Council - Regular Meeting

[laughter] Oh yeah. I didn't call What district is she? [laughter] All right. Thank you.

They might have You already got one. [laughter] Oh yeah. Oh yeah.

[laughter]

Is there any way to see you guys? Oh,

the reason I know. That's what they are. All right. Well, good evening everyone. Welcome to the city hall. City council chambers like to call tonight's meeting to order. We'd like to welcome all of you uh who are here presumably for a city council meeting this evening. If you have come for that meeting, you are at the right place. Uh before the start of that meeting, we do have three public hearings this evening which we will go through uh and then we will then we will call the meeting to order. So first public hearing number one public hearing on ordinance number 4563 an ordinance to amend ordinance 4400. The same being the zoning ordinance of the city of Columbia, Tennessee by adopting the waters edge at Taylor Landing preliminary pud master plan for tax map 90 parcel 712 located off River Road and Taylor Ben Taylor Bend. This is ward three. Anyone in the audience wish to be heard on public hearing number one. If you'll come forward, you'll have the floor for three minutes on public hearing number one. If you'll please state your name and your address for the

record, please. I have some uh letters I'd uh like to distribute. Can I do that through Liz? You can pass it to the officer. Thank you. You have the floor for three minutes.

Uh Joshua Moore, 360 Coleman Court. Um, I have consulted an attorney who reviewed your procedure on this and found it legally deficient. Copies of his letter are being provided to each of you and were sent by email earlier today. Our combined petitions now have over 200 signatures opposing this ordinance representing more than 100 Taylor Landing homes. Last month, I raised concerns about how this ordinance was brought back after it failed on first consideration in October, including that the agenda for the November 13th meeting was posted at 3:54 p.m. the day before, a timestamp still visible on the city's website. The city has not produced the civic clerk logs for the last month's meetings, and I received no response either, now 15 business days after my public records public records request. My comments last month along with those by homeowner Christy Daws and your own city attorney about the open uh meetings act are emitted from the minutes you're approving tonight. That act requires minutes to be fully and accurately recorded under the city charter zoning ordinance 4400 state law and Robert's rules of order. A failed zoning ordinance text amendment cannot be revived by placing it back on the agenda to be reconsidered. At last week's uh study session, council members Serest and McCullen stated they decided to change their votes after non-public meetings or discussions with city manager Tony Massie, development services director Paul Kelner, and apparently with each other. And because of the property's condition of overgrown weeds and trash for the record, I filed multiple code complaints starting in August, submitting photos and a PowerPoint presentation. The city's lama record shows a notice of violation was issued to the property owners Brent and Gail Campbell on o on August 22nd, then closed with without reinspection and marked in compliance on September 5th, 5 days before the planning commission vote and before the council's failed vote in October. Now, those same uncorrected

code violations are being cited as justification to reverse votes and grant the property owners vested rights and give the developers put approval. The city's enforcement failures cannot serve as the basis to revive a failed zoning ordinance text amendment using unlawful procedure. Homeowners were told in writing this ordinance failed and would not return. Bringing it back now after those assurances, these procedural defects, and clear conflicts creates serious legal risk for the city and undermines public trust. Thank you for allowing me to place this on the record.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Anyone else in the audience this evening wish to be heard on public hearing number one? Seeing none, anyone on council wish to be heard on public hearing number? Is there a hand? If you'll please come forward, ma'am. Sorry about that. If you'll come forward and identify yourself, please. And you'll have the floor for three minutes.

Hi, good evening. My name is Christy D. I'm a homeowner at 710 Taylor Ben Road. Speaking tonight as a private citizen, I am strongly opposed the opposed water the proposed W's edge at Taylor Landing apartment complex that has already failed the first consideration vote in October. um for these reasons that I'm stating below. It places an undue financial burden on the homeowners at Taylor Landing with the increased HOA costs when the rental residents d or potential damage and utilize our property. Um the with also the increased usage and strain on our fragile ecosystem with the duck river with that already is an issue with the water supply and the utility company that's going to be presented later on tonight. um it's going to saddle the taxpayers with a another bill and that's just an additional burden that is going to be placed on that fragile ecosystem. It also goes against the city's own vision 238 plan which in that I'm paraphrasing um states that developments that are creating an increased tax and resource burden on schools the infrastructure and on emergency services and it does not fit in with the existing landscape of Taylor Landing. A three-story apartment building right in the middle of a subdivision is for lack of better words an eyesore and just doesn't fit in with the existing landscaping. There's also a chance for increased uh traffic in an already dense setting and for potent and potentially for more and pedestrian and vehicle accidents since our community is filled with a lot of um young families and small children and the city of Columbia doesn't need any more build to rent structures. We know that there's a lot of that going on and it's taking away from homeowners and putting more burden on the property owners and the tax base of Colombia and overall it's just wrong for our neighborhood. There are some questions that do need to be answered if there or what incentives if if any did the developer promise the city and

why did the developers approach individual residents and offer perks so to speak for their support in this development and what other things that the citizens or the community does not know about this. Um, I thank you for your time and I respectfully request that you listen to your constituents and your tax base and vote no on this ordinance. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard on public hearing number one? All right, I see two more. U, we have one coming forward. Welcome. If you'll introduce yourself and you'll have the floor for three minutes.

Hi. Yes, thank you. My name is Mariva Walsh. I live at 605 Taylor Bend. I am a homeowner in Taylor Landing. I spoke last Thursday at the study session and wanted to bring up a couple items that were discussed during that night that I think need some more attention. Uh Mr. Gamble did his presentation of W's Edge complex in the middle of our development and he had mentioned that gave a little history that the project had previously been approved and then that approval and those plans had expired. And I wasn't quite sure why he brought that up. Um, I hope he's not implying that because they received approval once before that they should get it again because that was years ago and things have changed. And if they had the approval before, I felt like they should have just built the building. They should have made if they wanted the apartment complex, they had the approval, they had the plans, they should have just done it. And we'd be having a different discussion here today. In addition, as many have said tonight about the increase in traffic, there is no traffic light I have seen anywhere that's proposed for River Road and Theta Pike. And we need some direction on handling this increase in traffic. And I noticed Baker Road and Honey Farms went up quite quickly anticipating future increases in traffic. And additionally, there is no direct access to Highway 31 uh from our location. We do have a right-hand turn at River Road. There is no lefthand turn access. Again, increasing the um traffic, families, pedestrian traffic is going to be an issue. Taylor Landing has 200 town homes

and 99 single family homes and we sit in uh 70 acres of property and with that comes the expense of maintaining that acreage and our HOA is responsible for landscaping maintenance. Uh we have many detention ponds again draining to the Duck River. Those all have to be covered at our expense. We have walking paths and trails. We have a soccer field with nets. We have a playground, a covered picnic area, outdoor fire pit with seating. We've already had repairs done at the cost of our own homeowners enjoying the amenities. I can't imagine having 300 600 more people accessing our amenities without costing anything to them. And in addition, we do pay liability insurance on all that property. Um, they did discuss adding some additional parking along Taylor Bend and I think he mentioned 30 spaces which is not going to move the needle. We already have parking issues. Every household comes with more than the standard two cars of yester year and I think we are really putting ourselves at a disadvantage in the city and I thank you for your time and hope that you vote no.

Thank you. I think there's [clears throat] at least one other individual if you'll come forward that wants to be heard on public hearing number one. Welcome. You'll introduce yourself and you'll have the floor for three minutes.

Sure. Thank you. Uh my name is Howard Todd. I reside at 203 River Road and lived at that location for about three years. Um, I appreciate the mayor and the vice mayor and the city council for hearing our comments and opinions. As you already can tell, there is a difference of opinion in some ways and I wanted to share my perspective. Um, I'm here on my own accord. Nobody asked me to come and speak. I decided a long time ago that I would make up my own mind about issues such as this and not be influenced by u social media or other kinds of campaigns to u convince me that I should uh oppose or support something of that nature. I don't gain anything personally by being here. Uh I'm I'm totally here to just share my opinion and support. If you asked me tonight if I supported the approval of the W's Edge project, I would probably say that support is probably not the right word. Have I found a reason to oppose this development? And the answer to that is I have not. Uh I've not found that. Um I Mr. Gamble and Mr. Smith came to our neighborhood four different occasions. uh they presented their plan, they heard comments, listened to the things that people have said, went back to the drawing board, reduced the number of units, addressed pretty much all of the issues that have been mentioned um and in an acceptable way, and I accept their explanation and their plan. If I owned a piece of property in the middle, five acres in the middle of of Tailaylor Landing and I had the opportunity to sell that and make a profit. If I I'm speaking to me personally, I would do it and I think most of us would do it. Uh those developers who purchase that property will receive rent for that. It will be of a profit to them. But we have homeowners in Taylor Landing who

purchased the property uh themselves and rent it out. We have a pretty good number of renters in Taylor Landing who are receiving a profit. So I don't don't see an awful lot of difference than that to that. Um that would be the case. I believe that the exterior finishes of the development that I have seen will be superior to what we have on our houses. So I I don't see that being a detriment. They're not a modernistic. They've been tailored to fit the neighborhood. And I think that would be a compliment. So, when I look at the overgrown 5 acres and ask, is that a does that add to the value of my property? And I can answer to you, I don't think it does in the present situation that it's in. Am I worried about uh storm water uh in our detention ponds and uh runoff? I'm not worried about that because just because there's a new development, there's not magically going to be some extra storm water. If you know anything about uh geology, that water flows downhill into those areas already. It's not it's not going to be new and it'll be managed even better, I believe. So, for those reasons and many others, I do not oppose that development. I think it would actually help us potentially increase the development or redevelopment of Nashville Highway just outside of our property, and I think all of us would benefit from that. Thank you for hearing.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else wish to be heard on public hearing number one? Seeing none in the audience that wish to be heard on this public hearing number one. Anyone on council wish to be heard on public hearing number one, which is also item 10.6 on the agenda. Council member Secret.

First of all, I never talked to any other council member about this situation, about my change. So that was wrong. I did talk to Mr. Kelner and Mr. Massie and I got clarification. As I said in study session, y'all are trying to do something with a property that you don't own. Do the Do y'all own the property? The said property. I was once told over in my own neighborhood when they were getting ready to put something there, y'all had four times to listen to the developers talk to y'all. I had not one time to listen to the developers that came over. I was told if it's not your property, you can't say anything about it. You can't do anything about it if it's not yours. But you know what? I have gotten so many emails I have gotten an email that said that if I voted yes for this, it was going to be an investigation on my behavior. And I think that's quite crazy, but hey, bring it on. Now, I hate to talk like this because I know it's supposed to be a professional situation, but I'm just going to tell the truth and I'm just straight up about it. So, before you get up, and I'm glad that you guys got up and spoke. I have nothing against anybody saying anything, but just want to let you know that if it's not your property, there's nothing you can do about it. And I learned that myself.

Thank you. All right. Any other member of council wish to be heard on public hearing number one? Hearing none, entertain a motion to close public hearing number one. Close it. Motion's made by Council Marshall, seconded by Councelor McCullen. Any other uh discussion on the motion to close this public hearing? Hearing none. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Hi. Miss Secretress. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor McBroom. Hi. Mayor Molders.

I. Public hearing number one is closed. Next item. Public hearing two. Public hearing on ordinance number 4568. an ordinance repealing title 7, chapter 2 of the city of Columbia municipal code entitled fire prevention code in its entirety and replacing it with a new chapter 2 adopting the 2024 international fire code including appendix B and C with certain amendments providing limited exemptions for public safety and infrastructure projects and requiring a business portal registration. Anyone in the audience this evening wish to be heard on public hearing number two? Seeing none, anyone on council wish to be heard on public hearing number two? Councelor McKelie, I'd like to ask Chief Cummings to come to the mic, please.

Chief, you come forward, please. [snorts] Even Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of Council, go ahead. Chief, I appreciate you being here. Um, the new um uh ordinance that we're looking at tonight um is uh for the 2024 year and the state goes by the 2021 code. Is that correct? Yes, sir. there behind us. So, I guess my question is um if there is a um and most um fire hydrants have a 6 in water line, is that right? Have a minimum size. Yes. Minimum size. Yes, sir.

So, if that minimal size water line is up to a 500 gallon per minute hydrant starts out at minimum starts gallons per minute, right? Can that be changed to a 1500 uh gallon per minute hydrant? Yes. So you wouldn't be changing the hydrant out. Uh the current infrastructure that's there as the system improves it would improve with the system and refer that to our experts. Uh but definitely it would they wouldn't have to go back and change any of that as the system improved as the loops came in on the on the head end loops and stuff. the system would just naturally increase without having to go affect uh go hands touch it. Okay.

So that's the way the system's designed. Okay. Thank you. That's that that was a question that I needed needed answered and because u you know if anything uh we want we want fire safety and as as our capacity increases uh knowing that um these hydrants can be used if needed at a 1500 gallon per minute use. I think that's what we need. Thank you sir. Thank you. Any other member of council wish to be heard on public hear number two? Huffman,

Chief Cond, how many older subdivisions are the Columbia that doesn't need fire? I mean, doesn't have those 500 or 700, not entire subdivisions. There are some spot hydrants here and there. And uh if you're out in town and you see one and it's and it's red, totally red, right? It we can hook on to them with our pumps. Uh there's a handful of those. uh here and there, but as the system improves with this plan at CPWS. Okay. Well, with the new standard, they have to be within 600. Yes, sir.

I didn't know where you I know I know there's a lot of them in that. Yes. Older subdivisions. Yes, sir. in in the older subdivisions. The problem with some of them is they had a lot a lot of deadend runs and that greatly affects your uh water availability, especially if you don't have a loop cuz water can come from two directions. All right. Any other questions or any other member of council wish to be heard on public hearing number two? Hearing none, entertain a motion to close close public hearing number two. Motion's been made properly second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Mr. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi, Mr. Huffman. Hi, Miss Secrets. Hi, Mr. Marshall. Hi, Mr. McKelby. Hi, Vice Mayor Mc Broom. Hi, Mayor M.

I public hearing number two is closed. Final public hearing three, public hearing on ordinance number 4571, an ordinance to amend the fiscal year 2526 budget ordinance number 4544 as amended, providing for the revisions to the general capital projects and grants funds. Any member um or any anyone in the audience this evening wish to be heard on public hearing number three? Seeing none, any member of council wish to be heard on public hearing number three. Hearing none, entertain a motion to close public hearing number three. Close. Second. It's been moved properly second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Hi. Miss Cris. Hi. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor Mcroom. Hi. Mayor Muller.

I. Public hearing number three is now closed. Okay. That now will transition us into our regular meeting. The main event. The reason that most all of you are here this evening. We would once again like to say welcome. Uh I see a lot of new faces in the crowd. A lot of familiar faces as well. But regardless uh whether or not this is your first time or uh multiple times you're being here, we say welcome to you for this our final city council meeting of the calendar year. Uh with that, I would like to uh ask Mr. Jublonsky to please provide the roll call. Mr. McCullen here. M Mr. Huppen here. Miss Secret here. Mr. Marshall here. Mr. McKelby here. Vice Mayor Mc Broom here. Mayor Moulder

here. Let the record reflect all members of council are present this evening. Now I would like to call on Taylor all of the belonging church to come forward for tonight's invocation. And as he's coming forward, I would like to ask for all of you as you are able to please stand for the invocation. And please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance which will be led this evening by council member Cheryl Secrist. Heavenly Father God, we just thank you for your son. We thank you that we are here because of you, God. I pray that this time together uh would be an advancement for our community, advancement for the members of our community. I want to thank you for our council members, Lord, and what they pour into this community. I pray for blessing on them this season. I pray uh for blessing on every member of this community this season, Lord. That your provision would be poured out in this community, God. That we would operate from a place of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control, God, tonight. And that everything we do would be in honor of you. We thank you, God, for your presence here tonight. And we thank you for this time in Jesus name. Amen. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat]

All right. Thank you. Please be seated. We will now move to section four of the agenda, which is the approval of the agenda. Second. It's been moved. It's been properly seconded. Any discussion on section four, approval of agenda? Hearing none. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Mr. Huppen. Hi. Miss Secret. Hi. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor Mc Broom. Hi. Mayor Mer. I. That item is approved. Uh, there being no presentations this evening, we'll move to section six, organizational business. Item 6.1, approve the minutes of the November 13, 2025 city council meeting.

Second. It's been moved for approval and properly seconded. Any discussion on that item 6.1 hearing? None. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Hi. Miss Secrets. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelie. Hi. Vice Mayor Mc Broom. Hi. Mayor Mer.

I. That item is approved. Next item is the consent agenda. These items, items 7.1 through 7.9 are deemed non-controversial, requiring no additional debate or discussion. So, I will read on them as a collective matter and they will be voted on collectively. Beginning with item 7.1, approved dispersements for the month of October 2025 in the amount of 13,550,749.73. Item 7.2, approve and authorize the disposal of surplus equipment. Item 7.3, approve and authorize the mayor to execute the SAS license agreement with PMAM for alarm management system with an agreement start date of August 20, 2026 in the amount of $7,000 per year. Item 7.4. 4, acceptance of the Columbia annual comprehensive financial report report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. Item 7.5, approve and authorize the mayor to amend Mission Square 457 require retirement plan changes. Item 76, approve and authorize the mayor to sign a work order between the city of Columbia and Granicus in the amount of $1,250 for support hours to perform the technical services on the Visit Columbia website as needed. Item 7.7, approve and authorize the mayor to sign a contract amendment between the city of Columbia and Lowe's and Associates in the amount of $52,750. Item 7.8, ratify the approval of the agreement with Kimley Horn and Associates in the amount of $14,000 for limited construction phase services not included in the previously agenda item amount for providing professional services for the addition of two access points to accommodate two paddlecraft launches along the Duck River within Riverwalk Park. And item 7.9 approve and authorize the mayor to sign the terms and conditions for mine cast. That's items 7.1 through 79 of the consent agenda. Entertain a motion to approve. Second.

It's been moved by council mcklly properly second by council marshall. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Hearing none. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffen. Hi. Miss secretist. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. Mccel. Hi. Vice Mayor Mcroom. Hi. Mayor Mold. I. The consent agenda is approved. There being no items under section 8 this evening, we'll now move to section 9, resolutions. Item 9.1, resolution 2582, tax corrections. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Any discussion on item 9.1 hearing? None. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Miss Secret. Hi. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor McBroom. Hi. Mayor M.

I that item is approved. Next item 9.2 2 resolution 2584 resolution to accept the ownership and maintenance of sewer improvement serving DAB subdivision 1A the reserve at Hickory Ridge been moved properly seconded 9.2 any discussion hearing none Mr. Jablonsky Mr. McCullen hi Mr. Huffman Miss Marshall I Mr. McKelby I vice mayor Mcroom Mayor Moulder I 9.2 2 is approved. Next item 9.3, resolution number 2585, a resolution to accept the ownership and maintenance of sewer improvement serving Heritage Green phase 1. Approve. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Item 9.3. Any discussion on that item? Hearing none. Mr. Jablonsky.

Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Miss Secret. Hi. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor McBrroom. Hi. Mayor Moulder. Uh, that item is approved. Next item 9.4. Four, resolution 2586, a resolution to accept the ownership and maintenance of sewer improvements serving McLar Farms phase 2. Move to approve. Been moved to approve by Council Mcklly, seconded by Council Marshall. Any discussion on item 9.4 hearing? None. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Hi. Miss Secret. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor McBroom. Hi. Mayor Malber.

I. That item is approved. Next item 9.5, resolution 2587, a resolution accepting a donation of $5,000 for Columbia Fire and Rescue. Second, been moved and properly seconded. 9.5. Any discussion? Hearing none. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Miss Secretress. Hi. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor McRuit. Hi. Mayor Moulder. Hi. That item is approved. Final item under the section 9.6 resolution number 258. A resolution ratifying the acceptance of donations valued at approximately $2,000 from Mr. Mrs. Tony and Connie Massie to the city of Columbia for the city of Columbia annual employee Christmas party. Second.

It's been moved and properly second. Any discussion on that item? Just want to say it was a great Christmas party yesterday. Thank you uh Mr. Massie and to everyone that made that such a success, including Liz Bermudez, who I failed to give a shout out yesterday, but it was a a great success and it was great to be back at fire station one as renovated uh to celebrate uh the season. All right, any other discussion on that item 9.6 hearing? None. Mr. Jablonsky, Mr. McCullen. Hi, Mr. Huffman. Hi. Mr. Marshall, hi. Mr. McKelby, hi. Vice Mayor Mcroom. Hi, Mayor Moulder.

I that item is approved. Final section 10, ordinances. Item 10.1, second consideration of ordinance number 4568 as amended an ordinance repealing title 7, chapter 2 of the city of Clay Municipal Code entitled Fire Prevention Code in its entirety and replacing it with a new chapter 2 adopting the 2024 International Fire Code, including appendix B and C with certain amendments, providing limited exceptions for public safety and infrastructure projects, and requiring business portal registration. That's 10.1 to approve. Moved by council Marshall properly seconded by councelor McCullen. Any questions on that or any discussion on item 10.1 hearing? None. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Mr. Huffman.

Hi. Miss Secret. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. I vice mayor McBroom. Hi. Mayor Merberg. I that item is approved. On second and final consideration item 10.2 2 second consideration of ordinance number 4569 an ordinance providing for the collection of 2024 delinquent property taxes second been moved and properly seconded any discussion on that item hearing none Mr. Jablonsky Mr. McCullen hi Mr. Huffman Miss Mr. Marshall hi Mr. McKelby. Hi, Vice Mayor McBroom. Hi, Mayor Malber. I That item is approved. Next item 10.3. Second consideration, Ordinance 4570, an ordinance providing for the collection of 2024 delinquent special assessments.

Been moved and properly seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Hi. Miss Secret. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McCelie. Hi. Vice Mayor McBrroom. Mayor Mer. That item is approved. Next item 10.4. Second consideration of ordinance number 4571 as amended. An ordinance to amend the fiscical year 2526 budget ordinance number 4554 as amended providing for revisions to the general capital projects and grant funds. Item 10.4. It's been moved and properly seconded. Any discussion on that item? Hearing none. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Hi. Miss Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. I, Vice Mayor Broom, uh,

Mayor Moulder. I, that item is approved. Next item 10.5, second consideration of ordinance number 4572 and ordinance amending ordinance 3761 as amended. Previously as amended by ordinance numbers 3815, 3884, and 3917 as it pertains to post 65 supplemental health insurance benefits for employees hired after June 30, 2020, 2012. That's item 10.5 for second consideration. Moved to approve. Second. Been moved and properly seconded. Any discussion on that item? Hearing none. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Hi. Miss Secret. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor McMroom. Hi. Mayor Moulder.

I. That item is approved. All right. Item 10.6. First consideration on ordinance number 4563, an ordinance to amend ordinance number 4,400. The same being the zoning ordinance of the city of Clemington, Tennessee by adopting the waters edge at Taylor Landing preliminary pud master plan for tax map 90 partial 712 located off River Road and Taylor Ben Road ward three. Vice Mayor, did you need to say something on the record? Yes, I need to say on the record that I willain of this vote on the property in the subdivision or close to the subdivision.

All right, let the record reflect the vice mayor is abstaining from this uh consideration vote and discussion. I do have some folks that have signed up to speak on this issue that you have the opportunity to speak at public hearing, but you also have the opportunity to speak on the agenda item as you know on uh city council meeting nights and that will begin with Joshua Moore. Mr. Moore, would you like to speak again? No. All right. Uh Christy Davis, doss I apologize. Would you like to speak again? Okay. Thank you, Miss Doss. Um next one. Uh Michael Schmiden. Schmidland, you'll come forward. You'll have the opportunity to have the floor for three minutes. If you'll please state your name and address for the record and welcome to city hall.

Good evening. Michael Schmidland, 320 seat and way. I'm a homeowner in Taylor Landing. Mr. Mayor, vice mayor, council. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. uh been involved with the developer since the very beginning of this process over a year ago. They have met with us and been nothing but forthcoming and accommodating of every reasonable request that we made of them. Uh, I live right across the street from the proposed main entrance to the new uh, development and I would like to remind everybody that there is a sister project right across the street from this already approved similar buildings, apartment buildings that are three stories or four stories tall, the Harbor Freight lot and town homes. So, I think that this will actually finish our neighborhood and and it will certainly add to the potential values of all of the properties within. Uh I don't understand the adverse reactions quite frankly. Uh but to each their own. U anyway, I'm not going to belabor the point. I am for this development and I think that the developer has done a good job of communication, meeting with us and addressing all of the concerns that we mentioned to them in all of these public meetings. In addition, they had private meetings with a group of individuals who were representing their own interest because we don't have an HOA in our community that is not developerled at this point yet. So with that, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you, sir, for your being here this evening. There are a couple of people that signed up that did not list an agenda item, and I just want to make sure that this is not the item that they wish to speak on. Uh Randy and Bev on the water. All right. How do you pronounce your last name? Eer. Eer. I'll be ready for it. Eers. Okay. Okay. Mr. Eer, I'll be ready. I'll be ready for you. Uh Mr. Mrs. Edens signed up to speak. Edin, is it on the item 10.9, the water issue? Okay, I'll be ready for y'all as well. Just want to make sure that you were not wanting to speak on this item. And then on the last page, um, Mariva Walsh.

Yes, I would like. All right, Miss Walsh, welcome back. You'll have the floor for three minutes. Appreciate it.

Hi, thank you for having me again. uh Mariva Walsh 605 Taylor Ben Road homeowner in Taylor Landing. As Joshua presented, we have over a hundred homes represented on a petition where our community is concerned about the traffic, the property, as I discussed earlier, the amenities, the cost to the homeowners, the change in our landscape of our development. And while some are going more for the aesthetics, that's great. We're looking at the more practical issues of owning a home, they're investing, a lot of us are retirees or young families. And it's a big investment to buy a home or town home in this area. So, we take it serious and we want to have a say when we can, even though we don't own the actual lot in question. That is why we're here tonight to discuss it. And um I hope that all of this is taken into consideration as again was spoken that they do have approval of a complex for an apartment behind Harbor Freight. Again, if they want an apartment complex, build the one you were approved on. I don't understand why they're connected, why they're related. uh there's no legal means I don't think to have property in two areas and say oh well these are going to be the same thing but I don't know so that's why we're here tonight and that is what I would like to say thank you

all right thank you miss Walsh again um and then also signed up to speak did not list but the address is River Road Howard Todd Mr. Todd okay thank you Mr. Todd, just wanted to make sure you knew you had the opportunity uh to speak on the agenda item. And that leaves us with Cliff Smith. Mr. Smith, you'll identify yourself for the record. You have the floor for three minutes.

Okay. I'm uh Cliff Smith, CPS Land, uh from Brentwood and part of the development team. Uh thank you for this opportunity and really just wanted to u make sure I could answer any questions if anybody had any. Okay. And any questions, member of council, for the developer? All right, Mr. Smith, if there are any that arise, we'll call you back up. I just want to make sure that I have called on everyone that signed up to speak on this agenda item. Okay. Um All right. So, we're on agenda item 10.6.

Move to approve. Motion's been made and properly seconded. Any discussion on item 10.6. Mr. City Attorney, I just want to make sure that I know here at the last minute there's been some things that have been thrown at us. I know that uh it's something you've already reviewed. Um I just want to make sure that procedurally that we're on uh good standing here with respect to the way that this has been brought back. I know this is not the first time that an item's been brought back to the agenda. Um but I just want to make sure that we're in good standing in that regard.

Yes, Mayor. this is properly before this body and I see no reason you can't vote on it tonight. Uh I would just encourage you in making a motion to make us specific findings as to whether um this put and this proposal meets the zoning ordinance requirements of the zoning ordinance or does not meet it in making those in that motion. All right. The motion was made by Council Marshall. U Mr. Marshall, you heard the city attorney uh indicating that a motion needs to state that um it does meet the zoning ordinance requirements

or that it doesn't, whichever whatever your motion's making. And I say that on any [clears throat] any motion that if there are factors you're to consider, whether it's the zoning ordinance or any others that just be sure if you're this council is supposed to make findings that it either meet or doesn't meet the ordinance. Yeah, I'm going with meeting the zoning meeting the zoning requirements. All right. With the pud. So the motion has been made. Um yeah, for that. All right. Um is that motion likewise seconded, council member? [clears throat] All right. So the motion's been made. It's been properly seconded.

It is properly before this body, Mr. Hubble. Is that correct? Um any further discussion on this item on first consideration 10.6. All right. Hearing none. Uh we'll take the vote. Mr. Jublonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffen. No. Miss Secret. Hi. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor McBrroom. Hi. Mayor Moulder.

I that item 10.6 Six is approved on first consideration. Next item 10.7 first consideration of ordinance number 4567, an ordinance to amend title three of the Columbia code regarding municipal courts. It's been moved and properly seconded. Any further discussion or any discussion on on this item for this evening [snorts] hearing? None. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Miss Secrets. Hi. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. Mckelby. Hi, Vice Mayor McBroom. Hi, Mayor Moulder.

I That item is approved. All right. Uh, item 10.8, first consideration of ordinance number 4576, an ordinance to amend title 18, chapter 3 of the Columbia Municipal Code by amending 18310 to increase the water impact fee upon new water customers to serve the demand for water system, capital facilities, and public improvements and establish the date of January 8, 2026 of public hearing. Um I think most of you have signed up to speak on item 10.9 with is with respect to the rate increase not as to the water impact fee on item 10.8 but out of an abundance of caution uh I do want to make sure that I am correct um there is one page that everybody wrote 10.9 um Mr. Chun uh you listed this item as well as the next item. Would you like to speak on this item or the next item?

That's correct. The next item on this item. All right. Come on forward, Mr. Chun. You have the floor for three minutes if you'll provide your name and address and you'll have the floor for three minutes. I hope my three minutes don't involve both. Well, let me actually let me state this is on just the water impact fee, not on on the rate increase.

Very good. First of all, my name is Larry Chun. I'm retired from American water system and after watching these water systems for the past 30 years. The Duck River agency has completed numerous studies on the Duck River and being very costly to us. Before 2025, planning of the additional water was needed and thought upon and should have started planning for it. The cost effectiveness a long time ago. [snorts] These impact fees rate are late in being implemented. They should have been implemented and collected a long time ago. I guess my question is and my consideration to the committee that we're already late in financing our water infrastructures and this this one should have been done a long time ago and if it was where's the money that it collected? Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chun. Uh we're on item 10.8. Uh Mr. Pvetti, looks like you've signed up to speak on both. So you'll have three minutes on the water impact fee. Welcome. If you'll provide your name and contact information, you have the board for three minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and city council and other members. Uh Eric Previdi, 101 KC Valley Drive, Columbia, Tennessee. I live in the fourth ward. Commissioner Mar or Councilman Marshall is my councilman. I serve as a county commissioner for the second district, which is the southwest portion of Colombia. I'm here to speak in full support of this impact fee. And as the previous speaker, Mr. the honorable Mr. Chun just said definitely this is a lot of money has been left on the table and uh it's uh you know I guess I have the same question if it's been collected in the past where did it go but definitely growth we say growth should pay for growth but we know that that's not the case it it it does a portion of it and we need to get as much of it as we can and we need and and not leave that money laying on the table. So, I'm definitely in support of these impact fees for the growth because this is what needs to pay for these other infrastructures. Uh, not the residents that have been here their entire lives, not the uh those with the, you know, the the the income restricted ones. And we'll talk about more of that when we get to the water, but definitely this is in support of that impact fee. Thank you all. Thanks for each do.

All right, that is Let's see the next on the list. ARS, just want to make sure y'all are 10.9, not 10.8. Hey, no, I want to talk about the the rate increase. All right, just making sure. Um, Mr. Grooms, Commissioner Grooms, looks like you signed up for both. Would you like to be heard on this issue? 101. Okay, there you are, Commissioner. Thank you. Um, is there anyone else that's uh Bob Graham? I'll speak on Okay, thank you. [clears throat]

I think the that leaves Jonathan Harden is the only other one that signed up to speak on this item as well as 10.9. Mr. Harden, if you'll come up and you'll have the floor if you if you could just come up and uh state your name for the record and you'll have the floor for three minutes on the impact fee uh and what this is doing. Uh Mr. Harden, welcome this evening.

Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor. Um the main reason we signed up was just uh we don't have any comments other than uh it is overdue as Mr. Chun mentioned and having these impact fees. We're proud to have them in place. We're happy to be escalating them into the future. We wanted to be here. This is Matt Wheeler. Again, I'm Jonathan Harden. We wanted to be here to answer any questions about this should council have any.

Any [clears throat] member of council have any question on the impact fee item 10.8 on first consideration? Councilor McKelby. Um, thank you, mayor. Um, Mr. Harden or Mr. Wheeler, either one can answer this question. This impact fee was, uh, passed down by the comproller. Is that is that correct? I mean, you can only go so high. That's what I'm asking. The comproller provides guidance on where you could land with an impact fee to collect as much as reasonable, but not be excessive. And we use their input to guide the ceiling that we're going to. So if you went too high, what would happen? [clears throat] You would have the fear of uh uh overreovering items related to growth.

Okay. Which would be a problem because they want you to adequately recover, not over recover. Okay. All right. Thank you, Councilman. I can further um some clarification there. This actually was approved by a private act by the city of Columbia and the Tennessee General Assembly a few years ago when we initially implemented it for our sewer system, but we also had the water system included as well. Okay. So, thank you, Vice Mayor. [clears throat] Can y'all answer the question on uh the two that were what where does this impact fee go and what does it accomplish?

Sure. These impact fees go into a capital fund which can only be used for growth related items because it's an impact fee on growth uh and the impact to that system. We must use it on uh infrastructure projects that then help pay for that uh piece of infrastructure that's to serve growth. Thank you. And I think this is the same question Council Member McKelie asked, but you're confident that this impact fee that we're being asked to approve is the highest amount that can be approved that we believe would pass comproller oversight. Is that right?

Uh yes, mayor. the input from the comproller and from rate consultants is used to ensure that you actually have growth to collect the impact fees because I don't want to take it for granted that you if you don't actually have development and have single family units to apply these impact fees to uh they go uncollected. So you're striking a fine line between uh collecting enough but not putting yourself in a position to where you would not have any sort of growth to monetize to keep rateayer impacts subdued. Okay. All right. That takes care of the um comments this evening. If there are any questions or discussion, we may call you back and I'm sure you'll be back for the next item. So, thank you gentlemen for your presence this evening. Don't go far. So, we're back on item 10.8. I believe we've gone through everybody that signed up to speak on this item. Um unless I'm missing anyone. I think the rest of you are here for item 10.9 that have signed up. All right. Uh we'll entertain a motion on item 10.8. Eight.

Second. Motion's been made by council mckeli. Properly seconded by council marshall. Any discussion on this item hearing? None. Mr. Jablonsky. Mr. McCullen. Hi. Mr. Huffman. Hi. Miss Secret. Mr. Marshall. Hi. Mr. McKelby. Hi. Vice Mayor Mcroom. Hi. Mayor Moulder.

I. Item 10.8 is approved. Final item on the agenda. Um, apparently the main event according to the public comments. Um, we'll go through these comments. Uh, as a reminder, uh, you have the floor for 3 minutes. Uh, if you'll come to the podium and state your name for the record, uh, and your address, and you'll have three minutes. And when your three minutes is up, I will politely let you know that your three minutes has expired. First up, Gabe Howard. Mr. Howard, welcome. Come on up. You have the floor for three minutes. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Manager, and council. I sat at this podium four years a four years ago sounding the alarm on our water supply and I was told in a public meeting we did not have a water supply issue. Tonight we're here because that warning was not heated. And now the solution being placed before the people is a 150% rate increase on current rateayers. Many of whom had no voice in creating this situation and they still have no seat at this table. Let me be clear. I support responsible infrastructure investment. I support planning for growth. I support protecting the Duck River. But growth must pay for growth. And it doesn't. Not being placed on the backs of the longtime residents, families, and small businesses who are already stretched thin. That's why I'm That's why I've consistently advocated to this body for a regional water authority. The decision that y'all are making tonight should be paused and a regional water authority should be created. A structure where every municipality, every rateayer impacted by these decisions has representation, accountability, and a voice. A single city-owned utility should not be the default regional authority for a project of this scale and a regional consequence. The only fair way forward is for everyone affected to have a seat

at the table. For the last several years, I operated under the belief along with many others that the city of Columbia already had the authority to impose impact fees on new developments. I kept asking where are they? What are they using it for? The more I dug, the more alarming the reality became. In the section of the Columbia City Charter where that authority should exist, section 1.07, 07. The key phrase and assess fees for the use of are the use of or impact of these services is absent. The langu language doesn't exist in the general law charter. That means something incredibly important. Columbia does not currently have the authority to impose development impact fees. I reached out to Representative Sepiki and he checked with state legal. Why has this body not enacted impact fees? We've experienced some of the most aggressive growth periods here in Tennessee without the most basic tools cities use to make growth pay for itself. And here is the part that should concern every single person in the room. By a simple twothirds vote, this council could amend the charter to include impact fee authority and send it to the general assembly for ratification. This power has always been available and yet no one before you has ever used it. This should alarm all of us. My ask you tonight is vote no on the proposed water rate increase. Not forever, but for now. We need to pause and plan. Not a rush to judgment on a half billion dollar commitment without regional representation to proper funding mechanisms. Next month, vote to amend the charter to add the impact fee authority and send that amendment to the general assembly immediately. Growth should pay for impacts on our water, sewer, roads, and infrastructure, not the families who have lived here their entire lives. This is the moment to lead, your moment to listen to the people you serve, and your moment to correct years of imbalance and inaction. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Howard. Next up, Scott Sepiki. Mr. Mr. Sepiki. Scottiki. I'm not seeing him. Okay, he's here. Coming around the corner. Mr. Representative, welcome. You'll have the floor for three minutes if you'll give us your name and address. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Muller. I haven't been here in a long time, and there's a reason for that. I try to stay out of your business. Uh my name is Scott Sepiki. I'm a resident of Murray County for over 20 years now. Um I'm not a I'm not a uh a born here, but I'm close enough, I guess. Um, I'm here because I've been asked by people behind you, uh, after I was invited by Columbia Power and Water to hear the presentation on this proposal and also by Murray County Water to talk about their proposal. I just got done. I've spent the last couple days here, but this is all the information that's been provided to me on this whole project about water here in Murray County from Tekk, from T-Bore, from the comprollers office, from the core of engineers. We at the state level, and I'm speaking for myself and others, we have some concerns about this. Is this the best use for half a billion dollars, especially of state and federal money that you're borrowing? And are you going to be able to repay it? At half a billion dollars proposed, you're going to get 12 million more gallons of of water. Seven of that going to be allocated to Spring Hill. 5 million gallons. Five million gallons is going to be your net. Now, there's a proposal right now that is happening with Harpath Valley and HB and and T the abbreviation that I've been made aware of. 14 million per million gallons that you're going to be paying for or potentially 7 million for every million gallons and you won't have to pay for it at all. There's a potential that when all the dust settles, Colombia Power and Water could have the

availability of an additional 5 million gallons of water and it won't cost the city of Colombia a dime. A dime. I've talked to T-B, which some of you know about. Um, T-board today told me that they have concerns about your funding for half a billion dollars. That they don't know right now if they could approve that borrowing for you at the rate that you're going to have because you're basing it off of the total revenue that Columbia Power and Water has. You know, right now that Murray County Water is going to be able to acquire 3 million gallons a day from another provider. They only get a million9 a day from Columbia Powered Water right now. So, you are going to lose a client here shortly. That is factored in to help you repay this debt of half a billion dollars. I'm not here to tell you to vote yes or to vote no on this project. What I'm asking you to do is TC is working with other providers right now to see if there's a possibility that we could deliver 12 million gallons here to to Murray County at a greatly reduced cost than half a billion dollars. I'm just asking you to pause and give us time to work at the state level to see if we can provide another alternative that could possibly lead to zero cost to Columbia Power and Water and pick up an additional 5 million gallons of capacity. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Representative Swiggy. Next up, Jason Gillum. Mr. Gillum, you'll come to the podium. Mr. Gillum, you'll have the floor for 3 minutes if you'll give us your name and address and the podium's yours.

Hi, my name is Jason Gillum. I live at 2704 Beer Road. Um, I'm not here as just a citizen. I'm also a board member of the Murray County Water System. And to follow up on what Representative Piki was sharing with you, uh, we do have a project at Murray County Water System right now. It's going on the east side of the county. It's a 6.3 mile pipeline. It's connecting at the Williamson County line to HB&Ts. That water is provided from the Cumberland. It is treated. It does not come from the Duck River. I want to clarify something. I've been talking and posting because people have been asking on social media and other places about the cost of this project. Okay. To clarify, I have said that for seven for $51 million, we can get 7 million gallons of water. Okay. Two years ago, that number was given to us from HB&Ts. Okay. Okay. So, if you want to take and adjust for inflation over two years, that'll add say it's 54 million for the 7 million gallons. Now, we've already paid the 14 million and we're in, you know, we borrowed 7 million from the county. We had a $7 million grant. So, for $7 million, we've we're getting that 3 million gallons of water. So if you want to add the $4 million to that to the total for seven and the $54 million that basic basically brings the cost of that water for us to $8.61 per gallon. Whereas you look at a $520 million project that gives you 12.5 million gallons of water which representative Piki said seven's going to Spring Hill. But even based on the whole 12.5 million gallons of water that cost is almost $41 a gallon. What are we doing? We don't have to spend this money. You guys are putting the whole county on the hook for $520 million for 30 years, maybe 40, for a project that Columbia Power and Water System has already said

that they think is a 20-year project. And I think that's being very generous. I don't think it'll last 20 years. But even though if it did, you're still asking us to pay a debt that outlives the actual service that we're paying for. Again, what are we doing? We are better than this. We need to take the time to slow down. Don't vote for this. Put it on hold and let's prove a better method, a better way that doesn't put us all on on this huge debt service to our community. Also, I just want to say there were some things said in the meeting, the work session last week that are just not correct. One of the things that was said at this podium is Hickman County supports this project. They do not. I have talked to Mayor Bates, Mayor Greer, and Centerville. They are very concerned about this project in Hickman County, our neighbors, because this intake is at the county line. It potentially could take 30 and a half million gallons of water out of the river from our neighbors right there on that line. We need to think about that. Regionalization is where we need to move. That doesn't sound like a good move for regionalization. There was a chart that was put out to Andrew Pearson to publish that was sent to

you. That's your That's your three minutes. Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next on the agenda, Bethany Torino. Mr. Torino, come on up. [applause] M. Torino, welcome. If you'll state your name and address, you'll have the floor for three minutes.

Uh, good evening. My name is Bethany Torino, 700 Baker Road, and that is in the county. Um, so why am I here? Because it's a city tax increase, but the um the cost will come along for any resident of the county that has water. We all know that. But the [clears throat] the main reason I'm here is I also work in homelessness in um in the city and the county and I work on city, county, state level and understand in a very real um in a very real life way how coordination does not happen between the systems and the levels of government that it should happen. um between and with homelessness this is very consequential because we still have homeless people on the street and we don't need to if we would just coordinate uh we could fix that. Well, in this instance, I just found that there is a law um Tennessee law TCA641 1201 that allows for it's a Tennessee law where they have put into place. It allows cities, counties, and utility districts to form a regional water authority together. A regional water authority is a shared governing body where everyone who uses the water system has a seat at the table. It's dangerous when everyone is not at the table. It's dangerous. We need each other. We need each other's perspective. And it's not about being mad at each other. It's a time to come together because $500 million is a lot of money.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Torino. Next up, um Marsha Marshia Howard. Miss Howard, welcome. You'll have the floor for three minutes if you'll give us your name and address for the record, please.

Thank you. Um Marcia Howard, I live at 1092 Cranford Hill Road, Columbia. I want to thank you, mayor, Vice, and the city council for allowing my time to speak to you. Um I'm speak I am also a board member of the Murray County Senior Center. I'm speaking though on my behalf, not on the boards. U because I am a senior. Uh my concern is what financial burden will this put on us who are on fixed incomes. I see seniors eat at the center because they um can get better nutrition there at the center than they can do at home. And so I just ask also for a pause to review this proposal. Is this only a city concern or a regional concern? And to please look at all options to protect and serve the people you serve when you make your decision. And I thank you again. Thank you, Miss Howard. Next up is Katie Martin. Miss Martin, you have the floor for three minutes. If you'll give us your name and address for the record and welcome. You have the floor for three minutes.

Thank you. Um, my name is Katie Martin. I live at 206 South Cherry Street in Mount Pleasant. Um, I wanted to start actually by saying that we pay some of the highest water rates in the county. So, um, I understand why all these people are here right now. So, I just want to begin with that. But I also want to start uh by repeating something many of you often say on social media. Affordability matters. You say it when discussing health care, when discussing food insecurity, and when acknowledging the financial pressure ordinary families face. Tonight, I'm asking you to apply that same principle to your own utility system. According to CPWS's proposal, water and sewer bills could rise nearly over 150% over five years. That is not a routine adjustment. It is a massive increase that will hit ordinary families the hardest, especially those already living on fixed incomes or struggling to keep up with rising cost of living. At the same time, CPWS continues issuing water availability certificates for new developments, even when the environmental risks are clear. So I ask, why are longtime residents being asked to subsidize a system that is actively pushing growth outward, even when that growth threatens the resources that we all depend on. Council members, you speak often about protecting affordability. Tonight is your opportunity to act on that commitment. A vote for this proposal as written is a vote to make water the most essential irreplaceable resource significantly less affordable for the people you represent and also the people outside of your representation sorry um all while continuing to subi subsidize risky and unbalanced growth. I urge you to vote no or at the very least defer

this proposal until CPWs brings forward a fair, responsible, and community protected funding plan. Please stand with your residents, stand with affordability, and stand with fairness. And um I also wanted to add that I'm not anti-growth at all. My husband works for a developer. I it's not in my best interest that we never develop again. Um, I know that comment was made by some council members, so I just wanted to say that I'm not anti-development, but I am a longtime resident and I've seen how rising water rates affect everybody. I'm blessed to be able to afford my water bill in Mount Pleasant and that water bill is so high because of reckless decisions made by previous councils and we're still paying for it and it's really sad and disgusting and um but I thank you for your time and I hope that you do what's right by these people back here. Have a good night.

All right, next on the list is Kathy Grody. Groy Groy I apologize commissioner I tell you every time I come I think I do that every time I apologize commissioner welcome

Grod eye I live at 555 farmstead lane in spring hill I am a county commissioner for district 6 uh working on my third three and a half years I represent 10,000 people in district 6 I'm also a board member of the Murray County Senior Center and I represent about 900 members that come there every day I'm asking you to pause and look for other uh solutions for fixed and in and low income people. uh you should have been given or been aware of a county the county commissioners signing a letter that the a lot of county commissioners or I don't know the exact uh number the mayor may be able to say that how many county commissioners ask you to pause and vote no or or just pause a rate increase of 149% is not the final um story the end of the story it doesn't talk about the depreciation of $40 added to everybody buddy's bill in addition to the 149%. I would ask that one of the city uh commissioners abstain from voting on this as I have been told that he serves on the CPWS board. Thank you. [applause]

All right. Next up, Doug Jones. Mr. Jones, welcome. You'll identify yourself and address for the record and you'll have the floor for three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, Council. Thank you'all for letting me speak. My name is Doug Jones. Uh I represent the Duck River Conservancy. I'm the president of it. The Duck We We're charged with protecting the river. We're the only group in Tennessee that's charged with protecting the Duck River. We're land owners. We're farmers. We're also Boy Scouts and school teachers up and down the river from Coffee County to the Tennessee River. I can tell you and let me I'm going to get off my record and and say I agree with Representative Chapiki and Mr. Gillum and and I I second everything they said, but I can tell you you go outside of the city limits of Colombia and you can't find anybody supporting this. And I say that with all due respect. Uh it's just true. I want to we're going to do a little history, but first I got to clear up the record Mr. Gillum brought up about Hickman and Centerville. Mr. Gillum very politely said, "Well, they don't really agree with what was told y'all last week that Hickman County supported it. That's a flatout lie. The mayors of Hickman County and Centerville are against this. It was an insult to put that proposed state uh plant right on the border. Nebraska and the city of Denver did that. Plenty of power didn't come up with this. The city of Denver did. And right now they're still in the Supreme Court and and instead of trying to work with each other, they just city of Denver did it and it's been a failure and they're in the Supreme Court right now. So no, Hickman County objects to it. I hadn't found any county or anybody

else outside this city that supports this. You need to put it off and study it. They're they're want Think about what you're doing. They're wanting to sell water outside the Spring Hill and ask y'all for 500 million. They should have come to you a lot earlier, not at this late night, late date. But I I'm going to finish with a little history for you. In 2007 and 2008, we had a terrible drought. And by the way, my family, the Joneses, are from Murray County since 1820. My mother's people are from Murray. She went to Zion school. I go way back with Murray County, but in 2007, we had a terrible drought and we were desperate all up and down the river. Guess what we found out? We found out Columbia Power was selling water outside the valley. We don't trust Columbia Power. Okay, we filed a lawsuit and stopped them. And one more thing, I don't know about my time. One more thing we learned in 2007, Columbia Power didn't tell y'all. They didn't tell the mayor. They didn't tell the city council. They didn't tell the county mayor. They just did it. And when we found out about it, uh, we stopped them. So, we ask you to oppose it or at least continue it. It's just too important. And the final thing, I mean, it's 2025 and if we're watching the news, affordability is the issue. We've got lowincome people, we've got seniors, and we got farmers that are going to get hurt by this. and CHZ. I think my time's up, but anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. All right. Next up is Jason Brooks. Mr. Brooks, you're recognized for three minutes. If you'll give us your name and address, you'll have the floor for three minutes. Welcome to City Hall. May have been the first to arrive this evening. I was.

Thank you. I wasn't planning on uh talking tonight, but uh I will. My name is Jason Brooks, live at 113 Casey Valley Drive. When I saw this proposed deal come across, all that I could feel was that CPWS was bullying every single person in this town. I don't think I I really don't think CPWS respects any resident in this town. All they want to do is take our money, charge us more, build up their business, sell all our water. It it it's disgusting. I I'm passionate about this. I I did not want to speak because I didn't want to say the wrong thing. I think half a dozen people up here on this board know me. You also know that I'm passionate about a lot of things and I speak my mind clearly. Typically take everything that you're hearing here tonight from these people. There should be 5,000 more people in this room. consider everything they're saying and vote no on this matter. It's important. I own over 18 properties in this town. They're not and none of them are newly built. I'm vested heavily in this town. I have a lot a a lot of tenants. They're concerned. Everybody in this room is concerned.

All I can ask is that you vote no against CPWS asking for this money. Thank you for your time. [applause] All right, next up is Mike Kuzinsky. Commissioner, you're recognized for three minutes if you'll give us your name and address um for the record. Thank you. [clears throat]

Thank you very much, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. My name is Mike Kuzwinsky, 100 Stonewall Road. Uh I will try to be brief as I'm sure you're going to hear a lot of the same things over and over again. Uh but that's what this is all about. Uh first off, personally, I don't feel like the city council has any business voting on this. Uh each of you represent a certain jurisdiction and your ward uh respectively. Uh but this is a vote that that is going to affect Spring Hill, Mount Pleasant, Colombia, uh the outskirts, and Murray County here. Uh so I wonder obviously maybe there there's legal reasons why you can but just the idea of being able to impose such a burden uh on residents who you don't even represent. They didn't vote for you. Uh you have no business voting for that. Uh that's first. [clears throat] Since we are talking about representation and who you represent uh I think it's very important to remember that you represent the people. You don't rep represent the developers. You don't represent the builders. You don't represent the industries and the businesses that are coming into town. You represent the people. That's who you are elected to represent. The builders, the developers, they have the representation. That's why they come to us to ask quit different questions and and to to do this. Represent the people, not the builders. [snorts] Yes, we need water. We've needed water for decades. uh as as others have said, uh we've been given a a 25 to 30-year solution with a 30 to 40year debt. That makes zero sense. Uh that math just is not adding up right. Um the folks in this community do not deserve to be a political pawn with this water. And that's exactly what this is doing to try and push this through uh to to to force a half a billion dollar uh expense just for to what to be the first body that says, "Hey, we got water for for

Murray County. We got water for Colombia." That makes no sense at all. Uh last week the mayor asked, you know, what what would it cost us if we didn't vote for this? We didn't do that. Uh I thought about that, mayor. I really did. It would cost us a little bit of time to sit back and think about this a little bit better. It it might take a a few developers may not get to to develop houses because they've got to wait and see what we're going to do for the water situation. It may cost having a plaque on a building that you were the ones that built a $500 million asset. Um I think more importantly, what does it cost if you do push this through? I think that that it would cost the trust of the community betraying the trust of the people who voted for you to represent them and also vote for for those who don't have a say so on the matter who who don't have their voice heard. I think that is a bigger cost. Uh first I was come up here and and I would suggest you know to vote no obviously uh if it is so important that you want to push us through that company power wants to push us through then put it to a referendum. Let every customer of Columbia Power and Water vote on this. Let them have their say. So I appreciate your time and I appreciate your vote. Thank you, Mr. GLAZ. Next up is Laura Mitchell. Miss Mitchell, she in the around the corner by chance. Laura Mitchell signed up to speak. She may have left the building. All right, we'll move on. Mr. Chun, you reserve the right for a second opportunity. So, come on forward. [snorts] You'll now be speaking on agenda item 10.9. Mr. Chun, welcome back. You'll have the floor for three minutes. I thank you for listening to us and giving me a second chance. [snorts] I have studied some of these issues that

you have written here. raw water transmission line, a raw water uh pump station, a water treatment plant, and an intake. These are four separate projects is going to cost a ton of money to implement. If if they move forward with it, [snorts] then each one of these projects should have a cost to it. Whether it be the engineering, whether it's going to be the finances of it, but each project should be handled separately. The reason I say that a raw water transmission line from uh Hickman County to back to Columbia Water Plant is a long route to pump muddy water. It would be much more feasible or cheaper, if you will, for that transmission line to be changed to a U drinking water, build a water plant at the intake and pump back fresh water all the way to Columbia. It would solve two problems for Columbia. One, Hampshire Pike area. Uh they have some difficulties down there. They've had some in the past on Westport Pike, you could pull off that main line and help support other parts of the county. The other thing is if they build a water plant on Nashville Highway where they are now, if there happen to be a catastrophic incident that would take out the water supply or take out the plant or even part of it,

Columbia would suffer greatly because nobody else got any water. So building water plant over there is not probably the best option. If you're talking about regional water authority, then [snorts] you need to be looking at Dixon County. They've got a good one. And also if you build a water plant down toward Hickman County, then you've got some other counties you can potentially serve. [snorts] this $55 million if it added the 16 million that they already owe. Uh, and that's I found out on page 54 their audit. That's $521 million. It doesn't sound too bad if you say it fast, but in reality to place $521 million debt on 25,000 customers and that's to rateayers for 12 million gallons of water uh additional water to the for our air whole area. It's very hard for me to comprehend it. [snorts] I thank you for your time and consideration and I'd appreciate it uh if this vote was taken another day.

Thank you, Mr. John. Next up, Eric Prevetti.

Mr. Prevetti on the floor for three minutes again.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, City Council, and other officials. U again, y'all know who I am. Um, a lot of good things have been said tonight and and it's all a lot of it is the same as what was said the other night. Um, I'm a fellow elected official as you are and I always tell the commissioners that half the people are mad at us all the time. We just don't know which half it is sometimes. In this case, it's very clear. Um, I said last week that I spoke for the older generations. Um, Mr. Brooks over here has is is I I went to high school with his mother. She was a very dear friend of mine. His grandfather is one of the elders I speak of that have elected for me. Sunnyside is an older neighborhood and I've been there since I was a kid and and so those people have they have sent me back to the county commission three times and they've been reaching out to me on this matter and and they're like you know th this is a burden that shouldn't be put on everybody that's been here that built this town that bit that that put this together that have been here for for all these years that it should be put on the growth and growth should pay for growth. Um I hope that you would defer this. I'm very grateful to uh Representative Sepiki being here this evening and everything that everyone else has said, but just remember that the if you look at the I haven't seen if if city of Columbia has this, but the county has a chart of the layout of the government and at the very top the very top is the voters. Okay? So, we're sent here by the voters to represent them and you know that needs to be considered because all of us can be replaced. So, just we all need to remember that. Thank you for your time and I hope that y'all vote no for this. All right. Next up is Trevor Pennington. Mr. Pennington, welcome to City Hall. You'll have the floor for three minutes. If you will give us your name and address for the record.

My name is Trevor Pennington. I live at 1202 Greymir Manor Road. However, my operation resides in Williamsport, Tennessee at 3930 Jimmy Gay Robinson Road. I'm the owner of 1822 Farms. We're a beef cattle operation and we're direct to consumer and our operation feeds roughly 3,000 families a month. Uh those families are in mainly in Murray County, some in Williamson County, and some in Davidson County. Um and if this is voted for, it's not going to be just 150% rate increase because I buy my water from Murray County Water Systems. And the reason it is so important for us, all of our cattle are watered off of Murray County Water. They don't water out of the river. They don't water out of farm ponds. They're watered on clean Murray County water system water. And if this goes through, [clears throat] it's not just going to put some farmers out of business. It's going to put a lot of farmers out of business. And I thank Mr. Jones for stepping up and saying something for farmers. Um, and there are some farmers around here that still irrigate their crops, and it's going to drastically affect crop farmers that do irrigate their crops. Cattle is one of Murray County's largest economic exports and a vote for this will put that out of business and it will put cattle farmers directly out of business. And I've heard up here today people talking about senior citizens, homeless, people trying to get good nutritional food, uh, just at an affordable cost. And adding an increase to water, that's going to make our water cost more than our fertilizer. And that's an a it's not a sustainable practice. It's not a sustainable practice for

agriculture. It's not a sustainable practice to feed our communities. And if these developers are allowed to continue to come in, this is an invitation. If farmers give up their property because they can't afford to farm it anymore, the only people left there to buy it are the developers, and they're going to continue to develop it. Furthermore, for $500 million, it's cheaper to go ahead and resend all of the building permits that have been given and let the developers fight it out in court. It wouldn't cost $500 million. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Next up, uh, Mr. Aaylor.

Welcome. You'll have three minutes if you'll give us your name and address.

Thank you, Mayor and Commission. Appreciate your time. Uh, my name is Randy Eer. I live out on Sheep Neck Road in Koka. I'm on the executive uh dam committee for the Columbia Dam. Now, I was one of the original ones when we first started out sometime in February, March. I'm a skilled tradesman, worked at Saturn Corporation. Before that, I was a pipe welder, pipeliner. I can tell you for a fact, I'm glad we're on TV so everybody can see this. This $500 million, it ain't going to be no $500 million. I've worked on nuclear plants. I worked in chemical plants. I worked in hospitals, cancer treatment centers. When you start out at a price, it ends up being more. But here's the kicker. We've been in these executive Dan meetings now for months. This the last week's the first time I heard this $500 million figure. I'm thinking, what? There's no way in the world that's going to be only $500 million. These pipelines are not cheap. I can flat out tell you. And if you promise $500 million a bill and it goes to 600 million, put a compass right here and run that compass around the a mile from here. Every one of you guys put that compass circle around there and go into those communities and see how their bills are going to be. Are they going to be able to afford to pay for those bills? And I asked the mayor, what's the average income of the average person in Murray County? I don't know. Do you know? Is it 40,000? Is it 30? Is it 150,000 people on the ridge? The million-dollar mansions we see out there. [snorts] You know, I'm not I'm not being a hypocrite. I live in a country. I got a you know, nice house, 1500, 1,200 acre, 1500 uh square feet. But it's like I'm I I'm looking for other people out here and saying how are they going to be able to do it? I'm retired. I'll be able to pay for the bill 150%. I'm not going to like it, but

I know there's a lot of people out there that you guys got voted in by technically and they're not going to be happy. They're not going to be happy for any of the city government here if the bills go up that high. I mean I mean I'm just telling you like it is. I mean looking at from a regular working person and you got a lot of people out there working hard every day trying to keep and they can't be here. Those are the voiceless and you're speaking for the voiceless just like the Duck River agency was and I talked to them back a month ago in Shelbyville about this. That's why we're pushing for the dam and trying to get federal dollars to pay for it instead of our our city government, our people here in Murray County. So, I thank you for your time and for your work you've been doing and hopefully you [clears throat] make the right decision and vote no on this. All right. Um, next

next up I have uh Wayne uh Rossberg. I hope I didn't mispronounce too badly. No, Mary, you didn't. All right. Welcome.

I know several of y'all up here. I've known several y'all for years. I'm Wayne Romsberg, 214 Birchwood. I have sat in y'all's chairs. I was the second district commissioner. I've lived here all my life except for four years when I attended University of Memphis and graduated and two years that I was at Gibson County teaching at Peabody High School. I proudly worked with the city of Columbia for 33 years as a captain. I was with the very beginning of Murray rule fire. I ended up being a chief and gave it up when I adopted our daughter. I've had to make snap decisions, life and death decisions, decisions on how to save somebody's property fast. And I can tell you tonight because I've been in your chair, this is not a life or death decision right now. This is something we need to step back and look at. There are there are alternatives. I know of at least four. Now, y'all may not agree with them, but one of them would be maybe finishing the Columbia Dam, even if it's at a lower pool. It would be cheaper. The land would be there. A lot of the infrastructure is there for a Fountain Creek Dam there on Highway 50. Just basically put the concrete up. The dirt the dirt works there. What about raising the dam a little bit on Riverside Drive to get more intake water? Anybody thought about that? Anyway, what I want to say right now, I would like to ask y'all to table this motion for at least two to three months and step back and let's look at it because it seemed like it got snapped on real quick. So, table this motion and let's make it more transparent where everybody has an

idea of what to do. There's also another idea I forgot to tell you. Get maybe TVA. Use TVA right away. for a a pipeline that goes from the Tennessee River through Lawrenburg. That would be a regional water authority. Lawrenburg could pull water off of it. We wouldn't have to buy any land. Use TVA right away. That would work. Bring it all the way in Colombia. Anyway, I appreciate your time and just I would like to encourage y'all to table the motion tonight. Thank you. Next up, we have uh Joan Edens. All right. Uh Mr. Howard Edens.

All right. Okay. Thank you for being here this evening. Next up is Dan Allen. Mr. Allen. Dan.

He's coming up. Mr. Allen, come on up. You'll have the floor for three minutes if you'll give us your name and address for purposes of the record. Thank you. Thank you, mayor and council. Uh my name is Dan Allen. I am with the city of Spring Hill. I'm the current assistant city administrator and I'm also the general manager of Spring Hill Water. Uh just wanted to take a few minutes tonight to um just share from Spring Hill's perspective on this that um we have been a longtime collaborative partner with the uh folks at CPWS as well as the city of Columbia when it comes to long-term water supply planning. Uh this downstream intake project that's a big part of the discussion tonight really comes from many many many many years of work with the Duck River agency in terms of vetting options and long-term water supply studies over the long haul. Um we had a seat at the table for decades uh through the Duck River Agency as well as working with CPWS. We currently have a number of contracts and agreements with them that that honor the spirit of that. And uh really more than anything else, just wanted to um publicly say, you know, thank you for working with us over the years. Regardless of whatever decision you make tonight, we obviously know it's very, very difficult and you're weighing some heavy things and certainly looking at some long-term water supply challenges. Whatever path you take, um we just wanted you to know that we will continue to work with you in good faith. we'll be good collaborative partners and we will continue to try and find a way forward um no matter what's decided. And also just wanted to say how much uh you know I've known Jonathan Harden for over a decade and um really is one of the finest professionals I've ever had the pleasure of working with. So I just wanted to as his friend just publicly say how much I appreciate him and know the hard work that's gone into this. These are certainly challenging discussions and we certainly appreciate it. So thank you.

Thank you Mr. All right. Uh, next up, uh, Bob Graham. Mr. Graham, welcome. If you'll come forward, you'll have the floor for three minutes. If you'll give us your name and address for purposes of the record.

Bob Graham, Elliot Court, Columbia, Tennessee. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, uh, lady, and gentlemen of the council. I'm here concerned also about how this vote is going to end. And uh hopefully vote no. I'll say straight out. About an hour and a half ago, two hours ago, Colombia Power and Water put out a beautiful uh as you can see here a little bit. It's a uh PowerPoint and it shows how their solution is the best and everything else there's no it doesn't have any data or telling me where they got this data from. For one thing, it says the uh HB and TS pipeline that Mr. Gillum and uh uh Representative Supeky uh referenced they say it's not going to be done until 2033. Well, it's already been started from what I understand and it'll end it'll be completed by 2027. So, I don't know where they're getting their data. That is one reason alone why you should reconsider either putting this on hold or voting no because they're flatout I I'm not going to say lying but you know figures don't lie. Look at the figures. Also they say Normandy Dan wouldn't be done raised till 2035. I can get a couple of guys out there and we could finish it for you in no time. All right. No, all kidding aside though, um, and then like Scott Sepki said, [cough] [clears throat] a half a billion dollars in this solution. And the HB&Ts pipeline

would only be about 200 million. And that's according to CPS, CPWS's own figures right here on this chart. It's cheaper by 300 million according to themselves to do that instead. So please consider all this and you know just things just don't add up. That's why we're asking for you to look it over again one more time or at least vote no right now. Thank you for your time. All right. Uh, looks like we're rounding third and heading home on public comments. Chris, um, on Sheep Neck Road. I'm I'm not doing very well on last name pronunciation, so I'll let you pronounce

Garling. Okay. There's no B in it despite 30 or 54 years of life experience. Welcome. If you'll say your name for the record, you have three minutes.

My name is Chris Garling. I live at 10001 Sheep Neck Road. Uh thank you for hearing me everyone. Uh what we are experiencing right now in Mory County is not happening in a vacuum. We are living through a period of unprecedented pressure on our region. Pressure from outside financial interests. Pressure from rapid and often irresponsible development. Pressure from forces that do not share our Tennessee values or our long-term vision for this community. We all see what's been unfolding. New York private equity firms and outofstate developers are reshaping our land, our neighborhoods and our culture at a pace that many residents feel is reckless and deeply unwanted. Too often we as a community respond to these pressures in a fragmented every man for himself way rather than as a cohesive unified voice. And if we do not stand together, if we are not careful and deliberate, we've all fall prey to larger and more sinister forces that benefit from our divisions and from our willingness to incur massive long-term debt without unity or caution. This proposed $500 million loan is precisely the kind of decision that requires community cohesion, not unilateral action, not haste, not blind optimism. Because the truth is, none of us has a crystal ball. We've all lived through what no one saw coming. COVID, economic shocks, supply chain disruptions, and now a world that is more technologically vulnerable than ever with cyber, kinetic, and economic threats increasing against both public and private infrastructure. Our water systems are not just utilities anymore. They're part of our country's critical infrastructure, approving a half billion dollar commitment. without broad support is not just financially risky. It can be argued that it carries national security implications. Long-term debt of this magnitude taken on in an unpredictable world is not just

a financial burden. It can become a strategic vulnerability. Even the city's own 2009 comprehensive plan acknowledged the need for regional cooperation on issues exactly like this. And here we are 16 years later facing a problem the plan predicted. And the only solution being placed before the public is one that is deeply controversial and lacks broad consensus. So I ask, how did we get here without a regional plan? Where is the input from neighboring communities who will be directly affected? How is it acceptable that something this consequential has bypassed the spirit of regional cooperation that the comprehensive plan calls for? There are moral hazards in rushing forward. Committing future generations to en enormous debt, betting on growth projections that may not materialize, ignoring the concerns of residents, and failing to uh respect the democratic process. And beyond moral hazards, I strongly suspect there are legal vulnerabilities if this project proceeds without adequate public involvement, without regional alignment, and without demonstrating that all alternatives have been meaningfully explored. This is not simply a Colombia issue. This affects Mory County, Mount Pleasant, Spring Hill, agriculture, industry, residents throughout the region, and ultimately the future of Tennessee communities. There are cascading and tertiary implications as well. We should not make a generational decision with a divided public. We should not hand a half billion dollar obliga obligation to stakeholders without seeking their consent. We should

Mr. Gramling, that's time has expired. Thank you. Commissioner Grooms. Mr. Chairman, welcome. U you'll have the floor for three minutes if you give us your name and address for the record, sir.

All right. My name is Danny Grooms. I live at 818 North Main Street in Mount Pleasant, Tennessee. Um I have here 18 letters addressed to the Columbia City Council members. The county commission members below are writing to inform you that we are opposed to the proposed CPWS rate increase. We believe this increase will place an unnecessary burden on citizens and families for many years and we respectfully ask that you cons reconsider this proposal and that's signed by 18 of 22 city and county commissioners. Mayor, members of the city council, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here to address a fundamental issue of fairness and representation. whether a governing body that rep represents only part of the county should be making decisions about water rate increases that affect the entire county. Water is not a city resource or a district resource. It is a countywide necess necessity. Every household, business, farm, and school depends on it. And when water rates go up, the impact is shared by everyone regardless of where they live. Because the burden is countywide, the decision-making authority should be countywide as well. Yet today, this council, this city council elected to represent only a portion of the county has the power to vote on rate increases for thousands of people who cannot vote for you and have no direct representation in this chamber. That creates an imbalance that is simply isn't fair. If only one neighborhood could set property taxes for the entire county, we would never accept it. If only one school district could determine funding for every school, we'd call it undemocratic. But when a partial governing body can raise water rates for the whole county, that's effectively what is happening. This creates two major problems. First, the lack of accountability. Residents outside the city feel the impact of your vote but have no electoral force here. Decisions that affect their wallets should be made

by officials they can vote for. Second, unequal influence. when only part of the population is represented at the decision-m table, outcomes and inability reflect the priorities of the represented group. Meanwhile, those outside the city who will pay the same higher rates have no say in shaping these decisions. This is not about questioning the intentions about recognizing that the structure itself is inequitable. Water is our most essential resource and decisions and about its cost should be made through a process that represents all who are affected, not just some. Mayor and Councilman, I urge you to acknowledge this imbalance and and work toward a system that gives every taxpayer an equal voice. The people of this county deserve fairness, transparency, and representation, and quite frankly, they deserve it. Thank you very much.

All right, Mayor Sheila Butt. Welcome, Mayor. Thank you. to the floor for three minutes. State your name and address for the record, please.

Thank you. Sheila But 3870 Albert Matthews Road, Columbia, Tennessee. And I'm here proudly representing the people of Murray County. I understand completely the frustration with not having and looking ahead and thinking we may not have the water for Murray County. I understand that completely. 14 years ago, I met with the Duck River agency who mentioned this very plan 14 years ago. And in the meantime, nothing was done about it. It was not moved forward. No one was much interested in finding the funding. But I'll tell you what happened in the past year that has changed the landscape of how we can get more water in Murray County. The governor put out an executive order for the Duck River Water Planning Partnership. That partnership has been meeting regularly. Most of the things you've heard tonight about affordability, about the cost of what we're doing here. The Duck River Water Planning Partnership is working on those things. We have put forward a study to be done in nine months to look at regionalizing the water in Marie County and the surrounding counties. We're going to take different scenarios and see what is the best scenario for the cost of water in that region. I'll also mention that regional authorities have a much stronger standing in borrowing than one entity together. The borrowing options change when you create a regional authority. So in a nine-month study, we're going to figure out what is the best answer for that. Now, right now, we are not in a position that we're not going to have water in two years. Spring Hill is under a moratorum at least until 2030.

And that is is hoping they'll be out from under that in 2030. The county is under a moratorum right now. If we are ever going to stop and look at the possibility of what is the cheapest, best way to get clean water to the residents of Murray County today and for my children and for my grandchildren had one born in July. He would be paying for this when he gets 25 and 30 years old. We need to look at every alternative and as representative Sepiki said, we need to look at the cost. If we could regionalize, we could mitigate a lot of that cost and on economies of scale, the water could be cheaper. So, I want each of you to think about this. You are leaders. Take time to make a wise decision. We need nine months to look at this regionalization to see how we might get funding from other sources, including the state, including the federal government, and we could have strong strong regions that can borrow money with a whole lot of other ways to get that money. So, [snorts] I want you to look closely at this. Listen, we don't need for the train to go over the track right now. I say that you put this on hold. Let the Duck River Water Planning Partnership do its job. give them nine months to bring this study to the governor and then the funding could open up in many different areas. So I I think that if the studies are done, if we find and Jonathan, I understand completely your frustration. For 15 years, they have done nothing about it. But the change is that the Duck River Water Planning Partnership plans to do something about it. We've met for a year. We're meeting in the morning for four hours. We meet constantly to look at what is the best situation once we have these studies done. When everything is laid on the table,

the cost to you, the cost to me, the advantages of regionalization with the water authority, then I'll tell you this. If it comes back to us that this solution is the only solution at this cost for my children and my grandchildren to have clean drinking water in Murray County and for us to protect the integrity of the duck. I'll stand here before you and tell you that I will fight for the funding for that. I'll do whatever it takes if that's the only solution. But right now, we have doors opening that have never been opened before. So, I'm recommending that you do postpone this vote. Give the Duck River Water Planning Partnership an opportunity to finish its work. And if this is the only answer for water, I'll help you work toward it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor City Council. All right, that concludes the public comments. I know that Mr. Harden has signed up to speak and I'm sure that there will be perhaps some questions um that they may have for Mr. Harden. Um but is there anyone that believes they signed up to speak and did not get called on? I didn't sign up. No, I'm sorry. Sorry, but let the record reflect that you're here and my assumption is is that you would agree with uh what the mayor just said.

Okay. Well, we have to stick to our rules and we have to sign up in order to speak. But good to see you, Commissioner. Anyone else that signed up to speak that I overlooked? Are you Did you sign up, ma'am? Yeah, I went to the Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Um, Laura Mitchell. Yes, Miss Mitchell. You'll have the floor for three minutes.

Hi, my name is Laura Mitchell. I live on 1039 Depot Street in Caloka. And I'm just asking y'all to please uh not make this decision right now. Let's like everyone else has kind of come up here and talked about to uh let's consider other options. Um I've been paying I've lived where I live for about 22 years. I've paid $35. I have just a water bill through Columbia Power and Water because I have a septic tank. I've paid $35 for years. So the past six, seven months has gone up to $65 a month for my water. So, if this right here gets passed, I just don't know what it will be. It'll be in the hundreds of dollars, and it'll continue to be that I don't think it'll ever go back down. So, please just uh consider other options, and maybe we can get out a little bit cheaper for the taxpayers. Thank you.

All right. Anyone else that signed up to speak that I overlooked? All right. Seeing none, uh we're now back on agenda item 10.9. Anyone need to hear from anyone on this? Yeah, I'd like to say something. Council Huffman, you're recognized.

Um, I want to first appreciate everybody coming here tonight speaking on this. Uh, this is something that's probably the biggest thing that's ever been done in Murray County, and I've been I've been here all my life. Uh I'm going to make some statements and I've got some paperwork to back it up. Uh last Thursday night and and last Thursday night at our study session, Mr. Harden said that Murray County I mean Columbia Water System did not have any debt. Well, that's not true. That's terribly not true. At this point in time, they owe almost hundred million dollars. All right. At 56 million dollar, I talked to a banker today. At 3% for 30 years, they're going to pay back $1.35 billion. Not million, billion. Y'all, how can and I'm speaking for myself. I cannot put that on the taxpayers of Murray County. My great great grandkids won't get that paid for. And I don't know where he, you know, and these true these numbers he's put out, it may not be true numbers. So, I appreciate everybody coming. Thank you. I have one more take. Last week study session, Mr. Harden also said there wasn't any pipeline or any way of water getting come. If y'all ride up 431, you can see HB and TNS, they're putting water lines in the ground going tap to Murray County water system. If you ride up through, they've been doing it for two years. If you ride up through there, you'll see it. They're they're in the

works of putting that water line in. Thank you, Councilman. We're on item 10.9 Cullen, you have some Okay,

I I just is most of the people here, Mr. Mayor, most people here from the county. Is there any city people here? Is there anybody from the city here? Will you stand up please? Let me see you. I'm just curious. We couldn't understand what you said. I'm just curious how many people here from the city from city of Columbia. I'm curious about that. [clears throat] Excuse me. Is he asking for res?

I think that's what it was. All right. All right. Okay. Anything else, Mr. G? All right.

Vice Mayor.

All right. I'd like to also thank everybody for being here. I know this is a passionate subject. Um, I hope it doesn't bring too many hard feelings between everybody and drive a wedge because we all want the best for Colombia. I dare say I've probably been here as long as anybody in Col that's in this room. I've been here in Colombia. So, I've seen it grow. I've seen everything that's happened to this area and I do understand everybody's concern. But we have in the past have this same conversation. I ran up on some articles 30 years ago wanting to go up on the water rates. Everybody comes in here and we didn't do it. If we, you know, I don't want to belate the past because they did what they thought was right at the time, but if we had gone up gradually, we wouldn't be in this shape right now. We could show things that we can pay this off. Now, let's go back to what the facts. I told y'all I was going to call people up. I called them up. I called HB&Ts up themselves. Talked to a great guy, Cody. Talked to Mr. Gillum about it. And I asked him about the pipeline that they've come up and said they can have done. It's shovel ready as as of last Tuesday application had even been filled out for a pipe new pipeline. Had even been filled out. All right. But how? So they have to do studies. Can that be done? Also there is a 24inch man that's coming up there now. HB test said that's not big enough. They're going to have to build a new line. That's more cost. So, I'm just stating facts, not that I got off the internet, not that I got off of Facebook. Facts. That's what they told me. I called up the state, asked them what they thought about the project. They didn't say one

way or other. They gave me facts. They said, "It's been fully vetted. It's been approved, and we've done all the work that we have to do." And that was a eight-year project. to do it. It might even be a solution down the road when we have if they do decide to go to Tennessee River. They talked about that being part of the solution going to the Tennessee River. I mean, that's not off the internet. That's not somebody telling me. That's the two people who know what's going on. So, let's get let's get that stuff right first. All right. I I went and read all the emails and I apologize. I didn't get back. Email was down, but I did read them all. Over a hundred and I appreciate that. I did read everything about it. Somebody asked, are we looking at upload impact loans? We are. We're looking at the whiffle loans. We are doing that. We are looking for that. Um the impact fees. Somebody asked about the impact fee. We've already had the first reading on the impact fees going up. I can remember in a room years ago arguing about the impact fees. They are going up. And I I want to do so and say one other thing or some more other things about this. [gasps] They're talking about reckless uh building. I hope people realize the city of Columbia has only annexed one piece of property in the last three years. One that was for a residential subdivision. One. That's it. And it hasn't even been started yet. Think about that. that hadn't even been started. People do have rights of what was already done in the past to do it. And if they have the water available, they got their right to build it. They got their water availability letter. Now, since then, they have come to planning commission and the city council asked for preliminary plats on trying to bring them in. They're not getting letters for

water. There's the water company saying you do not have water. you will not have water maybe in 2028. It's another reason why we aren't passing anything. They're even looking at projects that's in the city. They're saying if you're too big, you're not going to get water. They are they're are trying to be responsible for this. We have had unprecedented growth. Everybody loves to say the growth has hit it's hit. If anything, it's it's probably moving on. It's going the other ways now. So it it has moved along and they are doing what they can to control it. But I it's just it's handing out building permits like popcorn. I've never heard anything like that is people have a right to build a house if they have followed the rules. People have rights on their lane. If a farmer wants to sell his property and he's worked all his life, his kids don't want his property, he can sell it. I mean, that's just that's just it. [snorts] And and talking to some of the people that were telling me, I know the water authority board has come up a lot. We are not voting on a water authority board. She warned me that's getting mixed into this. We are voting on what we should think is do what's right for the area to have water in 10 to 15 years and we have not heard of a reasonable one that can be done yet. A lot of us saying we're going to try. We're going to try. We're going to see what we can do. This is the only one that's been fully vetted. Vetted, I'm sorry, vetted. Also, I'd like Mr. Harden to come up and explain to them that we heard that we are selling seven million gallons to

Spring Hill. I think that was thrown out there. 7 million gallons. No, let let us know what's going on. Explain that because that was a qu I had heard that rumor and I've actually asked that.

Sure. Uh if you don't mind, Vice Mayor, I I think I can handle this. That's fine. Technical issue. We're a team that works together. Um our project, we have a partner, a regional partner that's working with us and has been a partner with us throughout the uh application, [snorts] the studies, and uh and the low interest loans that we're getting because we are a regional partner. Uh so Spring Hill has first right of refusal for that excess water that's been named here. um that doesn't mean it's been spent to them, that it's theirs unless they exercise it. Our uh rate model that we've put together that that informs this rate action is how we would pay for the all of these improvements if we did not have growth to support uh the one side of it. So, how do we pay for it if we build the project without growth to come in and pay impact fees and the like? And that would be with our wholesale partners as well. If they don't grow and absorb more water, how do we pay for it? That's why this is a ceiling rate action. But any growth that happens in the city, in our service area, or with our wholesale partners that consumes that additional water will be paying for that growth and pay down that uh those rate actions uh those future rate actions and help pay off that debt. So if we if this turns into a 20 or 30-year project instead of a 60-year project, which it could be at our current growth rate, 60 years, but if it turns into hyperrowth, the payoff would be much shorter as well because all of those impact fees and the investments that come with paying for that growth would pay it down. So I hope that answers your questions. Happy to answer more. That's all I've got for now. Thank y'all.

Um, thank you. Um, the idea of of increasing Riverside Dam. Um, could you increase Riverside Down that's 101 years old that's already been probably um repaired as much as it can be repaired. We would be unable to raise the dam. Uh, the dam is already a concern for failure. Uh structures similar to the one on Riverside Drive of that vintage were the ones that were of concern during the Hurricane Helen event last year for failure. Uh the Nola Chucky and some others. Um 100 years is the useful life on a concrete structure that is constantly in a waterway. Um there's no reason to hang our hat on another 50 years or 20 years of that dam, much less 100 given its age. And the water intake now is in a environmentally sensitive area. Is that correct? It

is. And and uh that was told back in 2001, I believe. Uh who who who said that the water intake needed to be moved downstream in 2001?

Uh the Tennessee Valley Authority determined that for this area to have water supply, we needed to move further downstream. And it it was kind of just not anything done about it until about 2015, I believe, to where Go ahead. U Mayor But referenced it correctly. 14 years ago, the Duck River agency refreshed that at the time 13-year-old TVA study and came to the same conclusions as TVA of the need for a downstream intake. Uh to your question at hand, CPWs started the effort on uh moving towards that location uh in 2015 and as you can see it was a 10-year process to get all the uh approvals for moving it downstream.

Wasn't there another partner involved in this? There was uh we we had engaged with both Murray County Water Systems and Spring Hill. Um as part of the initial applications to to make it a regional water project, um they're both wholesale partners as been uh discussed. And so originally they were part of that application for uh WITHIA funding that's a low interest loan through the federal government EPA as well as a state revolving fund uh that we funded as a regional water project. Um we're still eligible for those funds under that uh banner because of the uh the collaboration with Spring Hill for this intake.

So what happened to the other partner in this? What what transpired in that? Um several years back Murray County Water pulled out of the partnership uh with the intention of uh filing for their own intake and water treatment plant. So they have an application that's currently in at TKC and with the other agencies for an intake in that same sensitive area of the river where our current intake is at um which has not been uh moved forward. It it is stalled at the federal level u because of the environmental sensitivity of that area. And so, um, upon, um, losing the ability to get that own intake, uh, they then pivoted toward a Cumberland pipeline, which they're doing now at HB&Ts. So, they're building that 3 million gallon day. Originally, it was a 2 million gallon day, now a 3 million gallon day pipeline to HB&Ts, uh, that would serve their residents. And the water rates that um Bur County Water was getting from um CPWS was 350. Is that right?

They're currently $3.75,000 gallons as a wholesale rate. And what's the HB HB and TNS's rate? Uh we don't know exactly what the rate is today and and and neither do they because the pipeline's not finished. Um an old rate is above $4. Uh but right now with uh the cost to CPI index and the like, we expect to be above $5 for,000 gallons. 461. Okay. And um Okay. I got more questions later.

Now's your time, Mr. McCel. You want with Mr. Harden and um Mr. Wheeler? All right, we're back on 10.9. Is there a motion on 10.9? Motion to approve. Motion's been made. Is there a second?

Second's been made by Council McCullen. Any discussion? So, we're back on 10.9 now for purposes of discussion. Vice Mayor. Um $3.75 is what we're selling it to Murray County Water and our C our rates that we're selling to ourselves, our customers are 360. Is that correct? That's what Mr. the the there's a volumetric component and a customer charge and on 5,000 gallons in the aggregate inside the city, it's $34.75. That's kind of good. So there's very I mean what's what's the difference you think that we're selling between the two? It's very minimum. I mean it's like almost nothing is it?

Uh on the volumetric rate they're they're very similar. The difference is you're you're we have a I believe $16 customer charge that accounts for fixed expenses with a fixed revenue component. So it's roughly $16 uh for a meter inside the city, right? [snorts] But but to your question, we sell water at cost. The cost of treating the water and delivering it to those uh wholesale partners, they get it at cost, which if you compare it in the region is the lowest in the region. Yes.

Ask a question. Um, so this 5 point I mean $55 million um cost that's worst case scenario. Is that correct? Correct. And it uh the $16 million worth of short-term borrowing when came to the city of Columbia for that ran uh that is a part of that number. that number accounts for existing uh revenue anticipation notes and take it out and all of that's moved within the dollar amount that you're discussing. So it could come in less.

The costs can come in less. Um because of the federal government asking us to inflate them uh in order to be conservative with our estimates, we came up with a number. They asked us to add 20% to it uh because it increased their ability to lend to us at a percentage of that number and they reminded us that uh when the numbers come in lower, they would still lock in their guarantee to us on the lending assistance.

And the 20% is also a worst case scenario. That's the ceiling it can be. And if um if I if I'm if I'm correct on this, how much would it be? Just say that the ceiling was met all five years, what would be the approximate rate for uh CPWS customers?

Well, I appreciate you answering that question. And I'll take this moment to say we do have a uh we have a frequently asked questions page that we've added to in the last couple weeks. We've seen a lot of misunderstandings. um uh incorrect assumptions about things, misinformation uh that happens. For instance, some customers think we're increasing the power uh uh power bill by the same percentage. So, I would encourage everyone to go to community H2O. Uh we have a fact sheet on this rate action and it goes into the escalation. uh the escalation over 20 uh over five years at 20% per year would take inside the city rates up into the I believe it was in the the low 80s per 5,000 gallons which is um a similar rate to what Murray County Water System charges right now.

Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

All right. Any other discussion? Um I just have a couple things I want to say. Thank you, gentlemen. Uh, I think we're going to be taking the vote. Um, unless there's any other discussion. Um, you guys can have a seat. Um, let me say a couple things. First of all, I want to say thank you to all of you who are here this evening. Uh, we don't normally have this big of a crowd. Uh, but we like it when we do and we'd like to welcome you back anytime. You're welcome in this building. Uh, we thank you for your participation and for your involvement uh on this very important issue. Um, I also want to say that uh members of this council have provided you with the respect this evening to listen to your voice. Um, and I would just ask that after the vote is taken that you provide them with the same respect regardless of the outcome of the vote. Uh, because at the end of the day, this is a professional body and a professional meeting. Uh, and I I think that all of you, regardless of the way this vote goes, understands the importance and the magnitude of this decision. Um, I had a a funeral to go to today in Shelbyville. And so, as I was on my way, um, made some comments or wrote some comments that I would like to read in the record. Every member of this council has been grappling with this issue over the last several months as CPWS has worked to educate us on this project, and I want to say thank you to CPWS, its staff, and its board for their work on bringing forward a long-term water supply solution. Our long-term water supply is not a new issue. It is not simply because of recent growth. It is an issue that has faced our community for several years and unfortunately up to this point the can has been kicked down the road. Let me be clear. There have been a lot of mistruths and misleading information that have been presented on this issue and I'm particularly sad to see some of that stemming from fellow local elected officials. Also, I can assure you that plaques on buildings is not a concern to this council when it comes to long-term water supply. To those who are advocating for a team approach, I urge all of you to practice what you preach.

And I promise you that I advocate for a team approach every time I'm in this building. At its core, CPWS proposes to increase rates to pay for repayment of lowinterest loans to pay for in part a new intake facility, which will add 12 million gallons of water capacity, adding to 20 million gallon capacity system already in place. The need for additional water is a result of CPWS's need to provide water to all of its customers, including the city of Columbia resident, the city of Spring Hill, Murray County Water, and Mount Pleasant. Speaking of Mount Pleasant, if there's a memory that I'll never forget during my time as mayor is when CPWs heeded the call of service to our friends in Mount Pleasant during a difficult time for their water system and helped identify and repair over 400,000 gallons of water leakage. This water intake expansion has been fully vetted and permitted by multiple state and federal agencies, including Tekk. It is ready and it is necessary for the sake of our regional water supply. This is a historic decision and a big deal. Columbia's water infrastructure and our long-term water supply is important not to just those of us in the room tonight, but to our kids and their kids. And to reiterate, long-term water supply needs are not just a result of new people moving in. It's a result from folks like me who have moved back home to grow a family here. It's because we want to see existing businesses survive, new businesses thrive, and families grow all across Murray County. Water supply comes down to our quality of life. But at the end of the day, for me, the rate increase is not one that I can support this evening as currently proposed by CPWS. From the beginning, I have raised concerns over the burden being asked of this council to burden future council and citizens on speculative rate increases that future city councils will have no say. To be sure, there will be some who think my vote is shortsighted. That is a vote against the best, most viable long-term

solution to a decadesl long issue. And we do need a long-term solution. Each member of this council has to come to their own determination as to which issue is more important to them. long-term water supply solution for the city of Columbia and its rateayers and customers or the co current cost of living affordability issues and the impact this would have on our citizens in the short term. This is a difficult decision because it's an important decision and because tonight there is a solution offered to a decadesl long problem and I cannot and will not find fault in the outcome of this vote and the decision that you make personally members of council. For me personally, I cannot justify voting on an increase such as this at this time. Regardless of the outcome, I urge our local, state, and federal partners to continue conversations to help fund this project in ways that will limit the financial burden on our citizens. Mr. Jablonsky, call the vote, please.

Mr. McCullen, Mr. Huffman, no. Miss Secretress, yes. Mr. Marshall, yes. Mr. Mckelby, yes. Vice Mayor McBrroom, yes. Mayor Moulder, no. Motion passes. 10.9 is passed on first consideration. All right. Uh, section 11, other business, Mr. Massie. Any other business this evening? No, sir.

All right. No need to go into section 12. If you're leaving, please do leave quietly as we are continuing on with our meeting. Um, I will point out that the annual City of Columbia Christmas employee lunchon was a success. Thanks again to uh staff who assisted in that regard. Holiday lights in the parks at Woodland and Fairview parks go on from now until Christmas Day. And as a reminder, the January study session has been rescheduled due to the New Year's holiday study session will be on January 6 at 5:30. Any other member of council wish to be heard?

The motion's been made to adjourn. Um I'll second it for purposes of discussion. Um let me just say is this is our last meeting of the year and I want to uh say special thanks to our city staff for all their good work uh throughout the year. Uh we have a dedicated team of city employees and uh we're grateful for all of them uh for their good hard work and we appreciate um their work all through the year but especially during this time of year. Any other member of council wish to be heard. All right, Mr. Jublonsky, take the vote. Mr. McCullen, Mr. Hubman, Miss Secret, Mr. Marshall. Hi, Mr. McKelby. Hi,

Vice Mayor Mc Broom. Hi, Mayor Moulder. I we are journaling. How you doing?