City Council - Regular Meeting

Work session to order. See, Monday night we're going to have payment of bills, minutes from June 18th to June 22nd. And we'll start with resolution number 888226. We'll go ahead and combine that with 88, 83, 26. Change orders number three and four to effectuate the change order for the NCFI addition project.

Mr. Miller. Very good. Thank you. Good evening. So yes, thank you for taking three and four at the same time. They are a little bit different in nature. Change order three relates more so to the fiber delays that we received. or that we experienced on the project. I think you're very much aware of the challenges that we dealt with dealing with AT&T, trying to get all of the fiber reconnected to the building. So at the beginning of the project, we really didn't have a good idea of how long that was gonna take. So we threw a nominal six weeks in there, ended up being an additional 45 days. The first change order that you're seeing, change order number three, is for a total of $136,647.08, and that is for the 45 days of delay. Now this funding will not come out of the contingency for the project. This will come out of the additional funding from Shelby County and from the City of Hoover that was programmed this last year.

Okay. Comments or questions regarding this change order?

Mr. President.

Yes. Blake, have you been able to verify that the project has lost a certain amount of federal funding?

No, it is not.

For construction?

It is not.

Okay, because I've been told that it had lost. somewhere in the area, $40 million.

That was, I believe what you're referring to, I don't know exactly, but I believe what you're referring to was a portion of funding from the presidential, the president's proposed budget. I spoke specifically with the NCFI members there. They do not really consider that as a proposed or as a real budget because it's proposed. They have always received funding in the past and there's no reason for them to believe that this funding will be cut.

Very good. I just want to make sure it did not interfere with our obligations. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.

Any other comments on change order three? All right, moving on to number four.

All right, change order four. This one, the difference between this one and number three is that change order number four will come from the contingency in the project, so there's no additional funds that we're looking at for this. This included items like storefront knee walls, vent pipe relocations, wing wall additions for the upstairs bathrooms, galley floor leveling, new duct work, power location, and rewriting of any pipe, and then additional scope to the demolition of the stairwell that we have on the building. So in total, we're looking at a total of $114,769.22. With all four change orders, our balance, we started with $200,000 in the budget for contingency. That will leave us with $51,874.41.

How far along are we in the project and how many more change orders do you foresee? Do you think we're going to go above and beyond the 200,000 contingency? 100%, yes, we will.

When you look at a project this size, being $24 million roughly, you generally consider 10% for overruns. We did 1% to get it done. awarded at this point. So yes, we will go over that $200,000 mark, no doubt. But that is why we engaged Shelby County. That is why we as a city, Shelby County contributed an additional $800,000 We contributed an additional 800,000 just for that reason and to build back up the contingency to where it probably needed to be from the start. So that's what we will be looking at moving forward. Now, once we surpass that $200,000 that's in the contingency, each item will come to the council before the council, just so that you're aware of what's going on and how we're spending the money on that.

Other comments or questions for Mr. Miller? All right, thank you. Thank you. Let's see, resolution number 888426, amending and updating the City of Hoover Purchasing Policy and Procedures Manual. Dr. Lopez.

Good evening. So what you have before you on this item is... substantial change to the existing purchasing policy. Some of that is gonna just be organizational, clarifying. The impetus for this major change is there's a whole additional section added regarding federal procurement. I found out in April that apparently early in 25, some kind of federal audit that was completed, they said that our purchasing policies having federal procurement regulations in them. So we immediately started working on this to add this section. I wanna give all the credit to Claire Hamilton, Rhonda Gaiman and Tina DeClemente who worked hard on this. We added about 10 pages of policy as well as a federal checklist that every department when they receive any federal funds will need to make sure they're complying with all these things. We hope that this meets the needs of that audit. I have sent a copy of this to them. They hope to get back tomorrow with their comments. And if that's the case, then we'll be able to continue applying for some other grants that have been on hold right now.

Any comments or questions for Dr. Lopez?

Just briefly, Mr. President, were there any substantive changes besides the ones that you made to satisfy the federal requirements?

As far as substance, I would say the most substantial change is one that I think will help the departments tremendously. That's going to be dealing with our quotation threshold. As you guys know that we have a public works bid law and a competitive bid law that we have to comply with. The competitive bid is 30,000 and above public works more than that. And currently we were having a quote on many items in the city of anything purchased over $500, which I thought was crazy because you spend as much time getting quotes as you do for something that costs. So we actually made the quotation or the proposal here is going to be to kind of go along with what's called the federal micro purchasing threshold. And we're just saying if the federal government counts it as micro purchasing less than 15,000, we will too. And so we're no longer going to require those quotes on anything below 15,000, which I think will be a tremendous help for the departments. Any other substantive changes? I would say there are no other substantive changes. We do have a red line. It's got a lot of red lines. I'm happy to share that with you all if someone wants to see it too.

Yeah, if you don't mind, that would be helpful.

Sure.

Thank you.

Please, Dr. Lopez, I'd like a copy as well.

Okay, I'll just send it to the whole council.

You know me.

Yes, you have trouble sleeping at night.

Mr. Shultz, did you have a comment?

Beings that you were asked this in the beginning of 2025, or we were not compliant in the beginning of 2025, is that correct?

That's my understanding when this process started. Of course, it was before me. I'm not sure.

So anything that transacted between then and now, is there any violation in that, or are we okay with that?

To my knowledge, we never had any specific violation of that. Any purchasing, complying with the federal law, I don't know. That's to my knowledge. What they did have a problem with is we did not have their requirements in our official policy.

And how were we made aware of this?

I think as a result of an audit, a grant audit, not our normal audit.

So our normal people did not know this or it's not something they look for?

No, they were made aware of it early last year.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Dr. Lopez, before you step away, I'm sorry. I didn't give you a heads up on this question, but I think most of the public is anticipating an audit presentation on Monday night.

Yes.

But we have chosen to delay that until the 27th. Can you just briefly speak on that?

Yes, so in talking with Dr. Middlebrooks, one of the things the auditors, as they mentioned when they were here a couple weeks ago, they go through, even with prior period adjustments and so forth, there is a higher level of review in their audit firm once that happens. In those reviews, they found a few changes or more research they wanted to conduct, and so in that process, We are finalizing those items and we felt it was best. Let's just put it off so we don't get in a rush.

So we are planning for Monday the 27th. Yes. To do the final audit. Yes. Thank you very much. Moving on to resolution number 888126, approving and assenting to a declaration of vacation of an easement located at the property of 1798 Glascott Trail. Mr. Martin, I see you listed...

Almost to the end of the agenda. Got a couple of them here. So this first one relating to the vacation of an easement. We had a case where a storm pipe was located separate and apart from an existing easement. on the property at the subject address. The applicant has sought to replant the property to move that easement to where it actually runs along the existing sewer line, not sanitary sewer, but stormwater line that is in place. Planning Commission considered the plat at their meeting this past Monday night and approved the plat. So we are awaiting recordation of the plat and one of the final steps that we have to take is for the council to consider vacation of that easement that's not needed.

Very good. Comments, questions for Mr. Martin? All right, moving on to 8863.26, granting conditional use approval to allow an expansion of the existing church building for the property located at 6 Green Hill Parkway.

Yes, sir. This particular item was considered earlier by the Planning Commission. This would be to approve a redesign or an addition onto the church property. This particular church located at Green Hill Parkway was approved for conditional use a number of years ago to operate at that location, and they are altering the site with the expansion and upgrades that are required to the parking lot. Planning Commission did recommend approval on this item with the conditions in your packet.

Comments or questions for Mr. Martin on this item? Seeing none. Resolution 886426, granting conditional use approval to operate OpuLux, a paramedical tattoo practice within the space located at 1713 Montgomery Highway, Suite 109.

Yes, this particular location is the shopping center actually across Highway 459 from where we currently are. The Second and Charles, Ollie's, and those are some other retailers within that shopping center. There is an existing beauty salon with multiple booth spaces currently operating. This particular operator would like to locate in one of those vacant booths and perform the practice that she has applied for here, and specifically as it relates to paramedical tattooing. And Planning Commission considered this case back at the beginning of June. And it comes to you with a recommendation for approval conditioned on the following. The business is only engaged in paramedical tattooing, replicating natural skin tones and features as provided in the application packet. A certificate of occupancy and business license are obtained by the applicant prior to conducting business. The conditional use is not transferable to another business owner. And finally, the owner obtains a business license prior to operating.

Mr. Martin, can you educate everyone on what paramedical tattoo practice is?

So as it was explained to us by the applicant, there are certain conditions that people may have or operations or surgeries that may leave scarring or there may be other skin conditions that naturally occur with a person that they are looking to mask. And so this particular service attempts to mask those features with natural skin tones and features. So it's not a case where the applicant is looking to do a broad range of tattooing services. It's specifically for paramedical purposes.

Very good. Any comments or questions for Mr. Martin?

Mr. President, Mike, would there be any reason that They would need to be able to provide visible security for their clients or patients, however you want to call them, while they're working on them. Say if you have a female that has had a mastectomy and they're trying to replicate parts where they've had reconstructive surgery, obviously they would want to have a secure site. Do we need to say anything about being able to provide blinding to where nobody from anywhere else in the shop could see it or nobody could come in from the street and see what they're doing?

Our conditions are typically dealing with the property at large and its interactions with surrounding properties. So we didn't get into that level of depth with what is occurring layout-wise on the interior of the site. We can certainly pass that along to the applicant to see if they have any arrangements with the landlord for that kind of screening. But at least from the zoning standpoint, us looking more at the exterior of the building and its interactions, we didn't include any conditions of that nature.

Thank you, sir.

Any other comments or questions? All right. Moving on to Resolution 886126, declaring that a nuisance and unsafe conditions exist on the property located at 5823 Rhyme Village Drive, Hoover, Alabama, and requiring immediate abatement.

Mr. President, we'd ask that you carry this over. We're going to go into executive session and discuss it with you before you make a decision.

Very good. You're off the hook, Mr. Martins. Uh, last up is resolution number 88, 86, 26. Uh, that will be the authorizing of the use and grant of public funds and things of value and aid of a private entity pursuant to amendment seven, seven, two of the Alabama constitution and connection for the development agreement with broad Metro LLC for the stadium trace village phase two and three. Mr. Munger, did you have anything to add tonight?

other than to say that each of you should have a copy of the agreement and red line in your packets. There will be additional presentations on Monday, both from myself, staff, and the developer, and their engineers and consultants.

May I ask how long this presentation is? How long would you like for it to be? As long as needed. That's how long I plan to get.

That's before I get started. Mr. Martin, if I could ask a quick question. How close is Broad Metro's property line going to come to Brock's Gap Parkway? And how far along the parkway will their property line go?

Let's see, so the property that they are looking at does extend all the way down along the east side of Scout Creek and Scout Lake to Rock Scout Parkway.

So it's a fair amount. Do you know what kind of buffer, vegetation buffer, that they plan on leaving between the parkway? I know they're going to have to have a certain amount of sight distance should the road be approved. Do we know what kind of buffer that they plan on leaving between the road and their property as far as leaving trees and vegetation?

At this juncture, I've not seen a design, a full design of that section of the road connecting down to Brock's Gap Parkway. I do believe that there is an intention to have some natural features between the road as well as the lake and trees remaining up the slope towards, I think it's North Point, the little neighborhood at the top of the hill. Northridge. Thank you. But I haven't seen a final design or layout for that yet.

Okay. Perhaps you could pass my question along to them and they could be prepared to answer Monday night. We can. Or they can call me tomorrow.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions tonight?

All right.

Last up will be for immediate consideration for Ordinance 262707 to amend Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 26A9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Hoover, Alabama. Ms. Kobach.

Good evening. Currently, park board meetings are held the second Tuesday of the month at 5.30 p.m. We've had a request to move those to the first Tuesday of the month at 5.30 p.m. as not to conflict with the school board meetings held at the same time. We held a special called park board meeting on June 24th where the park board members voted unanimously to change the date.

Very good. Any comments or questions regarding this item? All right. Thank you. At this point, I'll ask Mr. Walzert, can you notice the executive?

Mr. President, we're requesting that the council go into executive session to discuss a potential litigation matter, and that is one of the exceptions under the Open Meetings Act that allows us to do that. I don't think it's going to take a very long time, but there'll be no action to be taken. We can adjourn.

Very good. With that, we are adjourned to the work session. Thank you.

Mr. President, do we need to take a vote to go into executive session?

Yes, we do.

Thank you, Mr. Former President. Mr. Dickerson, do you need a motion and a second? Can I have a motion to go into executive session? Motion. Second. I have a motion and a second. Mr. Dickerson, please call the roll.

Council Pro Tem Driver. Aye. Council Member Schultz.

Aye.

Council Member Smith.

Aye.

Council Member Lovell. Aye. Council Member McClinton.

Okay, yes.

Council President Middlebrooks.

Aye. With six ayes, we will go into executive session and then adjourn afterwards.