Council - Regular Meeting

all right if not we will move on to our next item 030826 a request for consideration of 1512 grove place indemnification agreement brought to us from amy zary our city engineer if you want to just talk about the project it's very simple it's basically just extending a drainage pipe it's about a four inch drain pipe that's going to be bored under the sidewalk so it crosses into the driveway therefore we need to get approval for that. Does that basically sum it up?

More or less. Right now the drainage terminates under the sidewalk, so it's slowly eroding the little area of grass and the sidewalk and some stairs. So we'd like to just go all the way to the street underneath the sidewalk so that we can mitigate that. Questions?

Brian, do you want to just put that drawing up for anyone in the audience that wants to take a look at that? Thank you. Any questions?

I think we have a survey that's marked up. Did that get sent?

And this item's not going out tonight, so if you want to visit there before the next meeting. Yeah, so that's an option too. Any questions for the homeowner who's here?

You may have said this, but so this is going to go under the sidewalk and drain then into the street, or is it tied into something?

Just drains the gutter at the street. Okay. Okay.

All right. Well, we will move on. Hannah Grass. That's your, okay. Hannah Grass. Hannah Grass. Yes. Okay.

So we will take that up in council in two weeks. So thank you.

All right. Let's see. I'm going to continue on. Is that all right? Okay. Next item is 040826, a request for consideration of an unsafe structure located at 1556 29th Course South. Request from Mr. Pugh. Yes. Hello. Hello. How are you? Good.

So I'll try to make this fairly quick. What this is is a request for condemnation consideration on a burned set of apartment buildings. It's two buildings. They're split up into two items, though, because they're addressed as two separate building numbers, Brian. And this is 15, OK, so this one is 1556. When you drive up, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, just as long as we know.

We're on item number 040826, which is 1556, right? Okay, fair enough.

When you drive up, this is the front that you see. This is one of two fire damage department structures on a single parcel. The purpose of this request is to ask the city council to review the evidence and set a public hearing as a request for condemnation. Brian? Okay. Prior to this coming to you, notifications were sent. There was an extended notification period as we made repeated attempts to get someone to respond to us. We were able to send notices to the tax assessors, the address on record with the tax assessor. We were not able to complete in-person deliveries until very much later, but the person we were able to get with was only a representative. So, um, we, we do know that they have been notified, but no one has responded in terms of abating the nuisance. Brian. Before this came to you, this is the notice and public hearing process steps. It went to the abatement board. They found this to be an unsafe structure to the extent that it created a public nuisance. Multiple notifications were sent out. Inspection photographs were taken after the abatement period was well over. And so the current council action requested is to determine whether or not the structure is unsafe to the extent it creates a public nuisance. Brian. This notice that we sent out states that the building was left open to the elements after fire. The envelope, the windows, and the doors wide open. The remains of the structure show possible collapse due to weakened structural elements that have not been dealt with. Of course, the cornice wall trims, facings, and such are not capable of sustaining themselves any longer. And the dilapidated, unsecured, and abandoned condition creates an attractive nuisance as well as a public safety concern. The 60-day remedy period, which was extended, was not heated. Brian? Okay, getting to the pictures, as I said, this is what you see when you drive up, but then you round the corner and you see where the fire has damaged the access area, the exterior access and circulation conditions around the damage structure are shown there. And this is a closer look from the exterior. You can see that there is a real danger of possible collapse. Also, looking at the interior view, many of the structural members are charred. The exterior cladding is missing in a lot of places, so it's getting worse as the days go by. So the fire damage conditions remain unprepared, unsecured, and undemolished after the abatement period has ended. has ended. And if anyone wants a copy of this, what I've done is I've mapped the conditions to code violations. These are your code violation sections based on all the conditions that I described previously. And that's more of a full explanation of them. The full code report is in the full documents that were included along with this. This is meant to summarize what was submitted.

I love this report. I mean, this is new-ish. I mean, this is new from when we were on the last council. I said, this is really great. Great. Yeah, really great. I'm glad. I should tell you that.

Thanks so much. Yeah, absolutely. All right, so what will come with the public hearing will be a staff recommendation and we recommend that after the public hearing and after the council reviews all of the evidence that the city council determine that the structure addressed as 1556 29th court south is unstaked to the extent of creating a public nuisance and to condemn the structure under the applicable state code section and of course We recommend, just for purposes of information, we noted that the costs to demolish will be brought back to council for a lien to be placed. So we recommend that council consider condemnation.

And to the attorneys, we will not set that public hearing tonight. We will set that in two weeks. All right, well, any questions on 1556, 29th Court South before we move on to the next item, which is going to be very similar.

So just for process sake, so we're a year tomorrow. We extended that. What's the normal, I guess if we were to just go by the letter of everything, what would have been the normal?

So the minimum period that we must give them by law to abate the nuisance is 60 days. Now, oftentimes there are administrative things that come up. There are sticking points. You know, we really wanted to make sure we had notified the correct person. Come to find out this is an estate-owned property, so some of the people were apparently not able to respond, but notifications were received, and we do know that. But there's no maximum. In other words, just because it's been a year since the abatement board found that it was an unsafe structure doesn't mean that they're now out of the woods or that we have to go back.

Is there a measure of viability on once we've given notice and extended that we are responsible for? We have a reasonable time to move forward with the process.

Alright, I'm going to move on to the next item, which is going to be very similar, and that is right next to it, and that is 050826, Request for Consideration of Unsafe Structure, located at 1552 29th Street South. Mr. Peter.

Alright, so this is on the same property. It's right next door. You might notice on here that the parcel records commonly identify this parcel as 1540. The parcel that these two buildings sit on is addressed as 1540 in the tax records. But it's also, the buildings are also listed as 1552 and 1556. So we've been careful to try to keep all that lined up on all of our notices. Brian? Once again, the purpose here is to ask the council to consider condemnation of this unsafe structure to the extent that it creates a public nuisance and to condemn it under the applicable state code section. This building is one of two and you've seen the other. Once again, Structure and parcel identification. The 1540 address is the parcel that the two buildings sit on. They share a parcel number. I've made that note here. This is one of the notices that we sent out, one of the several. And again, this is the public hearing process timeline from the abatement board all the way to final inspection after the abatement window had closed. So the current council action requested is to determine that the structure should be condemned as unsafe. The findings that remain material, in other words, haven't been addressed. The building was left open to the elements after the fire, the envelope windows and doors. are wide open. Remains of the structure show possible collapse. Cornice trim wall facings are in danger of possibly falling. Neglected and damaged dilapidated structure. It creates an attractive nuisance in public safety concerns in general. A 60-day remedy period long expired. So we ask that you condemn the structure. Moving to the pictures. This is the front of the building you see as you drive up, but as you round this corner here, you will see that the access is badly damaged as well as the circulation area and the building itself. Some closer pictures of some of the damage. Structural members charred, left in the weather. This is a very dangerous situation. Nothing's been done to address this. Even though there is management on site, nothing's been done to address this. So the final inspection photographs show that they left it unrepaired. They haven't replaced or secured or demolished any of the damage. Again, if anyone wants a copy of this, I've mapped the actual conditions to property maintenance, code violations if you're interested in seeing those, and a short description of what they are. And again, this is a summary of the document package that was submitted to you. Um, staff recommendation is going to be that the council consider condemnation under the applicable state, uh, state code. And, um, just for note's sake, the costs of demolition will be brought back to council for a lien to be placed on the property.

And we will set that public hearing on our next meeting as well. So questions.

There is management on site there.

I don't have a good answer for you.

So I will say that our code enforcement inspector Mr. Cook has followed up multiple times over the past year and had them re-secure the area, they would put up tape, they would sort of board things up periodically, but then it would fall back down and it wouldn't be maintained, and Scott sort of stayed on top of that on a recurring basis, but nothing's seriously been done.

There's nothing going to be put on the doors or anything until it is condemned, or they had notice?

No, no, we tagged it immediately as an unsafe structure to let people know, keep out.

there's a lot of kids around that yeah that's right that's right that's why scott stayed on top of it the management only does what the owner tells me to do spend the money

I'm sorry, I should clarify.

We knew who the owners were and we notified them from the get go. They just didn't respond.

Okay, okay. I misunderstood.

I thought I'm sorry. I mean, I may have said that wrong.

Yeah, okay. There's so many people involved. Okay, then that's

Yeah, I'm glad you asked that because I may have messed it up.

Thank you so much. Thank you. We will set those public hearings at the next council meeting. All right. Next two items go together. Okay, can we read those two together? All right. 06-0826, request for consideration of an ordinance to repeal and rescind Ordinance No. 1718 relating to the municipal budget process. And 07-0826, request for consideration of an ordinance to replace Chapter 9, Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances in the City of Homewood. relating to the annual municipal budget process, Mr. Jackson?

Yes, ma'am. These are update ordinances because you're entering budget season. We sort of previewed this two weeks ago. I put the current budget ordinance up and had some highlighting that talked about the mayor's duties. It spoke about the finance committee's duties. now we are council manager form of government that's obsolete so our intent was to revise the ordinance as we began to do that it was clear that there were so many changes to the existing ordinances that to be fair to the five of you to show you what the changes would be you're asked to consider was too confusing so we took the approach to repeal what is on the books and replace it with 07, which is in your packets, to get current with how your government, how our government currently operates. And that's it.

And without objection, these will go out tonight for us to vote on, so I will ask for a vote for unanimous consent, and then have a reading, and then... And it's just process.

It is department heads reporting to the city manager, city manager reporting to council, council passing the budget before the beginning of fiscal year.

Any questions? All right, thank you. All right, next item, 080826, a request for approval of a final development plan for the woods, a proposed golf-oriented outdoor entertainment venue in West Homewood. Conrad.

Yeah. Just real quick. Last week, Planning and Zoning approved the development plan for the West Homewood Project for Woods, which is a budding golf concept new to the area, new to the Birmingham metro, really, to be on Scott Street. On West Homewood, it was approved by Planning and Zoning unanimously. All positive comments. If there were any sort of negative comments or some concerns about noise, but I think we're going to work that out at the end. I don't know that that's overly, you know, cautious concern, but just a note. Other than that, you know, it's a good project. It meets all requirements of code, and, you know, with this and the next item on the agenda, too, there's no real standards with development plans, and so I know for you guys it's sort of walking the thin line of arbitrary and capricious on some of this stuff. So, you know, what I can tell you is both of these projects, both this and the Stanford dorms we can talk about next, meet code. You know, from the beginning, from a staff level, you know, we've ensured that when they submit these development plans, you know, they do all their engineering on the front end. They've done all their traffic studies on the front end. And so everyone is aware, and I mean everyone, I mean everyone in this building on the fourth floor is aware of you know, what they're required to do, all the, like I said, all the documentation that they submitted, all the drainage reports that they submitted, we've reviewed it, Amy's reviewed it. We've signed off on everything, so now it's just essentially an aesthetic argument. So there's really, from a co-perspective, like I said, no issues there. And I know for you guys, and I'm sure, you know, Keith, we talked about it before, it's tough when there are no standards. How do you approve these things? I know it's sort of a different process. I know we do it a little bit differently than other cities, and we may talk about how we do that in the future. But for this instance, you know, this meets code, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Well, and a reminder, this item and the next item, we have public hearing that we will set, so we're not expressing any opinions. We can ask questions, but no ideas of how we feel about either project. This is all objective information. So any questions for Conrad on the woods?

No, and that's something we kind of need to look at, and I know Mayor and I have talked about, you know, maybe looking at doing something like a design review board that would look at that. I mean, because that's one of the things that I'm particularly sensitive to when it comes to some of these commercial developments is, and it's something we don't really require now, but we need to look at requiring a photometric survey or a study for all these projects to ensure what I like to look for. 0.03 or 0.3, I can't remember which one it is, but that's essentially foot candle, excuse me. And that's essentially moonlight at the property line. So you look at like 0.3 foot candle. And so, you know, an electrical engineer can give you a study with all their parking lot lights and such for any project. And they can kind of show you in foot candle where that dividing line is. I know in my previous history, when projects we go to in front of design review, we require a metric study and it's part of that design review process. the board would ensure that there would be no excessive light spillage. And like I said, at the property line, it would it would taper down to a point three, which is moonlight essentially. And so Yeah, it's not directly adjacent to any residential property. It's commercial all the way around. They're sensitive to those things. I don't want to speak for them, but all three of those owners are homeless residents, I believe. And so they're sensitive to all of that, the noise, and they want to be good neighbors. Sort of my understanding.

Comrade, kind of as a follow-up to that scene, Mentioned the noise already. That was some of the comments from presidents during the public hearing as a concern. Can you talk through or just a little bit about whether this is the appropriate process for that or if there's another ordinance for really that? Because they show us the hours so we know.

Right. And Keith, I don't know of any sort of zoning thing where we can establish operating hours. I don't know if that's a zoning function. That's more of a...

Yeah. Through separate ordinance.

Well, you have to write your noise ordinance or it would just sort of be your general practice. And it's something, I don't know that we need a photometric ordinance, but it could just be a required document that's needed for permit approval, like we require all sorts of documents for these things.

But would that be appropriate to be part of a conditional approval for the plan or no?

I don't know for this plan. No, I wouldn't think so because it's sort of an extra document and that's just sort of for for lack of a better term the police powers of zoning to kind of handle these things where like i said with you guys and how we approve development plans is sort of there's not really defined like what do you need to get approved by city council and sort of like this moving target and i i really ask it because we have time to really clarify and so when we come back and you know prior to the public hearing yeah and i think it's something you know it's something that we can look at in terms of you know the permitting process and we can start asking for on commercial projects a photometric study and just sort of use you know, the power of the pulpit really to say, hey, we need to kind of see this and see where your lights are. We need to make sure that you're, you know, point through your property line. I don't know that we need to codify that in any specific ordinance. I just think it just sort of... I just think we could include it as part of our normal development review process and just say, hey, we need... We just need a cut sheet of your lighting plan showing us the foot candles and everything else. And they can do that easily because... They're designing this stuff.

They already have their engineers for figuring out where these poles are gonna go and how they need to be wired and all that When we did the edge What kind of anything because of the noise and all that have did that? Is that brought up at all with the neighbors that are right there? I was just wondering would you fall under that same jurisdiction of maybe potentially there's something y'all did then and

I mean, I would just, yeah, I mean, part of it was, it was a discussion, and I think it was, you know, related to there were certain proffers or statements made, you know, by the developer, and then essentially the noise falls under the noise ordinance.

And this is something I can certainly talk to the developers on and be like, hey, can you put together a photometric?

I watched the case. I just can't recall the tree line that's around it. There's was that tree line to remain the one that goes around the like how far out is that?

Yeah, they're gonna try to keep as many trees as they can. I know with the nature of course in our tree ordinance, you know, any tree that they're gonna take down, they're gonna have to replace And I think some of those trees may be on the other side of the property line. But they're intent to keep it all. And one of the things that they really had to struggle to deal with is that West Homewood plan. And that's really kind of what we looked at. So the West Homewoods is sort of this form-based code that pushes everything to the street. And so, you know, with this project, it's an outside project where like West Homewood kind of wants everything to sort of be in a building and be on a street corner. And so they, working with their architect, you know, they really had to address the building to the street and sort of meet all these requirements with the West Homewood code. And so as you'll see in their drawings, they'll have like a street wall They have kind of all this architecture to sort of meet that. William Blacksock and Stephen Allen is their architect. So, you know, they've gone through that process, and I know we've met with them a couple of different times on making sure that they meet all those requirements of the code, including the landscaping. That was sort of the last thing that we had to go back with them on is to make sure that they had the appropriate amount of front landscaping. And so, yeah, they meet all that stuff.

Let's move on, if not, to our next item. So don't go anywhere, Conrad. 090826, a request for approval of a final development plan for Samford University's proposed south campus student housing development. Brought to us from our ability official, Conrad Gerson. And remember, no comment on opinion. We will have a public hearing, and so we want to...

Right, so we also had this public hearing last Tuesday on Samford. It was rational. It was pretty... I don't want to say positive, but it was rational. And it was recommended approving unanimously to you guys. Again, this project meets all the city requirements. It meets all city code. We met with them repeatedly and their engineers, I think, three, four, five times to kind of get with this stuff. So again, we reviewed it for my stuff. They need all the code. And again, we required that they submit everything to Amy in terms of traffic and drainage and kind of all that stuff. And so we reviewed their numbers. we're comfortable with their conclusions. I know Jared Stamps has reviewed it from a life safety thing and they have all their FDCs and all that stuff. So from a fire perspective, they're good as well. It's gonna be two buildings. I think it's 170 something units ranging from one to three bedroom. Both buildings are about 75 feet tall. Both can be serviced by our emergency apparatus. There will be some minor retail on the first floor. Those will be primarily for student use, subways, that kind of stuff, sandwich shops, those sorts of things. There was some minor discussion at planning and zoning, I think, You know, this proposal, based off the one last year, I think when everyone saw this and saw it was just going to be two dorms on property that they owned that they could do sort of by code, I think everyone's rational brain sort of clicked on and said, okay, we kind of get it. So there wasn't a significant amount of pushback, really, any at all last Tuesday. I think everyone kind of understood what was coming here. And so, you know, Sanford, you know, they're busting at the seams and this should help with that and hopefully help with some of the, you know, student dysphoria that you sort of see in our neighborhoods.

Any impact on the creek?

No, they, you know, we've worked with them to really ensure that the creek will not be impacted. There should be no salamander impacts. You know, it's... This project is designed to be as self-contained, I think, as possible. I think there were some lessons learned last year. And so you can kind of see those two buildings. You can still see that there will still be some access. And this is going to be part of a larger South Campus initiative, I think, for Sanford. You guys know the top of the pedestrian bridge and sort of all that stuff, so this will tie into

that's kind of coming through. Is that where University Park Place is written on there? Those new, I guess, parking spots that are kind of, instead of being, I guess you'd call them, parallel to the soccer fields, they're perpendicular now. Is that street going one way or being rerouted so it's a little bit wider? How's that...

it's a two inch tree is actually a private, private road, private property, not right away. And, you know, we did bring up the fact that with the 90 degree parking like that, there might be some minor congestion with people pulling out but that I believe was the overall goal. They didn't want people driving fast down that road. Yes.

drive in the parking lot. But again, it meets all of the city requirements. It meets all city code. And like I said, fire is signed off on it, engineering is signed off on it, zoning is signed off on it.

No height variances?

No, because it's in a planned mixed-use district. There is no height restrictions. It's basically, you know, how high can the ladder truck get, essentially, and how well can the fire department service it. Jared was there last season. He was. Yeah, he was. And then I know when we had our big final powwow with these guys, I know Jared and the engineers had a significant sidebar conversation to work all this stuff out at that meeting. So like I said, everyone is confident with the project.

I think just for clarification to you what what's on the screen so on the left is DAX code which shows 709 to the parapet and 724 to the mechanical penthouse this is going to be 715 that Sanford is proposing and they did proffer to not go higher than 715 and the building isn't designed to go yeah

Well, like I said, hopefully it should help sort of ease the pressure on Sanford a little bit.

All right. We will thank you, and we will set that public hearing at our next meeting. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Next item is 130826. A request for approval to fund HECA's Emergency Assistance Fund for the park at Buckingham. Brought to us from Councilor Sims and Councilor Simmons. Councilor Sims. Councilor Simmons.

yes um thank you mayor so this is an item um involved to the you know posted condemnation of the park at buckingham and those residents impacted um i think that happened in late july you know and homewood fire has been working with residents to provide information in regards to um you know the reality of the situation and resources available. We've had a follow-up meeting last week with Carlos Aleman, who's here with HECA, the Humboldt City Schools, and also some of the city representatives. From that meeting, we really had a conversation around communication to residents to clarify, you know, the reality of the condition of the building that they need to be actively looking to relocate and also compiling a resource directory of resources offered in support so there's a housing partners but also a listing of available properties in home in and outside of homewood just to try to assist them with that process we also discussed and dr huffner shared at that meeting an update that those of the families who are housed there, that they will be able, if they're already enrolled for the upcoming school year, they'll have the opportunity to continue on through the remainder of the school year, regardless for how long they continue to live in that location. if they relocate inside the city or outside the city, those students will still be able to finish the school year in Homewood City Schools at their respective locations. I think it was cited that there are 35 Hall-Kent students, 45 middle school students, and 40 high school students at the park at Buckingham. So grateful for Homewood City Schools for their commitment to our students and their families. And then finally, one of the things we discussed is there's a number of residents who need financial support in handling this, you know, unplanned move. So that includes moving expenses, first month's rent, deposit, so forth. So that's where we began the discussion about emergency assistance fund in support of those residents. I'm asking, and Councilor Simmons as well, that you chime in with additional feedback, but basically asking the city to provide seed funding to that emergency assistance fund, and then that the community at large will have the opportunity to donate to it as well. And we've talked to other partners who are ready to step forth and provide both volunteer support as well as financial support.

I'll chime in just a little bit and I won't be long I think this is a good opportunity for the city to show support considering that this is a situation that the residents there was placed not on not by the city but negligence on the property owners unfortunately um as nick mentioned or counselor sims has mentioned before about the kids i'm very pleased with the fact that the kids can actually continue to go to school and not be interrupted because we all know how that can affect a child but what i have been pleased with and is just hearing from the community their willingness to help the church community even you know I'm hearing from residents saying how can I help how can I assist and this is just a perfect opportunity for us to lend a hand can you mention about the Homewood Community Church that's going to be set up in the management office yeah so Homewood Community Church is offered to set up in the office to provide guidance I know Trinity West is involved as well I mean, we're having a lot of folks reaching out just wanting to be good citizens to help our neighbors.

That's right. I mean, and from that aspect, so Lizette with Homewood Community Church who works with their ministry and outreach is planning to set up some this week and be physically on site to share information, you know, clarify any confusion. But one of the things she's going to do do is share information about a resource fair that is going to be planned for residents at Trinity West hubs so it's gonna it's currently planned for Tuesday August 18th and and also she's gonna have a brief intake so that anyone she interacts with we can capture the their information for further follow-up in connection to other partners and resources. We just had a meeting at 3 p.m. at HECA, and Carlos, if you would like to add anything to as far as HECA's role and involvement in the project.

I'm really pleased and happy to be here today. I think that it shows a lot for the city of Homewood to make sure that we can stand up a fund to support our Homewood residents, right? Whether you're a homeowner or a renter in our city, we care about everyone who lives in the city. He has extensive experience in offering emergency assistance funds for folks and families in need. We are very good at following restrictions and making sure that our reports will detail exactly how the funds were expended and any unused funds will be returned to the city. don't think that will be the case but we will do our best uh to get those funds out to support the families in need um you know i think we've talked to chief broadhead he's been an excellent partner in this as well as counselor simmons and sims and the community has come together to really support our family so thank you so much for the opportunity to serve in this particular way

And Carlos references Chief Broadhead and Homewood Fire. Really can't speak highly enough of their role in this whole initiative as far as reaching out to families and also inspections now stepping in the process. They're working on an internal FAQ where we can make sure that People are getting the information they need to know what to do next. So just grateful to everyone at the city for stepping up and working on this in response.

Mr. Cook and Mr. Pugh, thank you all. Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Hefner. Thank you, David Thompson. You should go to the panel.

School board.

is going to go out tonight. It is going to go out tonight, yes. And the request is actually to seed fund $25,000. Yes. So that's the actual resolution.

And that will go out tonight.

And so from that aspect, too, as Dr. Lyman referenced, I forgot to use your title initially, morphologist. And I used to say counselor, but I'm back to doctor now. But basically, this initial seed funding, the demand will be much greater. We're talking to other partners currently about And HECA will take the lead on that, on the guidance and what the maximum per family is and so forth. But we feel that the need is much greater than that 25,000 and we're looking to get current data as well as far as how many residents remain on site because that'll help us know that exact amount still needed to fill as well. So that's a request we have. I think currently from the start there were 400 residents out there and we know that some have moved already. We're trying to get an idea of how many still remain at the park in Buckingham.

Thanks. The amazing thing with me is the school kids because Not only would it impact them and their lives, of course, it would impact their schools. It would impact their friends and their teachers. And to take 40 kids out of, all kids, 40 kids out of the high school or the middle school, I mean, that changes the fabric of the school. That changes the, that changes. 120 kids. Ben, can you imagine your best friend, you know, your second grader and your best friend?

One senior.

Yeah. Yeah. You've got a senior that's.

Eight seniors, right? Eight. There's eight, yeah. Eight seniors, yeah.

Yeah, yeah. amazing any questions and this is going out tonight so any questions all right thank you so much thank you very much all right last item 010826 request to authorize the city manager to execute a contingency agreement with riley jackson and the city council related to fire apparatus and manufacturer and the trust litigation I will at this time entertain a motion to adjourn to an executive session for the purposes set forth in Mr. Jackson's letter of today's date, which will be added to the minutes of this pre-council meeting. So do I have a motion to adjourn to executive session?

I make a motion to adjourn to executive session or only to only be discussed is the matter in hand. Second.

All right. I have a motion from Councilor Sims with a second from Councilor Simmons. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. That council is 5-0. We will see everyone else in chambers at 6 o'clock.