Board of Mayor & Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Go ahead, Jason. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for joining us. Welcome to the meeting of the Hendersonville, Tennessee Board of Mayor Alderman. It's February 10th. We are right about 7:00 p.m. We're going to start our meeting which we typically do. That's with a prayer and a pledge. Um we are uh uh delighted to have here to lead us off tonight with a prayer uh Casey Casmmeriselle. He is the community outreach and first impressions director at First Baptist Church at Hendersonville. And Casey also used to be with our police department for 5 years. We Casey, we appreciate very very much what First Baptist, what your congregation does and what uh and what your staff do for us. And we appreciate you joining us tonight.

Absolutely. Let's pray. God, thank you so much um just for ultimately what you did on the cross u so many years ago. We thank you that your blessings and especially your mercies are new every day. Um we thank you that um that you're walking with us in every step of the way. Uh right now I would just pray for wisdom over over this meeting. God, uh the conversations that are had, the discussions that will be taking place, God, I would just ask that you would uh be with uh be with us to give us wisdom. Let us let these conversations reflect your light, God. And um no matter what, God, just let us remember again just of what you've done for us. And let us never take for granted the blessing that we get to have of of living in this city, living in this country, um and the extraordinary freedoms we get to exercise. So, um, no matter what life throws at us, no matter what curveballs comes our way, God, um, just let us remember what you've done, the blessings that we receive every day. And God, just I love you and I love this city. And thank you so much for all that you've done for us. Amen.

Amen. Thank you again. That was Casey Casmiselle. He is the community outreach and first impressions director at First Baptist Church. Thank you so much for joining us. Yes, sir. Please join me for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you all. I'm going to entertain a motion to accept the agenda. We have a motion from Alderman Garden and a second from Alderman Goodwin. Um I want to bring your attention to four items that we have that are waving the uh twoe rule. I just need to bring your attention to them. We don't have to vote on those individually. And um that's the four items on the second page. Items 8, 9, 10, and 11. Uh and uh Alderman Skidmore,

just I I need to add under reports uh number six uh public works dealing with the winter warm winter storm response we had and I need to add public works uh committee report on that. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second from Alderman Garza. All those in favor of that, please say I. Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. We're going to add number six under reports. Thank you. Public works. Public works report. Thank you. Thank you. Um uh Chairman Skoman Collins,

I would like to ask that we defer item number seven. Um basically just because our agenda is so packed full of really important things, I want to make sure that we give item number seven our full consideration. Um and I'm afraid we'll run out of time. It's very important. A second.

Where do we get a second from? Uh, Alderman Burgdorf. Okay. So, we have a motion from Alderman Collins and second from Alman Burgdorf to remove item seven under ordinance and resolutions. Uh, we can have a discussion on that if anybody wants to or we can vote on it. Looks like we're ready to vote. So, Jason, you ready for us? No. Okay, we'll hang on here for a second.

Okay, now we're good. So, those in favor of removing item seven, uh, press your green button. Those opposed, press the red one. Wow, that was just silliness. Um, that passes 11 to one. I am the sole person who voted against it. Appreciate that. So, we're going to take off item number seven. Um, and uh, Alderman Collins, that was just removing it from this agenda. It wasn't referring it to anybody else. Am I correct? Right. Okay. Sounds good. Okay.

Okay. Now, we're back to the main motion of setting the agenda. Sorry, Jason. You didn't really need to do a electronic vote on that. Okay. Uh we've made two changes. One is that um we've added the public works report and the other is that we've removed item seven under ordinance and resolutions. All those in favor of approving the agenda as it was presented to you with those two changes, please say I. Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Next round of presentations, we have none public hearings and now minutes. Um I'm going to entertain a motion. We approve the January 13th minutes uh from 2026. We have a motion from Alderman Dixon, second and a second from Alderman Garza. All those in favor of approving the minutes that were provided to you in your packet, please say I.

Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Now, we have a couple people have signed up for citizen comments. The speakers must identify themselves by name and address. Public comment shall be limited to five minutes per person, which time is not transferable to other speakers. All comments are to be directed to the presiding officer, not to alderman, city staff, or other members of the public. Comments must address issues, not individuals or personalities. Personal attacks shall not be tolerated. Comments may support or oppose particular issues or measures, but the motives of those with differing views shall not be questioned or attacked. Malicious comments will not be allowed. Speeches for or against particular candidates running for public office will not be allowed. Henry Brand White Drive. Just coming up here to microphone, please. Right over there. Yep.

We want to be able to hear you. Good. Is it right over there? done this much. See, I'm Henry Brand. I live at 116 Heel White Drive.

Runs off of Old Shackle Island Road. And that's important where I'm headed. I've lived here for 26 years. We're all painfully aware of this catastrophic uh ice storm burn and the secondary catastrophe, Nashville Electric Service. Okay. Some of us in Hendersonville are served by Nashville Electric Service, some by Cumberland Electric. Okay. It's been my experience more often than not. When we lose power on my street, I get my car, nothing better to do. Cruise around and my goodness, people on New Shackle Island have power. They're with Cumberland Electric. No problem. When it's widespread, say a storm, tornadoic activity or whatever, everybody loses their power, invariably the people on the new Shackle Island side under Cumberland Electric are up 5 to 12 hours ahead of us every single time. Watch it. There may have been a exception, but I don't remember it. This last disaster, I know it was not NES's fault. It was an act of God or nature, whatever, religious or atheist, I don't care. Anyway, it happened. Their their response was the catastrophe. Boots on the ground, coordination, communication, wherever you want to look. It was bad. But that was not a oneoff. What I just described, you know, with the lack of response is consistent. I've heard people toss around the idea of we need to have a representative on that council plead our case. And no, no, we're not going to beg. I don't want to beg them. They're going to run right over them anyway. They think we're a bunch of yahoos that fell off a turnup truck out of Nashville, you know, to steal all their hardying money. They don't respect us. Okay? I mean, that's my opinion. I don't know it's ad hom or not, but it seems to be their response. This last time we were dead last. Imagine that. Okay. Green Hills, downtown Nashville. I know you got to prioritize things. And whoever's last

isn't going to like it, but we're always last. So rather now to get make it where we can choose our own provider. I know this is tricky. It's a lot of work. It goes to the state legislature. Coming Electric's got to talk to National Electric yada yada. I'm not a lawyer. You've got some I'm sure on standby. I noticed that we have a legislative de delegation that seems to want to work with us. There's one bill to eliminate the caps on property tax and stuff. Great. Why can't that same same state legislative legislative delegation help us and other mayors and councilmen and commissioners around in suburban areas that are into this too get together and help us change it and take the power away from NES and let us have our let us make a say have our own say so and one slight thing too my wife has brought this up property values okay now I don't think nees or cones is going to factor in deeply in a realtor's you idea of what the price of the property should be. But people go to social media, you know, I'm Hey, I'm about to move into Hendersonville. What's over there? Well, better make sure you're not into Nashville Electric. You're in trouble then. It'll affect their decision sometimes. I don't know. That's what I'm about. Let's give us a chance to decide who we want, who we get our electric service from, if you will. Thank you. That's all.

Thank you, Mr. Brandt. Uh David Lucky clearing in place. David Lucky, 110 Clarendon in place. Um, I'm here to speak on ordinance 2025-25, the impact fees. Uh, my position about impact fees has not changed. I'm against them as a business person, a developer, and a home builder here in the community. But I can support the ordinance and I think over the last two years the work that the the board has done, the consultants and certainly the staff has done uh we've got a good ordinance that is is acceptable and a compromise to all. And I would like to uh voice my my support to pass it as it stands on second reading. Thank you,

Mr. Lucky. Thank you. Next on our agenda is the nomination of Steven Winsreed as the public works director. The way that works is that um it's my responsibility to uh to bring people to you uh for our department head positions. Uh the board has a say uh yes or no on that. Um and if uh you vote no, I bring some I bring another one back to you. And that has happened in in the city's history. Actually happened just about five six years ago. Uh this is a case, however, that if you've been here for the past three weeks, you've you've uh you've seen this person's work. And um uh so I'm therefore I'm going to um nominate Steven Wizard Reed as our next public works director. And um Jason, you ready for us? Any discussion? Alderman Martin, just wanted to let you know that Stephen, we are very very appreciative of all the work that you and your your department have done. So, thank you for all that. Appreciate that.

Stephen, am I pronouncing your name correctly? Now's the time. Wins and Reed. You got it. Wow. Okay. Okay. You're good. Okay. Jason, you ready for us? Oh, I'm sorry. I think you have Would you like to introduce Introduce her, please? This is my wife, Shannon. Hi, Shannon. Thank you for being here. All those in in favor of Steven Winsory being our next public works director, please press the green button. Those opposed, press the red button. That passes unanimously. Uh

thank you, Stephen. APPRECIATE we should put all under a similar test for for a couple weeks. He's probably second guessing. Next, we have two items to receive and file. Um, let's see. First one, uh, I'm going to turn over to our finance director, and she's going to, uh, introduce us a couple folks. Um, I'm going to ask, uh, Ken and Julie from Baker Tilly CPAs to, um, come up and give us a report out on our 20 fiscal year 2025 audit.

All right. Good evening, mayor and alderman. Uh my name is Ken Youngstead, uh principal with Baker Tilly, here with Julie Evans, a director with our firm. Julie led our engagement team through the conduct of the audit and we worked with uh Tamara and many others uh during the course of the engagement and uh have a good report for you tonight. So uh there's two documents that you have. Um I'm going to cover briefly um this uh this letter which u goes over the results of the audit. uh we won't look at it in detail but what this letter outlines um is uh a little bit of our planning uh process and uh we do a risk assessment process to help us plan our audit procedures that we conduct through the course of the audit. Um there are other items in here about risk and material misstatement and uh significant estimates and some of our audit focus areas. Uh pleased to tell you that uh that this information is all standard language in in this. So, um, you know, we didn't, uh, run across any, um, issues or have significant difficulties. Uh, things were ready. We had a good experience. So, thank you, Tamara, for you and your team. Um, I will tell you it's a a pretty quiet year from an accounting policy standpoint. No new accounting policies adopted this year. U, we have a list of our major estimates in this uh, in this report as well. They're pretty standard for a city like yours. Um and in terms of audit adjustments, I think things were were very routine or you know immaterial things we expected or or things that we did for classification purposes. So um the remainder of this report u it has the management representation letter that you've provided us that basically say this is your these are your financial statements the financial statements of the city. We give an opinion on those and um and so u happy to field any questions on this. Julie is going to cover a few elements of the audit report itself, which is the larger packet. And uh but any questions on this before I turn it over to Julie?

Okay, great Julie. Thank you, Ken. Well, my report will not be proportionate to the size of this document.

So, this is your audited financial statements. I'll just point out a few highlights for you all to look at when you have time to look at things. Um the first letter that's included as part of here is a letter to the citizens and the board of mayor and alderman from the staff here. So there's a couple pages of that. Our audit actually begins on page one which is probably about 10 or 15 pages in. And really the most important part of that is the first two paragraphs which are the opinion on the financial statement. So the opinion on the financial statements is what we refer to as an unmodified opinion which means it's a clean opinion. your financial statements are fairly present fairly presented in accordance with all um accounting standards and things that we reviewed. So we believe they're um in good shape. You can rely on that information. So that's the kind of opinion you all want um as part of doing the audit. And in this opinion there's information about our responsibilities as auditors and you all's responsibilities as management and kind of goes through that. But happy to report um as Ken mentioned great cooperation from your staff. This is the financial statement opinion. There are two other audit opinions that are included in this document. So we follow government auditing standards which we give an opinion on your internal control over financial reporting. And then also we do a single audit which because of your federal grant programs we look specifically at compliance related to that. So, we looked at um the Tennessee Department of um Environment and Conservation's wastewater storm water program this year. So, nothing to report to you all with that as well. Um those opinions you can find starting on page 102 in the back there's a report for um government auditing standards and then couple pages later there's a report on the single

audit. And then if you really want the quick and dirty, um, page 107 is a summary that we're required to report of what was the opinion on your financial statements, what was the opinion on your single audit. Happy to say nothing to report to you all. Um, no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies identified. So that's really the best kind of report you can get. So, but we're happy to to take any questions you all have from the audit process as a whole, but there's a little bit a lot of information to digest in here. Alman,

thank you, mayor. Y'all, um, this is a New York Times bestseller. This one right here. Okay. So, it's a page turner. I just couldn't put it down. So, if you get a chance, take a look at I just wanted to let y'all know that this is available on the city's website. So, anyone that wants to view this, just go to hvilletn.org and go go to the finance uh section uh of the page and you'll actually be able to view this as well. City is very healthy and I just wanted to uh give props to um Tamara and her team. Uh because we could not get a report like this without the dedication of her team all year long. You guys had the easy job. you got to just spend a little bit of time putting it all together, but they've spent the entire year putting this together. So, uh, just thank you so much, Tamara, and well done to you and your staff.

Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Sassy. Alman Dixon, thank you, Mayor. Um, bottom line, we have no findings. Correct. Is that correct? Yes. That's what I like to hear. And thank you so much for all your help. I just And thank you for not giving us this before the meeting. So, we would have had to have carved out time to look at it. So, I like that. So, thank you, Alderman Dixon. Thank you, Alderman GarcA. Uh, yeah. I mean, I'm not a CPA and there's many reasons why. Could could you just give us our grade? If you were grading us like we were in school, what would we be what will we have?

You have a positive change in your fund balance for the year, especially your general fund, which was about $5 million. So, that's putting money aside. And I know we've had the conversation before about your unrestricted fund balance or unreserved fund balance and you all have have managed that really well over the last several years and were able to put aside money in some different categories so that you can address things like the winter storm costs and things that we we'd mentioned in the finance committee. So just being able to do that the city is really headed in the a good direction. So are we a A or a B? Sounds like an A.

That's right. I would say very good shape. I can't give a grade. The state may grade. I don't know. We can't We can't give a grade, but in good shape. Alderman Garza, anything else? Thank you, Alderman Garza. Julie Ken, thank you so much. Um, we appreciate you doing this and appreciate seeing you again and appreciate the fact that um we've uh been working with y'all for how many years now? 10 or 12. I think about 10 or 11. Okay. Okay. So, okay. We appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. And just a as a follow-up point, I mean, we do work with management quite a bit through the course of the audit. The report is addressed to board of mayor and alderman. So, if you have questions, you know, throughout the year, we're always available to have those conversations. So, super.

Thank you. Great. So, that's receive and file. The next thing we have on our agenda is another receive and file. And that is a letter that you see oh just a couple pages behind um the uh agenda and that is the declaration of emergency that I signed um uh with uh Lance and Jesse's help. Uh and again that's just something we need to get as part of our regular record in our board. Then we move on to ordinance and resolution. I'm sorry. Alderman Robertson. I have a a question for uh Chief Edwards on on the uh mutual aid agreement. if you please come. Do I I didn't give you that question ahead of time. I'm sorry, but it should be easy. It should be an easy one. Robertson, do we want to do this now or do you want to wait till we get to that item?

Oh, I think you might have Yeah, on the consent agenda. Yeah, I'll wait till we get to the Okay. Sorry about that. The wording on there's a little bit a little bit it's we're talking about emergencies and two different situations. So, Right. Yeah. Okay. Um, so we'll come back to you when we get to the uh uh to the mutual aid items. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. No problem. Uh, next we're on second reading of ordinance 2025-24. This is an ordinance amend title 5 municipal finance and taxation to allow for the acceptance of partial payments for the city of Hendersonville real and personal property taxes. Alman Sassy, would you like to make a motion? Yes. So move.

We have a motion from Alderman Sassy and a second from Alderman a second from Alderman Garz. Any discussion on this item? Alderman Brodf. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate it. Alderman Sassy, I appreciate you bringing this forward. Um this is a it's a it's a practical and compassionate way for us to um serve our citizens who may need some more time to do this. They get up to five months with this ordinance and I thank you putting this together. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of it. Thank you. Thank you, Alman Burgdorf. All those in favor of second reading ordinance 2025-24, please say I.

Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Next, we have reading of resolution 2026-01. This is a resolution approving the TBM Music City Millennia Cottages final development plan located at 645 East Main Street here in Henderson. Alderman Martin, would you like to make a motion? We have a motion for Alderman Martin and a second from Alderman Garza. Uh, any discussion? We do have the applicants here. If you all have some questions, we would I'd certainly entertain a motion. We suspend the rules. Alderman Collins. Um actually would like to ask a question from director free.

Hello. Hello. Thank you. Um thank you for my the email question I had about Codill. That's not my question now though. But um can you explain to me where we are on the parking situation for this final development plan? Yeah, this was this was a situation at the uh planning commission uh where the applicant was requesting a waiver on the parking requirements uh at the uh first meeting at the planning commission. and then it was deferred uh and then they worked it out and uh and are providing the adequate parking uh that's required for the for the cottages. Okay. Yeah. So everything's for all it's all cottages at this point, right?

Yeah. Well, there's Yeah. And there's other portions that are office, but for the cottages, it's providing the appropriate amount of parking without any kind of waiver. Um, and this may be for you or it may be for the representatives from TVN. Um, what is the status of the wall, the Twitty City wall? I'll probably let them address what what that is. Without objection, we're going to suspend the rules and allow these three gentlemen to speak. Gentlemen, if you desire to speak, please introduce yourselves when you come up and and give us your connection with the project.

Somebody want to cover the wall? Sure. Good evening, Frankia and uh with TBN. So, thank you. U we're retaining the whole wall and we're refurbishing the wall. The only uh concern I have which we haven't quite resolved yet is what we can do with the uh Tweety Bird thing because I'm a little there was a question raised as to whether we need to get permission to to use that since that could have something to do with universal or that. So right now our intention is to keep Tweety Bird on the wall and to do the wall. Okay.

It's been damaged for quite a long time. And you and I discussed when this first came to when this first came here, you and I discussed the sentimentality attached to this property. Yes. and that we just cannot overstate how significant we many of us still refer to it as Twitty City even though I think you've been there 20 years. Yes. Um but um the wall it's been the damage from the tornado has been two years at this point. Yes. Is there an obstacle that we could help you with to get that repaired or sooner?

Well, I I don't know that there's an obstacle. Um, we have our our civil engineer here with Kimley Horn and they're under direction to make sure that's part of our plan for the total refurbishment of it. I'm presuming if if uh if somebody wants to say we could go ahead and do that under a separate permit, we're fine with that. Am I right, Mark? Would you like to speak to it? Is there anything that needs to be done with the easements or utility concerns that you have? Mark, first tell us who you are and what your connection is.

Sure. Uh, Mark Boyd with Kimley Horn. through the civil engineer for the development project. Uh and the plan is to repair the wall. You know, once we start construction on the project, that'll be part of the the design and implementation for the development. So, repairing that section of wall that's been damaged absolutely will be done. Okay. Thank you for that. I I have no further questions right now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Alman Collins. Alman Goodwin,

I just wanted to say I will probably be voting for this, but I want you to know how disappointed I am that the plans have changed from what it originally was. I had a lot of constituents in my ward that were really looking forward to the assisted living and the setup where they could have both family members there. And it's I've had a lot of negative comments since that's gone. And I really hate that the project turned how it went because I feel like that was a huge need for our area and would have been a great project. So, but I probably will support this, but I'm really disappointed it's not what you set it out to be. Thank you, Alderman Goodwin. Thank you, Alderman Martin.

Hey, Frank. I just want to echo uh the sentimentality um comment made earlier. Uh we really appreciate um you restoring the mansion. Um that was very important to the community. Um, and the tour of it showed you guys uh spent a lot of time and effort taking care of it. So, I just want to thank you for that. Well, thank you, Alderman Martin. Thank you, Alderman Robertson. Uh, yes. Uh, Keith Free. Keith, I have a question for you. Uh on the egress and ingress, I'm I'm concerned about the extra traffic that these cottages will be throwing on Main Street.

Help me to understand what the staff has worked with the developer to make sure that there's a safe ingress and eress into these cottages from Main Street. Yes. Uh, one of the things that's happened, uh, from the preliminary development plan to then now the final development plan is on the preliminary development plan, you had two access points off of Main Street and now that's been reduced to one, but you you've increased the access points to Calell. Yes. And so there's still going to be two access points to Main Street, Codell and this additional access, right?

Yeah. Well, access to Calell from the property and of course then Calddell does connect up to Main Street. So, yes. Yeah. So, is there any plans of a red light or any kind of traffic signal at this location for the traffic to get get in and out of this facility? No, there's no plans. Uh, you know, you've got the uh the First Baptist light that's up there uh by the YMCA and uh that lights there. Uh but there's no plans with this project and I don't think we and the city has Yeah. The local near it. Okay. Yeah. When when the uh local interchange project goes under the railroad track.

Yes. There will be a new signal within that area that will help with the traffic flow from this facility. Yeah. Yeah. There'll be some gaps but but indirectly it would it's it's not providing a light directly uh to this uh to this project. Okay. And the the the traffic generated from the already approved preliminary development plan right is significantly reduced in this final development plan uh with the number of units and uh and the reduction in the amount of office space as well. So, you don't see a problem with the egress and ingress? No. Safety concerns?

No. Okay. Uh, are there any offsite other than the house? Other than the Tweety House, and we appreciate what the what the company's going to do to restore that house, are there any additional offsite improvements such as improving Codell uh that we have asked the developer to do? I mean, typically it's not unusual for us to ask for off-site improvements, right? Yeah. There wouldn't on the preliminary development plan that's been approved. Uh there were no off-site improvements. I think the main focus of those additional u improvements uh was the uh renovation of 20 city uh the 2C the Twitty mansion, right?

Uh as well as the refurbishment of the wall. And I think those were really the two main focus points of extra of extra items, but there was there's nothing on Cal. Yeah, there's nothing. And then I think part of the some of the concern was uh folks concerned about Calell being where the median and the trees and all of that that that wouldn't be significantly disrupted uh from the way that it already is. And there's no plans to uh to do that.

Okay. Uh so uh maybe the developers can you give me an estimate of what the uh company is going to invest in the house and the wall so that we have kind of a ballpark figure of knowing the magnitude of improvements you're going to make.

Sure. Well, for the mansion, that's already completed with the exception of doing some more landscaping and tying it into the rest of the site. So, some people came in and reviewed that and already went through it. It was totally substantially completed. Everything was done with it. Um, as pertains to the wall, our our goal is to restore it like it was. And, uh, I can't give you an idea cost of what that is yet, but if just coming I've got a little bit of gray hair, been doing this a little while. If I were to go uh off the top of my head, I would venture to say that's probably about a 6070 $80,000 restoration, uh the total project is is around $115 million. Okay, thank you. Now, Keith, where does this go next from here? What what what's the next step? Does it go back to the planning department to determine the percentage of brick on the fac on the the uh units? And where do we go next? No, this is this is it. And so just to kind of recap uh back uh uh I think it was in 24 then the preliminary development plan was approved. And what the preliminary development you know now you're seeing a lot of combined development plans where we have the preliminary development plan and the final de development plan all together. In this one they got approval for the preliminary development plan. And what the preliminary development plan that's basically the reasonzoning. So that's that's where it's saying here's what you know if you got whatever you got approved here's what you got approved to do and then now they're at the stage where now they're doing a refinement of the uh the preliminary development plan which is the final development plan. And so once that's approved here then the next step uh and the developers can can speak to the timeline but from what they've shared to me they have you know they're looking to move forward fairly quickly. The next step uh would be for them to do uh site plans and get those approved from the planning commission

and then those will get approved from the planning commission and then they get their building permits and they start constructing. So all those other issues with the the look of the houses and all of that uh it's all within this this final development plan. Uh so by our action tonight they would be exempt if we adopt impact fees on the second reading. They're already exempt. They're already exempt. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. That's all. That's all I have. Thank you, Alum Robertson. Thank you. Um Alderman Garton,

my question is for Mr. Media. Um and kind of a followup to what um Alderman Goodwin's concern is. Um can you just give us an overview of maybe why we've had the changes from partial assisted living to full um independent living and the reduction in the office commercial space?

Sure. And I have with us also Chris Gay who's with our our management firm. He's they're also local. They have the the facility right down the street which is assisted living and memory care vitality living. And uh actually right after CO we were just reminiscing about it. We became uh getting very much acquainted and actually have ended up ending into some management agreements with they're handling a project for us in Orlando. And uh, of course, as you know, uh, everything is time-sensitive and market sensitive. So, we ran market studies, they ran market studies. We had a very large national firm run it. And we determined that we would probably be oversaturating the area and not serving the citizens well by trying to compete with something that they've just invested a lot of time and money into that's right down the street. So, what we've already done is entered into uh a letter of intent, an understanding that we're going to have a mutual sharing and management. So, we've already asked them uh and and basically shook hands on them being our management firm uh for the cottages. What that does do is allow us now to put our in our headquarters in our larger building, which we're calling our community building. And by the way, the the mansion is where we we want to have our management offices and some of our other greeting of the family offices. We can now do uh counseling there for families for for total where they could it it's likely aging in place. The difference is it's right down the street, but there's there's going to be uh uh uh a transportation back and forth. The community building is being built such that there's ample room for meals on the independent living. It's a minimum of 30 meals a month. So, uh uh and and you could speak further to that if you will, Chris.

Um thank you all. The first great questions. Um we uh purchased the building right down the road, formerly the hearth about two years ago. We've got over 100 units of assisted living there. and our partnership with TBN, we feel like we'll still be able to create that campus that your constituents wanted. We'll just have it. It won't be on the same property, but right down the road, we're actually gonna have the same executive director manage both sites. So, we'll be able to continue that aging in place model for folks that want to start. We we believe it'll help people make the decision sooner, which is better for them because they'll have opportunity to move to a property where the cottages will be independent, but they'll have one-story entry. they'll have some supportive services but then have the ability to transfer it to the building right down the road with the same team, same people operating both. So, we think it accomplishes what the initial intent was. And to Frank's point, the assisted living market in the town is very competitive. We have like five competitors within five miles of our building and we're going through it all the time. So, to add more units on top of the units we already had, we didn't feel like made more made made sense for this time in the market. We think the cottages are really good product. We've done those across the country and they do very very well. They attract people sooner which is helpful for us. We want to have people make the decision before they need us. Um no one wakes up in the morning and says I want to move to an assisted living. But if we can have them find a safer, better setting earlier, they usually transition better. So we think this is a better overall plan long term.

Alman Garton, anything else? That's all. Thank you. Was it Chris? Yes. What's your last name? It tell Vitality Living. Okay. Thank you. Uh thank you, Alman Gart. Alderman Sassy. Thank you. Really quick, Frank, uh, last time you and I spoke, we talked about the Elvis table. Were you able to find that? I'm sorry. I I my left ear got fried on the airplane on the way in. Uh, the Elvis table, the table that was give that We've not been able to find it, and I've asked, and I don't know whether I'm getting uh uh some red faces or not, but I'll keep trying. Yeah, please do. I mean, that that was a staple to that house, and it would be great to return it back to its home. Yes, sir. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Alderman Sassy, thank you. Alderman Burgdorf.

Hey, uh, thank you, uh, gentlemen, for coming this evening. We appreciate it. Um, I see where in the new plan your u your unit density has been reduced from 5.82 units per acre to 4.9 I'm sorry. Yeah, 4.94 units per acre, which is a good thing. I mean, I we we appreciate green space here. We appreciate you maximizing that green space for us uh in the city. I know my constituents do. Secondly, I had the question was Mr. uh Chris, what is your last name? Sorry. Gay. Gay. All right. Mr. Gay, what is the company? Vitality Living. So, we're based out of Brandon, Tennessee.

And another follow-up question, how does uh when you arrived here because what I had the opportunity to do tonight is sit in the public works department and we discussed the recent disaster we've had in the city. Um and it ended up being neighbors helping neighbors. So, what I want to ask right now is when you came in a year ago, you had the support, full uh full vocal support of First Baptist Church right behind you there. Are they still Yes. uh on team with you? I can speak to that. Okay, great. Yes. Um they're terrific.

Okay. you you know uh we I think our relationship is stronger and better than it's ever been and uh we've we've already gotten to the point where we're talking about how we're going to organize and manage the pickle ball courts. Um they've uh the pastor has already committed that he'll he'll help us uh support the the chapel within the community that he'll be able to give us somebody that'll be there for the chapel services. And uh we we've gone even a little further than that. their Easter program is going to be at our auditorium this year at the Huckabe Auditorium so that they could have an overflow with that and and then of course we've already been doing u more shared parking as much parking as they need on Sundays etc. So they're they're just the best they're just the best people.

Looks like the Boy Scout troop will have a built-in goods deeds uh going on going forward. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you sir. Alderman Burgdorf. Thank Thank you, Alman Evans.

Yeah, thank you. I have a question about the ingress and egress as well. Um I'm assuming that the one going out to Main Street is the the one that's already there, the the main road that's already there, and there'll be improvements with that. But I'm concerned about the ingress and egress on Cadill. And right now, I know that there's not really roads, per se, but it's it's kind of like um I don't even know if they're driveways. Are there going to be is it going to be built in such a way where cars can actually use those to go out on Codill? I when I look at the maps, I don't see um actually a road or anything that looks like it's uh an access like we have on the the road that's going out on Main Street.

Does that make sense? It it does. Yeah, the the connection to Codell is coming from the theaters parking lot. So, it'll connect directly to Codell kind of across from I don't remember the street name, but the first street down from from Main Street. So, it's kind of creating a little intersection there, uh, where there's already an existing median cut on the Codell Road, which is the back side of the um the retail space. Correct. Over there. That's right. Okay. So really it's just it's not really it's just more of a cut through from the parking lot and that's what all these are going to be. Is the other one back was back there towards the barn?

There is one that's going to access directly to the barn. The barn's just for maintenance purposes primarily in storage and there's another existing access that's already there today at the back half of the studio that's more for loading and deliveries. Okay. So not frequently used. So really the only one that on Codell that's going to be used I wouldn't you say that probably none of the residents are going to be using any of these coming out on Codell. They were going to be using the one that goes out on Main Street. I would imagine so. Yes. Okay. All right. And and I did want to add there is going to be sidewalk improvements put down Codell um all the way down from Main Street. Oh, okay. On both sides or just on

just on one side? just on the the project side all the way down to um the back side that comes into the church property. Yeah, it's going to go and it's going to connect all the way down to the church property. Okay. Is there going to be any um restrictions as far as um uh church members using that driveway to go to church on on Wednesdays and Sundays because right now I use that as a cutth through all the time. Um we're certainly not going to put restrictions on the church and uh but I I could tell you that they are on top of everything. Yeah.

I mean it's and and I say this um I say this with a true heart. I'm a pastor. We have many churches. We're a nationwide ministry. And I this is when you rate on a scale of 1 to 10 of how a church handles itself and its management, its organization, its passion for his people, they're off the chart. Thank you. They're off the chart. We're just honored to be any part of with anything with them. Alderman Evans, anything else? Thank you, Alderman Sassy. Thank you. Don't go anywhere, Frank. Um I So I see on the new plans you have a new community center. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. Over there. And it's got a nice big pool. Yes, sir. Um great location for it. Um right there at the at the opening or the front of the uh complex. But I noticed that at the mansion side they've got that beautiful pool and you guys are taking that out.

Why is that? Well, it's questionable if that's a beautiful pool. Um, it's had its days. It's very small and uh it's really it's really not functional for the the type of either recreation or or classes and stuff you would want. Uh I I I think we better serve by using some of the space and keeping a much more open space for other amenities like the pickle ball and and possibly a botchi court. And we've been talking about some other areas for it. So, it I too at first thought about that because when it was originally intended, it had a little bit of a a river thing, you know, that but it's it's really isn't functional anymore and it's not going to work very well for that particular uh okay community. Um,

yeah,

I kind of have a problem with that, but uh it's not going to keep me from voting for this, but it just from this new plan, it just it seems like the focus goes off the mansion, you know what I mean? It now um it's just a part of a round. It looks like a walking trail walking up to it. Um while before you still had a road going through there and it was really a focal point so people could go visit it. Uh and I I just not seeing that anymore. Um so just I I agree there is some disappointing changes that were done to this uh that I would have liked to have seen kept in here. Um yeah that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Alman Sassy Alman Skidmore. Yeah just one quick uh question to either uh Frank or Keith. Um on Codill Lane, are we are going to still be able to keep the roads uh the way they are now with the ma I guess they're maple trees. Is that right? Or I think big trees. I don't know. But the big trees are going to still be on, you know, in the middle. Yes. With that. Is that correct?

Yeah. We we actually with the help of of Keith's team, we helped um move the sidewalk into the site, um adjusted some of the parking on the theater parking lot to help maintain those trees and and avoid any impacts to them. So, good. We're winding the sidewalk through the site to help maintain as many trees as we can.

Okay. Well, I appreciate that because that's probably one of the big things that uh people still enjoy. you know, you know, I know that the um Mr. Cash house is gone, but Roy Orersonson's house was there and I think Eddie Raven was on the same street and then um Marty Stewart, I think well Marty may have Royy's house there now. But anyway, that was one of the special things that people always enjoyed uh that they live back there that those trees were there. So, I appreciate you maintaining those trees there. Thank you. That's all. That's I just need to

And the new sidewalk will be meandering. It won't necessarily be straight. It'll be okay. Yeah, that's good. That Yeah. Alderman Skidmore. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Any other discussion? Okay. All those in favor of resolution 2026-01, press the green button. Those opposed, press the red. We missing is Alman Garton. That passes 12 to one. Again, I'm the only person voting against it. Um uh to one. Thank you all. Thank you all guys. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Next, we have second region ordinance 2025-26. This is an ordinance amending the Henderson Municipal Code Title 20 establishing credits for assessed impact fees. First thing I need to do is hand you out the uh hard copy of what I emailed you yesterday. Um and it will be a total substitute. The easiest way I think is do a total substitution uh of the text that we passed on first reading with this text. And the reason is because you'll see some red uh some red text in there. Thank you. Um I need a motion first. Thank you. We have a motion from Alderman Goodwin and a second from Alderman Gart. Thank you. Uh the the red text in there is what we're adding. Most of that is clarifying language uh that Jesse and Lance and I thought were mostly Jesse and Lance thought were worthwhile and then as I read I thought this this should be this definitely will be helpful. Um but I need a motion to make that substitute. Everything else everything that's in black is exactly what we passed last uh two weeks ago, four weeks ago. Uh that has not changed. So I'm going to entertain a motion that we make that amendment.

We have a motion from Alderman Garza, a second from Alderman Goodwin. Any discussion on that substitute? All those in favor, please say I. Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Alderman Collins. Oh, I was gonna Oh, sorry. Okay. So, we're back to the main motion. Keith, anything else stand out to you that we may need to do? Okay. I think we're good with that addition. Okay. Okay. So, we made just that one amendment which substitutes all the text. All those in favor of second reading of ordinance 2025-06, please say I.

Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Now we're in a second reading ordinance 2025-25. This is an ordinance amending the Hendersonville Municipal Code, Title 20, established impact fees for the city of Hendersonville. I need to pass out an amendment to you. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Tam. Uh, do we have a motion? We have a motion from Alderman Collins and a second from Alderman Garza. Give us just a second here. So, there are three parts to this amendment. This is this one, right?

Yes. Um, two of them are uh definitions that Lance felt were important to add in there. And then one is the uh effective date which would be July 1st 2026. So I'm going to make that motion that we accept the amendment. Second.

We have a second from Alderman Collins. And I'll uh I'll wait for everybody to get Alman Robertson on the amendment. explain to me uh explain to me the date July the 1st 26. What's the

what's Typically uh our our ordinances are passed when they're passed they become effective. So what why the delayed implementation? Um I'm not real married to this but for me beginning of the fiscal year also gives us time also gives our staff uh time to implement this and come up with the administrative procedures for this because one of the things we have to make sure is that we go as a builder goes through the permit process um similar to what we're dealing with with the with the county aft that they have to verify that that has been p that that that impact fee has been paid. I don't know that it's going to take us four months to put that administrative process in place. Uh but I also want to make sure that it's fair that um people understand that this is a change and this is something that they're going to have to uh they're going to have to make adjustments for. Um Keith and I talked about this uh he was comfortable as early as as April. Um feeling that we could do that.

Okay, I need to ask Keith a question. Are are there any pending applications for developments that this would slip in under? Yeah, there well there's always going to be uh ones that have already went to the planning commission and got approval. They're already they're already vested. Yeah.

Uh we have several things, but you know, it's I mean it's always going to be a couple of different projects that are, you know, will be pending. So, it's really just a matter of whatever the date Bulma wants to do, then, you know, that's the date that uh that we'll do it. I'm not aware of one right now that um I'm concerned about. You know, most most of the issues would be commercial, but the mayor has referred to you that you said that you you your staff could be ready April the 1st.

Yeah, this is February, right? So, yeah. Yeah, I believe we can we can do that. And really what that is is um uh we have our software system and it's got to be all put in there and we got to make sure that's working correctly. Uh plus we need to work with finance to make sure we set up the appropriate accounts because these have to be held in different uh different accounts and just also probably write a few internal policies on how we're going to administer it. And so just a just a few things. So, okay, we could do April the 1st, July the 1st. It's really just whatever the desire of uh of Bulma would be. I would say probably not not prior to April the 1st in order to give the staff uh time to to get everything in order.

All right. I may come back later, but I I'll I want to hear some other discussion. Okay. Alderman Sassy on the amendment. Yes, sir.

Go ahead. Um, so we've been discussing in in some way, shape, or form about impact fees for about two years. Uh, we we hear from our constituents about us needing impact fees almost every day. I'm hearing about it now. And um I just don't feel like we need we should be delaying any further. Uh, so if this board is amendable to it, I if if um Mr. Free or U Director Free says we can do it April 1st, I want I want to implement it April 1st. Uh, what's that motion?

And so I'm going to make a motion that we that we uh implement April 1st. Okay. So we have an amendment amendment to the amendment uh made by Alderman Sassy, second by Alderman Robertson that we that on the two sheets that we just handed out to you, there are two places that have July 1st, 2026. This motion would change that to April 1st, 2026. Any other discussion on this? Alderman Garton on the date that that works with finance, too. I know it does with planning, but since they have to get with finance, does that

Yeah, that should work. um they can't actually update their software until finance sets up all of the account codes because it links. So um that shouldn't be a problem. Thank you, Alman Gordon. All those in favor of the amendment, please say I. I. Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimous. Do we have a no? I'm sorry, Alman Evans. That passes with the majority vote to one.

Okay. So now we're back on the amendment which has three parts. Two of them are really definitions and the third one is the effective date that has been changed to April 1st, 2026. Are you all ready to vote on the amendment? Looks like it. All those in favor of the amendment, please say I. I. Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Alman Evans, yes.

No. Okay. Al that pass with a majority vote 121. Alman Evans votes no. I know how you feel. I've done it a couple times tonight. So, uh, now we're back on the main motion for impact fees. Any other discussion? Alderman Martin, I just wanted to u voice a concern from some of the constituents. I see some are actually here. Um, the baby step or the tiered approach. Um it it may be problematic and I don't know if a lot of thought has been has been put into it, but it seems like if you have a five-year plan and you have the lowest uh fee in the first year versus u five years that it would spur developers to come in and get their projects uh started in the first year. And I think that would would cause a real spur and uptick in development in this city. Um so I just wanted to to voice that and give everybody a chance to think about that as we talk about this.

A lot Martin. Thank you. Always sassy. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I just wanted first of all wanted to just thank this board for moving this forward and um I'm very excited that after two years of us talking about it and and researching it and having um uh having uh what do you call them? I'm drawing a blank now. No, the the what? Workshops.

Yeah, workshops. There you go. Thank you. Golly, where's my brain? Uh, it broke. Um, having workshops on this that we're finally at the tail end of actually, uh, implementing impact fees, uh, which our our constituents have been calling for, and I know that some of us ran on in our elections, including myself. Um, so very excited to move this across the finish line. Now that said, I uh want to echo the concerns from Alderman Alderman Martin and um I had I shared some some uh slides earlier today about other cities who have implemented impact fees and I wanted to see if we could show those up here on the screen uh for those in the audience and those at home to see uh are we able to do that? See, I think you moved a little bit faster than we were ready for. J, are we good? Cool. So, um, got a list here, too. But I I I called a number of different cities. Some of them were very eager and called me back right away and had great conversations with them, and some I just never heard from. Uh but every person I did hear from, they had some uh pretty extensive viewpoints on this and um were frankly a little concerned on how we're implementing this. So uh we'll go down the list here. So here we have White House. They also used uh titular vice uh study. Uh oh. They also used the titular bice study and they implemented 100% of what titular bice recommended so or uh said that they could support as an impact fee. So um and and keeping in mind that I eliminated any fire or police or other impact fees. I only focused on roads and

parks because that's what we're considering. So uh if they included those, I just subtracted those out. Um and they gave me a bunch of information on on all that. So I was able to really fine-tune on it. So White House, for instance, their impact fees, like I said, 100% for both roads and parks. They did implement commercial fees as well, which by the way, I am not going to be recommending that we add that on today. Okay. Uh this board has clear clearly spoken that you do not want commercial impact fees. I disagree, but that's why we have a board of 13 votes, right? Uh because you feel like you're doing what you feel is best for your constituents. So, I'd still want to include that information on here, though, because each one of them that I spoke to also said, "Why aren't you implementing commercial impact fees?" That does not make any sense. If you're going to do it for residential, you should do it for commercial. But that's that's besides the point. Just wanted to share that and then show you the information that they provided for me. So, um for White House, we can see, like I said, 100% of what was um supported based on the study from Titler Bice. If we go down the next one, we have Smyrna and theirs was actually 61.4%. Not sure how they came came to that number, but uh it was 61.4% of what was supported on again the titler by study. Uh on the next next page, we have Franklin. Um it wasn't really clear on the percentage that their study was. they they couldn't really articulate that either and it it wasn't in any of the documents they shared with me, but these rates are pretty high. So, I would assume it was it's probably 100%. That's a pure guess, so don't sue me. But, um, we we see on here where they actually have it broken out by single family, 1500 to 3,000 ft², duplex, 1500 ft², and uh to 3,000 feet, and then multif family. Um, and parks across the board

was the same all the way across. Not sure how that came about. Um, and I wasn't sure who they used for their study either, which is why I didn't include that here. On the next page, we have Eagleville, which also was 100%. They only did parks and police, fire, and something else. Um, but they didn't do anything for roads, so I didn't include that here. Eagle View, I don't think it has a lot of roads anyways. So, that's probably what what's on They don't.

Yeah, they don't have a whole lot of roads. So, but they they their highest expense actually was police uh on theirs if I remember correctly. But anyway, so on their parks, they did do 100% on those. And all this to say, um the reason why they did such a high percentage is because if we accept $1, we're now committing to that project. If we take a dollar from a residential developer and for for impact fees, we're now saying we're going to spend this dollar on something that you've impacted. And so if we're spending if we're only charging them 17%. That means taxpayers have to fill in the other three 83% of those impact fees. That doesn't sit right with me. If the development is going to be impacting these roads and these parks, they should pay a majority of what they're impacting. And so I would like to offer an amendment. Like I said, I'm not going to I'm not going to bring forth commercial impact fees. And I'm not also I'm not going to offer a staggered approach. Once we set it, I think it needs to be set. And then every year, if we wanted to, we could adjust those fees as we saw fit. We could look at the market. we could see what it looks like and we can adjust those fees as we do another study. We can adjust the fees. Again, that's really at the at the discretion of the board at the time. I may be here, I may not. So, I would like to offer an amendment that we change the residential impact fees to 60% of what was recommended by Titler Bice for both parks and um roads on residential only.

Do you have a a certain number of that is I knew you were going to ask that and I ran out of time and I did not calculate it. So, um I do not have that exact number. Um yeah, we could we could figure it out pretty easily, but uh Keith, are you able to do that? We'll try. Okay. Thank you. But that is my amendment. Thank you.

Okay. Uh help me out, Alderman Sassy. So, I guess the best thing is look on page 48. And uh the top chart, there's sort of three charts there. In the top one, what you're saying is go 60% on all 10 cells that have a dollar figure in there. But we'll figure out what that what that money amount is. Is that what I'm hearing you say? Um so page 48. Yeah, I'm on 48. But it's not 60% of what's listed here. It's 60% of what Kitler Bice recommended. Yes, that's that would be that would be correct. All 10 cells. It's not escalating.

Yeah, we no escalation. It would just be one fee for single family, multif family. I'm fine with the one-/irds for parks, 2/3 for roads. That doesn't that I mean, however you want to do that, but just 60%. Yeah. Okay. And we have a second from Alman Bergdorf. So, the proposed fees were 12691 for uh single family. I'm sorry, that's um fire, police, and street. So, it's 10836 for street. Oh, have you done the math? Is that

No, I'm I'm trying to do it right right now. Or maybe Keith has got that information. He's looking stressed right now. 6,500 for

Okay. What is it for multif family? Uh 7745 times 60%. And this is just street 4650. 4650. Are you okay, Alderman Sassy and Alderman Burgdorf with rounding? Yes. Okay. So I I do want Keith, can you verify that we're I think it's higher. Yeah, because you're just you're almost tripling the 3500. Yeah, you're just talking about you're just talking about streets. You're not talking about That's just streets. Yes. So you'd have to add parks to it to the figure. Yes. And parks we're going to get to. Okay. Okay.

Okay. So, your motion is just for streets? No, it's for streets and parks, but I've got a I'm trying to find it here. Uh, so the parks impact fees, it's uh 71.97 was the proposed amount. So, 60% of that 71.97 and multif family was 4871 times 60% Thanks for your help there. I You have that calculator over there, don't you? Got that big calculator in his head. That's a good idea.

Yeah. Okay. We've got a motion to take a short break. Make it five minutes. Alderman Sassy has a second. All those in favor, please say I. Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Apologies

Okay. So, um, so we have the math worked out. Alderman, Alman Sassy, do you want to restate your motion? And Alderman Burgdorf, you're Is that correct? Alderman Burgdorf made a second. So, make sure that you, uh, Alderman Burgdorf, if you agree with this, otherwise we'll need to go to somebody else. Alman Sassy, go ahead. Turn his mic. Oh, yeah. That'd be helpful. Here we go. Thank you.

Uh, yeah, apologies for that. Did all this research and then forgot to actually run the numbers. So, I appreciate everyone jumping on that and um determining what those exact numbers were. So, the motion that I am making is amending this to the parks would be for single family 4318. The street for single family would be 6502 for a total of 10820. Multif family parks is 23 2923. Street is 4647 for a total of 7570 with no escalation. Um and th this board can decide what to do year-over-year. Uh but that is my motion. This this equals almost exactly 60% of what titler bice recommended to us to establish as impact fees. And I think not only is this fair for it's it's m having the developer who's causing the impact foot foot the majority of the bill, right? They're paying 60% but taxpayers are going to be paying 40% of it. That's a whole lot better for me. uh I can uh than the 83% that we were going to be forcing them to pay. Um I think this makes a lot more sense and I hope you can support this. Thank you. So Ottoman Sassy, correct me if I'm wrong here. So go to page 48, eliminate those three table, those three tables there, and just think of it in terms of uh parks single family 4318, parks multif family 2923 for a total of 10,8

sorry parks and road single single family. Oh, hold on. Sorry. Go ahead. Als uh so let let's look at just single family first. Okay, so we have parks at 4318 and street at 6502. Okay. And that equals 10820. There we go. Okay. Then the multif family is going to be 2320 2923 for park, 4647 for street, which is a total of 7570. Okay. Alderman Burgdorf, uh, do you re do you accept this revision in your second? I am catching up with you and I I agree with his amendment.

Okay. Alderman Dixon, on the on the amendment. Thank you, mayor. Uh, what keeps rolling through my head um is that this is just going to get passed on to the homeowner, the buyer. And, um, I I I think that was the intention, I believe, um, that was stated from, uh, the mayor and Alderman Collins original. um um um uh ordinance and I really want to support impact fees, but I'm on the fence just because of that. I mean, our homes cost so much already, and I I really like to see the future generations be able to afford a home in Hendersonville because it's a wonderful place to live. Um, so I I I got about five minutes to think about it. It's where I am. But I appreciate the amendment. I really do. Alderman Sassy. Thank you.

Thank you, Alman Dixon. Alderman Robertson. So, Alderman Sassy, why did you pick pick this? Is it 61%? What What What's or 61% of what is recommended by the consultant? 60. 60. So, so what's what's magic about 60%.

Yeah, great question. Um, the reason why I chose 60 is because I feel the developer who's causing the impact should pay for the majority of the impact. So, this is I still feel like it needs to be a partnership like my original ordinance that that failed partnership between the developer and the citizens or the the taxpayers. Um, but with this amendment, this or with this amendment, it um it causes them to pay for a little bit more. It's still a partnership, but they're paying for majority of the impact that's that's being applied. So, uh, I think that's fair, uh, since they're the ones causing the impact to pay a little bit extra. We could do 5050, uh, as well. I just thought made more sense, especially since we did do away with commercial impact fees, that this this would be um something that could that we could all rally around to produ produce some uh revenue for the things that this development is going to impact without putting an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers. So, uh Keith, I have a question for you. when when we adopt and we are going to adopt on second reading an impact fee tonight I believe. I'm not sure what time it'll be but I think I think we will get there eventually. Um, so with the ordinance that we just passed on credits, uh, how often do you think that a developer will actually have to pay if this is voted the $10,820 when we consider credits? I mean, it

looks like this board is moving aggressively toward credits. So if a developer pays for development or for improvements that would be deducted off right off of uh off of That's correct. this amount. That's correct. So uh kind of give me your your uh crystal ball view of how you think that they will look if we adopted this 10,820 with an aggressive credits. what it would be normally typical that they would probably see.

Uh the uh the credits are certainly something uh that someone would be able to tap into that's going to have to end up paying uh development impact fees. So I think any developer they're going to be looking for how can I get how can I work the credits and actually we want them to do that. Uh the thing that's going to be as we project forward, uh as you know, we're in a transition on our growth. Uh we're transitioning from high growth uh to infill and redevelopment.

And so um and I think I stated it at the planning commission uh last week uh with the uh adoption of a couple of preliminary plats for Forest Park. That is our last big subdivision in the city of Hendersonville. We're not we're not going to have another large development like anything like that. Uh so most of the developments over the next several years will probably be smaller. There'll be a hundred, you know, maybe 50, 60, maybe a 100 uh in some cases. Uh so some of those the total of those impact fees and the total of maybe what a traffic impact study might say they have to do and all of those things it might be a little bit more limited than some of the things we've been used to like you know Millstone or Forest Park or Durham Farms you know some of those larger developments that had uh larger transportation improvements and things like that. So, uh I think this will be utilized uh the tax credits, but I think overall like what a what a development will pay will be quite quite a bit lower as far as a t because there won't be that many units. There's not going to be that many units. We're not going to have, you know, 600 unit subdivision

that's going to be built and more than likely we're not going to have a 600 unit apartment complex that's going to be developed. maybe small ones, you know, maybe small multif family or even, you know, 30 to 40 to 50 units of a new home somewhere. Uh could could happen in the infill kind of redevelopment. Okay. Well, let's let's look at Forest Park because that's been mentioned uh that a higher impact fee might not be fair to competitors with with Forest Park. Okay.

I asked you some questions and you responded. Thank you for responding uh to my questions and uh without looking at the email. Uh when you c consider offsite improvements for Forest Park required plus the voluntary impact fee that they have paid you you plus the the land that they gave the city for a park. Um, plus helping on the by the the exit 8, right? A cash help there.

You estimated subject to check. You said that Forest Park per home is paying the city based on all those uh contributions uh $9,218 per lot. That's that's probably it may be a little more than that amount, but that's that's roughly probably about what it is. That's not counting the four to 500,000 for the improvement they had to do in the front with the turn lanes uh there. I don't I don't think that counted that. Uh but uh but yeah, so I think it worked out to be around 9 $10,000.

Yeah. So there Forest Park Development according to your calculations uh is is paying about well over $9,000 in contributions either land cash payments or whatever road improvements, exit 8 improvements per home, per residential home. That's correct.

Yeah. So that that that that really informed my dis my thinking on this because I I don't want to put a competitor at a disadvantage. Um so it it looks like unless we require other developers to do similar offsite improvements of that magnitude that they might be getting off less than the Forest Park development. So, I'm really struggling with this. I I'll be honest. I I like the old uh Goldilocks formula. I I think 3500 is is too low. I think the $10,820 is too high. I would like something in the middle. I think would be more palatable to me. Um, but I I want to hear the discussion and I want to hear the the debate on the other side of why $3500 is the magic number that that we need to go with on the second reading. So, with that, I will I will uh uh close and and wait to hear further discussion.

Alderman Robertson, thank you. Alderman Burgdor, I thought Alderman Sassy was um I think that light was hanging on from before.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Um thank you very much for the opportunity to uh talk about this and I am one of the co-sponsors of the amendment. Um so looking at all the and alderman Robertson's right impact fees if as designed right now will save developers money. It will actually save them money. So we are those of us who are trying to enforce a fair uh level playing field across the board. We're trying to save developers money. So they will come in and contribute to the community, contribute u to the roads, continue to contribute, but not be uh with a wink and a nod, not as a voluntary um a voluntary impact fee. Not with uh everything will be above board, everything will be clear as clear as uh as water. Good water. Not old Hickory Lake, but good water. Um, so I think that this right here, Alderman Sassy, would you do me a favor and repeat what the impact fees based upon your research, the impact fees from these that you've seen uh these these neighborhoods that you've called what each one of them uh is imposing? White House in particular. May I do that? Is that mayor may mayor is that?

So he doesn't have any obligation to answer but Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Uh so there it is on the screen there. Um and this was a titler by study. It's 100% of what they recommended but their for at the time they ran this their roads were 1147 for for single family and 11.89 89 for parks uh in White House for a total of 2336 but they incorporated commercial as well. But they did incorporate commercial as well. Another one that you exercised Franklin Franklin Yep. That's a one.

Yeah, Franklin uh was much much higher uh as you can see there. So roads and parks totaled over $14,000 for single family and duplexes and 11,000 for multif family. So, if we had any question about anyone moving from here or Franklin, where do you think they'd want to go? Well, when I spoke to Franklin, I can tell you what she what they said. They the person I spoke to uh which they did give me their permission to say who they were. It's Kathleen Katherine Harelson.

And um she specifically said that uh they that impact fees has not impacted growth. their growth has been steady, building activity is steady, and in fact, they've increased their impact fees over the last five years, and they've seen no effect on their growth. So, um, and that's commercial and residential, but um, people or developers have continued to come into the city and develop regardless of the of the impact fees. And they don't have a lake with brown water.

And they don't have a lake. That's correct. Um, I I I want to reiterate all this because I feel like the boogeyman is that people are going to be running away from the city of Hendersonville because we have impact fees. I I I just do not see the evidence here does not uh promote that. Maybe a slowdown initially, but it's it's going to people still like us. I mean, as evidence of all our staff, they're from out of state now, it seems like. Um, but I think we still going to have a lot of people come to the neighborhood and be members of our community. They want to come here because uh, Alderman Skidmore was in public works saying today when you go to the grocery store out there, you wave to people. People wave back. They don't look at you like you got three heads. Then they and how's your mama then? That's what we say, right? So, we are that community. We are friendly. We are open. And we welcome everybody into the community. I don't see that impact fees is going to be uh is going to have a detrimental effect on any uh any building or development in the area. Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate it.

Alman Bdor, thank you. Alderman Martin.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think, uh, Alderman Robersonson really makes a great point and, um, talking about the Forest Park and, uh, how much fee, um, for per for per unit that that brought in. Um, I think around 10,000. Um, it really puts into perspective how small the fee is in the current current ordinance that we're looking at. And I think that's a that's a big problem that that's $7,000 a lot on a similar type development that we would not capture. Um so I I really like uh Alderman Sassy's amendment um the 60% and then I also like that it's it's level so it takes away the incremental fee. the incremental fee which I think um would entice development in year one and really um really cause a lot of u building to go on uh relatively soon. So um I do want to say uh the research that Alderman Sassy has done I think that's amazing. Um, so I wanted to give my compliments to that and I think it's valuable information um, not only what other cities are doing, um, but how how well they're doing while they do it. So um, my compliments to you,

Martin, thank you, Alman Evans. Um, we've been talking about this for several months and and I think it was mentioned that some people even campaigned on impact fees. Uh, but the point about Forest Park that was made really brought it home to me. And I'm going to I'm speaking from the other side of that. Uh because I live in Durham Farms and and I think if you kind of went back and you looked at the land that was donated by Durham Farms development by the voluntary fees that that they paid and some other things that they did for the city probably that um it's going to be somewhere I'm not going to say it's it's anywhere near what Forest Park is going to be paying, but my thought is and what what I want you to consider is we do do a good job of negotiating these things and looking out for the interests of what we need in that particular area for the city. And when we when we go down the road of putting something, it has to be this, then we lose the ability to be creative to um to be talking to that developer to to talk to whoever about what do we need in that particular area. So, if you were in the Forest Park, if you're talking about $9 to $10,000, and let's just say that we approve the the the impact fees at at what's been proposed of the $3,500 per home, that's all you could do. You couldn't do any of the other stuff that you've negotiated with otherwise. So, where I am on that is let's be creative. Let's be smart and let's let's let our planning folks, our planning commission, those of us, you know, talk to these people and as as we're bringing these people in, and again, there's not that many left

anymore, but let's be smart. Let's be creative and let's negotiate what we can get uh for those and not have to be dependent upon just it's this because then you you take off the table anything that you could do uh create from a creative standpoint. Um so I just want to lay that out there. Thank you. Alderman Evans. Thank you. I'm going to go to Alderman Collins who hasn't spoken yet on this.

Thank you. Um, I want to say that Alderman Sassy's thoughts on this are logical and philosophically sound. So, it is not that I think he's so wrong, this is terrible, but there are two things where I take an issue. I don't know if people are misspeaking or if the emphasis is perhaps wrong or just kind of not thinking about it properly. The developer writes the check, but let's be clear, the homeowner pays for this. So, the developer isn't going to pay for it. In fact, by the time the homeowner pays for it, they will have not only paid for the fee that we charge, but they will also have paid the interest that the developer has paid on that money or lost on that money. So, this is a tax that, okay, it's a fee legally that is paid by the end consumer, our constituents, at a higher rate than what we even receive. Um, so I just would like for us to pause and and think the developer is not the one paying for this. It's the home, the eventual homeowner. Um, there is another significant difference with Forest Park. I wasn't on the board at that time. Um, I think only two people, three people were here when that happened. But that was a reasonzoning. So if you're if you're asking to reszone, we can negotiate pretty hard. Impact fees will apply to land owners who have by right the ability to build and it's not just

people who are asking for a reszone. So it's we're all we we've done this in our last meeting as well. What did Costco do? What did this one do? There's never an apples to apples here. It's always oranges to bananas because no two situations have ever come across and looked exactly alike. Impact fees will make it look a lot more alike. Um except for that of course the credit system is in place and it was stated that we're leaning heavily towards credits. We're legally required to have credits. We're not leaning anything. we we either have credits or we don't have impact fees. They're not it's not something we can say, "Oh, we we just want cash." Credits have to be an option. And I just want to remind everybody that when a traffic study or something indicates like the turning lane that they had to build into Forest Park off of Saundersville, there at Saundersville Station, that was indicated by the traffic study. So that would not count towards the credits towards the impact fees. It's a separate thing. It's required. It's outside of all of this. And um so while Alderman Sassy and others your statements are valid and logical and they make complete sense for me it we still have to think about the cost of housing, how that impacts the culture of our community, how that impacts who gets to live here, when they get to live here. Will they own a home or will

they rent a home? And we have to strike a balance there. And for me, this amendment does not strike that balance. Um, if you feel that it does, I respect that difference of opinion. Um, but for me, it does not strike that balance. It does not protect who we are culturally. Um, it doesn't make this a place where we always say where our kids can live, but I don't think it's an issue of youth because the housing costs compared to the median income are completely out of line with each other at this point in our community. So, it's not about how old you are, how far along in your career you are. It's about if you're bringing money from out of state where the cost of living was higher, that's how you can afford a house here. If you've lived and worked here for 20 years, you probably can't. And if you've lived and worked here for 20 years, you probably can't afford to buy the house that you currently live in at today's market rate. And and that's why I talk about how this could impact the culture of our community and change who we are, not just our kids living here. They may not want to live here, but I do. And I'd like to be able to um think that I could afford to live here. I think I'm a good person here. I do a lot of work for nonprofits. I contribute to the community. I'm the kind of person you want. But if I were moving here now, I couldn't do it. So, I just want us to really think about how to balance

the needs for infrastructure, particularly for people who have this land, uh, have the ability to build a house by right, and the need to maintain the culture of our community. Thank you, Alderman Collins. Thank you, Alderman Sassy. Thank you, Mayor. Alman Sassy, I'm sorry. Um, our city attorney feels like he needs to interject something. Really? Just kidding. Go ahead.

I felt the need for a little CYA or disclaimer here because what what we were doing was uh we were assessing roads um assessing just residential for roads. And that's nothing I've found really anywhere that we that anyone else has done except for out in Arizona. I saw it a case on it um that that prevailed at the trial court level but didn't really um it was moot by the time it got to the court of appeals out there. So there's it's something that we don't see a lot and it's there's a good legal question as to whether or not that's proportional to leave commercial out of um roads. I felt good about it. I felt comfortable and legal it being legally defensible based on the low number um based on the um the benefits that we've all addressed and talked about uh from non-residential uh sales tax and um and higher property taxes and and and everything else. But, uh, I mean, this number is up there where I feel less comfortable about that. Just just so if you do vote on this, don't point your finger at me is all I'm saying. Um, that was my opinion was based more on these numbers than this number because this $10,820 for single family. I mean, Franklin is 14,000 and Franklin is a bigger city than Hendersonville and they're they're assessing commercial and we're not. That's I'm just having a hard time. I don't know what the magic number is. I just for some reason felt more comfortable legally at the 3500 to 5,000 number than I do this 10,820 number for multif family. $7,570 per unit. I mean, that that can be a

pretty big number. And I would imagine that a multif family developer would tend to want to uh ask why commercial is not being um not paying their fair share on something like that. And to Alderman Collins's point, I did want to make sure we understood that the way that the credits work under these ordinances, if a traffic study requires a uh development to put in a another turning lane or even a traffic signal, they they don't get credit for that. They're still paying the impact fee. I'm not trying to influence legislation, but I just want to make sure the board understands that I feel a little less a little bit more than less comfortable with these numbers on the proportionality argument of the impact fees.

Thank you. Uh, Alderman Sassy, thank you. Okay, here we go. Um, just a couple things. Uh, Lance, it was mentioned that credits are legally required. I wasn't aware of that. Is that true that credits are legally required? Okay. It is true for for things that um I mean it's they they're not legally required for credits that are a result of the um development itself like I mentioned like attorney link for example. Right. Okay. Well, that said, you know, I wasn't somebody does a part, you know,

that that said, I wasn't aware of that. However, I want developers to use the credit. Let's be clear. You know, if they if they use an entire credit or if they if they get so much credit they are bringing their impact fees down to zero when they would have paid 7570 for a multif family. I think that's the benefit to the city. that means that they've made improvements that the city would have had to do anyways. And so that's that's a net benefit to the city and to the citizens as a whole who we represent. So um while I didn't know they're legally required, great. All the better. Um, and I I hope developers do use them and make our city better because that's what we're all all up here to do is to make our city better to make this a great place to live for for our citizens. Now, um, you uh, Alderman Dixon, you did mention about future generations and them wanting to move to the city, which I am totally in support of. Absolutely. We need the new, younger generation. However, I don't know of very many that new younger generation, they're able to buy a brand new home. They're going to be, in my view, because I've heard a lot of opinions tonight, so I'm going to share mine. My view is they're going to be buying something that's older. Uh maybe something needs to be worked on uh a little bit. They're not going to be able to afford a brand new home, and they couldn't do that today

over in Ward One.

Um and and I just keep on going about you. I've heard a lot tonight about how that's just going to get pushed onto the buyer. Um, for a new home buyer, yeah, it it will get pushed on new buyer. Someone who's buying an older home or a pre-existing home, I guess I should say it won't get pushed on because there is no development there. But at the end of the day, the current res uh current or ordinance is only establishing 17%. I keep going back to that. I keep hearing I'm keep going back to, you know, making uh homes affordable. What about making Hendersonville affordable for the people who are already living here? And if if if the developer is only paying 17% and we're pushing that other 85% on the the residents, this is going to actually increase taxes because as Alderman Martin has indicated, that stair step or that baby steps or however you want to whatever you want to call it, it's going to uh cause developers to want to come in here faster to do more development uh uh sooner and they're only all going to be paying 17%. And our citizens are going to have to cover the 80 the other 83% for these impacts that that development is doing. And that is going to cause a shortfall in the city and we cannot have a shortfall. The only other option is going to be to raise taxes. I'm not okay with that. Um, and if this passes tonight, I just all I want to say is watch out because I see that happening. I've talked to other like, you know, I've talked to all these other cities and I mentioned to them what we were proposing and they thought it was ludicrous that

it was crazy. Why would we do that? Why would we put that on our on our taxpayers, on our citizens? I can't vote for that. I I we need to do more. Maybe 60% is too much. And I'm willing to discuss that. And and Alderman Robertson, you had talked about how 3500 was too low. The 60% the 10,000 is too high. Let's find a happy medium. But I I can't live with 17% and putting 83% of that impact on our taxpayers. Thank you, Alderman Sassy. Thank you, Alman Burgor.

Uh thank you, mayor. Appreciate that. Um couple of things we do have going on here. I have a question. I've been looking for this and I think we've discussed it before but I cannot re uh remember exactly maybe are there in this ordinance are there any restrictions on voluntary contributions that the the developer can make? Are there any restrictions? Well, so we we call it voluntary cont contributions.

They're really legally called exactions. Um if and we've talked about this in another development recently where if we have an agreement that uh you will do X then we will approve Y. That's that's an exaction. So there there are legal restrictions to exacting and um collecting an impact fee. Okay. Does this ordinance then remove the risk of exactions that we're involved in?

Does it does it uh No, it doesn't. You can't remove that risk there. The the the ris the risk is there. What I'm trying to get at here is are voluntary contributions from developers restricted in any way? Can anybody give anything they want to to the city? I I think in reality or by application a developer could say, "Well, h how can you make me, you know, I'm already paying impact fees. Legally, you cannot make me I'm not I'm not I'm not making them. I'm not making them. Yeah. If I want to give you $2, can I give you $2?

If you want to give me $2 in exchange for mech to uh I know we say that just volunteer." Voluntary. Yes. I mean, if it's straight up voluntary, but just remember that the law sees most of those things, if not all of them as exactions. And you can't because this impact fee here, based upon your assessment, this uh residential only impact fee, it you said it puts us at greater risk. So, going forward, do we need to go ahead and add commercial to it to reduce that risk of lawsuit? From a legal perspective, y if it were these numbers, I would feel more comfortable with commercial being in there from a legal perspective.

That's something to think about. All right. Um uh I I'm interested to hear if there are any other uh numbers that any of the other aldermen may have a uh idea want to submit uh as an idea as instead of 60% is there something else that someone wants to submit? Alderman Burgdorf. Thank you, Alderman Robertson. We're really trying to set good policy. We're trying to wait balance the interest.

We're trying to pro we're trying to promote the public interest in our in our discussions. They've been good discussions. This is I'm kind of a policy wonk. This is what I enjoy about being an alderman is the the is the debate, the rational debate, the balancing of interest and coming up with a solution. Uh I used to referee high school football. And uh you know I I noticed that when uh players saw me looking at them, they behaved pretty good. If they thought I was looking the other way, they'd hit somebody or do something illegal. But tonight, we've had our referee tell us that he can justify 35 up to five what was originally proposed. If we go over what he has said tonight, you can bet your bottom dollar there's going to be a lawsuit. and the words of our general coun our our city attorney are going to be repeated in that lawsuit. So, I would propose that we go back to the original $5,000, what he said is defendable, and we we go to $5,000 and then we look at it in the future and maybe escalate it, but but start out at 5,000, cap it at five, and then every year look at it thereafter. I know that's that's not splitting the baby in the middle. But I'm not King Solomon.

So, uh, I I think based on what our head referee said, our our legal counsel, that I would only feel comfortable going back to the $5,000. Uh, you know, and I'm going to Tip O'Neal, Speaker of the House, once said, "All politics is local." So, I'm looking at a local project in W 6. I'm looking at stop 30. Stop 30, as you're aware, uh has uh some vested zoning of 200 homes on stop 30. Uh now we have applied to the GNRC for funding of stop 30 and they have estimated that stop 30 to improve it like Saundersville Road, like Mr. Lucky helped do is going to cost between 10 and 12 million. If we go with $5,000, that will give us a million of the 8020 split if the GNRC funds it. So based on what Mr. Ray said, I only feel comfortable going to the $5,000. I will support that. Other than that, based on his comments, I can't I can't put this I can't put this board at risk. So that that's what I would hope that the sponsor the of the motion uh and the the second would consider. And if they if they do that, I will vote for 5,000. I don't know if that'll pass or not, but I think that's that's a compromise that is legally defensible. Thank you, Alman Robertson. Thank you, Alderman Garza.

Um, yeah, Alderman Robertson, I've been listening to what you have to say and I'm in pretty much agreement with you. I do think that the 3500 we're first looking at here is too low and I happen to agree that the 10,800's too high. Uh, I don't even know where the $5,000 number came from. Uh, and I'm not trying to um penny pinch here, but I look at 108 and 3500 in my mind goes to $6,000. Not trying to add more money to it, but I just think I still think the original 5,000, which we're all happy with, is still a madeup number. It's still not even close to what we were expected to spend or expected to charge. So, as we did during the negotiations for some of our first responders pay, uh I could easily go to 6,000 and uh 5,500 for multif family. And I don't think that uh uh Mr. Ray, would that be too offensive?

Well, like I said, that there's no magic number that I can come up with. Um, I think you know it the the more it goes up the more in my mind the legal risk goes up. So I think that um and you're right. I mean I don't know where the 3500 or the 5,000 came from in the first place but that's what was presented to me and that's what I did a lot of research on. Right. Um, so I mean the the the $10,821 was uh to me a lot of risk and it it goes down. But it wouldn't have been a lot of risk if the original number was $8,000, would it?

If it was $8,000 if I started that, why why do you why do you think that? Because it's really all relative. Right. Right. Right. Right.

So whatever numbers we come up with here, um I think you know Alderman Sassy has a great point. I mean, uh, you know, we want the, um, the developers to do their fair share. Some of it's going to get turned over to the homeowners. There's no question that's never been off the table. But I will say that a good developer will use that up quickly in credits because we want since we're getting less and less places to build, hopefully we get better developers in here to build those houses and hopefully it makes the city more efficient. So, uh, I'm not trying to, you know, again, negotiate numbers here, but, uh, going back to the original number still doesn't doesn't excite me at all. I I kind of like what Jeff uh, Mr. Sassy did here. Uh, I think the numbers are a bit high, but I think they're still heading in the right direction. So, I don't know if I could propose that or not since we have a proposal on the table. And Al Garza, I will say that just because these are the numbers that were originally presented to me that affected my opinion because of where they were in relation to the other cities that I I've looked at Franklin. I've looked at White House. I've looked at Mount Juliet and all of whom have commercial also assessed. But with ours being in proportions so much lower, I felt comfortable that we could defend it based on the other benefits that commercial brings based on those numbers

that I understand. I was not commercial impact fees whatsoever. So yeah, Alman Garza, thank you. Alman Evans, um there's been a lot of discussion. I'd like to call for the question. We have one other person that wants to speak. Uh you want to withdraw, Jeff, or we take a vote? And we'll take a vote. requires twothirds to uh to call the question or do you want to let him speak? Yeah, we can let him speak. Sure. You feel like you're good? Sure. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Appreciate the Alderman Evans. I'll come back to you if there's anything else. Go ahead, Alman.

I I just think this is too important to cut it short, but I do appreciate what what you're doing. Um, uh, Alderman Garza, just wanted to kind of I ran the numbers really quick and the 6,000 is 33% and the 5,500 that's just what you said, right? 6,5500. 5500 is 43%. I would be amendable to that if you wanted to make if this board could agree to that, I would be amendable to it as well because that's better than 17%. It's getting us there. It's one It's at least one/ird of the cost for single family and it's almost it's like 43% it's like what is that 38 uh approximately if this board's amendable to it I would be too. So if you made that motion I could I could vote for that.

You could amend or should I just amend my motion? So yeah. So yeah we've got a couple options. You could amend your original mo withdraw an amend withdraw and make a new motion or Alderman Garzo could amend the amendment. It's a lot easier if you and Alderman Burgdorf. Are you amendable to that? I am. All right. Then I would like to make my motion to be 6,000 for single family and 5,500 for multif family starting year one. Yeah. In year one and then we can re-evaluate in the second year. Yeah. So, well, I mean we could or we could not. It's going to be six 6,5500. Whatever the board decides to do after that is up to the board.

So if if you stick with that, that means if the board doesn't take any actions, we don't have impact fees after the first year. So I'd re What do you mean? So you're saying just for the first year? No, no, no. I'm saying it's 6,000 and it's 5,500. Okay. Done. Okay. 2026 single family multi 27 202 every year. So how do we break that down? Parks and roads. One third. Twoth3s. Let's do one. One third. Two/3. We're gonna do some more math here. Well, 2/3 is $4,000. One third is $2,000. I got that part. Parks is the one. Parks is oneird 5500 by three.

No, still no commercial. Is that correct? No commercial. Um 1/3 is uh on multif family is 1833 and uh 2/3 is 3666 3667 for multif family.

I need more sticky notes. Yeah. Yeah. We're We're doing math down here.

You're fine. Good. We will. Yes, I can if you need me to. Um, it it's total of $6,000 for single family, which breaks down to 4,000 for roads and 2,000 for parks.

Yeah. And then multif family is 5,500 total breaking down to 3667 for roads and$1833 for parks.

The first one was easy. 2,000 4,000. Yeah, I can do that one in my head. 5500. Okay. Okay. Does anybody need that repeated? Um,

okay. So, the total for single family would be 6,000. The total for multif family would be 5,500. The way that breaks down for single family is 2,000 toward parks, 4,000 toward roads. The way that breaks down for multifamily is 1,833 toward parks, and 3,667 toward roads. I can pass my sticky note around if it would help. Um, okay. We have a We You withdrew your motion for the other amendment. You made this motion. Alderman Burgdorf, have you made a second? Second. Okay. Um, let's go to Alderman Goodwin.

Can I just ask Mr. Ray what his opinion is of these numbers again for us, these new numbers? Um, I feel better than where we started or at least where the amendment started. But, uh, like I said, I think it it's just a matter of risk. It it it gets riskier as you go up based on how we're doing it. Um, so I mean, I guess I'm a I feel a little less comfortable than before tonight started, but I feel more comfortable than where we almost ended. I guess I don't know how to, you know, That's fourth down. Just right. That's right. Go Hawks.

Alman, good. Anything else? Okay. Thank you, Alderman Collins. So, just a point of clarification, that doesn't that's the fee and it continues to be the fee indefinitely. That was my impression. That's correct. So, from the 2030 number, uh, it's $500 more. than single family and $1,000 more for multif family. Is that that's that's what I see as well. So the real objection is the is stepping into it over time.

Um is that a question for me? Yes. The real objection was I felt like it was too low and I I heard from this board that the $3500 and $2,500 is too low, but my but my original motion was too high. So, I felt like Alderman Garza's proposal was a good medium uh between those two. Okay.

Um but also, yeah, the stairstepping I felt like that was uh taking power away from the board and it it just didn't make sense. Plus, it could uh spur higher development at the beginning of of the term of the impact fees. So, I like this better and then we can let future boards make their own determination. Um, Mr. Lance,

yeah. Do you feel that stairstepping into it changes the legally defensible um aspect of this? Well, I I do I did because I put in there, although we're required to um have a new study every five years, I think. I think I put in this ordinance that we would uh review it at least informally every every year to two years uh just to ensure that there's proportionality. Um but uh that was that was my thinking in that

um it is every year that we review it and then every every five years we have a new study done and that fiveyear if I recall from our conversations Mr. Lance that's actually required legally to be done every five years. So that's certainly not anything we would negotiate on. And um one of the things that I personally appreciate about reviewing it every year and having it step up is that it also gives us an opportunity to look at how much we've brought in and how many how much credits have been utilized

and all of that and to see the practical application of this. Um, Mr. Free, Director Free, could you, you may not be able to, but I am going to put you on the spot so you can dance. Um, do you think that um, stairstepping into this will cause a rush of development? Uh I don't I don't know that that's really something I'm can really comment on with with any certainty. It's certainly an certainly an option.

Uh but uh I I I don't know what that what that impact exactly would be or I would or I would definitely let you know. We're going to start this in April. How many how many um permits were pulled in January? Nine nine that's that's pretty low compared to what we've had over the last several years but as I said earlier we're we're entering a a different cycle a good cycle but it's a different cycle what do you mean I can you elaborate like what's different

yeah just our you know our intensity of growth that is really not driven by our desiraability is still extremely by so people want to be here, people want to invest here, people want to build here. It's just a matter of land. Uh there's just not uh

the amount of land we have available will over the next several years those those particular numbers of permits will will decline. That's not a bad thing. It's just a transition that our community is is going to be going into, which is pretty exciting for where we are and be able to maintain our high desiraability, which will then lead to substantial infill and substantial reinvestment and redevelopment of our in our community as well.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I may I may want to I may want to talk again. I may have another question. Alderman Collins, thank you. Alman Robertson, sorry for talking so much, Keith. And and I want to get things on the record. Yes. To help our G to help our city attorney if he has to defend us. So, is isn't it true that Mount Juliet has impact fees that go for only parks and roads? Do you recall what I do not recall?

We looked at a does does anyone at the staff remember? We looked at a municipal that did Lance, do you remember? 50 cents per square foot. What was the question again? There there is a city I thought it was Mount Juliet. It is that only impact that the impact fee only goes for roads and parks to residential or both a residential commercial. No, no commercial. No commercial. No commercial. And they do have a special charter. Mount Juliet. It's maybe a little bit different than us. It's not on there.

Uh a special charter? You mean they they went to the legislature and got special authority? I I believe so. I'm not sure exactly when that occurred, but that's that's new information to me. But but uh but that that that formula that was approved by the general assembly is pretty much what we are mi mimicking here you know of of only uh and it has not been challenged has it in Mount Juliet? Not that not that I'm aware of. Are you from are you aware Mr. Ray, if Mount Juliet impact fee has been challenged in court, I'm not aware that they it has been.

Okay. So, to me, there is legal precedent that that that the approach that we are using has been endorsed by the general assembly through the special charter and that it's in operations and it's not been challenged in court. So, I just wanted that for the record. That's the model that we are using in this in in this endeavor. Thank you. Thank you, Alman Robertson. Thank you. Alman Sass, I have your light on. Um, Alderman Burgdorf is waiting. Uh, is that my mistake? U, I do want to just mention one more thing, but

Okay, it's to Alderman Robertson's uh point. There's only one uh in my research that I can tell, there's only been one uh lawsuit come forward and that was for Nolan'sville and that was because they changed their form of government, not the same government that we have. They the impact fee legislation was passed on the same form of government that we have now, but they changed their form of government to a what was it commissioner? It was a city manager, I believe it was. And that was the that gave the uh lawsuit legs at that point. Alman Burgdorf, thank you. Alman Sassy,

um I just wanted to mention if you want and this is something that Franklin has done. This is something that other cities have done as well. If you wanted to after we voted on this, we could then do another amendment that would base the increase on inflation. Yeah. Um, so every year whatever the inflation was for that year, that's what the increase would be. Instead of doing a set amount, it would just be automatic based on the federal inflation. So that is doable, too. I believe if Mr. Ray is in agreement, I am. Okay. No, I I'm asking. Uh, do you know what I said? Do I need to repeat?

Yeah. No, I I heard what you said. I wasn't sure if I was in agreement or not. Oh, okay. He's looking at information about mon. I I like I just like walking before we run and in and this situation as best as possible. It's my legal opinion based on the I mean, I don't want to tie it to my amendment, but it would be it would be interesting to discuss it after uh the vote of this amendment to add that to it. So that's all.

Thank you, Alman Sass. We don't have anybody else in the queue to speak. So here's where we are. We have a table that is proposed um with this amendment that has been properly seconded. It is a total of 6,000 for single family homes, a total of 5,500 for multifamily units. These 6,000 would be spit be split 2,000 for parks, 4,000 for roads. The multifamily would be split 1,833 for parks, 3,667 for roads. Jason, ready for us? Okay. Does anybody have any other uh any other needs for clarification? All those in favor of the amendment, please signal by pressing the green button. Those opposed, the red one.

Yeah. Leave it up there for a second. Jason,

need two people. So that passes 8 to five with a majority vote. Those voting in favor, Alman Bergdorf, Ward, Martin, Sassy, Garza, Alderman Goodwin, Garton, Robertson, those voting opposed, alderman Skidmore, myself, Alderman Dixon, Alderman Collins, and Alman Evans. Did I read that correctly? 8 to five. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now, we're back on the main motion. We have amended it twice so far. One was with the table that we just voted on. The other one was with the amendment that I handed out earlier that had three parts. Uh, one of those parts was the effective date. Um, do we have any other discussion on this?

Sure. Alderman Burger. Um, the effective date was for April 1st, correct? April 1st is what the board voted on. All right. Thank you, sir. Okay.

Jason, ready for us? Okay. So, we've amended it twice as I said. So, now we're back on second reading of ordinance 2025-25. Those in favor, press the green button. Those opposed, press the red. So that passes with the majority vote. 12 voting in favor of it. One voting against and those in favor Alderman Burgdorf, Skidmore, Ward, Martin, Sassy, Garza, Dixon, Goodwin, Gart, Collins, Robertson, also myself, and the person voting opposed is Alderman Evans. Thank you'all. So item number seven has been removed from the agenda. Um now we're on to item number eight. This is first reading of ordinance 2026-02. This is an ordinance amending budget ordinance 202509 to reflect mid-year adjustments to the city's 2026 fiscal year budget. And of course we have wait we waved the two week rule earlier on that I have a motion from Alderman Sassy and a second from Alderman Garza. All those in favor of ordinance 20262 on the first reading, please say I.

Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Next, we have resolution 2026-04. This is a resolution to wave permit fees for properties damaged by January 2026 winter storms. I need a motion, please. We give me a second. Do we have a motion from Alderman Goodwin and a second from Alderman Garden? Um, I did have emails from Alderman Dixon, Ward, and Goodwin that they would like to be added as sponsors. Um, so without objection, we're going to add them as sponsors. Any discussion on this? Oh, yes. We have I'm sorry. We have a We have a proposed amendment. I was ready to just zip right through there. I know you were. They need some down there.

Okay. They need some multiple people. Okay. Alderman Martin. Well, I've got an amendment, but I was going to see if anybody had any discussion on this before I offer it. I think we're waiting on you. Okay. Um, so this is a

move an amendment that uh Alderman Sassy, Alderman Skidmore, Alderman Burgdorf helped me helped me with. This is uh to to stop similarly stop the permit fees that are required for uh generators. So, anybody that's uh been thinking over the last two weeks about getting a home generator, um I think this will this will be something um something we can do to help you. Um the ordinance itself is what was uh sent out via email and it's in front of you and uh I look forward to answering any questions and voting. So, we have a motion from Alderman Martin

and a second from Alderman Sassy. Uh, Alderman Sassy, do you want to talk about this? I just have a quick question. Go ahead. Uh, Mr. Free. Do you do you know what the fee is currently for generator install uh permits? I don't know. That would that would be in the building department under the electrical 300. There we go. from Jesse. Thank you, Mr. Ekenro. There'd still be uh you know different setback requirements and and different uh noise attenuation type things for your neighbor uh if you install those, but we we'd work with people on what those were.

So, we're not going to allow them to be put on the uh porch of an apartment, right? Okay.

Uh that's all $300. Uh thank you. I do want to add um this this will go to the contractor who's installing it. So homeowners will need to make sure that um it shows up on there. Yeah. So follow up with your contractors. Um thank you Alman Martin. Alman Sassy. Thank you. Alderman Collins. Um, I was going to kind of say what Martin said, except um, I would like to add that I hope that we could make a social media post to let people know that we are waving these fees um, so that they can follow up with their contractor and make sure that they realize that savings. Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Collins. Any other discussion on the amendment? Alderman Ward. Uh, yes. Um, so this is going to be effective until July 1st and then we'll go back to the normal fees. That's uh Yes. Yes, that's what we decid. Yeah. Uh, I would bring up a suggestion to maybe extend that. I talked to a guy and he said right now if he's going to get a generator, he's probably eight weeks out on getting it installed, meaning the guy's probably not going to pull the permit for two months. So, why don't we dispose of this and I'll come back to you and you can make a motion on the expiration date on it. Okay. Does that sound good? Okay, I think it's a ve very valid point. Any other discussion on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment, please say I.

Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Um, Alderman Ward, I'd like to guess. Yeah, that's a good idea. I'd like to make a motion that we change the date till um I would say December 31st, 2026. Second. We have a motion, a second. I'm looking at Lance and Keith. Any questions that we might have? Well, we want to make sure was not we're not allowing people to make improvements or extensions onto their house uh using this as sort of a gimmick. Takes some effort.

Yeah, this is with this from what I understand with the amendment, this really covers two things. One thing is any permits that you're getting that are related to uh winter storm damage. And then the second thing is during that whole time frame is if you put a whole house generator in uh then it's waving that fee uh for that permit that electrical permit through that is that I just wanted to make sure is that that's the way I'm understanding it to be and it's still just for storm related plus

it is still just storm related but it takes care of the scenario. If I decided to do it in two months and it took them three months to get to me I would still be able to reap the benefits. Yeah, that'll be fine. I think that'll be that'll be a really nice nice thing to extend. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, we need to There's What page is this on? It's 301. 301. Okay. I think Oh, I was just three pages away. Um, so there are two there are two spots in that final paragraph. Um, It's It's up here now.

Okay. Thank you, Jason. Um, so I got you. Thank you for that cursor moving. Um, so with the amendment that we just passed there, July 1st, 2026 is actually in that final paragraph twice. So the motion we have is to change that to December 31st, 2026. Yes. Okay. And do we have a second for that as Alderman Sassy? Okay. That's for both spots for the reconnect and for

so that's so anywhere in the final paragraph it says July 1st 2026 we're going to change that to December 31st 2026 if this passes okay um any discussion on this we good okay all those in favor of the amendment please say I those opposed please say no that passes unanimously so now we're back on the main motion we've made two changes to resolution 2026-04 4. Anybody need any clarification? Any other discussion? All those in favor of resolution 20264, please say I.

Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Next, we have resolution 2026-05. This is the resolution of the city of Hersville, Tennessee, expressing opposition to any state imposed cap on property taxes with which limits local governments and funding services desired by the residents and urging the city's legislative delegation to oppose state legislation that would impose such a cap. We have a motion from Alderman Sassy and a second from Alderman Ward. Alman Sassy, I believe you sent me an email about being a co-sponsor. Am I correct? Without objection, we're going to add him as co-sponsor. Okay. Alderman Burgdorf. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I want to be added as a sponsor. Alderman Burgdorf, without without opposition. Without um objection, we're going to add you as a co-sponsor. I like that. Without opposition,

Alderman Skidmore. Yes. Thank you. And I may want to be a co-spon a co-sponsor as well. I'll ask you if that's okay.

And if it's not, that's okay, too. If you don't want me to be, I won't. Um I'm still going to possibly vote for this. when you answer the question I'm going to ask um on this state imposed cap on property taxes because I'm sure people if you don't know now how I am feel about taxes in this in this on this board and the city and as a state um what exactly is is this saying to me I mean I I I have my own mind and my own thought on what it what it's saying but what are you tell what is this resolution that you're having here tonight. What are you wanting us to approve to ask the legislature? I know it says,

you know, what it speaks, but tell me in your words what what you're asking this board to do this resolution. Asking the legislature, letting the legislature know that we oppose um specific specifically one bill, but any bill uh that restricts us and restricts uh the uh the Hendrisville residents, right? Um from h from extending services or meeting services or meeting their demands. Um that would cause a property tax. Um now we are all very liable to making that vote as we've seen many times and where this where this has been initiated is the idea that and this was in some of the wording that I gave you that uh cities are out of control.

Um we have not we have the lowest property tax rate right now in at least 20 years. I don't think that that qualifies as out of control. Um the uh uh I feel like some of the information provided by advocates is incredibly misleading. Yes, there have been cities that and counties that have raised property taxes an exorbitant amount and they have faced consequences by their voters as should we. Amen. I agree with Okay. Thank you. Okay. You've answered my question. So I do would like to be a co-sponsor. Without objection, we go ahead. Alderman Skidmore. Thank you so much.

Uh, thank you, mayor. I'd like to be a sponsor as well, and this uh was in general committee tonight. Um, and it was unanimous and um I I think it's very important, and I'd like to be co-sponsor. Without objection, we add Alderman Dixon as sponsor. Thank you, Alderman Martin. I'd be proud to have my name on it, too. Okay. Without objection, we'll add Alderman Martin as co-sponsor as well. Any other discussion? All those in favor of resolution 2026-05, please say I. I. Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously.

Okay. Next, resolution 2026, which is much older than I thought. We're going to get there. This is to authorize the mayor to extend the city's interlocal agreement of mutual aid assistance with number one volunteer fire department and Shackle Island volunteer fire department for city fire department services. We have a motion from Alderman Garza and a second from Alderman Martin. Um, Alderman Goodwin, go ahead. I just wanted to say this came to public safety tonight. Uh, it passed with a positive recommendation.

Appreciate that, Alman. Good. Alman Robertson. Yes, Chief Edwards. So, oh, I'm sorry. Good evening, Chief. Good evening. Again, thanks. You you gave us the numbers of what all the fire departments done during the storm, and it's it's phenomenal. So, uh I know I speak for the entire board. Uh hurrah hurrah, you know, for for

Well, thank you. Yeah, they they worked very hard. We we actually set a record for the number of uh 911 responses for the month of January. Well, I think since being a new chief now and being an old boy scout that you've earned a merit badge for this story. So, my question is simple. Um Yes, sir. Uh I'm I'm I'm for helping our neighbors and responding when we can, but uh back a couple of years ago when this was up, we decided to not respond to medical calls, but only fire calls. And I wanted to make sure that that was still the policy of the fire department out in in the outside areas.

Yes, sir. Yeah. Yes, it is. We're not responding to any of the uh the medical calls whatsoever. Uh we there's there's seven call types that we're responding to. Uh six of the seven are on a request basis from the uh volunteer agencies. One is an automatic. That's an active shooter. Yes. Uh but the other six they have to actually request for our assistance to come to their juris jurisdictions. Perfect. That's that's uh that that's what I would hope that you would say. Now we've added brush fires. Yes, sir.

Why why have we what's the the the change there? So on uh what really brought brought this to our attention on January 5th, we responded or we were requested for a large scale brush fire on Tyrie Springs Road, New Hope Road area with the Shacklon Fire Department. Right.

Um we ended up um sending a brush truck and two people on that brush truck plus a supervisor out there to help um help them assist trying to put that fire out. It was on a large hillside. there was a lot of residential structures that were around in that area. Um the volunteers did a fantastic job keeping that fire away from those structures and our guys were able to go out there and assist them for a couple hours also trying to keep that away. Talking with Mayor Clary and uh Mr. Eggenroth, it was looked as like a preventative type thing being able to send our brush truck out there. They don't request it very often, maybe a handful of times a year, but to be able to send that out there and give them help, especially at times when they don't have a lot of people to respond, uh it's preventing something larger from happening. Uh which is one of the the callos that we're on the um in a local agreement for is structure fires. So, this may prevent that from happening and and making a larger incident. I was actually afraid that this was applying to me because with all the wood that's fallen from my trees, I burned in my fire pit and it got out of control a little bit. I was afraid this was concerning me, but I'm glad it's not. So, thank you. And I I I I fully support what the uh public safety committee is recommending here. Thank you, Chief.

Yes, sir. Alman Robertson, I feel I need to disclose something here is that uh Jesse and I and uh Chief Edwards were fully aware that the agreement um did not really explicitly state that we could send our equipment for a brush fire. We could have waited 30 minutes and followed the agreement and responded to structure fires. So we we felt like it made sense to prevent those structure fires as Chief Edwards said. Okay. Appreciate that. Alderman Robertson. Alderman Evans, just a quick question. This mentions um the Shackle Island volunteer and the number one. Is that the only two volunteer fire departments that we offer mutual aid?

Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, Alderman Evans. Thank you. We have any amendments or anything motion? Okay. All those in favor of resolution 2026-06, please say I. Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Next, we have the appointment of Alice Couch to the Arts Council. We have a motion. I'm sorry. Make a motion. Ah, thank you. Okay. Uh, what Alderman Evans said, he makes the motion. Alderman Garza makes a second. Any discussion? All those in favor of the appointment of Alice Couchy. Alise. Okay. Please say I.

Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Next round of brief committee reports. Chairman Robertson, Capital Projects.

Thank you, Mayor U. Board. On January the 21st, the capital projects committee met. We had a quorum and we had we received a good report from our new newly appointed director of public works. Stephen did a great job. Uh, I think it's important to note all of us understand the GNRC and the funding that we try to get through the GNRC. All of the projects on our transportation list have been submitted to the GNRC for funding. And hopefully within a month or two, we will hear some good results that some of those projects have have been approved with for 8020 funding from the state. and then uh capital projects then committee will meet again and bring a recommendation to move forward on some of those projects. So uh we did hear that another item uh is that we uh received a report on the Drakes Creek traffic study. This uh was a traffic study that was uh recommended by Bulma to staff after the last discussion we had on a roundabout at Drakes Creek. So we got a fresh look. So uh as someone said now we have the the report the the recommendation by two independent uh traffic uh uh uh studies uh and also the staff that for Drakes Creek uh that a roundabout is makes the best sense for that. We just took that information under advisement. We talked a lot about different options uh particularly uh what one of our alderman recommended and uh the the uh consultant said that that that they would not recommend that

alternative uh uh route uh for the traffic there. Uh and we we got a report on all of the uh projects that are undergo uh that are underway and we are making progress on the projects. They are moving forward some at a snail's pace but working with the state and working with uh contractors sometimes it does take time but we are moving forward uh and that's my report mayor chairman Robertson thank you uh Alderman Martin planning commission

yeah um there's some slides we're going to show you guys so I'm going to let uh uh Keith Re kind of give an update on the last meeting we had and then talk about uh some exciting uh news on a new monument or signage.

All right. Thank you, Alderman Martin. Uh last week, uh we had the Hendersonville Planning Commission. We had a good meeting. It went long, not quite long as long as this, but it went it went pretty long. Uh some of the items that were discussed and uh approved uh approved uh phase three, four, and six for Forest Park subdivision. That's that subdivision we were just talking about a little bit earlier. Approved the preliminary plat for that. So that project should be moving forward here pretty soon. Uh also we had on Manser Creek right when you come into Main Street right there on the left side where all that fill area is over there across the street from the Jeep dealership uh on the portion uh closest to the city limits. Uh then uh they want did a ad use. Uh we've got a national rental car company that's looking to locate there and they had an ad use. The rental car company itself is already was an approved use, but they added the use of um to be able to do car sales on there as well as a part of that. Uh I think it was like a third of it. So it's limited to a third of uh the paved parking spaces over there. So that was approved by the planning commission. Also, we had a project uh that uh it was I think it was like the third meeting we had on it. was a setback deviation out in Manser Farms that a lot of neighbors have been dealing with for a long time with the house for about four years. So hopefully we're working with the bank on it and the deviations were approved and hopefully we'll get some resolution on that issue. uh the image that you have up here uh the uh you know we've been talking with through the West Lake plan uh one of the things that we want to do is improve some things with signage and definitely do something with uh uh looking at a new gateway entry sign uh to the city. Uh this image that you have up here, this this was actually uh discussed at the capital projects uh committee uh back in uh in January the 21st of this year and uh was approved

there. Uh, and then this went to the planning commission, uh, this option C, and they approved it and they wanted to see it on both sides. I don't know if it's going to work on both sides because of the power lines, but, you know, possibly maybe those could be removed at some point in the future and we could get them on both sides, but I I wanted to have this visual image up here uh so everybody could see it uh again. And we're looking at uh probably duplicating this uh at three other locations uh here in the coming year. So this will be something uh each uh each year we'll be bringing a few of these forward uh to uh to move forward. So we're in the process of of uh getting actual final design and uh start construction hopefully uh sometime in the coming in the coming months. And that is the uh that is the report. Uh alderman. Thank you. Thank you. Hold on. Um I believe we have a question from So this is going to be on one the east side of the city.

Yeah. When you're coming in, what about the other what about ward six or ward five, the other end of the city?

Yeah. This this is associated directly with the kickoff in the Westlake uh area with that entry. The other point the other points we're looking at at at similar uh the similar structure uh would be here. uh on uh East Main Street over near uh Shoots Lane uh within that area. Also looking at uh in Durham Farms uh where it goes to Long Hollow at that entry point into the city and then also uh one uh at uh Walton Ferry and uh Main Street. Uh so and then it could be it could be something where we have smaller versions of it that also are you know strategically placed around the around the city. But when you're looking at city entry points uh we're we're actually we're kind of limited to different we have a lot of different entry points but you know a lot of those are uh along 386. So potentially to expand it, uh we're looking at the potential of three or four at the exits when you come off of 386, uh you know, at New Shackle, at uh uh uh at um the other road, Drake's uh at Indian Lake Boulevard, and over near Saundersville. So we're looking at some other things as well. Uh so we think this is I think we're budgeted for maybe 75. We we think this is going to probably be 75 to 90. So, we'll see. Hopefully, it be a little bit less than that.

Keith, hold on. Alman Collins has a question for you. So, when you say shoot Lane, are you talking about like between STR? Um, what's it called now? The school has it, not Smith Travel, but the innovation center and the bridge or after the bridge farm,

you know, where the uh and we're still, it's just conceptual. Uh but you know the side where the Johnny Cash sign is, there's a lot going on over there and it kind of would get lost there. Plus, we have a it's not we have a continuation of the city as you go around that big wall. And so we're looking at something there uh in front of that wall. Uh and then maybe even something muralwise. Yeah. On that wall. So we're looking at at some things with that as well. Uh because the the bridge kind of makes something of that height a little Yeah. awkward to me, but we put it before the bridge. Yeah, it would be under Hold on, Keith. Hold on, Alderman Collins. Go ahead. Go. Sorry.

Um a mural would be really nice. Um before before the bridge coming from this direction, right? Or before the bridge as you come into town. No, the before you coming from this direction. Okay. Okay. Alman because that other side is a g that's gonna cut you off. That's okay. Alderman Collins, anything else? Alderman Sassy, questions for Keith. Yeah. Um, because this is powered, could we put an LPR on there, too? Yeah, I think it's very possible. I mean, they they're going to be positioned at the entrance to our city, so I think it would make sense to do that. That's all.

Okay. Appreciate that, Al. Thank you, Keith. Uh, thank you, Alderman Martin. Chairman Goodwin, public safety. The only thing we had on the agenda was the mutual aid agreement. Thank you for passing that. And I want to thank Chief Edwards and his crews. Our phones went off all week during the ice storm. I've never seen y'all have to work so many fires, but y'all did a great job. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Go. Chairman Garza, general committee.

Uh pretty tonight the we just passed it here at BOMO because we waved the twoe rule on the uh Tennessee you expressing opposition of state imposed uh property taxes. So we we shut that down at this point. Uh we waved the permit fees for the damaged properties from this past storm. And uh we also moved over to Bulma and the resolution to dis discontinue that six-month period from starting work and becoming a regular employee and that looks like it's coming in Bulma for a vote next time. That's it. Chairman Garza. Thank you. Chairman Sassy Finance Committee.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, we had extensive conversation about the or uh the budget ordinance amendment midyear adjustments that we passed on first reading tonight. Um, and we also discussed the comprehensive financial report that we also p uh filed away tonight. Um, and that's the end of my report. Chairman Sassy, thank you. Chairman Skidmore, public works committee.

Uh, yes, sir. Thank you very much. Um, I'm going to pass these down to the alderman. Um, tonight, uh, oh, there you go. And just pass pass those down. Um, I appreciate Tonight we had I don't know if you all know this, but, uh, we had a really bad winter storm that hit Hendersonville. I know. When was that? A couple weeks ago or so like that. But yeah, 94. Um, but no, seriously. Um, so I want to

I'm not going to I'm going to highlight this uh because we we spoke about everything in in committee at great deal. So um if you're watching this tonight or if you've you're watching it on a taped version of this, go to the public works um committee meeting and it'll be on TV and you'll be able to hear a lot about it. But um so everybody just to kind of take a deep breath and then we'll be out of here as as soon as we can. But I want the I want to let the board of alderman know this as well as the but more importantly I want the city of Hendersonville and the people that live here uh let you know just exactly what we did as a city and how much I'm proud of that fact. Now, I'm not going to talk about the NES because we would be here all night and about those problems. We recognize David or those folks that live in Davidson County and that serve us uh as with our electricity. We all know they had a problem. They had a real bad problem. And um so I'm not going to, you know, if we want to talk about it, we can later on, but I'm not going to speak on that issue uh this evening. Um maybe for just a little bit. Let's just put it that way. Some information that the board needs to know as well as the city. But as you all well know, um it was posted on social media when the storm hit. We had over 200 tons of salt and we were prepared for it. Um and then we had an additional 150 tons purchased during midstorm and we had five trucks with uh that were salulting um with were with salting boxes and then the plows. So if you saw those plows and

the salt bo uh trucks going through that was the city of Hendersonville. So, we did that um during the storm. We continued to salt the roads and we continued to plow um to make our streets more manageable uh if there was an emergency or if you needed food and those kind of things just to get to get you around. So, we did that. Um, we had generators that were um that were deployed to the main streets and the intersections to run our signals and and and by doing that um it alleviated the police department having to be there out there. U so it was more of a safety issue really. So I'm very proud of that. Um now, uh we were told that it was we had 60 plus emergency calls, um by the city, but I can guarantee personnel, police, and fire, but I can guarantee you it was more than 60. I can promise you that. Uh and that and they got to them. So, we're very fortunate um of what we did and how we were set up for that. Um we had uh believe it or not we had regular communication with the trash um department or the the road the coordination between wastistro and trash collection. So we were on top of that as well and u although some of the houses didn't get picked at a normal time and the later part of the week that was coming up they did get back on schedule and hit that. So, if they've missed you this past week, they're going to definitely they'll be there at your appointed time, your normal time this week. Um, so um

um I'm trying to skip a lot of this post um then I want to talk about a couple of things. Um your our our poststorm debris or our effort in our cleanup. Um, you've all been see if you haven't been seeing them, then you hadn't been seeing them for some reason. I don't know why because I just saw them in in our ward uh this evening where they were cleaning up the debris and that means when the the trees froze and and they just collapsed. I mean, over in the streets, our public works department, fire department, police department were all there to try to get them cleaned up. Um, even on my on my street on Neptune, we had some there and they were able to public works came by and and got them off the road early in the morning. I don't know how they did it, but they did because I mean I live back there on the lake and it and it goes it's like in a valley and it was just serious ice. So, we did that. Um, I'm going to post this um the winter storm response on uh on the uh social med for social media on Facebook. Facebook, excuse me. And uh what did I say? Facebook. Oh, no. I think it was Facebook, not the other.

Sure it was. Yeah, because I'm terrible at Facebook, but I know how to post this. So, I'm going to do that. and feel free to go on there and look at it. Uh Mark Skidmore uh is my website. But it it um I just want to tell you how different that uh the electric trucks were instead of the instead of the city Hendersonville.

We had bucket trucks addressing um the issues of of cleaning up. We had two grapple trucks um for the smaller uh vegetation and equipment. Um we had six and then Wednesday, which was about the 4th of February, we had six large grapple trucks, one small grapple truck, and four bucket trucks here in within the city. Um the uh a pro a we we just had this list but I'm promise you it's going to be more than this but this is just what we have at this time. We had 170 leaning trees that were cut or removed. We had uh 1,500 hanging limbs that were cut. And then um which with all that being said, we had about 21,000 cubic yards of vegetation removed. Um 604 loads have been hauled to the limb out on uh the limb dump out on Forester Street. Um, as of right now that we know, it's going to be probably higher, but our investment cost to the city at this point for uh for the project which was cleaning up Hendersonville to date is over $3 million. And um so I wanted to give you because I know the the late uh evening uh the late evening, but this is just a small small portion of what our city did for our constituents. And I do want to say this to the board of alderman. Uh and I I genuinely mean this. Uh we've had a hard night tonight. Tonight was a big night. Um, if you noticed, I was very quiet because it's because, you know, there's a lot of thought process that goes into

these things and we always want to make it what's best for our constituency. But I generally want to thank the board of alderman um um Alderman Garton. Um I want to thank you for uh the the issues that you had within your ward. We um um tried to take care of it as much as we could and I appreciate that. Um Terry Goodwin, Alderman Goodwin, I want to thank you for having having always on the phone with me making sure that her constituents were taken care of. and maybe we couldn't do it as fast as we wanted to, but my my issue is is all the alderman um that a lot of times we don't speak um because our our wards are so diverse that you know what's in my ward is not in in ward four and five and Alderman Dixon did the same thing. Uh she stayed in touch with the mayor, made sure that tried to take her constituents and make sure they were taken care of. But I do want to say uh I do want to say this about our peninsula. Alderman Burgdorf, uh Alderman Martin, Alderman Sassy, and myself were literally especially Mike uh Alderman Martin, I'm sorry, Mike. U he and I were on the phone every day and every night. And I and I'm telling you, I appreciated that so much. Um we were all trying to get, you know, just make sure that we were all on the same page. and if the things that we didn't know um we were you know ma we were we were making it known especially to public works department and so when I would call public works or or if I would call the mayor's office they already had it they said we're we're working on it and that makes me

feel good because uh mayor I want to thank you very much and your office and uh there's some other people I want to thank on this because we got hit hard and but we were on it. I mean, the city of Hendersonville and I know some people and I because I got them too when you you get phone calls and they're upset and they're nervous because they're their electricity is not on and you know and you I mean there's nothing we can actually do about just say hang on, you know, we're trying to work with everybody to try to get, you know, your power back up so your food doesn't spoil and things like that. And some we were close and some we weren't. And I'm sorry for that. I always am, especially during those kind the ice. And then we've got tornadoes now coming up uh in our near future. And we're going to be just as prepared for that as we were in our city. So, mayor, I want to thank you for it. Um the things that and this board what I want to thank the board for. um because the things that we did in last year's budget worked out as a reality that we needed and I really really want to apolog uh and I needed that and Mark Evans, Alderman Evans, I want to apologize um to you and um Eddie Robersonson. I neglected to call him because Eddie kept in contact with the mayor's office and uh and and then our savior really uh Trace Berquette who's in charge of the roads uh did an exceptional job. I would call him every day and he'd say, "What is it like that or you know and I'd say this and this and this and I, you know, was and I was dealing with the whole city, not just ward one, but you know, it's like the mayor. You want to take care of you want to take care of your

own. You want to take care of everybody in the city because they're I mean, you guys are the most important and uh um that we take care of. um you pay taxes and that's you know we appreciate that. So in return I want you to get the best uh Casey with our uh I guess uh public relations really and I told her tonight in public uh in public works that I stole a little stuff off of her um Facebook page to put on mine and uh so I hope you don't please forgive me and hold that don't hold that against me. But, um, I guess my point I'm trying to make is the mayor's office and Casey and and, um, with Jesse Ekenroth, uh, they were on everything. I mean, they did, as far as I'm concerned, the best that the best that we've ever had in the city in my in my uh, years of office. And I just again want to thank you guys. Um, I'm not looking forward to another winter storm like that, but I know that our people that live here can rest easy because we've got the best working crew. We got the best fire department. We've got the best police department. And I can't thank you guys enough for all the things that you did because there were a lot I know sleepless nights that you guys had as well as the police department because they were on the ball and I I genuinely appreciate uh what you did. And then I want to close with this and this is what's most important to me. Um, and it always is, and you probably always hear this from me, but it's just so truthful. I don't want I would not want to live anywhere else but the city of

Hendersonville because when I was able to get out, you know, I traveled the whole city and all the wards and looking at all the the debris that we had. But I'm telling you, there were your neighbors were helping each other. Some of them came out on Neptune Drive and I didn't even know I I just I mean I when I walked out starting to pick up debris, they were just walking up, you know, didn't say a thing and started picking up things and putting them on the pile for the trucks to come by uh and pick that up. You know, they hadn't got there yet, but some of them that, you know, they're working on it and then they're not going to stop until that whole thing. But that's my point about this city. You know, I made the comment uh in public works that you can go and I I do a lot of traveling and and things of that nature um and out of country and country and all this stuff, but there are places like and I know you can't compare Hendersonville to New York or Chicago or Los Angeles, but you can't go into New York and walk down the sidewalk and look at somebody. You know, you got to look straight ahead and do not say a word to those guys because of these people that live there. And I'm not making a slap a slap at them, but it's just the way they the way the way they live. But in Hendersonville, you can go to Kroger's or you can go to a gas station and you can say, "Hey, how you doing?" You know, and they'll say, "Hey." And they'll just start talking to you. They don't even know you and they'll just come. And that is the camaraderie that I would love to

see in the whole world as well as in the United States of America because you don't have that. You know, it's like in the country, you know, in the old days where a truck would go by and they see you and they just they give you just a kind of a wave. That's the way people do in Hendersonville. And and it just it it touches my heart to see that. Um when you go in to a store or something like that and people just start will you know they'll ask you have you ever tried this? You know you know when it's cold and weathering man you you want to get in and get out but you sit there and talk to them too because you know you just do it as an alderman and as a mayor. um you you talk to people and and I appreciate that and and it warms my heart. Um I want to thank Andy Gilly uh I know he worked hard with the parks board to or excuse me with the parks department to get our parks even though we you know there were some places we couldn't use but he got them fixed. He and his crew were out there. So, we did this as a as not as a community, but as a family. And I love to see that. And I I you know, I go home at night or I think about it at night and I wish my mother was here to see it. Um cuz she always said the same thing to me. And uh and you know, I kind of told her when I was laying in bed, I said, "Mama, you know, did you see it? Did you see what I'm talking about? People helping each other and the city helping the people and everybody just getting together and do that thing." And I'm so proud of that and I'm that I'm uh very

touched by it. So, I want to thank you guys again. Now, I do want to close with this. Um, you're not helping.

Uh, and then I'll close with it about the electricity uh, NES. I know and and the mayor uh, or um, Jesse or Steve, our new public works director, may be adding any more to this tonight because I'm I'm leaving a lot out and I'm doing that deliberately so he can talk about it and the mayor uh, can talk about this too. I know the mayor was very active, people. I'm telling you right now. um about saving the city a bunch of heartache about when it came to the GL to the to the ice and and he did a remarkable job and I'm always one to criticize but I cannot criticize anybody in this city for the work effort that they brought public works department fire department our whole all our departments even the ones in the Hendersonville Bill where they were manning the phones here when when they couldn't get when people couldn't get a hold of me or I my phones were ringing so much and I was talking to them they couldn't get to me they'd call the city when they had when they didn't have electricity and we still took care of the people of Hendersonville and tried to comfort them the best that we could and give them the latest information that we could because this was a serious serious winter storm. So, I want you to know that we were that board of air, mayor and alderman, we were on the job and all I can say is is thank you to the 13 members and the city employees that work with this city mayor because you did a hell of a job, brother. I'm telling you and my hats off to you. Okay. Now, um, when it comes to the electric department, the mayor is going to be working with NES and I'm assuming,

uh, Cumberland, too. Uh, and I know that the public works committee of which I'm chairman of, we want to sit down with Nashville Electric and Cumberland both, uh, maybe separately when when all the dust or I should say the snow and, uh, ice die down and and instead of criticizing because they're, listen, they know they they they did a lot of things wrong on the first end of it. They came in and and came in like gang busters and got everybody uh electricity in Hendersonville. But as far as you know, they they realized they did that. They they screwed up. So uh what I would like to do instead of uh you know speak with them and not go in adversarial and talk to them say look what can we do next time because this is not going to be the last time we we have this. We have it every year. So I said, I'm going to ask or our committee is going to ask them, what can we do to help to help you help us because it it takes us all to make it when it gets cold like that like it is. And I'm so grateful. I don't even know, mayor, I was going to ask you this. I don't think we had any deaths, did we? We had no deaths or injuries to any staff members or anybody involved in accidents or any of the five fires that our firefighters responded to. Structure fires.

Man, that's just great news. I mean, and for the a city that had, you know, like that's Nashville, they did um I'm not sure about Gall I mean the city from the north. I'm not sure about them, but I know for a fact, you know, the mayor's confirmed it now. We did not have any of that. and that makes me very happy. So, mayor, I'm going to end my report with that and uh I'm sorry it took so long, but that was this is a real serious issue and thank you again. The chairman Skmore, thanks for that report. Appreciate it. Jesse B report. Oh, sorry. Here we go.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh, it has literally been trial by fire for Chief Edwards,

but you and your team have done a really good job. So, thank you guys. You'll see in here their calls for service went through the roof after the storm. Um, a lot of down power lines. There were fires that Chief Edwards didn't even report because his emails were getting too long. So, there was more fires than even came out in the emails to Bulma. So, you and your team have done a really good job. Please let them know that it was trial by fire for you guys. has been trial by ICE for uh Stephen. He did a great job. Um Mark did a good job with u kind of going over the facts uh about the how we prepared for the storm. Stephen was on the phone with the contractors that we have for emergency cleanup before the storm even started to say, "Hey, we want you guys to be up here. We want to be the first city that is getting cleaned up." So, uh Stephen and his team have done a a a great job um with all the cleanup. you know, we're in all the parks, we're in the golf course. Andy and his team have being been involved. So, it's been a tremendous effort. A lot of teamwork. Uh, but most of that falls on Stephen and his team. So, welcome. Congratulations on being a director and good job with the first ice storm. I'm going to spend a little bit of time going over the report. We're not going to spend a lot of time on it. Um, but we'll kind of touch on some of the highlights. Page 324 shows our sales tax up about 3.62%. It's just slightly north of inflation. It's a good sign. Uh we're going to keep an eye on the impacts of the storm. So, city kind of shut down for a week. I always tell Trey, salt is maybe one of the best returns on investment we can get because we can get people out back on the streets. Uh we spent a significant amount of of money on salt. Uh and we're just going to have to see kind of what the week of shutdown looks like for sales tax. Interest earnings are good. We did 109,000 in December alone. So, we continue to beat projections for investment earnings. Uh page 325, it shows that our combined permit and sales tax revenue is slightly down from the previous year. We're still hovering around that 2 million mark. Uh

we're just not seeing as many residential permits come in. Uh operating expenditures on page 325, we're up about 1 and a.5% from last year. Uh so, you know, relatively stable to only be up one and a half%. the PIP fund we're showing on page 326 through 327. Uh those revenue collections are coming in strong. Uh most of the revenue that we have projected in there is for reimbursement for the uh construction of Heritage Park. So I think summer of this year is when we expect to break ground. So we probably won't see that revenue actually until the next year. On page 328 and 329, we can see public safety calls for service were elevated in January. Uh this was as a result of the storm, especially for HFD. You can kind of see their calls for service spike. Uh they took approximately 400 calls for service. So, uh Chairman Skiore was correct when he said there was more than 60 calls. Those 60 plus calls were just for trees that were blocking the road. So, that's just when public works had to go out and clear the roads. But there was hundreds and hundreds of calls uh that came in. 400 over 400 uh just for HFD to go out and respond to those. So, the guys did a great job doing that. Uh page 332 shows the parks activity. Not a whole lot going on in February, but there's some pretty great projects. The turf fields and LED lights have been going up. And then again, the storm uh cleanup has been a significant focus for Andy and Trevor and the whole team. So, you got to remember too, they have Country Hills golf course that they're involved in, too. So, all the city parks and getting those open and the salt and the limbs and the trees down. So, it's been a lot of work for those guys. Uh, page 334, public safety. We can see that vacancies are still low in both police and fire. And last time I was up here, we talked about going active with lateral recruitments for fire. That is actually uh in the works right now. So, it's out there. It's posted. Uh, and so we should hopefully have some good results and get guys in here faster so we get fully

staffed up. That concludes my report. Thank you, Jesse. Next item we have on the agenda is executive session. We anticipate um and it's on the agenda that we will have uh something to consider when we come back from that. My best guess is 10 or 15 minutes.

Alderman Collins, you have a motion to We have a motion from Alderman Collins, a second from Alderman Goodwin. All those in favor of adjourning, please say I. Those opposed, please say no. That passes unanimously. Thank you all. Have a good night.