City Council - Regular Meeting

Good [clears throat] evening everyone and welcome to the city of Roswell mayor and council meeting for Monday, February 9th, 2026. I am Mayor Mary Robisho and I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my colleagues and council members present. We have Mayor Prom and Council Member Sarah Bon, Council Member Erin Brumley, Council Member Christine Hall, Council Member Jennifer Phillippy, Council Member Alan Cells, and Council Member Chris Zach. I will now turn it over to Chief Administrator Officer and City Administrator Randy Knight to explain how the meeting is run. Mr. Nighton. Thank you, Mayor Robishau, and good evening everyone, and thank you for being here this evening. In accordance with section chapter 3.70 of the city code, the city council shall hold regular public meetings. And the purpose of city council meetings is for the public to participate and speak on agenda items that constitute formal decisions by the elected body. These items are listed on the published agenda, which can be accessed via the city website prior to the meeting. [snorts] and public comments and questions are essential for mayor and council to consider as they contemplate each decision and each item on the agenda. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, we ask that you please fill out a comment card which are located at the back of the room and provide that to one of our staff members and or bring that to the podium. Uh the com the comment cards are called in the order in which they are received on each agenda item. Excuse [clears throat] me. We encourage everyone in attendance and the viewing audience to visit the city website for information on news, events, and meetings. And we also encourage you to participate in the various activities here in Roswell, which can be found at roswwell 365.com. We also encourage you to reach out to

our staff if you have any questions or register any concerns. Thank you, Mayor Robot.

Thank you, Mr. Nighton. Um, at this time I would like to invite Randy Hec, chaplain for the Roswell Police Department, to come forward and give the invocation. Before I begin, I would ask that you take a moment to reflect on Officer Jerry Jeremy Levante who died February 7th last year. We honored him February 7th this year and it's mostly appropriate to do so I believe here at the first city council. put a prayer on your own time or whatever you need to do for a few minutes. Then I or a few seconds then I will then I will gracious father we thank you for the opportunity to come into this city council meeting to do your work for this city. Lord, we ask that you keep us civil with each other, that we look through your lens as we move through each of these items and we deal with each other and remember that each and every one of us is an image bearer of you. And may we treat each other with that respect, Lord. We ask that you give us all grace so we can do your work here at this time in your son's holy name. Amen. Please stay standing. And I would like to invite Janet Russell, long-term Roswell resident, to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. [laughter]

Go to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Jan.

So, um, now for the mayor's report. First on the agenda tonight is we're going to recognize the Roswell City employee of the year, Liberty Gates. If, uh, council members would join me down in front of the podium. So tonight, uh, mayor and council, we're proud to recognize our 2025 city of Roswell employee of the le year year, Liberty Gates, environmental education coordinator with our environmental and public's works department. Since joining the city in 2022, Liberty has made an extraordinary impact through environmental education, outreach, and volunteer engagement, helping residents of all ages better understand how their everyday actions affect our environment and how they can help protect it. In 2024 alone, she reached more than 8,000 students through classroom programs, water plant tours, and recycling center visits. She also launched innovative initiatives like Tune in Roswell, a 10-part educational video series with companion activities to extend learning. Liberty is committed to reaching the entire community, building partnerships with organizations such as Galo and Seniors Enriched Living to ensure environmental education is inclusive and accessible. We frequently hear how

meaningful her work is from the community. One teacher re recently sent us a message about liberty and her in stating your enthusiasm and energy really help children learn what you are teaching. That enthusiasm, creativity, and commitment are exactly why Liberty is such a wonderful asset to our environmental public's works team and to the entire Roswell community. Liberty, thank you for the passion you bring to your work every day and for helping build more informed, engaged, and environmentally responsible Roswell. Please join me in congratulating our employee of the year, Liberty Gates. [applause] I was like, I will say something. Oh, thank you so much for this. [applause] Thank you. Thank you. Oh my gosh. So, I feel so special, so fancy. Um, thank you all so, so much. Um, I know everybody can't say this, but I'm truly blessed and lucky to be able to wake up every day and say, "I love my job and be really really excited to go to it." Um, whether I am talking with community members, our students within our community, or going out and pulling up invasive plants on a Saturday morning. I tell you, I love it. I really, really do. Um, I also just feel so lucky that Roswell is willing to have somebody like me, an environmental educator on staff. They are wanting to pursue environmental education and environmental initiatives, and that's um, obviously a cause dear to my heart. So, I'm just so thankful for that. So, thank you so much for this honor, and um, let's do it again next year. [applause] [applause] Oh, we'll go

everybody.

I brought everybody everybody. I know. They might have scoop. Maybe everybody sidewards. Side words. [laughter] I know. Yeah, that's it. Come on now. Go, Dad. Get in. Come on, Dad. Okay, I think that's good. [laughter]

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. [applause]

Thank you guys. Thank all of you guys. Back up Now, Next on the agenda is the consent agenda. So, um, it would be approval of the minutes and approval of the right-of-way acquisition services. City clerk Nancy Long, are there any speakers for the consent agenda?

There are no speakers for the consent. Does the council have any comments or questions regarding the consent agenda? I believe somebody wanted to make you need to turn your card in back there. Sorry.

Yes, sir.

My name is Billy Reeves. I'm the president of the HOA for Blacksmith Row. Everyone know where Blacksmith Row is? Everyone? No. Okay. So, Blacksmith Row is on Green Street and uh uh we have 17 town home on Green Street, which is right around Fellows, Monkey 68, um Pickle Pickle, and Austere Maton. uh y'all came to uh our area and did a presentation on what y'all were going to be doing with Green Street. We absolutely love the fact that it's one way because over the last I've I've lived in Roswell now five years and over the last five years we've watched people get off off Roswell Road and go 50 60 miles an hour up Green Street to Woodstock and take a right or a left. Now they don't do that anymore. The problem now is they go south and instead of going all the way down to Alfreda Highway, they use our private road to cut over to Canton Street. Okay. So, we're seeing a huge amount of that with Uber people dropping off people at Monkey 68 with delivery trucks driving through our parking lot, huge delivery truck. And part of our parking lot is gravel, which was required by the city at the time that we actually built these 17 units. We've already replaced it last year and now we're going to have to replace it this year. And if it continues that traffic, it's a real problem for us. I don't have a solution. Uh our neighbors have said, "Let's we could gate it. I don't want to have to gate it." Uh so we've actually uh we've the association we've actually had signs made to let let them know it's one way not to go down it. It's a private drive. We got a big sign, no parking, but it doesn't seem to be working. In addition to that, if for some strange reason

we're not going to be able to fix that problem, we're looking you to you guys to actually pave that gravel part, although it's not what the city actually wants because they want it to be able to breathe and that kind of stuff. And we would like for y'all to put up some sort of signage, including some sort of post to be able to let everybody know it's a private residence and not for people to cut down. So, uh, ever since we made it one way, we have been the traffic managers. We have people that watch the traffic still going up the wrong way, uh, because they cut through Cherry Street. And when y'all start doing all the stuff for Green Street, it's very important that y'all address Cherry Cherry Way. Cherry Way, I think it is. Very important that y'all address Cherry Way because it's in a horrible condition. Absolutely horrible. And it's by the uh the um nursing home. Thank you. It's by It's by the nursing home. And so there's quite a number of ambulances and fire trucks that come up that way as well. So I met with a couple of uh uh when y'all came and met with us. I met with a couple of uh your employees. I met with walked them around the property. Met with uh Greg Nichols, Claire Bruce, and Brian Watson. So, I have given I don't know if they're here tonight, but I have given them a tour of the property and our concerns. Uh, we want it. We love it. It's going to look beautiful. Uh, the other thing is is when y'all start when y'all start doing the acquisition, please make Georgia Power, Comcast, all those people, bury those uh uh cables and uh u power lines just like they did for the

parking deck. Thank you. I think do does any I I see Brian here. Sir, do you want us to get back with you or do we have your contact information on the card?

Okay. Thank you. We'll we'll have I'll have um some team members get back with you and we can see what we can work out. Sorry. Any anyone else from the audience want to speak on the consent agenda items? Again, does council have any other um comments or questions regarding the consent agenda? Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion. Do I have a second?

Second. All those in favor, please raise your hand. The items pass unanimously. Thank you. Next is the regular agenda. Clerk, city clerk Nancy Long, please read the first item on the regular agenda.

Yes, this is approval for the mayor or city administrator to accept the Nesbet Lakes dredging assistance policy application and required budget amendment with funding source to be identified. This will be presented by Brian Watson, director of environmental public works. Sorry. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I hope you're doing well tonight. Brian, can you see?

Thank Thank you, Mayor. Uh because I am a resident of one of these uh communities, I will need to recuse myself be um for these for this item uh this and the next item. But before I leave, I just wanted to recap a little bit of history as I did in the committee meeting two weeks ago. And how appropriate that our employee of the year is from environmental and public works and a steward of uh storm water management for our city. Um, you'll probably go into a little history, but the little bit of history that I have is the the pond uh ordinance has been on the books for a number of years. And it was during Mayor Wood's administration that I believe that they updated the ordinance to currently what it is. uh recognizing the tremendous need for storm water management and uh managing that in the city and finding a solution where the city can um basically cost share uh some of these dredging expenses with uh the owners of these ponds neighborhoods andor others that meet the criteria. Uh since then we've had a handful of um folks come through the process and um it's it's a benefit to the city as a whole uh because of all the storm water issues that we see. So I just wanted to give that little bit of background. Uh even in 2022 um I on behalf of the city did a storm water and dredging uh kind of little seminar. We invited um all the local communities, anybody that had an interest to come to learn how to um alternatives to dredging, how to help manage that um and and different ways that homeowners and homeowner associations could perhaps put their heads together and figure out kind of

some solutions to this. So, I just wanted to give that little bit of feedback. Thank you, Councilwoman. Right.

All right. Now, good evening, Mayor and Council. Hope you're doing well. Um, as uh Council Member Hall just said, um, during committee, um, I'm going to go over background. Uh, first, we've got actually two items on on the agenda tonight. The first one is Nesbet Lakes. Um to give you a little bit of background, uh the dredging assistance policy um actually started back in 1998 as the lakes and ponds partnership policy. Uh as council member Hall uh alluded to in 2026, I'm sorry, 2016. Uh it was converted to the dredging assistance policy. Uh it was a policy to share a lake or pond dredging costs uh up to 50% with a maximum of $500,000 uh for the lake and pond owners. There's two major criteria that an applicant must meet um or they would have to petition to mayor and counsel. Uh the first one is the size of the drainage area. So the drainage area that goes to that lake or pond needs to be 100 acres or more. Uh the second criteria that they can meet is the volume of that pond. So 20 acre feet or more. So an applicant must meet one or the other. If they do not meet at least one of those and they could petition to mayor and counsel. Um Nesbbit Lakes uh does meet that criteria. So there was no uh there's no petition to mayor and counsel for that. Um uh part of the project is after the application is um submitted and if it gets approved um for any sort of funding then the applicant needs to move forward with the project and upon completion of that project they will have to show the receipts as well as um they'll have to have a representative from environmental public works go out and actually inspect the uh project make sure that it was done according to what we would expect and then once uh the applicant meets all of that then the funds would to be dispersed uh to that applicant. Um the reimbursement funds

are only for dredging operations. So this is only for the uh dredging and removal of the material. It is not for landscape improvements um outlet control structure improvements or any other um cost that would be incurred by the homeowner. It is only for dredging uh dredging the material. Um the applicant must receive a land disturbance permit. This is actually one of the uh main things that they need to receive uh prior to actually having their application reviewed and approved. Um and then the dredging assistance application and then Environmental Public Works receives the dredging assistance application. We review those applications to make sure that um they meet all the criteria, that they've met all of the um the things that have been set up, and that it is a benefit to the citizens of Roswell. That's an important thing that um we want to look at. We don't want to improve a lake or a pond that is just an amenity to uh that HOA or that owner. That actually has to have some sort of a benefit to the city. In this case, we're looking for storm water management volume capacity that it can contain storm water. So, uh Nesbbit Lakes uh just north of Old Scott Road. And here's some details on the project. So, the pond drainage area 320 acres. So, it meets that criteria. The pond storage volume is 256 acre feet. So, it meets that. Again, they only need to meet one, but this particular applicant meets both. Um, the application calls for dredging approximately 4,500 cubic feet cubic yards of sediment. Um, that equates to approximately 450 uh truck trips um or 900 round trips. So basically the the dump truck that is going to the lake and going to most likely a landfill those that would be two trips there and back. Um they submitted their dredging assistance application in September of 2025. They

obtained their land disturbance permit uh December 31st, 2025. The total cost for the dredging that was presented is $68,875. Um they are seeking up to 50% reimbursement for $34, uh437.50. Um as I mentioned, one of the main criteria that we look at is that it is a benefit to the citizens of Roswell and uh based on our recommendation, it does meet the that uh qualification. So staff did recommend approval of the dredging assistance of this application at committee. Um, I'm going to turn it over to Bill Gaw, our uh CFO, to talk about the financials.

Thank you, Brian. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, based on a presentation that Brian has made, uh, the sub the HOA is seeking 600 is, uh, estimating a 68,000 uh 68,875 project. They are seeking reimbursement of 50% of 304,43750. As Brian mentioned, uh based on current budgeted amount from the 2026 budget, uh we have $250,000 set aside for dredging assistance under this policy. And our finance recommendation is to approve uh the budgeted amount up to 20%. This match would be for $121,775. I'm happy to take any questions. Does council have any questions?

Just as Bill standing here, do you want to go public first? So, city clerk Nancy Long, are there any Roswell residents who would like to speak on this item?

Uh, yes. We have one speaker, Jerry Lucas. I guess we get to go first tonight on these two applications and that is fine. Okay. Uh mayor and city council members, my name is Jerry Lucas. I've uh lived in Nesbet Lakes for about 29 years and I uh oppose only a 20% reimbursement. Ask you to consider seriously a 50% reimbursement of this as has been done in the past and as as has been offered. We've been working on this. I've been working on this project for five years now and it was delayed a little bit because the Brierstone subdivision added into us next to us. So, we had to wait till that got done and stuff on that. So, that delayed it a little bit. The cost has gone up significantly. We had our first bid four years ago. We had our next bid last year. Cost has gone up significantly. We applied for our land disturbance permit that Brian mentioned is required in April of this last year. We did not get it until December 31st of this last year. It took us eight months to get our land disturbance permit to move along in this process. We have invested $45,000 so far, starting with the uh survey of our lake to see how much sediment is in it four years ago and our permit fees,

our bonding costs, and our engineering fees for a plan. So, we've invested $45,000 so far. All being done with the thought that the 50% offered up to 50% would be granted to us to help diminish the costs and and make us to be able to afford it. This is not a neighborhood amenity that we have in our lake. We actually have three lakes in Nesbet Lakes. It's not an amenity. It's an integral part of our storm water management system required for all those homes to be built in there. It's a requirement to have that in there. Martins's Landing is downstream from us. That's where our lake flows into. So, we have to hold the water back accordingly so it doesn't flood Martins's Landing. Over a thousand homes in Martins's Landing downstream from us. We have 342 homes just in Nesbet Lakes only that drains into there. And as they showed up here before, 320 acres flows downstream to us into this as integral part of the storm water management system. When the budget was put together last fall, I reviewed it in October and saw that there was a spot in there for $250,000 for dredging assistance. Never been in the budget before, right, Brian?

So, it's in there and I thought, "Oh, okay. That's that's interesting. I sent an email to Brian. I says, "You need to increase this. Our amount we're going to be as we're applying for already, he knew that is more than 250,000 and Chering is coming along, too. So, you should increase that." Well, that didn't happen. But anyway, last week in your committee's meeting, it was discussed very heavily in there and Brian and Randy said that, "Yeah, we we knew these two applications were coming in here." Uh, and the budget the budget has $250,000 in there. I'm not sure why it stayed at $250,000, but Randy said, "Well, that's that's a that's a placeholder. That's seed money for it." Okay, that's that's interesting. That would seem proper to beg the question of a budget amendment which has been done in the past for the whole amount, not just part of it in the past for the last 11 years. A budget amendment to get the get the amount proper so that we can include ourselves checkering too if you decide to in there for the full 50% reimbursement on it. The general fund of the city of Roswell, which is where this has to come out of, has $250,000 in there already. We've talked about that. It also has a general contingency line item in there for other things that are unforeseen and unspecified. That's a,450,000 in that line item in there, which was used for these type of things in the past and could be used for something like this. That's twice the amount of that line item in the past in the last year. So it was 700 and some thousand last year. It's a million450

this year. So a lot of room in there for things like this to have. So what amount we're talking about is about $379,000 that would take out of that line item and that would leave a million dollars left in that. Thank you, sir. Your time is okay. Just done. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. would if this reimbursement is not at the 50% level, it will kill it will kill this program. Nobody else will apply for it. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, for your comments. Yeah,

if I could just raise a couple of points uh for the mayor and council. Uh last year we finished uh the 2025 budget with a small surplus. Uh that surplus also included a million dollar shortfall in property taxes and it included u the full use of our contingency fund last year. Um there was a contingency fund of 700. There were some other components to it. The total contingency last year was actually 1.8 8 million and we consumed all of that for various issues that came up uh in the during the year that were not planned or foreseeable uh during the budget cycle. Um I think it's also important to emphasize that Roswell is the only city in North Fulton that has a program and I believe Brian we're probably the only city in in the region um that offers a similar program outside of the North Fulton area. Um it's a unique program. The ordinance calls from zero to 50%. I'm not aware of any communications personally that that I've had with subdivisions regarding an amount of reimbursement. We set the 250 aside because we were aware that there might be an application. Um, and we feel that it's prudent based on where we are in the fiscal year to use the budgeted amount and not to seek a budget amendment at this time.

Thank you, sir. Are there any other Roswell residents? Nancy, what gentlemen? Richard Farmer.

Good evening. My name is uh Dick Farmer. I live in Martins's Landing and as you heard uh from the folks at NE Nesbbit Lakes uh their pond feeds directly down into the Martins's Landing Lake which was a 55 acre lake and which is coming up for a dredging project within next year or two. Uh I'm here to speak in favor of the Nesbit Lakes request. They Jerry indicated that the costs over just over the past year have gone up significantly for their project. We can anticipate the Martins's Landing uh request coming up within the next year or two uh for you uh for that for our project. And we're going I'm here to ask you to think about to think about uh including in your budgeting process this as a contingency a regular regularly occurring contingency as opposed to just a placeholder in your budget. Uh because you don't like surprises and we don't like surprises. The last time we did our project, we paid a million dollars to do the uh dredging dredging and I don't even want to guess what we're uh going to be coming back with uh on our next goound. We are going to spend a significant amount of money in the next year to do a preliminary survey with the professional engineering and dredging and uh and survey company just so we can come in with a very realistic approach. Uh but we're warning you that it's coming. But we, you know, as good citizens of the community, we want to see the budgeting done appropriately so that we don't get into an unpleasant discussion in the future. So again, I'm here to support the

Nesbbit Lakes and ask you if you can find money in the budget, and apparently there may be some money uh to reconsider your uh reimbursement schedule for them. Thank you. [snorts] Thank you, Mr. Farmer. Any other residents? Nancy. Is that a note? I think does council have any comments or questions regarding this item?

Bill, a couple questions for you and then a couple for Brian as well. You don't mind. So, uh, just to be clear, the your report is that this has never been budgeted at all for last year and always was done as a budget amendment. Is that what you understand to be the case? Uh, yes. So, I am aware of two budget projects, Martins Landing in 2016 and Wexford last year, and both were uh done through budget amendment. And uh the the nature of the contingency fund is essentially money that we did not spend in last year's. Is that correct? That's what that is.

For the most part, it can also be a decision to set money aside for the unexpected. And uh I think you and I both would would agree that there are a few large transactions that are likely to occur that we know about at this moment that will be added to that contingency. likely. Yeah. Yeah. Likely. Brian, a couple questions for you. Yes, sir.

So, uh the the two criteria are not the only consideration. You also talked about the fact that it's part of our wrote it down. It decreases the burden on the city's downstream storm water management. Correct. Yeah. Just to clarify. So those two criteria, the drainage area and the volume are the basically the initial criteria to actually have the application be reviewed. Right. So then once you in that bar to move to the next Yes, sir. And both of these have been in city hall for quite some That is correct.

They've been working through this process. Uh Aaron made a good point in in committee the other day. Maybe I'll reiterate perhaps we should think about looking at the ordinance differently. uh and having the each one have to go through a budget cycle before it can come to us so that we know about it, we approve it and it comes through that. But for these uh you probably can't answer this question, but you have looked at projects like this. You you recognize the amount of time and uh the uh the time that's taken to get the proposals that they have and the time-sensitive nature of these proposals. Isn't that right? You understand that that's there's a lifespan for these proposals and they're going to pull the pricing or re renegotiate at some point in the near future if they don't get an answer.

That would be my assumption. In reviewing the application and the cost estimates that came from the contractors, um I did not see a expire by date. However, being in this business almost 30 years, um if if this was to not get approved and they were to go back and to renegotiate with the contractor, there's no saying if the contractor would keep their price or if they would change it.

Right. So, just to to clarify, when we talked about this in committee or excuse me, in three and three, I guess it was um the u this is an incentive. This is not a aid to these HOAs. This is an incentive for them to do something that we as a city have a vested interest in them doing and that's why this project is useful for our storm water management process as a city. That right? That is correct. Yeah. Okay. So, um when we're ready, I'm going to propose a change to the uh to the resolution. I'll stop and see if anybody else says anything. And council member Zach,

bear with me. This is my first time doing this. Um, so I I support this uh the dredging policy both from environmental and fiscal uh soundness. It's also important to me to honor prior policies uh for the continuity of the city. However, I see some issues with the current process. Allan, you kind of alluded to them. I think there's some recommendations we can make uh involving both the budget timing and for me in particular, I I do think I I want some involvement or oversight on on the uh let's call it the bidding process. Um and because I think that'd be helpful for both the residents and and the city, especially with um both parties paying for for this. Um ideally, I'd like to see both applications funded at the 50%. However, the current reality is we have 250,000 allocated. Um, I believe we could fully fund the first project through the final item on the agenda. Um, that will come up later. And then kind of to Allen's point, I do think there will be future contingency money coming in. Uh, my only and I think difference between Allan and myself is I would prefer and I don't know what that timing looks like for that additional funds to to come in uh before approving the second project. Um, in the same way from the continuity standpoint, the budget period was just done. I was not a part of it. I don't know why things were done in certain ways. I don't, but at the end of it all, it was determined that only 250,000 could go go towards this. So, for me personally, I prefer to find funding elsewhere before we approve a second project. Um, but I I would recommend approving one project at 50% until we find the second one. Councilwoman Bas.

Um, question for staff, which I alluded to roughly during committee meeting. Um, was staff fully aware of the fact that we were going to be receiving $629,000 in budget request for this year before the budget process last year. Close enough. We It wasn't the exact amount. Uh, we didn't have during the budget process. Um, we were waiting for the final uh contractor bids from both applicants. So, we had a pretty good guess, but it wasn't exact, but we knew we were receiving two applications. Correct. Yes, ma'am.

Was that in the original inside baseball? For all the public listening, um, staff essentially does Christmas list budgets and then it's whittleled down time over time after time. Was the 629 a part of the original budget request for last year? No, it was not not the original request. Is there a reason why? Um I think there was still a degree of uncertainty on the timing that it would fall in calendar year versus budget year. Um and there was just enough pressure from other elements of the budget that it didn't make it to the top of the list.

Understood. So, since we're facing this budget issue currently, um, and I will frame too for those who are from the other neighborhoods, council personally from my context, I know at least three others up here who are newly electeds. I was not aware that we were receiving two applications coming down the pike. Otherwise, that would have been a question of mine during the budget process. Um, I also have a concern that I presented to some of my other council members. This is essentially a prisoners dilemma. In this instance, you have two people vying for the same pot, but as uh the resident from Nesbet Lake said, if they get 20% and the other neighborhood gets 20%, there's a good chance that neither project happens, so they cancel each other out. Um, so referencing council member Zach's request, I'm of the frame of mind of funding Nesbet Lakes to 250 currently, um, which would be about 40%. Um, and then deferring Chering as they applied after. So, keeping in mind first come first or if Nesbet Lakes got their application in first, deferring trickering to later this year um in a mid-year budget amendment hopefully within 90 days um so that we have a better idea whether or not we can recognize the potential revenue that council member Cells was referencing. He is correct that we are looking at potential revenue, but I'm a big fan of not counting my chickens before they hatch. Uh been here for three years and I know not to get my hopes up about much of anything anymore. So, I don't want to recognize that revenue at this point in time and allocate it, especially given the fact we have 1.4 4 million in contingency and we are a whopping five weeks into this year. That makes me nervous moving forward. Um I don't know where the rest of the council sits on that, but I'm of the frame of mind of funding Nesbet Lakes 40% this evening to 250 and then doing another 250 for Chering later in the year once we can recognize the revenue.

Any other council member? Yes, I have the same concerns as council member Bon. Um you know we the the previous budget process had the knowledge that these asks were coming and then only allocated 250k which um you know is not it's it's not enough for um not even for one of the applications um even if we approve that one at 50% we'll still be um 100,000 in the red right um 54 if we prove one

and so if we if we approve both of them at 50% uh that will be 379,000 over budget given that our contingency fund is only 1.4 before and we've already, you know, we already suffered losses. For example, we we have all those trees falling in the police cars. We had other incidents that we going to have to fix for the ice storm. I really feel uncomfortable dipping into that fund for any amount at this point in the year. um you know I I would be willing to defer it but I would not I I would be really even you know a 40% probably but definitely not a 50% because it's just going to start snowballing that the amount of um you know if we get the money then we can revise it but I am I just don't want to give the impression that we have 1.4 million that we can just use or something also um I just want to remember remind everybody that this ordinance says the reimbursement is up to 50%. It could have been 1%. It's up to 50%. And unfortunately, just like when somebody applies to for a grant, they don't always get it. You know, when we uh start a project, we have figure out of a plan B. Um because sometimes you don't get everything that you expect. Thank you. Council Philippi, [laughter] are you going?

Yes, she is.

Um, this has been a very tough thing for me to ponder over the last few weeks. Um, from an environmental perspective, I agree with the policy and I appreciate that we have a city who values our environment enough to support our neighborhoods from a a fiscal and a and a fairness coming from a fairness perspective. First of all, I I understand that there is some slight difference in the date that these came in, but both of these neighborhoods have been working on these for a long time. And uh somebody used the analogy with me earlier that it's like twins. Like yeah, technically one was born before the other, but they're essentially at at the same time. They're they're going through this process at the same time. They're presented to us at the same time. For that reason, I think it's important to be fair with the dispersement of money between the two. Um like my colleagues, I am concerned about our budget. It's not just the fact that yes, we have contingency. It can be spent. We know we spent all more than 1.4 million last year in contingency. There are a number of items in the budget that I think we feel like need to be revisited as it is things that address public safety and other issues that impact the whole of the city. And for that reason, I would be inclined to support them both at 20%. Um although I don't feel like any choice before us is a good myself.

Nobody else. Okay, cool. That is true. None of these are good choices. These are these are hard choices. There's no doubt about it. Um, you know, as a business, you would look at this and you say, "Okay, I've got these upside risks that I know about."

Upside risks meaning I have revenue potentials and we all know several of them. uh one of we're going to talk about in a few moments. Uh but um we know we have some upside opportunities here and you're right, these guys have been in this process for a long long time. The fear that I have is that we're going to disincent this action that we want taken. These are two goodsized lakes that are meaningful to the areas like like Martins's Landing. Uh so um you know I still propose that we go ahead and approve them because they can't really contract with a gee we'll get back to you in the morning. Uh so we're going to have to say either we're going to fund 50%. Or we're not that's pretty much what and we can say gee but trust us well they've been in this conversation with us for a long time and we're saying no we're not going to. So, I would like to propose that we uh instruct staff to find ways to pull this off so that when we do pay these, which by the way, and the city should know this, the residents should know this, not a dollar gets paid to the contractors or anyone else uh before the neighborhood pays the full bill. So, it is 100% a reimbursement of what they spend. And it's only with respect to the dredging. It's not anything to do with landscaping. It's not anything to do with uh you know beautifification at all. It's just simply the act of dredging. Is that correct, Brian?

That is correct.

Okay. So, so from an incentive perspective and considering that we're going to have, you know, we have so many neighborhoods are about the same age and we have a lot of waterfront and a lot of lakes in this in this city and I know you would like to see a a full survey of that which you know may be hard but we certainly are going to see more of these. So, as we talked about the other day, having them go through a budget cycle so we can think about them. We can do that for the next ones. But for these these guys have have spent four years and I I don't know how long is Chering represented here tonight. Okay. I don't know how long you guys have spent, but you know, it wasn't last weekend, that's for sure. Uh, and so that's a project, a process that is not one you can just say, hey, you know, let's just put a pause on this and we'll get back to you. uh you know maybe July, maybe August. I don't think it works that way. So I'm I still suggest that we fund them at 50%. When we find the money in the budget to cover the shortfall, which is what 360,000 is the total shortfall if we do both of them at 50%.

Approximately 375. So that that is what I am proposing. Randy, you you may have some comments on the budget uh process.

May I may I ask one question to Brian before? So, um, we had a discussion earlier too about, um, the concept of how long does the land disturbance permit last for these projects, you know, that they're technically good, they wouldn't have to quote unquote reapply through us. um understanding if there is you know the need to readjust the budget see where if there is opportunities um you know a little bit May June I know that may not be the ideal but the land disturbance permit seems to be the one that take the longest concepts um at least from the city's perspective in getting that how long does do those stay in place and or can those be extended easily

uh normal land disturbance permits are in in for six months before they need to start construction. However, we can put a note to extend these. So, the the city can do that. Uh they would not have to go back through the land disturbance permit process. Um the only thing we would want is is there anything if if we were to revisit this months down the road, we would just want to make sure that any information in the dredging assistance application is updated. That would that would be the only thing we would ask. Thank you, Mr. Nighton. Oh, wait. Council member Zach, did you want to

Yeah. Uh I would like to make a recommendation uh which is understanding we'll have money back in the budget from item three to fund uh Nesbbit for 50% today and then to bring forward a amendment a budget amendment within 90 days once other revenue has been identified for Nesbbit to honor the 50% and check sorry um in that 90 days so they contract Can I just ask a point of order on the motion to to fund NESBIT at 50%, we still need a $54,000 budget amendment.

It it the request of 304,000 exceeds the 250,000 by by 54,000. That that was going to be my point. We're still over budget and we also are back to the counting our chickens before they're hatched. I mean like what council member cells is proposing is that we will have the money by then. I disagree. We know I am saying that we will find the money before then. Mr. Knight wanted to speak. I'm sorry. Council member Z.

All right. To to your point, just to clarify, I think item three will make up the delta um for the 50%. Item three would need the entire amount as a budget amendment because there's only 250. Nesbbit is requesting 304 for reimbursement at the 50% level, which exceeds the budgeted amount currently. So, we need a budget amendment with this resolution the way it's worded. Mr. Knight.

Yeah. Just just so we clear here, I think there are a couple of things happening here. First, I want to say to the subdivisions who have applied and gone through this program, thank you very much. Obviously, you have um a a tremendous investment in um your communities, your respective communities. As it relates to a couple of conversations here I think um we're dealing with. One is we're anticipating a a vote on another item on the agenda that's further down on the agenda and the outcome of said um item on the agenda before it's heard. I understand um the pathway you're going there. Um also, you know, as a city administrator um oftentimes I have to look at things all the time. have to look at things objectively and neutrally and and try to advise and and and provide the best advice and or recommendation to the elected body. One of the things here if if there is a desire to use the contingency I have to say then of course the money is there right now we're very early in the year of course but that may mean later in the year that something else does not get funded and or has to be reduced um in the current budget as council member Philippy said that there's some things in the budget that this elected body may want to revise or modify or change certainly that exists as well and so all of those things have to be considered um uh With respect to this overall question, I'd also like to say um with respect to last year's budget as the $250,000 was identified as I recall going through August, September, October when you're dealing with the formation of a budget. Um this item um was one of the last items that was actually funded in the budget. Um, we were very, as from a staff perspective, grateful to have that item, $250,000, although some seem that is is uh not what it should be, we're grateful to

have that $250,000 in the budget um going forward. And so um when you're dealing with various needs, wants with respect to um the operation of the city, everything is precious. And certainly the residents here um your your subdivision, your communities are precious. And obviously I think by virtue of the conversation here, the council recognizes that this is a very important issue. I just want to make sure that we have full visibility on what could happen uh per the council's decision tonight with respect to um the contingency andor the budget going forward. Yes, we may realize additional revenues throughout the course of the year and that may be fine and may address this particular issue, but we don't know that yet. and also it could result in the reduction and or elimination of something else uh down the road. Um and so obviously per the council's determination um the staff will support uh the recommendation and approval that you make.

Thank you. Any other council?

You know um it is true that we don't know what will happen down the road. That's called governance and we have to govern in February just like we do in December. So, it would be great if we could do all of our voting for this year in December when we have perfect knowledge about what's going to happen. We we obviously can't do that. Uh I I would ask the uh other members of council if if the if they hadn't thrown in the $250,000 and these guys were standing here before us tonight and we had zero in the budget which was the case the state of play for every single one of these prior to these two. Every single one was done this way. So, uh, would we just say, "Okay, well, we got zeros. Therefore, the the, uh, the the program is null and void, and we don't stand behind that." I don't think that's the goal of this. The goal of this is to incent neighborhoods to do something we need them to do and we want them to do. And so, I would I would rather we be talking about changing the ordinance for next year and funding these projects. Councilwoman Beast,

just for a point of clarity, I understand in the past it's been budget amendments because it wasn't previously line item, but uh Mr. Gotch, could you clarify one last time? We recognized a decrease in revenue over the past year as it relates to property taxes. Is that correct? Yes. Our property taxes came in $1 million below budget and that wasn't true the last few years. Correct. That was the opposite the previous years. So, we previously had an influx of money and in this situation we're short. So, I recognize that in the past we budgeted that, but it's financially we're not in the same position necessarily. That's true, but we're talking about the last 20 years. May I ask? Last year.

May I ask a different question? So, last year when it was uh the project was funded when in the in the budgeting process when in when was the budget amendment done in the calendar year? Are we talking about Wexford at 109,000? Yes. So that was done August. August or September. That was done in August, not in February. Okay. And and the funds were not pulled from general fund or contingency. They were actually pulled from soil and erosion. Sediment erosion. Sediment erosion. That was some funds there, right? And that that fund has been exhausted. Thank you.

Yes, Council Member Premley. And I mean I understand this is very important you know for our environment but also please remember that this contingency fence is for everything in the city. If we lose another police you know car because another tree fell on it. That's what we're doing. If we have a situation like the economy hotel again hope not. But that's where money comes from from the contingency fund. It's for everything that happens in the country in in the city and from everybody in in the area. So just make sure that you understand that this is not just for projects in the public works and environmental department.

So or do we want to entertain motions? Um it sounds like there might be some motions to be proposed from different um council member cells.

All right. I would like to propose that uh for and by the way this will be for both just I know we're going to do them one at a time but I would propose uh the following. I would that we approve for the mayor or city administrator to accept the Nesbbit Lakes dredging assistance policy application and require a budget and required budget amendment with funding source to be identified for 50% of the cost not to exceed $34,437.50 50 cents uh by the midyear budget amendment that we identify the funding by the midyear budget amendment. So, Councilwoman has proposed I'm not going to reread that.

Um do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Oh, I'm sorry. Comment. May I make an amendment on the motion that sits? got a second that you can I'd like to amend the motion that sits to instead of recognizing 50% of um funding both items this evening instead allocating 50% towards Nesbbit Lakes as council member Zach had offered um with the understanding that we would come back for board with a budget amendment within 90 days to 50% fund Chering at a later date once we recognize revenue going be a second there's going to be a second resolution hold up

yeah that would be a second resolution voting to leave the table on the chering. But so but you're voting for both, correct? Are you just voting for? You're not there yet. We're not at the separate. We're doing one. We're just doing one right now. I'll do the same. I'm still going to come back. That's fine. I'll table my motion. Yeah. So, we have a motion on the table. Um, all in favor, please raise your hand. Two. All oppose. Oh. Four. So funding at 100 50% both currently and one okay so first 50% for NES

that what we are voted on correct okay passes one opposed city clerk Nancy long please read the Second item on the regular agenda. Uh yes, mayor. This is approval for the mayor or city administrator to accept the chering dredging assistance policy application and required budget amendment with funding source to be identified. Also presented by Brian Watson. What's this?

Trickery. Trickery. Yeah. So, um I won't go through the background since uh we we've gone through that now three times. uh we are talking about Chering. What I'll do is I'll get to the project details. Um so Chering Lake uh both the pond size and the pond volume both of those criteria meet uh the initial again only one of those needs to meet. Um their proposal is dredging approximately 9,000 cubic yards of sediment. Um as opposed to 450 uh one-way trips, there's 900 trips for Chering. Um they submitted their dredging assistance application December 19th, 2025. They received their land disturbance permit January 6th, 2026. Um their total dredging cost is 650,000 and they are seeking up to 50% or 325,000. Similar to Nesbbit Lakes um in evaluating the lake, uh the lake does have um storm water capacity and this is a benefit to the city of uh the Rosal residents and um EBW would uh recommend the approval of the dredging assistance application, but kind of went over those a little bit. Okay. Um, as Brian mentioned, we covered the the details of the uh finances behind this. Um, the dredging cost is 650,000. Seeking reimbursement of 50% would be 325,000. Uh, we are recommending 20% um reimbursement uh which would be 130,000 and would require a budget amendment of $1,775 uh to be transferred from contingency. That's a finance department recommendation. Thank you, city clerk Nancy Long. Are there any resident Roswell's residents who would like to speak on this item?

Uh, yes, Mayor. We have four speakers. The first is Lindsay Dean.

Good evening, um, mayor and council. My name is Lindsay Dean. Um, I've been a resident of Chering for nine years. My husband and I have lived in Roswell for 17. Um, and I I do thank you for your time. I know storm water is everyone's favorite topic. Um, but it's been very interesting to hear a lot of your thoughts and your comments and the way that you're thinking about things. I came in with a whole lot of other things I was going to tell you about tonight, but um, I think that some of the the interesting points that you have brought up are are worth some responses. um you know to the point about we have we are twins with Nesbbit Lakes um I will inform you and I have some of my neighbors with me to get into greater detail but we've actually worked to a great extent with the Army Corps of Engineers which has led to a lot of delays as you know with different rationes with the federal government and how long it takes them to get to things. Um, we've been working on this for a long time. Residents unpaid, not uh on a hope and a prayer and an expectation that a precedent set by the city of Roswell was something that we could count on. And [snorts] it was something that us as residents, we went forward in good faith. our our residents, our neighbors have worked very hard to figure out how we were going to even just pay in full to start with um because we knew that there was a chance that the city would say just so sorry, our pocketbook is closed. And that's really hard to hear. It's also really hard to stomach the idea that other neighbors um other neighborhoods are the beneficiaries of our tax dollars and our fees. Um, and we are not able to ask for the same. And so as we get into our specific lake and I tell you about Chering, I do want you to understand that this is not a pet project. This is

not our neighborhood looking for a space where we have docks of which we do not have. We do not have gazeos. There are no lake activities. This is literally just a repository of all the water and all the sediment that flows to West Roswell. it just comes to our lake. It's really disappointing to see all the landscape crews and blowing all this stuff into their gutters that we know is just going to fill up our lake. And so when we think about it, and I want you to think about what our lake our lake is doing for the city of Roswell is that we are the landing place of where all the water needs to go, but also where all the sediment that no one else is is collecting. It's going into our lake. And if we want to dam it up, that's fine. happy to have it. Happy to have none of that come into our lake, but we don't. And so, we're here as a part of Roswell accepting that. What I also want you to think about is that for for us and where our lake is located, um I think it was Councilwoman Bon you brought up in committee about the Pine Grove enhancements. This is a whole lot of paved and non-porous surfaces that you're talking about adding directly towards our lake. And so that's going to add to what flows into what we have. This isn't something that our neighborhood, I'll be very honest, nobody wanted to do this. Nobody. There's not a single resident who wanted the increase in dues, who wanted the special assessments. They didn't want it. We didn't want the loan that we have to take out to make this happen. We don't want it, but we have to do it. This isn't our neighborhood who who's just like, "Oh, this is for fun or this is to make it pretty." The Army Corps of Engineers requires that we do this. And so this is something where we are coming to you as city council to say, "Hey, we've been good partners to you. We've continued to pay into those property taxes. We've continued to pay into our

storm water fees." All of those seem to be going up. And so before we get locked into some arbitrary 250 that was set into a budget for some reason, remember that it was found somewhere in years past for other neighborhoods. We're not asking for more. We're not asking for less. And so it's beautiful that we've already identified maybe there's some dollars in soil and erosion. Maybe that's where it is. But I just I I plead with you to help foster the incentive that Roswell wants to put out there and say this is what we want to extend to our residents to incentivize you to do the right thing when you don't want to. Same thing with your budget. Please do the right thing even if you don't want to. Thank you for your time. Other residents stand.

Yes. The next speaker is John Kchner.

Good evening. Uh council members and and and mayor. Uh my name is John Kersner and I've uh lived in Chering for 15 years and I served as treasurer from uh 2021 to 2025. Uh during that time uh one of my main contributions was working on the uh dredging application uh and the land disturbance permit. Uh this took several years. Um started in 2021 and um it was a very difficult process. Uh I'm a finance guy and it just it took it it took four years to get us get us across the finish line. Um, and to secure a permit, um, you know, we had to pay a significant amount of pre-construction costs, uh, from bonding, permitting, uh, to, uh, environmental surveys. And that that cost uh is probably north of $60,000. And despite this cost and the um significant dredging cost for our community, uh what's motivating us to get this project done is the city's dredging assistance program. Um and the public benefit that it will provide. Uh this assistance gives our community the ability to remove a meaningful amount of sediment, about 9,000 cubic yards of sediment. um restore proper lake depth. Uh right now our lake depth is uh in some areas less than a foot and uh what this project will do, it'll restore um lake depth to around 3 ft to 4 feet. Uh and most importantly, it'll increase storm water capacity uh for the benefit of both our neighborhood and the

surrounding uh communities on Pine Grove Road. Um, I'm here tonight to respectfully ask that you approve a budget amendment to fund the Chering application to the 50% reimbursement level. Uh, my fear is if the 50% is not approved that we may have to change or reduce our scoping for this stretching project. Um, and what that could lead to is that we may have to um consider dredging less and then dredging the lake uh 10 years down the road and that uh could be costly for us. Um, and you know that rising there's rising construction costs. Uh, there's Lindsay mentioned the upcoming Pine Grove work Pine Grove road work. Uh so if we were to do this in 10 years again, it's going to be significantly um higher for us costwise and uh it's going to be highly disruptive to the the newly improved Pine Grove Road. So um you know, thank you for your time and consideration. I hope that you guys consider uh approving the budget amendment to bring the funding level to 50%. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy. Next speaker speaker is Eric Runy.

Good evening, mayor, council members. Thank you for your time. Uh my name is Eric Runy. Been a me uh a resident of Roswell for over a decade. uh um with my wife, two young children, four and six years old. Um [clears throat] first I want to recognize how great of a collaboration a storm water management collaboration this is. Uh I think you can see we're kind of handcuffed to that process. Um wish it wasn't so like Lindsay did say, you know, the lake for us is essentially the topography of the area. I don't know if you recognize it on Pine Grove is so hilly. I can only imagine if we didn't have the storm water resource there where that would go. I I don't know the core of engineers would allow it. But this is a city. This is a neighborhood divided on this project. Um John was saying he's been involved in it for 5 years. Um I've heard that it goes back longer than that. Um there's half the neighborhood who wants to just fill it in. um this half the neighborhood who just doesn't want this project to go and the way that it was able to move forward was through this program. There was no other way. Um but I also do want to just recognize also that I think we all agree that there is precedent for the 50% and quite frankly that's what we all that's what the expectation was moving forward. I know that doesn't mean much but I want I want to come from this from a different angle. Um, at this point, if you could I I kind of wish we had taken pictures and shown I John said the the lake depth is around one foot. It It's actually sandbarss in some areas. Um, we have uh documented

cases of West Nile in our neighborhood. Um, that's not an anecdote. That's that's documented. Um there's also a number of people with un no unknown um disease if if you want to call it, but that's something we could get into. My concern is as a parent um it's a problem. Like it's a big problem. Uh it has been for some time. It continues to get worse. Um you know, I don't say these things lightly. I'm not trying to to bring the emotional component into it, but you know, I have tremendous concerns about the neighborhood and and the fact that this keeps moving forward um I think is is is paramount. We we have to do it. Uh I don't think any of us I mean no one wants anybody to be sick. Um, I don't think any of us want to be part of that that news break. Um, when something like this moves forward and and somebody actually does get sick and and you know, I we do have a not noted illness in the neighborhood where someone almost died from it. So, I'd like you to consider that as you make your decisions tonight. Um, and I'm really hoping we can um we can fund this project at 50%. Find that money. I know we're all in a in a difficult situation here. Um, please vote with your conscience. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy. Any other speakers? Yes. The next speaker is Jason Yell. Great. Richard Farmer. Oh, Richard Farmer. Jason Yao.

Yes. Richard Tramer from uh Martins's Landing. I'd like to speak again in favor of the Chering Lake proposal. Uh the discussion that we had uh earlier with regard to uh Nesbbit Lakes and the Chering Lake proposal points up a definite need for the council to going forward to reconsider its buding budgeting process to look at the potential for large projects coming forward. Uh the community is aging Rose aging. Martins's Landing is 50 years old. We just spent couple million dollars in renovating certain other aspects of our amenities in Martins's Landing. Uh we didn't want to do it. We just had to do it. Uh the costs are increasing uh every year. Uh the longer we wait to do those repairs or that maintenance, the more expensive it becomes. So the city cannot kick that can down the road. Nor can it uh uh ignore the potential responsibilities of uh of projects that you approve that may exacerbate or cause some difficulties downstream so to speak uh of of those projects. And by that I mean the city missed an opportunity uh to hold accountable the developers of Alstead project and the uh uh renovation of that large detention pond below the cell towers uh uh up behind Epidos. They contributed a significant amount of the siltation to Martin Lake that we are going to have to remove. In fact, I brought proceedings to the city uh environmental court and the the those

developers were just great given slap on the wrist, stop work orders. You have to hold those respon those responsible for this upstream uh siltation more responsible. It's difficult for the people downstream to have the resources to do that. So, you know, please going forward reconsider your budgeting process to take into consideration uh projects such as these and uh and also for those where there are where there are opportunities to hold responsible a large developer if if there's something like that, take advantage of that. uh you you cannot go back, you know, and and revisit the project once it's over. But again, I speak in favor of the Chering and the Nesbit Lakes projects. You know, please please consider their requests because we're going to be coming in a couple years. You know, there self-interest here. I understand that. But we're going to be coming in up in our I I I don't even want to think about what the contractors are going to tell us to do uh with our lake. There are part parts of our lake that had a design depth of uh four to six feet that now only have six inches of water in them. That's a lot of sedimentation. So please, you know, consider the process, consider the funding and anticipate the future requests. Thank you again.

Thank you,

Jason. Hello When uh when I look at the numbers comparing the two different subdivisions, there are two things that strike me. First is that Nesbbit is looking at a cost of $1353 a load and we're looking at $722 a load for chering. It's nearly half. I would suggest that Nesbbit talk to the contractor for chering because they might be able to save some money. But the the the more important issue in the numbers is that chering, I'm pretty sure, is not anywhere near to 973 acres. And that's probably calculating the basin that drains into their pond. whereas Nesbbit Ferry probably just has its own subdivision draining into that pond. And so it you have a a situation where you have subdivisions that have detention ponds that have a liability, keep them clear. But you've got houses that were built before storm water ordinances were enacted that are getting kind of a free ride and they're draining in to people who then have to make up the difference. Now, I know that we have a storm water um um what what what do you call that fee for storm water that we pay?

The utrater utility fee. Um, and I live in a subdivision, small one with a small pond, but we we pay that that utility fee as well. I'm wondering if as a funding mechanism, it might not be fair to have a higher storm water utility fee assessed on subdivisions that do not feed into a detention pond for their neighborhood that their homeowners association is responsible for. because when it's, you know, the the larger basin draining into one subdivision and they've got to pick up the cost, there's a there's an issue of fairness and then you have the funding issue which is problematic. um this could fix this both the the the fairness issue and the funding issue and it and when you consider how many houses predate storm water management um I don't think you'd be hitting them with a ridiculous amount of money but over time it would balance out and feed to a more realistic fund to support dredging in uh in these large ponds. I wasn't going to speak on this, so I wasn't really ready, but I saw the numbers coming up and and these things just occurred to me. So, I'm going to leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you, city clerk. Are there any others?

The next speaker is Michael Warden. Good evening, distinguished uh mayor and councel. Uh my name is Mike Warden. Um I'm the uh former president of uh the Chering Homeowners Association. And um you know, I was on the board when we first really started pushing to get this done. We'd done some studies before that, but you know, me and John, we really started getting it going. And so um this project has been a not insignificant part of my life for the last uh five years. And um so um you know at this point we've had a number of speakers from both subdivisions. Um most of my talking points have been taken already. So um I'd like to say you know ditto to whatever everyone else said because um you know it's all it's all uh legit. And um the one thing I would say is um that hasn't been said yet is that while it's uh true that you know this is one of the few cities that has this program um it's also true that the contractor has told me that um the engineering and everything that goes that the um the requirements that Roswell has for these projects that we need to demonstrate straight that we're fulfilling whether it's in the design the um you know the permitting um and then of course you know the the inspection while the project's done that's also far and away from what I understand more stringent than other places too and so I I just want it to be recognized that um you know we've worked hard to make sure that we've dotted all of our eyes and crossed

our tees to make sure that it's done properly and uh I I want to assure you that if you give us the 50% which I implore you to do um that during a construction process we'll also continue to do it right. So u thank you. Thank you sir. City clerk long. Any other speakers? There are no other speakers. Does council have any comments? And I would ask please raise your hand so we're not speaking over each other and I will recognize you. Just keep waving till I see uh council member Zach.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to defer this item uh to be reheard within 90 days for 50% once uh funding uh for potent once potential future revenue uh can officially be recognized. Do I So he's made a motion. So do I think we wanted to discuss it first? So, uh, can we table that for the moment? Council member Zach, are you willing to table it? We can table it. Thank you, Council Member South.

Brian, a couple questions for you, uh, if you don't mind. And, uh, thank you, Jason, for for some cogent points. Um, the first thing I'd like to talk about is, uh, you and I, I think you went with me to look at a particular storm water failure. Did we go together or to to Northcliffe? Did we go together? No, I don't know if I I've been to Okay. A few storm water. You know the one I'm speaking of, right? Right. And that is a a tiny little storm water facility. I would imagine that particular thing serves maybe 20 houses or 30 on on that one street. It's not a lot.

It's not a big drainage area. That's correct. and and in the conversation you educated me on a lot of this stuff and one of them is that uh it was insufficiently designed in the first place and to the gentleman's point you know thank god for Brian Watson we are much better at making sure that they are designed to sufficient uh capacity functionality today in a much better way but that one in particular I believe they are not maintaining uh is one of the issues. Is that that's the main issue is the the design works unfortunately just puts a lot of burden on the HOA to continually maintain it. It's just it's just a bad design,

right? And it's and and so as a result of that, the downstream properties, which it's on private property, so there's really nothing the city can do for those residents, but they now have a 20ft, 10-ft deep gully through the back of their yard, which used to be not even there. It's it's almost to the deck of these homes. So they are completely at the mercy of a drainage area over which they have no say and we as a city have sort of this this has been going on for quite some time. Is that fair? Do I describe the situation on the ditch pretty well?

I wouldn't give those exact dimensions, but yes, you you definitely described it pretty well. It's all it's within 10 feet of her back the back porch for sure. Very close. And I don't know what the setback was originally, but it's it's big. In that process, we we also talked about and I must admit I I I didn't I don't remember where this went, but you had at one time uh we talked about perhaps increasing the inspection capacity of the city for storm water facilities in general. Is that has that been actuated or not?

Yeah. So, um in 2023, uh then mayor and council had approved an additional position for the stormwater utility, which was a basically a stormwater enforcement inspector. uh so a designated person to go around the city and actually look at primarily storm water ponds and make sure that those ponds are in compliance. Um and so took us a little bit to hire that person, but like last year uh we brought 25 ponds into compliance, but that was uh the city did not have that uh that capability before.

Right. And so I guess the point I'm making here is that we're taking an active role. Thanks. You know, you are a farinking young man. you you you have been very diligent in this and it's a new area in general. It's it's not something that has been in the 140 year history 175 year history of Roswell. This hasn't been a thing until until recently. But we are approaching this in a workmanlike fashion to make sure that the next generation doesn't face some of these problems through some of the storm water capacity that we're building as you know that we've talked about before at Mimosa and other places. But this is part of that process as well. And the inspector is part of that process. So, we're going to be going to nonHOA uh perhaps even like like that. I don't know if they have an HOA on that particular street, but there's a small group of people, small group of houses, and we're going to be requiring them to do something. Isn't that correct? That's what this inspector will do.

That's correct. We would um basically if we see that there's a deficiency, if if we get a complaint, see there's a deficiency, then we go and evaluate it. And if there's a deficiency, we would uh basically send a notice of violation to the HOA or whomever owns that pond um that they need to bring it into compliance. Okay.

Well, so thank you, Brian. So that's really the the nature of this line of questioning is that we are taking an active role in making sure that storm water is managed correctly in our neighborhoods with Brian's leadership and we we are going to see uh benefits from that as a city. It benefits economic development as we've talked about before. Having the capacity uh properly situated and constructed and those kinds of things helps us to do more economic development and other things that the city wants to do. So, I uh Chris would like to give a different motion. So, uh so I don't know how you guys want to handle that.

Let's Okay, hold on. Are there any other comments from council before any motions are voted on more than that? Councilwoman Brumley,

I just want to remind everybody that the recommendation from our financial staff was to do 20% on each one of the of the projects because that is the fiscally responsible thing to do and approving both of them at 50% will have the city of Roswell exactly 379,4 43750 in the red, which you know we would be we could cover with um that contingency amount or we could clean our bathrooms twice a day or we could you know do other things um or you know if we get another hurricane or storm I just want to remind what the the staff the financial staff recommendation want and how we already have we already 30% above what they want us to spend at this point.

Thank you. Any other council? Councilwoman Bum.

Uh to reiterate, this is a difficult decision for anybody on the DAS. I don't think there's anyone up here who single-handedly does not want to fully fund this program. It's just the budget constraints that we're presented with at this moment. Um from my perspective, I 10,00% agree with Council Member Cells and uh Council Member Philip in the sense that I would love to fully fund them 50% each. I understand that they're twins from the same cloth, however you want to use that euphemism. Um, you guys came forward within the same year. Uh, with the understanding that that was the city's policy. Um, however, to council member Brunley's point, I would prefer to heer on the side of caution of making sure that we can recognize potential future revenue. Um, understanding that we we could potentially recognize revenue depending on how the next item goes, but that's not going to quite cover it. Um, which is why I understand um, Council Member Zach's motion that he originally presented of deferring it for 90 days with the assumption that hopefully within 90 days your contracts with your uh, deferring the chering item within for 90 days with the assumption that typically contractors give about a 90-day window of recognition for those estimates so that those estimates would still be valid. um and that hopefully by then we would have a better insight on our set our end from the city side um as to what other potential revenues we may have that could go towards that contingency fund. Um so I'm just airing on the side of caution, but I I do fully support funding both neighborhoods is trying to get to that. I also want to remind the rest of council as well and Mr. Watson can correct me on this. My understanding of this policy is that if anyone has denied the application for any reason outright or if we were to just sponge 20% to each application this evening then or any application this evening that it would be 10 years that they would have to wait based off our current policy before they could

reapply. Is that true? if not if they're denied if if um I think the policy the way that it reads if they are approved for dredging assistance even 20%. That is unclear. I'd have to get with even 20%. Okay. Even 20% then it would be 10 years before they could reapply. That is correct. Got it. So in other words, if we were to approve 20% this evening, they would not be able to come forward next year to seek the difference in those funds. They would have to wait 10 years based off our current policy. I understand that we could change that policy, but again to not count chickens before they hatch, that's the current policy, correct?

So, um, yes, but there is a twist. So, in 2020 two, I believe, we modified the policy that they could phase the project. Got it. But it's not currently phased based off the application. Correct. we it is not currently phased, but I I'm just saying that there's a little bit of a nuance there that if they didn't if an applicant didn't have all the money at one time, but they said this is ultimately what we're going to do, they would have to show all the phases. So, it's just a little nuance, but make sure that's clear. Thank you for Thank you. Any other Councilwoman Brumley? Um, so but it's it's 10 years if they accept the money or just if they get approved. 10 years if they accept the money. So

or 10 years if mayor and council approves a reimbursement to them. So they approve it but they don't take it. What happened? I'm going to have to ask uh our legal counsel on that one. [laughter] I don't know. [laughter] That's a good question. Never had anybody turn down money before. I'm not sure. Well, I mean, I'm just thinking about a situation where they really needed, you know, the full 50% and if we only given 10%, you know, and they decide, no, sorry, we're not going to we're not going to do it, then what will happen? That's

Yeah. So, they could they could withdraw their application and then reapply. Correct. So, they they could do that. They could do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other council member? So, now we'll go back to council member set. Would you like to make [laughter] I would like to make a motion.

Um, again, this is a tough decision and ultimately I think my intent is to honor the 50%. Um, but to Sarah's point, uh, I don't want to catch count the chickens before they hatch, but I do think it's it's realistic this could happen. So, I'm going to make the motion to defer this item to be reheard within 90 days for 50% city funding once potential future revenue can officially be recognized.

Do I have a second? Councilwoman Bon. All in favor, raise your hand. Three. All opposed. Two. Motion passes. You're going to write up that motion, right? Council member, will [clears throat] you help write both motions to make sure? Um, city clerk Nancy Long, please read the last item on the regular agenda.

Yes, Mayor. This is consideration of scope of work number two under the master services agreement presented by city administrator Randy Knight and city attorney Davidson. Mayor, is it possible to allow council member Hall Oh, yes. to come back and join us. Right. Excellent. I'm sorry.

Are you texting? Yes. Thank you. So, city clerk Nancy Long, please read the last item on the regular agenda. This is consideration of scope of work number two under the master services agreement presented by city administrator Randy Knighton and city attorney Davidson.

Uh just briefly u by way of history um in September of 2024, the city agreed to a contract and a scope of work number two under a master services agreement. Scope of work number two entailed the outsourcing of the chief operating officer uh position at that time. That position uh was designed to provide strategic um support, oversight, organizational development um within the city of Roswell and that position has existed uh since that time. Uh this evening, uh this matter is being brought before uh the mayor and council for your consideration of the um continuation um of the uh statement of work number two. And um I'll then defer to uh city attorney Davidson for any additional comments.

I don't have any comments, but I'm happy to answer any questions. So, city clerk Nancy Long, are there any Roswell residents who would like to speak on this item?

Yes, there is one speaker, Jason Yao. Well, this was always a an odd and controversial uh way to hire a chief operating officer. Um he's a subcontractor to a consultant and his time is split between the city and his boss. the consultant. And while uh the city does have the right to terminate without cause, it's a payer play contract and it's a three-year contract, which really kind of sucks for us because you can't give them the boot without paying the full three years out to the consultant. However, there's also a clause about terminating with cause. and that's conflict of interest. Now, uh it would seem to me that Seir when he contracted with to to represent the soccer league, he had a conflict of interest between the city and another paying customer. And that would seem to me to be a material breach of the contract which would be caused to terminate it without consequence in terms of future payouts. That's all I got. I would imagine that's kind of why this is on the agenda. Have at it. Thank you.

Would you like to comment? City Attorney Davidson, would you comment on the for cause or without cause? Uh, yes. There there is a provision in the contract that does provide for termination without cause. Uh, it would be the um lesser of finishing out the contract as Mr. Yao stated or six months uh basically payments at the same rate. City Clerk Long, are there any other residents who would like to speak?

There are no other residents. Does council have any comments or questions regarding this item? Council member cells. Yeah, I I am going to vote yes for this because we have already broken the glass. This was not done in accordance with uh any process I've ever seen. But nonetheless, we did it and uh there's no putting it back. So although we're going to have to pay actually seven months for this as opposed to negotiating with the the contractor to get any benefit. So uh that's unfortunate, but I'm going to vote yes on this because it's already broken. Any uh council member Brumley,

the contract was written and accepted by the city of Roswell to have this termination clause. Many termination clauses for contractors usually don't have any severance at all or maybe one month. So if this was six months, it's because the previous mayor and council accepted. Any other council member would like to speak? Council member Hall.

Thank you, Mayor. Um just echoing what council member cells already said. this um was outside of um transparency and outside of um a typical process. So, uh since the glass was broken, I also have no other um alternative but to vote for this um tonight. Any other council member would like to speak? Councilwoman Bas make a motion. To read the motion.

Uh I guess in this case it's not motion for consideration. So motion to terminate scope of work number two under the master services agreement. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Unanimous. Motion passes. Last on tonight's agenda is the city attorney's report report. City attorney David Davidson, please read the item. Thank you, Mayor. This is a recommendation to go into closure at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, February 23rd, 2026 to discuss personnel litigation andor real estate.

Do I hear a motion, Council Member Zach? Do I have a second? Second, Councilwoman Brumley. All in favor, raise your hand. So item passes unanimously. Being that there are no other items, this mayor and council meeting on Monday, February 9th, 2026 is adjourned.