what the intent was because, again, it... Give me a second here. Because it is... I'll open my email here. Because I was asking about what these types of projects were, and it was told to me that they are bonded projects. So that is why... My understanding was that the money is bonded. For us to close these to move them to capital did not make sense without us really understanding where the money is moving to.

We're not closing projects. We're merely moving them from the debt column to the operating or cash column. And I'm often wrong but never without an opinion, so I can stand to be corrected.

It's because, yeah, it's what I was told, capital projects are funded by bonds. So if this is what is remaining, yeah.

They absolutely are.

Yeah.

Okay.

Councilman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to agree with the council person from Ward 12. Mr. Bidner, can you shed any light on this?

Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry, I forgot he worked for you.

As long as it's transparent. Need a solid plan, don't we?

I can't do that.

I can't vote by proxy.

Councilman Peters, you're recognized with the city attorney if you'll ask the question.

Mr. Bednar, when you move funds, bonded money, to general funds, is that legal?

Okay. I think there's a misunderstanding from where these funds are coming from. According to my conversation with the CFO, and maybe I'll ask her to come up, these are not bonded funds.

But I thought... The mayor said they were. No. Are these capital projects not funded by bonds?

We are simply moving the sidewalk matrix money that we typically, historically, have borrowed money for out of borrowed money. We hadn't borrowed it yet, but usually if we're going to do it, replace sidewalks in the sidewalk matrix, we would borrow that money and add it to our debt service. This next fiscal year, starting July 1, we're moving, instead of doing bonded money, we'd put it into our cash operating account. So we're not, we haven't borrowed money yet, and we don't plan to borrow money for the sidewalk matrix and the drainage mitigation. Does that make any sense at all?

It makes sense, but I'm going to go on a record and say I disagree. And I'll close with that. I think something's definitely off there. But I'll disagree with it, but I want that on a record that I disagree with what we're being told here. Okay.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you. And if I'm misspeaking, it's fine. I feel like where the confusion is coming from is if this was a – we have capital projects that have not been funded because the bond hasn't been issued, the debt hasn't been issued to fund those particular projects. In this particular case, this is – What this is about is this has not been funded by a bond issuance, so it's not borrowed funds that we're using. But I do have a question. Mayor, is the street department currently, they're the ones doing the sidewalk matrix anyway, correct?

Correct.

So it's the same department still doing it. It's just we're paying it out of our pocket versus asking the bank to pay it for us.

Right. because we're at our debt limit. And so it's either not do sidewalk, replace the sidewalks or pay for it out of cash and keep going.

Okay. Thank you.

I don't want anybody leaving here thinking that we're doing anything, any kind of voodoo here because we're not, this is merely accounting for this money differently.

next fiscal year councilman Peters you recognized no I don't think anything like that mr. mayor but I just want to clarify I understand what the council person Ward 10 is saying I get that but I'm not gonna say anything further at this point but I understand what what we're saying here but okay still disagree okay and that's healthy to disagree all right we're we're now voting on this amendment as presented everybody please cast your vote

We're voting on the Marquis Amendment. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Six yes, seven no, zero abstain.

If the amendment fails, Councilman Marquis.

Okay, next. All right.

Councilman Marquis, you're recognized on your amendment.

All right. So this is just something that I think will solve our issue and get us in that compromise of what's going on with the golf community and then One is the amendment. The other is a letter from the Tennessee Golf Foundation president to show that he is willing to come to the table and enter into a public-private partnership with the city in order to run the golf courses and at their expense ultimately so eventually the steady taxpayer will no longer be paying for the golf courses while they still remain open to the public and so this what this does here is it just closes off those capital projects because they will eventually take those on and so similar to what we did frosty moore last year where we um went out and got into a partnership with another group in order to do senior housing. This is the same concept, but you have an organization here who wants to come to the table. It's not a contract, not a deal. It's just come on and let's discuss so that we can figure out something. But yeah, I'll make a motion for this amendment.

Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of this amendment. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized on this amendment.

Yes, I am wholeheartedly against making this move at this point in time. I mean, this does say that they welcome the opportunity to share resources, best practices, and expertise. They're ready to engage in constructive dialogue. But this doesn't tell us, this isn't a contract. This doesn't mean that it's absolutely signed over to, I'm not sure what we're throwing our hands up for, but it's not a contract. It's saying they're ready to engage in constructive dialogue. So I know, especially in Ward 10, this has been exceptionally important to people that live in my ward. They are wanting Mason Rudolph Golf Course opened back up. They're wanting to see this. They've been wanting it now for years. I want us to move forward and actually fund this and get this done because I don't know what all this is going to entail. So to vote to just do away with the project, not knowing what the end result is going to be with anything that we might work out with them. I'm not saying that we can't find some sort of middle ground, but we don't know what this middle ground is based on an email. that they're ready to engage in constructive dialogue. I would ask that you vote this down for removing this funding. And my assumption is this is just strictly the capital projects fund and not the operating. So at least we would still have the operating. But I know that we've talked about the fact we specifically heard there was concern of losing our greens at Swan Lake. We needed to move forward with that project. And like I said, in regard to Mason Rudolph, the community has spoken loudly that they want us to move forward and get this done. I've heard from many golfers, even recently, wanting us to get this project done we are yes there is some expenditures that go along with this but i don't know why i mean we've had other capital projects that have to do in the past that had to do with other of our parks and recreation with pools with everything else golf is actually where we get the biggest return from on our investments that we make from them So I would ask that you vote against this and stand with the golfers in our community and keep this in here and let's actually get this project moving and get it done.

Councilman Lovato, you're recognized on the amendment.

Thank you, Mayor. I have two questions. Is it possible to separate the question and vote on Mason Rudolph and Swan Lake separately?

Yes, you can make a motion to separate the question, divide the question, excuse me.

I make a motion to divide the question.

Motion been made and properly seconded, divide the question. How are we dividing it? If you don't mind, explain, Blesha.

Well, there's two items here. There's one for capital projects for Parks and Rec Mason Rudolph and then divide it from the capital projects fund for Parks and Rec Swan Lake. So we'll be voting on Mason Rudolph and Swan Lake separately.

Okay, we're voting, we will be, Discussing the motion to divide the question, we're not voting on the amendment at this point, we're just voting to divide the amendment into two parts. Any question or comment regarding that, we're just merely voting to divide the question into two parts, separating the two golf courses. All right, let's vote on dividing the question. Madam Clerk, take the vote, please.

Nine yes, three no, zero abstain.

All right. The motion to divide the question has passed, so we are now discussing these two items independently, separately, as two amendments. Okay. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

So on the amendment for Mason Rudolph, would it be possible to have our Parks and Rec director to come up and answer some questions about Mason Rudolph?

I'd be happy to. Without objection, Ms. Letourneau. Councilman Lovato.

Can you give us an update on where we stand with Mason Rudolph as of today and what we're doing over there right now?

Currently, we are just operating a driving range.

And sorry this is off the top of your head, but do you remember what the annual bring home was from the driving range?

We were just looking that up. It looks like the revenue on the driving range is $49,880 as of 2025, FY 2025. Okay.

And then how much does it cost to operate Mason Rudolph right now?

I'm going to have to jump back in real quick. So the entire budget over there is $67,933.

So we're losing money annually on the golf course, just operating it as? I'm sorry?

I said how much did she just say because you were writing it down.

$67,933.

So we're losing money on it. I will say I'm not in favor of turning it over to a private entity. but I do think that we need a new vision for Mason Rudolph. We've been talking about Mason Rudolph for a year and a half now. It's two years. It's still sitting there. It's still losing money as a golf course. We do need to make a move on it, so I am in favor of cutting this capital project and turning it into a park or whatever Parks and Rec's vision is. So that's all the questions I have.

Councilman Streetman, for Ms. Letourneau or in general?

In general.

Okay, thank you.

recognized thank you as I just spoke a minute ago and Mason Rudolph is the biggest one that we have heard about the community once this golf course opened back up I don't want to see us just close it down they didn't want to park I mean and again this is huge in Ward 10 there's a lot of people and one of the things I've learned throughout this whole process is actually within Clarksville, actually within the state of Tennessee, more of our golf scholarships are coming from the Clarksville area. And the great thing about Mason-Rudolph is it is an easier course. It's a wonderful beginner course for our youth to be able to play on, both youth and senior citizens. Being a nine-hole, something they can easily walk, it allows them to be able to get that exercise, but it allows our youth to be able to learn the game of golf and potentially create an opportunity for them to be able to go to college. It costs less to play at Mason-Rudolph. I would ask that you please support this. And again, I keep saying the name Mason Rudolph. There's history that's associated with that. Please support leaving this capital project in there and understand this has been huge to our community, and they want to see this continue in place.

Councilman Peters, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can I ask Ms. Letourneau a question? Sure. Ms. Letourneau?

Yes, sir.

Just so I'm clear, you guys made $49,000 just on the driving range. That's no golf, right?

Correct.

Okay. So if you play golf, you probably make a profit, right?

The last couple of years that we were in operation, we did not. Okay. But a lot of parks and recreation things do not make money.

But that's due to, would you say, the condition of the course?

Correct. Yeah.

Okay. I just want to say, thank you. That's all I got for you. Thank you. I just want to say, I took my children to play golf here. I mean, that's where they learned how to play golf with me. I'm not a fisherman. I'm boring, really. I just ride motorcycles and play golf. I don't fish. I don't hunt. I don't do any of that. So I don't go to public swimming pools. I don't do any of that kind of thing. So we're going to provide pools for citizens. We're going to provide soccer fields for citizens. We're going to provide all this stuff for everybody else. But we're just going to say, this is on the golfers. I don't think that's very fair to the people of the community. I mean, what's fair play is fair play. I think we need to support Mason Rudolph. It has history. It has lineage as far as a place to take your children and teach them to be with Dad. Take them out on a golf course. I'm not about to take them out on Swan Lake, as I remember in 1984. Four, I want to say, when I hit Swan Lake, hurry up, get out of my way, get out of my way, hurry up, get out. I don't want my kids going through that. So I had to play Mason Rudolph in nine holes at Easton Green when it was open to learn how to play golf. Now you're going to take away Mason Rudolph. Where are the kids going to go play, learn to play golf? It ain't going to be at Swan Lake because, one, the golfers, they ain't going to want to put up with that. I think we need to support Mason Rudolph. I think we need to support Swan Lake. But, uh, That's for the council to decide, but don't be so hasty in casting out citizens who play golf. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to make a comment, and then actually I want to ask Ms. Letourneau to come back up here. I am not unempathetic to the sentiment of Mason Rudolph Golf Course and the history that is there. But looking at our situation as a city and being good stewards of the money, I do not believe this is appropriate. If we commit to this $1.4 million to revitalize Mesa Rudolph, you are committing to increasing their operating budget because now they're going to have to keep up the greens and do all of the water mitigation and the mowing and how frequently they have to mow. So if you approve this capital project, I hope that you're ready to increase taxes next year when it's ready to be played on. So with that, I would like to ask Ms. Letourneau what her estimate of what the operating cost will be if it turns back into a full-blown golf course.

Ms. Letourneau.

Yes, that's a little bit difficult to do because it's been about three years since we have operated as a full-blown golf course. It would take me a little bit to pull those numbers together, but it would be significantly higher due to chemicals, water, and that type of thing. That's all I have.

All right. Thank you. Councilman clock. You recognized, uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Uh, I play golf. I'm not very good. I know the history of, of that golf course, but to my fellow council members points, if we're continually losing money, it's not working. Uh, and I guess I would ask, and I'm sure this is wrong, but can we pause spending this money and put it in a different bucket until we, as a council, entertain or have a conversation about the potential to do this as opposed to just throwing it either a yes or a no and throwing it out the window or saying we're keeping it all and going to spend $1.4 million, $1.365 million on a golf course when it is clearly not working the way that it is. I believe that's the definition of insanity.

Well, to operate or not operate a golf course, a park, a swimming pool, name it is an operational management administrative function not a legislative one so the council would appropriate or not in this case money to operate or not a golf course build a road name it and it would be up to the administration to decide how to get that done within the funding and resources that are available this may be a better if we're going to do something like this I would rather not identify a single entity and throw it out for an RFP request for a proposal and see if there are people who can given certain parameters accomplish what we want to but I'm way off script here, but I'm doubting the veracity of the script right here because we've had conversations with them, and I'll just leave it at that. Councilman Clonch, you still have the floor. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was rambling.

No, I ramble all the time. The golfing community is very passionate about that. and I fully respect and understand that as a golfer that sucks. I also can appreciate what that is. However, it is not operating the way or making a profit. So with sir, what you said, I, I don't know if there is a way to put a pin in this, do an RFI for quotes to see other, explore other options as opposed to, $1.365 million going out the door.

Well, a better, an approach, I won't say better, but an approach would be to have a resolution to express the sense of the council that we look at alternatives for operating the golf courses. That doesn't commit to a group or a path, and we may decide that it is not something we want to do. And frankly, I have serious, serious doubts. Anybody's going to come in and spend the kind of money they need to and be able to operate it and on an affordable basis for our citizens. I am just very doubtful.

And I very much respect that perspective, but with a lot of things that we've seen, there is a lack. And I understand how this goes to a lack of community involvement at town hall to say, Hey, this is, these are the options. And then those options brought back to this council. to make an informed decision with different proposals and the sentiments of not just the Book of Face or the TikTok, but citizens in a different forum?

Well, the question before us is we've divided the question into the two golf courses as to pursue this, and this is according to the Marquis Amendment. So any further comment regarding that?

Apologies, I know I was I was off script to I'm down at the river. Okay, not here with us. All right I'll leave it at that sir.

Councilman Streetman. You're recognized.

Thank you mayor Okay, so we're talking about Mason Rudolph and we're talking about one point three six five million as a capital project and the concern being stated That you know, that's that's they're not making a profit. We're just throwing this money away and As was stated, parks and recreation, those aren't things that make money. The Greenway, any amount of money that's spent on that, we're not getting any revenue on the Greenway. The amazing fireworks show that we have, that's costing us much more than what we're making. But in reference to what the council member from Ward 3 referenced of why are we kind of picking on golfers here. So let's talk a little bit about the $1.365 million for the capital project. Let's look at what centers cost us. And these are some numbers that I did get from Parks and Recreation, fiscal year 26. For our recreation centers, they brought in a whopping $14,000 with an expense of $688,000 plus utilities of $65,000 for a net loss of $739,000. So one thing we could do is we could shut down all of the recreation centers and then within two years, re-recouping our money to be able to pay for the golf courses. But I don't really think that's fair because then all the taxpayers are paying for everybody to play golf, even though the golfers are paying for everybody to be able to go swimming, such as in fiscal year 26, where the revenue was $266,000 to an expense of $361,000, utilities totaling $111,000 once again. that we're taking a huge hit for those to be able to pay. I know I looked at this in the past. I didn't do a breakdown of it this time. But several years ago when this was also talked about, was taking it away, we actually got a whole lot closer on our return for investment on golf courses than we got anywhere on any of the others. So although golfers are a unique group that are playing golf and probably aren't going to the recreation area, may not be going to the recreation centers because they're at the golf course, and they may not be swimming. Except for the young ones, they're probably not playing much Little League. But there are things that we have lots of people in our community that are taking advantage of parks and recreation opportunities. It's not just golf. It's not just going and playing basketball or doing the different things in the recreation centers. It's not just playing tennis. It's not just playing pickleball. It's not just going swimming at the pools. There are a lot of this. And if we're talking about giving away one aspect of our recreation, we ought to just give it all away and not worry about having the rest because everybody is in this. And these recreation opportunities are things that to benefit our community citizens. So like I said, I'm not in support of this one. I'm not in support of the next one where we split the question. And again, I would ask that you vote both of these down. Even if we are able to work something out, love that. But we don't, again, don't know what that looks like. Are they going to come in and do this? But we're still responsible for paying for all of the employees and if we're responsible for paying for the employees who's taking the money in for them playing golf? Are we taking it in or are they taking it in? Is it going to end up being an expense with no revenue? We don't know what this full picture looks like. Again, I think it would be great if we could find some sort of middle ground to work with them, but we don't have anything like that at this point in time before us. I don't want to see us take these capital projects away. I don't want to see another season of golf go by where they can't play at Mason Rudolph. I want to see this get done and move forward.

Councilman Shekinah, be recognized.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. As it stands right now, council person from Ward 4, I like your idea, but not enough information and we can't just roll the dice. So, yeah, Ward 5. Yeah, Ward 5. So I'm a no vote for that reason. But at the same time, I do like some of the other council members that talked about how we need to really look at this. And I'm on the Parks and Rec Committee, and I know Parks and Rec's in the committee. We talk about these golf courses a lot, and we talk about what it costs and things like that. So I assure you that we're not just throwing money at it. We're trying to figure out how to reduce this cost all the time, and that's a challenge, like in this area as well as other areas, how to reduce that cost. But I do think that further conversations need to be held on both of these golf courses and how to streamline that cost because that is a lot of money. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Marquis, you're recognized on your amendment.

Yes. I just wanted to reiterate that I did mention that this is not a contract. It's not a deal. I said that from the start, that this is just opening the dialogue to come to the table because this individual has actually been brought to Clarksville multiple times by the very golf community. They want this to happen because we're not giving away the golf course. We're going to keep it. The city owns the golf course. They will manage it. So to the question of the employees, The way that they have been operating in other cities across Tennessee who have done this is that those employees eventually become theirs. So they are not losing jobs. They still maintain a job while they operate the golf course. The maintenance is also their responsibility. We just own the property. They take all the responsibility and everything, which is why eventually once something happens between the city and them, We don't have this as a line item in our budget. It's not something the taxpayer worries about, and it's something that only about 2% of our community actually even utilize compared to the rec centers that every ward goes to. So this is something that the golfers have brought up. This is their conversation, and they have brought this man to Clarksville multiple times. That's how I found out about him. Thank you.

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

I sat and I listened to, well, this doesn't make money. That doesn't make money. Let's do away with it. Well, let's see. Chief Montgomery, your fire department doesn't make the city any money, so we're just going to get rid of you. Police department makes a little bit and fines. Street department, we don't make any money, so no more street department. I'm all for reducing our overall budget. Mayor, how long have we been at $0.92, $0.93?

We're currently at $0.92. Before that, it was $0.88.

But how long?

One year at $0.92, one year at $0.88, and then the reappraisal hit, and we were at $1.20. So...

You know, we're sitting here, we're nitpicking nickels and dimes tonight. Look at the county. $2 and something. The only thing that they provide those of us that live in the city, which all 13 of us have to, ambulance service. That's it, schools. Don't shake your head, Jimmy. I know you're going to say the Sheriff's Department, but the Sheriff's Department makes money off the city because every time we arrest somebody and put them in that jail, you get money. Folks, we need to quit nickel and diamond. We need to quit. We're not Dover. We're not Aaron. And we sit here with our arms open telling everybody across the United States, come to Clarksville, we'd love to have you, but you're not getting squat when you get here. We're going to close our golf courses. And, folks, think about it. How many times have you ever really known anybody to come in, take a government facility, or we'll manage it for you? Don't worry about that. Pick up the phone, call your state legislators, and ask him about the prisons that are under private contracts. It's nothing but mess is all it is. No, they're making money for themselves. They don't make money for the state. If we bring these people in here, which, you know, here it is, what, June the 16th? We've got 14 days to pass a budget. And we're sitting here talking about, well, let's hold off on keeping our golf courses open because these other people might be interested. How about we fund it for this year and then go into before 14 days into next year is all we have left to budget. Go into some kind of negotiation with them, see what they offer. have our legal department draw up contracts or whatever that we can all live with. But I'm sitting here telling you folks, I'll go ahead and tell you, I'm not running for re-election. Not one time. Because I'll be 75 years old when my term is up. That's too old to be sitting up here. But my point being is we have to Nothing, 88 cents, 92 cents, you want us to get down to what? 95 cents? How are we going to provide, as big a town as we have, how are we going to provide if we just keep cutting and keep cutting, 20,000 here, 30,000 there, let's cut out the recreation, you know, really and truly.

Point of order, Councilman Lovato.

Are we still talking about the amendment?

Yes, we're still talking about the amendment. And I haven't interrupted you, so please don't interrupt me.

All right, let's get back on the amendment. Councilman Chandler, you have the floor.

I know I have the floor, and the amendment is to eliminate this golf. I'm telling you that... I broke my train of thought there. Thank you. Again... We're cutting this. Go drive by. I used to have to go to radiation treatments out at oncologist at Vanderbilt. And I'd drive by that golf course every morning. And sometimes 7.30 in the morning, and there's at least 15 or 20 golfers on the course that I can see at Swan Lake. Let's just... think about providing services at a decent cost to our citizens. That's all I got to say, Mayor, and I will be voting against this.

Councilman Streetman?

I just have one last point to add. I know it was stated that the golfers want this. The golfers brought him to town. But I'll tell you that, I mean, I've heard from the golfers. What the golfers want is they want the golf course back open. They want it to be done. And, again, they're not opposed to conversations being had. But their first choice, I believe, is that they would want us to hold it and us to do it because it's our golf course. And they do, I mean, they look at it, too, of wanting to keep it affordable as well. But, I mean, I think those conversations elsewhere started because they felt like, you know, we as a city, we're not funding this. Well, we have the opportunity. We have it before us. let's keep this, let's do this, and let's get it done for all of us in Clarksville for this and for any other projects or parks and recreation opportunities that we have.

Councilman Marquis, you have Councilman Smith first, and then I'm coming to Councilman Marquis for the final word.

Thank you, Mayor. I just have a simple question. How long has Mason Rudolph been listed on our capital projects as one of our capital projects? How long?

Well, I'm 68 years old, so... Long time.

A long time. So do we have the money to fund this in the capital projects, or are they still on hold? I know at one time our capital projects were on hold.

They would be an active capital project in next fiscal year, provided the council approves the budget.

So it's another probably six more months, wait, to see if it would be approved. From today, maybe about almost another seven months or so. Wait a minute. What's that? This was to wait for us to come back next year to approve it. That would be on the list for another what? Because if we're waiting, we just keep waiting.

As we know, it's one thing to get on the capital improvement project list. It's another to fund the projects that are on it. And this project has been on the list but not been funded.

Is it a priority to be funded?

It depends on the 13 of us.

Well, it looks like we're wasting time. Because I know the constituents, they do want to keep Mesa Rudolph as a golf course. I've gotten a lot of calls and feedback about this. And it is a historical place that used to be our stomping ground when I was a young girl. I hope that we do fund this and keep Mason Rudolph Golf Course alive. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Councilman Marquis for final comments. Now, remember, we've divided the questions, so we'd be voting on each golf course individually regarding your amendment, so you're recognized.

No, I'm ready to vote.

Okay. I think everybody else is. Okay, we're voting. First item is the marquee amendment on the Mason Rudolph Golf Course. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

Four yes, nine no, zero abstain.

That amendment fails. We're now voting on the Swan Lake Golf Course as presented. And an amendment by Councilman Marquis. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

3 yes, 10 no, 0 abstain.

That amendment fails. Councilman Marquis. Okay. For now. For now. All right. Councilman Smith, you're recognized for amendments.

I have no further.

No amendments. Councilman Holloman, you're recognized on amendments. No amendments. Thank you. Councilman Haywood, you're recognized on amendments. I'm going to hold off on my amendment. Okay. Councilman Brown.

No amendments this evening.

Councilman Streetman.

I do.

I'll tell you what. Before you do, we're going to take a ten-minute recess. So we're going to stand in recess until 7.05. So please be back in your seat at 7.05. It is 7.07. We are now back in session. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized for your amendment.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll let this get around here. The first one. Make sure I'm not shorting anybody. Okay, now.

Do we have copies for finance as well? You got them? Okay.

Okay, this is just the $51,000 for the police department that I talked about last week. This is where, after their budgets were submitted and just very recently, they were able to renegotiate their contract to reduce their Verizon cell phone costs. It's simply that $51,000 for their cell phone part, the part of their cell phone contract, is not still needed in there. So this is just reducing it, just that. It doesn't have anything else that I included last week. It is only the $51,000 for the renegotiated contract on their cell phone. I make a motion for approval.

Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of this amendment. Councilman Smith on this amendment.

So what is the cost for the cell phones today? Are they no longer with Verizon? Are they still with Verizon?

They're still with Verizon. They were just able to renegotiate their contract just as anybody would do. They were able to renegotiate what their cost would be for that. And I don't know if it's specifically. What's the cost today?

Hang on a second. Let her finish and then I'll come back to you.

And I've got to see if it's specifically in there. I talked directly with the police department on this. So. Hold on, let me use my trusty book here. Big thank you to Councilperson Deanna McLaughlin and how she always did this. It's in their communication bill, which there's other things that go in their communication category. So you've got $406,393 that are in there, and this is reducing that $406,393 by $51,000. Councilman Smith. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Chief Burdein.

Yeah, you do. Would you come forward? Yes, sir. Not that we don't believe, but trust but verify. We have renegotiated, and this amount of money is no longer needed?

We do not need this money any longer. We're under a state contract with Verizon, and we've made these numbers as we prepare for a budget, but since we have not really renegotiated but chose a different plan to cost saving, and this is the cost savings for that. We do not need this $51,000. Okay. All right. Thank you.

All right, any more comment or question regarding this amendment? Seeing none, hearing none, are you ready to vote? All members, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

13 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Amendment is adopted. Councilman Streetman.

Thank you. And the next one is coming around, but I'll go ahead and just start talking about it a little bit. Last week, one of the amendments I brought forward was to remove the Verizon fleet tracking because we have the other fleet tracking within the budget. they were able to locate there were a few more that had not been removed from the budgets so it's five hundred twenty eight dollars for a vehicle in IT and two thousand two hundred ninety seven from building and facilities maintenance and ten thousand nine hundred and ten from the street department for a total of $13,735. And again, this is just the money associated with the Verizon fleet tracking, and we've already got a different, much better fleet tracking software that's factored into our budget. So I make a motion for approval.

Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of this amendment. Councilman Clonch, you're recognized on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to clarify, Councilperson, this is not, it's just a different system. They're still going to have tracking mechanisms.

Councilman Streetman, to you.

Yes, yes, they will still have tracking mechanisms in there. And again, they've actually got a much better, much more robust system. tracking system in there. This was just where this one was still in there. So we worked last week to get a lot of those out and these were just a few more that we found that were still in there and we're just taking the last bit of those out of there.

Thank you, ma'am. Any more comment or question regarding this amendment? Seeing none, hearing none, let's vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

13 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Amendment is adopted. Councilman Streetman?

That concludes my report, Mayor.

All right. Councilman Shekinah, have you recognized on amendments?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I had one, but Councilmember from Ward 2 already spoke about it, and his was voted down, so I'm not going to bring it up. So I have another one next week.

All right. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized on amendments.

I have no amendments, but I do have questions about the revised budget, if you'll allow me to ask them.

Sure, go ahead.

Go ahead. In the line, sorry, let me get this pulled up, sorry. In the operating revenue, there's transfers from gas and water and CDE in lieu of taxes. Gas and water's line was decreased from ordinance 90 to 91, but CDE was not. And I was a little confused why one was reduced and one wasn't.

That's a good question. Can our finance department answer that? If you would, ask the question again for the record.

Yeah. Under operating revenues, there's two lines, one for a transfer from gas and water in lieu of taxes, and one is a transfer from CDE in lieu of taxes. Gas and water, we saw a decrease in this ordinance from last week's ordinance, but we did not see a decrease in CDEs.

So they're calculated differently depending on the agreement that was made. We know the calculation for gas and water. So when it went from $1.23 to $1.08, we were able to recalculate that to show the difference if we decrease the tax rate.

So the line for CDE, is that accurate or we're not sure of the formula right now?

I'm not positive of the formula.

Should be.

we I mean this is our budget should we clarify with CDE before we well if it survives first reading then we can come back and give you the accurate numbers both the full picture of the budget attachment a as well as the tax rate because anything that we give you tonight will be pretty close to accurate with with subject to verifying all the numbers from finance and they'll come back and give us a report

Okay, my next question is about the transfer to debt services. We saw a decrease from the two ordinances as well. It was my understanding that that was set in stone and that no decreases could be made to that line. Can you clarify what changed?

Any of the old bond issues cannot be changed, but currently we're still working on the band, actually signing the contract with the bank. So at this moment, we can still make changes to how much we're gonna draw down. If you remember, I said we were gonna go to a ban so it could be a draw down instead of just borrowing the 42 right now. So when we removed capital projects, we were able to reduce the amounts that we're going to draw down over the next year, thereby reducing the interest payments and able to reduce the debt service. But only on that one issue that's not set in stone yet.

So is that the full amount for that, or can this go down more?

We have two years to draw the full $42.5 million. So we can reduce what we're going to draw this year, knowing that we also have next year to draw some of it.

So the current transfer equals how much of the drawdown right now?

Can I get that number for you?

Just as a refresher, we at the request and the recommendation of the finance department went to a bond anticipation note which allowed us instead of borrowing the entire amount and then being on the clock as to how quickly we needed to spend it, we only draw down and spend what we need which reduces our debt. and allows us to be a little more flexible in how we deal with the finances of this city. But good question.

can definitely get you that number right now we have so many spreadsheets that we've worked we can't find the final one but I know that just includes the Tylertown project the Spring Creek now the two golf courses are in there and which other one safe streets for all which is a grant program where we just has a city match in it okay so those that's why we can do that for