City Council - Regular Meeting

Pledge of Allegiance. Let's pray. Father in heaven, the blessings you give us are too many to count. And not only are we undeserving, but we're we're so grateful for what you do for us in this community. Father, tonight, be with us as we as we contemplate and review and try to make decisions that affect us. help be with this council tonight in your hand of wisdom and judgment. Uh be what guides us as we review what's best for this city. Again, Father, thank you for everyone here tonight when we leave. Keep us safe and most importantly, thank you for your son that when we walk with that hope and the blessings that he give us of that of that one day being with you. It's in his name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Ice to the flag of the United States of America to the flag it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty justice for all. Thank you Councilman Gilbert. Item three consider approval of agenda as presented. Are there any changes? No changes. Have a motion. Motion made by Vice Mayor Eldridge. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman Gilbert. Uh any discussion? Okay. vote on that.

All votes correct or yes, motion carries. Thank you. 5A. Consider approval of minutes of council meeting held on November 6, 2025. Is there a motion? So moved. Got a motion from Councilman Walker. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Vice Mayor Eldridge. Any discussion from the council? Dan, I started without you. Sorry. I apologize. We didn't do anything. I promise. Uh, got a motion and a second. Uh, go ahead and vote on that. My prayer count. Yes, your prayer. So good. All votes correct or yes. Motion carries. Thank you. 5B. Consider on second and final reading ordinance 0251 1121 amending the municipal code of the city of Cookville, Tennessee, Title 5, Chapter 7, Hotel Motel Tax. Mr. Coons.

U Mayor and Council, uh, there have been no changes this ordinance. We have also received no calls or comments. So I recommend on second final reading ordinance 251121. Thank you. Is there a motion? Motion made by Vice Mayor Elder, seconded by Councilman Gilbert. Any discussion from the council? Okay. Vote on that.

All votes correct or yes. Motion carries. Thank you. For the consent agenda, we have 6A. Set a date 12425 and 121825 for public hearings of proposed amendments to the city of Cookville's urban growth boundary. 6B, consider awarding bid for full catering services for the 2026 father-daughter date night. 6 C, consider declaring a surplus scrap water meters. And 6 D, consider approval to purchase three 2026 Chevy Silverado trucks utilizing the statewide contract number 209. Is there a motion on the consent agenda? So move. Motion made by Councilman Walker. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Vice Mayor Eldridge. and a discussion from the council. I just want to say it's going to be a 27 in chocolate fountain of the father daughter day night. So that my daughter will come home with half of it on her dress.

But it means she had a good time if you don't come home with chocolate on your dress. How many inches? 27 inches it says. Okay. All right. All right. We got a motion in a second. We'll go ahead and vote on the consent agenda. Open. All votes. Correct. Or yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. On to new business. 7A. Consider resolution R251120 requesting that the Putham County Representatives to the Tennessee General Assembly sponsor, support, and ensure the enactment of an amendment to the Tennessee Code section 7512601 to include Putham County and its incorporated cities and towns as a local government relating to the governance of sober living homes. Mr. else.

Mayor and council members, as we discussed at our work session on Monday, we have over the last several years received numerous calls with complaints and concerns about sober living facilities which are scattered throughout the city and many within single family residential subdivisions. Um also noted Monday that we've had a a significant uptick in concern um due to a recent incident at a local sober living facility. Um and I think we also discussed that under federal law which was adopted many years ago um we are limited on how we can regulate sober living homes. As a matter of fact, under current state law, which is done in compliance with federal law, um, sober living facilities with eight or less occupants and up to three caregivers have to be treated exactly like a single family home. So, they can go anywhere a single family home can go and really no other regulations can we enact on them. Well, based on after we heard all these concerns, we recently became aware of a uh public chapter legislation that was approved last year um by the state that specifically applied to one county and the cities within that county. Um that was public chapter 503 and it provides that um you can require a separation requirement of 1,000 ft from daycarees, preschools or other schools for from from a so a new excuse me new sober living home. So existing sober living homes would be grandfathered. It also provides that local governments may regulate the location or operation of a sober living home by ensuring compliance with applicable state local zoning laws. applicable health safety fire building codes. So, we've reached out to the communities that this applies to currently within within Hamilton County

who it was adopted for and they none of those that we've had responses from have enacted anything in response to this new capability under the state law. And I say that and as the resolution is before you ask that the state legislature amend um this section of the Tennessee code to include Putnham County within this definition of a local government which in effect would also apply to the four municipalities within Putnham County. But that's what this resolution does. But I say this about what's happened so far. This doesn't mean that we will take any additional action. There's probably going to need to be more legal analysis of this, what we can and can't do, but it does give us that option going forward when currently we have no new no options. We do think this is the best way forward, but I don't want to promise that we're going to be able to do something. We're still going to have to go through the legal mechanisms. And also to note that if this is approved, it will be next year, May or June, before it ever became effective, which is when this became effective this past May. But I would recommend your approval of resolution 251120.

Thank you. Is there a motion? So move. Motion made by Vice Mayor Eldidge. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Gilbert. Any discussion from the public on this agenda item? Oh yes. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Trenton Stro, Goodwill, Tennessee. um somewhat indifferent about this business item just because I'm not sure if this resolution includes any sort of statement or ask from the state about mental health uh treatment or addiction help treatment or any kind of counseling that goes into this. My concern is that I feel that this is somewhat of a legislative move in order to treat mental health issues or local issues as some sort of code enforcement issue instead of where the crisis really is. And that um it's kind of broadening the definition of public health. Um I hope that the council considers some sort of resolution within this in order to advocate for some sort of public health services and required into actual health care instead of treating this like a code enforcement issue.

Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, any discussion from the council. All right, got a motion in a second. So, we will go ahead and vote on this.

All votes correct or yes, motion carries. Thank you. 27B consider resolution R251121 requesting that the city of Kwell representatives to the Tennessee General Assembly sponsor support and ensure the enactment of an amendment to Tennessee code annotated section 651104 to allow annexation by majority property owner consent. Mr. Mills,

mayor and council members, what this resolution specifically does is request that the state legislature amend TCA 651104 to allow annexation um of property without a referendum when twothirds of the property owners owning a majority of the property within an annexation area have certified that they're in favor of annexation. Um why we're doing this um or requesting this be done. one, it used to be within the state law. We had this amended many years ago and a sunset provision was inserted there without not without my knowledge, but without a lot of people's knowledge, but it did expire two years ago. Um, and why I do this is that right now we're required to do annexation. Uh, we must hold a referendum. That referendum only requires 51% of, you know, a majority of proven annexation. This is a much higher threshold than is currently provided in state law. The other reason is a delay. This it now takes months over a year to even consider annexation. I'll give you the example the one we're currently considering which we started back first of this year and it'll be May of next year before we can have the election on. So it's 18 months to even have an annexation considered that and it has in the past cost us the loss of uh the industry because they can't wait for 18 months about a decision um you know can you annex me so I can get sewer so I can get fire protection so I can get police protection. They're not going to wait around. And if we can show at a higher threshold with the majority of the property, the owners of the area in in favor, it seems like to me this is just a in my mind is a no-brainer. It's a win-win. Um but we're going to again this used to be a provision within the state law. They sunset it. We're asking our state representatives to reinsert

this. And I'd recommend your approval of resolution 25121. Thank you. Is there a motion? So moved. Motion made by Councilman Walker. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Gilbert. Any discussion from the public on this agenda item? Oh, we got two. Go ahead,

Stro. Once again, this agenda item in particular is concerning to me because I believe that this kind of private privatizes democracy in a way. Um, it takes away the power from the voters that are all within that area. It gives it all to the property owners which are in that area. for a conversation that I've had earlier with some more educated folks. Of course, that the property owners do have more stake in the actual annexation versus the residents that are there. However, we do have voting rights here in this country, here in this state, here in this county, here in this city. They all should have a equal share in what goes on in their communities as well. Um, I feel like this is also easier way to buy votes possibly from property owners. the less that you have people to vote, the easier it is to influence for outside people who may or may not want that actual area to come into the city or um stay into the county. Um and it really just makes me flash back to a civil rights era where property owners who were white were the only people who were able to vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes, go ahead.

Jean Mullins live on Frier Tuck Lane. Uh my wife and I along with two other families have family farms along Shipley Church Road that all adjoin each other and also join the city limits and we were very concerned when we saw this agenda item because we weren't sure how extensive it was. So I have a question for Mr. Raider. Does this resolution in any way abregate or nullify the provisions of section A1 regarding agricultural property? Okay. Well, this is just a resolution to request for the city of Kofal representative to the general assembly uh to support an amendment to TCA.

I understand.

I understand. So this this really doesn't in in and of itself do anything. Okay. But I would have to see uh a copy of the TCA and have to see uh the documents associated with it. And I think this other gentleman spoke to this. I think currently uh the vote has to be uh of the residents instead of the property owners. Uh so it depends on how this is finally presented at the general assembly and how and the wording when it's ultimately uh passed or not passed as to whether it requires the property owner or the residents and what the geographic territory is. And I would just have to read this resolution to see exactly what we're asking these people to do beyond uh beyond just allow the property owners uh to allow uh to to vote to allow the annexation and then if the majority of the owners consent then the city can uh can can allow them to be annexed. Uh that but that being said, if this property is agriculture property and it's zoned agricultural property, uh which I think in the city the default is on agricultural party and Mr. Mills can speak to this or Mr. Ward if he's here. I think when we get into agricultural property by default it comes in as RS2 uh by zoning and the zoning would ultimately require uh would be involved in that as well.

RS20 is what the zoning classification is RS20 and also point out that right now you can annex if it's an area it's it's the residents and the property owners. I also point out is that the property owners are the one paying the property tax. So

well section A1 reads in part, notwithstanding this part or any other law to the contrary, property being used primarily for agricultural purposes shall be annexed only with the written consent of the property owner or owners. I can assure you that all three of our families are strongly dedicated to preserving our family farms and strongly oppose annexation. My second question would be for either Mr. Rider or Mr. Mills. Does the city anticipate at any time in the future trying to amend or eliminate section A1 as just read or section D1 that allows a municipality to annex area that's not adjoining its current municipal boundaries?

Well, number one to your last question. No, we have no intention of evering anything that doesn't touch our boundaries. We don't do leak fog development. It needs to be contiguous with the city for us to extend sewer. We're not going outside the city to another piece of property to extend sewer by municipal code. We don't extend sewer outside the city. So that would be a violation of that. Regarding the farmland, we have no intention of there's no goal to do that. But let me point out on that just because you're in the city doesn't mean it doesn't be it can't stay farmland. That has nothing to do with the use of your property whether you're inside or outside of it. You can keep it farming for the rest of your life. And we've annexed at property owners request several properties in the past that are still agricultural. We've not changed that. So that's your choice whether you want it to be developed. We hear that in the county. The county saving barns. That's the property owner who sells those and they're resubdivided. The city or the county doesn't force that. That's your decision. But I let me also say that the state law this was already in place for more than a decade with that same provision about farmland. So, no, it does not affect that provision of the of the Tennessee code.

All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak on this agenda item? I just I'm sorry I misspoke on RS2. I'm in RS20 because that's uh New Jersey. That's the standard uh standard thing where you have have to have a septic tank and because there's no sewer available.

Any more discussion from public? Any discussion from council? Yeah, I mean I'd like to say I think this does a better job at representing a lot of properties that are in the county. Um you have more tendency to discuss with your neighbors. I mean, if you if we're looking at several properties in the county and one property has an apartment complex, they could single-handedly outvote all the other property owners um under the current system because there's more people voting to reach 50%. Um, in this way, you have to have twothirds of the property owners actually sign on for an annexation. So, in some regards, it can help both ways. you know, it gets a it's better at capturing those people who want to come into the city and get city services and get a vote in the city. You know, if you're not you're not city limit, you can't vote. So, um the biggest thing here is is making sure that those areas are represented as they are. The best way to do that is among property owners. And this is a twothirds instead of 50% majority. So, James, thank you for all your work on this. I know it's um is a a topic to be well educated on and I do support this. Thank you.

I think it's worth mentioning too the money it saves. The elections are the money. I mean because we're talking about 30 20 30,000 that we're going to have to pay to have an election and and wait a year and a plus to do it. So I mean it's it is material what this savings is. Any other discussion? Okay, seeing none. We got a motion a second. So we'll go ahead and vote. Alth yes, motion carries.

Thank you. 7 C consider resolution R251 11122 requesting that the city of Cookville representatives to the Tennessee General Assembly sponsor, support, and ensure the restoration of the historic revenue sharing relationship between the state of Tennessee and its local governments and to return the local share of the single article cap sales tax to local governments. Mr. bills. Mayor, council, stop me if you've heard this before. This is new. I've never heard this.

To try to persuade the state to allocate a larger portion of the sales tax revenue collected here, return it back to here. Um, it's two components as you read in the definition of the resolution there. The first part is that we're asking the state to share 4.6% 6% share with all the municipalities across the state of the 1% that they added to the state sales tax in 2002. So the state portion of the sales tax is 7%. They added 1% in 2002 and they don't share any of that 1% back with the local governments. And again, where it's generated, where it's collected, where we provide the infrastructure and all the other that goes to encourage business to locate here, all we're asking is a measly 4.6% 6% of that 1% they add on. So the state keeps 95% of that, you know, is all we're asking. It seems pretty small to me, but anyway, uh we're asking that they share that back, that additional one penny, that 4.6% of that 1% of the of the state portion of the sales tax. We estimate, and this is a couple years old now, that that would generate about $600,000 for the city of Kal U, which is significant. Uh then the second portion of this is also in 2002 the state increased the single article cap. So when you go buy a car you pay sales tax on the first now $3,200. It used to be $1,600. They increased it from $1,600 to $3200 in 2002. And for the first 1,600 we get to collect our 2.75%. So our the local option sales section is 2.75 in Cooko and Putnham County. So you paid 9.75. When they changed this in 2002, the state cut not only all their seven cents, but also the local portion. So they collect all of the 9.75% of that amount between 1,600 and $3,200

on any single article cap purchase. That also we believe would generate about $600,000 for the city of Kobal, which is total to combined is 1.2 million. And to give you how this all relates, 1.2 2 million is equates to 10 cents on our property tax rate. So, and I want again the whole thing for me is this money is generated because of the efforts of the city of Kville, Putham County and the people who live here to have all the the things that attract business. And it only makes sense to me since that incur that cost to provide all that infrastructure falls back on us. We should get a token of this money back to the city of Koba and I could preach on this and I have five.

Yes. Yes. Anyway, I your approval of resolution 25122. Thank you. Is there a motion? Amen. So moved. Got an amen from Vice Mayor and a second. I think we'll Can we count that amen as a motion? Amen. A second

and a second. Yeah. From Councilman Walker. Any discussion from the public on this agenda item? Yeah. I promise this might be my last time up here. These three items today were really that jumped out at me. Once again, Trenton Strode, Cookville, Tennessee. Um the salt tax is something I've actually had conversations with with folks on this council as well. Um I'm actually in approval with this for you all as well. I think this is a great way to serve the city of Cookville as a whole. However, I think it's also honest to be honest with the public of how we got here in the first place. That we have a state legislature that is or state legislature that is hoarding money from its citizens and they're not giving back the fair share to it. And I'm hope that we're as a council and as a local government, we are being honest with the public and also being honest with our state legislators as well with the actions and the policies that they are putting in place that are causing us to raise taxes and find other sources of revenue to support the city. I think we have a a um excuse me, I think we have a uh due diligence to the citizens of Cookville to be completely honest and not tell half truths about what we're trying to do. Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak to this item? Any discussion from the council?

I I'd just like to say um you know, James, I think you bring up a great point here and I do support this. Um, you just look at sidewalks. We get grant money from the state of Tennessee to design sidewalks and they help us build these sidewalks. Now, I'm not picking on the state. They do a lot of great things for the city of Kville. Many of our roads and our major roads run through our city and we need their help to improve them and get their funding and do that kind of thing. But we're pretty good at sidewalks and $600,000 a year would build much much like miles and miles and miles more sidewalks.

I'd love to do that much miles and miles more sidewalks over time than what we do with that money going to the state and then coming back to us. Um, and so it's just really important for us just to get what we should have as a fair share. um towards these tax dollars that we help generate. And if we just use that money in many ways that the state tends to give us back money with strings attached, it would actually be a tax saving across the board to everyone in the state, not just our local property owners. Anybody else said,

I've always felt like I'm going to get off my soap box on this that the best government is the government that's closest to the people. let us keep some of that money here and use it how the council who's elected by the citizens believes it should be best to use, not let that come down from the state. That's just my that's my personal opinion on this. So, I'll stay out of that. Thank you. Any more discussion? Thank you, James. You you've been a huge advocate for this.

Oh, yes. I snuck over here. Clarissa Reeves Williams. I think all of you have heard me talk about sidewalks, so I didn't want to miss the opportunity to say thank you for watching for the community and 1.2 million is a lot of money. So, thank you. Thank you. Any more discussion? All right, we'll go ahead and take a vote on Miss. Although it's correct or yes, motion carries.

Thank you. 7D, consider approval of ear early termination of current postage meter lease agreement and approval of a new postage meter lease agreement utilizing the statewide contract number 419 contract ID 79240. Mr. Coons,

council, um we currently lease a postage meter uh utilizing statewide contract 419. Um it was originally a 60-month term for $19263 monthly. Uh and that lease currently ends in September of next year. Uh the vendor has reached out to us and let us know that the um pricing is going to be increasing in 2026 and let us know that uh the current pricing for a new lease is less than what we're even paying now. and we have the opportunity to um sign a terminate our current lease without any penalty and sign a new 60-month lease um actually and actually save money over what we're currently paying. Uh the new lease price would be 18218 per month which would equate to a little over $600 over a 60-month lease term. Uh we would get a new meter. Um we receive a discount on postage. uh services included and supplies are additional just like u our current lease and I recommend approval.

Thank you. Is there a motion? So moved. Motion made by Vice Mayor Elders. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Gilbert. Any discussion from the public on this item? Discussion from council. Okay. Go ahead and moved. Although it's correct or yes, motion carries. Thank you. 7E, consider resolution R25118 authorizing the participation in the public entity partners James L. Richardson driver safety matching grant program is Garrett.

Yes, Mayor and Council. The James L. Richardson driver safety matching grant provides funding assistance to enhance safety. This grant will reimburse 50% of the total $8,000 cost incurred. Uh the cost associated with installing backup cameras on water quality control vehicles, adding safety lights, and installing fire extinguishers on sanitation trucks and public works. These enhancements improve operator safety, increase vehicle visibility, and ensure compliance with safety standards. And I recommend your approval. Thank you. Is there a motion? So moved. Motion made by Vice Mayor Eldridge. Is there a second? Second.

Don't leave me hanging there. Second from Councilman Gilbert. Any discussion for the public on this? Eric. Discussion. I know. Come on now. Discussion from council. All right. All vote.

All votes correct. Yes. Glorious. Motion carries. Thank you. 7G consider awarding bid for a 2025 Ridgand low pressure sewer project. Mr. Turner, did I skip one? Oh, so sorry. Yeah, sorry. Have I first? Well, there's a first time for everything. Okay. So, sorry. Yeah.

I got excited. I was marking stuff off. Sorry. Um, so we'll go to 7F. Consider resolution R2119 amending the personal personnel policies and procedure manual. Miss Garrett. Yes, mayor and council. Um, so chapter 3, section 4 of the recruit recruitment and selection, uh, to update that section of the personnel policy and procedure manual, we're requesting to replace the current version of the section with the city manager shall have the final approval on hiring and appointing all city employees except for the city judge and city attorney who are appointed by city council. In chapter 8, section 13.02 of the employee benefits and programs longevity pay, we are requesting to replace the current version for clarification with the lump sum payment will be made in November of each year. Eligible employees must be actively employed on the date longevity pay is issued. Retiring employees will receive longevity pay in November of the calendar year they retire, provided they are actively employed on the anniversary of their hire date. The drug and alcohol policy appendix B. Due to becoming a recent member of the Tennessee drug-free workplace program, our drug and alcohol policy needs to be updated in order to be compliant with the drug and drug drugs and cutoff levels of the program and they are listed there. and then the designated drug alcohol testing facilities in appendix C to keep pace with changes in facilities. We asked to update our current policy to allow for these changes. So we had some facilities that have permanently closed. So, um, facilities to be designated by the city of Cookville, the initial testing for alcohol, confirmatory testing for alcohol and MRO, and the

designated drug testing facilities to be as designated by the city of Cookville and I recommend your approval. Thank you. Is there a motion? Motion made by Councilman Walker. Is there a second? Second. Second by Vice Mayor Eldridge. Any discussion from the public? Discussion from council. If I could, I'd like to recognize Amy for all her hard work on this. This took quite a bit to put all this together and thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

And James, sorry, James pointed Thank you, Amy. And James pointed out earlier at the work session on the uh the approval for hiring points to employees. That's how we practice. That's how our charter is. I think they're just cleaning up some clerical errors there. So, it's not changing changing anything the practice. Yeah. Thank you for that. Any more discussion? Okay, I'll vote.

All votes correct or yes, motion carries. Thank you. Now, Barry, sorry, you didn't even get up when I was reading this. You're like, she's wrong. I'm not even going to get up. So, 7G, consider awarding bid for 2025 Ridgedale low pressure sewer project. Mr. Turner. Uh, yes. This uh shows the parcels that will be served by this project which is 26 parcels. We received two bids. Low bid being made will construction for $313,456. I think it's 56. I need to Yeah, $456.50. I recommend your approval. Thank you. Is there a motion?

Every there that was everybody. Yeah, we'll go with Vice Mayor Aldridge and then yeah, Council Walker. Any discussion from the public on this discussion from council vote?

All votes correct or yes, motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. 7H, consider awarding bid for 2025 North Cookville waterline project. Mr. Turner, uh this drawing shows the different areas where we're replacing Gavin S. Uh, it's all 2-in galvanized. We're putting back some 2 in and some 6 in. Here we again received two bids. And the low bid was made with construction for $550,700. And I recommend your approval on this. Thank you. Is there a motion? So move.

Motion made by Vice Mayor Eldridge. Is there a second? Second by Councilman Gilbert. Any discussion from the public on this discussion from council? Okay. Take a vote. All votes correct or yes motion carries. Thank you. And seven I consider approval of amendment number two to engineering contract to perform professional services for utility line installation and relocation for water within T dot South Jefferson Avenue road widening project. Mr. Turner.

Uh the original engineering agreement on this project was signed in uh January of 2018. It was a cost plus agreement because that type of design, you don't know what you're going to run into. And so the engineering and inspection was cost plus. We amended the contract January in 2021 for increase. The job is still not complete at this time. So um they're running out of money on what was originally approved approved. this change contract amendment here would be for $47,755. The contract that we have with T DOT, um T DOT is paying 100% of the engineering amount and they're paying 80% of the inspection cost. What this would do, we would exceed our contract amount with T DOT. So, we would have to negotiate with T DOT to get them to cover some of this additional, but we've got to keep going on the project and get get across the finish line and we got to get MAS built drawings and such. So, we anticipate though getting some additional money from T DOT.

Thank you. Is there a motion? So, move second. Motion by Council I mean Elders, second by Councilman Gilbert. Any discussion from the public on this discussion from council? Okay. I'll vote.

Although it's correct or yes, motion carries. Thank you. That uh concludes the agenda portion of our meeting. Is there anyone who would like to speak to the council on any non-aggenda items? Seeing none, any uh comments, announcements from the council? Seeing none. What? Oh, yeah. That place Oh, yes. Yeah. Everyone have a safe and happy Thanksgiving. Yes. And we'll see you in December. Meeting adjourned.