City Council - Regular Meeting

We will call this work session to order. Monday night we will have a roll call and vacation pledge and announcements. But before we get started, we have a report tonight. I understand engineering's got a drainage report to present. I do have to come up here. Mr. Justin drew the short straw, I see.

Good evening. So as you recall, there were five drainage projects that were declared a public purpose back in March. So I'm just going to give a quick status update on where those are. Next slide. So I'll start with Green Valley drainage improvements. For this project, the H&H study has been complete. The survey work has also been complete. And now we are working with the revised easements to now reach out to the property owners to acquire the easements and then get the required waivers that will be needed for the project. The final design has been complete, as well as an updated estimate, we have that in hand. All utility coordination with gas, water, and sewer has been complete, and we are now working on to develop the bid documents that we are required for the bid. So we are shooting for a bid process in July, is what we're looking for. Next slide. So next, we have Glenwood Road drainage improvements. Again, survey work has been complete. H&H study has also been complete for this. And we are expecting to get that report submitted to our office end of next week. With that, we will begin the design phase. And then again, we're expecting to begin the bidding process end of July. Next. All right, Clearview Road and Lester Lane, similar to others, we have the survey work has all been finished and we are going to begin design phase. We're looking to start that end of June and then we'll begin developing the bid documents early July. So with those two items, we'll begin the bid process also in July. I'm happy to report Laredo Drive, all the engineering work, all the survey work was completed and we now have a contractor on site. So the construction is in progress and we are expecting to be complete in July with that project. Next. Here's an update picture showing the new concrete flume. All right, and then finally, Chester Street drainage improvements. Similar to others, survey work has been complete, and design has been submitted to the city. We have some final comments that we'll be getting back to them, and then we're gonna be working on the bid documents, and then also expecting a bid process to start in July. So that's the five projects and where they are.

Very good. I appreciate the update on these projects. Looking forward to July being busy. It is very busy. Any other comments or questions from council?

Mr. President, if possible, and I don't expect people just to sit out in the rain and get electrocuted, but if someone can maybe have a rain event, kind of see how it's You know, they'll be great. But again, I don't maybe a neighbor can take a photo, but I don't expect people just sit out there and doing a storm where we like to be real clear. Absolutely.

We like to get a lot of videos and pictures after before and after.

Thank you. I did make the comment out of all this past rain that we've gotten. That chipmunk's back in the walls, I think. It was nice to not see any videos of flooding on Highway 31 in front of Panda Express. Absolutely. That's been a great project.

Happy to see that one finishing out. Very good.

Have you guys gotten any comments from the community when you're out in their yards and stuff? Are they thankful? Are they any feedback?

Oh, absolutely. Very thankful for all the work that's being done.

Cool.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, moving on. Resolution 88-51-26, authorizing the mayor to execute a reimbursement agreement for ALDOT for relocation of utility facilities on private or public right-of-way.

Good afternoon. We can actually combine Resolution 8851-26 and 8852-26. Very good.

That's also authorizing the mayor to execute a utility consultant engineer agreement associated with Aldot for engineering services related to the utility relocation work. Correct.

Go ahead. These resolutions are authorized for the mayor to execute the reimbursement. to execute ALDOT's utility consulting engineers in Jefferson County. reimbursement agreement for relocation of the utilities, facilities on private and public right-of-way to be performed by the state contractor in connection to the out-of-project number STPBH-5939, which involves the widening of Caldwell Mills Road and Camp Warner Road, starting at the intersection of Heatherwood Drive and ending at Acton Road, which includes the bridge replacement over the Carver River. Doing a review of the project, Conflicts were identified between the proposed roadway improvements and the city's existing sanitary sewer for Spain. It was determined by Hazen's. We engaged with Hazen and Sawyer to do the initial utility exploratory work. It was determined that that our main did conflict with the project. These agreements provide the relocation of the facilities located within the right-of-way that would interfere with the construction of the project. And these Relocation is necessary for the project. The estimated cost for the engineering service and in-kind relocation of the approximate 1,220 linear feet of 10-inch sanitary sewer force main is $636,438.19. Jefferson County is looking to let the project in September of 26th. September 26th.

So for those traveling to Spain Park High School after September 26th, go Valleydale Road. I believe so. All right. Any other comments or questions from the council?

Yeah, just something quick. So they are our assets, right? Yes. And so it's 100% reimbursable for us. That's correct. Keep in mind, I 100% support the mayor if we need to do any betterment. any type of upgrades while we're doing it, increased size of pipe. I know they'll look at the design, but if any of that does come back, we'll have to pay the cost, unless LDOT sometimes covers a little bit more of that. But if we need to do that, we might as well do it now because we want to get back in that role and I 100% support any type of betterment on projects.

Yeah, we actually looked at that going to Dr. Lyons just in that portion of it, but we just decided to stick with the PVC pipe, and it's been working fine. All right.

Well, you got my support. I'm the legislation wing, but I'm just telling you, it won't get back in that road again.

Yeah, I agree. Any other comments or questions for counsel? All right, thank you, Mr. Wells. Moving on to Resolution 8853-26, authorizing the mayor to execute change order number two on MDRV1, or VI, River Chase Village drainage project. Mr. Promer.

Yes, sir.

So I'm here to speak on their change order number two. So these change orders were due to a number of factors. So the design drawings versus the actual field installation had a few challenges that were off. So both in length and also depth of pipe. So there was a connection point that required an additional 15 feet of pipe and 72 inch diameter. So you're talking fairly large size pipe. And you also have to note that this was 30 feet deep in the ground and the soil conditions were such that you really had to stabilize material and cut the banks back. So It required quite a lot of work to make that extension, so it's not just 15 feet of pipes. Gotta kinda keep that in mind. Secondly, there was a depth, so once we excavated and got down, the depth of the pipe was a little bit deeper than we originally thought. So that required a little more excavation all by itself. And then back to the soil conditions again. With this oil conditions and the way they were, you weren't able to backfill with that. It wouldn't support the new pipes that were going in. So we had to excavate additional four feet down and then bring in material. So all of this excavation... required new material to be brought in, so that was part of the expense. Landscape and irrigation allowance originally did not cover portions of the Walgreens and getting into the Aldot right away. Due to the expansion of the project, we got a little deeper into the Walgreens and then also out in the right of way. So we have to make repairs to the landscaping and the irrigation systems there. Asphalt replacement. So the constraints of the project site required us to use some lay down area in that asphalt parking lot. that was not in the original scope of work. It got scuffed up and messed up, and we wanted to replace it back properly, so we ended up expanding where the pavement was going. There's a water inlet and a manhole that locations were off, which caused a little bit of a change. And then lastly, this gets back to the excavation depth and the extent we had to go towards Aldot right away. They had their own set of inlets and boxes and pipe systems that once we excavated, they actually collapsed. So we had to go back and replace those, do it up to Aldot standards. So that's the last change. So all in total for this change order two is $266,027.39, which brings the total for the project being $2,160,207.39. So an item of note here, there's no budget transfer required for this change order. This is covered under the original project allocation. They put some safety factors in there just to cover items like this because it's just the nature of the beast. Once you get down and excavate, things change a little bit. So we could have ended up going a lot deeper in the parking lot. So total allocation was four and a half million and right now we're sitting at 2.16.

Very good. Any comments, questions for Mr. Brummer?

All right.

Got off light. Next is resolution number 88-54-26, authorizing the mayor to execute change order number two for the construction of the NCFI addition for various adjustments and additions identified during the construction process. Mr. Miller.

Good evening, Mr. President, Council, Mayor.

So yes, exactly. This is change order number two for the NCFI addition project. So a couple items that came in on this one was an added windscreen. All these should be in your packet. Added windscreen and razor wire for the Hoover Jail. Some additional fiber conduit for AT&T in order for them to make the connection from where the fiber is coming into the building all the way out to the state forensics lab. Doing a hot tap for existing mechanical piping, which was a very interesting ad, but it saved us a lot of money to do this. Ceiling tile replacement in the north quarter. This is to replace some tile that was already water stained that was not picked up originally, so it was adding that in. Galley floor box change and some fireproof existing, some of the floor penetrations, make sure those are fireproofed. Now this change order also includes some credits back to the project. So you may remember, you may know, you may not know, at one point in time there was some floor joist reinforcement that was gonna need to be placed and that would displace our police investigation group. for several months. So we were able to work around that and not need that support for those floor joists. So that will not move police investigations. They're able to stay exactly where they are. So that was one credit. Another credit was in the lobby lighting. There's another deduct in there. And then some redesign, rework to the fire protection. So the change order number two, total amount is $7,319.16. We started with $200,000 in that contingency element that, similar to what Mr. Permer just talked about, that built in to the contract piece, So that started at $200,000. Change order one reduced that. Change order two will reduce that by $319.16 to get us to a total remaining in the contingency of $166,643.63. Comments or questions from council? Mr. Smith? Yes, sir. Mr. Miller,

How does the razor wire come where it should be funded from this project rather than another source of funding?

So what happened, this is in the jail piece. So this is all sealed off with the jail parking lot. We had to remove that fence. So this is a temporary fence with razor wire that was put up for this project so that we could get and remove that fence.

So at some point in the future, that would be replaced with a permanent fence?

Yes, sir, it would be. So what happens now is between the new fence that we put in, there's another construction fence. So that's the way we go in and out. We access the jail at this point.

Very good.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Miller. Thank you. Resolution number 885526, authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement for the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham for Riverchase Business Park Greenway feasibility study. Mr. Martin.

Good afternoon. So the Regional Planning Commission has selected the City of Hoover for an APPLE grant to conduct a feasibility study for a greenway pathway through the Riverchase Office Park. The amount that the RPC is going to be placing towards the project is just south of $48,000. And there is a 20% match from the city that just under 12,000. The purpose of this project again is to do a feasibility study of the River Chase Office Park area for the addition of Greenway Trail through that sector of the park along the Cahaba River, as well as to a potential connection at Valleydale Road. The park and rec plan that we're operating under was adopted in 2024. Two of the high priorities that were stated within that plan, one was to develop as continuous as possible a greenway corridor along the Cahaba River through Hoover's footprint, as well as making sure that we work towards making connections with adjoining jurisdictions and trail improvements that those other jurisdictions may be contemplating or have in place. So this particular location, the River Chase Office Park, accomplishes two of those items. One, you have a significant presence parallel to the Cahaba River, and two, you have the potential for future connection to the city of Pelham and Point South towards Oak Mountain State Park. The River Chase office park featured heavily in this particular portion of the park and rec master plan and this would be the first step conducting the feasibility study to see what the possibilities are if it's feasible to run trail through that sector of town.

Any comments or questions for Mr. Martin?

I will note that the city's match is budgeted. Ms. Lovell?

Are there any plans to connect it to the Southlake community?

That is one of the points that we pointed to in our application for the Apple study. There has been interest from the HOA in Southlake and there being a continuation of whatever is performed and put into place in Riverchase. At least members of the HOA that I've been in touch with communicated that they have an interest in in tying South Lake Inn to a larger network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as a way to boost value for their neighborhood. So yes, that is one of the connection points that would be analyzed in this feasibility study.

Thank you. Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin, isn't the South Lake property topo a lot higher? than the properties that it would be connecting to?

So we actually had a team that walked the stretch of Cahaba on the River Chase Office Park side. There are areas that are very topographically challenged. Once we, after we got permission from the HOA to traverse their common area, to the east of I-65 that's actually at an even grade or even level with property on the west side of I-65. And there's a considerable distance under that overpass between where the wall is and where the river is located that does make for the possibility of continuing a trail there.

Very good.

Thank you. Would the South Lake HOA have any responsibility cost-wise in that process? Do you know?

I think we're really early in the process to be contemplating an arrangement. I know that the representatives of the HOA that I've spoken with were interested in sidewalk being added along the parkway to connect the residential sector with the commercial sector. And if that were something the city was interested in doing, putting that in place, then they had an interest in allowing the city to place multipurpose path on an easement within their common area. But as far as maintenance responsibilities, we're very early. Ms. Driver.

Mr. Martin, how does this relate to the study that was done with a consultant, the Greenways and Blueways study just a few years ago?

This ties in directly with the recommendations of the park and rec plan that our consultants produced for us and planning commission and council considered back in 2024. This directly aligns with those high priorities of Greenway corridor along the Cahaba and potential connections to other jurisdictions for a larger regional network.

So it's more of a drill down and a more detailed look at that specific area, whereas the overall plan was broader and less detailed.

Yes, ma'am, that's exactly correct. Park and rec plan, I will often view the comprehensive plan that we performed back in 2019 as a 10,000-foot view, the park and rec plan at the 5,000-foot view, and then this would be drilled down to look at the feasibility of improvements in this corridor.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? All right, thank you, Mr. Martin. Resolution 885626, providing for the City of Hoover's annual participation in the back-to-school sales tax holiday as authorized by 40-23-210 through 40-23-213 Code of Alabama. Dr. Lopez.

Good evening. You guys are probably familiar with this. It has been an annual effort In the past, I found out yesterday that the state law had changed and required a 90-day notice. But they're giving the first year, giving you a pass on that. So this is pretty much the same other than, of course, the dates have changed. And we've added an in perpetuity unless the council votes to take it back. So we will not have to do this every year. It will be done already.

Very good. Comments or questions for Dr. Lopez?

Mr. President. I guess this would be a procedural question. If we did it in perpetuity, would that need to be an ordinance?

Mr. Walter?

If that's something that we truly want to look at, it might be. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

So we would need this as...

not sure I think the state provided the language that we used and told us that we could do it this way I'm not sure that it was they provide as a resolution or an ordinance

I think to err on the side of caution, we probably need to change this to an ordinance and for immediate consideration on Monday night. No, in perpetuity to participate in the sales tax holiday, unless changed by the state.

The way they've worded it is until and unless annual participation in the exemption is rescinded by further action of the city council is how they've worded this.

So the goal is to not have to vote on this each year. Wendy, would you get with Mr. Waldrop and make sure the language is done for? This is just my opinion about it.

All the cities are doing this annually. This language appears like this. What's that?

I think as long as it had language that included that any adjustments would go with any changes that came from the state, whether they be by dates or whatever, that those would change with the state adjustments.

There are a number of cities that are doing this already, so we're not the first ones.

Let me ask this. Legal, can you get it to where it is an ordinance that you feel comfortable with, that this doesn't have to come before council each year, that we participate in this sales tax holiday, unless conditions are changed by the state by Monday night. Otherwise, we can vote Monday night for this year, and next year we work on that with more heads up. Yes, sir. Can you handle that?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Is everyone good with that? All right. Thank you. Moving on for public hearings on Monday night. First, we have up Ordinance Number 262702 to amend Ordinance Number 263 of the City of Hoover, Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hoover for the property located at 3960 South Shadescrest Road being zoned to R1.

Yes, this is a property that was annexed into the city limits, approximately 1.4 acres on South Sagecrest Road. It's currently unzoned. We're looking to zone it to R1 in keeping with the zoning trend along that stretch of the roadway. Planning Commission recommends approval of this. They pass that recommendation on to you.

Comments or questions for Mr. Martin on this? All right, moving on to Resolution 884926, granting conditional use approval to operate a dog daycare for the property located at 5361 US 280.

Yes, the Planning Commission heard this case back at their May meeting, and it comes to you with a positive recommendation with conditions. The Planning Commission recommends the addition of the following conditions. One, the max capacity for animals on the site shall be 120. Two, the sound management plan is implemented as submitted. Three, the waste management plan is implemented as submitted. Four, dumpsters on site should be serviced sufficiently to prevent noxious odors. Five, owners shall install a video monitoring system and have the facility under surveillance during all operating hours. owners shall install a Knox box or other acceptable means of permitting emergency services to gain entry into the facility. And finally, the business shall obtain a certificate of occupancy and a business license prior to opening. As part of their application, Dogtopia submitted a parking study that concluded that the site can accommodate the proposed use of The staff had no issues with the parking study. Also of note, the applicant did receive concurrence from the Alabama Department of Transportation that no additional improvements would be needed to their access either to Highway 280 or Cahaba Valley Road 119. We did confirm that animals would be kept at the facility overnight and thus have proposed the conditions relating to the monitoring and emergency access. So Planning Commission does offer a positive recommendation with those conditions to the board.

Any comments or questions for Mr. Martin? All right, moving on to Resolution 885026, granting conditional use approval to reclassify existing child care operations from a daycare home to a group daycare home for the property located at 3599 Deerfield Drive.

All right, this comes to you. This was considered by the Planning Commission also at their May meeting. The request is to expand the daycare home located at that address to a group care home, which would in essence elevate the number of children that could be taken care of and could stay at the facility from a maximum of six to a maximum of 12. There are a number of upgrades that would be needed to the home in order to accommodate this facility. The Planning Commission at their May meeting decided not to provide a positive recommendation on this item to the City Council. Should the City Council decide to approve the conditional use, staff does have recommended conditions that we would ask to be placed on such approval, including as follows. One, that all of the upgrades outlined in the application be successfully planned, permitted, completed, and inspected. and a new certificate of occupancy is issued prior to the increase in number of students being allowed to occupy the building. Secondly, that no pickup or drop-off service would be provided on Atkins Trim Boulevard. Thirdly, that the group daycare shall serve a maximum of 12 children. Fourthly, the hours of operation would be 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Number five, no employee parking would be permitted on the street. Number six, business owners shall renew their business license with updated classification prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued. We will note also that in preparation and lead up to the Planning Commission meeting, we did receive correspondence from neighbors in letter form as well as those participating in the public hearing that were not in favor of this particular use expanding on the site.

I believe some handwritten letters were left on every member's desk involving that from neighbors. Any other comments, questions for Mr. Martin?

Mr. President, I have either Mr. Martin or Ms. Driver. Was there any Vote of support from the Planning Commission when the vote was taken?

There was no vote taken.

Oh, okay. Was there not a motion made?

Did we vote in the negative or did we not vote? I may be misremembering that.

A positive recommendation failed. The motion failed for lack.

For lack of a motion or was it a negative vote?

For lack of a motion.

Understood. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

How long has this daycare been in operation?

Been in operation for a couple of years. We did have the discovery of an issue with their business licensing that we were able to resolve, but it has been in operation for a couple of years now.

All right, thanks.

Are you able to summarize just the main concerns from the public?

Primary concern was traffic, additional traffic going in what is a dead end street. And just not really knowing who was being picked up, who was being dropping off, who was doing the picking up, who was doing the dropping off. So there were... I would say traffic insecurity, concerns by the neighbors, and the idea of a business, a home business being located there. The general consensus was the neighborhood seemed okay with the level of intensity that it's operating at now, but increasing, having the ability to double the size of that operation was something that they were not agreeable to.

Thank you.

Mr. Martin, was this the first time that this item has come up in front of the city or has it been brought up before?

It has been brought up before. Let's see, it was in the last calendar year. An application was made, came before the city council. The city council denied the application. the applicant had to wait six months to reapply.

Okay.

Mr. President, one note as to the question about main neighborhood concerns, another that was articulated repeatedly was about on-street parking. I know that came up several times in email correspondence and direct speech at the Planning Commission meeting.

Any other comments or questions? All right, moving on to some first readings for June 22nd. First up is Ordinance Number 262703, Amending Municipal Code Section 8-453, Standards and Requirements for Mobile Food Unit Operations.

So this ordinance actually goes in tandem with the next. We are amending both the city code as it relates to mobile food trucks as well as the zoning ordinance. I'll go ahead and read that one as well.

The next item. Ordinance 262704 or an ordinance to amend the zoning ordinance regarding zoning regulations regarding food trucks.

Okay, in essence, what we're doing with the amendment to the municipal code is it's removing the provisions for roadside operation of food trucks within the city. It does add minimum performance standards for all food trucks that would be eligible for operating across the city. And following that, with the zoning ordinance amendment, this provides, in short, for food truck operation in three different categories. One, it provides for their ability to operate with special events across the city, whether on public property or private property, as long as those events are of a temporary nature. And Again, the food trucks remain in conformity with the minimum performance standards outlined in city code. The second opportunity for food truck operation would be temporary use at office parks and approved event venues. We do have several of those across the city and wanted to make accommodation for them. And third, rather than the current method of operation on the roadside, the zoning ordinance amendment would create a new use classification called the food truck court. And this would actually outline development criteria for a development of property specifically to accommodate food trucks, as well as patrons for those food trucks. That was one comment that I heard back when discussing the draft with council members earlier, that they wanted to have opportunities for food trucks to locate since they are popular with a segment of our population. And so the, best examples that we found in our research were those that actually created development criteria for food courts, for food truck courts that ensure a certain amount of performance, ensures a certain amount of investment, capital investment, and also assures that ingress, egress, access, traffic is taken into consideration. I will note that the food truck court use classification in the commercial non-residential districts that we are proposing that it be considered in would be considered with conditional use approval. So that means conditional use applications would go to the Planning Commission and ultimately would come to the council for final consideration Very good comments questions for mr. Martin Miss Schultz What led to the revision of the original ordinance? So multiple fronts, one, the current ordinance does not appear to be working, particularly when it comes to the roadside variety food truck operations. Our ordinance at present puts time limitations on when Those operations can operate on any particular site. Also gives certain criteria as far as how permanent their setup can be. In other words, not permanent at all, no seating, no signage, none of that. And these are specific aspects of the current ordinance that we're seeing violated on a regular basis. In addition to that, there are some in the business community that are operating in accordance with the rules that are noticing other locations where food trucks are operating outside of compliance with this ordinance on a regular basis and have logged complaints with code enforcement.

So by street side, we have one in Bluff Park that popped up on an empty lot there. Is that what you're referring to as a street sign? That's correct. Okay. Mr. Iver.

Mr. President, question for Mr. Mack. So I see the prohibition of a food truck being within five feet of a sidewalk. And I'm trying to think through how that works in, let's say, a residential area that has a public street. And they, I assume, have to apply for a special event in order to have a food truck event in their neighborhood. Unless I'm mistaken there are lots of parking spaces that are within five feet of a sidewalk So if the food trucks can't park within five feet of a sidewalk where in a sidewalks neighborhood Would they be allowed to park?

Well, in general, if you have a common area with parking, that would be certainly accommodating for these kinds of uses. There is some concern about operating food trucks within the rights of way. So we don't want them. We want to ensure that they're not in any way, shape or form. blocking visibility for people backing out onto the street or for anybody that is utilizing those sidewalk facilities. We don't want those to be encumbered in any way, shape, or form. And so that distance allows for some additional spacing to ensure, one, that visibility is not going to be impacted for people maneuvering vehicles onto and off of the roadway. and also any users of those pedestrian facilities wouldn't be encumbered.

I think to piggyback off of that, so I'm thinking of special events that used to occur at Star Lake. We have sidewalks going through that park, but they were utilizing some parking areas right there. So how would we have a special event at Star Lake with food trucks? because that sidewalk is going to go all the way around.

That's something that we can look at further if warranted. Yeah.

So, Mr. President, I concur with Councilwoman Driver, especially with the special events in Section 4, and it states as well, too, now, do we have any special events that last longer than three days, too? I guess it may be, if a lot of events begin to occur, especially on the weekend, it can be a staff intense process to have them um reviewed on a continuous later uh or a monitor right so you got to put some criteria in place but maybe if we put uh some different languages as associated as miss driver uh stating on the special events and i don't know if that three continuous day maybe we need to can no more than three continue that day we need to evaluate that just in case this event that may last four Because if it's for that event, I think about Ross Bridge. I think about a lot of different places, Green Valley. They have a lot of different things to occur. Even the event right there. Hope for Autumn and all those different areas. But someone will have to police it from a safety standpoint. But if you put them in place and they violate it, then it's a different criteria. So I think we need to make some special circumstances for those special events.

The maximum of three days for a special event, that's currently in the code. We're just adding food trucks to the mix for those special events. I will say that in the current language as well as what is being proposed, the three-day maximum does not apply to city-owned property. So that excludes your SEC festivities and other events that we do have that are on city property that go beyond three days.

Yeah, so you're more so looking at quality of life and packed for private residents that may slip into the weekday versus the Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

That's right. Any other comments or questions from council? Mr. Martin, if we could just find some way to tweak that five-foot language, because I'm thinking, too, during the summer months, Ross Bridge has farmer markets out there, food trucks park, and they are butted up against the sidewalks.

Okay. I will get with our fire marshal and engineering and see if we can't come up with something a little better on a tweak.

Thank you. Moving on to public hearings for June 22nd. Resolution number 885726. I'm gonna just go through these. These are all declaring weed and other vegetation nuisances. The property located at 3491 Flintshire Drive. Also at 219 Russet Woods Drive. That would be resolution 885826. Resolution 88-59-26 at 1901 Greenvale Road. And finally, Resolution 88-60-26 at 2337 Tyler Road. You'll have some pictures for us.

Yes, sir. Each of these cases is presently in violation of our grass and weed ordinance. One of them, the Tyler Road location is a repeat offender. I would anticipate seeing that one through to completion, but You never know. We may get lucky. But we will have an update and pictures at the time of the public hearing. Very good. Comments, questions from council?

Just something quick, and I think every term. Can we do a legal? Because I think staff does a great job identifying all the way up to the day of if a person has any compliance and they ask for these items to be taken off. but it's summertime. We normally have eight, nine, sometimes 10. Can we group them together? Basically, because I don't know legal terminology for ordinary business as one is just vote as one versus reading all of them out.

Basically, can we vote as a block instead of each individual?

Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes, we would read them all individually, ask for any comments, questions, and then vote as a block. Very good.

Very good. All right.

Finally, we have public hearings set for July 13th, Resolution 886126, declaring that a nuisance and unsafe conditions exist on the property located at 5823 Rhyme Village Drive and requiring immediate abatement.

You don't have to go into detail until the night of but we've got a rather robust report to present the night of the public hearing and each of you will have a if you don't already have a copy of it in your packet will have one but We started receiving copious amounts of complaints on this property dating back to 2024 and And to the point where some of our inspectors went on the site and based on the sampling of buildings that they were looking at specifically trying to address complaints that came in, noticed that there seemed to be a systemic issue, a systemic problem on this campus as it related to property maintenance. So we actually commenced a comprehensive inspection in March of 2025. And as a result of that, just from the sampling that we got from looking at each building that we were able to gain access to unsecure units and those where tenants invited us in, the building official and fire marshal's office deemed most of the buildings on the campus unfit for occupancy and unsafe. The owner appealed this decision to the Board of Code Appeals in April of 2025. The board upheld the city's position and the city communicated next steps in follow-up meetings and the report to the owner. The city continues to receive violations or complaints from residents citing the conditions. More than ample time has been given to address the violations. No progress on structural engineering architectural plans have been made for the rehabilitation. We currently, I believe, have three permits for mold and moisture remediation. But there have been numerous attempts for that contractor to work beyond the $100,000 mark that requires a general contractor's license. So considerable evidence that we found in our recent follow-up inspection shows that there's work that has been performed without appropriate permits and inspections, and overall conditions continue to deteriorate on the site. Comments or questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Ivey?

So is the site currently occupied?

Yes, and that was one of the things that we communicated after our inspection last year is that most of the buildings again based on just a sample size of units we could get access to were unsafe for occupancy and that is the piece that the owner specifically appealed to the Board of Code Appeals our declaration that the buildings were unfit for occupancy and unsafe. And that is what the board upheld.

So what are the next steps on that from a legal standpoint?

The next step is for us to determine that this is an unsafe condition. That's why we got this. And what I've been waiting for is for this to come up because I want to get with Mac and start having our code enforcement. And each day that these buildings are in an unsafe condition, that's a separate offense under our code. We can cite them every day. And you've got to get this owner's attention. But the first step is for us to do this. And then we'll get with Mac and Dave and talk about what we can do individually. Now, Mac, I think we're going to have to take, you know, this has got one address on here. So we're going to have to take each building. From what I understand from what you're saying, these are unsafe and they are public health hazards. So it's going to need some specificity for each one of the buildings that doesn't meet code inspection. So this is the first step.

So the report that council will receive breaks out by each building with numbers so that those can be referenced specifically.

Can you turn your microphone?

Sorry. I said the report that you'll receive does reference each building specifically by number with photographs and staff notes. So that will allow for that.

Looks like Mr. Barnett has something to say too.

While Scott's coming up to the microphone, I think Mr. Waldrop answered my question that this is a campus problem and not just one structure.

Let me say this. We had a similar situation that was actually a zoning violation where a person had a house, it should have been R1, and they had It created a big issue for us and I think that we've worked through that and we've gotten through it, but the way that we did it, it wasn't that it was unsafe, it just didn't meet the zoning code. Each day that it remained that way would have been a separate, distinct offense. That got the owner's attention. they're now taking steps to do what should have been done from the downstroke, so that's kind of where we are.

President, I do have another follow-up question, whether it's for you or you or both. What, if anything, can we do to help the occupants of this unsafe location? I understand we have to go through legal process with respect to compelling the owner to do what they need to do, but in the meantime, we have...

Unfortunately, you can't spend public dollars to improve private properties. You might assist them in getting out of there to relocate. You could provide that.

Mr. President, in working with staff through this, I've taken the liberty to add into that resolution that you have before you to authorize legal counsel to apply for injunctive relief if necessary. So it goes to the heart of what is needed. The resolution gives us the authority to take whatever action we need to take as your legal team. And if the property owner, even after this appeal that Mr. Martin was talking about, even they're basically ignoring the resolution of the appeal and did not appeal it again, decision and so it's sort of thumbing their nose at the process of the city in my opinion. So that's why I took the liberty of adding that into the resolution to authorize the legal team to address it officially when and if needed. As you've seen Mr. President that there's a large number of statutory provisions in the resolution, a large number of references to your city code. All that was intentional because all of the actions that they've described to me fall within various parts, whether it be fire marshal, whether it be code enforcement here, all those different areas, it's a problem.

Well, before I go, was your question asked? Okay.

I WAS JUST OBSERVING A COUPLE ITEMS HERE. IT WAS A STATEMENT MADE ABOUT UPDATES TO THE PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMITS AND NON-PERMITS, WHICH MEANS THAT INSPECTION WAS NOT PERFORMED. SO IF A LOT OF THE ASSET HAS A LOT OF THAT TYPE OF WORK, HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT'S BEHIND THOSE WALLS, ELECTRICAL WIRING? Can individuals really stay in the complex as a whole, regardless of the units, even if you don't have mold? I looked at it in the 80s, so I don't know if any of the best was there, so I don't know if they stopped it during that time. But if upgrades will occur with no rough inspectors, though, And the fire marshal didn't approve of certain pieces of it as well too. What liability are we putting ourself in by even allowing the entire development to be open?

Back to what Mr. Walter was saying a moment ago. They've identified, your staff, your inspection team, across all departments have identified the buildings that are the most egregious.

And I guess, let me ask, I apologize, this is one thing. Even if the ones are up to date, right, but if they had work performed without proper approval, it can look good on the outside. Even, are those also a part of the grouping that I'll consider maybe some liability associated with that. That's really the question I'm asking on that end. I just want to make sure I was clear on, yeah.

I'm not so concerned about the liability. I think when you're talking about getting him behind the shoot rock and checking that, if there's probable cause to think that that black mold is behind there, could you do that? Yeah, you could, but you're going to have... You may incur some liability in getting in there and finding out if there's not anything there, you're going to have to repair it. From my experience, I think that what Scott is saying about the injunctive relief, I think that we need to be able to have that. But if you've got a building and they board it up and nobody can get in it and it's sitting there, they're not renting it, and I understand there's a high unoccupied number of units there. So they're having to pay property tax or whatever. But it's another thing if you start citing them for the code violations, which have graduated cost, and you do that every day, and it starts actually they're having to pay money out, even though they're not renting it, I think it gets their attention. But I want to go back to what Counselor Driver asked a question about what we can do. The best thing that we can do is to help these people get out of an unsafe situation. If there's some of those units that are safe, then this will encourage the owner to let them go to those units, but they need to get out of these. I'm just assuming that some of the people are there because they have no place else to go.

Is that something that we could call bringing the Red Cross? Hoover helps or outside?

I think there's social services that could help with this, and I think that's a legitimate use of city resources to try to help them get out of there.

I will note to that point, that was one of the first action items that we gave in the next steps to the owner that they needed to relocate the residents that were in buildings that were deemed unfit for occupancy. There was some effort made to relocate some of the residents to buildings that we didn't have enough evidence to declare as unfit for occupancy, but there is still occupancy occurring in buildings that we deemed unsafe back in 2025.

I mean, it looks like from this graphic, there are maybe 55 or 60 buildings and only eight of them are circled as potentially safe for occupancy.

And Ms. Driver, to that point, your inspectors would probably tell you that the reason that there was no determination on those buildings is because they could not get inside of those buildings. They're occupied. And so there's a high suspicion from your staff, they may tell you, that some of the same problems were prevalent in the occupied dwellings.

The date of July 13th, there's no, that's the earliest we can hear this case.

Can I say one more thing?

I'm sorry. This is set for a public hearing on July the 13th. Meanwhile, those people are still living in those unsafe conditions. They are. I mean, that is the earliest we can hear this.

I think under the law, that's what the notes we have to give in Scott.

Yes, sir. And that's I'm glad you brought that up. Mack wanted to push it a little faster. And I said, wait a second. I want to make sure that this is tight. And so even though you all have a statutory authority, even outside of your own regulations, to go to court, find something to be a nuisance in the city and have it abated, there's no problem with that. But they're going to throw rocks at everything. And notification provisions are very important. Very important to get right. And so the 30 days, to his point, is advisable. And that's why we chose another date in July instead of the last one in June.

Just for clarity, Chief Bentley, if you don't recall right now, is this the same location that has been out of water multiple times for days? And have they done a fire watch? I mean, so is irrigation as well, too, and fire protection for the property? But is this the same location that was out of water for multiple days, several times?

We have had some water outages for fire protection in this complex, not just recently, but we have had water outages in this area. Further comments, questions, council?

I would just ask Mr. President, Mr. Mayor, if you and the staff would coordinate with legal and see if there are some social services that we can deploy. I think it's been going on for a really long time now and just concerned about the health and safety of the people.

Thank you. This brings us to the end of our business portion. I understand that we do have a... potential real estate issue that may require executive session.

We do, and we are requesting that we go into executive session. We don't anticipate any action being taken, but we do need to talk to you about an economic development in real estate matter, and Alabama law allows us to go into executive session to discuss that with you, and we're certifying that as city attorney that this complies with the Alabama law. Very good.

You do have to have roll call vote.

Mr. Dickerson, can you call the roll to go? Do we need a motion and a second first, I guess? Do I have a motion to go into executive session?

Motion.

Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Mr. Ivers, you'll call the roll.

Council Pro Tem Driver? Aye. Council Member Schultz?

Aye.

Council Member Smith?

Aye.

Council Member Lovell? Aye. Council Member Murphy?

Aye.

Council Member McClinton?

Aye.

Council President Middlebrooks?

Aye. With seven ayes, we will now adjourn into executive session. We will not come back here and adjourn out of there.

Do we have an estimated time frame?

20 minutes. How many questions are you going to ask? Yeah, it depends on the number.

I brought an extra pad and paper.

Yeah. We will add one up.

I fell for that one, didn't I?

We are going to add that ordinance that was a resolution that will be morphed into we'll add that to the agenda so you'll have another one that will be on the agenda.