City Council - workshop

Welcome to the council planning session for our Monday meeting. For those of you in the room who are familiar with this process, you know that this is just a night for the council members to ask questions and interact with staff and get a better understanding of the items that we'll be voting on on Monday. And so on Monday, we'll start, of course, with the payment of the bills and address the minutes. And after that, we will move to resolution number 8911-26. That is for the purchase of pink ribbon project T-shirts for the fire department. And I believe Chief Bentley is going to talk to us about that tonight.

So thank you. A little unusual, so we're asking permission. I've spoken with Scott about this at length. For many years, the fire department, fire departments across the nation have supported the Pink Ribbon Project for Breast Cancer Research and Awareness. And every year we purchase these shirts with public funds and it goes to private research. And there's nothing else that we do in the fire department that supports any other disease or illness. And so we've purchased these shirts, and we issue those out to the fire department, and they wear those shirts for two weeks typically during that month. And so it never really has... set well with me because we don't do that for any other research. So Scott said the way to handle this is to request the use of public funds for private research or private use. The quote is for $5,200, some $5,200. That money's in our budget for those shirts, for uniforms. I'd like to increase that just a little bit just so that if that quote doesn't go through and we have to re-quote it, I wouldn't want to come back again, but maybe to the $6,000 mark just to give us some flexibility. But that's what the resolution is for, is to ask your permission to utilize public funds for private research. Did I say that right, Scott? Almost, okay. You wanna make sure I say that right?

Anytime the council finds a public benefit in expenditure of the public funds, you're fine. So the goal here is to just establish some public benefits.

My issue's always been we didn't do it for anything else and I felt like it was a little bit awkward. We just wanna make sure we're doing the right thing.

And a valid public benefit would be supporting breast cancer awareness, breast cancer research, and benefiting the health and welfare of the citizens of Hoover.

Exactly. Thank you.

Any questions? All right, moving right along, we'll move to item number four on the agenda, resolution number 8912-26. I believe Mr. Miller is going to come and talk with us about a memorandum of understanding with Shelby County for the NCFI expansion project.

Yes, ma'am. Good evening. So, yes, if you remember last time I was up here asking for a change order for the NCFI project, we talked about the $200,000 that was the owner contingency that was built into the contract of the project. This memorandum of agreement, or this agreement memorandum of understanding is really the agreement with Shelby County for that $800,000, really so that they will provide $800,000 if Hoover provides $800,000 towards the project to put towards contingency to really right size where contingency needs to be on a project that level. We have already contributed our $800,000, so this is just to formalize and memorialize that agreement.

Very good. Any questions for Mr. Miller? All right. We'll move to number five, resolution number 8913-26. This is regarding implementation of a region's P-Card program and authorizing the chief financial officer to execute any and all documents for a region's program for the uniform allowance for E911 and the police department. Dr. Lopez. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening.

Well, just as you just read, the police department and E911 both have requested, they had this program in the past where they had the P cards for the uniforms. It was taken away a few years ago, and so now they've requested that we put it back, and that's what this will be doing, and being able to sign the appropriate documents to make that happen.

Any questions for Dr. Lopez on this item?

Dr. Lopez, are these for each individual employee or is this just for the department in general?

Each individual employee will get a card that has the amount they get for the fiscal year.

Per year per employee. Thank you.

All right. Moving right along, resolution number 8914-26. This is authorizing the police chief to execute a memorandum of understanding with Gulf Coast HIDTA and ALEA. I don't see Chief Morris here yet, but we've got substitutes. Good evening, Mayor, Council. Good evening.

How's everyone? This is a MOU for us to be reimbursed for overtime so the city can get paid. That's it. And I believe it's already approved, Sean.

The agreement was approved. This is just approving the reimbursement.

Yep.

Chief, do you know what the dollar value is?

No, sir. I don't know off the top of my head what it's capped at.

Perhaps Monday night?

Absolutely.

Thank you, sir.

And just to be clear, this is related to our support of actions in support of the ALEA and the Gulf Coast drug trafficking efforts. The overtime that's worked in association with those efforts, is that right?

Yes, ma'am. That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Other questions?

No.

I think we're good. And I do have something to add on that to you. That's basically for us to get the money back. Aaliyah will get the funding back to us for that. Right? Understood. Thank you. Item number seven on the agenda, 8915-26. is authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement with Trace Crossings Residential Association and accepting a statutory warranty deed for right away acquisition for Exit 9. Ms. Ginn, good evening.

Good evening. This is just a tract of land that's needed, very small from the trace crossing association is .22 acres that's needed for the Exit 9 project. It's there physically near South Shades Crush Road and it's just the formality of going through the paperwork for that acquisition for the project.

Is there any cost associated with that acquisition?

There is, and I believe it's... I'm not gonna remember off the top of my head, but Mr. Barnett can help me.

I can. The original acquisition allowance, the city council approved the whole project, the appraised value of the .22 acres was $7,040. Okay, so it's taken this long because the HOA, they did not want to receive that much money because that would sort of acquiesce that their common unusable area was worth more than it is and they're currently challenging those assessments. So they said how about we enter into an agreement to deed you the property for $250 unless the assessment challenge is unsuccessful and we'll cap it at 7,040 which is the original appraisal. So the city will owe $250 unless the tax assessor says, nope, it's worth this much instead of this much. But it's still capped at the appraised value. Questions? And you have the deed. This is, as she was saying, this is a formality. Anytime a city receives property, it needs to acknowledge that it'll be the owner and responsible party for the property. So the ceiling is $7,000.

Excuse me? The ceiling is $7,000.

The ceiling, $7,040 to be exact.

And those up to $7,000 come out of the project funds?

That's correct, and it was previously approved way back.

Any other questions? All right, thank you. All right, next I believe we have Mr. Munger to talk about item number eight on the agenda, Resolution 8916-26. This is a preliminary engineering right-of-way utility and construction agreement with the Alabama Department of Transportation.

Yes, ma'am. So you see here a very long project name that's familiar to you. We'll just call it Exit 9, and this is a supplemental agreement number one on behalf of that project. So this is something that you've each been briefed on previously, but one of the things that has been a directive from the mayor since I started to work here is essentially to identify efficiencies that we can gain to effectuate the construction of Exit 9. The city has a very large financial commitment towards the project that a bond was issued for, and we've of course been proceeding through with the utility agreements, right-of-way acquisition, one of which you just heard about, and other items heading towards that in partnership with DOT. So as part of that effort, we convened a meeting early this year with the partners of ours from the MPO, the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission, to discuss funding options and through a number of discussions and many meetings over a series of months, which Mr. Miller, Mr. Palmer, Ms. Gann, others contributed to. We participate in all facets of the various committees on the MPO, but a proposal was put forth that had to be cleared after it was recommended by staff by the Policy Committee, the Citizens Committee, and I believe the Technical Committee before it actually reached fruition. So it was cleared through each one of those hurdles and eventually was voted on and approved through the TIP, the Transportation Improvement Plan, because there were some funds available from another project that had not reached this point of its construction planning that could be reprogrammed towards this project. The nexus of that request on our behalf was that exit nine It's certainly a benefit to the city. I think everyone recognizes that, but it is also a regional benefit. It's a benefit to Shelby County. It's a benefit to cities like Helena. It's a benefit to Jefferson County. And all of those cities, we all have representation on the different MPO committees. and that was something that was discussed in those committee meetings, and our partners agreed to support this reprogramming of $16 million to go towards what would have otherwise been the city's commitment on this project. So the pertinent details of our total outlay are in your memorandum. Those remain the same. All other facets of that agreement remain the same outside of paragraphs A and B, to reflect the addition of $16 million in federal MPO STP funding. The ALDOT contribution, which are federal funds passed through ALDOT, remains capped at $58.95 million for the project. And the net effect of the supplemental application is that the city's projected share of the construction cost will be reduced from $57.9 million to $41.9 million. Of course, those are all based on construction estimates, ultimately subject to whatever the final amount is on bid day. But we are very pleased with the support that we gained, not only from our partners at the MPO who saw the value in this project, but also our regional partners who serve on those committees that had to ultimately vote for that, and I think there probably will be a day in the future where some of them have a project that is of extraordinary cost but also of extraordinary regional benefit where we may certainly be asked to support a similar deferral of funds to make sure something actually gets done that really is something that's larger than a single municipal government should be looking to do on their own. But the action item on Monday is simply for the council to vote to accept supplemental agreement number one, and a resolution will be in your packet to that effect. There is no sort of change. This only lessens the city's burden on this project. And I have asked this evening for a representative from the MPO to be here with us. There he is. So he was one of the people that was battling a little bit of traffic on the way in, but Mr. Mike Kazerowski goes by Kaz. He is the principal transportation planner at the MPO. And if you would, I think we've got just a couple of slides that he wanted to run through just to tell you a little bit about the TIP process. But Kaz and some of his partners at the MPO, some of his colleagues, are our primary contacts when it comes to facilitating some of the projects that they administer in close conjunction with . So, Wendy, we'll get that up and we'll turn it over to you, Cass.

Great, and I can do this in five minutes or less, if you'd like. I assume.

Excellent.

But slow me down if you want, if you care to. Of course, ask questions as we go. Again, Brian mentioned my name's Mike Kazeroski. When you have a long Polish name and a very simple common first name like Mike, you end up with a nickname. So everybody just calls me Kaz. So anyway, it's an easy way to remember it. So who are we? If you don't actually mind going back to the first slide, there's some confusion that there's two entities, but there's really not. We are the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham. And so we are employed by the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham. The Metropolitan Planning Organization, we are staffed to. The Metropolitan Planning Organization, or MPO, are made up of committees. And you have several members on our committee. The policy committee is the formal voting committee. committee that approves everything. And Rosemary and Scott Promer and Mac Martin, your planner, are all official members of that committee. Next slide, please. Okay, so that's the distinction. We have the Regional Planning Commission, which has a lot of different services, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization that is required by the Federal Highway Administration to essentially approve all transportation dollars that come through federal channels have to be approved by this committee. So that's the basis of why we exist, why the Metropolitan Planning Organization exists. Next slide, please. So there are planning commissions all over the state. You can browse the various ones. Obviously, we're the one in the middle, number three. So the Regional Planning Commission is made up of six counties. And then the next slide, if you would go to the next slide. There's 84 municipalities in those six counties. Next slide. And then the blue area, it's hard to see everybody, but that's the Metropolitan Planning Organization boundary. So the funding that we manage, that the MPO Policy Committee approves, has to be spent within that blue shaded area. So obviously Hoover's right in the middle there. All right, next slide. So here's some of the services that we offer. Obviously planning, but transportation planning. We also do community planning. Lindsay Puckett, my coworker, manages that program. The name of the program is called Building Communities, where she also does, she helps with comprehensive plans, land use planning, things of that nature. We have an economic development director. of Kia Craft, and she helps out with various economic development opportunities and grants. The Medicaid Waiver Program is also housed under the Regional Planning Commission. And we also have mapping services. You may have heard of Commute Smart, which provides some van pooling and carpooling and gives incentives for people that do something other than drive to work by themselves. And then we also have Alabama Partners for Clean Air, which is funded to, as you can imagine, to try to encourage people different entities to clean the air, to do things that help make the air cleaner. So those are our various services and programs. Next slide. This is a way to think of the funding that comes down to us. The total federal budget, and this slide's a couple years old, but it's comparable, almost $7 billion, or excuse me, $7,000 billion, or $7 trillion. Of that, about $1.1 trillion goes to all the federal aid, and of that, about $131 billion goes to transportation. And Then the state of Alabama gets about 800 to 900 million of that. I need to put a bullet in there. Well, excuse me, it's 1.1 billion, but they also have the gas tax, which is 300 million, excuse me. But all that is to say, the MPO technically only has full control over about $32 million, of which the $16 million that Brian just mentioned would come from. So the other thing that I have to stress is, even though we... We manage the 32 million, we have full control over that funding. Every dollar that Alabama spends in our region, in that blue region you saw earlier, has to be approved by this committee. And the reason I threw up the Mobile Bay Bridge is a lot of elected officials around the state got to know who Metropolitan Planning Organizations were because the MPO down in Mobile and Daphne Fairhope did not approve the first bridge concept. So they couldn't move forward with the design and the progress of the Mobile Bay Bridge. And that got a lot of people's attention. So that's one of the reasons we exist. Think of the MPO as like a small legislative body made up of elected officials and city officials that have to approve all the federal funding that goes to the various projects. Okay, next slide. So the $32 million is kind of broken out this way. These are more up-to-date numbers. But $22 million roughly comes from our STP funds or surface transportation funding. And then we have this pot of money called congestion mitigation air quality. There's various projects and programs that can be funded through that program. Y'all have some sidewalk and trail projects that you've funded with that program. And then you also have recently been awarded a tap project. I think it's over in Lock Haven, right, Rosemary? to connect your trails in Lock Haven and the park, and that came out of that program. It's a transportation alternative. It pretty much speaks for itself, but it pays for sidewalks, trails, and some other alternatives to driving alone. Okay, next slide. I wanted to just spend a couple of minutes on this program because y'all have utilized it. It's a cute name. It's called APPLE, but it stands for Advanced Planning Program in Logical Engineering. Someone over at Aldot came up with it years ago. It's been around for about, 14 years now and Next slide is a little more telling it it basically helps cities and counties and other municipalities aldots even utilize this program and so as the BJC TA the transit authority but um It allows us to hire the appropriate expert or professional or firm that can answer some of your questions. Typically it's an engineering firm, but there's planning firms and other consultants that help us with this program. And it just, I'm not gonna read all this off, but it just helps answer the questions. How much does a project cost? What are some of the headaches that you might encounter? Are they environmental or right-of-way constraints? Things of that nature. And you can spend a little bit of money, answer all these questions, and then when you go into a big project, especially if you're spending millions of dollars on a project, it may avoid a lot of challenges or issues down the road. So I just want to throw up a couple examples of next slides. Oh, and this is just, we've funded about 60 in the past. There are about 10 ongoing right now. We've spent about $4 million on the program. Most of them are either traffic operations or sidewalks or trails, but we've looked at new roads. I mentioned transit. We've also looked at bridges. And what I really like is the bottom line. Bullets there of those studies that have been completed many of them received funding from some source Whether it was federal or local or some of y'all may have heard of the a trip to program but Oftentimes these studies can feed into an application that that would help secure funding next slide So one that's been recently completed is over on Lorna Road. It's kind of hard to see this, but this was a concept that the consultant came up with to create a crosswalk over on Lorna Road. And this is just a page out of the report. The report's available online, and your staff has it as well. Next slide is also the concept. Again, hard to see, but what you get out of these reports are preliminary engineering, conceptual drawings of where they are recommending pedestrian infrastructure, as well as some other, let's say, improvements in the corridor. So sometimes you just need, again, those experts, those engineers, or other officials, if you will, that have expertise in certain areas. And then again, it's just meant to help inform you to make a good decision moving forward. So next slide. I'll wrap up here in a minute. These are just the costs, obviously cost is a big issue, but everything that we just showed on that previous slide, all the pedestrian infrastructure and crosswalks is over five million, but what you can do with these studies also is break it down and maybe find a phase one or phase two that's one or two million, and then maybe you have, you can find funding for that level of project and not go after the full five million. So another good use of the program is, finding those appropriate phases and where the logical termini are. Okay, I think I have one more slide and I'll wrap up. This one we just kicked off, I wanna say a week ago, but Mack Martin is managing this study. He has asked the consultant to determine the feasibility of building a trail system through your Riverchase Business Park. And you could see the little arrows in particular. Eventually, the trail system would link to other trails or at least, you know, spin off in all the directions north. I want to say east, west and south. And so, you know, knowing that you've got a trail that's going to be built by, I think, signature homes or something. One of the developers is already building a piece of a trail. We can spur from that. And so anyway, this study should help you in the future make the appropriate decisions on what is feasible and how much it costs. So that's the next one that y'all are working on. And I think that's it for now. Brian and your staff have my information. They have my cell. We text. We're constantly in communication. But if anybody from the council or the mayor, if y'all ever have any questions for our organization, you can always contact me or anybody at the Regional Planning Commission directly. And that's about it. Brian, was there anything else that you wanted me to cover?

I think you covered it. Obviously, with the Apple studies, TAP, things like that, these are all acronyms and projects you've heard about. And I don't know, as we came closer to this meeting with this very notable allocation, it really is a good time to just talk a little bit about what the MPO contributes and what all we work through the MPO. If we're stuck on an issue if it's something that you know, we're not sure is feasible Obviously, we have a lot of very talented engineering staff, but sometimes we also need technical assistance from outside The MBO is a great partner in helping us figure out if this Certain things are warranted if you know it's something we can do before it ever reaches here in the council chambers, so I just wanted to have a chance to kind of highlight some of the things they do and obviously express our thanks to the MPO for their assistance and guidance on this exit nine supplemental agreement specifically. So thank you.

Happy to help. And just I'll say, I'll end it by saying we always try to get to a yes. So not all agencies do that, but thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Kaz for your cooperation and for, securing these funds for Hoover, that kind of regional cooperation is something we need more of and what an awesome result, Mr. Mayor, for you and the team to come back with that money to defray some of this cost for the city, so thank you.

Great, absolutely, we're happy to do it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments on that item? All right, number nine.

Just a lot of appreciation.

Yes, extreme. Number nine is an ordinance, and it is an ordinance de-annexing certain property from the city of Hoover for the property located at 7160 Cahaba Valley Road, and I believe Mr. Martin is going to speak with us about this one.

Good evening. We touched on this item the last work session or the last meeting rather. There is an application or petition to DNX a church facility, Cahaba Valley Road. The land is, it comprises approximately seven and a third acres directly across Cahaba Valley Road from the Tattersall development. As far as what is going on in the general vicinity of this, property directly abutting this site to the north and the west are located within the city of Birmingham. Immediately to the south, there are two smaller tracts of land that are in unincorporated Shelby County, one zoned in their B1 business district, the other their office industrial district and then a third property adjoining this one to the south is in the city of Hoover and zone c2 so it's just a general background any questions you have I believe we will have some questions on this one mr. Schultz we'll start with you what happens to

Let me begin. They want to de-annex because they want to have the school, correct? That's correct. And they did not follow the proper procedures to have the school. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. What happens if the ordinance does not pass? What happens to them?

If the ordinance does not pass, then, of course, we would invite them to submit an application for conditional use and go through that zoning entitlement process and That would be reviewed by not only staff but the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. But we would anticipate there being plans submitted for that particular use as well as a traffic impact study.

How long does that take?

We're generally running about three months on that process.

Is that something that can be expedited or is that just standard?

Currently, it's standard. It's set in place by ordinance due to the advertising and the public hearings that are involved in that process.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Other questions? Counselor Smith?

Yes. Pastor, you're here tonight, aren't you? I am. Could you come to the microphone, please? It's my understanding that y'all have applied for and receiving supplemental funds for the students that would attend the school, correct?

Are you talking about like school choice? Yes. Yes.

We had funding. Yes. Um, but have you still yacht still not yet received the proper documentation to be able to form the school even in Shelby County?

Jonathan, who is here with me tonight, can speak to that better than I can.

Good evening, Council. Jonathan Griffith. I'm a member at Trinity Press. We reached out to Shelby County when this came to light and the idea of de-annexation came up. I spoke with their zoning committee. two members of, I guess, their zoning commission, and asked would there be an issue if we DNX to go through the proper channels of Shelby County, and they told me that we would file an application to have a conditional use permit placed on the property that would allow us to, actually for a church and a school.

But what about at the state level? You have to have licensed at the state level, do you not?

To operate a school?

Yes.

No, sir, not to my knowledge. As a church or religious school, we are all clear there.

I was just wondering if you were not able to operate as a school, then are you going to have to give that funding back to the state? And then what happens with the property? and then the city will have de-annexed the property prematurely, I guess. Madam President, I guess that's where my concern would be is unless they have guarantees from Shelby County that they are gonna be able to operate as a school. I don't know that they have any guarantees.

If I could speak to the funds. So the way that the Choose Act works, we don't actually receive those funds. They go into an account for, and forgive me if I'm telling you something you already know, they go into a parent's account or it's designated for them. So we don't actually receive those directly from the state. Those are paid in the forms of tuition payments out of those accounts. And so... It's my understanding based on other issues. So for example, if you had a child, a student who enrolled but then withdrew, it would just follow the, and the school's policy provided that it would retain 50% of the tuition, refund 50%. That 50% would go back into the parent's account. And so it's not an issue of us Retaining funds and then for the with regard to Shelby County Their advice or instruction to us was To go ahead and file an application But it would have to go through that process right, but there still are no guarantees that They do have a temporary. Correct. They said that once our application was in, that we could proceed. But the strict answer to your question is no, sir. There are no guarantees.

Do you know of anyone that would get up and speak in opposition at Shelby County, in opposition to your project?

No, sir, we've only received positive feedback. I believe President Middlebrook spoke with Mr. Scroggins two weeks ago about it, and then I followed up with a phone call just to make sure that we weren't jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, so to speak. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councillor Smith. A couple of comments on this item and I'm gonna be a little more lengthy than usual but I'm not gonna be here on Monday night and so I would like to say my piece now. So this is C2 zoning and I had Mr. Martin pull for me a list of all of the permitted and conditional uses for C2 zoning and it's quite lengthy. C2 zoning has 32 permitted by right uses, many of which I think that the community and the surrounding area would find to be a lot less attractive than a school at a church. And so I would just suggest that we consider the possibility that if we do not de-annex this so that the potential school can go forward, the church could decide to sell this property. And at which time, you know, whoever is the owner of that C2 zoned property could put in things such as nursing homes, auto parts stores, automobile dealerships, brew pubs, building supplies, convenience store, department store, domestic equipment rental, drug stores, pharmacies, furniture stores, grocery stores, beer and wine sales, liquor sales, sit-down restaurants, retail general, banks, dry cleaners, gymnasiums, hotels, laundromats, motels and hotels, neighborhood service and offices, research and development, movie theaters, short-term rental units, veterinary clinics and off-premise beer and wine and alcohol sales. So there are potential risks on the other side of the annexation question here. The second thing that I want to point out is just that you know part of the reason we're in this situation is yes of course the applicant didn't recognize that they needed a conditional use but I don't think that's very unusual I've experienced that story from people who are applying for conditional uses many times where they were not really aware that they were not allowed to have a certain use and while there is some responsibility on the applicant to know that I think the city could be more transparent and and make it easier for business owners and property owners to understand the zoning restrictions that they have. I have an example from this past year of someone that I know that applied for a conditional use. A very similar situation. They didn't realize they needed it. They had already made some plans. They've spent money. They're investing in our community. They found out that they needed to apply for a conditional use request, They apply for it. They don't find out in their first meeting with the staff that they need a traffic study, so they find that out later. That takes many weeks to complete. And all in all, it was five months before they got their conditional use hearing, which has real consequences in the business community. And so I would just invite us, I know that the staff is already looking at ways that we can make our conditional use processes more efficient, and I would just encourage us to really take this as a moment to recognize, regardless of which way things go on Monday night, this is an opportunity for us to say, hey, this could be a clearer process, it could be an easier process. Of course, we need to allow for adequate public input, but there are probably ways to change our ordinances and shorten this up to make it more friendly to those who are the business or property owners.

Madam President, can I ask a question? Yes. What year, a school schedule to start. Is it 26, 27 school year or 27?

It's this year. This year? Yeah, this month.

All right. You already have a commitment of students schedule?

We do. How many? It is 40 plus students, what, maybe 42, 43, 44, representing, I believe, 22 families.

And last thing for me, what age range is the 44?

So this would be K-4 through eighth grade. Thank you.

Madam President, Mr. Martin, the advertising responsibilities, are those by city ordinance or that state statute?

By city ordinance. for conditional use.

Okay. Can exemptions be provided in cases?

I would have to ask...

If the council were to decide that?

I would have to lean on our legal team for...

I would think that you can. You just need to be aware that... When you start having the exemptions, is it going to be a permanent exemption or is it going to be on a temporary basis? You may wind up with situations where you're opening yourself up to some liability that you don't have right now. I would think that we'd need to look at it long and hard. Are you going to have the exemptions? Is there going to be a list and say these are gonna be exempt or is it gonna be up to the council at the time? I mean, I don't know, what do you got in mind?

I was just throwing it out for conversation and thought, really, that's all.

I mean, if you had an exemption saying that schools that are properly organized are exempt, then you may, there's no traffic study? You may have opposition from the neighbors that you don't know about, but that's up to the council. If that's something y'all want for us to look at, we can come back and come up with something you can add to this. We'd hopefully have some guidance about what functions should be exempt.

Yes, sir. Gentlemen, what's the timeframe before Shelby County would allow you to be able to open your school?

It's my understanding that we would apply for, and forgive my dates, I believe the next deadline for the application for the conditional use permit is August 21st. present, they ask that we go through this process first, have the vote Monday night, submit our, if the vote is favorable, submit our application on or before August 21st. Then there would be a September, and forgive me, I can't remember the date on that September meeting where they would meet and discuss and vote. But their instruction to me was that there's no issue with having the school, once our application is in, they would not have any issue with the school.

So you would open school in September?

No, August.

August.

Yes, sir. So we would file our application. As long as our application is in, then it's my understanding that there's an objection.

Can you provide that in, you use the terminology, or use the term, it's my understanding. Yes. Can you have that in writing by Monday? I will do my best. Okay. It gives you tomorrow and Monday. I think to follow up on Mr. Smith's question is... When were you planning to start the school? If this hadn't come up, when was the first day of school? August 11th. So that is on Tuesday. If... Is it your understanding that you're going to be able to meet that deadline if the vote on Monday goes through? Is that your understanding? Yes, sir. Okay.

It's more than my understanding. I know it. Lord willing, of course.

Right. If the vote does not go through, what is plan B for you? Do you have a plan B?

So if the vote does not go through, I would... asked the city what its view of it would be, if there is some sort of conditional permit or exception while we wait on the conditional use permit application process. or if the answer to that was no, then we would have to look into meeting in homes or some other sort of location.

So with the CHOOSE Act, the money goes to the parents and the parents pay you is the way that the CHOOSE Act works?

It does. It's a little more indirect than that because the parents don't actually have access to the funds. Right. Yes, sir.

have any parents paid a deposit so far? Yes, sir. Okay. And so you've already received some of the funding for the school year. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Um, if you can get that paperwork to us by Monday, that would be awesome. Sure.

And just to be clear, you're asking for something in writing from the city of, I'm sorry, from the county. explaining that if our application is in, they don't have any objection to us operating the school. That you open on Tuesday? On the 11th. Yes, sir. Okay.

All right. That's all I have. Thank you.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Yes. Is there any more discussion?

Last couple of numbers. What's the capacity of the school from a build-out standpoint? What are you anticipating the build-out to be?

Yeah, so in our current building, It would be more than the students that we have enrolled, but not much more. No, we're probably, I'm trying to think of the simplest way to answer it. From a fire marshal standpoint, I don't know the answer to that, but from our school policy standpoint, it would be 60 to 70. we desire to be a small school, small classroom teacher to student ratio.

So no building out from that standpoint, no more build out?

Correct, we do have, so separate and apart from the school, we are in the process of building a sanctuary, or at least we've hired an architect, general contractor. But I just wanna be clear, I don't wanna mislead you, the school, no plans to build out, that's correct. Okay, thank you.

Councilman Schultz.

To follow up on Ms. Driver's comments, do you have any plans to sell the school, the building? No, sir. Do you have any plans on vacating the property at all?

Not at all, and I'll let Pastor Lusk speak to that.

Yeah, so I would say that for our congregation, that is our permanent home, We were putting down roots there. As Jonathan just mentioned, we have hired an architect. We have the plans drawn up for a sanctuary. We have gone through the process and picked out a general contractor. This is about an 11 to $13 million construction project for the sanctuary. I think we've already raised, we started our campaign back in October. I think we've already raised between five and 6 million, saved and raised, that amount, so we're well on the way there. I think that our commitment to that property is as firm as it could possibly be. So I don't think there's any chance at all that we would be interested in selling. And Jonathan talked about the size of the school. In terms of our congregation, we have already planted one church in Birmingham, We have intentionally capped our size with that property and with the size sanctuary that we're intending to build. So as we, Lord willing, continue to grow, we would be planting churches rather than moving from that location or something like that. So in all kinds of ways, I would just say we've made a very firm commitment to that particular location. for our church in fact i i think um i i think what our congregation would say certainly what our leadership would say is that moving to that location is one of the best decisions we ever made as a church so it's been a really good location for us so we are very much putting down roots there and i don't know how else i could prove that to you but in every possible way we we are committed to that location i i gathered that thank you thank you very much

Attorney Waldrop.

Thank you. Jonathan and I have talked and emailed each other about this, and it's our suggestion and recommendation that if you're going to de-annex it, that there be covenants placed on the property that it would only be used as a school or as a church, and that if it's ever sold for whatever reason, that the city of Hoover would have a right of first refusal to match whatever their offer was to sell the property. And based on what pastors just said, that shouldn't be a problem. But if we're going to do that covenant, Jonathan, Scott and you need to be talking pretty quickly here. Our recommendation is if you're going to de-annex it, that it doesn't become effective unless those covenants are on the property.

Attorney Walters, just to be clear, regardless of who hands the changes, the covenant still stays in place on the property? It runs forever. Correct.

Mr. Walters, there was a covenant with Tattersall as well, right? I'm not familiar with Tattersall. There was a covenant back then where they were not able to do what they proposed last year, and apparently that paperwork was lost. So could that happen in this particular case as well?

Well, I know that Scott will go to the Shelby County Courthouse and file the papers, and they'll be there for record. I promise you that. Scott, am I good with that? You're exactly right. All right. If you didn't hear me, you said I'm exactly right. We're not gonna lose that.

Attorney Waldrop, I do have a question once I may speak.

Sure, go ahead.

Okay, sorry. So what Attorney Waldrop just described, in principle, the church is perfectly fine with. We don't desire to go anywhere. No problem with the right of first refusal. The concern that we have with the restrictive covenant is its impact on our ability to obtain lending to finance the new sanctuary. It's my understanding that a restrictive covenant that would go with the land and encumber the land like that would potentially severely hinder our ability to obtain the construction loan. So while in principle, we're all about staying where we are and making promises to the city about that in that regard, that is a significant concern. And so from the church's standpoint, I think the request would be if there's any way to avoid a restrictive covenant that burdens the land regardless of where it goes, if there's a way to do it without that, that would be wonderful. Is there a possibility for a less restrictive covenant to be placed on it or an agreement, something along those lines that just wouldn't impact our ability to build a sanctuary?

Do you have a suggestion about what kind of less restrictive covenant that would give the city a comfort level that no matter what going forward, it's always going to be a church or a school instead of one of the uses that...

I mean, we'd certainly be open to executing an agreement with the city that for so long as we own this property, it will not be used for any other reason than that. Granting a right of first refusal, I think the church would be completely fine with that.

Well, the downside to that for the city is that it put them in a position of buying a piece of property that they really don't have any need for just because they want to be able to control what goes on there. The For the city, from our perspective, and I understand what you're saying, but from our perspective, the covenant that says it's not going to be anything but a school or a church, whether to write a first refusal or purchase it if it's ever sold, to me, that gives the city a comfort level. I just don't know how to fashion that. Scott, you got any thoughts? You or Johnny?

An agreement that says exactly that. It's not a restricted covenant. The right of first refusal is at that time. It's not a restrictive covenant per se.

It's an agreement with the city. But it puts the city in the position of buying that property. That's right. Just so you know that.

Isn't that what you also said?

Didn't you also say that would be part of the restrictive covenant too, though, that at some point in the future the city would have the right of first refusal if it was going to be so?

That's correct. If you just want to say, that the city has a right of first refusal, you can put that on there, and that would be sufficient. You wouldn't have to say if it's a school or it's always be a school or church or whatever, but you just need to be aware that if you don't restrict it to the use as a school or a church, if all you say is we have a right of first refusal, at some point in the future you may buy a church building.

Well, of course, you wouldn't have to exercise the right of first.

No, you wouldn't have to.

They could decide not to. So I guess from the church's standpoint, the question would be, is there a way to achieve the vote, to achieve the annexation without... the restrictive covenant. And if the answer to that is yes, then great. If the answer to that is no, then I think the question would be, is there something less restrictive? And as far as brainstorming that, I'm more than happy to have those conversations. I don't know if, I mean, one of our elders mentioned, would it be possible, you know, could we make an agreement to where if we ever wanted to sell the property, we couldn't do so, or we could only do so conditioned upon re-annexation into Hoover. So in other words, we'd be bound to get it back into Hoover. But I agree it is a restrictive covenant, but I don't think it, perhaps that would be less burdensome to a permanent lender's perspective. I don't know.

I doubt that we could constrain a future council and force them to annex something.

Well, and again, that wouldn't be, I'm sorry, I don't mean to speak out of turn.

It's okay, go ahead.

You have a turn, sorry. I just wanted to make sure my point was clear. That brainstorming idea wouldn't be that the city would have to. The burden would be on the church to, you know, the only way we can sell this property is if the city agrees to allow us to bring it back into the city. So there'd be no burden on the city council. They could simply say, no, we're not going to do that, and therefore the church are stuck with it. But again, that's in the brainstorming category.

I'll just say this last thing. Previous individuals purchased property. So let's say hypothetically, you guys are going to be there for 25 years. So that would be a council without me part of it. So typically, sometimes individuals will come requesting maybe a modification of the covenant or whatever annexation back in with this owner wanting to purchase it. I think that a future council, if we're gonna make concessions now to the annex property away from the city, right? They technically be sold for other uses. Then I think in the reverse side of that, If you want to modify that, you come back before the council to ask their thoughts on that to modify their time. So putting a covenant on only a church, because that's what it is right now. That's what you're asking for. You're trying to get a deadline. It's really kind of tight. You're wanting to get a council to agree upon this. So that's extremely tight. So from a negotiation standpoint, I think you just need to come back and ask another council, can you lift what the previous council has done? That's just my two cents on it. If you want to get it approved or consideration, that's my two cents to keep it as a church and go from there. I'll lay them right there, Madam President.

All right. I think if there are any further negotiations or discussions that you want to have with legal counsel, you're welcome to do that following tonight, and then you'll have an opportunity to talk to the counsel again on Monday.

Thank you all so much for your time.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, thank you all very much.

Thank you.

All right, so item number 10 is resolution number 8917-26. This is authorizing the use and grant of public funds for a 772 amendment. Mr. Munger.

Madam President, of course we are missing a few members tonight, and so I would, of course, extend the option either to delay this presentation or to move it to Monday or to duplicate it if it would be for the benefit of the council. But the purpose of this public hearing that is scheduled for Monday is to consider a redevelopment proposal regarding the former Big Lots property that's noted on the screen here on Montgomery Highway. I know we do have a representative with us here tonight. Mr. Drew Herndon with NRE River Chase LLC, and Mr. Grimes is prepared to give a brief presentation and overview to the council, which is also summarized in your packet. So, Drew, if you'd like to come down and speak to the proposal, and I'll let you and Mr. Grimes kind of talk through the particulars of how this space is proposed to be subdivided and what tenants are proposed to be placed there.

Well, first off, would you like to do the presentation both nights just so we know for the others?

I apologize. Can you repeat the question?

You said you would be absent Monday, but would you like us to plan to do this? Drew will also be here. So whatever we do tonight, we can do again on Monday as well.

You can. They can also watch the video. So hopefully among the questions that are asked here, there won't be many on Monday, but I would be prepared in case there are questions. But maybe just the presentation tonight.

Am I doing it? So what you have before you is is a traditional 772 retail type agreement and so what we're working with is an interesting concept if you'll notice in the box to the right this is Riverchase Crossing and more familiar In the last two years, we had the Trader Joe's development come with a very similar project like this. But the Trader Joe's development is in another section owned by a different owner. And so most people don't know that the shopping center is divided into two parcels. So this parcel, you can see 5.1 acres, and it starts at what was the Big Lots building, includes Napa, and then will work toward the smaller retail spaces to the east. And it's just a cross for the public to know this is the one where Trader Joe's is, but it's very close to City Hall here. This is a rendering just to show you the example of the full shopping center at the top. And so Big Lots closed on February 20th of 25 and had only really been open for about seven and a half years. So in that location, and just as a reminder, the Trader Joe's in Sierra used to be Bed Bath & Beyond. So you had these two big boxes. And then going back, I believe originally it was Kmart and Food World. So we had two anchors as well. So it's a continued renovation and redevelopment of a traditional shopping center for us. The bottom, you can see how it would be divided out, taking the total of just under 38,000 square feet and dividing that into 27 plus for the home sense and 10,005 for the shoe department. We currently in the city of Hoover do not have a shoe department and the state of Alabama does not have a HomeSense. So it would be a first to market HomeSense, which is a TJ Maxx company and has really strong popularity with their other stores nationally and in Canada. So I think the shoe department are surrounding us, but the closest is still probably 15 miles away. This is a little bit closer up, so you can actually see the modernization of the shopping center continuing into this section of the strip center. And so as you see, what would be proposed would match up with much like what you see, but you can see the facades there of the square footage. In the investment application that is submitted to the city for incentives, to be considered, this data is in your packet that you received an email from Mr. Muinger, I think a week and a half ago. The developer plans to invest 10.4 plus in the overall project, 8.7 million of that would be in hard costs, not only for the acquisition, but renovations, and then 1.7 in soft costs, and you can see those there. One of the things that we have been watching the trending in the shopping center as a whole, even though this facility has been empty for some period now, and Napa really doesn't have a tremendous door front. They're more delivery to the dealerships. So that end of the shopping center has continued to be very vacant. But you can see the trending based on our place or AI data that is there for the shopping center itself. And it ties in. You can see the dates when the impacts of Trader Joe's opening in May of 25 and then Sierra opening in March of this year. Both are very successful. I don't think I mentioned that Sierra is also a TJ Maxx company. So these are in the family of TJ Maxx, along with what we have up 31 with home goods and the actual TJ Maxx itself. It would be first in Alabama and I think that is also key. And with what is being requested, you will notice that in your packet that you have the retail sales estimates show that we would be somewhere in the neighborhood of four times greater than our previous tenant in the one box. So with the two tenants that would be part of this incentive project, home sense and shoe department, in that 38,000 square foot, the estimated tax generation and total sales that would come from that with retail sales tax would be over four times greater than what we had with the previous tenant of Big Lots. The hard part, as we know around town, we have about six boxes that currently sit empty with over 25,000 square foot. And so... Some of that is a slow process of seeing redevelopment proposed because you may have a tenant paying lease to the landowner, but you may not have anything going in that box because there may not be a motivation. And in this case, we have a motivation with a developer to create these tenants and to hopefully be opened by May 1 in your development agreement of next year. And at the bottom of this, you can see we presented to the mayor month, month and a half ago. We've been working on this for several months with NRE River Chase, which is noon real estate out of Tennessee. And with this particular project, they're looking for the incentive of 1.9 million It would be a 50-50 split of retail sales tax with a 10-year cap. And we believe that number, based on estimates, at minimum will come in year seven. Very likely could be better, but we don't want to go past that. So it models very similar to what's next door with how that one is trending. So if you have any questions of the city or of Mr. Herndon from... NRE Riverchase.

What's the difference between a HomeSense and a HomeGoods?

HomeSense is more upscale and has more furniture than the HomeGoods.

More furniture, okay. Thank you. Other questions, Councilman Smith?

How soon would they be able to open after construction?

We plan to start construction mid-September and the tenants will be open by May 1st.

May 1st of 27? Yes, sir. Thank you.

So just a couple of things to point out that we're also in the full incentive packet, contingent on the closing, which is essentially contingent on the action before council. There are 10-year lease agreements with both of those primary tenants. And the thing that you saw earlier, the parts that depict the full portion that would be closed upon included the Napa and some smaller stores, some of which are vacant. The incentive area, the Exhibit A, would only be the former big lots, the two 10-year lease stores, shoe department, and HomeSense. The Napa, everything... that is currently producing taxes and those small boxes are exempt. And so we would continue to collect 100% of the revenue on that. And so all of the numbers are predicated only upon what would be produced in the two new spaces that are formed. But overall, I think what you could see, this was, as I mentioned, a Kmart and a Food World at one point, breaking this up, finishing up the sort of downscaling of the center and continuing to grow the total taxable sales made in that. This would basically put you very close to 100% occupancy in this center, which is one of the oldest in the city. And I think it's a great model for what we can see, what type of interest we'll be seeing in these other centers. As Mr. Grimes said, we have six centers that have spaces that are 25,000 square feet and up. And the retail math now shows that there are not a huge amount of retailers seeking spaces of that size that aren't elsewhere in our city. So I would expect that over due time you'll see this as a continued trend just as people look for more manageable spaces to operate from and try to take advantage of existing infrastructure where it exists.

Any questions? All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Sure.

Just for clarification, the advertisement went out in the parent company's name. You may or may not know that. So the NRE River Chase is a subsidiary's name. So don't let that be a point of confusion among whoever's reading that.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Schultz.

Mr. Grimes, this is one of the goals is to fill those stores. So we're progressing on those goals. Is that correct?

This was one of them. Yes, sir. And I would say your high priority, obviously, in the larger vision that the mayor has worked out with you all is obviously Galleria, Patton Creek has campuses. But mentioning five to six empty boxes today, each have movement, but in some cases, they're gonna be very slow. Other cases, we may have something very similar to this. I refer to the previous with Trader Joe's, because it's only 16,000 square foot and it's performing extremely well. And Sierra, which was the other component of that box, is performing very well. So having both of these as TJ Maxx family of brands next door, The corporate did approve those, so both companies are approved to be in those locations as well.

Yeah, I was in the Sierra for the first time on Sunday. It was packed. So, very good.

Thank you very much. All right. The next many items belong to Mr. Martin on the agenda. We'll start with item number 11. which is resolution number 8889-26. This is conditional use to develop and operate a freestanding emergency department at 2137 Valleydale Road. Mr. Martin.

Yes, Council, this comes to you with a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission with a couple of recommended contingencies or conditions placed on it. One would be to provide revised landscape plans with altered plant schedule at time of permitting. Two would be to obtain Shelby County approvals and permits for access and alterations prescribed in the traffic study. to Shelby County right-of-way, that is Valleydale Road. Three, the site is constructed in substantial conformity with conditional use plans. And fourth, the operator would obtain a business license and CO prior to opening.

For those remaining on the dais, any questions?

That'll make three for the city. That's good. I don't know any other city has three freestanding ERs.

Fantastic. And also in Shelby County, which is a benefit as well.

Two in Shelby County.

Yeah. All right, Mr. Martin, we'll move along to number 12, 8890-26. This is a day habilitation and respite services for the property located at 3309 Lorna Road.

Yes, this item comes to you also with a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission with conditions. The first condition, the maximum number of customers is capped at 15. Two, interior of the building unit is developed out in performance with adopted building and fire codes for the use. Three, any future exterior site work will require modified conditional use application and site civil plans. Fourth, we have 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 by the applicant in the application. No overnight use would be permitted. And finally, operator will acquire business license and CO prior to opening.

How many customers can occupy the property at any given time?

Well, the max cap with these conditions would be 15.

15? Mayor, are you still applying for me to have spot number one?

Any serious questions? All right, next item. This is number 13 on the agenda, 8918-26. This is a resolution regarding consumable hemp products for Autry Enterprises to LLC DBA Sunbed. And this is at 2341 John Hawkins Parkway, Suite 131.

Yes, this comes with a negative recommendation from staff.

I believe we're gonna also hear from the police department on this item.

Yes, ma'am. The police department does not recommend approval of a consumable hemp products license for this business based on information obtained from our ABC application investigation.

Thank you very much. Any questions?

Mr. Martin, where is this site located? Just to know.

It's on John Hawkins Parkway. Let's see. 2300.

That's okay if you have to look it up. I'll look it up myself.

All right. We'll nail it down.

I'll Google it when I get home.

That's correct. near the traffic signal with the main entrance to Lake Crest.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right, we'll move to item number 14, resolution 8919-26. This is also a resolution regarding consumable hemp products license. This is for Light Coast LLC DBA Gallery Smoke Shop, and this is at 3065 Lorna Road, Suite D.

Yes, city staff do not recommend approval of this application either. The applicant requested that he be considered a grandfathered non-conforming consumable hemp shop. At the location, going through our various records, we find that the applicant applied for their business license in 2017 and their renewal this year and detailed and described the business as a retail tobacco store. We also have from social media at the time of application where it was self-described as a tobacco store with other retail items. The applicant did provide for us a generalized summary of sales at the location and his effort there was to communicate that over 50% of the sales revenue generated the site was in some way shape or form related to consumable hemp products. What we have found with our own investigators stopping by the site before the state law went into effect when the CBD products were still for sale, their estimate was somewhere between 40 and 50% of the products on display were consumable hemp related. Looking at various other documents, it looks like there are a number of items sold at this particular facility. So at least in our interpretation, planning and zoning, we did not find that the CBD consumable hemp sales are so dominant there as to classify it as a consumable hemp store. And therefore we don't recommend that it be considered under the grandfathering clause of the zoning ordinance for consumable hemp stores. And if it's not considered grandfathered, the location is too close to single family residential to operate as a new consumable hemp store under our ordinance.

How far is it to single family residential from this location?

Let's see. There is the neighborhood of Monteduro in Georgetown to the rear of the site. It is within 1,000 feet.

Any other questions? Does the police department have an opinion on this one as well?

We concur with Mr. Martin in if it doesn't conform as far as zoning ordinances, then it would have to conform to that for us to then get involved further with our investigation as we would do with an, with ABC application.

Understood. Thank you, sir. We'll move to item number 15, resolution 8920-26. This is another resolution approving a consumable hemp products license. This is for buy low quality food stores doing business as Piggly Wiggly, located at 2148 Tyler Road, Suite 104.

Yes. According to the new state law, as well as our amended zoning ordinance, the sale of consumable hemp products is permitted as an accessory use in a limited number of instances. Those are spelled out. A, grocery stores in excess of 14,000 square feet. This particular location checks that box as the grocery store is in excess of 25,000 square feet. at this location. So we find that it falls under the category of being acceptable as an accessory use for the grocery store.

Mr. President, Mr. Martin, I'm sorry, Chief, you want to go ahead?

No, sir.

I know I asked this question, we were going through the licensing process, determining how licensing was going to go in effect, and I questioned then whether or not grocery stores were going to just sell liquids. There was a certain term, I think, that dealt with liquids. I can't remember what that is, but it was something... that had a THC value to them. But does this mean that this applicant would be selling edibles as well?

I would need to double check. I do recall there being some discussion about this being synthesized as part of drinks, drink products. But I'll need to double check just to make sure.

I figured they might would do that because they sell beer and wine. And that would probably just go as part of those sales, even at that time. But I was just wondering whether or not they're going to step into the edibles or not.

Well, let's double check that before Monday night.

I'm sorry, Chief.

No, sir. And I think to your question, Mr. Smith, I believe they are limited to just beverages if it's in a grocery location. As far as police department's concerned, we've conducted our ABC application investigation and we have no issue with approval of license for this location.

So President Middlebrooks was not able to be here tonight, but he did suggest that we consider some conditions that we can place on a conditional use such as this one. A couple of those would be regarding no advertising outside the building to attract people in for the specific purpose of this use, any advertising inside the building to be in print only, and then for there to be some sort of a system of controlling access to the items within the store, such as the way that tobacco products are sold behind a counter or otherwise under lock and key.

Mr. Walter, after we determine the licensing responsibilities, can we come back at the time that we vote the licensing?

It needs to be done when you grant the condition. That would be one of the conditions.

So we could do it.

We're going to get with MAC. This just came up. First I heard about it was either last night or this morning when I saw a text.

This is something we could take care of Monday night.

We can, yes.

It's not something we would need to amend our licensing responsibilities.

I wouldn't think so, Mac. That's one of the conditions.

No, and I'll make a technical clarification here. We're not considering a conditional use approval in this particular case in the zoning sense. We are considering approval of a license, a business license for this particular product to be sold. So at least as far as I know, having conditions placed on that licensure is within your purview.

Thank you for that clarification. Thank you.

May I ask you a question?

Of course.

Is that something that you'd like for us to be working with MAC on and have it ready for Monday night?

Yes, please.

Okay.

Mr. Martin, the ordinance does not prohibit then being proximity to R4, it's just R1?

Let's see, as far as the accessory sales are concerned, as long as they are operating within a select few uses, one of them being a grocery store, the others being pharmacies or businesses licensed to sell liquor for off-premise consumption, there's no distance requirement for those accessory sales in those instances.

Any other questions?

That's correct, as accessory use to those three predominant uses.

All right, thank you very much, and we appreciate you, Attorney Waldrop, for working on the conditions on the license to be ready for Monday night. Item number 16 through 19 will be taken... for consideration in one motion on Monday. These are all weed and vegetation nuisance abatement ordinances or resolutions rather. Mr. Martin, do you wanna cover those four items for us please?

All four of these have been out of compliance with our weed and other vegetation ordinance. 1017 Alford Avenue, 2337 Tyler Road, 3700 Stone Ridge Terrace, as well as 405 Cahaba River Estate. We will have an update for you Monday night as to their current condition at that time.

Any questions? All right. I believe we just have one more item, which will be a first reading on Monday night for Ordinance Number 26-2710. Dr. Lopez is going to talk with us about the state severe weather preparedness sales tax holiday opportunity.

Good evening again. So you may remember a month or two ago, I'm not sure, we had the back-to-school sales tax holiday, and we did it as an ordinance to make it in perpetuity to basically avoid us having to come do this every year, and it also will make sure we don't miss any deadlines. So we're getting on top of this one, and this is one we've done in the past as well for the severe weather, and so we're doing basically the same thing with it.

Sounds efficient.

I like efficiency.

All right. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? All right. With that, meeting is adjourned.