City Council - Regular Meeting

have to go back and look at all of the All right. Now, go ahead. Do it on my account. Do it on mine. I'm tired, Josh. And I might say something I regret. Is this your everyone ready?

Have to go back and look at I know I know that they planned for more phases of phase one. I just can't remember. We're gonna Oh, we're not ready. Never mind. Okay, we're going to go ahead and call the March 17th, 2026 city council meeting to order. Ask Councilman Smith to lead us in our we'll start with a roll call. Ward one, two, three, four, five, six, and at large are present. Gracious and wise creator, we ask we thank you for bringing us together today to work on behalf of our community. We ask for your wisdom to guide our discussions, your grace to foster mutual respect and your insight as we make our decisions. May we listen with open hearts, speak with honesty, and work together in unity for the common good. Bless our efforts to create a better future for all we serve. In your name we pray. Amen.

Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Councilman Smith. Yes, sir. Moving on to the approval of the agenda. Uh before we do, I just want to point out that we did add item 6E and 6F uh on the consent agenda. Uh just want to give everyone a chance to look at that. And Jordan, there's also something under my report that's just kind of anformational thing, but it came in today, so I wanted you guys to have it. That's a letter from MD. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any questions about the agenda? Okay, moving on to announcements. March 17th, 2026 is our next city council. Well, that's today. That's today, guys.

So, April 7th will be our next city council meeting. We do have a guest here today. We have St. Sus's state championship basketball team. We have a pro proclamation. First off, congratulations on tremendous year. A lot of hard work, dedication, everything. Y'all well deserved. Where the St. Stein Laws Rocket Charge basketball team claimed a 493650 over the Whipman Panthers to win the class 3A state basketball championship on Saturday, March 7th, 2026 in Jackson, Mississippi. And whereas the Rocket Chargers returned to the state championship for the first time since 2011 and captured the school's second state basketball title through skill, teamwork, and determination along with their dedication that's second to none. Whereas head coach Daniel Greavves and assistant coach Raymond Rammon Tate, both former rockars and members of St. Stannis Law's first championship team returned to lead the program to his second state title alongside with them coach Danny Greavves who led the first championship team now shared the achievement with his son joined by coaches Jared Rigby a Staint Stan's graduate and Jason Ford whereas the victory reflects the dedication perseverance and sportsmanship of the players and coaching staff throughout the season and now therefore I'm Michael J. Paul, mayor of the city of Bay St. Louis, along with its city council and all the citizens proudly congratulate the St. Sus Law Rocks basketball team on a remarkable season and a welldeserved state champion.

You want it?

Should we come around? Hey guys, everybody look up here.

Daniel, I cannot see you. I need some spirit. Little bit louder. Y'all sure y'all don't want to stay?

Yeah, man. Thank you. Congratulations.

Well, that cleared the room. Mhm.

Okay, everyone ready? All right, we're going to go ahead and move on to public forum regarding our agenda items. Just a reminder that uh we do have two public forum times. One's regarding agenda items, one's regarding just general public comments. Uh so if you'd like to speak about anything on the agenda, now is the time we'll start including planning and zoning.

Including planning and zoning. So if you have anything to say about P&Z items, uh this is the time to do it. Uh the public hearing happened uh at the P&Z meeting. So anyways, we have Mr. Jim Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Rford. My name is Jim Simpson. I'm a resident Patrician, a lawyer from Gport, proud for father of a former rocket job, but we won't go there. Um I would like to speak to you about um the Greystone Development. um matter that came before the planning commission. It was voted down four to one, excuse me, four to zero by the four planning commissioners that were present. I think I did a poor job explaining to the planning commission members and to the public the situation. And I want I won't go back through everything, but I would like to take a few minutes and try to explain that to you. Um the property is now zoned WF1. That means by right they can build condominiums there right now. And so that's not what we're coming to ask you. We're not coming to ask you for permission to build condominium. We don't need to. As long as we follow the other rules and everything by right, we can build condominium. What we came to ask for was a special use district that would reduce the number of condominiums that could be built and replace that with four large single family home. That's the sum total of the of our request. If if if the planning commission's recommendation stands and we're not allowed to build those four single family homes, then we just proceed as of right and and and build more condominium. That's that's not our preference. Um it would be an added benefit, but it but but largely illusory because I I don't want to I don't want to kid anybody. Under the waterfront one zoning, we could put a lot of things there. We

could put a lot of retail things there and and you know bait shops and boat launches and none of that's going to happen. So I don't want to say we're threatening to do we're not doing any of that. But again, if you give us a special use district, you prohibit all those uses that would make people a lot more comfortable. We're not building those anyway. But but so I'm not threatening that. Don't take me wrong. But I mean the point is we're not asking for permission to build condos. We can do that as of right under your current ordinance, under the ordinance that you guys are looking at, and under your comprehensive plan. So, condominiums are coming. The guy's going to close on the property. Condominiums are coming. If you go with the planning director's recommendation, you limit the number of condominiums that are going out there. And as to the best of my recollection, all of the objections were about any condominiums at all. Nobody objected to the four homes, but I don't think the residents realized, and I think I did a poor job of explaining that by objecting to what we're doing, by objecting to the four four homes and fewer condos, you leave us in a position where all we can build is more condos. And that's not the preferable use of the property. the preferable use of the property is a fewer number of condos and the four single family homes that buffer or soften the the connection between the beautiful homes that are out there on the north end now and what we want built. So we we we we think that's the uh we ask you to take your planning commission's recommendation.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay, we have Mary Lou Matthews. My name is Barry Lou Matthews. We reside at 504 remote street in Shieldsboro. Um, our major concern is ingress and egress is not sufficient to support not only the new community to be but what it will do to the other phases. um our narrow streets cannot accommodate large vehicles coming in to do construction work. There has to be some sort of a change. My second thing is if there are 63 lots and only one retention pond, what happens to the water? The existing swimming pool is too small for all three phases. There must be something note about that. And possible replanting of trees for the ones they mowed over. All I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. We have uh Tony Tal. Yeah, sorry about that.

Tony Tennon 501 John T Street Shieldsboro subdivision. And um I'm hopeful that council I had the opportunity to read the minutes from last week's planning and zoning meeting. Okay? Because I we all could just keep on rattling up here about everything we addressed last week. So I'm hoping that y'all did read the minutes to to show you how we expressed our concerns. So the reason I'm up here today is just to review key concerns. Just summarize, okay? And I wrote these down. So these are just some key points, some bullet points. What we as the residents, homeowners are concerned about is the increased flooding and strained infrastructure. Okay. Due to this large development, I took pictures of the retention pond, what it looks like now. And according to the plot plans, it's supposed to be a detention. So my question is, who maintains this other? So is a detention pond maintained by the city? Is a retention pond maintained? So in the plan it says detention pond. So once again that's why we're concerned about increased flooding. Another key point we are concerned about is what has happened with we've had the loss of natural habitat, the loss of mass trees and green space, the loss of a sound barrier from the train noise. Another key point,

development stages and construction of these new homes can overwhelm the existing streets. I think Miss Marylu just pointed that out once again. The next thing that has happened is with a development this large, what happens is the HOA the HOA responsibilities, whomever that is right now in our community has become very complacent and has lost the trust of its existing residents. So that probably will not improve. And the last thing, this development will be a loss of the Shieldsboro community character. The aesthetics disappear because of the finished product and it produces a homogenized landscape. In closing, thanks city council. And how many seconds do I have?

Well, you had you had 10. I was going to pause it because Okay. Mr. John didn't silence himself. He's got he he has to take a Well, call him out on that if you would at this time. Silence yourself, but go ahead. Go ahead and finish your Okay. I would just thank the city council. We feel that the small town way of life in Bay St. Louis has started to erode, losing its identity. We trust the city officials will monitor this development closely and consider what is good for the community and its homeowners. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Johanna Spakuza.

Thank you. My name is Johanna Spakuza. My husband Raymond and I, we both reside at um 602 Thomas Shields Boulevard. We were the second family to move into Shieldsboro. And it was Mr. um Mr. Shanks himself who came into the office at Gerter Gardener where I was at that time and told me about this beautiful place that he was building. And um when he finished the first few row of houses, we went to look at it and we bought the first house on the Avenue. Now, we have loved absolutely love living there. I've always loved Bay St. Louis since I was a kid and used to spend my summers here. What what I'm against is for one thing um we I uh came came to planning and zoning several years back and had them reszone or or reszone the land to where it had to be at least 70 foot lots which that took place for phase two except the only other thing that that wasn't supposed to happen was it wasn't supposed to be cookie cutter houses but designed you know each house built according to the owner the buyer of the property. Well, instead the the people who had it before, I forget uh Jeff uh what his last name was and whoever these people were from Denim Springs, which is where our HOA is located. So, we get the pleasure of paying our HOA dues semi uh uh semiannually to a a business in Denim Springs, Louisiana. Okay. Um they sold that. That's who owned the property before who was going to build custom homes. Now we have DSLD who built all of these cookie cutter houses in phase two which

if you look at the houses that are right across right on uh Spanish uh y'all help me out here. I'm getting a little nervous on Spanish uh Trail Spanish Trail. Um I think out of seven houses, five of them are the same exact house only the different numbers, different colors. I'm sorry. Different colors. And there's two other houses that are of another design. So out of seven houses, you got just two designs. So what what's really uh one first of all, what I object to is I don't think that this property that they're wanting to be considered Shieldsboro phase 2B was ever intended to be any part of Shieldsboro. It doesn't it doesn't even have its own avenue cutting through. there's a single street that's going to lead to it because it breaks down at that point. Um, and so it means the rest of us in phase one and the front of of phase two are going to have an extra uh 124 cars coming down, 126 cars coming down Thomas Shields Boulevard, but you only have two other streets that come in. So this new so-called Shieldsboro 2B doesn't even have its own ingress and egress without coming through us. And they may be able to they talk about uh leasing a piece of property that allow them to get the big trucks in like the concrete trucks and stuff, but what's going to happen when people have have um have uh big things coming in like somebody wants to just put a little concrete down on their driveway?

Unfortunately, the three I understand that. All I know is all I want to say is that I am against it. I am so happy that that I see all seven of up of y'all up here and I pray that y'all will hear what we're saying about Thank you very much, Mr. His. If I give you any extra time, I'm okay. I just don't want the serenity and the peacefulness of phase one to be ruined any more than it already was. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tad Black. Unfortunately not. You're going to need Tom Wil to you.

Black 217 Street. Uh basically the people the first few people have spoken is is one of my biggest concerns. You know, we spent $4 million to drain Spanish acres because of poor development. There's other other poor developments in Bay St. Louis that we had to spend taxpayers money to fix the drainage. I'm hoping somewhere in the site plan review that on this project that it has a engineer's drawing. Are they going to add to the infrastructure or going to use the present infrastructure that's in place now? It cost about $4 million back in the 90s. So that's I mean that's that's pretty much my concern about the whole project. Thank you.

Thank you, M. Anita Warner. Anita Warner on behalf of the Live Oak Registry. I attended all the meetings on Shieldsboro back in 2020 and they swore up and down they were going to preserve the trees. And guess what they did? They bulldozed them. So why do we believe anything these people tell us now? If they had kept the trees, then they would have had an automatic storm water sponge. That's what trees do. They suck up storm water. They also cleaned the air, gave a place for wildlife, and it would have been a better sound buffer for the railroad. But that's in the past. So, what are we going to do now? We should make these people protect the remaining trees. There should be fencing around every one of the few trees that are left out there. And these people should be forced to plant trees on every lot. They can put one between the sidewalk and the street, put one in the front yard, put one in the backyard, as well as putting a buffer along the railroad. There's plenty of trees. There's a fabulous nursery up in Perkinson called Green Forest. That gentleman has given us trees to redo this city after Katrina and does to this day. So please, whatever you do, if we decide to believe these people again this time, make them plant some trees.

Thank you. Thank you. Is it Cliff Rilelet?

Good evening, Cliff Railelet, 702 Third Street. uh this Shields Barrow thing, the uh approval of it which was done back what last summer sometime I think uh most of y'all were not I think Josh you and Kyle maybe Larry maybe not when we passed a new subdivision ordinance that said the all the things have to be in place before things are approved all of the uh boxes had to checked, I think, is the words that were used. All the boxes had to be checked before it would even be brought to PNZ. What I heard at P&Z is there were some boxes that if they're checked, they're uh there's some missing data. But that was our subdivision ordinance that we passed. And I do believe there was at least two councilmen on the previous council who said, "We need to back up and punt. This subdivision ordinance is way too too many into that we don't know about." That didn't happen. And so now here we are. I think y'all approve something and y'all got to deal with the past and all that. So the new ordinance, subdivision ordinance said that everything had to be in place, approved, and that the city administration would be in charge of making sure that all the things are done properly. Well, Miss Anita just brought it up, and I'm going to tell you from an economic standpoint, bulldozing trees and paying the fine a heck of a lot cheaper than moving streets. You can pay, I don't care if it's $5,000 a tree. It's cheaper to pay the fine than to reroute and redo a subdivision and move the streets. And the city administration is going to be the ones in charge of making sure that what they say they going to do is what they do. You've already heard it twice. Got a lack of trust here.

Just don't have a lot of faith that thing is going to get done right. Now, site plan review, but my favorite subject lately, the new PNZ ordinance, we don't want to repeat. I'm going to ask that we know what we approve before we get there. Some of y'all saw my email from the other day. I'm going to make a suggestion that the one the two or three big items that's across the board lot sizes and setbacks, let's just go ahead and change that in the draft and I think about half the people that come and visit you and call you will be well, you know, things will calm down and then we can focus on the true other specific items we need to look at. I mean, that's that's the big one. I think it's across the board. Let's just do that. Let's make that change because we're not seeing any changes. So, we're saying, well, what are y'all doing? What are y'all doing? It's been since January. So, anyway, change lot sizes and get rid of 8 foot fences. And I think uh then we can focus on the other things that we need to look at. Thank you, gentlemen.

You got two seconds left. Uh, Mr. Malcolm Jones.

Hi, Malcolm Jones. I'm here on behalf of the developer 31 East S Drive, past Jan. Um, I really just wanted to go ahead and just set forth procedurally where we were and what we were trying to achieve. Uh, this subdivision originally was approved back in 2020. U, it had two phases to it. We went ahead and we built I said we they built the subdivision back there and then it came time to go ahead and do uh there were two phases two 2A and 2B. 2A got built but by the time 2B was ready to be built they had to go back and resubmit for sketch plan approval. Contrary to what you were told earlier, the original layout of the second phase of the subdivision included all of these lots. It was intended that way. It was approved that way by the city back in 2020. You got sketch plan approval, preliminary plat approval. All of that got done back in 2020 because your ordinance says that once you reach a certain point, you got to come back and ask for an extension. They did. that came back and in July of last year, this um planning commission approved the um development. They approved it with without conditions and it should have been and still is approved and good for a year from July of 2025. The only thing we were asking for was to amend the sketch plan to go ahead and show that we're moving the detention pond to a different place in the subdivision. And why are we doing that? Because we were asked to do that by the city engineering department. So, if you were to go ahead and turn us down today, then we would go ahead and go back to our original sketch plan and move forward to develop it with the detention pond in that location that

your engineering department does not does not want. So, we're asking you to go ahead and approve this because it's already been approved once back in 2020. Again, in July of 2025, we've met all the requirements. We're not asking for any variances. We're not asking for anything different than is required by the ordinance. It's been recommended by the administration through their written report. Um I think maybe the planning commission did the best they could. Maybe there was a bit of confusion. One of the gentlemen there said that had we agreed to certain conditions which we were willing to do which is have a separate construction easement coming in from a side road to try to lessen some of the traffic. We were willing to do all of those things. But uh apparently because the motion was to deny, he went along with it. Otherwise, it would have been a two- two vote. However, we're here now and I'm asking you to go ahead and to do what you've already done back in July of last year. I have some documents, but I'll present those at the time comes up. Thank you, Bobby Henrich. Uh Bobby Hrich 1806 23rd Avenue in Gport and I'm here with uh on behalf of the developer and with Malcolm uh to answer any questions. We've uh my office has done the engineering uh again this is the third time we're asking for a sketch plat and it's really a modification because we wanted we were asked to move that pond to a different location. I don't know if you have any drawings on that but um there was a comment about ingress and egress. We have three ways of getting in and out of the subdivision. So, there's no issue with that. It's already gone through the departments. It's been approved. So, I'll be here to answer any technical questions, I guess you could say.

Thank you very much,

Wayne Johnson. 1845 meadow. have a lot I want to say but in short I do risk work for a little bit. My main concern about the Greystone development at the end of Blue Meadow strictly alignment with infra safety and things that could really go south. I've wrote a few things down here that I really want to cross and let let me make I'm all about development. I love people. I want to have a good time in life. Um, we're in the curve right there where you get to the end of Blue Mill. Our house has been hit twice. Two dead end signs sticking up there. There's a lot of traffic that comes across our front yard. Tractor trailers included trying to get back out of there because there's no turnaround at the end of the road. This creates a huge issue. Emergency response. And looking forward looking forward at this development. If it were to happen, you got a boat ramp across the street from where these condos are going to go. At times that boat ramp can get busy, you're going to have a lot a lot of traffic, a lot of congestion. And for emergency vehicles to respond at certain times could be a be a mix cost somebody their life. And I in the risk assessment work that I do on the bulk electric system, it matters. We want our lights to go out, do we? We don't want to lose a family member because the ambulance didn't get in there, y'all. We need to table this at a minimum and talk about the infrastructure, public access, and emergency access. Not just that, the storm. Man, I mean, if we had a storm pop up not far from the Gulf, from the line from the coastline, and it developed really quickly and you're

trying to get people out of there, that could turn into a mess as well. Y'all, we sit in the corner there and we have seen a lot happen here. Traffic comes down the road all the time. The Airbnbs that will more than likely erupt from this from this development. You're going to have a lot of boat trailers being pulled in there. People are going to come to have a good time. It's going to be a culture shift as well. And I I'm not going to stay on that. My main concern is safety. And I can see it plain as day for my house. And I hope that you really consider at a minimum to table fix because I have no doubt in my mind we have a lot of risk with the current infrastructure. I hope hope and pray that y'all really think hard about approving this thing before we take a hard look at this. That's about all I got to say. We're going to trip well we're going to triple in density 17 to 49 new residents two cars a piece right now at times it gets it gets a little congested in there we have a vacant lot right beside our house people come to watch the sunset and then people walk there's a there's a lot going on anyway thank you for your time

thank you Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.

If nobody else has signed up on the list, I know we have two signup sheets. If there was any confusion about time to speak on agenda items versus regular public comment or general public comment, I ask you to come to the podium now. If not, we're going to I'm Mike Turn on. I live in Shieldsboro, 501 John Baptist Street. I've been listening to all the comments from my neighbors and other concerned people in this room and I just want to make one point. The developer that's planning on doing that's already destroyed all the trees back there, he doesn't live in there. The attorney that he sends here to represent himself, he doesn't live in there. The engineer, he doesn't live in here. I'm just asking that when y'all make your decision, please keep in mind the people that live here, that pay taxes here, and that vote. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

One more. Just want to ask if everyone understands the difference between a retention pond and a detention pond. The detention pond that is planned is a temporary thing. You've got the storm drain coming down Shields Avenue and goes into a huge retention pond which is not going to be there. They're going to be a temporary thing all the way down by the railroad. They're going to have to run that storm train all the way down that whole development to the railroad and you're going to add 60 more houses to the drainage. I think we're looking at a big flood. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, go ahead and move on if no one else. We have a request to approve the uh did you want to talk? So it's an agenda item.

Oh. Yes. So that's if it's an agenda item that's I know there's some confusion with two signup sheets. I can speak but I'm here for the um Pine Belt mental health facility that's um adjacent to my home. Um we had that years ago. They were there before. We had a lot of issues with them. Um I know on the zoning there was some conflict of what they were actually going to put there, whether it was going to be a um for the mental I don't think of it is the

the down syndrome instead. I still have a concern for that because it's adjacent to my backyard. Um I just feel like, you know, the noise, the issues that we might startle them or whatever. And I I just I still have a problem with that being in a residential area. I feel like they might still roam. you don't know what's going to trigger them off. I just I think me and um ourself and the neighborhood, the whole street is against that type of facility being there and we would really like it to become a residential area with not being there. Thank you.

I wasn't prepared to speak so sorry. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on uh to the minutes approval. I will call for a motion to approve the minutes of March 3rd, 2026. Do I have a motion? Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? Vote the motion. I I I I I motion carries 70. I'll call for a motion to approve the minutes of March 4th, 2026. Do I have a motion? Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilwoman Moan. Uh any discussion about vote the motion? I I

I I motion pass 70. Moving on to the consent agenda. Does anyone have anything they would like to take off and remove and discuss? Just had a couple questions on the items. Yeah. Hey Mike, on items B and C. So it's a motion to void the approval of the HVAC repair at city hall. that one quote was 13,600 and the motion is approved the same company but it's at 19,000. What's the rationale for the difference there?

Because there's two um compressors that need to be installed on that also first time one compressor. This is two compressors. So the quote, so item B is the $13,000 that didn't have the two compressors. No. Okay. So the second one does not approve. Okay. Um item E, can you just run through? So those Ford Dodge Durango, those are all for the police department. Yeah.

Okay. And then the next one, we know we've got the street sweeper, the Nissan Rogue, is that to this specific department? Yeah, that that's for um city hall whoever traveling with whomever sometimes fire they don't have to take maybe take place one of those Mercury mountaineers that you don't see those on the roads much anymore they make them I don't think they do u and then the and just a confirmation the the three Chevrolet Silverados what department was that one one fire two And the fire is taking over one of 250 we have now.

This is probably and then the two the two trucks they'll be outfitted and equipped where you can actually hold someone into custody in that or is that more an probably a dumb question but is that will it be equipped just as the the durango are or how is that? two for the police department.

Will they have the ability to detain and and put somebody in the truck in that? Yeah. doesn't change. Is it replacing, Mike? Is it replacing some? Did they They currently have their own vehicles. They got old ones and we we sold some of those off and in the probably get rid of some more. Okay. But it does it does have a cage in or does I don't know. I have to check on that.

Okay. So the uh as far as the renewal contract with the DRC emergency services, was there any uh price increase or anything in the renewal or they just renewed it for you for what had happened? We don't need it again. Yeah, hopefully we don't need it. Any other discussion?

Just one more. Sorry. The uh the donation for the wall mounted water fountains. I'm assuming those are going at the ball fields. Yeah. Does that have does that have to be accepted by the school district or how does that work? Is that we're just leasing that from then, right? Yeah. Well, other ones now just not operable. It's good that we have I mean No, they don't. Okay. Okay. They'll be good to get that. They probably don't have bottle filling station. We don't have the bottle.

Anything else? I'll call for a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Do I have a motion? Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman D Salvo. Any discussion? The motion? I I I I I I I motion pass 70.

Okay, moving on to our uh PNZ applications. Item 7A, I'll call for a motion to follow or I'll make a motion to follow planning and zoning's recommendation and deny the application for special exception to operate an adult daycare within an R1 district submitted by Pine Belt Mental Health Healthcare Resources located at 789 Dumbar Avenue, parcel 149D-2-20-013 was approved 40. It was approved to deny 4 at PNZ. Second. Have a second by Councilman Smith. Any discussion? Discussion. Um,

the way that I understand it, it's just an adult daycare. So, they're not there as far as being housed living there. They're just going for services, building skills, socializing. And they have something very similar in Wavelin down by Wavelin Elementary. Um they have to have transportation so they're not being transportated in but it's a very good program. I haven't seen anything negative from it. I know the building that's sitting there now on Dumbar is empty. Correct. It's vacant.

Correct. I've been in there um maybe two years ago and there was Yeah. No, I know it needs some work. Correct. And it was issues with vandalism, issues with maybe homelessness coming in there. So, I think it's a good thing to think about actually utilizing that because the way it sits now, there's probably six or seven bedrooms in there that was probably used for, you know, like shelter type situations, which I wouldn't I can understand your concern there, but just uh for mental health needs, but not, you know, like they not doing like drug rehab or stuff like that. and what they plan from my understanding is that what y'all are getting?

Well, little little history here too because I'm well familiar with this area. This used to be GF Coast Mental Health. I think region 13 owned this and then shortly after CO they were uh basically um realigned under Pine Belt mental health. I believe that that building remained vacant. It was a group home at one time. So it was u and I believe you had to be committed um in that process. um range from intellectual developmental disability to to other um services at Pine Belt Mental Health Disorders. And so it was a 247 group home.

Um and to my understanding too, for a couple years after Pine Belt had assumed that building, I think it lays with Harrison County if I'm not mistaken. Maybe they're trying to sell it. I don't know. And it seems like they're trying to get usage of it back. I guess my concern was what would stop it from going back to a residential facility or a group home. Um I know this is just a day program. And then of course understand concerns of where this is situated as well. It's in highly residential area. Conditions have certainly changed since this has no longer been in use. So I can understand the level of concernation and that it would go back to that. So that would be one of my concerns. You know, if this day program then translates into more of what it used to be as far as a group home and just its proximity um to the residential areas and single family homes. That's where I would have my concern with.

Just a point of clarification for the record. If if the use changed, Kyle, they would have to come back to the city council with a new request. And and one of my issues with this is is they're just requesting adult daycare. There's nothing else that was submitted with this other than the request. So with the what's happened in the past from my understanding and then it just the I think it lacks more information to give reassurance or to explain what it is they're wanting other than just the adult daycare um reason I'm not uh why I'm opposed to

and just another point of clarification just in case this gets appealed. So they are asking for an adult daycare which is a specific use that's allowed by special exception under your planning and zoning. So they are asking only for a adult daycare. And would this be more probably better situated instead of in an R1 residential and more of a commercial where there is you know where they're doing work? Um I get I get the the philosophy of it but would it be better situated in an area that is more commercial mixed use or single family residential? That'd be my issue. Uh, unfortunately the public comment side of it is closed.

Does the company own the the who owns the building? I think it's the county Harrison County. Harrison County I believe Hancock County owns the building. Confusion over that. Yeah, they said Harrison at the PNZ meeting is I believe when the mental health when they shut down the entities where the facilities were located was transferred to the county governments, my understanding. And before it could be used as an adult daycare center, would there be have to be renovations? I'm assuming by So that would have to come through the

be approved by the city and code enforcement before anybody could take uh ownership or or start a daycare dayare center. Right. Yes. So that building I would assume because I also live down the street. So I would assume that that would be major renovations that would have to go through your your building department for all of the whatever renovations anybody whether it be them or somebody wanted to go turn it into a house it would all have to go through the building department for permitting. Okay. So there is a process of getting this up to

code. Yes ma'am. Yes ma'am. Any other discussion? I agree what you said and looking at all the petition signed. It's definitely not something the neighborhood wants from looking at it. Any other discussion? The motion? Nay. Nay. I just want to deny. Okay. I I motion pass 42 to deny. I'm sorry. 52. 52.

Okay. Moving on to 7B. I'll call for a motion to follow planning and zoning's recommendation and deny the application for sketch plat approval for Shieldsboro phase 2 submitted by Bay St. Louis homes and properties located in the general area of Shieldsboro subdivision which lies along Old Spanish Trail between St. Charles Street and Spanish Acres Drive parcel 137R 044-051 137R- 44-050137R-44-049. It was approved to deny 3 to one.

Thank you. I'll make a motion to file plans recommendation. Is there a second? Okay. Uh, since there's no second, I will make a or does someone else want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to Well, first let's Caitlyn, let the record reflect that that motion fails for lack of a second. I'd like to make a motion to uh reverse PNC and accept the application for the SK approval. Approval. I'll finish the motion for shields. Do I have to reread the whole thing? No. No. Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second.

Any discussion? And I would like for clarity. This motion should read for amended sketch plat approval. Yes. Yeah. Discussion. Discussion.

Yeah. So, a lot of good points brought up at plan the penzy meeting. Also some good points brought up tonight. So, just for a point of clarification and I heard Jeremy speak to it in terms of the process for the sketch plat. And you know, of course, as I think Cliff had brought up, the subdivision ordinance was brought to us. I think Josh at the time you're on the the city council as well um about the process and the process change and so I would like to have more and this is this is why I was not for the subdivision orange because with the sketch plate it does not allow us to really as a council to have the ability to better understand something as monumental as the drainage concerns um it goes through the admin process but then it's never brought back to us and then I think as Jeremy had said it's just a formality um to come back to the final plot when all that is done and I think there's been a lot of discussion regarding u the potential impact this could have um from a drainage standpoint um that we are unsure because we don't I don't believe the developers have provided that information to us yet part of the process of the sketches do not have that that's going to be part of the the admin process but for something that that has this big of an impact I would like to see on the front end those details and how we have some reassurance that this is not going to negatively impact the surrounding areas I think it was brought up tonight as well um that we've seen this before in this area was Spanish acres to where um it was developed and a couple years after the taxpayers are on the hook. I have to fix the drainage problems that this that this basically um culminated in in the approval. So that's one of my issues. Um I I'm not a big fan of the special use. Um it was brought up tonight. Well, we could do this. We could put if it's, you know, R2 R3, we could put duplexes or multi, you know, multif family dwellings. Well, as a developer, if that was profitable for you, then you wouldn't be asking for a special use. you would put those the what's profitable is single family. What I disagree and this is another part that I disagreed with in in 2020 is that it originally I think the lot widths were 60 it got fought to 70. Well, it still has an issue with the total square

footage of lot sizes. Um I think the average lot size here is about 6,000 square feet which is not consistent with the R2. R2 is 10,500. Um, so I specifically remember sitting on P&Z and multiple times having developers come and and actually take two lots and combine that into one because the smaller lots were not moving. Conditions change. Um, but there's a lot of factors here. I would like to see more again have more detail as to what is the plan to mitigate the wershed and and to assure and assurances to the homeowners um and any flooding concerns. I just don't I just don't like that process to where we don't see it again. While we're having disc, I just like to point out to I believe Mr. uh Mr. Jones made this point and and this is my understanding. So, correct me if I'm wrong. Back in July of 2025, we approved the 70 for phase 2B.

So, to me, I'm not looking at this as a I'm looking at at this as a eitheror option in reality. So my question for the that I'd like to make the point is would you rather two detention ponds and 70 lots or would you prefer 63 lots with one uh detention pond and two lots with trees on it? That's how I'm looking at it. So they're reducing it by uh they're losing seven lots by moving the detention pond. That's how I'm looking at it because they have a year from when we approved it in July of 2025. So they can move forward with that current.

So Jason, where we've got Jason, you've taken a look and obviously admin has given the information and the detention. Can you come speak to that of what the rationale was and how this was going to mitigate? You were involved in that.

Jason would not have been involved in this. Your public works department would have been involved in this because as as you stated during your subdivision review process, what the council is reviewing is the concept. Um this was heavily discussed during the subdivision regulations. the engine once it's handed over to Jason is when things are finaliz or not finalized when the sketch is finalized to make sure that the drainage works. If it does not go back it would have to go back. So the whole point of this is having to make sure that an actual your city engineer is looking at the drainage to making sure that the the drainage works rather than giving it to you guys as a council who you're not engineers. It's to make sure that your engineer makes sure that it's approved. So, so one of the things where this came from when we was looking at it, one of the retention pines backed up to the neighborhood off of St. Charles Street. There's a retention pine there and there was one in the middle in that area. Looking at this, you know, we felt like retention pine needs to be on their property, not on the property lines for the neighbors that's already there. So, we asked if there was a possibility they could move that and all. In doing so, they put everything a large one in the middle of the pretty much in the middle of the subdivision and that's how we got to where we at. In doing so, they lost I think it's seven lots and there's also some lots in there that has trees on it they won't be able to build on and they know that. So, that's how we back to the table.

Any other discussion? Is this the same I mean this is the same developers that we had assurances at those trees remain that they were clear? same people. So that begs the question, what assurance do we have that'll be followed? I know we have checks and balances within the city and administration, but again, you're starting out on the foot that you're not going to because I asked a couple times during city council meetings, we're going to keep those trees and it was Yes. That's the plan. That's the plan. And then and they went in there. I mean, we can't watch it 247. No, no, I'm not saying that's on this plan. And that goes to court, if I'm not mistaken, that goes to court Friday. Yes. So the same developers that said they're going to do everything that needs to be done, yet we started out on the wrong foot from day one and clear cutting the trees that were supposed to be saved there. Yeah.

Any other discussion? The motion. I Yes. to approve.

Hi.

Larry amended to amend it. I I I motion pass 60.

Okay, moving on to item 7 C. I'll call for a motion to follow planning and zoning's recommendation. We'll give a moment for everyone to exit the room. Anyone who wants to leave. Okay. Okay, moving on to agenda item 7 C. I'll call for a motion to follow planning and zoning's recommendation and deny the application for special use district to allow a residential combination of single family dwellings, condominions, and town town homes submitted by Greystone development located at 1839 Blue Meadow Road, parcel 136N-1-37-025.001 136-2-42-85 002. It was approved four to zero to deny. Have a motion.

Motion. Motion by Councilman Lewis. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilwoman Holmes. Any discussion? Yes. So, um this by denying this it does not preclude them from building what they want to do. Correct. Yes. So they Yeah. Yeah. If you deny it, they will not be able to build the single family homes. Okay. But they could have they they could still build the condominiums. Four sets of condominiums. They could still build build condominiums by right. They would not be able to build the single family homes, right?

But they would also be unlimited number or whatever many could fit on each lot size lot. Condominium. Yes. Well, they right now. So, if we deny this, we're really lot coverage. Right now, they're having 14 sets of duplexes if I'm not mistaken. It's got a minimum lot size of three acres that per single family and that's why they want to put the single families. So, we would would have homes and a limited number of condos or you want all condos? No, it already allows it already allows a single.

All right. It allows a single allow single families. You just have to have a threeacre acre lot. They're still allowed. It doesn't dis what are they actually getting? Yeah. So, from my understanding, it's they're just wanting to take instead of having to do three acres and put one residential, they're wanting to put four and the one and then they still have three acres for a condo,

but If it isn't approved, they would have two threeacre parcels and they could put two copies. So, it's a to me I how I look be completely honest I know they're in the room but uh I looking at it I don't know how they're going to build it on those I don't know what you want to call it peninsulas that are coming out there right

um so the the some of the roads coming in and out or uh wet wetlands and and stuff so so with that if we approve this. There's no coming back asking us to amend this if they aren't able to build on that land. Correct. This is it's not over to amend. I'm not following your like the special use district.

It's either has six six month or a year. I can't remember off top of my head. Um and somebody stole my planning book out the room over there. But it it so it would expire. So if they couldn't I mean they have six months or to a year whatever it it states to to get this start is it a year I think special use district there and it would go back to and then this if if they did not move forward with construction and have it then it would the special use would sunset and they'd have to reassess for it. Correct. And I think you are I think you are allowed to ask for an extension on that per council for I think six months. I think the plan they present is actually to make it less dense. Right. Could possibly do could possibly

takes away the commercial the the commercial aspect of Yes. Right. Yeah. They're they're taking that my understanding looking at their letter they're taking that out on their own. So if they do a special use and it ends in six months, that means they have to start the building of the suggested of what's being presented to us or that they submit plans of the existing I would read the exact ones but that would happen in the book. So that's what I'm saying. So within six months if they're if they want to I think it's a year or so. So go with a year. I'm pretty positive. So within one year they have to start some type of building process. have to submit within that special area.

So if they start with constructing the residential homes on the four lots and then they come to find out that the other three acres, it's not realistic to put that many condos on it. They can't change, they have to come, they would have to come back and and ask for a change at their special use district. Correct. But there's the ability to there. Okay. So they could in essence build four more homes on that second. They can do that. They would only be able to build two. They would only be able to build acres.

Seven, right? Is that seven? Seven total. Yeah. That's why I don't I mean I'm looking at this that's going to be a hard for my opinion but okay let's not have this right we don't need okay so we got a motion and a second to approve PN P&Z's recommen recommendation to deny uh

any other discussion I vote the motion They're on the other end of the table. Um, nay.

Nay. Nay. Nay. So, uh, P&Z's motion to deny fails. So, now you call for a motion to approve it. Yeah. A motion to overturn planning and zoning's recommendation. Motion. Call for a motion to over overturn planning and zoning's recommendation to deny. Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman Dalvo. Any discussion? Vote. Motion. No, I I I motion pass 52.

Okay, moving on to agenda item 7D. A motion to follow planning and zoning's recommendation and approve the application for a variance of a three-foot resulting in a 17 foot setback to the rear yard submitted by Will Reigns located at 318 Eserbrook Street, parcel 149L-0-29-130. It was approved 4 to zero. Motion motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilwoman Holmes. Any discussion? Vote a motion. I I I I I I I motion carries 70.

Moving on to agenda item 7E. Motion to follow planning and zoning's recommendation and deny the application for a variance of a 5 foot three 5 foot 3 inch resulting in a 2 foot 9 in setback to the sideyard submitted by Stephanie Gale located at 304 Valentine Street parcel number 149N-30-98.003. It was approved 40 to deny. A motion. Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman Lewis. Any discussion? Vote the motion. I I I

I I Motion carries 70. Moving on to agenda item 7F. I'll call for a motion to follow planning and zoning's recommendation and approve the application for a special exception to allow an accessory dwelling on a lot less than 15,000 square feet as well as a variance of 3 foot resulting in a 5- foot setback to the sideyard and a variance of a 12T resulting in an 8ft setback to the rear yard for the accessory dwelling submitted by Betty Galot located at 120 Citizen Street. Parcel 149N- Z-30-050. It was approved. 3 to one. Motion.

Motion by Councilman Smith. Is there a second? Any discussion? Uh, yes. The accessory dwelling. I might have just missed it. Is it a liveable space they're trying to do or is this like a shed? house.

R1 structural function has a pool. Have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

The motion strictly just accessory dwelling. Is that why? That's what it says right there. Basically, which makes this stove. I remember they put a garage change. Any other discussion?

I vote the motion. Nay. Nay. So motion fails or yes. Motion fails. 70. 7G a motion to follow. So Caitlyn just notate deny something

just notate that the application is denied. A 7G, a motion to follow planning and zoning's recommendation and approve the application for a variance of a twoft resulting in a 23 foot setback to the front yard, a variance of 11' 8 in resulting to an 8'4 in setback to the rear yard, and a variance of 1T 6 in resulting in a 6'6 in setback to the sideyard in order to construct a new dwelling submitted by Mary Thompson located at 126 Sycamore Street, parcel 149L- - 0-233. It was approved 4. Have a motion. I guess I'll have some discussion on this for clarification. I believe this was

the chimney was is this the one that had the chimney and then the porch and Yeah,

it wasn't any other structure for the setback. Correct. I'm not saying I think it's long the rear yard set back and it's on to the house but it's ground living but then she can detach it and it would be anything to the rear property line. Okay.

I'll make I'll make the motion uh to follow planning and zoning's recommendation and approve. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman Salvo. Any discussion? Vote the motion. I I I I I motion pass 6 to one. Okay. Project updates. We have an engineers report.

Good evening. We submitted our report um for review tonight. There are two action items that we are requesting authorization to proceed with. Uh the first one is authorization advertise for the construction bids of the hurricane zeta bay St. Louis Harbor general repairs project. This is the project that we're rebidding. Um we've addressed some comments from FEMA. We've addressed some comments from Mafic as well. So we'd like authorization to advertise that project. If approved tonight, it'll be publicized next Thursday to see and the state website um according with all the I think we asked to hold this off for another meeting so we can have look at the everything. Oh, okay.

And Jason on that. What? So, we put this out already, right? But we didn't get an adequate. We only had one. So, what changed on that bid from the first time, didn't we put this out already? And we had Yeah, we bid this in 2023, I believe. And so, one bid was received. So, we've added since then, we've added different repairs that are necessary. Well, we've taken some work um out. We've made some changes to the um to some of the details as as part of the um repair to the that

Yeah, we've made some comments to that. There were some work items that were included that were non FEMA participating in the original bid. Um the city was going to pay to have those repairs um included. FEMA felt that was an improved project, so they wanted those items removed from the job just so that would be cleaner. Um so we made all those changes to the to the design. So we can come back at a later meeting for that. Uh we do item number two is recommend award concrete unit price contract to DNA underground and authorize the mayor to execute all contract documents. Um these projects were the unit price job that we've been bidding with public works. We actually had uh two bids for the concrete repairs throughout the city. Um DNA was one and then um Landmark Construction was the other bidder. uh we did asphalt repairs at the same time, but there were no asphalt biders on that on that particular project. So, um what this allows the city to do is have a a contractor um with already prices that are established and if if the public works need a sidewalk repaired or a driveway repaired or some concrete work, then they don't have to continue go out for quotes. It was it was procure standard pit log

and we got nothing for asphalt then. So I what's we were calling two or three contractors and nobody pulled plans. Nobody submitted. So we're just continue to do that internally right now and some of that patchwork. I guess he's got somebody that I don't think it's internally but we do have a contract dealing with that. They just didn't put in a bid on I think what it it's specific purchase orders. It's they go he goes out and gets quotes or bids if it need to be on. I think talking with Ronnie felt like I don't know what the price is.

So that's more it's more volatile Jason as the concrete meaning the pricing of it. inventory. It's hard to give a payable bid on that versus I think a lot of it could be that um it's small quantities so it's not you know your bigger paving contractors there's just no reason for them to bid on it. They don't and then your smaller people who do it probably would not have the bonding and the insurance requirements that somebody like your big companies would that typically would put a bid in on a city project. So we'll just continue to go into the asphalt purchase order. We'll consider following bid law as we've been doing.

Yeah. Any other questions about that? I will call for a motion to approve the engineer's recommendation to award concrete unit price a concrete unit price contract to DNA underground and authorize the mayor to execute all contract documents. Motion motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman Dalvo. Any discussion? Vote the motion. I I I I motion carries 70. Thank you.

I thank for that. Uh the discussion item that I have wanted to bring up with the council um and we've had this in our report for quite some time, but um the mayor and I were meeting last week and we wanted to try to get some direction um as far as some of these sidewalk projects that are funded through GRPC. Um there's actually five five projects that are funded through GRPC which is their MDOT grants. Um Fire Drive and Washington Street, the ones that we just completed were funded through GRPC, which are the MO for for MDOT project. Um we have five that are currently on the books. Um, and we really need to take some action on either moving forward with these and activating the projects and going forward, you know, forward with design and construction or trying to transfer the funds to maybe another project. Um, and so I just wanted to throw this out there for the council to consider so we could um start that conversation. Um, so I'll go through the project real quick. Ranch Street sidewalk, this is a sidewalk project from Esplanade Street to Athletic Drive. uh Pine Street, which is uh near the Bay High School, um on Pine Street. Then we have Old Spanish Trail Lighting, uh which is basically where the sidewalks were installed several years ago. Um the plan at the time was to put decorative lights um along that route. Um the funding the funding was there from GRPC, but I don't think the city could match provide the match fund for it. So that project's still on the books, but nothing's really been done on it in several years. Uh there's two other sidewalk projects. One on Felicity Street uh from Dumbar Avenue to Hollywood uh Boulevard and then the other one is on Subie Street from Washington Street to Old Spanish Trail. Um and so all those have a 20% match um for each one of those project. Um

you said the one on Felicity that's from Dunar to Hollywood. Yes. I thought it was on the the other side. No, the way the grant was written from Dunar to Hollywood. I thought it was going to connect it all to the beach and everything. I think there was some talk years ago about, you know, trying to do that, but I didn't realize this was Yeah, it's on the other side of that bar. Jason, I know that the old Spanish trail lighting project more of the detailed aesthetics, right? I mean, we've got the lights there. I mean, that the quote for the match that was from years ago. We have an update quote that that would even entail. No, none of these costs have been updated. About two years ago,

about a half million, wasn't it? It was I think was obligated. Yeah, it was 600,000 was obligated and this was for FY2025. Um but 600 was obligated from GRPC. So our match was 120. I don't know what the current cost is on on some of these projects. We haven't looked at them in in quite some time. And when talking about the cost of the projects, like I'll use Ranch Street. I know they just poured by Ranch is such a small gap. I mean, how much would it be if we just put out for a contract to put sidewalks in and and did I mean,

well, I think some of these smaller projects you might benefit from. Now, you have a contract, unit price contract. Um, this might be something I would fall in line with with those costs. It's not it's not just a sidewalk job. Um, there's always drainage and utilities that you have to work into it. So, sometimes when you think it's kind of expensive to do a 5ft sidewalk, there's a lot of other Fire is a perfect example. We did discuss that on Pine Street by the church.

And this is the same one that that buyer have done, right? GRPC. Yes. And that's the county. I So what's what's the time frame too? I that I know that um we have seen that uh MDOT's been a lot better as far as reviewing and approving you know the the different steps. We have to go through activation. We have to submit environmental we have to submit PE contracts and and all that kind of stuff. So we've seen a pretty good response from MDOT reviewing those those items a lot quicker. Um, a lot of it's just going to have to do with, you know, when the city decides to move forward with it to give authorization to advertise and then the clock start ticket. Could we get updated pricing or quotes on some of these because I know some of these are older just before

have a decision for the council. I like updated cost and I want to step on your toes Jordan. I think pond and ranch would be the most important from kids walking from school to the facilities for baseball and football would be I think that's the two I would put before lightning or anything else being in Washington or anything is to connect the school kids to the football and baseball fields with sidewalks.

Agreed. Yeah. actually something just started working on. I was going I mean for council business while we're talking about it. Uh reached out to Golf Regional to see if we can get kind of a safety study done in that residential neighborhood that butts up to the school and the school zone actually runs down by her. But you can watch that digital sign and see people go 40 during school. I mean we the police has been doing a great job during the school, you know, school traffic hours of being out there, but uh I reached out to them. to have something with a 8020 match. I'm going to see what the cost of that that would be. Obviously, we have to implement, but just while we were talking about GRPC and right there in that neighborhood with Pine and Ranch, but yeah, those sidewalks I agree are very important for safety.

If it ever has a opportunity, sidewalks needed in front of a high to no drive and it's possible to especially now if we have another subdivision coming in.

It'll be one updated pricing on all these projects that are still there or just definitely my

Yeah, look at I mean the the sidewalks are a need. I mean I think again as great as this the lighting the bas the lightings are there is there's actually lighting you know so I again I want to prioritize sidewalks and safety versus kind of the aesthetics that's kind of more of a want and see how we can look at our budget provide that or the old trail. All right, we can update the Cent on that. And Jason, on the um I know it was discussed a couple meetings ago, were you involved in the S&PD kind of the road evaluation and study? Where do we stand with that? I know

we've had a couple meetings with uh S&PD and their staff to look at different road treatment. Um they're trying to finish up some of their their report. And the goal on that too again was to to prioritize what the most you know on a scale one to 10 10 being the wor prioritize those each year just from our road and bridge. I think that's what R discussed prior to when he was in office was doing about 4 to 500,000 a year on So we should have that though they should be finalizing making an evaluation because y'all didn't later you mentioned y'all met on that with SNPD. Yes. anything back forward on they just went over all in fact was with me coding

the codings and the different years and how long it last and that type of thing. Okay. They they actually said they thought they would have some information from their study. One one of thing with this also you know I think what Jason Do we want to the other projects that we have on the books, do we want to continue to pursue those or do we want to look at maybe getting approved to move that to other streets for um sidewalks or what?

We have some areas identified. Personally, I mean, my plan is to walk publicity and knock the doors and ask if they still want them, if they want them or if they're aware that that's on the books. some of the streets that came up I think was the I think it's the 400 block of of the M was in that would connect Dunbar all the way around to the beach and all same thing on Carol I know Highland and Esplanade has been looked at on those as well and I think the study you're going to do will help us some on that as well you know you're looking at you know to to and from school um and then we have to look and see at some other ones around also, you know, sidewalks,

the depot connecting depot to uh cakes. Yeah. And we talked to the railroad about that and we have to go through them because they're going to have to put a crossing, extend that cross on the road and see if they'll allow that to happen. So, we talk with them when we go there with the Amtrak and redoing that deck out there. and Jason the subie Washington OST that's sidewalks or lights sidewalks closer to 90

it it be connecting old Spanish trail can you extrapolate what that would be for the lighting versus sidewalk portion of it for subie there's no lights included on subie it's just sidewalk there's sidewalk with for old man trail Right. Yeah. Right. So, this would just be lighting strictly lighting. Just lighting. When that job was constructed, there's the light lighting conduit was installed. Yeah. It's already come back and add the lights later on

because that was when was that? That was probably what three years ago. So, so probably 2024. Now, the lighting. So, I would imagine about seven six seven years probably in uh No, no, no. the lighting on Old Spanish Trail, the the basless lighting. So that was probably attained back in 24. So I'd imagine that's probably gone up even more so. Oh, I'm sure. Yeah. GRPC did a cost increase or an adjustment a few years ago. Um the city submitted a request for some additional funds for those projects. I think it was around CO when we were seeing all the the price increase and inflation and everything. So, um, they did add, I think it was 10% or maybe 20%, um, to each one of those grants,

but I don't know if that's enough to cover it in today's practice or not. And to Mr. What Mr. Lewis said earlier, we buried about $80,000 worth of cable for the lighting on Old Man Trail is there. So, I don't I hate to see that go away. See how much to get it installed cost more Christmas lights we can light up. There you go.

Do we want to look at a cost adjustment on the lighting as well? The ranch pine and then the lighting.

Any other discussion or questions? Moving on. Thank you, Jason. All right. Thank you. Nothing with ordinances. Moving on to city clerk's report. I'll call for a motion to approve the docket of claims 26-014 and the amount of 2,83,29863 dated March 17, 2026. Have a motion. Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Mo seconds. Any discussion? Vote the motion. I I I I I motion carries 70.

Councilwoman Holmes has left the room at 657. A call for a motion to spread the docket of claims 26-015 special in the amount of $200 dated March 17th, 2026. Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman Dalvo. Any discussion? Vote the motion. I I I I I motion carries 6. I'll call for a motion to approve the docket of claims 20 26 that Councilwoman Holmes has re-entered the room at 658. Motion to approve the docket of claims 26-016 special and the amount of $4,482 dated March 17, 2026.

Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman Salvo. Any discussion? Vote the motion. I I I I I motion cast pass 70. Thank you. Mayor's agenda. Uh good. Good. Council business. Yeah. I have two things. Um I'd just like to send condolences to um Bruce Northridge, his family. He passed away uh yesterday morning.

He was a wonderful asset to our community for the arts and otherwise. Um, and also March 27th, Friday, March 27th, I will be holding a town hall here at 5:30 p.m. uh, pertaining to the zoning ordinance where we'll compile and gather our submissions for comments. So, I hope board two will join me. Thank you. I don't have anything at this time.

Yeah, Mike. Uh, public works, can we get them to go look some of the area over on kind of a U bizmore glide center? Some of those ditches probably they're starting to need to get cleaned out. They are they they're uh they've identified some over that way coming from Seventh Street all the way over along with sidewalks and covers as well. They a little behind waiting on that pipe out there to install pipes out for six for the paving and they're trying to get all that start that pavement but they are on the list over there.

Okay. Um and just to NY's point um have we just to follow up on the workshop as well uh have we got any updates from Bob or Ryan about any of the comments or anything that's been answered and we're at a rough draft. I had I sent him an email last week and a lot of the stuff is in the works. I was supposed to talk to him on the phone yesterday and missed the call. Uh and then this today called me again uh and I was in I was at city hall in uh interviews and didn't get a chance to answer them. um tried to call him back right after, but from our email, it seemed like everything was in the works. But I mean, as long as it's not an open meetings act violation, am I allowed to send a just an update to the council once I hear back from him? I was hoping to have conversation with them before

I would send it to Caitlyn and let Caitlyn better send it out. And I I did talk to him this afternoon and I I think one of the things that he just wanted to stress to all of you is that we need a cut off date for public comments. Yes. I don't care when it is. He doesn't care when it is. Just asks if you would if you guys preferably tonight could set a date of when that that comment period will end. And then I think his plan is to get all of the comments compiled once comment period has ended.

So with that and then they'll answer those comments and then give the final draft and then there will be any other com. Of course, this isn't Yes, of course. I mean, technically, this document is not at the city council level yet. So, there was a draft document given to planning planning and zoning planning and zoning to review. At the same time, the council is reviewing this document. They they are also communicating or should be communicating with planning and zoning members. Um, making your own comments, sending those comments to Bob and his team. people at that time go through every single comment that is incorporated and look at those and incorporate them into the document. Make changes based off the comments. Review it to what your your comprehensive plan says. Um wouldn't surprise me if he asks questions to either some of you or to pro probably more of zoning. Um, and so that will be the next next phase is going through line by line and looking at every single comment and figuring out what to do and how to address it.

Thank you. So yours is 27. Yes. So does anyone else? Yeah. Maybe the end of the month. I know she's having one on the 27th. Do we want to do our maybe our first meeting in April? What is that? The Is that the seventh? Right. I mean, that'll give

me and Linda's trying to plan a town hall, but we're looking like on a Saturday because we got a lot of out of town people and stuff and see after Easter probably start rolling in more frequent. Right now, they don't come in a lot. So, what are you thinking? Maybe second meeting of April. better for us. So the 17th April 17 and then you'll have and then we'll have and you'll be able to submit them before the 21st with

April. Is everyone okay with April 21st? Jordan, I'm gonna ask for a motion for that. Yes. I'll call for a motion uh to close the public comment period on April 21st, 2026 for our proposed first our proposed draft zoning ordinance. I have a motion. Motion by Counciloman Mo. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman Smith. Any discussion? Both motion. I I I I motion carries 70. What's that date again? April 21st. And when is your Did y'all set a date?

Trying to work around probably the 11th or so. I think the weekend before that Easter. Yes. 21st should be our second meeting. And also this time that'll give time too because working with Bob on some overlays too. Um that was in my email I sent last week. So anyway, I'll send an update to everyone when I hear them. Just everybody knows public comment don't mean everything's over. Yeah. Right. Well, and that's that's the big I think misconception throughout this whole process is this isn't even real public hearing public comment. This is

hey zoning here's a document. You start taking taking looks at it. Let's see what you think about it and let's let's fix it and get it get it back. So, right,

that's what I've tried to stress to you guys since you were handed this document is this is a working document and definitely a draft. I wanted to say um also my casing have been calling in the increased calls of um private properties um holding water a lot lately and just in case someone is watching I do still have a list Ronnie is working with me but the calls are increasing so just because I haven't gotten out there just yet we are still you know working on it and going out and inspecting each of these individual properties. Anything else? Okay. Uh public forum regarding non-aggenda topics. Okay. Mr. Cliff Rilelets. Flip rival 7023rd Street. Y'all just discussed it. Comment period. Bob wants to shut it off. Y'all all got an email from me two weeks ago. We're going to make all the comments public. They're not public yet. Let's don't cut off comments until you make the public comments public. How about that? Great idea, huh? You can't I can't look at Miss Monty's comments. I can't look at Tad Black's comments. There are people who are making comments. They're not being made public. They haven't been made public since January. And now y'all setting a cut off date. Remember what I fussed at you about in January? You're not listening to the

public. Think about it. So just say can we make sure now we have a a date a firm date file. So really kind of I want to see comments that I talked to in the emails about redacting uh redacting the names off of the public comment to where we could still see it and because he mentioned he had a partially uh compiled list already. So my question was if we could just redact the names because that way the people who want to remain anonymous can stay okay anonymous. it it's not going to be commented on uh on that document onto the sidebar, but but the hope is to upload a document on to the website.

Exactly. And that's what I was looking for this week. It's in the works. I'm hoping that it's going to be still have ample time before that 21st cuto off period. Yeah. Because as you guys know, it's still being comments made about some area going to trigger people's comments. Oh, what about that? What about that? So, let's please let's have public comments be public. And Jordan, we we are confirming that the email all the emails sent to Jeremy that that's going to be I talked to Jeremy about sending the responses out to let people know that they had their comments received.

I need Mike, do you know, can you confirm that? So Jeremy's working on getting all those emails and confirmation sent to the individuals that submitted them out. Okay, that was I talked to him early last week. All right, let's start over

because that actually was an agenda. All right, first off, I'm glad to see that there is disagreements and voting disagreements on things within the council because that means everybody agrees that there's something wrong. So thank you. Thank you. remind you city council is the board that approves and disapproves variance not the mayor not city clerk you guys so that goes along with that there needs to be what am I approving not approving thank you some of the changes proposed in the new ordinance we approve almost oh we we approve all the varianes that's why we need to change the standard no that's like change the speed limit. I've told you that before as I change the speed limit because everybody speeds. No, we need to stick with the standards and I think I proposed earlier. Let's go ahead and change the big things that everybody is is opposed to. Now, I have heard a comment that we need these smaller lots so we can keep housing affordable. Real estate housing and prices are based on the market. Selling price is primarily located driven by location. I'm going to take a 1,800 foot house, put one in Bayside, one in Wavelin, one in Diamond Head, one in Purlington, one in Bay St. Louis. Who's going to sell for the most? Same size house location, not lot size. Lot size make a little bit of a difference, but are they going to sell it by how many dollars per square foot? So, making smaller lot sizes is not going to make housing more affordable in Bay St. Louis. getting our some of our other things we were talking about earlier. So, let's at least get the the known issues with our corrected and that's going to take a lot of the let's go back to the specifics that we need to really address. That's it. Thank you, gentlemen, ladies.

Josh McGee.

Josh McGee, 419 Webster Street. You know, today y'all approved something. And what are y'all approving? You know, I unfortunately was not here for Jeremy's presentation, but I've seen things go past with a little more involved sketch and it it's not what turned out there. I mean, I walked with you, Larry Smith, you Josh. You said once it goes past the council, there's nothing you can do about it. Jason might be the best engineer in the world, but he's going to make mistakes. We all do. Y'all just voted our ability to look at on a web. I If you don't think there's a problem, come down Webster Street. I'll show where two feet of field got put in. Can show you the sketch plat that was put in to put through there. Engineering work wasn't done. I sat down with the mayor's office of Heather several times. Once it goes past y'all, there's nothing can be done.

Thank you. Okay, nobody else has signed up. Mr. Wayne Johnson, he spoke earlier. I think he signed up agenda. Okay, we're moving on to attorney's report. Have an update regarding MDMR, letter of approval for Garden's no zone.

Yeah. So, I I threw that on there this afternoon just because we received it. No actions needed. I just wanted to let all of you know that the no wait no wake zones were rec oh man the no wake zones were approved by um DMR and so now it'll be up to the city to implement those. So, I will get with Ronnie, Vanny, and probably Josh and figure out what exactly we need to um do to finalize that implementation. And it may even be an I'm trying to think because I think we only passed a resolution. So, I think we'll also we may need an ordinance, but I'll I'll get back to you on that. Thank you. But the good thing is is that it's been approved by DMR.

Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Hey, on that note, while we on DMR also real quick, I think I don't know it might be five boats at the end of the seaw wall down there at two in land and three abandoned in the water seems like. Yeah, see the point they uh they're being looked at DMR was contacted and everything and trying to get get them out of there. So, good. I think it's five of them now. boats, five, two of them, two of them's up in the march from Katrina, not Katrina, um, Zeta.

And then there's three more that's anchored out in the middle almost in the middle of the channel coming in right there. Yeah. Okay. Any uh executive session needed? No. Okay. We move on to adjournment. I will call for a motion to adjourn the meeting of March 17th, 2026. Do I have a motion? Motion. Motion by Councilman Smith. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman D Salvo. Any discussion? The motion? I I'm