City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. It is January 13, 2026. It is 6 pm. We've got a large crowd tonight, so it's going to be really important to not be chitchatting in the audience so that we can hear up here. The sound carries in a weird way and it's very disruptive when we hear sound from out there. So, appreciate your help with that. Um, this is a council committee meeting. Um, we will have public recognition at the front of the meeting. Um, but we're going to begin this evening with the roll call. And for that, Miss Kitrol will do the honors. Vice Mayor Hayes Councilman Alexander present. Councilman Carter present. Councilman Fan here. Councilman Fenel here. Councilman Jones here.

Councilman Juvants Mayor we have a quorum. Thank you and thank you everyone for being here this evening. This um tonight we do have three sets of minutes. Kind of odd odd grouping of minutes but some got lost out there in minute land. And [clears throat] so, um, tonight we have before you the council committee meeting minutes from September 9th, September 23rd, and December 9th. And so, I hope you've had a chance to review those. I'd ask if anyone has any. Um, well, first of all, if anyone has some motion to approve. Motion to approve.

Motion by Councilman Jivants. Second by Councilman Jones. Are there any corrections, additions, or subtractions requested? Okay, seeing none, all in favor of approving all three sets of minutes, please say I. I oppose say no. Minutes are unanimously approved for September 9, September 23, and December 9. And we will move on to public recognition. Before we do go to public recognition, I wanted to alert this body and the public that we have been asked by the developer of the Greensboro Village mixed residential development to defer that for two weeks. It I have been told it is because there are significant changes forthcoming. Um and so how does this body wish to handle that? without objection. Is that fine with y'all for two weeks?

Motion to defer. Motion second. Okay. All in favor? Opposed. Okay. So that will ordinance 02512-70 will be deferred for two weeks. Um I realize a lot of you are probably here this evening about that. You're certainly welcome to speak on it if you so desire, but it is um the indication that I have that there will be changes forthcoming. It'll be on a work session. Um, and also just for your information, because we typically don't have a lot of people here, so I know you're here about something. Um, um, typically what happens is, uh, a project will go to a work session and then it will go to a first reading and a second reading. So, um, even in two weeks, no decision will be made. And so, you are going to have, huh,

public hearing also. Yeah. And a public hearing as well between that first and second reading. And so, um, I I, you know, like I said, I hate that you're here tonight and it's being deferred. You're welcome to speak if you want to. There will be more opportunities in the future. And, um, you may you may do whatever you wish, but public recognition is about to open. Um, if you wish to speak, you can speak to any item that's on the evening's agenda or any item that's not on the agenda. You have five minutes. We need you to give us your name and your address for our public record. And with that, public recognition is now open.

[clears throat] Good evening. My name's LA Green Breen, Gallatton, Tennessee. Last meeting, I don't recall exactly what the date was. Can we get the address, please? I'm sorry. Somebody say something. Your name and your address. Your name and address for the

said LA Green, Gton, Tennessee. It's uh Nashville Pike. Um during during the last study session we attended here u regarding our age restricted residential project. I made the mistake trying to not mess this up. Uh I made the mistake of trying to argue a point with our esteemed city attorney, Miss Susan. Hi. Uh [snorts] the results I was wrong, she was right. As usual, I'm here now to apologize to her for the questioning and to the rest of you all for wasting your time that night. I'll try to do better, but thank you. And Susan, I apologize. You were right as always. If you're wishing to speak, you're welcome to come forward so you'll be prepared when the the speaker in front of you is finished. Thought there thought there'd be more people. Uh let me get my find myself here. My name is Ruth Fennel. I live at 1049 Blue Jayway in Gallatin, Tennessee, which is in this Green Leah area. So, I would like to thank um Mr. Green for showing up and uh listening to hopefully

some of the comments that will enable him to re-evaluate what he's doing. Uh you may or may not have seen it, but this last week I did a letter to the editor uh about about this project and um I'm here actually to speak on behalf of Bambi Thumper and Flower and uh they are impacted by this decision and this proposed project, but they can't vote. So, it's up to those of us who can vote and who [snorts] do have a voice to make sure that their interests are also protected. There will be discussions and conversations about land owners have the right to do what they want with their property, which is true within the restrictions that it has been zoned for. when you start asking for changes in those zonings and restrictions and um I don't know if the right word is exceptions or not, you can tell me, but changes that will create more floors than the trees have available to them. I think we're just [clears throat] we're getting out of control. I keep coming here and I keep saying we are out of control. We've got lock four. We've got the Foxland Marina mess. We've got this whole thing. And you know, people complain about the deer. Oh, they're eating my shrubs. Well, what are they supposed to do? What are any of the animals supposed to do? Why can't we include common sense things of certain open space areas left for them? Now, they won't stay there. They don't get a map. They don't get a

mailbox, but at least provide some semblance of concern for that. And we've we've just it's it's just mind-numbing to me. Plus the fact that the owner has had years, literally years to come up with a plan. And the fact that this would have been pulled three days or four days before it's to come before this board says to me that that's kind of a PR PR move. what she said and people see that we're there are so many people awake now that what used to work of just changing the dates we'll talk about it later people won't come is not going to work anymore and I keep telling you because I respect all of you because of your commitment to the time but I'm telling you please do the right thing for the right people it's not just an individual property owner it's the people who are impacted by the traffic who are impacted by potholes, who are impacted by, you know, the animals and run into the deer because they're trying to cross the street to get to something to eat. So, it's it's just [sighs] it's mind-numbing to me. Somebody has indicated that there was a promise made uh when previous apartments were approved that there would not be similar units on the current side with Green Lee uh in exchange for that other prior proposal being approved. And when asked about those changes and that promise, the response was similar to times change. Well, yes, times change and sometimes change is good and sometimes change is not good. And this is an example of where

we have got to take a pause. Please again take a pause. You know what do come up with solutions. So what are we supposed to do about all the deer when they keep getting shoved into smaller and smaller and smaller areas? What do we do? Do we start calling them? Who pays for that? you know, do we start worrying about the water runoff from all this development? There were people that were complaining to me about watering runoff, and the city said, "Well, there's nothing we can do about it." But you're adversely affecting so many people, including those with four legs and the two-legged people. Um, and we've just got to be able to do this. They knock down a tree, make them put two up, make them use permeable concrete where things where things get absorbed. So, there's solutions out there, but you've got to be looking for them. Otherwise, we are just going to be a city that's concrete with no personality and everybody's stuck in traffic.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to ask you not to applaud. Um, that is a typical rule within these chambers. And sounds weird, I'm sure, but sometimes when people are comfortable applauding, they're comfortable laughing. And when they're comfortable laughing, they're comfortable booing. And so for the respect of everyone, I would just ask you not to do that, please.

My name is Charlene Tiller. I live at 104 North Browns Lane on the south end of Portland. I used to enjoy coming to Gallatin. I won't come here after 3:00 anymore. The traffic's horrendous. You have ruined what Readers Digest said was one of the most pleasant towns to visit. It isn't that anymore. In fact, I'm going to contact Readers Digest to do a rewrite. Come visit again and see what it looks like now. Developments have been built, specifically the one on Long Hollow and 109, that apartment complex. It has ruined that creek. Who's going to pay for that? All the silt has filtered into that creek because appropriate things were not done. Inspections weren't handled. I'm really disgusted. It no longer is the Gallatin that I moved here and retired here to dwell in and visit and chop. Thank you.

Stephanie Hines, 350 Madiraa Place. Some friends and I have gone out doortodoor with our pamphlets expressing concern about what they want to build. We've emailed several people on this board. We've made phone calls. With that said, we also know that when people call and complain about deer, they're pretty much made fun of. It's a real issue. Whether it be traffic, whether it be wild wildlife, whatever it is, these people are these are concerns that your citizens have. You already let the harbor go through. Maybe you listen to people about this. Everyone says to do the good fight or they tell us when we went door to door they've already made their decision. Well, I'm not going to sit back and be the other 14% of the state of Tennessee that doesn't vote and say anything. I need to go out and act. What we're asking for is that they look at the traffic and the increased congestion that they don't approve the, you know, the increase of apartments from 135 to 340. that they don't approve the increase of height of building from 35 ft for 3 to four stories to four to five stories which is 86 feet. Why are these things being approved and incre in enclosed with the exemp exemptions? If you make a deal with someone, you have to follow the rules. If the speed limit is 25 miles an hour, I have to go 25 miles an hour. Well, I want to go 40. Is that okay? Just, you know, talk to someone. let them let me let me do this. No, that's not the case. Rules, regulations, and things are set in order for a reason. Everyone should have to follow those reasons. And again, with this being pushed back another two weeks, 3 weeks, four weeks. We're not

going to forget about it. We will continue go doortodoor. We will continue to call you. We will continue to email you. This is not a done deal in our eyes or anyone else. That's why there's so many people here. This is great. I am so excited that these people are here. Maybe I had something to do with it. I'd like to think so. But we're not going to stand down and just let this happen. Don't let these exemptions be included in the rules that are already set forth. Again, if someone's gives you their word, abide by it.

[music]

Hello, my name is Chelsea Nixon. I live at 275 Claremont Court. Um, I live directly across the street from the parcels included in the Greensboro U master development plan. And I do want to be clear that I'm not opposed to senior housing or independent living. My concern is about location, scale, and compatibility with an established within an established single family residential area. The land proposed for the development, as you all know, as you've heard a lot of people speak about, is currently green space and wooded area. Um, it serves as a natural buffer and is home to a lot of local wildlife. Uh, replacing it with high-rise apartment buildings would permanently change the character of the neighborhood and eliminate one of the few remaining green spaces in the [clears throat] area. I'm also concerned about traffic and congestion. Our street is a two-way residential road with no street parking and limited capacity. Highdensity development across from existing homes will increase traffic, service vehicles, and construction activity in an area that's not designed for it. The construction impacts themselves, the noise, the dust, and the heavy equipment for what would likely be a year or more would significantly affect the peace in the daily lives of nearby residents, including myself and my family. Because approving the master development plan establishes allowable use and density, I respectfully ask the council to carefully consider whether the proposal is appropriately scaled and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you, council members, for your time. I'm Pat Gisesler, 1018 Blue Jay Way, and I'd like to say that I'm glad that this project has been deferred for a short period of time. Um, however short it is.

Uh, I hope that you they this can be redesigned and perhaps um come back. Um the people that have spoken before me have said a lot of the things that I had planned to say. So hopefully this will be a lot shorter. This is supposed to be a restricted community for 55 and older people. The um Mr. Pascal [clears throat] Representative Councilman Joy um mentioned that he felt like that was inadequate parking that was on the original design and I totally agree. 55 and o older spouses. Most of them have spouses. So, um you know [clears throat] that means we each have a car and don't forget all of the um the the golf carts that will also be involved. So, there is definitely not adequate spot parking on this thing. People may tend to try to park on Greenley Drive, which is what happens occasionally to the people who live on Greenley, facing Greenley, who are living um at the across the street. I totally understand their concerns about those things. I read the planning commission report um on the agenda on December 9th and page 22 of the report describes how Greensboro Village master plan um originally 700 acres north and south of Nashville Pike. It's been sliced and diced until we now have 43.5 acres left for 600 living units. Wow. several revisions of the master development plan which reappropriated one slice to accommodate another slice. Um in the last paragraph of uh that same report page 22

that the um planning commission states with the 211 units of the null developed only 135 residential units remain for this portion of Greensboro Village PUD. So how can we approve 600 living units when it when then only 135 are left? I'm a math teacher, but that's not good math even for somebody who's simple, you know. Further report states that the proposed proposed density is above the recommended density range allowances. The landscape architecture in the December 9th meeting said that there 26 acres of this will be open space. So mathematically that leaves um 17 acres and um you we say 600 living units, but don't forget we've got all those spouses and all. So I would estimate it's probably going to be more like 900 people. No wonder they need fivetory buildings. The MRO and most residential zonings only allow the height maximum of 35 ft. and someone has already mentioned how tall these buildings uh want to be, how they they'd like to have them. So, in my opinion, if these uh with the Greensboro PUD to increase the type and the allotment approved, the structures will not blend with the existing buildings and will make the entire development an even bigger eyesore than it looks now. Such tall buildings would fit nicely in the downtown area, but they primarily reg reh this is a primarily residential area. They will not fit here. History shows this developer has repeatedly

requested changes to previously agreed upon plans. I urge the city council to uphold the Gallatin plan, which we all were involved in, were excited about it. I don't know what's happened to it. Please vote against these variances. It is time to prioritize the interests of your constituents over these repeated requests. Thank you. [clears throat]

My name is Drew Shriner. I'm at one zero5 Pitman Drive in Gallatin. I'm not here by Greensboro Village. Uh there was another agenda item about I think it was 165 town homes being put in near Welsh College. Uh I'm the HOA president of Stone Creek. It's a neighborhood off of Big Station Camp Boulevard. Uh, a lot of the neighbors in the neighborhood already have homes that flood at the back of the neighborhood and they have uh voiced substantial concerns about developing 17 acres in a flood plane and the impact that that would have on the adjacent neighborhood. So, I'm simply here to voice the concern for the neighbors that I represent as part of the HOA and would simply request that before that development takes place that there be an impact study to see what type of impact that the water is going to have on an adjacent neighborhood. It's all I had. Oh, and a lot of people mentioned the deer. I will hunt those in city limits if you give me a special permit. Um, other than that, just want to voice a concern about those town homes because I think seven homes in our neighborhood uh have flooded as recently as May of last year. U 17 acres in a flood plan is a huge concern. So, thanks for your time. Bye.

Good evening. Excuse [clears throat] me. I'm Heidi Ho. I live at 221 Woodlake Drive and I'm writing to or writing I'm reading this letter. I'm just here to express my opposition to the exemptions of the Greensboro Village development just like so many of my neighbors have expressed um that it um the original ordinances we don't believe should be given exemption. The number of units proposed for the area south of Greenley Boulevard will make it a very dense area. It's not really, like my neighbor says said, it's not keeping with the character of the area. There are some large, beautiful homes right next to the proposed development that will have tall buildings right outside their backyard. These new buildings will be the entry of this very um expensive established neighborhood and do not reflect the character of the area being so numerous and tall. Uh myself and my neighbors in the area all agree it would be better to keep the number of units to the current ordinance at 135 with no apartments and also to keep the current limit of the maximum height being 35 ft. As others have mentioned more density becomes more traffic which impacts the safety of those in the area as well. And um as we know, Nashville Pike is already very busy several times a day. And the last meeting, the developer um emphasized about how this was going to be um the 55 plus and that they could basically plan for the minimum parking. And as some others have said, we all agree that 55 year olds are definitely driving and need to drive. Skeleton is actually not a very walkable city and there's not, you know, buses going around to take people. So, everyone's

going to have cars. And so, I do think that um no matter what, they should plan for extra parking. And even with that, when I'm 55, I'll still have two to three children living with me. I could have like five cars that need parked for. And so I feel like the parking could be a problem that would impact neighbors and even some of the businesses nearby. I know that there's a coffee shop, popular coffee shop, Cave, nearby the area and um they're always strapped for parking already. Um, I personally don't mind. Like I know they're saying we should um put it in the deed about the 55 and up and to make sure. I mean, if they want to have other people live there, I guess it's just to make sure they plan for the parking, but I don't mind who lives there obviously, but um but yeah, plan accordingly. Also, the retirement home is supposed to be a highly amenized place. There's several um types of these places nearby, so I don't see a need for another right here. But anyway, having so many amenities would also imply that it'd be expensive. I think most retirees will need moderately priced retirement homes. Also, in the area of the land where the retirement home goes stands like uh a very large power tower. I would not want to pay a lot of money to look out my window and live right next to a power tower. Um and some of the land is on a flood plane. I I guess you could level it and stuff, but I know at the null they have an area that's a flood plane and it's always muddy and they can't really walk on it. So, I'm [snorts] thinking that's definitely something that needs to be looked more carefully at. Also, with all the new residents, of course, there's increased need for services, power, fire department, water department, I mean police department, street repair. Um, is Gallatin able to keep up with these needs? Uh, basically we feel like we're trying to squeeze a

lot in a little space and it just doesn't seem like it's the right place and so we'd consider you to at least not approve the exemptions. Thank you. Good evening. Dennis McLocus, 212 Woodlake Drive. My wife and I moved up here almost 15 years ago from Florida uh for a family situation. We've enjoyed it while we've been here, but we have certainly seen an awful lot of growth and now it as many of my other neighbors in the Summer County area have spoken, it is getting to be too much. And our biggest concern there is on the Greensboro Drive area, a lot more traffic. Just do the math on that. 135 at least one car per unit. Always probably more like two. And if they want to double that one, 340 680. That's a lot of traffic. That's a lot of congestion and damage to the roads right now. Working on that target project along with the hotel across some loads. I think we know what's going to happen there when that opens. So, I'd like to hear see some response to the constituents who do vote because we will keep this in mind and it's very much of a concern of the congestion here in the roads. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. Uh my name is Randy Auan. I live at 1045 Pitman Drive and that's in the Stone Creek development. Uh, as Drew said before, um, there are lots of people that are even here tonight that are concerned with the development going at the Welsh College uh, land acreage that they have. Uh, it looks like it about 15 to 20% of it is going to be built on a severe flood plane labeled red uh, by FEMA. So, Huh? That's what What are they saying? I don't know. I don't know but just disregard the comments from audience.

Well, anyway, we we've seen these things that have been coming around. One of the problems is is that uh some of our homes in that particular development already, which aren't supposed to flood, are flooding. And unfortunately, we've we've moved here about two months ago and now we found out that our house is the one of the ones that are flooding uh from the neighbors that are there. So that if you can go ahead and put another development there, you're going to disrupt what's going on now and possibly increase the flood level uh in that whole particular region. From what I understand, somebody told me a foot is acceptable. Well, not in our house because it already comes into our garage and a foot would make it even worse than that. So what we would like you to do is make sure with this particular development that you consider that with the residents that are already there, not you know the new developments. And then also if you look at your big master plan, um it doesn't look like there's anything really in the master plan that's going to develop that's in there that's going to handle all this traffic that's going in and out. It's already bad, you know, from what I've seen getting here uh coming down on on uh 386. It was just clogged, clogged, clogged. So, I'm not sure what this particular master plan is yet, but I am going to start doing a little bit more research on it because I do want to know. I mean, are you going to take this particular city, put three to five story high density uh housing here because this is a hot place to come live. You may just go ahead and ruin the the charm of this city that we came to live in uh alto together. So, please be careful and think about the people, the animal life uh that lives here because they got to live here, too. um and all the different aspects of the flooding that goes on in this particular state. Thank you very much for your time.

Howdy. I'm Don Walker. I live at 1029 Grider Drive, which is in the Stone Creek uh subdivision. Uh if you do a quick Google search and you do lower station camp and you and uh add flood to that, you'll notice several different times that it's flooded. Um two in the last two years. I've lived here for about 10 years. I have seen the um the drainage ponds that we have, the flood pl ponds that we have in the neighborhood fill up at least five times. I've seen them come into the actually come into uh the neighborhood where they're coming into the houses at least three or four. I have a I have a nice little um picture that I keep on my phone that shows a WZTV uh aerial [clears throat] shot of a flood in 2017 where it shows water that's coming up into the neighborhood up into houses. And so when you're talking about putting something else in a flood plane that's right next to this neighborhood, it gives us concern. You know, we look at y'all, y'all are the ones that are looking out for us. That's the reason we've elected you. It's to look out for the community. And we appreciate the fact that you do that job. We just want you to be careful and think about the houses that are going to be impacted if you build a development within the

flood plane next door. Another concern that will that would be be with [clears throat] this is my understanding is this development will actually um go in and out on lower station camp which is a small road. If you've ever been on there, I don't know if it's Gallatin property there, but if you ever need some speeding tickets, nobody follows the speeding [clears throat] speed limit there. They go up and down that all the time. I walk that greenway on a regular basis and I see it. Um, and then you've got the high school and the well the [clears throat] whole all three schools that are right there that use lower station camp at that time. So, you're going to add some extra traffic on a road that's really not built for much traffic. So, um, please keep in mind the flooding. That is the big concern for us. And I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Good evening. Good evening. [clears throat] My name is Mickey Stra. I live at 990 Windham Drive in Wood Haven on the Lake. Uh this is my first uh uh board meeting I've ever attended in the city. I'm I'm new to uh to Gallatin uh but I'm not new to traffic and development. I'm here to talk about the Greensboro uh village which I think is kind of kind of ironic because if it if this it goes through uh anything any variances go through it will be anything but green. Just want to make a note of that. But I I really want to appreciate I say I appreciate your service. Uh you guys have a tough job. Uh you can never

please everybody. I get it. I thank the mayor for for all her leadership and everyone that spoke tonight who know a lot more about this pro this project than I do. I've been here three months. Uh but I am uh not new to this. I I'm the former mayor of a Chicago suburb called [clears throat] Burr Ridge, Illinois. And um I served a couple terms and I I know what it's like to have a room full of people. I I tried to build a couple I tried to build two hotels next to a highway and there was like five times the number of people that were there. So I know what it's like to get kind of this kind of push back. I think it's based on what I what I've heard and seen uh this is hardly appropriate for this area. This belongs maybe north of the Gall the Albert Gallatin Road or something. Uh this is this this project is uh should be nowhere near uh this area. Uh the as far as the the height of it, it's this we in in Burr Ridge, which by the way, we had a lot of uh it was similar neighborhood to where we live now. A lot of famous residents live there and it was it was pretty upscale. Uh but they we we didn't it had a slogan that was it was a very special place. I think Gallatin is a very special place. I think I think certainly Fair View and all these subdivisions around here, Bay Point and and Woodhaven and Wood and Lake are very special. This sort of project would do anything but make it special. Uh it would change the whole uh complex the complexion of the area. The traffic I think would be horrendous. I think you can tell by people number of people are here that if you put the priorities uh of the of the residents and these subdivisions before the priorities of of the developers, I I think I think you're going to know how to vote. So again, thank you for your service and I hope you make ultimately the right decision. I'm glad it was deferred and more thought we brought to it, but ultimately I hope it fails. God bless you all. Thank you.

Good evening. Uh my name is Mike Zimmerman. I own Apple and Dove Flower Company a couple doors down right here on Main Street. I had absolutely no idea what was going to be on the agenda tonight. So, I apologize for taking this to an aside for just a second, but maybe we could use some levity. I came for a very simple thing. I have submitted applications for street closure for Flowerfest this year. It'll be our second year doing Flowerfest. Uh, and it was such a good showing last year that we are wanting to add a September fall festival as [snorts] well called Small Town Fest, which will be a little bit more experience-based than Main Street or Square Fest. Uh, where it's celebrating small towns like Gallatin that I think everybody in the room wants to keep as from what I'm hearing. Uh, it'll be pinging contests, chili cookoffs, dance music, and vendors as well. So, uh, we're just closing down the L of the square and the portion of North Water to kind of do that. So just uh didn't see it on the agenda when I went online. So I just wanted to kind of bring it up in person and uh thank you for approving it last year and hopefully you guys will consider to approve it again this year or both of them I guess. So All right. I let the record show that if you are 5'2, you should probably bring a step stool if you want to talk to this. [laughter] Uh,

no, we used to have one, but that risk manager made it go away.

I can speak louder. It's all right. Uh, good evening, Mayor Brown, uh, city council, and hello YouTube. Uh, my name is Rick Coro. I'm at 221 Woodlake Drive. Uh, I am sorry that I will be reading my comments and not making much eye contact, but if I didn't write this down, then I would probably only present about 15 seconds of content in my allotted five minutes. I'm here to publicly voice my opposition to the proposed revisions as I understand them to the master development plan for Greensboro Village mixed residential development within the Greensboro Village PUD. I attended last month's meeting, my first ever, and it was very informative, interesting, and entertaining. Tonight's vote has been deferred again, but as of a few hours ago, it was still listed as an agenda item online, and even Fox 17 News in Nashville reported on it this morning, and I believe that a lot of folks here are here uh because of this particular initiative. As for my thoughts and mine alone on the matter, I have a few points to mention. For starters, the assertion that traffic won't be an issue seems grossly shortsighted. Gallatin is not a pedestrian-friendly city, and without public transit, we all need vehicles to get around. A 5 to 10 minute walk to amenities can become much longer if you're advanced in age or have mobility issues. As someone who has an aging parent, I know some folks might still need to use a vehicle to get to Publix if for nothing else that they are physically incapable of carrying their all their groceries. In addition to the microcosm being built across from Lowe's, adding 340 more dwelling units will notably add to our already congested streets. I understand that a traffic study was conducted, but if it only looked at the area around Greensboro Village, the findings will be myopic at best. Parking will be a challenge. We are told that the planned number of parking spots meets today's requirements. That doesn't account for future growth and scale, and folks will inevitably begin parking in the shopping areas bordering the development, especially if it's more convenient for them. This will frustrate neighboring

businesses and their patrons and can have a non-trivial and adverse financial impact on particularly the small business owners in the area. Uh last month there was a disagreement as to whose responsibility was to uh make sure that this uh maintains as an active adult community the 55 plus. It seems like that might have been resolved. Uh but just uh because I had already written this down, I just want to make sure that if it is going to be approved as an active adult community for 55 plus that there be some legal binding restrictions in place. Uh whether that be deed restrictions on occupi owner occupied homes or some sort of governing association for non owner occupied units uh which I can only interpret to be apartments. Uh there needs to be something in place that can be legally binding. Uh, as an aside, while I don't think that I will be breaking bread together or exchanging Christmas cards with the developers anytime soon, I am neither upset nor angry with them. Just because I might be inclined to choose a different path for the land in question, I personally don't feel that they have an obligation to our community to preserve and maintain open space as much as my family and I enjoy them as well as my dog. But with all due respect, my disappointment and my frustration lies with this council as well as the planning commission. The small handful of you have both the responsibility and the privilege to lead our community. And many of your decisions will have lasting impact for countless generations long after all of us are gone. With an estimated population growth of nearly 20% in the first half of this decade and another 15 to 40% projected over the next five years, it is critically important that the city plans for this by way of support infrastructure. Be that fire, police, road management, hospitals and schools, as well as services such as water, power, electricity, sewer, and trash just to name name a few. And from my vantage point, having lived here for four and a half years, I see one of two things. either very little infrastructure

planning has been done or the city has done a rather poor job in communicating their plans to the rest of the community. At the risk of having my ultrpidarian comments be misconstrued, I don't pretend that your job is an easy one or that I can do it better than you. There is a reason y'all sit in your chairs and that I sit in mine. I also don't think that any of you or the developers for that matter are terrible people. I can disagree with y'all even vehemently, but after all is said and done, still be perfectly fine with sitting down for a meal together or coffee or a beer, whatever. We can talk about our kids, the weather, who has the best dog, and whether or not the Titans will ever have a winning season ever again. I could find things in common with just about anyone. I believe our society would be much better off if we learn to work together and compromise rather than take any excuse to spew and bicker. This city needs you, council. not like Batman, but we do look to you for guidance, for leadership, for direction, and for the future of Gallatin. Last, though, my comments tonight are critical, I do not believe I have been disrespectful. I believe that everyone in this room has room to grow and room to improve. The times that I have been criticized for my work, rather than get defensive or make excuses, I take those as opportunities to listen and to learn and to hopefully grow and improve. And I hope that everyone in this room is humble enough to do the same. So, thank you for your time. having met

perfect time [laughter] and very creatively presented I might say. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is David Waters. I'm at 184 Wood Lake Drive. [clears throat] We just recently moved uh to Wood Lake from from Nashville. Um and I'm retired and I don't spent a good chunk of my retirement uh to buy the house and so I have obviously a vested interest in in the community. So um you know I know the job that you guys have is tough and and the the jobs that I've been in in in my professional career. I mean we spent 16 years in 17 years in Nashville, 16 years in St. Louis and we were in Denver. We were in Fort Lauderdale before that and Gallatton beats all those hands down. You know, it's a it's just a great place to be and the people are so nice and friendly. So, I know it's changed a lot from according to other people, but we're new here and what we see, you know, we really like. Uh, and I guess what I would say is this is a lot of times there's not a a very there's not an easy answer, but I I do believe there is an easy answer this time and that is um just say no because um there's guidelines and there's rules and there's things in place and and your predecessors and things and perhaps even you help put in place and I think it would be um wrong to just think that they didn't really know what they were doing at the time u there was reasons that people uh did what they did and had the plans that they planned and I think the developers can just play by the rules and uh if they do that then I don't think there's any you know there's any issues so um I just say hey we've got rules in place in our city and uh

you abide by those and we'll be we'll be fine so thank you for your time tonight. There anyone else wishing to speak this evening?

Okay, seeing no one, I will declare public recognition on agenda. Well, public recognition period closed. And moving on to mayor's comments. Um, following up on public recognition, I would address one thing that was said, and I don't know if Mr. Shriner if you're still here or not, but you don't need a special permit to hunt deer in the city. you need permission from the property owner unless it's not deer season in which case you can contact TWWR and they may work with you on special permissions. So that is the deer hunting stuff related to in the city limits gets brought up a lot. I thought it'd be worth sharing. Um also um without objection from this body, I'd like to go ahead and deal with the road closure for um the flower fest that's coming up. I appreciate Mr. Zimmerman from Apple Dove getting up and speaking. I was excited to see this show up on my desk um this year. Um last year he came to us with this idea. He asked for a street closure. He talked about Flowerfest and I actually got goosebumps when he disced what he envisioned for the event and then I went to the I expected the event to be successful. I went to the event and it was absolutely amazing and I went like an hour after they opened and there were already people selling out of things. So, it was a tremendous success and I'm so excited that they're going to do it this year and are even expanding it. And so, with that, may I go ahead with this road closure? No, anybody care that I don't do it now rather than the end of the meeting. Okay, just so he doesn't have to stick around. This is a road um closure request. It's for June 20th of 26. It's a Saturday from 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. And they are requesting that Public Square from Water to Maine be closed and that Northwater from Maine to Franklin be closed. And um there are signatures here from all the affected businesses and merchants and the um required agency approvals.

Motion to approve. I have a motion by Councilman Carter, second by Councilman Jones. Okay. Any um questions? Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of approving, please say I.

Post say no. It is approved. Mr. Zimmerman, if you want to leave, you may. So, um, thank you so much for doing this again and look forward to the event. I've already put it on my calendar. Um, with that, um, few events that I want to make sure that you are aware of. Um, actually, I just saw something else sitting here. Is anyone here for the fall festival street closure? Okay, I see one here. I'll wait and do that one at the end of the meeting. Then, um I just saw that one underneath the other one. So, I thought I'll bring bring that up if I need to. A couple events coming up in the next several weeks I want to mention. Starting um tomorrow, there's American Red Cross blood drive, civic center meeting rooms 101 and 2, 10:00 a.m. till 3. I mentioned a few weeks ago that we give a lot of blood here and the Red Cross is greatly appreciative and I would encourage you um whether you regularly give or you don't um to use one of these opportunities to give if you're so willing. On the 19th is Martin Luther King Jr. Day and there is a unity day parade and program. The parade starts here in the city hall parking lot at noon. The program starts about 1:00 and that is at the Gallatton High School auditorium. On the 20th, the American Job Center out on Greenley is having a job fair that's from 10:00 a.m. until 1 pm. There is the Snowball at the station and that is for the very young people and that is happening on the 25th at 2:30 and 5:00 p.m. A fun event over there just across the street from us. There is and that's for little ones and their grown-ups. On the 28th, there is a chambers kicking off their annual series of what what I typically call government relations, but it's really all um good morning Gallatin is what they call it, but they're kicking off kicking it off

with a lunchon. And the special guest for that is a gentleman named Jeff Seagler. And Jeff Seagler does a lot of consulting for communities across the country, typically smaller, but um I've been following him for years. He has a social media um presence called Revitalize or Die. He's also written a book. Um he has some really good insights particularly on revitalization and um older downtown areas. So I think you enjoy hear hearing from him if you care particularly about our downtown area. And that's on the 28th at um 11:00 a.m. at Northfield Church and you make your reservations through the church I mean through the chamber. And then um on the 1st of February it's Vice Mayor Craig Haye's birthday. So with that, I'm going to move from mayor's comments on to the regular agenda. And the first item is the presentation of 2025 annual comprehensive financial report. Miss Nichols, you are welcomed forward. Good evening. We are here to present the 2025 annual audit. Matt Wood from ATA, our independent auditor, is here tonight. I realize you just received the report this evening. Um, so he's going to cover uh some of the highlights, but after you've had a chance to look at it, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me and I'll be happy to help. And with that, I'll let Matt

Mayor and Council, good to see everyone tonight. Uh, my name is Matt Wood. I'm a partner with ATA. Uh we've performed the audit for the last uh couple years for the city. Uh just want to go over some highlights, the big changes um possible in the report this year. Uh and then answer any questions that you would have tonight if needed. Uh first, it is an unmodified opinion, which just means it's a clean audit opinion. Uh that just states that we believe the financial statements are free of any material misstatement or any evidence of fraud. Uh we had no internal control finding um to report this year. Uh so everything was clean on that. Uh I do state related to yours, we do not audit uh Gallatin Electric Department. We do use that um those audited financial statements to put into uh the city's financials. That's referenced in the independent auditors report. Uh few other highlights. The only change that could have happened in your financial statement this year related to a new standard. Uh there was a new standard came out that was called Gazsby 101 related to compensated absences. Uh for some municipalities it had a significant um effect if their vacation policy was vague or very fluid is how I'd say that. It basically put a lot of information on the financial statements. Uh the only effect it had for city of Gallatin uh was the fact that they now asked that payroll taxes related to um anybody's acred vacation or acred sick also be added to the liability because the idea was if you have a payout payroll taxes are going to be added to that as well. So obviously a 7.65% 65% that's not a material um number to the city of Gallatin for yours and so there was no um prior period restatement related to that. There are for some uh municipalities. Uh I'm just going to go over a few numbers. I know uh it's 140 150 page document. Uh I don't want to

nor do you want me to uh go through every page of that document. Uh but on page seven from the blue book in front of you um because municipalities do not have to present comparative financial statements uh on the inside the same financial statement uh the management discussion and analysis section uh is where we have the opportunity to look at 2024 versus 2025 uh and discuss some of those items uh related to that. Um when something's called governmental activities, uh those are the items that uh are our general fund, drug funds, state street aid funds, other things like that uh that have been uh brought over uh to full acural accounting, meaning we put fixed assets, long-term debt, the acred vacation, AC pension liabilities, other things on the financial statements uh rather than usually how we keep up with the general fund which is just our normal old assets liabilities, revenues and expenses. Um for the governmental activities in the current year, our ending net position was 229.73 million compared to 223.41 uh in the prior year. Our unrestricted net position increased a little over a million. our net investment in capital assets, which what uh that number represents is all the capital assets related to governmental activities less the long-term debt um that is still outstanding that it took to get um those capital assets on the books. So that number increase uh in a year where we add a bunch of capital assets it is going to in a year where we don't match up with how much depreciation expense that number goes down unrestricted net position goes up for the business type activities column uh there this includes the electric department the water and sewer and the gas uh divisions of the city uh you can see again net investment

in capital assets went up uh over $10.5 million our unrestricted net position uh went up a significant amount, 11.2 million. So, all good numbers there. Um, there's several [snorts] pages in the financials that split the three uh divisions where you can see that activity, but all three uh were in good shape this year. Looking to the next page, if you just want to look there with me for just a moment on page eight for the governmental activities, our increase in net position was 6.32 million. Um there's a lot of different factors that go into that, but again, uh our long-term debt payments are backed out of expense. Uh our expenses that uh were related to capital asset additions are backed out of expense because uh we put them into the asset section, but our depreciation expense is added. So 6.3 million um it's a good number. You can compare it to 5.78 in the prior year. And you can see the business type activities right beside of it. Um just to highlight some other areas, of course you have uh a TCS pension plan. Uh the electric department has um a pension plan and you also have uh OPED plans inside these financial statements. Finally uh maybe for the first time since COVID in 2019 2020. Um pension liabilities are finally remaining kind of neutral. Uh obviously as we've talked about before um whenever investments related to the pension plan have a good year pension liabilities go down. When investments related to the pension plan have a bad year our liability goes up. And since 2020 it has been a seessaw effect. Uh every other year uh it feels like we've measured. So this year uh the pension liability is not something we even really got to talk about too much because it remained very neutral compared to prior years. Uh that means the investments ran somewhere in

the 8% range which is what we um what they guess at 7.5% 7.65% some years. So um we did take out long-term debt. I want to show you the easiest page to look uh at that. There's a required page inside the financial statements called schedule of changes and long-term liabilities. You got to flip a few pages here. Uh page 94. If you want to flip there with me for just a second. I'm going to show you this in one other page and I'll be quiet. So, this [clears throat] is a newer schedule in my career. It's it's now six or seven years old. And I know I said that uh I got a teenage kid, too. Um but uh the schedule changes long-term debt by individual issue. We did have a gas revenue bond uh addition this year, 8.37 million. Uh and the electric department did have a new revenue bond uh in the current year of 11.1 million. That's total new long-term debt uh in the city of 19.48 million. Uh and you can see we paid off 5.1 uh of that in the current year. And then just flip over a couple pages with me to page 96. Um, this was truly a unique year and I only say it because if you hear it from one of your other friends in a different municipality, um, the OM data, uh, the OM compliance supplement that is how we are told to test your grants, uh, historically comes out in April, uh, every single year. Um, due to the government shutdown, amongst other things, it did not come out until Thanksgiving weekend of this year, so 7 months later than normal. Uh you did have a single audit in the current year. Uh last year if you had over $750,000 in federal grant expenditures um it required a single audit. You had uh right at 6.13 million and you can see in the middle of the page uh the grants

we had to test were the ARPA money. Um you can see 4.3 million or so of that. All of that audit came back clean as well. letter in the back of the financial statements that says that um no municipal uh financial statements that had a single audit were able to be issued until the week of December the 15th. Uh so if you talk to one of your other friends at a different municipality, one of theirs isn't, you can blame uh the data collection forum for that. So besides that, uh no other big changes this year. Both the single audit came back clean, no internal control issues. Uh everything looks good from our perspective. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have

questions. Anyone? Thank you. Um, Miss Nichols, thank you. I think it's a a particularly in a rocky year for that department with so many changes. Um, you guys have done an incredibly good job. I know you just received it tonight, but if you have any questions once you look at it, please feel free to reach out. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Um item number two on the agenda, ordinance O2512-70 has been deferred. So we're moving to item three, which is ordinance 02 601-2. Um, this is an ordinance of the city of Gallatin, uh, reszoning a 1.93 acre parcel from CS Commercial Services District to CC Core Commercial District located 225 East Main Street. Um, Brian Rose, city planner is recognized.

Mayor and Council, just bear with me for a second while we pull up our slides. All right. So, this is 225 East Main Street. Uh, the owner and applicant are requesting approval to reszone a 1.93 plus or minus acre parcel from the CS commercial services district to the CC core commercial district. The propertyy's owned by First Baptist Church who purchased property in 2019. uh a place of worship is listed as a permitted use in the CC district uh and as a conditional use in the CS district which is why they are wanting it to uh bump up to the CC district so that it's not listed as conditional use uh anymore for that part of the property. Um you can see on the map uh the area in blue is um I believe that area that we're talking about um it's well this area in blue here and then it corresponds with the area in blue there and then the other the adjacent [clears throat] area in red is that portion that's already zoned CC. See uh [clears throat] so the owner owns both the subject property and that portion of the property that uh they are wanting to reszone. The church is proposing to replplat the two parcels into a single lot for future uh potential future uh expansion which

would require the approval of a site plan. uh but that is not part of the proposal tonight as far as uh this request is concerned. Uh simply the reszone from CS2C. Uh that also again as I stated removes the conditional nature of the place of worship which would simplify their approval process. Plan Gallatin designates the subject property as part of the downtown core commercial uh downtown core community character area. Uh this area is characterized by [clears throat] mid-rise office, retail, residential, civic, institutional, and mixeduse buildings in a pedestrianoriented and transit friendly environment. The reasonzoning request is consistent with the downtown core community uh downtown core community character area as the CC district meets the stated purpose of that character area. [clears throat] and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Has questions for Mr. Rose? Anyone? Okay. Motion to move forward. Motion to approve. Second. Motion to move it forward. Okay. By Councilman Alexander. Second over there by Councilman Pan. Okay. Any questions, discussion? All right. All in favor of moving forward ordinance 02601-2 to council, please say I. I

oppose say no. Does pass unanimously. Item four is Ordinance 02601-3, an ordinance the city of Gallatin reszoning six lots 35 through 40 of the Clear View Heights subdivision number five totaling 0.57 acres from the R10 medium density residential district to the R six highdensity residential district located south of Hatentra west of Anthony Street. Mr. Rose.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Uh, this is the Clear View Heights lots 35 through 40 reszoning. The owner and applicant are requesting approval to reszone six parcels totaling 0.57 plus or minus acres from the R10 mediumdensity residential district to the R6 highdensity residential district located west of uh Anthony Street and south of Hatent Track Road. Um here you have uh H hatent track and then here you have Anthony Street. Um the property is owned by Nothing Ventured LLC who hopes to be able to replplat the properties in order to gain an additional single family lot on the south side of the lots. Uh which is basically in the backyard of the two lots. You'll see that on the on the next page, but um it's essentially taking these two lots, kind of creating a separate lot that crosses over the two backyards right there. Uh the site plan and plat are not a part of this zoning request, and those would require separate approvals if this resoning is approved. Uh the property has been zoned R10 since the adoption of the official zoning map in 1996. The existing single family home at 503 Hatton track was built in 2016 and the one on 794 Anthony Street was built in 2018. So you can see uh in this depiction here how they would uh reconfigure the lots um with a property line kind of just separating the two houses but then having the rear yards of those two uh prior lots create an additional single family home that would front onto

Anthony Street. Uh although [clears throat] there is no R six directly adjacent to this property, R six zoning can be found in the adjacent neighborhoods about a third of a mile away. Uh plan Gallatin designates this area as part of the general urban community character area. This permits 5 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's proposal would provide a density of between five and five and six units per acre, [snorts] which falls within the allowances of the R six zoning district for a property this size. Uh staff recommends approval. Planning commission recommended uh this resoning by a vote of five to zero. [snorts] And that's a um kind of a depiction of what the architectural looks like. Thank you. need to abstain. Mayor

abstain or recuse yourself that too. Um is there anyone with questions discussion regarding this? Councilman Jants.

Thank you mayor. Um I'm not for reasoning there even if R six is alpha mile away or I look at the map everything there is our 10 around it and uh on the concept they provided even if it's just a concept um they show a twotory house where everything around it it's one story so I don't think um that should fit around it. So, I'm I'm not going to vote yes for that. Questions, comments, discussion. Action by this body.

Motion to send on. Motion by Councilman Fenel. Second. Second by Vice Mayor Hayes. Any further questions or discussion? All in favor of sending forward to council, please say I. Oppose say no. No. Okay. It moves forward with a vote of 422. Correct.

Okay. Moves forward with a vote of 422. Moving on to item number five, which is ordinance 02601-4. An ordinance to the city of Gallatin approving a preliminary master development plan for Okana Center on 4.91 acres south of Long Hollow Pike East of Lower Station Camp Creek. Mr. Rose, thank you mayor and councel. So this is the Okana Center. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of a preliminary master development plan for the Okana Center on 4 uh 91 plus or minus acres zone PGC plan general commercial district located south of Long Hollow Pike and east of lower Station Camp Creek Road. Uh just for reference, Long Hollow Pike is here. uh station Camp Creek Road is on the on the west side of the subject property. It's very long linear property. Um commercial activities proposed include retail food uh food service and limited warehousing. Limited warehousing is a conditional use in the PGC district. Uh the plan indicates a commercial multi-tenant space facing Long Hollow Pike and that's essentially right here. Um and an a mini storage facility running parallel to it uh parallel to lower lower station Camp Creek Road. Um and then of course their storm water basins would be in the in the rear of the property on on the south side. The uh applicant has requested an exception to the 70% brick and stone

requirement in the zoning ordinance. Uh planning commission and city council can grant grant the approval of a conditional use permit in PGC plan general commercial zoning uh along the approval of the preliminary master development plan uh along with the approval. Uh otherwise, if it weren't part of a master plan, this would be a uh vote for the BCA to approve a conditional use permit. Um and again, that conditional use permit is for the limited warehousing, which is the self storage in the in the back. Uh the existing structures on the property would be demolished as part of this project. The plan indicates an anticipated construction time between December 2025 and December 2026. a large portion of the property is located in a flood hazard area. Uh you can kind of see that best actually from the previous um picture here. So that area in blue is within a flood hazard area. Um and so the applicant would have to obtain a flood plane development permit in order to be able to do that. Uh I am the flood plane administrator for the city. So I have to take those permits and review them for accuracy and for conformance with the city's flood plane ordinance which is in the zoning ordinance. Um if they can't meet that then they would uh not be able to obtain their flood plane development permit. Hence they would not be able to do that portion of the project. And there are condition there's a condition of approval uh listed in the ordinance that also addresses that. Um while this is not reszoning the property, I thought it good to highlight that plan Gallatin shows this property as part of the general urban character area which is consistent with the

existing zoning as it recommends a range of uses including mid-rise office, retail, civic, institutional and mixeduse buildings. The proposed development shows access from Long Hollow Pike, uh, which again just is that that little access point right there. And then again, uh, an access point right here off of Lower Station Camp Creek Road. [snorts] Um, staff recommends that the two parking lot areas be actually connected. Uh, they do not actually connect. Um, this kind of gets you back into the the back side of the retail mi mixeduse building there, but this other access only gets you back into the uh the self storage. And we just recommended that that kind of have a dual access so that folks can be able to access from either side. Uh that also is in the conditions of approval. Uh there will be a sidewalk along the entirety of the northern property uh boundary and turning down lower station Camp Creek Road at the rear entrance to the multi-tenant building. It does not continue the full length of the property. So basically you're talking about this location here and this location here up to this entrance but does not continue along the full length all the way down. Uh buffer yards have been provided type 40 adjacent to agricultural. Um and then uh buffer yards vary bas uh on the PGC across the ride ofway at lower station camp from a type 20 required to a type 15 proposed. Um, so that is something that they are asking again for a variance on just from the the current regulations which is something that the city can do as part of a preliminary master development plan. Staff

recommends that the buffer yard along lower st lower station Camp Creek creek be revised to show all evergreens for screening purposes. Um, and that's along the edges where the uh self storage would be. Architectural designs are shown as 100% brick and stone for the multi-tenant building. The buildings for the limited warehousing are shown as um ribbed metal with 26 gauge roof and large rollup bay doors. These do not meet the 20 uh the 70% brick stone requirement. Uh we do have a listed condition of approval though that uh states that they would have to meet it um per that condition. So we would be expecting these elevations to change from the the ribbed metal to meeting the 70% brick and stone requirement. Um parking has been calculated with the food sales in mind. Uh but if the use can convert to [clears throat] a restaurant then parking may not be sufficient. The property owner would need to come back in at that point with a revision uh to include additional parking should they desire to bring in a restaurant. Uh more detailed parking calculations would be uh done at at the [snorts] FMDP stage. Our planning commission did vote by a vote of 5 to zero to recommend approval to the city council with 19 conditions of approval. Um, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

That's Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Rose. Um, if you'll put on your city flood plane manager hat that I did not know you wore. So, um, what are your concerns about flooding in this area?

Uh, so it really kind of depends on what happens with the proposed development, how high up they propose to put their finished floors for their buildings. Uh if they can put those finished floors at a high enough level above the flood plane, the level of the base flood elevation, then um there shouldn't be that much of a concern and they would meet our regulations. Um now, does that mean that they would never have a flood there? I can't say that. Um, you know, we we heard from residents tonight that said, "Hey, these homes were built and they were touted to be out of the flood zone, but yet they still flooded, right?" So, um, there is always a chance that there will be a bigger storm than what was anticipated. You know, uh, the anticipated storm is a 100redyear storm. You know, uh, that's the base flood elevation. If you get a 500year storm, you might get flooded, right? So there there is some risk and and that's what why properties are required to get flood insurance. Uh and also make sure that they build we our regulations would require them to build at least one foot above the base flood elevation. So that gives a [clears throat] little more assurance that, you know, you shouldn't have a problem, but again, you're never out of it completely.

Well, we certainly it it seems the norm that we're getting the bigger rains. I've heard more about this 100red-year floods uh more in the last 10 years than I have in my lifetime. Um we moved to Gallatin. We had to move our stuff into storage for one month. One thing worse than moving is having to move twice in a month. And uh we put our things in storage and it flooded. And uh insurance is great, but it didn't replace some family things. It didn't replace my dress blues. It didn't replace a lot of things that that got damaged in in that flooding. Um Yeah.

And so that's a huge concern of mine because I I hate for a family to go through what we went through. uh it's bad enough we're displaced and having to put our stuff in storage. And I'll I'll say it this way. As a flood plane administrator, I don't recommend that they build this in the flood plane. Um I also have a regulation though that says if you build it to a certain level and a certain degree, you're allowed to per per the regulations. So I I I can recommend all day long that they don't do it, but I have a ordinance that says they can do otherwise. So thank you

mayor. Uh same concern and I agree with you. We should not build anything on a float plan because even if they build it higher, it's going to change the flow of water and the water was coming there, it's going to go somewhere else. So that's going to float some somebody else. Uh I have a question about the comment you make you made on the parking lot uh with condition approval 16. Can you put it back? Not the the conditional approval, the the parking. Oh, you want the plan?

Yeah. right there. So the the condition of approval is to connect the two parking zone on the bottom there. So, there's an access that comes in here,

but does not go all the way around the building. And we're looking for them to create an access that kind of comes around and and gives access to this other driveway that comes to the back the back side of the um the retail building here, but doesn't actually provide access to that retail building. It's for the self storage units. Do you know where the storage access is going to be? On the side here. So this is the only entrance for the retail. This is the only entrance for the storage. Does that make sense?

Yeah. And and I kind of agree with you uh because the conditional approval say connect the parking lots or provide a 20 foot wide buffer. Uh so I agree with you that should be connected. I would like to make an amendment to remove the or provide the 20 foot buffer on 16 and just keep the connect the parking lots uh there because um if there is no way to go around that's I think that's bad design that that's going to be issues uh issues with the parking um yeah I I would like to make motion to amend uh 16 to remove the or provide the 20 foot wide buffer yard and just keep the connect the parking lot uh as a uh condition of approval. I think that's a good idea.

I'll second that. That is a good idea. Motion and a second to amend that part of condition 16. Any questions on that discussion? All in favor of the minute amendment, please say I. I. Opposed, say no. Um, amendment is approved, which brings us back to the amended. Wait, did we have a motion to send to council as amended? Okay. Thank you. Wait, wait, wait. Okay. Second by Vice Mayor Hayes. Okay. Now with discussion

where back to the architecture what you said uh Brian are you are we making them go stick to the 70% brickstone or not we are making that a condition of approval based on what staff uh put in as as conditions of approval. Planning commission uh carried that forward as as a condition of approval to recommend to you and that would be your decision if you want to keep that as a condition of approval. Yeah. Okay. Question two. What about the roof pitch? What would you say about that? 26. It was uh I'll go back to my notes. 26 gauge is it? Yeah. 26 gauge metal is what it was.

Is that [clears throat] I know we went through one that was over there on 386 about that, you know, back a few years ago. Flat roofs. Yeah. Talking about the pitch of it, right? Yeah. I don't I don't know the actual pitch. It's a very low pitch. I mean, according to the the diagram, the design, um, it it doesn't have a lot of pitch to it. Is there a way we could possibly enforce somebody that builds in the flood zone for like storage that they have make them make [clears throat] it required that they let the tenants be aware that they are storing in a flood zone?

Uh, that that's Again, something that if we want to make that a requirement on the plan that, you know, that be somehow a rule that goes to to all the tenants. I I guess I don't know how that could be enforced. You go um I'll show you this is the diagram showing the pitch of the roof. So, it's practically flat. Well, can we can we It's a very light pitch. Can we not make them have a pitched roof? I mean, like some of these nicer ones look like instead of just a flat roof like that, you can ask for whatever you want.

What would be an ad what would be an adequate pitch? I don't know. I mean, a typical pitch on a house is probably like four 412. Yeah, that's that's for a you know, you you'll that's a noticeable pitch. Well, these units are they going to be heated or cooled climate control. So, a parapit is why they're trying to do that. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that as far as if the interiors of them would be heating and cooled. The applicant may be here to answer that question if you want to bring them up. Thank you. He said they are.

Yeah. He said they are heated and cool. So then that's on a flat roof. That's a prayer for he said he's here if you want him to speak. Yeah. Can we What would be a good pitch though to go with? I mean I mean again I I think a 412 pitch could be reasonable enough to require that. I would like to make an amendment too that we put that in conditions also. Say again. What was what was I'm sorry pitch a 412 412 motion for pitch a 412 with a second by Councilman Jants. All in favor say I. I oppose say no. Now has [clears throat] the two amendments.

Mr. Chance

uh question about flood zone. Again, we say we have regulation who authorize them to build if it's more than one foot from the bottom of the flood zone. Um, is that something that actually question more for legal than anything else? Is that something we can change as a condition of approval if we were deciding we want five foot or we have to change the full ordinance? I think you would need to amend the ordinance because if it meets our ordinance then it meets the ordinance. But if it's something that you and that's really something more for the flood flood plane administrator to know you know what it should be. But if you're thinking that it should be something higher. I think you should probably get with our flood flood plane administrator and determine if that should be amended. that is something that we could uh proceed with as part of the zoning ordinance amendment that we're working on. Um any changes to the flood plane ordinance need to be u submitted to FEMA as well for their review, but there are other cities that do go above and beyond that. That's kind of the the the one foot rule is kind of where most of the state um resides and the the state of Tennessee um makes that a minimum requirement. But FEMA's requirement is actually just the the base flood elevation itself, not the one foot. But Teima requires the extra foot. And then um other cities, other jurisdictions sometimes go above and beyond that as well. So it's

because that's I think one foot work on.

It's you do nothing with one foot. That's that's not going to change anything. I see on Long Park now poverty when he rents uh when he rents you know the creek the creek flood flood the bottom of the property and we go to more than one foot like that. So it's not uh maybe that's something we we should look at because uh and again we the stuff we don't talk about is that that's going to be concrete. So we're going to change uh I mean if that was flooding before with grass uh that's going to flood even more with concrete because the water has nowhere to go. So, um, if the one foot work for grass, uh, that's not going to work for concrete. So, maybe that's something we should look into to protect. Again, um, in my mind, I don't understand why why would someone want to build in a float plan just uh, even in a business side because they're taking a risk and everything is going to be floated and that's going to cost them money. But that that's their own choice. That's that's the main thing that [clears throat] that bothers me about approval of this uh project is the flood issue. I think things are changing throughout the city uh as we build. I mean there again I I jump back to some properties that I've got that's never flooded in 30 something years that even when the big flood come to this area never did flood but because of other developments the creeks are getting up quicker and I had a lot of flood damage. Um now that the amendments that was made to this development I'm I'm fine with that but I'm still not fine with it being in that flood area. And you know place was never flooded

before and you remember your your truck during campaign six years ago at Lazy J back there. I never I never seen that place floated before like like it float that year. Um because generally in minutes. Yeah. So,

uh, I want to um [clears throat] I kind of agree. The more I think about it, I don't know why we put something in the floating zone. Uh, I made the mot the motion. I'm I'm going to remove my motion. I do with the two amendments. He motioned to send it on the council. He just withdrew his motion the two amendments. But what happens with the two amendments? We voted on that and pass the amendments.

There were amendments, but I and then you made a motion to um send it on and there was more discussion. Seconded and seconded. Their amendment was added. So, I think the the council can still determine if they're going to send it to to the city council meeting, though. Okay. But he wants to withdraw his motion. Who who seconded that? Craig, draw your second first. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. I withdraw my second. Draw your second. Withdraw your motion. I guess the amendments don't exist anymore, unless someone else wants to make a motion to move it forward to council.

Yeah. Where we at, folks?

Motion the motion and second have been withdrawn. So now if anyone else wants to make a motion otherwise it would it would fail. Motion to deny. Motion by um Councilman Alexander. Thank you. Councilman Alex Councilman Alexander, second by Councilman Fenel. Um have a motion and a second to deny. I'd ask if there's any questions, discussion related to that. [clears throat]

I guess do you want to hear from the applicant before that motion goes through or I know they may wish to say their piece. that fold to applicant.

You don't really have to. I mean, typically at a work session, we allow the applicants to come up. Yeah.

I would I would I would think it's appropriate for the applicant to come up.

Well, Thank you. Andy Leath 114B West Main Street with Greenley Design. [clears throat] Um, listening to the discussion, I mean, I'm happy to answer any questions, but I can also address the flood plane issue if you'd like or or where our where our perspective of it is. Anyway, um we're fully aware that it's in the flood plane or at least it's in the FEMA flood plane and what I'm about to speak, Mr. Rose, Mr. Tuttle can jump in and correct me if I misspeak. U the FEMA flood maps were created some time ago and they're created based off of aerial topography. They're created based off of infrared photography years ago. If you go down there and look at this site right now, if you pull the FEMA flood map back up if you want to so we can look at it. So right now the building on the highway is not in the flood plane. Yeah, it doesn't. Yeah, there it is. The building is right there. That's existing building. It's not in the flood plane. Flood plane's back here. Wraps around a little bit. If you go down there and look at this site right now, the topography back here is higher than this building. So, what I'm telling you is the the area, this land, I don't know when, but it has been manipulated since this flood plane map was established. So, we fully anticipate having to do a flood study and establish base flood elevations. Right now, the FEMA flood map does not have base flood elevations. I'm pretty sure the city's ordinance says when base flood elevations are not established, we have to build three foot above the flood plane. When base flood elevations are

established, it's one foot above the flood plane. So, it's been our plan all along to do a flood study on this corridor here to establish flood elevations because this land and again I don't know when it was manipulated but this area has already been filled in some time ago. U the liar shows that liar was done in 2018 and our topography maps that you that you have here with you that is based off liar. So I understand the concerns in development in a flood plane ex you know do understand that but denying this tonight it's not really going to affect the flood plane it's it's already been manipulated. So actually progressing with this project would at least study this area to see how the flooding actually works along this stretch of the property. Uh the other amendments um we were in agreement with the brick and stone requirement. We'd already planned to do that as planning commission had um made it a condition of approval. The four pitch roof, if that's what you want, then so be it. I know what I think what Vice Mayor Hayes was referring to as a good view. That was proposed to be a pitched roof, but they didn't build a pitch roof out there. And I think if you remember that come back here and cause a little bit of controversy. Um, I honestly don't know what a four pitch roof will look like on a mini storage. What's typical is about a/4 inch per 12 pitch and it is a very flat roof, but it's typical mini storage. Again, if four pitch is what the council wants, then Okay. Um, and the other amendment connecting the road.

Connecting the road. Yes. I think, you know, part of the intent behind what planning comm he Mr. Rose can correct me if I'm wrong was getting that buffer established or connect the two properties together. Um, whatever the spotty wants. I mean, it's it's to to us it's it's fine if you we we intend to connect the parking lot to get around the building anyway. Um, but we were providing the 20 foot landscape. So, I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have about the flood plane, but we do anticipate having to do it. Well, if this passes, we'll do a flood study. If not, then I would imagine this project will still progress with the development on Long Hollow Pike.

So, Mr. Le, you're saying that that where they back field right there over the years ago, that's that pushed that water back toward Long Hollow Pike, right? But we'll unless we do a flood study, we're not going to know the effects. But yes, that's what I And that's common sense to me that it when they backfilled that down that bottom section right there. Yeah. Down in there. It pushed all that water back up toward the road. So that's flooding out the road. This whole area right here has been manipulated over the years. And this flood map was created before that manipulation was done.

You have a problem in deferring this matter right here until we get a flood study back? I I don't think I mean I I don't um I think that you know we were planning on doing a flood study anyway with the final master plan. Um I can defer it anyway and come back to you and tell you what my client says. I would right now I'll vote no because I really don't know but u I'd feel more comfortable as if somebody would give us some direction in that. Well, then I can either ask for deferral until we get a flood study accomplished or decide to ask you to vote on it. My vote, I feel it would. [clears throat]

Sure. Well, then that's what I would ask this body is that we defer it until we can get a flood study done or I could come back and ask you to vote on it. Motion to defer a motion to I know, but we also override motions to approve with deferrals all the time. So that's what I was trying to figure out. So is it okay to override that with the deferral like we do with the to approve? Okay. And typically the applicant if the applicant asks to defer, we typically allow that. Gotcha. Motion a second to defer. All in favor say I. Opposed say no. Wait, do we need a time frame on it? No.

Okay.

Okay. Um any opposed to deferring? Okay. Uh, unanimously voted to defer. And so we'll move now to item number six, which is ordinance 02601. An ordinance [clears throat] of the city of Gallatin approving an amended preliminary master development plan for Riverbin Residential Development. Originally part of the Hidden Creek Welch College master plan on 16.57 acres east of Lur Station Camp north of Bison Trail. got the marathon tonight. It's good. All right. This is the Riverbend project. So, you'll see um again similar discussion and some of the residents got up during the public comment and spoke about this one having [snorts] concerns about the flood plane. So, um, you know, that may be a common theme tonight. Anyway, uh, the owner and applicant requesting approval of an amended preliminary master development plan for Riverbend, originally part of the Hidden Creek Welch College master development plan on 16.57 plus or minus acres for 146 town homes located east of loweration lower station Camp Creek Road and north of Bison Trail. Um, just for reference, Bison Trail is kind of down here. Welch College is right there and Lower Station Camp Creek Road runs along the west side of the property here. Uh, that other property is just up further to the north off the screen, the one that we just talked about. Um the preliminary mass uh sorry uh the

property zoned R six multif family units are a permitted use in the R six zoning district. The preliminary master plan development plan was originally part of the phase two of Welch College master plan. [snorts] As part of the approval for Welch College, there was a requirement that let me sort of skip to that a little bit. Oh, maybe I didn't get that image in here. Okay, I think it's this one. Phase two is depicted on here as u believe that that area right up in there. Um sorry, I don't have my glasses on so I can't see that far. But um the the connection with phase two and three was that Jenkins Lane extension was going to be requirement uh to happen all the way from lower station camp to Big Station Camp Boulevard uh as part of the the either phase two or phase three development. Uh the applicant proposes with this PMDP to build the 20 it's a 24 foot wide roadway. Um they are not wanting to build sidewalks that would go all the way across um to Big Station Camp. Uh but kind of stick with sidewalks and a and a multi-use path along the north side here um for Jenkins Lane. No sidewalks on the south nor on those portions that kind of run off the page here and and head over towards um big station camp. So pretty much just pavement, no curb gutter, no sidewalks on the portions that are not having development adjacent to them. Um

but they would do it on the uh portion adjacent to uh the development here. Uh but that kind of provides an access where we know that lower Station Camp Creek is in the flood plane. Uh we know that that access point could be inundated at some point. And so we want to make sure that there is a safe fire access road that can get in from a different direction should that be potentially inundated uh at some point with a flood. Um, that also kind of just gives a little bit better access to those residents that would be living in that neighborhood. They'll have access to be able to go to over to big station camp where there should be more shopping availabilities and access to the freeway and stuff like that. Um the flood plane is a real concern uh again as we talked about uh on this development and the applicant is working on what they need to do with FEMA to to bring the property into compliance. uh they will likely do a [clears throat] what's called a Clomar uh F which is an acronym CLMR- F and that stands for conditional letter of map revision based on Phil. Um what that is is they would um make a plan to bring in fill in the area closest to the flood plane within that flood plane area and they would rise raise the level of that um land up so that it takes it out of the flood plane and then that way they could be able to develop on top of that land. uh keeping it more safe from you know subjection to a flood when if if and when that flood comes along. Um

so that is something that I've already had discussions with them about and they're they're working towards that uh to kind of help solve the issue. But there is a portion of the development, you know, on in this area kind of along the the fringe area that does fall within the 100red-year flood plane area. And so they would need to uh get a flood plane development permit. And you know, part of that permit would include that uh Clomar, which again, it's conditional based on the fill. And they submit that prior to FEMA. And then once they do the work, then they submit it as a LOMAR F and that would be approved by FEMA as a more concrete document. Um they're also asking relief from the 20 foot setbacks for front and rear um setback requirements. Um basically uh they would like it to be 15 feet in the front and fif and five feet in the rear for their front loaded town homes. And then they are also requesting that the same setbacks be adjusted for uh the rear loaded town homes but flip-flopped so that the rear would be five feet and the front would be 15 feet. Um in lie of their bike lanes again they're going to do a shared use path on the on the north side of Jenkins Lane here. Um and then and that would be 8 ft wide. Um and then they've provided additional parking spaces u over and above the requirement which is two spaces per unit. Uh the the two spaces per unit is uh comprises one space within the singlecar garage and

one space within a single car wide driveway. And then they are providing an additional 53 spaces um spread throughout the development in order to try to accommodate visitors and um you know any sort of overflow that someone might have with vehicles and parking in that development. It's still kind of tight especially with single car garages and single car driveways. So um you know that's that's not optimal but um they are meeting the requirement and providing those additional 53 spaces. Um planning commission did vote by a vote of five to zero to recommend approval um to the council for this. Um and again that condition of approval uh for the flood plane just requires them that you know they have to obtain that flood plane development permit that has to be signed off first before they can uh develop within that flood plane area. And just for the council's um benefit, the definition of development within a flood plane means even grading or any any sort of ch any man-made change within that flood plane area is considered development and requires that flood plane development permit. So they can't just go to engineering and get their land disturbance permit and go ahead and start grading. they have to get that flood plane development permit first. So, and the applicant is here and they'd be willing to, I'm sure, come up and uh make a presentation regarding their project.

Any questions? Councilman Alexander. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, so when you look at the overall layout of it in the picture above it, I guess that's actually to the south, isn't it? Um, the the units that's Stone Creek proposed are to the south of Stone Creek. Stone Creek is the whatever's above it in the picture there. That's Stone Creek. And so if I'm looking at this right, um, people that own lots in Stone Creek will have four units for every one of their lots. So, I don't know the count of Stone Creek or the density there [clears throat] um and and how much open space was provided with that. But

I don't uh you could you could sort of extrapolate that, I guess, if you were looking at the size of the four units compared to how much fits on one single family lot. Is that what you're kind of I'm looking at their lots and I'm looking at attachment to Mr. Rose [clears throat] package. You may not have it, but I mean, I'm looking at their lots and I'm seeing like four units. Um, four four of them.

I understand there's a buffer between there, but man, that's just a lot of density next to people's homes that do not have that density. That that to me bothers me that we're not we're not looking the same in that area. As somebody who owns an acre with town houses that butt up next to me. It's one of these things is not like the other Sesame Street taught me. Thank you. Are they going to uh do a flood plan on this too? Kind of like the other developer. Are they required to do that? A flood plane development permit is required. Yes.

Councilman Javant.

Thank you, sir. Um I I agree with Councilman Alexander. Um basically again uh the people were there before going to get their life totally changed. Uh and if I read what [clears throat] was sent by the planning on the on the planning paper nine say the PMDP will be compatible with the surrounding environment and will protect the public health safety and welfare and will not be injurious to other property or improvement in the area in which the property is located. So, uh, when I see four units on the space and there is one on the other side, I can't call that compatible. That's just me. Um, issues with the flooding, we heard we are the neighbor and I think that the people we need to listen to because they live there. I don't live there. If you ask me about my property, I can tell you where every bump is and where every pot of water is going to be and you probably don't know about it or but these people live there. So, I think uh we're going to have an issue there. We're going to make more flooding on your on their property. Um question about the Lar F. You were saying the intent to bring um dirt on the flood zone so where it's basically not build to raise the level so they can use it. Are they planning on building more if they raise the level?

No. So this would be the the plan that is associated with that and um they they would fill in to the level where they could build the the homes but they wouldn't fill more than what's necessary for that. All right. Another thing I have an issue is is um again giving giving exemption at the level where it's just becoming ridiculous. 5 foot rear yard 5 foot to have what? Uh, so they they don't have space on the front because they're going to have a garage. The only space they're going to have is on the back. If they want to put even a table, two chairs, they have nothing to put that. So

essentially, those units are going to be along this open space or along other areas of open space. So the 5-ft rear yard is just to give them some space to put a couple chairs maybe, but then they would use the common green space as their rear yard essentially. And um you know they're we're trying to eliminate the need to have those lots extend fully into there so that they can provide uh that common open space and still keep their smaller units.

And again the same thing I've been saying for years is that what do we even bother with the zoning ordinance if we don't follow it. It's every development will show up as for exemption we give them. So why why don't we just get rid of zoning ordinance and that will make everybody's life a lot easier. Uh I had another question because I could not find any answer anywhere. Uh when I look on the street, uh they say private street and P U D A D AE private street and P U D AE

that would stand for public utility and drainage and access easement. So the access easement would grant people from the public or other people to be able to drive across it. So that the first time I see that uh I always see PUD on the back or on the front, but I never see a PUD on a road. Uh why it's common for private streets.

Yeah. and uh a stuffaff I see nowhere um and we're talking about flood zone so I think where there is no retention pond in that development

the because of the proximity to the lower station camp creek u I think the engineering department typically uh grants a little bit of an exception because the water is going to get stored down that way anyway. Uh so you don't need to create a separate pond to store it. You're just going to allow the water to flow. But they I think they do some additional work for water quality. Um Nick Nick Nick's [clears throat] nodding his head saying that that's that's correct. Um so that that would be the expectation I think for this development since it's right up against the flood plane. Um the could the sack show 50 foot wide? You agree with that? The roundabout or whatever. I I say it with a French accent because it's a French word. Sorry.

You call that the cold callac or whatever culdeac. Yeah, we say kudosac in French. Um that's 50 foot. Uh, and I want to make sure that I meet uh the fire code because that's the only turnar around we have on that development. I believe that whatever design goes along with that culde-sac would be um formalized [snorts] with the FMDP. Um, at this point in time, I don't know that it's necessary to get into that sort of detail with it. Um, but I'm sure whatever happens there would be fire code compliant.

And my last question on what I see on the plan, uh, looks like that plan encroached on a power line power line easement. Is that something was authorized or uh, where are you referring to? Uh you have a a power line easement uh on a flood zone was basically go right over the the cold des sack. Okay,

I'm trying out there. Um and over uh looks like the the first the first uh first and second townhouse there. There's a it's on a plan. So I just read what's there. We can double check that. If there are structures under an electrical easement, typically that's not allowed, but um without looking at it more closely, um I'd have to take a look at it first. But um yeah, because on the plan that shows uh encroachment on We can verify that.

Uh I I still have an issue with the flood zone. I think we're we get back on the same situation that the the development before uh this place is already flooding. The neighbors telling us they're flooding and we're going to build a giant concrete pad uh where the water goes. So, that's not going to help the neighbors. Um, and I can't I I have to to follow what the neighbors are telling me, I can't I can't vote for something who's going to who's going to make the flood bigger because even even if they raise [clears throat] like they want to do on the flood zone, I think that's going to be even worse because the water is going to have to go somewhere and that's going to go the other way. So, uh I'm I can't I don't make a motion to deny it.

I don't have a motion. Sure. Go ahead.

Um with them [snorts] planning near the cotac with them planning to do fill filling in there. How is that going to help with the flooding? I mean, will that change the elevation and cause possible flooding? So filling in the flood plane does um generally affect the flood plane to go elsewhere, the the flood waters to go elsewhere. Uh which may cause a rise on someone else's property. Um what our ordinance says right now is that any project that c you can do that within certain limitations. Uh you can't cause more than a a one foot rise in flood level on someone else's pro you know in anywhere else in the city. Um, and if you do, then then that could not be permitted. But, um, it could affect it. And, you know, I have concerns about that because the way it's written, if somebody else says, "Yeah, I don't I'm not rising the the level of the flood by a foot." But then another person does that, too. and another person down the line does it, all of a sudden you've got multiple properties that have not individually done it, but together done it. And so you need we need to be careful about how much we do allow people to bring fill in um to the floodplane area.

And then another question, I'm sorry. um curb and gutter. When you add that to a do to a street that you're developing, does that help with mitigating flooding or could it help or is it just just It can direct water flow. Uh if there's, you know, drainage system in place, um that's not going to stop water from over topping that necessarily. Um so it depends on how high the water's come. invite the applicant to I yeah I know the applicant is here so I'm I'm still just answering questions as as they come I see them kind of standing back there and

just go the applicant would like to come forward we'd like to have them present [laughter] I thought y'all were I'm sorry it's not No me. [laughter] We're not here. Okay. Well, never never mind then. Are they not here? [laughter] No. I know that when Okay. Well, then when you continue with your conversations

like man-made backfield stuff, we can't do what the Lord did. You know, he's going to take it out. I mean, I've tried to defer, you know, reroute a creek out there at my place and you can't. It just you just can't do it. I'm just worried about that Stewart's Creek over there where they already flooding, you know. Yeah. And this isn't rerouting a creek by any means because the creek creek bed itself is in a different location, but [snorts] when water over tops that creek bank and comes up into that floodplane area that you know that area it would displace to another area. So yeah,

you know, I know that this area is supposed to support density. Um, however, I do not I'm not really sold on this project. I'm I'm not for it. Motion to deny. Motion by Councilman Shivant, second by Councilman Jones. Discussions, questions. All in favor of denying say I. I. Say no. Okay, moving on to item seven, which is resolution R2601-5. Mr. Rose, thank you.

All right, still running the marathon here. All right, I will try to be quick on this. I know we have discussed this multiple times. Uh this is the 3.56 plus or minus acre triangle piece of property that the city owns now. uh we purchased it from the Trout family and are looking to just annex it into our city limits so that we can then have jurisdiction over it while we also own it. Um the plan of services is also part of this action and uh didn't pull didn't have anything you know earthshattering to report on as far as that goes. Uh services are able to be provided there. We've got services up through trip Triple Creek Park and uh you know I know it's

motion to send it on. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, second by Councilman Carter. Questions, discussion? All in favor of sending forward to council, please say I. I. Say no. Moves forward with the voted forward to zero unanimously. Item number eight is resolution R2601-6 resolution of the city of Galla. Wait a m Oh, okay. This is the same item. Just the other motion to send it on. Motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, second by Councilman Carter. Questions, discussion. All in favor say I.

Opposed? [clears throat] Forward with the vote of 4 to unanimously. Item nine is resolution R2601-3, a resolution approving an indemnity and hold harmless agreement with a certificate of liability insurance to use the city maintain sidewalk within the state rightway for installation and maintenance of a second story Juliet balcony for 125 East Main Street. All right. The owner and applicant requests approval of a resolution to approve an indemnity and hold harmless agreement with a certificate of liability insurance to use the city maintained sidewalk with a within the state rideway for the installation and maintenance of a second story Juliet balcony. This building is known as the Shamburgger Opera House. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a cont a contributing structure to the Gallatin uh commercial historic district in 1984. The building remains as a contributing structure today. Gallatin City Council also designated this property as a local historic landmark on February 4th, 1997. The current building has a small overhang uh above the door that juts out approximately 12 in. The proposed Juliet balcony, as it's shown here in the picture, u basically juts out an additional six inches. So, it's 18 inches total away from the building, but that does hang over the city's sidewalk and rideway area. Uh, which is why they need the uh indemnity indemnity and hold harmless agreement. Um the faux balcony will be anchored to the building so it won't even have you know peers or um anything really sticking out into the right of way for that. Um staff recommends that the city approve that indemnity hold harmless agreement.

Motion to send it on. Again motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, second by Councilman Jumonts. Questions, discussion? Okay. All in favor of moving forward to council, please say I. I. opposed say no. Moves forward vote of six to zero unanimously. Moving on to Brown, can I request my other business now? Yes, Mr. Rose has something very very important and so we're going to move up his other business family event to get to by 9:00 tonight. So, um I I'm gonna do what's under my other business really quick. Do you need the presentation?

No. So, uh, I would just like to first, uh, this is discussion on the Myers Hill project. I would just like to first bring to the attention of the council that notices for public hearing, um, had already been sent out um, last week when this vote was taken to postpone the project. Uh, had already been sent out for the 20th of January. uh we don't feel that it's um good to uh spend that money and then waste it. So uh we feel it's important to still hold that public hearing on the 20th. Uh doesn't affect the decision to uh postpone for three months at all. But um we don't we we don't want to waste that money and or have to spend it twice to to renotice for another public hearing later. um just trying to be um conservative with the city's funds. Um secondly though, I do wish to bring up the point of information that I'm not sure if council was aware of uh but pertains to the vote uh to postpone the project. The vote last week was to give the applicant three months to uh time to obtain approval from the county to be able to widen Hicks Lane. Um, this is one of the conditions of approval of the project though. Uh, specifically that condition reads, "Add the following note. Hicks Lane shall be widened to a minimum of 20 ft per fire code from the eastern edge of Meyers Hill property west to Dobins Pike. So, in my opinion, um if by the time they're ready to do their project, they cannot approve uh approval obtain approval from the county to widen Hicks Lane, uh then they haven't met their conditions of approval and therefore they cannot do their project. um there was no need to postpone the project for

3 months to be able to determine that because you have that condition of approval already with the pro associated with the project. Um these types of things are often not worked out at the PMDP stage. Um there are things that have to be you know dealt with and approved and designed and uh you know things have to get applied for as Pascal referred to that you know they do have to go through a process and get those approvals. Um however I I don't believe that it was necessary to postpone the approval of the project or keep that project moving forward um for that reason because you have that condition of approval. Um, so I believe this information in this light gives you um perhaps an opportunity to reconsider your vote. Um, I'll let you determine if you want to do that or not. Um, but I just wanted to make sure that you kind of understood that from my perspective that condition of approval covers the need to uh to do what they needed to do. So,

I think M. Rose felt like the council kind of missed that element last week and he felt like he had not been able to point that out. And um and so he wanted to make sure that that was clear because that's kind of common sense that it's a condition of approval. It can't be done without it. And so therefore, why did the denial happen? Especially when you realize you have the public hearing scheduled and costs a lot of money to advertise those. So question Uh if we do the public hearing that mean it's considered done when the project come back to us or we going to have to do another public hearing.

It would be my recommendation to do a second and that's what we had uh Mr. Rose and I had discussed that we would do a second public hearing that would follow along while the ordinance is being uh considered by the council. And to answer mayor question I didn't miss it. I saw it but I didn't ask a question. You say probably missed it. So I answer I say I did not miss it that I knew that was in a condition of approval but we know that sometime okay I was explaining why he was addressing that. I'm talking ma'am I was talking when you interrupted me. So there so

so we know we know sometime uh staff changes or don't go as planned. uh we have seen that here in several developments. So u thank you for

and I and I did reach out and talk to Toby Ellis too. um you know I didn't get any sort of indication from talking to him that he felt that it would be a a difficult thing to be able to obtain approval to but but of course yes there is a process to go through and get and get that approval but um I I didn't get the impression from talking to him that uh it would cause a a problem to to go in and ask to be able to improve that portion of Myers Hill. You know, typically if you want to go in and ask to do something that improves one of their roads, I think the county is generally going to welcome those improvements. Yeah.

And I think that other road was real key, too. But I think it was a long meeting and Mr. Rose felt like he had not pointed that out adequately and wanted to make sure that you guys were aware of it. Um because we are doing that public hearing and delaying the consideration of that. So [clears throat] that's why he was addressing that. Thank you.

Questions you may. Okay, let's move on then to item number and Thank you, Mr. Rose. And if you think, text me and let me know. Um, so item 10 is an ordinance amending the Gall Municipal Code Chapter 12, regulating the use of tobacco and vapor products. I looked before the meeting and I didn't see any of the folks here that were interested in it. Oh, but they're back there now. Okay. Thank y'all. I cannot see back there. I see hands, but I cannot see back there. So, delighted that you guys are here. This was actually brought to me by I'll call you a young man. Um, a lung cancer survivor, secondhand smoke. Really wanted um this for our community actually following actions taken by the city of Nashville and the city of Hendersonville. And this is an amended ordinance that I'm passing out. it was um replied back to me when I sent it to you all that there were some things in there that um needed a little bit of clean up and so our attorney has done that and so what she's handing out is an amended ordinance this evening and um for your consideration but this in essence is going to not allow or or ban smoking and vaping in um 21 and over establishments with the exception of cigar bars and vape shops. very very simply. Um I don't know how much more plain I can speak to that. Um I know that I have had conversations over time with people who are performers, people who are servers and they work in these establishments and even patrons that love to go but but you know there's the difficulty with being in the secondhand smoke environment. And so they felt like this was really important. There were several different organizations asking for it and um the smokefree ordinance

was from them. And I'll just say that what was handed out if you look at it um it's highlighted and those are the things that were changed from what was in the packet. very minimal uh mainly some typos and um so you just look very minimal changes that are highlighted. Motion to send it on. Second

motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, a second by Councilman Fenel and I certainly want to thank you Mr. Hawkins for being so persistent with me while we continued to um work through this and finally get it on the agenda and then with the help with the other organizations as well with the Smokefree Tennessee and the American Lung Association and the Cancer Society and everybody that's been engaged in it. So, thank you. There any questions or any discussion? Councilman Jubz.

Thank you, Mayor. Um I don't smoke and I think for where I've been in Gatan I know only one place smoking inside. Maybe there is more but uh on on Longo um

it's not smoking anymore. I just it's not but there are others. I I think people what if we do that where um are we going to add something that because you know California that you can't smoke anywhere uh actually I think they still have some smoking area but you have you have regulation who say that people can't smoke uh a certain distance from the building because if they can if people smoke they're going to smoke that And uh if they can't smoke inside, they're going to be near the door. If we don't put if we don't put a distance from the building, they're going to be right there. And that defeat the purpose because people are going to pass by going to see get second smoking. So

I think that applies to every single, you know, public entity within a city and a lot of cities do have ordinances like you speak of. I think particularly with the venues that what you see typically done in those places I see it all across the country and in other countries that they have smoke they tend to they actually tend to set up smoking areas where it's a place that people go and hang out and spend the you know evenings. So I think they're actually more apt to create those smoking areas outside so that people aren't just hanging out at the front door. But so I was going to add something like that in your ordinance. I don't need to do I mean

too much. Well, I think that that gets that becomes a really really difficult enforcement issue because I think when you start talking about within the distance of the building that's beyond the building owner's control and not I don't think that that's what we're asking for at this point. I think at some point in the future. I mean there's lots of things that we can consider in the future related to that like public spaces and the like. So but I think this is specific to the ask that was made for this. Any further questions and discussion? All in favor of sending forward to council please say I.

Oppose say no. I'm going to abstand. Okay. Have one abstension. moves forward unanimously. Thank you guys so much and thank you for hanging out this long. It's greatly appreciated. Um I did move it up some but not far enough. So, but thank you. Thank you. Uh moving right [clears throat] along. We are at item number 11 which Oh, did you guys want to take a recess? I know several of you already. Everybody's gone. Okay. Okay. Item number text me and ask me for a recess like somebody text me and ask me. You want to need to take a recess? Let's take a 10-minute recess. Come on. Okay. We will reconvene at 8:30.

Okay, we're reconvened for this meeting. We are going to begin with item number 11, which is the discussion for the grant agreement of the discussion for grant agreement of the grant agreement for Westside Markets between the city and CHM Green Gallatin LLC and resolution R2505-26. Miss Hy Macaulay, I am I am handing out um some documents that you're going to want to look at. [clears throat] Ask Connie for that one.

Sorry there. Are we hearing still or we're hearing right? Okay.

Okay. The first thing that I've handed out to you is the grant agreement. At the um last week at the end of the meeting, Councilman Javant asked about the grant agreement with between the IDB and CHM Green Gallatin LLC. and this is for the target development. And specifically, he um noted that he didn't believe that construction had begun on that project as was required by the grant agreement. And uh I was not prepared last week to discuss that. So I have reviewed the grant agreement. I have spoken with the with a representative of the developer and um am ready to discuss this issue with you tonight. So, in the grant agreement in section 4D, it does state in there that the developer was to um execute a contract with the general contractor licensed to do business in the state of Tennessee and commence construction of the project with when within 120 days of the effective date. And the effective date of the agreement was May 21st uh 2025. in speaking with the uh representative of the developer um noted that they've had some issues with getting some uh permits and getting their and some issues with the core of engineers and a survey that had to be done that got that pushed them out where they did not even get permits until after the um 120 days would have expired and then they had to update um their bids with their contractors and work with Target. So, Councilman Jiovants had asked last week about me sending a notice of default, I believe is what he was referring to. And if you look on page four of what I

handed out to you in uh default, it says it says there um that after I would give notice of default or the IDB, they would have 30 days to then cure. I've talked with the representative of the developer and they um say that they're pretty much ready in the next couple of weeks to begin they believe to begin um construction. They have a few other things to get done. So, what I recommend that we do because by the time I give notice and then they have 30 days, we're still going to be kind of stuck where we have some other issues in the grant agreement that are highlighted. So, I'm recommending that we amend the grant agreement. And I'm going to pass that out to you now. And Miss Bates and I worked with um Tom Trent who originally had might get another one that way. he originally um drafted the grant agreement and so we worked with him and the if you look at the grant agreement highlighted in yellow are the areas that I have noted need to be amended and revised and the first is in section 4D if you look at the amendment to the grant agreement down in section two we would change the honor before 120 days of the effective date to honor before February 15, 2026. And that kind of lines up with um actually be 30 days less um which would have been their cure period if you approve it next week. And then in 4E, we would need to change the July 1, 2027 date uh in speaking with

the representative of the developer to December 31, 2027. And that is to achieve substantial completion which is defined in the agreement um right in 4F. And then um we also wanted to kind of tie up a little bit the uh force measure uh definition in 11 and talking with Mr. Trent. Um because we just say right now that governmental approvals in addition to the ones contemplated herein can be a force measure event um which the developer could um come to us right now and say there was a force measure event because we had a delay and so we're going to change that to unusual delays in receiving governmental approvals not just a governmental approval. And then in um I think it is on page it's in section 11 I believe which is I believe on page six of the grant agreement. And I'm sorry that's not it. in 5C2 which is on page four. Um you'll notice that they have until under this the uh second anniversary of the effective date to for the final completion of the project. And uh but there's a now that would be before they would um if if you amend this that would be before that would be uh May of 2027. So we're going to change we need should change that to say honor before 90 days following substantial completion as defined in section 4f of the grant agreement. And that ties back into the

substantial completion um definition anyway. And I think that is a much better and um amendment and a a better timeline for that. They have to have substantial completion and then later they have 90 days to complete any uh punch list items and different things that are outlined in the agreement. I also have a resolution that would be authorizing the mayor. It' be resolution R26017 that I'm going to hand out that would authorize the mayor to sign the grant agreement and would authorize that you're approving the amendment to the grant agreement and authorize the mayor to sign that amendment. Do you have any questions? I know that was a that was kind of a lot. I'm trying to do it quickly because we've been here a long time. But this would be my recommendation to cure this issue is to go ahead and amend because we're going to have to amend anyway. If I were to give notice and they have a cure period, we're still going to have to amend it. It's my recommendation we go ahead and do that now.

Motion to approve. Second. Motion by Councilman Fenel, second by Vice Mayor Hayes. Opening the floor for questions and discussion. Councilman Jubant, you're recognized. Thank you ma'am. Um the amendment of 5D 5C2 where we remove the second anniversary of the effective date uh and we change it by 90day following substantial completion. Um we basically remove well if we leave it as is then

you have two year to complete the project two years from the effective date of the original agreement. So if you remove that uh and you add 90 days and you change it by uh 90 days following substantial completion um no there is no no time limit on substantial completion I think no there's there is C2 was

there's substantial completion in on page two in 4F and there is sat satisfaction of conditions. That is in 4 I on page three. And in that um I noticed like I said I did not draft this but they have 90 days after substantial completion to get the satisfaction of conditions and once that is done that is um when we would make our payment. So that's why I changed it to the 90 days after substantial completion because they they already get that in 4 I. If you look on page three and it's down toward uh the bottom of 4 I to me that makes the most sense to change it to the 90 days after substantial completion. They already get that under satisfaction of conditions. And so we're going to if we don't change that, we're going to have um terms that contradict themselves. Let me let me read it again because that was basically a time for them to complete the satisfaction the the satisfaction of condition. They have two years two years from the effective date to basically uh if we go back to satisfaction of conditions. Um

that was basically a timer was giving them two years to two years from the satisfaction of condition

except when you when you look at the original grant agreement I said I didn't draft it and I didn't catch it. 4E gives them to July 1, 2027. So that's beyond the two-year effective date anyway because it was May 21 of 25. So we had some we had some issues with the grant agreement um where there were some contradictory terms. This will clean all of that up. And if you look at the original um resolution that the council approved, you are not um we would not give them their grant until um the satisfaction of condition satisfaction of conditions. So we don't want to have substantial completion. We can't have substantial completion before satisfaction of conditions. And if you if we don't change that, we're going to have to give them the grant money before it's substantially complete. We certainly don't want to do that. Agreed. Thank you for clarifying. Um there was something in there. uh when I thought about it um I kind of disagree and if we're doing amendment maybe it's time to do it uh because um the condition that uh they provide uh the target agreement and the anchor agreement to the mayor for her only viewing. Um,

you tell me where you're looking. Yeah, let me find it.

Oh, I think it's in 4B. Yes. Yeah. Mhm. I think we're giving taxpayer money. I think that should be transparent. If they want 1.5 million from taxpayer money, uh that should be well, if you notice, if you notice,

it is disclosed to the city mayor, but she cannot even retain it. There are probably confidential issues in that. And so we they would show it to her. She would not even get to retain it because that can't be subject to um public records request. I'm certain that's why it was done that way. I don't know. Didn't draft it. Um the developer is here if you would like to if you have any questions of them, but I think that's probably why it was done. Um there may be confidential issues in that sale agreement.

Uh question to Mayor Brown. Did you seen anything for Target yet? No. I don't know why you'd ask me because if I had I wouldn't be able to tell you. You could tell them if you saw it but you couldn't you you could tell them that you saw seen anything like that initial plan that everybody saw. [laughter] Thank you mayor for that answer. Um no I I appreciate the answer. Um

I feel like you think you thought some that I'm I don't know. I didn't realize there I'm just asking reading you know if you if you saw it if you tell me no u that just go back to you know make me even more against it because uh when that was presented to us initially that was a done deal. So if that was a done deal, we'd like to bring the developer up. I think they could probably answer that question for you. Are what are you saying? I I was a done deal. No, I'm not target is talking about Target. So

that in order for them to get the grant, they have Target has to be here. They have to be open for a full day. All of that set out. So if if that doesn't happen, this we're not going to have this we're not going to be giving any money anyway. I understand that. But the way that got sold to us is that that was already a done deal with target and after uh that's what June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January. That's eight months. Uh [snorts] that that's all I'm seeing. So wouldn't have any other questions. Are we looking for a motion to authorize the mayor to sign this? Huh? Done that. Have I done that? You'd just be sending this to council for the resolution to be on the agenda next week.

Second. Yes. Yes. Okay. All in favor of moving forward say I. Oppose say no. Does move forward unanimously. Item number 11, I'm sorry, item number 12 is citizen request for rightway abandonment on Richwood Circle. Mr. Tuttle, city engineer.

Good evening. Uh hopefully the um the blue sheet made sense on what this request was. We don't get these very often, but from time to time uh we do. This is a request uh for them to apply uh to [clears throat] our planning commission to give you a recommendation on abandoning a right of way that is between uh two houses uh in an old subdivision that was developed and the rightway was never improved. um that in the blue sheet we do give a a short comment um that this isn't consistent uh with with um you know what we normally preach to you which um requires connectivity uh throughout our subdivisions. Uh if you are familiar with where Richland Circle and Richland Court are, um off of uh Richland Court is where this rightway stub is and it would connect to Rogers Road in uh the subdivision that is to the east of it. Uh that would connect to Hartful Pike and give a another way out of this subdivision. Um the city hasn't acted on this right away and so it's been it's been as it is for uh for decades. Um and and this uh the two property owners would like to clo own the property and and not have a road go through there ever. So they're asking for your permission to apply.

Motion to send to council or planning to planning commission. Planning commission. I have a motion by Councilman Javant, second by Councilman Carter. This [clears throat] means that it goes to planning for Nick to not allow that to happen or to allow it to happen.

Yes. So it would it would go to planning commission. They would make the request. Um staff um engineering and the rest of staff would would give their comments and and um opinions on on that to to planning commission. Planning commission would then make a recommendation to you uh and and you would have the the opportunity to approve or deny. Okay. Quick question. If uh hasn't been done for 10 years, I mean if we want the connection, we're going to have to pay for it. Absolutely. And instead of that, we're going to sell them the land for a connection who has never been there and make money.

We could sell it. Uh that is um our option. We'll say typically uh if the if we didn't pay for the right away, then we usually give it away. if it um but we could it is ours so we can with it. Yeah, I think if that not been done for 10 years we're doing it now. We're not going to if that was a necessity that would have been done before that. So, uh thanks for bringing that to us. I don't know if there was a vote. Was there a vote? You wanted to say something?

I've got nothing else to say. your part. Thank you, Mr. Title. I appreciate your commitment to connections. Um, all in favor of moving forward to the planning commission say I. Oppos say no. Does move forward with unanimous support. Item 13 is ordinance 02512-72. Mr. Tuttle $5,400 for employee training. Uh, no new money trying to move money from one line to another. Motion seconded. Say again. Motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, second by Councilman Fenel. Any questions? Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of moving forward say I. I. Oppos say no.

Moves forward unanimously. Item 14 is ordinance 02601-1 ordinance appropriating 442,37265 for intersection improvements at Tula Pop Belvadier. Motion and sent to councel. Motion by Councilman Jivant. Second by Vice Mayor Hayes. Questions, discussion. All in favor, please say I. I opposed moves forward. Um item 16 is resolution R2601-2 resolution requesting that the city of Gallatton annex an approximately 1.5 mile section of Round Tree Drive and that the county initiate the annexation. Mr. Tuttle.

Thank you, Mayor. Um uh speaking with our EDA director, uh Miss Bates, uh she uh had asked that we we go ahead and make the request of the county to make the request of us uh to annex uh the Roundtree Drive right away that is surrounded now by or will be uh when we get through all of our annexation processes. and maybe [cough] um the the the round tree um section that um is surrounded by Gregory's property that was annexed. Motion to council. Second. Motion by C um Councilman Fenel, second by Vice Mayor Hayes. Any questions? Any discussion? Mr. Alexander.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh Mr. Tuttle, um this is basically annexing the roadway, correct? So in this case, the county one home on Round Tree that it's in front of, it's not going to affect that homeowner in any way. It wouldn't uh the the property that um is the rightway is actually dedicated rightaway that the county has ownership of. They can prove that. So in this case um they would be able to request annexation um or at least permit it. Not interested in that. It wouldn't I mean if they wanted if they

the only way that it affects them is if they wanted to request a driveway or something of that nature, they would come to us as opposed to the county. [snorts] Uh they would talk to us about paving that section instead of the county. Those kind of things. Thank you, mayor. Um, I understand the idea, but why uh if the county want us to take care of that road? Uh, why why we would pay for a road when they they're going to pay for it. I just, you know, if they don't want to pay for it, they can come back to us. [snorts] But I don't see why we request I know you're going to give me the answer, ma'am.

Yeah. Why would we want to to have the maintenance burden is what you're asking? Yeah. Um if we expect development to happen on that corridor then it just makes way more sense for us uh to manage u permitting on it. If we're talking about improvements on, if we're talking about driveways, uh we have had plenty of situations where um city had uh the property that was um owned by property owners within its limits, but the county um had jurisdiction of the roadway and it gets ugly and complicated and just um difficult to manage.

Makes sense. Thank you. U in addition to what Nick has shared with you the industrial zoned property and it has Mr. Gregory has started that process at planning commission to be reszoned to IR work session is passed it goes to them at the end of the month and then it comes to y'all. Um, if we if we own Roundtree, it will make it easier for us to access state and TVA uh uh funds and assistance with installing infrastructure and quickens that process and takes I mean and the county may not want to do this. So, we're just asking them to please consider it and we'll be happy to take it over so that we can kind of mitigate the um traffic that might be on Round Tree once things are more developed at at that house and maybe and like I've said before, put a culde-sac there so there's not a bunch of through traffic over to Bright Lane

or the entrance to the industrial park. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Na. Anything else? Okay, we have a motion, a second. Okay. Um, resolution R2601-2. All in favor of moving forward say I. Oppos say no. Moves forward unanimously. G. Feman. This is ordinance 02512-68. Ordinance appropriating [clears throat] $16,91 for repairs to the 2021 and 25 Pearson Enforcer fire engines. Quick break and stop. Motion to send to council.

I told you I would do that. Motion by Councilman Jas by Councilman Carter. Questions, discussion. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Moves forward unanimously. Item 17, resolution R2511-83, resolution to authorize the Gallatton Fire Department to apply for the Inbridge Safe Community Grant. Did I say that right? Second. Second. Mayor, if I could, the the next three items are all uh requested permission to apply for a grant. And all the grants do not require matching funding from the city. It's a 100% grant uh provided funding. if that will help speed things up. If that's permissible,

it would be. Um, so it's the 2025 Rescue Squad grant for the state of from the state of Tennessee and then the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Q1 Q2 2026 grant. Yes, ma'am. About the next one, 20. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Oh, four also. Okay. And then the CSX Pride and Service. So, it' be 17 through 20. Yes. 17 through 20. Yes, ma'am. Second by Vice Mayor Haye. Second by Councilman Fenel. Any questions? Any discussion? All in favor of moving forward to council say I. All oppose say no. Does unanimously. Thank you.

Item 21 is resolution R2601-1. Um resolution authorizing parks to apply for the 2025 state of Tennessee office of outdoor recreation grant. Motion sent to councel. Motion by Councilman Juvants, second. Second by Councilman Alexander. Any questions? Any discussion? All in favor of moving forward, say I. I. Opposed. Okay. Ordinance. Um item 22 is um moves forward unanimously. I'm sorry. Item 22 is ordinance. That one did have a match, right? Oh, it does have Yeah, that one has a half million dollar match, right, David?

The 50% match. It's in a packet. We're thinking it's going to cost us five. It's a $7 million grant. We'll be matching 2 million with our land, 2 million with general fund, and the state will be giving 4 million. It works out a little different than that because the total m that's 8 million, but the total grant is only 7 million. So actually what we'll be doing is the state will give two, we'll match that two with the land purchase. We'll put a million and a half of our bond money and they'll give us a million and a half.

That how much we budgeted for two. Check that in the morning. Make sure we're good. Okay. That will give us five million to do some other little stuff. vote. Yeah. I can't even see. My eyes are so blurry right now. Um item 22 is ordinance 02601-5. Ordinance appropriating 22,1933 from revenue from damaged vehicle for vehicle replacement.

Need to be careful too. Vice Mayor Hayes. Second by Councilman Jubat. Questions, discussion. All in favor of sending forward ordinance 02601-5 say I. I. Those say no. Item 23 is ordinant that moves forward unanimously. Ordinance 02601-7. It's appropriating $12,000 from donations received from Gton Ford to purchase mobile K9 enclosures. To council. Motion by Councilman Juvant, second by Councilman Carter. Any questions? Any discussion? It's ordinance 02601-7. All in favor of sending forward say I.

Post say no. Moves forward unanimously. Item 24 is resolution R2601-4. Resolution authorizing the Gallton Police Department to apply for the Patrick Ley bulletproof vest partnership program. Councilman Carter. Second by um Councilman Fel. Any questions? Any discussion? Chief Sals, you worked really hard on that. All in favor of moving forward, please say I. I oppose moves forward with unanimous support. U move now to other business. We've already touched on the Myers Hill one with Mr. Rose. Is there anyone else with other business this evening? Councilman Alexander.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to um ask our IT department and maybe Jeff from your office and I'd be glad to help as well. Uh looking into uh voting devices for council. I'm pretty sure last week I was the only audible vote on on one of the issues. Oh yeah. I mean frequently it just gets and it gets [clears throat] quieter and it does get quieter and uh I'd like to at least see what does it cost? What would it take over what we have what we'd have to purchase in order to just make a simple yes no abstain. Won't just ring a bell. We've looked into if you ring it.

Yeah. We've looked into it in in the past. I mean, it just takes some installation and and then how do you want it displayed and that sort of thing. And of course, we've just kind of been in flux wondering what we're going to do with the future of this building and the plan would have been, you know, with the renovation [clears throat] to do that. But I don't mind them looking into that and perhaps trying to get in the budget for next year. I say on that, we need to speak up. That would also help with putting in speak.

Yes. and and running a more efficient meeting because it's very difficult to know that somebody wants to speak when you can just see like a half an inch of a pen sticking above a monitor. Um uh anyone else I know exactly anyone else I I agree with that. I would like to Yeah, she say she can see on the adript so make sure she can see better pronounce code right. Do you have other business? No, I was saying I agree. We Okay. Anyone with other business?

Paige, I just want to tell everybody that I appreciate the thoughts and prayers last week for my mom. I love [clears throat] all of you and and I just appreciate all of you. We love and yeah and for those who don't know um Councilman Jones and his brother Phil lost their mom last week and here with us but his mama had gone on to heaven [laughter] what I saw they didn't lose her they know exactly where she is my sermon okay

one thing I'd like to say is is thanks to the Gallton police department from the county sheriff's department for solving the the robbery at my business. Uh appreciate that more than y'all can know department heads motion to adjourn. No, she's moving from she's back in the cheap seats. [laughter] I'm good with adjourning. I didn't have another other business.

Financial reports for September and October in your packet. Um, please feel free to reach out with any questions early on in the fiscal year for these. So, um, nothing nothing concerning showing up on those reports. Um I did hand out on your desk this evening the latest and greatest of our sales tax numbers which um we're very pleased with after the citizens passed the referendum last year. Um that is doing fabulously well with the extra half penny that we're getting on the sales tax. Um, several weeks ago, a couple of months ago, I apologize, I've lost all track of time, but an employee asked for us to consider enhancements to the TCRS uh benefit package, and it required an actuarial study in order to do that. The state has completed that study and because our pension plan is so well funded, there is no cost to the city to offer that enhancement to the employees at this time. Um, the employee will have to pay to buy back years of military service that wasn't previously allowed under our plan design. And eventually, as they retire and start drawing retirement benefits, it could potentially start having an impact on our pension contributions from the city. But as it stands right now, we are so well funded on the city portion of the pension that there is no cost to the city to do that. Um the pension committee gave me permission to bring this straight to you. They all were supportive of it and emailed independently of each other that they

wish that I bring it on to council um to let you know the results of the study. So that's what we have. Um yes sir just quick question do we know how much to buy back and will be

it's different for each employee um it will I believe it's four years worth of salary contribution not the salary itself but um I believe it I believe that's how it's worded I did not bring that with me tonight and I apologize does, but they they have um couple of years to buy back their portion and it would be the 4% or 5% that they normally put in, but I believe it's based on four years worth of wages. Um four years is the most that they can buy and they can't use this to count towards their vesting. They have to be vested outside of this buyback. We had about 23 25 employees that responded that they would be interested. So we can get with them if that's what you so choose.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Not at this point. They'll have to she'll have to do work with that. And just real quickly, we did sell our general obligation bonds this morning. Um, we had 14 biders, which was outstanding. Crazy. Our municipal adviser was so excited because that is so rare to have that many. I've never seen one. Was it you?

Uh, so many participants. The [snorts] uh winning bidder was FHN Financial Capitals which is First Horizon um conglomerate and the winning bid was 3501520. The high bid was only 0.2 off from that. So the 14 bids were very very competit competitive. So, I will have more to give you on that, but I wanted to mention that.

I will add again, good job, Rachel, for having the city in such good financial shape. That was a better rate than anticipated and um because of the city's strong financial standing. Um, a lot of cities would be very envious of that. So, thank you for the work that you've done to get us there. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any other department heads with anything? Okay. I did need to go back to one thing. Under other business earlier in the meeting, I had the one road closure. Rachel sent me a text and explained to me that the guy had actually the guy, I'm sorry, the man that was speaking earlier, um Mr. Zimmerman was talking about two different festivals. I couldn't hear him really well, but so this is actually the road closure for the second festival, which happens on um September 12th of 26. So, it's very similar. starts on a Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. again is the road closure. It's public square from water to Maine and Northwater from Maine to Franklin. So, um he's got everything on here. I just they're they're on different color papers and I thought they were coming from different entities, but they're both from him. It's just for a latter date.

Motion to approve. Okay. Motion second. Councilman Carter, second by Councilman Alexander. Questions or discussion? All right. All in favor say I. I. Post say no. Sean motion. Motion to motion by Councilman Fel. Second by Councilman Alexander. All in favor say I. Ladies and gentlemen, have a lovely night. Have a good week. Be nice to people.