City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this June 16th, 2026 meeting of the Gallatin City Council. It is 6 p.m. and time to call this meeting to order. We begin each of our meetings with the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. This evening, Councilman Carter will offer the invocation and Vice Mayor Hayes will lead us in the pledge. I'd invite you to stand with me, please.

And we bow. Dear Lord, we thank you for allowing us to be here today. We thank you for giving us grace and mercy as we go through this meeting and do the business of the city for the betterment of the city of Gallatin. Lord, we ask that you would help us to be decent and in order, and Lord, to help us to be understanding of everything that's discussed and said in this meeting. We ask that you give us traveling grace as we journey from this meeting at its conclusion. In the name we pray and we ask it all. Amen. Amen. Please join me in a pledge. A pledge of allegiance.

of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, and I am so pleased that Ms. Cattrall is back with us, and I will ask for her to call the roll for us, please.

Vice Mayor Hayes, Councilman Alexander, Councilman Carter, Councilman Fann, Councilman Fennell.

Present.

Councilman Jones.

Here.

And Councilman Juvenz. Finally. Mayor, we have a quorum.

Thank you so much. You have the minutes from the City Council meeting on June 2, 2026, for your consideration for approval. So moved. Motion to approve. Second. Over here somewhere. Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones. Any additions, subtractions, corrections requested? Seeing none, all in favor of approving the June 2nd, 2026 council minutes, please say aye. Opposed say no. Minutes are unanimously approved. There are some seats in the first two rows, ladies and gentlemen, standing at the back of the room. There's plenty of seats up there. Thank you, Councilman Carter. At this point, we're going to go to public recognition on agenda-related items. A couple things I need to tell you about that. There is a time at the end of the meeting for public recognition on non-agenda-related items. There are also several public hearings tonight, and so if one of those is your item of interest, you may wait to wish and speak under those public hearings. I'll briefly tell you what those are. The first one is rezoning 25.35 acres from mixed use to plan general commercial with amended preliminary master development plan for the crossroads north of Harris Lane, east of Greenlee. The second one is rezoning 4.58 acres, I'm sorry, 4.85 acres from the R8 medium density plan residential district to the mixed use district and rezoning 5.25 acres from mixed use to... planned business park with an amended preliminary master development plan for Nexus. The third one is approving a preliminary master development plan for Greensboro Village mixed residential development within the Greensboro Village PUD. The fourth one is adopting a plan of service for the annexation of 125.48 acres west of Bright's Lane and south of Highway 31. The fifth one is also on that same property for the annexation of said property. The sixth is for adopting a plan of service for the annexation of 129.84 acres west of Bright's Lane and north of Roundtree. And then item seven, that public hearing is about the annexation of that property I just mentioned. So all of those public hearings are this evening, so you may speak under those, or you may speak under public recognition on agenda-related items. You'll have five minutes to speak. We ask for your name and your address for the record. And with that, I will open the floor for public recognition for agenda-related items, and I'll welcome you to the podium in the center of the room.

Good evening. David Lucky, Southeastern. I'm here. I'm the developer of the property under agenda item number nine. From our last meeting a month ago, we had some traffic study information that we have obtained and gone over with city staff, and I'd like to do a short presentation when that agenda item comes up. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak under public recognition?

Good evening, council members. My name is Kyle Ring. I live at 153 Summerlin Drive. I also am speaking on the Wells Springs Commons. Hang on one sec. Development. We do have support from our community here based on us being here multiple times. So we didn't want to bore you by all of us coming up and saying the same thing we've said previously. So really quick, for my neighbors, if you're here for that, just kind of stand up. So instead of all of us coming up and speaking and wasting your time, we just figured one was easier for you. As I've stated previously, I support the vision for Wellspring Commons. I'm really excited about commercial in and around our area. However, I did obtain a copy of the traffic study through the city, and I appreciate the city staff getting that back very timely to me, by the way. It seems that the issue is really clear. It seems that the conclusions are based more on just improvements based within the Wellspring Commons, but also around another adjacent property, which would be the completion of Wedgwood Drive extension to Red River Road, as well as the signalization to that intersection. but also an installed signalization at Highway 109 and Wedgewood Drive. I did give a packet earlier. I hope that you all have it to your possession to look through. I tried to color code it to make it as easy to follow kind of what I'm saying. But essentially, the orange box and the orange text is around Wedgewood Drive being completed. The blue signal is around the blue signal being completed. The pink signal is around the pink signal being completed. Very straightforward. But in essence, through reading the traffic study, it seems that they're under the assumption that Wedgewood and the signalization of Wedgewood 25 and Wedgewood 109 are going to help control the traffic, which is our number one concern for safety from a commercial area through a residential area. So my request is very simple. If the project's going to move forward as is, please just make it contingent upon the infrastructure that the traffic study relies on, such as the signalization for Wedgwood and 25, the signalization of 109 in Wedgwood, and the completion of Wedgwood Drive. That way, I don't have to worry about my kids going out and riding scooters like they were doing this afternoon. They can go and play. They can enjoy themselves and not have to worry about a commercial truck driving down through the development, a residential development. So again, I'm not asking you to stop the development. I'm actually really excited about it. I just want it to be done safely for my children, my neighbors and the other kids in the community that are out playing on weekends during the day. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Mary Junung. I live at 1100 Lockport Road, and I'm going to respond to all of you about all of this that's on the agenda for tonight. We have asked in the past and requested that you put a pause on a lot of the annexation and the building of a a lot of the things that are going on and that has not happened. I will tell you that people are complaining a lot about all this and we also have to think about flooding. We have a flooding problem in our community and It's important to understand what you build over here may affect over here. And I'd like for you to ask more questions about that because we're seeing some of the older neighborhoods getting flooded from the newer developments. My property across from the banks of Lock 4 is getting a lot of water runoff from the road, and it's coming down my backyard and washing into my yard and causing damage. But I do want you to think about that because we are way over the top with development, and we're just asking if you could put a pause on a lot of this until we catch up. because you're not caught up and there's a lot of infrastructure things that need to be fixed. And I'm just asking you to hear us and to stop, take a pause for a little while until we catch up and then resume after that. And I appreciate you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to speak under public recognition?

I'm Dr. Frederick Frank. I live at 1061 Highway 25, and I'd be right next to the property from 25 between there and 109. I've lived there actually since the day after Thanksgiving in 1983. I'm probably the longest term resident in the area. A concern that I'm having also with that property and going through there is not the development as much as getting the infrastructure taken care of. Because one of the things, the turn lanes that are reflected to be turning from 25 onto 109 and also keeping where I would be the first drive, I would not be able to make a left-hand turn out of my drive until Wedgewood would be put in. We're actually trying to work something where I'd have a way of cutting across to that to be able to get out when the light would be established. But in the meanwhile, if there's a road coming directly next to me and you've got work trucks and so forth that would be coming out, my traffic is heavy right now. That's going to add to it where it's going to be coming close to impossible sometimes to get out of my drive from either direction. So I'm just really asking that please get infrastructure finished first. Put that in there. Get that done. Then the building, we're not going to have the problem because we at least have the ability to go through the area in carrying traffic in traffic. the neighbors are not going to have to worry near as much of people going from this kind of travel than coming down into their neighborhoods and so forth. Anyway, thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who's planning to speak under public recognition? I don't have to call you up between each speaker.

Hi, Lauren Irving, 353 Winston Way. I wasn't here earlier when my neighbor, Kyle Ring, had spoken about the Wellspring concerns for our neighborhood. And I just want to say that I echo his sentiment. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Heidi Amorisi, 610 Deshay Creek. I'm here to express opposition for the, I guess it's resolution R206-05-40, 39 and 40, for the annexation of the 250 acres of agricultural land into the city of Gallatin. I understand that that land is going to look to be rezoned as industrial development land Once agricultural land is lost, it is almost never recovered. This decision is going to affect our community long after we leave this room. What concerns me the most is that the public has not been given a clear explanation of why this land must be annexed and converted. If there is a specific project, whether a warehouse, manufacturing facility, or expansion of that Facebook metacenter, the public should know before 250 acres of farmland are annexed and removed as agricultural use. If there is a prospective use, I'm curious as to why the public hasn't been advised if there has been an offer to develop that land, when the public can be informed on that. And before that analyzation happens, I ask the Planning Commission and the City Council to answer those questions. And what are the advantages to taking this agricultural land and turning it into an industrial? And what is the impacts on traffic, infrastructure, stormwater, and the surrounding property owners? I ask that you deny this annexation request until the public receives information about the intended use on the property. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Cassie, no one. Public recognition on the gender-related items is closed. I'll move now to Mayor's comments. And considering that we are coming up on the 4th of July, there are quite a few things I want to share with you that are on the calendar of events. We'll start with the Red Cross blood drive on the 16th. Well, that was today. Never mind on that. I'm coming up on the 18th, the Leadership Gallatin Recruitment Mixer. That's happening at the station from 5 until 6.30. That's also Third Thursday, the kickoff this year, and Eric Blankenship and the Designated Drinkers will be performing at Third Thursday. On Friday, there is the Juneteenth celebration. Most city offices are closed. I do not have the details, but I know that there is a Juneteenth event happening at the fairgrounds on Blythe Street. I think... Councilman Carter, do you know if it's just that day or if it's Friday and Saturday? Anyway, it's this weekend. Okay, he'll tell us in a minute. And then on Saturday, there's a Flip Flops and Fresh Fines at Triple Creek Park Pavilion. Also, Flower Fest is happening in downtown Gallatin. I think last year was their first event, and it was amazing. It's only now until 2 p.m., and I went last year probably around 11, and many of the vendors were already sold out, and it was packed and very, very popular. I would encourage you to check it out. The other event sounds fun as well. On the 24th is the Senator Health Fest. That's at the Gallatin Civic Center from 1 until 5 p.m. Councilman Paul Jones' birthday is on the 25th. On the 27th, it's Market Day at the Farmer's Market. That's actually every Saturday through the summer from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. That day is also the NAACP Women's Luncheon at Our Lady of the Lake in Hendersonville, 10.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. There's also an antique and classics car show at the Civic Center upper parking lot from 4 until 8. On the 27th and 28th is the Music City Hit Fest. It's a USSSA baseball event happening at Municipal Park. On the 30th, they're having the groundbreaking for the Hudson, which is the Habitat for Humanity new community on Sumner Hall Drive. That's at 9 a.m. On the 1st, There is a Coffee and Connect event through the chamber with Daniel Stevens, the director of the Feed Sumner at Cafe 393 at 7.45 a.m. On the 3rd, most city offices will be closed in observation of Independence Day because on the 4th is the 4th of July, Independence Day. There is a 4th of July event. parade happening at noon on that day. There is the market day happening at the farmer's market and of course Gallatin will be having its fireworks show and event. The event actually starts at 4 p.m. I believe the foam is happening at 5 p.m. There will be food trucks on site and then fireworks usually happen right at dark which is usually right at 9 p.m. And that's all at Triple Creek Park. Of course you'll be able to see the fireworks from quite a distance. On the 8th, there is an America 250 Let Freedom Ring event on the square from 5 until 9 p.m. On that Saturday is the monthly breakfast at the airport. Airplanes, Appetites, and Automobiles pancake breakfast happens from 8 to 10. There's also a Christmas in July on the square that day from 10 until 2. And the downtown Gallatin car cruise-in happens in the City Hall parking lot on that night from 5.30 until 7.30. That's all the events I'm going to go through this evening. I do have just one road closure without objection. I'm going to ask if we can go ahead and do that in case Ms. Nixon is here so she can get out of here. This is a request from Historic Downtown Gallatin. It is for the 29th of August, and it's for their speakeasy on the square. The requested closure time is 6.30 p.m. until 10 p.m., and it is from Franklin to Waters, so essentially the back L of the square. There are signatures from the department heads. And I guess the business that's impacted that is open during those hours. Motion by Vice Mayor Hayes. Second by Councilman Alexander. Any questions? Any discussion? All in favor of approving, say aye. Aye. The request is approved. Thank you so much. And Councilman Carter, share your information, please, regarding Juneteenth.

There will be festivities taking place on both Friday and Saturday. On the 19th, which is Friday, will be from 4 to 8 p.m. And on Saturday the 20th, festivities will take place from 2 p.m. until 8 p.m. So hope to see you all there.

Thank you. No further Mayor's comments. We'll move on to the regular agenda. And the first item is public hearing on Ordinance 02605-42. Councilman Juvence, introduce.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. It's an ordinance of the City of Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee, reasoning 25.35 plus or minus acres from MU Mixed Use District to PGC, Plant Generate Commercial District, with an amended Preliminary Master Development Plan from the Crossroads Phase 2, located north of Aries Lane and east of Greenleaf Boulevard authorizing the revision to be indicated on the official zoning atlas, repeating conflicting ordinance, providing for severability and providing for an effective date. This public hearing is now open.

Public hearing. If anyone would like to speak, you may come to the podium. Seeing no one indicating they wish to speak, public hearing on Ordinance 02605-42 is closed. Item 2 is public hearing on Ordinance 02605-43. Councilman Carter.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an ordinance of the City of Gallatin. Sumner County, Tennessee rezoning 4.85 plus or minus acres from the RAPRD medium density planned residential district to the MU mixed use district and rezoning 5.25 plus or minus acres from the MU mixed use district to the PBP planned business park district. with the amended preliminary to master development plan for the nexus for nexus tennessee amendment number six located east of the state route 109 and north of highway 25 authorizing the revision to be indicated on the official zoning atlas repealing conflicting ordinances and providing for severability and providing for an effective date and this public hearing is now open public hearing is open if you'd like to speak i welcome you forward

Seeing no one indicating they wish to speak, public hearing on Ordinance 02605-43 is closed. Item number three. is public hearing on amended Ordinance 02605-46, Vice Mayor Hayes.

Thank you. This is an ordinance of the City of Gallatin, Tennessee, approving a preliminary master development plan for Greensboro Village Mixed Residential Development within the Greensboro Village PUD on a portion of two parcels totaling 16.9 acres located north of Greenleaf Boulevard and south of Nashville Pike, authorizing the revision to be indicated on the official zoning atlas repealing conflicting ordinances and providing for severability and providing for an effective date. Public hearing is now open.

9-350 Madeira Place, Gallatin. I've been up here a million times. I'd just like to hit repeat if I could, but I can't. Everyone knows... my feelings about this development. Hundreds of people, different people have talked about this. I know councilmen, whomever, have said, oh, I've got a lot of people that say they're in favor. Why don't they come to the meetings, and why don't they speak if they're in favor? I, for one, don't believe that they really exist. Board members are elected by Gallatin citizens to represent us, the overwhelming majority of those who have publicly spoken against this project. So please represent us by voting against this project. Otherwise, who are you really representing? I moved here six years ago from Virginia, and everyone said, why are you going south? I said, we needed a change. Be different. Well, you know that it's a good old boys' society. I'd really like to prove those people wrong. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing no one, public hearing on amended ordinance 02605-46 is closed. Item four is public hearing on resolution R2605-39. Councilman Jones to introduce.

Thank you, Mayor. Resolution of the City of Galveston, Sumner County, Tennessee, adopting a plan of services for the annexation of 125.48 plus or minus acre portion of a parcel Located west of Bryce Lane and south of Highway 31 and providing for an effective date. And public hearing is open.

Public hearing is open if anyone would wish to speak.

Hi, I'm Leslie Allen, 1030 Roundtree Drive. I just wanted to mention I watched the council meeting last week, and it seems like there was some interesting information about when land is annexed and then rezoned as industrial, that a private citizen can then move forward without land. planning, having to input planning. Maybe I didn't understand all that correctly. I'm not well-versed with this. But that gives me pause because I am worried about a data center. We already have one out there. That land is big enough for another one. I, for one, don't really care to have another data center. We still have a lot of environmental things. We don't really know what all they're going to do to the environment. That being said, I have grandkids. I have kids. We love it out there. That has been our home. We plan on staying. But it does matter what's built out there. It matters to our property values. Most of us have our homes paid for out there. We wanted to stay there. That type of thing and everything that's going on out there is very, very important to us because we don't know. I mean, that could change a lot of things. And maybe a little pause on moving quite forward until some of these loopholes are closed up about data centers coming to Gallatin or about what private citizens can do. It seems like you all lose a little bit of control once it goes industrial. And that makes me nervous out there. This wasn't intended to be industrial land, but it's going to be now on that type of thing. So I just ask you to kind of, what can we do to kind of, I know I can't stop the roll, but maybe pause to ensure that there's a little bit more control knowing what's going out there. And how can you plan for utilities and service when you don't know what's going out there? I know the TVA is going to small nuclear reactors. Maybe they're going to be able to provide more power, which makes me more nervous about data centers. So just something to think about. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Karen Bookout, 1006 Quailwood Cove, Gallatin. First, I want to say that I respect every property owner's right to sell their property hoping to get the highest price possible. The Southeast Conservation Adaption Strategy, or CCAS, It is a regional partnership of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Federal Southeast Natural Resource Leaders Group. They compile conservation data to offset the impacts of urbanization and climate change across the southeastern US. It is designed to integrate local data, like the Tennessee Statewide, State Wildlife Action Plan to help municipalities and local groups identify high priority lands and waters for conservation. The information I'm providing tonight is from TDEC and TWRA and CCAS databases, which are all available to the public. The CCAS report showed, as recently as 2025, the Bright's Lane, Deshaies, and Bledsoe Creek areas as high priority grassland and savanna restoration. The high priority indicates areas where conservation action would make a significant impact based on a suite of natural and cultural resource indicators. This area is rated high priority for its potential to be a grassland or savanna. In fact, CCAS rates this property and the surrounding area as a priority for restoration. The CCAS report states this area of unprotected land cover has good restoration potential and is also an historic area. This property should not and cannot be developed. The historic significance of this area dates back to the time of the Mississippian Indians, which predate Christ, where they settled along Deshaies and Bledsoe Creeks. CCAS uses several criteria to make their determinations, imperiled mammals, amphibians, water quality and floodplain, etc. This area is classified as high priority as it meets the following CCAS criteria. Land permeability. This area has been found to have high permeability, indicating high water quality and supporting sensitive aquatic species. Imperiled amphibians, streamside salamander. He's still rated S3 in the state, indicating he's a vulnerable species. The salamander is found in Deshaies Creek and its tributaries. This species has a restricted range in the eastern United States. It is threatened by habitat loss due to encroaching development and reduction in habitat suitability. Additionally, criteria from CCAS states that separation barriers such as heavily traveled roads are incompatible with the streamside salamander during braiding season as they cannot cross roads without being killed. CCAS also cites imperiled mammals such as three globally and federally protected bat species. You may not like bats, but I don't like mosquito bites, so I'll keep the bats. TWRA data shows Deshaies and Bledsoe Creeks and their tributaries are considered exceptional waters for their unique ecosystems. They are home to numerous species only existing in Tennessee. Additionally, portions of Bledsoe Creek pass through Bledsoe Creek State Park and the Cragfont State Historic Area. When decisions are made by this council to annex property for development, it has wide-ranging negative impacts, perhaps more than this council has given consideration. Council annexation and development approvals not only negatively affect citizens, but the council also endangers wildlife and important historic areas. Cragfont, Bledsoe State Park, Deshaies, and Bledsoe Creeks are of historical importance. These places are protected by state and federal laws. This council cannot imperil these important protected places. No amount of tax revenue can bring them back once they're gone. At the very least, a delay should be considered to further investigate the impacts of additional development in this area. Thank you for your time.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak under this public hearing? Seeing no one, public hearing on Resolution R2605-39 is now closed. Item 5 is public hearing on Resolution R2605-40. Councilman Jones, again, please.

Thank you, Mayor. Resolution of the City of Gallatin, Sumter County, Tennessee, annexing the 125.48 plus or minus acre portion of a parcel located west of Bright's Lane, south of Highway 31, into the City of Gallatin, authorizing the annexed property to be indicated on the official zoning atlas, assigning the annexed area to a council district, repealing conflicting ordinances, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Public hearing is open.

Public hearings open. I see no one leaping to their feet to speak under this public hearing. I will declare public hearing on Resolution R2605-40 closed. Item 8 is public hearing on Resolution R2605-41. Councilman Jones, you're recognized again.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. A resolution of the City of Gallatin-Sumner County, Tennessee, adopting a plan of services for the annexation of 129.84 plus or minus acre portion of a parcel located west of Bright's Lane and north of Roundtree Drive and providing for an effective date. Public hearing is open.

Public hearing is open. If anyone would like to come forward and speak. Seeing no one, public hearing on Resolution R2605-41 is closed. Item 7 is public hearing on Resolution R2605-42. Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Mayor. Resolution of the City of Gotham, Sumner County, Tennessee, annexing the 129.84 plus or minus acre portion of a parcel located west of Bright's Lane and north of Roundtree Drive. into the city of Gallatin, authorizing the annexed property to be indicated on the official zoning atlas, assigning the annexed area to a council district, repealing conflicting ordinances, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Public hearing is open.

Our last public hearing, now open if anyone would like to speak. Seeing no one, public hearing on Resolution R2605-42 is closed. Moving on to Item 8, which is third reading on Ordinance 02605-41, Councilman Fennell.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an ordinance to provide revenue for the City of Gallatin, Tennessee, for municipal purposes for the 2026 tax year and the 2027 fiscal year. Motion to approve.

Motion by Councilman Fennell, second by Councilman Alexander. Any questions? Any discussion? All in favor of approving third and final reading of Ordinance O2605-41, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no. It does pass unanimously. Again, I thank this council for your support of the budget and of the tax rate for citizens who may not have been paying attention. The tax rate remains the same, and we do have a balanced budget this year. So it will still be at 53 cents. Thank you. Moving on to item nine. Second reading on the work, I feel like we should have a round of applause after passing that. I know Ms. Nichols is ready to give those documents to the comptroller. And Vice Mayor Hayes says keep moving on. Oh, thanks a lot. I don't need that from you, too. Item 9 is second reading on Ordinance O2604-35. Councilman Carter.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an ordinance of the City of Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee, rezoning 11.12 plus or minus acres from the R15 medium-density residential district and 3.48 plus or minus acres from the MRO multiple residential and office district to the PGC plan general commercial district. with the preliminary master development plan for Wellsprings Common, totaling 14.6 plus or minus acres located east of Highway 109 and south of Highway 25, authorizing the revision to be indicated on the official zoning atlas, repealing conflicting ordinances, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Motion to discuss.

Second. Motion to discuss. Second by Councilman Alexander. Any questions? All in favor say aye. On the left.

Aye.

On the motion to discuss? Aye. All right. All in favor, said aye. Any opposed to discussing, say no. Okay. Open the floor for discussion. Remember that Mr. Luckey spoke earlier and said that he would like to do a presentation during this time as well.

Motion to suspend the rules.

Second. Second by Vice Mayor Hayes. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Those say no. Mr. Luckey, if you would like to go ahead and do your presentation, we welcome you to.

Good evening. David Luckey speaking on agenda item 9, Wellsprings Commons.

Hold on just one second. I'm not hearing you, but I could be the only one.

Yeah, I was going to say, I can't really hear him either.

I hear it now.

Is that better? Yes. All right. David Lucky, I'm here to speak on item nine, Wellsprings Commons. I feel like I probably ought to start where we ended a month ago. When we were in council session May 19th and we had the first reading, we discussed a lot of things, but the main thing was is that we were going back and working with city staff and to modify the traffic impact study based upon their recommendations and what they felt like TDOT was going to recommend for the intersection between Wedgwood and 109. And that's what we did. And so I think the comments that the gentleman made about the traffic study might have been the old traffic study, not the one based upon the new information where the city staff met with TDOT and we had the traffic engineer reevaluate everything. So I'm going to bring us forward. We met with staff when we had the meeting May 19th, past first reading. Met with staff on the 22nd. They had already had a meeting scheduled with TDOT on the 29th. to discuss not having a signal at this intersection because they wanted to have like a super corridor through there and not have another red light because I think everybody feels like that having a signal at that intersection is too close to Red River Road 109. And so the city... developed a scope. Our traffic engineers went ahead and redid the traffic study based upon two different scenarios. And the scenario that popped out of that brings us here tonight. And that's what I wanted to discuss. And so the revised traffic impact study has evaluated the intersection with the input of the city staff. It's focused on finalizing a traffic mitigation strategy for addressing the intersection of Wedgewood Drive and Highway 109. The primary objective is to present a viable alternative to a traffic signal, which both the city and TDOT have rejected, and we've come up with a solution. This is the existing intersection as it is today. The existing intersection has 38 conflict points where people could have accidents. What the traffic engineer and city staff and I have come up with... It's called an R-cut, and the R-cut is a restricted crossing U-turn. And this might look familiar because two and a half miles up the road at Scotty Parker Road, an old 109 is the same type intersection. And so what this does is it alleviates the traffic that would be turning left back onto 109 and allows for a super corridor to go up through there. It's really more of a modified right in, right out intersection. So anybody coming out of Wedgewood right there would turn right, they would go up, and at the top right-hand part of that illustration right there is the U-turn, and they turn around and they go back. This is used in a lot of different areas. I think we've been involved in, me and my staff have been involved in five of these in different municipalities. They're used quite often, and like I said, they're used at Scotty Parker Road and Old 109. There is about a 70% decrease in the potential fatality based upon this intersection with the current intersection. The Super Street approach is a safety and access management solution to what is already a bad intersection. When they widen 109 and the more traffic that's developed there, it's gonna continue to get worse. Well, this is a solution now. And what we're proposing not only with our project, which is building the road north to south from Wedgewood up through our project all the way up to Highway 25, is constructing this intersection with consultation with city staff and TDOT and providing for a safe entrance and exit from Wedgewood and our commercial development. The new traffic study actually undertook two scenarios. One was a full build out of Wedgewood and all the nexus improvements. I think logic probably dictates that all the nexus improvements are gonna happen considering they're doing that project now. It's a matter of time before the Wedgwood Townhomes gets developed. I can't say when, but what we have done is we've taken with the park that we can control. With the part that we can control, we've taken that into account and tried to solve the issues the neighbors have and solve what is already an existing access management and traffic management problem with the city of Gallatin. So in addition to that, we've also agreed with city staff based upon the traffic study to – put traffic calming measures on Winston Way and Summerlin as necessary, as they deem necessary. So that's my presentation.

Did you discuss different scenarios of traffic calming measures?

Well, in the traffic study, it lists speed humps. You can do some things with the roads where they come in and out. Any of those are really pretty easy to accomplish. I would think the speed humps would probably be the most effective. I would think you would want to work with the residents to see what their preference would be. I would look to staff and the residents. In engineering, that's real as well. So we've worked closely with the city. They've worked with TDOT. We've had a number of meetings about this, and we've tried to solve this issue.

Thank you. Other questions? Councilman Gilanes.

Thank you, Mayor. Did you get approval from TDOT to do that?

The way this happens is we're saying we're going to do it. The city has worked with TDOT. TDOT has given not their official approval, but nobody wants a signal there, and you would have to ask the staff. But it's my understanding that once we submit all the stuff that goes with it, that they'll approve this, as they've approved the one two and a half miles up the road.

So I'm trying to understand the traffic staff. So when people are going to come back from which route, they're going to have to make a right, cross two lines of highway to go back to the left to do a U-turn half a mile up to go back on the other side? Is that the idea?

Probably not a half mile, I bet. Probably not a half mile, and it doesn't really feel like a U-turn because of the width and the median.

I think it ranges around 700, 700 to 800 feet. I mean, that's going to be at TDOT's discretion. They'll weigh in heavily on that, and the sea will, too.

I'd recommend y'all checking out the one on 109 because it felt awkward to me the first couple of times I did it, but now I see the value of it. I also think it's very good that people aren't trying to go straight across and take a left turn from those two roads.

When you have a road developed like 109 has, all the way from Lebanon, all the way up through Portland, they're trying to limit the access. Well, you've got all these roads that already intersect with it. This is the only way to solve the problem from the past into the future.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mr. Luckey. So if I'm turning right out of Wedgwood and I go up and I get in that U-turn lane, are you adding that additional turnaround or an area to swing wide? Is that what I'm seeing right there? Yes. Yes, sir. Good. That's when I'm pulling a trailer at old 109. That's a blessing. And so also then the folks that are coming out of the existing subdivision there at Eagles Creek, you're going to make them do the same thing. They're going to have to turn right, go down. U-turn, come left.

Yes, sir. And the way it was explained to me is the commerce is to the south. The schools, grocery stores, everything's going south. And so this is a way to address it and make a bad situation good.

Other questions?

Just to be clear, we are looking at Wedgewood, where the right in and out, the right turn in, the right turn out, that's Wedgewood?

Yes, sir. It's on the south side right there.

Actually, it does it on both sides.

Yeah, it's the one right in like this.

Wait, you can turn left if you're coming from the north into there.

Correct. Correct. If you're coming from the north, there's two lanes, and it's all concrete medians, and it's all designed to turn into Wedgwood. And then same to the other side. So if there's 38 conflict points here with the current existing... You know, 38 places people could have an accident. It reduces it to 14. It's, you know, it's a 60, 70% decrease in potential conflicts.

So has the other developer been pulled into these conversations, the developer that was looking to originally develop Wedgewood? Well, the plan for Wedgewood Townhomes, it's approved. Well, I'm more specifically speaking of Wedgewood Drive because I think the point in our conversation was so that we could try to mitigate traffic going into the Winston Place subdivision, and I don't think traffic common measures is going to be the answer. For me, I wouldn't want that much traffic coming through my neighborhood either if I lived there.

But Wedgwood directly accesses

My project. They don't go through the residential subdivision to get into my project. Wedgwood is the boulevard that would go all the way to Highway 25, and my project will have a road directly across the street from Winston Way that goes into my project, and it goes all the way to Highway 25. I apologize. You weren't here at the last meeting. I had another slide that had... highlighted drive lanes on there. I don't know if we still have it, but it doesn't go through their community. The only people that go through their community are people that cut through. And we're trying to eliminate that by providing an intersection that allows people to move more freely. We're also accomplishing that by building our access road through our whole development at the beginning. and discourage anybody that might cut through their development, which is very, very minor in the numbers of the traffic study, from cutting through the development until the townhomes are built and the boulevards built with traffic calming measures. And so we're doing everything that we have control of to do.

And so your development, are you looking to bring that online after the full completion of Wedgwood Drive? No, sir.

The whole point of the improvement on 109?

There wouldn't be a need to improve 109 from my standpoint. See, the Wedgwood townhomes, when they were approved, they didn't have a traffic study. We went ahead and we don't have to have a traffic study at this particular point, but we went ahead and addressed this because we knew the traffic was an issue. It's an issue to the neighbors. It's an issue to us. It's issued to the city, so what we did was is we got in front of this to try and come up with the solutions. It's likely that we will wind up building all of our infrastructure and improvements before anybody else does, which is good because you want them built. I just can't. I can't build Wedgwood townhomes. Wedgwood townhomes is approved to be built, and at some point it will be,

Further questions for Mr. Lockie?

Yeah, I can listen to the neighbor and Winston where I'm looking at the map right now. You know, people who drive are going to try to get the fastest way out. And if they have to get out of your car, development, make a right turn, go all the way up to the line back there, go on the 25. With your entry almost right in front of Winston Way, they're going to go Winston Way. They're going to go straight on Winston Way, go back on Summerline Drive to go back to Red River. So, again, I appreciate... I appreciate the effort. It's always good to work on safety, but, you know, we came here first. There was a light, and TDOT refused the light. And now, you know, the verbal okay doesn't work for me until there is a piece of paper that says that TDOT can approve that. I can't. I can go on. So that's my issue. And the neighbor, you heard them. They say they're not against your development. And I'm not against your development, because that's what they want. But I think we need to have all the traffic mitigation done before starting anything else. Again, if you look at what's happening now and the uncertainty with TVA and when we're going to have, you know, being able to serve this area for more, I think you have time to get the infrastructure done before.

I appreciate that, but I respectfully disagree with the assessment. If someone's coming out of my development, they're not going on the south side of Wedgwood. They're not going to cut through the subdivision and go back over to Highway 25. They would turn right, turn right, and then turn right again and go back up to Highway 25, or they would turn left. left inside my development and go up to Highway 25 and turn right. There's not a reason for them to cut through the subdivision. I think that the engineer that is... done the numbers in the traffic study they have taken that into account. As far as TDOT's approval goes, that's not the way it works. Once we submit to TDOT, they've already been working with the city. They've got a stated mandate to eliminate cuts on 109. That's what they want. They're very in favor of this project. We'll submit. I'm taking the risk of rezoning the property that they will that they will approve this. That's on me. That's not on the city. And I'm saying I'm going to do it. So the onus is on me to get TDOT's final sign-off. And we feel very confident they're going to do it based upon the conversations we've had. And as far as the electrical goes, you know, we've had discussions with TVA, and we understand that that's worked out. So I don't have a concern about your concerns, and I'm the one investing the money. I feel very confident in it, and I look for the council to give me approval to go solve the intersection problem.

And I agree with you, Councilman Juvens. I think people are going to take the path of least resistance and whatever's easier. I think people are going to go through the neighborhood as well.

David, I appreciate your work on that. I think it is a good plan. Is Aaron here? Can we ask you a question?

And I will point out just for process that if it is approved with that plan, that road plan, and that road plan can't happen, then the development can't happen. That's how our approvals work.

Not my first rodeo.

I know. Aaron, have you worked much on this project? Yes. What's your thoughts? Does that help with the traffic that much as far as going through that subdivision, alleviating that, do you think?

So the... Us and TDOT not wanting the light there, that has something to do with the 109 corridor access management study that basically every municipality that touched 109 came together. We need to preserve the corridor, and this intersection is not a mile away from the 109-25 intersection, which is... which is why a signal is not the way here. When Nick and I had a discussion on this, we thought at the minimum, we would want to see left turns still being able to go from 109 to Wedgwood, but restrict the left turns from Wedgwood onto 109. We thought about the R-cut, but our concerns were just the geometry of it to the south. You've got the bridge. It's pretty close to the north. There is that curve in 109. But based on the study, their traffic engineer felt that an R-cut could actually be implemented with those turnaround areas for the people to turn right, go down in that U-turn area and come through.

So you think a plan like this will help alleviate traffic going through their subdivision from that development?

I've seen this work two and a half miles up the road. I know there was a safety concern there, and that seems to work well. And they have agreed also to do traffic calming measures throughout the neighborhood, and that's something that would be designed at the FMDP and construction plan level as we get further into this.

That's what cuts down on traffic. cut-through traffic, because I know we have had better situations with cut-through traffic in the Belvedere area when there's traffic calming in places versus when there's not.

Correct, and I believe while I was on vacation, I actually got the updated numbers for that and haven't gone through those just yet, but very interested to see how that's impacted that area.

Thank you. Do we have a projected approval date or like a time frame that you think you guys might hear from TDOT to know whether it's approved or not? Because essentially they can say they like something today and their minds might change tomorrow or the plan might change tomorrow. So without written approval, we can't guarantee that this is what's going to be good. And we still have to look out for the well-being of those children and parents in that neighborhood.

Correct. So, yeah, based on the conversations that we had with TDOT, they were in agreement that this intersection was too close to have a signal, and they had suggested the R-CUT area, looking into that and having the study. We just got this new version of the study that identified the R-CUT on Friday afternoon. I don't believe TDOT has had this yet. Once this, when this goes through FNDP approval, then TDOT, before a permit would be issued for this construction, they would want to know that the city is good with it.

And I'll repeat that if it doesn't get approved from TDOT, then it can't happen. If you base the approval on this plan, this plan cannot happen without that. Correct.

And that's why I think that's a good deal. But I'll go ahead. I'll make a motion that we approve.

I'll second.

I have a motion to approve by Vice Mayor Hayes, a second by Councilman Finnell. Is there further discussion, questions, comments? Councilman Gibbons.

Yeah, I'm with Councilman Carter on that, because we're looking for you too, because you're going to spend money on PMDP, and if that's not approved by TDOT, you just spend money for nothing. So I'm going to make an amendment that... And again, I want that to be done before anything else because we know that work. We know TDOT. TDOT had a great plan for Gallatin last year, and suddenly the plan changed. and got pushed for five years. So I'm on an agreement that we never know what TDOT's going to do. That can change tomorrow. So I'm going to make an amendment that that solution got built before any other permit got approved. We did that for lock four for safety reason, and I think Again, we need to look at the safety of our constituents.

I'll second that.

What was the motion? I don't know. That solution got built and functional before we give any construction permit for the development. The R-cut or the traffic comment? No, the archive or whatever they call that. The one you just showed us. Are you saying that he gets it approved? Built.

Huh?

Built. Okay. You're talking about the U-turn?

Yeah. Yeah. Because even if it's approved and the... all all the commercial needs to be before and that day who knows how long and again uh... at that point you don't change their mind and it's not being back we've got to listen uh... submission but i don't think he's like we see it i don't think he can start anything into that gets approved anyway because

voids the plan if it does not get approved, so he would not start anything until that got approved.

Even with approval, I think Councilman Juventus is still asking that that road be built and those improvements be made prior to all the other buildings and the construction and stuff take place because we still want to mitigate that traffic from going through the neighborhood.

Or that can be built at the same time, but they need to be finished before all the rest is done and get occupation permits?

If I may, it's a moot point. When you submit the PMDP, we submit what we're going to build. We build the roads. We're going to build the intersection. And we build whatever we've submitted the PMDP for. So it all goes together anyway. In Gallatin's planning system, when we submit the PMDP, that will already be in the PMDP. I mean the FMDP. I apologize. FMDP in the final planning. So it's already baked in.

It's going to be in, I understand that, but you can build everything else before building the safety on the intersection, and that's where I have a problem. I want to make sure that the intersection is safe before we open all the commercial there to protect our constituents.

How about... as a potential way to word it, how about we don't get a UNO permit or a use occupancy for any building prior to these improvements being built because if the improvements are built, we can't open a business there, therefore there's no traffic. And so we're already saying that we're going to build them, but the way that you actually develop, we've got to put in all the utilities. And when you say don't build anything else, just build. We wouldn't just go out there and do the road improvement. We're going to do the grading on the whole site. We're going to do the site work for whatever we're going to build. We're going to do the road that runs from Wedgewood to Highway 25. I think a cleaner way to do it is to say, because I'll come in with a final master development plan, and I'll submit it, and all of this will be in there.

You would not get a CO without the project being complete. Correct.

I mean, engineering is not going to, I've got to post bonds for all this. Nobody's going to turn me loose on anything until it's built. It'll be part of the final master development plan. So it's already baked in.

So with that, if it's clear in the resolution that I go with your own solution, that nothing, you don't get any certificate of occupancy or can open any business until the safety, however, I could not catch the name of that stuff. Our turn. Yeah, our turn. Oh, you call that the arc turn or arc cut turn? Arc cut. Arc cut turn is completed and functional. I go with that. Which is part anyway.

Wait, so have you withdrawn and withdrawn? Yeah, motion second. But that, he's saying... He took away his first. Okay, but that's how it is. I mean, that's the... wall correct mister hickson and we're not going to see a one-two-year-old approved completion of the project so what we did with the banks is i believe it was prior to that one was prior to uh... ldp four right now i mean i'm aware that was what his first nation was based upon but now he's saying that they don't get a c l and for the projects until this work is done and i'm I think that we wouldn't provide one until it is.

Yeah, what we've done is like prior to the issuance of the building permit, the improvements recommended in the approved traffic impact study should be operational. We've seen a condition to that effect.

Okay. But this discussion is that they would not be able to use and occupy the buildings until this road is connected. And what I am asking, is that not typically what you would require with any other development that requires access to it?

Normally, we would do the building permit. I think we might have done the CO in the past, but most recently it's been prior to the issuance of a building permit. So they could get approved construction plans and get the TDOT approval to do the R-CUT, be working on the R-CUT, and get a land disturbance permit to... Clear the site. Correct. And then make sure that the R-CUT is functional or operational before they get a building permit to actually go vertical with the buildings. And that's how we've handled it before.

Call for the question. I'm okay with that. Exactly how you said it.

And back to the call for the question. Your second and your amendment are removed. Disposed of.

Okay. No. This is for the amendment. Yeah.

Wait. pages for the amendment that we just did they took away the first minute that he made another minute another minute second understand that the second amendment is that because the whole point is is that mister hickson just explain that that is what is required this is just the teeth in it i don't see all right okay do you have the amendment articulate in the schedule because that's your dad i think i do uh... it's on the c l until the our cat is still to complete it No, that was the first one. I think this is my confusion.

Until he receives his CO? I don't know. You tell me.

No, he said building permit after the is completed and functional.

I'll just write that down in the schedule. Thank you and I apologize. Okay, all in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Amendment passes. We'll move on to go back to the original motion. As amended now, is there further discussion, questions? All in favor of second reading on... Ordinance 02604-35, as amended, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Moving on, it passes unanimously. Moving on to item number 10, which is second reading on amended ordinance 026-05-46, Vice Mayor Hayes.

Thank you. This is an ordinance of the City of Gallatin, Tennessee, approving a preliminary master development plan for Greensboro Village Mixed Residential Development. with the Greensboro Village PUD on a portion of two parcels totaling 16.9 acres, located north of Greenlee Boulevard and south of Nashville Pike. Motion to approve?

Okay. And motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, second by Councilman Fann, opening the floor for discussion. Councilman Juvans.

Thank you, Mayor. There were seven public hearings, but only one got pushed on second reading, so I still have an issue with that. Now, let's go back while we are here again on that, because our city lawyer told us that the initial resolution to be safe because of the lack of full vote She was thinking there would be a chant that could be challenging court, so that's why we're here. And she's right, actually. But she's right that we could be challenging court, but the staff, too, is that... The first resolution failed. And the fact there was only three votes for it and not four votes has been ruled by the Tennessee Supreme Court. So there is case law for that. So it's not that we're just bringing the resolution back. If we look at the case law and how that got judged by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the first resolution failed. because there was not enough vote to pass it. If we go in our charters, when one resolution failed, I cannot report back for one year. That's in a charter. So I just want to make sure you guys realize that. And so Ben, Lukey, and me can... Really, really intense, but welcome, Ben. So, again, if we follow what has been ruled by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and Ben probably going to go on that tomorrow and find all the case law, the first resolution failed. So that resolution should not even be here for a year. So you guys do whatever you want, but I'm not going to vote on it because I can't vote for something which should not be there.

Anyone else with comments or questions?

I got first and second.

Ready to vote on it. This is second reading on amended ordinance 02605-46. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

And opposed? Councilman Givans, are you voting no or are you abstaining?

I'm not going to take a vote on something that's illegal. That's not, yes.

I want my question. Are you voting no or are you abstaining?

I'm not going to take a vote on something that was illegal.

It passes 5-1. Thank you all. Item number 11 is second reading on Ordinance O2605-48. Councilman Fann.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an ordinance appropriating funds for year-end adjustments. And I so move.

Second. A motion by Councilman Phan, a second by Councilman Jones. Are there questions? Is there any discussion? Okay, this is second reading for Ordinance O2605-48. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no. It does pass unanimously. Item 12 is second reading on Ordinance O2605-49. Councilman Alexander.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an ordinance appropriating $11,246 from revenue received from insurance for damaged vehicle for police radars. And I move. Second.

I have a motion by Councilman Alexander, second by Councilman Carter. Are there questions? Is there discussion? This is second reading on Ordinance O2605-49. All in favor, let me know by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no. Does pass unanimously. Item 13 is second reading on Ordinance O2605-50. Councilman Carter, you're up.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an ordinance appropriating $16,752.06 from revenue received from insurance for damaged vehicles for vehicle repair. Motion to approve.

Second. Councilman Carter makes the motion. Councilman Jones seconds. Are there any questions? Discussion? It's second reading on ordinance O2605-50. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. It passes unanimously. Item 14 is first reading on ordinance O2606-52. Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Mayor. Ordinance to vacate the right-of-way planted as Rogers Road, totaling 0.22 plus or minus acres in the Quail Creek subdivision. Motion to approve. Megan?

Motion by Councilman Jones, second by Councilman Givant. I will remind you that engineering recommended against this, and you all have made the decision to go against engineering's recommendations because they're concerns for the future.

Questions? No, that's what I was going to say is that, you know, we had a discussion last week, but it wasn't only engineering. I think it was public utilities, everybody. I think department heads. recommended not to do this, so we are going against them, so.

Councilman Chabat.

Thank you, Mayor. I looked at the plots again and I found something I didn't see the first time. The plot has been approved because a gentleman came and said it has been 40 years, but the plot has been approved on September 1958. 1958. So from all that time, we didn't build anything there. We didn't build a road. And now suddenly, we want to keep it to build a road. 1958. Come on, guys. We're not going to build a road there. So if we had, that would have been done before. So I would vote yes for it.

Any other comments, discussion? You ready to vote? What was that? So you're ready to vote? Yeah. Thanks.

Was that subdivision put in in 1958?

Probably.

Yeah, the plot was approved in 1958. They're shaking no. I don't think it was either. I don't think it went back to 1958.

It's on there.

Okay.

First reading on Ordinance 026-06-52. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no.

No.

I have three nos and three yeses for a tie. Councilman Fann has left the room. I'm going to vote yes to move it to second reading, but I am not supportive of this. I'm supported in the Planning Commission, but I will give a chance for further discussion and evaluation at second reading. Thank you all for rethinking that. Item 15 is Resolution R2605-44. Councilman Alexander.

Thank you, Mayor. It's a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee, authorizing the property owner and applicant to submit an application to annex a 12.203 plus or minus acre parcel from into the city located west of Dottie Drive and north of Highway 25. I'll make a motion to discuss. Second.

Motion by Councilman Alexander, second by Councilman Duvance to discuss opening the floor.

I oppose this during the work session. It does not seem like a good fit for that area. It's adding more homes. and without there being another entrance or exit. So I'm opposed to it.

I don't have a problem annexing it, but I don't know why they would want to annex it in the city because of the reason that Councilman Alexander just stated, because that road has to be put in there before they can develop anything on that property. So that's just my thinking on it.

Thank you, Mayor. The planner made it clear at the last meeting that was not a good idea. I agree. There is no road coming there. We're going to add more houses and one entry. So I don't think that we can approve anything there. So if we approve that, there will be a disservice to the applicant. So I will be voting no on that.

Other discussion? I'm going to ask you to make a motion.

Motion to deny.

Motion by Councilman Giovanni.

Second.

Second by Councilman Alexander. Any further discussion, questions? There's a motion to not approve it. Any? All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no. They said the project resolution R2605-44 was unanimously voted to not approve. I would term that as failed unanimously, but... I don't know. Item 16 is resolution R2606-49, Councilman Phan.

Thank you, Mayor. This is resolution reappointing Neil Burgess to the Gallatin Health Education and Housing Facilities Board. And I so move.

Second. Second by Councilman Phan. Second by Councilman Givance. Questions? Discussion? Resolution R2606-49. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Passes unanimously. Item 17 is Resolution R2-606-50. Councilman Givance.

Mayor, it's a resolution supporting the City of Gallatin's application for the 2027 Art Builds Communities ABC Grant. And that's a move.

Second.

Motion by Councilman Givance. Second by Councilman Carter. Any questions? Any discussion? All in favor of resolution R2606-50, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Is there a no anywhere?

No.

Okay. Passes unanimously. Item 18 is resolution R2606-51. Councilman Fennell.

This is a resolution to revise the employee pay plans. Motion to approve. Second.

Second by Councilman Carter. Questions? Discussion? Okay.

Steven, you made a comment about the 50 cents was not enough last week, and I kind of agree, but do you have any plan for that?

So I have talked to, oh, geez, finance and HR and have a better understanding of how those things come up with, and I'm okay with that.

Okay.

It's Resolution R2606-51. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. No. Item 19 is Resolution R2606-52, Vice Mayor Hayes.

It's a resolution authorizing the mayor to sign interlocal agreement with Sumner County Government for state fast-track funds for the North Sumner Water Line project. Motion to approve. Second.

Motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, second by Councilman Fan. Questions or discussion? Okay, it's Resolution R2606-52. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no. bus pass unanimously. That concludes the regular agenda. It brings us down to other business. I'd ask if any member of this body has other business.

I do.

Okay, Councilman Cardin.

I think we got an email, but just in case you guys did not get the email, the council and the mayor have been invited on Thursday, so two days from now, to the Gallatin Rehab Center to celebrate the birthday of Ms. Lucille Sneed. who will be turning 105. If you guys recall, she's a lady we did the resolution for last year, and I presented that on the mayor's behalf in her absence. And then there's also, so that party is at 11 a.m., and then there's a party for Ms. Jessie Pavia, who will be turning 100, and they will have a party for her at 2.30. So in case you didn't get the email, they are requesting our presence there. So I hope to see you guys there.

What's the second lady's name?

Ms. Jessie Pavia. 105 and 100. Long blessed lives. And y'all, I don't know, Ms. Pavia, but I met Ms. Sneed last year. Like, at 104, she was a firecracker. Oh, yeah.

Along those lines, I did start an email today, and I haven't sent it yet because I'm contacting some other people, too, on behalf of the American Legion. They are planning a parade on July 4th at noon, and they're struggling with trying to get it advertised and get outreach for participants in the parade. I would offer to the public as well that they are interested in classic cars participating in the parade. And if there are other groups that would like to celebrate America's 250th in that parade, they would welcome their contact. And you can contact the American Legion or you can contact me and I'll put you in touch with the organizer. Any other business?

Thank you, Mayor. I would like this council to consider adding something in the next work session because I've had an issue with that staff in our book rule about the firing of head of departments. The fact that a head of department can be fired without cause just by five vote of that council I don't agree I think if people do the job correctly they should not have to worry about you know, getting on the bad side of the council, they should be there. So I think that needs to be changed so people can come and do the work they're supposed to do here and don't have to worry about one day arriving at the council and have five votes and need another job. That's how it's written in the book.

I will offer that in 12 years there's been no one fired by this council. This is a right to work state, and sometimes people can be performing a job and not be a good fit or not able to get along with others or lots of other things. And just as... You know, we want good leadership. I have, Vice Mayor Hayes for many years has said that the way that we hire and fire department heads is awkward. They are put in very difficult situations with the council making decisions on their hiring. And as you guys have frequently discussed, wanting to have a city manager, and I've always said, you're going to have to relinquish that authority. I would suggest that whomever, whether you have a city manager or a mayor, that they have the authority to hire and fire. And in the hiring process, that this body confirm any hires. And in the termination process, then it would be then the terminated person's choice as to whether they would appeal to the council. because regardless on either side, whether you're applying for a job or being terminated from a job, having it be such a public spectacle is a deterrent to applicants and puts someone who may just not be a good fit but a really good person in a terrible situation for finding a future job. So I don't like the takes five people to fire and we do it publicly piece, but, you know, the... you have to have some cause concerns me as well too because we want high-performing department heads. Now all that said, it's the will of this body.

I think we can open a discussion on that and try to find a better system because I think just five votes with no... The way it's written, we could... I could call today to fire a department head right there.

Very good.

I could. And that would be only five votes out of eight votes to finish their career. And I don't think it's fair. I just don't think it's fair. So I think we should talk about it and try to find a better solution than that, put some you know, rail guards who could happen before that or change the number of votes. And we can do that the way our charter is written. We can add more than what it is. So I would like to add that on the next work session so we can open a conversation and try to find a solution. And please leave me time to talk to HR to... and she probably have ideas we can implement. Because I don't think it's fair for head of department to have that. And, you know, I worked in Fortune 500 where I had an email the morning where the CFO changed, decided that the flight department was too expensive, and the next morning there was an email where you don't have a job anymore. So that's not the way to leave. So I think I would like to add that on the next work session as a discussion to open the conversation. And I appreciate that support.

Make it as a motion.

I make a motion.

Second. I have a question just for clarity. You said five out of eight votes. Who was the eighth vote? The mayor. Oh, you were voting. I just wanted to clarify.

I will point out that the department heads have never indicated to me that they feel threatened because of that situation. In fact, that is quite the safety net I would contend for department heads versus what you see in almost every other government around when there's a You know, like I said, typically it's done where there's one person who makes the decision and that person then has the opportunity to appeal to the body. I think that provides more insulation and dignity to that department head. But I think if you do that, and you do that, my recommendation would be with a city manager or a mayor, but you do that on both sides of the process because the way that we hire people is also extremely awkward. All in favor of adding to the agenda say aye. Opposed say no. That will be added to the agenda. Anything else? I have one item. You're going to love this since you all failed to discuss it last week. The Fairgrounds property is a potential site for a future police department.

We did discuss that last week.

Not really.

Yeah, we discussed it.

No, I listened. You listened to Chief Andy, and you did not give any kind of direction. We need... Way too much money. Exactly. So then the question becomes, because the whole question last week was, do you want to make them an offer? They're asking 4.1. The appraisal we have is in the 1.8. We've been told that other property in that area is selling in the 500,000-acre range. That would put this property at a potentially... You know, if you want to offer $3 million, if you want to offer $1.8 million, if you want to offer $2 million, I need something to... Can we sell Langley Farm?

No. Wow. Why would you do that? Was that in the contract that we couldn't?

What did you say, Craig? Can we what? Sell Langley.

He still wants to sell Langley Hall.

I say we offer what we have been quoted. I mean, if they had offers, then they would have sold it by now. One offer is better than nothing for them.

I'm not offering anything until we find out if we can sell Langley.

I will never support. Where that money is going to come from? Langley.

We have preserved funds.

Langley.

I think there's more opportunity with this piece of property than Langley, but also I'll side with Craig on that also.

What?

I think there's more opportunity with the fairground property than what is with Langley.

Langley is beautiful property. What are we going to use it for? Preserved green space. Well, Mr. Brown's ideas include trails. We've talked about having a cross-country trail there. It's a passive park. It can be a festival grounds. It can be a training center.

You want to put it on the next workstation? Yeah. I'll make a motion. I'll second.

Put what on the next workstation?

Discuss this. The discussion.

Put it back on the next workstation.

About fairgrounds.

Yes, and find out about Langley, too, because I would like to see that contact.

Are we not having a discussion now? No. Okay.

We're not supposed to.

Okay, so fairgrounds on the next agenda. I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye. And please find out about Langley on the contract.

It's what I told you the first time I brought it up to you guys. There is nothing that says, but the commitment to them was that we would not do anything but develop as a park. The ask was is that we put it in a conservation. But we can sell it. We could, but I'm not supportive of that.

Is that overwhelming, Bo? Is there business?

Any other business?

Motion to adjourn.

No. We have public recognition on non-agenda related items. Anyone wishing to speak this evening on non-agenda related items, I would welcome you to the podium.

Good evening, Everett. Can you hear me?

Okay.

I think I was last here May 12th. Trina McKnight, 436 Deveron Drive. And it was to discuss parking concerns. May 14th, we discussed continued parking and monitoring of the community with Captain Scotty King. May 20th, Gallatin Police Department sent several units to our community to again monitor with inconsistent messaging to our neighbors. On this day, I also communicated with Anita Kemp via email to discuss a plan for our community. Cars are parking to the corner on Chevelle at Breaking Pin, which makes it hard to see if you're turning onto Cheval from Breaking Pin. Cars are blocking fire hydrants on Deveron and parking on crosswalk lines. May 29th, I sent a follow-up email to Anita Kemp. As of this date, I have not had a response. June 16th, this morning, there was a response from Councilman Juvance and basically what he stated, quoting, thank you and sorry for what you have to go through. Finding a solution will not be easy, but we will need to find a way to fix the issue. So he is in agreement that something needs to be done in our community. Again, I'm asking for collaboration from the city, Councilman Juvats, Gallatin Police Department, and anyone else that would like to help make our community safe. Thank you for your time.

Anyone else wishing to speak under public recognition on non-agenda related items?

Good evening, Nancy Edwards, 423 Deveron Drive, the Newman's Crossing townhome development. It's not really agenda-related, but I do appreciate all the questions that the council brought up to the gentleman with the Wellspring Commons development. I know they say that, oh, the people using our commercial facilities won't have any reason to cut through the townhome development, and... I can't say what my thoughts were because we're not supposed to talk like that. But what I will say is with Newman's Crossing, when they opened up the McDonald's right next to our development, we have had so much traffic cutting through our community that it just makes it hard to go for walks. We've got kids. that run back and forth across the street. And I've seen a number of times kids almost getting hit by cars that are turning left out of McDonald's to cut through our community to get back to big station camp instead of turning just a right and a right to get. And this includes county vehicles, city vehicles, commercial vehicles, construction vehicles. They're turning left, cutting through our community. So for a developer to say, oh, well, nobody's gonna have an excuse to cut through the residential, it doesn't matter. It's like everybody pointed out. If they think it's easier way or that it'll take less time, they won't have to sit behind other cars, they're gonna cut through residential. So do appreciate your questions this evening. Thank you.

My name is Dave Boholik. I live at 321 Winston Way, and I wonder if I could ask for a suspension of the rules and make a comment about the Wellbridge Commons development based on things that we learned today for the first time with the new traffic study.

But anyway, that's not agenda related. There's a motion to suspend the rules.

I think in looking at the information that was presented tonight, the R-turn concept is workable. I think that no one really needs to look at the U-turn situation. Going north on 109, you're asking young and old drivers to cut across three lanes of traffic with people that are not always doing the speed limit to stop if they're pulling a trailer, then pull across three more lanes of traffic to wait to then go southbound. You're asking the people to come onto Eagle Ridge and turn right, and then make a U-turn. Are you gonna put that U-turn before the bridge at the creek, after the bridge at the creek? Because if you put it after the bridge, now you are working, you have the traffic that's backing up to get off at 386 to go eastbound that you're gonna run into, and you're also gonna run into the traffic that's coming northbound on 109 from 386. So how do those people merge? You have traffic coming from two directions, turning from the left and coming from the right. And that's something that those distances are very, very short. And that needs to be taken into consideration, just going from 34 potential accident points down to 14. It could be catastrophic if somebody pulled out and slowly came in the traffic when someone was not watching. And I appreciate your time today. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak?

Don't worry, I'm not asking for suspension. Kyle Ring, 153 Summerlin. I just... I wanted to call out that you previously had asked Mr. Leckie if he had communicated with us, the citizens, to which his response, I believe I'm quoting this correctly, was, I think I know where the residents stand. I'm going to be honest with you, it really doesn't feel like that because we have yet to hear from him. We have seen him drive through the neighborhood. He has a very nice car. but he has not reached out to us to ask us anything. Nexus has come in since I've lived at 153. That developer reached out. That developer I had a cup of coffee with. That developer I walked the property with. Wellsprings Commons has not. Also, Winston Place, when that development was approved, I also did the same thing there. I have had development coming all around me. I'm not opposed to it. But I feel resistance from the current party at play when we're not asking to stop your development. We're just trying to ensure the safety of our own community. So I... I actually agree with what you said, Mary Paige Brown, which is have you reached out to the community? He has not.

I didn't ask him. I suggested.

I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But all I'm stating is I appreciate what you all are doing. I don't want to keep taking up your time on this. I think a lot of these questions could have been handled if he would have reached out to us. And I feel like we're wasting your time as a council. I don't want to keep doing that. I want to keep coming back and being a voice because I care about Gallatin. I'm raising my kids here. All I ask is just that we also hear the whole picture because there was only part of it that was delivered tonight, not the whole thing. Regardless of that, I appreciate everybody's time and I appreciate the consistent conversation on this. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak? Public recognition on non-agenda related items is now closed. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Ladies and gentlemen, I wish you a lovely evening. I hope you are kind to one another.