City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to tonight's Greenwood City Council meeting on this Monday, August the 3rd, 2026, at 7.02 p.m. Ms. Derry, would you call the roll for us, please?

Sure. A.C. Brown?

Here.

Ralph Meeker? Here. Tim Terry? Here. Roger Rainwater? Here. Steve Tedford? Here. Rod Powell? Here. We have a quorum.

Thank you very much. If everyone would please stand tonight, we'll begin our meeting with... the Reverend Trent Hampton leading us in prayer from Calvary Temple and followed by our Parks Director Casey Craig with our Pledge of Allegiance.

Lord, we love you. Thank you for your goodness. Thank you for every good and perfect gift that comes from above. We thank you for the city of Greenwood. We thank you for concerned citizens and leaders who try to honor you and put you first in everything. Lord, that look to you for wisdom to every decision that's made. Ask that you would keep our law enforcement and first responders safe. God, we thank you for the sacrifices that they continually make on behalf of all of the citizens of this city. God, we thank you for the light that we've been, but God, I ask that you would let us continue to seek you, serve you, and put you first. God, that you would bind any division. Lord, we know that iron sharpens iron. That disagreement doesn't mean that we hate each other, but God, let it be used to fuel a city that's looking to you and growing closer to you and being a light. God, we give you praise in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen.

Thank you, you may be seated. At this time, I would ask the council's consideration of approving the minutes for our July 6th regular city council meeting.

Make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. We have a motion and a second.

Mr. Brown? Yes. Mr. Meeker? Yes. Mr. Terry? Yes. Mr. Rainwater? Yes. Mr. Tedford?

Here, yes.

Mr. Powell?

Yes.

It's unanimous.

Thank you. Recognitions and acknowledgements. I don't recognize everybody out in the audience. Well, I kind of do. I think I do. But we acknowledge that you're here. We appreciate you coming to the council meeting tonight. I do want to acknowledge... Casey Craig, but more so Megan. She's not here. Casey is the parks director, as you all know. But they held a back-to-school bash at Bell Park the other night. It was wonderfully done, well attended. Could be more people there. I think that's going to happen the next time he does one. They did a great job with bounce rounds and a lot of things for the kids. And I know Casey's band, not the Sunshine Band, but for any of you that Okay, anyway, Casey's band played and I think there were some other folks that played and sang too. So it was really cool evening at the Bell Park. And the weather was exceptionally good. So great time up there in this Mr. pier bolt, Tim pier bolt gets kudos for sure. He was a big part of this, all this going on too. So thank you guys, Casey, pass that on if you were doing that for doing that. Committee reports.

I have one recognition and acknowledgement, please.

Oh, yes, ma'am.

The mayor has been appointed to the Governor's Advisory Commission on National Service and Volunteerism. I think that's a pretty big deal. I would like to give him a hand. all but built Greenwood, as we know, over the years, and is a really important aspect of our community. So it'll be pretty inspirational for him to be on this board. He does need to be sworn in at this time, so I would like to administer his oath of office on it.

Is this gonna hurt?

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Only in having to stand up. I got you. All right, if you would raise your right hand and repeat after me, please. I, Douglas Lee Kinslow.

I, Douglas Lee Kinslow.

Do solemnly swear. Do solemnly swear. the duties of governor's advisory commission on national service

It is an honor to serve. It's actually a reappointment. I did the last term also on that. It was a big, pretty good thrill and big thing to get the call from the governor's office to say, we're going to put you back on. Myself and one other... person was put back on. Everybody else got fired. Not really. But they just moved off. So it's a privilege and an honor to serve on that. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. I'll make sure this gets to your assistant.

Thank you. Okay, we are moving to, let's see, where am I? Committee reports. Committee reports, thank you. We've got, I think you've got several on your tablet, or if not all, I don't think everybody's turned one in. But again, I say this every month, unfortunately, if there's one there that you're missing and you don't know and you need to know, as you should know, please let me know, or better yet, let Danielle know and we'll track that down for you. So, uh, moving on to citizen forum, actually. We'll pause for a moment and let our city attorney give you an update on an item.

Yes, so I'm not sure how many months ago, two, three months ago, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against the mayor, myself, the police chief, our lieutenant, I believe, and a private citizen. and we were served officially on that lawsuit on Friday. The Municipal League Defense Council team is going to represent us on that. There's really nothing further to report at this time other than we were served. I couldn't really make much out of the pleadings myself, but since I was a named party, I cannot represent the city, and so the Municipal League's gonna be handling that. I just wanted to give you guys an update. It was Ricky Lee Franklin versus all of us and the private citizen.

Okay, thank you very much. We will move on to citizen forum. I have four that have signed up tonight, and you have, when I call your name, if you'd come to the podium, State your name and address. We have it here, but for the record, we have it on recording. And you have five minutes to discuss whatever you'd like to discuss. The council will hear, and myself, an answer, or they don't have to, basically. But they certainly want to hear your issue. So, Mr. Jamie Brown, you're up first.

Jamie Brown, I'm at 42B Town Square, and I've got some stuff. Can I pass this out to you guys? Sure. Thank you.

I'm stopping the time clock while you pass these out, Jamie. Wait a minute.

Thank you.

So basically what we're looking at, and I talked to Hunter about this a little bit this morning and he may need to jump in and help me. We've got lot 99 there in the subdivision. Is it the Cove subdivision? And this is the one that butts up to Jack Nolan. And we're not able to build on it currently because of the floodplain stuff that was passed back in 23. And the lot, you know, it's got houses on every single side of it. And we should, I wouldn't see there being a problem there. It's not in the floodway, it's in the floodplain. When talking to Hunter this morning, he said that there were also a few other properties around town that that was kind of adversely affecting that maybe we needed to go back and take a look at that. He said it couldn't be done except through the city council because it was passed as an ordinance. But there's essentially a line item that was added to the old ordinance that said in order to get this passed through, and Hunter, if I'm saying this wrong, let me know, but in order to get this passed through, you have to go back through the entire FEMA map of Greenwood, essentially, and re-engineer the whole thing, which would cost millions and millions of dollars. So anyway, what I'm asking is that you guys, and I'm here representing the Chatfields who are also here, and I believe also on the Citizen Forum list, but I'm just asking y'all, what can we do to take a lot that is in a known subdivision in Greenwood and build on it, that we know it doesn't flood? And again, I kind of defer some of my time to Hunter to help figure out what we need to do as far as the ordinance.

Sorry. Did you say flood plain but not flood way? Is that what you said?

It's whichever is the lesser of the two. Hunter, is that?

Sorry.

No, I want him up here. He was helpful this morning.

Your time's up, by the way. I'm kidding. I'm kidding.

This property is located within the 100-year floodplain. It is zone A, which means it's not at a base flood elevation. It doesn't have a detailed study performed on this property. It's one of the few that we have remaining around Greenwood. Most everything else in town is considered a zone AE. It just means that they've done engineering studies and they know what the actual elevation of the water is definitively. Uh, this property is, uh, I would gather 85, 90%, uh, encompassed within the a hundred year floodplain boundary. And according to, I think it's ordinance 2314, uh, we forbid all activity, all developmental activity inside of the a hundred year floodplain. And the process for variance from that requirement is with the accompaniment of a detailed engineering study that takes into account the cumulative development of all activity since the firm flood insurance rate map, which according to this map here in front of me was dated 5-20-2010.

That's not saying just like let's figure out the engineering for this lot. That's the cumulative development of Greenwood, essentially, since 2010.

And so all the other lots that are in the exact same spot got houses on them because they were before a law was passed?

Yes, those were constructed before this 2023 version of this ordinance, yes.

The whole subdivision was poorly engineered to begin with. For a fact, I know that. But if you've seen the manholes out there, they're... But anyway, that's a whole other story.

So what are you going by then to build on the lot?

If you were able to build on it, what would you do to... As far as elevation-wise, we would build at or above the houses next to it. They've spoken to the homeowners next to it that have been there since 2008, 2009 with no problem. One of them, and I'll let them speak to it, has had one had a flood the 100 year flood where we had the big issues in 2022, which caused the new ordinance. They said it didn't even get to the backyard.

So we would build it at or above the procedures for setting that elevation are within our floodplain development code for specific zone a involves having an elevation certificate done.

Let me interrupt you just for a second. This is obviously going to take more than five minutes, and I want to be fair to everybody else that signed up, too. Would the council prefer this be added to the agenda so you can discuss it more in detail?

I think we should add it. Okay. I do think we should add it because this is longer than we said. Yeah.

Is that okay with you, Mr. Brown? Okay. So if everybody's in agreement with that, I'm sorry to interrupt you.

Added it to number eight.

Give you fair.

But we can move it up to first business if y'all want. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, what does the council want to do? We'll call it eight, and then we'll deal with it later. Number eight, and then we can move it to the front. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, too. Okay. Next on the citizen form sign-up sheet is Mr. Dave Dust. If you'll come forward, sir, and state your name and address.

My name is David dust. I live at four easily loop. And, um, I'm actually going to try to dispute a citation that I was given. Um, if I can find it, well, it, um, it has to do with the RV. There we go. That's sitting in my front yard, uh, currently being worked on. Uh, the citation I was given says that, um, in order to maintain health and security and all that, RVs after a point of 90 days are to be moved to the rear of the resident's lot, which is perfectly fine. I have no problem moving my RV. But then it occurred to me, I see tons of RVs in front yards, side yards, driveways, that feels kind of targeted to me. So what I did is I jumped in my car, and drove around town and found more than twenty five different rv's parked in the front of homes even old boats that are obviously non-functioning uh... jet skis that are falling apart like pieces falling off the trailer that they're sitting on so i was wondering why the code enforcement agent uh... felt it necessary to target mine has tires inflated, has good connections, is just currently being worked on in my front yard because that's the closest point to my 220 connection, I felt like this shouldn't have happened. So can we go ahead and remove this?

Well, I can, let me say a couple things and then we can go a different direction if we need to. I don't know, I cannot say from this position how many of those 25 other instances that you got, that you're referring to, got. No, no, no. They may have gotten a letter like you did. That's one of my points.

And I had submitted a four-year request this evening to get a list of citations for the past 60 days just to make sure that I wasn't actually targeted for some reason. I can promise you we have not targeted you. Well, I mean, I understand. Maybe not you specifically. Well, our code enforcement. It doesn't seem fair that all of a sudden I had gotten one when within 20 minutes of me making a couple of loops through neighborhoods, I found at least 25 other violations, similar if not in worse shape.

Right, and again, some of those or all of those could have received a letter as you have in the past. Potentially. Potentially. I don't have a way to prove that or disprove that right now. We're not in the habit of targeting anyone. I understand. I don't know if, Coe, do you want to talk about this or not? Probably not right now? Okay. So we have a temporary code enforcement officer. Temporary. In fact, we are getting a new code enforcement officer next week. will be coming in, so that's either near or there for you, sir. Okay.

Well, there is a move before date, before fees will be incurred. Okay. Can I go ahead and get that extended maybe 30 days just so I can finish my repairs and get it to my backyard?

If I have the power to do that, and I think I probably do as the mayor to allow that, I don't have a problem with that. If you're telling me that you're repairing it. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I can show you before and after.

I'm fine with that if council's okay with me doing that.

Anybody have a problem? Certainly. We can do that. Okay? September 3rd? Yes, sir. Okay. Work? Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, next is Mr. Buddy Lloyd.

305 Twisted Oak Way. You ought to have that by memory by now. I'm representing the Greenwood Masonic Lodge. I just want to give you an update where we're at. We have power on the building. We have part of the building carpeted. Troop 54's part of it is looking fantastic. They're doing a great job. We'll start laying LVP in our fellowship hall tomorrow. We will not be ready for lodge meeting this month, but we will be ready for lodge meeting next month. Don Oliver and I had a meeting with our state representatives this past week. shared with him our concerns about the lack of help from RDOT, and he is picking up the ball, and we appreciate that. And again, we want to say that we appreciate Rod working with us. We'll probably have our first meeting parking on the dirt. But the building's looking good, and it's coming along. And thanks for y'all's help. And if you want to call and cheer on Lee, we appreciate you doing that.

Thank you, sir. I got to take a little tour a couple of weeks ago with the chief. I think he was chief, and it is a nice-looking building inside, so something to be proud of for sure. Next on the list is Mr. Jim Chatfield. Am I saying that right? Oh, okay. You're building the house? Okay. Okay. That's the last on our list, so thank you. We'll do that. Okay. We are to the financial report, Mr. Tom Marsh.

Okay, continuing on with an extension of what you heard already on Thursday for the State of the City speech. Financial update from June 30th. July carried forward pretty much the same positive numbers. I will share with you now a little bit, just go over quickly. There we go. The first is the fact that even though it shows the city sales and use tax same month over last month, 2025, over the same month, 2025, it was down 0.42%. We're still a cumulative growth of 5.26. That's the July number. The interesting thing was that we were right on par with where we were in the momentum swing in 2025 at the last part of the year. That's why that number's a little bit down. It did not have a lot to do with any rebates or audits. Those numbers were actually lower than they were in the previous year. That's purely what we've done standing alone for 2026. I will say though that that 5.26% you'll see shortly is pretty much flipped from where we were last year in the negative. As far as the county sales tax, that's going pretty much well above what we anticipated. We had a gain of 1.56%. Most of that comes from the fact that there was some really good gains in some of the other cities and in Sebastian County that are distributed to us in a cumulative pool on a per capita basis. So our cumulative growth was 3.64% so far for the year. Remember, we budgeted zero for both of those. As far as, oops, A&P. As far as the A&P is concerned, the same month gross change, 26 over 25, is 19.9%. The 2% discount early payment affects that by 1.11%. That's a cash flow deal, as I was pointing out at the meeting on Thursday. We started allowing the... informing them that they, based on how our ordinance is written and how the tax laws go, they can take a 2% early payment discount and retain that within that business if they pay before the 20th of the month the tax is due. The same month net change is 18.87% and our cumulative growth is up from 9% last month to 11.12%. So Those are very positive numbers from the A&P perspective. I will show you that the tax for the city, this is the trend that was going. We were seeing the 10 to the seven to the seven, or 10 to the eight to the eight to the six to the five, and we're pretty much exact reverse. 10, seven, seven, 6.27, and 5.26 is positive versus the negative 5.2. So that's almost a 10% swing right there between last year and this year. and that giving you what that does from all the perspective of other cities. You notice Fort Smith only had a gain of .39%. We had a decrease of .42. Barling was very high. Hackett, Hartford, those carried a little bit more of the ball. But for the county, the county is only up .82%. So we're pretty much all on level playing field as far as what the sales were. That was July's distribution and that was May's actual collections. For what that equates to the city as far as over what we budgeted, this is additional revenues being brought into the city as a result of those gains. For the 2%, it's $122,000, and realizing that a quarter of that percent goes towards the traffic relief bond, which still is very positive. Remember, the bond is based on no growth, and it was a set pattern from the day we actually incorporated the bond into the city. And any amount that's greater than where we were at that point, and right now we're up about on an average over the last, since the inception of the last six years, we're up about 6% on average growth. So that's gonna help us pay off that debt much sooner. We're applying about two times payments to additional paid-in capital to pay onto the principal side, and that cuts off a lot of our interest expense as it moves the maturity date up. As far as the parks, street, and fire, they're the other three quarters of a percent, and they're benefiting by about 15,002 so far, and the water sewer picks up that 1% permanent tax of 61,163 so far this year through July, which is all very positive. The rebate trend, as I told you, that's the second lowest since 2022. $2,300 was all the rebates that were affecting our distribution. You see down at the bottom, the total rebates are 74,000 so far for the first seven months. Last year it was 132,000 and there was a 5.68% rebate to distribution percentage. Right now we're 3.05%. And as far as that graph line that we're looking at, we're looking at the blue. You'll see that as long as we stay down in this number here, these numbers here, we're going to have a much more positive year for 2026 in city sales and use tax. trend that we have for the audits, same approach. We actually had a gain, if you look at it that way. The audit goes either way. There's 4,000 for the year, seven months, versus 10,000 last year. We were at 44.44% average rebate to distribution. We're .16% now, so these are also very positive. I do expect, on the rebate side, that we will see some October movement, primarily due to what you see out side of the building here, where they're putting in that bridge. As far as the City of Greenwood's taxable sales is concerned, when you take back and add back their adjustment for the rebate and audit, you can come back to taxable sales all in, that's the 2%, that includes the traffic relief bond sales, because in that 2% is the relief bond for the traffic relief. So we're not doing bad. I mean, as far as the sales are concerned, for the year that was in the distribution, our sales were up $2.8 million over what the same period was in 2025. And that is a 2.32% increase. And that's the good news. And the bad news is that for the inflation rate for the June period, it was 3.5%. Now, the core inflation was 2.6%. We're still... Right now, a little bit below that 2.6 core, realizing again that the core does not include energy and food. Energy and food are very significant, so we really should be looking at the 3.5% for the city of Greenwood or something closer to 3%. The fact that we are at 2.32% still suggests that it's more due to the amount of cost of items purchased, not the volume of purchases going up.

Okay, and I want to go to, I'm wondering if I'm going backwards.

Okay, there's the county.

Go back.

My finger's on a roll. Here we go. So as far as the county sales tax is concerned, we have a 3.64%. You see that it is kind of fluctuating between the three and the 4%. As long as we stay, I would project that we'll be somewhere in that 3% by the end of the year for the county side, and that funds the operations for a significant amount of departments under the general side, which also affects the unrestricted general funds. As far as supporting them operationally, county sales tax is distributed based on the will of the council at these percentages for all the different departments, planning, sidewalk, police, animal control, parks, recreation, and fire. And you'll see the dollar amounts that we are above. Right now, we are realizing for seven months, $54,702 above our budget. Thank you. and that equates by number the amounts that you see here for each of those departments. That is a gain to them so far. Combined, we're up 4.57% all taxes combined with the exception of the traffic relief bond distribution. Primarily I don't include that here because that doesn't even come to the city. That distribution goes directly to the bond management company. As far as the amount 3.91 to 4.57, it's very positive. And I wanted to get to you on the July's distributions from the sector perspective. The numbers I didn't share this with you on Thursday night, but the numbers were there on the actual presentation. These little numbers that you may or may not be able to read are, These four categories or four sectors, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, and food, most municipalities watch those, and that's because it's about more than three-quarters of the amount of tax coming in come from those four sectors. So when you look at Fort Smith, that's what these numbers are. Fort Smith's manufacturing accounts for 4% of their total tax. We're 1.88% in manufacturing. just look at all the manufacturing they have in Fort Smith versus us, wholesale trade, they're 6.2%, we're 6.4. As far as the retail trade, their percentage is 55% of their tax base comes from retail trade, we're 58.9. And then down in the food service, they're 13.5, we're 9.85. That's the distributions July so far's numbers. That's July's numbers in Fort Smith to ours. And that shows you that we're 77.13%, and right now their numbers are about 78, 79% come from those four sectors. If you look at what it did against July of last year, manufacturing's down 27.4, up in wholesale trade, 21.7, down 2.25 in retail. That's significant because that taxable sales number right there, 10 million six, is a large number, and so this equates to a $217,000 distribution versus a 212. You're looking at five grand just on that one little drop. Food service, though, was a shining star. You saw that just a minute ago when I was showing you all the increases that had happened in the tax. It's up 24.48% this year over last year, same period. And, of course, last year was a very down year, as you know. The numbers for the individual sectors from the seven months of 25 versus the seven months of 26, all sectors are up minimally 0.38% in retail. And that retail, by the way, does include online sales. Online sales is part of that retail trade. And I'll share that with you in just a second. But when you look at 26's numbers in total for tax versus the 2025 numbers so far for seven months, all those sectors are up 3.4% in 26 versus 25. So... giving you the information, now breaking it down by individual categories within those sectors. And I take the top 15, as I pointed out last year, last year, last meeting, the 15, top 15 is pretty much how the city goes as far as the tax is concerned, and you see we did have a pickup here from last month's June to July, so it does help a little bit offset some of that negative trend that you see here. One of the things that I do want to point out is there was eight up and seven down, but they're different every month. This is the average collection for the seven months, and this is whether the amounts went up or down from the average, and you can see what the taxable sales volumes are. Now, this line item here, 4541, that's your retail, but it's also your online sales, and you'll see the online sales took a little bit of a dip, and from the average, it's down 11.4%. The biggest bulk of that number comes in during the holiday period. However, online sales next month should be very interesting. That's the one I'm very interested in because there was a report brought out that 9.3% was the prime days, if you will, and they expected that the sales figures would equate from that taxable sale. It should be up about 9.3%. Now that's nationwide, I'd like to see how we did during that period of time. Realize also that last weekend, I believe it was, or is it this weekend, I think it was last weekend, or this weekend just happened, was the tax-free weekend. So that has a little bit of an impact in what's gonna happen two months from now. I don't know if it's gonna be significant or not, but that's why when you look at the graphs of the taxes, you'll see the dip during this period of time. Advertising and promotion, there's things, Tim, for your benefit, that I pointed out that we're doing a little different now in advertising and promotion. We're recording penalties, revenues, and the discounts. So you can see what the net... the net amount that was collected versus what the actual should have been. We take the amount of penalty, add it back, and then we reduce it by the discounts, and we track those so we know how much is, you'll be able to see every month how much discount is there and how much penalty is there. And you'll see that the amount of the early pay discount was 1.1%, 19.9 was gross, 18.87 was the net change, and you'll see down at the bottom it's 11.12% up. And then I also like to look at this average monthly collection, because it's a precursor for what we're going to see coming down the road. This is now your line, and we're kind of hoping that it stays a little bit more in line with, let me go back. Right here, the big peak. This is when we started doing our billings and we started monitoring it and started sending out the letters and starting keeping them focused on paying their bills and offering those discounts. We're trying to avoid this. Late pays, come back, catch up. Late pay, come back, catch up. We're trying to levelize this a little bit so the cash flow is better for the distribution to grants for the A&P Commission. The amount of July is up based on other Julys. We had a little bit of a dip in 25, and that's primarily due to that bad year that we had. Everybody did. And the average monthly collection is now turning around and going up. It's actually the second highest monthly A&P tax collections since 2024's number. And then the last thing I wanted to show out in the A&P was that in 2025, the average year-over-year sales growth dipped by 2.65%. All taxes were down last year, we know. But when you look at even taking into consideration a roll-up of the penalties that we're anticipating and the projected discounts, you're looking at still a projected year-over-year sale growth this year of 2.42% or more. So... As far as cash flow for the city is concerned, cash balance of $12,189,000 increased for the month of July by $1,002,000, and you're saying, holy moly, where did that money come in from? Well, it came in from RDOT, actually. That was part of the agreement for the reload of the utilities, and we were fronting that money, and the water and sewer departments were having to pay for the initial move. filed the information in the reports to generate the reimbursement for their portion of what we had moved, and we received a $1.6 million check on Monday of this week. And current year-to-date decrease is now an increase of 662 as a result of that. So our current fund balance ended with an anomaly, as you know, of $12,085,000, which is up 5.43%, and budget-wise we're supposed to be down all in 60%. That won't be achieved, trust me. As far as the capital expense is concerned, 11.351 is our total capital expenditures. We are at 32.11%. Most of that is water sewer. They are at 32.12% of their budget of the 11 million. The remainder is the non-water sewer capital for all other departments, and their spend is 32.07. This time, that's... Pretty close to where they were last year at this time for water sewer, and it's a larger number than we've had in previous years for all-in department. And last is the contingency fund, and this is a number that you did not see as far as July's number when I did the presentation on Thursday, but I did want to roll up the July 31st balance in the unrestricted general fund. It's $1,048,000. I'm sleeping better at night. That's a good number right there. It's up 40% over what our ceiling is. Our ceiling, well, it's $115,000 above the 932, which is the ceiling for the contingency fund. The floor is the 746,000. So anything between these two numbers is not touchable for the year. If we ended the year today, we would roll $115,000 into a restricted contingency fund balance to roll into future years, and the direction of how that's used is on the city council's plate. It's for emergencies. It's the money we take away. And that is that. Two more things I want to mention. Water sewer audit has started and they have formally received all their documents and they're working on it now. As far as the leg audit is concerned, they still have not set a date yet to actually come in and perform the audit on 2025. And even though we've asked them to start moving that up and do it earlier in the year because we have bond reporting requirements that need that audit for 2025, we're at their mercy. And last but not least, we have a ceremony that we probably should do, and that is that for good news, the fire department is now debt-free. Today was the... If you wanted to burn this, this is the receipt for the final payment that we made on the debt for the last engine that he had purchased.

Until tomorrow, right, Chief?

I was going to say, now I can buy a new truck. You didn't tonight. I wouldn't say that.

Tomorrow, we'll do it tonight. Tonight. That was engine three.

Engine one.

Fully paid for. Good stuff.

I like that. That's good. That's good. Thank you, sir.

I have a question, Tom. Yes, sir. Do you, I don't know, you keep mentioning how the numbers we see are two months kind of behind from collections. Is that usually true?

Yes. Except for A&P.

Right. Do you think, will we see any, expecting anything in the city sales with the, New road opening, and that's about two months ago. What do you think? Are you going to expect to see any drop in local city sales tax collections?

Well, we're not necessarily seeing that. I mean, the city sales and use tax is holding its own right now. Actually, it's flopped. It's up even... If it went to zero, I would have been happy, but the fact that we're 5% up is good. Now, whether you can attribute that to what, I don't know what makes that happen. I mean, I know... a certain entity opened up on the curve and there's both city sales and use tax from that and AMP. And I also know that we're not seeing those numbers come back more positive on the the internet sales or on the online sales, as you saw, those numbers are actually kind of holding their own, that's still worth one and a half million dollars a month to us, to the city's sales, and then distribution-wise, it's a quarter of a million, I mean, for the year, so it's looking pretty good. as far as the taxes are concerned. I don't see the fall off that people were talking about, especially when the conversation shifts to the AMP. AMP, as you saw, those numbers are not suggesting that there's a major decline. Now, maybe there could have been more in the AMP, but I can't project that. I can just show you what that trend is. And realize also that I don't get numbers on actual entities. I get numbers by sector and category. They don't disclose the actual establishments.

Thank you. Any other questions for Tom?

Thank you, Tom.

Thank you, sir, as always. I just want to mention that Tom, I know we don't typically do this any time, but Tom just celebrated, or maybe didn't celebrate, 10 years with us here. starting your 10th so one of the best tires ever made I won't say the best folks out there but certainly one of the best tires we made and I made 10 years ago so thank you for Tom and if I may say so I believe I understood you to say very positive comments all sprinkled through your whole report awesome so thank you Thank you, sir. Okay. We are in the agenda. We are on agenda additions. We added one, Mr. Brown, at the end, but we'll probably do something a little different. Did we have – we didn't do anything this morning in the department heads, correct, if I remember right? Everybody's shaking their heads no? I'm sorry? Thank you. Very good. Yes, we did. That's true. Yes, sir.

I'll be the – What's the word? Elephant in the room or whatever. I know there's been, obviously, if anybody's been under a rock, it's my bad, but this whole Phlox camera deal, and I know we've got something scheduled for next Monday, but there's also school stuff going on and people are complaining that... We pulled a fast one on them again and scheduled something with the school, yada, yada. So I was just wanting to know if there's anybody that happened to be here just to want to discuss that tonight. I'd like to either do it now or I thought I was hoping maybe some citizens forum might want to, but I wouldn't mind putting something on there. If nobody wants to talk about it, then we won't. But I was just...

Thank you. I actually met before the meeting started to say, or after we met, or we got started, that this was, if you were here mistakenly thinking tonight was the flock meeting, because we've had all this week, we've had three different meetings and folks have showed up understanding that that night was the flock. So Monday night is certainly, a week from tonight is the meeting about the flock cameras. But I would, yeah, with council's permission, if anybody has a thought or an idea about it tonight you want to share, or if not, Monday night will be your night. Yes, sir. Mr. Kennedy. Okay, yeah, sure, come up.

Is it going to be a five-minute?

Yep, five minutes, council. Five minutes, sir. If you would, Mr. Kennedy, state your name and address, like always.

My name is Raymond A. Kennedy, Sr. I live in 102 Blackfoot Circle in Greenwood. I have been checking up on these cameras and everything about how it lives. on Sunday, they did a thing on these cameras. There was a police officer in Georgia, 28 times he misused these cameras to track somebody. Was there anybody there to make sure he's legally doing it? No. I have never heard anything that who is actually responsible to make sure nobody misuses those cameras. Yes, there is good to them, sometimes bad. I would like to see people in the council, you know, come up with something that gives somebody actually saying they're responsible for checking whether a person has that authorization before they do something to somebody. Because those cameras can not always be good. And sometimes they can be real good. So like I said, I was going to be in the VA hospital. I couldn't speak. My view is Thank you. Thank you. Council, any response or reply?

Not at this time. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Yes, sir. Is there going to be a Flock representative here? Yes, sir. We've invited Flock, Motorola to all be here. We've only heard back from Flock, I think, at this time. But, yes, they've all been, or three companies have been invited. Yes, sir. Anything else? Okay, we'll move on. You gentlemen want number eight to go to number one? Yes. Let me get you a real quick update. I want everybody to hear as many as you can because I can't believe you're still here, Pastor. Good for you. You get the prize. Typically, they pray and they run, right? But let me give you a really quick, if council would allow me to, to give you a couple of updates on R-DOT and what's going on for school starting. So we have met... A couple of times already, we'll meet again probably twice next week before school opens up with our street director or police department or fire department, planning department, everybody involved. Usually everybody sits in on it because everybody needs to know what we're doing or what we're attempting to do. So a couple of things I have asked RDOT to consider this morning. In fact, I got a call this morning, starting my day off pretty good, because we've been asking for, since the beginning of time, seems like, for the traffic signals to be installed down here at 96 and bypass prior to school starting. If you go that way, you see that the poles are up. There is no power there. I was just informed this week, last week, thank you, that we, the city, will provide the power. I didn't know that. It caught me off guard, very much so, and I explained my, My dismay with them, but that is neither here nor there. So we're in the process of bringing power to that area. And then the lights themselves on those permanent poles will not be installed until probably the end of August. Or if they're installed, they will not be functioning until the end of August. And that's a maybe, kind of, sort of. So when I hear that, it's typically September. So I then instructed or asked Mr. Turner, our street director, to look into portable lighting. We had asked R. Dodd about that before in a meeting with several of the folks here in this room, in the room, and we were told that that was very expensive, that that couldn't happen. Uh, and I'm not trying to throw our dot into the bus. I'm just telling you what the facts that we were explaining. So that caught me off guard. So then I asked, uh, Mr. Turner here to check into renting those on our own. If we needed to, to make sure that we were as safe as we possibly could be for school opening, I believe next Wednesday. They're right. So we did, we checked it with our vendor. It's time strapping. We got a price from them. And this morning, uh, I got a call from our dot interesting timing. that very nicely and politely informed me that they, R-DOT, was going to provide those lights, those signals that we'd asked for and we were told no before, but those are going to be here Wednesday by the same provider that we were asking, time strapping, so there will be portable lights down here at 96 and the bypass. It won't be perfect, but it'll be better than what you've got now, and it'll help with flow. I also asked permission, kind of was going to do it maybe anyway, but I asked if they would consider removing barrels and or cones, if you will, on each end of the bypass to allow a longer right-hand turn lane or merge or off the bypass going this direction and on to Center Street. main street connection not center street well main street connection going uh west and they they are going to do that and we're going to move some barrels and cones so you'll have a you'll have a longer turn lane on either side to relieve some of that there's been a couple of questions proposed why do we not have all five lanes open It's pretty simple. You can't open five lanes and merge into two on each end. That doesn't make any sense, and it won't make sense until they widen all the way to 71. So it would be a horrible mess. But we can open turn lanes up. So that's another thing that we're doing. We're doing every little thing we can to help with school traffic. And then if you notice today, Jeff's guys were over here this morning. Mr. Turner's guys were over here this morning at the courthouse. We've removed a big chunk, if you will, of concrete on the corner. We've removed a decorative light, and we are preparing to open that up. We've also closed off courthouse parking on, I'm horrible, you guys know this. Sorry. East and west side of that street, the connection, the parallel parking and the other parking. So we're gonna add what would really be nice if it turns out, I don't know that there's enough width there, we would like a left-hand turn lane to turn there at the Walters Building, straight lane to go up to Main Street, and a right-hand turn lane to come this direction. At the very least, we will have a left-turn lane and a straight and right that is the same lane. So if we can't get three, we'll have two, and that will relieve some of that backed up traffic on the main street connection am i missing something that else that we're planning obviously uh police it's always asked of us every time there's a traffic issue if we can have the police there directing traffic that is not a a real fix if you will i'm not going to try to explain it if you want to know more you can ask the chief about that that's not one of all one thing we don't have the personnel to do that every day and if they're there directing traffic and they get a call they're going to have to go to the call So that's not a real good remedy, if you will. But we are working diligently and have been for several months on doing everything we can to make school openings safe as we can. The biggest thing that I will ask of residents, and we'll do this on Facebook and everywhere else, is every year that we're patient and we're careful around the school traffic and just, again, patience is better than anything. I had a young lady in my office couple of weeks ago, I guess, or last week who was very inquisitive and it was a really good meeting. And her concern was new drivers, teenage drivers that maybe not know how to drive in this situation. So, uh, I think the chief and I've talked a little bit and I'm, I'm maybe going to go to the school if I can, with their permission and try to explain a little bit. And hopefully the chief can go with me and whoever wants to, to, to give some advice to these young folks that are going to be driving. So, uh, along with that. Bridge completion opened right here, and then the road completion, as you all saw, you see the sign every day. It's not scheduled to open until June 26, which is a year away. 27, I'm sorry. I wish it was June 26. We'd already be on it. It's July 27. I think in my heart that it's going to be sooner than that. They're working diligently on this bridge. We feel the pounding, as you probably do all over town, but they're really working hard and hopefully without any problems. Weather delays, that'll be sooner than later. And when that gets open, things will not be perfect, but they'll be wonderfully better than they are now. We now have a job number on the turn lane that I asked for over a year ago, I think, Hunter, maybe. We now have a job number on the turn lane on what is still 10, just past the bypass to Mount Harmony, a turn lane onto Mount Harmony. I have a document on my desk. They're not getting any big hurry, but that's scheduled to begin in 2029, unfortunately, which is another just a little piece of something that would make this work better. I'm going to encourage every day, With RDOT, they know when I'm calling, and they know why I'm calling, typically. In fact, the director of RDOT will be here next week. We're hosting an MPO meeting, and Mr. Wiley, the Director Wiley, will be here to speak, and we're gonna take him on a trolley tour on the bypass, and my plan is if I can keep him after lunch till about three o'clock to witness what we witness, and I'm really gonna do that, or try to do that. So that's that. I think I've covered everything I need to tell you about the bypass. Turn lane, extended both ends on the turn lane. Bear with us. We're working really hard. I know the police department is going to be very much aware of what's going on on Wednesday next week, and we're going to do the best we can with what we've got. Yes, sir.

Okay. I know you're not a traffic engineer or probably whatever. No, sir. On the eastbound bypass heading towards my house.

Yes, sir.

We're not planning on making four lanes on 96, are we? Northbound towards the back? No. We're not planning on making four lanes east?

On 96?

Yeah.

No, not to my knowledge.

We're not planning on four lanes east towards Boonville, are we? Correct. That's not. So this lane here could be open right now as a right turn only lane.

On the bypass. It is now.

All the way?

It is not all the way. That's what I was referring to a while ago. I've asked if we can come back and remove. It won't be the whole way. Well, it should be. Well, I think they may. I'm not that guy.

You know what I'm saying? There's no reason because, especially when we put that stupid stoplight up here too early at this intersection, this stoplight at Mount Harmony is going to back up this traffic all the way back, all the way here to Coker. Right. For people trying to take their kids to school because they won't put them on the school bus.

Completely understand.

But anyway, I just feel like the eastbound stuff should be open right now.

Maybe it will be, but I've asked for it to be as much as we can get.

Right.

So the answer has only been, yes, Mayor, we will. It could be the whole thing.

Well, you might explain to them that this is never going to have to go down the two lanes. It's going down the two lanes. This is what we're getting.

Yeah. Well, I was more referring to the other end.

I agree with you. I'm just saying, because this is going to be chaos when the school starts. Oh, we're well aware. That's all right. So I just think that this should be on. I mean, you could make a right turn lane from as soon as you get on at a coker because there's no place to go left anywhere, obviously.

Right.

Or right, for that matter. But I don't know if we've had any big vehicle wrecks at that intersection out there. I know there was a truck high centered once. Mm-hmm. Yeah, more on the other end. I didn't know what the flow problem was while we had to have a traffic signal so soon, but three-way, but that's fine.

Well, that's been designed from day one with the traffic signal.

Well, whenever we're going four-way.

Right, right. Anyway, nobody likes the stop signs. Except for me. Except for you. Yeah, I know what you mean. And there will be a lot of people not liking it.

If they were all set up properly, like where you come out of Mount Harmony or come from Boomville and go through that green light of Mount Harmony, and then it would be a nice flow into this green light. But it's not going to be. You're going to stop here, and you're going to go, and it's like, ooh, we got through, and then you're going to come up here. Oh, I've got to stop again because there's one car coming out of here, and it's going to sit there for about 30 seconds.

We actually, it's not, I don't mean to interrupt you. Oh, feel free. You're correct. And nobody please throw me under a bus, literally, but. was actually a discussion about a roundabout there one time which has been better than this but our doc quickly went no right yes sir i was wondering is there money in the street department for the permanent power to the street lights and also for the temporary well we're trying to get a price and see where we are on it uh i'm hoping that there is i i was shocked when i was told that we had to provide power to that and and the gentleman on the phone said Yeah, municipalities and counties are kind of caught off guard with that. And I said, yes, sir, I am very much so. Because we found out last week? Two weeks? That's when I found out. And here we are.

We have a lot of power for all the other ones, I guess.

We have. So 71 and 10, right? I was told that that was the same situation. I mean center, not 10, yeah.

It was already there. That's right. The difference is this is ours. I don't have a construction estimate at all yet.

Sorry. The cabinet is going to be placed to what the gentleman told me on the phone there at the corner of Keith Glass, what used to be Keith Glass. So there's power already there. I think we're looking at running across the parking lot. I think. Back to your original question, I would very much be interested in when they get here. And this will be a question I'll... And Mr. Director Wiley... will look at me as he's done several times over the years and say, I'm also not, well, he is an engineer. He won't say that. He'll say, we'll talk to the engineer and see what we come up with. But that, I see what you're saying. That makes sense to get that open all the way.

You talk about going down from five to two. Well, this is what you're saying, what you're getting over here. Exactly.

Yes.

Are you third? No, when's that meeting with this guy? I forget the flock to jump. I want to be at that one.

Are we in council forum?

No, I just went off script. What the heck is going on? Well, I went off script. So what did you ask me? When is that meeting? When is that, Danielle? The 13th. 13th. Thank you. It's an NPO meeting. That's probably a planning organization, but it's open to the public. Yes, sir.

So Mount Harmony turning lane?

I wanted to discuss this in front of some citizens.

Mount Harmony turning lane?

Yes, sir.

So it's early on. We've got a sidewalk in it or trail.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

And it's early enough in it. Are we communicating with the Water and Sewer Commission so they don't wake up in 29 and say, oh, we've got to move everything?

We have. They may still say that, but we have.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Is it a sidewalk or trail?

That's going to be a sidewalk on that side because we'll come off of a five-foot on that side already. Okay. So if you'll notice out there by – Coker, thank you. Pinkbud, right now you see they're pouring a 10-foot on the north side and a 5-foot on the south side, and that 10-foot will go all the way to 71 as planned, and the 5-foot will go all the way to 71 on the other side.

Are they fixing to have some sort of airplane landing in there? Yes, helicopters.

No, that was in the plans originally to have 10-foot. It's representing a 10-foot walking trail, but it's multi-use, but it's concrete all the way. That was in the plans from day one.

So in the Mount Harmony turning lane, we're early enough in it. Now that may be a good time to deal with the pedestrian traffic where you have a button where you've got a crosswalk.

Yeah. R-DOT obviously is in the middle of all this. Casey, we talked today about the Parks Department being involved in it because the idea is to get walkability to the lake.

Absolutely.

And the school, obviously, both schools.

And safe as possible. Yeah, yeah. We don't want to put anybody in harm's way. So when we're widening that, now kids are going to have to try to cross three lanes of traffic if we could go ahead and have some sort of deal planned into it. I don't know if they'd pay for it, but if we could plan it.

We ask for everything that we can possibly get. Good job. All the time.

Good. Now, what's he talking about adding for crossing for three lanes? Go ahead.

Well, if you're going to make a turning lane for Mount Harmony.

Well, the crosswalk's on the other side.

You've still got to get people out of Kings Mountain Ranch.

Well, the crosswalk is on the east side of that intersection, so they cross there and stay on the east side of Mount Harmony for coming out. If you're walking from there and going to the school or going down 10 towards the workout areas and all that, they wouldn't really have to cross that new turn lane. Not necessarily.

Okay.

Unless you want to have something to come back towards town. Yeah, with further development, you always like to think ahead. There are tons of people that cross there right now. I see it every single day. Right. Yep.

Well, you know, I picture kids coming out of Kingsmount trying to head up to East Hills.

Well, like I said, it's all on the east side, so they wouldn't see that. Okay.

And the lake.

Yep.

Okay, I'm sorry I got out of turn, but I just wanted to get some people informed tonight before we got too far. Anything else or questions for me regarding any of that? Okay, not. We'll move to Mr. Brown. You're going to go to the top of the list. Absolutely. That's fine. And only you are limited to five minutes, nobody else.

No, it's not five minutes anymore, is it? I know.

That's my joke. That's my joke. I'll make sure.

Yeah, if you don't mind. I don't even think that's on.

I don't think that mic's on yet. It's not off?

It went sleep.

Oh, sorry. You just push that button. I guess. You do that one more time, gentlemen.

Jamie Brown, 42B Town Square.

Jim Chatfield, 3505 Fairhaven Cove.

So you all kind of know what we're talking about. Let's see if we can cut to the chase. So there's an ordinance or a law out there talking about fill dirt in a floodplain. That's what you're wanting to do is be able to get a variance or something for that? Yes. To be able to build a house.

Yes, and there are currently, there is a way to get the variance. There's the old way, and then there's the new way, which added, from what I gather from Hunter, a single line that talks about this super engineering feat of, That has to be done.

Have you been planning this for the variance yet?

No. Just found out about this today. Oh, okay. Talked to Hunter about it this morning. No, usually we don't get to, we usually get the second from their joke. This was perfect timing, getting to see you guys tonight.

I don't have any, I don't know who's supposed to speak or what you're looking for, but there's no way on God's green earth they should not be able to build on this lot. When I'm looking at every other lot that's got even more in a floodplain, I bet that this line's telling me if this house is legal and that house, then this one should be able, I know there's not much field properties that come in because that should have all been pretty,

leveled before it was built.

I know the guy that built all that used to. Anyway, and so, I mean, if you're going to wait for a vote, then I'm ready to do that. I don't know what all the legalities are. We skirt so many ordinances down here or whatever. So, you know, whatever.

Yeah, what we're asking for is an amendment to the ordinance that was passed in 23 that removes one line. That's what I'm asking for. Hunter, and it's whatever ordinance he called it, it was line three, section I, something like that.

My only concern is that we feel that high enough that we start creating drainage issues for the neighbors. No, we won't. I mean, as long as the... what you call it, the floor is the same level as the surrounding. It's the same.

If you see it, when you go out there and look at it, it's a pretty flat area in general. So you would have to build that thing higher than the street to really shed water away from the, to affect the neighbors. And we know that's a big no-no anyway.

So we do something here, and the 100-year flood comes next year. and the two neighbors on both sides are flooded, can they come back to this meeting and say, you allowed it, now you're responsible for this? That's my worry.

Well, we have a scenario kind of similar to that. There's a house over in Meadowbrook, and we were in between two floodplain mappings. The first was in 1961, and we did one in the mid-2000s. And the floodplain and the floodway changed quite a bit, but we had put the ordinance on for the new one for the reading, and this guy wanted to build in between when we had the other one, the 61 in effect. And so we wrote a letter, and I don't know if this is the proper approach, but he acknowledged that that he was building in what would be the floodplain the floodway when the ordinance was passed and the city would not be held responsible and i don't remember the wording of it but just something to protect the city saying that we have no real way of knowing what that is and you take those risks yourself

to give you a little history on this, we bought this lot back in 2017. We had every intention to build at that time, but life happens, okay? So we come back and I didn't know anything about this until today. So I took an extra blood pressure pill and then came up here and I talked to the neighbor that would be lot 98 and I asked him about flood and bugs and everything else you think about out there. And he said, yes, during that 100-year reign, he said, if you look on the picture, the above picture, you can actually see where his back fence goes. He said, after all that rain, that's as far as the water came to.

I don't think there's going to be any issue with Whatever fill you're bringing in is going to hurt the neighbors. If they're not currently, neighbors aren't getting hurt by this big, humongous pond behind their house, I don't think that what you're doing, this is going to be any, I mean, I'm pretty sure y'all are competent in building homes. You've done it for a while. I mean.

This has a very easy drain. Right, yeah. If you go out and look at the site, you'll be like, oh, that's.

The lot is already sloped towards the lake.

It slopes to the lake. That's something.

I've already spoken to Jamie, and we're going to build up to be even with the other houses and keep sloping it down so that everything just runs that way.

Well, I can't. There's a lot of stuff that I do that I question, but I can't possibly see why we wouldn't let this go through. I mean, like I said, when there's houses. 10 lots to the right, 10 to the left, they're all full, I don't know what.

Well, there's even a swimming pool that's under it, and it didn't flood during the 100 years, so.

Well, I don't know if we really want to do an elimination on the ordinance, I think, and that would be the, wouldn't that be the planning, just to say, grant a variance, and then we approve the variance?

What is, what is... The ordinance 2314, Hunter, could I talk to you? Are there procedures laid out in 2314? Yes. What is the proper way to go about this? And is this the proper way? Do we start in the planning commission?

And then typically you would, yes. But with the ordinance providing a process that wouldn't allow for this, I advise Mr. Brown to come directly to council being that it was tonight. We would have to amend the ordinance to revise the procedures to allow for a development such as this to occur.

So the proper way would be to amend the ordinance. We could put an amendment on for first reading. next month and kind of work our way through and see where we legally may stand yeah i can present next month a revised ordinance that would allow for this so we got time to digest this and that's the reason that it set up like that yes So can we just put this on for next month to amendment for 2314?

That's up to y'all. But yes, I can be back next month with a finished draft. For example the the first thing that we're gonna have to look at section 6 is titled forbidding all activity And it forbids all activity in the floodplain, so I'm gonna have to remove section 6 which is just a simple line item and then you go down to section 14 procedure for variance from the requirements of this code and

The procedure for variance, can that happen now?

Not according to the way the ordinance language states. Correct.

That's the one that helps us out. Otherwise, we would have not.

So we need to stop. We need to see that ordinance language right now.

So basically.

correct.

Well, also, I mean, it's, it's based on topographical areas there, you know, and we understand it, you know, and I don't see, I'd like to see something about the topographical layout, where actually is the the floodway and the floodplain on this. I'm not really seeing that.

I can provide you with a color copy, but you won't see the designation of the floodway.

What's the white line?

The white line is going to be the 100-year floodplain boundary, but because this is a Zone A and it does not have a detailed study, it does not encompass the... floodway boundary and floodplain boundary, the flood fringe. It is only the exterior boundary line of the entirety of the floodplain.

That elevation is going to be set by the top of the dam at Lake Jack Nolan.

the dam or the emergency spillway?

Either one, whichever was lower, I assume, would be the, depending on the capacity of that spillway. Right.

So who develops the floodplain? FEMA. And who develops it for FEMA?

That's gonna be based on their engineering studies. There is a new study out called Base Level Engineering where they use LIDAR data. It's more accurate than what we have now, but it's not the officially recognized map for Greenwood. And it actually shows the 100-year floodplain boundary line going to the northern side of the street. It shows it greater than this map does, but we don't regulate off of that map.

My interest here would be not to put the city of Greenwood in a position that we get sued. And as long as we can cover that basis, I would like to help this man out.

And that was a similar conversation that I had with Mr. Brown in my office this morning. There are a few properties around town that were inadvertently covered by the broad paintbrush effect that I think we owe the ability to develop.

I just feel like if we were to get sued and this comes up in that lawsuit, which these conversations have, and I've been here for a long time, and we're sitting here saying an engineering study doesn't mean anything, and they say, well, they were a lot smarter than y'all. And yes, that's true. They're definitely a lot smarter than us up here. So it's always put us in a bad spot. And it's cost the citizens of Greenwood money, a lot of money. So as long as we can do it in a way that doesn't put the city of Greenwood legally to where we're culpable in a mess and get sued then i'm i'm for helping but i my my i would say put this on for next month's meeting and let's start digesting it and seeing how we can be safe about this and in changing changing some of those things in the ordinances now you can look at the fact that

When he purchased the land, there was a different floodplain mapping back then.

So he purchased it in 2017.

But what I'm saying is that there was a – he purchased his property in 2017.

The 23 remapping is indicating – We didn't remap in 23. We just readopted the floodplain development regulations. Okay.

Well, at any rate, I think the way to approach it would be just that you've owned the property, you intend to build on it, there are, we have to go by what we know in the maps and if you're willing to accept that responsibility and that clears the city because that's just what I would like to see.

Beyond clearing the city from legality implications, we also have to consider the fact that we are part of the National Flood Hazard Insurance Program, which requires us to enforce our regulations across the board in order to maintain our membership in that program for the insurance betterment of all the citizens.

I'd like to hear from the city attorney if I could get over here.

So this floodplain map, where did it come from? You said FEMA?

FEMA has the nationally recognized flood hazard layer.

So then the state delegates us the responsibility and authority to regulate this?

Yes.

Okay. Was this ordinance based off of guidance from state or federal level?

The base ordinance is a model ordinance provided by the state and then the changes that were made in 23 were out of the planning office after the 2022 flooding.

Is this in the proposed or is this in the FEMA regulatory floodway?

It's in Zone A. There is no floodway identified within Zone A. There you go.

So we do have the authority to provide variance without exposing ourselves to liability.

Correct. We still have to adhere to the guidelines set by FEMA and the National Flood Hazard Control Program.

Well, if you go down that street, it looks like There would be an extraordinary hardship on these people because there's a house on either side of them at the same elevation, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Whenever they present for building permit, they'll have to provide an elevation certificate where they will have an engineer. I'd say typically it's been Ron Brixey. He's the one locally that provides this information most often. and he will use base level engineering data to provide an elevation for this property. He'll come out and set a pin, an elevation pin on the property, and that's where the first floor level has to be.

Well, an engineer approved this original plat with the same lake that was there. There's been no upgrades or downgrades to that whole area since then, except for all these houses were built. I mean, so everything was kosher and out of a floodplain back then.

So we're, we're basically dealing with a difference of opinion from one engineer to the next. Is that.

No, we're a federal map. It's just extended boundaries of some water.

Even in today, if they were to build this subdivision today and it had floodplain on it and our ordinance didn't prohibit development, they would still present that to us. But then on each lot, we would require that they had a finished floor elevation identified to know how, how far to elevate each property.

Are you all ready to build?

Beautiful.

Well, when they built the house on lot 98, they weren't worried about being liable for the lot on 97. And 97 wasn't worried about the lot on 96. And this is going to be built just like that where the lot is on 100 and 101. I mean, there's not going to be any flooding difference when y'all's house shows up there. I mean, it's not like it's on the side of a big hill like these other subdivisions that have caused chaos. Right. Well, we'll have an inspector go out and be checking that as a bill like he does every other new bill around here.

Will y'all have to qualify for flood insurance?

Yeah, the...

Granting of the variance could not result in adverse impact on other lands, so they're not going to be able to raise it to where it runs off on other lands. They wouldn't. Right.

But the sloping back to the lake is...

Yes, we've got to have that.

The only expedient process that I can see forward through this and subject to me coming back next month with a revised version, and I don't know the correct process for tonight, but if council is so inclined, the ordinance that 2314 repealed and replaced was a good ordinance, and the only thing that was added was what's under discussion tonight. So if you were so inclined to repeal and replace 2314 with what it predated, I think was 2111, and make it the emergency clause that would allow them to proceed with their construction, and then I can come back next month with another new ordinance.

Are you the floodplain administrator? Yes. So really all they need to do is petition you, you take it to the planning commission, which would be the Board of Adjustment, correct? Correct. And it looks to me like they're going to be able to meet all these elements. And if it's not in a FEMA regulatory floodway, then we can issue a variance.

Not under the current ordinance, the old ordinance.

Well, this ordinance says variance shall not be issued for any proposed activity in the FEMA regulatory floodway. So if it's not in the FEMA regulatory floodway, then we should be able to issue variance under our current ordinance, correct?

No.

Maybe you're not looking at the current ordinance.

This is 2314. Is it not?

You would be looking at CAI.

Hey, Jamie. The property has been surveyed, right? And the boundary lines have been identified?

Not yet. I mean, they haven't actually been marked. Yes. But, I mean, not yet. We do that when we go to them.

So, I would encourage you to go ahead and have it surveyed. Identify where the gaming fish property line is. Establish a silk. That's been an issue a couple different times, and it didn't go well.

So you're asking for CA1 to go away?

Well, they can also show, if you look at B, they can show a good and sufficient cause. Why did we add that? Why did we add that? We've had to deal with that a couple times. I've heard. I've heard.

So it wasn't a state or federal...

We throw the term grandfathered in around like it's nothing, but this is a perfect example of something that should have been grandfathered in.

Did we get a letter like Steve was suggesting from them, Mr. City Attorney? From who? Well, Steve suggested at one point there was some type of letter from the homeowner or something.

I'm just saying that we're acknowledging the fact that he purchased... I mean, this was planted and approved in 2006. And you're saying the floodplain remapping was 2010? So in that light, there's every reason if they had built the house that it would have been fine. but now that you're building it later, just an acknowledgement that you recognize the risk that you're building in a zone A and there is no official baseline elevation in that area for us to determine with the new flood mapping if it's gonna flood or not. So it's just, you're taking, you're understanding the risk and accepting responsibility for that because we can't make a determination ourselves. whether this is gonna work. And we have to protect the citizens.

The agreement you're talking about may be redundant because my position as floodplain administrator, I'm charged to ensure that that property is built above the base flood elevation.

But do you know the base flood elevation? They'll have to provide that to me.

That's what they, on the elevation certificate, having an engineer come out, survey that particular property, and tell me what the base flood elevation is at that day and time.

Also, the city doesn't establish the floodplain, and the city doesn't cause the 100-year rain either, so they would be taking it on themselves when they build anyway.

The dam's never been raised, or the spillway isn't.

The liability would come from me not doing my job with rules and procedures put in place and then knowingly allowing them to build below base flood elevation that they've determined and that I approve based on given information.

So let's talk about A again. What do you describe A again?

Zone A, I mean, I can pull up the floodplain development code which describes it more in detail, but it is the most basic form of floodway, floodplain mapping that you can have. Every other zone is identified with like AE, AO, AH. They all have different characteristics, but AE is the standard, and that means that FEMA, when they did their mapping, they came in and did an engineering analysis and they were able to determine base flood elevations, streamline cross sections, the whole nine yards.

So how would an engineer determine a base elevation based on a study of one property?

It's the detailed study. They can use, Brixie has in the past, there's two common forms, and that is to use neighboring properties as elevation markers. or the BLE data, which is the kind of latest and greatest newest mapping that we've got, and that's the most reliable because relying on your neighbor's data could be 20 years old, and floodplain maps could have been updated since then. So really what we look for is BLE data, and I can go into an A zone with BLE, and it will give you a depth, an elevation.

Hunter, have you looked at the elevations in the area? I'm sure you have.

Yeah, so the LIDAR data actually is considerably different from this map that you all are provided, and it will show the houses that were elevated properly, and they are not in the floodplain, and then there are houses that may be six inches low, and they are.

Do you know the elevation of the lowest point in the dam versus these? I do not. No. I mean, that would be... No, I...

It seems like the lot right by that second boat ramp, the 91 lot has gotten water close to it. The one at the very end, if I recall, seemed like, what's his name, the coach used to live out there.

And that's the only one that's ever even got close to being flooded. I think that drainage that runs next to that house is provided a little extra there. I will say I'm not as versed in this as I probably should be because since 2023, when we put this into effect, we forbid all activity and I've not had to regulate it. That regulated itself. I mean, I go to my continuing education and maintain my certified floodplain administrator status and all of that. But in the permitting process, I don't have to worry about it because we don't issue permits for that.

So to do this properly, you need what study?

They will do an elevation certificate.

An elevation certificate. Yeah, yeah.

And all that's listed on our website. And like I said, more than likely, they will go to Brixley Engineering and They can go to any engineering firm that provides that service. They're capable individuals.

Hunter, one more question, just as a, sorry. No, that's fine. As a way we might could get around this. Was this plat? completed before the latest updated firm? Because wouldn't that be considered a development? This plat, this neighborhood being developed, wouldn't that be considered the development? Because if it is, then Section CA-1 under variance wouldn't apply, would it? Because this has already been platted.

Even if it's platted, what are you trying to do? because it was plotted that we don't have to enforce the ordinance.

It's not a proposed development is the word.

It was developed before the most recent firm. That's right.

The way that the FEMA, our FEMA floodplain development code is based on the building of structures. Whenever a structure is built, altered, or moved into the jurisdiction is the time of which you enforce the regulations and rules.

But wouldn't they have had to abide by all these ordinances and rules to get this plat through you guys?

They would have had to have followed the rules that were in place in 2006, yeah.

But the floodplain mapping came in 2010 and changed everything.

There was a floodplain in 2006. This plat that includes his lot had already been approved, though.

Mm-hmm, right. But what I'm saying is knowing now what we know, it may not have flooded, but we can't say. And one of my questions is if Rixey's doing this elevation, he's in essence assuring that that will provide protection from the 100-year flood. So he's accepting liability for that.

We also, and our code requires that whatever elevation, whatever the base flood elevation is, that we build up two board feet, three board, above that. So if BFE's 580 feet, we have to build at 582. And that's where he'll come and set a pin at 582. So it's got a built-in protection. Well, I'm all for it.

I just want it documented that, the floodplain has changed since the plat was approved and he accepts and understands that the floodplain has changed and accepts that and then if rixey gives them an elevation in a floodplain zone of a which really has i mean it's just If you're building, I would build it as high as you can. But that's all I'm saying is just a letter that acknowledges you understand that things have changed and you're willing to accept that and understand that that's the way it is. And we've got a sample letter and I believe it came from the floodplain administration And I can probably, I can tell you which property is, and you could look at that letter, and if that is something that Travis would look at, it's just... Are you basically asking him if he'll sign a letter that if his house was, he won't sue the city?

It's essentially... Is that the gist of it?

That's the gist of it, yes.

I mean, that's... I think he'd be willing to do that. I would advise him to sign that, just because it's... I don't think there's any way to sue the city or the house anyway, but y'all have dealt with that, not me. So I'd sign that letter in the heart.

So to start, are y'all intending to get an elevation certificate?

Yes, we have to. You can't start without it. Okay.

I would be like what Travis said. I'd like to know the elevation. In relation to the elevation of the dam, I mean, I'd be just curious about that.

I think once they just get an elevation certificate, Brixie's signed off on it. They're off and going. I mean, he's going to set it at the very minimum.

Is this not an elevation certificate, the plat of the subdivision? No, because it's actually the level of the house, not the lot.

So if they proceed forward with an elevation certificate, we're good.

Right. I'm sure all the lots are higher. I would leave that to the city attorney to determine.

He's shaking his head yes. I think our big hang up here is the section 14 CA1 that we added after the big flood.

Which was after the map was updated. Which nobody flooded out there. But the plat, the plat of the subdivision was completed before all that was changed.

Okay. You guys tell us that this plat predates it, we move on, we get an elevation certificate, and Hunter, we're off to the races.

And if I've got a sign of where the president is, I don't know.

Well, What you're saying is we need a variance based on our current ordinance. Yes.

would this work in Indian Hills and Greenwood West what we're doing here but there has to be a variance they wouldn't probably get a variance out there that's the whole deal and I'm just nervous about the planning commission granting a variance Because we've seen what those jokers have done a few times.

Well, they could appeal to us here if that didn't go right.

Not to mention that floods. Fiscally ask for a variance. And the way that that A1 is right now, it's a $100 million engineering feat to get that done, literally. I don't think I'm exaggerating.

But the good thing is that's a local rule that we added. And so the council can consider striking or amending that

based on the BLE or something to that effect.

Just make sure, whatever it takes, these guys come in here next month, if they have to, come back and ask us for a blessing.

If we can reveal the current ordinance and turn around and immediately adopt the regulations as stated in the old ordinance, 2111, and adopt that by our schools, I'm asking a lot, that will ensure that we still have regulations that have stood for another 30 days, that allows them to start working on the permit between now and then, and they're no longer a problem for the council. I can come back next month with a revised version to bring in a better variance process so that it's not just wide open.

Well, that kind of scares me because, I mean, a lot has transpired since 2011. That's why we kind of came up with the 2023.

It was 21-11, so it was a 22. the only thing that was changed from the 21-11 ordinance was the section 4 that forbid all activity and then the addition of C1 under section 14 so can we not add something under CA1 that says I'm just throwing it out at the end of it say unless

there is a previously approved plat under a previous firm. Or something to that effect.

Yeah, but the way it reads now, he wouldn't be able to qualify for a variance. We just lost our ordinance. Anyway. I don't know the best way.

Do we want to talk about it in codification committee?

I'm sure we will. That sounds like we are. Yeah, we can definitely discuss it in codification. However, y'all want to proceed forward where I can legally authorize it permanently.

And it's ordinance number 20? 2314.

2314?

This is the current one.

That's the one we need there? Yes.

Okay.

I'll add it. Thank you. You're welcome.

So next month is September. That's Labor Day. So are we going to the 8th or the 14th for our next meeting in September? Labor Day is the 7th. How do we do that? The next week is what we have scheduled. It's the 14th.

It's what we have scheduled.

So these folks need to come back on the 14th. And hopefully, I mean, we'll even have to see us if they grant a variance from planning, if all the paperwork is turned in. We may have to approve some kind of redoing ordinance, right?

They shouldn't need a variance. If we go back to the way the ordinance was before, they shouldn't have to have a variance.

If you adopt it under emergency?

Even if we adopt it under emergency, as long as they provide me the elevation certificate.

The only thing I hate about going back to the way the ordinance was, that's put in there for a reason.

It was.

So is that reason gone now?

What we're trying to do is a temporary fix for these individuals, and then next month, next council meeting, I will come back and present another ordinance that will have already been issued permanently.

I don't know, that sounds like we're... Yeah, that's exactly what we're doing.

No, no, no, no, period.

and you can't even try with the ordinance that you have now, something needs to be put in there to say, okay, we need to take a look at this one.

We need to take a look at this area and see if they bring it up in elevation, then they can do it. If they're willing to do this, then they can do it. Otherwise, no. But right now, it's just a solid no. You just slam the door on everybody.

I agree. But I just think that whatever change we need to do to the ordinance, it should be from this point forward, not that we're gonna have a pause, basically, or a repeal, and then all of a sudden, a month later, reinstate a new ordinance.

My problem is with it is that our current ordinance makes it impossible for them to build on a lot that was already planted and approved by planning.

I did a really good job. I said that this morning. The state has committed me on the job I did.

You see what I'm saying?

It's created additional problems.

Yeah. We can work through it.

Hi, Jamie. Just out of curiosity, how high would you have to raise that lot up?

I'm going to say if we're trying to get to the same elevation as the houses next door, probably two feet, two and a half feet. That's at most. That's a guess. I have not put a laser to it. That's a guess. Two, two and a half feet. That's in the back. The front would be much less than that.

Yeah, it's still going to the lake. I mean, unless you went 50 feet and made it, like I said, a pyramid, it's not going right enough.

This will be the easiest lot that I've drained in a long time. Much easier than what I'm doing over there. Correct.

I don't know. So the thing I'm having trouble wrapping my head around, and I just need to know, Yes, no. There's this ungodly study that has to be done that is unreasonable. Does Brixie's simple elevation certificate do away with all that nonsense? Does he really have the ability to establish a new base flood elevation based on an elevation certificate when he doesn't know

To make sure you understand, the ungodly study that I agree with, I agree with those terms, was not something that FEMA set in place, was not something that the state set in place. That is literally a term and an item that was implemented here and only here. It's not a FEMA-based study or a FEMA-based anything. That's in our ordinance. It's a Greenwood written ordinance. it's not we're not trying to take a fema based something and overcome that with brixie's one-liner that that is literally just a we had a problem with lots of flooding down there we know that let's cut this thing off for a little while cover our butts which i wouldn't blame you and stop flood permits for a while which is what it did but it had an unintended consequence for some houses that were also in that firm map like this and I think Hunter said there's a couple others that are in the same boat.

So are a number of houses that are already built.

What's that?

So are a number of houses that are already built.

Correct.

On a plat that was approved by the city of Greenwood. Correct. I don't understand what the problem is, but...

The bottom line is it shows a floodplain we can't argue otherwise so if we're willing to do the variance then It's like saying we're allowing you to build in the floodplain Because Before the floodplain changed It was like in the scenario I was telling you about earlier. We had a new ordinance and we knew they were going to be in the flood way. But according to the old study, they were in the flood plain and we allowed that. So we just let him know and he just accepted the fact that he was building on what in a matter of months was going to be the flood way and he understood those risks.

I don't think we're in the same situation because we're not planning on being in the flood way.

What I'm saying is he's in the floodplain, so there's a chance, maybe even an unreasonable chance, but we can't say that he won't because we've got a 100-year floodplain there. Experience tells us that it probably won't flood, but all we have is that line, and so if you build there, it's just an acceptance of that liability and understanding that it's changed And it's not the same floodplain that it was back when you bought and planned to build on it.

So if the property owner, and if I heard you correct, has agreed to do said letter.

Well, the 100-year floodplain has a 1% chance of occurring any given year.

So let's give him something to go with here. So if he's willing to sign said letter, such letter, and Jamie's willing to do this well he didn't have to do the same and if hunters gonna be okay with the certificate that's coming right if you're good with a certificate coming from Brixie to establish this process homeowner or hope to be homeowners is willing to sign said document are we good I think we have more liability

from the homeowner if we don't allow them to build there. I agree.

And I'm all for the building.

I'm sorry, I'm real black and white. Unless Jamie goes in there and literally does build a pyramid, this is not going to make any difference. I mean, I'm not an engineer or a builder, but I don't see this. And I understand opening up the can.

for other so we got to take care of that and you can look at that letter and again it was recommended by the floodplain administration and all we did was the risks and I would just like a repeal and a revision of just one ordinance not to do to you know do a new one 30 days later

I think timing-wise, if you guys can do a repeal and replace, but not do a stand readings, but do an emergency next month, I think we'll be fine.

But we really need to make sure it's then. What can you do in the meantime? Is there anything y'all can do, or are you just sitting on holds?

I'll get the survey done. I'll get the rest of the stuff done with Hunter. I mean, I've got a couple weeks of administrative work that can be done in the meantime.

How long will it take for a certificate of elevation?

I have to talk to Chad tomorrow.

So that might be a three-week, a month deal.

They're usually two weeks at most. It depends on how busy they are, but they're usually only a couple weeks.

Then you can get a letter in a week.

Yep.

Has Mr. Brown talked to you about his fee for being here tonight?

Yeah, it's built in.

Okay, okay. I'm kidding. I hope so.

He's not billing us for tonight. He's on his own dime.

That's right.

That's really all. I mean, time-wise, to AC's point, we can deal with a month. We can't deal with three or four months.

I wish we could do it tonight. It's frustrating. I apologize. Because I don't care about it. I mean, like I said, we've got a plan here that was approved. Go build your house. It's just ridiculous that it's got to this. But whatever.

I understand why you guys put the other part of the plan.

Yeah, there was an issue that we had to take.

There was an issue. Yeah. But, you know, when you just.

Thank you. Thank you, Hunter. Thank you all.

All right, moving on.

I'm going to call it number one. Parks, this is old unfinished business. Parks Department ordinance declaring related party with Jules Bakery and Megan Potter, third reading. Related party resolution so we can be transparent and above board.

How is she related?

Her father works there.

Her father works there.

I'll make a motion we pass this ordinance by third reading title only.

Second. And a motion and a second.

I think somebody down there seconded it before Rod.

Mr. Meeker did.

Okay. He wins.

I whipped her all night.

You're fine. Mr. Brown? Yes. Mr. Meeker? Yes. Mr. Terry? Yes. Mr. Rainwater? Yes. Mr. Tepford? Yes. Mr. Powell? Yes. It's unanimous. An ordinance declaring related parties authorizing the city of Greenwood to conduct business with Jules Bakery and for other purposes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Casey. Number two is Rod Powell parking lot discussion table from previous meetings. I think Mr. Jeff has some information. Mr. Turner, excuse me.

Mr. Turner was my principal. Mr. Toomey, too. I saw him today. I did, too.

I saw him last week. I didn't have anything.

Okay. You got it.

I got it.

You need to see.

You got it. Did I throw it at you?

No. Mm-hmm.

It dropped. Roger, sorry.

We're adding irrigation.

This is a front and backer for the parking lot, public parking lot on Main Street. Last month's meeting asked for a turnkey operation

a parking lot and an adjunct parking lot. You see the numbers there. Obviously this will have to be bid because of the amount, but the main parking lot alone is $116,770. The adjacent one is $98,700. Both together, that's $215,740. Then you've got the deducts with landscaping and with irrigation. Increases to 229,620 with the landscaping and 241,620 with the irrigation. That's the turnkey for what was designed by the architect that built this plan here.

This will give us 16 Lots in number one which I'm saying is the Masonic Lodge parking lot in 12 and parking lot number two with curb and guttering strapping

Parking spaces. Parking spaces. I'm sorry, I misspoke.

That's okay. That's a lot of parking lots. That is a lot of parking lots. That's a good price.

So what I don't see on here is what I see, decorative streetlights. Is that right, AC?

I'm not seeing it either, no.

And you asked for how many streetlights?

Yes, I'd like them to match the downtown area.

Yeah, right.

What I don't have, because there's no engineering on this, is how many we need. There's a formula that tells you how many you need. Right now, what I have in mind is to get it lit would be to LED lit it from the power poles.

I would say the decorative street lamps that we have are not. You talking about on the trail? Like the trail? Right here on the square.

The black ones. Okay. Are they the same as the trail?

We need to continue what's on the square.

They're not on the square. Those aren't the same as the trail, are they? No. No.

No, the decorative ones are the ones we have on the square. Gotcha.

Okay. And we need to kind of continue that theme and look a little less like Towson Avenue.

No.

Wow. Wheeler Avenue?

Either one.

Either one.

Either one. Well, I guess, too, I don't, I mean, I'm trying to visualize, I'd like to really, how do we see an actual drawing of the parking lot A and parking lot B?

The one that we had in the plan was in your packet last month. Okay. There's no change from that. There hasn't been a diagram done because, once again, there's been no architecture engineering done on that second parking lot.

Which is where the old city hall used to be.

Which is where the old fire station used to be.

And I don't see anything in here about the fire hydrant. The fire hydrant's done separate?

The fire hydrant is a separate contract. And that is? Materials are $12,339. Outsourced insulation is $5,000 for a total of $17,321.90. To install the fire hydrant. The fire hydrant and the...

Which the water department agreed to half.

Half of the total, up to $10,000 if I remember correctly.

And that's what we're assuming the lodge would pick up the rest or we have somebody else?

No, that was the developer, which is us.

Beautiful.

So half of the 17 would be us.

So I know we kicked around a gazebo or something in that area up against the building. Was that in the rendering or was it green space?

No, the majority of the green space would be up against the old Dawson building. That's what he's talking about. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Not the lodge building. I mean the old Dunn's Flower, if you will.

Yes, yes, yes. That's where the majority of the landscaping will be.

Are we talking a lot? The reason I'm not that proud of landscaping in that area is because we need parking for downtown events.

I mean, if you're going to lose... What we would gain in parking spots is really negligible.

That's just more stuff we've got to mow and weed and try to keep, you know.

Well, and Mr. Powell, you want to bring up your idea on that part of it? I thought I would speak for you on the landscaping.

Talking about a... A youth organization volunteering to take care of the landscape? Yes, sir. Okay. Well, if there's a youth organization. True 54 would take care of doing the landscaping. It made a big, significant impact, which it's kind of expensive in here. You just get all the curb and guttering done and the plantings and all that I mean the curb and guttering done and all that Part of that being their home What's the irrigation where's that gonna be at that would be in that section if we do it that the section up against the building so how I mean I

How much greenscape are we talking here? I mean, is this very far out? Do we not have a copy of this area?

I do have copies of that drawing.

So it's kind of small. It's pretty small.

It's four foot.

But if you plant something, you need at least one sprinkler head. You can run a different type of line. It depends on what you plan. Just like out here, we're dealing with some issues. By the way, we've got donations made by the people that take care of this to put new sprinklers. We don't have sprinkler heads. We have a drip line, if you will, out here. But if you're really going to make it look nice and keep it nice, you've got to do it the other way.

Well, again, I just think if this was a... commercial outfit doing this or whatever you know I think we would want them to have a certain amount of green space and landscaping and I think you know the city should have them out you know should be responsible for some of that too if we require commercial development to do it I think the city should do it too I totally agree if you want it to look like what we want it to look like decorative lampposts that's

I mean, I see spots for about four decorative lampposts.

Right. I see spots for about six other cars.

Well, to me.

This doesn't include that additional parking lot.

No, there are other parking lots back here. I mean, in this parking lot. Yeah, I know right here's what it is. One, two, three, four, five. I'm just thrilled that we're getting more parking than we ever had. I don't think they wanted, and I don't know whether it's Buddy's thought process or somebody's. I don't think there was a desire of parking directly into the front.

Yeah, right. Maybe along Main. Okay.

Not on the Main Street side, but in front of the building. Not on Main Street side.

That's what I was talking about. Well, I'm calling that the front. You're talking about what faces the other building.

Yeah, the south facing.

It won't all be handicapped. Y'all are old, but you ain't that old. That won't all be handicapped up against the building, right? I mean, y'all are old, but you ain't that old.

I'm talking about on Main.

Oh, so you are talking about Main. Coming in from pointing east, yeah.

Well, then we can remove the other ones. So that'll help that.

Yes. So you're talking about still coming in off of where the parking lot is but having to turn in? I think you just turn in right off main. You want the whole front where you can move in?

No. We can't cover up the water.

Right. Plus you've got a sidewalk.

So from the door, from the front door to the head of the property will be handicapped.

Okay. coming off Main Street.

So let me understand, y'all are wanting to move the handicap parking, right? Is that right?

Buddy, can you mind coming up and looking at this and see what we're looking at? I'm sorry.

In the meantime.

I'm sorry, I forgot about your knee.

So Jeff, in the meantime, while he's looking at that. Yes. So talking about money. Yes. So this was not in the budget. No. It escaped the budget. Yes. So are you going to reprioritize a plan? Or what are your ideas of what we were going to do?

I would look to go into our balance. OK. And take it from there. And I haven't. running this through Tom, because this is the first time we've all been seeing it anyway, so I haven't talked to him about that.

And is this where Buddy's saying that we could get some participation from RDoD, or no, it's all on us?

So far it's been no from RDoD, but he'll be here next week.

So what is this? How does this impact the street department's budget?

How much was it? Say $250,000. $250,000.

Absolutely.

It will affect what I do next year, for sure.

We'll have to put the brakes on some of the other projects that are scheduled for the next few years. Well, the plan is just that. It's a plan.

It could change. So we change priorities and that's...

I agree.

I probably shouldn't even speak because I'm wearing both hats here because I'm sitting here and I'm also a member of the lodge, but this is something that needs to be done right now so those guys can get in the lodge. I mean, we can't get in without the parking lot away. I understand it. as far as getting a certificate of occupancy. So I'm hoping that we can read.

We've already discussed that. They're not penalized under certificate of occupancy. The council's already said they could move forward.

Oh, wow, good. Is that a variant? I'm not questioning that. I know we talked.

I have to agree on that, and they're not listening.

You could allow entrance into the certificate of occupancy. Temporary. Temporary, prior to this parking lot being used. Which is going to be your requirement of 75,000 pound pressure on that parking lot, that sort of thing. Hard surface. No, no, no. Before the parking lot is paid. We're not going to... You can use Main Street. Thank you.

We're back to our conversation last month, and, Tim, they said as long as they're okay with it. I knew the fire chief would be okay with it. He's okay with it. He's got two hats, too. He's got three hats. We realize this isn't going to happen that quick. They'll be able to get their CO.

Okay.

Is the other parking lot, you don't have any drawing of it yet?