Mayor and Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Mr. I was just saying, good evening, everyone.

I'm not going to expand your order, so I don't want to. The Press He goes, wait, it's coming. Mr.

I said, it's coming. Mr. Memorized it.

Welcome, everyone. I'm now calling this meeting to order. Please stand with us. We'll be led in prayer by Alderman Flores. Please remain standing after that for the Pledge of Allegiance that will be led by Alderman-at-Large George Payne.

Let's bow our heads, please. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you so much for gathering us here today and for blessing our city. Father, we ask that you give us wisdom and discernment as we I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

First on the agenda this evening is the approval of minutes for the May 19, 2026 meeting. So moved.

Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Hoots, second by Alderman Jerome. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call please.

Alderman Payne?

Yes.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoots?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome?

Yes.

Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores?

Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is a resolution amending City Ordinance Title 13, Chapter 13, Section 13-3A. City Attorney, Mr. Nick Manley.

Yes, Mayor Boyd. At the last meeting, we discussed this ordinance authorizing or just revising the ordinance to reflect that the planning commission appointees will serve with the will and pleasure of the board as opposed to a term fixed with the board's term so that this resolution just authorizes that change and that revision in Title 13, Chapter 13, Section 13-3A. I'll make that motion, Mayor.

Second. We have a motion by Alderman Payne, second by Alderman Jerome. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne. Yes. Alderman Lewis. Yes. Alderman Hoot. Yes. Alderman Jerome. Yes. Alderman Gallagher. Yes. Alderman Wheeler. Yes. Alderman Flores. Yes.

That motion carries. Next on our agenda is a contract amendment with Kaplan Management Industry, LLC.

Previously, the board entered into a contract with Kaplan Management, LLC, and it was done in 2019. It was the purchase of the property on May Boulevard. They were going to develop that property for a hotel, and there was time stipulations in that contract. Due to a variety of factors, it wasn't completed. But this amendment basically brings back that requirement, also requires them to submit a PUD amendment that will be reviewed by the planning staff and presented to the board for a hotel, which will be designed in accordance with that PUD amendment. which will expand off the contract that was previously approved. In addition, the PUD of this contract amendment will also authorize the payment of the city for the $295,000 that is owed for the land extensions at May Boulevard. It has been reviewed by Whitney and me and looked at from the standpoint of planning and legal tonight. We need to present it for approval and it will come back to the board once we get the PUD amendments for review. for this Kaplan amendment.

I'll make a motion for discussion. Second.

We have a motion of Alderman Payne, second of Alderman Flores.

So this is the 10 acres that the city had owned previously?

Yeah, this is the 10 acres that we sold in 2018. And then there's been a previous PUD that was presented and a previous detailed development that was presented to this board. And now that plan has been altered, so it's a new request to have a totally different

PUD and development, right? It would be a PUD amendment. In more general, as far as the actual amendment to that, it's the 10 acres plus the corner lot. Right. So both of them, the contract amendment, it just relates to the corner lot. But to your point, Mayor and Alderman Payne, it does relate to the whole property over there and revision to that PUD amendment, which will be brought back to you after reviewed by the Planning Commission and by Whitney's office.

And so they're requesting the PUD amendment?

Well, they will be eventually, yes. Okay.

Which means that there's some movement? Yeah, hopefully. Yeah, there's a goal to have a different, to make adjustments. And according to them, the original plan, the market, they claim that the market didn't fit for what they were trying to do. So they're trying to make some adjustments and bring development that will be supported by the current market. But we did sell the property in 2018 with an incentive. uh to get them to develop that property and as nick stated um it's been you know it's been a number of years and they haven't done that so we're ready to see it's a key piece of property in the entertainment district that we want to see developed without a doubt is this the same owners or different owners same owners any other discussions Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne? Yes. Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hooks? Yes. Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Oh, sorry, thank you. Alderman Flores? Yes.

That motion carries. Next on the agenda is the resolution of the city to participate in the Welcome Home Mississippi program.

Yeah, this resolution is just a procedural requirement for the Welcome Home Certified Hometown Retirement City, which the city of South Haven is a member of and participates in. It allows for the establishment of a tax task force and the allocation of $20,000 for the operations for the Welcome Home program. through January 21st, I mean January 1st through December 30th, the city's already doing these requirements, but as part of the certification for the retirement community, this resolution needs to be passed to confirm that we're doing those requirements. And Wes has worked with Wes on this, and he's provided information along with the meetings with the representatives from the Welcome Home Mississippi Retirement Program. I'll make a motion that we approve the resolution.

I'll second.

We have a motion by Alderman Payne, second by Alderman Lewis. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne? Yes. Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoot?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome?

Yes.

Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores? Yes.

That motion carries next on our agendas. Amphitheater Bankless Amphitheater contract.

This contract is just the lease facility use agreement for a lot with Live Nation for the concert this weekend. Start form lease our form facility use agreement. So moved.

Second.

We have a motion of Alderman Payne, second of Alderman Lewis. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Next on our agenda is a resolution authorizing the purchase of police department vehicles.

This resolution authorized the purchase of a K-9 vehicle from the Kansas Highway Patrol. Current or one of our K-9 vehicles was total in a recent crash. The purchase price is $40,000 and it's being purchased from another government entity. So it's under 31 713 authority by the city police to purchase the car from the Kansas Highway Patrol in the amount of $40,000 for the K-9 unit.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion of Alderman Flores, second of Alderman Lewis. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne.

Yes.

Alderman Lewis. Yes. Alderman Huth. Yes. Alderman Jerome. Yes. Alderman Gallagher. Yes. Alderman Wheeler. Yes. Alderman Flores.

Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is a resolution for surplus property in our police department.

If this resolution just surpluses a 2006 Ford van, which is no longer needed by the Southern Police Department. And of course, it must be code 172525. So moved. Second.

We have a motion of Alderman Flores, second of Alderman Wheeler. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne? Yes. Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Who? Yes. Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores? Yes.

That motion carries. Next on our agenda is a resolution for unpaid sanitation fees.

Yeah, this resolution just authorizes the lien or tag hold for those who have not paid the $20 sanitation fee.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Payne, second by Alderman Hoots. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne? Yes. Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoots?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome?

Yes.

Alderman Gallagher? Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores?

Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is an MOU with the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration.

This MOU is previously under House Bill 603 in the 2023 regular legislative session. The city received $300,000. for paving costs associated with the improvements at the traffic signal at Stateline and Sweeney. We're under budget for that project, so the new MOU that was done, House Bill 1653, authorized by that House Bill, in this most recent legislative session, allows us to utilize funds for not only that Sweeney Road improvements and Stateline road improvements, but also for the Greenbrook property located near Greenbrook Park so it allows us to use the excess funds that we were under budget for for a different project at Greenbrook Park Lake Park right there near that area so tonight need authorization for the mayor to sign the MOU so those funds can be expended at that location as amended by the MOU as set forth in House Bill 1653.

I'll make that motion.

I'll second.

We have a motion by Alderman Jerome, second by Alderman Lewis. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne?

Yes.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoops? Yes. Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores? Yes.

That motion carries next on the agenda is a contract amendment for Michael Hatcher and associates regarding landscape maintenance.

Yeah, this was tabled at a prior meeting. This is the contract for the hummingbird garden that since I think the two meetings ago it was tabled based on the of cost and scope. I think the cost has been reduced along with the scope. The total now will be $8,060 per year, and that will be billed in monthly increments. And it will be for year-round maintenance, landscaping, and upkeep of the garden, along with spring pruning and cleanup in most of the flower beds. So I think tonight it's being presented for approval after being removed from the table.

Is it on the table?

It was tabled at the first meeting in May.

So just a motion to bring it up for discussion again. Motion made by Alderman Wheeler, second by Alderman Flores. And basically, Nick said it all. We just went back and revised it so we feel comfortable with this number. So we just want to go ahead and alter that contract and make it official. First, is there any discussion about that? Hearing no, would somebody make a motion to actually approve?

I'll make a motion.

Second. We got a motion by Alderman Lewis, second by Alderman Hoots. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Ayes have it. Motion carries. We did have follow up. There was some other questions that came up last time about the right away, which is a different company that does the landscape maintenance in the right away. We are working on that. We don't have that complete yet. That'll be we'll have that ready for an amendment at the next meeting. Next on the agenda is a court department contract.

This contract just authorizes the city to use a waste connections dumpster for pickup for twice a month at the new court building. It's the same company we were using at the previous court building. We used to have a contract, so this put a contract in place for that service.

I'll make that motion, Mayor. Second. We have a motion by Alderman Payne, second by Alderman Wheeler. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Next on our agenda is authorization for a grant request by our fire department.

The South Haven Fire Department is seeking to apply from this assistance to firefighters grant. It's for the replacement of 56 self-contained breathing apparatus which are nearing end of life for the fire department. The grant includes the apparatus as a high priority. And if awarded, it could potentially provide $645,000 of the $800,000 estimated cost for those units. So it's the AED, 56 of those that could be replaced, ideally with assistance from the grant. But before the grant is actually applied for, you have to have the board authorization. Once it's received, it'll come back to the board for use of those proceeds for the replacement of the self-contained breathing apparatus.

Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Hood, second by Alderman Lewis. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne?

Yes.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hood?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores?

Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is a resolution to clean private property.

Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt a resolution bringing authority to clean private property as presented on this date.

Second. We have a motion by Alderman Payne, second by Alderman Wheeler. Is there any discussion? Is there anyone in the audience who has a financial interest in any of the properties who would like to speak? Hearing or seeing none, roll call, please.

Alderman Payne.

Yes.

Alderman Lewis. Yes. Alderman Hoots.

Yes.

Alderman Jerome. Yes. Alderman Gallagher. Yes. Alderman Wheeler. Yes. Alderman Flores.

Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is our planning agenda. Ms. Whitney Cook.

Yes, so our first application we have is an application by Hal Crenshaw for variance to the sign ordinance, specifically regarding the square footage and overall height for a proposed sign to be located on the west side of I-55 between Stateline Road and Goodman Road, basically directly across the street from the hospital right there. so when a variance application is submitted there are four points that they have to argue as to why they feel their request has a hardship in terms of this one you have the first item which is that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same district The application submitted felt that there was limited and indirect access to the site and that separation from primary commercial flow was definitely a hardship. They also felt that the subject property was located at the municipal boundary lines between Horn Lake and South Haven, which is the situation there you see on this property. So in terms of a response to that, Staff does agree that geographic hardships exist on the property that limits the site's access and deprives it of a level of visibility and accessibility typically associated with commercial properties. Property can only be accessed by a roadway located entirely within the city limits of Horn Lake, and no additional access opportunities appear feasible due to wetlands and other environmental constraints on the property to the west. Given those limitations, staff believes that allowing a larger sign would enhance the property's visibility, improve wayfinding for customers, and increase overall marketability of the property. In addition, revenue generated from the sign could help offset economic impacts associated with the property's restricted accessibility. Quick aerial look at it, and a lot of you were actually here when we had a situation where we wanted direct access from horn lake you actually have to pass the cracker barrel and the home depot and all that end in their cove and then you can gain access to this property but we did look at some alternative routes even through the school property as well as all the way over to highway 51 but they're wetlands obviously so that's that's that's definitely an issue um so number two is that literal interpretation of the provisions of the title would deprive the applicant of rights and commonly enjoyed by other properties in that same district and then under the terms of this title They do argue that city of Horn Lake has similar conditions and they did create a I-55 overlay district in 2022 which did relax their digital signage restrictions and encourage interstate facing signage obviously to capture interstate drivers, which impacted economic activity, kept them competitive with neighboring cities, it concentrated signage in appropriate areas, encouraged high-value commercial development, supported tourism and wayfinding, maximized the return on present and future infrastructure investments, and recognized the unique opportunities interstate frontage provides. In response to that, staff would agree that due to the location and proximity directly adjacent to Horn Lake, which allows for signage such as this, the site is deprived of an allowance that would otherwise allow them to compete in the I-55 corridor. Number three is that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Obviously, the environmental constraints on this property were not manmade. This was not an action of the applicant or the property owner. We do agree with that. And finally, that granting the variance request would not confirm the applicant's special privileges that are denied by this title to other lands or structures buildings in that same district. Again, they are stating this property is zoned general commercial, C3, which is intended for higher intensity commercial uses. They do feel it would not grant, they would not be granted any special privileges if it was to be approved. Staff's final response with this. is that we do evaluate requests of this nature on a case-by-case basis and must determine whether we have a defensible argument that exists and does not undermine or dilute the ordinances adopted by the city. The site has presented ongoing challenges again due to environmental constraints, limited accessibility, the presence of multiple jurisdictional boundaries. The property owner is well-established businessman with several successful developments through the city that has no adverse impacts. As a demonstration of their commitment to maintaining the high-quality development, the property owner and applicant did voluntarily prepare a restricted feed document that prohibits the sale of products commonly associated with negative perceptions, including tobacco and cannabis products. We obviously know we can't regulate the product content and did not require these restrictions. They did offer those up in their own good faith. In addition, I think the biggest thing is the property zone C3, and that's a highly limited zoning classification under our city zoning ordinance. Additional properties, you're not allowed to rezone to a C3. It is to capture the older commercial properties, so it's a retro zoning that you cannot reverse back to. Most of your car dealerships you see down Goodman Road are associated in the C3 zone, which is what this property's been marketed for, but because of the limited availability to access, it's been hard. We do believe that allows them to have a unique zoning establishment on the property finally staff would also like to clarify that the request is for a standard digital billboard measuring approximately 48 by 14 in height with an overall structural height of 40 feet if approved all details regarding the materials structural design foundation dimensions and other construction specifications will be reviewed and approved through the city's standard sign prompt permit process the only elements being considered through this application are allowable sign area and overall height As for the overall height, it is in our I-55 district, which does allow for 25 feet in height, which is much higher than our standard signage. But again, they are asking for 40 feet, which is in excess of what we allow right now. We do believe there's a hardship that can be established for this site. We do believe we can argue the facts in a denial for a general request for another sign if it does not present itself with other hardships such as this. And accordingly, staff recommends approval subject to the understanding that the sign must be properly maintained and updated with the current technology as needed. Should maintenance operational safety concerns arise, the city reserves the right to require the sign to be deactivated and if necessary removed through the appropriate legal process. So in a nutshell, we recommend approval. And I do believe that the sign owner, not the property owner, but the sign owner request is in the audience. If there's any questions for me, I'm here. If there's any questions for him, he is as well.

I got a couple of questions. You need to make a motion to discuss. You don't want me to make the motion?

You need to make a motion. All right, fine. I'll make a motion to discuss.

Okay.

We have a motion by Alderman Flores to open it up on the floor. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Alderman Jerome. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. So we have it open on the floor for discussion.

I personally feel like You know I-55, that's one of our most congested areas there. The last thing we wanted to do with all the wrecks we have over here is have something distracting people. I mean. At our last meeting, we discussed about the road coming in there. That's there now. I mean, there's a road that connects that part of land there, so it can be developed if they want to develop it. I just think we've had a policy in the past. We're trying to limit billboards and distractions on 55 because it's such a high traffic area. There's people getting killed on the interstate. There's, you know, we don't need to add something to it, especially in that spot there because you're transitioning over to the Goodman Road to get over. I mean, it's a highly congested area. I just, personally, I'm not in favor of it. I think it's a bad idea.

You know we have four on 55 already.

But they're further on down and they're, you know, the traffic I mean, you drop traffic 25, 30% between Goodman and Church Road, so it's easy enough the further it goes down.

Well, just for accuracy, let me make sure everybody understands. This is in the area north of there. This is before you get to the bottleneck. So the bottleneck starts at Goodman Road. This property is north of Goodman Road. So actually, it's still in the 10-lane area. So it actually is kind of wide open. And of course, Whitney explained the full report from the Planning Commission, I would just tell you on my involvement when it was requested for us to consider that, what does make sense are these two things. That piece of property has been under achievement. It's wasted. It's a beautiful piece of property. It's got high, high visibility from the interstate, but it is a fact that it has tough access. So we looked at actually trying to help them have access from The next arterial road would be Rasko Road, but there's not enough land. You'd have to go by the high school to get to it, and it's just there's just not enough land to build a road right there. Then, as Whitney stated in the report, if you go to the West, you're going through the Horn Lake Creek Basin. And so it would be, you'd have to build a bridge basically to get to the property. So the only way to get to it is truly from the Horn Lake side, but then you're going through a major traffic on Interstate Boulevard. And so you would actually come in there where the Home Depot and the Target are. That's really the only way to access the property. So it does truly have a hardship and it is north of where the congestion starts. The other thing that I do agree with the Planning Commission's decision on it is that there's a true hardship. It's a valuable piece of property that's underachieving, and having the sign there could help market the property. And it's I mean, there are a few things that are ideal for it. Obviously, a car dealership was was the plan. I think at one time, that would be an ideal location for a car dealership right there on the interstate. But there are some other possibilities. But it's been stagnant because it's tough to get to. So there is there is a true hardship. So I get your concerns. I share the same concerns about billboards. But I do think that If you look at the layout of I-55 in our city, as Alderman Flores stated, there's other billboards that are there. But this one would be spread out from that. Like if we were going to do one, we would want to, I mean, if we were going to amend the ordinance, then I would recommend that we put a linear footage distance so we don't have an overabundance of that. That way it could truly be a distraction to drivers. But this, by its own nature, where it's located, it's away from the other side. So I think it's something that, you know, could be good. And in the report it noted that the owner of the property has a A long reputation with the city of having quality developments and and the fact that they're willing to go in on their own and regulate the content of the sign. I think that's a strong gesture to preserving. You know the message is on the boards and then it's used for a professional reason to market help with our business promotion and not to be used for other. you know, for other social issues and other well, like you mentioned, cannabis and things like that that are offensive to some people. I think it's a good proposal. And again, I would I agree with the Planning Commission. I agree with Whitney. And I'm very sensitive. I promise you, I'm very sensitive to billboards and the content. And I know that, as Whitney stated, we can't regulate the content. But this is one that I feel like the request is for a legitimate purpose to to market the property, let them make some income while they're marketing the property, and then if a development comes, it's a win-win for everybody.

You intrigued me with something there. What do you think we, I mean, I could go along with this if we could limit these things, saying, okay, you know, every two mile separation or a mile, you know, and a half separation or something like that to keep it, because what I see is that we run the potential risk here. If we approve this, then everybody's going to say, hey, we got an opportunity here.

No, no, that's the whole purpose of it being a variance because we're not changing anything to say, hey, we've changed our stance on billboards and I-55. This is an exception because of the hardship in it. And it does have a true hardship. Like you go to some of the other properties and they don't have this hardship. There's there's easy access for them to get to the property. But there is a true hardship here. It's hard to access this property. And that doesn't mean that something couldn't come there. But it does mean that it's going to scare a lot of people away because of the access issue.

Right. And I've always said this and the mayor and I both know this. Everything's looked at on a case by case basis. And I have to be able to defend when the next person comes in here. I want it to. I want it to. I'm not going to look at it and recommend approval if I can't defend a hardship on it. We have looked at this property from a development standpoint going on 15 years. It's just stagnant. It needs a boost. And I agree. There's pros and cons to billboards and the ones in the past. I see why everybody would have an issue with them. It's a whole new level now. You know, we look at the ones on the way down to Jackson that kind of hit that 55 corridor right there. They're beautiful. As long as we get it where it's maintained properly, we have it aesthetically designed. It can be a true asset to a piece of property. It can be a beautification piece. um so you know we've looked at it i think we were talking about some linear distances in the event we ever came up with an ordinance that we wanted to present i think the most we had for the entire linear distance we had in the city was a total of six so there's already four um so the goal is not to get what you see down 61 you know when the when the casinos came along this is i mean it i feel like it's going to be an asset there i feel like if another one came anywhere within our corridors I can defend why you can't have it and he could. And that's important for me just from a reputation standpoint that we're not just picking and choosing it. It definitively has hardships on it from an environmental standpoint, from access standpoint. And if they were brand new on the market saying, look, we haven't tried anything, but we want to throw a sign up, it'd be different. But 15 years of trying, I just I think we need to give it a boost. And that's kind of where I took it and ran with the variance recommendation.

Can we hold them to the landscape?

It will be a design review package that will come to me from the materials used from the ground up.

And it's important to note that none of the other billboards in our existence had those kind of architectural controls.

Correct.

So this would be one. This would be the most attractive billboard in the in the on that stretch on one that's on 55 Atlanta Center Hall.

Mm hmm.

right yeah and I've had you know I think the general like I don't want to speak on his behalf but he understands that he understands the concerns he understands um the mayor's you know concerns and my caution with it as well but I mean um like I said known how Crenshaw for years and years and years as well um he's never come forth with a development or the proposal that he hasn't honored And they presented the deed restrictions to me without me even asking about it, which shows that they want a good quality one. So, I mean, you know, if I had any qualms about it, I wouldn't have presented it as a recommendation for approval.

Well, I'll say I like billboards about as much as I like truck stops. Seriously. I mean, we don't need a billboard. I mean, yeah, that is tough access. But so is Chuck Hutton at Shelby Drive. So, we gonna build a billboard before we develop it? Or can we not develop it before we build a billboard? Do we have to have the billboard to develop it?

Well, you don't have to, but as Whitney stated, the past market results are showing you that it's not appealing because of the hardship. So the billboard would serve as a purpose, I mean, well, dual purpose. It allows them to generate some revenue, but it also does help market the property. And I'll tell you from the past.

I'm going to disagree that that billboard is not going to make that property any more marketable. Yeah, they're going to make money off the billboard, but it's going to be vacant still.

Well, and I will say, and it's not something that's guaranteed yet, but I understand that they are recruiting prospects. So again, I don't think there's anything that's been signed, sealed, and delivered, but they are working to develop the property.

they are and i mean you may not even remember it was it used to be heavily like i said had they not already been attempting this there wasn't a road here this wasn't a clear piece of property and there wasn't wetland mitigation 10 years ago they cleared it and spent millions trying to create a marketable piece of property yeah so i mean 15 years of attempts um I mean, it's just got that hardship. Uh, you know, it's got great visibility from 55. It, it is surprising that we haven't had more bites than we had on it, but there's, I mean, there's just some tough things to overcome that we just have not been able to meet with it. I know we've done everything we can from the city side. Like I said, it's a C3 piece of property. We have, nobody's allowed to go to C3 and everybody wants it because it has car dealership availability, new car dealership. We thought we had a couple on the hook to go there. They did not like the fact that it was one way in one way out. And then the fire marshals did not like the fact that those size buildings were there with one way in one way out. I mean, there is a hardship. I'm not saying it justifies overcoming your concerns, but I mean, there is a hardship on the property development wise one way or the other.

I got a question. Is the map accurate where it shows the location with the arrow? Is it because it looks like it's awful close to the trees. on the north side.

So you wouldn't I mean, I'll be honest, I just threw an arrow in there. So you can see what the property was. Okay, just wanted to show you where the land is itself. We haven't narrowed down the exact location of the sign itself. I mean, that's something we don't want to be presumptive to, you know, say here, this is where we're going to put it if it's not approved. So I think you can put it anywhere.

I won't like it.

I understand. I mean, and look, again, I respect your opinion. I mean, this is a recommendation up for discussion. And I mean, If I can't change your mind and if he can't change your mind, then I mean, that's that's by all means, you're right.

Well, in all that, in all fairness, all that we're that Whitney and that I'm attempting to do is we vet this before it gets to you. Like when when people come to us, we ask these questions because we have a lot of the same concerns you do. And these questions have been asked like we've asked these same concerns, these same questions about the concerns. and then when we uh look at it objectively and we do consider the facts of this and that's how both the planning commission whitney and then that's how i would get to a recommendation for y'all i wouldn't just come in here and recommend something if i didn't uh do my due diligence and and you know get answers to my concerns too so that's all like hey if y'all are the you're the board and you know whenever it is that y'all decide to vote on this if you turn it down then we're going to go the next thing on the agenda tonight But, uh, but we owe it to you to tell you that our professional recommendation after doing our due diligence is that it could be a win for the city.

I think after hearing that it's not going to live at our the number here in the future, we're not going to have these things just popping up everywhere. Uh, I mean, I can I can see the benefit, you know, especially if we're going to hold it to a higher standard where it's gonna because Alderman Flores, it's correct. The one at Landers sucks. How do you really feel?

I would have used that word, but I said no.

But, I mean, it just does.

I mean, if you want to take it a step further, I mean, if it's approved, if you want the design review, normally it would land in our office administratively. If you want it in front of you, we can certainly present it in front of you and let you make the final decision there. Well, I mean, we trust you on that stuff. Thank you.

I can tell you we're not going to build a – We're not going to build something that's not. I mean, look at the history here. We're not going to build something that's not attractive. And we didn't have a say so in the other billboards. They've been up there for many, many years. So this is an opportunity for us to make it look really nice. And to your point about if we were going to go and change the ordinance, we already looked at that, that we would want to have a linear distance requirement. And so when you get the map out and start looking at that, it pretty much uh, disqualifies any other product. This is really the only one that would fit one more South of here.

But I mean, as it stands right now, I mean, you talk about limiting right now, they're limited to none. It comes in on a case by case basis in this process right here. So, I mean, anything South of here, I mean, I've looked at, I mean, hardship wise, you're not going to have anything else that really meets that profile from here. So if you choose to leave it at this and never, never again, then so be it. If you want to amend the ordinance and put additional ones on it, that's another board decision here.

And just think about this, and we don't have an answer yet because they don't have a done deal with an economic prospect, but Alderman Jerome mentioned the, you're talking about the Toyota dealership? Yes. And so that's the same thing. Got a perfect place for a car dealership, except their access, not quite as tough as this one.

I'm not saying perfect, but...

Yeah, but it is. It's not ideal. It's not quite as tough as this one, but they also have a billboard, like a board on their property. So this board, let's just say hypothetically that they were able to attract a car dealership, that's going to be appealing to a car dealership to already have a beautiful high profile sign for marketing on the property like that.

Sure, I'd agree if you build the car dealership first and then put a billboard. They actually had the billboard there first.

Yeah, but what I'm saying though is it... That's them, that's not us.

And then they bought the billboard.

But it could be what I'm saying is it could be an attractive to help in their recruiting. Obviously, nobody's jumping out and putting a car dealership there because it's been vacant for all these years. So if this being there could add an incentive for the car dealership, it could actually help the property get developed and could be a win for the city. But I get you. You don't like that. You don't like them. I get you. You made that clear.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we vote on that item. Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Wheeler, second by Alderman Flores. Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Haynes? Yes. Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hughes?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome? No. Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler?

Yes.

Alderman Flores? Yes. On item one, that motion carries.

Item number two, we have an application by DeSoto District LLC for subdivision approval. It's a five lot subdivision. It's gonna be on the west side of Getwell Road, just north of Nail Road. So if you see right there highlighted in blue, this is gonna be just south of the Silo Square south entrance where the actual silo is. The five lots you've got are associated or situated in that area right there in the blue. Previous to this application, we did have a private drive come through off of Getwell that was approved via the board in my office. The five lot subdivision that you've got in front of you now actually has the dedication and the design of Silo Square Lane South, which will carry and connect up to Silo all the way down to Nail Road. This is a piece of property that's going to be owned and developed by the gentleman, Spence Ray, who did the provost on the south side of Nail Road right there. The intentions is to have kind of a shopping district that's going to kind of play off of Silo Square. In the next month or so, you will see a design review application that will come through with their first building on the first lot right there. But in terms of compliance, it does meet all of the regulations set forth in the ordinance for commercial subdivision for those five lots and the dedication of the road. And we recommended approval. It was voted unanimously by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Marion, make a motion that we approve item number two on the planning agenda as presented tonight. Second.

On item two, we have a motion by Alderman Flores, second by Alderman Payne. Is there any discussion? Whitney, who owns the adult parcel?

Which one? The one on the hard corner? Yeah. That's the Snowden family still.

Okay. Any other discussion on item two? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne? Yes. Alderman Lewis?

Yes.

Alderman Newt?

Yes. Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Yes.

Alderman Wheeler?

Yes.

Alderman Warren? Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is our mayor's report. We were presented after the agenda went out Friday with a final change order for the Snowden Lane widening project. It's actually a deduct, so it's a $10,995.91 deduction, and then including the final pay application. So we just need approval to finalize that project.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Flores, second by Alderman Payne. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

That motion carries. The only other thing I want to update everyone tonight, we are coming to the end of our four-year parks enhancement plan. As y'all know, the tourism bill got extended in the spring legislative session with a four-year repeal date on it. And so what we, the last time that was done was in 22. So we're nearing the end of the 26, that period's revenue from 22 to 26. So what we'll do in the near future, we're going to bring a proposed plan in front of this board. It's always worked better that way for us to decide what we're going to do with the money for the next four years. Some of the larger projects, are going to require focus on that. And that's what we've done in the past. We've knocked some big projects out by using all the four-year revenue to get those done. So we will have a presentation coming to you soon. What we're doing now, just to kind of help you or give you more information, we're doing some pre-bid cost work now to try to give a more accurate number before we bring it to y'all. So that's going on now. But in the next, either the next meeting or the first meeting in July, we will bring that and open that up for discussion. In the meantime, in the last meeting or the meeting before, I mentioned to you that we try to match, it's like putting a puzzle together, but we match the revenue based on the projects so we have an accurate budget so we had to make a few changes in the previous budget because a few items adjusted we spent some money with acquiring land for the tennis uh program also you know humming there was small hummingbird some different things that we moved up the list so we have a we have a gap there of money for this period and as we discussed part of that west brown recommends replacing some of the fencing that's at Snowden Grove Park. The old white fence was put up years ago. A lot of it has fallen apart. It's hard to get repair parts for that. So the part of the split rail that we got up now The plan is to replace all the white with the split rail. That way the whole park looks the same and it'll be much more durable. You don't have the parts. It's just a simple split rail fence, so that is the bids have come in on that that will be presented at the next meeting. And then there's just a little bit money left there. One of the things we talked about doing is like we have at Central Park and at Cherry Valley Park, putting an arched entrance at the Snowden entrance. We think that would just really highlight the park and don't have the exact number on that, but it's a real small project. But those two things will be before you. That'll finalize. the 22 through 26 plan. And then, like I said, first meeting, probably first meeting in July, we'll open the floor for discussion on the next four-year plan. But anyway, just wanted you all to know, since that starts on July 1, wanted you to know that we are active in preparing that information. And that's all I have this evening. Moving on, next on our agenda is our personnel docket.

Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the personnel docket as presented on this date.

Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Payne, second by Alderman Hoots. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

That motion carries. Next on our agenda is our city attorney's legal update. Mr. Nick Manley again.

I guess my board had that one item that was emailed out yesterday afternoon. It was the authorization to increase the rates and the fees associated or the penalties associated with those lots that are cut under 21, 19, 11. Um, due to the cost increase to the city, when we condemn the lots, um, the city is in face that are facing increased costs with our own personnel. And then also the penalties that are being assessed are not enough to, um, actually make a difference from the standpoint of the person or the people who are getting their lots cut or it's cheaper for the city to do it sometimes in some instances. So tonight based on the recommendation, um, under those lots that are cut under 21, 19, 11 Mississippi code, it would be. Less than one acre would be a $200 with a $300 fine. One to three acres would be $600 with an $850 fine. and then four to six acres would be $1,000 with a $1,500 fine, and six-plus acres would be $1,500 with a $1,500 fine. These are then assessed against the taxes, but these are only for those lots that have been given notice, had the hearing, and still have not been cut. But the proposal is to amend the resolution that was sent out yesterday to reflect those new rates and new penalties associated with those lots, and those penalties are allowed under 21-19-11 of the Mississippi Code.

I'll make that motion. Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Jerome, second by Alderman Flores. Is there any discussion? Can I speak, Whitney, about tall grass? No. So we talk a lot about code enforcement and tall grass. And so you just I just I'm just teed up right here. I've got to speak about this. We are not the taxpayers of South Haven are not going to pay to cut your grass. And so That's it. We're going to make it tougher for you. Go cut your grass. If you own property in South Haven, Mississippi, it's a very easy thing to do. Go cut your grass. We want the city to look beautiful. We want our city to be marketable. We want the people that live in this city to have high property values. And the worst thing in the world that you can do that's the most noticeable is not cut your grass, where you have weeds hanging over the curbs. You have dangerous tall grass in the cities, both on commercial and residential properties. And the bottom line is you're going to cut your grass in the city of South Haven. The taxpayers are not going to do that. So any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

That motion carries. Next on our agenda is our utilities billing leak adjustment docket.

Mayor, I move we approve the utility bill leak adjustment docket as presented on the state.

Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Payne, second by Alderman Hoots. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

That motion carries. Next on the agenda is one claims docket.

Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the claims docket in the amount of $2,331,869.67 including demand checks. Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Payne, second by Alderman Flores. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne. Yes. Alderman Lewis. Yes. Alderman Hughes.

Yes.

Alderman Jerome. Yes. Alderman Gallagher. Yes. Alderman Lewis.

Yes. Alderman Flores. Yes.

That motion carries. Next on our agenda is the purpose of determining the need for executive session.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Hoots, second by Alderman Wheeler. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Ayes have it. Motion carries. The needs this evening are litigation and claims related to city infrastructure, economic development within the city, interdepartmental personnel with no action, and then police personnel with requested action. So is there now a motion to declare executive session?

So moved.

We have motion Waterman Hoots, second Waterman Lewis. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Ayes have it. Motion carries. The Mayor and Board will now enter Executive Session.