City Council - workshop

Work session to order. Monday night we will review payment of bills, go over minutes for July 9th and July 13th, and have a resolution number 890726 appointing a member to the health care authority of the city of Hoover, Mr. Iver.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I expect on Monday for us to consider a resolution to appoint a member. The reason why we are doing so is that Alan Paquette, who has served us well for many years, has a lot of things on his plate and has decided to focus on some other things for now. So because of that, there's a vacancy, and it is a council appointment. And I have shared with the council members the resume of the individual that I am nominating for.

this this role okay we'll share the name on monday night we will take that on monday night uh since that name is not shared though i will ask that we move that off the consent agenda that makes perfect sense and that will also allow for a photo opportunity if we would like to have one all right moving on to resolution 88 91 26 authorizing the mayor to exercise the city's right to terminate the Client Service Agreement with USI Insurance Services LLC by providing 60 days written notice as provided in the agreement. Mr. Waldrop, Mr. Munger, you want to take this?

I can speak to that. In that brokerage agreement, there is a 60-day termination letter that has to be done. has indicated that he would like to have a similar agreement with the different firms, Randy Jones and Associates, and they are, if they have not already done so, they're opening an office in Galleria Tower. They have offices in several states. They're part of the Levitt Group that has other offices. And what we'd like to add to this would be that The mayor is authorized to do the termination notice, but he's also authorized to negotiate an agreement that will be similar, but we believe with better benefits with Randy Jones and Associates, and that agreement will come back for the council to approve at some point before October 1.

Very good. Comments or questions from council? Okay, moving on. We'll go to resolution number 890626, authorizing the mayor to execute a cooperation agreement with the Shelby County Commission for Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program, Shelby County, Urban County. Mr. Munger.

Yes, sir. So in your packet, you have some correspondence from Shelby County's relevant department head that administers this program. These are HUD funds that are passed down to entitled entities of government, which at counties, that threshold is breached when you exceed 200,000 in population. So Shelby County has been an entitled entity for three years. During that last three-year cycle, the city was not affiliated with any county population. nor did we administer our own HUD funds. The city in the past has administered CDBG funds on its own. We've also partnered with counties to administer these funds. And because of HUD's split place rule, that means our population as a municipality that resides in two counties, whoever we affiliate with gets to count our entire population. And the entire area of the city is also eligible for funding. So, Even under Shelby County, if the senior center qualified for something, we would be able to utilize those funds as allocated by the board, and the city would also be granted a seat and a vote on that board that actually makes those funding decisions. In your packet, I've included some maps that are generated from HUD data showing the city limits as well as funding awards of the different program types over time. as you would expect with a program that mostly focuses on low to moderate income census tracts. The city has had relatively few opportunities under this program, but there are some areas that we can benefit from for some things from fire equipment, playground equipment, you know, just different public infrastructure that we will have a chance to compete for. And I think affiliating with Shelby County gives us the best odds of maximizing our financial value. under this program. Also notable, Shelby County performs all administrative activities under this at no cost. They bill no dollars back to the program, so 100% of HUD funds received get put into the pot for competitive distribution.

Comments or questions for Mr. Munger?

Mr. President, you had said something about not qualifying for CDBG money in the past.

No, I said the city has relatively few census tracts that qualify for CDBG funds. Correct. Because of the low to moderate income threshold.

Right.

We have qualified for some, which are marked on your.

Right, but the city has qualified for CDBG funds in the past. Correct. The Jefferson County portions, are we still going to qualify for those, or are those going to go to Shelby County?

So the city's population, because of the split place rule that HUD has, that means that our entire population would count towards the Shelby County funding formula. And that same case was accurate in the last three years when the city affiliated with no county. No one counted our population, so no county benefited from our population and the additional funds that could've come to their program from that. So our whole population will count towards the Shelby County funding matrix from HUD, and the entirety of the city limits would be eligible to receive funding from Shelby County to benefit it, including those areas that are actually outside Jefferson County because we would be affiliated with their CDBG consortium.

Do you know what the funds have averaged for Hoover over the last five years? Are they in your documents in our printout?

They are. So the years that the city received funds directly, CDBG is a very laborious program to administer. But when the city did receive those funds directly, the average was right around $300,000 a year that we received for ours. The funding formula ranges. It's not a one-to-one type thing for population. There's a multiplier or a divisor based on your poverty levels and a few other things. But I think that's about what our individualized value was. Again, what it is today, we would be you know, we would add to Shelby County's population, which if they've been getting funded at 200,000 people, it's a little bit more than that, they would now be at 295 or whatever.

That 300,000's about what I recalled. I'd heard the 200,000, I guess you were talking people and I was thinking dollars.

Yes, so that's, I believe I cut this off at 2003 for research purposes, but I think the city started around the year 2000 self-administering funds. And at one point, the city employed an outside CDBG administrator just for this one program. Again, there's quite a lot of paperwork that goes into it, which you're allowed to charge back, I think, 20% of your grant funds towards administrative costs, which is why I mentioned that Shelby County provides those services at no cost.

Do you estimate we'll still receive around $300,000?

No, sir. I think it would be more than that, but again, it goes into the pot for the consortium, and we submit applications on a competitive basis.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

Any other comments or questions? Moving on to Resolution 88-9226, authorizing the mayor to execute a five-year agreement with Motorola Solutions for the replacement and subscription of public safety camera equipment. Chief McDonald.

Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you. Council, as you stated, we're requesting authorization to enter into a contract with Motorola to replace 16 of our fixed-site public safety cameras throughout the city. These cameras are no longer supported. They're at end of contract and end of life. We've already budgeted for the replacement of these for FY26 and have received funding for that already. And for the recurring cost, we've requested that in our FY27 budget.

Any comments or questions for Chief McDonald?

I have a question. What are the purpose of these cameras? What do they do?

They're public safety cameras. They're a dual camera. They're cameras that live stream and help with traffic and investigative purposes, and they're also LPR cameras as well. So they're a dual purpose.

And they're mounted on poles throughout the city? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Moving on to Resolution 889326, authorizing the mayor to execute a grant agreement for improvements to the entrance of Aldridge Gardens. Mr. Pepper.

Good evening. So this is a grant through Representative Mike Shaw for $4,000, and we intend to use it for landscaping and other aesthetic improvements at the entrance of Aldridge Gardens.

Comments or questions for the grant? All right, we'll move on to this next one. Resolution 889426. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hoover authorizing the mayor to execute a single center event agreement with Hoover Mall Limited LLC for the Hoover Fire Department's 9-11 Remembrance Ceremony at the River Chase Galleria.

Yep, this is the event agreement with Hoover Mall Unlimited, obviously the Galleria, to host the 9-11 Memorial Stair Climb and Ceremony. I think it's going to be on September the 12th this year. So it'll be a ceremony in the food court and then the stair climb and the stairwell of the towers.

Comments, questions?

Mr. Pepper?

Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to resolution number 889526, declaring that certain personal property is not needed for public or municipal purposes and directing the disposal. Mr. Moore.

Mr. President, council, this is 44 pieces of equipment and vehicles that are no longer needed with various fire department and library furniture and other items from the police department as well to be disposed of by auction, donation or recycling. Any comments or questions for Mr. Moore?

Mr. President, Dustin, are there any of these fire apparatus?

No, sir.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? All right. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Resolution 888026, accepting the finalization of change orders and project for the new Hoover Fire Station number one. Mr. Miller and Mr. Ajo, welcome.

Good evening. So yes, thank you so much for your attendance today. I think every council member here tonight was in attendance to the fire hose uncoupling event that we had, which I think went off. Great job, Chief Bentley, on that and your staff. So thank you for your support. More than that, thank you for your patience on this project. We really do think that this will be a project a giant asset for the city. This would be a great building for us to house and to represent the city moving forward many years to come. So yes, what you have before you is the item to reconcile all change order requests, apply all applicable liquidated damages, and establish that no additional change order requests will be considered, and authorize the final closeout of the project. I do have Mr. Tim Aho with us tonight. He did an excellent job managing this project for us, designing this project for us. Great partner. So if you have any additional questions regarding that, he's here.

Mr. Aho, I just want to thank you for your work on the project. It's a beautiful facility. It's going to serve Hoover well for many years to come. Thank you. Excellent work.

We had a great team.

We can get on to the fun part, right? That's right. Any comments or questions for either of these two gentlemen?

Mr. President, Mr. Miller, what was the cost of the purchase of the property?

Of the purchase of the property? Oh, goodness. I wasn't ready for that one. I can get that for you, Mr. Smith. Thank you. I want to say it was, gosh, when did we do that? It was back in 23, I believe, somewhere around, Chief, do you remember? 1.2, I can get that number back to you. I was going to say 1.4, so I think you're close.

Close enough.

We'll get that number to you.

Thank you. That'll do.

All right, thank you. Any other comments or questions? Thank you. All right, thanks. Thank you. Moving on to Resolution 889626, to designate those able to perform weed abatement work within the City of Hoover. Mr. Martin.

Yes, sir. We are asking the city council to, by resolution, designate JRH Incorporated as an authorized contractor to perform weed abatement on private property when we have nuisances that are declared. We essentially are using the same personnel as we were before. They used to be under PS, Site Management Consultants Incorporated. That business sold to JRH, and so this is putting a bow on that transition as far as our paperwork is concerned.

Comments or questions for Mr. Martin? All right. Moving on to Resolution 889726, authorizing the mayor to execute a GIS data sharing agreement with Central Alabama Water.

Yes, sir. So the purpose of this agreement is to govern the sharing and exchange of GIS data, information and products, between the city of Hoover and Central Alabama Water and lay out the parties' respective plans criteria for use of that data and sharing of the data. So what precipitated the need for this, we recently had an audit of the accreditation for Hoover Fire Department. One of the bits of feedback that we received From that accreditation process, some room for improvement was incorporating into our geographic information system, our GIS, water infrastructure, such as location of valves, mains, et cetera. And so this agreement would allow us to obtain that information from Central Alabama Water along with any other pertinent information from that entity to incorporate as we build into our geographic information system and vice versa. If there's information that we have that we can share to help reduce additional cost by CAW in acquiring new data, we would provide that as well. Any comments or questions regarding this?

Mr. President, can other providers provide that same type of information? I know we've got another provider. Don't we have another provider in the far west part of the city?

We may have some provision from Bessemer Water as well.

Do we still have some Bessemer Water hydrants out that way?

Birmingham and Central Alabama, the water being the largest provider, they just suggested to us as an improvement to work with the largest first and we can identify the other infrastructure needs with the other water systems a lot easier than having to do this on our track.

Yeah, I was just wondering if the others have the capability of being able to provide the information that you're looking for. They do. Very good, thank you.

Any other comments, questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Moving on to resolution 889826, accepting the dedication of a storm drainage easement and stormwater drainage improvements located on property of Regina Investment Corp. Pursue it to the mutual release and settlement agreement. Missed in. Oh, you're not missed in. Mr. Perlman.

Substitution. So this is better known as the River Chase Lorna Project. So resolution accepts the dedication of storm drainage easement, repaired stormwater drainage improvements from Regina Investment Corp. in pursuit to the agreement. It authorized the city to assume ownership, operation, and maintenance of the easement and related drainage infrastructure as part of our MS4. In your packet, you'll see that you have a map that outlines the easement and also the legal description. And then separately, there's also the certificate of completion from our engineer, which was Neil Schaefer, and also a certificate from the contractor basically releasing no lien. We're free and clear.

All right. Any comments or questions for Mr. Brummer? Very good. Thank you. Resolution 888526, awarding a bid and authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement for bid number 26-004, Riverchase and Inverness WWTP generators replacement with Mattsons Incorporated. Mr. Welch.

Good afternoon. This resolution is the award recommendation for the Inverness and Riverchase wastewater treatment plant generator replacement project. The engineering department solicited competitive bids for the Inverness and Riverchase. Wastewater Treatment Generator Replacement Projects bids were publicly opened and two bids were submitted and received. Mastin, Inc. came in at $1,842,619 and JetPep, Inc. came in at $2,138,365.52. After reviewing the submitted bids, the Engineering Department has determined that Mastin, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid The project includes replacing and installation of two new emergency generators, ATS switches, and generated docking stations at both plants. These improvements will enhance the reliability and resilience of the city wastewater treatment plant facilities by providing dependable emergency backup during utility outages. Funding for this project was provided through the $6.1 million critical sewer needs allocation. This is the final project included in that funding request. Prior to this award, approximately $319,264.62 has been allocated or expended. Approval of this contract in the amount of $1,842,619 will increase that total allocation allocation or expenditure under that critical sewer needs to approximately $5,061,883.62, leaving approximately about $990,000 remaining to be spent.

You want to throw some more numbers in there?

I want to make sure you add everything you need. Let you know that we are spending the money like we say everywhere.

Mr. President, I almost feel like that old Abbott and Costello of who's on first. You say this is coming out of the $6 million that was budgeted by the previous administration, correct? Yes, sir. Is this the last of it or just the next step?

There's other steps, but this is the first part of it.

Okay. So there's still remaining funding?

Yes, we do still have remaining projects out there that will need to be done.

I was just wondering where things stood after these funds are spent. Very good. You were throwing out, like Mr. President said, you were throwing out a lot of numbers. Just making sure. Thank you, sir.

Any other comments or questions? Thank you, Mr. Welk. Resolution 8900-26, authorizing the CFO, city treasurer, to execute documents on behalf of the city of Hoover to increase the city's region's bank credit card limit. Dr. Lopez. Good evening.

Basically, this is exactly what it says to increase our credit card limit by about $50,000. This will help us between SEC and the July 4th events. We ran into some issues with that, so this is going to help us not run into that problem.

Comments, questions? Do we get a card? No. No comments, questions from that end. We've got Mr. Smith down here.

I thought maybe you just want to borrow my wife's card. Well, if you're willing. She probably doesn't have that much left. I hear you.

All right, you've got the next one as well. Resolution 890126, electing to participate in the provisions of Act 2026-608 of the 2026 regular session of the Alabama legislature and authorizing funding of the one-time lump sum payment for eligible retirees and beneficiaries.

Yes, so this is... The one-time lump sum benefit for the current retirees, we chose to do the lump sum. As you can see, it's just over $143,000. It'll also be on the budget amendment, which is the next item. And we have, I think it covers close to 403 retirees.

Very good. So it's kind of like almost a one-time COLA for current retirees. This is only allowed through the state legislature. And then once they pass that, each city has the option to opt into it as well. So we always feel that it's important to honor those that came before us. They've certainly built this city up to where we are benefiting from their work and their past efforts. So I think they certainly deserve it. Any other comments or questions regarding this?

President, I don't know you could really call it a COLA. It's $1 per month. For each month that you served with the RSA retirement system, I think the average is going to come up to about $120 to $140 per employee. Is that right?

I think that's enough to pay off your wife's credit card that you were talking about.

I think so. It's a lot less than her minimum payment. I know that. But that's about average, isn't it? Now, is that for somebody that has a full 25 years and more, or is that anybody that pulls retirement?

I believe it's for anybody that was eligible to retire.

Okay. Well, Mr. President, I'll be abstaining from this vote. Very good. Ms. Driver?

Just a clarification question. Is this one-time benefit something that the legislature does on a regular or annual basis?

No, it's actually not very often that they do do it.

And is our precedent, as Councillor Middlebrooks described, that we always participate?

From my memory, any time this came up, I cannot remember a time that we did not do it.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? All right. Moving on to Resolution 889926, approving a budget amendment for fiscal year ending September 30th, 2026 for various departments related to organizational, personnel, operational, and grant-related changes.

So yes, if you have exhibit A in front of you, we have several items on this amendment. We've been trying to have one amendment a month at the most. We've heard about some of these items already. Number one is the item we were just referring to, RSA bonus for the retirees. Item two is related to some reallocation of sewer funds to get three new motors serving the anaerobic and anoxic basins at Inverness Wastewater Treatment Plant. If you have any questions, talk to Jason. Item three is, so one of the things we're doing with the current budget process, if we see some requests that are needed that maybe we can fund out of the existing budget or that sort of thing, I've encouraged them to do so. This is one of those items in the sense that they were gonna need, it was approved last year, or the current year, and they were gonna need a little bit more money as prices had changed, and so they found some money to reallocate from a project that was done And this is for the AV equipment at the Omaha Club at the Met. Also item four is related to apparently the grant portion of the Lock Haven Pedestrian Improvement Project, which was $800,000. That was not on or was not budgeted. And so we are just going ahead and truing that up for there's revenue and expense in and out. Item five, some various fire department. Again, this also involves going ahead and purchasing some iPads for the fire department they were requesting for next year. But in addition, they're reallocating some funds to also get a tailored training prop and then emergency lighting striping related to their existing F450 truck. So those are kind of in and outs. Item six, as you all know, fuel costs have gone up. So there's $200,000 increase for fuel that we hope to get us through the end of the fiscal year, as well as $100,000 for fleet repairs. to get us through the end of the fiscal year. Item seven is related to a donation from Signature Homes for the police department to purchase two pole cameras for $12,400. So this is also an in and out. Item eight, I think was referenced earlier, $4,000 from Mike Shaw related to the Aldridge Gardens entrance. So that's an in and out budgeting those funds to spend. Item nine is we received another year of the high intensity drug trafficking grant and for $74,000. So that's also an in and out with revenue and expense. Item 10, out of the opioid funds, they're going to purchase 100 automatic external defibrillators for the police department, and that's 147,000 out of that special revenue fund. Item 11 is related to a position in the library. It involves no money. It's just reclassifying the title from library communications specialist to librarian. So that does not involve any funds. Item 12, you may remember a few months ago, we kind of changed up how the police officer reserves were done. Well, at the time, the number of positions, apparently, I think I was given seven and we actually had eight. So this is chewing up that last one. So they're all the exact same. Item 13 is, so all of those, mainly the fuel and the gas, fleet parts and so forth were the most of the amount that needed to have some revenue or reduction in expenditure to offset. So we had $141,000 of election expenses in the budget that we didn't need, so we reduced that. And then also we were ahead on our business license and some SSUT revenue, and the three of those offset those increases.

Very good. Comments or questions for Dr. Lopez?

Dr. Lopez, are SSUT or these other funds greater than the $443,000? I'm assuming so.

Yeah, so the election took $140,000 of it, reducing those expenses, and then we expect SSUT to actually be a little bit higher than what's going to be used in this.

Right. I guess looking towards the end of this budget year... We're seeing that, are we going to be on budget? Are we going to be funding?

We'll be ahead of budget with the SSUT a little bit. That's why we're able to use this. We'll also be ahead of budget on business license.

Okay.

Even after this, not by a bunch on that, but maybe $50,000.

Thank you. Any further comments or questions?

Dr. Lopez, on item number seven, what kind of cameras are those?

They were pole cameras to monitor.

Yes, ma'am. I see that. But what brand are they? What type are they? What is their function?

I'm going to ask the expert chief.

Yeah, if we can get that by Monday. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Lopez. Moving on to ordinance number 262708, annexation to alter, rearrange, and extend the corporate limits of the city of Hoover so as to embrace and include within the corporate city limits property contiguous to the city located at 1904 Mayflower Drive.

Yes, sir. This particular property is approximately half an acre in size. It's at the corner of Frank Avenue and Mayflower Drive in the old Shadesville community, which is just to our west across Highway 31 and behind the shopping center across the way. This was actually in multiple tracks. The property owner consolidated them into one lot that meets our R1 single-family residential requirements for a buildable lot. So they've already pre-positioned the property in that fashion. This would annex it, and it is a donut hole in our city limits. So no extension of services that we do not already provide in the vicinity. Very good.

Any comments or questions for Mr. Martin? Hearing none, thank you. We'll move on to resolution number 888826, authorizing the use and grant of public funds and things of value and aid of a private entity pursuant to Amendment 772 of the Alabama Constitution in connection with an amendment to the development agreement with Broad Metro for Stadium Trace Phase 1. Mr. Munger.

Yes, sir, so as Mr. Barnett spoke to the council about at the previous meeting, all of our public involvement and really all the correspondence that you've received previously was about two agreements. There was a snafu in the publication process. Advertisement was done for one agreement. So we are now back with the second part of that, which relates to the first phase of Stadium Trace. This extends the timeline for that project. as I spoke to you previously and also increases the maximum cap should the sales continue to grow. That would be in the final years of that agreement that they are extended to. This is presented jointly with what was acted on previously and if approved we would move forward with validation on this.

Any comments or questions regarding this item? Mr. Schultz.

Does this mean that once this is approved, they're going to start movement on phase one, on state and praise phase one again, the middle screen portion and that?

So I would let Jim speak to that if he's here. I know I did receive an email from him today requesting a kickoff meeting for the PUD application, which I know is the next step in the process from our development timeline at least.

But this, This removes the, this was approved several years ago and there was several stops on that. This will permit it to start going again, is that correct? Correct.

And there are also, there's some limiting language and clawback language here regarding certain things and timelines they have to meet. So the expectation is that they will be moving forward on that. If not, there are some penalties associated with it. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. President, I do have one question that you may not know the answer to, but I know your research skills, so you'll find out for us. What precedent do we have in the city for increasing the amount previously awarded under a 772 agreement?

So that's definitely something I would want to have a more exhaustive answer for. I do have a file of previously approved 772 agreements that the city has participated in on on projects and I would have to kind of sift through that and figure out which ones deal with the same property repetitively. There are several aside from this one, the Galleria being one that was incentivized repeatedly over time as different upgrades were contemplated over that, but I'd be happy to get something together to distribute to council prior to Monday.

Thank you.

As far as following up on Mr. Schultz's question, Mr. Munger, the village green portion, are any substantial changes expected on that portion of the project that would require them to hold off on developing that further until the new PUD is approved?

No, there are none. So there is a 120-day action period. that's built into this, so again, what was presented by the developer previously remains unchanged. They should be beginning work on that within 120 days, and that language is reflected there with also some callback language that's associated with non-action on that.

Thank you, sir. Any other comments or questions? Moving on to... resolution number 890226, declaring a weed and other vegetation nuisance and directing the abatement of said nuisance. So we're gonna take all these in one motion on Monday night. We'll go through, so this is resolution 890226, 890326, that's first one was 237 Russet Woods Drive. We've got 2152 Larchmont Drive. Resolution 890426 for 3469 Birch Tree Drive. Resolution 890526, and this would be declaring as a public nuisance, for 547 Turtle Creek Drive. Got all those, Mr. Martin?

Yes, sir. So the first couple that you have for Russet Woods Drive, Larchmont Drive, and Birch Tree, those are overgrown weeds and grass. At present, they are not in compliance with city code. So we would ask those to remain on the agenda. We'll check, of course, again before the council takes any action just to see if there are any updates between now and then. The last one you read for 547 Turtle Creek Drive, that is a hoarding case where we have property outside of the home that is accumulated and an ordinate amount of trash, various and sundry appliances, and a whole host of other items that are not customarily found in one's yard. So we are looking forward to being able to either force the property owner to self-abate or, if need be, pursue legal action in order for us to go and abate it for them. Comments, questions for Mr. Martin?

I have a question. Mr. Martin, on a previous item, we approved a company to take care of the abatements. What is the average cost of doing this type of work when a property... It comes up for us.

For the grass and weeds, we average anywhere from $1,500 to $2,500 for abating, and that is taking it down to freshly cut lawn. If there's any privet hedge or anything of that nature that's growing wild in the middle of the yard, they'll take care of that for us as well. But for items such as Turtle Creek Drive, that's going to take some additional steps and we would not have our weed and grass contractor handling that case.

And once the work is done, then a lien is put on there. We try to collect the money. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay.

And we go through that with the lien process as well? Yes, sir. Okay.

Very good. Thank you.

Any other comments, questions? Next will be public hearings for August 10th, Resolution 8889-26, Resolution granting conditional use approval to develop and operate a freestanding emergency department located at 2137 Valleydale Road.

Yes, sir. This will be a standalone ER that would locate on Valleydale Road directly across from the Lowe's. near the interchange with I-65. Planning Commission reviewed this case, considered it at their meeting last month, and it comes to you with a positive recommendation with a couple of conditions. One, that they obtained Shelby County approvals for the conditional use plans, addressing their comments from May of 2026. There were a few technical items that wanted to make sure that Shelby County was aware of and they were satisfied. Let's see. Also, We had a traffic study ensuring that that was completed. They did produce a study to us, stamped by a professional engineer from Alabama, just ensuring that any alterations that are needed going forward are acceptable to Shelby County. And when they come in with their permits set, making sure that the landscape plans include an altered plant schedule and parking screening Comments, questions for Mr. Martin?

Mr. Martin, is this going to have a helicopter pad by any chance?

By law, they are required to have a helicopter pad. However, the use of that facility, as it's been described to us, is very rare.

So they'll have one, it just will be rarely used.

That's correct.

Mr. President, you know, it hasn't been that many years ago that we're all wanting medical facilities in this city. And this will be the third freestanding ER in Hoover. One is on 280, the original one on Highway 150, John Hawkins Parkway, and now this one on Valleydale. And Chief, we're going to have emergencies pretty well taken care of unless they need to go to a level one trauma center. And that's going to be downtown. We'd be able to get them there quicker than a helicopter could get to them. I just think that it's amazing that people are willing to invest in Hoover knowing that this community is in a position to want these type of services. Do they go through TCC on every patient, even though they're going to a freestanding facility? Thank you, sir.

I apologize, Mr. President. I was looking at an outdated list of conditions. The conditions that come to you from the Planning Commission are actually as follows. Revised landscape plan with altered plant schedule. Obtained Shelby County approvals for alterations prescribed in the traffic study. Site constructed in substantial conformity to the conditional use plans. And then finally, obtaining the business license and CEO prior to opening.

Thank you. To piggyback on Mr. Smith's comment, so at least these freestanding emergency hospitals free up a lot of the, so your more serious conditions go to the traditional hospitals, which frees up a lot of these emergency rooms, freestanding emergency rooms for, you know, families that just need quick care. Our family has used 101-50 numerous times, and I mean, man, it has been a breath of fresh air going there instead of having to fight the hospital emergency rooms, so. Moving on to Resolution 889026, granting conditional use approval for a day habilitation and respite services program for the property located at 3309 Lorna Road, Suite 203.

Yes, sir. This also was considered by the Planning Commission earlier in the month, and it comes to you with a positive recommendation contingent on the following, that the maximum number of customers would be capped at 1,500 The interior of the building unit is developed out in conformance with adopted building and fire codes for this use. Third, any future exterior site work will require modified conditional use application and site civil plans. Four, day habilitation program aspect of the business whereby customers are present operates within the hours of 8.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. Monday through Friday as presented in the application. No overnight use is permitted. And finally, the operator will acquire a business license and certificate of occupancy prior to opening. Comments or questions?

Yeah, Mr. President, I think, Mr. Martin, it would be helpful for you to elaborate just a little on what this facility, what the services are that they provide.

Yes. So for those who have physical or mental challenges, this particular location would allow them an opportunity to get out of their home. to go and have some level of therapy as well as access to a small tight-knit community during the day. And I believe there is also some job training opportunities that are presented to them at this location. So day habilitation and respite services for those who have some level of impairment.

Any other comments or questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin. We are at the end of the agenda. Any comments from council tonight? All right. We will see you all Monday night. We're adjourned.