Board of Mayor & Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Thank you so much. Ready?

Patrick? Hi. Can everybody hear me? Hi, this is the City of Avondale Estates Board of Mayor and Commissioners. This is our regular meeting. It's August 12th, 2026. It's 530. I'd like to call the meeting to order. We have an agenda before us. Do I have a motion to adopt? That was Lida. Do I have a second? Second. That was Louie. All in favor say aye. Aye. Commissioner Smith will be listening in this evening, but he's not able to just reply at any moment, so he's not going to be here effectively, but he is listening in. He just doesn't know when he may be able to vote or not vote, so he's just going to listen in. Okay, so Commissioner comments...

Mayor Pro Tem. Not much for me tonight. Just thank you all for being here. And the only thing is I'm looking forward to the sugar polish ribbon cutting this week. And if you've never been to a business ribbon cutting in the city, I would encourage you to come because they're a happy event and they're joyous and it's a nice thing to come out for to see. So that's it. Yes. Commissioner Swanson.

I don't have much to say other than I'm looking forward to our centennial event. celebration in the street, street party, and I need to find out who to ask how I can volunteer. So maybe at some point, Patrick, Shannon will let us know how. Okay. Commissioner Stebbins.

Well, welcome all. Good to see you here. I want to say that I have visited Sugar Polish and they did a good job on my pedicure and I will be going back. So it was a very nice environment. The staff was wonderful. I also tried bun in Bombay and went at the convenience store. The food was very good. My family eats a lot of Indian food. and I met Johnny and he's a lovely man so cheers to them and try them out and then I'm looking forward to trying out Ford barbecues and rotisserie chicken so that's all I've got that's a lot thank you I don't have much to add so Mr.

Manager yes some of this has been touched on so pardon if I reiterate today is my parents basement's 11th anniversary oh my We are happy to have our favorite nerd bar, as they like to call themselves, right in Avondale Estates. And we are excited to announce two new businesses have opened. The aforementioned Ford's Chicken by Commissioner Stedman opened today. Shannon and I actually went and ate lunch there today, and it was delicious. So congrats to them. Also, Los Niños Taqueria has opened a taco truck on Olive Street right outside of Little Tree Art Studios, so please go support them as well. And we talked about sugar polish, but just a reminder, join us for their official ribbon cutting at their location on the second floor of the Dale this Friday, August the 14th at 11 a.m. We have some exciting events to talk about as well. First up, let's count pollinators. The community is invited to participate in the annual Great Southeast Pollinator Count on the morning of Saturday, August the 22nd from 10 a.m. to noon. City staff and volunteers from the Avondale Estates Garden Club and the Avon Garden Club will be available to help you count bees, butterflies, and other pollinators as they land on flowers. Please spend 15 minutes with us at one of the four or five counting locations, including those in the Northwoods and neighbors' flowers lining the sidewalk close by to help support. Look in next week's e-news for all of the location information. It's also time to start celebrating the city's centennial. We are kicking off festivities on Friday, August the 28th with a street festival on Franklin Street between Olive and Pine Streets. From 6 to 9 p.m., Commune will be spinning tunes, artist studios will be open, and an improv group will toast and roast Avondale Estates inside Littletree Art Studios. There will be kids activities, food trucks including from Skips, Banjo, and Los Niños Taqueria, a former DeKalb History Center display on... of the city inside of Olive and Pine, centennial giveaways including temporary tattoos by Sweets Tattoo Emporium, and much more. It's free for the whole family and it's a great chance for all of us to come together to celebrate what makes Avondale special. If you want to help, we could use volunteers for one and a half hour shifts to assist. Please reach out to communications at avondalestates.org to sign up. Also in recognition of the centennial, the following night on August 29th at 7 p.m. is the 1920s Gala at the Community Club. Please buy your tickets in advance. There are QR codes located on marketing materials, and those posters can be found throughout City Hall. So please check those out on your way out of the building tonight if you haven't already done so.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

All right. All good up here? All good. Okay. Public comment.

I promise I've had far less coffee today, folks.

Okay.

That's it. Integrity is being honest and doing what's right, even when no one's watching. I appreciate the many perspectives of the people who live in this community, visit, drive through it, Write about it, vote here, those who want to improve it, along with humanity in general. There are people who do manipulate abuse power, double down on their lies, create more to defend their position. Some apologize so often there's no value to their words. Others remain silent as if every state of the human being is not fallible of something. Unusual even at work, it seems, when anyone takes accountability for anything these days. Even more rare for an elected body to hold their fellow leaders accountable for bad behavior, even after deciding they behaved badly. Maybe even when there are good people opting to co-bury such an incident instead of voting down party lines or out of fear. Perhaps fear of progress will stop or fear of progress will continue depending on where you sit. Or maybe because discipline in general just seems to have vanished. Adults in general seem to be shocked to be corrected, refuse to provide discipline to protect someone else, or expect a culture of kindness and basic respect, which I clearly walked into this evening, which was lovely. Again, are done attitude and appreciated with inclusive, not when it's a big sense of your human resources. Many people organizations and institutions for many decades have contributed to our avenue and surrounding area are now, including. The board made the city manager and previous to others as well, let's not forget their contributions either that they're harder to see before the buildings came out of the ground that I mean that most respectfully. Making comparisons to previous leadership, how they handled things like their privilege, misogyny, and racism is still relevant indeed, but not as a reason to suggest others have gotten away with it. And since no one pushed or exposed those issues then, it's okay to continue to do now. Or perhaps it's okay because the rest of the country looks so often this way. The bar is pretty low, and I fear we're tripping on it. Sometimes change comes from the bottom down and not the top up.

Thank you.

OK. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and commissioners. First, thanks for all of the emails back and forth the last couple of weeks.

It's been really helpful, Patrick especially. Two weeks ago, I addressed to you about the possibility of establishing a perpetual endowment fund for Lake Avondale.

And now I understand that for donor reasons and financial reasons, we need to delay that possibility. So I wanted to talk about that momentarily. And then I had a couple of items on the capital plan. So just please add to the backlog of projects for 27 or 28 the possibility of creating a Lake Avondale Perpetual Endowment Fund. Next point, on the capital plan that you're going to talk about, what we really have, it's a really nice piece of work, it's really a three-year forecast of the city's investment needs. That's the good news. The kind of bad news is the needs far exceed the resources by about $2.5 million. So the plan that you've got before you tonight does a great job of expressing a $13.5 million need, and it appears from the heading that most of that money needs to be invested in 2026. My request is that before you all vote on this, that you request the finance director and city manager to spread those dollars out over at least a couple, three years so that you can really see the impact of that $2.5 million shortfall. The next point, and this is really good news, the proposed budget that you're going to talk about tonight includes $3.3 million of money from the, I guess, the federal or state government to really take care of the streets in the downtown area. The thing that doesn't show through here, it's very exciting, is that's created the possibility of increasing your paving budget for paving roads, herbs, some other things, from $150,000 last December to almost a million dollars in this budget. That's phenomenal. So before you vote, or if you could talk about, does that have the possibility of increasing or accelerating the paving program throughout the city? Along those lines, it'd be nice to know if we're on a 15-year cycle or 20-year cycle.

Sorry, I keep dropping this.

I guess that's because it's a shortfall. It keeps falling off. Anyway, yeah. Next point, and probably one of the most pressing and important, is the situation with the Lake Avondale dam repairs. I'm sorry? Yes, sir. Okay, 30 more seconds, please.

20, go.

Before you all vote, either tonight or in two weeks, please get an update, even if it's a verbal update, from the engineers on what the estimated cost of that and when construction can begin, what the priority is, and if that's going to push other needed projects out of the way. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. Other comments? Anyone online? Okay. Last call. Anyone else out there? Okay. Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back up here. Anything up here? Okay. All right. So item number five, we have before us the meeting minutes of the July 22nd, 2026 regular meeting and the July 22nd, 2026 work session. Do I have a motion to engross the minutes? So moved. That was Graham. Do I have a second? That was Lytle. All in favor say aye. Aye. That's four. Okay. All right. All right. This is, give me one second. This is a first read of an ordinance amending the budget for fiscal year 2026 for the City of Avondale Estates. As prescribed in our charter, we do have the possibility of passing this on first read with a consent vote. So, do I have a motion for a consent vote?

No. Okay. Okay.

So this will be the first read of an ordinance to adopt the budget. We will do a second read at the next meeting, which is the 26th.

Mr. Mayor, if you would allow, I've got some updates for you guys with respect to this item. So I am happy that... There was no motion for a consent vote because I don't believe that we are prepared to consider the ordinance as currently drafted. So a couple of things. First, I want to address some of the comments made by Mr. Dorough, just for clarity's sake. The board is unable to create an endowment because it is prohibited from doing so by state law that keeps a board from binding a future board to a set of expenditures or restrictions on expenditures. However, I think that discussion is a little more nuanced because, for example, let's just say Mr. Dorough had a million dollars that he wanted to donate to the city now. The donor could restrict those funds. And then before they're accepted into the city's coffers, that option could be presented to Once a donation is made and hits the general fund, those funds can only be committed for a purpose. They cannot be restricted for specific activity because of the aforementioned state law, keeping one board from binding a future board to a specific expenditure. Needless to say, legally, that can't be accomplished at this point.

Wait a minute. So if someone said, I want you to create an endowment, here's a million dollars, we can create an endowment. If they specify that purpose and you accept the money for that purpose.

So we could...

It could be done. I think in the endowment hypothetical specifically, it's more like the donor would create it and the city would be the beneficiary. So the board's not making a decision to tie up the money. You just get the benefits over time based on how the endowment works.

Okay.

All right. Okay. Moving on from that, we received information today from Dewberry regarding the Lake Avondale Southwood Stormwater Rehabilitation Project. If you all recall, we were anticipating our 30% drawings and an opinion of estimated cost. We have not yet sat down to meet with Dewberry or analyze that information to be able to give y'all any recommendations about the execution of that project quite yet. We anticipate we'll have all of that information ready for you by the next BOMC meeting to discuss. However, we don't believe the information that we will provide to you will have really any material impact on the actual city resources that are currently committed to that project in the budget. If y'all recall, what we're proposing in this amendment is a little over $2 million of monies that the city already has for the project. and potentially supplementing any additional need via a grant award. Based on what we received today, we do not believe that the city will necessarily have to expend any additional resources, but we're not completely comfortable with an understanding about how many additional resources we will have to seek from the state or the federal government. We will be consulting with Dewberry over the next week or two and be able to present y'all with more information at the next meeting. However, again, I do not believe it materially impacts the amendment as proposed. What will impact the amendment as proposed is the final digest. So last Friday we received our final digest. We have subsequently analyzed the impact of the digest onto both the general fund and the TAD fund. And based on the final digest, we did experience a 6% attrition rate per appeals. So our digest went, the assessed value of the digest decreased from $507 million to $477 million. As a result, interestingly enough, the impact on the general fund and the TAD are relatively even. Both are about 6%. So we're anticipating generating revenue $82,000 less than what we had projected in this amendment based on the millage rate that was established at the end of June. So before you consider this amendment, we will have to build in a revenue reduction of $82,000 beyond what we already have and present that impact to you. Basically, from first flush, the impact is pretty cut and dried. It eliminates our capital transfer for the year and would, unless expenditures in the operating budget were reduced, they are currently adopted. One thing of note about that process, of course, is reducing expenditures in the budget eight months into the year is a little more difficult than it would be at budget adoption. And so you're looking at the only types of things you could cut potentially would be future events like the which would reduce the impact of salaries on the budget. Those would be the only two options. Otherwise, you take some of your unassigned fund balance and use that to balance the budget at year end. Now, in terms of unassigned fund balance, we have a policy whereby we are required to keep 25% of operating expenditures on hand in case there is a need. We are in excess of that policy. At the previous year end, we have about 38% of our operating expenditures in unassigned fund balance, and that already takes into account the transfer of a portion of the unassigned recently made. So we will make those adjustments to the draft materials as soon as possible tomorrow. Get those to you so you will have those to be able to consider well in advance of the next BOMC meeting. Okay.

I have a question. Have y'all gotten the receivable reports yet from the county?

We'll have our first read next week or next time. There'll be a second read.

So in the past, how we've handled these things is after the first read, which is currently happening, you have the ability to amend for the second read and consider at second read. So that's why we want to give you these materials as soon as possible so y'all have plenty of time to consider them prior to our next meeting.

Before we move on, I have some questions and comments. First, my question is, all these projects listed, do we have to vote again on them before we move forward with them? Or once we authorize these, are they authorized to move forward without any action by us?

So, no. Right. The capital program is just a plan. Each of these projects then have to be brought back to the board on an individual basis for contractual obligations.

Okay. Yeah. That's what I thought. I just wanted to clarify. I've been looking over this and, you know, I wasn't there when y'all approved this, but I'm kind of looking at it like Paul said, from a kind of cash flow look to see, you know, how... how our money, you know, where are we getting the money to manage all these projects? I did look at the balance sheets as of June, and the total, and leaving the small splost and taking out this shared streets project, we've got about $13 million in projects, and the funds after the $1.42 million total about $6.5 million. Let's see. So in the capital, the SPLOST 2 and the stormwater. So I'm a little concerned about the revenue because the capital fund is not a revenue generating fund. It only gets its money either from transfer from other funds or from posting grant funds or something like that. The SPLOST II fund, you know, we had a $2 million SPLOST grant or whatever it was called from DeKalb County, and then we took out a loan for $3.7 million. Part of that $3.7 million was used for the 1.42, well, yeah, to send that to the DDA. So after that, you know, we have... We have a balance of $4,236,224, you know, to do what we need to do for the rest of this stuff. I think that it's, and the other thing is there's no more revenue coming into this account for a while because we pledged, you know, the splossed revenue to pay off for the revenue bond. So there's no more revenue coming in there. The other one is that, you know, we got about $429,000 in stormwater fees last year. I would expect to get at least the same this year. So I'm a little concerned about the revenue coming in to pay for these projects. I'd like us to take a deeper dive into that at some point. And also, I feel like the two, well, the two point, Three, that it's showing from the SPLOST funds to pay for the lake. I would like that to be restricted to the lake. We can't spend it on anything else because that is a very critical project and a very expensive project. And I think everything we do from this point with money, we have to keep that in mind, that we have to pay for that. And we already have a fair amount in debt. We're still paying 520 a year on the bond for the park and the Northwoods project. So, you know, I just think that this is something we need to discuss more and before voting on all this. Also, I don't think we've really discussed at a meeting about how we're going to use the Wal-Mart money. I'm not the Walmart. So, you know, I'd like some clarity on that as well, how that is being, how we're going to decide to designate that. One more thing. I also feel like, you know, the DDA has the work that they're doing in the downtown and the projects that they need to carry on. And we have what we need to do for the city as a whole. And I think it might be a nice thing, at least maybe quarterly or semi-annually, is to have a meeting with both bodies together to talk about what we're working on and how we can work together to get everything accomplished. I think that might be a nice thing to do.

Okay. Can I take a moment?

Absolutely.

For those following along who don't have the benefit of being deep in the details. Lyda, Paul Dorr, Commissioner Steadman are talking about this. So this is the Avondale State's capital budget fiscal year 2026. So this was sort of a living document. So a couple of years ago, some of these items were on here. last year, 20, you know, this current year, they're on there and some of them will continue to be on there. These are not like, this is exactly what we're doing this year and we're going to spend, this is a look ahead. Paul, I think you said three years. I think I've heard this is sort of a two year look ahead, but it's not like, these are things like, let's say there's a stormwater project down at the bottom of Pine Street. Yeah, Pine Street. That has to be designed, and that has, you know, engineer has to design it, then they have to, it has to be reviewed, it has to be bid, it has to be permitted, it has to get done, the money has to, so this is not that we are spending this money tomorrow, this is These are the things, I have to think of it like home. I have a long to-do list of things that need to be repaired at home. Some of them I will do right away. And some, I know they're there. They're not, the house isn't going to fall. So I will deal with them eventually. I know, and I put it on the list because there's, you know, there wants to be some. So I'm saying this partially for those who aren't up to speed on all the details. This isn't identifying that there's a, I'm sorry. There isn't a problem that needs to be solved. These are all problems that need to be solved and they need to be accounted for, considered, you know, designed, engineered, et cetera. And then we have to come up and decide what year is the right year to do these things. And can we get grants, et cetera, et cetera. This is sort of the way I think of it. It may not be a perfectly technically accurate description, but I hope it helps the folks following the wealth and the warrant up to speed on every little detail.

Okay. So anything to add? Commissioner Suazo's explanation was technically accurate. So that was a really great way to explain what the capital program is. So kudos.

All right. So anything further up here on that? Okay. All right, so the second read with amendments will be August 26th? Correct. Okay, thank you. All right, item number seven. You want to tee this up first?

Sure. We've talked about this on several occasions. The city has a stormwater pipe center street and the pipe pushes water from elsewhere in the downtown and all the 278 through this pipe and out into the downtown the problem we have is that the pipe is has two problems one uh it it does not have a conveyance where it dumps the water to. So all of the water coming out of this pipe rushes onto private property, creating an unnatural condition. The second is the pipe is undersized. So it actually, if of the water that's moving through it and so forth. So all the water that spills out of it is actually coming out of it faster than you would want. So that unnatural condition is actually getting worse by that. And it causes erosion to private property. That private property happens to now be owned by the Avila Hedgewood Consortium. And if y'all recall, the DDA has a contractual agreement with them to build a stormwater retention amenity at the north end of the downtown, which will essentially function to contain all of the stormwater coming off of their properties and stormwater that is emanating from public roadways and public areas throughout the downtown. So, in order for us to remove our legal liability from the unnatural condition that we are creating for that private property as a result of this undersized exposed pipe, we are asking you guys to transfer an amount of $355,000 to the DDA so that the DDA can amend their contract for public infrastructure with Avila Hedgewood to upsize this pipe, take it underground, connect to a pipe that they will install on their own private property, which will take all of this water and lead it into that stormwater retention amenity on the north end of the downtown. And the reason we're asking for this is pretty simple. They will already have a contractor on site installing new piping on their private property, going directly to the retention amenity that they're building. And it makes absolute sense to have them continue that work to upsize this existing pipe to connect those two pipes. It'll reduce the cost of the project significantly. DDA project. It is a city condition with city infrastructure that is causing the unnatural condition on the Avila-Hedgewood property. So we're asking to transfer monies from the SPLOST to fund to the DDA so that the DDA can amend their contract with Avila-Hedgewood to execute this project and remove the condition from the downtown. And the has provided a cost estimate of just under $350,000. The reason that we're asking for the transfer for $355,000 that you will see in the IGA is for the hiring of a third party inspector to ensure that the work, since it is a city project, is being conducted in the public right of way to our specifications. with the county on this project because the county had to relax their utility separation requirements in order for us to perform this work, which they have agreed to do because they want us using our SPLOST 2 money for this express purpose. As you've said before, Mr. Mayor, stormwater doesn't just disappear at the city's limits. Stormwater we create goes elsewhere, and the stormwater created in unincorporated county comes in here, so we really all have to work together in tandem. amend the contract, as I mentioned.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much for the explanation. We can have questions before or after the motion. I don't really care, but any questions?

Well, I've got more of a statement. I don't care. Okay. Well, I know last time I said that I thought this was a project that BDA should pick up. I mean, it is connected to the ABLA development that's going on. I don't know, you know, Patrick has said that it's Hurley City, and I have to accept that. But I think it's something the DDA could have paid for. I think it's something, a question we should have asked. I know David said it the last meeting. He didn't think it was a good use of their money. But we do have a lot of projects on our plate, and we do need to consider how our funds are spent, and that's why I'd like to have better coordination between us and the DDA to see if there are some things that maybe they could help us with. But that's really all I have to say.

I'd just say I'm in favor of doing this and I do see the value in doing an IGA with the DDA because I do think it coordinates the project a lot better, and we do get a better deal on everything. And just to kind of continue Louie's explanation, this is a good example of taking something from the to-do list and putting it into action. So that's how these things kind of line up. And we do, just because it's on this plan, we do revisit it and do make votes in order to fund it. Which one? This one right here. Just real quick.

This ordinance includes a drafted plan. It shows a 36-inch concrete pipe. It's a tiny version of a construction document that's signed and sealed by an engineer. So as you said, it is a real project now. It's not just the line item. It's engineered. The actual cost, I don't know, is what it is. We're pledging a fixed amount. If it's more than that, that project takes care of it. And I've seen water pouring out of that pipe, and it's kind of silly that we have literally water from 278 going underground and then coming out of the ground again and washing down Center Street. And one final thing is there's all these little behind the scenes things that people don't know. But, you know, the county, it's a very narrow road. The county has a certain distance requirement, like from a water line, like you're going to excavate to put a storm line next to a water line. You have to be a certain distance away. And our staff worked closely and negotiated or convinced or whatever they did with the county to allow us to put this pipe in the street, even though it's slightly closer. There's extra money in here to ensure there's adequate inspection, like the installation of the pipe has to be inspected, the compaction, the paving, all that stuff. partially because it's a little bit closer to that water line so there's all these little details that you know i just learn about at some point some of you may not know about but a lot of it goes into this behind the scenes and we're lucky to have a staff that has a good relationship with the county that can you know work reasonably with them to make sure things like this don't become problems And like less interaction can cause more problems later. So I'm pleased that this is for us. I'm pleased that there's funds set aside and spots to do this. And I'm pleased that we have a professional staff dealing with this.

Very good. I agree. All right. All good. Okay. So do I have a motion? Do I have a motion to approve an intergovernmental agreement for the Center Street Stormwater Infrastructure Extension? That was Louie. Do I have a second?

Second.

That was Graham. All in favor say aye. Aye. That's four. Three and a half.

I saw that. Okay. All right. That's all right.

All right. All good up here? All right. Do I have a motion to adjourn? That was Lyda. Do I have a second?

Second.

That was grandma. All the papers say aye. Aye. Okay. We're going to take a 10-minute break and return down at the table for our work session in 10 minutes.

Everything. Yeah. Okay.

All right. This is the City of Avondale State's Board of Mayor and Commissioner's work session. It is August 12th, 2026. It is now 622. 622. I'd like to call the meeting to order. We have an agenda. We have an agenda before us. Do we have a motion to adopt? I'll second. Second. All right. Continued discussion of the civility pledge.

Want to tee it up? So included in your packet tonight are three documents. The first is the civility pledge as instructed by GMA. The second is our... The one that is titled July 30 was the draft that we discussed previously, cleaned up per direction by Stephen. And then the third document was Stephen's track changes or cleanup of the document provided prior to the meeting last week, but not a part or the last meeting that was not included in the packet that was provided by Commissioner Step. So those are the three documents that you have.

So this is just the custom version of this. The second one.

You edited this one, the GMA one a bit. Sorry, I'm sorry.

Okay, I'll be happy to address these questions. The one that's by GMA... I don't have the packet. That's it. That's okay. The GMA one, I think, is exactly what they have on their website. And we can tell that because, yeah, like, so, like, for example, it says city or town rather than

version of this.

The second one is close to that, but there's a couple of things. So Commissioner Steadman has sent at least two rounds of suggestions and the second document in your packet incorporates her first set of suggestions without designating them as track changes. Now, when I incorporated those, I took the liberty of just kind of slightly rephrasing things a couple times to make it read better in my opinion. Then the third document is the second document with the changes that Commissioner Stedman proposed as a second iteration of changes indicated as trapped changes. And they actually made the

I see what's what, because the track shows has underlines.

One, this is... Yeah, that's just the template, really. Two, it's the one written for writing with a few changes. Three are the changes written as you wrote them. Is that correct? Correct. That's what we're all saying. Yes. Okay.

I'm fine with version two. But I would, I would like to add a couple of things that so one thing is that I was there was a whereas the BMC recognizes that the responsibility of public officials are best fulfilled when elected officials and city staff respect one another, you could sit and manager there instead of city staff. Respect one another's roles and work collaboratively in carrying out the city's business. And then the second one, I think, you know, there should be an ending that there's, you know, there's the ability to address the situation, you know, like in the electronics, you know, program. prohibition at the podium there was a you know consequence if if you are caught doing this you could get a fine up to a thousand dollars well i'm not suggesting anything like that so what i thought we could end it with was the board of mayor and commissioner retains the authority to address conduct inconsistent with these principles through any lawful means available to it consistent with the charter ordinances policies so there's no specificity to what you do but it

states that you know action can be taken and I think that's kind of what I would say is we can do that anyway and I guess the reason I'm in favor of this cleaned up version of GMAs which is what this is I mean reality is you know the board has administrative Control, I guess, is the best way to put it of city manager for the chart. And which really, in my opinion, any. Any specificity about that needs to be in our contract with him. And we do have a contract with the manager. We review that every year. We make amendments to that contract for various changes, but. This is a contractual obligation, a contractual relationship. Our accountability is to you through elections. Actually, it could be through a recall. How else? That's about it, isn't it? Unless we commit a civil or criminal... That's a different matter, but that's where our accountability is to the voters, to the citizens. And I believe that any additional accountability within this board actually is against the spirit of democracy, quite frankly, because that means that three of us can say, well, we don't really like you and we're just going to do things to you because of whatever. I mean, we're only accountable only to you. That's it. and the state laws that state of Georgia.

Well, I don't think anything I read.

But I mean, I'm just saying that's my opinion on it. That's just kind of why I was, I mean, I think there's a reason this document is written by GMA the way it is written.

Yeah, but we, you know, it's written as a template for cities to use to modify it to suit their specific needs. It doesn't mean it's the only way it can be done.

No, but I would say that This original template was vetted pretty heavily by GMA. I don't know how other cities adopted it or what the latitude is for adopting it, but it seems like a lot of cities have adopted it, which means they've vetted it as well. I just feel like if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us.

Well, you don't know that they adopted it. We certainly have the ability to do this resolution any way we choose to do, as long as it's within legal you know, stuff, and it's written properly and all that. All I was asking for is a respect for our different policies, contracts, and applicable law.

Where's that?

That fact in the track change. Well, actually, I think that was the, if I recall, that was the clause that you've

little little different um than what i sent that it was sent to y'all before i think the day of the last meeting um well on this second one i i really on the this community of the civility extends to all interactions of all the big city officials i'm pretty proud of it what did okay this is dropping nuts how many versions of this thing do we have? And why do we not have every single one of them?

Here it is right here.

But it's not right here. Well, I mean, are we going to talk about...

It's here. It's here in this book.

Where?

Right here. Where is the BMC recognizes the responsibility of our best fulfilled and elected officials and staff recognize one another's roles and work collaboratively.

And is that in document number two? No.

I just wanted to put it back in the document too.

Okay. So everything is here.

Yes.

Correct. Okay. Before you go, didn't you read something here? The one that has the hook, basically.

No, it's not. I did send y'all something like that email, but apparently it didn't get incorporated into this.

Well, I think that was emailed after I had sent it.

Yeah, it was emailed after we had posted this packet.

For the last meeting?

No, for this meeting. So you can, here's the one clause that you're talking about here where you're talking about charter. what y'all would have to do in that case, of course, it would just be providing simple direction to include or exclude that language from the eventual draft that y'all would have.

So I'm asking that this underline in the third one about recognizes that the public, if that could be incorporated into number two, number one, And then number two, if we can have something at the end that just says we have the authority to address the conduct through, you know, the principles, I mean, through the avenues we already have.

I'm not saying we're not.

Because I don't... I have a question. I don't know what that means. I don't want him to tell us what that means. And I don't know, I mean, how much...

John, it's just something at the end to say that we'll address it is all. That's all it is, is something to say.

But I don't think it's that simple. I don't think it really is that simple.

You have options. It's not being specific. Y'all are very specific in the electronics that we're talking about.

That has nothing to do with this discussion.

No, I think it's the same principle.

I don't. We're talking about disowning this. I just don't know what restating what already exists, what good that does, and I would want to hear from him about the potential problems of doing that. You can't actually say the same thing too many times. architects have to constantly be aware, like, don't make the same note 50 times because if you change it once, but you don't change it the other 49, or if you change it 49 times, but miss it once, it's only the once that's gonna get you in trouble. So you have to be very careful about not overstating the same thing to me. And architecture, what we're talking about is different, but it's just, you don't wanna overdo it, you don't wanna underdo it. And I think, I mean,

Stephen, what do you think about the second one? Here, I'll give you what it says, the second one. You already know what it says before you.

I mean, my core thought on it is that the board can't create, right, the board can't amend a contract by this resolution, right? And the board can't create new authority.

Right.

So whether it would be a good idea or would accomplish a goal to add that, I mean, I don't think it's illegal. I think the mayor has expressed that it could take on someone might invest it

Did you read what it actually stated?

Yeah, I did.

It's up there at the top, the second paragraph.

Okay. The Board of Mayor and Commissioners retains the authority to address conduct inconsistent with these principles through any lawful means available to it consistent with the city charter ordinances, policies, I mean, I think that that is an accurate statement of the status quo because it says that it retains. So it's like it's not explicitly trying to create something new.

Right.

I think the one that gives me the most concern is contracts, just because, I mean, those are multi-party.

That's fine, I brought it in.

But we haven't seen this yet. Well, you saw a version of it.

But not, oh, I'm sorry. I was looking for it. Thank you. But I printed that email, and I didn't... But that was the day of our last meeting, correct? No, no.

So at the last meeting, at the last meeting, there was... Oh, that's right. Version 1 was here.

And then...

We talked about creating version two and three, which I did. Then I emailed those to the city manager and the city manager emailed them to y'all like last week. And then apparently I wasn't a party to the communication, but it sounds like Commissioner Stedman had some more comments at that point, which was after the last meeting.

Correct. The email was on August the 1st.

to something that he believes is a better way to state it?

I'm leaning heavily towards adopting GMA version passive statements. I mean, I don't know if we take this and the non-vital is still qualified for request with civility GSA standards. I don't know.

Is that an important thing here?

No, but I'm just, I don't worry about the ambiguity.

I worry about taking it and mixing it together and this and taking this out.

I just.

And I would agree. I mean, I don't know what this does and this doesn't. I'm just going to put it quite simply. I'm in favor of this one.

I'm just asked for two small statements to be included in it.

The one that has the track changes, number three, with all due respect. So these three items that were added are kind of just restatements.

Well, I'm not even asking for that at this point.

Okay, that's fine. So those, you know, and I said the same thing before. I didn't understand them. I didn't see what point it was to adding those. Okay, so the new thing, which I'm going to call the hook or the state or the penalty. To me, I understand the reason why you're asking for the penalty. I don't see the point. To me, that penalty and that hook is... not in keeping with the whole purpose of this. So Georgia Municipal Association has the website, cityofcivility.whatever, and Larry Hansen has a video and he explains the purpose of this. And it was, I'm not sure how long this has been in effect, but it has to do with sort of incivility. Putting a hook and a stick at the end of this is taking away from this. The last meeting I was in a hotel, I think, and I said, I really like this stop. And the one I'm talking about is the middle one, the regular one, because it's aspirational, because it's holding us to a standard. It's a pledge, right? It's a pledge amongst ourselves to act right, basically. Some people may be cynical and say, why do you even pledge to act right? It's a reminder. It's just like many things we do. We, you know, we go to church and we pray. It's a reminder to humble ourselves, right? We, you know, some people, you know, let's say fast on certain holidays. You fast because it's a reminder that like, you know, I'm not the center of the world. So, I'm pleased that we're joining all the other cities who've done this pledge. And it's not even with the intent of this to put a stick in it.

That's my... I think we are forgetting that we didn't do this for the purpose of being a city of civility. We did this because of an incident that happened that was very unfortunate for our city. And that is why we were doing this. This was presented to us as an option of how to address it. So I think this thing about conforming, you know, is not the priority here. I think it's basically making a statement back to our residents that, you know, we aren't going to let something like this happen again. You know, that we respect, you know, each other, that we're going to act a way and that, you know, a lot of people think we should have addressed it better than we did. you know, but I just feel like we've lost the reason why we're doing this. We lost, we were going to build the code of conduct. At least that's what we talked about. And this was what was the poor work, but the intention was not, oh, let's, let's take this Q and A clause about civility and adopt it for our city too. That wasn't, that wasn't the basis for this. So obviously if y'all don't want to put that in the end, that is fine.

that i i would um but i don't know i mean i just don't know that well i mean what you're saying but it's a difficult thing i mean the five of us are inherently different from the city manager and it's hard to write a document that covers the differences i understand that that's what and you know i don't want to just

Well, will y'all at least consider putting in that first one I recommended? Which is in here already. It recognizes... No, that one's fine.

And we're referring to the Stephen non-track change cleaned up version of the previous draft that we... That's what we're going with.

And I'm just asking... Which one is that?

Two. This is two.

This is one.

What I'm asking to do is down here on the first page, the second from the bottom, that the BMC recognizes that the responsibilities of public officials are best fulfilled when elected officials and the city manager respect one another's roles and work collaboratively in carrying out the city's business. I think it is important to respect each other's roles, and I don't see why there's a problem with that end.

Which document are we on here? There's two. So that one is in there. So that's number three. Yes. Number two.

Not with red.

Well, it is. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I was looking at number three. All right. If you look at number two, version number two, which is our version with no track changes. Look at the first page.

Oh, I see it. Never mind.

I'm good. Thank you.

Oh, here's what I would say.

Okay. Let's get the GMA version. Whereas members of BMC recognize the special role of city officials in all the open and vigorous debates while maintaining the highest standards of civility, honesty, professionalism, and mutual respect. I mean, I think it's...

It's fine now. It's in here. It's what I'm asking for is in here. So I'm fine. I missed that.

Because at the last work session, there were a couple of changes that Commissioner Steadman had proposed previously, and there was a consensus here that those ones were agreeable. So those I put in what we're now calling version two, without indicating the track change, because I had already received a consensus on those. And it's basically that recital and the one that defines a public official. That's what's different from the GMA.

And to clarify, the one with the track changes that you were referring to, and the one number two, you tweaked the words. So the word up from the bottom is not the exact same wording as the track

Very much.

Okay, let me just say something. Would you say, Norma, Alex, would you say this is the version you're after?

This is the version that Stephen said was the second version I'm fine with. The only thing, because he clarified that this, one of my points was already in here and I missed it. The only thing we're talking about at this point different from the second version that you've approved and agreed to is the ending one about, you know, about what I want. Okay. You still have it?

The stick.

It's really a stick.

Right, but the purpose is of getting everybody on the thing.

We have the right to address the conduct through our already existing laws and policies. That's all it says. I mean, you know.

Can we consider two things in the next meeting? Okay. How about Here's version one, right?

It's the one that no track changes.

Right. Okay. That's one. And then we'll have two. Whatever it is. Wherever it is. Okay. And we're going to make a motion on one. If it fails, we'll make a motion on the second one. And if that fails, we start over. That simple. We have two things to vote on. How about that?

Who's the clean version, no track things? No. One? That's now one. Oh, that's now one. That's turned into one. Yes.

Which one is number two? No track things. Okay, fine.

For the purpose of what Jonathan just said, number two, today's number two, no track changes, no yellow. Now what?

It's a plain document.

All right, let me... It's okay. In our packet, we have a GMA template. That is not a version of yellow. Let's call it yellow number one. No. It's zero. Okay, fine. Then we have this one, right? And then we have this, which is somebody give me a good version of this. Is that the same? No, this is the other one. It was in the packet.

You're not pulling it out. It's the one that has the underline.

Is this the version that you're okay with?

No. I'm okay with this version. The only thing I asked to add to this version was that we have reserved the right to... What did I say?

It's the text that you...

It's just basically that we will... That we have the authority to address the conduct inconsistent with the principles through our existing laws and policies. That's all you have to say. All you have to add.

So when we come back for the regular meeting. We will have two versions. I will label them in the top right corner, version one and version two. Okay. And version two will be the same as version one, except it'll have exactly one additional clause, which is going to be at the end. And it'll say the board has the right to enforce things already, you know, but I'll use the exact language. Right.

Okay. Okay.

And when can we have those two versions on tomorrow? Okay. Is that okay? Yep.

I think so. We'll have two to choose from. Yes.

Legislation one, if it gets the votes, that's it. If it doesn't, we'll move to version two. Is that fairly democratic?

Yes.

I mean, I don't know how else to kind of... Do you understand? Okay, you got it. All right. You're going to send us another one.

Yes.

Okay. All right. Can we move to the next one? Yes. I'm not in a hurry. Is everybody okay? All right. Item number four. It's a long title. I'm just going to let you...

Okay. So we've dealt with these types of things before. The state updates their regulations with respect to various laws, like stormwater regulations, sewer regulations, all of those types of things, which then require us to amend our own existing ordinances, match that regulatory language. And this is one thing. have a septic tank on your property as a means for flood-dense water products.

So you're not grandfathering it anymore?

No, that's not true. Right. You're still grandfathering it. You just can't install it.

We just call it plain wood, you know. Correct.

So this was like dictated to us by the state agency. And they basically say, if you don't do this, then we're going to not give you funding or something. Right. Sorry, I was quick.

Literally just ensuring that we operate within their own regulatory framework.

Our language matches their language and everybody's sentence.

Correct. Easy peasy.

And you'll see...

there's not really much we can do but okay no right i mean we could but we would just we could thumb our nose at them and then no longer be eligible for storm water related i think we would lose our local issuing authority also yeah plus we also don't want people to sell it so the win-win-win-win ever heard that okay

All right. Any questions? So we will vote on this August 20.

That would be your initial read.

I was changing the order. So first read. But we could do a consent vote.

Correct. So first read. This would be one of those I'd recommend. Right.

So first read. Possible vote is on August 26th. All right.

Can I just say one thing? I thought this was true, and I looked at it and confirmed that there would still be the potential for a septic tank, as long as it serves exactly one residential lot and it has a daily flow of less than 2,000 gallons. So it's not a plat prohibition. This is the language they gave us to them.

Oh.

Okay. Yes, their language. Okay.

So in first read on school, say the possibility. All right, I remember.

Yes. Okay. Yes, yes. So when we're working with GDOT monies, we have to agree to a PFA, a project framework agreement, on multiple occasions throughout the entirety of the project. So the project that will be funded using the transportation's alternative brand that we got from GDOT.

The DDA is doing the magic.

Well, they're not. Remember, the DDA has pledged to give that to the city for the purpose of using it as its. So the DDA is not making the payment. The DDA would transfer us the seven And then, of course, once we get to construction, we will have another project framework agreement for that. Y'all might recall, I think Jonathan has signed a whole bunch of these in his day, but we did this for 278 as well with the financial resources.

So this is a design for the entire process?

Correct.

Okay. And then... So since the DDA is going to give us the 673, is this 100 part of that 673? Yes. And will they send that to us? Correct. Okay.

That is correct. It's just essentially the grant award is in two phases. You've got the award amount that's eligible for design and then the award amount that's eligible for construction.

Okay. Thanks.

Okay, so this is again something we would vote on at the August 26th meeting.

Yes.

Okay. Everybody good?

Yep.

Okay. All right. Item number six. Okay. For water drainage easement, easement at two, at seven between three stops in the road.

I think it's 732. address 732 723. Now, I think the Eastman agreement. So we need to make that.

It's just the time. So

There is a, there are stormwater conveyances that are owned by the city that run through people's power lines. And this is one of those. This is a drain that is in the drive area of this home. And the drain grate. It's broken. In order for us to install a new drain grate and then maintain it in perpetuity, we need an easement to perform that work upon this private property. Interestingly enough, several years ago, we obtained another easement on this same property for the purposes of the Kensington Stormwater Retention Project. But that easement area didn't cover this drain. And so once this drain was brought to our attention, we said, yes, that's part of our system. But in order to perform and maintain, we need an easement. The property owner has agreed to the easement. Now you have to agree to the easement, and then we can replace and maintain that drain cover. That's it. Okay. And we will fix that type of thing. So it's supposed to be 732. Correct.

So on the document that the Republicans signed, it also has 732.

We'll just write it and initial it. Two places.

So this is not really a lot to talk about here.

I saw that

Yeah, I mean, right. Before bringing it to you, we had to get buy-in from the property owner. So we did that first. The property owner is also who brought the matter to our attention.

Okay. It's all good on that. So we'll vote on this August 22nd. 26th. 26th. Okay. And last but not least, discussion of amendments to the golf cart ordinance to allow crossing from South Avondale to Pine Street. Exactly.

So, as a part of the 278 Fleet Street project, one of the things that we were attempting to do as a part of that project was to create a safe golf cart crossing from the residential neighborhood over to the downtown. We have identified the place where that crossing can be made safely. It's at South Avondale, the Pine. However, our golf cart ordinance does not permit crossings across 278 in order for GDOT to consider allowing said crossing and permitting that activity. We have to amend our own ordinance to allow for it, amongst other things we have to do. That's in the process forever.

So you're saying it's from South Avondale to Pine. Is that going to be like across from the billiard hedge to my parents' basement? No.

No, it's at the light, the protected. So, yes. It's at Pine Street, not Oak Street.

It is at my parents' basement, but not at Skips.

South Avondale Road. Okay.

What's going to have to be done to make that acceptable crossing? I mean, there's not really a cross place right there now, is there? It's over by the little strip mall.

What's it? Oh, it's going to be there. No. The cars will line up like traffic.

No, it's in the street like a car.

It's in the street like a car. Whereas, excuse us, so that is the only place that GDOT would allow a frosting, would be where those lights protect the traffic.

I feel a little confused on whether it's on the Abelia Hedge side or over on the, and you say it wasn't there.

No, it's past the Abelia Hedge, right? Where South Avondale and 278 meet. Right. And if you cross 278, you go to Pine Street. They're across from each other.

Is Pine Street behind the Waffle? I can't remember which one. Is Pine Street next to the parents' basement?

In between my parents' basement and Avondale. Yeah.

Okay.

My parents' basement parking lot.

So it's going to be that little hook from the end of the ability head.

You got it.

Correct. Okay. What kind of accommodations are going to need to be made to make that happen?

We don't know all of those yet. There's a process. We believe that we're also going to have to, in order to do this, reduce the speed limit on South Avondale Road in order to get the permit. In order to do that, we have to do a speed study to make sure it's feasible to lower the speed limit. So we've got some steps that we have to take before we even get to the point where GDOT will consider permitting the process.

And this is kind of step one. But if we were to ask this, it wouldn't automatically allow all the parts to cross right there, right? We've got a long way to go. Correct. It's legal. Because you have to create the right kind of engineering. Science. Correct. I just don't want people to see them ask this and say, oh, no. It's important.

It does have a little bit of a timeline. So, yeah. Basically, what we're saying is Right.

Yeah.

And, you know, I've been the one like, so actually, I almost think we need to maybe think about the golf cart ordinance as far as who can drive and who can't. We've heard a little bit here and there about, you know, teenagers driving nuts.

You know, they're underage people.

I mean, I've seen, I have seen in person, they've gone far flipped. His girlfriend wants to, you know, I just, I mean, and the same thing can happen on the residential side as the commercial side, as we say sometimes. I just feel like, you know, we need to be really careful where they're crossing the major road. I don't know. I just think we need to maybe talk a little bit about golf ordinance and who can drive at what age.

Okay. So that is determined by state law.

No, that's us.

No.

No, we're the ones that allow golf carts on our street.

Oh, yeah. I'm talking about age limit. We can't say a 14-year-old can drive a golf cart.

But we can say a 15- or 16-year-old cannot.

Correct. Yeah. The state parameters are... 18 is as low as we could take it. So once you get to be 18, according to the state law, you're going to be able to drive the golf carts if it's allowed in your city at all.

Oh, I thought it was 16. No.

So we could set the age anywhere between 15 and 18. The state allows... case they're actually letting the local government make the decision right and i think we need to maybe talk about making it a little more stringent i think it's 18. yeah it is 18. now people break laws all

We need to do something. Because I know some of these kids. They're not 18. And I'm not going to say, hey, you, you know, come over here. I'm not a policeman. I don't do that. I know it's happening. So what are we going to do about that? It's going to happen.

We can't do. So enforcement of laws is completely the purview of the police chief. I can't direct him, nor can you guys, how to enforce. We can just establish the law. And the law is a step.

Because if we do this, 15-year-olds are going to be driving on the worst side.

Well, I mean, again, our law doesn't allow for that. So if we catch a 15-year-old driving a golf cart, then we can cite them.

But we can't. have an expectation that the laws will be enforced.

Correct. You just can't direct enforcement activities, nor can I, because I'm not a sworn law enforcement officer.

Okay. I think it's communicated priorities. Well, okay, that's a different discussion.

All I'm saying is I've been the one, like, wanting us to be very careful about allowing any crossing because when something bad happens, you can't undo it. You know, I just want to make sure that... We don't have to allow it.

This was just something that we said we were going to do as a part of the project.

Okay. I've been running my mouth for a while. What do you guys think?

I think we need to see what crossing looks like, what GDOT's requirements are going to be. Most cases go left out of that intersection. A handful of times I see somebody go straight and go right. So it's like, you know,

No, please not do that. Kathy?

I'm having information on from this person.

I know, but it's distracting.

And we can hear. I get why people want this. But I, you know, I think safety has to be absolutely number one priority here. You know, I think we should see what QDOT says and what they require of it. flashing light. I mean, I don't know. Is it just like a regular traffic light? Are they going to say, okay, this is good. Light's green. You can go.

That might be it. They're signed. They're signed.

There's signs for the motor vehicles to see that they're coming up on it. There's signs for the golf carts to show

review the no they've already started their review process so we were way down the road but this is part because this is part of the tucson big project so we're doing kind of we're in the final throes of this and so we already have we already know where the signs have to go is you've got fueled though the first years again um and we moved that bowl in order to remember living that all the creative, more conventional intersections, like cross it easier. And then they have signage, a signage program that they require. And they have been reviewing their own regulations. So before we can actually get all, it's a little bit of a chicken and egg because I don't want to put signs up and we don't have an ordinance that allows it. So trying to tie these together. So then if we're doing it, and of course the direction has always been no doubt that we wanted to do this. She got very specific. So there are intersections that don't follow, but a Clarendon does not follow. I don't do it. We could not do it at Oak Street because they didn't, you know, there wasn't, it crossed through the ability to have it. So there's only one location that is possible or feasible for this crossing with them that gets you into the front, into the downtown. So this is, this is the option. This is the only place that it will pass the criteria that is necessary to enable this.

and so yeah i mean i said what you're saying i don't think i think you're you know i i agree that people got golf clubs probably should not be done at 16 or whether they're 50. but uh you know you can't you can't legislate good behavior and good parenting you know and i don't know I don't know, I'm kind of on the fence about it, kind of like yours.

My God, it's just, I don't know, it's like, when it crosses the road over to this side, it becomes kind of a different thing. And I don't know, just, it's just a drive-through experience.

People drive in the long town, and I'm like, you know, It's like, and I've been the one that's sitting around official like, oh, sir, it's going to be fine.

He's like, you know, jokingly. But I was always the one that was like, oh, man, I don't feel good about this.

You know, it can always rescind it or change it. I see it as a positive. I'm sorry. That intersection is, let's call it, well-regulated now. You get your chance to go. And then you wait for everyone else to get their chance to go. So to some, it might be even tedious, how slow it is right now. But on the sort of looking forward on the positive side, I think it's just such a great amenity for the adults. But I do think that if this ends, where you can leave the permitted area, it's appropriate to have this morning. One time I came up here to that corner just in front of Santo, the golf cart, just to make a U-turn, just to see the new road. And the police officer got on his thing and said, you're not going to cross, right?

Well, I mean, I appreciate those safety concerns because that is the most important. But it looks like if we've already got, you know, a number of violations of age driving, then it's most likely it's going to happen in the crossing as well. So, I mean, that is, you know, maybe something that has to be addressed. Because I think it's going to be worse, you know, for a 14-year-old to be driving a golf cart just around the neighborhood. It will be even worse trying to cross the main street. So, I think that is certainly something to consider.

Is this document different? I know it has amendments, but is it different than what's on the website under, like, golf cart ordinances?

Exactly the same thing. The one exception, please.

And I'm sorry, so I thought I knew where, but isn't there a place in here that states the requirement to have a driving license? Yes.

Can you point me to it? Yeah, it's... It's true. It's just registration. G. Yeah, H5, section G. Maybe register a motorized car. It doesn't say drive. Oh, maybe register, I see. Sorry.

Sorry, I believe now. It's an 18-year-old with a driver's license, driving a car. Yes.

Yes. Okay, that's what I'm saying.

It's not 18. It's 16. It frequently is 15 and probably 14.

Well, that's not legal. But this does say 18. To register.

Not to operate. It's not the same thing. So my question really was, can a 16-year-old drive a golf cart? Yes.

I feel mostly certain that I've read license. Yeah. So can you help me find that? On the website, I've seen it. I think I've seen it.

Yes.

Why would you need them to be older to drive a golf cart, not a car?

Well, it's the registered part here.

Right. But I mean, you said the state law says 18, right? For driving?

The state law says for golf carts, it says that the low, so golf carts cannot be driven anywhere in the state unless the local government adopts an ordinance like this. Okay. And the state allows the local government to set the minimum age at 15, 16, 17, or 18. Okay. So section 18-189 is what you're referring to. So that would be, you'd have to be at least 16 to get that. And it's not permit. It's license.

Correct.

So even though we have all observed persons under the age of 16 operating courts, that is not legal. And they could be subject to punishment in violation of that law currently. And if you wanted to, per our attorney, if you wanted to revise the ordinance to disallow persons 16 or 17 years of age from operating, you can't. But you can't increase it past 18, correct?

That's what we're saying. And to answer your question, the reason why you would up it is because a call card is nowhere near as safe as a call card. Oh, that's true. So... I don't know. Sorry, I'm just having trouble letting go of this. It was just, I mean, I think if a 16-year-old's driving around the residential area, they kind of know eyes are on them. They're kind of in a safe zone. I know it's just as dangerous for them. But I think once you can get out of the neighborhood, over to the commercial area, you're down near Santa Crossing, you're over near the railroad crossing, you're crossing a state road where people don't always stop when they're supposed to stop at a red light. I mean, I think the road diet has greatly improved the safety out there, but this is the cap county. People run red lights everywhere. every millisecond of the day. You can run a red light, there will be three people behind you doing the same thing. It's like, that's what worries me. It's just, you know, it's, you're kind of, sorry, you're kind of expanding the range of possibilities. You're kind of getting out near the edge. You're already in a moderately safe vehicle. I mean, you know, the golf cart's going to lose any fight with any other vehicle, period. any car, any truck, any jeep, I mean, it's just, it's not going to end well. These things are designed for golf courses, you know, and so I'm just, I don't know. If you need me to shut up, tell me to shut up. It's just, my gut is, we might need to revisit this and maybe up the age, and I know it's going to be hugely unpopular, but it's just, You know, I never got arrested, but I was Tahiti when I was 15, okay? I just, like, I just see me at that age, like, I'm stuck in it as well.

I don't have, you guys just tell me what you want to do. I don't, I'm just taking this project through and making it a difficult thing to do. But I will say, I'm not sure what the difference between me, don't I have the same risk as a pedestrian? Don't I have the same risk as a cyclist? Don't I have the same risk if I'm on it? on an electric bike or an electric scooter or a scooter that's not. I mean, don't I have those same risks?

No. A golf cart goes faster than a bike. It certainly goes faster than you can walk. And there's something about a golf cart that just encourages, I don't know, freedom. It kind of does. It's just like they're fun. It's like being in a Jeep. You just kind of want to go do something crazy, right, because it's cheap. to me, it goes a lot faster.

Well, not these days, than an electrifying electric scooter.

Electrifying, true.

I mean, the bottom line is, every crossing, right, is at your own risk.

There's nothing we can do to completely eliminate accidents of any kind. I would assume that at some point we'll probably have a pedestrian accident. At some point we'll probably have a golf cart accident. We've had bicycle accidents in the city multiple times. So I think regardless of what you do, that risk is inherent. There's nothing you can do to really guard against it. Well, I don't agree with that.

Yeah.

Meaning you can't keep the guy from running the red light.

I mean, I can appreciate where you're coming from.

Okay. I digress.

I don't know how I feel yet.

All right, so this is just step one towards opening that up. So this would, again, be something we have to vote on in the next meeting. Or, well, this would be first read. Okay, so...

Unless y'all wanted to, again, we present this document as it currently is, but that one, unless y'all wanted to amend the age requirement, we will. All right.

So first read, August 26. Okay. Well, that is the, anybody have anything to add on to that one? All good? Okay. Public comment. Yes, Julie.

Julie, 740 Clarendon. I want to comment on number seven and on this agenda item down. So I think a lot of residents in Avondale Collective would agree with the idea that there are too young people driving golf carts too fast in the neighborhood. Moderate a lot of discussions. And it starts with let's find out who's doing this. Let's let their parents know what they're doing out of their line of sight. And then sometimes the tone of the discussion can get difficult. And you touched on it a little bit when you talked about how we're going to comment on each other's parenting. It's a toughie. So what I would like to suggest is that you consider, at greater length, the age for operating golf carts in the neighborhood. That is my suggestion, that there be further discussion, even if nothing changes. Number two, I'd like to talk about this item down here. It doesn't have a number. So I'd like to thank you and reinforce my delight at your vigilance and finding ways to make this down here come true. Specifically, the part about each speaker may speak once for up to three minutes. I wonder if maybe when you open the meeting, we might want to remind people that the guidelines are printed down here. I love the warnings at three minutes with 30 seconds. I'd just like to point out that if someone comes in really excited to make their comment, and they accidentally got past three minutes, past six minutes, past nine minutes, then they are holding hostage Chief Hess, Lori, our guest from Decaturish, everybody here. So I'm really grateful that you are working on ways to remind us that this is printed down here, and we should all do this. So thank you for the work.

Thank you.

Oh, Jim.

I think it's kind of counterintuitive to have slow living, open ball parts going across a busy road, even if it's at a place where some, I just think it's, I mean, I just, I'm worried about it. I really am. I'm worried about it. It just seems like an accident waiting to happen. But that's just me. And Okay. Plus at night. Oh, sorry. At night, when cars may not see you as well, which is a lot of people will be using your golf carts at night. There'll be the little light, whatever is decided here at our house can be marked. But cars, it just soothes it. That would be the one time people would be using it. It might be a little scary for you. Thank you.

A huge heavy.

Sorry. Kathy Kingsbury, 817. Follow up on the golf cart. I just think that we need to start enforcing the rules we have on the books before we create new rules or alter it. Strobe lights, brake lights, underage driving, kids weaving in and out of traffic. I mean, I'm with Jonathan. I'm terrified of Maybe because we have boys. He has a girl too. So, but it's just, we've got to enforce. And someone related a story to me real quick. They were at the beach. Their 12 year old was driving a golf cart. The police stopped the little girl and said, you can't be doing this. And you know, who's going to get in trouble? Not you, but mom and daddy. And it, I think it, you know, he wasn't being overly mean. He was just saying, this is not right. Maybe doing some of that stuff, but we've got to enforce the rules we have. I see golf carts all the time without brake lights. I see him parking still on the green space. You know, a couple of tickets, maybe somebody might start following some rules.

Thank you. Thank you. Oh, yes. Margaret.

Margaret.

Margaret Lentz from 9 North Lentz. I'm just thinking about the golf cart, too. I have a golf cart, and it's so much fun to run around Avondale. And I always thought, oh, that'd be good if we could go across the street. But when you think about it, you're going across the street to traffic, not residential street. There's tons of traffic over here now. And it's like, where do you go, and how far can you go? Can you go down to Sam's Crossing? I don't know. So... I love having a golf cart, but I think it might be dangerous to have them all back in the year when there's cars. I mean, you go to the market on Sunday, and it's like, I can't imagine golf carts all in the midst of that traffic.

Just thinking about it.

I'm fine with Jonathan.

Thank you. We can come back. Anyone alive? Hey, no comments online. Any other comments out there in the audience tonight? Seeing none, have to bring it back up here. All good up here? Okay. All right. So do I have a motion to adjourn? Do I have a second? Louie, I'll say aye.

Aye.

Thank you all for being here this evening. We do appreciate it. Have a great rest of the week and weekend.