Council - Regular Meeting

Pre-council meeting of the City of Homewood for July 13th, 2026. Councillor Sims?

Here.

Councillor Armstead? Here.

Councillor Simmons? Here. Councillor Lane?

Here.

mayor anderson okay here uh so we are missing council lane but we do have a quorum and so everybody bear with me because it has been i think six weeks since i have led a meeting so bear with me tonight um and we will begin with our old business agenda and this item that has was here even six weeks ago Still here, item 220426, request for consideration for a budget transfer. Brought to us from Mr. Segrist. We are going to continue to carry this item over until we have an invoice from...

There is an update. Oh, thank you. So the invoice has been updated.

Oh, great.

And so in doing so, they kind of looked back through the history of our payments, and they sent us an invoice with our name on it that includes that $38,000. And the invoice went up. And it's accurate, I think, and Kelly is currently checking.

Okay. She's doing the math. So carry the item over. Carry it over. She's getting close to it. Okay.

But now one of the key changes is it's in our name, so we wouldn't pay the contractor. That's right. We would pay Central Alabama Water Works. Yep. Okay. Okay.

Thank you so much. Okay, let's see, item 130626, request for consideration to rezone the western portion of 1832 25th Court South, comprising of approximately 2,079 square feet from I-2 institution to NPD neighborhood preservation district to make it consistent with the majority of the lot's current zoning designation brought to us from Mr. Pugh. So we are going to continue to carry this item over without objection. All right. New business. Item 010726. Request to authorize private removal of a large pine tree located in the rear right-of-way in an unmaintained alley behind 3107 Overton Drive. Brought to us from Mr. Pugh.

mr smith or amy zary or ray ray yeah ray fillmore i'm here on wyatt's behalf yeah some several things take care of you thanks awesome all right ray you want to come up and share with us about yeah do we have any illustrations it's a very large old tree they've currently taken down this house and they're planning to build a new house, so it's available to get to now. This is basically a paper alley, so this would allow them to get rid of the tree now without having to do something more wild in the future if it were to be taken care of. The person who lives here would be taking it down on their own. They'd be paying for it.

And they would be replanting according to our tree ordinance? They've submitted plans for that?

It's in our right of way, so it's not on their property. Oh, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Sorry, thank you. I guess that would be something for y'all to consider.

Yeah, but for them to get a development permit, they're going to have to comply with the tree and landscape ordinance. Even though it's in our right of way, they would still have to do that?

Well, that tree wouldn't count for or against them. Okay, okay, okay, gotcha.

So as far as your question to you, so it looks like they're removing some pines and some pears on their property, but they're coming in with something like a white oak at the top, almost near the right-of-way. There you go, right there. So that would probably be to satisfy the tree ordinance. But in regards to this request, it references it's in the way of the power lines. Is that accurate? I haven't seen that.

I haven't seen that either. I wasn't provided any images of it. I would imagine based on where it is, it's likely that it's probably close to the power plant.

I just wondered if there was a visual of that or if it had been confirmed in the field or anything.

I have not looked at it. Based on my understanding of where this is, that's likely.

Yeah. I mean, because one of the questions I was going to ask was related to basically, you know, we're always looking for other places to put trees. So I wondered if there was still a place in the alley to put a tree, you know, when they were mobilized out there that was not in the way of the power lines. Just for additional canopy.

My understanding is that this pine tree is rather large, so it takes up a majority of the space, both in their property, across into the other property. It's a larger, older pine tree.

Okay.

And this won't go up.

We will carry this. So we have time to kind of... Yeah, consider that. But from the property owner standpoint, I mean, that makes sense as far as their removal of this. It's in the way of the power lines. Yeah.

Wow. Oh, gosh. Yeah. Wow.

That's really helpful, Brian. Thanks. Sure is. Thank you.

yeah i would encourage anyone to go check it out before our next meeting in two weeks so yeah we will not vote on this tonight okay thanks thank you ray appreciate that uh alrighty next item um 20726 this item is going to go out tonight for voting Request to authorize the city manager to sign a good neighbor pledge for Daxco. I can speak to this or you can speak to this. So this is Daxco. I spoke with Blake Goodsell. We talked a while. They tried very hard to find space in Homewood. They're moving. They've outgrown the space that they're in and they just have not been able to find anything that fits their needs. They wanted to stay walkable and they have not been able to find anything and so they have found space in Birmingham And in order to be able to lease that space in Birmingham, they need to be released from Homewood. It's the Good Neighbor pledge that we have amongst Jefferson County municipalities. And so this is a letter that you receive in your packet that Kale's written. And so this needs to go out tonight because they can't sign their lease until they've got their letter from us that we've released them from Homewood. So any questions on that? All right, next item is 030726, request to accept property donation from Samford University. Mr. Smith?

Yeah, so we've been talking about this property for a couple of years. This is on the corner of Broadway and Green Springs on the south eastern corner next to the creek, next to Griffinbrook Creek. the we went to Sanford actually a couple of years ago and asked them to donate this to the city. Because the city gets credits for our national flood insurance program. If we own property and undevelopable areas. So this would help with that. But it would also help with any future sort of path coming through there or potential pocket parks or whatever. Sanford has agreed to turn the property over to us all we have to do now is write the deed and then they would sign it it's already been approved by their board tonight we don't have the deed yet that's that's been signed so this will come back to you eventually i think tonight we just wanted to make sure that there weren't any questions and that there was an intent from the collective will of council to push this item forward is that fair that's fair

I can say from my perspective, I'm really excited about this donation. We've cleaned up this property a couple times through the beautification board, and that creek cleanup really brought some awareness to, I mean, for some of the members and myself, that it was Sanford property, honestly, because I think initially we thought a lot of it was right-of-way, and then we realized how much it is owned by Samford and so for all the reasons you just mentioned Kale I think it's a really great opportunity and grateful for Samford for you know this partnership and and their willingness to proceed it on this and it also shows up in the beautification plan as an area that could potentially nice great And that's fantastic because there are some residents who used to be a staging area near that intersection there. And the removal of that as a staging area is kind of like the initial, hopefully, progression of beautifying the area and the potentials there to do much more. So that's fantastic.

Sure.

Okay. So with that, it sounds like we're going to push it forward. So we'll get the deed written and have Stanford sign it. Perfect. Thank you.

And that'll come back to us. We'll leave this item here. You can drop it. We'll add it. Okay. All right.

We got that.

Or you can carry it over. I don't know how long it's going to take.

Some of that depends on the other party.

right i just don't want it to sit there for months okay okay what do you think about it if yeah if it's going to be if it's going to be like you know a considerable amount of time just to keep the agenda clean i mean we can just remove it all yeah and then like you said start i'll give it we'll give it a new number whenever it comes back up again okay all right

Procedurally, I mean, just thinking about the way we did it previously with committees, yeah, could we table this item and then just keep the item number? Or is it cleaner to...

It'll be the first table item we have in this new form of government.

Okay, I just I mean, yeah, I just wanted to see what was this?

Okay.

All right. All right. Well, moving on. Next item is 040726 request to fund safe and healthy homewood from July 1st, 2026 to September 30th, 2026 using the opioid fund. Brought to us from Mr. Smith.

Yeah, so we have approximately $428,000 in our opioid fund right now. We've never used any of that money for anything. Safe and Healthy Homewood, counselor Sims can probably explain it better than I can but they are a part of our school system and they are going to use they've requested to use this opioid these opioid funds to for this summer to hire some staff to kind of tee up their opioid program moving into the fall and the next year will budget for them with opioid funds

And what's the amount that the request is for?

Yeah, that's right.

That's what I was trying to find and the other things I would add To this discussion too is just obviously those opiate settlement funds have strict criteria around how they can be spent So we've you know had that discussion to make sure you know embedded these activities in comparison with the eligible activities and and also that we know that Safe and Healthy Home would previously also receive a 10-year grant award, which ended, I think, in the 25-26 school year. So this is actually helping them maintain their activities and specifically target opioid prevention.

All right, and so we will not send this out tonight. We'll send this out the next evening. Next item is 050726, request for consideration to allow a retaining wall to extend into the public right-of-way in 419 Fontana Drive. I walk by this house every day. This is new construction. Mr. Smith, Mr. Pugh, Ray, Mr. Smith. Let's take that.

Yep, there it is. That's it. It's basically just the portion directly next to the sidewalk. If you look at the next part where it shows the survey, it is a very minor encroachment.

So he's already built it.

Yeah, that's a picture of the wall as it sits. So that little bit between the dark black line and the sidewalk, that's the amount we're talking about here. Yeah.

And they're also asking for to add potential irrigation in the area.

But it is to remain on their side of the sidewalk.

I have a question about this sidewalk in front of their house. Is it already five feet? I was just wanting to know if they're putting a structure there, if it's five feet in compliance, because if that were to be revised to five feet in width, you know, if the structure's there, that is the retaining wall, is there room elsewhere to expand the sidewalk?

There is right, I mean, there's, yeah, it goes out, there's a grass, there's grass right away there, too.

In that, in the border strip on the inside of Ponce, yeah.

Jay, I know you work by there every day, too. Is that four or five feet, do you remember?

I do not know. Okay.

It's probably not five.

I don't think it is.

But you probably, I don't even know if there's a foot between the sidewalk and where their property is. It probably wouldn't even, even if the wall wasn't there, you'd probably want it to go maybe the other way anyway, if you needed it. To go the other way, towards the street. Because then you'd be getting on their property. Right, exactly.

Well, and there's a big steep hill there. I mean, it's really a big steep hill. There's a lot of water that comes down there.

And what did you say in reference to the irrigation?

they they haven't finalized that they're just requesting that to be added because they may put irrigation in near the front of their property like on the front of the property i would i would be careful with irrigation in the right of way so i would probably recommend against that we i mean if we were to replace that four foot sidewalk and put in a five foot sidewalk and then we rip out their irrigation that we put in they're going to be mad about that so if they just put it on their property then everybody's happy okay

That's what you meant, right? You meant on their property?

No, the irrigation is requested to be in the right of way. That was just part of their request. And like I said, the wall is about all that is actually in the right-of-way. It's only about a foot off the sidewalk before you hit their property line. So I guess they just wanted to make sure if they extended it all the way to the end and they were a little bit in the right-of-way, they had gotten approval to do it.

And how did they miss getting approval to put the wall up in the first place in the right-of-way?

I believe this was discovered like this, that they had done it without approval.

And also, sorry, one follow-up question, is the wall, is that the extent of the wall or will it continue along that entire frontage of the property?

don't have any more information other than what's here it says wall constructed along which would mean it makes me believe that they also straightened off the end so it wouldn't appear yeah I just want to make sure that when the approvals granted it's for that and not to go on yes

They have to give us a rendering right and that and that's tied to the approval for the work in the right away they give us

site plan essentially and they'd have to show that line I guess yeah they're gonna have they need to update their site plan right and show exactly where they're gonna build thanks

All right, 060726, request for consideration of an amendment to ordinance 2949 to better define compact motor vehicle and support effective enforcement of compact parking regulations. Amy and Zeri.

So this is for the two compact parking spots over by Patriot Park. After looking at the ordinance we have further, we just need to revise some of that language just to make sure it's enforceable. Okay. So basically we're just better defining what a compact vehicle is. That's by size.

That's the treatment for it.

Because in that area right there.

Yeah, so the kids are walking across the street, either to the ice cream shop right there or even to Patriot Park. And sometimes you'll have a big, huge SUV parked on the end where a car can't see that child walking across the street. In fact, that's why that was placed there before. I feel like we're going to need to enforce that even more. The school's gonna start back here soon.

So can we paint more striping on there to narrow the actual space or necessary?

There's a curve that's already there. And I mean, you could park compact car on the on the parking space, but there's a sign posted in front of it. So I'm not sure that

right i think we can look at what the actual definition needs to be and based on whatever those dimensions are if there is room to narrow up those spots that would be a good option does it does it exclude or something specifically great question it's not written yet it's not written yet because we've been sort of

Batting around, how do you enforce it without an officer having to get out measuring tape and figure out how wide and long the car is? But listening to you, Councilor Simmons, it sounds like length is the safety concern. Absolutely. That can guide us.

I've been there literally with my kids at the park where my youngest and in a large SUV parked right there and a child was about to walk across the street and a car was coming in that direction.

And it's not, it hasn't been as easy as compact because different manufacturers use different engines for their designations so we've been toying with how you do that where an officer can spot it. And if we're focused on length, nothing more. You should put a hash mark. Or each other. Hashtag it.

I'll tell you, Sam, I got a ticket in front of Mountain Brook City Hall in my Ford Edge. Parked in a compact space. So I guess Ford Edge is not compact.

My wife got one of the two.

So what's being compact?

Yeah, Virginia said that would be $25, please. Thank you very much.

well this also fall under like will Roe go over to West Homewood as well or is she Officer Tarver or will she just be downtown in right now she's downtown in Edgewood this feels like more of a patrol awesome okay alright thank you guys let's see Amy don't go anywhere 070726 request for consideration of 29th court south one way conversion

Yes, sir. We got a citizen complaint on this roadway. Basically, the issue is that cars are parking on both sides of the roadway. And it's a two way street. So when you're trying to go down, there's not really room to pull off to the side to let another person pass you. I think there's a picture. Maybe Brian. Maybe not.

Sorry.

So what we're proposing to fix that is to make this a one way just from Central Avenue to the other end of the block to Crescent. And we reached out to all the property owners on the street haven't gotten any complaints. We got one email and support. We've been in communications with LS and the Bell Center and no opposition.

What is the actual right-of-way width that we're talking about for this segment?

So the pavement width is about 20 feet or less. Right-of-way is a little bit larger, encompassing the sidewalks and the edge of the road.

Amendment pavement, sorry. Yeah, so the actual street surface, I guess.

Yeah, it's about 20, and so that's...

not technically wide enough to have um you know two cars parked on both sides of the road because then you're talking about what eight for each parking um right and then 12 for two lines essentially so yeah okay I mean we obviously I mean we have a lot of areas that are residential where that does happen in essence but I mean this is a commercial area

All right, this will also not go out tonight. All right, Amy, go anywhere. Again, 080726, request for consideration for an update to traffic calling policy.

Yes, so we're making some slight revisions to the traffic calling policy, mainly just to... add some clarifications, make it a little bit easier to read. I think Brian has the red line version if you want me to go. Yeah, but you guys should have a copy if you want me to go page by page just summarizing. Shouldn't take too long. I'll just hit the highlights. not gonna read all this okay so so basically all we're changing to the general procedures is we're just saying that we're gonna only accept online requests I think we technically allowed paper requests to be picked up from City Hall and have not had a paper application since I've been here, so I don't think this will be controversial changing this to online only. And then I just added a small paragraph just generalizing what the process is. So we already had kind of a flowchart made, but I realize there's a lot more steps than what we initially had, so I kind of made this flow chart, like a yes-no flow chart, which is a little bit easier to understand what our procedure is. So that's one change. It just explains the steps in the process. Okay, so on this page, we moved all the thresholds for the data to Section D. This section is just going to be explaining what data we collect and why. I've changed to where we're only using AADT to quantify volume. We initially have vehicles per day. AADT just kind of factors in random seasonal variation, weekend traffic, weather, just random fluctuations, so you just get a more normalized volume count. We're going to be using 85th percentile speed as our assessment. This is an industry standard. So previously we had 85th percentile, 95th percentile, and then average speed, percent of vehicles, and the 10 mile per hour pace speed. Those aren't real industry standards for traffic calming policies. It's just a little bit harder to quantify. So we're just sticking with the 85th percentile in this case. I removed the cut-through traffic section mainly because it's kind of difficult to legally enforce this, especially if people have a right to travel on public streets. It's not like we can easily eliminate random people driving by. I believe having just the speed control as kind of a deterrent for cut through traffic can serve a greater purpose than just saying, you know, we'll do this study to see where the origin and destinations are for the vehicles. So yeah, that's why we're removing that section. It's just simpler to use speed as our basis for warranty traffic comments.

I have a question about that. If there's an existing cut-through traffic ordinance on the books, I believe there's one from Hollywood Boulevard. Okay. And I think it might have been related to when they took the 2059 down and trucks were coming through there. They were traveling east-west and trying to find different ways to go. Can you check on that and see, do we still know? Yeah, I'll check on that.

I don't know, I didn't know that.

Okay, well I used to hear from a neighbor that lived on Hollywood and he used to, you know, just sometimes it would, Yeah, trucks would go. Right. Anyway, so I'm wondering if that's still on the books.

And I have seen ordinances passed in other cities and municipalities about heavy truck traffic, so that could be a little bit easier.

Because Lancaster is another, like I know, I used to get a lot when I was the counselor for reward five, I used to get complaints all the time about company traffic on Lancaster, like trucks that were maybe going to, you know, the commercial area. Yeah, I don't know.

Since I've been here, I've never heard of a cut-through for heavy trucks.

Okay, I'll look into it. But I was taking this as just passenger vehicle cut-through. I've never heard of an ordinance to restrict cut-through traffic. Because it's hard to determine who lives where.

So just clarification on cut-through traffic then. Is this policy just basically saying that cut-through traffic wouldn't be regulated through this policy, but there may still be signage otherwise?

Yeah.

But that it wouldn't, cut-through traffic wouldn't be a determinant to permit vertical deflection? That's right. Okay.

Okay, you can go to the next page, Brian. So for crashes, I lowered our threshold. We originally had... three crashes over 12 months as being significant. We just felt like this was a little high and based on FHWA's standard for a low crash threshold, we lowered this to five in a period of five consecutive years. And then under emergency routes, I added that police and fire need to approve vertical elements. Okay so changes to this originally for the volume we had if you're less than 4,000 vehicles per day we can either do increased police enforcement or physical traffic calming measures and then we had if you're greater than 4,000 vehicles per day we won't do vertical traffic calming basically. So what we're doing in this case, if you're less than 500, we're deeming that as too small of a street. So like that might be a cul-de-sac. We feel like our resources could be better handled on streets that have a little bit more traffic. For example, Birmingham, Vestavia, and I believe Auburn, Birmingham, Huntsville, and Vestavia all have a 500 vehicle minimum for any traffic calming. So we had that as our minimum threshold, and then we added between 500 and 4,000. That would be a good criteria for vertical or any type of additional traffic calming devices. Greater than 4,000, we're keeping that as our cap, mainly because 4,000 vehicles is a lot on the street, so that's like Green Springs, or you wouldn't want to put speed bumps on Green Springs or Oxmoor. Let's see, for speed, we're not changing much. There is a little bit conflicting information with the past ordinance, so this is just clarifying. what our recommended traffic calming is based on the speed. So if you're six miles an hour or above the speed limit, we're not gonna recommend any sort of physical traffic calming. Six to nine, we'll recommend signage or striping, request increased police enforcement. And then if you're above or equal to 10 miles per hour, with the speed limit, then we'll recommend speed bumps or other sort of vertical devices. Let's see. I added that signage and striping won't need a petition like speed bumps do, just because those are more minor. They'll still need council approval, though. And then let's see. the time limit. So if you get a request denied, you can't reapply for the same location for another year, just to limit repeat requests. Okay, almost done.

You skip to page eight.

Okay, what I did here is I increased the positive petition approval rate from 66% to 75%, just better aligning with what the other municipalities have for approval ratings. I added steps for what happens if council sees a proposed design and wants to change it. So basically, if it's a minor change, it won't have to go through the whole petition process again. It can just kind of be expedited. If not, then they'll have to redo the petition.

I saw this reference here and just wanted to confirm and also just for others as well. So the technical oversight committee, that is you as the city engineer, Randy as the traffic engineer, and Berkeley as the director of public works, is that correct?

So it doesn't call out specific people, just someone from public works, which is either Berkeley or Chris Thacker, okay, someone from traffic, and then I added someone from fire and police, they're not officially part of the technical oversight committee, but I figured their input would be important. Absolutely.

So that oversight, technical oversight committee when references the city, those three you referenced, city engineer, traffic engineering department, public works department, and then you've added police and fire. That's great. Thanks.

Let's see. There was a section under reviewed of applied solutions, which kind of gives the impression that basically what we install could be temporary and be removed. I wanted to remove that section because I just felt like it gave off the wrong impression. If we're putting all these city resources into staff into data collection to, you know, purchasing the speed cushions and installing them. If neighbors somehow change their mind that they don't like the traffic calming, then I just don't want to have a lot of pushback on, you know, we're just going to remove because you guys didn't want it.

You said you wanted it, now you don't want it.

Right. Yeah, I don't want this to feel like it's a temporary measure when we're going through all this work and this process.

I have a question about the effective area for the petition. Is that just a map that you come up with reasonable?

So that's going to be determined by engineering staff. So me basically. Yeah. So it'll be comprised of it's on a case by case basis. But I imagine it's the people on the street that will have the speed cushions. Any other streets that attach to that? in the connected network.

People cutting through. Kidding.

You can go to the next page. The only thing on here that I want to talk about is I removed the material submittal section. Basically, we're not going to install decorative elements that people request.

Hey, I'm not really sure.

Planters maybe?

Yeah, like stamped speed bumps.

The ones that look like they're 3D, is that what you're talking about? Yeah.

Maybe one day when we have the capabilities to do that in-house. um yeah that's it um the last page is just a a typical detail of the layout of traffic cushions um not this one but oh all right and this will go on this is all still officially online the requests and that'll be on the website that's right and so you can see the spacing allows for emergency vehicles to still drive through in the middle of the road so

Amy, looking at this rendering and comparing it to what has been installed in West Homewood, what is in West Homewood, I think was installed by Public Works and is concrete. There's also other iterations of this that are like in the city of Birmingham. And what is anticipated for going forward for speed cushion or speed home installation?

Right. So I anticipate we only move forward with the rubber speed cushions, mainly because those are bolted on and can be removed. Like if the road needs repaving or if there's some sort of utility cut in the road, we can remove that and reinstall it.

Do we have anywhere currently that is rubber? We used to have them on Roseland, but I think they put asphalt. So everything currently is asphalt. We would be looking at a change there as well.

Well, yeah, I mean, and we've got to do a better job of keeping up with them and maintaining them. I will say that the ones on Oxmoor and West Homewood are concrete. I mean, you could probably get four different locations for the amount that we paid in concrete vertical deflection on Oxmoor. Meaning that it was really expensive, but at the time, that's what the council decided to go with.

What's the lifespan on the rubber?

So it depends on the amount of vehicles that are driving over and the speed that they're driving over. They're designed for a maximum of about 30 miles per hour for people to drive over. Any faster would start to deteriorate those cushions. So it depends on a lot of factors. I will say I was at Birmingham and we kind of amped up their traffic calming program they use the rubber speed cushions and I haven't heard of any locations that needed to be replaced yet that was about five years ago so at least five years

All right, let's see, Amy. Mary, can I speak to your question? Yeah, of course.

We can draft a defensible no through traffic ordinance, but it has to be... Very narrow. It would not be under the police powers of the municipalities. It would have to promote public safety and it would need to be based on engineering findings and objective data, not, I don't like people driving through my neighborhood. And that's cars, that's not trucks, that's cars.

It can be anything. Okay.

The farther you extend it, the riskier it gets. The broader it is, the riskier it gets. And you also have to keep in mind if you do an on-street X, how many Xs are going to be here next meeting. But if there's a safety issue with large trucks or commercial or whatever it may be that engineering can study, we could draft around that. But there needs to be a safety issue.

Can we look and see if we have anything on the books for Hollywood and Okay, appreciate you. Thank you. Next item, 090726, request for consideration for update to public record request procedures.

Mr. Seacrest. Yes, thank you, Mayor. This is a resolution to bring us to more current times as far as how public records requests are done and handled. Our old resolution stated that it was done by a page-by-page basis. And so this is just to kind of get us more into the digital age with how we handle these things and how we charge for them.

Any questions for Mr. Segrist?

Thank you.

All right, and we will not vote on this tonight. Going to look down, okay. All right. No further questions on that item. We will move on to 10-07-26, a request to set a public hearing to declare a property at 1045 Goresbrook Drive a public nuisance due to excessive growth. We're going to carry this item over. Is that correct? Are we going to hear from Mr. Griffiths not here?

He just asked me to take it, but I'll set a public hearing to let him know what it would be.

Okay. Okay, I think we're going to wait, Ray, for two weeks out. So, 27. we're gonna set it yeah right we'll set it let him know we'll set all of his items we'll set them on the 27th for probably the first week in September but we'll get that to him on the meeting of the 27th of July 27th I made it sound like we're going to have it on the 27th. We're not having it on the 27th. We're going to set it on the 27th. It'll probably be the first meeting in September is what I'm trying to say. Okay, so we will carry that item over is what I'm trying to say. Okay, next item, 11-0726. A request to set a public hearing to declare property at 608 Shades Creek Parkway, a public nuisance due to excessive growth. Same thing. We're going to carry this item over and set that public hearing at our next meeting, which will be July 27th. Next item is 120726, a request to set a public hearing to declare property at 1580 Berry Road at Public Newses. Due to excessive growth, same deal. We will carry that item over and set that public hearing at our next meeting. Next item is 130726, a request for permission from the council to authorize the mayor to execute a resolution in support of the Friends of Shades Creek application, grant application. Same thing, I can speak to it, you can speak to it, whichever you wanna speak to it.

Yeah, I met with Michelle Blackwood with the Friends of Shades Creek a couple of weeks ago and I thought she would be here tonight. But they are applying for a grant to EBSCO to improve the section of Shades Creek between 280 and 31 it's about 4,000 linear feet and this resolution just says that we support that application and this will go out tonight so we will vote on this tonight any questions

All right. If not, we are going to make it under the gun. The last item for tonight's pre-council meeting, which also will go out tonight, is 140726, a request for authorization for the city manager to execute a $5,000 grant award for the Homewood Fire Department.

This one's actually going to take a really long time to talk about.

It is.

Just kidding. The Commissioner Boland is gifting us $5,000 for homewood firefighter equipment. Excellent. Thank you.

Anything specific or just as needed?

Our fire department has plans for it, but no, the actual grant is more generic.

Okay.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Boland. Are you going to read the document of the exhibits? No.

Please.

Russ, make a decision. Any pass-through for other uses are prohibited.

All right. Well, okay. Without any objections, then, we will adjourn and reconvene at 6 o'clock next door. Let's do it.

We made it.